VIDEO Women Witnesses Invisible to Dem Feminist Senators And mullahs At The Mosque

NYT Op-Ed: Democratic Senators ‘Brush Off’ Women Witnesses Because Islam

Four feminist Democratic Senators snubbed female witnesses at a recent Senate hearing because the women witnesses are pro-democracy, pro-free speech, pro-freedom Muslims, says an op-ed in the New York Times.

The op-ed was written by the two female witnesses — Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani — who lived under Islamic governments and who were invited to testify at GOP Sen. Ron Johnson’s unprecedented hearing about the content of Islamic ideology.

The Democrats on the panel, including Senator Harris and three other Democratic female senators — North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill — did not ask either of us a single question …

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

How to explain this experience? Perhaps Senators Heitkamp, Harris, Hassan and McCaskill are simply uninterested in sexism and misogyny. But obviously, given their outspoken support of critical women’s issues, such as the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria and campus sexual assault, that’s far from the case…

There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures?

 Read it all here.

In recent years, “identity politics” has supplanted the older expectation of reason-over-emotion, facts-before-friends Western-style debate in which participants were expected to compliment each other before the debate and not carry any personal grudges after the debate, as if they were playing tennis or baseball.

Instead, modern “identity politics” pressures people to sympathize with and celebrate only the claims by people who represent sub-groups in their political coalition, and to sneer at arguments made by people who can be described as members of groups opposed to their political coalition, regardless of facts or reason, truth or logic.

Also, progressives prefer to promote the views of supposedly victimized minority groups — such as African-Americans, Muslims, gays, immigrants — because they see their coalition as a coalition of suffering minorities led by noble high-IQ progressives. This perspective pressures progressives to ignore testimony from minority people whose pro-freedom, pro-speech views match arguments made by the supposed majority groups that are supposedly victimizing minorities.

Breitbart’s report on the hearing is here.

The Democrats’ snub towards the two women was widely noted on Twitter:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election

– The Washington Times 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.

Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.

The probe into Ms. Lynch comes as the Judiciary Committee is already looking at President Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the committee, said the investigation is bipartisan. The letter to Ms. Lynch is signed by ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and also by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse, the chairman and ranking member of the key investigative subcommittee.

 Letters also went to Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria and Leonard Benardo and Gail Scovell at the Open Society Foundations. Mr. Benardo was reportedly on an email chain from the then-head of the Democratic National Committee suggesting Ms. Lynch had given assurances to Ms. Renteria, the campaign staffer, that the Clinton probe wouldn’t “go too far.”

At a Senate hearing earlier this month, Mr. Comey told lawmakers that Ms. Lynch had attempted to change the way the FBI described its probe of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server. The change appeared to dovetail with how Mrs. Clinton’s supporters were characterizing the probe.

“At one point, [Ms. Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey said during his June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

Acknowledging that he didn’t know whether it was intentional, Mr. Comey said Ms. Lynch’s request “gave the impression the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our investigation with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity.”

Mr. Comey said the language suggested by Ms. Lynch was troublesome because it closely mirrored what the Clinton campaign was using. Despite his discomfort, Mr. Comey said, he agreed to Ms. Lynch’s language.

Andrea Noble contributed to this story.

GOP Wanting Loretta Lynch to Testify – Probe into Attempts to Influence FBI’s Investigations.

Comey says Loretta Lynch directed him to downplay Clinton email investigation

Gowdy on Jeh Johnson testimony, Loretta Lynch controversy

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is God Calling America, The Last Revival


June 13, 2107 by Michael Bresciani


Some would argue that revival is for the church and renewal is for the nation, semantics notwithstanding, it is clear that a new strong message is being issued across our nation for a return to our foundations, and the faith of our fathers.

It is being issued through the preachers, messengers, writers and musicians with a renewed fervor, boldness and a sense of purpose not seen in this last generation. It is the very fulfillment of God’s promise to pour himself out just before he intervenes once again in the affairs of men.

It is a guarantee given to all messengers many years before these days.

“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3: 7-8)

It is a call to all people to be issued in the very last days.

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” (Joel 2: 28-29)

It was not the jingle I heard Dinah Shore belting out each week that started with the line – “See the USA in your Chevrolet” that sent me out across this nation, but whatever it was, I have been there. I travelled to many foreign nations and across every state in this nation except Alaska before I finished high school and college.

I can summarize my entire life’s experience with three cogent points.

  1. What I’ve seen.
  2. What I’ve heard.
  3. What I have to say.

Watching this nation change to a liberal bastion of politically correct hype, is to have witnessed its very decline. The PC proclivity of today goes beyond nonsense, but is now approaching a highly destructive state of lies, propaganda and collective national suicide.

I have seen that Hollywood and main stream media have lied to us and do not reflect the ebb and flow of the real America and its people. They once showed us a little of ourselves and our best and worst behaviors, now they have decided to manipulate our behaviors in a way that fits their ideological and philosophical predisposition.

We are being – faked out.

I’ve also seen America go dumb and become doltish, concupiscent and morally depraved to a fault.

What I’ve heard was the call of God on my life to repent and serve him after living any way I chose for too many years of my life. That was followed by a call to ministry and the special call to prophesy to people in this great nation. My message is not new, but is at the heart the same simple gospel message that all God’s people are commanded to preach – the repentance and salvation of all people one person at a time. Beyond that I received a special message that we will undergo an economic collapse like none we have seen to date.

It may be triggered by world events or we may be the trigger that draws the world into the great fiscal decline – I do not know how it will begin. Over fifty years of seeing and hearing future events, where not one has ever failed regardless of how unlikely they appeared to be, has convinced me of one sure thing – the economic decline is as sure as the rising of the sun.

The ‘how’ of it may be unclear, but the ‘when’ of it is far closer than anyone may be willing to believe. Get prepared!

What I have to say to this nation is both profoundly simple and quite complex all at same time. It is not, incongruous, but it is replete.

Besides two books, I have written thousands of articles calling for those with ears to hear, to respond with a change in direction and attitude. In any language or any time period throughout history the message boils down to the clarion call to repent. That simply means to turn around and go another way. This may have religious connotations, but largely it is a call to a new national direction. Don’t worry, I was also warned that the crowds will not be lining up at the doors to comply, but some will hear and some will awaken.

We did not recently elect the aging Billy Graham to become our president, but a new beginning has been offered in answer to much prayer with a man who like other great leaders has a profound love of this nation and wants only the best for us all.

President Trump may not be a polished statesmen or orator, but his love for our nation is unquestionable. We are working on the rest, and he is a quick understudy.

One person in the Bible was granted an interventional healing of his servant by Jesus and was strongly commended by the Jewish leaders only as a man who “loveth our nation.” (Lk 7: 5)  Can it be that God has supplied one man to head up our affairs whose singular qualification is that he loves our nation? You can bet on it.

But for the nation to renew, it will take the participation of many Americans. The messengers are issuing a bold and impassioned call to our nation to return to the faith of our fathers. Can this be the last call? You can count on that too.

What I have to say can be summarized by the words penned by Frederick William Faber in the beloved hymn entitled “Faith of our Fathers.” Hearing and acting on these words will always be accepted by the Living God to bolster and save a dying nation.

Come home America, the call has gone forth.

Faith of our fathers, living still

In spite of dungeon, fire and sword,

O how our hearts beat high with joy

Whene’er we hear that glorious word!

Faith of our fathers! holy faith!

We will be true to thee till death!

Faith of our fathers, we will love

Both friend and foe in all our strife,

And preach thee, too, as love knows how

By kindly words and virtuous life.

Faith of our fathers! holy faith!

We will be true to thee till death!


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

VIDEO No More Free Lunch – We can’t import poverty

White House - Sunset

June 19, 2017 by J. Kenneth Blackwell

While the Left promotes fake scandals, President Donald Trump proposes real change. Congressional Republicans should keep their eyes on the ball and enact his reforms into law.

President Lyndon Johnson unleashed “the Great Society” on America. It treated welfare as a right and created a culture of dependency. Expanded benefits encouraged illegitimacy, discouraged education, punished work and undermined families. Entire communities suffered as families dissolved and values deteriorated.

Seeing political advantage in making more people dependent on government, Democrats ignored the ill consequences. But President Ronald Reagan, who pressed welfare reform as California governor, took up the challenge in Washington. He was advised by Bob Carleson, who led the California effort.

A Democratic House limited President Reagan’s ability to make changes. Then came the GOP Congress elected in 1994. Carleson helped draft a new style of reform that passed in 1996. It changed the dynamic of welfare in key ways, one of which was permitting the states to require the able-bodied to work in exchange for their monthly benefit check. The legislation helped reduce welfare rolls —- by about 50 percent in just five years —- save taxpayer dollars and make recipients independent.

Now, President Trump is following in the Gipper’s footsteps. With welfare costing $1.1 trillion last year, most paid for by the federal government, the administration has proposed tightening eligibility requirements for several programs and hopes to cut outlays by $274 billion over the coming decade.

President Trump’s initiative revives the federal workfare requirement. Wrote the president to Congress: “Work must be the center of our social policy.” The purpose is not to punish the needy, but to ensure that they are taken care of. Wasted welfare “takes away scarce resources from those in real need,” he explained.

The president targeted Food Stamps, now formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In 1996, Congress required work or its equivalent for cash benefits. But the Obama administration wanted to expand welfare dependence and allowed states to waive a provision that Congress intended to be mandatory. Analyst James Bovard notes that the administration even ran campaigns to recruit SNAP recipients. In 2000, 17 million people received Food Stamps. The SNAP rolls are now at a staggering 44 million, at a cost of $71 billion annually.

Congress needs to act. The Trump administration would require states to toss in a buck for every four spent by Washington. Moreover, it would be conditional upon the states requiring their able-bodied to earn their benefit. Explained the head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney: “If you’re on Food Stamps and you’re able-bodied, then we need you to go to work.”

It turns out that work works. In 2014, Maine added a requirement that able-bodied Food Stamp recipients find a job, get job training or volunteer at least 24 hours a month. Within a year the number of people getting Food Stamps dropped from more than 13,000 to barely 2,700. That’s a cut of 80 percent.

At the start of 2017, thirteen Alabama counties began mandating their able-bodied adult SNAP recipients to work, seek work, or get approved job training. By May, the rolls had dropped by 85 percent. Statewide, since January, the number of able-bodied adults on SNAP has declined by 55 percent.

Those of us who understand human nature are not surprised by this outcome. The idea that giving away “free stuff with no strings attached,” in this case, food, to anyone who signs up for it results in a whole lot of people signing up is pretty basic reasoning, except perhaps at some Ivy League institutions.

The administration expects its reforms, including workfare, will save taxpayers roughly $193 billion over the coming decade. Equally important, noted Mulvaney, “We’re no longer going to measure compassion by the number people on these programs. We’re going to measure compassion by how many people we can get off these programs.”

Which is why the administration shouldn’t stop with Food Stamps. Work requirements should be expanded to programs such as public housing. Even if Congress passes workfare for Food Stamps, work requirements will apply to only three of the more than 80 federal welfare programs.

The administration should move to consolidate overlapping programs and block grant them to the states. Welfare is an issue that belongs at the state level. The Carleson Center for Welfare Reform has designed a program that would give states greater flexibility, provide a continuing incentive to innovate, and cap federal expenditures.

Finally, the U.S. needs to get back into job creation. More jobs need to be generated for all Americans. That’s why the president is pushing serious deregulation, proposing tax reform and challenging environmental extremism. The result will be more opportunities for all.

Some people need federal help. But it always should be the last resort, delivered cost-effectively by institutions closest to those in need.

Moreover, there should be reciprocity. It is only fair to request that those who receive benefits work to earn them. It’s the Biblical model. And it is supported by nine out of every 10 Americans.

President Trump’s workfare proposal demonstrates that he is busy doing what is important for Americans. Congress should join him.

This column by ACRU Senior Fellow and Policy Board member J. Kenneth Blackwell was published June 15, 2017 by Townhall.

David Webb on immigration: We can’t import poverty

Trump calls for 5 year welfare ban for new immigrants

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO ObamaCare Death Spiral Continues, GOP Senators: Healthcare Bill ‘Definitely Not Repealing ObamaCare’

GOP Senators: Healthcare Bill ‘Definitely Not Repealing Obamacare’

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (C) approaches the microphones before talking with reporters with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) (L) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) following the weekly GOP policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol June 20, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senate Republicans said that Democrats were not invited to participate in the writing of new health care legislation to replace Obamacare because they would attempt to obstruct the process. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

22 June 2017 by Tony Lee

Soon after the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) released the draft of the Senate’s healthcare bill on Thursday, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasted the bill for not fully repealing Obamacare.

Johnson told NBC News that he “would not call this Obamacare repeal,” adding that “it’s definitely not repealing Obamacare.”

“I’m just saying, I think I have a difficult time thinking, again, I’m an accountant, I’m a business guy, I know it takes time to develop this information in such a complex system, I have a hard time believing I’ll have the information prior to when leadership may want to vote on it,” Johnson reportedly said. “I would certainly say it’s trying to address and fix some of the mess, just some of the mess, created by Obamacare. But that’s my concern, I’m not sure it’s fixing enough.”

Paul, who has criticized the House’s bill, told MSNBC that “it looks like we’re keeping Obamacare” and “not repealing it.” He said he and other Senators would be releasing a more detailed statement on the matter later in afternoon.

President Donald Trump said that “a little negotiation” would be needed but the end product would “be very good.”

“Obamacare is dead and we’re putting a plan out today that is going to be negotiated,” Trump reportedly said.

Democrats have slammed McConnell for writing the bill in secrecy. Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are also trying to paint Republicans as “heartless” for supporting a bill that cuts Medicaid while giving tax breaks to “millionaires.”

McConnell reportedly wants to have a vote on the bill before July 4.

Update:  Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Paul, and Johnson released this statement:

Rand Paul on Senate GOP Health Care Bill: ‘Looks Like We’re Keeping Obamacare, Not Repealing It’

22 June 2017 by Jeff Poor

Thursday shortly after Senate Republicans released their version of health care legislation, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been skeptical of Republican efforts, went told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt it appeared that the bill would keep Obamacare instead of repealing it.

“We’re going to have a statement in about an hour and my concern from what I’ve been able to see so far — it looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it,” Paul replied.

When he was asked by Hunt if he was a “no” vote, Paul said to wait for the forthcoming statement.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Breaking News: Sen.Ted Cruz Opposes GOP Health Care Bill


Donald Trump: Senate Obamacare Replacement ‘Going to Be Negotiated’

22 June 2017 by Charlie Spiering

President Donald Trump asserted that the first draft of the Senate healthcare bill released on Thursday was work in progress.

When reporters asked him if he felt that the bill had “heart,” Trump replied, “A little negotiation, but it’s going to be very good.”

Trump made his remarks after meeting at the White House with technology CEOs about drones and automation.

“Obamacare is dead and we’re putting a plan out today that is going to be negotiated,” Trump said.

He suggested it was difficult to work on a bill, as Democrats remained entirely opposed to it.

“We’d love to have some Democrats’ support, but they’re obstructionists,” he said.

ObamaCare Death Spiral Continues as Anthem to Leave Exchanges in Several States

June 22, 2017  by 


ObamaCare Death Spiral Continues as Anthem to Leave Exchanges in Several States

Yet another health insurance company has announced that it will be leaving the ObamaCare exchanges in two states, citing market uncertainty. This is just the latest announcement in a trend that experts claim will ultimately result in the national collapse of ObamaCare.  

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield announced that it will be leaving the ObamaCare exchanges in Wisconsin and Indiana, stating that the “volatile” market under ObamaCare is “shrinking” and that the “continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations, rules and guidance, including cost sharing reduction subsidies and the restoration of taxes on fully insured coverage” has created too much uncertainty.

Anthem, like numerous other insurance companies, has indicated it is struggling, largely because not enough young, healthy individuals have signed up for plans to balance the costs of the older, sicker enrollees, the Washington Examiner reports.

“A stable insurance market is dependent on products that create value for consumers through the broad spreading of risk and a known set of conditions upon which rates can be developed,” the company said in a statement. “Today, planning and pricing for ACA-compliant health plans has become increasingly difficult due to a shrinking and deteriorating individual market, as well as continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations, rules and guidance, including cost sharing reduction subsidies and the restoration of taxes on fully insured coverage.”

Those who have signed up for Anthem in these states through the ObamaCare exchange will therefore lose their insurance by the end of 2017.

Earlier this month, Anthem also announced it would be exiting the exchange in Ohio as well, provoking a scathing statement from Ohio’s Insurance Department against the healthcare law.

“Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Ohio had a very competitive health insurance market,” Ohio’s Insurance Department said. “New regulations from ACA have driven some companies out of Ohio and made it harder for them to do business, both of which have driven up the cost of health insurance in Ohio.”

“The best long-term fix is to repeal the ACA and replace it with better regulations.”

Anthem spokesman Tony Felts claims its too difficult to price health plans in the exchange because it’s unclear whether the federal government will continue to pay insurance companies for the discounts they’re required to give low-income customers to help offset the costs of the health plans. But to blame subsidy cuts for the implosion of the ObamaCare exchanges ignores the fact that government intervention in healthcare, which started long before the Affordable Care Act, is what caused health care costs to skyrocket in the first place. ObamaCare exacerbated the problem by further increasing demand while restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals.

Health insurance companies are leaving ObamaCare exchanges in droves, and some states and cities will be left without any companies on the exchange as a result. In Iowa, for example, the three remaining healthcare providers — Aetna, Wellmark, and Medica — announced that they would be pulling out.

These companies, many of which lauded the healthcare law at its inception, have cited significant financial losses as the driving force behind their exits. Aetna reported losing $430 million since 2014 from participation in the exchanges. United Healthcare announced it would end its participation in all but a small handful of exchanges in 2017 once it realized it would lose as much as $800 million in 2016. Likewise, Humana, Blue Cross, and Anthem have all reported struggles with plans that were sold on the exchanges, indicating that they were not ready for the increased number of particularly high-risk customers, many of whom have generated far more claims than insurers predicted, though critics of the law have from the beginning forecast such outcomes.

Humana was the first to announce that it was opting out of ObamaCare altogether in 2018, which has resulted in the all-out collapse of ObamaCare in Knoxville, Tennessee, where Humana was the only remaining provider on the ObamaCare exchange.

Critics of ObamaCare are pointing to the health insurance companies’ mass exodus from the exchange as proof of the unsustainability of the healthcare system it created, noting that its continual death spiral underscores all of the broken promises made by the Obama administration: The MacIver Institute, a national think tank that advocates for the free market, issued the following statement in response to Anthem’s announcement:

Anthem now joins other major health insurers like UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana that have been forced to withdraw from this government-run debacle in order to stop their financial hemorrhaging. President Obama promised the American public that, under Obamacare, we would see competition, lots of choices and lower health care costs. Unfortunately for the American people, President Obama was wrong and taxpayers will be stuck with the tab to fix his problem.

And while these announcements underscore the need for a full repeal of ObamaCare and a restoration of a free market healthcare system, it appears that most of the law will remain intact despite promises made by Republican lawmakers.

McConnell: Obamacare is a Direct Attack on the Middle Class

Sept 14, 2016

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO MB Obama DHS Dem lack credible evidence – Will Mueller, Comey false obstruction case trigger impeachment?

Gregg Jarrett: Will Mueller & Comey use a false case of obstruction to trigger impeachment?

June 22, 2017 By Gregg Jarret


“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”  — DOJ opinion, October 16, 2000

The Department of Justice has long held that it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge and prosecute a sitting president. The Constitution itself expressly states that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” can occur only after a president is convicted upon impeachment (Article 1, Section 3).

However, there is nothing to prevent a special counsel from investigating a president and leveling an accusation with no formal charge. The accusation could be completely manufactured and meritless. Proving it in a court of law would be irrelevant because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.

A similar scenario has played out before. Independent Counsel Ken Starr investigated President Bill Clinton and leveled accusations of obstruction and perjury which then triggered Clinton’s impeachment.  After he was acquitted and left office, Clinton was never indicted because prosecutors knew the case lacked the kind of proof needed in court.

So, is this what special counsel Robert Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey have in mind? Are they now acting in concert to conjure a case of obstruction where none exists … for the sole purpose of precipitating possible impeachment proceedings? There is nothing to stop them from doing it.

It is a legitimate question, given their cozy relationship. They also have a motive to harm President Trump – retaliation for the firing of Comey.

Mueller Has Unfettered Discretion

Mueller, as special counsel, has unlimited latitude and unchecked discretion.  Because he cannot indict the president, he is unconstrained by the usual burden of proof to which prosecutors must adhere in bringing a case.

The Washington Post reports that Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice during a White House meeting with Comey and in his subsequent termination. If the Post story is true, the president should be concerned that he may not be treated fairly. Why?

Is Mueller determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend? Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president?

Because on its face, there is no obstruction of justice. Trump’s alleged statement to Comey bears no resemblance to the requirements of the statute.  “Hoping” that “a good guy” will be cleared is not a “corrupt act” as the law defines it and as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it. There must be a lie, threat or bribe.  Comey alleges none.

Moreover, the act must be, as the high court said, “immoral, depraved or evil.”  An expression of compassion is the antithesis of that. Therefore, under no legal interpretation could the president have obstructed justice.

Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the president denies he ever uttered the words ascribed to him. With no known witnesses, no reasonable prosecutor would ever consider bringing such a case based on one person’s word.  It is the definition of reasonable doubt.

As for Comey’s firing, it is evidence of nothing. Comey admitted this himself when he wrote, “A president can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or no reason at all.” He reiterated the point during his Senate testimony.

Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to end an investigation, which Comey also admitted, albeit reluctantly.

Even if Trump canned Comey out of frustration because the Director refused to tell the public that the president was not suspected of Russian collusion, it is still not the corrupt act required for obstruction of justice.

Why, then, would an obstruction investigation be undertaken at all?

Mueller Has Not Recused Himself

The special counsel’s failure to disqualify himself as the law demands invites suspicion that any desire to bring an obstruction case rests not in the law and the facts, but in something else.

As explained before, the special counsel statute requires Mueller to step down if he has a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”  It then defines personal relationship as a friendship… normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2).

The Mueller-Comey friendship is well-documented and indisputable. They have long been friends, allies and partners.  Their bond is driven by a mentor-protégé relationship which makes the likelihood of favoritism and partiality self-evident.

Yet Mueller shows no sign of disqualifying himself from the case in which his close friend is the pivotal witness. It is an acute conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict merits mandatory recusal.

Perhaps this means that the special counsel is not investigating an obstruction charge against the president, as the Post claims. Maybe the reporting based on anonymous sources is erroneous.

But if there is such a probe, then Americans are entitled to wonder why Mueller has not recused himself.

Is he determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend?  Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president – knowing full well that Congress might take it up as grounds for impeachment once the accusation is made?

It is also suspicious that the Acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, has not recused himself.  As Mueller’s boss, he oversees the investigation.  If obstruction is, in fact, being examined, then Rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of Comey.  It is inconceivable that Rosenstein could serve in the capacity of both prosecutor and witness without rendering the entire matter a charade.

Trump has referred to Mueller as “conflicted” and has questioned the objectivity of Rosenstein.  But the president and his legal team have yet to mount a strong public case that both men should be allowed nowhere near the investigation.

If it becomes clear that obstruction of justice is the subject of the special counsel’s probe, President Trump should not fire Mueller and Rosenstein.  Instead, he should demand they resign so that a fair and impartial special counsel can be appointed to preside.

Anything less might permit a false case of obstruction to trigger a debate in Congress over impeachment.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.


Under oath, Jeh Johnson also admits Dem lack credible evidence for their narrative

Obama's DHS Head Admits: Russia Did NOT Rig US Election

June 22, 2017 by Jamie White


The Russian government did not interfere with or alter votes in the 2016 election, said former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson under oath.

“To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyber intrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results,” Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. “I know of no evidence that through cyber intrusion, votes were altered or suppressed in some way.”

The Democratic National Committee also turned down his agency’s offer to protect its network despite being warned about hacks, Johnson said.“Sometime in 2016, I became aware of a hack into systems of the Democratic National Committee,” he continued. “…I pressed my staff to know whether DHS was sufficiently proactive, and on the scene helping the DNC identify the intruders and patch vulnerabilities.”“The answer, to the best of my recollection, was not reassuring: the FBI and the DNC had been in contact with each other months before about the intrusion, and the DNC did not feel it needed DHS’s assistance at that time.”

Soon after, the DNC’s emails were released by WikiLeaks just prior to the Democratic National Convention last summer, leading to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz’s resignation days later.

Johnson then attempted to salvage the narrative in his testimony, saying the Russian government under Vladimir Putin’s orders “orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election,” despite the fact he admitted they lack tangible evidence showing the Russians had any measurable effect on the U.S. election.

It’s worth noting that that former FBI Director James Comey offered to write an op-ed last summer making the case that the Russians were meddling in the U.S. election, but the Obama administration rejected the offer, likely confident that Hillary Clinton would win regardless of outside interference.

“The White House shut it down,” one source told Newsweek magazine in March. “They did their usual – nothing.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

‘Dreamers’ not entitled to in-state tuition, court rules

Laura Reyes said she has a personal reason for hoping DACA is upheld - it would allow her to pay in-state tuition in college - as well as helping “my brother, my sister and a lot of people.” (Photo by Madison Alder/Cronkite News)

June 20, 2017  By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services


“Dreamers” are not in this country legally and not entitled to reduced tuition available to in-state students, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the arguments by attorneys for the Maricopa County Community College District that the legal status of dreamers under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program means the federal government considers them to be legally present in the country. Based on that, the college governing board voted in 2015 to say they no longer had to pay non-resident tuition.

But Judge Kenton Jones, writing for the court, said that’s not the case.

He said DACA, instituted in 2012 by the Obama administration, simply protects those in the program from being deported. And DACA status also allows them to work legally while they are here.

Jones noted, however, that in 2006 Arizona voters approved a law which says in-state tuition is reserved for those with “lawful immigration status.” And he said the decisions by the government to let those who arrived in this country illegally as children remain – and even to work – “do not translate into the recipients’ eligibility for in-state tuition or other state and local public benefits.”

Tuesday’s ruling affects more than the Maricopa colleges, which took the lead in deciding to offer resident tuition to dreamers.

In 2016, after a trial judge sided with the colleges, the Arizona Board of Regents changed its policy and also offers in-state tuition to DACA recipients who meet other residency requirements. And several other community colleges also have similar policies.

But Tuesday’s ruling is unlikely to be the last word. The college still has the option of seeking review by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Nothing in the ruling keeps DACA recipients – and even those who have no legal status at all – out of either community colleges or universities. But requiring them to pay out-of-state tuition would be a significant, practical hurdle.

At the University of Arizona for example, tuition and mandatory fees for Arizona undergraduates this past school year was $10,872 for continuing students and $11,403 for new ones; for non-residents the comparative numbers were $30,025 and $32,630.

Tuesday’s ruling also does not affect the separate legal question of whether DACA recipients are legally entitled to state-issued driver’s licenses. A federal appeals court has concluded they are; the state is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

At issue is that question of the legal status of DACA recipients.

The 2012 action by the Obama administration says those who arrived illegally as children and meet other conditions can qualify for the program. Put simply, that status, which can be renewed biennially, means they are in no danger of being deported.

But Jones pointed out that DACA is not law and the legal status of those in the program has never been approved by Congress.

“They are more aptly described as beneficiaries of an executive branch policy designed to forego deportation of those who lacked unlawful intent in entering the country and have, since their arrival, led productive lives,” the judge wrote. “However, even accepting DACA recipients’ positive societal attributes, Congress has not defined them, or deferred-action recipients generally, as ‘qualified aliens’ who are ‘lawfully present’ and therefore eligible to receive in-state tuition benefits.”

Jones acknowledged that the federal Department of Homeland Security has “broad discretion” in determining its enforcement priorities. That includes administrative decisions, like DACA, about who to deport and who to let stay.

“DHS is not free, however, to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers,” the judge continued.

Those federal laws, Jones noted, specifically prohibit states from restricting access by anyone not here legally – DACA or not – from access to public benefits like emergency and medical assistance. But the judge said that’s quite different than offering in-state tuition, which is effectively subsidized by taxpayers.

“The ability to obtain financial assistance for postsecondary education … is not synonymous with emergency assistance,” Jones wrote. “Nor does access to postsecondary education impose an obligation upon taxpayers to offset the cost.”

Jones acknowledged that Congress has given individual states the option of offering state or local public benefits. But he said the 2006 voter-approved law settled that, making any action to the contrary by college governing boards illegal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments