Obamagate

Here are two very long episodes of the Mark Levin Show where Dan Bongino was filling in. Both are similar, Part II emphasizes more article referencing as well as the NEW YORK TIMES breaking news about the CIA spending $100,000 to get dirt on Trump. Please take note, I was going to merely link to Dan’s “OBAMNAGATE FILES” page, but I want to show the source for each link. “Enjoy” (If you have time for only one of these — listen to PART II):

PART ONE

PART TWO

[The pictured partial news story to the below/right is from the New York Times.]

On the setup of Lt. General Mike Flynn:

Here is Mark Levin a year ago (March 2017) using only Leftist sources:


MORE


Former U.S. Attorney: Shoes Will Drop! (+ Article Dump)

“We Are Going to See Several Criminal Charges Against a Number of DOJ-FBI”

Here are the recent articles I have been reading….


 

 

 

 

Where Is The Dangerous Irresponsibility Jeopardizing National Security

HOT AIR pulls out an excellent point/quote by Jonathan Turley:

….However, he points out another problem which isn’t getting nearly as much attention. What happened to the dire threats to national security we were told were contained in this memo?

My greatest concern is what is not in the [memo]: classified information “jeopardizing national security.” Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.

The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security…

The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security.

In that first paragraph above, Turley is quoting the statement Pelosi put out about the memo on Tuesday. However, she made a similar claim on CNN during that contentious interview with Chris Cuomo. “Putting this aside in terms of tit for tat, which you seem to—well, with all due respect to you—trying to make it look like Democrats vs. [Republicans]. It isn’t about that,” Pelosi said. She added, “It’s about our national security.” In the same interview, she said, “We’re not talking about some issue that we’re having a fight about, we’re talking about our national security.”

The point is, this was raised many times this week by Democrats eager to prevent the release of the memo. In retrospect, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have thought it represented a grave threat to national security. Maybe the subsequent release of the Democrats’ own memo will shed some additional light on whatever threat they see in it, but at the moment it looks as if those warnings were overblown. As Turley puts it, “it proved to be an empty ‘grave’ after weeks of overheated hyperbole.”

Brian Mudd Fills In For Mark Levin — Nunes Memo

Brian Mudd fills in for Mark Levin, on the day of the Nunes’ memo release. Brian goes through the incontrovertible facts… which have not (and will not) be shown to be false. Here is Mudd’s TWITTER:

READ THE MEMO (Via Powerline)

Ben Ferguson Fills In For Mark Levin – And Hits Homers!

Ben Ferguson of the “Ben Ferguson Show,” filled in for Mark Levin. I really like the guy. I would love to help him prep responses! Anyhew, he took a call from a guy who says Trump’s deregulating certain aspects of government actions is destroying the environment. The Keystone Pipeline ended up being the topic of discussion. Enjoy.

While filling in for Mark Levin, Ben Ferguson of the “Ben Ferguson Show”, took a call from a guy who thought Trumps deregulations hurt the economy. Follow Ben on TWITTER.

The Left Implodes Over A Weak Tax Plan (UPDATED)

GAY PATRIOT comments on the main idea that the Left are a bunch of babies with almost zero understanding of anything economic:

The tax “reform” bill the US Senate passed last night is pretty lame, actually. It keeps the current ridiculous progressive structure of seven separate tax rates. (The House reduced it to four, and the correct number ought to be one.) Susan Collins was bought off by retaining the mortgage interest deduction on vacation homes for millionaires. Freeloaders at the lower income brackets still pay nada. Some high income progressives from blue states are whining because some of their state and local taxes are no longer deductible. Sucks that you progressives in high tax blue states forgot to elect any Republican senators. 

There has also been a lot of howling from the “suddenly we’re concerned about the debt” progressive left that the bill will add $1.5 Trillion to the National Debt over ten years. That figure represents less than 3% of Government expenditures in that time period. Cut Government spending 3% (I’m sure we can get by on 97% of the Government). Problem solved.

It’s a lame bill. Really, the best part of the Senate Bill passing has been watching the histrionic meltdown on the Progressive Left. (But even that gets a little boring considering the progressive left has a histrionic meltdown at literally everything Donald Trump does.)

America died tonight. Economic suicide adopted to feed the insatiable greed of donors, who have been refusing to dole out $ to GOP until they got their tax cuts. Voters fooled by propaganda and tribal hatred. Millenials: move away if you can. USA is over. We killed it. – Kurt “Tentacle Pron” Eichenwald

The Republican Party is the enemy of the American people. The Senate just passed the Trump Tax Increase, 1:50am, enriching the 1% & concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. Capitalism & Fascism. The coup is underway. Make no mistake about it. EVERYONE OFF THE BENCH! 11/6/18! – Michael “I was relevant for a while in 2003” Moore

“While you slept last night Trump’s pedophile-coding GOP broke into your house and raped your children and their future in favor of the Republican’s biggest donors. They groped you too taking your Medicare, social security and Medicaid with them.” – Frank “No I’m Not a Drama Queen at All” Schaeffer

Is there any going back after this #TaxBillScam? To America? Does it matter now if Trump is impeached? There’s no America now. Not the one we knew. Sorry, feeling real despair this morning. – Patton “Who?” Oswalt

Oh, Patti, don’t feel so bad. There are lots of other countries you can move to. Have you considered Mexico? No Republicans there. Strict gun control, too. The Government is very progressive, taxes are very progressive, and economic activated is highly regulated. It’s a lot like California, come to think of it. But with fewer Mexicans……..

POWERLINE opines well with two RAMIREZ TOONS:

  • It is comical to see Democrats feigning outrage over the claim (likely false) that the GOP tax reform plan will add to the national debt. Talk about a head-snapping about face! Where was the Dems’ concern about debt when the Obama administration ran up $10 trillion of it?

UPDATE FROM GAYPATRIOT

….A remarkable thing happened over the weekend; Democrats rediscovered their concern about the national debt, state’s rights, and voter fraud.

The same Democrats who had no problem helping Barack Obama double the national debt to a mind-blowing $20 Trillion have attacked the Republican Senate’s limpwrist “tax reform” bill claiming it will add $1.5 Trillion to the national debt over ten years.

$1.5 Trillion represents less than 3% of Government spending over the next ten years. If that’s a problem, then, by all means, cut spending by 3%.

Democrats are also  suddenly hollering about “state’s rights” because Congress is looking to make concealed carry licenses valid across state lines; like driver’s licenses. (And, yes, most states require training and a background check before a concealed carry license is issued.) The Democrats have suddenly taken a position analogous to claiming Rosa Parks only had the right to sit in the front of the bus while she was in Alabama…..

 

The 2nd Amendment Explained

This post should be married to my other post regarding the 2nd Amendment,

The 2nd Amendment Was Only For Muskets.”

Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:

  • A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As Founder, Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania — noted:

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

In other words, the comma in that Amendment  separates the clause… there are TWO part to this Amendment, and so it should read (The RPT version):

  • Since an organized force of volunteer citizens is necessary to defend our freedoms from tyranny within [a. federal vs. state | b. one’s own domicile] or (c.) foreign attack, the government shall in no way limit the People’s right to own and carry weapons for collective (a,c) or for sportsmanship or sustenance reasons as well as personal defense of private property guaranteed as a Natural Right (b).

In other words at the split in the sentence, what is reasonable to protect a state (tanks, bazookas, planes). And what is reasonable to protect a home and hunt with (pistols, semi-auto rifles/shotguns [like the AR], etc).

Here, Mark Levin explains these concepts to a caller to his radio show:

David French discusses some of the issues in his article in NATIONAL REVIEW discussing the original text of this Amendment:

…As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative clause; rather, it explains its purpose.

The operative clause is, of course, clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As Scalia correctly observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “right of the people,” the text “unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights.” Further, the language clearly indicates that the amendment wasn’t creating a new right but recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language “shall not be infringed” indicates recognition, not creation.

But what about the prefatory clause? What does the a “well regulated militia” have to do with an individual right? Scalia explained well in Heller:

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.

To believe that the Second Amendment is a collective right, Scalia concluded, is to believe that the authors of the Bill of Rights employed individualist language in order to protect the people’s right to take part in militia organizations over which the national government enjoys plenary power…

[….]

It is critical to remember that the Founding Fathers were Englishmen before they were Americans. When they began to sow the seeds of revolt against the British crown, they sought not to destroy all that had gone before but to protect rights that they believed they already possessed. Thus, when George III responded to unrest by attempting to disarm rebellious colonists, he “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms,” Scalia wrote. (“Arms,” incidentally, did not mean only “muskets” but included any personal weapon that could be wielded by an individual, including but not limited to “musket and bayonet,” “side arms,” and “sabre, holster pistols, and carbine.”)

Justice Scalia understood this well:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Other contemporary authorities concurred. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

Writing in 1803, after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, St. George Tucker updated Blackstone’s Commentaries. In America, Tucker wrote, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . . and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” The United States, he boasted, “may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”

[….]

One cannot analyze the Second Amendment without understanding its moral and philosophical underpinnings. Colonial America was a land populated by people who were both highly literate biblically and steeped in Lockean philosophy.

The biblical record sanctioning self-defense is clear. In Exodus 22, the Law of Moses permits a homeowner to kill even a mere thief who entered his home at night, and the books of Esther and Nehemiah celebrate the self-defense of the Jews against their lawless attackers. Nehemiah exhorted the Israelites to defend themselves: “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.” The oft-forgotten climax of the book of Esther is an act of bloody self-defense against a genocidal foe.

Nor did Jesus require his followers to surrender their lives — or the lives of spouses, children, or neighbors — in the face of armed attack. His disciples carried swords, and in one memorable passage in Luke 22, he declared there were circumstances in which the unarmed should arm themselves: “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Christ’s famous admonition in his Sermon the Mount to “turn the other cheek” in the face of a physical blow is not a command to surrender to deadly violence, and it certainly isn’t a command to surrender family members or neighbors to deadly violence.

In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke described the right of self-defense as a “fundamental law of nature”:

Sec. 16. The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Locke argues, these laws of nature were inseparable from the will of God:

The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.

This right is so fundamental that it’s difficult to find even leftist writers who would deny a citizen the right to protect her own life….

(READ IT ALL!)

Here are a couple quotes by the men who knew the details of what they wrote:

  • Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.”
  • Patrick Henry said, “The great object is, that every man be armed.”
  • Richard Henry Lee wrote that, “to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.”
  • Thomas Paine noted, “[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”
  • Samuel Adams warned that: “The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

(NRA)

More quotes from the Founding Fathers DEFINING the 2nd Amendment can be found at THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

Manafort May Be Jail-Bound?

THE HILL notes this about Paul Manfort’s possible involvement…

…Investigators were reportedly concerned that the intelligence included communications that Manafort may have encouraged the Russians to help influence the 2016 election, though two unnamed sources familiar with the matter cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Manafort has emerged as a key figure in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Mueller’s team has taken a series of aggressive actions against Manafort in recent months. In July, for example, the FBI conducted an early-morning raid of Manafort’s Alexandria, Va., home. Mueller has also subpoenaed the former campaign chairman’s personal spokesman and former attorney…

Manafort is tied to Clinton comrades (APRIL 13th!!!)…. and CLINTON CASH makes it clear the connections of Russia and Hillary are damning. Manafort may be in trouble! Mark Levin said he may go to jail as well. If you are friends with Clinton friends… trouble soon follows.

Dan Bongino Fills In for “The Great One,” Mark Levin

(8-25-2017)

This is the entire show minus breaks and a couple non-essential moments. I added a few short video clips to help make Bongino’s points. Likewise, I isolated two clips herein for easier listening, here:

Affirmative Action Discriminates Against Asian-Americans
The Southern Tweet Strategy Myth

Dan Bongino (www.bongino.com) did a great job for Mark!

For more of Dan Bongino’s stuff, see here:

Conservative Review
✦ Make sure to follow him on TWITTER.

A Coup Is Under Way ~ Levin

Mark Levin was called out on cable news about the language he uses. in describing no crime being named yet in any legal matter against the Trump administration. A grand jury is convened to see if a crime — clearly stated — is prosecuted. NOT to uncover a crime. Dumb! Maxine Waters makes the intentions of the socialist Left in Congress clear. That is, once Trump is impeached, Pence is next. This is why Charles Krauthammer said we are headed toward some Constitutional “choppy waters.”

The Democrats have already left the idea that there was collusion between the Trump admin and Russia (the mandate for Mueller), and are now merely looking into business dealings of the Trump children. Again, like with Clinton, like with Libby, someone will go to jail for not remembering 3-people in the room under oath when they said there were two.

And the Left just foams at the mouth… Pence is next.We are living in dangerous times of people not realizing the attack on our Constitutional form of government.

✦ Cannot use simple language on college campuses or you are deemed a racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot conduct an guest conduct an orchestra because a person is conservative and considered racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot run for office without being called a Nazi or Alt-Right (the Left’s way of saying they REALLY disagree with you);
✦ Cannot be placed into office without being called racist or alt-right (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot contribute money as a CEO to organizations that support traditional marriage, and are called a homophobe and racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you);
✦ Cannot opt out of photographing weddings or baking goods for an specialized event, thus being called a homophobe and racist (the Left’s way of saying they disagree with you)…

In all those – and more – cases, you are banished from the campus, have the power of the state come after you, fired, fined, threatened to never be able to own a business again, have all business dealings looked into, etc., etc.

These are all tactics of the Left (insert name of any dictator or tyrant here) — many Democrats praise the leaks, just like in these totalitarian nations where if you had a dissenting you were told on to the state and consequences soon followed.

And people cheer it on.