In common bond with authoritarians around the world, the American left-wing powermongers have long proffered the ridiculously untrue narrative that there is no such thing as voter fraud. China’s President Xi, Russia’s President Putin, North Korea’s Chairman Kim or Iran’s Hassan Rouhani will all tell you that their elections are also totally free of fraud. Do we believe them? Of course not.
We may not be a totalitarian nation, but the American media’s objectively disprovable falsehood that our elections are devoid of any mischief is in the spirit that the bigger the lie and the more it is repeated, the more it will be believed. And the claim of no voter fraud in American elections is a whopper.
CNN apparently understands the power of the big lie because in one of their new promotional commercials they ironically proclaim that no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it is still not true. While they want us to infer that CNN is the truth in that promo, the truth, however, may actually put CNN on the side of the lie. They not only understand the concept of the big lie, but they also seem to be applying it.
They tell the big lie about vote fraud because it works. I have a number of otherwise intelligent and discerning liberal friends who believe it — accept it without question and without proof. I do not entirely blame them because they only watch CNN and MSNBC – as well as having the New York Times and the Washington Post as their favorite newspapers.
The left-leaning media claims that after billions of votes have been cast over many years, there only have been approximately 30 cases of voter fraud. There are more cases than that in some Chicago precincts in every election cycle. The media claim is so preposterous that it is impossible to understand how anyone could really believe it even if they just applied a bit of logic and common sense.
Lincoln wisely noted that “widely held beliefs, whether well or ill founded, have the impact of fact.” He also noted that you “cannot fool all the people all the time.” In terms of the theory that voter fraud does not exist, we, unfortunately, have not yet reached the latter phase of public awareness. The left is still fooling a lot of people.
At several points in my civic career, I was deeply involved in the fight against vote fraud. As Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, I launched an investigative committee on that subject. A client of my consulting firm was Project LEAP (Legal Elections in All Precincts) – an organization with the sole purpose of combatting rampant election fraud. We cooperated with a similar task force of the League of Women Voters. In some elections, U.S. Marshalls had to be brought in to man precincts with a history of vote fraud. I personally saw the hard evidence – a thousand times more than the 30 cases claimed by the left.
Across America, there are thousands of groups fighting for honest elections. Does anyone really believe that all these people are putting in so much effort into fighting against a problem that does not exist? Do they think that all this effort is being expended without having seen a LOT of examples of vote fraud?
Those who spread the false narrative of no such thing as vote fraud often say that President Trump’s commission on elections was disbanded because the could not find any vote fraud … none … nada. That is also not true. The commission was disbanded largely because many of the Democrat-controlled states refused to cooperate – and you need not think to deeply to wonder why.
In every election, people not eligible to vote, vote. Dead people vote. Political operatives fill out ballots for vulnerable seniors – and even those past the point of comprehension. Ballots are purposely lost or not counted. Batches of ballots are added after the close of the polls. People are registered, and votes are cast without their knowledge. Many of the Democrat city machines are infamous for “manipulating” the vote count. There are endless ways to do it, and I have personally seen and investigated most of them.
Before every vote can be counted, it must be determined if a ballot should be counted. Lawyers for the Republican and Democratic parties are not on the scene to ensure that every ballot is counted. They are there to protect as many votes as they can for their party and to toss out as many votes as they can for the other party. The problem occurs when ballots are added or tossed BEFORE the official recount starts. That is why the sudden discovery of uncounted ballots in Broward County, Florida is so suspect.
Currently, national attention is on Broward County, which has a history of dubious and illegal management of the ballots. Just two years ago, the Election Supervisor of Broward Brenda Snipes illegally destroyed all the ballots before a recount could be conducted – a recount requested by a Democrat opponent of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Snipes has a long history of “irregularities” in handling ballots, including repeatedly “finding” ballots after the count was supposedly over and a Democrat was a bit short, slipping in unverified provisional ballots, failure to count military ballots and the list goes on and on over many election cycles.
Snipes claims that all those accusations were the results of mistake – not dishonesty and certainly not criminality. The courts have not always agreed. When your best defense is a claim of incompetency, you know something is wrong. And how ironic that all those “mistakes” benefited her own Democratic Party.
Snipes has been among those officials who refused to purge the voting rolls of dead, moved-away and unqualified voters. In a callous case of Democrat efforts to win elections at all costs, it was discovered that Parkland shooter, Nicolas Cruz, registered from jail as a Democrat voter for the first time for the 2018 election – a privilege of citizenship that 17 folks from Stoneman-Douglas High School are not able to exercise.
Serious questions have been raised over the security of the ballots in Broward County. There are disturbing and suspicious gaps in the protection of the ballots and vote counts as they moved from precinct to central depositories, where they are supposedly “protected” only by Democrat officials. Snipes even defied a court order to allow observers monitor a portion of the process.
National media reports carry three lies. Yes. Not mistakes, lies. Of course, the first is that all accusations of voter irregularity in Broward County are bogus claims by Republicans who fear a recount. They say this despite Broward County’s looooong history of vote fraud – which is not just the illegal casting of votes by unqualified people as the media implies.
The second lie is that the Republicans are afraid of “counting every vote.” That is the mantra of the left. The real objective, however, should be to count every LEGAL vote. Democrats want all the provisional ballots counted even though history shows that at least 50 percent of them will be invalid because the person was not eligible to vote. Democrats want no challenges to a ballot even if the ballot or the voter is … invalid or ineligible. Democrats want recounts only in communities where there is the strongest Democrat turnout. That is NOT voter suppression as Democrats allege. It is protecting the efficacy of the voting process.
The third lie is in the bald face category. I have heard several commentators on both CNN and MSNBC note that Republicans are complaining even though they are the ones in charge of ballot and voting supervision. That is a blatant lie. In Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, where most election controversy tends to occur, are totally, 100 percent controlled by Democrats. Yes, it all comes under a Secretary of State – who might be a Republican – but the power to control the process rests 99 percent with the local officials who handle the ballots and count the votes.
Vote fraud has its greatest influence in the closest of elections. It can reverse the will of the people – and it has. That is why it is important that those recounts in Florida, Georgia and Arizona must be made with total transparency and the full participation of representatives of the affected political parties and impartial independent observers.
So, there ‘tis.
France and Germany have been making war on each other for centuries but today they have a common threat that is uniting them. Citizens from both countries are fleeing the violence and crime brought by the migrant crisis.
People from all walks of life are moving out of France. Receptionists, financial advisors, and surveyors see no relief from the new multiracial France. They all oppose the “the Islamization of France” which is proceeding rapidly and degrading their society.
A 20-minute film called Hungary: the Promised Land interviewed one young father who said he and his wife moved with their two children from France to Hungary three years earlier to rediscover “our values.”
The expat professional driver said, “Our traditions are better respected, and even a change in mentality” in their new home. He cited drugs and national security as driving forces behind the family’s voluntarily relocation.
Uncontrolled mass migration is not working out well in France. It is a touchy subject that gets no press in the United States. Even talking about it is “xenophobic” and “racist,” according to many on the left. Still, the situation is so hot that the pot is about to boil over.
Even though many migrants are genuine political refugees who intend to integrate and adopt their host country’s culture, the actively violent Muslim minority (a very small percentage of the total group) are the few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel. The outrageous behavior shown on independent videos gets published while law-abiding immigrants are seldom profiled.
French President Emmanuel Macron wants “a better quality of immigrants from North Africa” to help solve the problem.
If only it were that easy.
There are really two challenges facing France: first, how to deal with the newly arrived migrant populations; and second, how to prevent additional undesirables from entering the country.
Last year, France processed 100,000 new asylum claims. Macron is trying to solve the migrant crisis in his country – no-go zones, gang violence, and destruction of public property – by separating economic migrants from refugees fleeing persecution. The first group should not be allowed entry while the second group will be allowed to stay.
Conservative French journalist Eric Zammour laid the blame for all of the civil upheaval in France on Muslim communities.
His remarks do not sit well with the liberals in charge who countered with their usual accusations of hate speech and racism. The Superior Audio-Visual Council (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel or CSA) upholds broadcast freedoms in France. This group ensures that plural (both sides) of opinions are expressed, that human dignity is preserved, protects consumers, keeps a watchful eye on the news media, and organizes radio and TV election campaigns.
CSA has come down hard against Zammour’s proposal to deny the migrants “the benefit of the right to asylum on the ground that they would, because of their religion and unlike others, become the source of ‘enormous problems and that they would contribute to the great replacement of the French population'” is a bad idea because these notions are “likely to encourage discriminatory behavior and incite hatred or violence against a population specifically designated for reasons of religion.”
Well, yeah. That religion is Islam. It states very clearly that non-believers (infidels) are, basically, scum of the Earth. Women, in particular, are subjected to sexual assault – even as very young girls – because Muslim holy texts say that infidel females are all worthless prostitutes.
The real question on many people’s minds is why the French and other governments are protecting militant minorities from eviction?
Violent Muslim immigrants have grown in numbers large enough to take over sizeable territories in French suburbs. The French residents have no recourse because their government has a laissez-faire (leave it alone) policy toward the foreign invasion.
As Jim Morrison with The Doors so famously sang, “The time to hesitate is through.”
Now, French suburbanites are taking action, the only action open to them. Since their government won’t stop the criminal Muslims from rampaging through their once-beautiful neighborhoods, the French are leaving for safer ground.
That safer ground is Hungary, a country that realized immediately the danger from unchecked North African immigration and built border barriers to control who crosses their boundaries.
The politicians in Hungary looked at a map and saw that their country lies along the migratory path from the Mediterranean Sea to Germany. Their border fence has kept out hundreds of thousands of undocumented, hungry, angry, single males with an infidel axe to grind.
Csaba Dömötör, the Hungarian parliamentary state secretary in the Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister (Viktor Orbán), said their government wants to “protect our communities and culture.” He added that “as long as this government is in office and the prime minister is called Viktor Orbán, the fence will stay in place.”
Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who, in 2015, welcomed Syrian asylum-seekers) realized in 2016 that multiculturalism in Europe has “utterly failed” and it was delusional to believe that German and foreign workers would “live happily side by side.”
Ironically, the Leftists in charge of France and other European countries still call the Muslim invasion “cultural enrichment.” We would love to see some evidence that French culture has been enhanced by their new arrivals. However, no such news is making the rounds.
Instead, French citizens are “leaving the heavily migrant-populated suburbs of Paris after being assaulted and robbed multiple times.”
Part of the allure stems from a 2017 proclamation from Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, who said, half-jokingly, at his annual state of the union address:
“Naturally, we will take in the real refugees. The panicked German, Dutch, French and Italian politicians and journalists, Christians forced to leave their countries will find here the Europe they lost at home.”
One young French woman named Elsa moved to Budapest two years ago from the French suburbs after she was assaulted three times and her purse and cell phone were stolen.
Elsa’s story is typical of other Europeans seeking refugee status in a protected country. Orbán set the record straight about preserving “international identity” when open border advocates accuse him with the leftist r-word. Maintaining a democracy by keeping out disruptive elements from another group of countries that have a majority religion that preaches and practices intolerance and death to the infidel is not racist:
“Hungary is a democratic country, of course…People can come, everyone can express their point of view. there is no racism in Hungary, but a democratic discourse, and the country will run smoothly as a living democracy.”
Is it any wonder that shocked and awed French citizens are leaving their once-beautiful country for one that shares their religion (Christianity), has a low cost of living and affordable real estate, and no migrant problems?
Meanwhile, back in France, the pro-Muslim propaganda machine is hard at work to punish Hungary. The European Union (EU) has called Hungry’s refusal to play by their rules a serious “threat to the fundamental values of the Union.” They are debating whether or not to suspend Hungary’s EU voting rights.
Somehow, we sense that Hungarians just don’t give a darn what the EU thinks.
Selective outrage has once again gripped the progressive establishment by the long expected and anticipated firing, resignation, departure and exit of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The historical facts of Watergate are so far removed from the manufactured and concocted hoax regarding Russian collusion against the Trump Administration that it’s just not worth rehashing its absurdity.
However what is worth noting is how quickly the far-left moved when the expected news of Sessions’ departure hit the airwaves. Within a matter of minutes, House Democrats raced to media outlets declaring that the President’s request for resignation was somehow a “Constitutional Crisis” regardless of the fact Sessions was a cabinet appointee, and served at the “PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.”
What’s apparently freaking out both the mainstream media and crazed Democrats is how the President cleverly circumvented Sessions’ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein from becoming “acting Attorney General,” and instead temporarily promoted Sessions’ chief of staff, Matt Whitaker.
The unconventional promotion fueled a firestorm of theories from the political pundits.
MSNBC on Thursday quickly dragged out a Harvard Law professor named Laurence Tribe, who lambasted the President for his choice in appointing Whitaker as acting attorney general, and predicting the President’s action was a “slow-motion constitutional crisis.”
The good professor then went into his legal “dog and pony” show, reciting Article 2 of the Constitution, and why the Presidents action is unconstitutional.
Like most critical thinking individuals who follow the ebb and flow of politics, there’s always another side to the legal coin, and it’s for that very reason we have both an Appellate Court and a Supreme Court.
Professor Jonathan Turley, a renowned constitutional scholar, happens to be on the flip side of that coin, and has just completed an op-ed articles titled; “Yes, Matt Whitaker Qualifies As Acting Attorney General Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.”
Professor Tribe’s lays out in detail Professor Turley’s legal opinion regarding the legality of Whitaker’s appointment – and for that reason President Trump’s appointment of Whitaker as temporary attorney general is a brilliant strategic move.
That simple question is still ignored by the mainstream media – and those that are now freaking out.
The brilliant move by the President to dump Sessions immediately after the midterms and the appointment of Whitaker to oversee Mueller’s anticipated written report to the Justice Department before the end of the year assures the President he has a trusted confidant within the leadership of the DOJ – and not a self-serving, conflict-of-interest double-dealing Rosenstein.
You know what’s wrong with CNN’s Jim Acosta? Just about everything.
As a play off of Michelle Obama’s “when they go low, we go high,” I suggest that “When THEY go low, they bring in Jim Acosta.” Among the White House press corps – where arrogance and bias are common commodities – Acosta stands apart as the state-of-the-art example.
His hatred for President Trump, Republicans and conservatives is legendary. But it is his sense of self-privilege that makes him a stand out within the ranks of the press corps. He is not only disrespectful of everyone associated with the Trump administration – he is contemptuous of his colleagues. As a media inquisitor, he is a line jumper — a grandstander that makes himself the center of attention by demanding the floor.
One can recall how he shouted out obnoxious questions as Trump was on the platform with Kim Jong-un in North Korea – and did the same from the back of the room when Trump was sharing the stage with yet another head-of-state. Rather than asking questions, Acosta prefers to enter into arguments with the people at the podium – unless they are Democrats, of course.
Due to too many overcharged ego genes, Acosta loves to perform for the cameras. In broadcasting his confrontational approach, he proves himself to be a very small person trying to look big through the magnification of the lens. There was a time when the White House temporarily dropped live camera feed during a White House briefing. Acosta was professionally paralyzed — unable to perform his job. In fact, his most notable reporting at the time was grousing about the lack of television coverage.
He uses his platform to insist that the press is not the enemy of the people. And when it is yet again explained to him – even by the President himself – that it is a reference only to those who peddle that very biased and dishonest news – Acosta continues to allege his false assumption. In one briefing session, Acosta repeatedly demanded of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders the names of those individuals and organizations that Trump considers the enemies of the people. While Sanders chose not to provide a list, she could have at least inquired if Acosta had any mirrors in his home.
Like the rude and disruptive teenager, Acosta finally got himself kicked out of the classroom. In this case, he had his White House press corps credentials pulled. Until they are restored – and I see no reason they should be — he will need a tourist ticket to get past the front gate.
As one might ask of a frequently naughty child – “and what did he do this time?”
He got into yet another news conference kerfuffle with the President, and when Trump attempted to move on to other reporters, Acosta kept up his belligerent screed and refused to surrender the Microphone in his hand. Finally, a female White House aide attempted to retrieve the microphone. Acosta rejected the effort.
When she made a second attempt to take the microphone, Acosta karate chopped her arm. Had some Republican done that to a young female reporter, it would have been a BIG story – maybe even calls for a resignation or a criminal complaint. After all, it was legally assault and battery on a woman. Of course, that only applies to Republicans. Democrats have a general permission to abuse women – think Kennedy, Clinton, Ellison, etc.
When Sanders pulled Acosta credentials and cited his hitting the White House aide, CNN went into full fake news mode – accusing Sanders of lying. Interestingly, the portion of the confrontation that did not appear on CNN did appear on FOX – and he clearly karate chopped the girl’s arm. It can be seen in the photo atop this commentary in which Acosta’s left hand is clearly in contact with her arm – and the blurred hand proves that it was not a simple touch.
When it comes to Acosta, the official view of the CNN management – as previously presented in those frequent obligatory defensive statements – is that he is a great journalist. He goes after the story. He is only doing his job.
The news media is held in very low regard among the American public – polls establish that although they are rarely reported by the news media. Acosta is one of the major reasons. If journalism requires a minimum standard of objectivity, fairness, civility and honesty, Acosta is no journalist.
So, there ‘tis.
An ominous warning came by way of the U.S. Border Patrol this week directed at Texas landowners along the U.S.-Mexico border that “armed civilians” might appear on their property to confront the horde of illegal migrants pushing towards the U.S.
The Associated Press reported that armed militias are intending to support the National Guard and Border Patrol to prevent illegal migrants from crossing into the U.S.
This of course could set up a potentially serious confrontation between “armed civilians” and those tasked with legally securing the border, namely the National Guard and Border Patrol.
The AP is reporting that at least 3-armed militia groups are heading to the U.S.-Mexico border to confront and stop the 4,000 plus migrant caravan, before they attempt to enter the U.S.
One of the groups took to social media posting that it’s “imperative we have boots on the ground.” While another bluntly wrote; “WAR! SECURE THE BORDER NOW!”
Shannon McGauley, president of the Texas Minuteman militia, acknowledged to the AP that his group is already stationed at 3-points of entry along the border, with another 25 to 100 more armed individuals expected to arrive and supplement the force already in-place.
Most Americans are probably unaware that the militia and other volunteer groups have been regularly patrolling the border for decades.
The partnership between civilians and the Border Patrol in controlling the influx of illegal migrants and drug gangs along the border is vital. Once they spot a trespasser, the civilians usually contact the Border Patrol to apprehend them. They cannot interfere with the process, since the Border Patrol is the law enforcement branch of U.S. Customs and Border Protection – part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
With the recent news that America is being invaded by thousands upon thousands of migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and other Central American countries, the militia is turning militant, which is no doubt an extremely dangerous and volatile situation.
The President, perhaps realizing the potential confrontation, tweeted out on Tuesday; “Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!”
Thus far the President has mobilized over 5,200 regular active troops (with another 1,500 in reserve), in what the Commander of U.S. Northern Command described as an effort to “harden the southern border” by stiffening defenses at and near legal entry points.
Appearing on Fox’s Laura Ingraham show, the President explained how the troop augmentation would work; “When they are captured, we don’t let them out,” We’re not letting them out … We’re not catching, we’re not releasing … We’re not letting them into this country.”
The strategy by the administration is to build “tent cities” near the border to house any asylum-seekers who have joined the caravan.
He added, “We’re going to put tents up all over the place,” We’re not going to build structures and spend … hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re going to have tents, they’re going to be very nice and they’re going to wait and if they don’t get asylum, they get out.”
No doubt the ACLU along with the 9TH Circuit will of course challenge the President’s directive. However, the “wild-card” in this unfolding political chess-game are those “armed civilians” we call the militia – those the founders regarded as our last line of defense. “The Congress shall have Power To …provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.
When President Trump told the skeptical and hostile media that criminals, drug dealers, and human smugglers were embedded within the approaching caravan, few believe him.
However, reports from the embattled Mexican authorities are finally coming to light. Within just the last few days, two serious and separate incidents took place in Mexico. The first involved two Hondurans who allegedly opened fire at Mexican police, escorting the migrant caravan in the southern region of Chiapas.
The police were escorting the caravan as part of their assistance operation dubbed “Operativo Caminante” or “Operation Walker” when they were suddenly attacked by the two migrant Hondurans, identified only as 22-year-old “Jerson” and 17-year-old “Carlos.”
The duo spotted the police escorting the caravan and suddenly began firing at them. Luckily the pistol jammed, allowing police officers to rush the two and arrest them without anyone being injured. Police seized a .380 caliber Glock with 9-rounds still in the magazine.
The unprovoked attack follows on the heels of another serious incident of a Molotov cocktail attack involving the more violent prone second caravan near the border of Guatemala.
The report has confirmed that criminal migrants still in Guatemala are preparing Molotov cocktails and arming themselves for a potential assault against Mexican police, with the sole purpose of breaking through the Mexican border.
This past weekend saw an escalating and bloody confrontation between the Mexican police and rock-throwing migrants attempting to break through border security forces.
A second incident took place as a group of migrants facing deportation from Mexico back to their home country went on a rampage – setting fire to an immigration facility, hoping to overwhelm authorities in an apparent attempt to escape.
The fire began at a facility which serves a duel-purpose, first as a checkpoint and then as a temporary detention center for Mexico’s National Migration Institute (INM) in Pijijiapan, Chiapas.
According to Jaime Marroquin, a local public safety director, a group of migrants housed temporarily within the facility set fire to their mattresses. The 21 men and 5-woman and 3-children, were all in the process of being deported back to their home country when the migrants set fire to their mattresses hoping to escape within the initial confusion. Fortunately, their attempt failed.
Firefighters rushed to the scene, while Mexican police rounded up the suspects before they could flee, moving them to a more secure and larger immigration facility in Tapachula, Chiapas.
The violence followed Mexico’s generous offer last week of providing migrants within the caravan jobs, healthcare and education, instead of continuing their journey to the United States.
The migrants quickly rejected the offer of asylum, jobs, and benefits, and instead opted to continue their journey.
According to the Mexican government, the program called “Estas En Tu Casa” translated “You Are in Your Home” is designed to help migrants claiming asylum. The program provides the migrants with temporary employment, access to government-funded health care, and education for their children.
Also, to be eligible for the program migrants and their families must be in the country legally and reach out to immigration authorities who will sign them up.
Currently, only the southern Mexican states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are making this government program available. However, those migrants who entered Mexico “illegally” within the caravan will have the opportunity to begin the immigration process and must also follow Mexico’s immigration law.
The government will also make available their version of social security called CURP (Clave Unica de Registro Publico), by giving each migrant a government number that will allow them to open bank accounts and carry out other government required identification processes.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of migrants have turned down the offer and instead are still heading for the United States.
Homeland Security is monitoring the caravans and has disclosed through their intelligence sources that at least 300 individuals traveling within the thousands of displaced migrants have criminal records – some for attempted murder.
Mexican government officials were the first to clash with some of the criminal element within the caravan, and are sharing their INTEL with Homeland Security describing some as “very violent.”
In addition, surveillance drones along with government officials are acknowledging that over 50% of the caravans are made up by single adult males ranging in age from 18 to about 40 years of age. Another ploy being used by the overwhelmingly male caravan is to place woman and children in front of the caravan so that the media gets the impression that the majority of asylum seekers are mothers with children.
Some people have trouble letting go of the past. Former President Barack Obama (a Democrat) is one of them. Since he left office after the 2016 U.S. election win by GOP President Donald J. Trump, Obama has been jetting around the world, meddling in affairs that are no longer properly in his wheelhouse.
Not only is this bad form, diplomatically speaking, it also happens to be illegal. A piece of legislation that is more than 200 years old prohibits any U.S. citizen “wherever he may be” from unauthorized communication with foreign powers. The Logan Act is short, simple, and to the point:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Obama’s actions are ironic given the warning he gave to the Trump transition team, that “we only have one president at a time.”
Of course, Obama meant that he intended to keep his hands on the reins of state until the 11th minute of the 11th hour of his presidential term – and rightfully so. However, once Trump was sworn in the following January 2017, Obama needed to heed his own admonition.
In November 2017, Obama journeyed to Paris, France, where he met with French President Emanual Macron. The subject of their talks was not disclosed to the public.
This cloak-and-dagger clandestine conference was only one stop on a five-day series of visits between Obama and the heads of state of China, India, and France. Private citizen Obama’s secret communications with foreign leaders led to concerns that the former president and other top Democrats are setting up a shadow government to oppose the current U.S. administration.
The opposition government spearheaded by Obama has been labeled a “coup d’état” – the sudden defeat of a government through illegal force by a small group, often a military one.
Obama toured Asia, stopping first to chat with President Xi Jinping of China. Then, it was off to France where Obama slandered our Commander-in-Chief with the claim that U.S. citizens are the victims of a “temporary absence of American leadership.” In India, Obama jested that he had more Twitter followers than tweet-happy Trump.
Apparently, a certain former president still covets the office he vacated almost two years ago. But the bigger problem is that Obama’s globe-trotting activities were in direct violation of the federal Logan Act.
The 1799 Logan Act got its name from statesman and private citizen George Logan who took it upon himself to execute a political end run around President John Adams, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. In 1798, Logan voyaged to revolutionary France to soothe ruffled international trade feathers after the U.S. sided with France’s mortal enemy Britain by passing the 1794 Jay Treaty.
Although Logan did manage to conclude a pact whereby France ceased all detrimental actions against U.S. merchant ships which may well have prevented the outbreak of war between France and the newly formed United States, his actions were regarded as treasonous once he got home.
It was the job of the prevailing administration to negotiate diplomatically with French representatives about trade matters, not a self-propelled individual.
Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson each had their own ideas about how to deal with the British (our mortal enemy up until the end of the American Revolution in 1776) and the French (our ally during the American Revolution). They never got the chance, thanks to the overly-eager Logan.
To prevent further such incidents, the Logan Act was passed on January 30, 1799. Evidently, it worked, because there has been only one indictment under this law, a case that was never prosecuted in the early 19th century. Until now, that is.
Obama isn’t the only high-ranking Democrat who flaunts the law. John Kerry, former U.S. Secretary of State from (2013 to 2017), a United States senator from Massachusetts (1985 to 2013), and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, was called out last May for “meeting with foreign sources, including the Iranian ambassador to the U.N., in order to promote a common foreign policy agenda with the Iranian regime (protecting the Iran deal) at the expense of the current Administration.”
If true, this is a clear violation of the Logan Act by another top Democratic leader. Yet, according to the National Review, the problem isn’t that Kerry may be guilty of a treasonous federal crime but the law itself. “Congress should repeal the Logan Act,” wrote Dan McLaughlin on May 5, 2018.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda, Mr. McLaughlin. If Kerry has been actively campaigning to undermine the Trump administration’s efforts, let justice be served under the law as it now stands.
“Fringe media” is the pejorative term applied by another Leftist writer to any reporter who can read and understand the Logan Act. Sarah Wasko displayed her own legal ignorance while slinging some political mud when she herself stated:
“The right-wing hysteria took on a new level of feverishness after Obama met with a handful of former and current world leaders, some of whom he worked closely with as president.”
Do we sound hysterical to you? In a court of law, the phrase “after Obama met with a handful of former and current world leaders,” pretty much sums up the case for the prosecution. The verdict: guilty as charged.
Make no mistake about it: any politician who violates the Logan Act does so knowingly and with free will.
How long will the rest of us allow criminals like Kerry, Obama, and the Clintons to get away with treason?
If the demeanor of the folks on MSNBC and CNN is any indicator, it is clear that the Democrats are expecting a good day tomorrow. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, on Morning Joe, and Alisyn Camerota and John Berman, on New Day, are all smiles. There is a pre-Election Day celebratory giddiness about them and their panel of parroting pundits. In terms of enthusiasm, they are just a few degrees short of breaking out into that iconic Democrat campaign song “Happy Days are Here Again.”
Their exuberance is buoyed by the most recent polls that show movement in favor of Democrats across the board – even in those seemingly insurmountable Senate races. According to the CNN poll, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill has moved ahead for the first time in weeks. The so-called generic poll has Democrats up by double digits – 55 to 42.
Of course, the Democrats have always had the wind at their back. The party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress in the majority of midterm elections – occasionally enough to lose control. The fact that the GOP is likely to defy that tradition in the Senate is a significant accomplishment, in and of itself. It is not entirely due to overall popularity, however, but to the very unique fact that Democrats are defending so many seats in states won by Trump. To pull that off in the House, too, is a feat beyond imagination. If the Republicans maintain control, it will be by a much narrower margin.
Based on early voting, we already know that this is going to be a very large turn out for a midterm election. The old political rule-of-thumb is that big voter turnouts do not bode well for incumbents. When voters take to the polls in unusually large numbers, it is almost always to throw the “ins” out.
The accuracy of polling can be taken into question. However, when the numbers become consistent over a number of polls and the margins between Republicans and Democrats widen to more than five points, the pollsters can afford to be wrong on the numbers – generally giving Democrats an advantage – but are likely to be right on the partisan outcomes.
Then there is Donald Trump. In 2016, voters tended to look past the pugnacious personality and – shall we say – messy personal history because of a belief in his promised policies and the repugnance of Hillary Clinton. But that is not to say that the personality did not have some negative impact. Trump lost the popular vote at a time the GOP should have been cruising to a major victory based on the political tsunami that began in 2010. The Republican presidential candidate should have won the popular vote by a good margin.
It was Trump’s personality traits that tamped down the GOP vote, giving him a technical victory in the Electoral College. Though the polls failed badly in picking the winner in 2016, they were not so far off in terms of the popular vote. Since then, Trump has operated in a belief that he personally had raised the GOP from defeat because of his combative style. It is that ego-driven miscalculation that caused him to mistakenly make the midterm election about him … again. A mistake I have criticized throughout the campaign. But, he succeeded and the midterm campaign became mostly about him.
Trump’s belief in the importance of himself is what led to endless rallies said to be designed to motivate the base in key states. That may have even happened. But the every-day rallies and his comments were also broadcast to the national audience — and his statement analyzed and interpreted by a hostile news media. The more unpopular personality pushed out the all-important issues and accomplishments. It is about the economy, stupid, but only if you go out and sell it.
All this means that the likelihood of a 2016 style surprise is less likely. Maybe it is just that old saw that lightening does not strike twice in the same place. If the GOP will oversee both the Senate and the House next year, that will be a surprise even bigger than 2016. In 2018, there is no Electoral College to eke out a technical victory over the votes of the people.
Can Republicans prevail? Of course. Anything can happen. Will they? The odds are not looking good.
So, there ‘tis.
Now that marijuana is legal in 30 out of the 50 states, entrepreneurial minds are turning toward large-scale production of the plant in its various forms: medical, recreational, and hemp.
Canada legalized cannabis across the board on October 17, 2018. Our neighbor to the north is building a new national system to “tax, regulate and monitor its growth, distribution and sale.”
Canadian cannabis companies are not limited to cash transactions like they are by the U.S. federal prohibition. These businesses operate just like any other pharmaceutical venture – they can “use banks, trade stocks and sponsor peer-reviewed medical studies.”
Users can buy online and have products shipped directly to their homes. Private cannabis store ownership is legal in Canada but requires applying for permits which are still pending, in many provinces.
Most pot shops in Canada are operated by the government. The others are privately owned. Together, they can’t keep up with the demand. From the first day of Canadian cannabis legalization, product was “flying off the shelves” and many retail outlets ran out of stock.
The Canadian marijuana industry is projected to produce $6.5 BILLION in yearly sales.
U.S. cannabis sales could well surpass those in Canada. Take a look at sales totals from each state since it legalized marijuana in at least one usage category (medicinal/recreational/hemp):
• Alaska $39.5 Million (M)
• Arizona $400M
• California $2.75 BILLION
• Colorado $1.56M
• District of Columbia $17.7M
• Massachusetts $106M
• Michigan $600M
• Nevada $102.7M
• Oregon $777.6M
• Washington $1 BILLION
“Pot is an industry worth over $40 billion, which makes it the second-most-valuable crop in the U.S. after corn,” according to researcher Amanda Chicago Lewis.
The stakes are high to control cannabis production and sales in the U.S. Behind the scenes, major players are jockeying for dominance in this emerging international market. Some of them are playing hardball to achieve monopoly status, similar to what happened after the internet gained popularity in the 1990s: “mom and pop” shops were driven out of business after big telephony companies and Microsoft became competitors who waged high-priced, effective marketing campaigns and service discounts.
When medical marijuana was first legalized in the U.S. in the early 1980s, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) clamped down and set up a legal pot monopoly on production intended for research. One high-security grow operation at the University of Mississippi operated under a federal contract to provide all of the cannabis needed to fulfill a need that is now worth almost $70 million for their next 5-year contract renewal.
In 2016, the DEA said it would grant additional grow licenses for research cannabis. One year later, none of the 25 applicants had been given federal approval. So much for busting that monopoly.
Pot growing in the U.S. has been called the modern Gold Rush. But it takes more than a pick, shovel, and mule to get licensed (so the business can be regulated, monitored, and taxed). The eligibility requirements are stringent and many small businesses find them hard to meet. Larger companies would not face this obstacle.
For example, consider the barrier to entry for pot production in one U.S. state:
“As a nursery in Florida, you’ll need to post a bond of $5M and have thirty years in the business before you’ll be considered to grow and distribute medical marijuana. The state’s legislature has only elected to make five licenses available in the state. Five!”
Out of the almost 20 million residents in New York, a mere five operators control all of the 20 medical marijuana dispensaries. For that monopolistic privilege, they shelled out “a $10k non-refundable application fee, a $200k refundable registration fee, as well as a $2M bond or proof they already had the real estate necessary to grow their batch.”
Nevada wants “detailed floor plans, security measures, personnel manuals, even your marketing and advertising plans. Applicants also need to show no less than $250k in liquid assets, pay a $5k non-refundable application fee, and another $30k on top of that if awarded a license as a ‘license issuance fee.'”
This ain’t chump change and it now becomes clear that the cannabis industry is a high-stakes game.
Ohio is currently debating whether to legalize marijuana and tightly-restricted control is at the key of a new amendment under consideration. According to Lewis Wallace, an economics reporter with local station WYSO in Yellow Springs, this game is rigged for ten lucky winners:
“[The new] marijuana amendment would…grant growing rights to just 10 groups of investors in Ohio. So there would only be 10 growing sites in the state, and groups of wealthy investors already have the rights to those sites, meaning nobody else – your small farmer couldn’t sort of step in and become a part of this, at least not until quite a bit later.”
Proponents of the bill say ten controllers can better regulate and track their cannabis industry. But “they needed somebody to bankroll this campaign” – and that’s where the ten lucky winners step in, spending millions of dollars to use politics to achieve a financial goal.
On a much larger scale, there are persistent rumors that Monsanto (2013’s “most evil company in the world”) is quietly positioning itself to take over cannabis production as it has done with food production all over the globe, through strong-arm contracts that mandate the use of their proprietary (and highly profitable) herbicides, pesticides, and GMO foods.
Monsanto has partnered with Miracle-Gro whose front company Hawthorne has acquired “three of the largest cannabis producers in the business, Botanicare, Gavita, and General Hydroponics. A number of other companies have already received buy-out offers, but have refused.”
When a hydroponics lighting manufacturer refused to sell most of their bulbs to Scotts Miracle-Gro for resale at Home Depot and other discount outlets, the fertilizer giant retorted, “Well, we could just buy your whole company like we did with Gavita and do whatever we want.”
Jim Hagedorn, the CEO of Miracle-Gro, revealed how his company could set up a nice little marijuana monopoly. All it takes is money. Big money:
“Invest, like, half a billion in [taking over] the pot business.”
A further wrinkle was exposed by a Ph.D. laboratory researcher named Mowgli Holmes who mapped “the genetics of every marijuana strain he could get his hands on.” He became alarmed when he discovered that “a secretive company called BioTech Institute LLC had begun registering patents on the cannabis plant.”
So far, three utility patents have been granted to BioTech with others pending U.S. and international approval. Utility patents have dire economic consequences for growers since “almost everyone who comes in contact with the plant could be hit with a licensing fee: growers and shops, of course, but also anyone looking to breed new varieties or conduct research.”
This news is huge. It could mean civil prosecution for home growers and retailers alike. But who would file those lawsuits?
“The craziest part is no one knows who’s behind this or when they plan to enforce what they have,” said Holmes. All he knew was that a shadowy billionaire with an unstated agenda owns BioTech Institute.
Just like the board game Monopoly, real-life exclusionary policies directing marijuana sales in the U.S. will have winners and losers. Let’s just hope that the unethical dastards over at Monsanto don’t buy the one ring to rule them all.
History is full of once great societies eventually destroying themselves from within. This latest fiasco once again illustrates what happens when lawmakers elected to honorably fulfill their oath-of-office, “to protect and defend,” instead play politics with our nation’s sovereignty.
Moreover these lawmakers endanger our citizens by refusing to remedy the potential hazards of criminal aliens, the possible spread of contagious diseases – and the likelihood of sleeper terrorist-cells infiltrating our border.
This latest assault to our Republic is simply another example of extremist lawmakers and lawyers willfully ignoring our broken immigration laws, by allowing a dozen “illegal migrants” almost a thousand miles from our border to actually file a lawsuit against our President claiming that his policy attempting to secure our border somehow violates “their constitutional rights.”
The migrants traveling by foot from Honduras to the U.S. claiming asylum actually filed a class-action lawsuit against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others – claiming a violation of their due process under the Fifth Amendment.
The lawsuit, no doubt instigated by the ACLU points to a 1993 case ruling by the Supreme Court, in which Justice Scalia at the time, ruled that “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in a deportation proceeding.”
Twelve Honduran nationals, including six children, are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. The suit contends that Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are “undergoing a well-documented human rights crisis.”
The lawsuit also claims that the plaintiffs’ right to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act were being infringed upon.
The migrants also maintain within their suit that the President’s attempt to stop the caravan from entering the U.S, by those claiming to be asylum-seekers is unlawful when they have a fair claim of asylum.
Furthermore criticizing the President for deploying troops at the border claiming that Trump is stocking “fear and hysteria” by suggesting that criminals and gang members are within the caravan.
There’s little doubt that this absurdity has been concocted by the ACLU, progressive Democrats along with radical leftist professors looking to turn America into a third-world country by flooding America with poor, illiterate and desperate people looking for a better life.
However this flood of illegal migrants, followed by another caravan and then another, would eventually overwhelm our infrastructure, and in a short time if left unchecked would destroy our society, ironically using the trappings of our own benevolent laws against us.
Progressive Professor Cristina Rodriguez, at Yale Law School, echoed the drum-beat of the lawsuit, by affirming that the U.S. Constitution does apply to undocumented immigrants.
“Yes, without question. Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”
Rodriguez continued; “Many parts of the Constitution use the term ‘people’ or ‘person’ rather than ‘citizen’ those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.”
However the illegal migrants who’ve filed the “class-action” suit aren’t on U.S. soil, therefore it would stand-to-reason that the lawsuit is invalid.
The President appearing on Fox’s Laura Ingraham show addressed the caravan issue and laid out his comprehensive strategy, which would include the building of a “tent city” to house the thousands of migrants. However there may be an issue under the Flores Agreement of 1997, a provision that protects asylum-seekers’ rights and limits how long minors can be held.
I began this piece by referencing how great societies eventually destroy themselves from within; America like other past societies is at the precibus of its own creation.