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