11/18/19

Coup Plotters Risk War with Russia

By: Cliff Kincaid

In what was called a “strong message” to President Trump, the House of Representatives earlier this year passed the “NATO Support Act” by a vote of 357 to 22.  That’s the template for what follows impeachment – voting Ukraine into NATO, provoking Russia, and sending American soldiers off to fight and die in another corrupt foreign country.

The people testifying against Trump are part of the same group of bureaucratic losers who have mishandled our foreign policy for decades.

Consider the opening statement on impeachment before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by George P. Kent, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State. He declared his admiration for foreign-born bureaucrats opposing Trump and added, “…they are the 21st-century heirs of two giants of 20th century U.S. national security policy who were born abroad: my former professor Zbigniew Brzezinski; and his fellow immigrant Henry Kissinger.”

Let’s recall that Kissinger, the architect of America’s Vietnam defeat, had insisted in 2009 that President Obama could create a New World Order and that he had a good foreign policy team. He made these comments on CNBC during a “celebration” of 30 years of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. Kissinger is perhaps best known for convincing President Nixon to establish diplomatic ties with China after insisting that China had abandoned communism, and was no longer a threat.

That doesn’t seem to have worked out so well.

It just so happens that George Kent’s professor, the late former top Carter Administration official Zbigniew Brzezinski, served an administration that achieved notoriety for abandoning Iran to the Iranian ayatollahs and Nicaragua to the communist Sandinistas.

Those policies didn’t work out so well, either.

They had wanted Trump to continue the Obama policies of supporting the Syrian Kurds, most of whom are associated with the Marxist-Leninist PKK terrorist organization. Trump rejected the advice of leaving American troops in the middle of a confrontation with the Turkish Armed Forces. In this case, Trump sided with a NATO member. Still, that didn’t satisfy the Trump critics.

“American Betrayal” screamed NBC News foreign correspondent Richard Engel, in a special Sunday night show on Trump-hating MSNBC. His main witness to this “betrayal” was a Kurdish terrorist wanted for his crimes in Turkey.

Having failed to get the U.S. into a war with Turkey, the foreign policy bureaucrats have turned their attention to Ukraine.

In the name of saving Ukraine, which was invaded by Russia under a Democratic President, Barack Hussein Obama, the Democrats are trying to impeach a president who has done far more than Obama in providing defensive weapons and loans.

Looking at the controversy objectively, it is clear that Trump was asking that Ukrainian authorities investigate the corruption that was making the country weak in the face of the Russian threat. It just so happens that some of the corruption involved Joe Biden’s son. Trump didn’t think their political status should exempt them from scrutiny.

The Obama administration not only failed to provide Ukraine the weapons the country needed for self-defense but was complicit in draining financial resources away from a major Ukrainian gas company to the Biden family. With good reason, Trump found fault with that approach. He couldn’t remain silent in the face of the evidence.

Rather than be impeached over this, Trump should be given an award for helping Ukraine get its fiscal and financial house in order. The Trump pressure campaign is just what that country — and American taxpayers — needed.

By making policy over Ukraine into an impeachable offense, Rep. Adam Schiff, a congressional sponsor of the recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation dinner, is making Ukraine’s membership in NATO – and a possible war with Russia – almost inevitable. He understands the stakes, declaring in a Los Angeles Times column,  “The heart of the [NATO] alliance — known as Article 5 — is the readiness to come to the aid of any member state if it is attacked.” That’s why it’s significant that one of his key witnesses, the aforementioned State Department official George P. Kent, said, “Ultimately, Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO. ”

These bureaucrats and congressional liberals want American soldiers to fight and die on behalf of Ukraine against Russia, in a war that could go nuclear. But Trump’s interest in the Ukrainian role in opposing his candidacy for president is something else that must be thoroughly investigated by Congress before NATO membership for Ukraine is even considered.

Practically speaking, NATO membership would be an obvious provocation inviting more Russian aggression, at a time when NATO is weak and most of its members can’t or won’t pay for their own defense. What Trump has been saying about the NATO deadbeats is entirely factual. He has questioned the value of NATO when only five of its 29 members actually pay their way. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted down an amendment from Senator Rand Paul demanding that NATO members spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense, which the alliance agreed to in 2014.

On October 22, without any fanfare or even much coverage, the U.S. Senate voted 91-2 to accept tiny Macedonia as a member, expanding NATO to 30 members. The only two “no” votes came from Republican Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

The Democrats’ impeachment campaign, which is destined to fail in the Senate, is likely to be followed up by congressional demands for NATO membership for Ukraine. Emulating the debate over the NATO Support Act, most Republicans are likely to go along with the Democrats, in order to demonstrate their toughness. American troops will then be called on to sacrifice their lives for another corrupt country, part of which is already under Russian occupation, that can’t defend itself.

Many Americans might be surprised to learn that 300 American soldiers have already been in Ukraine training its military, in a dangerous deployment authorized by Barack Hussein Obama back in 2015. Trump’s America-First base of support would be outraged if they knew and would want Trump to bring the troops home. Trump supporters might say that a corrupt Ukraine whose government opposed Trump’s election is not worth one more American dollar and certainly not one American soldier’s life.

For their part, the coup plotters know that a war with Russia will cost many lives and damage the U.S. and world economies. It is a cynical and dangerous ploy that is unfolding before our eyes. But they are prepared to risk war with Russia for the chance to deny Trump a second term.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

11/18/19

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: How “The Resistance” Is Shredding the Rule of Law

Doug Ross @ Journal

By Attorney General William Barr

I deeply admire the American Presidency as a political and constitutional institution. I believe it is, one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution, and has been one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people. More than any other branch, it has fulfilled the expectations of the Framers.

Unfortunately, over the past several decades, we have seen steady encroachment on Presidential authority by the other branches of government. This process I think has substantially weakened the functioning of the Executive Branch, to the detriment of the Nation. This evening, I would like to expand a bit on these themes.

First, let me say a little about what the Framers had in mind in establishing an independent Executive in Article II of the Constitution.

The Framers and the Executive Branch

The grammar school civics class version of our Revolution is that it was a rebellion against monarchial tyranny, and that, in framing our Constitution, one of the main preoccupations of the Founders was to keep the Executive weak. This is misguided. By the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, monarchical power was effectively neutered and had begun its steady decline. Parliamentary power was well on its way to supremacy and was effectively in the driver’s seat. By the time of the American Revolution, the patriots well understood that their prime antagonist was an overweening Parliament. Indeed, British thinkers came to conceive of Parliament, rather than the people, as the seat of Sovereignty.

During the Revolutionary era, American thinkers who considered inaugurating a republican form of government tended to think of the Executive component as essentially an errand boy of a Supreme legislative branch. Often the Executive (sometimes constituted as a multi-member council) was conceived as a creature of the Legislature, dependent on and subservient to that body, whose sole function was carrying out the Legislative will. Under the Articles of Confederation, for example, there was no Executive separate from Congress.

Things changed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. To my mind, the real “miracle” in Philadelphia that summer was the creation of a strong Executive, independent of, and coequal with, the other two branches of government.

The consensus for a strong, independent Executive arose from the Framers’ experience in the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. They had seen that the War had almost been lost and was a bumbling enterprise because of the lack of strong Executive leadership. Under the Articles of Confederation, they had been mortified at the inability of the United States to protect itself against foreign impositions or to be taken seriously on the international stage. They had also seen that, after the Revolution, too many States had adopted constitutions with weak Executives overly subordinate to the Legislatures. Where this had been the case, state governments had proven incompetent and indeed tyrannical.

From these practical experiences, the Framers had come to appreciate that, to be successful, Republican government required the capacity to act with energy, consistency, and decisiveness. They had come to agree that those attributes could best be provided by making the Executive power independent of the divided counsels of the Legislative branch and vesting the Executive power in the hands of a solitary individual, regularly elected for a limited term by the Nation as a whole. As Jefferson put it, ‘[F]or the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary….”

While there may have been some differences among the Framers as to the precise scope of Executive power in particular areas, there was general agreement about its nature. Just as the great separation-of-powers theorists– Polybius, Montesquieu, Locke – had, the Framers thought of Executive power as a distinct species of power. To be sure, Executive power includes the responsibility for carrying into effect the laws passed by the Legislature – that is, applying the general rules to a particular situation. But the Framers understood that Executive power meant more than this.

It also entailed the power to handle essential sovereign functions – such as the conduct of foreign relations and the prosecution of war – which by their very nature cannot be directed by a pre-existing legal regime but rather demand speed, secrecy, unity of purpose, and prudent judgment to meet contingent circumstances. They agreed that – due to the very nature of the activities involved, and the kind of decision-making they require – the Constitution generally vested authority over these spheres in the Executive. For example, Jefferson, our first Secretary of State, described the conduct of foreign relations as “Executive altogether,” subject only to the explicit exceptions defined in the Constitution, such as the Senate’s power to ratify Treaties.

A related and third aspect of Executive power is the power to address exigent circumstances that demand quick action to protect the well-being of the Nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate – such as dealing with a plague or natural disaster. This residual power to meet contingency is essentially the federative power discussed by Locke in his Second Treatise.

And, finally, there are the Executive’s powers of internal management. These are the powers necessary for the President to superintend and control the Executive function, including the powers necessary to protect the independence of the Executive branch and the confidentiality of its internal deliberations. Some of these powers are express in the Constitution, such as the Appointment power, and others are implicit, such as the Removal power.

The Progressive Attack on the “Unitary Executive Theory”

One of the more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is their breathless attacks on the “unitary Executive theory.” They portray this as some new-fangled “theory” to justify Executive power of sweeping scope. In reality, the idea of the unitary Executive does not go so much to the breadth of Presidential power. Rather, the idea is that, whatever the Executive powers may be, they must be exercised under the President’s supervision. This is not “new,” and it is not a “theory.” It is a description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II of the Constitution.

After you decide to establish an Executive function independent of the Legislature, naturally the next question is, who will perform that function? The Framers had two potential models. They could insinuate “checks and balances” into the Executive branch itself by conferring Executive power on multiple individuals (a council) thus dividing the power. Alternatively, they could vest Executive power in a solitary individual. The Framers quite explicitly chose the latter model because they believed that vesting Executive authority in one person would imbue the Presidency with precisely the attributes necessary for energetic government.

Even Jefferson – usually seen as less of a hawk than Hamilton on Executive power – was insistent that Executive power be placed in “single hands,” and he cited America’s unitary Executive as a signal feature that distinguished America’s success from France’s failed republican experiment.

The implications of the Framers’ decision are obvious. If Congress attempts to vest the power to execute the law in someone beyond the control of the President, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the President. So much for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary Executive.

We all understand that the Framers expected that the three branches would be jostling and jousting with each other, as each threatened to encroach on the prerogatives of the others. They thought this was not only natural, but salutary, and they provisioned each branch with the wherewithal to fight and to defend itself in these interbranch struggles for power.

So let me turn now to how the Executive is presently faring in these interbranch battles. I am concerned that the deck has become stacked against the Executive. Since the mid-60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the Executive branch’s authority, that accelerated after Watergate. More and more, the President’s ability to act in areas in which he has discretion has become smothered by the encroachments of the other branches.

Contemporary Arguments for Eroding the Executive Branch

When these disputes arise, I think there are two aspects of contemporary thought that tend to operate to the disadvantage of the Executive.

The first is the notion that politics in a free republic is all about the Legislative and Judicial branches protecting liberty by imposing restrictions on the Executive. The premise is that the greatest danger of government becoming oppressive arises from the prospect of Executive excess. So, there is a knee-jerk tendency to see the Legislative and Judicial branches as the good guys protecting society from a rapacious would-be autocrat.

This prejudice is wrong-headed and atavistic. It comes out of the early English Whig view of politics and English constitutional experience, where political evolution was precisely that. You started out with a King who holds all the cards; he holds all the power, including Legislative and Judicial. Political evolution involved a process by which the Legislative power gradually, over hundreds of years, reigned in the King, and extracted and established its own powers, as well as those of the Judiciary. A watershed in this evolution was, of course, the Glorious Revolution in 1689.

But by 1787, we had the exact opposite model in the United States. The Founders greatly admired how the British constitution had given rise to the principles of a balanced government. But they felt that the British constitution had achieved only an imperfect form of this model. They saw themselves as framing a more perfect version of separation of powers and a balanced constitution.

Part of their more perfect construction was a new kind of Executive. They created an office that was already the ideal Whig Executive. It already had built into it the limitations that Whig doctrine aspired to. It did not have the power to tax and spend; it was constrained by habeas corpus and by due process in enforcing the law against members of the body politic; it was elected for a limited term of office; and it was elected by the nation as a whole. That is a remarkable democratic institution – the only figure elected by the Nation as a whole. With the creation of the American Presidency, the Whig’s obsessive focus on the dangers of monarchical rule lost relevance.

This fundamental shift in view was reflected in the Convention debates over the new frame of government. Their concerns were very different from those that weighed on 17th century English Whigs. It was not Executive power that was of so much concern to them; it was the danger of the legislative branch, which they viewed as the most dangerous branch to liberty. As Madison warned, the “legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” And indeed, they viewed the Presidency as a check on the Legislative branch.

The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the Executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, “share” powers. The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area and, it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other.

This mushy thinking obscures what it means to say that powers are shared under the Constitution. Constitution generally assigns broad powers to each of the branches in defined areas. Thus, the Legislative power granted in the Constitution is granted to Congress. At the same time, the Constitution gives the Executive a specific power in the Legislative realm – the veto power. Thus, the Executive “shares” Legislative power only to the extent of the specific grant of veto power. The Executive does not get to interfere with the broader Legislative power assigned to Congress.

In recent years, both the Legislative and Judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the Presidency’s constitutional authority. Let me first say something about the Legislature.

As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

“The Resistance” and the Long-Term Damage It is Doing

Immediately after President Trump won the election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration.

Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

“Oversight” and the Modern Administrative State

Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when rather than doing the work of the people.

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of Executive privilege. The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off-limits to Congress and the public. There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

The Irony

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.

Separation of Powers

Let me turn now to what I believe has been the prime source of the erosion of separation-of-power principles generally, and Executive Branch authority specifically. I am speaking of the Judicial Branch.

In recent years the Judiciary has been steadily encroaching on Executive responsibilities in a way that has substantially undercut the functioning of the Presidency. The Courts have done this in essentially two ways: First, the Judiciary has appointed itself the ultimate arbiter of separation of powers disputes between Congress and Executive, thus preempting the political process, which the Framers conceived as the primary check on interbranch rivalry. Second, the Judiciary has usurped Presidential authority for itself, either (a) by, under the rubric of “review,” substituting its judgment for the Executive’s in areas committed to the President’s discretion, or (b) by assuming direct control over realms of decision-making that heretofore have been considered at the core of Presidential power.

The Framers did not envision that the Courts would play the role of arbiter of turf disputes between the political branches. As Madison explained in Federalist 51, “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” By giving each the Congress and the Presidency the tools to fend off the encroachments of the others, the Framers believed this would force compromise and political accommodation.

The “constitutional means” to “resist encroachment” that Madison described takes various forms. As Justice Scalia observed, the Constitution gives Congress and the President many “clubs with which to beat” each other. Conspicuously absent from the list is running to the courts to resolve their disputes.

Where is the Accountability to the People?

That omission makes sense. When the Judiciary purports to pronounce a conclusive resolution to constitutional disputes between the other two branches, it does not act as a co-equal. And, if the political branches believe the courts will resolve their constitutional disputes, they have no incentive to debate their differences through the democratic process — with input from and accountability to the people. And they will not even try to make the hard choices needed to forge compromise. The long experience of our country is that the political branches can work out their constitutional differences without resort to the courts.

In any event, the prospect that courts can meaningfully resolve interbranch disputes about the meaning of the Constitution is mostly a false promise. How is a court supposed to decide, for example, whether Congress’s power to collect information in pursuit of its legislative function overrides the President’s power to receive confidential advice in pursuit of his Executive function? Nothing in the Constitution provides a manageable standard for resolving such a question. It is thus no surprise that the courts have produced amorphous, unpredictable balancing tests like the Court’s holding in Morrison v. Olson that Congress did not “disrupt the proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Apart from their overzealous role in interbranch disputes, the courts have increasingly engaged directly in usurping Presidential decision-making authority for themselves. One way courts have effectively done this is by expanding both the scope and the intensity of judicial review.

In recent years, we have lost sight of the fact that many critical decisions in life are not amenable to the model of judicial decision-making. They cannot be reduced to tidy evidentiary standards and specific quantum of proof in an adversarial process. They require what we used to call prudential judgment. They are decisions that frequently have to be made promptly, on incomplete and uncertain information and necessarily involve weighing a wide range of competing risks and making predictions about the future. Such decisions frequently call into play the “precautionary principle.” This is the principle that when a decision-maker is accountable for discharging a certain obligation – such as protecting the public’s safety – it is better, when assessing imperfect information, to be wrong and safe, than wrong and sorry.

It was once well recognized that such matters were largely unreviewable and that the courts should not be substituting their judgments for the prudential judgments reached by the accountable Executive officials. This outlook now seems to have gone by the boards. Courts are now willing, under the banner of judicial review, to substitute their judgment for the President’s on matters that only a few decades ago would have been unimaginable – such as matters involving national security or foreign affairs.

The Travel Ban Example

The Travel Ban case is a good example. There the President made a decision under an explicit legislative grant of authority, as well as his Constitutional national security role, to temporarily suspend entry to aliens coming from a half dozen countries pending adoption of more effective vetting processes. The common denominator of the initial countries selected was that they were unquestionable hubs of terrorist activity, which lacked functional central government’s and responsible law enforcement and intelligence services that could assist us in identifying security risks among their nationals seeking entry.

Despite the fact there were clearly justifiable security grounds for the measure, the district court in Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit blocked this public-safety measure for a year and a half on the theory that the President’s motive for the order was religious bias against Muslims. This was just the first of many immigration measures based on good and sufficient security grounds that the courts have second-guessed since the beginning of the Trump Administration.

The Travel Ban case highlights an especially troubling aspect of the recent tendency to expand judicial review. The Supreme Court has traditionally refused, across a wide variety of contexts, to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action. To take the classic example, if a police officer has probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, his subjective motivations are irrelevant. And just last term, the Supreme Court appropriately shut the door to claims that otherwise-lawful redistricting can violate the Constitution if the legislators who drew the lines were actually motivated by political partisanship.

What is true of police officers and gerrymanderers is equally true of the President and senior Executive officials. With very few exceptions, neither the Constitution nor the Administrative Procedure Act or any other relevant statute, calls for judicial review of Executive motive. They apply only to Executive action. Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an Executive official’s “real motive” — often after ordering invasive discovery into the Executive Branch’s privileged decision-making process — have no more foundation in the law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge’s real motive for issuing its decision. And courts’ indulgence of such claims, even if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on the President’s constitutional prerogatives.

The impact of these judicial intrusions on Executive responsibility has been hugely magnified by another judicial innovation – the nationwide injunction. First used in 1963, and sparely since then until recently, these court orders enjoin enforcement of a policy not just against the parties to a case, but against everyone. Since President Trump took office, district courts have issued over 40 nationwide injunctions against the government. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued a total of two nationwide injunctions against the government. Both were vacated by the Ninth Circuit.

It is no exaggeration to say that virtually every major policy of the Trump Administration has been subjected to immediate freezing by the lower courts. No other President has been subjected to such sustained efforts to debilitate his policy agenda.

The legal flaws underlying nationwide injunctions are myriad. Just to summarize briefly, nationwide injunctions have no foundation in courts’ Article III jurisdiction or traditional equitable powers; they radically inflate the role of district judges, allowing any one of more than 600 individuals to singlehandedly freeze a policy nationwide, a power that no single appellate judge or Justice can accomplish; they foreclose percolation and reasoned debate among lower courts, often requiring the Supreme Court to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture with limited briefing; they enable transparent forum shopping, which saps public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary; and they displace the settled mechanisms for aggregate litigation of genuinely nationwide claims, such as Rule 23 class actions.

Injunction Destruction

Of particular relevance to my topic, nationwide injunctions also disrupt the political process. There is no better example than the courts’ handling of the rescission of DACA. As you recall, DACA was a discretionary policy of enforcement forbearance adopted by President Obama’s administration. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the closely related DAPA policy (along with an expansion of DACA) was unlawful, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision by an equally divided vote. Given that DACA was discretionary — and that four Justices apparently thought a legally indistinguishable policy was unlawful —President Trump’s administration understandably decided to rescind DACA.

Importantly, however, the President coupled that rescission with negotiations over legislation that would create a lawful and better alternative as part of a broader immigration compromise. In the middle of those negotiations — indeed, on the same day the President invited cameras into the Cabinet Room to broadcast his negotiations with bipartisan leaders from both Houses of Congress — a district judge in the Northern District of California enjoined the rescission of DACA nationwide.

Unsurprisingly, the negotiations over immigration legislation collapsed after one side achieved its preferred outcome through judicial means. A humanitarian crisis at the southern border ensued. And just this week, the Supreme Court finally heard an argument on the legality of the DACA rescission.

The Court will not likely decide the case until next summer, meaning that President Trump will have spent almost his entire first term enforcing President Obama’s signature immigration policy, even though that policy is discretionary and half the Supreme Court concluded that a legally indistinguishable policy was unlawful. That is not how our democratic system is supposed to work.

To my mind, the most blatant and consequential usurpation of Executive power in our history was played out during the Administration of President George W. Bush, when the Supreme Court, in a series of cases, set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict – decisions that lie at the very core of the President’s discretion as Commander in Chief.

The Boumediene Debacle

This usurpation climaxed with the Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene. There, the Supreme Court overturned hundreds of years of American, and earlier British, law and practice, which had always considered decisions as to whether to detain foreign combatants to be purely military judgments which civilian judges had no power to review. For the first time, the Court ruled that foreign persons who had no connection with the United States other than being confronted by our military on the battlefield had “due process” rights and thus have the right to habeas corpus to obtain judicial review of whether the military has a sufficient evidentiary basis to hold them.

In essence, the Court has taken the rules that govern our domestic criminal justice process and carried them over and superimposed them on the Nation’s activities when it is engaged in armed conflict with foreign enemies. This rides roughshod over a fundamental distinction that is integral to the Constitution and integral to the role played by the President in our system.

As the Preamble suggests, governments are established for two different security reasons – to secure domestic tranquility and to provide for defense against external dangers. These are two very different realms of government action.

In a nutshell, under the Constitution, when the government is using its law enforcement powers domestically to discipline an errant member of the community for a violation of law, then protecting the liberty of the American people requires that we sharply curtail the government’s power so it does not itself threaten the liberties of the people. Thus, the Constitution in this arena deliberately sacrifices efficiency; invests the accused with rights that that essentially create a level playing field between the collective interests of community and those of the individual; and dilutes the government’s power by dividing it and turning it on itself as a check, at each stage the Judiciary is expressly empowered to serve as a check and neutral arbiter.

None of these considerations are applicable when the government is defending the country against armed attacks from foreign enemies. In this realm, the Constitution is concerned with one thing – preserving the freedom of our political community by destroying the external threat. Here, the Constitution is not concerned with handicapping the government to preserve other values. The Constitution does not confer “rights” on foreign enemies. Rather the Constitution is designed to maximize the government’s efficiency to achieve victory – even at the cost of “collateral damage” that would be unacceptable in the domestic realm. The idea that the judiciary acts as a neutral check on the political branches to protect foreign enemies from our government is insane.

The impact of Boumediene has been extremely consequential. For the first time in American history, our armed forces are incapable of taking prisoners. We are now in a crazy position that, if we identify a terrorist enemy on the battlefield, such as ISIS, we can kill them with a drone or any other weapon. But if we capture them and want to hold them at Guantanamo or in the United States, the military is tied down in developing evidence for an adversarial process and must spend resources in interminable litigation.

A Hope for this Partisan Age

The fact that our courts are now willing to invade and muck about in these core areas of Presidential responsibility illustrates how far the doctrine of Separation of Powers has been eroded.

In this partisan age, we should take special care not to allow the passions of the moment to cause us to permanently disfigure the genius of our Constitutional structure. As we look back over the sweep of American history, it has been the American Presidency that has best fulfilled the vision of the Founders. It has brought to our Republic a dynamism and effectiveness that other democracies have lacked.

At every critical juncture where the country has faced a great challenge –

– whether it be in our earliest years as the weak, nascent country combating regional rebellions and maneuvering for survival in a world of far stronger nations;

– whether it be during our period of continental expansion, with the Louisiana Purchase, and the acquisition of Mexican territory;

– whether it be the Civil War, the epic test of the Nation;

– World War II and the struggle against Fascism;

– the Cold War and the challenge of Communism;

– the struggle against racial discrimination;

– and most recently, the fight against Islamist Fascism and international terrorism.

One would have to say that it has been the Presidency that has stepped to the fore and provided the leadership, consistency, energy, and perseverance that allowed us to surmount the challenge and brought us success.

In so many areas, it is critical to our Nation’s future that we restore and preserve in their full vigor our Founding principles. Not the least of these is the Framers’ vision of a strong, independent Executive, chosen by the country as a whole.

Via BadBlue News, my replacement for Drudge.

11/18/19

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Appeal Brings Details of 2011 Murders

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Image result for tamerlan and dzhokhar tsarnaev

The man who implicated Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in a 2011 triple-murder in Waltham said he and Tsarnaev took thousands of dollars from the victims and spent more than an hour trying to clean up the crime scene, law enforcement officials said.

The details were contained in a search warrant affidavit partially unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Boston in connection with the pending appeal of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, now 26, the younger brother of Tamerlan and his coconspirator in the bombings.

Who's Who in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial. (Photo composite Zeninjor Enwemeka/WBUR)  Who are these people, click here.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is challenging his conviction and death sentence in the Marathon case. He is claiming that he acted under the sway of a violent, domineering older brother. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died days after the Marathon attack during a confrontation with police in Watertown.

While Tamerlan Tsarnaev and a friend, Ibragim Todashev, were suspected in the Waltham killings previously, this week’s filing offers new details into the actions of the elder Tsarnaev in the years leading up to the 2013 Marathon bombings.

The search warrant affidavit, filed in the bombing case, recounted statements that Todashev made to investigators in a May 2013 interview. Shortly after making the statements, officials say, Todashev was fatally shot by a Boston FBI agent when he allegedly lunged at the agent with a metal broomstick.

Officials also alleged Todashev hurled a coffee table at the agent, striking him in the head. Authorities ruled that the FBI agent who shot Todashev had acted in self-defense.

“Todashev confessed that he and Tamerlan participated in the Waltham murders” on Sept. 11, 2011, of Brendan Mess, 25, Erik H. Weissman, 31, and Raphael M. Teken, 37, the affidavit said. The victims were killed in Mess’s apartment on Harding Avenue in Waltham.

The Middlesex district attorney’s office said Friday the investigation into the Waltham triple slaying was still open.

One of the Waltham victims, Mess, had formerly been a close friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. But Tsarnaev did not attend Mess’s funeral, a friend of Mess’s told the Globe in 2013, saying it raised suspicions.

The affidavit said Todashev indicated “he and Tamerlan had agreed initially just to rob the victims, whom they knew to be drug dealers who sold marijuana. Todashev said that he and Tamerlan took several thousand dollars from the residence and split the money. Todashev said that Tamerlan had a gun, which he brandished to enter the residence.”

Todashev indicated that Tamerlan Tsarnaev chose to escalate the crime from robbery to murder.

“Tamerlan decided that they should eliminate any witnesses to the crime, and then Todashev and Tamerlan bound the victims, who were ultimately murdered,” the affidavit said. “Todashev said that they spent over an hour cleaning the scene.”

According to this week’s filing, Todashev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev wanted to remove “traces of their fingerprints and other identifying details” from the scene.

The two traveled to the scene of the murders together in a gray, 1999 Honda CR-V and left the scene together in that same vehicle, according to the filing.

The victims were discovered in Mess’s apartment with their throats slit and their bodies sprinkled with marijuana.

The search warrant was for Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Honda CR-V. Investigators were seeking “blood, DNA, trace evidence, and other items” in the vehicle that may have linked him and Todashev to the Waltham slaying, according to the affidavit.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether any physical evidence was recovered.

The Tsarnaev siblings carried out the April 15, 2013, bombings, which killed three people, including an 8-year-old Dorchester boy, and wounded more than 260 others. The brothers also killed an MIT police officer while they were on the run.

State and federal investigators first contacted Todashev, who was a gym buddy of Tamerlan Tsarnaev before he moved to Florida, six days after the Marathon bombings.

Todashev spoke to investigators several times in the weeks after the bombings. But, after Todashev booked a ticket home to Russia in May, an FBI agent and two state troopers traveled to Orlando to interview him.

At his apartment in May 2013, the three law enforcement officers interviewed Todashev starting around 7:30 p.m. and stretching past midnight. Another officer stood guard outside.

At first, Todashev denied involvement in the Waltham murders: “Like I said, I didn’t kill nobody and I need your help.” But eventually, he confessed that he was involved in it, officials said.

Shortly after midnight, the apartment erupted in violence. A coffee table was hurled in the air, opening a gash on the FBI agent’s head that would require nine staples. Todashev then brandished a metal broomstick and charged. The bleeding agent shouted at Todashev to stop, then fired his gun three or four times. Todashev fell, but sprang up and lunged again, and the agent shot him several more times. Todashev fell again, face down, and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to death in 2015 for his admitted role in the Marathon bombings.

The heavily redacted warrant was unsealed Wednesday at the request of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers.

The attorneys maintain the trial judge erred when he barred the defense from telling jurors about Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s suspected involvement in the Waltham case.

Federal prosecutors have responded that the Waltham evidence doesn’t “show that Tamerlan ‘influenced’ or ‘intimidated’ him into committing the crimes in this case or that [Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev played a lesser role in the bombing.”

Oral arguments in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s appeal are slated for Dec. 12 before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He’s currently incarcerated at a federal supermax facility in Colorado.

11/18/19

Trapper’s Quote Of The Week

By: Trapper Pettit

Hearsay is an ugly word when it overrides reality. As a point of fact, just the other day, my cousin Joe Bob called. He said he heard from his brother’s third wife, Jill, who heard from her second cousin’s mother Darcy, who had talked to her daughter Frieda. Frieda worked in the White House as a maid and overheard from an unidentified source that President Trump sexually identifies as an LGBTQIACMXYZ individual. But more importantly, because Kim Jong-Un likes to wear his sister’s underwear, the last summit between the two leaders wasn’t a summit but was a date. Frieda filled out a whistleblower complaint, has disappeared from the planet, and Adam Shiff has called a closed-door meeting. Now, do we understand the relevance of hearsay as we scratch our heads and think WTF?

11/15/19

Virginia Goes Blue: Pro-China Communists Claim Credit

By: Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times

Virginia voters head to the polls at Nottingham Elementary School Nov. 5, 2019 in Arlington, Va. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Did a China-based American communist help flip Virginia?

It’s official. The once deep-red Commonwealth of Virginia is now a blue state. As a result of the Nov. 5 election, Democrats now hold all three of the statewide constitutional offices, both U.S. Senate seats, the majority of its Congress members, and both chambers of the State House.

Laura Ingraham of Fox News says it’s because of “changing demographics.” That’s only partially true. Virginia went blue because a handful of well-organized pro-Chinese communists made it happen.

The group in question, New Virginia Majority (NVM), has exploited Virginia’s changing population and “liberal bleed out” from the Washington area to flip not just Northern Virginia but also districts across the state. Based in Alexandria and Richmond, NVM has sent hundreds of paid workers and volunteers out across the commonwealth to register and send to the polls hundreds of thousands of new voters—all under the nose of the Virginia Republican Party.

https://www.facebook.com/newvirginiamajority/photos/a.360315554086302/2462247300559773/?type=3

The Democrats have flipped two state Senate seats and now hold a 10-vote advantage in the Assembly. NVM endorsed and supported 23 Virginia candidates this cycle and won with 15 of them, including two state Senate races and nine Assembly victories.

The 15 who were endorsed by NVM and won are:

  • Ghazala Hashmi, Virginia Senate District 10
  • John Bell, Virginia Senate District 13
  • Wendy Gooditis, House District 10
  • Kelly Convirs-Fowler, House District 21
  • Elizabeth Guzman, House District 31
  • Dan Helmer, House District 40
  • Kathy Tran, House District 42
  • Hala Ayala, House District 51
  • Schuyler VanValkenburg, House District 72
  • Rodney Willett, House District 73
  • Shelly Simonds, House District 94
  • Steve Descano, Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney
  • Parisi Deghani-Tafti, Arlington County and Fall’s Church Commonwealth’s Attorney
  • Buta Biberaj, Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney
  • Phyllis Randall, Chair Loudoun County Board of Supervisors

None of this electoral success was down to luck or changing demographics alone.

NVM Co-Chair Tram Nguyen has already published an op-ed in The New York Times saying, “Democrats could learn a lot from what happened in Virginia.” The message? “Democrats, do what we did in Virginia—everywhere.” By going after the minority vote with mass voter registration drives, you can flip almost any state.

According to Nguyen:

“The national Democratic Party spent millions in Virginia this year, but the state wasn’t always such a priority. From its position in the South to its prominent role in America’s legacy of oppression, Virginia was long considered reliably conservative—unbreakable. As recently as six years ago, Republicans controlled the office of the governor and the General Assembly.

“Local organizations like mine understood the political potential of Virginia when we got started 12 years ago. We are winning because we recognize the power of an electorate that includes and reflects the diversity of our state. We don’t talk to voters only when campaign season rolls around. We try to reach voters of all colors, women, low-income workers and young people where they are, which has made it possible for us to develop a robust base of support along Virginia’s so-called Urban Crescent, from Northern Virginia to Hampton Roads. Long before Election Day, we registered more than 300,000 voters, knocked on more than 2.5 million doors, and organized within communities of color to help win significant policy changes like Medicaid expansion, which covered nearly 400,000 people.”

Nguyen (who was part of Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s transition team) also went on to explain the importance of the ex-convict vote.

“Virginia’s state constitution bars anyone with a felony conviction from voting until their rights have been restored by the governor. For more than nine years, we organized formerly incarcerated women and men to help them demand that their full civil rights be restored. The former governor, Terry McAuliffe, restored the voting rights of more than 173,000 Virginians during his term, more than any other governor in Virginia’s history. In 2016, of the nearly 20,000 men and women who registered to vote for the first time as a result of the restoration of their rights, a whopping 79 percent voted. They were a key voting bloc in Virginia, the only Southern state that Hillary Clinton won.”

NVM worked closely with McAuliffe to win ex-felon voting rights. The organization actually gave the governor an award at its annual dinner for his sterling work.

And the path to success lies in organizing and energizing minority voters who already lean left, but normally vote at very low rates:

“Changes in the shape of the electorate and rising enthusiasm among voters can only go so far, without campaign architecture that channels those changes into tangible political outcomes. …

“Engaging meaningfully with voters of color means talking to tens of thousands of voters to make sure they have the information they need to cast their ballots even after receiving racist Republican campaign communications. … We didn’t need to persuade voters to embrace our worldview—they were already there on the issues. They just needed to be convinced that their vote mattered. To give one example of how this works in practical terms, in precincts in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, turnout this year increased by 24 percent over 2017. …

“States don’t become battlegrounds overnight. Democrats and national progressive organizations have the resources to take their case to the people and win, but they have to start early and organize relentlessly. When they lose, they have to stay in place and keep fighting for every political inch they can get. No place is unwinnable forever.”

All this would be serious enough if NVM members were merely well-meaning “liberal Democrats,” which unfortunately isn’t the case.

NVM is a front for Liberation Road, known until April this year as Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), the United States’ most influential Maoist organization.

Maoist Groups

NVM is led by longtime FRSO/Liberation Road cadre Jon Liss of Alexandria. Several FRSO cadres have served in NVM over the years, as have many activists from two NVM satellite groups, LeftRoots and the Virginia Student Power Network.

FRSO/Liberation Road comes out of the militantly pro-China American Maoist student movement of the 1970s. While it’s more discreet about its Chinese loyalties these days, several of its leading supporters maintain close ties to the People’s Republic.

Fred Engst is a longtime FRSO supporter. Born to U.S. communist parents and raised in China, Engst was educated in the United States, where he became immersed in Maoist politics. He returned to China in 2007 and is now teaching at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.

Alex Tom, a leader of LeftRoots and the pro-Beijing San Francisco-based Chinese Progressive Association, in 2012 formed the China Education and Exposure Program to “build a deeper analysis of China for US progressives and leftists and to build relationships with the grassroots movement in China,” according to his 2013 LeftForum speaker’s bio.

John Marienthal, a San Jose-based FRSO member, has been a leader of the pro-Beijing U.S.–China Peoples Friendship Association for more than 40 years and has taught in several Chinese educational establishments since the 1980s.

Steve McClure is a former Washington resident who, in the 1970s, was active in the pro-Mao Revolutionary Student Brigade. He has close ties to FRSO and NVM. Since 2010, he has worked with the Geography Department of Wuhan University in China, and he is a research associate with the State Key Laboratory of Engineering Information in Surveying, Mapping, and Remote Sensing at the university.

McClure has used his skills in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to supply highly targeted voter identification information to NVM.

As far back as 2005, McClure was using GIS technology to identify low-income voters for Liss’s Tenant Workers Support Committee. McClure “plotted lower-income, high-rental housing areas to get a picture of where there was affordable housing in Northern Virginia,” according to the Mason Gazette. This information probably proved very useful when Liss established NVM two years later.

According to an Aug. 25, 2011, post on McClure’s blog:

“I have been recently working with New Virginia Majority to make a series of maps to inform planning for precinct walks in Virginia State house districts. … The core data are lists of individual households by pan-ethnic census categories. … The results are subjective but do suggest … the ways that actual communities conform or diverge from the discrete territorial units which define an electoral terrain in a democracy.”

All this wasn’t theoretical. It was designed to help NVM flip districts across the state by micro-targeting potential Democratic voters in low-income and minority communities. In another post, he wrote:

“In the general elections of 2008, Virginia voted Democratic for the first time since 1964 with Obama carrying the state. Demographic shifts and increased voter participation rather than a shift in political allegiances account for this outcome. …

“Focusing on Prince William County, Virginia, I applied spatial interpolation techniques in a GIS to translate the 2008 election returns from the geography of precincts to year 2000 zoning classification areas for further quantitative analysis. The goal was to produce actionable intelligence for working class organizations building popular power at the base. …

“The results are presented as maps and diagrams which might illuminate challenges and opportunities for organizations engaging with electoral efforts.”

McClure is still actively engaged in giving advice to his U.S. comrades on winning elections for the Democrats.

An article co-written by McClure and Bob Wing, “The Importance of the Fight for the South—and Why It Can and Must Be Won,” appeared on the Liberation Road-linked website Organizing Upgrade on Sept. 4, 2017. It states:

“The far right, racism, militarism, inequality, and poverty are all centered in the South. The majority of African Americans, the main protagonist of progressive politics in this country, live in the South. And the South has more electoral votes, battleground state votes, population, and congresspersons than any other region.

“The South is changing rapidly, giving rise to more progressive demographic groups—especially Black and Latino migrations, LGBTQs and urbanites—and a growing Democratic vote. These trends can only be maximized if the importance of the South is understood as a strategic necessity and the chance to win state by state, is acknowledged and acted upon.

“Hard as the fight is and will be, downplaying the Southern struggle is a losing political strategy and forfeits the moral high ground on the biggest issues facing the country.”

McClure and Wing (another “former” Maoist associated with FRSO) argue that to destroy the Republican Party in the South, black communities must be targeted and mobilized to vote:

 “(1) A critical mass of Southern states can and must be won if we are to block or defeat the right in presidential elections. Three of the five or so critical battleground states are in the South: Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. Southern blue and battleground states plus Washington D.C. hold 38 percent of the electoral votes needed to win.

“(2) Winning an anti-rightwing congressional majority depends on winning in the South, as the South has a bigger congressional delegation than any other region and Southern congresspersons also hold key leadership posts within the Republican Party’s congressional hierarchies.

“(3) There are tremendous opportunities to build progressive political power and governance at the local level in the South as 105 counties have a Black majority. …

“While some might dismiss the South, focusing strategically on the Northeast and Pacific Coast as central to a progressive program and the Midwest as the main political battleground, the South’s dynamic growth, historical legacy of Black struggle and powerful political weight make it a critical battlefield.

“The nuance is that the South cannot be won as a bloc, but only state by state and county by county. In fact, winning the South in large part means understanding that it is not a monolithic entity and winning it piece by piece: i.e. politically deconstructing the South.”

President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 shocked the left and, according to McClure and Wing, has made their goal of flipping the South even more urgent:

“This essay was prepared in March 2015, prior to the 2016 election season that eventually resulted in Donald Trump’s victory. However, the far rightwing’s capture of the presidency makes this essay’s main arguments even more important. …

“The South is the key center of the far right and the Republican Party; neither can be defeated without battling for the South.”

Liberation Road has a large presence in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina (Durham for All), and Florida (the New Florida Majority). Now that Virginia is safely in the Democrat column, look to see an upsurge of Maoist electoral activity in North Carolina and Florida to turn those states blue in 2020; Tennessee and Georgia will be next. Then, Texas.

Chinese ‘Collusion’?

Trump has been tougher on Beijing than has any other president in living memory. It’s no secret that China doesn’t like Trump and would love to see him defeated in 2020.

Rather than risk war, or suffer huge economic setbacks, wouldn’t it be much cheaper and easier to use China’s American assets, such as Liberation Road, to ensure Trump’s defeat by “democratic” means?

It’s inconceivable that the Chinese government didn’t know what McClure was up to. After all, they presumably pay his salary or living costs while he is in China.

It’s clear that Liberation Road is tied to China. It’s also clear that their front-group NVM is heavily involved in U.S. electoral politics and played a decisive role in turning Virginia blue. It’s also obvious that Liberation Road’s goal is to destroy President Trump and the Republican Party to pave the way for a socialist America.

Is there Chinese “collusion” here? Do we need investigations and executive action against these subversive groups before they’re able to fully realize their goals? With less than a year until the 2020 election, there’s not much time left to do so.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

11/14/19

Why Trump is the Black Voters’ Clear Choice in 2020

By: Lloyd Marcus

A rabbi once said that one of the reasons why Jews have prospered despite being the most persecuted people on the planet is that Jews never view themselves as victims. This powerful truth hit me like a ton of bricks. From as far back as I can remember, Democrats have deceived blacks by drilling the lie into their heads that they are victims of eternally racist America.

Insidiously, Democrats continue to sell blacks the lie that America is a hellhole of racism in which Republicans and conservatives are obsessed with conceiving ways to keep blacks down. Consequently, far too many blacks absurdly believe a majority of Americans (Trump voters) are white supremacists and their only hope of keeping them at bay is to continue voting for Democrats.

As a child, I instinctively knew Democrats were scamming blacks. When I was around nine years old, my parents and three younger siblings moved from a leaky roofed ghetto to a new 11-story government project in Baltimore. Everything was brand new, kitchen appliances and so on. Extremely excited, we were among the first families in the building of all-black residents. Within a short time, that building became a huge ghetto. The elevators were routinely out of service due to vandalism. Our apartment was on the 6th floor. Entering the pitch-black stairwell to walk up to our apartment was like walking into the shadow of death, as the sound of stepping on broken wine bottles echoed off the concrete walls. I suspect my fellow residents were Democrats. They believed every problem was always the fault of white racism.

At nine years old, I sarcastically said, “How can we stop mean white people from sneaking into our building at night, breaking light bulbs in the stairwells, peeing, breaking the elevators and smashing wine bottles?” Even at that young age, commonsense told me whitey was not responsible for problems we could fix ourselves.

In my mid-twenties, I again noticed the devastatingly negative consequences of Democrats infecting blacks with victim mindsets. I became a born-again Christian. Excited about my new life in Jesus, I began visiting reform schools and prisons sharing how Jesus changed my life. Shockingly, the majority of the inmates were young black men. Many were gifted and talented. Their glaring problem was not white racism, but hopeless victim mindsets instilled into them by Democrats. I repeatedly heard, “Why even try when whitey has systemically stacked the deck against you?”

Blacks today do not know that the Democratic party has become the home of socialists, communists, progressives, and anti-Americanism. All Democrats care about is furthering their anti-God agenda. The folks they claim to advocate for (minorities, women, and LGBTQ) are nothing more than useful idiots. Democrats want blacks hating their country. This is why Democrats say all black success is despite America’s rabid racism.

Americans are good, fair-minded people. This is why white America elected Obama, the first black president, exempting him from the normal vetting process. It is unarguable that white America elected Obama because blacks are only 12% of the population. Hidden by his black skin exterior, Obama was the socialists/progressives’ perfect Trojan Horse to further their godless, anti-American agenda.  White Americans naively assumed that electing a black president would finally end their being branded racist. They had no idea that Democrats would exploit Obama’s skin color, using it as a bludgeon to force their agenda down the throats of Americans.

Anyone who dared to speak out against Obama’s numerous unconstitutional executive orders was immediately attacked, high-tech beaten and lynched in the public square, an “r” branded on their forehead for being a racist.

My conservative, self-reliant, the-world-does-not-owe-me-anything mindset came from my parents. Particularly my dad, the late Dr. Rev. Lloyd E Marcus. In 1952, the ban was lifted, allowing blacks to take the civil service test. Dad passed the test and became a Baltimore City firefighter. White firefighters at Engine 6 resented Dad and treated him like scum. Dad was assigned separate eating utensils, restroom and sleeping area. He could not even pour himself a cup of coffee from the same coffeepot as the whites.

Whenever the humiliation becomes too overwhelming, Dad retreated to the storage room to pray and read his Bible. Mean-spirited firefighters named the storage room, “Marcus’ Chapel.” Dad courageously endured because he had a wife and four kids to feed and knew he was a trailblazer.

Rather than wallowing in a victim mindset, Dad chose to represent Jesus by striving to be excellent. Dad won Firefighter of the Year two times, also winning respect and lifelong friendships with white firefighters. He went on to become Baltimore’s first black paramedic and fire department chaplain. Dad competed with whites for Firefighter of the Year without the Democrats’ insulting demands that standards be lowered to compensate for his skin color.

I hate that Democrats always send blacks the message that they are victims, repeatedly demanding lowered standards and special concessions. For example: Democrats say that being required to present a photo ID to vote disenfranchises blacks. This is extremely insulting. In essence, Democrats are saying unlike other Americans, blacks are too stupid to acquire a photo ID, which is absurd. You need a photo ID to cash a check, board an airplane, and countless other transactions. And yet, far too many blacks view this attack on their intelligence as Democrats advocating for them.

The true evil goal of Democrats is not to empower blacks. They seek to addict blacks to government dependency, because if the government is paying your bills, the government can totally control your life and dictate your behavior. This is why Democrats despise self-reliant, extraordinarily successful blacks like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, retired renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain. The success of these blacks pokes a huge hole in Democrats’ lie that blacks can only succeed in racist America via Democrats’ intervention and lowered standards.

Tragically, blacks have voted monolithically for Democrats for 60 years with nothing to show for it. Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago, and every other city controlled by Democrats are hellholes of black misery; black-on-black homicides, out-of-wedlock births (fatherless households), high incarceration, genocidal numbers of abortions, and school dropouts. And yet, Democrats are still deceiving blacks with their tired old lie that every issue plaguing black Americans is the result of white racism.

My stomach turned upon hearing Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren promising to end environmental racism. I thought, “Here we go again with another Democrat attempting to fill blacks with more victim nonsense while trashing America, claiming that even the weather in the U.S. victimizes blacks.”

As the rabbi stated, viewing oneself as a victim is not empowering. It weakens you.

President Trump is the best thing for blacks since sliced bread. Under Trump, black unemployment is at an historic low.  The record of Trump’s extraordinary business career is filled with examples of advocating for and hiring blacks.

For decades, I pleaded with the GOP to make a strong effort to reach out to black voters. The cynical response was, “Why bother? African-Americans will always vote for Democrats no matter what we do.” My retort was, “Republicans have a moral duty to counter Democrats’ destructive lies by taking the truth about America’s greatness to black communities.” Trump is the first Republican president in my lifetime to seriously and sincerely court black voters.

Branding Trump as a racist is yet another evil Democrat lie to steer blacks away from a Republican who has their best interests at heart, implementing policies beneficial to them.

Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party does not treat me like a poor inferior child in need of constant government intervention.

Folks, the bottom line is America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for their dreams! This inspiring truth is as repulsive to Democrats as showing Dracula the cross.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com

11/14/19

It is Bigger than Burisma and the Bidens, Trump Knows

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Speaker Pelosi held a press conference after the first day of the open impeachment inquiry hearing declaring that she is the smartest when it comes to intelligence and she will defend and protect the whistle-blower with all her might. HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff said at least twice that he does not know nor has he spoken to the whistle-blower. Sheesh really? REALLY?

Pelosi and Schiff are for sure covering for something much larger and it is in Ukraine and likely at least a few other countries. There was a historic theft from PrivatBank a few years ago that was in excess of $5 BILLION. Then Ukraine was forced to nationalize the bank until such time the monies were tracked, found or recovered, which still has not happened. The country was financially suffering and the reputation of corruption in Ukraine continued to fester.

Seems our own U.S. State Department was enlisted to step up operations in Ukraine using several government agencies and non-government agencies known as NGO’s.

The matter of the whistle-blower is but one piece of all things Ukraine even while 2 State Department officials, George Kent and William Taylor provide testimony in the first round of the public hearing. (BTW, Kent’s wife is of Crimean-Tatar ancestry.) Kent and Taylor are in the thick of all things Ukraine and beyond even while responding in open testimony they were unaware of key political events stateside.

Our not so favorite nefarious operator George Soros is very much at the center of much of the chaos in Ukraine, the Hillary Clinton/John Kerry State Department and some of those NGO’s.

Listed below are some bullet items for reference. It is difficult to piece together the whole mess but the facts below may help the reader with the long game plot against President Trump because his handful of phone calls with Ukraine President Zelensky regarding investigations into corruption(s) has struck a nerve that the power-brokers in DC are driven to stop and protect.

1. To boost the legitimacy of Ukraine and Burisma, the Obama administration partnered Burisma with USAID.

2. USAID was enlisted to prepare for a new generation of Ukrainian politicians.

3. From the U.S. Ukraine Business Council: Briefing by Vadym Pozharskyi, Advisor to the Board of Directors, Burisma Holdings Ukraine’s largest independent gas producer, 30% market share by gas output volume in 2015

Vadym Pozharskyi currently serves as an Advisor to the Board of Directors at the Burisma Holdings. He is also in charge of the Holding’s overseas expansion, GR & PR block. Prior to that, he worked for 4 years in the public sector, inter alia, on positions of the Head of the International Relations Department at the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine and the Deputy Head of the State Environmental Investment Agency of Ukraine.

During these engagements, he extensively cooperated with international organizations, led the negotiations group to UNFCCC on the restoration of Ukraine’s status in the Kyoto protocol. From 2010 until 2014, Mr. Pozharskyi was the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Focal point in Ukraine.

Burisma Holdings, www.BURISMA.com, since its launch in 2002, has rapidly become the largest gas producer in Ukraine.  Burisma Holdings consists of 4 operating companies, engaged in the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (dealing with hydrocarbon production).  Burisma Holdings has expanded its operations beyond Ukraine and now operates in Germany, Mexico, Italy, and Kazakhstan.

Burisma Geothermal is a new branch of Burisma Holdings.  It is a 100% owned subsidiary that specializes in geothermal energy development and electricity production from renewable and environmentally friendly energy sources in Europe.  Burisma Holdings has purchased equipment and technologies from such USA companies as Halliburton and Caterpillar.

4. Several U.S. government agencies were tapped to provide financial assistance to Ukraine and President Trump is right to ask harder questions as there is no Inspector General assigned to Ukraine to track that spending for legitimacy. Remember the legacy of corruption in Ukraine and Trump has a duty to see if he can trust a brand new leader in Zelensky who was never a politician.

5. William B. Taylor is the executive vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Earlier, he was the special coordinator for Middle East Transitions in the U.S. State Department. He oversaw assistance and support to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria. He served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. Ambassador Taylor became chargé d’affaires ad interim for Ukraine in June 2019. In picking through some of the other names in the membership of The American Academy of Diplomacy  (NGO) which includes Taylor, they are: Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Jon Huntsman Jr., John Kerry, Victoria Nuland, Thomas Pickering, Susan Rice, Wendy Sherman, Strobe Talbott, and Kent Volker.

6. Willam Taylor as part of the U.S. Institute of Peace, not only was USAID a deeper partner in Ukraine but Google is also. USAID was/is a sponsor of RADA. RADA and the USAID program that launched in November of 2013 collectively took to the streets in Ukraine for what is known as the Revolution of Dignity coordinating with Members of Parliament and civil society organizations and other international experts.

7. President Trump mentioned Crowdstrike in the phone call. Crowdstrike was hired by Perkins Coie to investigate the hacking of the DNC server. Perkins Coie was the law firm of record for the DNC and hired Fusion GPS. Trump has the notion that Crowdstrike also may have operated out of Ukraine that clues point to Crowdstrike was part of foreign interference into our 2016 elections. It should be noted that an independent group of journalists based in Britain is seeking a UK report of Russian/Ukraine interference their Britain’s election. As a matter of fact, Crowdstrike has an office in London.

8. With all this political power and international resumes, how was it that Russia was allowed to annex Crimea and invade Ukraine in the first place? Where was Taylor, Nuland, Kerry, Rice or Obama? Too busy with the Iran nuclear deal it seems. The United States needed Russia’s cooperation with the Iran JCPOA so Obama did not grant the request of Ukraine for military aide other than to ship MRE’s and blankets. Congress (read Democrats) never complained until President Trump was in a phone call and approved the eventual shipment of real military aide.

So, back to the beginning, where does this whistle-blower fit in? Seems he was/is the Ukraine expert assigned to VP Biden who was assigned by Obama to be the leader of the envoy for all things Ukraine. At least 6 emails obtained from a FOIA list the Ciaramella in the email chain. Others include Victoria Nuland, George Kent, and Kathleen Kavalec. There are other names in the email discussion(s) dated June 2016.

This is a larger operation that has a genesis in Ukraine. There are known quantities of moving parts but it is clear that Pelosi, Schiff and perhaps many others at NGO’s, the State Department, the previous members of the Obama White House are in fact just a little nervous that Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani are treading in waters made dark by operatives they are working to hide, defend and protect.

11/14/19

Maoists and Socialists Increase Their Influence on Philly City Council

By: Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times

The City Hall building with the statue of William Penn on top is seen in the city center of Philadelphia on Dec. 3, 2017. Philadelphia is the largest city in Pennsylvania and the sixth-most populous city in the United States. (ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images)

Radical Maoists from Liberation Road and their small “c” communist allies from Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) elected one of their own to Philadelphia City Council on Nov. 5.

Kendra Brooks, who won a city council at-large seat, will join fellow radical Helen Gym on the 17-member body.

Heavily Democratic Philadelphia follows an unusual system for electing city councilors. Ten councilors are elected by district, while seven are elected “at-large” from the whole city voting base. Two of those seats are traditionally reserved for “minor parties,” which has for decades guaranteed two Republican seats on the council. Brooks took one of these minority seats, cutting Republican representation down to one.

Brooks ran on the Working Families Party ticket. The party, which has recently expanded from its New York base to several new states, spent more than $400,000 on Brooks and her running mate Nicolas O’Rourke, and knocked on 150,000 doors and sent 300,000 text messages.

In reality, the Philadelphia Working Families Party is just a ballot-line, a shell with little real structure. The backbone of Brooks’s campaign were activists from the DSA, the 215 People’s Alliance (a Liberation Road front—the 215 signifies Philadelphia’s area code) and Reclaim Philadelphia (a DSA-led organization).

Liberation Road (known from 1985 to April as Freedom Road Socialist Organization or FRSO) is a pro-China communist organization that has in the last few years turned heavily toward electoral politics. Liberation Road works both inside and outside the Democratic Party depending on the local circumstances.

The DSA is the nation’s largest Marxist group with a claimed 56,000 members. The DSA is aligned to several European and Latin American communist parties.

Together with the Communist Party USA, Liberation Road, and the DSA combine their forces to infiltrate mainstream politics, including the Democratic Party, in an alliance dubbed the Left Inside/Outside Project.

Brooks’s victory should be viewed in this context.

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

“Without the infrastructure of a major party, Brooks and her campaign manager, Arielle Klagsbrun, largely built their operation from scratch. But they could not have won without the efforts of a preexisting network of groups whose members knocked on thousands of doors, held fund-raisers, and posted constantly on social media for Brooks and her fellow Working Families Party candidate Nicolas O’Rourke, who came up short in his Council bid. …

“The activist groups that carried the Working Families Party banner this year didn’t just aid Brooks’ campaign. In many ways, they were the campaign.”

Philadelphia DSA has at least 600 members in its main branch and can draw on many more from Delaware, Bucks, and Montgomery counties. Reclaim Philadelphia can mobilize hundreds of people across South Philadelphia and the river wards. Reclaim Philadelphia’s lead organizer Amanda McIllmurray is a well-known DSA member.

Liberation Road also has deep roots in Philadelphia, stretching right back to the Maoist student movement of the 1970s. It’s much more secretive than the DSA, however, and publicly acknowledges very few of its members. However, it does maintain several front groups in the city, and it’s fairly easy to track the same people appearing in various Liberation Road-aligned organizations.

The 215 People’s Alliance, which is centered in Southwest Philadelphia, is riddled with Liberation Road-aligned people. Confusingly, many of them are also DSA members as Liberation Road has some cross-membership with the DSA all over the country.

Some examples include:

Ron Whitehorne, a 215 supporter, was active in the 1980s Maoist group Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee and has since been active with several Liberation Road-aligned groups, including Philadelphia Public School Notebook, Media Mobilizing Project, and Youth United for Change—as well as the DSA.

Bryan Mercer, a 215 activist, has been involved with Liberation Road-affiliated groups Media Mobilizing Project, Asian Americans United, and LeftRoots.

Nancy Dung Nguyen, a 215 canvasser, has been involved in Liberation Road-friendly groups, including Asian Americans United, Memphis Solidarity Brigade, Campaign for Nonviolent Schools, and Progressive Philly Rising.

Teresa Engst, a 215 endorser and canvasser, comes from a well-known Philly communist family. Many of her relatives grew up in China after immigrating to support Mao’s revolution. She is active with Asian Americans United.

Kendra Brooks herself serves on the steering committee of 215 People’s Alliance and has a history of left activism. Her campaign manager Arielle Klagsbrun comes by way of the Midwest where she was an organizer with Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (formerly known as ACORN), which was also closely aligned with the local Liberation Road.

Sitting Philadelphia City Council member Helen Gym, a Democrat, ruffled a lot of Democrat feathers when she endorsed Brooks rather than a fellow Democrat.

According to local radio station WHYY Philadelphia, Democratic Party chairman Bob Brady was “dismayed”:

“I don’t know why that’s happening. We have a slate of five, she’s a part of it, and now she’s asking someone to vote against herself or one of the other four candidates who won the nomination — that doesn’t make any sense to me.”

It makes perfect sense if you examine Gym’s background.

The high-polling Gym was first elected to the Philadelphia Council in 2015 by many of the same Maoists who elected Brooks. She has a history with Philadelphia’s FRSO/Liberation Road element going back more than 20 years.

Gym got her activist start with local FRSO leader Ellen Somekawa and her influential Asian Americans United activist group. She also helped Somekawa and Somekawa’s FRSO comrade and husband Eric Joselyn found the Folk Arts-Cultural Treasures Charter School.

Gym played a key role in the creation and early publishing days of another FRSO-linked group, the Philadelphia Public School Notebook, a nonprofit news outlet covering the city’s public schools. She worked alongside Whitehorne, Joselyn, and several other FRSO supporters on this project.

Gym would later work with the Media Mobilizing Project, Progressive Philly Rising, and the Minneapolis-based FRSO-linked education journal Rethinking Schools.

In recent years, Gym, who is of Korean extraction, has served on the board of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (NAKASEC), which aims to “organize Korean and Asian Americans to achieve social, economic, and racial justice.”

NAKASEC grew out of Young Koreans United, a 1990s activist group well-known for its pro-North Korean views.

Gym may officially be a Democrat, but to all intents and purposes she follows the Liberation Road “line.” No doubt she will look forward to having an ally in Brooks to help advance her far-left agenda.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

11/13/19

When Justice Isn’t

By: Tabitha Korol

The changes to our vocabulary change our ideas, steal our freedoms, and indoctrinate our students to accept the rules that socialists and fascists are inflicting upon them.    

A letter written by a local elementary school teacher, I’ll call “Mrs. Krieg,” was brought to my attention by a mutual acquaintance.  In light of the notice that honor classes will be discontinued, she thoughtfully agreed that equity (defined as fairness and impartiality) in the schools should benefit all students.  Regrettably, she has been influenced by terminology that has been devalued and redefined to become a tool for social engineering among students.  Such revisionism has been applied to Equity, Diversity and Social Justice, and comes at the expense of freedom and true justice.

Honors classes were designed to challenge students academically.  The advanced work, faster pace, and higher course-credit weight have provided for smarter, happier, well-rounded children who had the opportunity to flourish according to their capabilities and not misbehave out of boredom.  But now, the authorities have determined it best to cancel the honor courses across the country because of a “lack of diversity” – that is, more Caucasian and Asian students were engaged than Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.  Instead of also providing honors classes that meet the interests of the low-energy students – perhaps music, theater, artisanal handicrafts – the Department of Education has decided to close the achievement gap by lowering the bar and expectations and discontinuing all incentives.  Mrs. Krieg did not foresee that by eliminating the incentives and opportunities, the resulting “equity” would be mediocrity and the loss of exceptional achievement.

Now the Department of Education will generate equity in boredom, discontent, resentment, truancy, and delinquency.  Academia is not unaware of these inevitabilities.  Their purpose is not an improved education but the decline of achievement and the elimination of the exceptional. Former President Obama expressed a similar derogatory outlook when he denounced high-achieving Americans with, “You didn’t build that.”

Diversity in the schools no longer describes a richness of ideas, course studies, or specialty careers, but defines and categorizes the students themselves, by race, religion, ethnicity, financial status, sexual orientation, and however else the students choose to differentiate themselves.  As with the term “equity,” the meaning of “diversity” has been corrupted, as it now implies division, divisiveness, and discord, the opposite of E Pluribus Unum – Out of Many, One.  These differences have led to a totalitarian-style monitoring and bullying – called Speech Control, necessitating “Diversity Officers” with doctoral degrees, credentials in counseling and inclusion techniques, and six-figure salaries reflected in higher tuition costs.  The officers’ mere presence confirms the growing disharmony, isolation, discrimination, harassment, and violence that characterize the socialist strategy.  These points are significant:

  • Many schools have implemented a policy of discouraging the bonding between classmates, beginning with Kindergarten, alleging that “best friends” keep the students from mingling with This is false and destructive.  Best friends are a mutual support system, as they learn to agree, compromise, comfort, accommodate, and be reliable, traits needed throughout their adult lives.
  • Schools now place students at their computers for hours, removing eye contact and discussion opportunities with others, disallowing autonomy over time scheduling, reducing writing and penmanship with its inherent creativity. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris said she would increase daily school time by three hours, thereby seriously reducing home and family activities, personal growth, and individual achievement.
  • Academia has introduced “intersectionality” to diminish the self and encourage victimhood by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, family class; the more the classifications, the higher their status.  Instead of a unitedness with school and pride of citizenship in their own country, they are now tribalistic, divisive, and intolerant.
  • Bigotry against Jewish students and staff (antisemitism) is on the rise and spreading.  History has shown that Jews are always the first, but never the only ones, to be attacked.  There is growing hostility directed towards whites (white supremacy), extending to our founding and history, particularly by the socialists and Sharia-compliant; and towards boys (toxic masculinity), which works to diminish their self-worth and ambitions, and damage their God-given purpose of contributing to our nation’s growth and defense.  Boys must become men: marry and support their families, be strong fathers and teach morality to the next generation.
  • The removal of God from the schools and population’s psyche has produced a plethora of new definitions that facilitate a ruling class, convince the public to tolerate lawlessness over sovereign borders, and to submit to the measured demands of sharia made by the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates on campus and in the media.
  • The Common Core standards introduced new courses: intentionally convoluted math that prohibits parental participation; dystopian and uninspiring literature that offers limited creative vocabulary and replaces inspiration with fatalism; inaccurate and indoctrinating history lessons that misinform students about our growth and successes and secretes the truths about Islam; and social studies that support a political agenda.
  • With individuality stifled, the children are indoctrinated to think alike, falter alike, and expect equal return for widespread mediocrity.  This equity in communist countries has produced stagnation in education, the economy, and real income; slow improvement in everyday services and medical care; shortages of goods; rising criminality and corruption, along with an increase in alcoholism, particularly in Russia.  Socialism kills the spirit of personal endeavor.
  • The introduction of transgenderism is ruining the lives of many children, psychologically and physically, wrecking all opportunities for happiness in marriage and family, leading some to suicide.
  • The threat of climate change, perhaps the greatest hoax, is the extensive control over all life, which would bring a scarcity of energy, failing manufacturing firms and retail operations, vilified consumerism, diminishing food supplies, curbed transportation for people and food distribution.  The environmentalists purposely falsify the data about climatic conditions in order to throttle human activity – which they hate – to produce their worshipped green planet.
  • In short, the goal of the left is to crush the human spirit.  Pride in accomplishment must be stifled, progress discouraged, and the dispirited population reminted into the globalists’ compliant working class.
  • Contrary to Mrs. Krieg’s understanding, the term “diversity” was invented to con the populace into accepting all incoming non-citizens.  Regardless of criminality, disease, or hatred for the American flag, they must be housed, fed, clothed, educated and medicated.  Multiculturalism is already the downfall of several European countries due to cultures that are too disparate for assimilation.  Muslims come to replace their hosts’ laws with their sharia and establish yet another oppressive totalitarian Islamic state.

Contrary to Mrs. Krieg’s understanding, the term “diversity” was invented to con the populace into accepting all incoming non-citizens.  Regardless of criminality, disease, or hatred for the American flag, they must be housed, fed, clothed, educated and medicated.  Multiculturalism is already the downfall of several European countries due to cultures that are too disparate for assimilation.  Muslims come to replace their hosts’ laws with their sharia and establish yet another oppressive totalitarian Islamic state.

Justice becomes injustice when the word needs a modifier.  “Social justice” means a revision of laws to accommodate a socialist agenda.  True justice is served only when the interests of Americans are considered, when Americans can, of their own volition and in their own time, partake of the promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The authoritarian government seeks total/totalitarian control over the masses to forcibly produce identical workers, taught and indoctrinated to comply with the needs of the regime.

The final outcome is not unknown to mankind.  We have seen countries fall to socialism, fascism, and Islam, and the vulnerable children are always the first to feel the effects of the increasing control.

Now is the time to act if we are to avoid Orwell’s dire warning: If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.