Liberal Lawyer says ‘Trump is 100% Right’!

From: Eagle Rising

Written by Onan Coca


Leftwing lawyer and respected law professor Alan Dershowitz is no fan of President Trump or the Republican Party, but the Democrat Party has been abusing our justice system, and that really makes him angry.

For the last few months liberal legal scholars, Dershowitz and his colleague Jonathan Turley, have both been explaining to the media that the Democrats have overstepped their bounds when it comes to investigating President Trump and Russia. In fact, both men have argued that there has never been any evidence that President Trump has ever done anything wrong.

In his most recent interview on Fox News, Dershowitz goes even further arguing that a special counsel should have never been hired to investigate the President because there was no probably cause to do so.

First of all, the president’s 100% right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel here. There was no probable cause at that point to believe that crimes had been committed. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that crimes have been committed by the president.

As I’ve said from day one, there should have been a special investigative commission, non-partisan appointed by Congress, with subpoena power to look into the role of Russia and trying to influence American elections and do something about preventing it in the future. Instead of starting out with finger-pointing and trying to criminalize political difference behind the closed doors of a grand jury. That’s gotten us nowhere.

The president’s absolutely right. The investigation never should have begun. And the question now is how does he deal with it. And I think what he’s doing is he’s playing good cop, bad cop. He has some of his lawyers cooperating with Mueller and some lawyers attacking Mueller because he wants to be ready to attack in the event there are any recommendations that are negative to the president.

In a piece for the Hill, Dershowitz went on to explain his argument more in depth.

In this case, the appointment of a special counsel has done more harm than good. It has politicized our justice system beyond repair. The FBI deputy director has been fired for leaking and lying. His testimony appears to be in conflict with that of the former FBI director as to whether the leaks were authorized. Messages by high-ranking FBI agents suggest strong bias against Trump. A tweet by the former CIA director reveals equally strong negative views of the president. Perhaps these revelations prove nothing more than that law enforcement and national security officials are human and hold political views like everyone else.

But these views are not supposed to influence their decisions. In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions. This is not all attributable to the appointment of the special counsel, but the criminalization of political differences on both sides of the aisle has certainly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust in our justice system.

The public has lost faith in the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI. They don’t trust congressional investigative committees. They don’t know whom to believe when they hear conflicting accounts. There are leaks galore followed by denials of leaks. It’s a total mess. And what do we have to show for it? Just a handful of low-level indictments based largely on alleged crimes that are either unrelated or only marginally related to Russia’s attempt to influence our presidential election in 2016.

 If the two brightest legal minds on the left both believe that the Democrats have unduly attacked the President, then what legal legs could the Democrats possibly be standing on?


God bless,
JohnnyD

Displays of the Ten Commandments Hidden in Plain Sight

From: Constitution.com

By Gary DeMar March 19, 2018 



For decades, secular groups have worked overtime to have religious displays, mostly of the Ten Commandments, removed from government buildings. They’ve started small by attacking cash-strapped jurisdictions that can’t afford to defend themselves against the legal onslaught brought by these heavily financed organizations.

Leftists don’t want commandments that have their origin in the character of a transcendent God. They would rather have the authority to make their own laws and change them at will if a voting constituency demands a change. We’ve seen it with abortion, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and governmental theft.

Trending: Liberal Darlings at Saturday Night Live Accused of Bigotry
The first drive-in movie I ever saw was The Ten Commandments (1956). If you’ve only seen the film on television, you have not heard the introductory words spoken by Cecil B. de Mille, the director of The Ten Commandments. De Mille comes out on stage before the movie begins and speaks about the significance of the story of Moses and Pharaoh:

Ladies and Gentlemen, young and old. This may seem an unusual procedure, speaking to you before the picture begins, but we have an unusual subject: the birth of freedom. The story of Moses… The theme of this picture is whether men ought to be ruled by God’s laws or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Rameses. Are men the property of the State or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.

Contrary to what Liberals say, it is impossible to avoid legislating morality. Laws against theft and murder are legislated, and they reflect some moral code. There are few people who would object to laws being made that would punish thieves and murderers. Such laws impose a moral system on all of us. Although thieves and murderers might object, no one is calling for these laws to be rescinded because they impose a moral code:

Every system of government exists to produce or enforce certain laws, and every law necessarily entails a set of moral assumptions. All morality—even that which is usually supposed to be, or touted as being, based upon an “irreligious” or anti-religious” philosophical foundation—is ultimately religious in its nature, since it is founded upon a set of pretheoretical presuppositions, fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, about God, man, and things, which are taken on (a usually unacknowledged) faith. In this deepest sense, then, the question for every legal system is not whether it will be based upon “religion” but rather which religion or religious philosophy will be its foundation?¹

Rousas J. Rushdoony says something similar:

All law is inescapably a reflection of morality, and all morality is an expression of a religious faith. Laws against murder and adultery represent moral judgments that these acts are evil, and these judgments are as[ects of a religious faith which requires that man live in terms of God’s righteous faith rather than in contempt of it. Law is always inescapably religious. Modern “law” increasingly represents the new established religion of many courts.²

One system of morality is set against another in the debate over legislative action. Moral persuasion is always used. “It is immoral to allow people to live in cardboard boxes or in abandoned automobiles when there is so much wealth in a country like the United States,” advocates for the homeless claim. Champions of peace push their cause with, “It’s immoral to make bombs when there are so many needy people in the world.” These moral crusaders work for change at every level of government to secure legislative support for their cause. Moral arguments are always used. But how do we know what’s moral?

President Harry S. Truman voiced the common and prevailing sentiment of his day:

The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we comprehend that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody.³

How times and laws have changed. Today’s religious and political leftists would identify Truman’s beliefs with those of the Taliban. He would be denounced as an opponent of religious diversity.

Who’s right in the battle over the Ten Commandments? If as the ACLU maintains the posting of the Ten Commandments is “fundamentally religious” and the “endorsement of religion in general and Christianity in particular,” doesn’t this mean that the displays are, by definition, unconstitutional? Ultimately, a ruling would have to come from the Supreme Court. But how would the court rule since displays of the Ten Commandments have a long history without any legal challenge? For example, a visitor who enters the National Archives to view the original Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other official documents must first pass by a copy of the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in the entryway to the Archives.

As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted in his majority opinion of Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court Chamber in which cases related to religion are “heard is decorated with a notable and permanent-not seasonal-symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments.”⁴

In addition to the Supreme Court, state courtrooms and capitals across our land have housed similar displays for decades without any legal challenges or constitutional prohibitions: The Texas State Capitol, the chambers of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and scores of other legislatures, courthouses, and public buildings. “In fact, the Ten Commandments are more easily found in America’s government buildings than in her religious buildings, thus demonstrating the understanding by generations of Americans from coast to coast that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of America’s civil laws.”<sup>5



In one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the United States , you will find a beautiful mural titled “Mosaic Law” in the New York State Courthouse in Jamaica, Queens, New York, that “shows a crowd of Hebrews surrounding Moses as he descends from Mt. Sinai with the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, written in Hebrew script.” (Mark Movsesian/First Things)



There’s a second painting titled “Constitutional Law” that “shows a crowd of historical figures—Washington, the Framers, and Chief Justices from John Jay to Charles Evans Hughes—gathered around a stone plaque with the words of the Preamble: ‘We the People.’”</sup>



The murals “make up a unified work.” You can’t have one without the other.

The United States would not have become the nation that it did without the rule of law and the people’s belief that morality is determined by God and not the State.

---

1. Archie P. Jones, “Christianity and the First Amendment: The Truth about the Religion Clauses of the Constitution,” (unpublished manuscript), 3. ↩
2. The Religion of Revolution (Victoria, TX: A Publication of Trinity Episcopal Church, 1965), [16]. ↩
3. Harry S. Truman, Harry S. Truman: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President—January 1 to December 31, 1950 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), 197. ↩
4. U.S. Supreme Court Lynch v. Donnelley, 465 U.S. 668 (decided March 5, 1984), II.C. ↩
5. David Barton, “The Ten Commandments: A Part of America’s Legal System for Almost 400 years!,” Prepared and presented in response to multiple ACLU lawsuits against public displays of the Ten Commandments, United States District Court, Eastern District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division (March 2001). ↩
   
   
   God bless,
   JohnnyD

7 Techniques Liberals Use to Silence Conservatives

From: TownHall

John Hawkins - Mar 16, 2018

Free speech has become a conservative idea by default because liberals don’t believe in it any more. Liberals have given up on the idea of coming up with the best argument and now work tirelessly to silence their opposition so they can win the argument by default. Liberals NEED to do this because their ideas don’t work very well in the real world and if their ideas are tested and evaluated logically, they will be rejected by most people. So, how do they get around that? 

1) Libsplaining: For every guy out there mansplaining, there are probably 500 liberals libsplaining what some conservative supposedly REALLY MEANT at exactly the same time. If you’re conservative, pretty much anything you say will be reinterpreted by liberals to mean something totally different. Against welfare because you think it encourages people not to work? You must hate black people. We need to cut wasteful government programs? You despise poor people. You weren’t in love with Trump, but really didn’t like Hillary, so you voted for him? You obviously want to turn America into Nazi Germany AND you hate women. None of this would be more than an annoyance except for the fact that liberals then take their completely nonsensical interpretation of what conservatives say and present it to the world as reality. This is how, for example, tens of millions of liberals who have probably never listened to Rush Limbaugh in their entire lives think he furiously spews lies and racist rants against the poor for three hours per day. Liberals seem to be practically incapable of taking common conservative beliefs at face value because that could lead them to intellectually engage in a debate about the best way to handle a problem, which could lead them away from liberal doctrine, which could….uh, YOU’RE A RACIST! THAT’S WHY. 

2) Violence: Why are the liberal fascists in ANTIFA violently protesting? They’re violently protesting that people they disagree with are allowed to speak at all. Incidentally, “people they disagree with” runs the gamut from Nazis to mainstream conservatives. Ultimately, the liberals who send death and rape threats to conservative women like Dana Loesch and Michelle Malkin have the same goal as ANTIFA. They want to use the threat of violence to convince them to quit and to intimidate other women who agree with them. The limits on it are determined in large part by what they believe they can escape punishment for doing. Not every liberal will get violent, but violent groups like ANTIFA would be nothing without friendly police departments and college campuses that turn a blind eye to their activities. When they think they can get away with it, liberals are perfectly comfortable with using violence to silence their political opponents. Keep that in mind when they demand that you give up your guns.
3) De-Platforming: If a conservative puts his opinion out there, but no one is allowed to hear it, does it really matter? Liberals have worked hard to take over newspapers, Hollywood and the schools not just to indoctrinate people with their views, but to make sure conservative views can’t get out. You’re now starting to see that same philosophy become more public at Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube (Owned by Google) as those social media giants become increasingly unfriendly ground for conservatives. If liberals can control whom you’re allowed to hear, they can control your thinking: 

4) Political Correctness / Safe Spaces / Microaggressions: Safe spaces and microaggressions are the little sisters of political correctness, but they all serve the same purpose. They’re designed to silence people who say things liberals don’t like because “Shut up, that’s why!” You saw a great example of this with James Damore at Google who used an open forum there to make scientifically supported arguments that liberals didn’t like about women in STEM and then was fired for it. That’s the perfect world for liberals. They win by default without having to defend their arguments at all because the other side isn’t allowed to say anything except liberal-approved talking points. 

5) Liberal Fakes: Besides Fox News and a few conservative newspapers, it’s rare to see a genuine conservative presence in the mainstream media. The vast majority of people who bring you the “conservative” point of view in the MSM are weak-kneed moderates at best and liberals at worst. The role of these conservatives, who seldom have any real support on the Right, is to agree with liberals about how terrible Republicans are while occasionally making watered-down arguments about issues that won’t offend the Left too much. People like David Brooks, David Frum, Brett Stephens, Max Boot, Michael Gerson, Jennifer Rubin, Kathleen Parker, etc. are not there to represent conservatives; they’re phonies there to give the false impression that even conservatives disagree with conservative policies. 

6) False Labeling: In America, there are certain groups that the vast majority of us simply ignore. We don’t pay any attention to their arguments because nobody much cares what an actual white supremacist, Nazi, Fascist or racist has to say. So naturally, if you listen to liberals, other than them, pretty much everyone is a white supremacist, Nazi, fascist or racist. They go on about it so much that you’d think we were simultaneously in the pre-Civil War Years, Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy all at the same time. Typically, the evidence for this Nazi renaissance in America is little more than the fact that there are people who disagree with liberal policies along with comments that would be shrugged off or ignored if a liberal had said them. 

7) The Ventriloquist Dummy: See Cindy Sheehan, the Parkland Kids, Graeme Frost and to a certain extent, even Barack Obama. Liberals LOVE to find someone you’re not supposed to criticize to stick up front when there’s a hot political issue. The latest ones are David Hogg and the other Parkland kids they’re putting on TV as much as possible to push for gun control. They make their arguments and…you’re not supposed to respond because other kids who may not have agreed with them at all, were killed. Meanwhile, David Hogg and company are exploiting their dead classmates to get on TV and repeat the same boring talking points every other liberal does. Despite the fact he was President, liberals even tried to do this with Barack Obama. Conservatives are opposing Obama’s gun control? Well, what do you expect since it was proposed by a BLACK MAN? Obama shouldn’t let ISIS run wild in Iraq. Of course you’re saying that since Obama is a BLACK MAN. Liberals treat being black like a get-out-of-criticism free card unless the black American in question is conservative. Then, the liberal knives come out. Otherwise, it’s shut up, shut up, shut up. 


God bless,
JohnnyD

The Suspicions Over the Anti-Gun Parkland Kids Grows

From: Constitution

By Warner Todd Huston February 21, 2018

There is a growing suspicion about some of the kids from the high school in Parkland, Florida, that was beset by a mass murder. Some are questioning the kids who have been all over TV advocating for the end of our Second Amendment rights. They are saying these kids are not mere high school students, but are instead suspiciously well-trained activists.

On Tuesday, February 20, the controversial claim exploded across Florida politics with politicians such as Senator Marco Rubio chiming in to slam anyone who would doubt the kids’ sincerity.
The problem for Florida Republicans started when an aide to a Florida state rep. opined on the kids in a letter from his official email account.

According to Tampa Bay Times reporter Alex Leary, an aid to Florida State Representative Shawn Harrison (R, 63rd District) said two of the kids who have been advocating for anti-gun policies are not regular students who were just caught up in the waves of history, but are “actors” who were placed ahead of time to exploit a tragedy and to push an agenda.

This according to a note from Benjamin A. Kelly by way of Leary:

View image on Twitter

Alex Leary ✔ @learyreports

Here's the email. I asked for more information to back up the claim and was sent another email that linked to a YouTube conspiracy video.

5:18 PM - Feb 20, 2018

  The note didn’t sit well with Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio Who lashed out saying, “Claiming some of the students on tv after #Parkland are actors is the work of a disgusting group of idiots with no sense of decency.”

Marco Rubio ✔ @marcorubio

Claiming some of the students on tv after #Parkland are actors is the work of a disgusting group of idiots with no sense of decency

5:04 PM - Feb 20, 2018

 

Not long after Rubio attacked anyone doubting the students, State Rep. Harrison told constituents that the situation was being handled.

“I was just made aware that my aide made an insensitive and inappropriate allegation about Parkland students today,” Harrison tweeted. “I have spoken to him and placed him on leave until we determine an appropriate course of action. I do not share his opinion and he did so without my knowledge.”

 Shawn Harrison @Shawnfor63

I was just made aware that my aide made an insensitive and inappropriate allegation about Parkland students today. I have spoken to him and placed him on leave until we determine an appropriate course of action. I do not share his opinion and he did so without my knowledge.

5:35 PM - Feb 20, 2018

 

The Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives also chimed in to slam the operative.
 

View image on Twitter

Alex Leary ✔ @learyreports

Speaker of the Florida House, @richardcorcoran

6:50 PM - Feb 20, 2018

 

But what about all this? What would make people doubt these kids?

Well, in one case at least, some are now saying that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg, who has been appearing all over CNN, MSNBC, the Big Three networks, and even foreign media, is a plant. There is a lot of video proof that this kid has been an activist for some time.

The folks at True Pundit, for instance, made a few accusations against Hogg.
 
“But now we learn Hogg was hanging out at CNN headquarters in Atlanta, GA sometime Before the school shooting. Before the shooting. Posing behind an news anchor desk?” the site wrote on February 20.

True Pundit also added a few photos to bolster the case.

 

Then, the conspiracy site InfoWars also noted the young Mr. Hogg has been in the news before. It appears that Hog was featured in a story from August of 2017 that occurred in Redondo Beach, California.

“CBS Los Angeles featured Hogg as the eyewitness and videographer of a testy encounter between Hogg, a veteran Redondo Beach, Calif., lifeguard and a surfer, who was reportedly Hogg’s friend, in August of 2017,” the site reported.

And there’s this video…



InfoWars went on to make several other assertions, and you can go look at their report and decide for yourself.

But one other bit of evidence about these kids also raises suspicions.

On his own Twitter account, another one of the Parkland teenagers noted that he and his fellow students are being coached on how to act in front of the media.

Student Cameron Kasky said that he isn’t worried about going off the anti-gun message because “we are practiced.”

“We’re not afraid of people trying to exploit us. We’ve practiced. We know their slimy tactics. Thankfully, most news networks we’ve worked with are interested in telling the right stories. I am eternally grateful for that. Keep an eye out,” he wrote on Twitter.

Cameron Kasky ✔ @cameron_kasky

We’re not afraid of people trying to exploit us. We’ve practiced. We know their slimy tactics. Thankfully, most news networks we’ve worked with are interested in telling the right stories. I am eternally grateful for that. Keep an eye out. Thank you https://twitter.com/chetpowell/status/965394875259785218 …

8:18 PM - Feb 18, 2018

 

“Practiced”? Who is coaching these kids?

Furthermore, they have been appearing on all sorts of venues from local to national, to international news media. They even appeared on TV well after midnight Florida time on a British show where it was morning there (Remember, London is about five hours ahead of Florida time).

This sort of mass media blanket doesn’t just happen by accident. It has to be orchestrated. So, who is acting as these kids’ booker? Who is coaching them? Why aren’t we being told who is handling these kids?

Now, I am not saying here that the kids have to be lying shills. They may well be 100 percent sincere. But the actions they are advocating for will affect the rights of every American. That being the case, don’t we have a right to some transparency here?

Who is running this teenaged gang of anti-gun fanatics?

Inquiring minds want to know.


God bless,
JohnnyD
 

 

 

 

'We Have to Do Something'

From: Town Hall

by - Ben Shapiro - Feb 21, 2018


The gun control debate is complex. It pits rights against duties. It pits individualism against communitarianism. It pits gun owners against anti-gun activists, and law-abiding citizens against one another. Most of all, it pits "common sense" against evidence. The vast majority of gun control proponents keep talking about "common sense" gun control, as though Americans could simply blue-sky some ideas about curbing highly sporadic acts of violence and fix the problem immediately -- and as though Americans were suffering from lack of will, rather than disagreement about method. That's simply not the case.

But there are things we can do.

Let's begin with the easiest thing: We can insist that our law enforcement agencies actually enforce the law. The Parkland, Florida, shooting occurred because the FBI failed to do its job. Not once but twice, the FBI was warned about the shooter. And not once but twice, it ignored the warnings. That isn't rare. We know that law enforcement screwed up in the South Carolina black church massacre; we know it screwed up in the Texas church massacre; we know it screwed up in San Bernardino. We know that, as of 2013, out of 48,321 cases against straw buyers -- people who buy guns for others, including those who aren't legally allowed to buy them -- just 44 had been prosecuted. We know that as of 2013, there were nearly 20,000 people in California alone who weren't legally allowed to own guns but owned them anyway. Giving the government more legal power to confiscate weaponry or prosecute those who are dangerous means nothing if the government blows every available opportunity.

But we can do more.

David French at National Review suggests an option: gun-violence restraining orders, or GRVOs. These would allow family members to apply for an order enabling the legal authorities to temporarily remove guns from those who are deemed to be a significant danger to themselves or others. Furthermore, we should ensure more transparency in the background-check system with regard to mental health records, and we should look to ease the regulations on involuntary commitment of the dangerously mentally ill.

We should also radically increase security in schools. I attended a Jewish high school that was regularly threatened with violence. Every student who attends that school is now checked in by security; the school has barriers on every side; armed security guards attend the campus. The same measures should be available at every public school. Complaints about the so-called school-to-prison pipeline created by the presence of law enforcement at schools seem to be overblown, according to the data -- and, more importantly, it's the school's job to ensure the safety of students, not to protect students against their own criminal behavior.

These are simple measures that should be able to achieve broad agreement. But they probably won't, because it's too politically useful for the left to rail broadly about gun control. The biggest problem with the gun control debate has been its failure to boil down slogans to proposals. That problem won't be alleviated so long as the media insist on putting mourning teenagers on television with the chyron "DO SOMETHING." Something is nothing unless someone puts some actual proposals on the table.


God bless,
JohnnyD

SEAN HANNITY: The Senate releases 'Memo 2.0,' and it should scare you

From: FoxNews

By Sean Hannity - February 6, 2018

Hot on the heels of the House memo exposing deep state corruption comes an equally explosive document from the Senate that shows the story behind the phony dossier is even worse than you thought.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham have released a heavily redacted, yet very revealing copy of their criminal referral against ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dubious dossier we now know was parlayed into a FISA warrant by Trump-hating operatives at the Justice Department.

Grassley and Graham tell us that, while working on a second dossier for Clinton opposition research firm Fusion GPS, Steele was being fed information directly from the Obama State Department and from Clinton allies as well as his usual, sketchy Russian sources. That’s right, teams Clinton and Obama were working with a foreign spy to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump.

" … Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his company received this report from (redacted), U.S. State Department, and that the report was the second in the series, and that the report was information that came from a foreign sub source who is in touch with a contact of (redacted), a friend of the Clintons who passed it to (redacted).”

The Grassley-Graham memo goes on to say “it's troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but [worse] that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele's allegations. It raises huge additional concerns about his credibility."

So, in addition to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paying $12 million for a phony, fake-news Russian propaganda dossier to influence the election, we now learn that her associates and the Obama State Department teamed up with Russian sources to funnel allegations to Steele for a second dossier.

The senators are also accusing Christopher Steele of lying either to the FBI or to the British courts.

"There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility," they wrote.

This Grassley-Graham memo also details how Steele was using his first phony dossier to brief several mainstream media outlets, you know, the folks who bring you fake news, in the summer and the fall of 2016. British court records show Steele acknowledged he peddled his memo to The New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and, of course, CNN.

However, since he was working for the FBI, he would have been barred from leaking to the media. In fact, the FBI later cut ties with him when it learned he had broken the rule. So who did he lie to, the FBI or the British courts?

It’s hard to keep all the memos and dossiers straight. If you’re scoring at home, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a memo over the objections of Democrats and the media that showed how the FBI used Steele’s first dossier to get a federal warrant to spy on people close to Trump. The Democrats hope to release their own “memo,” which is not a memo at all but just a sour-grapes rebuttal to the committee’s. The Grassley-Graham memo is a third document that tells us Obama and Clinton operatives fed Steele information to try to damage Trump.

The dossiers, and there are apparently two of them, were cooked up by Steele and are completely unverified claptrap. Yet, the FBI marched one of them into a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court and presented it as evidence. Months later, then FBI Director James Comey admitted it was completely unverified.

And here's what the left and your corrupt media won't tell you: the FISA judge was never told that Hillary Clinton was paying for the phony dossier containing Russian intelligence lies about Donald Trump. And they don’t seem to care that it was first used to try to influence an election, then to get a warrant to spy on an opposition candidate.

The incestuous ties between Fusion, Steele, the Clinton campaign and the Obama Justice Department are alarming. Clinton hired Fusion, which hired Steele. Steele was working with the FBI at the same time. The wife of a top Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion to work with Steele.

The goal of the whole, unseemly syndicate? To launder Russian lies about Donald Trump through the U.S. government, so they could weaponize our own intelligence and law enforcement network against the man who now sits in the Oval Office.

You should be scared. And disgusted.


God bless,
JohnnyD

The Night the Democratic Party Committed Political Suicide

From: TownHall

by - Wayne Allyn Root - Feb 01, 2018

Before I get to the embarrassment of the nasty, bitter State of the Union display by the Democratic Party, let me lead with great news.

First, the jobs front. Wednesday morning saw the release of ADP/Moody’s Analytics private payrolls report. New job creation exploded once again under President Trump. Businesses added 234,000 jobs in January versus an expected 185,000. Manufacturing added 12,000 jobs and construction 9,000 new jobs - in a traditionally slow month. WOW.

Secondly, the numbers from Trump’s State of the Union. Fox News had the biggest audience for a State of the Union in the history of cable news. The old record of 6.5 million viewers was smashed by smithereens by Trump with an astonishing 11.7 million viewers. It was also the highest rated presidential address of any kind in the history of cable news. 

Now to the reaction from viewers. CBS took an instant YouGov poll. Here are the amazing results. 

97 percent of Republican viewers liked Trump’s speech. 

72 percent of independents liked it.

Amazingly, 43 percent of Democrats liked it. 

Overall 75 percent of Americans approved of the speech. And a shocking 8 out of 10 felt President Trump was trying to unite the nation, rather than divide it. Two-thirds reported the speech made them feel proud. 

Which means anyone who isn’t a bitter, nasty, arrogant, hateful, Kool-Aid drinking socialist loved what they saw. Unfortunately, that leaves the entire Democrat Congress.

That’s why I report the Democratic Party committed political suicide on Tuesday night. Their response to Trump’s speech was out of bounds. It wasn’t normal. It was hateful. It was bizarre. Actually, in a word, it was “foreign.” The Democratic Party is now a foreign party in their own country. They no longer have any understanding of what people born in America think or feel. 

It's perfectly fine to be respectfully opposed to the politics of one party or president. That's acceptable. That’s as American as apple pie. But that’s not what happened on Tuesday night. 

Democrats were outed as the party that is rooting for America's failure. Rooting against a booming economy. Rooting for misery, instead of prosperity. Rooting against job creation. Rooting against a booming stock market. Rooting against employee bonuses. Angry about the lowest black unemployment ever. Angry about the lowest Hispanic unemployment ever. Angry at the lowest female unemployment in 18 years. 

They openly frowned, grimaced, groaned and looked sick to their stomachs when President Trump celebrated the American flag…the national anthem… American freedom… and American opportunity. Bizarre. Self-destructive behavior.

But wait it gets worse. Democrats appeared to be on the side of murderous MS-13 gangs. When Trump touted legislation to help stop gang violence, drug dealing and murder by vicious MS-13 gangs…and when Trump introduced the parents of two young girls murdered by MS-13 killers…Democrats booed and groaned. 

Democrats clearly believe discussing murders by illegal aliens is “racist.” Democrats clearly believe Trump has to be Hitler or KKK to publicly admit there are people of color (gasp) murdering innocent Americans. This was the second worst moment of disconnect in American political history.

Now to the single worst disconnect ever. Amnesty-loving Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez WALKED OUT upon hearing chants of “USA, USA!” It was too much for him. He appeared to be on the verge of tears. Democrats consoled him. To Democrats, it’s now “racist” to love your country.

The Democrats’ performance at the SOTU was shocking. Because if they had an ounce of common sense they could at least act like they love America, act like patriots, act respectful to parents of kids murdered by illegal alien gangs. Any sane politician would have acted civil - just to fool enough voters to win elections. Not these Democrats. They suffer from TID - “Trump Insanity Disorder.” They are on tilt. Trump triggers them to acts of self-destruction. They’ve lost their minds.

Turn out the lights. There is no one left to support the Democratic Party we saw on Tuesday night, except for illegal aliens, radicals, Marxists, felons and welfare addicts. 

A booming economy is a step backwards to this group. The American flag is something to be ashamed of. God is a curse. And job creation is a sin. It's clear they are the party that wants to “MAKE AMERICA MISERABLE AGAIN.”

This was the night the Democratic Party committed political suicide.


God bless,
JohnnyD