Racism In America

I am an old white woman who has watched the ebb and flow of civil rights since the 1950’s. I was a child living in Greensboro, North Carolina, during the Woolworth’s lunch counter protests. My husband and I were stationed in Memphis, Tennessee, when Martin Luther King, Jr., was shot. My parents were living in Chicago during the 1968 Democrat convention. The battle for racial equality has been going on for a long time. However, let’s not forget that progress has been made. Progress had been made by lawmakers of good conscience (yes, there have been a few)–by protests (Rosa Parks)–not by riots.

I can’t relate to the black experience. I have been poor, but I have never been black. I have lived in houses without plumbing and with questionable heating, but I have never been black. I can’t honestly say that I am a much better person because I am no longer poor. I am actually the same person, only a little less stressed out about finances.

I don’t have an answer for racism. My own contribution to stop racism is to treat everyone the same regardless of what color they may be. Another contribution would be to encourage children of all colors to do well in school. Reading seems to be a key–look at Ben Carson–his mother was illiterate yet understood the value of reading. Look at Allen West–he joined the military. There are many others who have overcome racism in America–Colin Powell, Walter Williams, Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey. There are opportunities out there for people of all races–they require ambition, integrity, and hard work. Success is hard to attain for anyone, but it is also hard to argue with.

There are a number of things about what is currently happening in our country that truly break my heart. Innocent people have been killed by ‘protestors.’ People of all races who have worked all of their lives to build businesses have lost everything in the looting and burning. This is not the way to move forward–this is a giant step backward. All Americans agreed that what happened to George Floyd was criminal. The reaction of some Americans to that tragedy has destroyed the unity that might have enabled us to find solutions instead of having to clean up the devastation in our major cities.

The Root Of The Problem

President Obama seemed to be a president who held grudges. He never missed an opportunity to say an unkind word about someone who had disagreed with him at some point. It should be no surprise that General Flynn was so brutally targeted by some in the Obama administration. On May 12, The Tennessee Star posted a commentary piece that detailed reasons why the author believes that President Obama was behind the mistreatment of General Flynn. One of the unusual things that President Obama did after leaving office was to remain in Washington. There has been some speculation that his purpose was to make sure that the policies he instituted as President would not be undone. Many of those policies have been undone, but attacking General Flynn would be a way to protect some of President Obama’s foreign policy decisions.

George Rasley wrote the commentary in The Tennessee Star. Here are a few of his reasons for putting President Obama behind the targeting of General Flynn:

General Flynn’s must-read book, Field of Fight, is a searing indictment of Obama’s policies in the Near East and Afghanistan. It was also a damning indictment of Obama’s pro-Muslim supremacist policies that downplayed the cultural and constitutional threat of importing vast numbers of Muslims to America.

It is easy to forget now, but Mike Flynn was one of Donald Trump’s most effective surrogates during the campaign. Along with a few other military and intelligence outsiders like Rich Higgins, he hoisted the pirate flag and pounded Obama and Hillary Clinton with broadside after broadside. He also helped Trump craft his America First national security platform. A key piece of Trump’s appeal to voters wary of the Obama – Clinton pro-Muslim immigration policies.

And beyond the military, political and cultural critique of Obama’s destructive policies there was the fact that Flynn had been on the inside of Obama’s intelligence apparatus and cried foul, causing Obama to push him out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was, as far a we can remember, the only Obama insider to break ranks and switch sides.

In short, Flynn earned Obama’s hatred the easy way – he told the truth.

The article also notes:

Remember – when Obama fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, Obama cited insubordination, while Flynn asserted he was pushed out for his aggressive stance on combating lslamic extremism.

The topic of the disputed phone call with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was, among other things, another Obama policy Flynn and Trump planned to undo – Obama’s sanctions on Russia.

Or from Obama’s perspective, another act of insubordination by Mike Flynn.

It is unknown who informed Obama of the intercepted Flynn – Kislyak phone call, and it remains to be seen if Yates, Comey, Biden or anyone else will tell the full truth about what was said directly or between the lines in the January 5, 2017 “stay behind” meeting. However, one thing is clear even from the sketchy details available today – Obama was out to get Flynn and he had some willing accomplices available at the January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting.

The commentary provides a much more complete picture than these two excerpts. Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

What has happened to the Trump administration is a blatant example of a political party made up of sore losers who refused to allow the peaceful transfer of power in a representative republic.

Just In Case You Haven’t Heard The Full Story Yet…

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article that includes a statement by United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan. As you probably know, the mainstream media accused President Trump of having peaceful protesters dispersed with tear gas so that he could walk across Lafayette Park and the National Mall.

This is the statement from the Park Police:

The United States Park Police (USPP) is committed to the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. However, this past weekend’s demonstrations at Lafayette Park and across the National Mall included activities that were not part of a peaceful protest, which resulted in injuries to USPP officers in the line of duty, the destruction of public property and the defacing of memorials and monuments. During four days of demonstrations, 51 members of the USPP were injured; of those, 11 were transported to the hospital and released and three were admitted.

Multiple agencies assisted the USPP in responding to and quelling the acts of destruction and violence over the course of the weekend in order to protect citizens and property.

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

Unfortunately the mainstream media chose to lie to make President Trump look bad rather than to tell the truth. This sort of lying is a major cause of the divisions in our country. People who depend on the mainstream media are simply not being told the truth.

The Right To Work

The American Spectator posted an article today about a recent decision by the West Virginia Supreme  Court.

The article reports:

This spring, the West Virginia high court upheld the state’s right-to-work law. That part of the ruling was no surprise, as courts for over 70 years have said right-to-work laws are constitutional.

Perhaps the more significant part of the ruling, which garnered less attention, is that the court essentially said the entire country should be right-to-work.

Right-to-work simply means that a union cannot get a worker fired for not paying the union. A right-to-work law gives workers the freedom to support a union if they are doing a good job, and refrain from supporting a union if they wish.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Janus v. AFSCME  that everything government unions do is political and that public employees have a First Amendment right to decide to support their union or not. The Janus case brought right-to-work to public employees across the country.

The article concludes:

Even West Virginia Justice Margaret Workman, who was critical of right-to-work, agreed in part and disagreed in part with the decision, writing, “I also believe that although Janus was a decision involving only public employees’ unions, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows; there is no principled basis on which to conclude that under the legal analysis upon which Janus is based, a prohibition on the collection of agency fees is constitutional for public employees’ unions but unconstitutional for private employees’ unions.”

Currently, 23 states can force private sector employees to pay unions. Similarly, airline and railroad employees, who are governed by a separate federal law, are also forced to support unions whether they want to or not.

If the U.S. Supreme Court does eventually decide the question with the same reasoning as the West Virginia Supreme Court, then all employees, public and private, will have the right to choose whether or not the union at their workplace is doing a good job and if they want to support it.

After all, freedom is blowing in the wind.

If a union is necessary in a company, the employees will support it. If it is not, the employees will not support it. That is called freedom.

Who Is Buying The Bricks?

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article showing the delivery of pallets of bricks to various cities in America. There were no construction sites in the areas where the bricks were delivered. Please follow the link to the article to see the various pictures of brick deliveries in key cities.

The article reports:

These protests are organized – bricks are being delivered uninhibited to riot sites.

In cities around the US bricks are being delivered to riot locations and used to destroy property.

The article includes the following:

The article concludes:

Find who are shipping the bricks and you find who is behind these criminal riots!

Leadership Matters

Just the News posted an article today about Rod Rosenstein’s testimony before Congress.

The article reports:

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he was unaware that an FBI field office had recommended that Gen. Michael Flynn be dropped from its Crossfire Hurricane investigation, with the former deputy attorney general agreeing that it would have “mattered” had he been aware of that directive.

Rosenstein was asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham if he knew that “in January of 2017, the FBI field office said, ‘we recommend General Flynn be removed'” from the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“I did not,” Rosenstein responded.

“Would that have mattered?” Graham asked, to which Rosenstein responded: “Yes.

Maybe I don’t understand the workings of the Department of Justice, but that seems odd to me. Shouldn’t he have known?

The article concludes:

Noting the procedural errors found within the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Rosenstein told senators in prepared remarks that the Justice Department “must take remedial action” against any misconduct it uncovers within its ranks, a bracing statement made in reference to investigative reviews that found “significant errors” in official procedures related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Rosenstein noted that internal investigations had revealed that the FBI “was not following the written protocols” in its execution of Crossfire Hurricane.

The way I evaluate this is to look back at my husband’s days in the U.S. Navy. His squadron was being put aboard a different aircraft carrier. The carrier was being brought into its new port with great celebration. The Marine band was there, the governor was there, many important people were there. The ship ran aground on the way in and couldn’t get to the actual port. Eventually all the dignitaries simply went home. The next day, tug boats waited for high tide and brought the ship in. Keep in mind that the harbor pilot was steering the ship at the moment it ran aground. However, the captain of the ship was soon relieved of his duties. He was considered responsible. I believe Rod Rosenstein needs to be held responsible for the miscarriage of justice that occurred on his watch.

This Could Get Interesting

The following Press Release was posted by Judicial Watch yesterday:

Judicial Watch: Appellate Court Hearing on Clinton Email Testimony Tuesday – Hillary Clinton Seeks to Block Court Order Requiring Her to Testify

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today announced that a hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, by teleconference, in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails. Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid giving testimony.

The appellate court is considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request, known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to testify. 

Clinton argues she shouldn’t have to testify because she is a former, high level government official and that the case is moot because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various sources when it investigated allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used at State. Judicial Watch argues neither Clinton nor Mills have demonstrated that they should not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District Court’s order and that the case is not moot. Judicial Watch argues that the FBI’s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is required to look for them.

The hearing is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit: 

Date:               Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Time:               9:30 am ET

Location:        Telephonic, oral argument can be heard on the court’s website 

This hearing comes in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). In 2014, Judicial Watch uncovered “talking points” created by the Obama White House showing that statements about the attack made on the eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice were misleading, if not false. This FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. 

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted Judicial Watch discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton’s emails and the existence of records about the Benghazi attack. In April, Judicial Watch and the State Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed responses opposing Clinton’s and Mills’ request to overturn the order requiring their testimony. The lower court found that Clinton’s testimony was necessary:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered discovery into whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to avoid FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The lower court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. It ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Some Thoughts On Our Religious Liberty

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at The National Review about a recent Supreme Court decision. The title of the article is, “It wasn’t just religious liberty that Chief Justice Roberts strangled.” The article is detailed and complex, so I suggest that you follow the link to read the entire article. However, there are a few things I want to point out that I think are very significant.

The article notes:

Most startling was that Chief Justice John Roberts not only joined the court’s four left-leaning justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan) in declining to uphold religious liberty. Roberts also wrote a brief opinion explaining his decision. 

That opinion is an eye-opener. Roberts accords the right to worship no deference by virtue of its being a fundamental liberty expressly protected by the First Amendment. We are to see it as an activity like any other activity, commercial or social, the pros and cons of which technocrats must weigh in fashioning regulations. The opinion, moreover, champions the power of government officials to dictate to the people who elect them without “second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary” — exactly the power that the Bill of Rights, and the incorporation jurisprudence by which the court has applied much of it to the states, are meant to deny.

The article also points out:

In rejecting the religious liberty claim, Roberts counters that it is not a matter of unlawful discrimination if different things are regulated in different ways. Religious gatherings, he rationalized, are being restricted like gatherings that are physically similar, such as lectures, concerts, theater productions and spectator sports. He conceded that less intense restrictions have been imposed on other activities, such as shopping, banking and laundering. But that, he insists, is because of salient differences in the way they are conducted: small groups, no extended proximity, and so on.

But wait a second. What about the constitutional pedigree of religious exercise? That was the point pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a brief dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. (Justice Samuel Alito also opposed the denial of First Amendment relief but did not join Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion.)

The article concludes:

There is no recognition, in Roberts’ rendering, that there is another side to this equation — a side where 400 times the number of people who’ve died have lost their jobs, millions of them facing ruin. The stubborn message: Don’t expect the court to help you, you’re the ones who elected these people; if you don’t like what they do, un-elect them. If you’ve elected social engineers who say the Bill of Rights is above their pay grade, that’s your problem.

The justices are happy to order that abortion must be available, to decide which couples (or perhaps throuples) must be permitted to marry, and to dictate what’s ever next in the ceaseless march of progressive, organic “liberty.” But as for the liberties that are actually in the Constitution, we are on our own.

Unfortunately Justice Roberts has been something of a disappointment to those of us who expected him to be a responsible judge who would uphold the Constitution. He has wandered away from the constitutional role of the judiciary more than once.

The People Responsible Should Be Charged With Attempted Murder

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a truly despicable act by people ‘protesting’ the killing of George Floyd.

The article reports:

The chief of the Richmond, Virginia, police department told reporters Sunday that Black Lives Matter and antifa rioters set fire to a multi-family home with children inside and then blocking access for firefighters to get through to save the children.

Richmond Police Chief William Smith broke down while speaking about the horrible burning deaths of a children after their occupied building was torched by rioters.

The people responsible for this need to be charged with attempted murder and put in jail for life.

The article continues:

Richmond Police Chief William Smith: “One incident that is particularly poignant, that truly illustrates the seriousness of the issues we’re facing. Last night protesters intentionally set fire to an occupied building on [West] Broad Street. This is not the only occupied building that has been set fire to in the last two days. But they prohibited us from getting on the scene. We had to force our way to make a clear path for the fire department. The protesters intercepted the fire apparatus several blocks away with vehicles and blocked that fire department’s access to the structure fire. Inside that home was a child.”

There is good news:

For the record, police on the scene were able to save the children.

This is not protest. This is not civil disobedience. This is simply lawlessness using a horrible event as an excuse.

When ‘Real’ Security Is Present

As the riots continue, the violence continues. The ‘protestors’ have been involved in beating innocent people, looting stores, and shootings. On Sunday, PJ Media posted an article that provides some good news.

The article reports:

In Seattle, riotous thugs “honored” the memory of George Floyd, who was killed while in Minneapolis police custody earlier this week, by blocking Interstate 5 for most of the day in the busiest downtown portion of the freeway. They looted a Nordstrom store, smashed windows of downtown businesses and set cars on fire. It was part of a nation wide series of riots that began in Minneapolis and quickly metastasized to the West Coast and all the way to the White House gates.

Somehow in the melee, KING 5 News, captured video of bandanna wearing antifa dirtbag who stole an AR-15 type rifle from one of two smashed up police cars. The cars, one of which was burning, was tagged with the Left’s favorite anti-cop epithet ACAB – All Cops Are Bastards.

Knowing antifa’s thuggery and how cops are too busy to protect anyone, one TV news station had the foresight to hire what they called a “security guard.”

This was no mall cop.

George Orwell famously said “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” And thank God a Seattle TV station hired one.

As the mayor ordered police officers and National Guard troops to corral the protesters, fetch them water and and cut their meat for them, there was this guy.

This is what happened next:

He moved on the antifa boy and his buddies so fast, grabbed the stolen AR-15 and ejected the magazine so quickly and efficiently, without looking, that it impressed this retired cop friend who told me he was duly impressed.

The article at PJ Media includes a video of the incident. Had this man not acted swiftly there is a high probability that innocent lives would have been lost.

The Double Standard At Work

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an editorial contrasting the news coverage of the protests asking the government to reopen businesses and churches and the news coverage of the riots that are currently happening in some of America’s major cities. First of all–it is no longer a protest when the first brick is thrown or the first building is set on fire, yet the media continues to refer to these events are protests.

The editorial notes:

Just a couple of weeks ago the media was fretting that anti-lockdown protests were endangering the public by gathering in crowds and refusing to wear masks. They were compared to Nazis for wanting to reopen their businesses and go back to work.

Now, thousands of people egged on by Antifa are rioting and looting in multiple American cities. But the media is treating these “protesters” with kid gloves. MSNBC’s Ali Velshi stood in front of a burning building while claiming the Minneapolis riots were mostly peaceful, and Joy Reid tried to blame white supremacists for the uprising.

The first step to dealing with something is correctly naming it. Incorrectly naming something is one way to control a narrative. As long as the media can convince Americans that the looting and burning they are seeing is simply a protest, they can avoid addressing the lawlessness of what is happening. Looters are arsonists are criminals who need to be arrested. Protestors are people peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. There is a difference.

Who Are The Factcheckers?

On Friday, Judicial Watch posted the following under its Corruption Chronicles section:

The recently appointed Facebook oversight board that will decide which posts get blocked from the world’s most popular social networking website is stacked with leftists, including a close friend of leftwing billionaire George Soros who served on the board of directors of his Open Society Foundations (OSF). Judicial Watch conducted a deep dive into the new panel that will make content rulings for the technology company that was slammed last year with a $5 billion fine for privacy violations. The information uncovered by Judicial Watch shows that the group of 20 is overwhelmingly leftist and likely to restrict conservative views. More than half of the members have ties to Soros, the philanthropist who dedicates huge sums to spreading a radical left agenda that includes targeting conservative politicians. Other Facebook oversight board members have publicly expressed their disdain for President Donald Trump or made political contributions to top Democrats such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. As one New York newspaper editorial determined this month, the new Facebook board is a “recipe for left-wing censorship.”

Among the standouts is András Sajó, the founding Dean of Legal Studies at Soros’ Central European University. Sajó was a judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for nearly a decade. He also served on the board of directors of OSF’s Justice Initiative. Sajó was one of the ECHR judges in an Italian case (Latusi v. Italy) that ruled unanimously that the display of a crucifix in public schools in Italy violates the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision was subsequently overturned. Sajó’s deep ties to Soros are also concerning. Through his OSF Soros funds a multitude of projects worldwide aimed at spreading a leftist agenda by, among other things, destabilizing legitimate governments, erasing national borders and identities, financing civil unrest and orchestrating refugee crises for political gain.  Incredibly, there is a financial and staffing nexus between the U.S. government and Soros’ OSF. Read about it in a Judicial Watch special report documenting how Soros advances his leftist agenda at U.S. taxpayer expense.

At least 10 other members of the Facebook oversight board are connected to leftist groups tied to Soros that have benefitted from his generous donations, according to Judicial Watch’s research. Alan Rusbridger, a former British newspaper editor and principal at Oxford University, serves on the board of directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which received $750,000 from OSF in 2018. Rusbridger also served as a governor at a global thinktank, Ditchley Foundation, that co-hosted a conference with OSF on change in the Middle East and North Africa as well as understanding political Islam. Afia Asantewaa Sariyev, a human rights attorney, is the program manager at Soros’ Open Society Initiative for West Africa. Her research includes critical race feminism and socio-economic rights of the poor. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, an Indian lawyer and civil society activist, runs a progressive nonprofit called Centre for Law and Policy Research that focuses on transgender rights, gender equality and public health. The group is a grantee of a justice foundation that received $1.4 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018. Krishnaswamy’s Centre also received money from a radical pro-abortion group, Center for Reproductive Rights, generously funded by the OSF.

The list of Facebook judges connected to Soros and the organized left continues. Julie Owono is the executive director of a Paris-based nonprofit, Internet Sans Frontieres, that advocates for privacy and freedom of expression online. In 2018, Internet Sans Frontieres became a member of the Global Network Initiative, an internet oversight and policy consortium handsomely funded by Soros. Nighat Dad is a Pakistani attorney and the founder of the Digital Rights Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in Pakistan that has received $114,000 in grants from OSF. Dad’s group also gets funding from Facebook Ireland. Ronaldo Lemos, a Brazilian law professor, served on the board of directors of the Mozilla Foundation, which collected $350,000 from OSF in 2016 and was also a board member at another group, Access Now, that also got thousands of dollars from Soros. Tawakkol Karman, a journalist and civil rights activist, sits on the advisory board of Transparency International, which gets significant funding from Soros’ OSF.

Rounding out the Soros-affiliated field on the new Facebook censorship board are Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Catalina Botero-Marino and Maina Kiai. Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark’s former prime minister, sits on the board of the European Council of Foreign Relations, which took in more $3.6 million from OSF in 2016 and 2017. She is also a trustee at the International Crisis Group which has collected over $8.2 million from OSF and includes George and Alexander Soros on its board. The former Danish prime minister is also a member of the Atlantic Council’s International Advisory Board, which received approximately $325,000 from OSF in the last few years and the European Advisory Board of the Center for Global Development, which got north of half a million dollars from OSF in 2018. Botero-Marino is the dean of a Colombian law school called Universidad de Los Andes that obtained more than $1.3 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018, the records obtained by Judicial Watch show. Botero-Marino also sits on the panel of experts at Columbia University’s Global Freedom Expression Project, which gets funding from OSF, and she was a board member at Article 19, a group that got about $1.7 million from OSF between 2016 and 2018. Kiai is the director of the Global Alliances and Partnerships at Human Rights Watch, which accepted $275,000 from OSF in 2018. He is also a member of OSF’s Human Rights Initiative advisory board and was the founding executive director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, which got $615,000 from Soros in the last two years.

Others on the Facebook board have slandered President Trump in social media posts and donated money to high-profile Democrats. Taiwanese communications professor Katherine Chen’s Twitter account includes retweets of numerous anti-Trump and pro-Obama posts and articles. Nicolas Suzor, a law professor in Australia, retweeted a column implicitly comparing Trump to Hitler and Columbia University law professor Jamal Greene has made campaign contributions to Obama, Hillary Clinton and Warren. Pro-Trump impeachment Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who took a cheap shot at President Trump’s teenage son during the Brett Kavanaugh impeachment hearings, has also contributed money to Obama, Hillary Clinton and Warren. The new board has only a few token conservatives such as Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The overwhelming majority of those making Facebook’s “final and binding decisions on whether specific content should be allowed or removed,” are leftists. They represent a new model of content moderation that will uphold “freedom of expression within the framework of international norms of human rights.” Facebook’s economic, political or reputational interests will not interfere in the process, the company writes in its introduction to the new board. Eventually the board, which will begin hearing cases later this year, will double in size. “The cases we choose to hear may be contentious, and we will not please everyone with our decisions,” Facebook warns.

Make no mistake–this is about influencing the November elections. Millennials get their news from social media. If they vote (they have a very spotty voting record) based on what they see on social media, then social media becomes very influential. If social media is censoring the news, controlling the narrative, the decisions made by voters who depend on it will not be based on facts.

A Partial Solution–Not A Real One

On Friday, Reuters reported the following:

Britain is prepared to offer extended visa rights and a pathway to citizenship for almost 3 million Hong Kong residents in response to China’s push to impose national security legislation in the former British colony.

The national security legislation recently put in place in Hong Kong by China is going to have repercussions worldwide. As a free state, Hong Kong has been a global financial center. Its residents have enjoyed the fruits of that status. As simply another part of Communist China, Hong Kong will not have the same economy or status.

My first question is whether or not China will allow a mass exodus of Hong Kong residents. Is Hong Kong a valuable asset if the majority of the people leave? How many residents would be willing to give up the life they have known for the sake of freedom? According to worldometers.info, Hong Kong has a population of about 7.5 million. The median age of that population is about 44 years old.

The article reports:

Foreign minister Dominic Raab said on Thursday that if Beijing went ahead, Britain would extend the rights of 350,000 ‘British National Overseas’ passport holders.

On Friday the interior ministry said that this policy would apply to all BNOs currently in Hong Kong – a much larger group of around 2.9 million people according to British government figures.

“If China imposes this law, we will explore options to allow British Nationals Overseas to apply for leave to stay in the UK, including a path to citizenship,” Home Secretary Priti Patel said in a statement.

“We will continue to defend the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.”

The article concludes:

Beijing says the new legislation, likely to come into force before September, will tackle secession, subversion, terrorism and foreign interference in the city.

Chinese authorities and Hong Kong’s government say the legislation poses no threat to the city’s autonomy and the interests of foreign investors will be preserved.

Somehow I doubt that any of the claims China is currently making are true.

Getting Rid Of A Speed Bump

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article yesterday reporting the following:

Finally, the DOJ has moved to remove one of the biggest background corrupt officials within the FBI. According to multiple media sources FBI chief legal counsel Dana Boente was forced to resign on Friday.  Finally, sunlight has removed a very corrupt player.

In prior positions as U.S. Attorney for Virginia; and while leading the DOJ National Security Division; and then later shifting to the FBI as chief legal counsel under Chris Wray; Dana Boente was at the epicenter of corrupt intent and malign activity toward the Trump administration.

The article is very detailed, so I suggest that you follow the link to read the entire article. I will attempt to summarize it here:

To understand the background, specifically as it pertains to why AG Barr had to make this move now, is complex.   A sequence of previous articles that CTH presented in/around the Dana Boente issue(s) have merged within this decision.

It is easiest to capture the full background content in this sequence:

♦June 2019 – Devin Nunes threatens criminal referrals for Dana Boente and Chris Wray – This background highlights Boente as a very bad actor [SEE HERE].

♦April 24, 2020 – Boente and Wray try to block release of Flynn documents.  AG Bill Bar intervenes.  This is the Flynn firetruck story, that ties to the release of the July 2018 letter from the DOJ-NSD and FBI to the FISA court. [SEE HERE]

♦April 26, 2020 – CTH Open Letter to Bill Barr – Outlines the corruption of Boente and Wray in the long-view and how it all comes together. [SEE HERE]

My educated hunch is the July 12, 2018, letter from the DOJ/FBI that was fraught with false information and purposeful lies to the FISA court, is really the issue that DOJ Bill Barr could not avoid.  The lies within the letter are just too brutally obvious, and contrast heavily against revelations coming from the outside USAO’s that Barr has brought in to review all of the prior DOJ and FBI activity.

Why do I think that’s the final straw?  Because if you take that moment in time and start working backward what you find is demonstrable and provable evidence that Dana Boente was one of the original Trump-era officials who participated in protecting “spygate” and using his support of the Mueller investigation as an internal weapon.   Remember, all the corrupt FBI players on Mueller’s team reported to Boente, including David Archey.

The article concludes:

At the heart of the matter, in the real activity that took place, there was a multi-branch seditious effort to remove President Donald J Trump.  Within that effort was a necessary group of embeds specifically assigned to conceal the activity.  Dana Boente was one of those embeds.

Dana Boente has now been removed.

Last point – this would not be happening right now if Durham was not coming toward the end of his investigation.  Generally speaking, DC provides identified corruptocrats with an opportunity for a graceful exit before the evidence against them surfaces publicly.

I have no doubt we are going to see more high-level resignations in the immediate future.

This Could Be Very Interesting

This week will be the beginning of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Russia and Ukraine investigations. The first witness will be former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It’s a pretty safe bet that he will not remember things or claim that he cannot answer a lot of questions because of classified information involved. We shall see.

Just the News posted an article yesterday that details nine items to look for. I am posting the list. Please follow the link to the article to read the details.

Here is the list:

1.) Will Rosenstein admit to failures and talk about the 25th Amendment fiasco?

2.) Will the ODNI declassify more documents, including former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’ secret report to the CIA Inspector General highlighting flaws in the Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 elections? 

3.) What will the DC Circuit Court of Appeals do in the Flynn dismissal case?

4.) Who else will Graham’s committee interview or subpoena?

5.) Will any congressional committees zero in on former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s conduct in the Russia case?

6.) Will Attorney General William Barr and the special prosecutors he named, like U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, to investigate the Russia case investigators bring any criminal charges?

7.) Will the Democratic strategy firm Blue Star Strategies comply with a subpoena in the Senate investigation into Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business dealings?

8.) Who else might Johnson subpoena in the Ukraine probe?

9.) Will Johnson’s committee issue an interim report this summer on the evidence it has already uncovered about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Burisma?

This does have the potential of being a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but there is always the possibility that Congress might actually do its job and investigate the corruption that is Washington.

It’s Time To Find Out Who Is Giving The Marching Orders

This was posted on Facebook by a friend:

These are not spontaneous protests. They are being orchestrated with a purpose. The idea is to undermine everyone’s sense of security and hopefully insure that President Trump is not re-elected.

I have been told by a friend that the above flyer is from a previous protest and not from the current unrest. Please consider the implications of that.

For further proof that this is political, The Gateway Pundit is reporting today:

At least 13 Joe Biden staffers made donations to a radical leftist group that is raising money for the looters and rioters in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Freedom Fund has raised $20 million in the past week by leftists to bail out violent Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists after they are caught looting and rioting.

Protesting is legal. You generally don’t get arrested for that. Looting and rioting are illegal. You should get arrested for that, remain in jail, and serve jail time for that.

Just for the record, black lives do matter, babies lives matter, law and order matters, and respect for other people’s property matters.

Who Is Rioting And Who Is Providing The Bricks?

The following video was placed on YouTube today:

Breitbart posted an article that included an interview with Bernie Kerik, former New York City Police Commissioner, today.

The article reports:

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik called for the FBI to investigate the funding of “domestic terrorism” from operations such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter, offering his remarks on Friday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host Ed Martin.

Riots and protests across multiple metropolitan cities are coordinated, said Kerik.

“I think the FBI has to investigate, especially this time, [when] you have enormous coordination between what’s going on in Minneapolis, then L.A., Houston, Atlanta,” Kerik determined. “There’s a bunch of coordination going on.”

Kerik added, “These pop-up riots, where they’re destroying businesses and cars and everything else, who’s paying? When these Antifa people get locked up, who pays their bail? Who gets them out of jail? How did they get there in the first place? Who pays for their communication networks?”

“I would say 10 to 15 percent of the people in Minneapolis that started protesting were from Minneapolis,” estimated Kerik. “Eighty to 85 percent of the people there were bused in. They came from somewhere else, and out of that group, you have a core group in a leadership role.”

This is an example of the need to follow the money. Who is buying and placing the bricks so conveniently? Bricks are not cheap. Who is paying for the buses to get people to these cities? People are not trashing their own neighborhoods–paid activists are doing it for them. It’s time we held the looters and their leaders accountable under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act.

The Problem With Justice In Minneapolis

The death of George Floyd is a tragedy. There is no doubt that he would still be alive if he hadn’t been held down on the ground by the police for as long as he was. However, the autopsy does not give asphixiation as the primary cause of death. So where do we go from here?

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at The National Review today that might provide some answers.

The article notes:

For one thing, contrary to most people’s assumption, Mr. Floyd appears not to have died from asphyxia or strangulation as Chauvin pinned him to the ground, knee to the neck. Rather, as alleged in the complaint, Floyd suffered from coronary-artery disease and hypertensive-heart disease. The complaint further intimates, but does not come out and allege, that Floyd may have had “intoxicants” in his system. The effects of these underlying health conditions and “any potential intoxicants” are said to have “combined” with the physical restraint by three police officers, most prominently Chauvin, to cause Floyd’s death.

As I’ve noted in a column on the homepage, Hennepin County prosecutors have charged Chauvin with third-degree depraved-indifference homicide. Now that the complaint has been released publicly, we see that a lesser offense was also charged: second-degree manslaughter. This homicide charge involves “culpable negligence creating an unreasonable risk” of serious bodily harm, and carries a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

It is easy to see why prosecutors added this charge (and why they shied away from more serious grades of murder described in my column). The case is tougher for prosecutors if there is doubt about whether Chauvin’s unorthodox and unnecessary pressure on Floyd’s neck caused him to die. Had he been strangled, causative effect of the neck pressure would be patent. But if the neck pressure instead just contributed to the stress of the situation that triggered death because of unusual underlying medical problems (possibly in conjunction with intoxicants Floyd may have consumed), it becomes a harder murder prosecution.

Stay tuned. This is going to get complicated. I believe that the police force was correct to fire the officers involved. However, getting them to pay a more serious price for their abuse of power is going to be difficult. Even with video evidence, they are innocent until proven guilty and have to be convicted ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’

 

Why It Matters

On Wednesday Real Clear Politics posted an article titled, “What the ‘Obamagate’ Scandals Mean and Why They Matter.” The article lists and details the scandals and why they matter. I will list them and then share the conclusion. Please follow the link to the article for further details.

The article lists the scandals:

Scandal No. 1: Massive, illegal surveillance of American citizens, using the database of the National Security Agency

Scandal No. 2: Spying on the Trump campaign

Scandal No. 3: Covering up this spying, continuing it during the new administration, charging that Trump was not legitimately elected, and impeding his presidency with major investigations, based on false charges

The article concludes:

Obama officials worked especially hard to remove incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Because Gen. Flynn was an experienced intelligence officer, he would surely uncover the surveillance of Trump’s campaign and transition and stop its continuation against the new administration. He had to go. Now we know just how low the Obama administration and Comey FBI sunk to make that happen: spying, unmasking, leaking classified phone calls, discarding FBI protocols to set up an entrapment interview based on a meaningless “legal violation,” and telling Trump directly, as Obama did, not to hire Flynn.

Beyond this destructive mission, Brennan loyalists at the CIA burrowed into Trump’s National Security Council while the FBI tried to plant agents in the White House itself. Most important of all, the Obama team and their congressional allies helped launch multiple, full-scale investigations of “Russian collusion” with no solid basis, plenty of contrived “evidence,” and breathless media headlines. It all failed, but not before it damaged Trump’s presidency and the basic tenets of liberal democracy.

It’s an ugly picture, one that goes beyond dirty tricks and the normal bounds of “loyal opposition.” We still have a lot to learn, but we already know a great deal. We know how grave the three scandals were. We know they fit together, forming something much larger. With each new tranche of declassified documents, we see something big and hideous emerging from the Swamp, a political scandal of profound import.

This information needs to be shouted to the American people. There are many Americans who still believe that President Trump did collude with the Russians, and they need to be told the truth. No one likes to admit that they believed a lie, but it is time to educate the American citizens on what the truth actually is.

There Has Been An Arrest

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today that Derek Chauvin, the fired Minneapolis police officer who was seen on video kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, has been arrested. The other three officers were not arrested.

CBS Minnesota is reporting:

Fired Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has been arrested four days after George Floyd’s fatal arrest that sparked protests, rioting and outcry across the city and nation, and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced he has been charged with murder and manslaughter, with the charges scheduled to be released shortly.

Every American is entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers. Therefore, despite the video and what appears on it, we need to withhold judgement until Mr. Chauvin has been tried. However, it is encouraging to me that he has been arrested and charged with murder in relation to the death of George Floyd. Hopefully this will provide closure for the family of George Floyd and might help calm some of the protestors that have created so much havoc in Minneapolis.

 

 

A Synopsis Of What Obamagate Was And How It Happened

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an op-ed piece in The Washington Examiner detailing some of the highlights of Obamagate. Please follow the link to read the entire article. I am going to focus on a few highlights.

The op-ed notes:

The Trump-Russia inquiry was ingeniously designed. If the president demanded that his subordinates unveil the intelligence files that would reveal the prior administration’s political spying, he stood to be accused of obstructing investigators and seeking to distract the country from his own alleged criminality.

On that score, an underappreciated aspect of the saga is that Trump came to office as a novice. His unhinged Twitter outbursts obscure an abiding uncertainty about the extent of the president’s power to direct the intelligence bureaucracy. A more seasoned Beltway hand would have known what he could safely order reluctant bureaucrats and Obama holdovers to produce for him or disclose to the public. Trump, however, was at sea. That is why it was so vital for his antagonists to sideline Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions, Trump loyalists with deep experience in intelligence and law enforcement, who could have put a stop to the farce if they’d remained, respectively, national security adviser and attorney general.

The article concludes:

There are two lessons to be drawn from all this.

First, Barr could not be more right that the malfeasance in our government today is the politicization of law enforcement and intelligence. The only way to fix that is to stop doing it. That cannot be accomplished by bringing what many would see as the most politicized prosecution of all time. The imperative to get the Justice Department and the FBI out of our politics discourages the filing of charges that would be portrayed as banana-republic stuff. Yet, even if Barr succeeds in this noble quest, there is no assurance that a future administration would not turn the clock back.

Second, when wayward officials are not called to account, the powers they have abused become the target of public and congressional ire. The problem is that the powers are essential. Without properly directed foreign counterintelligence, supplemented by legitimate law enforcement, the United States cannot be protected from those who would do her harm.

The Trump-Russia farce has destroyed the bipartisan consensus on counterterrorism, and on the need for aggressive policing against cyberintrusions and other provocations by America’s enemies. There is an implicit understanding: The public endows its national security officials with sweeping secret authorities, and those officials solemnly commit that these authorities will only be used to thwart our enemies, not to spy on Americans or undermine the political process.

That understanding has been fractured. In counterintelligence, government operatives have to be able to look us in the eye and say, “You can trust us.” Americans no longer do. The sentiment is justified. That will not make our consequent vulnerability any less perilous.

Consequences for the guilty parties would be appropriate. However, until the American public is educated on exactly what happened, any consequences are going to look political. What is needed at this time is a massive education campaign to bring the general public up to speed. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is not likely to participate in that campaign. I am concerned that because of the dishonesty of the mainstream media,  many Americans have no idea that there actually was an attempted soft coup against President Trump. Attorney General Barr and those working with him will need the wisdom of Solomon to navigate the maze that lies before them.

What Is The Next Step?

On Monday night George Floyd was pronounced dead after he was taken into custody by police in Minneapolis. There is a video of Mr. Floyd being pressed to the ground by a policeman despite Mr. Floyd’s stating that he could not breathe. This is a horrible abuse of power by the policeman and by the other policemen and people standing around watching it happen. So where do we go from here?

The answer is not rioting, looting, and burning down the neighborhood businesses. There is never any excuse for that behavior. Part of the answer is arresting the policeman who had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and the policemen who stood by as Mr. Floyd was murdered. There needs to be a trial. Probably a change of venue for the trial would be in order. The charge needs to be appropriate to the crime–the video is evidence. I don’t know if a murder charge would hold up, but I suspect an involuntary manslaughter charge would.

We can’t judge the motives of the policeman. We don’t know if he knew his actions would result in death. We don’t know why he simply did not place the man in the backseat of the police car. These are things that I hope would come out in a trial.

Most of our policemen are honest, hardworking men and women. It is a shame when a man charged with upholding the law does something this horrible. According to various sources, the policeman involved had other questionable incidents in his record. This should be a wake-up call to all supervisors of policemen to remove any policeman who cannot handle the responsibility of the job without acting in ways that bring disgrace on their profession and create situations where people feel they have the right to riot. People never have the right to riot, but unfortunately some people have been told that they do.

The Underlying Purpose Of The Mueller Investigation

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article explaining how the Mueller investigation was used to block the release of any information that would have shown the Russian collusion charges against President Trump as a hoax.

The article explains:

Within an interesting interview conducted by Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times, former AAG Matt Whitaker confirms what CTH long suspected. The Mueller investigation was used by corrupt interests within the special counsel’s office to threaten any/all executive branch and congressional officials with “obstruction of justice” charges if they revealed any exculpatory or counter-narrative information during the Mueller probe.

Whitaker describes this as the “obstruction of justice trap.”

Essentially, this approach confirms the second-prong purpose of the Mueller investigation itself. First, use the special counsel in 2017, 2018 and into the beginning of 2019, as a shield (hide information); and secondly a weapon (threats) against any entity who would reveal the background intelligence that undercut the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

We know President Trump was threatened by Rod Rosenstein not to declassify any information in September of 2018 or the Mueller investigation would use that act as evidence of obstruction. Whitaker confirms that same approach was applied toward any executive branch officer who would reveal or release information to congress during the tenure of the special counsel; even within the DOJ and including the attorney general.

This is how the Mueller probe was weaponized to mislead the American people.

…Documents could not be released without Mueller approval; interviews with key FBI/DOJ officials could not be conducted without Mueller team approval; information could not be declassified without Mueller team approval, etc.

Any agency or individual that attempted to release any information was subject to the threat of indictment by the same corrupt prosecutors leading the investigation. It’s a self-fulfilling safety mechanism.  Even DOJ officials like Matt Whitaker were under threat. Whitaker calls it the “Obstruction of Justice Trap”.

With that in mind this is a very serious flaw in the authority of the special counsel statute that needs to be addressed by congress. Who can watch the watchers, when the watchers were specifically selected because they would knowingly contribute to the corruption.

The article includes the following video:

The article also highlights particular parts of the video:

Very disturbing (timestamps for interview):

♦03:43 On Judge Sullivan choosing not to dismiss the case against Gen. Flynn
♦06:54 On FBI director Christopher Wray calling for an internal investigation
♦08:41 What kind of accountability will we see for 2016 election surveillance?
♦15:27 The problem with the regulation creating Special Counsels
♦19:32 Obstruction of justice trap?
♦35:38 Communist China’s a greater threat than Russia

The truth needs to come out. Americans are entitled to see how their government became a political weapon used against a campaign and against a presidency. There are a number of people who need to pay a high price for what they have done to thwart the smooth transition of power in America.

As Freedom In Hong Kong Dies

Breitbart posted an article today reporting that China had blocked America’s request for a United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss China’s recent actions in Hong Kong.

The article reports:

China is one of five permanent members of the council, also including the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. According to the U.S. mission, China single-handedly prevented discussion of the increasingly worrisome situation in Hong Kong where, as of Wednesday Chinese Communist Party authorities will be able to punish people present in the nominally autonomous region for any behavior they identify as threatening the national security of China.

The “national security” law China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) passed on Thursday overrides the autonomy of the Hong Kong authorities to handle local criminal concerns. Its opponents note that it is a violation of “One Country, Two Systems,” the policy China vowed to keep to when Hong Kong accepted Chinese sovereignty over it in 1997.

The U.S. mission to the U.N. called the law a “matter of urgent global concern that implicates international peace and security.”

“As a result, the United States called today for a virtual meeting of the Security Council to discuss these acts and the PRC’s [China’s] proposed national security law that would threaten Hong Kong’s democratic institutions and civil liberties. Such actions confirm the PRC’s contempt and complete disregard for its international obligations,” the mission said. “Unsurprisingly, the PRC has refused to allow this virtual meeting to proceed in the Security Council.”

Below is part of the preamble to the United Nations Charter:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Obviously they are not living up to their charter. It is time to remove them from New York City and stop giving them money.

Meanwhile, The National Review reported yesterday that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Congress that the city of Hong Kong is effectively no longer an “autonomous” entity.

The article reports:

“The State Department is required by the Hong Kong Policy Act to assess the autonomy of the territory from China,” Pompeo wrote in a statement. “I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997. No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China…it is now clear that China is modeling Hong Kong after itself.”

The article notes:

In light of the recent moves by China to increase its authority over the city, U.S. Senators Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) and Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) sponsored legislation to sanction Chinese individuals and entities involved in threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy.

We need to make it financially disadvantageous for China to continue its violation of the treaty with Britain that promised Hong Kong would remain free. It is time to remove any  trade deals involving Hong Kong that are favorable toward China.