• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Could Megyn Kelly Come Home to Fox? I Miss Her!

Megyn Kelly was my favorite gal at Fox….despite advertising herself as a “feminist”!

The Leftist industry doesn’t seem to approve of her intelligence, skills, charm, honesty and frankness.   She should have expected that when she left Fox….but, then she has family to care for.   She is wonderfully unditsy!

Please read her alleged plights working among the more fascistic news for America folk:

http://www.realclearlife.com/media/celebrity-publicists-starting-bail-megyn-kelly-today/

Advertisements

Welcome to Congress, Roy Moore! Our Donald Will Love You!…..and NBC’s Todd is a Chucklehead

CHUCK TODD IS A CHUCKLEHEAD TOAD

by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

“I confess to having a soft spot for Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief political reporter. Despite his liberal Democratic bona fides, he’s got a lot of insight into the day-to-day dynamics of politics that he relates fairly for the most part, and I found him to be very cordial and forthcoming the one and only time I ever met him in person at one of those infamous, uber-elitist Georgetown cocktail parties.

But he’s also an exhibit of why the media is shredding its credibility, and why reporters should stick to reporting the news rather than trying to think. Chuck Todd describes Alabama’s likely new senator, Roy Moore, as a “fundamentalist.” Todd showed a clip of Moore saying “Our rights don’t come from government. They don’t come from the Bill of Rights. They come from Almighty God.”

To which Todd gave this coda:

“First off, he doesn’t appear to believe in the Constitution as it’s written. . . Now, that’s just a taste of what are very fundamentalist views that have gotten him removed from office twice as Alabama’s chief justice.”

First off—as Todd might say—it wasn’t Moore’s “fundamentalist” views like this that got him tossed off the Alabama Supreme Court, but his act of defying federal court orders. (And in the case of refusing the federal court order to remove the 10 Commandments from the courthouse, it must be said that the Supreme Court case the order was based on is completely incoherent and unprincipled, but that’s a story for another day.) But beyond this, there is Todd’s abysmal ignorance about Moore’s views on the source of our individual rights according to the Founders.

To be sure, the Constitution does not mention God explicitly, but it is not necessary to share Abraham Lincoln’s view that the Constitution should be understood through the lens of the Declaration of Independence, which of course does back up Moore’s outlook.* More embarrassing for Todd would be to look at the state constitutions from the time of the Founding. They all begin like Maryland’s: “We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty. . .” Ditto New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, as well as the early admitted states like Ohio, Louisiana, etc, etc, etc.

Actually, most modern state constitutions begin with an affirmation of Moore’s outlook. Lets look at the last two (written I suspect by Democrats)—Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska’s constitution begins: “We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land. . .” Hawaii: “We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance. . .”

In fact, 46 of the 50 state constitutions begin with an explicit invocation of God, and in most cases directly or indirectly attribute God as the source of our liberties. If believing this makes Moore a “fundamentalist,” then I’m a fundamentalist, too, and probably a large majority of Americans agree.

Which is why I think Senator Moore’s first piece of legislation should be a mandate that all public school children recite the preambles to their state constitutions in school every week. Just to watch liberal heads explode. And to watch the comedy gold of the ACLU arguing in court that state constitutions are unconstitutional!

Meanwhile, everyone is hereby authorized to refer to NBC’s chief political analyst as “Chuck Toad.”

* Question for Chuck Todd: Does he believe Abraham Lincoln should be described as a “fundamentalist”? Because his view was exactly the same as Moore’s.

* Second question for Chuck Todd: William O. Douglas, one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court, wrote: “We are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Was Douglas a “fundamentalist”? Should he have been kicked off the Supreme Court for this fundamentalism?

P.S. Everyone knows “Moore’s Law” from computer science—chip speed doubles every 18 months. I propose a new “Moore’s Law” for liberals: Liberal panic and craziness doubles every 18 months in the Trump era….”

Comment:   There seems to be no doubt whatsoever Our Donald had no animus toward the Alabama Justice, Roy Moore recently elected to the U.S. Senate.   He hinted so the evening he celebrated for Alabama’s selected Republican Senator Luther Strange to replace Jeff Sessions whom the President chose for Attorney General.

That evening he also clarified why he wanted to endorse the Senator by organizing another Trump  night…..I believe President Trump wanted to attend another one of these terrific gatherings as President.   He wins so many friends doing so!

Senator Strange welcomed Our Donald’s  visit and support with no strings attached….and Our Donald was impressed.   Rumor spread before and after Moore’s election to the Senate that the President had a great ally to help “Drain the Swamp’ Trump style.

NO, OUR DONALD DID NOT COLLUDE WITH THE RUSSIANS TO DUMP HILLARY….poor dear….

It Was the Deep State that Colluded with the Russians, not Trump

by Clarice Feldman  at American Thinker:

“As more and more leaks about the ongoing “Russian collusion” witch hunt by Robert Mueller appear in print, it seems to me that if Russia had been trying to erode our faith in our institutions, the Deep State is accomplishing what Russia failed to do.

The Obama claque’s efforts were initially intended to help Clinton when they thought she would win and no one would know about their crimes. Then they continued the unlawful spying to cover up their role in the worst case of misuse of federal power in our history, to effect the removal or emasculation of the President, and  now they are desperate to cover up their illegal actions when all that failed.

A. Where we are today on “Russian collusion”?

Instapundit tweeted the answer succinctly: “The election was hacked!” turns out to mean, “Russia bought some ads on Facebook.”

Facebook is turning over ads presumably purchased by Russians during the campaign. Good — let’s see them. As the article notes:

The announcement that Facebook would share the ads with the Senate and House intelligence committees came after the social network spent two weeks on the defensive. The company faced calls for greater transparency about 470 Russia-linked accounts  — in which fictional people posed as American activists — which were taken down after they had promoted inflammatory messages on divisive issues. Facebook had previously angered congressional staff by showing only a sample of the ads, some of which attacked Hillary Clinton or praised Donald J. Trump.

As Tom Maguire reminds us, it would be unwise to assume this was a one-sided campaign: “Let’s see all the ads and find out whether Russia was winding up both sides. Back in the day it was believed Russia backed anti-fracking groups in Europe. Why not also in the US?”

Best of the Web’s James Freeman thinks that, in any case, the notion that these ads swung the election is ridiculous on its face:

So the spending on fake Russian political ads identified by Facebook amounted to around 1/7,000th of what Mrs. Clinton spent on advertising. And of course these fake ad buys were not material in the context of Facebook’s total advertising revenues, which amounted to nearly $27 billion last year.

Is a $150,000 ad buy even big enough to require sign-off from Mr. Putin? If as some believe, Russian meddling was simply intended to discredit the likely winner, some poor Russian agent may now be headed to Siberia for engineering the election of a U.S. President who seems determined to drive down the price of oil.

Let’s hope Congress gets to the bottom of this. If $150,000 amounts to the entire iceberg, and it still managed to sink the S.S. Clinton, marketing majors will be studying these ads for years to come.

B. Using the Full Force of FISA to spy on a political opponent

Obama has a long history of spying on his opponents and releasing information damaging to them. It’s a lifelong pattern. He got two opponents’ sealed divorce records unsealed in order to use unsubstantiated claims in pleadings by estranged spouses against them. As President, he continued this practice. By way of example, the Obama Administration did that with IRS, collecting information about the activities and donors of conservative and pro-Israel citizen groups while it refused to grant them the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled. The EPA collected private information from farmers and ranchers and released it to environmental groups to help them in their battles against those farmers and ranchers. There’s no reason to suppose that this pattern didn’t carry over to the 2016 election, and plenty of evidence that it did. As Sharyl Attkisson points out, they did it with reporters and Congressmen.

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.

You’ll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.

In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.

There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

Journalists have been targeted, too. [snip]

The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News.

As Attkisson reminds us, other Trump associates General Michael Flynn and Carter Page were also under government surveillance. As bad as that was, it was ”discovered [that] multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking,” or asking to know the identities of, the officials. Spying on U.S. citizens is considered so sensitive their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked,” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.”

She also specifically unmasked Steve Bannon, who met in the transition period with a UAE official so it’s altogether possible they were spying on him generally as well.

If so, that would mean that four Trump associates had been spied on, multiplying the number of conversations with the President these people were listening in on.

Even more “unmasking”– revealing the names of those innocents scooped up in this broad surveillance — about 300 people had their privacy violated when the dyspeptic-looking UN Ambassador Samantha Power was revealed to have made almost one unmasking request a day, rapidly adding to the list as the inauguration approached.

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 — and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

C. The FISA Court surely was misled in order to get information to surveil and to continue surveilling Trump and his associates.

FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) permits blunderbuss intelligence gathering. It’s not designed to gather information on crimes in general, but only to act as a tool of counterintelligence or counterterrorism. And it certainly would be suspicious if efforts were made to misuse it to conduct domestic political spying. There’s only one legitimate reason to conduct surveillance on a U.S. citizen under FISA — to find out more about the activities of a foreign power or terrorist organization. Since in the process of scooping up so much information, other matters might be revealed, “minimization” procedures are used to mask the identities of those caught up in the sweep who are not involved in such activities.

CNN reported — with some obvious omissions and errors of law — that former FBI director James Comey secured secret FISA orders to wiretap Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, and that having received nothing from that order, then secured another FISA warrant in 2016 (after Manafort joined the Trump campaign) and continued that surveillance into 2017, after the election.

Further, CNN reported that two attempts were made in the summer of 2016 to obtain a FISA order, both of which were rejected, and an order was issued only after the third try. FISA rarely rejects such requests, so I think it fair to assume the court was suspicious of these requests, which smelled like political, not national security matters. I think it almost a certainty that the final request received the personal imprimatur of Comey (as Director of the FBI) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

And what, you may ask, was different about the third and ultimately successful third attempt? I suggest it was the phony Steele dossier, which credible reports indicate was partially financed by Comey’s own FBI.

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “Dossier.” That Dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele. [Ed: Sources for the most scurrilous allegations in it were from unnamed sources in Russia, most likely Russian government intelligence agents or liars working on a pay for dirt basis.]

The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

Who was Mr. Steele’s friend at the FBI? Did the bureau influence the direction of the Trump dossier? Did it give Mr. Steele material support from the start? The timing matters because it could answer the vital question of why the FBI wanted the dossier. Here’s one thought: warrants.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees spying activities, is usually generous in approving warrants, on the presumption law-enforcement agencies are acting in good faith. When a warrant is rejected, though, law enforcement isn’t pleased.

Perhaps the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance on someone connected to a presidential campaign (Carter Page?) but couldn’t hit what was — and ought to be — a supremely high bar for getting such a potentially explosive warrant. A dossier of nefarious allegations might well prove handy in finally convincing the FISA court to sign off. The FBI might have had a real motive to support Mr. Steele’s effort. It might have even justified the unjustifiable: working with a partisan oppo-research firm and a former spook to engineer a Kremlin-planted dossier that has roiled Mr. Trump’s entire presidency.

True Pundit claims that FBI connivance with GPS Fusion to create the dossier was not all it did to secure the final 2016 FISA warrant — it also set up a meeting in Trump Tower and used information gleaned from Britain’s GCHQ in NSA headquarters to unlawfully gather information on U.S. citizens.

From the beginning it was a set up to find dirt on Trump campaign insiders and if possible to topple Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations.

Before and after the 2016 election. And while this operation had many moving parts and alternating players, the mission to unseat Trump never changed. And it remains ongoing.

And none of it was very legal.

Six U.S. agencies [the FBI, NSA, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under DHS, Justice Department]created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.

To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.

The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.

GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.

[snip]

The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised.

Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.

After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.

By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.

The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”

Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).

Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter inquiry on the Russian’s visa by True Pundit.

(More on the unusual visa granted to Veselnitskaya here. More on GCHQ operating from NSA headquarters here.)

In July, Bharara’s former associate US Attorney Andrew Goldstein was added to Mueller’s army of largely Clinton backers and contributors to the special counsel’s enormous team.

In sum, the contention by True Pundit is that the government first spied on Trump and then concocted a national security ruse and desperately sought a FISA warrant to cover up the political spying which occurred before the FISA warrant was ever issued.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal also suspect that the dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant, and, if so, that requires a congressional investigation:

The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential campaign. Did Mr. Comey’s FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?

All of this is reason for House and Senate investigators to keep exploring how Mr. Comey’s FBI was investigating both presidential campaigns. Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the “integrity” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don’t cooperate in contempt.

I agree with Daniel Greenfield. Based on what I’ve read and observed, while the initial surveillance was to stop Trump and help Clinton, Obama used FISA to provide a “national security” cover for politically spying on Trump right up to the inauguration. As he notes, the first 2016 application was made the month after Trump obtained the nomination and the second in October, the month before the election.

As the unmasking picked up pace after the election, the reasonable assumption is that its purpose was to undo the results of the election or hamstring the incoming President.

Now Obama and his allies are or should be terrified that the scope of the illegal surveillance is revealing their criminal acts.

This is why I believe Mueller is growing increasingly desperate to find one crime by one person he can force by threat of jail to provide any shred of anything that might be used to justify their illegal espionage. Greenfield’s conclusion is apt: “The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor. A turning point in history is here. If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.”

Why do I say that Mueller seems increasingly desperate? How else does one explain a middle-of-the-night pick-lock armed entry (and the search of his bedclothes-garbed wife) into the home of a man who by all accounts had been fully cooperating and turning over all requested documents? How else to explain requesting a court grant such a necessary special warrant on the ground that otherwise documents evincing a purported eleven-year-old crime would suddenly be destroyed? How else to explain the effort by Mueller to find out client information from the Skadden Arps and Akin Gump law firms, materials probably covered by attorney-client privilege? With each leak of his conduct – designed, I suppose, by his team to terrify honest men into lying to redeem the special counsel’s misbegotten efforts — Mueller looks more and more like a petrified enlistee in  the secretive repressive state force — the Stasi — as the wall is coming down and their conduct made public.”

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/it_was_the_deep_state_that_colluded_with_the_russians_not_trump.html

Our Constitutional Crisis Has to Do with Democrats Corrupting America’s Intelligence, Decency, and Freedom

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JAMES COMEY

by William Sullivan  at American Thinker:

“President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey has been pretty big news, and there will be no dearth of continued commentary about what it means.  But what rings hollowest in all the commentary surrounding it have been the nearly uniform claims among the left that his firing represents a “constitutional crisis.”

Does the left now care about the United States Constitution?  Because that would certainly be newsworthy.  This is the same left which, as David Harsanyi of The Federalist reminds us, didn’t utter a peep of disapproval about President Obama’s efforts to “unilaterally legalize millions of people without Congress.”  What about the constitutionality of the federal government forcing people to purchase health insurance, forcing private health insurance companies to cap prices for higher-risk clients, setting school lunch menus, peculiarly targeting conservative groups for tax audits, or executive directives to ignore federal immigration law?  The left didn’t care about “constitutionality” when all of those things happened during Obama’s presidency, but now are shouting from the pulpit that Donald Trump’s firing of the current FBI director, whose direct role is to “serve at the pleasure of the president,” is somehow some incredible affront to the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution?

The left’s hypocrisy here is certainly stark, but in a way, it is evidence that the term “constitutional crisis” has been thrown around in so many pithy accusations over the years by the left and right that the phrase no longer has any meaning relative to the actual Constitution of the United States.

Consider that Princeton political scientist Keith Whittington suggests that “[c]onstitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions.”

The “central function” of our Constitution has always been to limit the authority of the federal government, and to clearly enumerate the “few and defined” powers of the federal government to be held in contrast to the “numerous and indefinite” power of state governments, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45.

Yet today, a great many of the things that we consider to be within the federal government’s purview are absolute affronts to the Constitution, and particularly the Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson held to be the foundation of the Constitution:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: “That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States and the People.”  To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

How can we define our nation to be one of limited federal authority when, every day, we see that the restrictions of our Constitution have become meaningless? And if the limitations of the Constitution (again, its central function) have largely become meaningless, how can it be denied that we have long existed in a state of “constitutional crisis?”

A federal Department of Education (DoE), for example, has absolutely no right to exist in the scope of the Constitution.  Congress was beyond its tether when it allowed for this executive institution to have been born.  Yet billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars have been thrust into this federal institution to regulate our children’s education, and few ever consider the question as to whether there was the right, in the first place, of the federal government to create such an institution with the immeasurable power it has.

Tell me, where in the Constitution can you find any evidence that the federal government has the right to confiscate wealth from Americans, and then to grant or withhold payment to states based upon this federal agency’s evaluation of their adequate adoption of Common Core curricula?  And when you cannot find any such evidence that the federal government has such a right granted by the Constitution, wouldn’t you have to admit that the Obama administration’s having done precisely that is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, and thus represents a “constitutional crisis?”

Take a look at the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Department of Transportation.  There is equally no allowance given to the federal government, by the Constitution, to regulate these spheres of assumed jurisdiction.  All of these agencies, including the DoE, more embody the planks of Communism found in Marx’s Manifesto than our own Constitution.  And yet the mere fact that these federal now agencies exist is enough to give us, with our modern sensibilities, the presupposition that the federal government must have a right to exert its influence in said areas of life, however cumbersome or costly they may be, and however absent any validation for that assumed power might be in our nation’s Constitution.

The reality is that very little of anything Washington considers its day-to-day business today has anything to do with the Constitution.  Our constitutional crisis is, and for quite some time has been, that the Constitution no longer matters in our political discourse.  Our national conversation about whether a thing is right or wrong tends to be a matter of preference and partisan interest.  Yes, the Constitution can be opportunistically invoked by either side as substantiation for any outrage. But it is generally an argumentative substrate of convenience, and rarely of principle.

The left is currently demonstrating this with the furor over Comey’s firing, but I sincerely hope that when conservatives talk about “draining the swamp” in D.C., they are suggesting a return to constitutional principles of limited federal authority, because this thing works both ways.

After all, if Ivanka Trump pushes for a $500 billion federal childcare bill (as she’s doing) because it’s her preferred cause du jour, and Congress indeed acts to provide single mothers with taxpayer dollars for childcare, wouldn’t it be very much like the federal overreach that we once claimed Obamacare represented, and thus be a true “constitutional crisis?”  Where does the Constitution define that the role of the federal government to seize wealth from taxpayers to provide childcare for American mothers?

If you happen to like this idea so much, you are free to petition your state to enact such a law with your state’s money to subsidize the payments.  I believe it would still be wrong, but this is how federalism works, and how the Constitution was intended to work.

We can only make American great again by again making America what the Constitution intended it to be.  And we can only do that by working to rein the federal government back within the boundaries that the Constitution defines.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/our_constitutional_crisis_has_nothing_to_do_with_james_comey.html#ixzz4hNTStOJk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/our_constitutional_crisis_has_nothing_to_do_with_james_comey.html

Truth: Dems Wanted Comey Fired….Until Trump Fired Him!

President Trump Tweets Video Montage Of Democrats Bashing Comey: #DrainTheSwamp

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/11/president_trump_tweets_video_montage_of_democrats_bashing_comey_draintheswamp.html

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS GOES AROUND THE BEND ON COMEY

by John Hinderaker   at PowerLine:

“Associated Press news stories on controversial topics are generally adapted from Democratic National Committee press releases, but when the AP really wants to cut loose it labels its stories “AP Analysis.” This one, by Julie Pace, is headlined: “AP Analysis: Trump thrusts US presidency into perilous area.” Not just Trump’s presidency, but “US presidency,” to reinforce the Democrats’ absurd claim that Trump’s firing of the inept James Comey somehow represents a constitutional crisis.

With his shocking dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, Donald Trump is propelling the presidency into rarely traversed territory.

Why was it so shocking? The Democrats have been demanding it for months.

His surprise announcement Tuesday flouts decades of presidential deference to the nation’s top law enforcement agency and its independence. It earns Trump the dubious distinction of being the first president since Richard Nixon to fire the official overseeing an investigation involving the commander in chief.

This is deeply dishonest. Note that the AP doesn’t say that Trump is the first president since Nixon to fire an FBI Director. Nixon didn’t fire an FBI Director. The last president to fire an FBI Director, on far weaker grounds than Trump’s, was Bill Clinton.

Why the talk about Nixon? The word went out today from the DNC that Trump’s firing of Comey was “Nixonian”–you see that claim everywhere in the Democratic Party media–and Julie Pace is following her party’s lead.

And note the AP’s weaselly claim that Comey was “overseeing an investigation involving the commander in chief.” Trump was not a target of Comey’s investigation, which “involved” the president only in the sense that it related to members of his campaign team and, in at least one case, his administration.

And it cements a clear pattern of a man willing to challenge — in dramatic fashion — the institutions created to hold the president accountable.

Another false, overheated assertion. Trump didn’t challenge any institutions, he fired an officer of the federal government who served at his pleasure. The AP needs to get a grip.

Pace goes on to quote seven politicians and scholars, every single one of whom criticizes Comey’s firing, often in hysterical terms. That isn’t balanced reporting, that is “analysis.”

This next paragraph is outrageous:

Trump attained his White House goal after a decades-long career in business during which he was accountable to few people other than himself. Thus, he has chafed at the constitutionally mandated constraints on the presidency. Within days of taking the oath of office, he suddenly fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates — a career Justice Department official — after she refused to defend the White House’s controversial travel and immigration ban.

Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, is a perfect representative of the corrupt swamp that the Department of Justice became under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. Yates viciously politicized the department, going after political opponents and other targets of convenience with reckless abandon. She was fired for insubordination because, as an Obama holdover, she defied a direct order from her superior. By doing so, she demanded to be fired. That wasn’t heroism, it was politically-inspired grandstanding. The idea that firing Sally Yates somehow shows that the president “chafes” at “constitutionally mandated constraints on the presidency” is either ignorant or malevolent. Most likely both.

Pace accuses Trump of hypocrisy, but never mentions the Democrats’ howls for Comey’s scalp that are collected by Lifezette.

At the time, Trump praised Comey for having “guts” and doing “the right thing,” statements that complicate his assertion that now, seven months later, Comey’s decisions warranted firing.

The rest of the AP’s “analysis” is all about Nixon. My guess is that few readers will get to the end. If they do, they will find nonsense like this:

“This is Nixonian,” said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.

Jimmy Gurule, a former assistant attorney general who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, said Trump’s decision “threatens our democracy and undermines the integrity of the FBI investigation.” Gurule is now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Nixon’s decision had a ripple effect throughout his administration, with the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigning rather than carry out the president’s orders. There was no such response from Trump’s White House aides and other top administration officials.

“We haven’t had a voice from within the Trump administration denounce this yet,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University. “I think at this moment the question is, will leading Republicans step out of the box and become profiles of courage?”

Any Republican can become a profile in courage by siding with Democrats and selling out a Republican president. I am trying to remember the last time a Democrat became a profile in courage by siding with Republicans.

The AP’s “analysis” is all wishful thinking. The Democrats would love to see a constitutional crisis, but all they are going to get is a new (and undoubtedly better) FBI Director. Meanwhile, to say that the Democrats’ Trump-bashing has reached a point of diminishing returns is an understatement.”

Trump at Harrisburg, PA

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/04/29/watch_live_president_donald_trump_holds_saturday_night_rally_in_harrisburg_pa.html