Ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was indicted on a raft of state charges in New York Wednesday – moments after a federal judge handed down a sentence in a separate case that ensured the longtime GOP operative will serve nearly seven more years in prison.
The New York indictment on mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and other state charges alleges that the 69-year-old Manafort and others falsified business records to illegally obtain millions of dollars. The new charges were announced by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance just minutes after U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, of the District of Columbia, sentenced Manafort as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, leaving him with 81 months to serve behind bars as part of that case.
Vance’s charges are at the state level, and allege that Manafort committed residential mortgage fraud, attempted residential mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsification of business records. If convicted of all charges, Manafort could face up to 25 years in prison.
“No one is beyond the law in New York,” Vance said in a statement Wednesday. “Following an investigation commenced by our office in March 2017, a Manhattan grand jury has charged Mr. Manafort with state criminal violations which strike at the heart of New York’s sovereign interests, including the integrity of our residential mortgage market.”
According to the indictment, Manafort, from Dec. 22, 2015 through Jan. 17, 2017, “engaged in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person and to obtain property from more than one person by false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, and so obtained property with a value in excess of one thousand dollars from one and more such persons.”
Meanwhile, minutes earlier in Washington D.C., Jackson nearly doubled Manafort’s prison term. Jackson’s term was for 73 months in connection with Manafort’s guilty plea related to foreign lobbying and witness tampering. But Jackson ordered a portion to be served concurrently with a 47-month sentence given by Judge T.S. Ellis in federal court in Virginia last week. Manafort, though, was credited with nine months time served.
The sentencing concluded one of the highest-profile cases to emerge from Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates, though the charges against Manafort did not pertain to Russia collusion or any work he did with the Trump campaign in 2016.
In a related story from 12/8/17 found on TheHIll.com,
Conservative group FreedomWatch is arguing for the dismissal of the judge presiding over its lawsuit seeking the removal of Robert Mueller from the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election, citing the judge’s political bias toward Democrats.
The group, helmed by conservative lawyer Larry Klayman, also alleges that Judge Amy Berman Jackson has a “manifest conflict of interest” in the case because she is also presiding over the trial of Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman who has been charged in connection with Mueller’s investigation.
FreedomWatch in November sued to force the Justice Department to investigate leaks coming from the special counsel and alleged conflicts of interest among staff, arguing that Mueller should be removed from the case.
In a new motion filed in U.S. district court in Washington, the conservative group argues that Jackson should recuse herself or be disqualified from the case, citing her “inherent manifest political biases and conflicts of interest.”
In particular, Klayman argues that Jackson exhibited a “deep-seated favoritism toward Democrat political interests” and Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic opponent in the presidential race, when she dismissed a case he litigated on behalf of the parents of two Americans killed in the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks.
In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that Clinton’s use of a private email server to transmit sensitive information during her time as secretary of State led to the deaths of their sons.
They also alleged that Clinton defamed the fallen Americans when she publicly disputed their accounts of the circumstances around the attack on the campaign trail. Jackson dismissed the lawsuit in May.
Klayman also argues that Jackson “rushed” to issue an order to show cause in the FreedomWatch case against the Justice Department, which he says “evidences her mindset of having pre-judged this matter from the inception.”
Huh.
In perhaps another related story posted Tuesday by the CBS Local Affiliate in Dallas/Ft. Worth.
United States Representative John Ratcliffe (R-TX) tweeted late Tuesday that, according to former Federal Bureau of Investigation lawyer Lisa Page, President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice was influencing the FBI’s investigation into the Hillary Clinton classified email investigation.
“Lisa Page confirmed to me under oath that the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information,” Ratcliffe tweeted.
What makes things interesting is that Judge Jackson is a Liberal Democrat, who was nominated for her position by Hillary Clinton’s Boss as Secretary of State, President Barack Hussein Obama.
As far as the New York charges filed against Manafort are concerned, isn’t it interesting how so much of the fallout and judicial action being taken in the “Russian Collusion Investigation by Mueller and his Democratic Lynch Mob is centered around the State of New York, specifically the Southern District of New York in addition to the courtroom of Judge Amy Berman Jackson?
The SDNY has been the stomping grounds of several of those involved in this ongoing Legal Lynch Mob out to get President Trump, including Former FBI Director Comey, FBI IG Horowitz, Mueller Investigator Andrew Weissman, and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr.
All of them either worked in that office or had judicial standing in that district.
For a long time, I have been stating that the Mueller Investigation, otherwise known as the Russian Collusion Fairy Tale, was like a giant spider’s web, leading back to the Obama Administration, during which the Deep State Operation to stop Donald J. Trump from becoming President began.
I also observed early on that the Southern District of New York was playing a major role, as well.
As the late, great Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock used to observe,
You’ve got gazillions of people following the rules, trying to get in the way they’re told they have to get in because they don’t have money to spread around — and they’re finding out now that the case and system is rigged against them. I’m sorry, since the left has politicized everything, I will point out that it’s leftists that what caught violating the law, gaming the system. Maybe not all of them are. Who knows? We don’t know all the names here.
But since we’re talking Hollywood, what are the odds? – Rush Limbaugh 3/12/2019
After a frenzied few hours in which federal authorities made several high profile arrests — and outlined a top-secret investigation into an alleged scam involving rich and famous clients paying millions to a network of counselors and coaches to ensure their privileged children be granted admission to some of the country’s most prestigious colleges — a judge said on Tuesday that jailed actress Felicity Huffman, accused of paying a bribe to help get her daughter into a top school, was eligible for release on $250,000 bond. A magistrate judge also ordered on Tuesday that the “Desperate Housewives” alum restrict her travel to the continental United States.
Court documents said Huffman, 54, paid $15,000, which she disguised as a charitable donation, so her daughter could take part in the college entrance-exam cheating scam.
The documents stated that a cooperating witness met with Huffman and her husband, actor William H. Macy, at their Los Angeles home and explained to them that he “controlled” a testing center and could have someone secretly change her daughter’s answers. The person told investigators the couple agreed to the plan.
The judge asked Huffman: “I’m not asking you to admit or deny the charges against you but do you understand what the government claims you did?” She replied: “Yes.”
The court appearance came hours after it was revealed that Huffman and fellow Hollywood actress Lori Loughlin were among the boldfaced names in a veritable who’s who of the rich and powerful charged in the case.
The actress, dressed in a black sweatshirt, glasses, and her hair pulled back into a ponytail, looked visibly tired in court on Tuesday as her lawyer argued for her release on her own recognizance because “she is not the kind of person who is going to become an international fugitive over this matter.” The prosecution would not accept that, citing her net worth. Fox News has learned that Huffman and Macy have real estate assets in excess of $20 million dollars and stocks worth around $4 million.
Macy, 69, dressed in a gray jacket and blue jeans, took notes during his wife’s hearing. He looked engaged and focused on the terms of Huffman’s release as they were being read aloud.
Huffman’s defense pushed back after the prosecution requested that the actress not be able to communicate with her husband since he’s a witness in the case. The judge balked at the request and excluded him from known witnesses or subjects with whom she may not be in contact.
Also among the 13 defendants appearing in court on Tuesday was “Fuller House” star Loughlin’s famed fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli.
The judge ruled Giannulli will be released on a $1 million dollar bond, securing the couple’s home as bond. Giannulli’s attorney said part of the reason they came to this agreement was with the hopes that Loughlin, also indicted in the case, would receive the same bond deal as well as be allowed to travel to Vancouver. The judge also ordered that Giannulli restrict his travel to the continental United States.
Loughlin, who did not appear in court on Tuesday, reportedly has been filming a movie in Vancouver. According to multiple reports, the actress landed at LAX on Tuesday during the court hearing.
A rep for Loughlin did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
Federal authorities have also charged college coaches and others in the case.
The racketeering conspiracy charges ensnared coaches at schools such as Wake Forest University, Georgetown and the University of Southern California. Investigators said the coaches accepted bribes in exchange for admitting students as athletes, regardless of their ability.
Investigators said parents would pay a predetermined amount to college entrance consultant William Rick Singer, who then would give the funds to coaches, SAT or ACT administrators.
The alleged fund amounts ranged from several thousand dollars to $6 million.
In other words, gentle readers, the same “smartest people in the room” who live in the Northeast and on the Left Coast, who have been telling us how to live our lives and whom to vote for as President of our country for all these years, have been found to not be the moral arbiters whom they have claimed to be.
As the late, great Claude Rains said in the classic movie “Casablanca”,
“I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.”
These parents of wealth and influence ran a “pay for Play” racket, not unlike the one that their 2016 Presidential Candidate of Choice, Hillary Clinton ran when she was Secretary of state under Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).
Whereas Hillary was charging Foreign Leaders exorbitant amounts paid to her and Bubba’s Clinton Foundation for access to her as Secretary of State, the wealthy parents who have been charged in this massive scandal paid out the wazoo (that’s a medical term) for their precious little spoiled high school graduate to attend a prestigious college such as Stanford or Yale.
…Even if they graduated Thank you, Laudy instead of Magna cum Laude.
Just as the Clintons, the Obamas, and the members of the Far Left Democratic Party up on Capitol Hill who have been making the headlines lately have shown us “little people”, otherwise known as average Americans, out here in America’s Heartland, “rules are for commoners”, not the Elite.
Or, at least that is the way it has been in the past, especially if you are a privileged Liberal from the Northeast or the Left Coast.
Just think of all of those average Americans who had worked hard in high school and who deserved to attend those colleges and could not, because some spoiled Liberal Elite Brat took their place.
The federal racketeering indictment filed Tuesday in a college admissions scandal in which wealthy parents allegedly paid bribes to get their children into elite universities is the most serious such scandal ever exposed – and may get worse.
The sense of entitlement by the 33 parents charged in these cases is representative of the attitude of the Liberals who live in these areas.
Their moral compasses are askew, but they don’t care, because of their sense of privilege and station in life.
If average Americans had not rebelled against this attitude and their Presidential Candidate of choice which they were shoving down our throats, can you imagine what we would be experiencing as a nation by now?
I don’t even want to think about it.
Thankfully, just as in the case of these 33 parents who got caught, sometimes the good guys win.
President Trump kicked off a new battle with Congress on Monday by releasing his fiscal 2020 budget plan seeking billions more in funding for a border wall and controversial work requirements for Americans collecting a variety of welfare benefits.
Both proposals are sure to face resistance from Democrats, especially coming off a partial shutdown triggered by a border wall dispute that only ended when Trump declared a national emergency over immigration — a step being litigated in the courts and challenged in Congress. The requests are part of the president’s $4.7 trillion budget plan.
Escalating Trump’s pursuit of wall funding, the White House in the new budget requested an additional $8.6 billion to build the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border—seeking $5 billion from Congress, plus $3.6 billion from the military construction budget, for fiscal 2020.
Meanwhile, the budget aims to implement new welfare requirements — namely, that Americans 18-65 years old work at least 20 hours a week in a job, a job training program or a community service program to secure a range of benefits and aid.
According to the administration, the work requirement would apply to federal programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and federal housing, but would come with a hardship exemption. Last year, the administration opened the door for states to impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients. This part of the budget proposal would bring those work requirements to the federal level.
The proposal would represent an expansion of work requirements, though some already are in place. For the past several administrations, able-bodied recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) have mostly had to work at least 80 hours a month — while recipients of traditional welfare known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have also faced work requirements.
I am sure that there will be a bunch of fussin’ and hollerin” from Democratic Lawmakers over the President’s proposal to add work requirements to the Federal Programs liosted in the above article.
After all, it was Democratic Party Politics which lost Americans their jobs, broke up their family units, and put them in perpetual servitude to the State to begin with.
Back during the 2012 Presidential Race, the “Severely Conservative” Republican Party Legacy Candidate, Mitt Romney, stirred up a hornet’s nest by stating that 47% of Americans were receiving some form of Government Entitlements, such as SNAP, Welfare, etc. It didn’t really matter that he was absolutely correct. He was considered a rich out-of-touch, uncaring, old white guy, from that moment on. He was positively vilified by President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), the rest of the Democratic Party, and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media.
Sound familiar?
Romney was attempting, rather indelicately, to make the point that, with this American Freedom that we have been blessed with, also comes the burden of responsibility. Romney was trying to illuminate the fact that American is still the Land of Opportunity, and that “God helps those who help themselves”.
I don’t believe that the Republican Presidential Candidate was attempting to be malicious by calling out the 47%. He was merely trying to paint a verbal picture as to how the sense of entitlement, that is forcefully held by some Americans, and has been facilitated by the Democrats, had spun way out of control, becoming an immeasurable burden on American Taxpayers, and an immense anchor, holding our economy back.
It was that same selfish sense of entitlement that fueled the backlash against “Mittens” by America’s low information voters, who were certainly egged on by their “plantation Masters”, the Democratic Party, and their “Straw Bosses”, in the Main Stream Media.
Around that same time, the number 47 came up in the National Media once again, as it was reported that 47% of American Babies were being born out of wedlock.
To the Wayback Machine, Sherman!
Back in the 60s, President Lyndon Johnson (whose big hand I once shook, at his ranch, as a little boy, after his presidential term) and the Democrats, brought forth a plan, called “the Great Society”. It was decided, in order to ensure that everyone would have an equal opportunity in America, that Uncle Sugar would step in to fill in the gaps.
Two seminal pieces of legislation were passed.
First, the Civil Rights Bill that JFK promised to sign, before his assassination, was passed into law. This Act banned discrimination based on race and gender in employment and ending segregation in all public facilities.
It also helped to cement in stone, minorities’ loyalty to the Democratic Party, which continues to this day.
The second bill that LBJ signed into law was the sweeping ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964. It created the Office of Economic Opportunity whose stated purpose was to attack the roots of American poverty. A Job Corps was then established to provide vocational training.
A preschool program designed to help disadvantaged students arrive at kindergarten ready to learn, named HEADSTART, was then established. Then came VOLUNTEERS IN SERVICE TO AMERICA (VISTA), which was set up as a domestic Peace Corps. Schools in impoverished American regions would now receive volunteer teaching attention. Federal funds were sent to struggling communities to attack unemployment and illiteracy.
What Johnson told Americans, as he campaigned in 1964, was that the establishment of this “Great Society” was going to eliminate the problems of America’s poor.
It had the opposite effect
The Great Society created a dependent class, which, instead of diminishing as it’s members joined the workforce, increased from generation to generation, relying on the federal government to provide their every need.
Uncle Sugar became Mother, Father, Preacher, and Doctor to generations of Americans. This “Plantation Mentality” continues to this day, encouraged by those who make their living off of the misfortunes of others…Democratic Politicians and the Owners and Operators of Numerous Shady Politically Motivated “Non-Profit” Organizations.
I know. I spent from January 2011 – June 2012 working in our county’s WIN Job Center.
While at this Employment Office, I was able to observe folks down on their luck, struggling to find work and survive in this economy.
I also saw American families whose existence living on the Government Dole had become generational.
It is these people whom the Democrats continue to hypnotize into believing that Uncle Sugar loves them, and is their only solution to surviving a stifling existence.
They are so, so wrong.
The strength and vitality of America does not come from the benevolence of a Nanny-state Federal Government.
As the greatest American President of our lifetime, Ronald Reagan said:
The nine words you never want to hear are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.
Being enslaved to the Government Dole steals one’s ambition. It takes away any impetus or desire to create a better life for yourself and your family, to challenge yourself to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pursue the American Dream. It makes you reliant on a politically motivated spider’s web full of government bureaucrats who view you and your family as job security.
I watched American citizens trapped in this web of government bureaucracy, so numbed of any initiative that they once had, that they seemed offended that they actually had to prove that they inquired about three jobs that week in order to keep their “benefits”. Others seemed puzzled that they had to search through the state data base and pick out a job that they wanted to talk to an interviewer about receiving a referral to, and weren’t just simply handed a job when they walked through the door.
Additionally, now there is a preponderance of Americans of child-bearing age who don’t have enough self-control, self-esteem, and moral turpitude to actually get married before they bring an innocent life into this world?
I’m not a bit surprised.
Welcome to the Democrats’ “Great Society”.
President Trump and his Administration are attempting to encourage those trapped in a cycle of poverty to break free through self-determination and hard work which will lead to individual achievement and self-responsibility.
And, that is why Modern American Liberals will cry out against these new regulations.
It will dismantle the Socialist Nanny State which they have been purposefully building for decades….
There is no evidence that @AOC ever picked up a book on President Ronald Reagan, so she would not know he created over 18 million jobs during his eight years in office and kicked off a 26 year run of economic growth.
There is no evidence of @AOC ever picked up a book on President Reagan. so she would not know he was the president who signed the order creating the Dr. Martin Luther King national holiday.
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed political moderates at the South by Southwest Conference & Festivals in Austin, Texas, calling their views “misplaced” as she defended her progressive politics in a room full of supporters.
“Moderate is not a stance. It’s just an attitude towards life of, like, ‘meh,’” the New York Democrat said Saturday during an interview with Briahna Gray, senior politics editor for the Intercept. “We’ve become so cynical, that we view ‘meh,’ or ‘eh’ — we view cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivete when … the greatest things we have ever accomplished as a society have been ambitious acts of visions, and the ‘meh’ is just worshipped now, for what?”
The self-declared Democratic socialist also criticized the treatment of minorities throughout American history, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which she claimed was racist, to Ronald Reagan’s policies, which she said “pitted” white working class people against minorities in order “to screw over all working-class Americans,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics.
“So you think about this image of welfare queens and what he was really trying to talk about was … this like really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were ‘sucks’ on our country,” she said.
“And it’s this whole tragedy of the commons type of thinking where it’s like because … this one specific group of people, that you are already kind of subconsciously primed to resent, you give them a different reason that’s not explicit racism but still rooted in a racist caricature,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “It gives people a logical reason, a ‘logical’ reason to say, ‘Oh yeah, no, toss out the whole social safety net.'”
Other topics Ocasio-Cortez discussed included the Green New Deal and capitalism, which she said could not be redeemed because it puts profit “above everything else.”
“The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished,” she said.
Remember when the Former (Thank God) President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke about “sharing the wealth” to a plumber named Joe during his 2008 Presidential Campaign?
101 years ago in Russia, a revolution was based on this very idea.
The unworkable theory that it is based on is known as Marxism. No government which has taken it as their political philosophy has ever flourished. The government grew and those working within it became rich while the “Proletariat” or average working citizens starved, giving all they had “for the good of the State”.
For quite a while now, I have been referring to those of the Far Left Democratic Party, such as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her colleagues Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who have been doing every thing they can to disrupt and interfere with the success of President Donald J. Trump and the comeback of the Greatest Country on the face of the Earth, as the “New Bolsheviks”.
To be immodest, it looks like I nailed that one.
These new “useful idiots” are so “out there” that they have the Old Guard of the Democratic Party running scared and on the verge of allowing them to run the party and their political campaign strategies for not only this year’s Midterm Elections but possibly the 2020 Presidential Elections as well.
As America has witnessed, the Democratic Party has been moving further and further to the left side of the Political Spectrum for decades now.
So, it is really no surprise that they are on the precipice of becoming which they have been whining about for several years: fascists.
But they are not becoming just any kind of fascists. They are becoming Marxist Fascists, extolling the “benevolent goodness” of an all-powerful Central Government who will take care of everyone from cradle to grave, like AOC did this weekend.
And, those who refuse to give up their individual freedom as guaranteed to us by our Constitution will be shunned and ridiculed as “intolerant, ignorant hillbillies”.
For example, AOC erroneously attempting to label the late great Former President Ronald Wilson Reagan as being a “racist”.
Reagan, like President Donald J. Trump believed in our American Economic System and he caused it to grow after years of “malaise” under President Jimmy Carter.
You see, boys and girls, that’s the secret of American Exceptionalism, a concept that Obama always gave lip service to, but, clearly, never believed in.
For America to prosper, we must remain free. For America to remain free, we must be prosperous.
American Capitalism is the engine which drives a strong, vibrant economy. American Capitalism is the result of the courageous Entrepreneurial Spirit of American Citizens. The same “Can Do” attitude which led to Western Expansion and triumphs against those before-mentioned enemies, foreign and domestic.
President Ronald Reagan often referred to America as “The Shining City on the Hill” meaning that her people and the Sovereign Nation itself were an example to the rest of the world as to what a free people were capable of creating for themselves with God’s Providence.
Reagan knew that American Exceptionalism was an inspiration to the rest of the free world, not a bone of contention as America’s previous occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue claimed it to be.
And, just like the Gipper, President Trump knows that for America to be successful in a Global Economy, we must put America First, in order to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength.
This philosophy has enabled American business to regain the trust of Global Investors and is helping to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have more opportunities to forge their own bright economic futures.
Under all forms of Marxism, including “Democratic Socialism, the only ones who will become wealthy will be those who work for the government.
Why do you think that the Far Left Democrats are pushing so hard for “Democratic Socialism”?
President Donald Trump was just doing what he could to raise spirits when he signed Bibles at an Alabama church for survivors of a deadly tornado outbreak, many religious leaders say, though some are offended and others say he could have handled it differently.
Hershael York, dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology in Louisville, Ky., said he didn’t have a problem with Trump signing Bibles, like former presidents have, because he was asked and because it was important to the people who were asking.
“Though we don’t have a national faith, there is faith in our nation, and so it’s not at all surprising that people would have politicians sign their Bibles,” he said. “Those Bibles are meaningful to them and apparently these politicians are, too.”
But the Rev. Donnie Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, said she was offended by the way Trump scrawled his signature Friday as he autographed Bibles and other things, including hats, and posed for photos. She viewed it, she said, as a “calculated political move” by the Republican president to court his evangelical voting base.
Presidents have a long history of signing Bibles, though earlier presidents typically signed them as gifts to send with a spiritual message. President Ronald Reagan signed a Bible that was sent secretly to Iranian officials in 1986. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the family Bible his attorney general used to take the oath of office in 1939.
It would have been different, Anderson said, if Trump had signed a Bible out of the limelight for someone with whom he had a close connection.
“For me, the Bible is a very important part of my faith, and I don’t think it should be used as a political ploy,” she said. “I saw it being used just as something out there to symbolize his support for the evangelical community, and it shouldn’t be used in that way. People should have more respect for Scripture.”
York said that he, personally, would not ask a politician to sign a Bible, but that he has been asked to sign Bibles after he preaches. It feels awkward, he said, but he doesn’t refuse.
“If it’s meaningful to them to have signatures in their Bible, I’m willing to do that,” he said.
Trump visited Alabama on Friday to survey the devastation and pay respects to tornado victims. The tornado carved a path of destruction nearly a mile wide, killing 23 people, including four children and a couple in their 80s, with 10 victims belonging to a single extended family.
At the Providence Baptist Church in Smiths Station, Ala., the Rev. Rusty Sowell said, the president’s visit was uplifting and will help bring attention to a community that will need a long time to recover.
Before leaving the church, Trump posed for a photograph with a fifth-grade volunteer and signed the child’s Bible, said Ada Ingram, a local volunteer. The president also signed her sister’s Bible, Ingram said. In photos from the visit, Trump is shown signing the cover of a Bible.
Trump should have at least signed inside in a less ostentatious way, said the Rev. Dr. Kevin Cassiday-Maloney.
“It just felt like hubris,” said Cassiday-Maloney, pastor at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Fargo, North Dakota. “It almost felt like a desecration of the holy book to put his signature on the front writ large, literally.”
He doesn’t think politicians should sign Bibles, he said, because it could be seen as a blurring of church and state and an endorsement of Christianity over other religions.
It would have been out of line if Trump had brought Bibles and given them out, but that wasn’t the case, said James Coffin, executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
“Too much is being made out of something that doesn’t deserve that kind of attention,” he said.
Bill Leonard, the founding dean and professor of divinity emeritus at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity in Winston-Salem, N.C., woke up to Facebook posts Saturday morning by former students who were upset about Trump signing the Bibles because they don’t view him as an appropriate example of spiritual guidance.
But, Leonard said, it’s important to remember that signing Bibles is an old tradition, particularly in southern churches.
Leonard said he would have viewed it as more problematic if the signings were done at a political rally. He doesn’t see how Trump could have refused at the church.
“It would’ve been worse if he had said no because it would’ve seemed unkind, and this was at least one way he could show his concern along with his visit,” he said. “In this setting, where tragedy has occurred and where he comes for this brief visit, we need to have some grace about that for these folks.”
Amen.
Gentle Readers, did you notice in the above article that those who objected were representatives of Liberal Churches?
First,, there is NO SUCH THING as “Separation of Church and State” in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Second, President Trump was honoring God by signing children’s Bibles in that small Alabama town.
Christianity has played a predominant role in the building of our nation. In fact, the Capitol building itself was used for church services, even before Congress moved into the building, and continued to be used for Sunday Church Services until well after the Civil War.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate on December 4, 1800, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson, whose approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather.
…Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
The series of cacophonous thuds you just heard were the “I’m-smarter than-you” Modern American Marxists…err…Liberals falling off of their chairs. You see, they will argue until they are blue in the face that Jefferson and Madison were not Christians, and our founding documents were not based on a Judeo-Christian system of beliefs.
Then, they go out to feed the unicorn in their backyard.
Jefferson told his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:
[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
But, what about Jefferson’s re-writing of the Bible, leaving out Jesus’ miracles, you ask? David Barton answered that question in 2001, in a letter to a newspaper, in response to a reader:
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
The other Founding Father whom today’s Liberals claim was an Atheist is James Madison.
Per David Barton:
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.
Also, as this writing shows, Madison wanted all public officials – including Bradford – to be unashamed concerning their Christian beliefs and testimony:
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Did you know that Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:
It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. ?
And, per Barton, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. The proposal reads:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.
But, wait. There’s more:
In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Finally, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
So, if you run into one of those individuals who, when it comes to accepting the Faith of our Founding Fathers and that fact that President Trump was doing exactly what those noble men would have done in that same situation in that church in Alabama, proves that denial is not just a river in Egypt, you can respond with one or all of three things:
“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” – President Ronald Reagan
A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to “consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right.”
The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment “to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
The 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also stated, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
The Hawaii Senate resolution has been referred to committee and no hearings are scheduled at this time.
Of Hawaii’s 25 state senators, only one is Republican. The rest are Democrats.
In a related story, John R. Lott, Jr., writes in an Op Ed for FoxNews.com that
Democrats in the U.S. House are likely to approve spending $50 million in taxpayer funds for public health research on gun violence. While that may sound like a good idea at first glance, it really wouldn’t do anything to reduce gun violence in our country.
I testified Thursday before the House Appropriations Committee’s health subcommittee to inject facts into the discussion of the Democratic bill.
It should go without saying that everyone opposes gun violence. But it’s important to take effective measures to deal with this problem and not simply take actions that sound appealing but won’t really save lives.
The idea behind the $50 million in research funding is to have medical professionals apply tools they developed to study cancer, heart disease and other diseases and use them to study crime, accidental death and suicide. But to state the obvious, gun violence and diseases are two very different things.
The National Rifle Association – regularly demonized in the media and by many Democrats – has been blamed for preventing academics from doing research on firearms. So supporters of the bill that would spend $50 million to research gun violence as a public health issue say their bill is needed to stop the NRA from blocking vital research that will save lives.
But there’s a big problem with the argument: it’s not true.
Opponents of the Second Amendment who are eager to impose as many restrictions as possible on firearms falsely claim that a measure enacted in 1996 called the Dickey Amendment – named after former Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark. – barred research on gun violence to be funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But in reality, here is what the reviled Dickey Amendment states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to *advocate or promote gun control.”* (Italics added).
Let’s face it, gentle readers, we all knew that once they became the majority in the House of Representatives, the Democrats would, once again, come after the guns of law-abiding citizens.
The Democrats’ renewed quest for “Gun Control”, if successful, would only succeed in controlling law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as Parkland High School Mass Murderer Nikolas Cruz and the thugs who have turned Former President Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago and my hometown of Memphis into their own personal “Killing Fields”.
The leader of the bloody Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, once wrote that
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
If the Democrats had their way, we would live in a country under the oppression of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe. And, as past events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists and other murderous nut jobs to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.
In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.
One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what Democrats do not.
The problem in stopping mass murders like yesterday’s from happening is not that there are not enough gun laws. The problem is the gun laws on the books are not properly enforced.
The dissolution of the Family Unit, the revolving door state of our Municipal Justice Systems, and, in the case of the perpetrator of the Parkland High School Massacre, Nikolas Cruz, the lack of recognition and treatment of the mentally ill and wannabe Terrorists, have a lot to do with the rise of these horrible massacres in America and the horrible violence which plagues cities like Chicago and Memphis.
What Liberals have never understood, in their continuous quest to take away the Second Amendment rights of average Americans is that we will never surrender our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.
What part of the words quote “shall not be infringed” do you Liberals not understand?
Passing more restrictive gun laws is not the answer.
Criminals are called “outlaws” for a reason.
They will find a way to get guns. They do now.
This is a people problem. Not a gun problem.
After all, have you ever seen a gun pull its own trigger?
Do you remember 4 months ago, after the Midterm Elections, when the Democratic Leadership and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, were telling everybody that the presumptive Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, would make the House Dems “toe the line”, unifying them as a body, and bring down the “Hammer of Justice” on President Donald J. Trump?
A funny thing happened on the way to Pelosi’s “benevolent dictatorship” in the House of Representatives.
Pelosi is now finding herself and all of the “Old Guard” House Dems being pushed out of political power by 3 first year Congresswomen, anti-Semitic Marxists who have quite literally “come out of nowhere” to take all the air out of the House of Representatives.
And, the “Iron Lady” of the House can not seem to do anything about it.
…A Democratic source told Fox News on Wednesday that Pelosi has been “taken aback” by the growing dissent and anger among rank-and-file Democrats over the resolution — highlighting Pelosi’s tenuous grip on control over the House and underscoring the growing power of the party’s nascent far-left progressive wing.
Pelosi reportedly walked out of a meeting Wednesday with Democrat House members, setting down her microphone and telling attendees, “Well, if you’re not going to listen to me, I’m done talking.”
Then, FoxNews.com reported Thursday afternoon that
…Tensions have run high among Democrats in recent days. Apparently fed up with her party’s inability to come together to condemn anti-Semitism in the past week, Pelosi reportedly even dropped her microphone and stormed out of a meeting with junior Democrats on Wednesday, amid fierce disputes over the planning and wording of the resolution.
And, on Thursday, Pelosi offered something of a strained excuse for the 37-year-old Omar, saying at a news conference, “I do not believe that she understood the full weight of the words.”
The final text of the resolution reflected the Democrats’ deep internal divisions on the matter. It began by rejecting the “perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance.”
Although the resolution stops short of using Omar’s name, that provision was a transparent reference to her remarks at a progressive Washington cafe last week, in which she suggested that Israel supporters were pushing for U.S. politicians to declare “allegiance” to Israel.
The accusation that Jewish politicians could be vulnerable to having “dual loyalties” has been made for centuries in various contexts, and has been seen widely as a religious-based attack intent on undermining their leadership. Tlaib, who was seated next to Omar during her comments at the cafe, made a similar comment in January, tweeting that Senate Republicans were more loyal to Israel than to their own country.
The resolution also “condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.”
Last month, Omar ignited a bipartisan uproar across the country when she suggested on Twitter that some members of Congress have been paid by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to support Israel. AIPAC is a nonprofit organization that works to influence U.S. policy. (“Let me be really clear,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, said. “Suggesting that support for Israel is beholden to a foreign power is absolutely unacceptable and illogical too.”)
Omar — who also tweeted in 2012 that “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel” — refused to address questions on Wednesday about accusations that she’s anti-Semitic.
Fox News had been told the Democratic caucus was concerned about mentioning Omar by name — a non-starter for many members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Two knowledgable sources said such a scenario could increase security threats against Omar, who is Muslim.
But, Democrats went to great lengths to broaden the resolution’s focus far beyond Omar’s comments. A vote on the resolution was delayed briefly to add a new clause condemning other forms of bigotry, reportedly in response to concerns from members representing minority groups who felt left out.
So, the House Democratic Leadership, including “Madame Speaker” rolled over and played dead. (a million comical lines involving San Fran Nan’s home life just raced between my synapses, but among them are images which I do not need, so, moving on…)
And, showed the entire country just how ineffective, anti-Semitic, and Anti-American that they truly are.
Why didn’t the Speaker of the House issue a strong condemnation of Omar and her anti-Semitism?
All of the evidence garnered through her public appearances clearly demonstrate the fact that she is not the clear thinking Machiavellian genius which all of the Democratic Hierarchy attempted to present her as.
Dementia-riddled “San Fran Nan” Pelosi has been salivating for two years over the opportunity to be Speaker of the House again.
Losing the presidency in 2016 did not smarten up the Democrats at all.
If they go ahead with allowing Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) life Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, and Ilhan to basically run their political party while embracing Radical Islam, anti-Semitism, and Marxism, Pelosi and the rest of the “useful idiots” known as the House Democrats are very likely setting themselves up to go the way of the Whigs.
…And, it couldn’t happen to a “nicer” bunch.
The Democratic Majority in the House’s only hope of reelection at this point is to make Nancy Pelosi abdicate her House Speakership and put in her place someone who will “step hard” on the SJWs and get them under control and who will actually work with President Trump as Former Speaker Newt Gingrich worked with Former President Bill Clinton.
However, that would be a very hard task to accomplish.
There is noting harder that getting a doddering old lady to leave the House she has been in for a very long time.
Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!
The Democratic National Committee has barred Fox News from hosting its presidential primary debates, prompting the network to urge the party to reconsider.
“We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democratic presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters,” Fox News Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said in a statement.
Earlier in the day, DNC Chairman Tom Perez announced the party would not allow Fox News to host primary debates, claiming they would not be “fair and neutral” forums for the candidates.
“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” Perez said in a statement to The Washington Post that cited a critical article in The New Yorker. “That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News. Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates.”
While some Fox News Channel opinion hosts have come under fire for ties to the Trump administration, Wallace, Baier and MacCallum are anchors from the news division who have been praised for their handling of past debates. In 2016, Wallace moderated a presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Reacting to the DNC’s decision, Baier tweeted Wednesday, “That’s really a shame. When it comes to fairness – our news product speaks for itself. We will continue to cover this 2020 race fairly & will continue to invite Democrats- Republicans & Independents on to talk about key issues & substance with our very large viewing audience.”
The DNC announced last month that NBC News will host the first Democratic primary debate of the 2020 election cycle in June. Back in 2016, the Republican National Committee famously pulled out of a planned NBC News Republican primary debate after a similar event on CNBC was criticized for allegedly unfair questions.
The Democratic Party continues to overplay their hand, grossly overestimating their own intelligence while underestimating the intelligence of us Americans who live between the coasts in the Heartland of America.
You would have thought that they would have learned not to do that after their plans for a “Democratic Socialist Paradise” were obliterated on the night of November 8, 2016, when we “forgotten Americans” MADE them remember who we were.
But, no.
Modern American Liberals, especially the Far Left Democratic Party, view themselves as “The Smartest People in the Room”
You can’t tell them a thing. They already know it all.
Therefore, the preservation of their own fragile egos is the reason that they are blocking Fox News from involvement in their Primary Election Debates.
The Main Stream Media is the Propaganda Arm of the Democratic Party
Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders once said after being badgered by a “news reporter” from ABC that the reporter and her colleagues have a “responsibility to provide accurate information” to the public.
“Responsibility”. Therein lies the rub.
The Democratic Party and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, have been reduced to personal attacks against a sitting president.
They cannot attack Trump on his Economic Policies, which have been very successful and which have led to a record low unemployment rate for Black Americans.
They cannot attack him on his Foreign Policy, especially after the fantastic way he has handled the Iranians and the North Koreans.
So, they decided instead, to write fictional stories and attempt to give them believability and gravitas by claiming to have received the information for their stories from “anonymous sources”.
And, since those stories were being debunked almost as soon as they were posted, most Americans accurately surmised that the MSM’s “anonymous sources” were the voices inside their own over-sized heads.
The failure of the Democrat-controlled MSM brought them to the point where all they have left is to attempt to upstage the president in his own press conference, as CNN’s Jim Acosta tried to.
It did not work out well for him, did it?
The excuse by DNC Chairman and Political Activist Tom Perez for excluding Fox News from the Debates for an “inappropriate relationship” with President Trump is just another example of Liberal Hypocrisy.
Not only that, but just like their predecessors during the days of the Soviet Union’s Politboro, the “Democratic Socialists”, i.e. Marxists, leading the Far Left Democratic Party are neither interested in a “Fair ” Debate nor are they interested in the truth.
They are of the impression that their base, the Low Information Voters, will believe everything that they tell them, as long as they have their Propaganda Arm, the MSM, asking the questions.
And, average Americans, the same ones who made Donald J. Trump our 45th President, will believe their lies, also, without Fox News’ factual reporting getting in the way.
However, just as they did during the months leading up to the night of November 8, 2016, they are greatly underestimating those of us whom their Presidential Candidate at the time named “Deplorables”.
And, as George Santayana said,
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Democrats want to use your hard-earned tax dollars to bankroll their next campaign with H.R. 1. The campaign contribution match would force taxpayers to foot the bill for vicious attack ads, robocalls, and targeted ads on social media for candidates they don’t agree with. pic.twitter.com/WwzW1zRLSE
House Democrats are preparing to vote Friday on a sweeping ethics and campaign finance reform package known as the For the People Act, and in response the White House issued its second veto threat of the year on Tuesday, calling the proposal a reckless move that would increase opportunities for rampant voter fraud and chill free speech.
The bill, known as H.R. 1, purportedly aims to eliminate “culture of corruption in Washington” and to reduce the role of money in politics. It would make it easier for citizens to register and vote, tighten election security, and establish a small-donor public matching system in congressional elections.
In a direct shot at Trump, the bill would require presidents to release at least 10 years’ worth of tax returns. The bill also would ban executive-branch officials from lobbying their old agency for two years after they leave government, and reauthorize and enhance the Office of Government Ethics, which has clashed with Trump.
Additionally, the Act would require groups like the Chamber of Commerce that spend more than $10,000 on political messaging to disclose the identity of their contributors who gave more than $10,000 — prompting several business groups to raise concerns about their ability to communicate with politicians.
“The $10,000 donor threshold appears designed to target business organizations while largely sparing labor organizations from disclosure of their funding sources, which are typically union dues that are far less than $10,000,” Neil Bradley, the executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobbying group, told reporters on Tuesday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has long pronounced the reform measure dead on arrival in the Senate, where it faces long odds. And the White House, which has already vowed to veto the ongoing effort by Congress to strike down his national emergency declaration over border wall funding, issued a statement Tuesday outlining the administration’s problems with the legislation.
“If H.R. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill,” the statement flatly concluded. Trump has not yet vetoed any legislation.
One of the measure’s most notable provisions would restore protections included in the 1965 Voting Rights Act and guard against efforts by state officials to purge voting rolls.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a veteran of the civil rights movement, called voting “the most powerful, non-violent instrument of transformation we have in our democracy,” and said efforts to make it easier to vote — not harder — were crucial. “I truly believe deep in my heart that the way votes were not counted and purged in Georgia and Florida and other states changed the outcome of the last election” to harm Democrats, Lewis said. “That must never happen again.”
However, the White House said it saw that provision as an invitation to voter fraud.
“H.R. 1 would prohibit commonsense efforts to clean up voting-rolls to limit opportunities for voting fraud,” the White House said. “The bill would also require States to adopt online registration, same-day registration, and automatic voter registration, thus imposing a one-size-fits-all standard for weighing the competing values of voter access and voting integrity.”
The White House statement continued: “Furthermore, H.R. 1 would enhance the powers of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman and reduce the number of FEC members from six to five, thus increasing the chances that the FEC becomes a partisan entity with undue power to shape and regulate elections nationwide.”
Other objections raised by the Trump administration centered on the bill’s advance of political redistricting mandates, as well as its possible effects on First Amendment rights.
…”The legislation would force States to create unelected bodies and then delegate redistricting decisions to them,” the White House’s statement said in response. “This would suppress the voices of our Nation’s citizens and cut off a nationwide debate on how best to pursue fair and ethical redistricting processes throughout the country.”
…”H.R. 1 also chills free speech by creating requirements that would limit the ability of Americans to participate in advocacy without undue compliance costs and without fear of public reprisals,” the White House countered. “The bill would establish costly and unnecessary programs to finance political campaigns, and force American taxpayers to finance Federal candidates they may not support.”
But Maryland Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes said Democrats were “responding directly to the American people and what they want to see in our democracy,” as shown by the election results in the 2018 midterms.
Calling the bill “transformative,” Sarbanes said in January it will “strengthen our democracy and return political power to the people by making it easier, not harder, to vote, ending the dominance of big money in our politics and ensuring that public officials actually serve the public.”
“You could stamp on this thing ‘McConnell-rejected,’ and it would immediately give it more credibility,” Sarbanes said. The legislation was not built for McConnell or any lawmaker, Sarbanes added: “This was built for the public.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also touted the bill, saying it would “restore integrity to government, so that people can have confidence that government works for the public interest, not the special interests.”
On ethics, members of Congress would be barred from serving on corporate boards and could not use taxpayer dollars to settle employment discrimination cases. But the White House argued that those provisions would unnecessarily impede the work of the executive branch with burdensome regulations.
Sarbanes and other supporters said the election security measures are particularly important as the 2020 election nears.
Predicting “historic turnout” in upcoming elections, Sarbanes said officials must not only encourage increased participation, but guard against attempts at sabotage from foreign and domestic adversaries.
“If we’re not ready for that in all the ways [the legislation] seeks to ensure, then we could end up with a train wreck,” he said.
Having the House Democrats sponsor a “Financial Reform” and “Ethics” bill is like having Stormy McDaniel write a book endorsing chastity.
Nancy Pelosi and her husband are worth $22 million, thanks to “shrewd real estate investments in California.
Gee. I wonder where they received their “tips” from?
Freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Saikat Chakrabarti, her chief of staff are presently being accused of violating campaign finance laws to the tune of almost $1,000,000.
Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are spending their time in office attacking the faith of 75% of Americans who proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior.
Meanwhile, Pelosi and her convocation of “Pharisees” are apparently going to spend the next two years wasting American Taxpayers’ money trying to get the man who average Americans voted into office…out of office.
Also, if they are truly interested in “Ethical Behavior and Finance Reform” are they going to retroactively take away the money which Hillary Clinton and her husband’s Foundation made from all of those foreign governments who pay them money to curry favor with the then–Secretary of State?
I am always writing about how the Liberals in the Far Left Democratic Party believe themselves to be the smartest people in the room and above all the rest of us Americans.
However, the House Democrats have completely lost it.
This bill has the all of the sincerity of a book titled “The Michael Moore Diet Plan”.
If the House Dems do not wake up and smell what they are shoveling, like Captain Ahab in “Moby Dick”, the Great While Whale that they are obsessed with,President Donald J. Trump, is going to drag their hopes of regaining presidency down into a watery grave for several decades.
And, considering their present Marxist Political Ideology and severely impaired mental faculties, that would be a very good thing.
House Democrats are drafting a resolution condemning anti-Semitism and plan to introduce it on the floor later this week in the wake of controversial comments made by freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
While it is not clear whether the resolution will specifically condemn Omar’s remarks, a senior House Democratic aide told Fox News that a draft of the resolution was worked on over the weekend by the staff for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with those of Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Ted Deutch, D-Fla.
Despite only being in Congress since January, Omar has been the center of controversy over numerous remarks she’s made that have been labelled anti-Semitic.
“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said in reference to Israel. “I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or big pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying movement that is influencing policy.”
Amid widespread criticism from a number of Omar’s congressional colleagues, the freshman lawmaker chose to double down on her stance.
“I have not mischaracterized our relationship with Israel, I have questioned it and that has been clear from my end,” she tweeted. “I am told every day that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself to attacks.”
Engel, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Friday that it was “unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
The senior Democratic aide told Fox News that while the text of the resolution is not final, lawmakers plan to present it on Wednesday. The aide added that the resolution was drafted well before the Anti-Defamation League sent a letter to Pelosi requesting a resolution and that the ADL was aware of the resolution before they sent the letter.
In the letter to Pelosi, ADL Chief Executive Jonathan Greenblatt said that Omar’s suggestion that Jews have a divided loyalty between the U.S. and Israel is “a vile anti-Semitic slur that has been used to harass, marginalize and persecute the Jewish people for centuries.”
Greenblatt goes on to condemn the attacks Omar has faced for her own Islamic faith, but that a congressional resolution would “send the unambiguous message that the United States Congress is no place for hate.”
So, the Dems are going to punish Rep. Omar indirectly.
Sheesh.
Ever since my collegiate days, from 1976-1980, when I was a Radio News Director, I have watched with stunned incredulity, as the American Liberal Political Ideology and its adherents, have vocally castigated the country of Israel for defending themselves against the violent factions of nomadic tribes , who wish for nothing else than their annihilation of both the country of Israel and their citizenry.
The irony of their naiveté, is the fact that, in the 1960’s, American Liberals were among some of Israel’s strongest supporters. However, as of this writing, they continue to blatantly back the Palestinians and the Terrorist Organization known as Hamas.
Opposing God’s Chosen People and supporting the historically nomadic people that call themselves “Palestinians” fits with Modern Liberals’ Political Ideology, which views modern political struggles as “Class Warfare”, being waged between race and ethnic groups. Liberals believe that the predominantly white West is somehow subjugating the non-white rest of the world. This viewpoint is an extension of the class-based, rich versus poor, categories, which they intentionally classify people in, following the example of their fallen messiah, Former President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).
However, not only is Representative Omar a Far Left Radical, she is also most definitely a Radical Islamist.
Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism has been well-known for years.
Omar has long been a harsh critic of Israel. On November 16, 2012 – just a few days after Gaza-based Hamas terrorists had launched more than 150 deadly rockets into the Jewish state, prompting an Israeli military response – she tweeted that “the apartheid Israeli regime” had “hypnotized the world” in order to conceal its own “evil doings.”
Omar served as a senior policy aide to Minneapolis City Council member Andrew Johnson from 2013-15. During her tenure in that position, Omar acknowledged that she was a friend of several young men who had joined al-Shabab, a Somali jihadist terror group allied with al-Qaeda, several years earlier. “They were happy young men,” said Omar. “And then at some point, something happened. And that is what needs to be researched and studied. What is happening to make them feel disconnected from a community that has birthed them, that has nurtured them?”
Over the years, Omar has given multiple interviews to the Arab-American television host Ahmed Tharwat, who characterizes Israel as the “Jewish ISIS” and has compared members of Hamas to victims of the Holocaust. In the wake of a 2013 Islamic terrorist bombing that killed nearly 70 people in a Kenyan shopping mall, Omar and Tharwat discussed how news of that attack may have affected the way Americans were treating Muslims in the United States. When Tharwat asserted that “terrorism is a reaction” to injustices inflicted by the U.S. and other antagonists, Omar agreed: “Yes…. Nobody wants to face how the actions of the other people that are involved in the world have contributed to the rise of the radicalization and the rise of terrorist acts. Usually most people want to not look internal and see what their actions that makes another react. For us [Americans], it’s always ‘I must have not done anything. Why is it happening to me?’ Nobody wants to take accountability of how these are byproducts of the actions of our involvement in other people’s affairs.”
Of course, Rep. Omar is also supported by CAIR – The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a very vocal organizations which, while representing itself as being Moderate, refused to blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11 and claim that Palestinian Suicide Terror Attacks are a justifiable reaction to Israeli brutality.
Why was this vile woman placed on the House Committee on Foreign Relations?
That is as stupid as the United Nations placing countries known for producing Radical Islamic Terrorism on their Security Council.
It is not only time to remove Rep. Omar from the Foreign Relations Committee, she needs to be booted out of the House of Representatives.
However, the Far Left Democrats will not follow either of my suggestions because, in their hearts, they are as anti-Semitic as Rep. Omar is….and as anti-American.
Having more experience being professional politicians, they just know when to keep their mouths shut.
Kingsjester's Blog 