Author: Papa Giorgio

Rep. Mike Johnson’s Constitutional Case Against Reparations

Published by Papa Giorgio

(DAILY CALLER) “The reason for that is a legal question,” Johnson continued after the chairman gaveled for silence. “See, the legal question is: the federal government can’t constitutionally provide compensation today to a specific racial group because other members of that group, maybe several generations ago, were discriminated against and treated inhumanely.”

The House Republican Study Committee chairman further explained that the United States Supreme Court would likely consider the proposal to be an unconstitutional racial preference.

“The holding of the 1995 case Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. is that racial set asides and other entitlements are only constitutionally permissible to remedy the present effects of the government’s own widespread in recent discrimination,” Johnson explained. “The federal government is not allowed to provide race-based remedies that are ‘ageless in their region of the past and timeless in their ability to effect the future.’”

“Barack Obama opposed reparations when he ran for president in 2008,” he said. “Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders did as well eight years later.”

John Cleese on Brexit, The MSM, and Leaving The UK

Published by Papa Giorgio

John Cleese (Monty Python star) explains to Emily Maitlis why newspapers have driven him to the Caribbean. Some comments via YouTube (just a sample):

  • John Cleese laughing in her face is priceless.
  • Great interview. He basically shat all over the BBC while on the BBC.
  • The BBC is a farce … absolutely not an independent news media .. very biased and not informative
  • Hey BBC we’re clicking like because John Cleese 1: BBC 0
  • John Cleese knows the score, lying scumbags the MSM.
  • This presenter is so annoyingly rude, a true BBC presenter. She is exactly why he is leaving, too many liars.
  • He seems like just a nice guy who wants to chat, she’s a robot trying to get through the list of questions. Interesting contrast between a genuine personality and an artificial one.
  • “Can I have my standard living money back, its about £20 living a month for a concentration camp ???” ~ G.L. Proffitt ~ Thank You John Cleese ?
  • Watching Cleese dismantle the lying press puppet is just delicious!

Liz Cheney’s AOC History Smackdown (CNN UPDATE)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(DAILY WIRE hat-tip) Below Liz Cheney’s linear thinking are some of the original videos which leads to Rep. Cheney on FOX… and may I say, AOC’s response to Cheney is bat-shit-crazy! (And may I say this emboldens VICTOR DAVIS HANSON”S article on Why We Should Study War!)

CONTEXT BELOW

CNN CRAZINESS UPDATE!

James Comey Is A Felon! Period

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an excerpt from Gregg Jarrett’s book, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump (hardcover | paperback). It is merely for showing that Comey broke the law. This breaking of the law by Comey — unlike the “witch hunt” against our President — is clearly explicit and in violation of law. Enjoy:

QUOTE

COMEY’S THEFT OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

For years, James Comey carefully cultivated a public portrait of himself as a grown-up Boy Scout—honest and morally straight. The truth is quite different. His actions belie the virtuous image he sought. It was all an illusion designed to mask the kind of conduct that most people find reprehensible. The record shows that he was less than honest, engaged in acts of questionable legality, and abused his power to further his ambitions.

One of the more stunning moments during Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017 occurred when he confessed that he deliberately leaked to “a friend” the contents of the presidential memorandums memorializing his conversations with Trump.59 He directed that friend, Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School, to leak the information to the New York Times with the objective that it would trigger the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the man who had just fired him. It was a devious scheme, to be sure. Comey knew the media would be more than willing to trash Trump by contorting the memos’ contents and misconstruing the law to accuse the president of obstruction of justice. Journalists and pundits did not disappoint.

The opening sentence in the Times story on May 16, 2017, did not recite facts derived from the memos, but drew an unsupported conclusion that “President Trump asked the FBI director, James Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February.”60 Ipso facto, obstruction. The headline was nearly identical to the first line. Thus, anyone who did not read past the title of the story or the opening sentence was led to believe that Trump had probably committed a crime.

Of course, this is not what happened in the February meeting, according to Comey, who testified on June 8 about his conversation with Trump, narrating the encounter from his memos. Indeed, at the congressional hearing, Comey specifically quoted Trump’s vague comments about Flynn as “hoping” he would be cleared.61 That is not the same thing as “asking to shut down” an investigation, as the Times would have its readers believe. The Times story went on to raise the specter of obstruction and, sure enough, the next day Comey’s longtime friend and ally Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. For the fired FBI director, it was mission accomplished. His media leak achieved his desired purpose.

In defense of his actions, Comey offered an explanation that was, in equal parts, erroneous and obtuse. He claimed that the seven presidential memos he took with him when he was fired were his personal property. If he believed that, he is not much of a lawyer. The FBI’s policy manual states quite clearly that documents or records generated during official duties are government property.62 The FBI Employment Agreement, to which Comey was bound, mandates that “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties… remain the property of the United States of America.”63

Under both the Federal Records Act and the Privacy Act, any document or record composed by government employees during the course and scope of their employment is not the property of the person who authored the document, but the property of the government.64 This is especially true if the material was prepared on a government-owned computer and written during the normal work hours while the employee is on the job performing the duties of his job, as was the case with Comey’s presidential memos. His discussions with the president arose directly from his position as head of the FBI. These records laws apply to classified and unclassified documents alike. Furthermore, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, Comey admitted that he wrote the memos so that they could be “discuss(ed) within the FBI and the government.”65 This is an admission that these documents were not his personal property. Records that are composed for government use are automatically government property.

The fact that Comey did not want to leak the memos himself, but chose a conduit or middleman to do so covertly at his behest, is substantial proof that he knew what he was doing was wrong and illegal. By using a third-party to do the dirty work, Comey was trying to circumvent the law to insulate himself from criminality. He failed.

18 U.S.C. 641 makes it a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison to give someone outside of government an unclassified, but protected, record without authorization:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record… of the United States or of any department or agency thereof… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years.66

This is precisely what Comey appeared to have done “converting” to his own use and in conveying to his friend, without authorization, his presidential memos which were government records.

Having been fired, Comey stole government records with the intent to leak them for his benefit. In an obvious act of retribution, he wanted the documents to inculpate Trump in a special counsel investigation and, he hoped, generate a criminal charge of obstruction of justice. This scheme to benefit himself and harm the president also may have violated at least two federal regulations, including this one identified in the Code of Federal Regulations:

An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.67

Under the law, it does not matter that Comey was an ex-employee when he leaked the documents because he maintained custody of them when he was still employed, then took them out of the FBI building to use for his own devices. This was a direct violation of FBI regulations which state, “FBI personnel must surrender all materials in their possession that contain FBI information upon FBI demand or upon separation from the FBI.”68 Comey did not do this. He converted government property to his own use, then disseminated it to the public.

Comey must have known that he was likely breaking several laws and committing felonies. As FBI director, he was legally obligated to adhere to the bureau’s standard nondisclosure contract in which all personnel promise not to disclose the very type of records and information Comey leaked. The agreement specifically warned that employees are subject to “criminal sanctions… and personal liability in a civil action at law… and the disgorging of any profits arising from any unauthorized publication or disclosure.”69 Separation upon termination did not render the contract null and void. It was a binding, enforceable, and actionable contract regardless of job status. Under the terms, Comey agreed he could be sued and face criminal prosecution. Since his firing, Comey published a book quoting from the memos he filched. This enabled him to profit handsomely from his wrongful actions, pocketing millions of dollars. If the FBI contract were to be enforced, Comey could—and should—lose earnings derived therefrom.

The Comey-composed memos themselves recited discussions with the president that were both privileged and contained information involving an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn’s contacts with Russia. This means Comey appeared to have broken yet another law, punishable by up to ten years in prison. 18 U.S.C. 793 makes it a crime to “willfully communicate or transmit national defense information,” even though it is not necessarily classified when written.70 While the full contents of the partially redacted memos made public so far do not deal directly with national defense matters, the overall Flynn investigation did.

Comey’s chicanery was laid bare in his congressional testimony when he told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he deliberately wrote some of his memos as “unclassified” documents. Making them classified, he told the committee, “would tangle them up.”71 In other words, he manipulated the classification system to exploit the political damage his documents might cause, while concomitantly attempting to shield himself from criminal charges. But this may be a moot point if any of the seven memos Comey took with him contained classified information, regardless of how he might have labeled them or, more aptly, mislabeled them. Under law, the content dictates classification, not the markings.

Sometime in late 2017 or early 2018, the FBI advised the Senate Judiciary Committee that the majority of the memos were, in fact, “classified.”72 Chairman Charles Grassley, one of the few people who gained access to the memos, revealed that four of them were “marked classified at the ‘Secret’ or ‘Confidential’ levels,” a fact that was confirmed when the memos were released.73 Richman told Fox News that he received four of the seven memos.74 This means that Comey appears to have given his “friend” at least one “classified” document.

Giving “classified” records to an unauthorized person and/or storing them in an unsecured venue constitutes several felonies—the same crimes Hillary Clinton surely committed. For example, 18 U.S.C. 1924 states as follows:

Whoever, being an officer, employee of the United States… becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both!75

Comey appears to have done this. He admitted he knowingly removed presidential memos without authority from FBI headquarters, kept them in what must have been an unauthorized location, then conveyed at least four of them to his “friend,” Richman. As director of the FBI, he knew that at least some of their contents were both privileged and might well be classified. It would be folly for Comey to argue they were not classified since the FBI insists they are. If Comey deliberately mismarked them, he cannot use his own wrongful act to insulate himself from criminal prosecution.

In the alternative, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Comey’s handling of the documents was “grossly negligent,” instead of “knowing” or “intentional.” That would be the same crime for which Clinton should have been charged, 18 U.S.C. 793(f).76 The irony is lost on no one. Comey appears to have committed the identical felony as Clinton, and it was Comey who contorted the law to absolve her of this crime, as explained in chapter 2.

But the story of Comey’s machinations does not end there. Days after the presidential memos were released to the public, it was learned that Richman had worked for Comey at the FBI as an unpaid “special government employee.”77 Comey concealed this important information from Congress during his June 2017 testimony, later dismissing this fact as “irrelevant.”78 Moreover, Comey failed to disclose that another person, Patrick Fitzgerald, also reportedly received memos.79 Fitzgerald is a former U.S. Attorney and special counsel who, like Richman, is a friend of Comey. Both Richman and Fitzgerald have since been hired by Comey as his lawyers.80 And so, too, has another lawyer, David Kelly, to whom Comey gave one or more memos.81 This means that the fired director can invoke the attorney-client privilege to try to protect some or all of their communications about the memos.

The FBI was sufficiently concerned about Comey’s dissemination of classified information that agents conducted a search of Richman’s office to retrieve documents and contain the leak.82 It is unknown whether the same “spillage clean-up” occurred at Fitz gerald’s office and, perhaps, Kelly’s, as well. These corrective actions by the FBI suggest that classified information may well have been shared by Comey in violation of federal law.

When Comey was questioned by senators in a June 2017 hear­ing before the Intelligence Committee, he omitted these relevant and important details in his answers about his leak of the memos. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, it is a crime to give false or misleading statements in a legislative proceeding.”83 Concealing material facts” in response to questions under oath before Congress would constitute misleading statements in violation of that statute.

Congress has been investigating Comey for a series of other suspected deceptions made during testimony before various congressional committees. In one instance, he told the House Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he decided not to refer criminal prosecution of Clinton only after she was interviewed.84 Yet, documents uncovered later indicated he made the decision well before the interview.85

Comey insisted that Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, never knew of his decision to clear Clinton in advance of his public announcement.86 Yet, text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page suggested that Lynch had been apprised in advance.87 Comey also testified that, while FBI director, he never authorized leaks to the media about the two presidential candidates.88 Yet, a subsequent statement by his deputy director, Andrew McCabe, appeared to contradict Comey.89

Finally, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department’s inspector general accusing Comey of “apparent material discrepancies” in his testimony about the FISA warrant applications, asking whether this was “a deliberate attempt to mislead.”90

There is substantial evidence that Comey did not tell the truth on several occasions and may have violated numerous federal statutes governing the theft of government documents, including classified material. He may also have obstructed justice in the Hillary Clinton email case and violated the law by deceiving the FISA court in a warrant to spy on an American citizen.

Days after Comey published his book and commenced his publicity tour, it was learned that the inspector general at the De­partment of Justice was investigating whether Comey mishandled classified information contained in the presidential memos he gave to his “friend” that was then leaked to the media.91 If he broke the law, he should be held accountable.

Former independent counsel and U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova was blunt in his assessment of Comey:

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Comey committed multiple crimes. If the Justice Department wants to pursue them vigorously and fairly like they would with any other citizen, he should be indicted for his false testimony on Capitol Hill and for his obstruction of an investigation.92

Far from the image of an honest and honorable Boy Scout, the evidence is compelling that James Comey sought to mislead, deflect, and deceive. He also appears to have abused the powers of his office to exact punishment on the president who fired him. His plan to convert presidential memos for his own use, then leak them to the media to damage Trump suggests a willingness to defy rules, regulations, and federal laws with impunity.

Perhaps Comey felt he could get away with it because he successfully engineered the appointment of his close friend Robert Mueller as special counsel to pursue potential charges against the president.

FOOTNOTES (I removed the URLS, they did not translate well with my OCR program)

59. Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia,” pp. 32 and 33, Politico, June 8, 2017.

60. Michael S. Schmidt, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation,” New York Times, May 16, 2017.

61. James B. Comey, “Statement for the Record,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, p. 5, June 8, 2017; Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia,” Politico, June 8, 2017.

62. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines (MIOG),” available at …

63. FBI Employment Agreement, Including Provisions and Prohibited Disclosures, FD-291, available at …

64. 44 U.S.C. 3101, “Records Management by Agency Heads, General Duties”; 5 U.S.C. 552a, “Records Maintained on Individuals”; 28 U.S.C. 1732, “Record Made in Regular Course of Business.”

65. Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia,” Politico, 16, June 8, 2017; available at …

66. 18 U.S.C. 641, “Public Money, Property or Records.”

67. 5 C.F.R. 2635.703, “Use of Nonpublic Information”; 29 C.F.R. 71.14, “Use of Non Public Information.”

68. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Records Management Division, 0792PG, p. 1, June 4, 2015.

69. FBI Employment Agreement, Including Provisions and Prohibited Disclosures, FD-291, available at …

70. 18 U.S.C. 793, “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.”

71. Politico Staff, “Full Text: James Comey Testimony Transcript on Trump and Russia.”

72. Letter from Charles E. Grassley, chairman of Committee on the Judiciary Committee, to Rod J. Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, January 3, 2018, available at …

73. Ibid.

74. Brooke Singman, “Comey Memos Reportedly Had Classified Info,” Fox News, July 10, 2017.

75. 18 U.S.C. 1924, “Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material.”

76. 18 U.S.C. 793(f), “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information.”

77. Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, and Cyd Upson, “Comey Memos Shared More Broadly Than Previously Thought,” Fox News, April 25, 2018.

78. Transcript of “James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia Investigation,” Fox News, “Special Report With Bret Baier.” April 26, 2018, available at …

79. Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, and Cyd Upson, “Comey Memos Shared More Broadly Than Previously Thought.”

80. Ibid.; Sean Davis, “Comey ‘Friend’ Who Leaked FBI Memos Now Claims to Be His Attorney,” Federalist, January 23, 2018.

81. Transcript of “James Comey on Clinton Probe, Russia Investigation,” Fox News, “Special Report With Bret Baier.” April 26, 2018; available at …

82. Michael D. Shear and Nicholas Fandos, “GOP Push on Comey Files May Have Backfired,” New York Times, April 21, 2018.

83. United States Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001, “Statements or Entries Generally.”

84. Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Testimony of James B. Comey, September 28, 2016, available at …

85. Senate Judiciary Committee letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, August 30, 2017, available at …

86. Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal Email System, FBI National Press Office, July 5, 2016.

87. Brooke Singman, Alex Pappas, and Jake Gibson, “More Than 50,000 Texts Exchanged Between FBI Officials Strzok and Page, Sessions Says,” Fox News, January 22, 2018.

88. Washington Post Staff, “Read Full Testimony of FBI Director James Comey in Which He Discusses Clinton Email Investigation.”

89. CNN Staff, “Read: Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s Statement on His Firing,” CNN, March 17, 2018, available at ….

90. Letter from Sen. Charles E. Grassley and Sen. Lindsey 0. Graham, Judiciary Committee, to Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, Department of Justice, February 28, 2018, available at ….

91. Byron Tau and Aruna Viswanatha, “Justice Department Watchdog Probes Comey Memos Over Classified Information,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2018.

92. Interview with Joseph diGenova, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and former independent counsel, January 26, 2018.

  • Gregg Jarrett, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2018), 244-254, 325-327.

 

In Canada, Public Christianity Is Illegal

Published by Papa Giorgio

At the end you hear people yell “Good!” when the person says freedom of speech was taken away. Just to be clear, Canada DOES NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT. They really do not have “freedom of speech.” But Canadians “think” they do, and so push this Natural Right by Nature’s God and so are on the side of justice. True justice that protects the freedom of speech of ALL PEOPLE (no matter creed nor religion). America is the ONLY NATION founded on limited government… unfortunately, we have a couple generations that have no idea what that means. And so we will slide slowly to a place similar to Canada. And Canada will be that much further along.

I originally saw this on CHARISMA NEWS, but also wish to encourage those visit WINTERY KNIGHT. Here are some excerpts from both. One More Thing To Note… while there are links to the above video, one should watch any number of Lynn’s videos, they are good and show his demeanor throughout. Loving.:

Pastor David Lynn of Christ Forgiveness Ministries was arrested on June 4, 2019, for preaching the gospel publicly in Toronto, Canada. The neighborhood he was preaching in was Church-Wellesley Village. This neighborhood is known to be a place where many of the LGBTQ community in Toronto reside. His ministry is currently on an outdoor preaching tour throughout the 22 districts of Toronto. June 4, happened to be the day they scheduled for that district.

It is not uncommon for someone to think “open-air preaching” and “LGBTQ neighborhood” and immediately jump to thoughts of preachers condemning homosexuals to hell. However, Pastor Lynn’s preaching was some of the most loving and gracious preaching I have ever seen and heard, which is why it is outrageous that he was arrested.

The entire time of preaching was livestreamed via Facebook and can be found on YouTube. Throughout the video, it is surprising to see the reaction of those who were listening to Lynn’s preaching. The more love he poured out, the more hate and resistance he received. As anyone can see if they view the video, Pastor Lynn was respectful and kind throughout all of his time preaching. As he shared the gospel, he also made statements like “We are here to tell you that we hate nobody.” He emphasized God’s love again and again.

[….]

Canada does have hate-speech laws. However, there is no way Lynn’s preaching could be deemed as hate speech. He stated while preaching, “Everyone is accepted. … and that is what we preach as Christians.”

In order to not make anyone listening feel singled out, he said “Jesus died for the sinner. … Every heterosexual has sin. Every homosexual has sin. Sin is when we violate the laws of God.” He did not target any particular group of people or single out homosexuality.

Though he was very loving throughout the entire encounter, tensions escalated, and people began to form a mob of protest around him. As he tried to walk away from the most adamant protesters, they crowded in on him and would not let him move. Throughout the encounter, as he tried to walk away from them, they pressed in on him and blocked him. At times, they even pressed their bodies against him, which in technicality is assault.

When the police arrived, rather than dealing with those who were assaulting Pastor Lynn, the police blamed him for creating a disturbance of peace. Even upon his request to deal with those who had assaulted him, the police would not listen to him.

Pastor Lynn, preaches on a weekly basis all throughout Toronto with amplification and, according to his statements, he has never been in violation of the law by using amplification. In the video that captured the entirety of the event, the officers told him that he needed to preach without amplification. They said this despite him not being in any violation of the law. He then proceeded to preach without amplification, but not long after, the officers decided to arrest him.

Later that evening, in a statement to the media, he said, “Every community in Toronto should have the same laws, and everyone should be welcome.” He continued, “Everyone should have rights, dignity and respect, just like Christians should as well.”

He clarified that throughout his preaching, he was telling those listening, “God loves you. There is hope for you.” “Whatever community you are, God loves you. Jesus died for you.”

We must understand the importance of this event. It is a gross violation against free speech, and it shows any Christian a precursor of what persecution could look like in the future.

Here in North America, we are in a serious battle for rights that we have taken for granted. There are groups, organizations and individuals that want to make certain types of free speech illegal. Pastor Lynn’s arrest is nothing short of a violation of his right to free speech. He was not inciting anyone to violence, and neither was he being defamatory. He was preaching the gospel. He was preaching that Jesus Christ loves each person and died specifically for them. In spite of this, he received harsh protest which ended in his arrest. This should greatly concern any Christian…….

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Steven Crowder loves to run through a bit of the history with people, some examples (the third video shows the creep of totalitarianism [total thought] here in the states):

And now they’re arresting Christian pastors. Here is a short — true — statement by WINTERY KNIGHT, who eruditely acknowledges the above (I will emphasize)

I try to stay informed about countries that are more advanced on the path of secular leftism, such as Canada and Venezuela. Canada is about 10 years ahead of us down the path of secular leftism. They legalized same-sex marriage 10 years before we did. They started persecuting Christian businesses 10 years before we did. 

[….]

You can clearly see that in Canada, the police don’t care about basic human rights. Those policemen have been taught secular leftism. They don’t know anything about “human rights”. They only know that to keep their jobs, they must do as the secular leftists in power tell them. The laws are not based on morality. The laws are based on the need for the secular leftist elites to be able to do what they need to do without anyone disagreeing with them. The police aren’t the guardians of the moral law, they’re just hired muscle there to enforce the will of the secular left.

Rights like free speech and religious liberty DO NOT EXIST in Canada. Christians and conservatives have a duty to pay taxes to their secular left overlords, but they don’t have a right to disagree with their secular left overlords. They don’t have a right to live their lives as Christians, and run their families as Christians. If they try to act like Christians, then they wind up in front of a Human Rights Commission, or a criminal court, or in a jail cell.

And there is no freedom of the press in Canada. If a Canadian tries to expose any of the abuses of human rights to the public, the courts will send the police to their door to arrest them. You see, they want to suppress the human rights of those who disagree with them, but they don’t want anyone to know about it. They want people to believe that Canada is as free as the United States, so they don’t want reports about their heavy-handed totalitarianism to get out to the rest of the world. This suppression of the truth by force has always been the standard operating procedure of the secular left – in every country where they have seized power.

If you don’t want this for America, then you have to vote against the secular left, and do your part to persuade others not to vote for them.

WINTERY goes on to link to similar topic he has posted on:

Related Posts

Why Break Up YouTube, Google and Facebook (Bill Whittle)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Bill Whittle finds three reasons to break up Google, YouTube, Facebook and other social media companies that use algorithms to suppress free speech. This is not merely the revenge of the Right over demonetization. Bias without consent, practical monopoly status, and the distinction between carriers and publishers all lead to the conclusion that even conservatives should cheer the dissolution of these “private” businesses. The power of social media to suppress our messages has squeezed ad revenues to a trickle, and stopped many thousands of people from even seeing these videos. To survive and to advance the cause of common sense and decency, the Members at BillWhittle.com have taken up the challenge to fund this enterprise, and to share these videos with their networks of friends. Members have created a refuge for free thought, reason, civility and a lot of humor.

The Social Rot of VICTIMHOOD (Black Pigeon)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Black Pigeon Speaks (again) about how our current “victimhood” status censors free speech.

John Dean’s “Worse Than Watergate” Game-show (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Sean Hannity Monologues, but he has Joe Concha on to discuss John Dean’s jump at monitory payoffs. Or, as the FEDERALIST puts it, “JOHN DEAN STARS IN ‘WORSE THAN WATERGATE!’“:

….It was in 1987 that Dean argued that Ronald Reagan’s Iran-contra scandal was worse than Watergate….. It was 2005, when Democrats were toying around with the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, that then-Sen. Barbara Boxer sent a letter presidential scholars, asking them about comments “by Richard Nixon’s lawyer John Dean that Bush is ‘the first president to admit to an impeachable offense’.”…….

Concha ends the interview (what little of it there is) with just how crazy the Left is.

More from the FEDERALIST:

John W. Dean likes to refer to himself as a “Nixon historian” these days, which is more or less like calling Willie Cicci the “chronicler” of the Corleone family saga.

Politico reports that House Judiciary Committee is preparing to call the “Watergate star witness and former Nixon White House counsel” to testify about the Mueller report, in “an effort to draw public attention” to the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The word “star,” often used to describe Dean, is, at best, a poetic truth. His expertise on the issue of impeachment, long sought by liberals, was acquired by helping plan one of the most infamous scandals in American political history, snitching on everyone who conspired with him and then cashing in on the fallout for the next 47 years.

It’s what someone in Cicci’s line of work might call a “racket.” Good work if you can get it.

As White House counsel, Dean had known about the eavesdropping that ended the Nixon presidency even before Nixon did. He was not some innocent man swept up in the ugly currents of history. Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert accused Dean of not only being “at the center of the criminality” but also withholding crucial evidence while plea bargaining his way out of trouble.

There’s no evidence that Dean agreed to be a whistleblower because of a tortured conscience or because he wanted to preserve law and order or even because he was attempting to save the Nixon presidency, as he likes to claim. There is evidence, however, that he turned to the Feds when Nixon refused to promise him immunity from prosecution.

[….]

Was Dean on Nixon’s list? Well, no doubt he was reviled by the White House once he turned on the president. Anyone who’s read about Watergate, though, is likely aware that the non-fictional Dean was sent the infamous Enemies List back in 1971.

Did he heroically run to the Justice Department? Did he leak it the news to the media?  No, his office wrote a confidential memo detailing how the list could utilize “available federal machinery,” like tax audits from the IRS, “to screw our political enemies.” It was Dean who, after Nixon suggested that if he wins a second term the White House should target the president’s enemies more aggressively, responded, “That’s an exciting prospect.”

I’ve seen Dean get away with bragging about how he warned Nixon that there was “a cancer on the presidency” on numerous occasions. As the audiotape of the incidentshows, Dean was referring to a political threat to Nixon, not an ethical one that threatened the office. Here he is, making the claim—while conspiracy mongering about the Russia investigation—to CNN’s Jake Tapper, who gets a kick out of the idea that Trump believes Dean, who was convicted of obstruction of justice and disbarred, might be the “villain” in this story. He was surely one of them.

Dean is a useful guest for a media that hasn’t been able to stop making insipid Watergate comparisons since Watergate itself. For Democrats, and only Democrats, Dean also serves much the same purpose he did in government. A consummate yes man.

It was in 1987 that Dean argued that Ronald Reagan’s Iran-contra scandal was worse than Watergate. Much much worse, in fact. “The Iran-contra inquiries involve matters of national security,” Dean explained at the time. “Watergate, on the other hand, involved the political security of Richard Nixon. These are Major League matters versus Little League.”

It was 2005, when Democrats were toying around with the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, that then-Sen. Barbara Boxer sent a letter presidential scholars, asking them about comments “by Richard Nixon’s lawyer John Dean that Bush is ‘the first president to admit to an impeachable offense.’”

Dean’s quote was heavily leaned on at time. Hey, if the “star” witness of Watergate says impeachment is on the table, aren’t we compelled to listen? Dean, in fact, had written an entire book—“Worse than Watergate”—making the case that both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached for lying to Congress…………

Rep. Devin Nunes Details Failings In The Mueller Report

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Via FOX NEWS) House Intelligence Committee holds a hearing on “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1.” Robert Anderson, Stephanie Douglas, & Andrew McCarthy testify.

The reason for posting the above lengthy video is because THE EPOCH TIMES has an excellent article detailing Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Calif.) work on the flaws in Mueller Report. Here are some excerpts from what should be read in whole:

…As an example, Nunes brought up the Trump Tower meeting that took place on June 9, 2016, and highlighted the fact that Fusion GPS, which employed Christopher Steele, was actually working for Russians in the Prevezon case at the same time that they were working for the Clinton campaign. Nunes asked the Democrat witnesses if they were aware of this potential conflict. Notably, neither Anderson nor Douglas had knowledge of Fusion’s dual roles.

“So you have Glenn Simpson, who’s working not only for the Clinton campaign, to dirty up Trump. He’s also working for the Russians to dirty up anybody who doesn’t oppose the Magnitsky Act. He’s meeting with all those individuals. Now you, as former counterintelligence people, would that raise any flags to you at all? That a Clinton campaign operative arm is working for these same Russians – happen to be the same Russians that are meeting at Trump Tower, offering supposed dirt?”

Douglas answered, saying: “I think it’s not in a vacuum. It’s not just about President Trump’s campaign or Secretary Clinton’s campaign. It’s about the context to [inaudible] information. Regardless of whose campaign it was, if there were significant concerns or things that we thought that could raise to that, I think it absolutely would be worth looking at.”

Nunes responded saying that the Mueller report “doesn’t talk about Fusion GPS at all, even though of all their questionable contacts with the Russians.” Fusion GPS employees, including co-founder Glenn Simpson, invoked their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the House Intelligence Committee when questioned about these matters.

[….]

The Epoch Times recently published an article detailing the ways in which the Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by lawyers working under Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on the president.

Sections of the report were selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals and apparent misrepresentations. Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the president’s attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn; a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report; and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

There are also troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader, that are only now coming forth.

More recently, it has been reported that important details regarding Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, were left out of the Mueller report. Kilimnik reportedly served as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the State Department and “informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.” The Mueller team, for reasons unknown, omitted those details from its report.

Nunes laid forth some crucial non-findings that undercut long-standing narratives and claims of collusion.

Contents of Mueller Report

Nunes, who referred to the Mueller report as “the Mueller dossier,” noted that it “either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories or did not even find them worth discussing.” Nunes then provided a specific list:

  • “Mueller’s finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague to conspire with Russians.
  • No evidence that Carter Page conspired with Russians.
  • No mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in London.
  • No mention of secret communications between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
  • And no mention of former NRA lawyer Cleta Mitchell or her supposed knowledge of a scheme to launder Russian money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Insinuations against Mitchell originated with Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and were first made public in a document published by Democrats on this committee.”

Notably, Mueller found no evidence of collusion on the part of the Trump campaign and made no conclusion regarding obstruction, leaving the matter up to Attorney General Bill Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for a legal decision.

Barr recently addressed the obstruction issue, noting that Mueller took into account the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted and also included “a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision” on obstruction.

Notably, the DOJ and the special counsel’s office released a joint statementfollowing some public confusion on the matter resulting from Mueller’s May 29, 2019, press conference:

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice.”

“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”

During Mueller’s somewhat confusing press conference, many interpreted Mueller’s comments to mean that the OLC opinion was the singular issue. In the joint statement, both Muller and the DOJ stated that there would be no conclusion on obstruction even without the OLC opinion.

Barr, who said he believed Mueller could have reached a conclusion on obstruction, said that both he and Rosenstein didn’t agree with much of the legal analysis contained in the report.

During a recent interview with CBS News, Barr pointed out that, in order for the determination of a crime, the DOJ would have had to prove corrupt intent, noting that “the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately, and refusing to correct the record.”

Nunes, who was far more blunt in his assessment, said that the real purpose of the Mueller report “was to help Democrats impeach the president in the absence of any evidence of collusion.” Thus, Nunes noted, the report includes:

  • “A long litany of ordinary contacts between Trump associates and Russians, as if a certain number of contacts indicate a conspiracy even if no conversations actually created or even discussed a conspiracy.
  • Excerpts from a voicemail from Trump attorney John Dowd that the Mueller team selectively edited to make it seem threatening and nefarious.
  • No comment on the close relationship between Democrat operatives at Fusion GPS and multiple Russians who participated in the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower. In fact, no comment on Fusion GPS at all.
  • No useful information on figures who played key roles in the investigation such as Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, or Christopher Steele.
  • No useful information about the many irregularities that marred the FBI’s Russia investigation.”

Nunes also observed how the Mueller report went to lengths to cite “dozens of articles from the reporters and publications that were most responsible for perpetuating the Russia hoax.” Nunes then described how this, in turn, provided a feedback loop for Democrat claims of obstruction:

“[I]ntelligence leakers spin a false story to the media, the media publishes the story, Mueller cites the story, and the media and the Democrats then fake outrage at Mueller’s findings.”

Nunes closed his prepared remarks with sharp criticism of the mainstream media, noting “the media have abandoned their traditional watchdog role and instead have become the mouthpiece of a cabal of intelligence leakers.”………

Reaction from House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes and House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Mark Meadows on ‘Hannity.’

Kirsten Gillibrand Compares Pro Life Beliefs To Racism

Published by Papa Giorgio

This woman is really confused… to say the least. Since pro-life positions affect mainly minority women (since they get the most abortions), how does wanting MORE black babies equal racism. She also seems to pigeonhole the issue as a religious one. As I have noted MANY times before, there are many well-known atheists who are pro-life. Likewise, there is a group of feminist pro-lifers called: FEMINISTS FOR LIFE

More on feminists who are pro-life:

“They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t \want to have an abortion.” – Abortion doctor quoted in New Dimensions magazine, 1990

Invariably, the feminist position on abortion is portrayed as the “pro-woman” position—mostly because feminist leaders have convinced their followers that this procedure is essential to women’s liberty. As Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, said, “‘abortion’ became a symbol of our independence, because reproductive freedom is fundamental to a woman’s aspirations.”

This is also known as the “pro-choice” position. But how do feminists feel about women who don’t choose abortion—and, more importantly, the women who assist them in making that choice?

Don’t be fooled by the deceptive labels and euphemisms. When it comes to “reproductive rights,” feminists have a very specific agenda—one that involves a lot more abortions, but not necessarily more choice.

At Temple University in Philadelphia, Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America, faced a tough crowd. As Crisis magazine described the scene, “The 40 or so students gathered to hear Foster are mostly women. Not even the pro-lifers are smiling. The student who introduced her asked those with differing opinions to be respectful. It set an ominous tone. Would they start chanting soon? Blowing whistles? Would they get violent?”

But then, somehow, Foster performed a miracle. She threw the cover off “the dirty little secret of women’s studies departments” — America’s earliest feminists were anti-abortion. In the words of coura­geous suffragette Susan B. Anthony, abortion was “child murder,” and “no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

Foster then asked the crowd, “If women were fighting for the right not to be considered property, what gives them the right to consider their baby property?”

It was something to think about. From that moment on, even students who had showed up to protest couldn’t help but nod in agreement.

That night, Foster raised a point that feminists dare not discuss: before the women’s movement was hijacked by leftists in the 1960s, abortion was never viewed as a good thing for women. In fact, the prac­tice was unthinkable to individuals like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the mastermind behind the historic Seneca Falls Convention and mother of seven chil­dren. (If Stanton applied for a teaching position in a women’s studies department today, she would be labeled a “Jesus freak” and promptly dismissed.)

“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit,” Stanton wrote to her friend Julia Ward Howe in 1873.

She wasn’t the only one.

Victoria Woodhull, the first female stockbroker on Wall Street, also became the first woman to run for President in 1870. An early suffragette with a flair for the outrageous, Woodhull epitomized the modern feminist slogan “well-behaved women rarely make history.” (She was repeatedly arrested for her polit­ical activities.) And she too hated abortion.

“A human life is a human life and equally to be held sacred whether it be a day or a century old,” Woodhull wrote. “Wives…to prevent becoming mothers…deliberately murder [children] while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized condition than this? “

Alice Paul, who authored the original Equal Rights Amendment, was willing to face arrests, harassment, and physical assaults in-order-to win the right to vote. Later, when 1960s feminists began advocating the repeal of abortion laws, Paul asked, “How can one protect and help women by killing them as babies?” She considered abortion “the ulti­mate exploitation of women.”

Who are the modern descendents of Anthony, Stanton, Woodhull, and Paul? They can be found at Feminists for Life of America, whose founder, Pat Goltz, was kicked out of NOW for her anti-abortion views. On its website, FFL issues a challenge: “If you believe in the strength of women and the poten­tial for every human life…If you refuse to choose between women and children…If you reject violence and exploitation, join us in challenging the status quo. There is a better way.”

FFL reaches out to women facing crisis pregnan­cies and opposes any legislation that might make it harder for them to keep their children—much of which has been proposed by Republicans, proving that FFL hardly deserves the “right- wing” label assigned to it by pro-abortion feminists. In 1996, FFL attempted to dissuade President Clinton from signing a Republican-backed welfare reform bill that elimi­nated additional assistance for babies born to girls under 18. Their rationale? If a pregnant girl couldn’t afford to raise her child, she would have no choice but to abort.

FFL also pressures universities to provide special resources for pregnant and parenting students, a move opposed by many conservatives on the principle that pregnant women aren’t entitled to handouts. But FFL refuses to compromise its mission: to make moth­erhood a viable option for women facing unwanted pregnancies.

FFL is not actively involved in efforts to outlaw abortion. Instead, the group is interested in “system­atically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion — primarily lack of practical resources and support — through holistic, woman-centered solutions.”

This is a truly “pro-choice” position—the one that groups like NOW and NARAL claim to uphold. But evidently a lot of feminists do not believe that women deserve better than abortion.

“Who are the Feminists for Life? In a word, dangerous,” began an article in the online magazine Nerve.

“Feminists for what?” the author gasped. “Not a typo: Feminists for Life. As in, against abortion.” The horror!

As the article explained, the women of FFL “aren’t really feminists—a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child.”

Feminist hysteria over FFL indicates that the only “choice” they deem acceptable is the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The way FFL was treated by the Lilith Fair, a feminist music festival organized by singer Sarah McLachlan in the late 90’s, proved that different views on abortion will not be tolerated.

“Women are everywhere. Walking in groups, laughing and talking. Sitting on the grass. Playing the guitar. Reading pamphlets on women’s issues picked up from booths in the Village area,” a reporter described Lilith Fair’s stop in my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. “There is also a woman with a gag in her mouth standing in front of one of the booths, wearing a T-shirt reading, ‘Peace begins in the womb, Sarah.'”

That woman was Marilyn Kopp, the director of Ohio Feminists for Life. Lilith Fair, despite its stated mission of “raising consciousness of women’s issues,” denied booth space to any group that did not wholeheartedly support abortion as the ultimate cata­lyst of gender equality.

Naturally, Lilith Fair’s feminist organizers were outraged that FFL had the gall to show up at their concert.

“This isn’t a democracy. This is a tyranny,” fumed singer Sheryl  Crow, justifying Lilith’s ban on pro-life groups.

However, some ordinary concertgoers were unimpressed with the notion of tyranny in the name of women’s advancement.

“As Kopp’s friend Denise Mackura stands gagged in front of the NOW booth, a group of teenage girls walk up to her. When they find out what’s going on, they’re shocked,” reporter Laura Demarco wrote. “They see the situation as a violation of civil rights, not a defense of women’s rights. ‘This is wrong,’ says Casey Patton, 17.”

The sight of FFL members standing in front of NOW’s booth with gags in their mouths spoke volumes about the authoritarian nature of the modern feminist movement. As DeMarco observed, “It’s hard to miss the hypocrisy of feminists censoring other women like this… they patronizingly assume women aren’t smart enough to hear all sides on an issue and decide for themselves.”

The prospect of women deciding for themselves is terribly threatening to the feminist establishment—which might also explain their fanatical opposition to Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Ashley Herzog, FEMINISM VS. WOMEN (Xulon Press, 2008), 85-91.