Tag Archives: Donald Trump

This Could Be Anyone’s Future

Posted on by

One of the things President Trump repeatedly says that to me is cringeworthy is, “In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.” The fact that the statement is cringeworthy to me doesn’t mean it is not true. Aside from the injustice currently happening in New York, the injustice being done to John Eastman is a disgrace to America.

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported:

One of the left’s biggest political targets recently found himself “de-banked” with no warning and little avenue for recourse, the Daily Caller has learned.

John Eastman, once an attorney for former President Donald Trump, was de-banked twice in the span of several months by two prominent financial institutions, Bank of America and USAA, he told the Daily Caller. His accounts were closed as he faced substantial backlash for his work advising Trump around the time of the 2020 election.

Eastman said he had switched most of his banking from Bank of America to USAA, a company that provides financial services exclusively to military veterans as well as their families, due to the former’s “wokeness.” Both corporations are federally insured, and Bank of America was bailed out with billions of dollars in taxpayer funds during the global financial crisis.

Bank of America alerted Eastman in September of 2023 that it would be closing his accounts, a letter obtained by the Daily Caller shows. Shortly thereafter, USAA notified Eastman in November that his two bank accounts with the company would be closed, a separate letter shows.

The article concludes:

A number of red state attorneys general — including from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Montana — voiced their opposition to the de-banking trend after the Daily Caller laid out Eastman’s situation. Many of the state AGs pointed to politics as a potential reason Eastman’s accounts were closed.

“No American should lose their bank account because banks want to play politics. Time and time again, we are seeing banks target and cut off those they disagree with and refuse to explain why. That is unacceptable,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird told the Daily Caller.

“De-banking contradicts the very character of our nation, as elites wrongfully use their power to punish their political opponents. Here’s the bottom line: If financial institutions are punishing consumers who don’t fall in line with their political beliefs, that could constitute a violation of both state and federal law,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told the Daily Caller.

Now, Eastman is being prosecuted by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis as part of her case against Trump. On March 27, a California judge ruled that Eastman should be disbarred due to his legal advice in the wake of the 2020 election. The case will now move to the state Supreme Court for a final decision.

“I just think this is a terrible trend. I think it’s harmful. I think it prohibits people from bringing their values and the public square into the marketplace. And they have every constitutional right under the Free Exercise clause to bring their values into the marketplace. And I think this is also I think this is something we’re just gonna have to fight against,” Sam Brownback, an attorney and former U.S. Senator whose Christian non-profit was de-banked, told the Daily Caller.

Our current government is enacting the Chinese Communist social credit system right before our eyes.

The Value Of The Abraham Accords

Posted on by

On Monday, Robert Zimmerman posted an article at Behind the Black about the attack on Israel this past weekend. The article notes how the Abraham Accords, initiated during the Trump administration, helped protect the nation of Israel.

The article reports:

Over the weekend the Iranian attempt to bomb Israel drove home starkly the effectiveness of the Abraham Accords that Donald Trump pushed through during his term between Israel and a number of its Arab neighbors.

The effectiveness of the accords was not only illustrated by the moral and technical support given to Israel by the UAE and Bahrain (two accord signatories), the good will these agreements produced between Israel and the Arab world caused other Arab nations to add their own support as well.

First, when Iran tipped off several Arab countries of its intentions — which likely included both Jordan and Saudi Arabia (neither of which has signed the accords) — those countries then immediately passed that information to the United States, knowning full well it would then be passed to Israel. Iran had thought the Arab world was united with it, when in truth at least half the Arab world is now allied with Israel (either overtly or covertly).

Then Jordan denied Iran permission to use its airspace, and then followed this up by first opening its airspace to Israel and American fighter jets. All three then proceeded to shoot down Irans missiles and drones, preventing almost all from even reaching Israel.

The article concludes:

The situation of course remains very complex, but it will simplify enormously after Israel finishes Hamas off and then demonstrates its determination to rebuild Gaza as a sane place for both the Gazans and its neighbors. Despite the absurd screams of “genocide” by stupid Hama supporters, Israel’s neighbors very much want to get Hamas destroyed. They might mouth some complaints about the lose of civilian lifes in Gaza, but those protests are not to be taken very seriously. Hamas has done nothing for them except instill disorder and violence in the region. Remove it, and they know everyone will benefit.

The Trump administration was working toward peace in the Middle East. I am not sure what the Biden administration is working toward.

 

This Is Called Changing The Subject

Posted on by

A lot of us are very unhappy that the law allowing warrantless surveillance of Americans was extended. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Most of us would be okay if the act was strictly used to surveil foreigners, but history tells us that it has been used illegally to spy on innocent Americans. The fact that many Republicans voted to extend the act is unfortunate. That is not what they were elected to do. Unfortunately, according to the list of people who voted for the extension that I have seen, our own Representative, Greg Murphy, voted for the extension. I can only assume that these Representatives were told that if there were a terrorist attack and the bill was not extended, they would be held responsible by the media. Knowing the intelligence community’s ability to stage false-flag events and the media’s ability to mislead the public, this might have been the tactic used. That is simply my opinion.

President Trump, who did not support the extension but wanted to save the day for the Republicans, held a press conference with Speaker Johnson at Mar-a-Lago.

On Friday, The Epoch Times reported:

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and former President Donald Trump are urging support for a bill aimed at preventing non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

At a Friday, April 12, press conference at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence, the Republican leaders announced the bill as part of larger efforts to bolster election integrity.

“What we’re going to do is introduce legislation to require that every single person who registers to vote in a federal election must prove that they are an American citizen first,” Mr. Johnson said.

This is a great idea, but will create some problems. What will be required of voters in order to prove their citizenship? I was talking to someone today who does not have a birth certificate–the person was born at home in rural America and the birth was recorded in the family Bible. How can that person prove that they are an American? How many elderly Americans do not have birth certificates, passports, or documents to prove they are Americans? Does your social security card prove you are an American (those can be counterfeited)? It will be interesting to watch what happens to this plan as it moves forward.

Time to Save America

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

Our country is faced with an election this fall of great importance. The outcome will determine the fate of this country for the present and future generations. Fortunately, we have two candidates for the presidency who both have a track record of what we can expect if they are elected. The decision must be made on their policies and actions, not on any other factors such as personality or a single issue. Since the end of WWII we have fought against worldwide communism/Marxism. We are now at a crossroad of whether or not we will remain a constitutional republic with unprecedented freedom, liberty and opportunity. Here are the documented differences between Trump and Biden. Your vote will decide the fate of this country.

Immigration: Trump secured the borders, built a wall, instituted a “remain in Mexico” policy. He favors legal immigration and will deport people here illegally. Biden has not only implemented an open border policy but is actively encouraging illegal entry by providing free housing, food, and medical care. The result is the largest influx of illegals in history (over 10 million), which is larger than the population of 40 states.

Inflation: Trump: Inflation was about 2% during his administration; mortgage rates 3%, gasoline $2 per gallon. Biden: Prices have increased at near record levels with food, energy and essential products up over 20% in just over three years and continuing to rise. Mortgage rates are at or near 7%, and gasoline is at $3+ per gallon. The average American’s standard of living has decreased substantially.

Safety: Trump: Lower domestic crime rates, supported law enforcement, no new foreign wars. Biden: Major cities not safe with crime at record levels, criminals released not prosecuted, law enforcement unable to fill vacant positions, cities overrun with drug addicts, major foreign wars with emboldened enemies like Russia, Iran and China, talk of a nuclear World War III not heard since the 1950s.

Constitutional Freedoms: Trump: Strong support for free speech, right to bear arms, and consumer choice through reduction of government regulations. Biden: Use of social media to restrict speech, using the Department of Justice to go after political opponents (especially Donald Trump), weaponizing the FBI against U.S. citizens, restricting consumer choice with electric vehicles, gas stoves, and so-called green energy.

Indoctrinating Children: Trump: Encouraged school choice and pro-American instruction, no transgender sports participation. Biden: Encouraged the teaching of Critical Race Theory, Diversity-Equity-Inclusion, and transgender instruction in all public schools, opposes school vouchers/choice.

The above represents some of the most obvious differences between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. There are many others. The choice could not be clearer: America as we have known it or Marxism and the destruction of all we have fought to maintain since the founding of this great country. It is up to us to see very clearly what is at stake in this election. As Lincoln once said, “If America is to be destroyed, it will be by our own doing.” You know what to do!

Register to vote! Get out to the polls and save this country! It is time to take America back!

The Real Threat to Our Democracy

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

As usual, the Democrat left is lying to the American people. Truth is not something that they believe in. This has been the case with every communist/Marxist government in world history. The latest of many examples is the Biden regime’s claim that Donald Trump is the biggest threat to our democracy. As usual, they do not even recognize that we are a constitutional Republic–not a democracy. Let’s see where the real threat is coming from.

In a very revealing interview on CNN, Robert Kennedy, Jr., a third party candidate for the presidency (and an extreme leftist himself, especially on the environment), was asked who was the greatest threat to democracy, Donald Trump or Joe Biden. To the shock and chagrin of the CNN interviewer, Kennedy answered that it was Joe Biden. He went on to explain how his free speech was taken away by the Biden regime through social media banning which he has had to fight in court. He has also been denied Secret Service protection which under previous administrations, would have been routinely granted. Especially in his case where both his father (Robert) and his uncle (John) were both assassinated. Leaving him at risk would be one way of Biden eliminating an opponent.

Inviting illegal aliens into our country and granting them free support including airfares directly into our country are the biggest threat to our country at this time. Not only does the Biden regime invite them in, they make every effort to block Texas from sealing their border, including court actions. A country without borders cannot long exist. Free speech is an essential part of any free country. The first thing Hitler did when taking over the government of Germany was to forbid speech in opposition to his regime. He then constituted a federal police force (the SS) to arrest and incarcerate anyone who voiced opposition to his regime. Sound familiar? Look how the Biden regime is misusing the FBI and the Department of (In)Justice to go after Trump supporters, branding them as MAGA terrorists. Sending fully armed squads of FBI agents to arrest your political opponents and their supporters has never been seen in this country before the Biden regime took over. How about the coordinated campaign of bringing bogus charges and court cases against your political opponent, as Biden has done to Donald Trump? Also, the Democrat Marxists efforts to steal elections by the wholesale use of mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting. No free country can exist without free and fair elections and citizen’s confidence in the election process. The final example is Biden’s continuing effort to grant forgiveness of student loans, which he hopes will buy him votes, in spite of the fact that the courts have declared that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He just ignores the courts.

Well, you get the point. If Biden and the Marxist Democrats succeed in winning this coming election, our country is doomed to follow other communist regimes that have destroyed the freedoms and liberty of their people. We must not let this happen. If we do, we will have not only failed ourselves but our children and grandchildren. Get out and resist before it is too late!

I Don’t Think The Biden Administration Wants To Hear This

Posted on by

On April 5th, Fox News posted an article about a recent statement by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. There are a lot of centrist Democrats who will agree with the premise behind his statement.

The article reports:

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Friday said he is “disturbed” by “the weaponization of government against” former President Donald Trump. 

He also vowed that if elected president, he would appoint a special counsel to investigate whether “prosecutorial discretion was abused for political ends” in cases related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. 

Kennedy on Friday issued a statement in an effort to “clarify his views on the events of January 6, 2021.”

“January 6 is one of the most polarizing topics on the political landscape. I am listening to people of diverse viewpoints on it in order to make sense of the event and what followed. I want to hear every side,” Kennedy said, adding that it is “quite clear that many of the January 6 protesters broke the law in what may have started as a protest but turned into a riot.” 

“Because it happened with the encouragement of President Trump, and in the context of his delusion that the election was stolen from him, many people see it not as a riot but as an insurrection,” he said. 

I disagree with his statement that the rioting happened with the encouragement of President Trump. The direct quote from President Trump’s speech is, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” That is not incitement to riot.

The article notes:

But Kennedy said that “reasonable people, including Trump opponents, tell me there is little evidence of a true insurrection.” 

“They observe that the protesters carried no weapons, had no plans or ability to seize the reins of government, and that Trump himself had urged them to protest ‘peacefully,’” Kennedy said. 

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. If nothing else, Kennedy recognizes the danger of an overly-powerful government using its power to silence its political opposition.

Exactly Who Does Congress Represent?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Issues & Insights posted the results of a Scott Rasmussen poll.

The article reports:

Among all Americans, just 7% said they would want their candidate to win by cheating. As Rasmussen put it, he’d rather see that number lower, but that’s not bad.

But more than a third of the elite 1% he surveyed would condone cheating. And among those who are “politically obsessed” – meaning that they talk about politics every day – that number shot up to 69%.

Keep in mind that this elite 1% group is overwhelmingly liberal. According to Rasmussen, these are mainly well-educated urbanites who make more than $150,000 a year and think Joe Biden is doing a great job. Nearly three-quarters identify as Democrats.

They are also highly influential when it comes to policy, and they are completely out of touch with everyday Americans. A few examples from the survey:

    • Nearly 60% say there is too much individual freedom in America – double the rate of all Americans.
    • More than two-thirds (67%) favor rationing of energy and food to combat the threat of “climate change.”
    • Nearly three-quarters (70%) of the elites trust the government to “do the right thing most of the time.”
    • More than two-thirds (67%) say teachers and other educational professionals should decide what children are taught rather than letting parents decide.
    • Nearly three-quarters (74%) say they are financially better off than before COVID, compared with 20% of the general public.

These elites are also the people who are constantly wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Donald Trump is a “grave threat to democracy.” You can’t turn on the television, open a newspaper, or go to any mainstream news site without being warned that “democracy is on the ballot this November,” or told that Trump is a wannabe dictator, his followers semi-fascists, blah, blah, blah.

Yet most of these same elites would be happy to see Biden and the Democratic Party rob and cheat to steal an election rather than let Trump win a second term in office.

It is time Americans elected people who actually represent them. Our current elected officials clearly represent only a small minority of the people. All of us need to get involved in primary elections to change this–until we change the candidates, we won’t change the results.

The Impact The Trump Administration Had On The Chinese Economy

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Don Surber posted an article at Substack about the impact the Trump administration had on the Chinese economy.

The article opens with the following statement:

The news on Monday morning was dominated by stories of an economic recovery by Red China of a recession that the U.S. press had largely ignored.

Bloomberg reported, “[Red] China’s factory activity beat expectations in March, boosting optimism about the country’s ability to achieve its ambitious growth goal of around 5% this year.

“The Caixin manufacturing purchasing managers’ index rose to 51.1 on Monday — above the 50 mark that indicates expansion for a fifth month, the longest streak in more than two years.

“Government data published on Sunday showed manufacturing PMI in March snapped a five-month contraction to rise to the highest in a year. Both numbers beat market expectations, adding to evidence that the country’s industrial sector is building momentum for an economic recovery.”

Trusting Red China numbers is like trusting its statements on covid but the encouraging news is that Red China has — or at least had — a recession. The admission by our Maoist press shows that the communists who run the joint no longer can paper reality over.

Of course, under Biden we no longer can trust our government’s numbers. Maybe we should just give up on compiling numbers because most of them are just polls (or surveys to use their language).

The narrative about Red China has changed dramatically.

The article then describes the predictions (pre-Trump administration) that China would eclipse America economically within a decade. Now those predictions are not looking accurate.

The article then explains why:

The Tax Foundation said, “The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.”

Of course, Red China ate most of the tariffs as it wanted to maintain market share. The problem for the communists was under Trump’s leadership, other countries joined in. There is more to the story of Red China’s recession, of course. Spreading covid around the world had a backlash. And communism doesn’t work. But do not discount the role of the wrecking ball we call Donald Trump.

This weekend, the New York Post posted an excerpt of Steven W. Mosher’s new book is The Devil and Communist China.

He wrote, “The Trump tariffs—imposed in 2018 and still in place today — set China back on its heels. And the covid debacle deepened China’s economic malaise.

“But most of the wounds have been self-inflicted.

‘The Chinese economy is suffering from a kind of death by a thousand cuts perpetrated by the policies of Xi Jinping, a man who models himself on one of the most monomaniacal — and deadly — communist leaders in human history.”

Reagan took down communist Russia along with Lech Walesa, Margaret Thatcher and Pope Paul II. Trump is taking down Red China with the help of Chairman Xi.

Elections matter.

 

 

 

Laws For Thee But Not For Me

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The New York Post reported that Jon Stewart, after stating that “that Donald Trump’s civil real-estate case overvaluing his properties was “not victimless,”” was found to have done similar things.

When The New York Post did some investigating, this is what they found:

But it didn’t take long for internet sleuths to look into Stewart’s own property history, which shows his New York City penthouse sold for 829% more than its assessed value, records confirmed by The Post reveal.

In 2014, Stewart sold his 6,280-square-foot Tribeca duplex to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million.

The property’s asking price at that time is not available in listing records.

But according to 2013-2014 assessor records obtained by The Post, the property had the estimated market-value at only $1.882 million.

…The actual assessor valuation was even lower, at $847,174.

Records also show that Stewart paid significantly lower property taxes, which were calculated based on that assessor valuation price — precisely what he called Trump out for doing in his Monday monologue.

Pande, who purchased the penthouse from Stewart, then resold the property at a nearly 26% loss, according to the Real Deal — at just over $13 million — in 2021.

Clean up your own backyard!

The article concludes:

Trump had valued the property, known as Seven Springs, at $261 million.

The difference between Stewart and Trump’s cases is that a judge ruled that Trump sometimes exaggerated to lenders about how big his properties were, including the square footage of his Trump Tower apartment.

Last month, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355 million — and temporarily banned him from doing business in the state — relying heavily on the assessed valuations of the properties to determine the ruling.

The $454 million bond to appeal the ruling marks the highest bond ever recorded in United States history against a single individual.

I guess the laws only apply to some people.

The Continuing Lawfare

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported yesterday that the lawfare against President Trump slowed slightly yesterday when the New York state Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department Appellate Division granted a stay of enforcement on the $464 million judgment on former President Donald Trump.

The article reports:

The New York state Supreme Court’s First Judicial Department Appellate Division has granted a stay of enforcement on the $464 million judgment on former President Donald Trump with conditions, allowing The Trump Organization to avert having assets imminently seized by the New York attorney general.

The order came after defense attorneys argued that a $464 million bond was impossible after having contracted four brokers to negotiate with more than 30 companies. Sureties don’t issue bonds that large for private individuals, and even if The Trump Organization were a public conglomerate they could issue such a bond to, it would require some $570 million in cash to cover additional premiums.

The court’s conditions for lowering the bond include President Trump posting $175 million within 10 days and the other orders on the judgment going into effect.

The judgment permanently bars former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and former Comptroller Jeffrey McConney from serving in financial control of any New York business entity; permanently bars President Trump, Mr. Weisselberg, and Mr. McConney from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation for three years; bars President Trump from applying for loans from New York financial institutions for three years; and bars Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in New York for two years.

There was no stay requested for the continuance of an independent monitor overseeing financial matters in The Trump Organization or the installation of a compliance officer.

Just for the record, there is no Constitutional justification for a government entity placing a monitor or a compliance officer in a private business. This is an affront to the concept of free enterprise that  built America. I would like to see every major business leave New York State until they rescind whatever ‘law’ they are using to justify their actions against President Trump.

A Sad Day For Equal Justice Under The Law

Posted on by

The New York case against President Trump is an insult to the rule of law. There was no jury (not that you could find an unbiased jury in New York) and no one was claiming that President Trump’s actions had a negative impact on anyone. But even putting that aside, the idea that the government can simply accuse someone of a crime, find a like-minded judge, and seize someone’s assets is scary.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller noted the following:

Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James recently took the first step towards seizing former President Donald Trump’s assets, public records show.

James filed judgements against Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization on March 6 with the clerk’s office in Westchester County, where Trump owns a golf resort and private estate called Seven Springs, according to Bloomberg News. Judge Arthur Engoron issued a judgement in February finding that Trump must pay $454 million in James’ lawsuit, which alleged he perpetuated financial fraud by overestimating the value of his assets to obtain loans.

Trump’s legal team wrote in a filing earlier this week that he could not post bond in his appeal, moving to stay the execution of the judgment. Trump has four days to come up with the amount before the March 25 deadline.

“The amount of the judgment, with interest, exceeds $464 million, and very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude…In short, ‘a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen,’” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

This is a sad day for America. How many businesses will be leaving New York as a result of this action?

Protecting The Lie

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the arrest of Michigan attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila in Washington, D.C.

The article reports:

Michigan attorney Stefanie Lambert Junttila was arrested in Washington, D.C., on Monday following a court hearing after she gave the alleged “evidence of numerous crimes” to law enforcement containing internal emails from Dominion Voting Systems, AP reported.

Lambert attended a court hearing in Washington, D.C., for a defamation case involving Patrick Byrne, whom she represents. Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock, is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems over his claims of election fraud.

Lambert’s arrest occurred after it was revealed that she had leaked confidential documents from to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf, who has been actively investigating claims of voter fraud from the 2020 election, according to CNN.

The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf has made a bold move by sending a letter to U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, urging a congressional investigation into what he alleges is evidence of “foreign interference” in the 2020 election.

Gee. When does the person who leaked the Supreme Court abortion decision get discovered and arrested?

The article notes:

According to former Michigan candidate for Attorney General and constitutional attorney Matt DePerno, Lambert “was arrested on an open bench warrant for failing to appear at a show cause hearing because she refused to get fingerprinted.”

The U.S. Marshals Service later confirmed Lambert’s arrest, linking it to her failure to appear in court for her separate Michigan criminal case, according to CNN.

During the hearing, Lambert admitted to passing materials to Sheriff Leaf, asserting that she was reporting a crime to law enforcement. She has been vocal about her claims, suggesting that foreign nationals interfered with the election.

Dominion’s legal team has suggested that Lambert’s actions might constitute a criminal offense and has requested her removal from the case. A future hearing is set to determine whether Lambert violated a court order by leaking the documents. Additionally, the court has summoned Byrne to appear and respond to questions about the incident.

I wonder if she had leaded something claiming Donald Trump did something awful would she have been arrested?

Unfolding Before Our Eyes

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the use of the legal system against President Trump.

The article reports:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Monday that the “improvisational” nature of the cases against former President Donald Trump caused damage to the image of the legal system and proved Trump was “right” about being targeted by a “weaponized” justice system.

Trump’s attorneys said Monday the former president was having difficulty posting a $454 million bond to cover the judgment in a civil fraud case issued by New York Judge Arthur Engoron in February. Turley said that the cases brought by Democratic Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis proved Trump’s allegations that he was being targeted correct. 

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny that we have a legal system now that is being heavily distorted by politics and you cannot look at all of these cases and see blind justice, you see the opposite,” Turley told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow, a former Trump administration official. “You see a justice that is being weaponized, and in many ways the Democrats fulfill the narrative of President Trump. He is now right. No matter what they thought about it at the beginning, they proved him to be right with this pile-on from Florida to Georgia, to Washington, D.C., to New York and most of the public gets it.”

The article concludes:

“I mean we have to wait to see if New York still has a judge or two that’s willing to say enough,” Turley continued. “When you are forcing someone to come up with half a billion dollars just to get an appeal? Someone has to say enough. This is not what New York is supposed to be.”

If we want to see our justice system restored back to equal justice under the law, we are going to have to elect people who are willing to follow the law. Please keep that in mind when you vote in primary elections and in November.

 

What Election Interference?

Posted on by

On Monday, Newsbusters posted an article about Google and election interference.

The article reports:

Google has been getting away with election interference for at least 16 years, and it is showing no signs of stopping.

MRC Free Speech America researchers compiled 41 times Google was caught interfering in U.S. elections, beginning in 2008, intensifying in 2016 and continuing into 2024. MRC researchers found carefully crafted studies and numerous reports (from 2008 through February 2024) that have consistently demonstrated the tech behemoth’s election meddling. 

This is a partial list:

In 2008, Google endorsed the radical, young Sen. Obama and censored support for Sen. Clinton.

Google allowed users to smear then-leading GOP candidate for president Rick Santorum.

In 2016, Google employed both its algorithm and its “partners” in futile attempts to push Clinton over the finish line.

Researchers uncovered clear evidence of election interference in 2018.

In 2020, Google picked its favored and disfavored candidates and continued its biased censorship spree.

In 2022, Google placed its thumb on the scale by censoring candidates in key races, and it continued censoring media

The article also comments on the current election cycle:

  • The 2024 election cycle is upon us, and Google has already begun interfering. MRC Free Speech America found that Google buried the campaign websites for every significant opponent of incumbent President Joe Biden (RFK, Jr. plus 15 Republican candidates). When searching for “Republican presidential campaign websites,” Google returned Democrat Mariane Williamson, but not former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy and others.) Additionally, Google’s artificial intelligence Gemini (formerly Bard) has refused to answer prompts questioning two of Biden’s biggest weaknesses: the president’s mental health and the ongoing border crisis. The chatbot instead suggested the queries were election-related, which they are. “Elections are a complex topic with fast-changing information,” Gemini claimed in response. “To make sure you have the latest and most accurate information, try Google Search.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Be aware that search engines can be very biased.

 

Cleaning House At The Republican National Committee

Posted on by

It has become obvious in recent years that the people we are electing as our ‘representatives’ don’t always represent us. They seem to have their own little power clique that generally ignores the will of the people. This is true in both parties with a few exceptions. Part of the appeal of President Trump is that despite being unbelievably wealthy, he seems to be able to relate to the common man. As he takes over the Republican National Committee and cleans house, hopefully he will fill the Committee with people who represent those of us who have to live under the rules put in place by our government.

On Saturday, American Greatness reported the following:

Sixty (former) Republican National Committee (RNC) staffers received their walking papers this week, just days after new pro-Trump leadership took over at the committee.

The RNC voted on March 8 to replace Ronna McDaniel with new Chairman Michael Whatley and Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara, as co-chair.

…The firings are a clear sign that the Trump campaign is focused on aligning the Republican Party with the campaign after months of feckless leadership at the RNC.

Whatley, the former chair of the North Carolina GOP, said in his acceptance speech that the RNC “will be focused like a laser on getting out the vote and protecting the ballot” and “will work hand in glove with President Trump’s campaign.”

Former Trump White House adviser, who is set to become the RNC’s new chief operating officer, Sean Cairncross, reportedly sent an email that said a full evaluation of RNC staffing was being done “to ensure the building is aligned with his vision of how to win in November.”

…The changes appear to having an immediate impact.

Lara Trump announced the RNC had the “largest digital fundraising weekend since 2020.”

Trump also told Fox News that she “personally had $2.7 MILLION pledged to her on her first weekend as RNC co-chair”:

Let’s hope that at least one of the political parties will make an effort to listen to the voters.

 

Jonathan Turley Comments On The Hearings

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Red State posted an article about the hearings yesterday in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. The article included some interesting comments by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

The article reports:

While Republicans continued to stress the two-tiered justice system in the case of Biden’s classified documents vs. those of Donald Trump, Democrats continually tried to put words in Hur’s mouth that neither he nor his report said. 

So how bad were the Democrats? George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said the Democrats’ questioning of Hur “seemed almost to border on the delusional.”

During an appearance on Fox News’s “America Reports,” Turley gave a perfect example.

Well, I thought the Republicans did a particularly good job today. Often the Democrats are way ahead in framing of hearings, but at points the Democrats seemed almost a border on the delusional. 

When you had Hur say ‘I did not exonerate the president’ and then Democrats would say ‘OK, so you exonerated the president’ and he would say ‘No, I didn’t’ and they would say ‘Thank you for that, with that exoneration.’ 

So for a lot of people watching, they probably kept on having to sort of reverse and see if they missed something here.

The thing to remember when Democrat politicians play this kind of nonsensical game is that they’re playing solely to their base — low-information voters who don’t give a damn about the facts. 

The article also notes:

Turley continued:

The fact is that Hur tried over and over again to distinguish between his findings, which is that he was not confident he could convict if he did bring any charges, and the statement of Democrats that the president was cleared.

Like most people who aren’t Democrats, Turley remains shocked that no charges were brought against Biden, particularly given the charges against Trump.

But out of this hearing, it came really some quite shocking observations. I mean, at the end, you’re sort of still wondering why he wasn’t charged, including Hur saying ‘Look, we have audio tape of the president referring to the fact that he found classified evidence in his basement.’ Well, okay, that seems like full knowledge. But he kept on coming back to the fact that I think a jury might have been persuaded that this is a nice, elderly man with a faulty memory.

There have been four people that I am aware of in the past few years that have been charged with mishandling classified information. Two of them have had very few consequences–Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. When does this tell us about our justice system?

If This Is True, Is It Over?

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Federalist reported the following:

Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia. A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare.

Find Me the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election is a fawning political biography of Willis. For context on the bias of the authors, Isikoff was an original Russia-collusion hoaxer, and his articles to that end were used to secure warrants for the FBI to spy on innocent Republican presidential campaign advisers such as Carter Page.

The article explains the problem with recording the phone call:

However, the person who recorded the phone call wasn’t in Fulton County or even in Georgia. That’s a problem. Jordan Fuchs, a political activist who serves as Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida, where it is illegal to record a call without all parties to the call consenting to the recording. She neither asked for nor received consent to record.

This could get interesting. If it were anyone but Donald Trump, the case would be thrown out immediately. However, since Donald Trump is involved, the evidence may be ignored.

 

Misconduct In A Trump Trial? Say It Isn’t So!

Posted on by

Newsweek (of all places) posted an article on Wednesday about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. It seems as if this lady has no qualms about misappropriating funds, lying, and other crimes that she routinely charges others with.

The article reports:

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis paid the chief prosecutor in former President Donald Trump‘s election fraud trial out of her seized property fund for the first three months he was hired, a defense lawyer has claimed in court documents and before a Georgia Senate committee.

Ashleigh Merchant, attorney for co-defendant Michael Roman, a Trump 2020 campaign staffer, said in court documents that Nathan Wade’s first three months of work as a special prosecutor were paid from the district attorney’s seized property fund before he was paid from a general fund.

She reiterated that claim before a Georgia Senate Special Investigations Committee hearing on Wednesday and added an accusation that other special prosecutors were initially paid from the seized property fund.

A Fulton County District Attorney’s Office spokesman vehemently denied to Newsweek on Wednesday that Wade had been paid from the seized property fund.

Willis and Wade testified in February that they were previously in a relationship but insist that relationship began after Willis hired him to oversee the prosecution of Trump and his co-accused, who were indicted for allegedly trying to overthrow the Georgia result of the 2020 presidential election.

The pair denied in their testimony that they had tried to cover up their relationship until Wade was hired to prosecute the Trump case.

Her denials don’t seem to be working very well as more evidence continues to appear.

The article notes:

Newsweek emailed two attorneys in Willis’ office for comment on Tuesday. Newsweek also sent an email to Wade and an attorney for Donald Trump for comment on Tuesday.

Invoices disclosed by Willis’ office show that from November 1, 2021, to December 31st, 2023, Wade earned $653,881 in total for the case.

For his monthly invoices to Willis, Wade’s title is listed as “the Anti-Corruption Special Prosecutor.”

Wade’s monthly invoices increased to over $30,000 a month in 2022 and have mostly stayed at that level since.

Recent invoices obtained by Roman’s defense team through an open records request show that, for July 2023, Willis paid Wade $35,250 at $250 an hour.

That includes a “team meeting, drafting” that accounts for 33 hours of work, which totaled $8,250, and “team argument and prep” for 32 hours which totaled $8,000.

“Travel out of state and interview witness” lasted 18 hours for a total of $4,500.

Wade earned $35,000 in August 2023; $34,250 in September; $37,000 in October. That dropped to $16,000 in November for a July-November average of $31,500.

Remember when the A-Team used to come into a town and clear out all the bad guys? I think they need to visit Fulton County.

 

Is There An Ulterior Motive Here?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about some recent statements by Hillary Clinton. I would like to make a few observations about Ms. Clinton and those statements. Ms. Clinton has been out of the spotlight for a while. Her popularity rises when she is out of the spotlight. Are we looking at Ms. Clinton on the comeback trail?

The article notes:

  • Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 76, said President Joe Biden, 81, and former President Donald Trump, 77, are both ‘old’
  • Despite Biden’s age, Clinton said voters should still support him, as Trump poses a threat to democracy
  • Her comments come as polls find voters are upset with the ages of both party’s presidential frontrunners 

I wish the people who keep talking about ‘threats to democracy’ would acknowledge that we are not a democracy.

The article notes:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted President Joe Biden, 81, is ‘old’ Tuesday, adding Americans need to ‘accept the reality’ of his age and vote for him to save democracy from Donald Trump. 

Clinton’s jab at Joe’s age came during a radio segment with host Zerlina Maxwell.

She told Maxwell about a recent conversation she had about the president’s age. 

‘Somebody the other day said to me … ‘Well, but, you know, Joe Biden’s old.’ I said, ‘You know what, Joe Biden is old. Let’s go ahead and accept the reality. Joe Biden is old,’ Clinton, 76, said. 

‘So we have a contest between one candidate who’s old but who’s done an effective job and doesn’t threaten our democracy,’ she continued. ‘And we have another candidate who is old, barely makes sense when he talks, is dangerous, and threatens our democracy.’

She was referring to former President Donald Trump, who is just one year older than her at 77. 

Pay attention. This is a search for relevancy from someone who has been irrelevant for a while. This could get very interesting.

Why Should They Listen To The Voters?

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about one possible outcome of the 2024 election. It is becoming very obvious that as the powers that be work harder and harder to make sure that President Trump does not get a second term, more and more voters are deciding to support him–just to have their voices heard. This is going to make for a very interesting year.

The article reports:

In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.

Notice that the objects to the electoral votes were not allowed in 2020–they were pre-empted by the events outside the Capitol and a parliamentary procedure was used to block them when the House reconvened.

The article concludes:

The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.

This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!

In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.

That Ship Already Sailed

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about some concerns in the intelligence community.

The article reports:

The intelligence community is warning that key agencies may be politicized under a second Trump administration as the 2024 election approaches after it tried to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story and pushed a now-debunked dossier about the former president, Politico reported on Monday.

Former President Donald Trump could politicize the intelligence community through who he appoints and removes as well as demanding adherence to his agenda, the 18 former Trump officials and analysts claimed to Politico. The FBI welcomed the now-discredited Steele Dossier alleging Trump had ties to Russia and 51 former intelligence officials signed onto a letter saying Hunter Biden’s now-authenticated laptop was Russian disinformation shortly before the 2020 presidential election.

I think a more accurate story would be that the intelligence community is concerned that a second term of President Trump might force them to be neutral and obey the Constitution. He might also hold them accountable for the times they broke the law. I suspect he might even change the personnel to make the agencies politically neutral. Oh horrors.

The article concludes:

However, Trump’s campaign cited the examples of the Steele Dossier and Hunter Biden laptop letter among examples of intelligence community weaponization against the former president.

“President Trump has been under assault ever since he announced his campaign in 2016,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told the DCNF. “From spying on his campaign, Russiagate, the Russia collusion hoax, the debunked Steele dossier, and the 51 intelligence officials wrongly ignoring Hunter Biden’s laptop from Hell, the establishment has been trying to meddle in elections because they simply can’t stand voters choosing a candidate who puts America First.”

Trump is currently leading Biden by 2.1 points in a RealClearPolitics national average of polls.

The FBI insisted that the intelligence community incorporate the Steele Dossier in a report of foreign meddling in the 2016 election, according to Politico.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio hinted Wednesday that the Department of Justice is operating under a double standard after it indicted an FBI informant who allegedly provided false evidence of corruption involving Biden, while letting Christopher Steele, a former operative of the Secret Intelligence Service, off the hook for his dossier that was used to try and remove Trump from office.

The FBI “dug their own grave” by promoting the Steele Dossier, one former intelligence official told Politico.

I pray for an honest election without interference from the intelligence community or the deep state.

Does The New York Legal System Recognize The Eighth Amendment?

Posted on by

The Eighth Amendment states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

On February 27th, The American Thinker posted an article explaining how that amendment applies to the New York judgement against President Trump.

The article reports:

On February 16, 2024, a judge in New York State imposed fines totaling just over $360 million on former president Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization, and several related Trump companies and trusts in the civil case brought by the New York attorney general.  President Trump’s sons Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump were fined just over $4 million each.  The court imposed additional sanctions, including injunctions against former president Trump; Donald Trump, Jr.; and Eric Trump from serving as officers or directors in New York corporations for specified numbers of years, among other sanctions.

The media reporting on the court’s decision has been massive since the decision was rendered.  However, little or no reporting focused on the constitutionality of the fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  President Trump and his co-defendants all have substantial 8th Amendment “excessive fine” challenges to raise.  In fact, a review of the facts and applicable law reveal that this decision is simply more election interference.

The article concludes:

Applying these factors to the New York court’s decision reveals that the fines are clearly excessive.  There are no victims in the Trump case.  No one was harmed.  Each and every financial institution involved was fully repaid and made money on its loans.  Further, a review of case law in New York demonstrates that there simply are no cases ordering a defendant to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in disgorgement without any victim being deprived of anything.  Finally, just how “reprehensible” is it to obtain loans and credit facilities and then pay the lenders back, in full, on time, in compliance with the agreement?  The answer is, not very.

Once again, a court in New York issued yet another political decision masquerading as justice.  The fines imposed by this New York court on former President Trump and his sons and businesses are grossly and unconstitutionally excessive.  While President Trump and his co-defendants undoubtedly have many defenses to the claims to raise on appeal, chief among them should be a constitutional challenge to these grossly excessive fines.

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing document. It is impartial when followed. My hope is that it will be followed in this case.

Lady Justice Has Totally Lost Her Blindfold

Posted on by

On Friday, Issues & Insights posted an article about the lawfare that has been aimed at President Trump.

The article reports:

Was the $355 million fine against Donald Trump, for a “crime” that even the judge issuing the ruling admitted hurt no one, a bridge too far?

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul seems to think so, which is why she rushed out to say that other people doing business in New York have nothing to fear: “Law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are businesspeople have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”

What she should have said is: “if they are different from Donald Trump and his political views.”

Because nothing about this case, or the multitude of other unprecedented legal attacks against the former president — the attempts to kick him off ballots, the two bogus impeachments, the Russia hoax, the endless stream of media mis-reporting — has anything even remotely to do with “upholding the law” or “protecting Democracy.”

These attacks are all a message to anyone who would dare to run as a conservative. Do so, and we will stop at nothing to destroy you.

Because there was no actual ‘victim’ in this ‘crime,’ the money collected will go to the State of New York. Isn’t that special? A state struggling with expenses can simply take money away from one of its leading businessmen.

The article concludes:

What’s been happening since has been a public display of the left’s new, scorched-earth strategy for dealing with the political opposition. It started in the run-up to the 2020 election. As Time magazine so glowingly reported in early 2021, there was a “cross-partisan campaign” to defeat Trump, or as Time put it, “protect the election.”

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction.

Since then, the left has added lawfare to its arsenal, which has now reached peak absurdity for the simple reason that Trump refuses to give in. But make no mistake, scalping Trump will only whet the left’s appetite for more scalps.

And who will be there to stop them?

This is where we are:

First They Came  by
Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

Is This Legal?

Posted on by

Campaign finance laws require the candidates to list the names of their donors. Generally that works, although not all candidates follow the law. On Wednesday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case against former President Donald Trump, made a small donation of $150 to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ campaign prior to his appointment.

McAfee, who was sworn in on Feb. 1, 2023 after being appointed by Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, made his donation in June 2020 while still working as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Department of Justice (DOJ), according to financial disclosures. He will soon have to decide whether Willis should be disqualified over allegations that she financially benefited from appointing her romantic partner, Nathan Wade, to work on the Trump case.

McAfee also formerly worked under Fani Willis when she led the complex trial division in the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, according to the New York Times.

Atlanta-based criminal defense attorney and legal analyst Philip Holloway told the Daily Caller News Foundation McAfee’s donation was “nominal,” but said it should still have been disclosed to the defendants so they could determine “whether they believed that amounted to a conflict of interest on the part of the judge.”

I agree that the judge should be able to donate whatever amount is legal to whatever candidate he chooses. However, I also agree that the defendants in this case should have been informed of his donations. Logically, they could have asked for a different judge.

From what I have seen of the legal cases against President Trump, I am not convinced of the honesty, integrity or intelligence of those bringing the cases. All of them are fraught with problems on the part of those pursuing them. In Georgia, Fani Willis is going to have her hands full with her own legal issues. In New York, the law was changed to allow Jean Carroll to bring her suit against President Trump. That seems questionable. And also in New York, major business leaders are pulling out of the State, and truckers are refusing to make deliveries there. I don’t think any of these lawsuits are going to have the desired impact and there may be some serious unintended consequences along the way.

Red Laws And Blue Laws

Posted on by

On Thursday, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at American Greatness about the use of the law as a political instrument. The contrasts how the law was applied in similar cases based on the politics of the person involved.

The article reports:

One state prosecutor and one civilian plaintiff have already won huge fines and damages from Donald Trump that may, with legal costs, exceed $500 million.

Trump awaits further civil and criminal liability in three other federal, state, and local indictments.

There are eerie commonalities in all these five court cases involving plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, federal special counsel Jack Smith, and Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis.

One, they are either unapologetically left-wing or associated with liberal causes. They filed their legal writs in big-city, left-wing America—Atlanta, New York, Washington—where liberal judges and jury pools predominate in a manner not characteristic of the country at large.

Two, they are overtly political. Bragg, James, and Willis have either campaigned for office or raised campaign funds by promising to get or even destroy Donald Trump.

The article notes:

Three, there would not be any of these cases had Donald Trump not run for the presidency or not been a conservative.

Carroll’s suit bypassed statute of limitation restrictions by prompting the intervention of a left-wing New York legislator. He passed a special bill, allowing a one-year window to waive the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims from decades past.

Until Trump, no New York prosecutor like James had ever filed a civil suit against a business for allegedly overvaluing real estate assets to obtain loans that bank auditors approved and were paid back in full, on time, and with sizable interest profits to the lending institutions.

Alvin Bragg bootstrapped a Trump private non-disclosure agreement into a federal campaign violation in a desperate effort to find something on Trump.

Smith is also charging Trump with insurrectionary activity. But Trump had never been so charged with insurrection, much less convicted of it.

Willis strained to find a way to criminalize Trump’s complaints about his loss of Georgia in the 2020 national election. She finally came up with a racketeering charge, usually more applicable to mafiosi and drug cartels.

Four, in all these cases, the charges could have been equally applicable to fellow left-wing public figures and officials.

Please follow the link to the article to read the entire article. What has  happened to our justice department in recent years reads more like Soviet justice than American justice.