Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Super Bowl MVP Nick Foles wore a small tribute to Jesus during game
Many thought the Philadelphia Eagles’ season was over when Carson Wentz was lost for the season in Week 14.
But Nick Foles took over and led the Eagles to four wins in his five starts, including two playoff victories that got Philadelphia to the Super Bowl.
Now Foles has shocked the world, throwing for 373 yards and three touchdowns as his team stunned the favored New England Patriots and Tom Brady.
Foles, who is an outspoken Christian like many of his teammates, chose to wear a special wristband during the game to use his platform for the Gospel.
Foles, who is an outspoken Christian like many of his teammates, chose to wear a special wristband during the game to use his platform for the Gospel.
Nick Foles with a wwjd bracelet on right now...great manNick Foles rocking the WWJD bracelet most people stopped wearing in the 90's... Good on him. #UniWatch @PhilHecken
The six-year veteran was clearly seen wearing a “WWJD” bracelet on his right wrist.
The slogan stands for “What would Jesus do?” — a question many believers ask themselves in trying to act out their faith.
The slogan stands for “What would Jesus do?” — a question many believers ask themselves in trying to act out their faith.
Foles’ wristband drew comparisons to Tim Tebow’s “John 3:16” eye black he wore during the NCAA football championship game.
The Super Bowl is the most watched TV spectacle in the country. The eight most-watched shows of all time are all Super Bowls, with the No. 1 program being Super Bowl XLIX in 2015 when the Patriots beat the Seahawks 28-24. That game was viewed by 114.4 million people.
That means that Foles just potentially exposed more than 100 million people across the country to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Foles, who outlined that he wanted to become a pastor after his playing days are over, gave the Eagles a huge morale boost in the locker room and on the field as he helped dethrone the Patriots dynasty for the time being.
The Eagles, being the underdog, stormed into Minneapolis and beat the Patriots 41-33.
Congrats to Nick Foles and the rest of his teammates on giving the Eagles first Super Bowl win ever and their first NFL championship since 1960.
NFL Colts Linebacker Allegedly Killed by Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Drunk Driver
by BOB PRICE
Photos: Indianapolis Colts/Indiana State PoliceColts Linebacker Edwin Jackson and his driver were allegedly killed by a drunk driving, previously deported illegal alien Sunday morning near Indianapolis. The suspect fled the scene on foot after crashing into their vehicle. Indiana State Police officers arrested the reported driver later that morning.
Police arrested a man who identified himself as Alex Cabrera Gonsales, a 37-year-old Mexican national, after he allegedly crashed his black Ford F-150 into a car parked along Interstate 70 near Indianapolis, according to a statement obtained from the Indiana State Police. The driver of the car, 54-year-old Jeffrey Monroe, and his passenger, 26-year-old Indianapolis Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson, were both killed in the crash.
Indianapolis Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson. (Photo: Indianapolis Colts)Detectives discovered the driver gave police false information about his identity. Investigators said the man’s name is actually Manuel Orrego-Savala, a citizen of Guatemala. A background investigation revealed Orrego-Savala has been deported from the United States on two previous occasions. The first deportation occurred in 2007. This was followed by a second deportation in 2009.
Manuel Orrego-Savala is charged with the death of NFL linebacker Edwin Jackson and his driver. (Photo: Indiana State Police)Police believe Monroe was a rideshare operator who picked up Jackson and was taking him home. Monroe apparently pulled his car over to the shoulder to assist Jackson who had become ill. Shortly after that, the truck driven by Orrego-Savala crashed into the back of the car.
Statements from the state police indicate that both victims were outside of their 2018 Lincoln when the crash occurred. The impact threw one of the victims into the center lane of the highway where he was later struck by another vehicle. The coroner’s office pronounced both victims dead at the scene of the crash.
Orrego-Savala reportedly fled the scene on foot but state police troopers found him a short distance away from the scene of the crash and took him into custody. Orrego-Savala had no drivers license, officials stated.
Breitbart Texas reached out to ICE officials to determine if Orrego-Savala has any additional immigration history. A response was not available by the time of this publication.
Jackson, nicknamed “Pound Cake,” recently completed his second season with the Indianapolis Colts.
The Colts said Jackson “loved the game of football and we’re thankful to have been a part of his journey,” in a tweet responding to the news of Jackson’s death.
Dick Morris: No-Brainer – Hillary Wrote the Anti-Trump Dossier
We know that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee gave negative research firm Fusion GPS over $1 million to find evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump had colluded with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to fix the 2016 election.
But how deeply involved was the former secretary of state in preparing the dossier that emerged?
If you believe that Hillary would pay an organization like Fusion GPS and not oversee every last detail of their work, you don’t know Hillary Clinton.
She is obsessive, particularly when it comes to negatives to use against a political opponent. She and I used to worry over every word in our negative attacks in Arkansas and against former Sen. Bob Dole in the 1996 election.
Have no doubts: This dossier was, as we know, funded by Hillary and, therefore, it was almost certainly written under Hillary’s minute and forceful supervision. No freelancing allowed.
If the Clinton campaign was funding it and Cody Shearer was involved in preparing it, you have to know that Hillary Clinton was running this project personally — although, of course, secretly.
This dossier was conceived, funded, mapped out, written and peddled to the media in Hillaryland. It’s not Christopher Steele’s dossier. It’s not Glen Simpson’s or Fusion’s or even Cody Shearer’s. They are the hired help. It was and is Hillary Clinton’s handiwork.
As the campaign against Trump stalled out, Hillary grew desperate. Her standard negatives weren’t working. Trump’s divorces, tax returns, bankruptcies, his university “scam” were all not working. He was nipping at her heels in the polls and his negative ratings had not yet knocked him out of contention.
So Hillary brought in her big guns — the black ops, secret police, detectives she had kept around ever since she first used them to besmirch women whose charges of sexual harassment, groping and even rape were hindering Bill’s rise to power. Now, under the direction of Cody Shearer, she put them to work digging up material to “prove” that Trump was in league with Putin.
But, there was one problem: He wasn’t. Even her top operative came up empty, so she resorted to Plan B: She made up the “facts.”
She put Trump in a hotel room in Moscow with hookers. She fantasized that Mike Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, went to Prague to set up the collaboration with the Russians. She included every rumor and fiction she had to to make the story of collusion stick.
But she couldn’t release it under Cody’s name. It was radioactive. He was involved in a scam relating to the Cheyenne-Arapaho indian tribe that had been induced to give the Democratic Party $100,000 in the hopes that the government would intervene in a drilling rights dispute on tribal land. He was also implicated in taking money from Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to arrange his surrender to the International War Crimes Tribunal. It turned out to be a scam as well.
So Hillary hunted for a more reputable source to whom she could attribute the dossier, preferably one who would be treated respectfully by the FBI. She found one in Christopher Steele, a former British spy in Moscow who went on to lead the MI-6 Russia bureau.
Having worked on the international soccer scandal with the FBI, Steele was trusted at the Bureau and credible with the media. So, by Steele’s admission, he met with Shearer, who provided him with much of the material in the dossier. Then, under Steele’s name, it was peddled to the media.
This dossier has Hillary’s fingerprints all over it. It was, simply, a campaign document — no more, no less — that unfortunately sent the FISA Court and the FBI and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller off on a wild goose chase to find evidence that Trump had colluded with Putin to fix the election.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
Dick Morris: Now We Know Why Dossier Authors Needed McCain To Get Anti-Trump Dossier To Comey
It was always hard to understand why dossier author Christopher Steele needed someone else to transmit his phony dossier to FBI Director James Comey.After all, shortly before the election, Steele told David Corn of Mother Jones that “he regularly consulted with th U.S. government agencies on Russian matters.” He informed Corn that he had given the FBI the first memo in the dossier and characterized the FBI’s reaction as “shock and horror.”
According to Steele, the FBI then asked for his sources and materials, so it would seem like he wouldn’t need an intermediary to hand the full dossier to Comey.
But now we know that all was not well with the relationship between Steele and the FBI.
In fact, the FBI had fired him for discussing his role with them and for reporting confidential material to the media.
So, apparently, Comey wouldn’t be taking his calls.
But the pro-Clinton/anti-Trump people didn’t let that stop them. They kept Steele’s termination to themselves. Then they searched for a highly respected person to lend credibility to the dossier and deliver it to Comey.
But the pro-Clinton/anti-Trump people didn’t let that stop them. They kept Steele’s termination to themselves. Then they searched for a highly respected person to lend credibility to the dossier and deliver it to Comey.
Enter John McCain.
McCain was the perfect target for delivering the anti-Trump document. He despised Trump for several reasons. First, he hated him for Trump’s public disparagement of his years as a POW. Trump said McCain wasn’t a hero because he had been captured.
Understandably, McCain, who suffered lifelong disabilities after his years of torture, was upset. In addition, as a strong supporter of the pro-Western forces in the Ukraine, McCain was shocked by Trump’s pro-Russian statements and hiring of Paul Manafort, a long-time consultant to the Russian puppet in the Ukraine.
The dossier folks went into action. At a conference on national security in Nova Scotia, McCain was approached by Sir Andrew Wood, a former U.K. ambassador to Russia, who was secretly working with Steele. Wood briefed McCain on the dossier — although he claimed had not seen it. Wood claimed he was worried that Trump might be vulnerable to bribery if the allegations were true.
Then a cloak and dagger James Bond-like operation was put in place and a McCain associate visited Steele to get the dossier. It was sent by encrypted fax to Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, co-author of the dossier, who gave it to the McCain associate.
Then McCain set up a meeting with Comey.
Initially, McCain denied that he had the dossier, but he soon changed his story and admitted that he had been given the dossier. Within a few days, he met with James Comey and gave him the dossier. It was then summarized and given to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump. And then, of course, it was leaked and published by BUZZFEED.
That was the goal — to get it out in public to try to destroy Trump.
No mention of the firing of Steele. No mention of Hillary Clinton funding it. No mention that the allegations could not be verified.
The Clintons had succeeded in getting the lurid and phony allegations out in public — even if it was too late for the election. They had produced and commissioned the dossier, paid for it and arranged for it to go into the public domain.
Steele’s termination by the FBI was just a bump in the road.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
Dick Morris: Judge Kicked Off Flynn Case Issued the FISA Warrant to Spy on Carter Page
According to “two sources familiar with the material that underlies the Memo published by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday” (and printed in the blog Offended America), the judge — Rudolph Contreras — who granted the warrant in the FISA Court to wiretap Carter Page, was removed from presiding over he case of Mike Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor.
While it is not uncommon for a judge to recuse himself from a case due to conflicts of some sort, it is very unusual for a judge to be recused from a case by his judicial supervisors.
The wording of the District Court’s announcement that Contraras “was recused” suggests that it was not his decision to remove him from control of the Flynn case.
Since the case against Mike Flynn may well rest, in part, on information gleaned from wiretaps authorized by FISA warrants, it is easy to understand why Contraras’ superiors might have made the decision to take him off the case.
But given how unusual it is for a judge to be removed from a case, rather than leave voluntarily, the public has a right to know why he was recused.
The court did not offer a reason and just said he was “randomly reassigned” to other cases.
That Contraras did not see the need to recuse himself is stunning.
He would, as Flynn’s judge, evaluate evidence he had authorized the FBI to collect when he approved the warrant.
Clearly, a conflict of interest.
We deserve to know why he was removed from the Flynn case and why he did not feel it necessary to recuse himself.
While it is not uncommon for a judge to recuse himself from a case due to conflicts of some sort, it is very unusual for a judge to be recused from a case by his judicial supervisors.
The wording of the District Court’s announcement that Contraras “was recused” suggests that it was not his decision to remove him from control of the Flynn case.
Since the case against Mike Flynn may well rest, in part, on information gleaned from wiretaps authorized by FISA warrants, it is easy to understand why Contraras’ superiors might have made the decision to take him off the case.
But given how unusual it is for a judge to be removed from a case, rather than leave voluntarily, the public has a right to know why he was recused.
The court did not offer a reason and just said he was “randomly reassigned” to other cases.
That Contraras did not see the need to recuse himself is stunning.
He would, as Flynn’s judge, evaluate evidence he had authorized the FBI to collect when he approved the warrant.
Clearly, a conflict of interest.
We deserve to know why he was removed from the Flynn case and why he did not feel it necessary to recuse himself.
Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller has, in the meantime, moved to delay the Flynn sentencing, a development that may or may not be linked to Contraras’ removal.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
If You Love Law Enforcement, You Must Criticize FBI Corruption
Strong and effective law enforcement must not unfairly deprive American citizens of their rights.
By Mollie Hemingway
By Mollie Hemingway
Many people in the media have jointly arrived at the same talking point. They say that criticizing the bad actions of specific people at the top ranks of a law enforcement agency mean you’re at war with all law enforcement.
Politico‘s headline for this talking point was “Trump escalates his war with U.S. law enforcement after memo release.” “Once the party of law and order, Republicans are now challenging it,” said the Washington Post. The New York Times went with “The President’s Unparalleled War on Law Enforcement.”
TV pundits and hosts have used the same talking point. It’s a convenient way to avoid talking about abuses revealed by congressional overseers in a recent memo filled with facts not in dispute by the FBI.
But is it possible to criticize a law enforcement agency without warring against the very existence of a law enforcement agency? Obviously it is. The notion that it isn’t possible is illogical and utterly bizarre, bordering on mendacious. And The New York Times knows this. Here’s yesterday’s front page of its final edition:
Note the big picture, headline, and story in the center of the front page, above the fold of the newspaper. The story, “Molested as F.B.I. Case Plodded for a Year,” dramatically details serious problems at the FBI that led to the sexual abuse of dozens of girls.
In Sunday morning’s New York Timesnewsletter, it was the top news story. It says the FBI’s inquiry into horrific abuse of young girls by an athletic doctor “moved with little evident urgency” and that the result was 40 girls who said the doctor molested them during the time of the inquiry. Some are among the youngest of his 265 accusers.
The critique of the FBI’s handling of an investigation is heartbreaking. Families who reported abuse waited a year to be interviewed by the FBI. Problems stretched over multiple offices and locations.
No reasonable person would think that highlighting problems at the FBI as it relates to inquiries into the abuse of children means that The New York Times is at war with the FBI. The paper might be neutral about the FBI, but an argument could easily be made that the paper’s emphasis on rooting out delays and mismanagement there improves law enforcement at the agency, not hurts it.
But the newsletter’s second top story, then, also appeared on the front page. “Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement” was about how Trump responded to House Republicans’ report of serious and unprecedented abuse of power at the agency by calling it “disgraceful.” They would prefer him to praise the agency for its abuse of power, apparently. Note the juxtaposition of The New York Times’ two top articles in the daily newsletter:
We can criticize the FBI, but if you do it, you are at war with law enforcement.
The report, which is causing alarm for millions of Americans who are not inside newsrooms or otherwise obsessed with destroying Donald Trump, is based on a lengthy investigation. It shows that the FBI took information it knew originated and was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to secure a wiretap on a Trump campaign affiliate. The report says the FBI hid the provenance of the information from the court, claimed it was corroborated by citing a news article that was itself sourced to the same campaign operation, and declined four separate opportunities to be truthful about this.
The memo further says that the author of the document was biased in the extreme against the target of his dossier, was terminated for dishonesty from working with the FBI, and that the document was unverified throughout the wiretapping process. The memo further details how a high-ranking Department of Justice official was funneling information from his wife, who was also paid by the Clinton campaign operation, but that this information was also withheld from the court that granted the wiretap.
Apart from the House Republican memo, at least six people at the FBI and Department of Justice have been demoted or fired for mishandling their duties, including the above high-ranking official Bruce Ohr, a chief investigator of the Russia probe Peter Strzok, and the FBI’s deputy Andrew McCabe.
That’s the reality, but here’s how the Democratic talking points are provided in a supposed news story written by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa in the Washington Post:
Republican leaders’ open defiance last week of the FBI over the release of a hotly disputed memo revealed how the GOP, which has long positioned itself as the party of law and order, has become an adversary of federal law enforcement as the party continues its quest to protect President Trump from the Russia investigation.
The FBI, the Justice Department and other agencies are now under concerted assault by Republicans, facing allegations of corruption and conspiracy that have quickly moved from the fringes of the right into the mainstream of the GOP.
I somehow don’t remember the Washington Post or other newspapers disparaging the victims of abuse at the hands of Catholic priests as hypocrites because they faithfully attend or attended Mass. I don’t remember them worrying about institutional power as they took on the powerful church and gave themselves awards and made movies out of their valiant struggle. I don’t remember them disparaging the notion of widespread abuse as a fringe conspiracy theory. Funny, isn’t it.
Being for law and order does not mean being for any abuse of authority that you come across any more than being a faithful Catholic means tolerating institutional rot in that church. How many movies are made that feature a bad cop? Does this make these movies anti-cop? Frequently the people fighting the bad cops are also cops.
Speaking as someone who has worked on this abuse of power story for more than a year — here’s one of my first articles from January 2017, headlined “Top Level Intel Officers’ War On Donald Trump Is Bad For The Country” — the vast majority of my sources and contacts for stories about abuse of power in law enforcement and intelligence agencies are themselves currently or formerly in law enforcement and intelligence. They’re not only not at war with their agencies, but proud of them and strongly interested in their reputations.
Support for law enforcement that doesn’t care about abuse of power is not support of law enforcement at all. Law enforcement is one of the most powerful professions around. We allow law enforcement officers to deprive citizens of their freedom, their privacy, and their property. We authorize them to use physical force against citizens. We attempt to require law enforcement officers to follow strict rules and guidance governing their actions, and we monitor the abuse of these powers against citizens. When cops, law enforcement, or intelligence agents misuse their power, we attempt to root it out and punish it. This is important for the morale and others’ good judgment, and for the trust that the people should have in institutions of authority.
For Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, it’s even more important that the government be beyond reproach. That’s because these courts are secret and the targets of the court’s decisions do not have representation, by nature of the secrecy involved. Our government is required to present information fully, so the American citizens who are deprived of their rights are not targeted unfairly.
Failing to include information that any reasonable judge would need is a violation of civil rights. Apparently some in the Twitterverse and in the media think it’s fun to laugh that off, but being deprived of life, liberty, or property because a court that gives you no right to defend yourself didn’t receive all the relevant information is not funny.
To mock the push for transparency, accountability, and protection of civil liberties as a “war on law enforcement” is scandalous and untrue, and it must stop. It is a stupid argument made by partisan hacks.
The media may think it’s okay to disparage attempts to hold the FBI accountable because all rules are off during the Trump era, but they are wrong. They may think they’re just mocking Trump, or many people’s representatives in Congress, but the message is heard also by the tens of millions of other people who believe the government should not unfairly deprive American citizens of their rights.
For a media class that says it cares so much about democracy not dying in darkness, and the rules and norms that hold civil society together, they sure have an interesting way of demonstrating that.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Trump Isn’t A Conservative—And That’s A Good Thing
As the president’s actions have shown, he is at war with the progressives who have co-opted American society — and is willing to go further than any previous conservative to defeat them.
By Frank Cannon
By Frank Cannon
President Trump is often criticized by detractors on both sides of the political spectrum for his willingness to attack our nation’s institutions. Whether it be the FBI, the NFL, or even CNN, no “nonpartisan” institution has been spared. This has bothered many, especially elite conservatives, who have great respect for these long-standing institutions and believe them to be the bedrock of our republic.
This betrays a fundamental naïveté — that these institutions are somehow above reproach and not subject to the same infectious politicization to which the rest of society has succumbed. That assertion, of course, is ridiculous on its face.
As most conservatives outside the beltway understand, and as President Trump’s voters surely understood in the 2016 election, progressives have successfully captured the vast majority of our nation’s institutions, distorting them to serve their own ends. Although many of these institutions — academia, the media, entertainment, legal and judicial — once stood above politics in serving all Americans, most have now surrendered to progressives’ relentless push to turn every area of civil society into a propaganda arm for their politics.
Prior to Trump, elite conservative leaders generally accommodated to this progressive framework. Because of their reverence for our nation’s institutions and the traditional sense of the appropriateness of the constitutional system, conservatives largely limited their attacks against institutions to the rhetorical and the ideological. The idea of calling the entire legitimacy of specific institutions into question, however, was beyond the pale.
An Anti-Progressive, Not a Conservative
In this respect, Trump is no conservative. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Trump never claimed to be a student of Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley. But as the president’s actions have shown, he is at war with the progressives who have co-opted American civil society — and is willing to go further than any previous conservative to defeat them.
Instead of “conservative,” the president would be more accurately described as a radical “anti-progressive.” The difference? Conservatives are willing to attack progressives — to a point — but never to the detriment of the institutions they cherish and respect. Playing by these rules, conservatives are doomed to fail as progressives, who do not share the same respect for institutions, capture and dominate every American institution with the full intention of using and abusing them.
But, like the progressives, Trump doesn’t playby these ridiculous rules designed to keep conservatives stuck in a perpetual state of losing — a made-for-CNN version of the undefeated Harlem Globetrotters versus the winless Washington Generals. Trump instead seeks to fight and delegitimize any institution the Left has captured, and rebuild it from the ground up.
It should be stressed, though, that contrary to the contentions of some #NeverTrump conservatives, Trump’s attacks are not intended specifically for our nation’s bedrock institutions themselves. Rather, Trump is attacking the progressive capture of those institutions and the distortion of their true purposes. Let’s take a look at a few examples.
The News Media and Sports
Consider the president’s war on “fake news.” This is perhaps the most prominent example of this attempted delegitimization. Although the president has been frequently accused by elites of both parties of attempting to undermine the freedom of the press, he is not targeting the concept of free press itself but rather the systematic bias that has emerged as a result of progressive media dominance.
For years, groups like the Media Research Center and others have pointed out the mainstream media’s prejudicial treatment of conservative ideas and leaders. However, Trump has been the first president — indeed, the first significant political leader on the Right — to take on the media directly for this bias (and win).
Or consider Trump’s attacks on the NFL, easily America’s most successful and popular sports league. “Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag, and Country?” Trump tweeted back in Octoberamidst the anthem kneeling controversy.
Many conservative pundits speculated that battling the NFL might be too big a fight, even for Trump. Others argued it was beneath the office of the presidency. They were, of course, wrong. Picking a fight with the NFL was exactly the right tactic at exactly the right time, especially as corporate boardrooms across the country were drifting more and more to the Left.
Despite its fan base including a large portion of conservatives, in 2016, the NFL effectively acted as a campaign arm for the radical transgender movement, threatening North Carolina and other states with punitive economic action if they didn’t adopt the leftist social policies. In 2017, the NFL went even further, refusing to discipline (and even implicitly supporting) player protests of the American flag and national anthem.
In this context Trump’s aggression against the NFL ought to be read not as an assault on the league itself but rather on its misguided attempts to prop up the progressive agenda.
The Judicial System
Finally, there are Trump’s attacks on the legal and judicial system, in the form of comments against the FBI, the Department of Justice, and various activist judges who have obstructed his agenda. As I wrote recently at Townhall, recent revelations have called into question the trustworthiness of the FBI and other legal enforcement institutions, suggesting the presence of a “deep state” that has attempted to undermine Trump since the 2016 campaign.
Meanwhile, the judicial system has also increasingly overstepped and abused its authority, inserting itself into the policymaking process that ought to be the purview of the other branches of government. While Trump’s pushback against this has been often crass and imprecise, the concerns he raises are valid. They are not attacks on the legal system itself or judicial independence, as some of his critics argue, but rather on the manipulation of these institutions by progressives attempting to accomplish their own ends.
For decades, progressives have sought to capture America’s institutions to marginalize conservatives and shut down conservatives ideas. Prior to Trump, they were largely successful in doing that. Now they are facing an existential threat to the future of their movement — a Republican president who is willing to get in the mud, break a few rules (that previously only applied to Republicans anyway), and do whatever it takes to win.
Anti-progressivism is taking root in both Trump’s judicial and political appointments and his policies. Progressives intuitively understand this, which is why they feel so compelled to “resist.” Indeed, if they fail to defeat Trump, they may find themselves on the wrong side of history after all.
Frank Cannon is the president of American Principles Project. Follow him on Twitter @FrankCannonAPP.
Photo White House / Wikimedia
TRUMP ATTORNEYS APPROVE SECOND SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PROBE FBI & DOJ
Fallout over FISA memo continues for Deep State
Fallout over FISA memo continues for Deep State
The war between the White House and the FBI/DOJ complex may be turning nuclear.While speaking to reported aboard Air Force 1, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said that President Trump’s attorneys have already approved the idea of appointing a second special counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department’s actions during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to White House pool reports.
The excerpt from the pool in question:
*FISA warrant should it be released? and what about a second special counsel?
***
Presidents attorneys have addressed this and said yes to a second special counsel.
FISA: That document along with any other that the House Intelligence Committee chooses to vote out of its committee through its process and all the House procedures, we would entertain like anything else.
As Axios adds, Shah also said that the White House will approach further memos, including the one created by Democrats, in the same way they handled the memo authored by Devin Nunes:
“Which is to allow for a legal review, national security review led by the White House Counsel’s Office, and then within five days the president will make a decision about declassifying it,” said Shah.
And another highlight from the gaggle summarized by Axios:
Trump’s tweet calling Rep. Adam Schiff a leaker: “We don’t really see any reason why anybody else would leak his information other than partisan political stunts by Adam Schiff and other members of the minority.”
Defending Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957)
Diana West
When Sen. Joseph McCarthy died, shockingly, at the age of 48, he, his aides and his committee had identified at least fifty Soviet agents, ideological communists and Fifth Amendment pleaders, dedicated to the overthrow of our constitutional system, and loyal/sympathetic to Stalin, Mao and a new wave of genocidal dictators. (Indeed, here are two more.)
It was the late M. Stanton Evans, America's greatest McCarthy expert, author of Blacklisted by History, who created the table of fifty, drawing proofs from personal papers, declassified FBI memos, congressional archives, intercepted Soviet communications, defector testimonies, and the like.
He wrote:
Looking at this mass of materials and matching them up with McCarthy’s cases, the main thing to be noted is a recurring pattern of verification. Time and again, we see the suspects named by McCarthy and/or his committee–treated at the time as hapless victims–revealed in official records as what McCarthy and company said they were–except, in the typical instance, a good deal more so.
To normal Americans, some large number of Deplorables among them, this probably sounds like a monumental record of accomplishment for a US Senator, who, while beating back the media-political-complex of the 1950s seeking to destroy him (as they did), upheld his oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." If this is not a record elected officials today would do well to emulate I don't know what is.
However, after more than 60 years of "McCarthyism" -- the perpetual slander of Joseph McCarthy as a "witch-hunter," as opposed to an honest accounting of this fearless investigator of deep and widespread infiltration of the US government by Stalin's secret agents, which had become a virtual Soviet intelligence army occupation of FDR's Washington by the time of World War II -- Americans have been conditioned to react entirely differently. We are supposed to hate, loathe and revile McCarthy. This not only does grievous injury to a great patriot gone six decades, it imperils the safety of our nation today. The slander of "McCarthyism," wielded like a cudgel, has had the dire effect of bludgeoning our abilities to detect or even acknowledge the existence of any constitutional enemies, especially "domestic."
To avoid triggering foaming denunciations and tribal acts of ostracism over "McCarthyism," Americans have become hard-wired not to understand and not to identify and not to tell the truth about the enemy, any enemy, any threat, in order to remain in fluffly-good standing with the flock. Every now and then, a free-thinker comes along -- former Rep. Michele Bachmann comes to mind for her eminently responsible and national-security-minded efforts to ensure that Muslim Brotherhood agents were not penetrating the government policy-making chain. The Keepers of "McCarthyism" roasted Bachmann alive as the second coming of Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Remaining sheep shuddered and closed ranks.
Until we get McCarthy right -- and by "right," I mean by overthrowing the strategic destruction of his persona and evaluating his record rationally and with fidelity to the record -- we are not going to be able to repulse and survive the ideological assaults on our nation -- and nation's character.
I was put in mind to post these thoughts amid the latest cries of "McCarthyism" on the Right.
The excerpt from the pool in question:
*FISA warrant should it be released? and what about a second special counsel?
***
Presidents attorneys have addressed this and said yes to a second special counsel.
FISA: That document along with any other that the House Intelligence Committee chooses to vote out of its committee through its process and all the House procedures, we would entertain like anything else.
As Axios adds, Shah also said that the White House will approach further memos, including the one created by Democrats, in the same way they handled the memo authored by Devin Nunes:
“Which is to allow for a legal review, national security review led by the White House Counsel’s Office, and then within five days the president will make a decision about declassifying it,” said Shah.
And another highlight from the gaggle summarized by Axios:
Trump’s tweet calling Rep. Adam Schiff a leaker: “We don’t really see any reason why anybody else would leak his information other than partisan political stunts by Adam Schiff and other members of the minority.”
Defending Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957)
Diana West
When Sen. Joseph McCarthy died, shockingly, at the age of 48, he, his aides and his committee had identified at least fifty Soviet agents, ideological communists and Fifth Amendment pleaders, dedicated to the overthrow of our constitutional system, and loyal/sympathetic to Stalin, Mao and a new wave of genocidal dictators. (Indeed, here are two more.)
It was the late M. Stanton Evans, America's greatest McCarthy expert, author of Blacklisted by History, who created the table of fifty, drawing proofs from personal papers, declassified FBI memos, congressional archives, intercepted Soviet communications, defector testimonies, and the like.
He wrote:
Looking at this mass of materials and matching them up with McCarthy’s cases, the main thing to be noted is a recurring pattern of verification. Time and again, we see the suspects named by McCarthy and/or his committee–treated at the time as hapless victims–revealed in official records as what McCarthy and company said they were–except, in the typical instance, a good deal more so.
To normal Americans, some large number of Deplorables among them, this probably sounds like a monumental record of accomplishment for a US Senator, who, while beating back the media-political-complex of the 1950s seeking to destroy him (as they did), upheld his oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." If this is not a record elected officials today would do well to emulate I don't know what is.
However, after more than 60 years of "McCarthyism" -- the perpetual slander of Joseph McCarthy as a "witch-hunter," as opposed to an honest accounting of this fearless investigator of deep and widespread infiltration of the US government by Stalin's secret agents, which had become a virtual Soviet intelligence army occupation of FDR's Washington by the time of World War II -- Americans have been conditioned to react entirely differently. We are supposed to hate, loathe and revile McCarthy. This not only does grievous injury to a great patriot gone six decades, it imperils the safety of our nation today. The slander of "McCarthyism," wielded like a cudgel, has had the dire effect of bludgeoning our abilities to detect or even acknowledge the existence of any constitutional enemies, especially "domestic."
To avoid triggering foaming denunciations and tribal acts of ostracism over "McCarthyism," Americans have become hard-wired not to understand and not to identify and not to tell the truth about the enemy, any enemy, any threat, in order to remain in fluffly-good standing with the flock. Every now and then, a free-thinker comes along -- former Rep. Michele Bachmann comes to mind for her eminently responsible and national-security-minded efforts to ensure that Muslim Brotherhood agents were not penetrating the government policy-making chain. The Keepers of "McCarthyism" roasted Bachmann alive as the second coming of Joseph Raymond McCarthy. Remaining sheep shuddered and closed ranks.
Until we get McCarthy right -- and by "right," I mean by overthrowing the strategic destruction of his persona and evaluating his record rationally and with fidelity to the record -- we are not going to be able to repulse and survive the ideological assaults on our nation -- and nation's character.
I was put in mind to post these thoughts amid the latest cries of "McCarthyism" on the Right.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/02/www_6.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment