Russian Hacking: It’s Real, Part I

I as well as millions of other Americans tired long ago about the reports we saw and heard over and over that “experts” continued to harass us with claiming “We know factually that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election in coordinated efforts to denigrate Hillary Clinton and to assist Donald Trump’s win of the White House.”

”Factually” is the word that perked me up: at TruthNewsNetwork we research, always digging for facts. I’m sure you will understand that when we are told by “experts” that something politically is “factual,” our stomachs turn and our heads ache because the belief that what political “experts” tell us today are “facts,” we are pretty certain they are NOT facts.

But in our patience and continued research, we have unearthed some facts about 2016 that support those Russian interference claims in 2016 with apparent attempts to discredit Clinton. We had significant help from other news sources in putting this together. (See credits at the end of this report) But saying this has been a difficult task and that there has been little cooperation from our normal sources is a gross understatement.

This report will be our ONLY such report going forward, so it is lengthy and detailed. We will present it in two parts to make it easier to digest. And we’ll hold our Summary until the end of Part II that you’ll see tomorrow.

Read carefully! There’s much “meat” in this. And it explains much and answers many questions you may have. But it will also initiate new questions for you. Let’s go!

The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election

I knew that the Russians had attempted on numerous occasions to impact the elections of foreign countries. So do the Chinese, and, for that matter, so does the United States! We’ve reported on those in previous reports here at TruthNewsNetwork. That being said, my assumption has always been that the NSA and the CIA as the two foremost U.S. intelligence agencies on the frontlines of defense of the nation’s IT infrastructure stopped every threat. Surely their protections extended into our election system. Because of the cloak of secrecy that covers both agencies, I assumed it was for that secrecy that none of their methods were known to the public.

I was shocked to learn that those “experts” probably were right. What was a bigger surprise was the way the Russians had sneaked into our IT infrastructure.

It’s not surprising the Russians use spies. They always do. We do, China does, and every other country on Earth does too. But apparently, the Russians in 2016 didn’t (at least on the most part) use actual Russian spies. They created “fake” Americans to be their spies.

Russian Spies in America

Melvin Redick of Harrisburg, PA, a friendly-looking American with a backward baseball cap and a young daughter, posted on Facebook a link to a brand-new website.

“These guys show hidden truth about Hillary Clinton, George Soros and other leaders of the US,” he wrote on June 8, 2016. “Visit #DCLeaks website. It’s really interesting!”

Mr. Redick turned out to be a remarkably elusive character. No Melvin Redick appears in Pennsylvania records, and his photos seem to be borrowed from an unsuspecting Brazilian. But this fictional concoction has earned a small spot in history: The Redick posts that morning were among the first public signs of an unprecedented foreign intervention in American democracy.

The DCLeaks site had gone live a few days earlier, posting the first samples of material, stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers, that would reverberate through the presidential election campaign and into the Trump presidency. The site’s phony promoters were in a cyber army of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled.

The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the onslaught of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far more difficult to trace was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into the sources of deception and propaganda.

An investigation by The New York Times and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. Recently, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign.

On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages. Many were automated Twitter accounts, called bots, that sometimes fired off identical messages seconds apart — and in the exact alphabetical order of their made-up names, according to the FireEye researchers. On Election Day, for instance, they found that one group of Twitter bots sent out the hashtag #WarAgainstDemocrats more than 1,700 times.

The Russian efforts were sometimes crude, with a trial-and-error feel, and many of the suspect posts were not widely shared. The fakery may have added only modestly to the din of genuine American voices in the pre-election melee, but it helped fuel a fire of anger and suspicion in a polarized country.

A Times investigation reveals missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of a campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

Given the powerful role of social media in political contests, understanding the Russian efforts will be crucial in preventing similar, or more sophisticated, attacks in the 2020 congressional races and the presidential election. Multiple government agencies have investigated the Russian attack, though it remains unclear whether any agency is focused specifically on tracking foreign intervention in social media. Both Facebook and Twitter say they are studying the 2016 experience and how to defend against such meddling.

“We know we have to stay vigilant to keep ahead of people who try to misuse our platform,” Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, wrote in a post about the Russia-linked fake accounts and ads. “We believe in protecting the integrity of civic discourse.”

Critics say that because shareholders judge the companies partly based on a crucial data point — “monthly active users” — they are reluctant to police their sites too aggressively for fear of reducing that number. Remember: Facebook and Twitter are free to users. Advertising pays the bills AND investors their stock dividends. The more accounts, the more ads get sold and at higher prices.

The companies use technical tools and teams of analysts to detect bogus accounts, but the scale of the sites — 328 million users on Twitter, nearly two billion on Facebook — means they often remove impostors only in response to complaints.

Though both companies have been slow to grapple with the problem of manipulation, they have stepped up efforts to purge fake accounts. Facebook says it takes down a million accounts a day — including some that were related to the most recent French election and upcoming German voting — but struggles to keep up with the illicit activity. Still, the company says the abuse affects only a small fraction of the social network; Facebook officials estimated that of all the “civic content” posted on the site in connection with the United States election, less than one-tenth of one percent resulted from “information operations” like the Russian campaign.

Twitter, unlike Facebook, does not require the use of a real name and does not prohibit automated accounts, arguing that it seeks to be a forum for open debate. But it constantly updates a “trends” list of most-discussed topics or hashtags, and it says it tries to foil attempts to use bots to create fake trends. However, FireEye found that the suspected Russian bots sometimes managed to do just that, in one case causing the hashtag #HillaryDown to be listed as a trend.

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent who has closely tracked Russian activity online said that Facebook and Twitter suffered from a “bot cancer eroding trust on their platforms.” But he added that while Facebook “has begun cutting out the tumors by deleting false accounts and fighting fake news,” Twitter has done little and as a result, “bots have only spread since the election.”

Asked to comment, Twitter referred to a blog post in June in which it said it was “doubling down” on efforts to prevent manipulation but could not reveal details for fear of tipping off those trying to evade the company’s measures. But it declared that Twitter’s “open and real-time nature is a powerful antidote” to falsehoods.

“This is important because we cannot distinguish whether every single Tweet from every person is truthful or not,” the statement said. “We, as a company, should not be the arbiter of truth.”

Part I Wrapup

During an interview with the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, Barack Obama denounced the conspiracy theory that Russians tampered with the American voting process. “We were frankly more concerned in the run-up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of,” he admitted. “And we’re confident that we can guard against.”

Then Breitbart.com reported that: Obama downplayed the hack of a private email account of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, defending his administration for revealing in October that the Russian government was connected.

“None of this should be a big surprise,” Obama said, “Russia trying to influence our elections dates back to the Soviet Union.” Obama dismissed the hack and the leaked emails as “not very interesting” and lacking “explosive” revelations. He puzzled as to why it was an “obsession” by the news media despite the knowledge that the Russians were responsible.

He also criticized President-elect Donald Trump for calling on the Russian government to hack Hillary’s emails to reveal the contents of the deleted emails from her private server, and reminded the audience that Trump had campaign officials connected to Russia.

“What’s happened to our political system where some emails that were hacked and released ended up being the overwhelming story, and the constant source of coverage – breathless coverage – that was depicted as somehow damning in all sorts of ways when the truth of the matter was it was fairly routine stuff?” he said.

Watch (and Listen) closely to exactly what Obama said to Trevor Noah about Russian hacking in 2016:

What I find interesting is how the former President of the United States, who had just completed 8 years in office, downplayed in this interview just after the election of Donald Trump the seriousness of the role the Russians played in the 2016 election and apparently in previous elections — perhaps even his own in 2008 and 2012!  The book is still out on that.

In Part 2, we will look further into what actually happened with the Russians in 2016 and how it happened. We discuss the impact it made on vote totals and what has happened regarding Russian election hacking in our elections since 2016. You don’t want to miss it! Catch it first thing tomorrow at www.TruthNewsNet.org!

 

Play

Attorney General Barr: “SpyGate Crucifixion”

The Department of Justice released news that the redacted version of the Mueller Report will be made available to Congress and the American public Thursday morning, April 18, 2019. That will be a memorable day in American history that most on both sides of the political spectrum have been salivating over while waiting. And based on the “summary” sent to Congress shortly after Mueller announced he had finished and sent his final report to the DOJ, both sides will probably find red meat in the full version. We need to discuss that. But before we do, “if” you read Attorney General Barr’s summary letter, you’ve probably forgotten most of it. We’ll talk about specifics he included. But before we do, here’s a link to his summary. Please read it again.

Attorney General Summary of Mueller Report

Our Thoughts

While reading Attorney General Barr’s letter, several things became obvious to us:

  • The AG included Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the process of digesting Mueller’s near 400-page report, dissecting its parts, and determining the reasoning for Mueller’s findings, and the included evidence in the report that supports his not taking any further actions via indictments;
  • The investigation was exhaustive. Mueller employed 19 attorneys who had help from 40 FBI agents, “intelligence analysts, forensic accountants….”
  • Mueller issued more than 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, more than 230 “orders for communication records,” 50 more orders authorizing the use of “pen registers,” 13 requests of foreign governments for evidence, and 500 witnesses were interviewed; (A pen register, or dialed number recorder (DNR), is an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line)
  • While Mueller referred several other matters to various legal offices for further investigation, Mueller did not recommend any further indictments;
  • Also, Mueller did not obtain any sealed indictments of which details are still unknown and if existing, might lead to further legal actions.

Regarding the two areas that the Special Counsel and his team investigated in this matter — collusion by members of the Trump Campaign or the President with Russia and possible obstruction of justice by the President — Mueller concluded there was NO collusion with Russia committed. Secondly, there was not sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice to prove that “beyond a reasonable doubt” any such obstruction occurred. (IMPORTANT: we will go into detail on “Alleged Obstruction” below)

The Investigation DID conclude that the Russians DID attempt to impact the 2016 presidential election. “The first involved attempts by a Russian organization to conduct disinformation and social media operation in the U.S. designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.”

The second element involved the Russian government’s “efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.”

According to this summary, there is NO doubt that the Russians were definitely working hard to influence our election. But it is important to remember that they have been doing that for years, and not just to the U.S. For that matter, the United States has on numerous occasions attempted in numerous ways to impact the national elections of other foreign countries! In fact, TruthNewsNetwork has detailed the specifics of several of those. To be honest, the Chinese, the French, British, and even modern-day Germany is known for doing so.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections! In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions. (See our story with complete details published here February 18th of 2018)

Special Counsel Mueller’s Methodology is Suspicious

Do you like me wonder why Mueller would with so many investigative resources at his disposal — subpoenas, grand juries, witness questioning, and testimony, cutting deals with people — using 19 of the most well-known investigative attorneys in U.S. history, spending a reported $25 million over 2 years would NOT give a conclusion in his report regarding both Russia collusion AND Obstruction of Justice? Conventional wisdom says “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” which means to most “if there is proof/evidence of any obstruction of justice indictments should be made.”

Why did Mueller — if there was an obstruction on the part of the President — not take the evidence to a grand jury to get an indictment? And if there was NO evidence of obstruction, why did he NOT say so in his report? (No, the report is not out yet, but Barr’s summary plainly states that Mueller instigated no indictments of the President) There are two reasons or excuses:

  1. Those on the Left immediately upon reading Barr’s letter stated the reason Mueller did not indict Trump for obstruction was because most believe a sitting president CANNOT be indicted for obstruction of justice, and that Mueller was afraid that a huge federal court battle would be initiated if he had pushed for an indictment of the President that would keep the furor going  for another two years or so to the chagrin of Americans.
  2. Our conclusion is the second: that Mueller’s team could not (at least by a majority of those 19 attorneys with Mueller added) unite on an obstruction decision. It appears that one or several of those Mueller attorneys — almost all of which are Democrats and are not fond of President Trump — thought that not recommending indicting this president would initiate even more investigations by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and even by the federal Southern District of New York. In that scenario, the rage, anger, and vitriol from the Left would continue and certainly even heighten in intensity while those additional investigations go on. And their feeling is certain that all of the unknowns and continuous allegations and questions without answers would guarantee the President’s credibility and integrity would be attacked by the attack dog media all the way through the 2020 elections.

The Mueller Investigation is the first one in U.S. history that occurred at the federal level in which NO conclusion was reached! THAT’S why the Mueller report left the question unanswered, “Did Donald Trump commit Obstruction of Justice?”

Summary

I would love to say that Mueller’s report will bring to an end to what the President has continually called “A Witch Hunt.” But it will not. Think about it: Democrats are desperate. Yes, they won the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. Yes, the Democrats have a choke-hold on the media who breathlessly and continuously perpetrate whatever the Democrat talking point “of the day” is each and every day.

But there are more “matters” that few are talking about. As of last week, there are more than 82,000 sealed federal indictments, some issued by federal courts in each one of the federal courts in all 50 states, all issued and sealed since November of 2017. Some expected some of those would be “Mueller indictments.” But according to his report, he obtained no indictments that were or are sealed. And no one is certain for whom those name, how many, or who initiated them. But it’s a serious matter. In U.S. history, no more than 3000 have been issued in a 12-month period. Something is up there.

And there’s one more thing: Attorney General Barr lit the media world up when he responded to a Senator’s questions in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing when he testifed before that committee. Listen/watch closely to his responses:

Attorney General Barr made it clear that the DOJ is looking into spying during the 2016 campaign against the Trump Campaign. Immediately after the hearing, the media went into a frenzy about his statements. Several stated “He has no evidence. If he had proof he would have given it during the hearing,” and “AG Barr showed he’s nothing more than a mouthpiece and conspiracy theorist for President Trump.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you listen to his responses in the video and audio given above, you hear him respond to the Senator’s question about any evidence NOT by saying he has no evidence, but by saying this, “I am not going to discuss the evidence NOW. I’m going to wait for details to be finalized and I’ll come back with my report.”

There’s a BIG difference between what he said and that he HAS NO EVIDENCE.

So what can we expect when the report is released? More chaos, more vitriol, more media and political attacks against Attorney General Barr and, of course, President Trump. And what good can possibly come from it all? The Democrats will get exactly what they want and need: more negativity about President Trump and his Administration. They’ll scream louder and blame more, and in doing so, keep the anti-Trump rhetoric alive with absolutely no proof of any of the allegations!

Remember this: The Democrat Party has NO unity right now, NO real leadership, NO party platform for 2020. The only thing they have to use against the President is THE MUELLER REPORT! And since there’s “no there-there,” they MUST manufacture their own brand of truth.

But don’t think the other side will sit idly by. You can bet the President will amp up his twitter account, his campaign rally derision of Democrats and each 2020 candidate.

It’s not going to be fun very long. I promise Americans will (if they haven’t already) get tired of the constant back and forth between camps. I just hope Americans can stand solid for facts, not get distracted by more allegations without truth, and certainly do not lose sight of the massive swing to all things Left by every one of the Democrat 2020 presidential candidates.

Socialism has never and is not now working for ANY country in the World.

If that’s the only reason to re-elect Donald Trump that can be found, it certainly will be good enough!

Play

Electoral College: Who Decides?

No other part of our election system is as important as the Electoral College. No other part of our election system has come under fire through the years since its establishment than the Electoral College. The furor over its existence ebbs and flows through cycles. But in recent presidential elections that were decided by the voting results of the Electoral College which totals were different than the results of the American popular vote have put discussions about ending the Electoral College front and center again.

It IS controversial. And that controversy in large part is the result of American voters not understanding its structure, its purpose, and its controversy. Those Americans that are confused pretty much all subscribe to the thinking “Why even have it at all, especially when in 2000 the Bush 43 election and then in the 2016 Trump election its results (and ultimately the presidency and vice presidency) were decided by other than popular vote totals of ALL Americans?”

So in all the confusion and misunderstanding, we thought it best to delve into ALL the details of the Electoral College so everyone can participate in educated discourse about its value, its history, and its impact on the country going forward.

Let’s take a look, after which in our Summary we will share OUR conclusions.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College members for each state are voted on by the state’s residents on voting day. In some states, the electors’ names are printed on the ballots directly under the presidential candidates’ names or grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. In other states, the names of electoral college nominees are not even listed on the ballot.

When you vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, you are really voting for the electors of the political party (or unaffiliated candidate) by which they were nominated. Take the North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, for example: “A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors.”

This is the case for 48 states. It’s known as the winner-take-all system, where all electors go with the candidate who wins the popular vote regardless of how close the vote is. So if the Democratic candidate narrowly wins the popular vote in Texas, for instance, 38 Democratic electors (38 being the total number of electoral votes in the state) will represent Texas as a voting block.

The other system, known as the congressional district method, is observed in Maine and Nebraska. In these states, the vote is split between the electoral vote which goes to the winner of the statewide popular vote and the congressional district vote. The state is divided into congressional districts, each with one electoral vote. The winner of the popular vote in each district is awarded an electoral vote. Potentially, this could result in a divided electoral vote but so far it has not happened in either state.

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in the state he or she represents, or for the candidate affiliated with his or her political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people’s decision. When electors cast their vote without following the popular vote or their party vote, they are known as faithless electors.

In response to faithless electors’ actions, at least two dozen states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine. For example, the state of North Carolina fines faithless electors $10,000. However, a number of scholars believe such state-level laws would not survive constitutional challenge; of the 158 faithless electors, none have ever been punished.

In most presidential elections, the candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. Some electors abstain from voting, while others vote differently than they pledged to vote. Despite 11th hour changes within the Electoral College, only five candidates in U.S. history have won an election by losing the popular vote and winning (or deadlocking) the electoral vote:

  • 1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received some 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
  • 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado’s three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.
  • 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country, he lost by more than 300,000 votes [source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration].
  • In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. The race was so close in Florida that ineffectively punched ballots (known as “hanging chads”) required a manual recount because the voter intent couldn’t be deciphered by machine. Eventually, Bush was awarded the state of Florida by the U.S. Supreme Court and had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore’s 266 electoral votes.
  • 2016: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million over Donald Trump, the largest margin by a presidential loser in U.S. history. But Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. He won all the Great Lakes states that traditionally vote Democrat, plus four big battleground states (including Florida and Michigan) by less than 1 percentage point. Clinton had bigger leads in fewer, but more populous states, like California.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Play

Over The Top

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of Thursday, April 11, 2019, 50% of Americans approve of President Trump’s job while 49% disapprove. In light of the incessant negative noise that permeates throughout the United States from media reports, achieving that 50% approval number is significant.

While we are considering thoughts about the President, what about Congress? According to Real Clear Politics polling division, as of April 9, 2019, just 18% of Americans approve of the job performance of members of Congress while 61% disapprove. Why do you think that is? And do you think the media might have something to do with that low approval number for members of Congress?

Let’s look at what Americans think about the media. Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year. Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans’ trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans’ trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

To those of us at TruthNewsNetwork, the combined low approval ratings by Americans of members of Congress AND the media are tied directly together. In objectively reviewing both groups, one can reasonably compute that American distrust of its elected leaders AND validity of what the media disseminate daily go hand in hand.

Why?

Great question. Under today’s circumstances, it is critical for Americans — including those in Congress AND the media — to finally and in earnest open discussions to “right the ship” of the distrust of Americans for both groups. Can those honest conversations begin? Will they begin?

If we base our hopes on what happened yesterday (Wednesday) and the day before (Tuesday) that set fires previously unseen in the media and in Congress, our hopes are already dashed! Attorney General Barr in yesterday’s Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing lit the fire when said this:

He actually used the word “Spying!” His saying that has set the media world on fire, also among Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who said that Attorney General William Barr was “going off the rails,” citing his public testimony over the past two days that appeared to support President Donald Trump’s claims that his campaign was spied on by the intelligence community in 2016.

“How very, very dismaying and disappointing that the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails,” Pelosi said at the start of Democrats’ annual retreat. “He is the Attorney General of the United States, not the attorney general of Donald Trump,” she said. 

Pelosi’s comments, which followed an Associated Press interview featuring similarly harsh criticism of Barr, followed two days of appearances by the attorney general on Capitol Hill in which he said he wouldn’t provide Congress with an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and raised concerns that the government was “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016.
It came as no surprise that media outlets took the lead from Congressional Democrats and started in on Barr with furor unseen in quite a while. CNN got things started:

CNN — Congressional Democrats are furious over Attorney General William Barr’s statement Wednesday that Donald Trump’s campaign was spied on, accusing the attorney general of mischaracterizing the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation in an effort to please President Donald Trump.

Barr’s comments are likely to ratchet up Democrats’ unease over the attorney general that’s already simmering over Barr’s role in the Mueller investigation and the decision there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice.
“I’m amazed that the AG would make that kind of statement, I think it’s in many ways disrespectful to the men and women who work in the DOJ, and it shows, I think, either a lack of understanding or willful ignorance on what goes into a counterintelligence investigation,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN. “He almost seems to be endorsing one of these theories that have been debunked time and time again by the various, even House Republican-led, investigations trying to show some kind of resentment,” Warner added.
Not to be left out of the relentless attacks on the Attorney General, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) piped in:
Chuck Schumer accused Attorney General William Barr of spreading conspiracy theories on Wednesday after the Justice Department chief said he thinks “spying did occur” on President Trump’s 2016 campaign. In a terse tweet, Schumer demanded a retraction from Barr.

“AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign ‘did occur.’ AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up. Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Reality

If anyone wonders about American distrust of Congress and the media, this back-and-forth unanimous attack by Democrats and members of the media illustrate the reason for the distrust better than any one person can explain. What Congressional Democrats AND members of the media have not even mentioned are the “facts” that are known already. These “facts” are those that have appeared over the last two years as the basis for the investigations of all things going on regarding tampering in the 2016 Election. And there are plenty of pieces of evidence of such that have resulted in ongoing (yet quiet) investigations by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz and former Federal Attorney Jim Huber out in Utah. Those investigations have been quietly underway for more than a year. And the “facts” that initiated those two investigations are the “facts” on which AG Barr based his “Spying” comments in his testimony. Obviously, Democrats and the media ignore those two investigations AND those widely known facts.

What are they? Here are some “Facts:”

  1. The Steele Dossier.  We will not even discuss the details of that expose prepared by former FBI informant Christopher Steele on behalf of the Clinton Campaign who paid Steele for what they called “opposition research.” It was nothing more than a fake story that we just found out had existed for years, but was reshaped and edited to implicate Donald Trump for the Clinton Campaign. We know for certain that dossier was an important part of the FISA warrant application if not THE important information that began the FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign that later became a key element of the Mueller Investigation. Former FBI Director Comey testified before Congress that the FBI knew that dossier was unverified as to its truthfulness. Christopher Steele himself testified in court that HE could not verify its validity. And he’s the one who wrote it!
  2. Trump Campaign Surveillance. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers may have notified Team Trump of Obama’s Intelligence Community (James Clapper and John Brennan) spying on their activity. As you look at the FISA request dates below, it’s important to note that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers would be keenly aware of both the June request – Denied, and the October request – Granted.  Pay specific attention to the October request. “October”!.

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

♦ On Tuesday November 8th, 2016 the election was held.  Results announced Wednesday November 9th, 2016.

♦ On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

♦ On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position:

The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower. That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.

Remember, historically The Washington Post is the preferred outlet for the CIA and Intelligence Community within Deep State to dump their “leaks” and stories.  The State Department “leaks” to CNN for the same purposes.

♦ On Saturday November 19th Reuters reported on the WaPo Story and additional pressure by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and DNI James Clapper to fire Mike Rogers.

Many feel that NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme (Clapper, Brennan, etc.), which was the baseline for President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into the Obama labyrinth underlying his remaining loyalists.  After the October spying operation went into effect, Rogers unknown loyalty was a risk to the Obama objective.  10 Days after the election Rogers travels to President-Elect Trump without notifying those who were involved in the intel scheme.

Did NSA Director Mike Rogers wait for a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) to be set up in Trump Tower, and then notify the President-elect he was being monitored by President Obama?

Summary

It is clear to Americans that there IS plenty of detail exposed to the public in the two-plus years of the Mueller Investigation that it is likely something was going on regarding some type of “spying” on the Trump Campaign. What is still unknown is who did it, what was its purpose(s), and if its implementation and operation was justified under U.S. laws that regulate surveillance of Americans.

It is further clear to Americans that Democrat leadership and media pundits are obviously in the tank for Democrats. How else can one explain how they can possibly justify ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room that has already pooped on the floor? Attorney General Barr simply made it clear that, when he was asked, an investigation into the specific details of that already known surveillance was legal and legitimate.

But the media and Democrats both ignore his revealed purposes AND have done nothing but attempt to destroy the impeccable reputation he developed and earned from both Republicans and Democrats over decades. That’s the way they operate.

“If” they had really listened to the attorney general, and “If” they really cared about truth, they would be instead of attacking Mr. Barr nonstop would be talking about what he stated further into that testimony. As always, we at TruthNewsNetwork have it all for you:

“Later, Barr was asked twice whether he wanted to clarify his statement. Barr first said he wanted to make sure no ‘unauthorized surveillance’ occurred, and then offered up his own clarification at the conclusion of the hearing.

‘I just want to make it clear, thinking back on all the different colloquies here, that I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred,’Barr said. ‘I’m saying that I am concerned about it and looking into it, that’s all.’

When Barr spoke of ‘spying,’ according to a source familiar with his thinking, he meant it in the ‘classic sense’ of intelligence collection. The source said Barr doesn’t view the term as ‘pejorative’ and is focused on where there was proper ‘predication’ for any surveillance. The source said Barr did not use the term ‘spying’ in order to throw red meat to Trump and those who have voiced concerns over surveillance tactics.”

Here’s the sad part of this entire story. Our elected officials — and NOT just Democrats in Congress, but every member of Congress — each take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the United States. Taking care of U.S. citizens and protecting everything to do with our nation is their Job #1. To that end, they each should be concentrating on those things that come into the lives of Americans that attack the one thing that differentiates our government from other world governments: “The Rule of Law.” That means anytime any law enforcement agency uncovers such a possible attack, prudence AND their oath of office dictates that a true and full investigation must be conducted to either prove the attack was not real and was not going to happen, or to vett details, determine the specifics of the wrongdoing, and guarantee those responsible are brought to justice.

But in this case we watch as members of the media and Congressional Democrats go stark raving crazy because the senior law enforcement official of the United States — Attorney General William Barr — when asked in a Congressional hearing states he is making certain that the acts of surveillance that occurred against the Trump Campaign that are known to have happened were legal, warranted, and conducted in the legal and proper manner. Something’s not right about that!

Would Democrats and the media prefer that even though it is known that such surveillance occurred to turn a blind eye and just ignore the possibility of such surveillance being illegal in nature? Normally the answer would be “Certainly not!” Sadly though, it appears that Democrats and the media don’t want the truth of the matter to be confirmed OR that they want the possible wrongdoing to remain hidden.

THAT’S THE REASON WHY AMERICANS DON’T APPROVE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND DON’T TRUST THE MEDIA TO TELL THE TRUTH!

Play

Democrats Dig In

It was a House Budget Appropriations Subcommittee meeting with Attorney General William Barr. One would think it was the House or Senate Judiciary Committee because Democrats to a person on that subcommittee drilled the Attorney General about the Mueller Report. “Russia, Russia, Russia!” Very little referenced Department of Justice appropriations. Even in her opening remarks, the Chairperson of the full House Appropriations Committee, Nita Lowery (D-NY), attacked the A.G. for not already releasing the full Mueller Report to the World, AND that he chose to send to Congress a 4-page “Summary Letter” — her words, not his — instead of simply releasing the approximate 400-page Mueller Report in its entirety to the American people.

Fortunately for all those members of Congress in the room, Attorney General Barr immediately when asked explained how the report will be released:

  1. It WILL include redactions. Those redactions (according to the A.G.) will occur in 4 specific areas. One is to keep confidential details of the significant number of cases that are currently still being litigated by various courts; Two is pursuant to federal law the redactions will include details of grand jury testimony that legally cannot be released; Three is to protect the identities and details of confidential investigators, their witnesses, and their ongoing investigation details of cases; and Four is the complete details of those who were investigated by the Mueller team but were not implicated or indicted.
  2. A.G. Barr stated his intentions are to color code each redaction in his report so as to identify which of these 4 categories apply to all redacted material.
  3. When asked, the Attorney General stated details of a case decided last week by the Washington D.C. Federal Appeals Court confirming the law that prevents grand jury testimony and identities from being released publicly and that the DOJ will comply with that law.

Under United States law, there are certain details of the report that Barr is prohibited from revealing, including details about individuals connected to the investigation who have not been charged with any crime. Bob Mueller indicted 37 people and probably investigated more than that and many of them were not indicted, and material about them can’t be released. That’s NOT an “opinion” of someone at the DOJ — it’s in the law.

One conservative pundit explained Democrats scurry to get the full Mueller report said the Democratic push for the full release of the Mueller report is not a legal argument at this point, but a political one. “Democrats want to know what is in there that is negative about the President, but not negative enough to meet the level of beyond a reasonable doubt that prosecutors have to meet in order to charge him. They don’t need to know it, they want to know it for political reasons.”

Here’s “The Rest of the Story:” The Law

Pursuant to 28 CFR § 600.8: “At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” The counsel’s report is to be “handled as a confidential document as are internal documents relating to any federal criminal investigation.”

The attorney general also has an obligation to share the special counsel’s findings with Congress, although there is no duty to disclose the full report. Under 28 CFR § 600.9(a)(3), the attorney general must provide to the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, “to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” According to Barr, “There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

The regulations are silent on whether the Judiciary Committees can release the reports given to them from the attorney general. With regard to the full special counsel report, the decision is in the hands of the attorney general. Under 28 CFR § 600.9(c), “The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”

Democrats “Change” History

You may be old enough to remember the Bill Clinton/Ken Starr Whitewater Investigation that rocked along for years and resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (Of course, the Senate declined to confirm his impeachment) Under the law that was used to start and operate Ken Starr’s investigation of Clinton, there was NO stipulation regarding the release of Starr’s report when the investigation was completed. Starr chose to release the full report to the public. Democrats went NUTS! Current House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) was a member of Congress at the time and went absolutely mad in public at the release of the full Starr report, and the certainty of the damage that release would do to the Department of Justice and its sources.

Nadler was not by himself. Numerous other Democrats expressed the same feelings. But it’s different in THIS Special Counsel Report. Of course! This president is not a Democrat. Enough said.

“Congress has asked for the entire Mueller report, and underlying evidence, by April 2. That deadline stands,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said last Friday after Barr said he would provide the full Mueller report to Congress by mid-April. “In the meantime, Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material.” He added: “Redactions are unacceptable.

Schiff in making the above statement made a 180 degree turn from his previous stance on the public release of similar information.

 

Schiff (D-CA) is one of several Democrats who blasted then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), during the last Congress for releasing a GOP memo on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The memo described the unverified Trump “dossier” as critical for obtaining surveillance warrants to spy on a Trump campaign aide. The GOP memo, which was also four pages long, was released in an unredacted and declassified format, with White House approval.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said at the time that President Trump’s decision to release an unredacted version of the memo was a danger to national security. “President Trump has surrendered his constitutional responsibility as Commander-in-Chief by releasing highly classified and distorted intelligence,” Pelosi said in a statement on Feb. 2, 2018. “By not protecting intelligence sources and methods, he just sent his friend Putin a bouquet.”

Following the release of the report, Schiff, who was the ranking member of the committee at the time, joined with Democrats on the committee to declare the GOP memo “risks exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.”

The only difference of current Attorney General Barr NOT releasing the full Mueller Report as written is because the report is regarding an investigation of alleged wrongdoing by members of the Trump Campaign in conjunction with Russia during the 2016 election cycle — a claim that was totally debunked by the Special Counsel.

Democrats reasoning? Totally based on allegations — NO PROOF!

     Schiff and Nadler

One more thought: Democrats Schiff, Swalwell (D-CA) and Nadler have each made subsequent claims — even after the completion of the Mueller investigation in which he found there to be NO wrongdoing by the Trump Campaign — maintain there has been and is absolute evidence of Russian collusion during the election by the Trump Campaign.

It is laughable that these three with their weighty Congressional obligations of leadership and purported claims to embrace full transparency have NEVER offered up to the DOJ or Robert Mueller that evidence they claim to have that implicates the President. In this journalist’s opinion, IF they actually have such evidence that would implicate the President of illegal activities, their NOT providing it in its entirety to DOJ officials or the Mueller investigators would in itself be Obstruction of Justice!

 

Summary

Let’s just be completely honest. Democrats are proving, again and again, they have NO agenda other than doing anything to get rid of Donald Trump. Remember the definition we gave you two years ago that explains the difference between Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republicans? If you don’t remember, here it is again: Republicans do not like it when someone holds opposite political positions than they do. Democrats not only do not like it when someone holds opposite political positions, but they also HATE THE PEOPLE THAT HOLD THOSE VIEWS!

“You’re being a bit cruel, Dan,” some will say. “Democrats just have different ideas.” While that definitely is true, Dems formerly were only too glad to enter into discussions with those with opposing views, respecting the rights of others to disagree. We don’t see that anymore. Democrats have been bolstered in presenting their “alt-left” ideas to the public in a new and dangerous way: media attack dogs have actually weaponized the delivery of Democrat messaging. It all revolves around this theorem: “Of course anyone can hold a differing opinion. But they’re wrong in holding that opinion. And because they don’t believe the same things Democrats do, they are not only wrong, they are evil as are their ideas!”

How can Democrat leaders expect to garner sufficient votes from the American populace to win the Senate and the White House in 2020? As shown in the 2016 presidential election, there are not enough Democrat voters in the nation to give them the margin necessary to win. Are they so bold as to think the current noise and hatred being spewed by the 18 declared Democrat candidates for president in 2020 will make-up enough votes to push them over the top? Surely not! Yet their actions on a daily basis seem to show that is exactly what they are thinking.

Meanwhile, the American economy is soaring, unemployment in every sector is at historical lows, job creation is through the roof, and paychecks are increasing take-home pay for those in the middle class. All of these were promises made by Donald Trump as a candidate that he has somehow through all the noise and venom emanating from the Left put in place for Americans. And the Attack Dogs in the media simply ignore these facts choosing instead to concentrate on one thing: “Dump Trump!”

I’ll close by saying this: I must be stupid. I cannot — try as I do — understand why ANY American voter would support any of the 18 declared Democrat presidential candidates and the two others expected to jump in when all they do is scream AGAINST President Trump, totally ignoring the significant accomplishments listed above and the many others by this administration.

I don’t want to say Democrats are stupid. In fact, I know they are not. But one thing is abundantly clear: “IF” Democrats are NOT stupid if they expect the support of the limited legitimate policies that they are promising to Americans they will implement if elected, they definitely think American voters are stupid!

And you know what? I think I’ve hit on something: I think Democrats not only hate President Trump and all he stands for, I think they feel exactly the same about his conservative supporters!

Play

Donald Trump: He’s Different (Duh!…..)

He Fights

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.

We tried statesmanship.

Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as did John McCain?

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality, and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob. I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatred because racial hatred serves the Democrat Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.

I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery, and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality, and propriety. With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking soldier. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum then, Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, but he’s also defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. First, instead of going after “the fake media” — and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri — Trump isolated CNN.. He made it personal.

Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”… Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. They need to respond.

This leaves them with only two choices. They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s church. Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

So, to my friends on the Left — and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper?” Of course, I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it – he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights for America!

Summary

(This is from TruthNewsNet staff)

Here’s the biggest problem in understanding and acceptance of the way the U.S. government functions. The government does NOT operate as a smoothly running machine. It operates more like an ancient Model T that requires constant surveillance to keep it running. Members of Congress are like family members. Mom wants Dad to slow down. She is constantly telling him he’s not paying attention to the road. Kids need to stop every 3 miles for a bathroom break. Meanwhile, they have a flat tire and the engine overheats.

Does that sounda little like the U.S. Government?

Somebody has got to be the “designated driver.” That’s President Trump — at least for the next 2 years. There will be some who are riding in the car that can’t stand the windows down, hate his driving, but they go ahead and ride with him because that’s the only way to get where they need to go.

And the driver — President Trump — always gets them there. That’s really the only thing that matters.

“MAGA” — There are those that try to spin what that stands for into racism, hatred, elitism, etc. But what it stands for is all the promises made by Candidate Trump that he would fulfill if voters elected him President. His promise was “if” he won the presidency, and “if” he was given the opportunities, and “if” Congress would pass applicable laws and fund as necessary, he would “Make America Great Again.” Despite many who detest Mr. Trump, every member of his family, his Cabinet, and Republican leadership in D.C., he’s pretty much accomplished all that he possibly could so far. And most Americans realize that he would have accomplished far more “if” the laws and resources necessary for the other parts of his platform had been made available.

Few can argue that on almost every front, America is much greater in 2019 than it was in 2016. (Oh, they can argue, but not justifiably or truthfully.)

Where does the nation go from here? That’s up to Americans. He’ll be in the driver’s seat for another couple of years. And every day he gets behind the wheel and starts driving down the road. Even with all the complaining and unnecessary pit stops and the occasional flat tire, that Model T keeps moving down the road pretty well.

As far as this American is concerned, that’s the way it’s supposed to happen!

Play

Illegal Voting in our Nation

It is becoming more and more obvious that Democrats are dead-set on finding ways to allow illegals to vote in U.S. elections. Their reasons are many, but all rely on one basic premise that is being confirmed again and again as being true: rank and file Democrats who have voted for their party’s candidates are falling to the wayside. More and more are becoming true independents while many are deciding they are conservatives. This is due in part by the dramatic slide to the left in Democrat Party policies. As an example, economically comparing 1960 J.F.K.’s tax policies to those of this Democrat Party would define President Kennedy as an outright hard right conservative!

Each American understands the dangers in our two-party political system. We will not go into the details of its structure nor the good or evil each possess in their methods, but it IS important for all to understand this one thing: membership in the Democrat Party in America is NOT growing. In fact, their membership is sliding away. Americans can no longer ignore the #Walkaway campaign formed in 2016 that has embraced Democrat Party voters who have become disenfranchised with Democrat policies and candidates and have moved “across the aisle.” This swift yet steady decline in party membership has sent Democrat leaders into a frenzy: “We MUST find Democrat voters!”

That’s the fundamental reason — no, the ONLY reason — Democrats in Congress refuse to honestly and sincerely address the Nation’s unimaginable illegal alien problem: VOTES!

But admitting that is what the Democrats really want, can they get away with somehow allowing non-citizens to vote in United States federal elections? There is evidence of at least 800,000 non-citizens’ votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 actually happening. (see the proof of that in our 3/20/2019 story “Illegal Voters ARE Changing Our Elections”) Democrats certainly “want” that to happen, have already “allowed” it to happen in certain cases, but without changing Constitutional law cannot “allow” illegals to vote in federal elections legally.

But that has NOT stopped them from trying. Like here:

Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2018, only 49 House Democrats voted “Yes” on a resolution ( H. Res. 1071) expressing disapproval of non-citizen illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections, which is a criminal act. 71 Democrats outright voted “No”; 69 Democrats took the cowardly way out by answering “Present”; 4 Democrats refused to take a stance by not voting. In effect, 144 Democrats refused to agree with the resolution that it is wrong for illegal aliens to vote in U.S. elections.
House Resolution 1071, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), states the following:
Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy;
Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age;
Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting;
Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections; and
Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
H. Res. 1071, which is not a bill and has no legal power, was passed on Sept. 26, 2018. The roll call vote was 279 Yeas; 72 Nays, 69 Present:
* Republicans: 230 Yeas, 1 Nay, 4 Not Voting
* Democrats: 49 Yeas, 71 Nays, 69 Answered “Present”, 4 Not Voting
The Republican who voted “No” is Justin Amash (Michigan).

But it gets even worse! Fast-forward to March of 2019 and the House now with a Democrat Majority. One California television station reported this:

“The House passage of the For The People Act (H.R.1), a bill designed to improve election integrity by focusing on voting and election laws, campaign finance, and ethics. The bill also defends localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections.
‘It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?’ said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
Supporters say the For The People Act expands early voting while simplifying absentee voting. It enhances federal support for voting system security. It expands disclosure requirements for donations and campaign transparency while creating a multiple matching system for small campaign donations. Lastly, it will ease the creation of automatic voter registration rolls as well as restoring voting rights to the formerly incarcerated.
The bill now moves to the Senate where it is highly unlikely to pass, let alone be voted on. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it would not receive any floor time ‘because I get to decide what we vote on.’
San Diego Congressman Scott Peters voted to pass the  For the People Act saying, “These groundbreaking reforms will help us rebuild trust in government. Now, we must continue to work together to solve problems most important to San Diegans and all Americans like climate change, gun violence prevention, access to higher education, comprehensive immigration reform, and more,” said Rep. Peters.
Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi spoke on the importance of passing H.R. 1, ‘So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America.'”

What The U.S. Constitution Says

Which right appears most often in the Constitution’s text?

It’s “the right to vote.”

In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of “scrutiny” to apply to “burdens” on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. (Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concurred separately to suggest that the proper level of scrutiny was more like “whatever the legislature wants.”)

Courts will defer to the wishes of legislators who wish to protect the election process. There was no evidence of fraud in the Indiana case; there’s none in the Pennsylvania case or the others currently being heard. State officials claimed to be worried that someone somewhere might think there was fraud.

This is deference to bureaucrats that neither courts nor citizens would tolerate where a right considered truly important is at stake. Consider the right to free speech. The majority in Citizens United brushed aside public perceptions of corruption to allow unlimited “independent expenditures,” even though far more citizens are cynical about campaign donations than about “fraudulent” voters. What about freedom of religion? Would we tolerate licensing of churches so atheists won’t worry that “fraudulent” religion is being practiced?

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, “All individuals have the right to vote.” It simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.” A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn’t really a “right” in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say “here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person,” there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution is more in the “rights-preserving” than in the “rights-proclaiming business.” The First Amendment doesn’t say “every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion.” In the Second, the right to “keep and bear arms” isn’t defined, but rather shall not be “abridged.” In the Fourth, “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures” isn’t defined, but instead “shall not be violated.” In the Seventh, “the right of (civil) trial by jury” — whatever that is — “shall be preserved.” And so on.

In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any federal or state election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fifteenth states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” can’t be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can’t be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” in federal elections can’t be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote.”

So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren’t reading that in the Constitution but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a “right,” but a “privilege” — something granted by the powerful to the deserving.

But the fundamental inferred and stated that CITIZENS are those in the U.S. whose rights to vote “shall not be abridged.” CITIZENS are the only people who can legally vote in federal elections.

Summary: “The Democrat Party Illegal Voting Plan”

Before we summarize and discuss the objective of the Democrat Party as a whole regarding illegal voting, here’s what Independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Democrat Party said about criminals’ right to vote WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND BARS:

 “I think that is absolutely the direction we should go. In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders explained. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”

The average American voter cannot understand why Democrats are so resistant to stopping illegal immigration at all costs. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts committed by illegals against American citizens, Democrats refuse to take whatever legal measures are necessary to stop this criminality! And those Americans want Democrats to work with Republicans to do just that: STOP IT!

Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious.

One would think Democrats — who will say and do anything to pave the way to seize total control of Congress AND the White House in 2020 — would examine these polls and assist conservatives in creating and implementing immigration legislation to streamline the existing legal immigration laws, shorten the process for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, while ferreting out the gang members, human traffickers, and cartel drug traffickers who are by all accounts flooding across our southern border. Democrats unwillingness to enter this process that MUST begin by demanding enforcement of ALL immigration laws prove their objective can be one and only one thing: get enough illegals into the U.S. and find ways to surreptitiously insert them in the election system to vote in the 2020 federal election. There can be NO other explanation for Dems resistance.

Oh, they couch it with fake stories about caring for the abused and poor who inhabit Central American countries that wish only to find a “better life” for their family members. How can we say their charitable feelings are fake? If they REALLY care for those people with legitimate issues mentioned above, they would DEMAND immediate repair to the U.S. immigration system so as to pave the way for the American Dream these immigrants supposedly desire — and many do.

What price is being paid for Democrats open-border policies? Forget about the hundreds of billions of dollars. Just look back at our stories about illegal immigration from March of this year to get statistics that validate the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts perpetrated by illegals against American citizens. They range from purse-snatching to auto theft, assault and battery, all the way to child sex trafficking, rape, and murder. AMERICANS ARE PAYING THE PRICE DEMOCRATS FORCE US TO PAY FOR THEIR QUEST TO GET NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS! And the price is often the losses of our sons and daughters.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: how many more must die, be trafficked, robbed, assaulted, or raped before you think enough is enough and that Americans should NOT have to beg you to stop the criminality at the southern border?

I close with this: Isn’t it a travesty that Americans even have the need to have a conversation because our elected officials want ICE and U.S. Customs to simply turn their backs on illegals flooding across our southern border? Democrats are hoping that “Mob Rule” will cause our resistance to illegals to crumble and that Americans will just say, “OK. We give up. Let’s just give them all blanket amnesty and citizenship.”

Members of Congress: Are you going to continue to allow that to happen?

 

 

Play

Illegal Voters ARE Changing Our Elections

This from the New York Times:

The Texas secretary of state’s office on Friday called into question the citizenship status of 95,000 registered voters who were found to have identified themselves at some point to a state law enforcement agency as noncitizen, legal residents of the United States. The office said its findings were a result of an 11-month investigation with the Texas Department of Public Safety that also found that about 58,000 people on the list had voted since 1996. The results of the investigation were referred on Friday to Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said he planned to open a potentially sprawling investigation.

It’s only 58 thousand folks who voted illegally, so not a super big number, well, I suppose it all depends on how much voter fraud by illegals you find acceptable. My bigger question is, knowing that these numbers exist in Texas, wouldn’t it be fair to use this as a reason to investigate other states to see just how far this goes? Or should we allow these noncitizens to vote in our country?

2016 Election Fraud

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens in November 2016, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud. Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting.
Based on national polling by a group of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in that 2016 presidential election. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.

“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.” Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have.

Mr. Trump’s unverified accusation to congressional leaders sent the issue and those in the media into a frenzy that continues to this day. He apparently was referring to all types of fraud, such as the “dead” voting or multiple votes from the same person. But the heart of his estimate appears to be that illegal immigrants and noncitizens carried the popular vote.

He returned to the issue in 2017 when he spoke to congressional Republicans mapping the year’s legislative calendar:

“We also need to keep the ballot box safe from illegal voting,” the president said. “And, believe me, you take a look at what’s registering, folks. Take a look at what’s registering. We are going to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and we are going to defend the votes of the American citizen, so important.”

The mainstream media reacted to Mr. Trump’s assertion with anticipated pushback. Liberal pundits said there is no evidence of fraud.

CNN’s Jake Tapper called it “a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence. And there is a reason they are providing no evidence — there is no evidence. It is not true.” Esquire.com said, “The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump’s presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won.”

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence — that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting an investigation into fraud.

“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 — 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”

“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”

There does not appear to be any concerted postelection effort by states to take on the tremendous task of checking voter rolls and ballots to verify citizenship. In some states, no ID is required to register and vote. In the absence of detailed accounting, the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling.

Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov. Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted. You know, that question regarding citizenship that was to be inserted in the U.S. Census questionnaire that courts ruled is unconstitutional.

Three professors at Old Dominion University — Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest — took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2012 that there are 22 million noncitizens in the country. The group comprises illegal immigrants and people in the U.S. legally on a visa or permanent resident green card. Of this 22 million, 20 million were 18 or older, the U.S. voting age requirement.

Conservatives have long suspected that Democrats are tacitly encouraging illegal immigrants to vote. Liberal leaders have created “sanctuary cities and states” across the nation that refuse to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

President Obama was asked during the campaign in 2016 if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race. “Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting,” he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. “‘So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?’”

“Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself,” Mr. Obama said. “And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”

Some conservatives interpreted Mr. Obama’s answer as a go-ahead signal, with his questionable assertion that voter rolls are off-limits to federal investigators.

The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote. He said immigrants should obtain driver’s licenses and then attest at a polling place that they are U.S. citizens.

2018 Midterm Election Fraud

Government Accountability Institute (GAI) research director Eric Eggers says California’s latest changes to state election law that allow so-called “ballot harvesting” most recently aided Democrats in the midterm elections. Eggers detailed how the state of California has implemented ballot harvesting that allows political operatives to collect voters’ ballots and deliver them to polling stations.

“A lot of things that we perceive to be voter fraud … are actually legal,” Eggers said. “So California changed the law so that ballot harvesting allows for a third party … participants to collect ballots or harvest them from voters and then be able to drop them off at polling places. They just changed the law in 2016.”

“As soon as these people get on the rolls, you now have political campaigns, regardless of whether people should be voting or not, the political campaigns now have free license to go find you, and essentially even if they don’t find you, just turn in a ballot in your name,” Eggers continued. “That’s what ballot harvesting is.”

Eggers said California’s enormous noncitizen and illegal alien population — almost 11 million foreign-born residents reside in the state — is likely contributing to potential voter fraud that is facilitated because of ballot harvesting.

What’s fraudulent or suspect about it? Well, a number of things. Number one, we know we have a million illegal immigrants in California who have Driver’s Licenses. So right away, the threshold there is between who can vote and who is registered to vote I think is quite different. So we know we have illegal voters registered to vote. In fact, ahead of the election, they admitted they had over 1,500 people because of the new automatic voter registration.

“They’ve completely changed the landscape in California and I think that’s one of the reasons why you’re seeing the results be what they are,” Eggers said.

“The impact has not been good for Republicans,” he continued.

North Carolina: Midterms

As a late note to this story (and this is NOT about illegals voting) a further instance of ballot harvesting has been confirmed across the continent in North Carolina. We thought it important to report on this so that TruthNewsNet partners can put this entire Election Fraud/Tampering issue in a relatable fashion.

Democrats are blamed most of the time for sketchy election results. But the GOP has dirty hands too. This issue is NOT a partisan issue. Jason Snead of the Daily Signal put this part of election fraud in perfect perspective:

Widespread fraud by a political operative working for a Republican is forcing a redo of the 2018 midterm race for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. The news confirms just how vulnerable our elections are to voter fraud, and how profound the consequences can be.

That should be the takeaway. Yet many on the left and in the media seem far more interested in spinning the situation for partisan gain than finding genuine solutions to the election insecurities that enabled this fraud in the first place.

They focus on the fact that this is “Republican” voter fraud, and accuse conservatives of “deafening” and hypocritical silence. They even refuse to call it “voter fraud” to avoid embarrassment after years of denying that voter fraud is a problem.These claims debase the political process. They are cynical, politically motivated, and miss the point entirely. Election integrity is about much more than partisan politics—it is about preserving faith in the democratic process itself.

That’s why Heritage Foundation analysts were quick to condemn this instance of “Republican” voter fraud and called for an investigation, writing: “It is incumbent on conservatives and Republicans to resist the urge to circle the wagons or reflexively support the outcome in North Carolina as it stands today merely because of who won.”

While some on the left were busy arguing over whether to call it “election fraud” or “voter fraud,” we call a spade a spade: Securing elections isn’t a semantic game, it’s about taking voter fraud seriously, adopting election integrity reforms, and holding responsible parties accountable—regardless of their political persuasion. In North Carolina after the Republican operative’s methods were revealed a court negated results of the race and ordered a new election.

Election fraud did NOT win in North Carolina.

Summary

There are thousands and thousands of cases of election fraud across the nation that have been discovered and prosecuted. They don’t make it into the press. Why? Because the mainstream media play into the hands of who the author of the majority of these cases implicates: Democrat Party operatives.

No, this is not solely a Democrat issue. As shown in North Carolina, Republicans have problems too. Folks, this is an American problem!

I personally do not care who gets slapped in jail after prosecution for election tampering or voter fraud. The injured parties in these cases are NOT party members. The injured parties are legal citizens of the United States and the U.S. Government AND the Rule of Law. If that’s true, why doesn’t this get more attention? Besides the obvious political explanation, it’s because elections — including local, state AND federal — are designed, operated, and policed by the individual states. We don’t have federal elections.

Let’s be honest: there are federal election laws — and plenty of them. But it is impossible for the federal government to monitor every voting precinct in the nation, investigate every voting irregularity that may be uncovered in every precinct, and to prosecute every wrongdoer. Primarily those are state issues.

In thinking through to find a realistic answer to that question, while knowing the magnitude of assuring just, fair, and accurate voting being managed by states, can’t you see how states that have implemented sanctuary state and sanctuary city designations would turn a blind eye on any illegal voting in federal elections? Those states have far too much to gain WITH illegals who vote than if they don’t vote. And most of those illegals are of the liberal political persuasion and therefore vote for liberals: Democrats.

It is imperative that in an undefinable and unimaginable quest for political power and might, any individual or group of people could amass such illegal political support through election fraud to implement laws and change laws for political purpose. But that is the only explanation one can summarize from viewing facts about election fraud.

A hundred thousand votes here and there across the nation surely changes the composition of our governing institutions. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to think that Constitutional law and its implementation, monitoring and enforcing would be the ONLY thing that determines that. Wouldn’t you?

 

Play

California Death Penalty: Gone

California’s governor has given life to more than 700 inmates already convicted for TAKING the lives of innocent Californians. Gov. Gavin Newsom took that action using executive action. In doing so, he spared the lives of a quarter of ALL the death row inmates in the United States. Let’s be clear here: the governor’s stay of execution for those approximate 700 death row inmates is NOT necessarily permanent. These are not pardons. The stay is technically good only during HIS tenure as governor.
But here’s the important point of this story that most will miss: His action thwarts the will of California voters who 3 years ago rejected an initiative to end the death penalty. But Californians did NOT stop there: they passed a measure to speed up executions!
The governor’s justification for taking this action? Newsom claims the death penalty system in his state has discriminated against “people of color and mentally ill defendants.” He then throws in the claim ALL death penalty opponents use as their principle excuse for banning the process, that death sentences and the process waste taxpayer money.
(Click on the link for news report about Gavin’s actions)
But HERE is what has really happened as a result of the California governor’s unilateral action regarding death sentences:
  1. He’s ignored the will of California voters;
  2. He’s superseded the California legislators who passed laws implementing and maintaining the death penalty;
  3. He’s spit in the faces of the family members of the victims of those 700 “excused” murderers;
  4. He’s laughed at the Rule of Law in his own state.

All that sounds like just another day at the California governor’s mansion in Sacramento!

At first blush, many will be tempted to say the very good looking and young newly-elected California governor is just testing his authority early in his administration. Others might say he’s from the “new” school of liberal American voters who simply don’t know better. But anyone saying either of those would be sadly mistaken. Gavin Newsom although young, is a very smart young man, especially in “all things Californian.” But who is Gavin Newsom?

Gavin Newsom’s Connections

The Governor is no political newbie. He is the 40th governor of California. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 49th lieutenant governor of California from 2011 to 2019 and as the 42nd mayor of San Francisco.

He attended high school in Marin County — just north of the Golden Gate Bridge outside San Francisco and a very expensive zip code. He graduated from Santa Clara College.

In 2003, Newsom was elected the 42nd mayor of San Francisco, becoming the city’s youngest mayor in a century. Newsom was re-elected in 2007 with 72 percent of the vote. He was elected Lieutenant Governor of California in 2010 as the running mate of Jerry Brown and was re-elected in 2014. In February 2015, Newsom announced his candidacy for Governor of California in the 2018 election. On June 5, 2018, he finished in the top two of the non-partisan blanket primary. Newsom defeated Republican John H. Cox in the general election on November 6.

You just received the “short version” of Newsom’s story. He since birth has actually been part of an unofficial “power group” comprised of 4 California families: the Newsom, Getty, Pelosi, and Brown families. They are all very wealthy, heavy political hitters, and VERY liberal.

Newsom’s parents divorced when he was young. He lived with his Mom who was a working-class Californian. His father was wealthy himself, and though Gavin did not live with him, he opened all the important California political doors for his son.

Gavin was the “unofficial” adopted son of the Getty’s (yes, J. Paul Getty, claimed by many as the richest American in history), and Pat Brown and his son Jerry (both past governors) were part of that circle. Speaker Pelosi’s husband was equal in the power group — and still is. Politics for them all is just a natural part of who they are. And, of course, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! But even more than money, what so visibly consumed (and still does) every member of that political clan is power. They more than most fully understand that with power, comes everything one desires. The Gettys, Browns, Newsoms, and Pelosi’s have made the accumulation and maintenance of as much power in as many different areas of life — not just politics — their #1 objective. And they have done that and still are.

(as an aside, Governor Gavin Newsom was married for several years to another Californian who shared a lot of camera and microphone time: Kimberly Guilfoyle. Kimberly you may remember was a regular at FOX News and before that Court TV. She left FOX in 2017 to assume a so-far unnamed position in the Trump Re-election Campaign. And she is dating Donald Trump, Jr.)

Newsom Politically

Most American may be familiar with the Newsom name, but few know much about the Governor. Politically, it is safe to say he is hard-core Leftist. Newsom was a major proponent of Proposition 64, the 2016 measure that legalized recreational sales and use of marijuana in California. He characterized it as primarily a social justice issue, arguing drug charges lead disproportionately to the incarceration of poor people and minorities.

“I believe in second chances. I believe that people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and grow and, in many respects, become better people,” Newsom said. “I like to think I’m a better person, and I like to think that a lot of people have made mistakes, we just don’t read about them,” he said.

He didn’t stop there. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first act as governor was to propose state-funded health coverage for 138,000 young people in the country illegally and a reinstatement of a mandate that everyone buys insurance or face fines.

He also proposed giving subsidies to middle-class families that make too much to qualify them under former President Barack Obama’s health care law. He signed an order giving the state more bargaining power in negotiating prescription drug prices and sent a letter to President Donald Trump and congressional leaders seeking more authority over federal health care dollars.

Healthcare was his fundamental campaign project. Giving state-funded healthcare coverage to those illegal young people mentioned above is just the beginning of his socialistic style economic policies.

Many are confident that Newsom is simply running a “pre-campaign” for a presidential campaign in 2024. Pundits feel strongly that he is diligently working to position himself somewhere to the left of the currently declared Democrat Party candidates. It’s hard to believe there’s even any room left of Bernie and Elizabeth Warren! But apparently, Newsom feels there is and that he fits in that spot.

Campaign Philosophy

Certainly, if Newsom’s target is the presidency, his history of the family and business close ties with wealthy people inside and outside of California is important for him. And the typical organizations and individuals supported “candidate” Newsom in a big way.

  • Labor unions, housing developers and wealthy entrepreneurs are among the thousands of people and groups who gave money to help elect Newsom, according to the final disclosure reports filed by his campaign. Labor unions spent millions on independent efforts supporting Newsom, allowing them to avoid donation limits as long as they didn’t coordinate with his campaign. More than two dozen representing a range of professions – from health care workers to construction crews – also gave the legal maximum amount of $58,400 directly to Newsom’s campaign.
  • Various branches of the Service Employees International Union spent more than $2.7 million. The union has applauded Newsom’s efforts to boost funding for the state’s early education programs and his proposal to expand paid family leave, policies the union says will help working families.
  • The California Correctional Peace Officers Association also spent big to help elect Newsom, dropping $2.8 million.
  • The California Nurses Association spent more than $700,000 on independent efforts to elect Newsom and gave the maximum contribution allowed to his campaign. The group wants Newsom and the Legislature to create a government-funded universal health care system, often called a “single-payer” system. But the health care groups backing Newsom don’t all agree on what they want. Private health insurance companies, which could cease to exist under a single-payer system, generally oppose the idea. Blue Shield of California, for example, spent about $1 million supporting Newsom. The group was one of the insurers who opposed a bill in the Legislature’s last session that would have created a single-payer system in California.
  • California teachers unions spent more than $1.3 million supporting Newsom and gave the most they could directly to his campaign. They’ve applauded his commitment to making charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run, more transparent about how they spend their money and his call for more state oversight.
  • Newsom also became the preferred candidate for some prominent charter school backers, who often oppose the teacher’s unions in California politics. Charter schools, for example, were a major point of contention during the teacher’s strike last month in Los Angeles. As part of the deal to end the strike, the school district agreed to the union’s demand to consider a cap on charters.

Summary

Gavin Newsom is the cookie-cutter version of the perfect Leftist in today’s U.S. political landscape. He believes and supports all the standard causes of the left: gun control, marijuana legalization, open borders, free healthcare for all, massive tax increases, free college tuition, and everything and everyone who is anti-conservative. His personal history is one of entitlement, even though his single mother basically raised him in a working-class home. But he always had connections with the rich and famous and used them all from a very young age. He knows how to run successfully for office — at least in California.

How will he govern? His administration is just several months old, so it’s hard to judge at this point. But, so far, he has governed exactly as he ran for governor.

Most Americans struggle to comprehend the mindset of today’s far-left Democrat Party: increased abortion options, massive gun control, runaway taxes linked with runaway government spending, free everything, and open borders. And now Newsom with impunity has thumbed his nose at California law while ignoring those who were killed — in many cases actually slaughtered — by 700 individuals who under California law were found guilty for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Death sentence haters are actually questioning that the Governor did not simply go ahead and pardon those people. I wonder the same thing myself. Actually, I think he probably wanted to do that very thing but was advised by those who have his ear that doing so would certainly alienate Middle America voters in a run for the White House.

I am glad he did not use the power of the pardon. But in typical Leftist fashion, he apparently ignored his conscience regarding the unfairness of the death penalty instead pulling lever B: “Do everything you do in office to smooth any potential ripples that might appear in your “next” run for your “next” office.

Look for Gavin Newsom to turn harder and harder and further Left. After all, he’s in California. And for everything in California regarding politics to be successful, the purveyor MUST bow before the god of Liberalism in every policy decision they make.

And one more thing: you can bet Gavin Newsom has his sights set on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We just don’t know how long he’ll wait.

Play

American Government: Who’s In Control?

When we watch, listen, or read the national news, there’s really NO way to tell who is actually running the U.S. Government. Traditionally it has always been the President in conjunction with the other two branches of government: Legislative and Judiciary. But to most Americans, who is the “Boss” is unclear.

The uncertainty of who is in charge has created certain chaos in the U.S. This generation has only the tragedy of 9/11 to point to as a traumatic national event around which those in government rallied all Americans. And that was almost two decades ago. Those memories are growing dim. Replacing that spirit of unity has so far proven to be unachievable. But, that failure is not a product of lack of effort.

There are many who have stepped to the “Boss” podium who each have claimed power and control of U.S. Government. Each has been met with one common thing, and that is NOT compliance or acceptance. It has been chaos. Division among Americans has reached a fever pitch. And try as they might, failure to gain the support of the American masses sufficient to quell the waves of chaos has swamped each.

Ronald Reagan was the last U.S. President to rally Americans to the drumbeat of unity. Reagan’s government was certainly divided, but the Gipper had the ability to cross the “difference” lines sufficient to draw enough people together to create visible progress in most areas of American life. How could he do that? Maybe it was his successful acting career. Maybe it was that after acting he segued into politics as California’s governor. In that role, he certainly had sufficient communication experience from acting that better prepared him to relate to different groups of people.

Reagan’s VP briefly replaced him in the White House. Bush ’41 was a classic politician. That persona branded him and virtually banished him to just one term. Clinton brought charisma back to D.C. He too as was Reagan was a great communicator with the ability to cross ethnic and social barriers among Americans that resulted in two terms as president. Though his tenure was marred with controversy, he left the White House as (and remains) one of the most popular U.S. presidents.

Bush ’43’s election marked the beginning of the “New” era of American politics. This new era was birthed from the innovation of satellite television, widespread cell phone and internet access for most Americans, and the creation of a new environment which adopted (in large part) the “title” of news organizations that were really just entertainment sources disguised as news. And it has taken almost two decades for Americans to fully realize that.

Obama was the first U.S. president to lead the nation from this new 24/7 information environment. It perfectly complemented his personality and extensive communication skills. No one can reasonably argue that he was NOT a master of messaging in public. Regardless of the accuracy of many things he said when he spoke he easily related to many in his audience. He amassed a strong following in spite of some of his divisive political policies.

And then there’s Donald Trump. His entire political career at age two can be illustrated best — even with his significant governing accomplishments — as “chaotic.” We will not delve into the Trump “detail” in governing that result in egregious responses from his opponents. Those are very obvious and well known. But it is important to point out that in these two short years of his administration, a new syndrome among Americans has been created: the “Chaos Syndrome.”

The “Chaos Syndrome”

Trump didn’t cause the chaos. The chaos caused Trump. What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Chaos Syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s fundamentals. That weakening began when presidential leadership in the U.S. slowly began a slide in its structure. Simultaneously, the U.S. Congress apparently took note and joined in that slide into the abyss called Chaos Syndrome.

It began with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.

The Founders knew all too well about chaos. It was the condition that brought them together in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation. The central government had too few powers and powers of the wrong kinds, so they gave it more powers, and also multiple power centers. The core idea of the Constitution was to restrain ambition and excess by forcing competing powers and factions to bargain and compromise.

The Framers worried about demagogic excess and populist constant changes, so they created buffers and gatekeepers between voters and the government. Only one chamber, the House of Representatives, would be directly elected. A radical who wanted to get into the Senate would need to get past the state legislature, which selected senators; a power-junkie who wanted to seize the presidency would need to get past the Electoral College, a convocation of elders who chose the president; and so on.

So the chaos in government that daily plays out on a national stage is NOT the fault of the U.S. founders. Whose fault is it?

American voters. We elect them. They make and execute every law and policy. And it’s not just whoever serves as President. It’s Congress, too.

The “Terrible Twosome”

Paul Ryan didn’t have a chance. He didn’t want the House Speaker’s job: he was pushed unwillingly into it. And it showed.

But Nancy Pelosi sure did relish reclaiming the Speaker’s gavel after the 2018 midterm election in which Democrats won back the House. Everyone knew what to expect. She had a lot of experience in wielding the power of that position.

Across the hall, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was set to join Nancy in the starting blocks. No, he wasn’t in control of the Senate. But the pair of Pelosi/Schumer knew from experience the havoc that could give to Republicans with their political might and leverage. And they have not disappointed their base in the short time the twosome has been back in those positions. And they’ve only had a few months! They could hardly wait for some time to elapse so they could find devious ways to obstruct the Trump agenda and thwart Republican legislation at every turn. There have been NO two better at that job in Congressional history. They have been the Democrats long sought-after “Terrible Twosome” and the power they masterfully use on behalf of the Democrat Party’s agenda. “They’re Baaack………..!”

Not So Fast

There are some new kids in town! Nancy and Chuck have seemingly met their matches. The 2018 Freshman Class in the House of Representatives has thrown a monkey-wrench into the Pelosi/Schumer plan — especially three of those rookies: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). They are dynamite — they’re explosive — and they have already become the darlings of the “Millennial-Left!” And Nancy and Chuck are beside themselves.

FOX News published a story describing what the three have already done to hijack the power couple and wrest control of the Democrat Party platform from Pelosi and Schumer.

Freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Twitter bio declares her the “Unbossed Congresswoman” for Michigan’s 13th District. While the moniker has roots in Shirley Chisholm’s successful campaign to become the first black congresswoman, nowadays it also could be seen as a blunt message to Democratic leadership: Nobody is bossing around the class of 2019.

And that’s a problem for party bosses.

On everything from the Green New Deal to impeachment to criticism of Israel, a squad of first-year congresswomen are flexing their muscle and posing an implicit challenge to Democratic honchos like Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their stridently liberal agenda – and power to steer the national conversation via social media and press attention – has fueled tensions inside the party tent that in turn are testing leadership’s control while stirring political concerns going into 2020.

“All of our problems are caused by three people,” one senior House Democrat lamented.

That would be New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Tlaib – all freshmen, and all uniquely unencumbered by things like decorum or deference to party elders.

Ocasio-Cortez recently made waves by appearing to warn Democrats who vote with Republicans that they’re “putting themselves on a list” of possible primary targets (though she later denied she intended such a threat).

Tlaib famously made headlines upon taking office by vowing they’d “impeach the motherf—er,” in reference to President Trump. Pelosi this week tried to rein in the impeachment chatter, taking a firm public stance against that route. Yet in the immediate aftermath of Tlaib’s vow, Pelosi downplayed the hubbub, saying she wouldn’t use that language but it’s nothing worse than Trump has said.

Fast-forward to this month, and Pelosi faced another discipline problem – concerning Omar.

Fresh off a dispute that saw Pelosi and fellow Democratic leaders condemn the Minnesota congresswoman for suggesting American allies of Israel were financially motivated, Omar riled party leaders again after suggesting Israel supporters expect or seek “allegiance” to the Jewish state. The statement was widely condemned, including among senior Democrats, as echoing the age-old “dual loyalties” smear against Jewish politicians.

Leaders hastily prepared a resolution to push back on anti-Semitism. Yet after Pelosi faced a rebellion in the ranks amid concerns the measure would unfairly single out Omar, a Muslim, and increase security threats against her (she was recently the subject of an inflammatory poster at the West Virginia capitol falsely tying her to the 9/11 attacks), the resolution was overhauled.

The sequence of events only fed the narrative that party leaders are struggling to rein in freshman lawmakers who are pulling Democrats off message at a critical time, with the 2020 presidential campaign season getting underway.

Tlaib and Omar already have signed a pledge to impeach Trump. And, around the same time anti-Trump protesters were arrested outside Pelosi’s office last week, Tlaib assured them she’ll introduce a resolution this month urging the Judiciary Committee to proceed with impeachment.

Looking ahead, some Democrats stress that it’s critical for the party to maintain focus.

“There’s always going to be distractions. It’s 435 people who are really their own boss, and they’re able to say whatever they want,” freshman Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., told “Fox News Sunday,” with regard to recent controversies in the caucus. “So, I think what we have to figure out what to do is to say, okay, this isn’t the views of everybody in Congress … but how do we maintain focus on our agenda as a whole?”

And that’s the million dollar question. None of the Democrat Party leaders in Congress or at the party level have any idea of how to control these three rookies. And the “New Kids” have taken over the Party!

What does that mean?

  • Honor for longtime Congressional leaders in their party is gone;
  • Respect for their party platforms, carefully crafted political measures and the timing for their actions is gone;
  • Democrat tradition developed over decades is gone;
  • Willingness to work with the other party (if there ever WAS any willingness at all) is gone;
  • The ability and desire to reason with dissenters as part of the political process — and not just Republicans — is gone;
  • Basing proposed legislation and party positions on agreed-to thoughts and ideas is gone;
  • Civility in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is gone!

What are Democrats Going to Do?

If wasn’t so comical it’d be funny!

Seriously, it IS comical to watch Nancy Pelosi struggle to find reasonable answers to the obvious questions from the media about that very thing: “What are Democrats going to do?” You can bet Nancy and Chuck stay huddled up somewhere regularly to collude with each other scratching for answers. And just as quickly as they find one, the “New Kids” step up to the microphone and make another outlandish Democrat policy statement that sounds as if it originated from the backside of Mars!

Like:

  1. The “Green New Deal.” Along with that brainstorm came the prophecy that the World will end in 12 years if we don’t implement the plan — for the low, low price of $72 Trillion over 10 years;
  2. “Free College For All.” The “New Kids” all signed onto Bernie Sanders plan or something equivalent that is estimated to cost $95 Billion a year. But we all know that if it’s free, far more students would take advantage of it. What’s $115-125 extra each Billion a year?
  3. Forgive all College Debt. At the start of 2019, 58 million Americans owe a total of $1.56 Trillion in college tuition debt. To forgive that, the Federal Government would have to tax increase Americans tax bill 50% for one year to pay for it. And, by the way, the government would have to somehow raise (through increased taxes) that additional $115-$125 Billion each year to pay for that newly added cost of “Free College for All.”
  4. Raise Taxes: No big deal. The “New Kids” have that problem worked out. How? Simply change the marginal tax rate on America’s rich to 70%. By the way: she just floated a proposed 90% tax rate for American corporations!
  5. It will take every bit of that to pay for the “New Kids” ideas floated above. But we left one out: “Medicare for All.” It is not original with the three — Bernie Sanders floated it first. The “New Kids” love the idea, so it’s a done deal! The cost? $32 Trillion over 10 years.

By the way: economists have analyzed the 70% proposed tax rate for the wealthiest of Americans. You will be excited to know that with that new rate AND the “New Kids” programs listed above, the additional tax revenue would almost cover their costs. It would take care of all but 99% of them!

Summary

In one way it’s scary to believe that power in our government could possibly be controlled by any more wicked than House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer. But in this case, I am scared! We didn’t even mention the problems with those three other than their economic ideas. On social and political levels, they are each off the charts. They make Pelosi, Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and even David Duke look like Saints!

But you know what is really scary? Many young Americans love the trio. And they love their “progressive” ideas. Never mind the inability to pay for them. Never mind the dismantling of the free market and launching a Socialist nation in its place. Never mind the ridiculousness of trying to implement even one of the above ideas and watching the titans of industry immediately shutter dozens of major corporations putting millions of American workers on the street without work. That doesn’t matter: they’re such good ideas!

“Symbolism Over Substance” is the mantra of the “New Kids.” No, they’re not the ones using that. But Americans who ARErealists, who read and listen, who ask questions and get answers, and who expect reality from their elected representatives understand there is NO THERE THERE — NO SUBSTANCE!

You know what else is good? These three are members of the House of Representatives and not the Senate. That means they can be removed and replaced by voters in less than two years — IF THEIR VOTING CONSTITUENTS ARE PAYING ATTENTION!

 

Play