TIME FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING RICO CASE AGAINST MUELLER, COMEY, CLINTON

The criminal in charge of the Russia investigation is none other than Robert Mueller, the previous head of the FBI, the consummate Democrat crony who has colluded with the DNC and still is. remember the FBI under his auspices partly paid for the Russian dossier authored by Steele.  Calls for his head are getting louder and even some of his most ardent supporters are demanding he step down.

Time for Sessions to get into the act. Time for Trump to bring down the hammer. We have enough of this Big Government incestual relationship with the Democrats. Clean House Now! Fire them all. President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested in a tweet that the FBI could have financed a dossier alleging collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia. Trump has denied the scandalous allegations in the 35-page dossier, which was compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and leaked just prior to Trump’s inauguration. On Wednesday, two executives of Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier, invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, following a subpoena by the House Intelligence Committee. The FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue his work in October 2016, as it was investigating possible Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, but ultimately scrapped the agreement without paying him. How do we know they didn’t?

Sean Hannity, “For more than a year, Democrats and their pals in the abusively biased press have been breathlessly talking about Russia-Trump collusion as if it were the worst scandal in American history. After a year, the best they can do is somberly insist there is smoke, but no fire. The truth is, there is no smoke. Trump collusion with Russia has been a big lie.”

“We have evidence of another Russia scandal, also involving a 2016 candidate not named Trump. We now know that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid over $9 million to help fund the discredited, Russia-linked dossier crafted to ruin then-candidate Donald Trump. This was nothing short of a collaborative effort with the Russians to manipulate the outcome of the last presidential election.”

“Not that there wasn’t Russian collusion with a 2016 presidential candidate. It’s just that her name was not Trump. We now have real evidence that the FBI uncovered a Russian plot dating back to 2009 that involved bribery, extortion, blackmail, money laundering and racketeering. It all came a year before Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration approved the corrupt Uranium One deal.”

Being able to definitively tie the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. to the Steele dossier is sure to give Republicans another line of attack against special counsel Robert Mueller. But that doesn’t change the fact that much of what Steele found—muddled as it may be by rumor, innuendo, and possible Russian disinformation—was deemed sufficiently credible by the F.B.I. for the agency to begin working with Steele and, ultimately, to fund his research—at least until his name was made public. The broader intelligence community found the allegations sufficiently credible that they gave classified briefings to members of Congress and, in January, days before the inauguration, presented a two-page synopsis to then-President Obama and President-elect Trump. Many of those details have since been confirmed, though the dossier’s most outrageous claims have not. The overall legitimacy of that intelligence, including allegations that Russia may have compromising personal and financial information about the current president, remains a matter of significant public concern.

The House Intelligence Committee said Saturday it has struck a deal to gain access to bank records from Fusion GPS, the firm behind the salacious anti-Trump dossier.

The company had recently attempted to block the committee’s subpoena for its banking records.

“The parties have reached an agreement related to the House Intelligence Committee’s subpoena for Fusion GPS’s bank records that will secure the Committee’s access to the records necessary for its investigation,” the intelligence committee said in a statement released Saturday.

BERGDAHL “THE DESERTER” PLEADS GUILTY

Fort Bragg, North Carolina (CNN)US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could spend the rest of his life behind bars after he pleaded guilty Monday to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

Bergdahl disappeared from his base in Afghanistan in June 2009 and was held in captivity by the Taliban until May 2014.

Fort Bragg, North Carolina (CNN)US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could spend the rest of his life behind bars after he pleaded guilty Monday to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

Bergdahl disappeared from his base in Afghanistan in June 2009 and was held in captivity by the Taliban until May 2014.
“I left my observation post on my own,” Bergdahl told a judge Monday. “I understand leaving was against the law.”
PREVIOUS POST BELOW

Bergdahl, the army deserter whose parents were invited to the White House by President Obama. How disgusting was that?

Observers wondered for months if Bergdahl would be charged with desertion after the deal brokered by the U.S. to bring him home. He was — but he was also charged with misbehavior before the enemy, a much rarer offense that carries a stiffer potential penalty in this case.

“I’ve never seen it charged,” Walter Huffman, a retired major general who served as the Army’s top lawyer, said of the misbehavior charge. “It’s not something you find in common everyday practice in the military.”

The Obama administration has been criticized both for agreeing to release five Taliban operatives from the Guantanamo Bay prison and for heralding Bergdahl’s return to the U.S. with an announcement in the White House Rose Garden. The administration stood by the way it secured his release even after the charges were announced.

THEY FOUND ‘EM – “A CASE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE”

Democrats responding to court order to produced documents that previously disappeared always come up with the lame excuse to blame it on someone else or they put forth ” they don’t remember because of the mind eraser drugs they consume.” Take you back to Hillary’s emails. “We handed them all over, but suddenly after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, Might as well use invisible ink or disappearing paper. “Like wipe it with a cloth.” That was a Hillary’s answer pertaining to the missing emails.  Advocating for Clinton Jame Comey counters that “deleted some [emails] over time as an ordinary user would.”

Lois Lerner and the IRS said emails and paper trails did not exist. Months or was it years later, the Koskinen guy was forced to produce them by a federal judge. 

But conservatives are intent on exploring Mr. Koskinen’s actions after the IRS was ordered to preserve and turn over documents related to targeting of tea party groups — and particularly emails from former senior executive Lois G. Lerner.  Mr. Koskinen’s accusers say he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena on those documents, and instead allowed backup tapes of the emails to be destroyed.

He also said his agency was unable to find the backups of some of Ms. Lerner’s emails — but the IRS’ own internal auditor was able to discover thousands of them with little effort. The internal auditor concluded that the agency erased 422 backup tapes that should have been protected by the subpoena.

Magicians, liars and clowns under the Democratic tent have saturated the deep state to such an extent we will never know the full truth; all of them cover each others asses. This bring us to another lying Democrat, Loretta Lynch.

The chief law enforcement officer under Obama, a lawyer sworn to tell the truth, lied like a five year old kid with his hand in the cookie jar. The tarmac meeting with Slippery Willie. We often wonder what type of gun he carried on board Lynch’s plane.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch said Friday that the FBI has uncovered 30 pages of documents related to the controversial 2016 tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The newly uncovered documents will be sent to Judicial Watch by the end of November in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, a spokesman for the group told Fox News.

The tarmac meeting fueled Republican complaints at the time that Lynch had improperly met with the husband of an investigation subject, just before the probe into Hillary Clinton’s personal email use was completed with no charges filed.

Fired FBI Director James Comey, in Senate testimony in June, described that tarmac meeting as problematic.

JOE ARPAIO – LET THE MAN GO

President Trump pardoned America’s Sheriff last week to the consternation of Right and Left. The way we look at it, Arpaio was arrested, charged and convicted by a bunch of liberal hangmen; particularly the Judge who held him in contempt.

Looking for similar situations we bring you to the movie action roadblock: a bank is robbed, the police are all over their citizen band radios, the alert goes out, immediately roadblocks are set up. Initial reports indicated that the perpetrators were Black.

As one vehicle after another approaches the roadblock the occupants wonder what is in store, being Black they don’t know what to expect. The police have orders requiring them to ask the occupants of all vehicles to exit the vehicle.

To their surprise they find that all occupants are Black.  Numerous violations are found, but the bank robbers are nowhere to be seen having outsmated the police. To those searched they find outstanding warrants, unregistered weapons, drugs and drug paraphernalia among the more serious offenses. Arrests were made because of violations of the law.

Now according to the left leaning libtards this was a travesty. Blacks were targeted, civil rights laws violated, individuals were targeted because of skin color. Comparing this to Joe Arpaio’s posse we find the same scenario. Arpaio allegedly stopped what was mostly Hispanic/Latio looking individuals. Why? Because they were the only ones on the road. Did he know that most of them were involved in criminal activity? Know! But that is beside the point.

Didn’t Obama let hundreds of thousands out of jail? All illegals!

 Hipocrisy

In a last major act as president, Barack Obama cut short the sentences of 330 federal inmates convicted of drug crimes on Thursday, bringing his bid to correct what he’s called a systematic injustice to a climactic close.

With his final offer of clemency, Obama brought his total number of commutations granted to 1,715, more than any other president in U.S. history, the White House said. During his presidency Obama ordered free 568 inmates who had been sentenced to life in prison.

OBAMA’S CIVIL WAR

There is no mistake about it, Obama was the most divisive President ever. Receiving the Peace Prize was a fallacy. Obama didn’t know how the world worked. “Might makes Right,” Words without backup mean nothing. Obama’s Red Line turned into a White Flag; he alone is responsible for 400,000 plus killed in Syria, not counting the havoc placed upon another 12 million or more. Obama, when history is written, will go down as the twenty century (Peace of Our TimeNeville Chamberlain .

His speeches inflamed minorities to revolt. Most if not all of Obama’s interpretation of events was biased in one way or another in support of race bating tactics that he hoped would ignite the civil war; he always longed for the final battle. Obama took the minority position when a White vs Black confrontation developed and that was before the facts were known. In other words he had a preconceived notion on White bias from the beginning.  The problem with Obama, he is half white; why did he turn against his other half? Because of his Mother who hated White people; simple as that.

Moving on to the Trump era we find hostility beyond the pale. Antifa gangs roam the streets, hired by alleged thugs from the Soros foundation; they are well organized, funded and armed with various weapons. Their aim is to take down capitalism. Former Attorney General Holder and Obama work behind the scenes.  Recently California hired this race provocateur to defend the state against Obama’s policies that they deemed harmful to the state. They are subversives hell bent on taking us down.  But wait, our time is now, Kennedy or Bader-Ginsburg are coming to the end of their careers, in Ginsburg’s case, life too. So the possibility of 6-3 Supreme Court decisions are in the realm of possibility. Can’t wait for the gloves to come off.

Look no further than Obama’s kissing cousins, the Muslim Brotherhood and don’t forget the golf game with the premier of Malaysia on Christmas day. Oh sure he is a Christian over our dead body.  “We are no longer a “Christian nation” speech was double talk.  We are a Christian nation in philosophy, maybe not religion, but that isn’t the point – the Judeo-Christian ethic reins supreme, always has, always will. Obama wanted to get in his Muslim two cents by combining it with other religions.

Click here for Dr. Ben Carson on Political Correctness (PC). Very important read; Great speech! Notice Obama’s posture! Dr. Ben Carson, a true American. Thank you. And don’t forget Obama and the progressive liberals (all Democrats) vigorously protect the education industry run by the TEACHERS UNION.
The thugs running Cuba received the blessing of Obama before he left office, soon after the guns were reloaded. But don’t forget the Zelaya affair in Honduras; Zelaya supported by Clinton and Obama against the Supreme Court of Honduras. Another example of the Obama administration supporting a left wing Communist government.

So when it is all said and done, Patriots like yourself know what end is up. We Americans truly believe in the law, freedom of speech and the 2nd Amendment, but will not sit still until the illegals are rounded up and sent back to their country of origin. Remember these criminals who broke into our country are responsible for 30 to 40 million anchor babies. This is an insult to our justice system. Once the Supreme Court addresses the 14th Amendment and they will, the decision and interpretation of it will right the wrongs of the past two centuries.

Read about it here; This article addresses are Sovereignty as a Nation.

“Birthright Citizenship”: Revisionism v Rule of Law

Started by Jim Delaney

We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.

Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.

By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better– have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O’Reilly’s characteristically bombastic–and wholly erroneous–claim that “the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period”.  Poppycock! He couldn’t have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.

That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

Here are my findings and conclusions:

First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite assertions to the contrary from both the left and right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to an “anchor baby”. In short, I was unable to find any convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress–and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to restate the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.

Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill’s language. In any event, the bill failed.

Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.

Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word ‘jurisdiction’, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien’s physical presence alone in the US would not render him/her under the “complete jurisdiction” of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship–when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States”, thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the childand not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child’s birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. 

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers’ themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can’t trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th’s framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I’d say.

Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledeg***, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of “birthright citizenship”, Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that’s precisely what it should do.

 

 

I’M BETTER THAN YOU – E UNUM PLURIBUS

Identity politics has usurped American culture to such an extent that being American has lost its meaning,  dissipated to its own device.  What was E Pluribus Unum has been turned on its head. What was is not. Upon arriving to our shores different cultures assimilated into the culture of America, all became one. English was the grease that made this possible. Of course there were differences, likes neighbored together, but when together they spoke the culture of America, the citizenship of each other. Today this paradigm has been shattered. How did we come to this schism?

It all started with the “I want my rights.” I am a Hispanic/Latino, therefore I want teachers fluent in Spanish. No English for us. This demand gathered moss in more ways than one. First of all being taught in a language different from the main caused underlying animosity because it reflected a forced culture on the majority. Why cater to them? Secondly, acquiescing to their demand became mainstream as others wanted theirs. Individual issues were now mainstream.

Lesbians demanded equal rights, women jumped in on the equal pay issue, Gays hopped aboard, Black Lives Matter pressed their case and then the illegal criminals with the help of the bleeding heart liberals hopped on board. What started as a single issued snowballed to where we are now. And where are we? America is divided. A microcosm of the world itself.

e plu·ri·bus u·num
ˌē ˌplo͝orəbəs ˈ(y)o͞onəm/
noun
  1. out of many, one (the motto of the US).
    OBAMA NEVER BELIEVED in our MOTTO, HE STRESSED IDENTITY POLITICS FROM THE BEGINNING. DIVIDE AND CONQUER
    To the liberal malcontent, anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is an existential enemy. The liberal progressive thug is a snake in the grass, waiting to counter the RIGHT at every turn. We are ready for them, locked and loaded.

Rod Thomson

This was all so obviously inevitable, the predictable result of divisive identity politics perpetrated on the American people — the exact opposite of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Unfortunately, it won’t end in Charlottesville. The alt right and white supremacists, the Antifa and BLM groups — none of whom represent the best or even the good in America — will arm up, plan and ramp up the hatred and divisiveness. Because that is what comes from slicing up Americans by every conceivable grievance.

And instead of calling us higher, to the vision of America as a shining city on a hill, too many Washington politicians will do their best to take personal advantage of the situation. And already have. Democrats have been doing that for years by carving Americans along race, ethnicity, gender and income and pitting them against each other to get the votes of the aggrieved. It’s a directly dis-unifying strategy. Trump appealed to the backlash from that and while he is not a white supremacist, there’s no doubt he attracted their support.

Let’s get a couple of points clear. The alt right is not principled conservatism, or at least the racist elements are not. White supremacists are definitely not conservative. The rally in Charlottesville was ugly and unAmerican in its very origins, long before the violence broke out Saturday. Racists’ actions are hateful and should be called out — whether by whites or blacks or browns or whomever.

But there’s the problem, the step back to see a broader context for Saturday. According to many Americans on the left, particularly in academia, blacks actually cannot be racist because they are a minority and were oppressed by whites in the South 50 years ago. It’s true that they were, but the idea that racism can only come from the majority is nonsensical. Are only blacks racist in South Africa where they are the huge majority? Of course not. Hispanics, the left claims, cannot be racist because they’ve been oppressed by whites all the way back to the initial European settlers — which is not really historically accurate, but it still works to divide. Only whites can be racist by this theory. Yes, that is precisely what the thought-leaders on the left preach and teach, and it works to be wonderfully divisive.

So this did not happen in a vacuum on Saturday. Let’s also be clear on plain human nature. A nation cannot tell an entire class of its people — in this iteration, white males — that they are the source of the country’s evils and have no legitimate opinion on entire swaths of issues. From college campuses to social media, white males are told to check their privilege, sit down and shut up. Literally. That is as unAmerican as the Charlottesville marchers.

If blacks are not supposed to listen to whites because they are white, and Hispanics are not supposed to listen to whites because they are whites, and women aren’t supposed to listen to white men because they are men (I know, it’s not consistent but it is part of intersectional politics, see below) then how does this possibly end well?

To put a fine point on the obvious, it doesn’t.

To think there would not be a backlash by some in the target group was naive at best. Purposeful at worst. To think that when violence was being perpetrated by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, that violence would not be perpetrated by white supremacists, was naive at best. Purposeful at worst.

Why purposeful at worst? Because there is a long line of philosophy on the far left that in order to overthrow the strong national order in the United States, American society must be foundationally destabilized.

CIVIL WAR RISING

Bring it on, we smash heads too. If that’s what they want, we will give them CIVIL WAR.  Republican governors in thirty five states are at the ready to call out the National Guard, local police departments are turned in as well. When violence erupts we will be top gun; this will not be an Orange Revolution, but a revolution of guns, not roses.

Soon we will own the Supreme Court. Decisions affecting 300 million people will be handed down; decades of precedent will be reversed. This will ignite the volatile venom permeating the liberal killa mindset. First off is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One more Supreme Court Justice will bring us back to the time where laws mattered, where trespassers were not citizens of the United States, neither were their progeny and they were thrown in the clink or booted out of the country. Secondly, we will have an adjudication of the 2nd Amendment once and for all.

Democrat incitement is growing at warp speed, but in Washington  the provocation by Mueller is non-stop. This is the case where no crime has been committed. A team of perverted progressive liberal lawyers hired by Mueller is searching for a crime to justify their existence. The special prosecutor is the crime. Comey, Hillary, Bill, Susan, John, Debbie are the criminals. The Deep State will not accept a TRUMP VICTORY. They will do everything in their power to impeded, stifle, challenge, target and destroy him. To them he is not legitimate.

America has been infiltrated by the earth’s scum; Latin American gangs, Hispanic/Latino killers, rapists, drug smugglers. Illegals bring a culture of violence across the land.  Taking advantage of our welfare system, free emergency room treatment, food stamps, hospitals, Social Security disability, education paid for by the taxpaying Patriot.

CLICK HERE FOR MARK LEVIN COMMENTS

 

SECRET MEETINGS REVEALED

However, it is imperative to understand that while the liberal media is freaking out about President Trump having a private meeting with Putin during the G20 Summit, they fail to mention the fact that President Obama did the same exact thing two years ago. 

According to Fox News, in 2016, Obama and Putin also met “on the sidelines” huddling for 90 minutes, at a G20 meeting over a number of issues, including the Ukraine. Furthermore, they talked on the phone with relative frequency.

From Swamp Drain

Michael Crowley, the Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for Politico, tweeted a picture from 2015, when President Barack Obama attended the G20 summit in Turkey.

**The liberal media had NO PROBLEM with a face-to-face, off-the-record meeting between the presidents of the United States and Russia. At least, not when it was Obama. Take note: Susan Rice also pictured below.

When Obama and Putin had a hotel lobby “pull-aside” at the G-20 two years ago, Susan Rice was there.

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!

2009 – A two-hour meeting in Moscow: Obama and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, center right, converse while having traditional Russian tea on a terrace at Putin’s residence outside Moscow on July 7, 2009

21Putin

2012 – Another two-hour meeting in Mexico: Putin and Obama meet in Los Cabos, Mexico June 18, 2012

21Putin-obama

2013 – An awkward photo, a canceled meeting and a 20- to 30-minute private talk. Obama and Putin at a Group of 8 summit in Northern Ireland

21obama-putin

IN HIS OWN WORDS – “PATRIOTISM IS BAD” OBAMA COMES OUT AGAINST AMERICA

Would you expect no less from a Muslim named Barry Soetoro? Prior to him becoming the 2008  Democrat nominee other critics questioned his loyalties to America. Obama got a glancing exposure to Islam. He went to a public school where he had a bit of Islamic instruction, perhaps once a week. In 1967, his mother married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro, who was also attending the University of Hawaii, and the family moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, where Obama attended the Catholic St. Francis of Assisi School before transferring to State Elementary School Menteng an elite Indonesian public school in Menteng. As a child in Indonesia, Obama was called “Barry”, sometimes Barry Soetoro, reflecting his step-father’s surname, and sometimes Barry Obama, using his father’s surname.

The FOURTH OF JULY MESSAGE FROM BARRY SOETORO:

Barack Obama visited Indonesia this weekend, and in a series of appearances, attacked love of country and the policies of Donald Trump.

The Guardian reports:

The former US president said some countries had adopted (CLICK)“an aggressive kind of nationalism” and “increased resentment of minority groups.”

SUSAN RICE THREATENED WITH “WannaCry”

Susan Rice, the former U.N. ambassador, has agreed to TESTIFY, but behind closed doors. What is it that changed her mind? She was responsible for unmaking civilians in the wake of the Clinton debacle. This was done under the auspices of ex-President in thief Obama. Our take is that she was threatened with the WannaCry virus. This alone was enough to scare the living daylights out of her. This virus is akin or worse than a frontal lobotomy; and for that matter waterboarding. Unmasking for political purposes is a serious crime which may, depend on the negotiations, may involve jail time. Does she wanna cry? We shall see.

Rice will definitely be the prime witness in what now has become, not a Trump investigation, but more serious an investigation into the internal doings of the Obama criminal network. The door has been opened by the scheming liars on the other side of the isle. Schumer and friends are about to suffer the consequences. More to come, including Loretta Lynch, who by the way was given orders on the side by the most racist attorney general in decades, Eric Holder.

SIDE BAR: In case you missed it, the Michael Brown payout to the family amounted to over one million greenbacks. This was to put to rest the killing of a two bit punk who got what he got. These types of payments are similar to those given to the families of suicide bombers.

First, Michael Brown robbed a store. Then he assaulted a policeman, fighting for the officer’s gun.

The officer was left badly bruised and worried he might lose consciousness.

Only when Brown charged once again did the officer fatally shoot him. As I show below, there is no debating the facts about the August 2014 shooting.

Yet, what has Ferguson, Missouri done?

On Saturday it was revealed that they “secretly” awarded Brown’s family a “wrongful death claim” of $1.5 million.

But if that doesn’t get you angry, look who is getting the money.n payment raises serious questions.  

Are Ferguson city officials worried about more violence if they don’t pay up?

First, Michael Brown robbed a store. Then he assaulted a policeman, fighting for the officer’s gun.

The officer was left badly bruised and worried he might lose consciousness.

Only when Brown charged once again did the officer fatally shoot him. As I show below, there is no debating the facts about the August 2014 shooting.

Yet, what has Ferguson, Missouri done?

On Saturday it was revealed that they “secretly” awarded Brown’s family a “wrongful death claim” of $1.5 million.

But if that doesn’t get you angry, look who is getting the money.

After a grand jury declined to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, Brown’s stepfather incited demonstrators to “Burn this motherf—er down” and “Burn this b–ch down.” At least 14 people were injured and twelve buildings set on fire in the ensuing violence.

Compensating people for legitimate harm done to them is one thing, but this $1.5 million payment raises serious questions.  

Are Ferguson city officials worried about more violence if they don’t pay up?

While this might buy Ferguson some safety, will it cause others to seek big payoffs in other parts of the country?

After the shooting President Obama told Americans that Michael Brown’s death awakened our nation once again to the reality that [black people] have long understood” and that the shooting demonstrated why “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THE STORY