The Democratic Party Endangers America’s Cultural Heritage


This essay by Justin Smith could easily criticized as a White Supremacy racist message. IT IS NOT! Justin is criticizing foreigners desiring to live in America illegally and/or without intention to assimilate to American culture are an unwelcome burden on the American taxpayer (i.e. Red, Yellow, Black and White) and an assault on the Liberty and Values built on the pedestal of American Founding Fathers.

 

If you are a person refusing assimilation or an un-American Marxist in all that ideology’s political deceptions, get over yourself.

 

JRH 1/21/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Democratic Party Endangers America’s Cultural Heritage – Open Borders Are National Suicide

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/20/2019 7:33 PM

 

America is currently witnessing the harsh reality of a Democratic Party intent on gaining power by any means necessary and so enraged by the election of President Trump, that they will not even acknowledge America and her patriots have a right to determine who and how many enter our nation, under any set of circumstances. The resulting standoff between President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their respective supporters has allowed the harsh reality to come home, that the Democratic Party really has become the anti-American Party of Brown Ascendancy; and, the Democrats, such as Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, place more value on their own power and their by and large white-hating communist, socialist, and fascist allies from South and Central America and North Africa and the Middle East, than they do on America’s own citizens.

 

This is an egregious and horrific affront to millions of true American Patriots who have long subscribed to MLK’s admonishment to judge a person not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and although many Democrats’ may not intend the “browning of America”, their policies are having that effect. The results are emanating from the Democrat realization that most of these people vote for large centralized government and socialist solutions, which the Democrats are using to their advantage to secure power.

 

No one is walking around saying, “We really need more Guatemalans and Eritreans around here.” If immigration was capped at zero, no one would notice. In fact, if there was a moratorium and the government started aggressive deportations of illegal aliens, even those in the system, most Americans really would appreciate it.

 

And certainly no one, other than the radical socialists and the Democratic Party (One in the same?), would want any more Muslims and their backward, violent and evil Islamic ideology from the Middle East, since they simply don’t fit well at all in a modern Western country. Everywhere Muslim migration has been high, we see terrorist barriers, armed patrols and absurd security measures. In fact, most Americans, the average citizen on the street, would go along with deporting all Muslims. Our efforts to reform and assimilate Muslims has not worked and they can never work. U.S. policy toward all Muslim majority nations should always first be containment.

 

Similarly, sub-Saharan Africans are a no-go. America has a long history of trying to integrate Africans into a European country. It does not work. It does not make any sense to bring a new population of immigrants into America, especially when they have a reluctance to assimilate and a natural hostility towards Europeans. Again, no one is walking around wondering how affairs are in Chad. That and American blacks don’t like African migrants [Blog Editor: Of possible interest – African immigrant perception (from Sierra Leone), Academic themed perception & another Academic themed perception (pdf download & web cache).

 

One must note, Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor of political science and Mexican-American studies at the University of Texas and co-founder of La Raza Unida (the Race United), made the following statement in [FrontPageMag.com posted] 2017: “Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes … if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

 

In 2011, a visiting professor of African American Studies at the University of North Carolina, Kamau Kambon stated: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem… the problem on the planet is white people.”

 

This new Democratic Caucus in Congress represents most Muslims, a large Jewish segment, exotic transgender groups, the black church ladies and the college queers, and they all hate one another. Its incoming class is the most diverse in history and includes the first Muslim Congresswomen and the first Native American Congresswoman. However, they all hate the white man more, which is the main focus that keeps them united, as they say in so many words, “White men are the ones keeping you down. You must hate white men.” [Blog Editor: I think Justin is referencing Ann Coulter’s controversial sentiments from mid-December 2018.]

 

The red, radical Democratic Party is all that stands in the way of solving the current border security issue and our immigration crisis, because they do not seem to care that an Open Borders policy means the end of our Republic, as it has stood since 1776. They have turned away from their collective position that voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and 700 miles of barriers along the southern border, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterates that she will not consider any deal that includes President Trump’s wall.

 

Democrats have also long held positions against both legal and illegal immigration, just like California Governor Jerry Brown, who stated in 1975: “(It’s strange to say) ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more (Vietnamese) people’ when we can’t take care of one million (Californians) out of work.”

 

In 1994, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told ‘Face the Nation’: Border control is a federal responsibility. We simply don’t enforce our borders adequately. [In California] about 2,000 people a day illegally cross the border … about two million [annually] who compete for housing … classroom space … there’s well over 300,000 (on Medicaid) today who are illegal aliens. That presents obvious problems.”

 

The media has focused on the sexual assault of young women and girls in the immigrant caravans and other hardships, while ignoring the real consequences of crimes committed by millions of illegal aliens in America each year and the cries for justice from the Angel Families of the victims. In the past two years, from DHS records, ICE arrested 266,000 aliens with criminal records, which included 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sexual assaults and 4,000 heinous murders. Also, the cost of the illegal drug trade is more than $500 billion, with ninety percent of the heroin and deadly fentanyl coming to America across the southern border, and as noted by President Trump, this is “vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.”

 

Although the 9/11 terrorists came to America legally and the wall is only a part of national security and border control, wherever walls and barriers have been erected, whether in Korea or Israel, they work. As President Trump recently observed: “There are now 77 major … Walls built around the world … Over 800 miles of Walls have been built in Europe since 2015 (and) recognized as close to 100% successful. Stop the crime at our Southern Border!”

 

So now America has upwards of approximately 22 million or more (no one really knows) illegal aliens in the country, who are influencing the vote and elected positions and laws, who have no idea what this nation was founded upon, working with a limited and or flawed understanding of Judeo-Christian and Western principles and often refusing to assimilate. This has changed our country as much as if we had been conquered by an enemy nation, but because it has happened slowly, even those who see the changes often don’t know how to explain them. And, abandoning assimilation of immigrants guarantees the eradication of essential values and customs that created America to be the envy of all other nations.

 

Do the math. Give 22 million illegal aliens with strong socialist leanings the vote, as planned by Democrats, when historically the biggest landslide victory in American history was determined by several million less votes, and it means a massive pay-off for the Democrats in a permanent electoral majority for the foreseeable future. In a word: Power.

 

For Americans, the real issue is how many South or Central Americans or people of any other nationality we will accept. That quickly reduces to a much simpler question. Do we need any of them? For most of Us, the answer is “No, we don’t need more people.” Therefore, the only question left is, “Are we morally bound to take anyone in for permanent settlement?”

 

Everyone in the world does not have the right to live in America. However, all Americans have the right, through their elected representatives, to decide who immigrates to America and under what conditions. How much more American blood must be spilled before Congress does its job?

 

Our heritage and culture of freedom and individual liberty is now placed in danger by the Democratic Party and large numbers of uninvited people who have no such experience. There is a limit to the number of people that can immigrate to America in a short period of time without changing our culture. Continuing in the direction of the Open Borders desired by the Democrats is national suicide.

 

The solutions are found in building the wall first and followed immediately by the deportation of the illegal aliens already in the U.S. Next, tell Mexico that all legal immigration is halted until they stop illegals from trying to get here from their nation. Prosecute everyone helping or hiring illegal aliens; and start with U.S. governors and mayors. Seize business under RICO of any business caught with five or more illegals in its hire. Tax remittances at the top rate in perpetuity. And finally, stop all legal immigration for at least the next three decades.

 

Until the American people, on the whole, are made to understand the real threat of socialism and communism to their freedoms and liberties, in the public discourse and dichotomy, our nation is on course for a miserable future. We either win this debate, or we prepare for an all-out civil war to rid the nation of the Reds — the Communists and the Socialists. the multiculturalists and diversity crowd — and their white hating allies from South and Central America and various African nations, who are bent on open borders and globalist policies and the destruction of Our national sovereignty and Constitutional Republic, our traditional American way of life.

 

[Blog Editor – Lessons failed to be taught in American schools & colleges:

 

 

 

 

Any sane person intuitively knows that the culture, the law, the stability and the economics of a nation are endangered by massive illegal immigration, especially if that immigration is comprised of a culture that is inherently in opposition to the existing culture. Any normal, reasonable and prudent person instinctively knows that if the make-up of those illegally immigrating to another nation are culturally poor in income levels, job skills, education and hygiene, the cost to the existing population will be a huge, growing and dangerous burden. To allow massive illegal immigration to continue, without trying to stop or impede it, is an affront to the living population and makes a mockery out of the rule of law. To establish sanctuaries for illegal aliens, whether by government or religious organizations, openly and blatantly violates the rights of legal citizens. Those political or religious leaders who are proponents of massive illegal immigration, open borders and illegal alien sanctuaries are traitors to the nation and its people, and they should be summarily fired, charged, prosecuted and placed in prison.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links, text and commentary enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!


While I was sharing the blog post “National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond,” Kelly Guthridge shared some thoughts along the same lines. It’s worthy of a share.

 

JRH 1/4/19

Please Support NCCR

*******************

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!

 

Photo via Blog Editor found on Facebook

 

By Kelly Guthridge

January 3, 2019

Via Facebook Messenger

 

Let’s examine some basic information and ideas.

 

1) Democrats years ago supported and demanded Border SECURITY!

2) Democrats all have Walls, Fences, Gates, Heavily ARMED Guards surrounding and protecting them!

3) Donald J. Trump is Elected President of the United States of America and NOW Democrats OPPOSE a Border WALL… Only because it would occur during President Trump’s time in office!

4) Democrats and their Propaganda Machine, the MSM Fake News Media keep insisting that all of the INVADERS attacking our Republic and attempting to enter illegally are simple poor migrants that we must embrace… which is all a lie!

 

I could keep going on and on but what would be the reason after all we all know the FACTS and REALITY of this ongoing situation!

 

NOW, here’s my idea… if Democrats truly don’t believe in WALLS then let them remove all of those that surround their own personal properties… Also, perhaps there needs to be a MASSIVE MIGRATION OF HOMELESS AMERICANS that all converge upon and surround these Obstructionists Democrats Homes… and start DEMANDING immediate entry for a better future and life!

 

What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander… time to bring the REALITY OF THEIR HYPOCRISY HOME TO THE STEPS OF THEIR OWN HOMES!!!

 

 

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond


Mark Alexander

 

Mark Alexander tackles the Trump vs. Dem on Border Security: The Wall, Dem hypocrisy over the Wall and government shutdown. ALSO, he takes a relatively brief look at plus and minus of troop withdrawal from Syria.

 

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

******************

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond

Two national security issues are casting a long shadow over 2019.

 

By Mark Alexander

January 2, 2019

The Patriot Post

 

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” —George Washington

 

Ronil Singh, wife & baby

 

Sometimes, the first column of the year is an easy one — just a few reflections about the year past and the year to come.

 

Unfortunately, the last week of 2018 was marred by a couple of political confrontations that are casting a long shadow over the new year. Most notable among those issues are two significant national security issues.

 

The first of these is a rather straightforward interruption of some “non-essential government bureaucracies” beginning on 22 December, which President Donald Trump implemented after Democrats failed to provide sufficient federal funding to secure our border with Mexico.

 

The second is a policy shift in the Middle East — much more a chess move than the mainstream media’s typical portrayal of this policy change as a game of checkers.

 

Regarding the border security/shutdown showdown

 

I have covered in detail how all Democrat Party leaders, including incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have repeatedly advocated for border security and strong immigration laws — until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Democrats oppose securing our southern border for two reasons: first, because Trump supports it, and second, because these illegal immigrants and their progeny represent the Democrat Party’s most promising and powerful source of new votes.

 

Demos, therefore, don’t want “immigration solutions.” They want to appease their Hispanic constituents with smoke-and-mirror political rhetoric. In addition, they are using immigration as diversionary fodder to undermine the Trump administration’s considerable economic policy success.

 

Thus, by advocating for open borders, Democrats hope to create a socialist-voter pipeline by flooding our nation with illegal immigrants who are likely to require long-term, taxpayer-funded government assistance.

 

However, an unforeseen problem with this strategy is that a growing number of Latinos and Hispanics in our country now, legal and illegal, don’t want the job and wage competition from more illegals flooding in from Mexico and Central America. Democrats say they support a “living wage” but then advocate, in effect, an open border, which ensures that millions of working men and women will never break free of the minimum wage.

 

The Democrats’ refusal to secure our border with Mexico, and their so-called “sanctuary city” agenda, has, over the years, invited millions of illegal immigrants to invade our southern border, many of them using children as human bargaining chips in order to stay in the U.S. Some are seeking economic welfare, while others pose a significant threat to our citizens.

 

Three recent and tragic deaths should constitute a low benchmark in the never-ending border-security debate.

 

In late December, there were two deaths of immigrant children in Border Patrol custody. The first was an eight-year-old boy whose Guatemalan mother declared, according to press reports, that the boy’s father brought the sick child with him “because they figured he’d have an easier chance of gaming the American immigration system to gain an illegal foothold here.” His sister said, “We heard rumors that they could pass [into the United States]. They said they could pass with the children.” Another Guatemalan child, a seven-year-old girl who was sick when she and her father were apprehended by the Border Patrol, also died.

 

President Trump noted correctly, “Deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrat … immigration policies that [encourage] people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. … The two children in question were very sick before they were given over to the Border Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. The Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard and getting so little credit.”

 

But there was another death in December, also the direct result of Democrat inaction on border security, that should be a rallying point for all Americans.

 

The day after Christmas, Newman, California, police officer Ronil Singh, himself a legal immigrant from Fiji, was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Arrested for that murder was Gustavo Arriaga, a Mexican national with reported ties to the violent Surenos gang and previous arrests that should have resulted in his deportation.

 

Tragically, California’s incomprehensible “sanctuary” restrictions prevented his arrest from being reported to immigration officials. In other words, Democrats opened the door for Officer Singh’s murderer to enter our country, and Democrat policies prevented him from being rightly deported. Seven other illegal immigrants have been arrested in connection with Singh’s murder. (A week earlier, another illegal immigrant in California murdered two people in a crime spree.)

 

Singh’s brother Reggie expressed his family’s grief and his gratitude for the apprehension of the assailant: “I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. … I wish I could thank all of the law-enforcement agencies, Homeland Security in San Francisco, everyone.”

 

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency led the investigation into Officer Singh’s murder, issued this condemnation of the California laws that allowed for this cold-blooded murder: “While we absolutely need to stay focused on Officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this could’ve been prevented. … This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE. We were prohibited — law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the [murder of Cpl.] Singh. … This is not how you protect a community.”

 

This murder by a violent illegal immigrant — and countless others before it and to come — demands an answer to the following question: “Sanctuary for whom?”

 

On these senseless murders, Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien, said, “We relive what happened to our loved ones. It’s just another stab in the back, particularly in California by our government that doesn’t give a damn about our families. They don’t care about us. They don’t care that their policies and their laws are killing people.”

 

Officer Singh now joins a tragic and ever-growing list of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants, including Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and Mollie Tibbetts, as well as countless others whose violent deaths apparently didn’t warrant widespread media coverage. (Two days after Singh’s murder, in nearby Knoxville, Tennessee, an illegal immigrant was arrested for the criminally negligent homicide of a 22-year-old local resident.)

 

We extend our prayers for officer Singh’s family and for all law-enforcement personnel who man that wall 24/7, providing protection for their fellow citizens.

 

Responding to the latest instances of violence and the epidemic issues of drug- and sex-trafficking of minors across our southern border, President Trump, who has already deployed military personnel to assist with border security, declared that inaction on securing our border with Mexico will result in shutting it down entirely: “We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with.”

 

Trump quote on Illegal Immigration Embarrassment

 

Regarding the enormous financial cost of illegal immigration, Trump noted, “It’s a national embarrassment that an illegal immigrant can walk across the border and receive free health care and one of our Veterans that has served our country is put on a waiting list and gets no care.” Indeed it is.

 

The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is conservatively estimated at $155 billion per year — versus a one-time expense of $7-$9 billion for Trump’s border barrier.

 

For the record, Congress has already authorized redistributing $10.6 billion in taxpayer funds to Mexico for its own southern border security.

 

But on own southern border, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman Tuesday, “Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles. The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

 

Regarding the so-called “shutdown showdown”

 

President Trump has already signed legislation approving $900 billion of $1.2 trillion for federal agency operating expenses, but the partial shutdown is having a significant impact on 800,000 people on the federal payroll.

 

The interruption of “non-essential government services” and furlough of 380,000 government employees could be viewed as “paid vacation,” as Congress has always restored back pay retroactively. However, many of those affected live on tight margins, and missing paychecks means potentially missing loan and mortgage payments and other bills. They will begin feeling the pinch in January, but taxpayers, who are footing the bill, are already bearing the shutdown burden. The same is true of the 420,000 essential government employees who remain on the job, most in security positions, who will not receive pay starting in January, but are guaranteed their back pay. Those employed by government contractors will not see their back pay restored.

 

How did we get here?

 

In short, President Trump requested $5 billion in additional border-security funding in order to begin construction of barriers along our southern border with Mexico. Before recess, in one of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House before Democrats take over this week, lawmakers passed a bill approving $5.7 billion in additional funding. But that bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, which only agreed to $1.3 billion for border security, and none of that for a border barrier.

 

When Senate Democrats denied additional border-barrier funding, including a $2.5 billion compromise offer from Vice President Mike Pence, Trump ordered the partial shutdown. For how long? According to the president, “I can’t tell you when the government is going to reopen. … [Not until] we have a wall, a fence, whatever they’d like to call it. I’ll call it whatever they want. But it’s all the same thing. It’s a barrier from people pouring into our country.”

 

Trump drew attention to the necessity of security walls by mentioning one in particular: “President and Mrs. Obama built a 10-foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The US needs slightly larger version!”

 

Dem Homes Walled Hypocrisy

 

The consummate dealmaker, Trump is looking for some concession from Democrats by using Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) deceit as a bargaining chip, but he may not get one. Notably, he has also issued an executive order putting a hold on pay increases for all non-military government employees — another bargaining chip.

 

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s Democrats are weighing their options for a rebuttal when they return this week. They intend to pass a package of Senate spending bills to reopen the government — in an attempt to shift blame for the shutdown to Republicans.

 

Of course Trump will not approve that ploy, as noted by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the needs of our own citizens. The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human trafficking, drugs, and crime.”

 

The president has called key members of Congress to the White House today for negotiations. But the biggest obstacle to border security is, as Trump noted, this: “The Democrats don’t want to let us have strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.”

 

Regarding our military presence in Syria and Middle East policy

 

Whether in domestic or foreign policy matters, Trump has shown a penchant for strategic unpredictability that inevitably comes with varying degrees of perceived instability — which he happens to thrive on.

 

In 2016, Trump laid out his priorities for defeating the resurgent Islamic State, along with his policy objective in Syria: “What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” He added that dealing with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was “secondary … to [ISIS].”

 

A week before Christmas, the White House announced President Trump’s “slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops” from Syria. According to Trump, “We have won against ISIS … Our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now. We won.”

 

Trump elaborated, “American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory … and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control … I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building. … Our presence in Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent. The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families. Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS. Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future.”

 

He concluded, “There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests, and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS and also to watch over Iran.”

 

Notably, he reiterated: “I never said that I’m gonna rush out. … ISIS was all over the place when I took over. It was a total mess in Syria. We’ve almost eradicated all of them. We think all of them will be gone by the time we get out.”

 

Clearly, containing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria is important, but not the job of the U.S. military. Trump is, in effect, telling Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Israel, this is their task – that we will provide weapons and aid, but not boots on the ground. The intended net effect of this policy is to strengthen the alliances between Arabs and Jews in the region, who all have an interest in preventing the expansion of Iran’s Islamist influence.

 

Predictably, criticism of Trump’s decision came in droves from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most controversial of the president’s assertions was “We won,” leaving many to ask what, exactly, did we win? Amidst the flood of opinion still pouring in from critics and supporters alike, what follows are the most valid pros and cons of the Syria departure.

 

 

Orderly Withdrawal of U.S. Forces

 

Supporting the departure:

 

  1. Troops in Syria, an Obama-era decision, were never congressionally authorized, so the departure is a win for the Constitution. National Review analysts Andrew McCarthy and David French, who otherwise have a difference of opinion on the Syria withdrawal, both agree that the Iraq/Afghanistan Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not extend to Syria. French notes, “President Obama should have gone to Congress and sought the necessary authorization to respond.” Likewise, McCarthy declared: “[If] you want to fight that enemy in an elective war, the Constitution demands that the people give their consent through their representatives in Congress.”

 

  1. We’ll continue to monitor Syria and deny it as a safe haven for terrorism, according to President Trump. One of the foremost critics of the decision to leave Syria was initially Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). However, Graham reversed course after meeting with the president, stating: “[I] feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” He noted that Trump remains stalwart in his commitment to preventing Syria from being a safe haven for terrorist cells, saying, “He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet, but as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”

 

  1. To Be Determined? If Trump has taught us anything over the last two years, it’s that there’s always a bigger plan in play than what he and the ardently anti-Trump media reveal. Time and again, we’ve seen his decisions turn out better than expected. So we’re going to leave this last “pro” space open — there’s something else at play here that has yet to become clear, and we trust that it’s in our nation’s best interest. Again, Trump is playing chess while the media sees only checkers.

 

Against the departure:

 

  1. The U.S. will be less equipped to counteract its strategic enemies. The conflict in Syria is deeply complex, but of the numerous parties invested in the outcome — Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and the U.S., to name a few — our ability to influence outcomes in the region may be weakened as a result of Trump’s decision to depart. Policy analyst Colin Dueck notes: “A sudden and unexpected drawdown of U.S. forces can only reduce America’s leverage against a range of adversaries and competitors including ISIS and the Taliban.” Though we retain the ability to influence the outcome through political and economic means, we are less equipped to influence change without troops on the deck.

 

  1. Our allies will be less secure as a result, as will our myriad interests in the outcome of the conflict. Even with a reported footprint of only 2,000 troops (assuredly, some of our presence in the region is undisclosed or classified), our presence in Syria helped to assure safety and security to our regional allies by checking our enemies. As The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick writes: “Despite their relatively small numbers, the U.S. forces in Syria have had a massive strategic impact on the power balance in the country. Deployed along the border triangle joining Syria, Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. forces in Syria have blocked Iran taking over the Iraqi-Syria border and so forging a land bridge linking Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.” Now, in our absence, Israel and Jordan will have to become better equipped to prevent the flow of logistics, personnel, and ideology from Tehran to Beirut, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

 

  1. There was speculation about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s resignation before the Syrian shift, but he certainly signaled his disagreement with Trump’s decision. As David French wrote, “Our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest [of the decision].” Although Trump will surely identify a capable defense secretary to follow in “Mad Dog’s” footsteps, his departure struck a blow to the perceived stability of our military policy. Mattis was the member of Trump’s National Security Council with the most familiarity with military policy in the Middle East, beginning with his command of Task Force 58 during Operation Enduring Freedom, the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 Islamist attack.

 

The departure of Mattis will also have a significant impact on the morale and well-being of our men and women in uniform, who rightly held him in high regard.

 

It should be noted that Gen. Mattis also disagreed with President Trump on other important matters of policy: walking away from the Obama administration’s Paris climate agreement and tearing up its Iran nuke deal; moving our nation’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; engaging with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un; banning certain “transgender” individuals from U.S. military service; and using U.S. troops to defend our southern border.

 

In summary, our military analyst, Lee Crockett, concludes that Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan constitute a complex tapestry of international politics and warfare.

 

According to Crocket: “The Syria conflict is incredibly complicated, and it is a microcosm of the geopolitical conflict between Iran, China, Russia, and the West. One possible outcome could be that the unification of both parties against the pullout could result in a congressionally approved AUMF for any further involvement in Syria. But if history has taught us anything about prolonged wars (see Vietnam, 1964-1973, and Afghanistan, 2001-present) it is that simply pulling chocks and bringing the troops home has resulted in America failing to accomplish its desired ends.

 

“In 1964, we sought to prevent communism from bleeding into South Vietnam and beyond. Two administrations and three presidential terms later, our national resolve on the importance of South Vietnam faltered, and we abandoned South Vietnam to a communist takeover in 1975. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 to erode the nation’s status as a safe haven for terrorism. Two administrations and three presidential terms later in 2013, our national resolve on the importance of Afghanistan to our national security faltered, and we abandoned Afghanistan to the resurgence of the Taliban and Islamism.

 

“President Trump wisely returned to Afghanistan in force in 2017, though we returned to a nation that was not only war-torn but also being overrun again by the Islamist Taliban. In 2014, we entered Syria (unconstitutionally though it was) to counteract the Islamic State and prevent the region from harboring terrorist cells. Now that President Trump has decided to depart, have we truly accomplished our initial objective, or will the Syrian departure result in a regional failure to secure our national interests — suffering the same fate as Vietnam and Afghanistan at our allies’ expense?”

 

The criticism of Trump’s unfolding military strategy in Syria was punctuated by a surprise Christmas visit by the president and first lady to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq.

 

To the resounding cheers of military personnel, Trump asserted: “Our faith and confidence in you is absolute and total. … You are the warriors who defend our freedom. You are the patriots who ensure the flame of liberty burns forever bright. That’s who you are. … To everyone at Al Asad Air Base, and every American serving overseas, may God bless you, may God protect you, and may God always keep you safe. We love you. We support you. We salute you. We cherish you. And together, we pray for justice, goodness, and peace on Earth.”

 

On that, we can all agree. Above all the political rancor, I ask you to join us in daily prayer for God’s blessing upon our nation, especially for the protection of and provision for our uniformed Patriots and their families, and wisdom for our nation’s leaders.

 

Note: Thank you to all who supported The Patriot Fund’s 2018 Year-End Campaign — we will provide an update on Thursday. This campaign accounts for almost 50% of our annual operating revenue and sustains our publication from November to April.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

__________________

Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post.

 

The Patriot Post Mission

 

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

 

About The Patriot Post

 

The Death of America’s Justice System


One thing the Dems have become experts at is exploiting the rule of law to exact Elitist rule over American life by hindering all things Conservative and especially manufacturing non-existent crimes to investigate all things Donald Trump. Justin Smith weighs in.

 

JRH 12/23/18

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for an upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms.

Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

*******************

The Death of America’s Justice System

President Trump: Besieged by Enemies of the State

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/21/2018 6:44 PM

 

President Donald J. Trump is currently besieged by an out-of-control anti-American Robert Mueller and his Special Counsel team of Democrats, who are abusing the rule of law and wielding the law like a 20-pound sledgehammer to smash President Trump’s existential threat to the Establishment ruling class’s monopoly on power. This “special counsel”, Mueller, an un-elected political hack and Hillary sycophant, is moving against our elected representative to the White House, attacking conservative American’s interests, in an effort to prove President Trump unworthy of the office. And this double-standard of “law” only highlights the fact that our “justice system” has died.

 

America has become punch-drunk from the blows She has recently taken from these self-serving globalists, communists and tyrants of both parties, and we need to return to a true and genuine rule of law rather than the medieval-cum-Bolshevik practices of the Deep State style justice. And in the process, Mueller himself should be prosecuted for overstepping the bounds of common decency and entrapping General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former National Security Advisor.

 

Flynn’s guilty plea was based on yielding to the FBI’s assertion that he had lied about his perfectly legal conversation with Russia’s Ambassador Kislyak and had concealed a discussion on sanctions. Flynn’s plea was coerced by Mueller, who had the full weight of government behind him, since the legal battle bankrupted him and placed his son under the threat of criminal prosecution. All of this aimed at a real-life war hero, Lt. General Flynn.

 

Flynn is only one of several Trump associates charged with making false statements, during the Russia probe; however incredibly, not one Hillary Clinton aide, not even Cheryl Mills, were charged with making false statements, even though several aids and Clinton herself flat out lied many times, during the FBI’s Clinton email investigation.

 

In October, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth noted:

 

“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills (senior aide) had … lied under oath … I was quite shocked to find that she had been given immunity … by the Justice Department … “.

 

Along with this, on December 17th, we had to listen to another Hillary minion, James Comey the Hypocrite, speak about President Trump’s so-called “attacks” on the rule of law, the very rule he abrogated when he superseded U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and declared the Hillary Clinton email case closed, despite ample evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Comey himself was instrumental in going outside normal White House channels and entrapping Flynn, so ever intent as Comey was on bringing down the President.

 

Equally curious, the original interview FBI 302 document, in which two FBI agents state that Flynn did not lie, an exoneration, has magically disappeared and left us to rely on a half-assed interview of the two agents a half year after they originally interviewed Flynn, even though DC District Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan order Mueller and his lackeys to hand over the original 302, by December 14th. Mueller is pretending he can’t find them, while essentially symbolically telling a federal judge to “go to hell”.

 

Mueller and his group of Democrat lawyers, who represented the Clinton Crime Syndicate, are seeking any crime they can find or manufacture, in order to give Democrats ammo to impeach President Trump and undo the results of the 2016 election; even legal hush payments to Stormy Daniels, a whore, is now being turned into a crime, although Congress has maintained a fund to pay off sexual harassment claims against their members since 1995. “Treason” is the mantra of the day, even though the treason rests squarely in their own hearts and actions.

 

Mueller is applying the law against Trump and his associates in a bizarre and creative manner, putting them in peril from the law, when they could have never imagined that their conduct was somehow “illegal”. He’s charging the hell out of top conservative political shakers and movers, while refusing to give the socialist and communist elitist proponents of high treason skate clean away. making himself a tool of the ruling class to dismantle President Trump’s opposition and stop the draining of “the Swamp”.

 

No one is pretending now, and the mainstream media offers nary a peep over a rising and dangerous situation in our nation. If Trump had erased 30,000 emails that were under subpoena, he’d have been thrown under a prison in a Louisiana swamp somewhere, but not Hillary Clinton. Andrew McCabe and Comey lied through their teeth to Congress, but no one need look for them to ever be charged.

 

The Democrats erased a boatload of texts and used a deception to acquire a FISA warrant to spy on President Trump, but who cares, aside from the true American patriots? Nothing seems to matter to half of the country, other than their next welfare check and getting $15 an hour on the job and destroying our republic, “by any means necessary”. So, the Democrats get a pass.

 

If you and I had done a fraction of what Lying James Comey says Hillary “Felonia” Clinton did with classified information, we’d be in a cell using a plastic bag in the toilet to ferment the fruits we smuggled out of the chow hall.

 

Mueller’s appointment is full of conflicts, from his relationship with Hillary Clinton to his close relationship with fired FBI Director James Comey, who deliberately set the special counsel in place with his leaked documents. And both men have accepted millions from the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Crime Syndicate. Their pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, helped them set in motion this probe, that has been stacked against President Trump from the beginning, after spending millions of taxpayer dollars, only to find there wasn’t any collusion between President Trump and the Russians, or for that matter, between Russia and any Trump associate.

As noted by Kurt Schlichter, editor at Townhall:

 

“[Lady] Justice is no longer blind. Her blindfold is off and she is picking favorites”

 

No matter how awkward or embarrassing some Americans might view President Trump, the actions of his opponents make them dangerous enemies of the state and America’s public interest. They are the aspiring tyrants, who long to use government agencies full of people with guns to enforce their will, as they circumvent legal statutes and the courts, and abrogate the rule of law; and President Trump must use any power at his disposal, including investigating the investigators, firing and charging them with their known crimes and putting an end to this dismantling of the rule of law, in order to preserve freedom and liberty in America and prevent Her from being forced into a hot civil war.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John E. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink


John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

 

Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? Let’s look at some definitions:

 

Merriam Webster:

 

a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

 

Wikipedia:

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

 

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the “ingroup” produces an “illusion of invulnerability” (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the “ingroup” significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the “outgroup“). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the “outgroup”.

 

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

 

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studiespolitical sciencemanagement, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]

 

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as “conservatism” and “liberalism” in the U.S. political context [4]) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

 

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] READ THE REST

 

Psychology Today:

 

What Is Groupthink?

 

Groupthink occurs when a group with a particular agenda makes irrational or problematic decisions because its members value harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. Individual members of the group are strongly discouraged from any disagreement with the consensus and set aside their own thoughts and feelings to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and other group members. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts, judgments or disagreement with the consensus and ignore any ethical or moral consequences of any group decision that furthers their cause. Risk-taking is common, and the lack of creativity and independent thinking have negative personal and political implications for both group members and outsiders. Groupthink decisions rarely have successful outcomes.

 

 

READ THE REST

 

In fairness, no individual or cohesive group is immune to the negative effects of groupthink. The situation today is America is nearly divided 50/50 between Conservatives and Liberals. The irony is politically Conservatives won the 2016 election cycle, BUT the traditional means of mass communication are dominated by Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and various degrees of Communists). AND the Liberals are brainwashing their readers, listeners and viewers with Groupthink principles glorifying Liberal principles and values over traditional Conservative moral principles and values.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn tackles the Leftist Groupthink in this essay entitled, “The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil”.

 

JRH 8/27/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

By ELIZABETH VAUGHN 

AUGUST 26, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people gets together and starts to think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or overestimate their positions or moral rightness.

 

There have been periods of history when large groups of people, so invested in a particular goal and so convinced of their own righteousness, have collectively lost sight of reality, often with tragic results.

 

The larger the group, the less responsibility individual members will shoulder for their own actions. Responsibility for individual wrongdoing is diffused or “shared” by the members of the group. Because “everyone” takes responsibility, no one ultimately takes responsibility.

 

America’s left, Democratic politicians, the mainstream media and those who receive their news from the mainstream media, have become radicalized over their hatred for Donald Trump. Their unwillingness to accept the result of a fair election directly clashes with the principles upon which America was founded.

 

In the wake of last week’s uproar over former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s plea deal, I would like to remind them of some of their own vulnerabilities.

 

1. Have you forgotten about the Obama campaign’s offer of $150,000 to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut him up during the 2008 campaign? Rev. Wright, whom Obama met in the late 1980s, preached a very incendiary form of Black Liberation Theology. How can we forget the clip of Rev. Wright’s sermon given the Sunday following 9/11 when he said the attacks were payback for all of America’s misdeeds?

 

Ed Klein, in his May 2012 book about Obama’s White House years, entitled “The Amateur,” details his interview with Rev. Wright. Wright revealed that he had received a bribe from a friend of Obama’s during the 2008 campaign.

 

Klein spoke to Sean Hannity when the book was published.

 

What happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the audiotapes –videotapes of the Rev. Wright God damning America and slamming whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends, a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on vacations with him.

 

I didn’t name him in the book, but I can tell you who he is. His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight inner-circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ [Wright’s church].

 

Whitaker sent an email to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, offering him $150,000 to stay quiet and not do any public speeches until after the election in November 2008.

 

Chicago politics is one hand feeds the other, as you know. And Eric Whitaker, a very close friend of the Obamas, sent an email to a member of the church saying that the Rev. Wright could get $150,000 if he would shut up and not criticize Obama anymore.

 

Then, after Rev. Wright said, ‘no thank you,’ Obama himself paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright. The face-to-face meeting took place in March 2008, 10 days after Obama’s famous “race speech” took place.

 

Now, we know that this is true, not only because the Rev. Wright told me so, but also because the Secret Service logs, logged in this meeting. So we have confirmation that it actually took place.

 

There are no reports of a paper trail for this 2008 payment, but Rev. Wright did indeed shut up. Prior to this bribe, Obama’s association with the anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor nearly sank his campaign. Surely, this provided a benefit to Obama’s campaign.

 

2. It is well known that, when members of Congress are accused of sexual harassment by interns, staffers or anyone else, they can count on a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” to pay for non-disclosure agreements, “hush money,” from their victims.

 

Certainly, these payments provide a benefit to the campaigns of the accused. They also have probably saved several marriages.

 

The online fact-checking website, “Snopes,” considered this question: Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed? They concluded this was false.

 

Their reasoning may surprise you. The statement is false because the fund is completely legal. It is not secret” or “utilized for illicit purposes.” So, as long as they are transparent about it, it’s fine.

 

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

 

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports.

 

The total amount paid out annually ($17M has been paid out over the last 20 years) is made public, but the specifics of individual transactions remain confidential.

 

Why aren’t taxpayers allowed access to the details? Why are members of Congress allowed privacy while the President is not?

 

3. Why wasn’t the money paid for the dossier by the Hillary Clinton campaign or the DNC that she controlled listed as a campaign contribution? To say that it provided a benefit to the campaign would be a gross understatement. Instead, they ran it through a law firm and billed it as a legal expense.

 

This bogus dossier has become the most consequential political document in recent memory. It has passed through many hands, not the least of which were Bruce Ohr’s. Inquiring minds want to know what role he played in this soap opera. Is it possible that he may have composed portions of it as it is rumored? Why doesn’t the Mueller team schedule a pre-dawn raid on his home and office so we can find out?

 

4. Michael Cohen was Trump’s attorney. When we retain the services of an attorney, an accountant, or any other professional, we state our goal and leave it to the attorney to execute the plan.

 

They are the trained professionals and we are the clients. Most of us don’t question their methods. We assume our lawyers know what they’re doing.

 

If a lawyer makes a mistake, intentionally or otherwise, it is his or her own responsibility. “Well, my client directed me to do it” is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

 

And also, because of such a thing as attorney/client privilege, we should feel we can speak frankly to our lawyers. Do we now have to worry that our conversations with lawyers might be recorded?

 

Why wasn’t the office and residence of Hillary Clinton’s attorney or her IT professional raided? Why don’t we try to prosecute some of Hillary’s closest aides? What about the IT employee who tried to bleach bit subpoenaed documents and destroy the hard drive? She was the subject of an FBI investigation. It would have been fair game.

 

Summing Up: 

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

The only thing that will end it – declassifying the necessary DOJ/FBI documents, unredacted please – is the one thing that Trump has been, so far, reluctant to do. Perhaps he is simply waiting for the right time. Maybe he’s planning an October surprise to achieve maximum impact. I certainly hope so.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn is a conservative political blogger and mom of three residing in southern Connecticut. Following a career in the financial services industry, she is now a regular contributor to Freedom Outpost. Contact her at eliza.vaughn13@gmail.com

______________________

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

_________________________

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

 

About Freedom Outpost

 

Al Franken accused of kissing, groping LA TV host without consent


I have to wonder if ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN et al Mainstream share this news about Senator Al Franken sexually groping former Fox Sports and Playboy celeb poser Leann Tweeden?

 

JRH 11/16/17

Please Support NCCR

********************

Al Franken accused of kissing, groping LA TV host without consent

 

By Barnini Chakraborty

November 16, 2017

Fox News

 

A California TV host and sports radio broadcaster on Thursday accused Democratic Sen. Al Franken of kissing and groping her without her consent in 2006.

 

Leeann Tweeden posted a blog detailing the alleged incident and also tweeted a picture of what seems to be a grinning Franken standing over her as she sleeps, pretending to grab her breasts.

 

 

 

Franken said he doesn’t remember the kissing incident but apologized for posing for the picture. He said he intended it to be funny — but it wasn’t.

 

“I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann,” Franken said in an initial statement. “As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it.”

 

Tweeden says she was disgusted to learn she was groped as she slept (Reuters

 

Franken later issued a detailed statement saying there’s “no excuse” and he feels “ashamed,” while also offering to cooperate in an ethics investigation into the matter.

 

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” Franken said. “… I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse.”

 

He added, “I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.”

 

Tweeden said the abuse took place during a USO Tour in Afghanistan.

 

The radio host came forward in a shocking open letter on blog (Reuters)

 

Franken, a former writer for “Saturday Night Live,” wrote a sketch for the tour in which his character kisses hers on stage. He was an Air America radio host at the time of the incident. He was elected ot the U.S. Senate in 2008.

 

Tweeden said Franken repeatedly pressured her to practice the kiss backstage and at one point forcibly kissed her.

 

“I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time,” she wrote. “I walked away. All I could think about was getting to a bathroom as fast as possible to rinse the taste of him out of my mouth.”

 

Tweeden said she felt “disgusted and violated” – and that the abuse didn’t stop there.

 

A photographer, who was with them on their C-17 cargo plane ride back home, snapped a picture of what looks to be a sleeping Tweeden, still wearing her flak vest and Kevlar helmet, and a grinning Franken appearing to grab her breasts.

 

“I couldn’t believe it,” she wrote. “He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep. I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated. How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?”

 

Tweeden said she thinks Franken asked someone to take the photo “knowing I would see it later, and be ashamed.”

 

The accusations against Franken come on the heels of an avalanch of allegations out of Capitol Hill on sexual harassment and gender hostility. Multiple incidents out of D.C. and other state houses have shed light on the dificulties [sic] victims facewhen trying to report their accusers.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Ethics Committee should review the matter.

 

“I hope the Democratic Leader will join me on this,” McConnell wrote in a statement. “Regardless of party, harassment and assault are completely unacceptable – in the workplace or anywhere else.”

 

About 1,500 former Capitol Hill aides have signed an open letter to House and Senate leaders demanding that Congress put in place mandatory harassment training. They’re also calling to revamp the Office of Compliance, a small office that deals with these complaints and that few knew even existed.

 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

_________________

©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Blog Editor: I read this Fox post with the proviso posted one hour ago. Hence, if you check the link, there is a good chance of future editing. 

 

The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith