Category Archives: Donald Trump

The Spooks Attack

Standard

A house divided cannot stand. Jesus provided that sage observation when he spoke of the impossibility and the stupidness of the Pharisaical contention that he was exorcising the possessed and healing the infirm and sick on behalf of the Devil.

Former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn resigned less than a month into President Donald Trump’s administration. He resigned, not because of the leaks of his conversations with Russian diplomats nor anything he said to them, but because he did not provide a full or accurate account of his conversations to Vice-President Mike Pence, who went on national television to defend him.

For that, Flynn deserved to resign. My hope is that he will return to a place in the Trump Administration down the road. He is a quality military and intelligence professional who can still serve his country.

The country is not served, however, by the leaks the spooks in the NSA and elsewhere are deliberately spilling to reporters, leaks of the work by the administration’s top intelligence and military and cabinet officials, of even the president and his private conversations. The leaks are deliberate lawbreaking by the people who resent President Trump’s critique of their poor work the last 16 years. More importantly, they are leaks by the new Devil in town, the Devil who spews the anti-American ideology of globalism, elitism, political correctness, and privacy deprivation permanently staked out among the establishments of the Left and the Right.

For simplicity, I will refer to them as the globalists, but know that what I mean are the anti-American ideologues of globalism, elitism, PC, and privacy deprivation. Their house is undivided by minor differences in Left and Right.

On the other hand, they have divided our American house, and they are hellbent on continuing to divide it and every other house in the world until they have cut off and crushed the opposition to their goals: a global, two-class system dominated by the elites, an undiluted diversity that becomes a uni-versity and an undiluted multicultural muck whose only feature is its complete lack of distinction, an underclass the elites stimulate and control for their benefit, disallowing thoughts outside of their notions of political and social correctness, an underclass completely naked to their proddings.

It’s a horrifying thought, but it is time for Americans to consider whether they own their country or not, whether the Constitution means anything or not, because the globalists have no intention of adhering to it. None. The Constitution stands in their way.

My sense is our country is divided beyond repair. Americanism and globalism cannot coexist. Globalism, especially under the former president, represents a ceding of all we have held dear to the perversions of diversity and multiculturalism. If I were to visit Korea, I would want to experience the Korean culture. If I were to visit Morocco, I would want to experience the Moroccan culture, etc. I don’t want either of them coming here and changing our American culture. I love our English heritage, I cherish it, even though I am half Hispanic and Catholic, and I want that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture to continue, not get lost in some amorphous muck.

So this is where we are: the globalists within the intelligence community, the lovers of Clinton and Islamic terror and greedy mega-corporations and media who lie to the American public, especially the self-hating white people among them, betraying the president and his officials for their political agenda.

The FBI should find and root out every single one of those soulless, traitorous bastards and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. They act as if the voters made a mistake, and they want to correct that mistake, just like the folks in 1984. These are dark, ominous days, and in the darkness the political spooks and bureaucrats have found a way to begin their coup d’etat.

The globalists aren’t going to stop. We must stop them. Keep the faith, my fellow citizens, in God, in your neighbor, and in your American way!

Why the 9th Circuit Panel of Political Judges Is Wrong

Standard

Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s suspension of President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven Middle Eastern and African countries. I have been contending, as have others, that under the Constitution the appeal court had no business interfering with the executive functions of the presidency. The appeal court’s motivations were political. Is that true or just partisan bluster?

Here are some resources for readers to use to confirm my position, which I believe reflects our Constitution.

1. The Constitution invests the president with the power to execute the laws and the acts of the Congress (Article II, Sec. 1; Article II, Sec. 3).

2. The Constitution names the president Commander in Chief and invests him with the power over our armed forces (Article II, Sec. 2), i.e., our common defence (our Founding Fathers used the British spelling). The president’s role as Commander in Chief bears the burden of the work of those armed services and the diplomatic efforts (Article II, Sec. 2) to “execute” (i.e., to pursue or perform to completion) the overarching purposes of the Constitution: a. “form a more perfect union”, b. “establish Justice”, c. “insure domestic Tranquility”, d. “provide for the common defence”, e. “promote the general Welfare”, f. “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity… (Preamble).”

To whom do those overarching purposes apply? The Preamble answers that those purposes apply to “We the People of the United States”, who gave their consent to be governed thusly. Does the Constitution mandate that people who are not citizens of the United States be covered by those purposes? No, it does not. If the federal branches of government were to operate in such a manner as to treat foreigners as if those overarching purposes applied to them, such operation would contravene the specific definition made by the Constitution.

Constitutional rights can be implied by virtue of the language, tenor, and pattern of thought transmitted by the Constitution. We know the Founding Fathers did not want to enumerate every right of a citizen for fear that the absence of mention would be taken to mean a right did not exist. However, the possessors of those rights cannot be implied. The possessors are “we the people of the United States”, i.e., citizens. Slaves cannot. Foreigners cannot. When slaves were liberated and confirmed liberated by amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, the Constitution was changed and blacks became citizens, as they should have been from the start. The Constitution only makes citizens of those born and naturalized into the United States, ergo, Constitutional rights only pertain to them. Analysis by a writer on redstate.com not only misses this key point, but is faulty. The writer desired to justify the reasoning of the 9th Circuit so he could lay the blame on Trump’s administration.

Not all criticism of Trump is anti-Trumping, but the redstate.com writer needed to blur who enjoys the rights of citizenship and misplace the weight and application of due process so he could blast the administration. He completely ignored the statutory powers duly legislated by Congress that authorize both the power and purview of the president and others in respect to inadmissible aliens, the exceptions, and the methods for dealing with those exceptions. He did not have a feel for the facts and the law, but he did have a feel for the way the 9th Circuit thinks, or misthinks, so he was correct on how they would come down.

Below I provide some resources, including my own analysis.

Did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal render a sound decision? According to Harvard Law Professor and Democrat Alan Dershowitz, no. Here is the video link to an interview he gave to MSNBC:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz-9th-circuit-ruling-not-a-solid-decision-looks-like-its-based-more-on-policy-than-on-constitutionality/

Did the 9th Circuit basically overstep its bounds and make up new law? Here is a report on Fox News and commentary from that network’s Judicial Analyst, former federal judge Andrew Napolitano:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5317800691001/?#sp=show-clips

Finally, allow me to deal with the notion that the 9th Circuit stands on firm ground anyway because of its demand for due process for those whose visit or return trip to the United States was blocked by the president’s travel ban.

In addition to the Constitutional mandate and powers invested in the president, Mr. Trump owns authority conferred on the office by Congress and its statutory law, Title 8 U.S. Code Section 1182(f). Paragraph “(f)” comes after a ton of inadmissibility situations and rules, including exceptions, to state flatly that:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Congress, a bunch of lawyers, aided and abetted by tons of legal counsel, enacted into law this policy that grants the president authority to “suspend” or “impose restrictions” “he may deem to be appropriate” on entry to “any aliens”, “all aliens”, or “any class of aliens” when “the president finds” their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”.

Please note that Section 1182 deals with “Inadmissible Aliens”, and the other paragraphs in the section provide the exceptions to their provisions under the inadmissibility law. Paragraph (f) contains no exceptions. None. Zero. Zilch. It is intended to be that way and is written that way. The president finds what is detrimental to the interests of the United States (interestingly, take note, 9th Circuit, no mention is made of a requirement for a level of exigency, though the circumstances listed are exigent), and he suspends or restricts accordingly for a period of time.

In short, the federal statute gives the president broad power and discretion; the 9th Circuit doesn’t want the president to have it. The 9th Circuit thinks IT should have that power.

Constitutionally and statutorily, the 9th Circuit has abused and misplaced the question of due process, first, because the travel ban does not affect citizens of the United States, and second, because the nature of a suspension or restriction, including as described in paragraph (f), is its atypical, abnormal, nonstandard employment to meet an exigent situation, one that is determined by the president and for which there is no review by any court. In other words, any court would be out of bounds second-guessing the president on whether or not what he found was really detrimental to the interests of the country. That is not the purview of the judicial branch, Constitutionally or statutorily.

Third, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that noncitizens enjoyed the right of due process in respect to entry into these United States, that due process would be applied after the effect of the ban, not before it, otherwise what would be the point? If a person with a deadly, contagious disease challenges a ban on his entry into the country, we’re not going to suspend the ban so he can come into the country, contaminate us, then determine at a due process hearing that he didn’t have justification to enter! That’s neither Constitutional nor rational. It certainly isn’t safe.

The ban is temporary, not permanent. It’s not a penalty or punishment; it’s a security measure. It isn’t intended to last forever, only as long as the situation that generated it persists. We make our own citizens undergo searches and seizures at airport checkpoints without due process because they are a security measure. If we held due process for every citizen before they entered the walkways to airport gates, we would have to kiss security measures goodbye. We often do the same at stadiums and concerts and, get this 9th Circuit, courthouses!

That’s right. We don’t hold due process hearings before someone enters your 9th Circuit stenchhouse of extremism and judicial tyranny. You search ’em and seize ’em without any hint of wrongdoing or suspicion and ask questions later. Ain’t any due process about it. Hypocrites! You don’t even live up to your own standards. You protect yourselves but spit on the president’s efforts to protect common American citizens.

Not a surprise, really. The 9th Circuit’s extremism, politics, partiality, and plain old discombobulation have led them to ignore or even reject their own precedents, such as in the restaurant tipping cases (http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/U-S-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit-overtur). A man dressed up as a woman – painted face and lips, stockings and heels and all – is still a man. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf. And a politically, ideologically motivated ruling is just that no matter the “legal questions” and legalese with which a panel of “judges” dresses it up.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is a bench of usurpers and tyrants burglarizing the executive branch because they want to obstruct the implementation of the president’s policies, policies that would increase American safety. They have violated the checks and balances of the Constitution so that they could impose their globalist will. The holy 9th Circuit’s will be done, and they say, “To hell with law and order, and checks and balances, and judicial restraint, and America first!”

Thank God Jeff Sessions was finally confirmed as attorney general in spite of delaying tactics by the obstructionist Democrats who want the country to fail and their defeated ideology to be made mandatory. He’ll help save the day. 

 

The 9th Circus Court of Appeal Decides

Standard

ugly-clown-face-01At least half the country is sick to its stomach about the decision by a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circus Court of Appeal to uphold the suspension of President Trump’s travel ban.

In making their ruling, the tyrants from the 9th Circus imposed their freakish ideology and politics onto the law, warped the Constitution, burglarized the executive branch, and robbed its Constitutional and statutory mandates with malice aforethought.

A globalist, anti-American spirit drove this Constitutional breech by the fast and loose, liberal, west coast judiciary. While the the jackass judges propped up red herrings like religious discrimination and religious tests, and robbed American citizens of their Constitutional protections and government, they smugly handed those protections and government over to foreigners who smack their lips at the opportunity to take over a country they had no hand in building – indeed could not have built – a country that is not theirs with the goal of turning it into the same smoldering ruin from which they came.

Though I suspect this ruling will be overturned, it may well signal the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.

Too many Democrats and liberals do not play by the rules. They tyrannize minds and hearts and seek nothing less than complete domination and transmogrification of the country through social engineering facilitated by mass media mindshaping. Those of us who respect the rule of law and the Constitution and our American heritage cannot go along with their destruction of America nor their intolerance of who we are as a people. We are past the point of healing. I want nothing to do with fake citizens who do not place America and Americans first.

The Unbalanced Ninth Circuit Court and the Road to Dystopia

Standard

Americans continue to wait for a decision from a three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on President Trump’s anti-terrorism travel ban. The panel heard arguments Monday after a federal district court judge stayed the ban.

The president’s ban is designed to provide more protection for Americans from terrorist attacks by preventing individuals or classes of individuals entry into the United States from seven countries that have served as notorious breeding grounds for terrorists and their murderous, destructive acts.

Those countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.

While some in the media have tried to paint the president as violating the checks and balances of the Constitution for criticizing the district judge who stayed his executive order that contained the ban, other members of the media have begun to zero in on the 9th Circuit’s trespass onto the executive branch.

Here’s what even The New York Times wrote about Judge Michelle Friedland, who appears to think she should decide whether there is enough reason to institute a ban.

Judge Friedland, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, did not seem persuaded that immediate suspension of travel from the seven countries was necessary.

Has the government pointed to any evidence connecting these countries with terrorism?’” she asked [Department of Justice attorney] Mr. Flentje.

Here is what Mr. Flentje should have said: “It’s none of your damn business. That’s the Constitutional mandate of the executive branch and the statutory authority bestowed on the president by Congressional legislation. You may agree or disagree with the bar we’ve set, or agree or disagree with the conditions and dangers from those countries as we see them, but you have no business directing, and no power to alter, policy because you don’t like it.”

Actually, Mr. Flentje did rebuff her, but not as forcefully.

Friedland’s questions demonstrate two things. First, she wants to unveil the administration’s policy reasoning so it can be attacked. To be sure, both the president and the Congress should explain their policies and their reasoning and the facts behind them. Friedland is not looking for understanding, however; she is looking for targets her thinkalikes can attack and obstruct. That motivation of hers is strictly political, not forensic.

Second, Friedland suggests that courts do, or should have, the authority to negate a policy of the executive branch, not as a matter of law or Constitution, but as a kind of second-guessing review board to contain or uproot policies they opine are not warranted or are not in conformance with their ideology.

The state of Washington’s case generates laughter among anyone who takes law seriously. The state said companies headquartered there, like Microsoft, are negatively affected in their employment practices. In other words, the ban could hinder Microsoft from hiring foreigners, because they don’t want to hire Americans. Not only is that stance anti-American, it defies logic. There are about 7.5 billion people on our planet, and because you cannot hire someone from those terrorist breeding grounds, 7.27 billion people isn’t a big enough employee pool from which to pick?

The attorney representing Washington state spluttered about religious discrimination. Unfortunately for Muslims, the violence woven intrinsically into their tenets and scriptures bloodies and defames their religion. If I were Muslim, I would not want to have to make the argument that I am being discriminated against because my faith tells me and other adherents that I have to kill all the people who don’t accept my faith.

It’s not discrimination against Islam; it’s discrimination against terrorism, unless Islam and terrorism are the same thing.

What’s happened is that a sick, self-hating ideology has overrun our schools and our society and our politics from one end of the spectrum, the end commonly called liberal, and produced intellectual usurpers like Friedland, Gates, and Google, etc., who reject all that made us what we were, our religious, cultural, and political heritage. It’s not true liberalism; it’s a deviant extremism that wants to empty our citizens of their self-respect and replace it with a docile acceptance of whatever the social engineers want to implant in our brains.

In their view, what’s right is wrong; what’s wrong is right. Protecting the lives of American citizens is wrong if it upsets foreigners who don’t belong here in the first place or some concept of “open borders”.

This new social engineering is creating two classes: the elite establishment and its privileged managers and media minions, and everyone else. The establishment is hellbent on acquiring and keeping a share of our minds, and exerting an ever stronger psychological and actual influence over us. There is a reason for the quiet raping of our privacy of which we have been much too docile in our acceptance.

Right now, private and state Internet companies, communication companies, electronic devices companies, media companies, and content-providing companies are listening in on you and watching you. Siri and Alexa may be listening even when you are not talking to them. Your computer camera, phone camera, television, microphone recorder on any of those, can – at least potentially, if not yet actually – pick up and transmit what you are saying and doing. It’s the same with the cloud and any Internet based security system with cameras that you use.

They are getting to know you, whether you want them to or not.

Beware the hook: “a more personalized experience.” It’s a gross lie. They are getting to know you, quietly and intimately, so that they can shape the way you think, guide your behavior.

Beware. It’s just a little now. It will be much, much more later.

Beware!

I know I have mixed in a lot here that is disparate, and that I began with a current event and moved swiftly, and perhaps for some, too far away into the realm of what it is a part of and where it is going. I believe it is something to consider. Things just aren’t right any more. An ugliness is slowly emerging.

You’re Fired!

Standard

trump-fires-yates

President Donald Trump fired the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, after she refused to perform her duty to defend the legality of his temporary ban on immigrants from terrorist-spawning countries. The purpose of Mr. Trump’s executive order was to help protect Americans from terrorist attacks. Trump has said existing vetting procedures were flimsy and inadequate, and he wants to see strict vetting procedures in place before he lifts the ban.

Ms. Yates’s grandstanding for the media exacerbated her failure to do her job. Mr. Trump had elevated her to acting attorney general pending the drawn out confirmation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Instead of turning down Mr. Trump’s offer privately and civilly, she chose to accept his offer, then air out her disagreement with him on immigration policy publicly.

The Declaration states the People may institute a government built on the principles and forms of power “most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” The Constitution echoes and builds on that when it says its purpose is “to form a more Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity… .”

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution grants the president “the executive Power”. Section 2 names him the Commander-in-Chief. Section 3 makes it the president’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

The president not only has the authority to see our duly enacted immigration laws executed, he has the duty to do so. Nothing in the immigration law and the president’s execution of it violates statutory or constitutional law. If a ban on immigration from violent or ideologically violent countries in the world obtains the defense, safety, and tranquility of the American people, then it is lawful.

When Ms. Yates complained she could not defend Mr. Trump’s ban, she had to defend her warrantless position by asserting she had “to do the right thing.” It’s an irony, because so many people have argued for the severance of law from morality. While I would agree that morality must be weighed when reflecting on law and policy in regard to fundamental questions, prudence and pragmatism play their roles in others.

Do citizens and foreigners own the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities under American law? No. That would be absurd. The government was instituted of the people, by the people, for the people, the people being the citizens. The only way for a foreigner to appropriate the rights, privileges, and responsibilities under American law is to become American, and that means rejecting what he or she was and his or her allegiances. It means accepting what an American is and what our way is as a body politic and as a culture.

Finally, let’s deal with the claim that we cannot ban Muslims from entering the country. The proponents of this position cite two reasons: first, it constitutes a religious test; second, it will inflame terrorist passions and make them terrorize more.

The answer to the first reason is a ban on Muslim entry into our country isn’t based on most of what Islam is but is based on one of its ideologies or tenets: that it is holy and just to kill people who reject Islam or Mohamed. That belief is not merely un-American, it is anti-American. It violates our law. It assaults our Constitution. It transgresses our culture and our reason. The laws of God, of Nature, of man, of our Constitution do not permit murder on religious grounds. Thanks to both our Rationalist and Christian perspective, we reject utterly any such principle. Similarly, we reject those people who bear such a perspective from entering our country and plying their bloody beliefs here.

We are absolutely under no obligation – moral, legal, constitutional, etc – to permit such individuals to enter our country. If the safeguards for preventing the entry of such individuals are defective or deficient, our president has a duty to ban such folks, even en masse, from entering our country and endangering our safety.

Ms. Yates doesn’t understand that simple, legally correct position. Addled by a foreigners first mentality, and having abandoned and lost sight of the people whom she swore to protect, Ms. Yates elevated her personal feelings to the pinnacle of consideration.

As citizens, the members of the Justice Department have the right to agree or disagree with this person or the other and this policy or that policy. They may express their agreement or disagreement among private friends or at the ballot box.

As members of the federal Justice Department, however, every attorney maintains an obligation and responsibility to do his job. They are not advocating for themselves or for a particular political persuasion, they are advocating for the people through the executive branch of the government. The lawyers in the attorney general’s office were not elected by the people; the president was. If for some particular matter the conscience of a member of the Justice Department has become so strained he cannot follow the directives of his chief executive, then he should do the honest and honorable thing and quietly resign.

Yates was warped. She was so warped that she could neither fulfill her duty nor act honorably. She chose to make a scene. The president acted swiftly and decisively: Mr. Trump fired her.

The second complaint, growled and whined by the likes of senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, states that in appearing to single out Islam or Muslims, Mr. Trump inflames their hatred and determination to commit more terrorism, serves as a recruiting tool, and because of those two points, will make Americans more unsafe and ultimately lose the war against terrorism.

One of many good ways to dissolve this line of thinking is to use the analogy of the man who says he loves his wife, so he stalks her and beats her for every real or imagined offense while he lives exactly the way he wants to live. She has to be “made” to love him. He does not really love her as a woman; he loves her as a thing to own and do with as he pleases. His real goal is domination, not love.

The wife develops a mentality that if she can just please him in everything, he will stop beating her. It’s her fault he loses control. She isn’t doing enough. Of course, she never will. And he’ll keep slapping and punching and kicking her, because that is who he is.

It’s the same thing for the Muslim who takes the errors of the Koran to heart. The infidel must be threatened, tortured, killed, or at least extorted for money. The infidels keep thinking it’s their fault. They aren’t diverse enough, they aren’t multicultural enough, they are too trapped in their own biases and prejudices, so they don’t want to make the Muslim mad, because he’ll just threaten, torture, and kill more. The reality is the Muslim will never admit to his own evil and his own problem, the propensity for the Mohamed-sanctioned inhuman violence which is the only commodity with which he trades. Convert or die. Be like me, or die.

The superficial way Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham approach Muslim terror will never solve the problem, which perhaps is not solvable anyway as long as human beings are sinners. The only way to obtain and to keep the upper hand, however, is a mix of force and construction. The United States must meet the violence directed at its citizens with the force necessary to defeat that violence and deter those who would think twice about renewing it. The United States must also take a more proactive approach to remedy the ills of the Muslim nations, if they will allow it. That does not mean abandoning a ban on Muslim immigration; such a ban should be enforced and maintained for as long as necessary. However, it does mean helping to relieve the poverty and oppression of Muslim areas through joint operations to create economic growth and an infrastructure of opportunity.

Nothing remedies misery like opportunity and profit. These should be sought for the good of all, and not just in Muslim lands, but in lands elsewhere around the globe where it is desired by the local people.

It is not the job of Americans or our government to make Muslims part of our country, nor to take on their burdens here. It can be our job, however, to help them take on their burdens in their own countries, to help them develop their own success and profit. Why Muslim countries have not been doing this but instead have wasted their time in religious and political war after war is beyond the ken of the rational mind. Had they channeled the same energy into building up instead of tearing down, who knows how successful those Muslim countries might have become?

Senators McCain and Graham think themselves clever with their superficially softer, more diplomatic approach. The truth is that it has not worked but has only inspired more Muslim mayhem. Former president Barack Obama applied the softer approach for eight years, yet Muslim butchery reached new heights in the United States and in countries around the world, and the Muslim Middle East and North Africa are more war-torn than ever. Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham think their clever artfulness will make the problem smaller. That is a lie, as are their disloyal denunciations of the Republican president.

The truth is, much like with Mrs. Clinton, neither McCain nor Graham, individually or with each other or someone else, has been able to even reduce the problem of Muslim violence, despite their decades of “service” in the Senate. To follow their “lead” is to follow the same ole same ole, which just keeps circling around back to more bloodshed.

A fresh approach, such as the one Mr. Trump is taking and which is placing Americans and America first, is long overdue.

Shameless John McCain

Standard

shadowy-john-mccain

Americans elected Donald Trump their president last November. Not John McCain. Not squeaky Lindsey Graham.

Arizonans elected McCain to represent their interests in the senate. I don’t know why. However, that should constrain McCain from his hyperbolic antics and speech-making. It doesn’t. McCain believes he has some kind of mandate to thwart the reasons Americans elected Trump: to stem the flow of illegal immigration; to stem the flow of Muslim terrorists into the United States; to win the war on terror against ISIL; to help create millions of more jobs by relocating factories back to the U.S. or by helping to build new ones here; to take care of our vets; to repeal and replace Obamacare; to lower taxes; to rebuild and strengthen our military; to help restore law and order nationwide.

McCain isn’t a maverick; he’s a deep-rooted, toxic weed hellbent on strengthening the establishment and weakening Americans and our Constitution. I’d call him a shameless political whore, but that would be incorrect; McCain is a stout narcissist who only finds a worthy cause when he looks into a mirror.

The Arizona senator’s power grab will impede the will of American voters, but my recommendation is that President Trump smack down him and establishment sock puppet Lindsey Graham as quickly as possible, relegating them to meaninglessness. They do not speak for Republicans any more. They do not speak for conservatives. They do not speak for Constitutionalists. They do not speak for Americans.

McCain and Graham speak only for themselves and their cherished establishment, and stridently so, and it’s time to begin to nullify them. McCain’s resume is littered with failure. Was McCain able to win the presidency in 2008? No. Loser. Was he able to enact serious, significant campaign reform? No. Loser. Did he strengthen the U.S. Military his last eight years in the senate? No. Loser. Did he enact or enforce legislation to protect Americans from terrorism? No. Loser. Did he help to balance the budget at all? No. Loser. Did he stop the national debt from increasing by trillions of dollars the last eight years? No. Loser. Did he cut taxes for the middle class? No. Loser. Did he stop the enactment of Obamacare? No. Loser. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, did he prevent huge cost overruns on the F-22 and the F-35 programs, among others? No. Loser. Did he save or create jobs? No. Loser.

Why would such a loser want to pick a fight with a winner like Trump? Call it political penis envy. Old man McCain wants to call the shots, but he’s worried because someone with real success credentials has been voted onto the scene and placed into his sandbox, and McCain will be damned – let’s hope not – if he is going to let someone else call the shots, even though he laid down for Obama all these years.

If you want to accomplish something, don’t bring John McCain and whiny sock puppet Lindsey Graham along. Don’t even try. They won’t cooperate unless they can plunge their mouth-holes into the special interest trough and gobble away like a couple of porkers!

Let McCain try to thwart Trump. Mr. President, we elected you and your ideas and your plans, not loser McCain’s. If he won’t help, cast him aside and work with other, smarter people who want to make this country safe, who stand for America First and not for globalism, who place the interests of American citizens and their culture and their Constitution first and not the interests of illegal aliens and refugee terrorists and strange, violent religious beliefs.

I am so sick of the moralizing social engineers in this country, the people like McCain and Obama who think they get to decide how Americans are going to be shaped and dictated to and who spit on the elections results, our American election results! Get out and go somewhere else!

It’s a Lying Time

Standard

The objectivity and quality of American journalism continues its swirling flush down the toilet and into the sewage pipes of liberal advocacy.

Yet another case in point emerged with the delightfully dissembled bit of Time magazine reporting authored by Madeline Farber today, Sunday, Jan. 29th.

The headline reads. “White House Says It Deliberately Omitted Jews From Holocaust Remembrance Statement.” That is unequivocally false, and the assertion is not supported by any quote that Farber provides.

In this day and age when terrorists and other evil people declare the genocide of World War II never happened, the Time headline and story are a deliberate falsehood meant to inflame passions against President Donald Trump. Establishment media outlets remain bitter over their failed predictions and their failure to elevate Mrs. Hillary Clinton into the presidency by the brute force of their relentless attacks against Mr. Trump and shrill advocacy on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.

The simplest readers might have spotted Time’s deceptive dishonesty when Farber failed to quote from the president’s statement. I provide it here in its entirety, as well as the link:

Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day

It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”

President Trump’s Holocaust Statement 2017

Nowhere in the president’s statement does he “omit” the Jews, nor does the president say in the statement that he has “deliberately omitted the Jews from [the] Holocaust remembrance statement.”

In fact, Farber wrote that when administration spokeswoman Hope Hicks was asked “if Trump purposely left Jews out of his statement to avoid offending anyone”, she quoted Hicks’s reply as, “It was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day.”

So neither Mr. Trump nor his spokeswoman Ms. Hicks said the White House “deliberately omitted Jews” from the Holocaust statement, as the Time headline claimed falsely.

It was Farber, or whoever asked the question, that framed a false issue. The question quoted as asked two paragraphs above this one necessarily implies that the president’s statement identified other groups who were mass murdered in the death camps but not the Jews. False.

You read in the president’s statement above that the White House remembers and honors all the victims, survivors, and heroes of World War II’s genocide.

Farber lied. Her story lied. Time magazine published the lie. Farber and Time cannot be trusted.

It’s one more example of a lying, dishonest reporter and her dishonest magazine taking a positive by the president and twisting it into a negative to cast a dark shadow of calumny and doubt upon him.

Your candidate lost, Farber and Time magazine, and a more qualified and straightforward person won the election. Deal with it!