Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Eric Holder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Holder. Show all posts

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Democrats Are Creating A Crisis. When It Comes There Is Only One Group Responsible!

Yes, Democrats, It’s a Mob

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addresses the Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, D.C., Sept. 15, 2018. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom)
Former Attorney General Eric Holder believes that Michelle Obama was wrong when she famously advised, “When they go low, we go high.” Rather, he told Democrats at a gathering in Georgia, “When they go low, we kick them.”
If Holder had been honest, he would have said, “When they win a presidency via the constitutionally mandated route and the duly elected president nominates a Supreme Court justice with a 12-year exceptional record on the bench and then the duly elected Senate follows all the rules and precedents set by Democrats—offering numerous hearings and investigations along the way—and confirms that nominee, we kick them, because we’re frustrated.”
There’s nothing wrong with “fighting” in politics. We don’t need to be hypersensitive about every metaphorical overindulgence (unless it’s Donald Trump; then we must take it literally, seriously, and hysterically). But the problem is that Democrats have a bad habit of acting as if every political setback they experience is caused by some act of criminality. This instigates a lot of people to act like a bunch of children—or worse.
When Democrats lose the House, it’s because of mythical unilateral gerrymandering or mythical mass voter suppression. When they lose the Senate, it’s because the system suddenly became an antiquated relic of the 1700s. When they lose the Supreme Court, there is a “legitimacy crisis.” When they lost the 2000 election, it was because it had been stolen by the Supreme Court. When they lost in 2004, George W. Bush had rigged the election in Ohio. When they lost in 2016, omnipotent Russians and the unfair Electoral College had snatched the office from its preordained owner.
And every legislative action that fails to comport with liberal thinking is to them an apocalyptic event and the end of “democracy.”
If all of this were true, the question would be: Why aren’t more people joining a mob? If your government is stealing your country, why wouldn’t you embrace boorishness or even violence?
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Hillary Clinton recently explained, egging on one of those mobs. If you allow politics to become a stand-in for religion, the apostates don’t deserve decency. “Civility can start again,” Clinton went on to helpfully inform us, when Democrats run Congress.
Of course, it’s easy to embrace fake magnanimity when you hold power. Michelle Obama’s “when they go low, we go high” came during her 2016 speech at the Democratic National Convention, and it was aimed at Trumpian rhetoric when nearly everyone in power believed that Clinton would triumph.
Obama offered her axiom after liberals had spent eight years trying to use executive power to coerce, demean, and morally micromanage the deplorables—yet those clingy God-loving gun nuts stubbornly refused to accept the progressive reinvention of patriotism.
They went low all the time. It was Joe Biden, not Trump, who accused Republicans and their presidential candidate, a man who had dutifully engaged in civic life for quite some time, of betting against America.
Yet Democrats still act perplexed by the backlash. Even now the mob within their ranks is being cast, predictably, as a conservative fiction. “Republicans Seize On ‘Angry Mob’ Mantra To Keep Their Midterm Base Fired Up,” says NPR. CNN insists that it’s a normal, everyday demonstration of free expression to chase politicians’ wives out of public places. You may not use the word “mob” in their presence.
No, it’s not the Parisian mob. Not yet. It’s more like one of those illiberal campus mobs that attempt, often successfully, to shut down debate. A mob is a disorderly crowd of people who have the intent of causing trouble or violence.
So, for example, that means people who interrupt lawful proceedings or people who wildly bang on the Supreme Court doors when a vote doesn’t go their way or people who surround politicians (and their families) and chase them out of restaurants or people who join groups that smear other Americans without evidence—those who try to undermine the rule of law through intimidation.
As a First Amendment absolutist, I say yell at politicians in public spaces all you like. That just means you’re a buffoon. But once you surround people and restrict their movements, you are engaging in more than incivility. Those actions will almost surely compound and become dangerous. And should I even mention that if any of this were directed at Democrats, the nation would be plunged into an overwrought discussion about the importance of civility in American life?
“This is what happens,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said this week. If you act as if every traditionally conservative policy position and legal appointment to the court portends the Fourth Reich, this is indeed what happens. For now, though, partisan incivility isn’t really a mainstream problem. But some Democrats seem to want to change this.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Arpaio Is Feeling Vindicated!

Exclusive: Arpaio Tells Trump What to Do With Sanctuary State Calif.

 Print
Former Maricopa County sheriff and current U.S. Senate candidate Joe Arpaio lauded the Trump administration’s decision to sue California over its sanctuary state policy and called for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to increase its presence in the state “big time.”
“It is a great move by President Trump,” Arpaio told The Western Journal. “They want sanctuary for the whole state of California. They don’t want ICE involved at all, which is very sad because that is going to increase the crime if you can’t stop people.”
“I hope the president is successful,” he said. “I think he should take an extra step. I think he should just send the federal people in there big time and enforce the federal law regardless of what the state wants to do.”
“Bring in a hundred or two hundred ICE agents and keep enforcing the federal laws regardless of what the sanctuary state of California wants,” Arpaio added. “That would be my advice.”
“America’s Toughest Sheriff” noted the irony in the fact that the same legal justification used by the Obama Justice Department to target him and the state of Arizona regarding the enforcement of immigration law is being employed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions against California.

The Western Journal Daily Email

Facebook
 
Politico reported the DOJ’s suit against California is modeled after the one brought by the Obama administration, which affirmed the federal government’s supremacy over the matter of immigration.
In 2010, then Attorney General Eric Holder suedArizona over state law S.B. 1070, which — in accordance with federal law — required any aliens in the United States to have proper identification at all times, and empowered state law enforcement officers (including Arpaio’s sheriffs) to attempt to determine immigration status during “lawful stop, detention or arrest” for other suspected crimes.
Additionally, it barred state and local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of immigration laws, and imposed penalties on sheltering, hiring or transporting unregistered aliens.
“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” Holder stated at the time regarding his decision to sue Arizona over the law. “Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

Do you think Trump will listen?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
Holder further argued that the Constitution “forbids” Arizona from replacing federal policy “with its own state-specific immigration policy.”
The Supreme Court, by-in-large, agreed with the Obama administration’s argument in 2012, finding immigration law is the purview of the federal government. However, it did affirm the ability of state law enforcement officials to seek to ascertain the immigration status of those stopped for other suspected criminal activity.
“The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
Sessions’ suit against California alleges obstruction of federal immigration enforcement and targets three “sanctuary state” focused laws passed by the legislature in 2017.
RELATED: Irony: Obama DOJ’s Immigration Suit Against AZ Laid Foundation For Trump’s Suit Against CA
S.B. 54 prohibits state and local officials from sharing information with federal immigration officials and also bars the transfer of certain immigrants into federal custody.
A.B. 450 forbids private employers from cooperating with the federal government with immigration enforcement at the workplace.
Finally, A.B. 103 attempts to regulate detention facilities used by the federal government to hold immigration prisoners.
Arpaio wished Sessions’ DOJ well in the suit and believes it will likely be successful.
“I think the feds will win this one,” the lawman said, but noted the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals may prove problematic in the near term.
Arpaio is currently a candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona. His challengers for the Republican nomination include Congresswoman Martha McSally and former state Sen. Kelli Ward.
What do you think?

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Trump Was Spied On!

Trump Is 100% Vindicated On Wiretapping, and 7 Other Things You Should Know

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
BY:
 JOHN NOLTE
150702956104461
1. Yes, Trump Is 100% Vindicated On Wiretapping
Yeppers, I said 100% vindicated, and those who disagree are either being
stubbornly hyper-literal about the word "wiretap," or the placing of a
"physical wiretap," or Obama himself placing the wiretap, or standing by
 the point Ben Shapiro makes that Trump is still wrong because
 the surveillance was "incidental."
I'll touch on the "incidental" issue at length in the points below, but to
 immediately address Ben's argument, even if the collection was
incidental, once the unmasking and dissemination of that "incidental"
information occurs, that is the Obama administration illegally targeting
Trump using surveillance, and that is the exact same thing as outright
spying. And being illegally spied on was, of course, Trump's overall claim.
As far as the THIS WASN'T A WIRETAP nonsense, it reminds me of
 someone accusing a 70-year-old (Trump's age) of lying when he claims
 someone stole his record collection after the bad guy is found only
 with the old man's iPod.  You said records! Where's the vinyl! Where's
 the vinyl! Where's the vinyl!


Not for a second did I imagine Trump meant an actual physical phone tap --
you know, like you'd see Mike Connors do on "Mannix." Welcome to the
21st Century, pedants!
Anyway, if we're going to obsess over definitions, this is an excerpt from
 a 2010 MIT book called "Privacy On The Line," which clearly shows
 that the word "wiretap" fits the exact definition we are talking about:
Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conversations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wiretaps are more commonly placed on radio links [ed. cell phones] or inside telephone offices. The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some other form of electronic communication, such as a fax or data.
Compared with the more precise but more general phrase "communications interception," the word "wiretapping" has two connotations. Much the strong of these is that a wiretap is aimed at a particular target, in sharp contrast to the "vacuum cleaner" interception widely practiced by national intelligence agencies. The weaker connotation is that it is being done by the police.  [ed. Big hat tip to Stuart Dean]
And that is precisely what the Obama administration did. I'll make this point
clearer below, but for now put yourself in Trump's shoes…
1) The leaking is everywhere, including Mike Flynn's telephone calls and
 the President's own calls with foreign leaders.
2) The media knows about all the palace intrigue.
3) Media report after media report actually reveal that the Obama
administration obtained surveillance warrants on you and/or your team.
The New York Times reports that the Obama White House is looking at
your "wiretap intel."
So, yes, unless you want to argue with MIT or become so painfully literal
 we all have to talk like a Vulcan, Trump was 100% correct about Obama
 "tapping his wires." Incidentally or not, his wires were tapped, and then
the surveillance was intentionally made not-so incidental through the
 illegal act of unmasking, disseminating, and worst of all, the horrific act
 of leaking classified information to the media for purely partisan purposes.
And according to no less than CNN, it was Trump's transition team that
was "picked up," and where was his transition team?
Trump Tower.
Surveilled.
Wiretapped.
Potato.
Potatoh.
2. "Incidental," My Aunt Fanny
Sorry, no.
Not for a moment do I believe the Obama administration "inadvertently" or
 "incidentally captured" Team Trump communications.
What? -- and then they "inadvertently" (and illegally) "unmasked" the Trump
staffer not named on the surveillance warrant; and then "inadvertently"
 disseminated information (that had nothing to do with Russia) throughout
 the intelligence community; and then "inadvertently" leaked to the media
 information coming from Trump's transition team, information that included
 communications about Trump's own family, and almost certainly
included game-planning the first 100 days?
I don't believe that anymore than I believe the IRS "inadvertently swept up"
 conservative groups for crippling, Kafka-esque persecution while Hail
Satan high school clubs sailed through the same tax-exempt process.
Let's not be stupid.
3. Obama's Creepy History of Manipulating the FISA System
In order to spy on James Rosen of Fox News, Obama's Attorney General
 Eric Holder named him as a criminal co-conspirator and, quite incredibly,
a flight risk. This gave the Obama administration "legal" access not only to
 Rosen's emails but Rosen's parents' phone records.
According to numerous media reports, going back to last summer,
the Obama administration applied for a warrant to "monitor" members of
 Trump's team. They were turned down. In October, however, while the
election was still on (another claim of Trump's was that the spying occurred
during the election), a surveillance warrant was granted.
Another trick the Obama Administration could have played was to ask for
 surveillance warrants of those who they believed Team Trump might be
 speaking with. Using this end-run, they could then still monitor Trump
 and enjoy "plausible deniability" when the truth was revealed.
Regardless of how it was collected, once Team Trump communications
were "unmasked" and disseminated, that is when the illegal spying began.
The leaks to the public through the media (which was almost certainly done
by Obama appointees and partisans) are just icing on the felonious cake.
4. This Was Political Spying; This Was a Successful Watergate Bugging
The whole point behind the Watergate break-in was to bug the headquarters
 of the Democrat National Committee simply for the sake of political advantage
 -- to find out what the other side was up to.
That is exactly what happened here, and there is little doubt in my mind that
 was the Obama administration's intent all along, especially after Trump won,
which would explain why the bulk of the spying appears to have occurred
 during the transition.  
5. The National Media Knew All of This and Covered It Up
The media knew!
Say it loud, say it proud!
The media knew!
Of course the media knew what the Obama administration had done.
First off, when they thought the news would hurt Trump, the national media
 publicly reported on the fact that the Obama administration
 had spied on Team Trump. It was only after that knowledge became
 a liability for Precious Barry that the media pretended otherwise. In other
words, they LIED.
Why do you think I was such a dog with a bone with that story? Because
 the media knew the Obama administration had spied on Trump and then
 tried to pretend otherwise.  
Secondly, who do you think most benefited from all of this surveillance intel?
Of course it was the media. They are the ones who got the intel, reported it
out (unnamed sources), including transcripts of phone calls that could have
 only come from -- wait for it, wait for it -- wiretaps!
While the national media was receiving information that could have only
 come from surveillance; while the media was drinking white wine with their
Deep State Source and chortling over the illegally obtained communications
about Trump's family; while the media was using this Intel to plot its own
 strategy to undermine Trump's agenda -- THEY WERE SMEARING
TRUMP AS A LIAR WHEN THEY KNEW HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.
6. Devin Nunes Handled This Exactly Right
We don’t live in Candyland. We live in a hard, cold world where leaks, illegal
surveillance, and the entire infrastructure of the national media are coordinating
to destroy and remove a duly elected American president.
You want to play by some idealized version of The Rules while CNN's
Jake Tapper is stopping the world from turning using BREAKING FAKE
 NEWS based on what he knows are lies?
I'm sorry, but losing like a gentleman when your country is at stake is
 no virtue.
By breaking the news about the Obama Administration's 
surveillance on members of Trump's transition team, and
 doing so in the most dramatic and disruptive way imaginable, Nunes
 beat these evil bastards at their own evil game.
We all know what would have happened had Nunes gone through proper
 channels -- the truth would have been smothered like an unloved stepchild
 until it was dead.
7. CNN Is a Deep State Propaganda Arm
It is no coincidence that just hours after Nunes dropped his bombshell
 that we all saw left-wing CNN try to change the subject by turning 
Nothingburger into a Somethingburger.
CNN's breathless, BREAKING NON-NEWS report last night about
 possibly, perhaps, maybe this kinda mighta happened, was not only an
 embarrassment to CNN, but whoever their likely F.B.I. sources are.
Here is CNN's idea of news, with my emphasis:
The FBI has information that indicates associates of

President Donald Trump communicated with suspected 

Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.
The Nunes bombshell might have just outed F.B.I. director James Comey as
a liar, maybe even a perjurer. In response, working hand-in-hand with the
 most unethical news outlet in America, the Deep State fired off a sad,
 little *squeak* squirrel.
Whether it is through a phony scandal  or outright assassination, CNN
 wants Trump gone, and in order to achieve that, The Least Trusted
Name In News is willing to conspire with Deep State disinformation
 propaganda or create an outright climate of hate.
8. The F.B.I. Investigation Into RussiaGate Is Now Tainted
If Nunes is correct, we'll know more on Friday, then it appears as though
 the F.B.I. director lied about the Trump surveillance. At best, he was highly
 and intentionally deceptive.
We are also being told that the F.B.I. is now refusing to cooperate in
 this matter.
When you combine this with the Nothingburger CNN leak that likely came
 from the F.B.I. last night, there is no question the entire F.B.I. is politicized,
which means its entire investigation into RussiGate is already compromised.

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Is It Just Us, Or Is There Something Really Perverted Going On Here Between Obama, Michelle And Valerie Jarrett?


EXCLUSIVE: Barack Obama's close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home, which is now the nerve center for their plan to mastermind the insurgency against President Trump

  • Obama's goal  is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment, a family friend tells DailyMail.com
  • Jarrett has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion to work closely with the former president and Michelle Obama
  • Jarrett lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and helped shape his domestic and foreign policies
  • Obama cannot use his West End office, a post-presidency perk, for political purposes
  • 'He's coming. And he's ready to roll.' former Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday about the former president's reentry into the political scene
Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama section of the nation's capital - just two miles away from the White House - into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump.
Obama's goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment.
And Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere, Valerie Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion with  the former president and Michelle Obama, long time best friends.
Jarrett played a vital - if at times low-key - role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White House, dined with the Obamas, and help shape his domestic and foreign policies. 


Barack Obama is turning his new home in the posh Kalorama neughborhood into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against his successor, President Donald J. Trump with Valerie Jarrett by his side
Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion 
Obama is being aided in his political crusade by his longtime consigliere Jarrett, who has moved into the 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million Kaloroma mansion 
The former president has set up an office on the West End of the national's capitol, where he recently hosted an open house for his White House staff - including Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Josh Earnest and Jarrett.
But the office, part of his post presidency perks, cannot be used for political purposes. The rent on his home is paid by him personally.
On Tuesday, former Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that Obama is indeed getting closer to making his public reappearance in politics.
'It's coming. He's coming,' Holder said speaking to reporters. 'And he's ready to roll.'
 According to the family source, Obama was at first reluctant to assume the role of leader of the opposition.
'No longer the most powerful man in the world, he was just observing Trump and not liking what he saw,' said the source. 
'He was weary and burned out after eight years in office. But Valerie convinced him that he didn't have any choice if he wanted to save his legacy. And, as usual, he bowed to Valerie's political wisdom and advice.' 
In his only public comment against Trump since leaving the presidency, Obama came out in support of the protests opposing President Donald Trump's executive order to restrict immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.
A spokesman said the former president thinks they're 'citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.'
Jarrett played a vital—if at times hidden—role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White, dined with the Obamas, and help shape his domestic and foreign policies
Jarrett played a vital—if at times hidden—role in the Obama presidency. She lived in the White, dined with the Obamas, and help shape his domestic and foreign policies
After Obama left office, Jarrett moved all her White House belonging into the Kalorama mansion.
'There was never any doubt that Valerie would have a suite of rooms in the house that the Obama's are renting,' said the source. 'Obama trusts her judgment more than any other person on the planet, as does Michelle.
Obama doesn't make a decision without her.'
Spurred on by Jarrett and Michelle, the ex-president has come to embrace his role as the leader of the opposition against Trump, whose policies he loathes and whose presidency he considers illegitimate.
'He is going to use his immense popularity with the half of the country that identifies as liberals and progressives,' said the Obama family source. 'Millions of Americans are energized and ready to take to the streets to oppose Trump, but they need to be organized and have their anger focused and directed.
'Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy—ObamaCare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,' the source continued. 
Trump's cabinet picks are also problematic for the former president,  especially Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, whom Obama regards as too racially insensitive to be in charge of the Civil Rights division at Justice.
Leaving Jim Comey as FBI Director is another thorn in Obama's side. He blames Comey for announcing that he was reopening the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails eleven days before the election, which, in Obama's view, was an irresponsible act that helped elect Trump.  
'He had hoped to write his memoirs, golf to his heart's content. and bask in the glory of his eight years in power and the progressive achievements he brought about. Instead, he is going to be leading the fight and strategy to topple Trump.' says the insider.
The Kalorama house, which the Obama's are renting from Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, is still being refurbished and redecorated by Michelle.
'Michelle and Valerie have changed their minds many times over about colors, carpets, wall paper, furnishing and art,' said the source.
Michelle hired Los Angeles-based interior designer Michel S. Smith, who designed several rooms in The White House during their residence, to decorate the Kalorama home. Smith will also decorate the Obama's new home in Rancho Mirage, California.
According to the source, Michelle and Valerie have big plans for traveling and shopping as well as strategizing over Trump.
The Obamas and Jarrett have been thick as thieves. Jarrett was living in the White House and dined with the couple
The Obamas and Jarrett have been thick as thieves. Jarrett was living in the White House and dined with the couple
The friend said that Valerie and her signature enormous totes are going to be packed and ready to go for shopping sprees with Michelle from their native Chicago to Paris and the Far East, including Shanghai.
'They feel like they have had some great trips while in the White House, but were always working and being herded around,' said the source. 'Now they are planning to travel together - home to Chicago, to Paris and Shanghai, and shop to their heart's content.
'The Obamas both love the Kalorama house and are making it their own,' continued the source. 'They have plans to build a pool on the grounds. And they are almost certainly going to wind up buying the house from Lockart in the next few years.
'They are also planning to have a house in Hawaii, as well as in Chicago, where the Obama Presidential Library will be built. But Kalorama, where the Washington action takes place, is going to be home base.'

Valerie Jarrett explains the story behind Obama's singing



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4271412/Obama-confidante-Valerie-Jarrett-moves-Kaloroma-home.html#ixzz4aBx8kX4R
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook