Friday, April 27, 2018
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Hillary's Money Laundering Scheme
frontpagemag
April 26, 2018
Matthew Vadum
Why is the media ignoring the DNC’s new $84 million campaign finance scandal?
While it obsesses over an aging porn star, Russians, discredited ex-FBI officials, and pimple-faced gun-grabbers, the mainstream media has been ignoring an explosive federal lawsuit unearthing a huge illegal money-laundering conspiracy said to have been masterminded last election cycle by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is yet another facet of the plot by which Clinton, possibly in league with then-President Obama, broke the law in an attempt to rig the election. Throughout his agonizingly long presidency, Obama serially abused his powers as the nation's Chief Executive to undermine his political opponents.
Against this backdrop, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign “allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice,” according to a Fox News report that has been gathering dust since April 16.
The civil proceeding, filed against the FEC earlier this month in the nation’s capital, spells out a vast left-wing criminal conspiracy while providing detailed evidence from FEC filings to support the claim that Democrats orchestrated the scheme to do an end-run around federal campaign limits.
The Stop Hillary PAC, also now known as the Committee to Defend the President (CDP), filed a complaint in December with the FEC stating that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) sought funds from high-profile donors and then “sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.”
The complaint went nowhere and the political action committee got tired of waiting.
“The Clinton machine has escaped accountability for its illegal practices for far too long,” said CDP chairman Ted Harvey. “After months of review, the FEC has refused to address the Clintons’ $84 million money laundering scheme that violated several campaign finance laws.”
The federal lawsuit names the FEC as a defendant, claiming its failure to act was “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.”
Harvey’s group is asking the court to use its authority under the Federal Election Campaign Act “to step in and demand action from the FEC,” Harvey said. “The American people demand that our most corrupt political figures answer for their transgressions.”
The Fox report states:
“Based on publicly available FEC records, repeatedly throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, HVF would purportedly transfer funds to its constituent political committees, which included between 34 and 40 state parties,” reads a passage from a copy of the complaint. “On the very same day each of these transfers supposedly occurred, or occasionally the very next day, every single one of those state parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC.”
The complaint filed against the FEC said previous reports showed a series of transactions in which the HVF disbursed contributions to its state party committee members -- and they would receive the funds on the same day. The HVF would also allegedly disburse funds to up to 40 state parties at the same time, and those parties would send the money back within 24 hours.
Anyone who has followed the Clintons over the years from Whitewater to Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” to Uranium One is bound to be unsurprised by the money-laundering allegations. If you’re a Clinton, you raise huge sums of money and then use sleight-of-hand to make the ill-gotten gains disappear. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and Clintons gotta grift.
We already knew that Hillary Clinton used hacker-friendly “home brew” Internet servers while running the State Department to conceal the corrupt dealings of the anticipatory presidential bribe clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and to evade her disclosure responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.
She also personally approved a series of illegal schemes and dirty tricks including fomenting violence at Trump rallies to create the false impression that his campaign and supporters were violent, crazy people and at the same time provide evidence to support the Left’s narrative that the billionaire businessman was a dangerous fascist.
And don’t forget the wacky Russian “piss-gate” dossier assembled by Trump-hating British ex-spy Christopher Steele that was paid for by Hillary’s campaign and the DNC.
Even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller is intensely interested in money-laundering allegations, he doesn’t seem too interested when Democrats are implicated.
Trump campaign leaders Paul J. Manafort Jr. and Richard W. Gates III were investigated by Mueller for money laundering wholly unrelated to the campaign. Two months ago Gates accepted a deal from Mueller and pled guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators.
Possible campaign finance improprieties are driving Mueller’s investigation of President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen said Wednesday that because of the criminal investigation against him, he will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a lawsuit brought by porn star Stormy Daniels. The performer, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Cohen in 2016 reportedly to keep her mouth shut about an alleged sexual fling she had with Trump before he was president. At issue is whether the $130,000 was an improper campaign contribution.
Former federal prosecutor and Trump confidante Joseph E. diGenova described Mueller’s recent raid on Cohen’s law office as “an act of terror.” It was “an outrageous act against the attorney-client privilege,” he told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night.
Also on Fox, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that Cohen has a reputation for recklessness and that he was surprised the attorney was still representing the president. Interestingly, Turley also noted that Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ attorney who has caused Trump’s handlers so much heartburn, used to be his law student. Avenatti is “an adrenaline junkie,” Turley previously said.
One of the reasons for Andrew McCabe’s current legal troubles is the suspiciously large $675,000 payment the campaign of his wife, Jill McCabe, who ran for the Virginia State Senate in 2015, received from the state’s Democratic Party and a political action committee of then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a longtime Clinton crony. Was the payment a kind of veiled bribe to McCabe to do or not do something at the Justice Department? We may never know.
McCabe was acting director of the FBI from May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired then-director James B. Comey, through Aug. 2, 2017, when new director Christopher Wray took over. McCabe was fired for gross misconduct by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 16 of this year and is planning to launch a series of frivolous lawsuits for wrongful dismissal, and possibly against Trump and Comey, for defamation.
McCabe’s bloviating lawyer, Michael Bromwich, sputtered that the president and critics are slandering McCabe and that this is hurting the FBI. “We’ve never seen anything like this before,” he said. “It does damage not only to Andy McCabe individually but also to the FBI as an institution.”
Meanwhile, as of last week the Democratic National Committee is suing Russia and WikiLeaks in a breathtakingly stupid effort to keep the fading Trump-Russia electoral collusion conspiracy theory alive. In such a lawsuit, defendants are entitled to go on evidentiary fishing expeditions (i.e. the discovery process) and given how dirty the DNC is, who knows what they might find.
“This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party,” said Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Trump's 2020 reelection effort.
The Trump campaign expects to use the discovery process to examine "actual corruption" by the DNC to "influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election."
Trump tweeted that the lawsuit from “the Obstructionist Democrats” was likely “good news” for his campaign because “we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI.”
This could be fun.
Really fun.
Thank You Mr Vadum and FPM.
April 26, 2018
Matthew Vadum
Why is the media ignoring the DNC’s new $84 million campaign finance scandal?
While it obsesses over an aging porn star, Russians, discredited ex-FBI officials, and pimple-faced gun-grabbers, the mainstream media has been ignoring an explosive federal lawsuit unearthing a huge illegal money-laundering conspiracy said to have been masterminded last election cycle by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is yet another facet of the plot by which Clinton, possibly in league with then-President Obama, broke the law in an attempt to rig the election. Throughout his agonizingly long presidency, Obama serially abused his powers as the nation's Chief Executive to undermine his political opponents.
Against this backdrop, the DNC and Hillary’s campaign “allegedly used state chapters as strawmen to launder as much as $84 million in an effort to circumvent campaign donation limits, and the Federal Election Commission ignored complaints exposing the practice,” according to a Fox News report that has been gathering dust since April 16.
The civil proceeding, filed against the FEC earlier this month in the nation’s capital, spells out a vast left-wing criminal conspiracy while providing detailed evidence from FEC filings to support the claim that Democrats orchestrated the scheme to do an end-run around federal campaign limits.
The Stop Hillary PAC, also now known as the Committee to Defend the President (CDP), filed a complaint in December with the FEC stating that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) sought funds from high-profile donors and then “sent that money through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign.”
The complaint went nowhere and the political action committee got tired of waiting.
“The Clinton machine has escaped accountability for its illegal practices for far too long,” said CDP chairman Ted Harvey. “After months of review, the FEC has refused to address the Clintons’ $84 million money laundering scheme that violated several campaign finance laws.”
The federal lawsuit names the FEC as a defendant, claiming its failure to act was “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.”
Harvey’s group is asking the court to use its authority under the Federal Election Campaign Act “to step in and demand action from the FEC,” Harvey said. “The American people demand that our most corrupt political figures answer for their transgressions.”
The Fox report states:
“Based on publicly available FEC records, repeatedly throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, HVF would purportedly transfer funds to its constituent political committees, which included between 34 and 40 state parties,” reads a passage from a copy of the complaint. “On the very same day each of these transfers supposedly occurred, or occasionally the very next day, every single one of those state parties purportedly contributed all of those funds to the DNC.”
The complaint filed against the FEC said previous reports showed a series of transactions in which the HVF disbursed contributions to its state party committee members -- and they would receive the funds on the same day. The HVF would also allegedly disburse funds to up to 40 state parties at the same time, and those parties would send the money back within 24 hours.
Anyone who has followed the Clintons over the years from Whitewater to Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” to Uranium One is bound to be unsurprised by the money-laundering allegations. If you’re a Clinton, you raise huge sums of money and then use sleight-of-hand to make the ill-gotten gains disappear. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and Clintons gotta grift.
We already knew that Hillary Clinton used hacker-friendly “home brew” Internet servers while running the State Department to conceal the corrupt dealings of the anticipatory presidential bribe clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and to evade her disclosure responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.
She also personally approved a series of illegal schemes and dirty tricks including fomenting violence at Trump rallies to create the false impression that his campaign and supporters were violent, crazy people and at the same time provide evidence to support the Left’s narrative that the billionaire businessman was a dangerous fascist.
And don’t forget the wacky Russian “piss-gate” dossier assembled by Trump-hating British ex-spy Christopher Steele that was paid for by Hillary’s campaign and the DNC.
Even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller is intensely interested in money-laundering allegations, he doesn’t seem too interested when Democrats are implicated.
Trump campaign leaders Paul J. Manafort Jr. and Richard W. Gates III were investigated by Mueller for money laundering wholly unrelated to the campaign. Two months ago Gates accepted a deal from Mueller and pled guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators.
Possible campaign finance improprieties are driving Mueller’s investigation of President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen said Wednesday that because of the criminal investigation against him, he will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a lawsuit brought by porn star Stormy Daniels. The performer, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Cohen in 2016 reportedly to keep her mouth shut about an alleged sexual fling she had with Trump before he was president. At issue is whether the $130,000 was an improper campaign contribution.
Former federal prosecutor and Trump confidante Joseph E. diGenova described Mueller’s recent raid on Cohen’s law office as “an act of terror.” It was “an outrageous act against the attorney-client privilege,” he told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night.
Also on Fox, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that Cohen has a reputation for recklessness and that he was surprised the attorney was still representing the president. Interestingly, Turley also noted that Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ attorney who has caused Trump’s handlers so much heartburn, used to be his law student. Avenatti is “an adrenaline junkie,” Turley previously said.
One of the reasons for Andrew McCabe’s current legal troubles is the suspiciously large $675,000 payment the campaign of his wife, Jill McCabe, who ran for the Virginia State Senate in 2015, received from the state’s Democratic Party and a political action committee of then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a longtime Clinton crony. Was the payment a kind of veiled bribe to McCabe to do or not do something at the Justice Department? We may never know.
McCabe was acting director of the FBI from May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired then-director James B. Comey, through Aug. 2, 2017, when new director Christopher Wray took over. McCabe was fired for gross misconduct by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 16 of this year and is planning to launch a series of frivolous lawsuits for wrongful dismissal, and possibly against Trump and Comey, for defamation.
McCabe’s bloviating lawyer, Michael Bromwich, sputtered that the president and critics are slandering McCabe and that this is hurting the FBI. “We’ve never seen anything like this before,” he said. “It does damage not only to Andy McCabe individually but also to the FBI as an institution.”
Meanwhile, as of last week the Democratic National Committee is suing Russia and WikiLeaks in a breathtakingly stupid effort to keep the fading Trump-Russia electoral collusion conspiracy theory alive. In such a lawsuit, defendants are entitled to go on evidentiary fishing expeditions (i.e. the discovery process) and given how dirty the DNC is, who knows what they might find.
“This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democratic Party,” said Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Trump's 2020 reelection effort.
The Trump campaign expects to use the discovery process to examine "actual corruption" by the DNC to "influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election."
Trump tweeted that the lawsuit from “the Obstructionist Democrats” was likely “good news” for his campaign because “we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI.”
This could be fun.
Really fun.
Thank You Mr Vadum and FPM.
The (Kamala) Harris Poll
frontpagemag
Kamala Harris is a shoo-in for Dems in 2020, but what about her controversial past?
April 24, 2018
Lloyd Billingsley
“Kamala Harris Emerges as Voice of Immigrant Advocates in Senate,” headlined the Sacramento Bee, a reliable Democratic Party newsletter. Still, Harris should avoid backroom deals on border security because “such provisions could alienate the activist base the senator is wooing, with an eye toward the 2020 presidential race.”
Last August, Brides magazine cited “7 Reasons Sen. Kamala Harris’s Husband Douglas Emhoff Would Make a Great First Man.” He’s willing to compromise and cares about children, but most important he’s married to Kamala Harris, so “If he’s First Whatever, this means in 2020, we’d elect our first female president. This reason’s a no-brainer, right?” So like Bill and Hillary it’s a two-for-one deal, though POTUS 44 appears to favor the bride.
“She is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” he said in 2013. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.” The president apologized for that remark but Harris had other issues to walk back.
In the 2010 race for attorney general, the Sacramento Bee endorsed Republican Steve Cooley over Harris. She won by less than one percentage point, but as the Bee saw it, “she could be more aggressive on public corruption cases, though her handlers might worry that would cause friction with fellow Democratic politicians.” They had always shown her special kindness.
California’s powerful Assembly Speaker Willie Brown also thought the UC Berkeley law grad, a full 30 years his junior, was good looking. Brown began dating Harris and the hook-up paid off big. Willie Brown duly appointed Harris to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and California Medical Assistance Commission, boosting her prosecutor’s pay by nearly $100,000. The patronage came up in 2003, when Harris unseated San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan.
The next year, gang member David Hill used an AK-47 to gun down San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris quickly announced she would not seek the death penalty, which drew fire from Senator Dianne Feinstein and police across the state.
In her 2009 Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make us Safer, Harris decried the “truly staggering” number of nonviolent offenders. “It’s time to rock the crime pyramid,” she wrote, and that set the tone for her tenure as attorney general.
She targeted for-profit colleges, supported gun control and in 2013 refused to appeal the court decision overturning the 2008 Proposition 8, which sought to ban same-sex marriage. She let stand California’s fathomless public corruption.
The new span of the Bay Bridge, $5 billion over budget and riddled with safety issues, had whistleblowers calling for a criminal investigation. Harris failed to launch any criminal probe and with voter fraud and violent crime she looked the other way.
California’s attorney general stayed quiet in 2014 when Mexican national Luis Bracamontes gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis. Senator Kamala Harris made no statement when the racist murderer shouted “black lives don’t matter” in court.
In 2015 repeatedly deported Mexican felon Jose Inez Garcia Zarate shot and killed Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Attorney general Harris defended the city’s sanctuary policy and failed even to decry “gun violence” in the case.
That same year Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 unarmed innocents and wounded 22 at an office party in San Bernardino. A year later Harris issued a statement on the “devastating and tragic terrorist attack,” but failed to name the Islamic terrorists and their motive.
For his first address to Congress in 2017, President Trump invited Danny Oliver’s wife Susan, an African American, and the wife of slain deputy Michael Davis. Kamala Harris brought along DACA “dreamer” Yuriana Aguilar, a Salvadoran national. Senator Harris was the first Democrat to announce that she would vote against any deal that did not include a fix for the DACA illegals.
On a recent trip to Sacramento, Harris told her activist base the Stephon Clark shooting was due to the “implicit bias” of the police, failing to mention that one of the police officers, Terence Mercadal, was black, and that Sacramento police chief Daniel Hahn is also black. The shooting occurred at night during police response to a 911 call, and Clark had a criminal record for robbery, pimping and domestic abuse.
On the same trip, Harris proclaimed “There’s literally no doubt,” that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and “It’s not a debatable point.” Any move by Trump to fire Robert Mueller would be an “impeachable offence.” So like other Democrats, Harris is pretty sure there will be a vacancy.
Meanwhile, Brides may not be right that high-profile attorney Douglas Emhoff would make a great “First Man.” On the other hand, it is probably a no-brainer that in 2020 “smart on crime” Kamala Harris will be seeking a promotion, perhaps with the full support of her party.
Thank You Mr Billingsley and FPM.
Well, if Harris is a Shoe In for the 2020 nomination it's good news, . . . for President Trump.
Running her will give him more time to invest getting his Agenda through since he'll have to spend less of it pointing out what an incompetent hack she is.
Kamala Harris is a shoo-in for Dems in 2020, but what about her controversial past?
April 24, 2018
Lloyd Billingsley
“Kamala Harris Emerges as Voice of Immigrant Advocates in Senate,” headlined the Sacramento Bee, a reliable Democratic Party newsletter. Still, Harris should avoid backroom deals on border security because “such provisions could alienate the activist base the senator is wooing, with an eye toward the 2020 presidential race.”
Last August, Brides magazine cited “7 Reasons Sen. Kamala Harris’s Husband Douglas Emhoff Would Make a Great First Man.” He’s willing to compromise and cares about children, but most important he’s married to Kamala Harris, so “If he’s First Whatever, this means in 2020, we’d elect our first female president. This reason’s a no-brainer, right?” So like Bill and Hillary it’s a two-for-one deal, though POTUS 44 appears to favor the bride.
“She is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” he said in 2013. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.” The president apologized for that remark but Harris had other issues to walk back.
In the 2010 race for attorney general, the Sacramento Bee endorsed Republican Steve Cooley over Harris. She won by less than one percentage point, but as the Bee saw it, “she could be more aggressive on public corruption cases, though her handlers might worry that would cause friction with fellow Democratic politicians.” They had always shown her special kindness.
California’s powerful Assembly Speaker Willie Brown also thought the UC Berkeley law grad, a full 30 years his junior, was good looking. Brown began dating Harris and the hook-up paid off big. Willie Brown duly appointed Harris to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and California Medical Assistance Commission, boosting her prosecutor’s pay by nearly $100,000. The patronage came up in 2003, when Harris unseated San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan.
The next year, gang member David Hill used an AK-47 to gun down San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris quickly announced she would not seek the death penalty, which drew fire from Senator Dianne Feinstein and police across the state.
In her 2009 Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make us Safer, Harris decried the “truly staggering” number of nonviolent offenders. “It’s time to rock the crime pyramid,” she wrote, and that set the tone for her tenure as attorney general.
She targeted for-profit colleges, supported gun control and in 2013 refused to appeal the court decision overturning the 2008 Proposition 8, which sought to ban same-sex marriage. She let stand California’s fathomless public corruption.
The new span of the Bay Bridge, $5 billion over budget and riddled with safety issues, had whistleblowers calling for a criminal investigation. Harris failed to launch any criminal probe and with voter fraud and violent crime she looked the other way.
California’s attorney general stayed quiet in 2014 when Mexican national Luis Bracamontes gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis. Senator Kamala Harris made no statement when the racist murderer shouted “black lives don’t matter” in court.
In 2015 repeatedly deported Mexican felon Jose Inez Garcia Zarate shot and killed Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Attorney general Harris defended the city’s sanctuary policy and failed even to decry “gun violence” in the case.
That same year Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 unarmed innocents and wounded 22 at an office party in San Bernardino. A year later Harris issued a statement on the “devastating and tragic terrorist attack,” but failed to name the Islamic terrorists and their motive.
For his first address to Congress in 2017, President Trump invited Danny Oliver’s wife Susan, an African American, and the wife of slain deputy Michael Davis. Kamala Harris brought along DACA “dreamer” Yuriana Aguilar, a Salvadoran national. Senator Harris was the first Democrat to announce that she would vote against any deal that did not include a fix for the DACA illegals.
On a recent trip to Sacramento, Harris told her activist base the Stephon Clark shooting was due to the “implicit bias” of the police, failing to mention that one of the police officers, Terence Mercadal, was black, and that Sacramento police chief Daniel Hahn is also black. The shooting occurred at night during police response to a 911 call, and Clark had a criminal record for robbery, pimping and domestic abuse.
On the same trip, Harris proclaimed “There’s literally no doubt,” that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and “It’s not a debatable point.” Any move by Trump to fire Robert Mueller would be an “impeachable offence.” So like other Democrats, Harris is pretty sure there will be a vacancy.
Meanwhile, Brides may not be right that high-profile attorney Douglas Emhoff would make a great “First Man.” On the other hand, it is probably a no-brainer that in 2020 “smart on crime” Kamala Harris will be seeking a promotion, perhaps with the full support of her party.
Thank You Mr Billingsley and FPM.
Well, if Harris is a Shoe In for the 2020 nomination it's good news, . . . for President Trump.
Running her will give him more time to invest getting his Agenda through since he'll have to spend less of it pointing out what an incompetent hack she is.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Congressman Louis Gohmert Just Absolutely Wrecked Robert Mueller With 48 pg Investigative Blowout
True Pundit
“What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the
realization that Mueller’s disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character
of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a
lawfully elected President,” writes GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert.
Gohmert is referring to the exhaustive expose he just released called: Robert Mueller: Unmasked.
And the GOP Representative does exactly that, shining a bright light on decades of Mueller misdeeds, stating:
“Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.”
And that’s the nice part.
PDF below:
Gohmert’s Blowout Dossier on Mueller.
Thank You Rep. Gohmert and True Pundit.
Your Govt. ethics and all, hard at work.
And we're expected to swallow the CDC's line that 1 in 4 Americans are 'Mentally Disordered' and they and Society would benefit from Psychiatric/Psychological Re-education.
Gohmert is referring to the exhaustive expose he just released called: Robert Mueller: Unmasked.
And the GOP Representative does exactly that, shining a bright light on decades of Mueller misdeeds, stating:
“Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.”
And that’s the nice part.
PDF below:
Gohmert’s Blowout Dossier on Mueller.
Thank You Rep. Gohmert and True Pundit.
Your Govt. ethics and all, hard at work.
And we're expected to swallow the CDC's line that 1 in 4 Americans are 'Mentally Disordered' and they and Society would benefit from Psychiatric/Psychological Re-education.
French President Macron To US Congress: "Iran Shall Never Possess Any Nuclear Weapons"
Here's his entire address:
Thank You President Macron.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
One In Three Democrats Support Second Amendment Repeal
Do you need any other reason to Never vote for a Democrat?
bearing arms
Posted at 6:00 pm on April 12, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Anti-gunners constantly tell us that no one is coming after our guns. They love to say that they support the Second Amendment, but…
…well, they’re lying. Maybe not all of them, mind you. Some believe they can support gun control legislation and support the Second Amendment. Yeah, I know–I don’t get it either. But others? Oh, they’re lying like a politician on the campaign trail.
Of course, I’m not telling you anything you didn’t already know. However, now we have proof.
You see, a new Quinnipiac poll shows that 33 percent of Democrats polled favored repealing the Second Amendment. Compare that to just 14 percent of Independents, which include people to the left of the Democratic party, and just four percent of Republicans.
They’re not coming for our guns, just our sacred right to keep and bear arms.
Make no mistake; a repeal of the Second Amendment is an essential item on their agenda. It has to be. Ever since the Heller decision solidified the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, the anti-gun left has known they couldn’t enact the gun bans they’d prefer with the Second Amendment intact. They need to dismantle it.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens laid out his reasons why we should repeal the amendment in the pages of The New York Times already. It was a catalyst for many, a justification in their mind. It gave them the political cover to admit what we already knew.
“Oh, I was just swayed by the arguments of a former SCOTUS justice,” they might tweet. And it’s difficult, if not impossible, to prove otherwise. But we know.
What they don’t understand is that while we call ourselves Second Amendment supporters, it’s not the amendment itself we side with. It’s the spirit beneath that amendment we cherish. You could rename the amendment “Boogie-Boogie Kosh-Kosh,” and we’d become Boogie-Boogie Kosh-Kosh supporters. What we support is the idea that free men and women have a right to own weapons, to own the means to defend themselves and their families from anyone, be it a street thug or an Oval Office Tyrant.
We hold no illusions, though.
Repeal the amendment, and we can say goodbye to our right to own guns. Stevens’s op-ed makes the rationale clear; they want to pave the way for more gun control. They’re not pretending the amendment isn’t necessary. In fact, their arguments illustrate just how vital that Second Amendment protection is.
When the Bill of Rights was being debated, there was concern that people would think the rights protected in the Bill of Rights would form the complete list of rights that should be protected. In the end, however, the measure passed and we got the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Yet the wisdom of that passage is clearly illustrated by anti-gun Democrats who clearly want to repeal the Second Amendment in order to impose harsher, more strict regulations on guns and gun owners.
The problem is, that’s how you spark real trouble. A genuine effort to go after our right to keep and bear arms may well be the last straw for many Americans.
Do it, and the country itself will be in peril.
39. Would you support or oppose repealing the Second Amendment, also known as the right to bear arms?
Thank You Mr. Knighton and Bearing Arms.
bearing arms
Posted at 6:00 pm on April 12, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Anti-gunners constantly tell us that no one is coming after our guns. They love to say that they support the Second Amendment, but…
…well, they’re lying. Maybe not all of them, mind you. Some believe they can support gun control legislation and support the Second Amendment. Yeah, I know–I don’t get it either. But others? Oh, they’re lying like a politician on the campaign trail.
Of course, I’m not telling you anything you didn’t already know. However, now we have proof.
You see, a new Quinnipiac poll shows that 33 percent of Democrats polled favored repealing the Second Amendment. Compare that to just 14 percent of Independents, which include people to the left of the Democratic party, and just four percent of Republicans.
They’re not coming for our guns, just our sacred right to keep and bear arms.
Make no mistake; a repeal of the Second Amendment is an essential item on their agenda. It has to be. Ever since the Heller decision solidified the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, the anti-gun left has known they couldn’t enact the gun bans they’d prefer with the Second Amendment intact. They need to dismantle it.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens laid out his reasons why we should repeal the amendment in the pages of The New York Times already. It was a catalyst for many, a justification in their mind. It gave them the political cover to admit what we already knew.
“Oh, I was just swayed by the arguments of a former SCOTUS justice,” they might tweet. And it’s difficult, if not impossible, to prove otherwise. But we know.
What they don’t understand is that while we call ourselves Second Amendment supporters, it’s not the amendment itself we side with. It’s the spirit beneath that amendment we cherish. You could rename the amendment “Boogie-Boogie Kosh-Kosh,” and we’d become Boogie-Boogie Kosh-Kosh supporters. What we support is the idea that free men and women have a right to own weapons, to own the means to defend themselves and their families from anyone, be it a street thug or an Oval Office Tyrant.
We hold no illusions, though.
Repeal the amendment, and we can say goodbye to our right to own guns. Stevens’s op-ed makes the rationale clear; they want to pave the way for more gun control. They’re not pretending the amendment isn’t necessary. In fact, their arguments illustrate just how vital that Second Amendment protection is.
When the Bill of Rights was being debated, there was concern that people would think the rights protected in the Bill of Rights would form the complete list of rights that should be protected. In the end, however, the measure passed and we got the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Yet the wisdom of that passage is clearly illustrated by anti-gun Democrats who clearly want to repeal the Second Amendment in order to impose harsher, more strict regulations on guns and gun owners.
The problem is, that’s how you spark real trouble. A genuine effort to go after our right to keep and bear arms may well be the last straw for many Americans.
Do it, and the country itself will be in peril.
39. Would you support or oppose repealing the Second Amendment, also known as the right to bear arms?
WHITE......
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Support 17% 4% 33% 14% 13% 21% 14% 13%
Oppose 79 95 61 83 85 74 82 85
DK/NA 3 - 6 3 2 4 4 2
AGE IN YRS.............. WHITE.....
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp
Support 12% 21% 19% 17% 10% 16% 13% 35% 15%
Oppose 86 76 78 79 88 79 84 59 80
DK/NA 2 3 3 4 2 4 3 6 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)