Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Pelosi seeks to pressure McConnell into accepting Democrats’ draconian gun measures.
September 14th, 2019 | 
Author: 
SECOND AMENDMENT
House Passes Sweeping Gun Regulations
Pelosi seeks to pressure McConnell into accepting Democrats’ draconian gun measures.
The Democrat-controlled House passed three gun-control bills this week that Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserted were “a measure offering grants to states to set up ‘red flag’ laws, a prohibition on gun ownership for those convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes, and a ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Fortunately, none of these draconian bills will see the light of day in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Pelosi was asked whether she regretted not bringing the House back early from its August recess “to keep the flame lit on gun violence.” She became clearly agitated, firing back, “We did our job. The Senate was supposed to come back. Why don’t you all get that straight? The Senate did not come back to pass the bill.” After expressing her anger over the “silliness of these questions,” Pelosi bloviated, “Lives are at stake. Senator McConnell is standing in the way. … Don’t ask me what we haven’t done! We have done it! … Sen. McConnell hasn’t acted. Why don’t you go ask him if he has any regrets for all the people who died?”
Getting past Pelosi’s emotional theatrics, the reality is that Democrats are seeking to force McConnell into taking up some of their gun-control proposals. Ironically, even with these clearly Orwellian bills that Pelosi knows would never pass constitutional muster, Democrats are still backing away from passing their most loudly advocated gun-control measure: a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Since Pelosi and company know that these bills amount to little more than anti-gun virtue signaling, why not go all the way and pass their “assault weapon” ban?
The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti notes that “some moderate Democrats — especially those running for office next year in decidedly purple districts — won’t sign on to a blanket assault weapons ban, leaving Democrats around ten votes shy of getting the ban passed in a branch of Congress that they control. That’s right: the ban is so unpopular that Democrats aren’t able to marshal their own to support a bill that has no hope of passage.”
Posted in 
Demo Debate: Gun Confiscation
Long story short, Democrats want to take away stuff you legally bought and “give” you other “free” stuff by taking more of your money through taxes to pay for it. And they want you to think them generous and caring for doing it.
The “shock” moment of the third Democrat presidential debate came from Beto O’Rourke, who ranted about the dangers of certain semiautomatic rifles before thundering, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” Leftists have become more candid in recent years about their desire to confiscate legally purchased rifles with certain cosmetic features, though they usually couch that gun grab in terms of a “buyback.” How the government would buy back something it never bought in the first place is unclear except by defining it as confiscation. So should we thank Beto for his honesty?
On the one hand, this is a loudmouth, no-shot candidate desperately seeking attention with a confiscation demand he’s made more than once. On the other hand, his repeated push could be the strategic play of the Democrat National Committee to float an unpopular proposal through a bottom-tier candidate to bring in the party’s collective constituencies to the ultimate nominee’s fold. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others have similarly spoken of confiscation in the past.
According to National Review, “Briscoe Cain, who represents the Houston area in the Texas state legislature, wrote ‘my AR is ready for you Robert Francis’ in a since deleted tweet sent Thursday night” in rebuttal to O’Rourke’s comments. Beto whined about that being “a death threat,” providing an example of why Cain “shouldn’t own an AR-15 — and neither should anyone else.”
Few are willing to say this, but what was Beto’s threat about confiscation except a death threat? What if American Patriots refuse to yield their legally purchased, Second Amendment-protected firearms to heavily armed government agents who knock down their doors to take them? Will those government agents say, “Ok, never mind; have a nice day”? Or will there be massive bloodshed?
And just like that, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” became the Republicans’ most effective option for a campaign ad.
As for the rest of the Democrat debate, it was pretty standard fare. Frontrunners Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders argued over how far left the party should go on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and other leftist fever dreams. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang, Julián Castro, and O’Rourke vied to achieve some sort of breakout moment, primarily by offering more “free” stuff, sanctimoniously lecturing about how awful America is, or by saying outrageous things about President Donald Trump (have you heard he’s a “racist”?).
For choice quotes, see our Short Cuts below. But we’ll highlight a final one here: “Anybody that does what [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro does is a vicious tyrant,” insisted Sanders, who also protested, “In terms of democratic socialism, to equate what goes on in Venezuela with what I believe is extremely unfair.” His protests notwithstanding, it’s not unfair. Sanders’s socialist salesmanship and his love affairs with China and the Soviet Union prove it. But you know what happened in Maduro’s socialist paradise of Venezuela? Gun confiscation.
BACKGROUND CHECKS DID NOT STOP ANY OF THE 17 LATEST MASS SHOOTING – WONT STOP THE NEXT SHOOTINGS EITHER!
Conservatives offer stark warning to
Trump, GOP on background checks
Senate conservatives are warning President Trump and their own leaders to tread carefully in the gun control debate and caution they risk a political backlash by striking a deal with Democrats to expand background checks for firearms sales. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said if Republicans strike a deal with Democrats to require all firearms sales over the internet or at gun shows to go through background checks, they would demoralize their conservative base ahead of next year’s presidential election.
“If Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights, that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren,” Cruz said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, referring to the liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts who is running for president.
“We’re going to see record-shattering Democratic turnout. The only element missing to ensure Democratic victory is demoralizing conservatives so they stay home. I hope we don’t do that,” Cruz said in response to a question about the reaction from conservatives if Trump signs a bill similar to the 2013 gun control amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
The Manchin-Toomey proposal would require background checks for all sales over the internet and at gun shows but exempt sales between family members, friends and coworkers who conduct transactions in person. Other Senate Republicans say they have weighed in either with the White House or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to warn of a potential backlash from the right.
“It is a slippery slope, and gun rights advocates understand that,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
“We passed the Brady bill, it hasn’t prevented these things,” he added, referring to the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which imposed a waiting period a dealer must observe before selling a firearm. Johnson argues that expanding background checks puts a burden on law-abiding citizens and likely would do little to prevent future mass shootings. “When you really understand what the endgame of the left is, it’s literally mandatory buy-backs or as I call it: confiscation. This is a step-by-step process for them,” Johnson said of what he suspects Democrats’ ultimate goal is.
“I’ve certainly talked to people in the White House sharing the feelings of gun rights advocates in Wisconsin,” he added.
Sen. Steve Daines (R), who faces reelection in Montana next year, said he has told GOP leaders that there’s strong opposition to expanding background checks in his home state. “We want to make sure that anything that is done by Congress actually does something to make us significantly safer. Extensive background checks already exist today,” Daines said. “As I traveled some 7,000 miles around Montana during the month of August, 31 different communities, 21 different counties, the consensus is that more gun control is not the answer,” he added.
Daines said the Senate should focus on other ways to combat gun violence, such as legislation to address juvenile justice issues.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said there is broad sentiment within the Senate Republican Conference that Congress doesn’t have the authority to require background checks for firearms sales between individuals who are not licensed gun dealers. Rounds said the 2013 Manchin-Toomey proposal, which a group of lawmakers including Manchin, Toomey and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is using as a basis for discussions with the White House, fails to pass constitutional muster.
“What I’m looking for is legislation that would actually make a difference, that would still stand the constitutional test involved. I have not yet seen it and I don’t think that particular one stands it either,” he said. “I think there are some challenges when you start talking about regulating between two parties, particularly within the same state.”
“We keep trying to regulate individuals who are not causing problems,” he said, referring to law-abiding gun owners. “We just haven’t seen a proposal that’s going to fix the issues we’re dealing with here. We have to get back to mental health.”
“This is fairly widespread within our conference,” he added.
Rounds said he’s also hearing concern from constituents about the push for so-called red flag laws that would empower law enforcement to confiscate guns from people judged to be dangerous to themselves or others. The sentiments expressed by conservative lawmakers signal that Trump is likely to be met with a backlash from the right if he proposes an expansion of background checks that goes far enough to win Democratic support. Democrats say they want Trump to agree to expanding background checks to include all commercial sales, a proposal that passed the House in February but which the White House immediately threatened to veto.
Democrats now say they will not agree to anything that falls short of the 2013 Manchin-Toomey proposal.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, on Thursday signaled that Democrats would reject a proposal that fails to extend background checks to all sales online and at gun shows. “Something substantially weaker than that would be hard” to accept, Stabenow said. And Murphy, a lead Democratic negotiator, on Wednesday said that many Democrats want to pass a law more in line with a House-passed bill, H.R. 8, which requires background checks for all gun sales with exceptions for transfers between close family members.
“A lot of Democrats would say the world has changed since Manchin-Toomey was passed. The broad experience of American gun violence since 2013 would tell you that Manchin-Toomey isn’t enough,” Murphy told The Hill Wednesday afternoon. The prospect of a backlash from conservatives has negotiators worried that White House staff may try to hold Trump back from cutting a landmark deal on gun control.
“I feel the president’s enthusiasm. He’s very engaged in every conversation and I’ve had quite a few of them. I just hope his staff doesn’t hold him back,” Manchin told reporters Thursday afternoon. Manchin argued that Trump would broaden his popularity by endorsing a proposal to significantly expand background checks. He noted that Trump also faced pushback from the right on banning so-called bump stocks, which drastically increase the rate of fire for semi-automatic weapons.
“I told him people would push back on him on bump stocks but he did it. It never affected him, it never affected his base at all. If anything, I think this would expand his base,” Manchin said. The Trump administration banned bump stocks in December in response to a mass shooting in Las Vegas where the gunman used the device to kill 58 people and injure hundreds others.
TAGS TED CRUZ ELIZABETH WARREN MITCH MCCONNELL DEBBIE STABENOW STEVE DAINES CHRIS MURPHY DONALD TRUMP RON JOHNSON JOE MANCHIN MIKE ROUNDS PAT TOOMEY GUN CONTROL MASS SHOOTINGS BACKGROUND CHECKS
THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST TRYING TO PUSH THEIR “NEW GREEN DEAL”
The language was heavily criticized by Democrats and conservationists alike.
“Thanks to that drilling mandate slipped into their 2017 tax scam, the Trump administration is now recklessly rushing to ruin the Arctic Refuge with oil rigs,” Huffman said.
Thursday’s House vote comes as lawmakers are facing a dwindling timeline to act. The lease sales prompted by Murkowski’s amendment are expected to begin shortly. An environmental impact statement analyzing the project is expected soon, one of the final steps before leases can be sold.
“Then there’s that mandatory 30-day waiting period and after that it’s open for bidding under law,” said Nora Apter with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The administration has, since the passage of the tax act, been barreling full speed ahead through the environmental review process to get leases out on public lands.”
During debate, Republicans sought to minimize the scope of the 400,000 acres up for grabs during lease sales, comparing the set-aside acreage to the size of a postage stamp on a wall or the size of a football on a football field.
“It has the resources, and it’s time to develop those resources because the failure to develop those resources we have in this country to meet the energy needs of our nation means that we continue to be dependent on other nations,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.). “It’s time for America to develop the resource that God gave us when he blessed this great nation.”
Democrats, meanwhile, argued the U.S. should stop exporting its oil in order to become energy independent and respect local voices across the nation that oppose drilling along their shorelines.
A companion bill was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday, but the legislation, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), is unlikely to pass in the Republican-led chamber.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Public Works committee, said the House bill had a zero chance of success in the Senate.
“It’s like the Green New Deal. This far-left agenda that they have. The majority of the House Democrats have co-sponsored it, so it’s in keeping with their radical plans which would significantly hurt the economy,” he said.
He also said that efforts should be focused on limiting emissions outside the U.S., not cutting back on energy production.
“The reality is that the emissions in the United States have been going down much lower now than they have been a decade ago. The emissions in China are going up. The emissions in India are going up,” he said, adding climate change fears are “legitimate, but not an existential crisis the way the Democrats have been framing it.”
President Trump has also threatened to veto the House bill.
“That’s a difficult impediment. We got our eyes wide open. But you don’t just give up, you continue the fight. The American people are with us. The facts are with us. History is with us. We’re going to keep fighting this,” Huffman told reporters.
Rep. Raul Grijalva said the legislation, along with two bills passed Wednesday that block drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, was necessary to stop the Trump administration from drilling “everywhere, every time, without exception.”
Grijalva, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, pointed to a top Department of the Interior staffer who is leaving the agency to work for a company pursuing drilling in Alaska, according to reporting in The Washington Post.
The Trump administration has proven keen to explore drilling options in Alaska and is currently engaged in a legal battle to undo the 11th-hour protections put in place by former President Obama that block drilling in large swaths of the Arctic.
TAGS LISA MURKOWSKI JOHN BARRASSO JARED HUFFMAN DONALD TRUMP JEFF DUNCAN ED MARKEY
9/11/12 Event CANCELLED at the Bloomfield hills Church – This is what the Democrats are doing to America, they are assisting the Muslims in their Jihad!
|
The anti-Trump meme driven from the left has reached the tenor and decibel level where it represents an existential threat to the man Donald J. Trump
By Lee Cary —— Bio and Archives—September 10, 2019Cover Story |
Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
A generation of Americans well remembers November 22, 1963.
We remember where we were that day. What we saw and heard that day. And how we felt as the relentless cadence, played on an old drum carried by an Army Master Sergeant, tolled the deliberate steps of a funeral procession to the Arlington National Cemetery.
Quick to blame a far-right conservative culture in Dallas
Many of that generation remember how the three TV news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS)—near replicates of each other—were quick to blame a far-right conservative culture in Dallas for the hatred they said contributed to JFK’s assassination. As all three sang from the same sheet of music.
They, the choir of nationally-known and widely-respected TV anchors, pushed the meme that conservative Dallas shared responsibility for JFK’s death.
Never mind that the alleged, lone assassin had once defected to the USSR.
Or, that Oswald had passed out flyers on street corners calling for “fair play for Cuba.”
Oswald tried to assassinate an anti-Communist U.S. Army General
Or, that Operation Mongoose was authorized by President Kennedy on November 30, 1961, two years before his death, given the mission to kill those among Castro’s Communist cadre as well as their Soviet advisers. A friend named Jim was a young Marine then, assigned to the CIA operation in one of the two-man teams (shooter and spotter) who went out under the wire at Gitmo in search of…targets.
Never mind that seven months before JFK was killed, Oswald tried to assassinate an anti-Communist U.S. Army General.
“Seven months before Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John F. Kennedy, he took hisMannlicher-Carcano rifle to Major General Edwin Walker’s house, stood by the fence, aimed towards the window, and shot at him. Walker was a stark anti-communist voice and an increasingly strident critic of the Kennedys,whose strong political stances had him pushed out of the army in 1961.” (Smithsonian Magazine)
None of that mattered then. Oswald was declared the lone assassin who acted under the atmospheric pressure of a far right-wing culture that hovered over the City of Dallas.
Then, days later, Oswald died in the custody of law enforcement. He never confessed, nor was he tried. And the man who killed him, Jack Ruby, with organized crime connections, claimed to have done so because he felt sorry for Jackie. He died, too, in custody, before his trial.
All this happened 56 years ago. Ancient history by American standards. But the events did incalculable damage to the nation. While the cause of it all remains…unclear.
Today, though, there’s no lack of clarity concerning the hatred aimed at the current American President.
The behavior of today’s liberal media portends the danger of another November 22nd event.
Meanwhile, we wait to hear any warning, from either political party, or the media, spoken collectively to the left that says:
“Your rhetoric has become incendiary. You owe it to the nation to cease the worst of your vitriolic language, and end the threats that seem designed to incite actions to remove the President by any means necessary. This has all gone too far, for too long. STOP!”
Who is there to deliver this warning to Hollywood and the Democrat Party?
Who among Republican pols will stand and call a halt to the opposition language that walks on the edge of inciting bodily harm against a U.S. President?
Where are the adults in the American progressive political movement—if they exist—able to reign-in their hyper-belligerent allies, both in and out of government?
Hollywood “A-listers” and wannabees. Democrat Presidential candidates, including the single-digit group and their acolytes. Media outlets and their pundits who traffic in diatribes that feed the Trump-hatred of their readers.
Who stands up to them?
These and others have raised the decibel level of their cacophony of distain for the President of the United States to a menacing level not witnessed since the days before and during the American Civil War.
Do they not know that We the People see and hear all this? For we are neither collectively blind, nor deaf.
The anti-Trump meme driven from the left has reached the tenor and decibel level where it represents an existential threat to the man Donald J. Trump.
And, God forbid, should the old drum that sounded November ‘62 beat again, this time we will know why.
Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us
TRUMP ASK FOR JOHN BOLTON’S RESIGNATION
Trump fires NSC adviser Bolton
Tuesday that he has ousted John Bolton as his national security adviser.
Trump said in a series of tweets that he told Bolton Monday night “that his services are no longer needed at the White House,” citing disagreements with many of Bolton’s suggestions, though he didn’t provide specific details. Trump said Bolton submitted his resignation on Tuesday and that he would tap a new national security adviser next week.
“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration,” Trump tweeted.
“I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week,” Trump continued.
IS BARR THE AG WE REALLY WANT- IS HE GOING TO DO THE JOB OF CLEANING OUT THE DEEP STATE?
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. —Voltaire
There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. —Baron de Montesquieu
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. —George Washington
The Rule of Law, (no person or government is above the law) apparently doesn’t apply to members of the Deep State. Attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing repeatedly tell Fox News that AG William Barr is cleaning up the intelligence community. Barr has been at the job for seven months, and as of yet, no one has been charged.
While the many patriots who supported the election of Donald Trump have suffered immeasurably, those who colluded to destroy Trump’s chances of winning and then to frame him with the false Russia narrative, are still running free, writing books and being promoted on mainstream media. And many of them are still in the AG’s office influencing his actions.
Diana West, author of American Betrayal and The Red Thread stated that when President Trump chose William Barr for his AG, her heart sank, and for good reason.
William Barr and Robert Mueller
Who suggested William Barr? Why was Barr chosen, given his shocking and deeply criminal/cover-up kingpin background? My guess would be the President’s closest advisors including the Vice President who was in charge of the Trump transition team.
The new head of the Justice Department has known and admired the president’s adversary, Robert Mueller, for 30 years, and President Trump seems fine with that. Their relationship, which Barr described in public during his Senate confirmation hearing, is a reminder of the small size of Washington’s legal and law enforcement worlds.
Barr and Mueller first crossed paths at the Justice Department during the George H. W. Bush administration. When Barr served as attorney general under President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and 1992, Mueller was the assistant attorney general heading up the criminal division. But the relationship goes further. Their wives are close friends who attend Bible study together, and Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Barr praised Mueller’s “distinguished record of public service” and said the special counsel’s probe is proper and should be allowed to proceed without interference. That’s a sharp contrast to the acting attorney general Barr replaced, Matthew Whitaker, who called Mueller’s appointment by his and Barr’s close friend, Rod Rosenstein, “ridiculous” and “a little fishy,” among other things. Barr’s high praise for Mueller is the nucleus of my unease with the new AG.
Conservatives have long cited the bond between Mueller and Comey, whose firing by Trump prompted the special counsel’s appointment by Rod Rosenstein, as evidence that Mueller was hopelessly conflicted. And now Barr has failed to charge Comey who deliberately leaked government information to someone outside the Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to prompt a Special Counsel.
Robert Mueller’s modus operandi for the last 30 years hasn’t changed. Sidney Powell’s brilliant expose of the Deep State in her book, Licensed to Lie, exposed the core group of federal prosecutors who broke all the rules, made up crimes, hid evidence, and sent innocent people to prison.
William Barr’s Father
William Barr’s father is Donald Barr, who was the headmaster at Dalton School in Manhattan which was founded by progressive educator, Helen Parkhurst who took her cues from developmental psychologist Jean Piaget and education reformers such as John Dewey and Horace Mann. Jeffrey Epstein became a professor at the Dalton School.
Donald Barr also had a stint in the precursor to the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during WWII. Prior to that, he described himself as having a Marxist upbringing in terms of his own memoirs and ruminations on education. He had a footnote on the dialectic and stated that as a child he enjoyed being a Marxist and reading Marx and Engels.
Barr wrote a book entitled, Who Pushed Humpty Dumpty? wherein he claimed to have three very strange radical leftist mentors in his life who migrated toward establishment mainstream status basically infiltrating old right conservatism just as did William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol. Gordon Myrick, Ralph Lynton and Carlton Hayes were the mentors and Diana West is researching all three.
William Barr, CIA Operative
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the George H. W. Bush apparatus as any other, including Poppy Bush. As the Attorney General (AG) from 1991 to 1993, Barr wreaked havoc, flaunted the rule of law, and proved himself to be one of the CIA/Deep State’s greatest and most ruthless champions and protectors. Like father, like son.
-
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting in 1971 after Barr attended Columbia University, where he majored in government and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.
-
When Bush 41 became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s “legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others.
-
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee that investigated abuses by the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
-
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
-
Barr joined George H. W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice presidency (under President Ronald Reagan). He rose from assistant attorney general to chief legal counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
-
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or arrest.
-
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal organizations,” drug smugglers and money launderers. Sounds like hot air! AG Barr would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice Department power to escape punishment.
-
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes, including BCCI banks scandal and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all crimes of state committed by Bush. More on this in the next article.
-
Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international Chicago law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys. Kirkland and Ellis’s clients including sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital.
-
Barr successfully advocated the pardon of six former White House aides, including those convicted of lying to Congress or withholding information during the investigation. The six-year probe centered around allegations that the Reagan administration had secretly sold weapons to Iran despite an arms embargo, then clandestinely funneled the proceeds to anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua.
Those pardoned were Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger; Elliott Abrams, former assistant secretary of state; Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser, and former CIA officials Clair E. George, Alan D. Fiers and Duane Clarridge. All were in President Ronald Reagan’s Administration.
Arkansas, Iran-Contra and Drugs
Compromised by Terry Reed is the true story of Bill Clinton’s sellout to the CIA. The expose is Reed’s own eyewitness account. He was a former CIA asset whose patriotism transformed him into a liability when he refused to turn a blind eye to the Agency’s drug trafficking. While helping the CIA set up its secret operations, he unwittingly compromised his family’s safety, ultimately forcing them to become fugitives. Realizing that he witnessed the making of a counterfeit President and knew too much about its drug operations, the CIA set out to destroy Reed and his family.
Clinton’s political ambitions and his campaign pledge to create jobs for Arkansans led him to choose CIA support to help in his bid for the Presidency. He permitted the CIA to use Arkansas factories to make untraceable weapons and he allowed CIA contract agents to train Contra pilots on rural airstrips in support of the war in Nicaragua, effectively evading the Congressional ban on military aid to the Contras.
Clinton split with many other state governments in sending a contingency of the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras to train the Nicaraguan Contras on how to overthrow their Sandinista government. Clinton would also discuss his first-hand knowledge of the operation with now-Trump administration Attorney General William Barr. As a CIA operative, Barr became the Attorney General of the United States, not once, but twice.
In the 1980s, Terry Reed knew William Barr under a different alias as a CIA liaison to Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey in Arkansas. Barr was supposed to be running a CIA cutout called Southern Air Transport. Reed later saw William Barr become AG under Bush 41, and connected him to the man he knew as Robert Johnson.
Clinton’s secret was shared by then Vice President Bush who was also compromised by his involvement. The Justice Departments of Reagan, Bush and Clinton orchestrated an ongoing cover-up in the Iran-Contra scandal.
The issue of notification of Congress about imminent clandestine activities was at the heart of the Iran-Contra scandal when President Ronald Reagan and CIA Director William Casey specifically ordered that lawmakers be kept in the dark about the infamous, covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran.
Barr chastised Clinton for his sloppy handling of the delicate operation and his half-brother, Roger Clinton’s, very public fall from grace for cocaine use and then his pardon by Bill. He would later tell Clinton, according to Reed, Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy … You and your state have been our greatest asset. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you f*** up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job that you’ve always wanted. You and guys like you are the fathers of the new government. We are the new covenant.
Clinton was ultimately rewarded with the Presidency.
Attempts to investigate Clinton’s role in the Mena operations and the Iran-Contra affair were allegedly axed by Clinton’s own confidantes, who consistently denied he played a role in the scandal. According to the Wall Street Journal, former IRS investigator William Duncan teamed with Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch in what became a decade-long battle to bring the matter to light. All of the nine separate state and federal probes into the affair failed.
Duncan would later say of the investigations, “[They] were interfered with and covered up, and the justice system was subverted,” and a 1992 memo from Duncan to high-ranking members of the attorney general’s staff notes that Duncan was instructed “to remove all files concerning the Mena investigation from the attorney general’s office.” The attorney general, serving under George H. W. Bush, at that time was William Barr.
Conclusion
In a previous article I asked who vets the nominees for President Trump’s administration? Apparently, no one vets the administration candidates thoroughly. They use social media to see what the candidate has said about Trump. Of course, the FBI should investigate every candidate, but the FBI is not trustworthy.
Stay tuned, there’s much more to come on AG Barr.
TRUMP’S POLICIES AT THE BORDER ARE WORKING – SORRY DEM’S YOU ARE GOING TO GET REDUCED NEW VOTERS!
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
Border apprehensions plunge as Trump administration hails Mexico pact
Immigration officials apprehended just over 64,000 migrants at the southern border in August – a dramatic drop that the Trump administration is presenting as a sign its diplomatic engagement with Mexico and other countries is having positive effects on the ground.
The 64,006 migrants apprehended or deemed inadmissible represents a 22 percent drop from July, when 82,055 were apprehended, and a 56 percent drop from the peak of the crisis in May, when more than 144,000 migrants were caught or deemed inadmissible. While the numbers typically drop in the summer, the plummet is steeper than typical seasonal declines.
The Trump administration says that while the numbers are still at crisis level, the numbers show the extent to which Trump policies — such as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) that keep migrants in Mexico as their asylum cases are heard — are working and that countries south of the border are taking action to stop the flows in response to pressure from the U.S.
“That international effort is making an impact. Mexican operational interdiction is certainly [the] highlight of that effort, but the shared responsibility we’re seeing in the region, governments stepping up and saying we also own this,” Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told Fox News on Monday.
A senior administration official also said “the tariff threat with Mexico changed the dynamic significantly with our partners.”
Trump announced in May that he intended to impose tariffs on Mexico if it did not help the U.S. combat the migration crisis. Trump ultimately suspended the tariffs days before after a deal was reached that included Mexico taking “unprecedented steps” to boost enforcement, including deploying its National Guard, while the MPP, known informally as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, was expanded.
Mexico has now been giving those migrants a permit to remain, work authorizations and social security and providing free transportation to anyone who wants to return to their home countries.
A senior administration official pointed to engagement with countries in Central America and agreements made with Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador on issues such as human smuggling – the main countries sending migrants to the U.S. The official said that Honduras has so far more than doubled its border force after the U.S. requested they triple it.
Meanwhile at home, the U.S. is pushing through a change to the Flores court settlement which limits how long minors can be kept in custody, as well as a rule (currently facing court challenges) that says that migrants cannot claim asylum if they have passed through other safe countries. It is also eyeing expanding DNA tests on migrants claiming to be family units.
Now, the official said, instead of releasing almost all family units into the U.S., the majority of families are being kept in Mexico or being returned home.
But the numbers are still higher than August last year. Customs and Border Protection Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan called the work being done by the administration a “game changer” but warned that Congress needs to act in order for that work to be sustained.
“For this to be a durable, lasting positive impact to address this crisis, Congress has to act,” he told reporters at a briefing Monday. “It has to pass meaningful legislation that we’ve been telling them for a long time they need to do to effectively address the loopholes in our current legal framework.”
However, with House Democrats increasingly taking liberal positions on illegal immigration issues, fueled by 2020 candidates who have been embracing policies such as closing detention centers and giving health care to illegal immigrants, the future of congressional action is unclear.
THIS IS A MUST WATCH VIDEO – Commentaries on Gun Control & The Value of Life
Governor Matt Bevin Gives One
of the Best Commentaries on
Gun Control & The Value of Life
Finally someone with open eyes to see what the problem really is. This needs
to be played on all mainstream media for a solid week then maybe some other
people would open their eyes to what the problems really are.
I have over the past year recited his comment dozens of time in twitters and
letters to congress:
“If you believe for one moment this is a gun problem, you are
delusional; it is a cultural issue!
WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATIC (SOCIALIST) OFFERING YOU IN 2020 – DO YOU WANT SOCIALISM IN AMERICA?
What are the Democrats going to offer you in 2020:
CANDIDATE STATEMENTS
Elizabeth Warren; life on earth is at risk!
Bernie Sanders; we’re fighting for the survival of the planet earth!
Candidate1: We have 11 years left!
Candidate 2: This is on par with WWII perhaps even more challenging than that!
PROMISES OF CANDIDATES
Promise 1: Kamala Harris: ban plastic straws? Yes!
Promise 2: Kamala Harris; ban offshore drilling for oil? Yes!
Promise 3: Bernie Sanders: We must take combustion engine vehicles off the road is rapidly
as we can!
Promise 5: Elizabeth Warren; make Universal free daycare for millions of people! Wo pays for it? Everyone who’s net worth is over $50 Million, cost over 10 years $1.7 Billion.
Promise 6: Federal tax credit to help with rent!
Promise 7: Bernie Sanders; Mandated $15, some suggesting $20 minimum wage!
Promise 8: Bernie Sanders; Automatic enrollment in Medicare for everyone!
Promise 9: Elizabeth Warren; Pay off student loans!
Promise 10: Elizabeth Warren; Subsidize nurseries in every community for families; those earning less than 200% of the Federal poverty line, the care is free!
Promise 11: Bernie Sanders; Community and four year public colleges free for students from families earning less than 4125,000 per year.
Promise 12: Elizabeth Warren takes it one step further; would forgive $50,000 of loans for any students making less than $100,000 a year! NO cost estimate
Promise 13: Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand; Debt free college would create a 1to1 match of federal to State dollars to cover cost above the “expected family contribution” as calculate by the DOE! No Cost Estimate.
Promise 14: Bernie Sanders; Guaranteed income in some cases regardless of working or not! No Cost Estimate.
Promise 15: Bernie Sanders; Massive jobs program introduced by Sanders acolyte (assistant) AOC in the new Green Deal, putting millions of Americans to work overhauling every existing building in the country to meet the New Green Deal standards!
Promise 16: Bernie Sanders; Rebuild the nation’s power grid!
Promise 17: Bernie Sanders; the new green Deal would blaze a path to the middle class!
Promise 18: Bernie Sanders; Promise economic security for everyone unable or unwilling to work!
Promise 19: The entire 2020 field; voice support for the New Green Deal price tag $93 trillion dollars, with exception of Hickenlooper & Gillibrand
Promise 20: Andrew yang; Wants the government to cut a $1000 check each month to every citizen over 18 years of age called the “Freedom Dividend”, cost $3 trillion dollars annually we’re now up to $96 trillion dollars Democrats want to spend to give everyone free stuff!!
Promise 21: Marianne Williamson/Kamala Harris/Bernie Sanders; Reparations to the Blacks for past slavery even though they were not part of it one Candidate estimates $100 billion dollars over the next 10 years
Promise 22: Gillibrand/ Warner; $445 billion dollars to build 3.2 million new housing units for low and middle income families!
Promise 23: Warren; Provide mortgage assistance to help people hurt by the financial crisis more
than a decade ago!
Promise 24: Kamala Harris; Create a tax credit for anyone spending over 30% of their income on rent!
Promise 25: Elizabeth Warren; Dept emancipation, one-time cost $640 Billion, Plus another $1.25 trillion over the next 10 years. Who pays for it? The wealthy are expect tpo cover the cost.
Promise 26: Bernie Sanders biggest promoter; eliminate private insurance companies, would put an estimated one to two million workers out of jobs!
Promise 27: Bernie Sanders; How to fix the “dysfunctional system” drop the 8.8% uninsured rate to zero, lump the 155 million Americans insured by employer plans, with 20,million covered through private insurance, along with the 60 million Medicare beneficiaries plus, 33 million without insurance under a free government plan cost 32.6 trillion dollars for now upwards of 128 trillion dollars in debt. How do they plan to pay for it: 70% tax on those making over 10 million dollars a year, additional fees on financial institutions, mandatory 4% income premium on employees, plus a 7.5% increase based premium paid by employers.
So far folks, we are up to a cost to put the democrats in office of $131.00 trillion dollars, is socialism worth it?
Analogies of socialism:
Analogy 1: Consider the mouse who dies in a mouse trap; why does this happen?
Because the mouse never asked themselves why is the cheese free?
Analogy 2: If a pig could vote, they would always vote for the one who feeds him, even though he is also the same one who will take him to the slaughter house!
Analogy 3: The “socialist” states of North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are in economic ruin. Few now advocate “back to the USSR.” At the same time, many people still consider socialism an appealing economic system.
The analogy of the jockey and the horse explains the continued appeal of socialism. Socialists believe that socialist regimes have chosen the wrong jockeys to ride the socialist horse to its deserved victory. Bad jockeys such as Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, and Hugo Chavez chose tactics and policies that led their socialist horse astray. But actually, a look at how the Soviet Union actually worked reveals that it’s the horse itself that’s the problem.
The problem with socialism isn’t a bad jockey—it’s the horse itself. The Soviet economic system suffered from pathologies that would ultimately doom it. Starting in the late 1960s, the USSR economy went into a long decline, which came to be called the “period of stagnation.” Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1985 on the pledge that he, as a radical reformer, would reverse the decline.
Gorbachev failed because the core of the Soviet planned system was rotten Despite his reform inclinations, he remained a believer in socialism. He was determined to save Soviet socialism by making it more like capitalism. In so doing, he created an economy that was neither planned nor a market—a chaotic free-for-all, which the Russian people regrettably associate to this day with that they came to call “wild capitalism.”
If America follows the Democratic (Socialist) party, this is the picture of where the are going to be 50-100 years from now.
What Don’t The Democrats Promise You:
Democrats do not promise you Freedom, Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. They want to undo the very foundations this country was built on. They want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment; our only protection from this type of tyrannical government! They want to control free speech like they have done on Universities and College campuses, they want to take away your Religious Freedoms, make you support things like abortion, support illicit life style’s like LGBTQ, not allow religion in our schools, they want to eliminate Due Process, the backbone of our Legal system, the RED FLAG laws are a startling example.
THE MANTRA OF SOCIALISM:
A mantra of socialism is, “From each according to his ability, to “each according to his contribution.” Everyone in society receives a share of the production based on how much each has contributed. This system motivates them to work long hours if they want to receive more. Workers receive their share of production after a percentage has been deducted for the common good.
Socialists assume that the basic nature of people is cooperative. They believe that this basic nature hasn’t yet emerged in full because capitalism or feudalism has forced people to be competitive. ( Humans are naturally competitive)
Certain element of those currently in power within the American Left, are engaged in a sustained attempt to reintroduce and rehabilitate the word “socialism,” in part by prepending to it a word that has a much better reputation and an infinitely better historical record: “democratic.” Voters should not be fooled by the rebranding, for there is no sense in which socialism can be made compatible with democracy as it is understood in the West. At worst, socialism eats democracy and is swiftly transmuted into tyranny and deprivation. At best — and I use that word loosely — socialism stamps out individual agency, places civil society into a straitjacket of uniform size, and turns representative government into a chimera. The U.S. Constitution may as a technical matter, be silent on most economic questions, but it is crystal clear on the appropriate role of government. And the government that it permits is incompatible with, and insufficient to sustain, socialism.
The tragic, provable truth about Ilhan Omar is that there’s a terrorist supporter holding a seat on the U.S. Congress
Rep. Ilhan Omar More Treacherous Than “Controversial”
By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives—September 8, 2019Cover Story | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
President Donald Trump needn’t have to have suggested sending Ilhan Omar back to the country of her birth. Omar’s already in Somalia, if not physically, there in heart and fiery spirit.
Trump has called out members of the so-called “Squad” who continue to work feverishly in radicalizing America.
But that was yesterday’s Trump/Squad controversy.
Today Omar—sworn in to Congress on a copy of her grandfather’s Quran—is publicly calling for protection of a Somali company—Hormuud Telecom—that actively funds Al Shabaab in Somalia, an offshoot of Al Qaeda, Omar’s updated version of “some people did something” in reference to 9/11.
And still the media, including excellent ones like Judicial Watch, refer to Omar as “controversial”, instead of identifying her for what she truly is: a treacherous, terrorist supporting member of U.S. Congress
“A controversial Minnesota congresswoman known for racially inflammatory anti-Semitic views has publicly declared her support for a terrorist organization in her native Somalia. (Judicial Watch, Sept. 3, 2019)
“Democrat Ilhan Omar is demanding that a telecommunications company founded and operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter.
“The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of al—Shabaab, an east African-based jihadist group that serves as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia. In her social media account, Omar writes that Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the telecom firm with terrorist ties. The Israeli article includes the links to a pair of United Nations Security Council reports documenting Hormuud’s direct support for al-Shabaab.
“According to the first U.N. report: ”Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’ale (Jim’ale) has served in leadership roles with the former Somali Council of Islamic Courts, also known as the Somali Islamic Courts Union, which was a radical-Islamist element. The most radical elements of the Somali Islamic Courts Union eventually formed the group known as al—Shabaab.” The document also identifies Jim’ale, a prominent businessman who controls Hormuud, as one of al-Shabab’s chief financiers. “Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and these payments toal-Shabaab were facilitated by Jim’ale,” the U.N. report says, adding that “Hormuud Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and ammunition.”
“The second U.N. Security Council report, published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. “Two employees of the principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack, for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the outskirts of Mogadishu,” according to the U.N. report
ILHAN OMAR TERRORIST TIES: Omar supports companies that fund Al Shabaab, Hamas
If anyone else were suspected of being married to two different men at the same time, wouldn’t they be identified as a bigamist? Considering this documented history of terrorist activity, it’s outrageous that Hormuud is endorsed by a member of the United States Congress.” The Minnesota Rep. is walking proof that claiming to be “a woman of color” gets you a media pass on most anything.
If she is not, as suspected, having an affair with her DC consultant Tim Mynett, she did give him $230,000 from campaign funds.
Doesn’t that prove that if Mynett, whose wife has filed for divorce, isn’t her paramour, he’s at least an especially favored friend? If anyone else were suspected of being married to two different men at the same time, wouldn’t they be identified as a bigamist?
Apparently not if one can self-identify as a “woman of color”.
The tragic, provable truth about Ilhan Omar is that there’s a terrorist supporter holding a seat on the U.S. Congress
Are the mainstream and social media deliberately keeping Omar’s personal life of potential immigration fraud, being married to two men at the same time, possibly one of them her own biological brother, to divert attention away from her open support of terrorist supporters?
Cunning Artful Dodger that she is, Minnesota lawmaker Ilhan Omar is a clear and present danger fighting America from within. Mainstream and social media should quit with the their dangerous media propaganda. The tragic, provable truth about Ilhan Omar is that there’s a terrorist supporter holding a seat on the U.S. Congress.
What could possibly be any worse?
Related:
The Svengali spoon-fed Ilhan Omar & AOC
American Politicians Can’t Hide “Private Lives”, Ilhan Omar
Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us
Former Gov.Mark Sanford running for president in 2020, ” I Crossed the line”: with numerous women during my 20 year marriage, Really! And that is a resume to run for President?
-
BREAKING NEWS
Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford
announces he is running for president as a RepublicanFormer South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford announced Sunday during an interview on “Fox News Sunday” that he is running for president as a Republican, becoming the latest to challenge President Trump in the GOP primaries.
Click here for more.
-
For more news, please go to FoxNews.com and watch Fox News Channel.
-
Just what we don’t need a past governor with a recorded scandalous sexual escapade while married,
-
This sexual escapade unlike those of Trump and Justice kavanaugh (Unproven) is not speculation, or paid accusations, Sanford admitted it after his wife found out.
-
In June 2009, after an unexplained disappearance that made national headlines, Sanford publicly revealed that he had engaged in an affair with María Belén Chapur. While the scandal led to censure by the South Carolina General Assembly and to his resignation as chair of the Republican Governors Association, Sanford did complete his second term as governor.
Mark Sanford is a Snake who would want him as the President!
A real resume for the presidency of the united states, on top of his mistress in Argentina, he admitted he “crossed the line” with a handful of other women in his 20 year marriage, this guy is a sleeze!
From June 18 until June 24, 2009, the whereabouts of Sanford were unknown to the public, his wife and the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for all South Carolina governors, garnering nationwide news coverage. The absence of Governor Sanford was first reported by Jim Davenport of the Associated Press.[38][39] Lieutenant Governor André Bauer announced that he could not “take lightly that his staff has not had communication with him for more than four days, and that no one, including his own family, knows his whereabouts.”[40]
Before his disappearance, Sanford told his staff that he would be hiking on the Appalachian Trail and while he was gone he did not answer 15 cell phone calls from his chief of staff; he also failed to call his family on Father’s Day.[41]
Reporter Gina Smith, of The State, the daily newspaper of the capital city, intercepted Sanford arriving at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport on a flight from Argentina. Several hours later, after learning that incriminating evidence was being swiftly mobilized against him by the media, Sanford held a news conference, during which he admitted to adultery.[42][43]
In emotional interviews with the Associated Press over two days, Sanford said he would die “knowing that I had met my soul mate.”[44] Sanford also said that he “crossed the lines” with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage, but not as far as he did with his mistress. “There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line”, he said.[44] In 1998 during the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal Sanford had called Clinton’s extra-marital affair “reprehensible” and had urged him to resign.[45
Claws of the Red Dragon”, Hong Kong Protest & US China Trade War
Steve Bannon: New Film On Huawei—“Claws of the Red Dragon”, Hong Kong Protest & US China Trade War
Premiered Aug 24, 2019
The Best Way to Enslave the People is to Disarm Them!
The Father of the Bill of Rights Warned: The Best Way to Enslave the People is to Disarm Them!
The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government when abiding by the laws…
By Bradlee Dean:
“How many times I have broadcasted on air that you either deal lawfully with corrupt anti-gunner politicians for violating our Bill of Rights (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution), or you will be disarmed. There is no in-between. If Americans do not want to learn from history, then Americans will learn from experience in the present only to have wished that they had learned from history.” – Bradlee Dean
Have you ever wondered how it is that dictators and tyrants do what they do and how it is that they do it when it comes to having absolute control over the people (Isaiah 14:915)? Just look to the children of Israel, who were disarmed of every means to defend themselves while under absolute control by their oppressors, namely the Philistines.
Let me say that again, they had to first disarm them of their means to defend themselves against their oppressors to have absolute control. “So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan:” -1 Samuel 13:22
And so it is the reason why our forefathers established the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights because they understood this basic elementary principle.
George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, warned: “To disarm the people…was the best & most effectual way to enslave them.” Americans must understand what is happening today. Administration after administration has incrementally and systematically stripped the people of their right to bear arms with one excuse after another, if not through propaganda, then resort to brainwashing if need be.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said: “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Today, we see it is in a full-frontal attack by this current administration that is right in front of our faces to further strip law-abiding gun owners of their right to bear arms through something called “red flag laws,” which are not law! (Luke 11:21-22). “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” -Marbury vs. Madison 5 US 92 Cranch 137, 174, 176, (1803)
One must ask where these said representatives are deriving their delegated authority from in order to strip Americans of their right to bear arms? They aren’t getting it from the American people who employ them nor from any founding document. This is, in fact, foreign and subversive to American government.
Why is this government arming The IRS, DHS, VHA, OIG, SSA, NPS?
Did You Know That Your Government is Arming Agencies Like the IRS, DHS, VHA, OIG, SSA, NPS?
Friends, they are not laws no matter what they call them because they counter the Bill of Rights, which restricts the government, not “We the People.” The Constitution is not a document for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government when abiding by the laws.
These red flag laws are nothing more than the government declaring whomever they will, and at will, a threat at their own interpretation, as well as their perverted discretion (Isaiah 5:20). “Do not separate from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. “ –James Madison the 4th President of the United States
In other words, it will make it easier for those who are perverting and subverting the Constitution to weed out their political opposition. Think that may be stretching things a bit? Look to the history of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot etc…
Think of this: today, in America, when a crime is committed, the law abider is blamed for the crimes of the lawbreaker by those who are to uphold the enumerated laws (Revelation 12:10). This goes far beyond innocent until proven guilty. These subversives are not so much worried about lawbreakers such as themselves as they are worried about the law abiders because they will be the ones to resist if it becomes necessary. After all, this is whom they are attacking.
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” –President Thomas Jefferson
Remember that those who are disarming you are those who promised to uphold the law, not tear it down, which makes them outlaws and they must lawfully be removed from office (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution). If not, you will be disarmed (Luke 21:22).
Remember, friends, the US Constitution is the law of the land and not party affiliations. “The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme law of the land.” -Article 6, Section 2, US Constitution)
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights
With the two of them brought together, Samuel Adams stated: “The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” What our forefathers bestowed upon us, their posterity, was that we all learn from their experience and wisdom in addressing tyranny in their time so that we can allow the lessons to avail in our times if need be (Proverbs 15:32).
If you look to the Declaration of Independence alone, you will find that document was our forefathers’ instruction manual in throwing off a tyrant that would not be ruled by God in keeping the people free under God (2 Corinthians 3:17). How important were firearms in throwing off tyranny, simply look to the lessons that our first president George Washington had taught:
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty teeth.”
This is why Americans are armed. Lesson learned.
Alexander Hamilton stated the reason for the Second Amendment: “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” adding later, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says “the representatives of the people”?
Americans will either become the strength of the Constitution, or they will find themselves under the power and control of their oppressors just like that of the children of Israel!
******
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media. Article by Bradlee Dean.
© Copyright by Bradlee Dean, 2019. All rights reserved.
Email Bradlee: Bradlee@SonsOfLibertyRadio.com
Read More Articles by Bradlee Dean
THE BLIND ENACTMENT OF RED FLAG LAWS ISN’T THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO MASS SHOOTING
The ‘Red Flags’ Surrounding Red Flag Laws
Jeff Carlson CONTRIBUTOR
Commentary
In the wake of two recent mass shootings, calls for the enactment of red flag laws have risen exponentially. It’s perfectly understandable that so many want to do something, anything, to help prevent future tragedies such as the ones that took place in El Paso and Dayton.
But the blind enactment of red flag laws isn’t the appropriate response.
Red flag laws are effectively prevention laws that allow law enforcement and family members to petition a court to have an individual’s firearms temporarily confiscated if the person is believed to pose a danger to themselves or others.
The involuntary removal of weapons, usually done without notice, is generally for a set period of time—typically several days or weeks—until a more formal hearing can be held. At the formal hearing, the judge might rule that the ban is valid and extend the confiscation for a longer period of time, sometimes as long as a year. Or the judge might rule against the temporary order and allow the weapons to be returned to the owner.
In the event of a valid ruling, the gun owner may be forced to go to court multiple times in order to have his constitutional rights restored.
Inverting Due Process
One of the troubling issues behind such laws is the intent to “catch” people before they actually commit a crime—based on a presumption that the individual “may” commit that crime in the future. In essence, red flag laws are “pre-crime” laws, which is why they are also known as prevention laws.
And they invert our nation’s due process of “innocent until proven guilty” into something resembling “potentially guilty until proven innocent.” The intent behind red flag laws runs completely counter to the underpinnings of our legal system, which has been designed to impose punitive measures after illegal conduct has occurred, not in anticipation of it.
The idea that someone “might” be a danger, although tempting in the wake of these tragic shootings, doesn’t provide legal sufficiency to strip away an individual’s constitutional rights without the benefit of due process. Also worth asking is what, exactly, constitutes a red flag? And who gets to make that determination?
The issue of determination is a somewhat crucial question, as existing red flag laws are structured in a manner that incentivize seizure. A law enforcement officer or a presiding judge is unlikely to face any consequence for taking weapons away from someone who isn’t really a threat. But the potential public backlash from refusing to do so if something tragic was to happen would be fierce. There is an obvious inducement to err on the side of caution—even if it means a violation of that individual’s Constitutional rights.
Several state red flag laws, such as those in Oregon, allow for the temporary confiscation of weapons based solely on a brief statement from a third party who must be a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member. The affected individual isn’t given advance notice, nor is the person allowed to defend him or herself ahead of the confiscation. There is also no requirement that any illegal behavior must have occurred.
Some states allow for court petitions from parties outside of immediate family or household members and typically include mental health professionals. Hawaii goes even further, allowing for petitions to be made by medical professionals, educators, and coworkers.
Involuntary Commitment
In most cases, red flag laws have been invoked when the individual was deemed to be either a danger to themselves or to their immediate family and not because they were deemed to be posing a threat to a larger section of the populace. And there are several studies that indicate these methods have reduced suicide rates.
But this raises the question of why, if a person represents a level of danger great enough to warrant the seizure of his weapons, is he allowed to remain active in society without treatment? If an individual is deemed to be so dangerous as to require the confiscation of his weapons, surely professional treatment and some sort of custodial setting should be required.
A more useful hurdle might be a judicial determination that the individual meets the state standard for involuntary commitment and that remedy is the one that is followed. At a minimum, some mental health treatment should be requisite—and only after a due process judicial determination.
National Level
As it now stands, at least 17 states plus the District of Columbia have already enacted variants of red flag laws—known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). Most of these laws were enacted following the 2018 Parkland, Florida, shooting, although Connecticut, the first state to pass a red flag law, did so in 1999. Notably, Connecticut’s red flag laws didn’t prevent the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting tragedy from occurring.
At the national level, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act. It would allow a court to issue an ERPO following the successful court petition by a family member or law enforcement officer that would require the surrender of the targeted person’s firearms. It would also prevent the individual from purchasing guns while the court order stands.
The act also requires that the issuance of the ERPO be reported to the “appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.” Who would have access to these databases hasn’t yet been made clear, nor is it known if the listing would be permanent.
Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) announced a bill on Aug. 5 that would create a federal grant program to assist states in adopting red flag laws. According to Graham, “Many of these shootings involved individuals who showed signs of violent behavior that are either ignored or not followed up. State Red Flag laws will provide the tools for law enforcement to do something about many of these situations before it’s too late.”
Constitutional Violations
Judge Andrew Napolitano, who was asked for his opinion of the Graham-Blumenthal legislation on Fox News, provided a direct and blunt response, noting, “Honest, decent, law-abiding people should not lose their rights because some judge thinks they might do something in the future. That’s the Soviet Union model, not the American.”
Congress has long had a bad habit of enacting poorly written, responsive laws, and there is generally an inclination on the part of government to overreach. When enacted legislation and regulation fails, the nature of government is to follow up with additional laws and regulations. If the government is allowed to seize guns based on the possibility of a future crime, how long before the seizure is of one’s liberty?
Laws that deter future crimes are obviously a positive step. But laws that punish a potential future crime are not. It’s for this reason, along with a lack of due process, that many red flag laws are viewed as unconstitutional. Depending on how the law is written, there may be violations of several different constitutional amendments.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution mandate that no citizen shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” When individuals have their firearms confiscated in advance of a judicial hearing, both amendments are violated, and the individual’s Second Amendment right has been effectively converted into a privilege.
Red flag laws may violate other portions of our Constitution as well—such as the right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment) and unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment).
NRA Requirements
The NRA has written repeatedly on emergency risk protection orders (ERPOs) and has listed a series of requirements they believe should be present in any ERPO legislation in order to protect individual rights:
-
The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.
-
An order should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.
-
The process should require the judge to make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment. Where the standard for involuntary commitment is met, this should be the course of action taken.
-
If an ERPO is granted, the person should receive community-based mental health treatment as a condition of the ERPO.
-
Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
-
‘A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.
-
There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon termination of an ERPO, when a person is ordered to relinquish their firearms as a condition of the order.
-
The ERPO process should allow an individual to challenge or terminate the order, with full due process protections in place.
-
The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms as a condition of the ERPO.
-
The individual must also have the ability to sell his or her firearms in a reasonable time without violating the order.
Balanced Response
The recent tragedies are horrific and it’s understandable that our society would require some sort of response. But this shouldn’t come at the expense of our civil liberties and in a manner that violates our constitutional rights. Nor should the underlying issue of mental health and requisite care be overlooked.
As Congress and the states continue their debate, these qualifying measures listed above should receive serious discussion and inclusion in any pending legislation.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He is a CFA Charterholder and worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
ISLAMIST INDOCTRINATION FOR US KIDS, CANT TEACH CHRISTIANITY IN OUR SCHOOLS BUT THEY ALLOW THIS?
Back to School: Islamist Indoctrination for US Kids?
The new school year is upon us and Access Islam, a program backed by the Department of Education, is under fire again after being accused of being an Islamist indoctrination program.
This program claims to educate school children about religious diversity, but it is specifically geared toward Islam.
Children in grades 5 through 12 are required to learn about the Five Pillars of Islam then asked to make posters about them, read and interpret Islamic scripture from the Quran and provide examples on how Muslims implement these lessons into their everyday lives.
-
In Virginia, students in the program were required to copy the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, which declares, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”
-
In New York, students were shown videos of Islamic terrorists justifying their attacks against Israelis.
-
In Massachusetts, students were given reading materials funded by Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, which advocates for “Palestine.” While these textbooks were being used in schools, there was a rise in the amount of anti-Semitic acts committed.
It should be noted that the U.S. Department of Education backing Access Islam contradicts the United States’ stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The United States has shown public support for Israel and does not recognize a country called “Palestine.” How can the U.S. publicly support Israel while simultaneously support anti-Israel ideologies being taught in its public schools?
There is a certain point where education transforms into indoctrination, in this case, Islamist indoctrination. Many people have accused Access Islam of crossing this line, based on the fact that no other religion is taught this thoroughly, if at all, in American public schools and with no critical eye.
In fact, no other religious program of this scale has been backed by the U.S. Department of Education.
Moreover, in states where the program is taught, it is not offered as an elective course, but rather a required subject. The program is not even taught in religious studies classes (which most American public schools do not offer).
Students encounter Access Islam lesson in their mandatory classes, such as history and geography.
There have been multiple cases of parents requesting that their child receive an alternative assignment, but their requests have been refused. Children are told they will receive a failing grade if they do not complete the Access Islam assignments.
There has been a nationwide outrage against this program in recent years and with a new school year about to start, it is important to get all the facts out.
Access Islam is more of an Islamist indoctrination program than an educational program. It lacks the objectivity required to legally implement a program of this manner in our public schools.
Watch videos from the Access Islam curriculum (more videos from the program can be found by clicking here):
Exiled Chinese Billionaire’s Accusations of China (w/ Guo Wengui & Kyle Bass)
Published on Aug 27, 2019
WOW! Watch Term Limits Advocate SHRED Congress!
Published on Jun 27, 2019
