lewrockwell--2020-01-17--A Malicious Indictment Mitch Should Toss Out

About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority , Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday : “ It ’ s not personal .
It ’ s not political .
It ’ s not partisan .
It ’ s patriotic.
” Seriously , Madam Speaker ?
Not political ?
Not partisan ?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump , who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol , all Democrats ?
Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose roots go back to the 2016 election , in the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats began to plot the removal of the new president .
This coup has been in the works for three years .
The Death of the West : ... Patrick J. Buchanan Check Amazon for Pricing .
First came the crazed charges of Trump ’ s criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the emails of the DNC and the Clinton campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cries of “ Treason !
” from Pelosi ’ s caucus .
And despite the Mueller investigation ’ s exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia , we still hear the echoes : Trump is Putin ’ s poodle .
Trump is an asset of the Kremlin .
All we want , and what the American people deserve , is a “ fair trial , ” Democrats and their media collaborators now insist .
But can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and malicious prosecution ?
Consider .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the House serves as the grand jury , and Adam Schiff ’ s Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler ’ s Judiciary Committee serve as the investigators and prosecutors .
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not contain a single crime required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal .
There is no charge of treason , no charge of bribery or “ other high crimes and misdemeanors.
” So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House failed to do .
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce , to make the case for impeachment more persuasive than it is now .
The Senate is supposed to be an “ impartial jury.
” But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses , there is no debate on how the Senate Democrats intend to vote — 100 % for removal of a president they fear they may not be able to defeat .
Consider Trump ’ s alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden .
Assume Zelenskiy , without prodding , sent to the U.S. , as a friendly act to ingratiate himself with Trump , the Burisma file on Hunter Biden .
Would that have been a crime ?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file ?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks — lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv — was sent .
And Zelenskiy never held the press conference requested , never investigated Burisma , never sent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump .
There was no crime committed .
Churchill , Hitler , and ... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price : $ 9.25 Buy New $ 14.25 Not political , said Pelosi .
Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month , after she said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court ?
Pelosi is demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoena and hear the witnesses , and do the investigative work Schiff and Nadler failed to do .
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made ?
Are not the articles voted by the House inherently deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of “ abuse of power ” ?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate , when half of the jury , the Democratic caucus , is as reliably expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are to acquit him ?
What kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the court hears the evidence ?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan , political and personal .
It reeks of politics , partisanship and Trump-hatred .
As for patriotic , that depends on where you stand — or sit .
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of “ should Trump go ?
” is not a deeply polarized Senate , but with those the Founding Fathers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
In most U.S. courts , a prosecution case this inadequate , with prosecutors asking the court itself to get more documents and call more witnesses , and so visibly contaminated with malice toward the accused , would be dismissed outright .
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case , and then call for a vote to dismiss , and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves .
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Shop all books by Pat Buchanan
About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: “It’s not personal. It’s not political. It’s not partisan. It’s patriotic.”
Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
The truth: The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose roots go back to the 2016 election, in the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats began to plot the removal of the new president.
This coup has been in the works for three years.
First came the crazed charges of Trump’s criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the emails of the DNC and the Clinton campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.
For two years, we heard the cries of “Treason!” from Pelosi’s caucus. And despite the Mueller investigation’s exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still hear the echoes:
Trump is Putin’s poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.
All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a “fair trial,” Democrats and their media collaborators now insist. But can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and malicious prosecution?
Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler’s Judiciary Committee serve as the investigators and prosecutors.
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not contain a single crime required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no charge of treason, no charge of bribery or “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate do the work the House failed to do.
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make the case for impeachment more persuasive than it is now.
Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is supposed to be an “impartial jury.”
But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is no debate on how the Senate Democrats intend to vote — 100% for removal of a president they fear they may not be able to defeat.
Consider Trump’s alleged offense: pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate himself with Trump, the Burisma file on Hunter Biden.
Would that have been a crime?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks — lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv — was sent. And Zelenskiy never held the press conference requested, never investigated Burisma, never sent the Biden file.
There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no crime committed. Churchill, Hitler, and... Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price: $9.48 Buy New $14.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month, after she said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court?
Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and do the investigative work Schiff and Nadler failed to do.
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the articles voted by the House inherently deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of “abuse of power”?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus, is as reliably expected to vote to remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the court hears the evidence?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.
As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand — or sit.
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of “should Trump go?” is not a deeply polarized Senate, but with those the Founding Fathers entrusted with such decisions — the American people.
In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court itself to get more documents and call more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.
The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan


lewrockwell--2020-01-17--Red Flag Nation: Anti-Gun Laws, Sanctuary Cities, and the Second Amendment

In the right ( or wrong ) hands , benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes .
Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted , corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation .
The war on terror , the war on drugs , the war on illegal immigration , asset forfeiture schemes , road safety schemes , school safety schemes , eminent domain : all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands .
Mark my words : gun control legislation , especially in the form of red flag gun laws , which allow the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats , will only add to the government ’ s power .
Battlefield America : T ... John W. Whitehead Best Price : $ 10.25 Buy New $ 18.80 These laws , growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others , are yet another Trojan Horse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace .
Seventeen states now have red flag laws on their books .
As The Washington Post reports , these laws “ allow a family member , roommate , beau , law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [ with a court ] asking that a person ’ s home be temporarily cleared of firearms .
It doesn ’ t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.
” In the midst of what feels like an epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise ) , these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order ( ERPO ) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer .
Of course , it doesn ’ t always work that way .
Anything—knives , vehicles , planes , pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions .
With these red flag gun laws , the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “ stop dangerous people before they act.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “ immediate danger ” to themselves or others , where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies , the courts and the police .
We ’ ve been down this road before .
Remember , this is the same government that uses the words “ anti-government , ” “ extremist ” and “ terrorist ” interchangeably .
This is the same government whose agents are spinning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavioral sensing warnings , flagged “ words , ” and “ suspicious ” activity reports using automated eyes and ears , social media , behavior sensing software , and citizen spies to identify potential threats .
This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends , family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat .
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behaviors , affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state .
For instance , if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution ( namely , your right to speak freely , worship freely , associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views , criticize the government , own a weapon , demand a warrant before being questioned or searched , or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government , racist , bigoted , anarchic or sovereign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top of the government ’ s terrorism watch list .
Moreover , as a New York Times editorial warns , you may be an anti-government extremist ( a.k.a .
domestic terrorist ) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms , if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law , or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car .
Let that sink in a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a police officer attempted to “ enforce ” the state ’ s new red flag law , after it went into effect in 2018 .
At 5 am on a Monday , two police officers showed up at 61-year-old Gary Willis ’ house to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns .
Willis answered the door holding a gun .
Mind you , in some states , merely answering the door holding a gun is enough to get you killed by police who have a tendency to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Willis initially set his gun aside while he spoke with the police .
However , when the police attempted to serve him with the gun confiscation order , Willis reportedly became “ irate ” and picked up his gun again .
At that point , a struggle ensued , causing the gun to go off .
Although no one was harmed , one of the cops shot and killed Willis .
According to the Anne Arundel County police chief , the shooting was a sign that the red flag law is needed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with any certainty is what they prevented by shooting and killing Willis .
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws , specifically , and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent .
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless .
Where many Americans go wrong is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention .
In fact , U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “ threats , ” violent or otherwise , before they can become actual threats for some time now .
In fact , all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words ( like cloud , pork and pirates ) , surf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone , limp or stutter , drive a car , stay at a hotel , attend a political rally , express yourself on social media , appear mentally ill , serve in the military , disagree with a law enforcement official , call in sick to work , purchase materials at a hardware store , take flying or boating lessons , appear suspicious , appear confused or nervous , fidget or whistle or smell bad , be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun ( such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a walking cane ) , stare at a police officer , question government authority , appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom , or generally live in the United States .
Be warned : once you get on such a government watch list—whether it ’ s a terrorist watch list , a mental health watch list , a dissident watch list , or a red flag gun watch list—there ’ s no clear-cut way to get off , whether or not you should actually be on there .
You will be tracked wherever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly .
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it ’ s been a long time coming .
The government has been building its pre-crime , surveillance network in concert with fusion centers ( of which there are 78 nationwide , with partners in the private sector and globally ) , data collection agencies , behavioral scientists , corporations , social media , and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance , facial recognition , predictive policing , biometrics , and behavioral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one ’ s genetic makeup ) .
To that noxious mix , add in a proposal being considered by the Trump Administration for a new government agency HARPA ( a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon ’ s research and development arm DARPA ) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “ signs ” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches , Fitbits , Amazon Echo and Google Home .
It ’ s the American police state ’ s take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orwell , Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package .
If you ’ re not scared yet , you should be .
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act , note the government ’ s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “ extremist , ” then add in the government ’ s detention powers under NDAA , the National Security Agency ’ s far-reaching surveillance networks , and fusion centers that collect and share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal police agencies .
To that , add tens of thousands of armed , surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies , facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do .
And then to complete the picture , toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country , which will be attempting to “ predict ” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance , complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs .
Hopefully you ’ re starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it for the government to identify , label , target , defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government ’ s list of persona non grata .
This brings me back to those red flag gun laws .
In the short term , these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another .
Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the American police state or the blowback from the war-drenched , violence-imbued , profit-driven military industrial complex , both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America .
In the long term , all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are defenseless in the face of the government ’ s arsenal of weapons .
Now you can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives .
Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment ’ s “ militia ” reference as applying only to the military .
To those who see the government as inherently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms .
And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil , but merely a powerful entity that , as Thomas Jefferson recognized , must be bound “ down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
” To this group , the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution , to be safeguarded , exercised prudently and maintained .
Unfortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jockey for supremacy , the U.S. government has adopted a “ do what I say , not what I do ” mindset when it comes to Americans ’ rights overall .
Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government ’ s attempts to arm itself to the teeth , all the while treating anyone who dares to legally own a gun , let alone use one , as suspicious and/or on the road to being an outlaw .
In Virginia , for instance , legislation has been introduced that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchases , allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others , let localities ban weapons from certain events and government buildings , and cap handgun purchases at one per month.
” To those who subscribe to George Orwell ’ s views about gun ownership ( “ That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer ’ s cottage is the symbol of democracy .
It is our job to see that it stays there ” ) , these legislative attempts to regulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is nothing short of tyranny .
Not surprisingly , then , in Virginia and a growing number of states across the country , momentum is building for 2A “ sanctuary ” cities that adopt resolutions opposing any “ unconstitutional restrictions ” on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms .
Personally , I ’ m all for any attempt by the citizenry to nullify government actions that run afoul of the Constitution .
Certainly , there ’ s no denying that there is a huge double standard at play when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America : while the government continues to crack down on the citizenry ’ s right to own and bear arms ( merely owning a gun can now get you treated as a suspect , searched , arrested , subjected to all manner of surveillance , shot at and killed despite ever having committed a crime ) , the government ’ s own efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees has reached epic proportions .
Ironically , while various state and federal agencies continue to adopt gun control legislation that includes bans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and armor-piercing bullets , expanded background checks , and tougher gun-trafficking laws , local police agencies are being “ gifted ” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield .
“ We the people ” have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns , the gun owners , or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “ allows ” us to own guns that we ’ ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution : the fact that it is not merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to be a clear shackle on the government ’ s powers .
When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government , the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry ’ s gun ownership .
As such , it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights , especially the right to freedom of speech , assembly , press , petition , security , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not neutral , ” Douglas remarked , “ It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.
” A Government of Wolves ... John W. Whitehead Best Price : $ 2.08 Buy New $ 10.42 In this way , the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state .
To our detriment , these rights have been steadily weakened , eroded and undermined in recent years .
Yet without any one of them , including the Second Amendment right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen , benevolent dictators , genuflecting politicians , and overly ambitious bureaucrats .
You can eliminate all of the guns , but it will not necessarily eliminate violence .
Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives .
It ’ s also not even a question of whether Americans need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats to their safety or well-being , although a study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed gun-carry laws save lives , while gun control can endanger lives .
In fact , journalist Kevin Carson , writing for CounterPunch , suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs : Truly , the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant .
The Constitution is clear on this particular point , with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach .
As author Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964 : In a nutshell , then , the Second Amendment ’ s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one ’ s personal defense but serves as a check on the political power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one ’ s freedoms , the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property .
As such , it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship .
Certainly , dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well .
As Adolf Hitler noted , “ The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms .
History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by so doing.
” It should come as no surprise , then , that starting in December 1935 , Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses , because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would “ endanger the German population.
” In late 1938 , special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms , with the punishment for arms possession being twenty years in a concentration camp .
The rest , as they say , is history .
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People , it is a history that we should be wary of repeating .
The Best of John W. Whitehead

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” – The Second Amendment to the US Constitution
We never learn.
In the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.
Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, will only add to the government’s power. Battlefield America: T... John W. Whitehead Best Price: $10.95 Buy New $18.80 (as of 10:15 UTC - Details)
These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.
Seventeen states now have red flag laws on their books.
That number is growing.
As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”
While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We’ve been down this road before.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.
This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
Let that sink in a moment.
Now consider what happened in Maryland after a police officer attempted to “enforce” the state’s new red flag law, after it went into effect in 2018.
At 5 am on a Monday, two police officers showed up at 61-year-old Gary Willis’ house to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns. Willis answered the door holding a gun.
Mind you, in some states, merely answering the door holding a gun is enough to get you killed by police who have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.
Willis initially set his gun aside while he spoke with the police. However, when the police attempted to serve him with the gun confiscation order, Willis reportedly became “irate” and picked up his gun again. At that point, a struggle ensued, causing the gun to go off. Although no one was harmed, one of the cops shot and killed Willis.
According to the Anne Arundel County police chief, the shooting was a sign that the red flag law is needed.
What the police can’t say with any certainty is what they prevented by shooting and killing Willis.
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.
In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be tracked wherever you go.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
To that noxious mix, add in a proposal being considered by the Trump Administration for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.
It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.
If you’re not scared yet, you should be.
Connect the dots.
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.
In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.
Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the American police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.
In the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.
Now you can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.
Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment’s “militia” reference as applying only to the military.
To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.
And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.
Unfortunately, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a “do what I say, not what I do” mindset when it comes to Americans’ rights overall.
Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while treating anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one, as suspicious and/or on the road to being an outlaw.
In Virginia, for instance, legislation has been introduced that would “require background checks on all firearms purchases, allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others, let localities ban weapons from certain events and government buildings, and cap handgun purchases at one per month.”
To those who subscribe to George Orwell’s views about gun ownership (“That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there”), these legislative attempts to regulate and control gun usage among the citizenry is nothing short of tyranny.
Not surprisingly, then, in Virginia and a growing number of states across the country, momentum is building for 2A “sanctuary” cities that adopt resolutions opposing any “unconstitutional restrictions” on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Personally, I’m all for any attempt by the citizenry to nullify government actions that run afoul of the Constitution.
Certainly, there’s no denying that there is a huge double standard at play when it comes to the debate over guns in America: while the government continues to crack down on the citizenry’s right to own and bear arms (merely owning a gun can now get you treated as a suspect, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, shot at and killed despite ever having committed a crime), the government’s own efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees has reached epic proportions.
Ironically, while various state and federal agencies continue to adopt gun control legislation that includes bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, expanded background checks, and tougher gun-trafficking laws, local police agencies are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield.
“We the people” have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.
When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership.
As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well.
“The Constitution is not neutral,” Douglas remarked, “It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.” A Government of Wolves... John W. Whitehead Best Price: $2.06 Buy New $10.42 (as of 01:25 UTC - Details)
In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state.
To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.
You can eliminate all of the guns, but it will not necessarily eliminate violence. Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.
It’s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to their safety or well-being, although a study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed gun-carry laws save lives, while gun control can endanger lives.
In fact, journalist Kevin Carson, writing for CounterPunch, suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs:
[W]hat strict gun laws will do is take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. I’d expect a War on Guns to expand the volume of organized crime, and to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, in exactly the same way Prohibition did in the 1920s and strict drug laws have done since the 1980s. I’d expect it to lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail.
Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game.
In other words, it’s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.
The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As author Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964:
No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.
In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship.
Certainly, dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well. As Adolf Hitler noted, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
It should come as no surprise, then, that starting in December 1935, Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses, because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would “endanger the German population.”
In late 1938, special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms, with the punishment for arms possession being twenty years in a concentration camp.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it is a history that we should be wary of repeating.
The Best of John W. Whitehead


lewrockwell--2020-01-17--The Russian Prime Minister Resigns

The Russian Prime Minister Resigns

A curious ‘ regime change ’ happened in Russia today as the Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev and his whole cabinet resigned .
This morning President Vladimir Putin held his yearly speech to the Federal Assembly of Russia ( English transcript ) .
Putin spoke about Russia ’ s demographic situation , its weaponry and the celebration of the upcoming 75th anniversary of its second world war victory .
But the most important part was about constitutional changes .
A summary via TASS : Putin has suggested a putting up a package of constitutional amendments for a plebiscite .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he sees no grounds to adopt new constitution in Russia.Putin also suggest stipulating the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international norms in Russia .
“ The time has come to make some changes to the nation ’ s fundamental law that would directly guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in our legal space .
What does this mean ?
It means that requirements of international law and decisions of international bodies can only be enforced in Russia to such an extent that does not violate human and civil rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Putin emphasized .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 It seems that the European Court of Human Rights has pissed off Russia once too often .
The court is associated with the Council of Europe which has 47 member states including Russia .
It has several times judged in the favor of renegade oligarchs in exile and the ‘ western ’ supported wannabe opposition in Russia .
Putin then proposed additional changes to the constitution .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medvedev resignation : The TASS interpretation that Putin ‘ agrees that the same person should not hold the post of the head of state for more than two consecutive terms ’ is not supported by Putin ’ s statement .
Currently the Russian constitution does include a two consecutive terms limit .
Does Putin want to keep it or lift it ?
The official English transcript of the speech also has a slightly different wording : What exactly is the view Putin is supporting here .
A term limit , as TASS seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times rumors ?
If the term limit is lifted then Putin could run again for a third consecutive presidency .
Medvedev , who was said to have hoped to again become president , would probably dislike the second interpretation .
The president has also suggested complementing Russia ’ s Constitution with a special requirement that a candidate running for the post of head state should be a resident of Russia for no less than 25 years and have neither foreign citizenship nor an overseas residence permit , not just at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never before in the past.Under the Constitution today , any Russian citizen who has lived in the country for no less than ten years can be elected as Russia ’ s president .
That a presidential candidate should never have had a resident permit in a foreign country is a curious restriction .
Putin lived in east-Germany between 1985 and 1990 .
He was an officer of the KGB at that time but I am sure that the KBG took care to have resident permits from the host country for its undercover officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect Medvedev .
Additionally to the above Putin proposed to amend the constitution to expand the powers of parliament and the federal state council , which currently has little to say .
From his speech : What is the situation like now ?
In accordance with articles 111 and 112 of the Russian Constitution , the President only receives the consent of the State Duma to appoint the Prime Minister , and then appoints the head of the Cabinet , his deputies and all the ministers .
I suggest changing the procedure and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister of the Russian Federation , and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the Prime Minister ’ s recommendation .
At the same time the President will have to appoint them , so he will have no right to turn down the candidates approved by the Parliament .
( Applause . )
All of this means drastic changes to the political system .
The move would give any future President less power than Putin currently holds .
But why would Putin weaken the position of the president if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The resignation of Medvedev as prime minister was completely unexpected and seems politically unnecessary .
Media connected it to the constitutional changes Putin proposed : Before announcing the resignation of the cabinet , Medvedev met with Putin to discuss his state-of-the-nation address , which took place earlier on Wednesday , the Kremlin ’ s press office said.In his address , Putin proposed several amendments to the constitution .
Medvedev explained that this cabinet is resigning in accordance with the Article 117 of the Russian Constitution , which says that the government can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who , in turn , can either accept or reject it .
“ In this context , it is obvious that , as the government , we must provide the president with a capability to make all decisions , ” which are required to implement the proposed plan , Medvedev said .
Putin accepted the resignation and announced that a new position for a Deputy Chairman of the Security Council would be created and that Medvedev would take up that position .
The Russian national security council is chaired by the president himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads of the federal council and state duma , the ministers of defense , foreign and internal affairs , as well as the heads of the security services .
Medvedev is thereby not sidelined but gains a position in which he is Putin ’ s deputy in important internal and external affairs .
In the evening Putin announced that he appointed Mikhail Mishustin , the head of Russia ’ s Federal Tax Service , as the new Prime Minister .
The 53 year old native of Moscow is practically unknown to the wider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising choice .
Even Russian analysts near to Putin seem not to know if Putin and Medvedev had planned today ’ s ‘ regime change ’ or if it was a totally spontaneous move by a pissed off Medvedev .
They also seem unsure if Putin wants to leave in 2024 or if he wants to stay for another term .
We are thus left to make our own bets .
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama .

A curious ‘regime change’ happened in Russia today as the Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev and his whole cabinet resigned.
This morning President Vladimir Putin held his yearly speech to the Federal Assembly of Russia (English transcript). Putin spoke about Russia’s demographic situation, its weaponry and the celebration of the upcoming 75th anniversary of its second world war victory.
But the most important part was about constitutional changes. A summary via TASS:
Putin has suggested a putting up a package of constitutional amendments for a plebiscite. At the same time, the Russian president stated that he sees no grounds to adopt new constitution in Russia.Putin also suggest stipulating the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international norms in Russia. “The time has come to make some changes to the nation’s fundamental law that would directly guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in our legal space. What does this mean? It means that requirements of international law and decisions of international bodies can only be enforced in Russia to such an extent that does not violate human and civil rights and freedoms and does not violate our Constitution,” Putin emphasized.
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) It seems that the European Court of Human Rights has pissed off Russia once too often. The court is associated with the Council of Europe which has 47 member states including Russia. It has several times judged in the favor of renegade oligarchs in exile and the ‘western’ supported wannabe opposition in Russia.
Putin then proposed additional changes to the constitution. These were probably the points that led to Medvedev resignation:
Putin agrees that the same person should not hold the post of the head of state for more than two consecutive terms.”I know that our society is debating the constitutional provision that the same person should not hold the office of President of the Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms. I do not believe that this question is of fundamental importance, but I agree with this,” Putin said.
The TASS interpretation that Putin ‘agrees that the same person should not hold the post of the head of state for more than two consecutive terms’ is not supported by Putin’s statement. Currently the Russian constitution does include a two consecutive terms limit. Does Putin want to keep it or lift it? The official English transcript of the speech also has a slightly different wording:
I know that people are discussing the constitutional provision under which one person cannot hold the post of the President of the Russian Federation for two successive terms. I do not regard this as a matter of principle, but I nevertheless support and share this view.
What exactly is the view Putin is supporting here. A term limit, as TASS seems to imply, or none, as the New York Times rumors? If the term limit is lifted then Putin could run again for a third consecutive presidency. Medvedev, who was said to have hoped to again become president, would probably dislike the second interpretation.
More from TASS:
The president has also suggested complementing Russia’s Constitution with a special requirement that a candidate running for the post of head state should be a resident of Russia for no less than 25 years and have neither foreign citizenship nor an overseas residence permit, not just at the moment of the election, but never before in the past.Under the Constitution today, any Russian citizen who has lived in the country for no less than ten years can be elected as Russia’s president.
That a presidential candidate should never have had a resident permit in a foreign country is a curious restriction. Putin lived in east-Germany between 1985 and 1990. He was an officer of the KGB at that time but I am sure that the KBG took care to have resident permits from the host country for its undercover officers. However, the change would not effect Medvedev.
Additionally to the above Putin proposed to amend the constitution to expand the powers of parliament and the federal state council, which currently has little to say. From his speech:
What is the situation like now? In accordance with articles 111 and 112 of the Russian Constitution, the President only receives the consent of the State Duma to appoint the Prime Minister, and then appoints the head of the Cabinet, his deputies and all the ministers. I suggest changing the procedure and allowing the State Duma to appoint the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the Prime Minister’s recommendation. At the same time the President will have to appoint them, so he will have no right to turn down the candidates approved by the Parliament. (Applause.)All of this means drastic changes to the political system.
The move would give any future President less power than Putin currently holds. But why would Putin weaken the position of the president if he would want to run for another term?
The resignation of Medvedev as prime minister was completely unexpected and seems politically unnecessary. Media connected it to the constitutional changes Putin proposed:
Before announcing the resignation of the cabinet, Medvedev met with Putin to discuss his state-of-the-nation address, which took place earlier on Wednesday, the Kremlin’s press office said.In his address, Putin proposed several amendments to the constitution. Medvedev explained that this cabinet is resigning in accordance with the Article 117 of the Russian Constitution, which says that the government can offer its resignation to the president, who, in turn, can either accept or reject it. “In this context, it is obvious that, as the government, we must provide the president with a capability to make all decisions,” which are required to implement the proposed plan, Medvedev said.
Putin accepted the resignation and announced that a new position for a Deputy Chairman of the Security Council would be created and that Medvedev would take up that position. The Russian national security council is chaired by the president himself and includes the prime minister, the heads of the federal council and state duma, the ministers of defense, foreign and internal affairs, as well as the heads of the security services.
Medvedev is thereby not sidelined but gains a position in which he is Putin’s deputy in important internal and external affairs.
In the evening Putin announced that he appointed Mikhail Mishustin, the head of Russia’s Federal Tax Service, as the new Prime Minister. The 53 year old native of Moscow is practically unknown to the wider public. He is a curious and surprising choice.
Even Russian analysts near to Putin seem not to know if Putin and Medvedev had planned today’s ‘regime change’ or if it was a totally spontaneous move by a pissed off Medvedev. They also seem unsure if Putin wants to leave in 2024 or if he wants to stay for another term.
We are thus left to make our own bets.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.


lewrockwell--2020-01-17--Trump Steps Back From the Edge. Neocons Rage Accordingly

Trump ’ s response to the attack on two US military bases showcase a hopeful about face on a dark age agenda which many thought could lead nowhere but World War III in the immediate days following Soleimani ’ s murder on January 3 .
Immediately after the Iranian counter-attacks occurred on Wednesday morning at the same hour of Soleimani ’ s assassination , Iran ’ s Foreign Minister stated : “ Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escalation or war , but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
” Iran ’ s retribution was more moderate than many analysts imagined as fore notice was delivered to the Iraqi government 30 minutes before rockets were launched giving American military personnel in the bases ample time to seek shelter .
In Trump ’ s remarks the following day , the President stated : “ Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world… ISIS is a natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ISIS is good for Iran , and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Although Trump ’ s speech characterized Iran as a “ major supporter of terrorism ” and Gen. Soleimani as a “ top terrorist ” , his assertion that a common interest exists between the USA and Iran in the combat of ISIS is a spectacular break from the neocon agenda .
This break is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of internal struggles emanating from the corridors of American power in the days since Soleimani ’ s murder .
This includes the memo written to the Iraq government by William Seely , commanding general of the Iraq Task Force saying : “ We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure.
” Seely ’ s memo created a major crisis amongst the radical war hawks like Mark Esper and Mark Milley who raced to deny the memo ’ s validity .
Recent revelations published in the Wall Street Journal demonstrating the incredible back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Swiss embassy in Tehran in the hours after Solemenei ’ s murder also play into this “ movement of sanity ” within the USA .
This contradictory behaviour is undoubtedly not so confusing for leading figures among Eurasia ’ s intelligentsia who are not ignorant to the battle occurring within America between nationalists who genuinely wish to end “ the forever wars ” in the Middle East vs those Pax Americanists embedded throughout the neoconservative and neo-liberal establishments who would rather burn the earth than abandon their dark age ideology .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Russia and China over the past 3 years terrify these groups , and this potential US-Russia-China alliance has represented a real threat which today ’ s London-steered impeachment debacle , and years of Russia-gating has always aimed to derail .
With the impeachment bill now sitting in the republican-dominated Senate , the neocons loyal to the Military Industrial Complex which Trump has so loudly criticized have major leverage on the President and are using it .
If you are thinking “ why would any republican ruin their careers by supporting a democrat-driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” then you haven ’ t realized that the drive for war with Iran ( as well as Russia and China ) is not a matter of “ practical politics ” for our later day fanatics of the evangelical pre-millennial garb like John Hagee or Benny Hinn who sincerely believe it is man ’ s duty to usher in Armageddon and fulfill their twisted view of prophecy .
Nor is it an issue for their Israeli counterparts who believe essentially in the same prophecy with the small exception that the Savior ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be occurring for the first time rather than the 2nd .
If you are reading this thinking “ certainly no one could be so nuts ” , then let this televised prayer led by Rev .
John Hagee and Benny Hinn cause you to think twice : Bill Kristol , a leading figure behind the neocon cult and co-author of the dystopian Project for a New American Century Manifesto has already poured tens of millions of dollars into billboards , commercials and lobbying teams gunning for Trump ’ s impeachment .
Kristol tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Trump is not impeached and removed , the corruption will get even worse , the White House even more lawless , the violations of norms even more routine .
The case for impeachment isn ’ t merely retrospective ; it ’ s prophylactic .
And it isn ’ t merely just ; it ’ s urgent.
” The most recent commercial promoting Trump ’ s impeachment which Kristol ’ s think tank Republicans for the Rule of Law released raised the argument that since republicans supported Nixon ’ s impeachment in 1973 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This argument obviously overlooks the problem that while Nixon actually appeared to have committed crimes , nothing even approximating illegal activity has occurred in Trump ’ s case .
Things are not as black and white as many believed until recently .
Iran ’ s recent military exercises with Russia and China have demonstrated clearly in the minds of saner Americans that no war with Iran is possible without taking Russia and China on as well .
Putin ’ s brilliant maneuvers in the Middle East have led to the destruction of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a geopolitical tool first against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and then against nation states more generally since the Soviet Union ’ s collapse .
For this reason , Putin ’ s enemies throughout the neocon world and British intelligence have never forgiven him .
Although China has not brought much military might to bear in the Middle East , the Belt and Road Initiative has provided a gateway to a durable peace which can not be overlooked , as BRI projects in Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria , Lebanon and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance for a future .
The question still remains whether or not Trump can continue to move away from the WWIII agenda and into this positive alliance .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

Trump’s response to the attack on two US military bases showcase a hopeful about face on a dark age agenda which many thought could lead nowhere but World War III in the immediate days following Soleimani’s murder on January 3.
Immediately after the Iranian counter-attacks occurred on Wednesday morning at the same hour of Soleimani’s assassination, Iran’s Foreign Minister stated: “Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.” Iran’s retribution was more moderate than many analysts imagined as fore notice was delivered to the Iraqi government 30 minutes before rockets were launched giving American military personnel in the bases ample time to seek shelter.
In Trump’s remarks the following day, the President stated: “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world… ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.”
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) Although Trump’s speech characterized Iran as a “major supporter of terrorism” and Gen. Soleimani as a “top terrorist”, his assertion that a common interest exists between the USA and Iran in the combat of ISIS is a spectacular break from the neocon agenda. This break is also one of many in a long line of internal struggles emanating from the corridors of American power in the days since Soleimani’s murder. This includes the memo written to the Iraq government by William Seely, commanding general of the Iraq Task Force saying: “We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure.” Seely’s memo created a major crisis amongst the radical war hawks like Mark Esper and Mark Milley who raced to deny the memo’s validity.
Recent revelations published in the Wall Street Journal demonstrating the incredible back channel discussion set up by Trump through the Swiss embassy in Tehran in the hours after Solemenei’s murder also play into this “movement of sanity” within the USA.
The Paradox of America Resolved
This contradictory behaviour is undoubtedly not so confusing for leading figures among Eurasia’s intelligentsia who are not ignorant to the battle occurring within America between nationalists who genuinely wish to end “the forever wars” in the Middle East vs those Pax Americanists embedded throughout the neoconservative and neo-liberal establishments who would rather burn the earth than abandon their dark age ideology. Trump’s many calls for positive relations with Russia and China over the past 3 years terrify these groups, and this potential US-Russia-China alliance has represented a real threat which today’s London-steered impeachment debacle, and years of Russia-gating has always aimed to derail.
With the impeachment bill now sitting in the republican-dominated Senate, the neocons loyal to the Military Industrial Complex which Trump has so loudly criticized have major leverage on the President and are using it. If you are thinking “why would any republican ruin their careers by supporting a democrat-driven impeachment bill against a republican leader?” then you haven’t realized that the drive for war with Iran (as well as Russia and China) is not a matter of “practical politics” for our later day fanatics of the evangelical pre-millennial garb like John Hagee or Benny Hinn who sincerely believe it is man’s duty to usher in Armageddon and fulfill their twisted view of prophecy. Nor is it an issue for their Israeli counterparts who believe essentially in the same prophecy with the small exception that the Savior’s arrival amidst the fires of war will be occurring for the first time rather than the 2nd. If you are reading this thinking “certainly no one could be so nuts”, then let this televised prayer led by Rev. John Hagee and Benny Hinn cause you to think twice:

Bill Kristol, a leading figure behind the neocon cult and co-author of the dystopian Project for a New American Century Manifesto has already poured tens of millions of dollars into billboards, commercials and lobbying teams gunning for Trump’s impeachment. Kristol tweeted on October 17, 2019 that “If Trump is not impeached and removed, the corruption will get even worse, the White House even more lawless, the violations of norms even more routine. The case for impeachment isn’t merely retrospective; it’s prophylactic. And it isn’t merely just; it’s urgent.”
The most recent commercial promoting Trump’s impeachment which Kristol’s think tank Republicans for the Rule of Law released raised the argument that since republicans supported Nixon’s impeachment in 1973, republicans should impeach Trump today.

This argument obviously overlooks the problem that while Nixon actually appeared to have committed crimes, nothing even approximating illegal activity has occurred in Trump’s case.
Things are not as black and white as many believed until recently. Iran’s recent military exercises with Russia and China have demonstrated clearly in the minds of saner Americans that no war with Iran is possible without taking Russia and China on as well. Putin’s brilliant maneuvers in the Middle East have led to the destruction of the Anglo-American plot to grow radical Islam as a geopolitical tool first against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and then against nation states more generally since the Soviet Union’s collapse. For this reason, Putin’s enemies throughout the neocon world and British intelligence have never forgiven him. Although China has not brought much military might to bear in the Middle East, the Belt and Road Initiative has provided a gateway to a durable peace which cannot be overlooked, as BRI projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and beyond have given the Middle East a new chance for a future.
The question still remains whether or not Trump can continue to move away from the WWIII agenda and into this positive alliance.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-01-17--Taking Bernie and the Radical Left Seriously

As you are undoubtedly aware , Uncle Bernie ’ s minions are threatening to burn down cities if their favorite commie doesn ’ t get the Democratic nomination .
A Project Veritas undercover video features a man by the name of Kyle Jurek , described by Sanders ’ Iowa field director as one of the campaign ’ s “ top tier organizers , ” saying , “ F…ing cities burn ” ( if Donald Trump is reelected ) and “ I mean , we don ’ t have a lot of time left .
We have to save f…ing human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ If Bernie doesn ’ t get the nomination , or it goes to the second round at the DNC convention , f…ing Milwaukee will burn .
It ’ ll start in Milwaukee , and then , when the police push back on that , other cities will just f–ing ( loud noise ) .
” Threats and violence from the Radical Left were totally predictable , of course .
A year ago , in Part II of my article evaluating the Democratic presidential candidates , this is what I said about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people are starting to take Bernie Sanders — an entertaining amalgam of Karl Marx , Vladimir Lenin , and Krusty the Clown — seriously .
Bearing an eerie resemblance to Horrible Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky , Bernie is a crotchety old goat who sincerely believes that a majority of Americans would welcome socialism/communism into their lives .
Action !
: Nothing Happe ... Robert Ringer Check Amazon for Pricing .
Make no mistake about it , when Bernie rages on about redistribution-of-wealth schemes , he ’ s not just some idealistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he gives hope to millions of Americans who actually do dream of a Bolshevik-style uprising in in the United States .
Trust me , these people would love nothing more than to see blood running in the streets .
It may be hard for normal people to comprehend , but envy loves blood even more than it loves free stuff .
To envy-crazed Democrats like Kyle Jurek , Bernie represents much more than just a humorous sideshow in the fight for the Democratic nomination .
As the first Democratic candidate to openly embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a heroic cult figure .
Best everyone start taking Bernie seriously , because he is serious — every bit as serious as all the other lefties who have preached revolution of the masses over the past 150 years .
Radical Left revolutionaries hate the fact that most people will not cast their ballots for an agenda that calls for them to surrender their money and freedom , which is why they consider violent revolution to be a viable option .
They realize that people don ’ t give up their freedom easily , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral duty to save people from their own bad judgment .
It ’ s also why , at a time when a majority of Americans have let it be known that they want to move away from government control , government regulations , and government theft , immature , low-information students , along with their low-information , even more immature college professors , are singing the praises of free … Free … FREE !
Not free as you and I understand the word , but free in the sense of having other people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No question about it , free will always be music to the ears of a significant percentage of the population , and freeloaders could care less who pays the bills .
These are the folks who are feelin ’ the Bern and are euphoric about Sanders ’ chances of winning the Democratic nomination and ascending to the White House .
Not only is the envy-based anger of the left every bit as strong as the MAGA anger that brought Donald Trump to White House , the Radical Left has one big advantage : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crusade that demands a willingness to resort to any means necessary to bring about change that is to their liking .
So , even though zombie Democrats are looking quite crazed and moronic right now , it would be wise not to underestimate them .
On the other side of the political coin , when a conservative gets up every morning , he thinks about how to get ahead in the world by providing value in the marketplace .
He may not consciously think about it that way , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better their existence .
The last thing on their minds is trying to figure out ways to gain control of other people ’ s lives .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 Leftists believe time is on their side because of their undying commitment to foist their Machiavellian agenda on mentally lethargic Americans .
Not just the most extreme leftists , but even so-called moderate liberals .
In fact , moderate liberal is an oxymoron , because liberalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is an extreme ideology that calls for control over other people ’ s lives .
That said , there ’ s no doubt in my mind that Trump will win in a landslide in November , and I expect Republicans to take back the House and increase their numbers in the Senate as well .
That , however , should not bring about a collective sigh of relief , because the long term is not so certain .
Why ?
Because those on the Radical Left are masters at playing the long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count on Democrats to keep pressing forward with their Radical Left agenda even after the election is over , regardless of the outcome .
Remember , unlike unprincipled , weak-kneed Republicans , Democrats never — ever — let up .
Thus , the most important question of our time is : Which side will prevail over the long term ?
Will the MAGA people fall into the comfort zone and go the way of the Tea Partiers , or will they stay strong and ramp up their efforts to push back against Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on is that the Radical Left will not fall into the comfort zone and will try to — you guessed it — overturn the 2020 election .
The Best of Robert Ringer

As you are undoubtedly aware, Uncle Bernie’s minions are threatening to burn down cities if their favorite commie doesn’t get the Democratic nomination. A Project Veritas undercover video features a man by the name of Kyle Jurek, described by Sanders’ Iowa field director as one of the campaign’s “top tier organizers,” saying, “F…ing cities burn” (if Donald Trump is reelected) and “I mean, we don’t have a lot of time left. We have to save f…ing human civilization.”
He went on to say that “If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, or it goes to the second round at the DNC convention, f…ing Milwaukee will burn. It’ll start in Milwaukee, and then, when the police push back on that, other cities will just f–ing (loud noise).”
Threats and violence from the Radical Left were totally predictable, of course. A year ago, in Part II of my article evaluating the Democratic presidential candidates, this is what I said about Sanders:
I doubt [Sanders] can win the Democratic nomination — and certainly not the presidency — but this time around I expect him and his rabid supporters to be out for blood now that they realize Horrible Hillary and the Dirty Dems screwed them out of the 2016 nomination.
Now, suddenly, a lot of people are starting to take Bernie Sanders — an entertaining amalgam of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Krusty the Clown — seriously. Bearing an eerie resemblance to Horrible Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky, Bernie is a crotchety old goat who sincerely believes that a majority of Americans would welcome socialism/communism into their lives.
Make no mistake about it, when Bernie rages on about redistribution-of-wealth schemes, he’s not just some idealistic old fool. On the contrary, he gives hope to millions of Americans who actually do dream of a Bolshevik-style uprising in in the United States. Trust me, these people would love nothing more than to see blood running in the streets. It may be hard for normal people to comprehend, but envy loves blood even more than it loves free stuff.
To envy-crazed Democrats like Kyle Jurek, Bernie represents much more than just a humorous sideshow in the fight for the Democratic nomination. As the first Democratic candidate to openly embrace socialism, he is nothing short of a heroic cult figure. Best everyone start taking Bernie seriously, because he is serious — every bit as serious as all the other lefties who have preached revolution of the masses over the past 150 years.
Radical Left revolutionaries hate the fact that most people will not cast their ballots for an agenda that calls for them to surrender their money and freedom, which is why they consider violent revolution to be a viable option. They realize that people don’t give up their freedom easily, so they believe it’s their moral duty to save people from their own bad judgment.
It’s also why, at a time when a majority of Americans have let it be known that they want to move away from government control, government regulations, and government theft, immature, low-information students, along with their low-information, even more immature college professors, are singing the praises of free … Free … FREE! Not free as you and I understand the word, but free in the sense of having other people pay for the things you want.
No question about it, free will always be music to the ears of a significant percentage of the population, and freeloaders could care less who pays the bills. These are the folks who are feelin’ the Bern and are euphoric about Sanders’ chances of winning the Democratic nomination and ascending to the White House.
Not only is the envy-based anger of the left every bit as strong as the MAGA anger that brought Donald Trump to White House, the Radical Left has one big advantage: To them, Marxism is a religious crusade that demands a willingness to resort to any means necessary to bring about change that is to their liking. So, even though zombie Democrats are looking quite crazed and moronic right now, it would be wise not to underestimate them.
On the other side of the political coin, when a conservative gets up every morning, he thinks about how to get ahead in the world by providing value in the marketplace. He may not consciously think about it that way, but it’s instinctive for normal people to strive to better their existence. The last thing on their minds is trying to figure out ways to gain control of other people’s lives.
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) Leftists believe time is on their side because of their undying commitment to foist their Machiavellian agenda on mentally lethargic Americans. Not just the most extreme leftists, but even so-called moderate liberals. In fact, moderate liberal is an oxymoron, because liberalism, as the word is now commonly used, is an extreme ideology that calls for control over other people’s lives.
That said, there’s no doubt in my mind that Trump will win in a landslide in November, and I expect Republicans to take back the House and increase their numbers in the Senate as well. That, however, should not bring about a collective sigh of relief, because the long term is not so certain.
Why? Because those on the Radical Left are masters at playing the long game. Which is why you can count on Democrats to keep pressing forward with their Radical Left agenda even after the election is over, regardless of the outcome. Remember, unlike unprincipled, weak-kneed Republicans, Democrats never — ever — let up.
Thus, the most important question of our time is: Which side will prevail over the long term? Will the MAGA people fall into the comfort zone and go the way of the Tea Partiers, or will they stay strong and ramp up their efforts to push back against Washington? The one thing you can count on is that the Radical Left will not fall into the comfort zone and will try to — you guessed it — overturn the 2020 election.
Reprinted with permission from RobertRinger.com.
The Best of Robert Ringer


lewrockwell--2020-01-17--Impeachment: Do Republicans Have More Fun?

Impeachments aren ’ t what they used to be .
Today , young people are supposed to be excited that the president withheld taxpayer money from Ukraine –- a half-billion-dollar foreign aid package that ticks off most Americans under any circumstances , going to a country notable for not being our country , and for a purpose other than the wall .
Now , Bill Clinton –- that was an impeachment !
First , there was the corpus delicti of the case — a White House intern , Monica Lewinsky , earning her “ presidential kneepads ” by sexually servicing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t about “ Burisma Holdings Limited ” or a Ukrainian prosecutor whose name no one can remember .
It was tapes of Monica blathering on and on about servicing the president , including such fascinating items as : — Clinton couldn ’ t remember Monica ’ s name after their first two sexual encounters ; Resistance Is Futile !
: ... Ann Coulter Best Price : $ 1.99 Buy New $ 8.77 — Monica ’ s suggestion to Clinton that she be named “ assistant to the president for b— jobs ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member ( “ think of a thumb ” ) .
On Jan. 17 , 1998 , The Drudge Report broke the intern story .
The following week , Clinton gave an impassioned , finger-wagging , squint-eyed address to the nation , saying : “ I want to say one thing to the American people .
I want you to listen to me .
I ’ m going to say this again .
I did not have sexual relations with that woman — Miss Lewinsky.
” Clinton spent the next seven months dragging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unraveling of his lies , then more lies , followed by more unraveling .
By late summer , it turned out Monica had , in fact , kept the long-rumored “ blue dress ” with Clinton ’ s semen on it .
The president was ordered to produce a sample of his DNA .
It was one of many presidential “ firsts ” under Clinton .
A few weeks after producing his DNA , Clinton addressed the nation : “ Indeed , I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put out by the legacy media ever since their baby boomer , draft-dodging , pot-smoking , Fleetwood Mac-listening president was caught committing numerous , serious felonies , Clinton was not impeached for having a sexual affair ( as hilarious as that was ) .
Adios , America : The Le ... Ann Coulter Best Price : $ 1.50 Buy New $ 10.52 He was impeached for his repeated perjuries and subornation of perjury in a citizen ’ s private civil rights suit against him .
In May 1994 , Paula Jones had brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil Rights Act — once considered more sacred than any other legislation passed in the 20th century .
That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex , including sexual harassment .
Jones alleged that , when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas –- a phrase that still has a rather disreputable ring to it — he had summoned her , a lowly state employee , to his hotel room , dropped his pants and said , “ Kiss it.
” To prove her case , Jones had a right to collect evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual advances toward other female underlings .
This had been expressly confirmed by the Supreme Court ’ s May 27 , 1997 , unanimous ruling that her lawsuit could proceed without delay .
( The court ’ s 9-0 ruling surprised every TV lawyer , but one . )
So Clinton lied .
He lied to the country , to his Cabinet and , most important , to the court — under oath in a deposition presided over by federal judge Susan Webber Wright .
( I ’ d add “ to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was fooled . )

Impeachments aren’t what they used to be. Today, young people are supposed to be excited that the president withheld taxpayer money from Ukraine –- a half-billion-dollar foreign aid package that ticks off most Americans under any circumstances, going to a country notable for not being our country, and for a purpose other than the wall.
Now, Bill Clinton –- that was an impeachment !
First, there was the corpus delicti of the case — a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, earning her “presidential kneepads” by sexually servicing the president.
The telephonic evidence wasn’t about “Burisma Holdings Limited” or a Ukrainian prosecutor whose name no one can remember. It was tapes of Monica blathering on and on about servicing the president, including such fascinating items as:
— Clinton couldn’t remember Monica’s name after their first two sexual encounters; Resistance Is Futile!:... Ann Coulter Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $7.97 (as of 05:40 UTC - Details)
— Monica’s suggestion to Clinton that she be named “assistant to the president for b— jobs”;
— Her description of the presidential member (“think of a thumb”).
On Jan. 17, 1998, The Drudge Report broke the intern story. The following week, Clinton gave an impassioned, finger-wagging, squint-eyed address to the nation, saying:
“I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman — Miss Lewinsky.”
Clinton spent the next seven months dragging the country through his lies, followed by the unraveling of his lies, then more lies, followed by more unraveling.
By late summer, it turned out Monica had, in fact, kept the long-rumored “blue dress” with Clinton’s semen on it. The president was ordered to produce a sample of his DNA. It was one of many presidential “firsts” under Clinton.
A few weeks after producing his DNA, Clinton addressed the nation: “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate.”
Contrary to the bilge put out by the legacy media ever since their baby boomer, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, Fleetwood Mac-listening president was caught committing numerous, serious felonies, Clinton was not impeached for having a sexual affair (as hilarious as that was).
Adios, America: The Le... Coulter, Ann Best Price: $1.50 Buy New $6.69 (as of 02:15 UTC - Details) He was impeached for his repeated perjuries and subornation of perjury in a citizen’s private civil rights suit against him.
In May 1994, Paula Jones had brought a lawsuit against Clinton under the 1964 Civil Rights Act — once considered more sacred than any other legislation passed in the 20th century. That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment.
Jones alleged that, when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas –- a phrase that still has a rather disreputable ring to it — he had summoned her, a lowly state employee, to his hotel room, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it.”
To prove her case, Jones had a right to collect evidence to show that he had made similar sexual advances toward other female underlings. This had been expressly confirmed by the Supreme Court’s May 27, 1997, unanimous ruling that her lawsuit could proceed without delay. (The court’s 9-0 ruling surprised every TV lawyer, but one.)
So Clinton lied. He lied to the country, to his Cabinet and, most important, to the court — under oath in a deposition presided over by federal judge Susan Webber Wright. (I’d add “to his wife,” but no one thinks she was fooled.)
Read the Whole Article