The DC Deep State (Hanging) Court


The Deep State Court

This cartoon has been inspired by Sara Carter’s superb article, “Powell Files Stunning Motion Against Gleeson: It’s A ‘wrap-up smear’ against Flynn,” in SaraCarter.com, 17 June 2020.

The entrapment and rail-roading of General Michael Flynn — and his subsequent betrayal by the law firm he hired to defend him, Covington & Burling LLP — are a microcosm of what the Deep State and a very corrupt legal system controlled by the Deep State does every day to most citizens. Indeed, the Holder Memorandum that took jail off the table for Wall Street financial criminals who are now known to have stolen $100 trillion from Main Street through a practice known as naked short selling (selling shares that do not exist, not delivering them, keeping the money), stands out as emblematic of what Matt Taibbi calls The Divide — one law for the rich, and one law for the poor. Covington & Burling’s partner Eric Holder let the rich off the hook at the same time that Covington & Burling threw Mike Flynn under the bus, charging him $3.5 million for stabbing him in the back.

The US Constitution draws a clear distinction between the roles of the executive and the judiciary, and Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who has in the past been praised by Sidney Powell in her book Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, appears to have lost sight of both the Constitution and past Supreme Court decisions. His hiring of a retired judge who has multiple conflicts of interest, John Gleeson, deepens the legitimate criticism of what can best be called a judicial witch hunt devoid of evidentiary foundation.

As Carter describes the Powell brief, Gleeson is depicted as duplicitous (a liar) and as executing a “wrap-up smear” (defamation with malice).

The paragons of integrity here are the independent investigators shining a light on the egregious misconduct of FBI agents, and the production, finally, of 86 pages of newly produced exonerating materials discovered and proffered by the government in support of its long over-due motion to dismiss. Attorney General Bill Barr, and Deputy Solicitor General Noel Fran Francisco, are bastions of integrity in comparison to the severely impaired judges refusing to dismiss the case.

This cartoon has been sponsored by Robert David Steele

Reports: Internal Messages Organizing Saturday July 4th as Police Strike Day…


This year July 4th falls on a Saturday.

According to two media outlets (NY post) and (Fox) at 3:00pm on July 4th the New York Police Dept. will cease their work shifts in a display of protest against the constant attacks against them by politicians and activists.

Honestly, who can blame them.

National protests against police and law enforcement, primarily driven by the false Marxist ideology of Black Lives Matter, have become outrageous in the extreme.  The announcement in Atlanta by the Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard to charge a police officer with felony murder could be, and arguably should be, the final straw.

New York – […] “Police officers like you and me took an oath to protect strangers regardless of race, class or gender,” states one of the fliers. “Today we are vilified and must stand as one. Enclosed are instructions on how we will get our point across that we are necessary and must be valued.”

The message, which was sent out Thursday morning, also describes how an officer should go about taking a sick day on July 4, 2020 – “the date that we will make our voices heard.”

Independence day seems like just as good a day as any other for police around the entire nation to take a knee and let everyone see what 48 hours without law enforcement would actually look like.

Perhaps a dramatic action is warranted/needed to wake people up to the political agenda and scam behind the “defund the police” movement.  Perhaps July 4th could become the day when people start defending the police.

 

The Big Con – The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are Being Funded by Google?…


The Big Con.

What Senator Josh Hawley called the fraud of “the conservative bargain” is taking on an entirely new light thanks to the work of The National Pulse in what should be a game-changing expose’ on just who is funding, or should we say ‘controlling’, key aspects of expressed U.S. conservatism.

President Trump, in a tenuous alignment with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has previously said the list of judicial nominees presented, considered, nominated and confirmed, were assembled and vetted by two specific groups: The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation; both of whom claim to hold conservative outlooks.

As a result, it’s a little more than concerning to discover that both organizations are being funded by the ultra-left wing Google ideology.   Yes, the same Big Tech outlet currently working on an advanced directive to block, control, censor and eliminate conservative speech on-line, is financing the organizations who claim to support conservative speech.

That revelation should get some attention…. but it won’t… because the same conservative pundits who are in place to get the attention of conservative Americans, and ultimately control what outrages should garner the attention of conservative thinkers, are financial benefactors of the same organizations under the control of their left-wing financing.

Think about that carefully.

Let that sink in.

Things starting to make sense now?

The standing ovation at CPAC for Paul Ryan’s omnibus spending making sense now?

How many conservative pundits hang the shingle of their bona-fides based on their association with The Federalist Society, The Heritage Foundation, or  The CATO institute?

Do we really think those well known conservative voices, radio hosts, television pundits, booksellers and publication authors would now be part of an expose’ of admission?  Will the crowd of conservative voices stand jaw agape to discover their bank accounts are actually full of Google and Big Tech money?  Doubtful; it would be against their interests.

You can read the FULL LIST of which conservative groups are being funded by Google and Big Tech HERE.  And don’t skip the pearl-clutching justification from the Heritage Foundation at the bottom of the article.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Senator Josh Hawley is right, the “Conservative Bargain” is based on a fraud…

But don’t worry, you won’t hear Mark Levin, Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham discuss it; unless, that is, their discussion includes the always popular controlled outrage approach.

When you consider the scale of left-wing Big Tech’s financial control, all of that stuff that we are told to keep us from tarring and feathering the Republican DC leadership, certainly seems like one big uniparty con job.

However, that said, the Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch decisions; and the Supreme Court Justice Roberts decisions take on a new light when you consider their nominations were advanced and confirmed in the best interests of silicon valley.  I digress…

…There are Trillions at Stake

.

Advertisements

Supreme Court Blocks Termination of DACA Program – Justice John Roberts Makes Political Stand…


A supreme court ruling today has blocked the termination of a court-admitted unconstitutional executive action known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  The background of the DACA controversy, and the prior position of the court on the sister program DAPA, makes this ruling the most political ruling yet by Chief Justice John Roberts.  [pdf link to ruling here]

The court decision was a 5-4 ruling.  Justice Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in blocking the termination of the executive program.  What makes this ruling outrageous is within the majority opinion of the court they recognize the Trump administration has the legal and constitutional authority to terminate the program; but the court, specifically John Roberts, doesn’t like the way in which the administration might do it.

The crux of Justice Roberts’ opinion is openly political.  The majority admit there is no constitutional protection for DACA recipients, and the Trump administration has the authority to dissolve and reverse the protections under the previous executive action; however, Roberts specifically cites his concern with deportation.

Accepting the argument that benefits provided by DACA were illegal, Roberts observed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), via the DACA dissolution memo of Elaine Duke, could have still retained protection from deportation. Framing the argument of Justice Robert’s concern is that DHS concluded, without any explanation, protection from deportation terminates with the removal of DACA protections and benefits.

Additionally, Roberts added, former DHS Secretary Elaine Duke (2017) did not address whether DACA recipients had counted on the existence of the program in arranging their lives; if she had, he suggested, she “might have considered more accommodating termination dates” for DACA recipients who were in the middle of academic programs, military service or medical treatment.

The core of John Robert’s argument is that DACA recipients, the previously transported children of illegal aliens into the United States, would be subject to deportation if the DACA protections were terminated.

Judge Roberts, and all other justices, concede the executive action could be terminated or reversed because, well, after all it’s not a law; but their majority decision rests on their expressed desire to block deportation.  That’s the fulcrum of the Robert’s opinion.

That is not a legal position, that framework is entirely a political position.

The admission that President Trump has the authority to terminate DACA, and the simultaneous admission they don’t like what Trump might do after the termination, is why I say this is the most political decision to ever come out of the Supreme Court.

To make the issue even more unfathomable, we must remember when the sister program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Arrivals (DAPA) was terminated, Justice John Roberts was on the other side of the argument.  WHAT A CONTRAST.

After the death of Justice Scalia there were only eight justices on the supreme court.  In 2016 the court ruled 4-4 to allow the lower court ruling to stand that terminated the DAPA program (Judge Andrew Hanen).

In the 2016 ruling Justice Roberts supported the termination.   However, in 2020 with an almost identical fact pattern between DACA and DAPA for legal review, Justice Roberts flips his position and blocks the termination.  Yeah, that’s political – nothing more.

♦CONSEQUENCES – President Trump has openly said he was awaiting a ruling in favor of the termination of DACA so that congress would be forced to finally deal with the issue.  The core outlook for President Trump was to use the DACA issue to force resolution inside a much needed immigration bill.

Without a doubt this decision today must be very frustrating.

The ruling doesn’t stop the Trump administration from terminating DACA eventually; it only blocks them from using the 2017 DHS memorandum issued by DHS Secretary Elaine Duke.  Which again points the political nature of this particular decision.

The Trump administration can still use the June 2018 termination memorandum issued by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen; which was written in support of the previous Duke memo and which the supreme court refused to consider in their review…. Because the SCOTUS wanted to punt the DACA problem to the November 2020 election.

Yes, that’s correct.  The concerns the Supreme Court had with the 2017 DACA termination, memo outlined by DHS secretary Elaine Duke, were reconciled by the 2018 DACA termination memo written by Kirstjen Nielsen…  That’s why SCOTUS refused to review it.

FUBAR.

Sick, Twisted and Evil – Six eBay Executives Charged With Disturbing Cyberstalking…


This is so purposefully evil it almost seems unbelievable.  If you ever wondered how twisted and deranged a group of Silicon Valley executives could be this might provide some context.  This is what happens when Antifa-types get jobs.

Massachusetts DOJ – “Six former employees of eBay, Inc. have been charged with leading a cyberstalking campaign targeting the editor and publisher of a newsletter that eBay executives viewed as critical of the company. The alleged harassment included sending the couple anonymous, threatening messages, disturbing deliveries – including a box of live cockroaches, a funeral wreath and a bloody pig mask – and conducting covert surveillance of the victims.”

Oh, it gets worse. WATCH:

DOJ Press RELEASE

James Baugh, 45, of San Jose, Calif., eBay’s former Senior Director of Safety & Security, was arrested today and charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit cyberstalking and conspiracy to tamper with witnesses.

David Harville, 48, of New York City, eBay’s former Director of Global Resiliency, was arrested this morning in New York City on the same charges and will make an initial appearance via videoconference in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

In addition the following defendants were charged in an Information unsealed today: Stephanie Popp, 32, of San Jose, eBay’s former Senior Manager of Global Intelligence; Stephanie Stockwell, 26, of Redwood City, Calif., the former manager of eBay’s Global Intelligence Center (GIC); Veronica Zea, 26, of San Jose, a former eBay contractor who worked as an intelligence analyst in the GIC; and Brian Gilbert, 51, of San Jose, a former Senior Manager of Special Operations for eBay’s Global Security Team.

They are each charged with conspiracy to commit cyberstalking and conspiracy to tamper with witnesses and will make appearances in federal court in Boston at a later date. (MORE)

Advertisements

Senator Josh Hawley Takes on The GOP Political Establishment – The Fraud of “The Conservative Bargain”…


U.S. Senator Josh Hawley delivered a speech on the floor of the senate that deserves some attention.  The larger issue outlined by Senator Halwey surrounds the recent Supreme Court Bowstock decision authored by Justice Gorsuch.  However, in overlaying the judicial outcome, Hawley hits on the central issue he calls the “conservative bargain.”

The entire speech is worth listening to, as the senator encapsulates many of the frustrations within the recent decision; but the segment at 07:15 cuts to the heart of the distinction between MAGA-Trump republicanism and the pathetic GOPe wing of the Mitch McConnell UniParty. We have previously called this “The Decepticon”  WATCH:

Domestic Terrorists – Three New York Police Officers Poisoned By Shake Shack Employees…


According to the New York Police, three police officers were “intentionally poisoned by one or more workers at the Shake Shack at 200 Broadway in Manhattan. After tasting the milk shakes they purchased they became ill, making it necessary for them to go to an area hospital. Fortunately, our fellow officers were not seriously harmed.”  (LINK)

The Shake Shack corporation previously aligned themselves with the Black Lives Matter movement.  Specifically the corporation said they were we’re taking action “to become better allies, not only for our Black colleagues, but for the entire Black community.”

Thus current Shake Shack employees can argue their attacks against police was their collective expression of social justice in carrying out the interests of the organization.

SHAKE SHACK

@shakeshack

Black Lives Matter. We recognize our responsibility to stand up in the fight against systemic racism and know that words must be accompanied by action.

View image on Twitter
241 people are talking about this

SHAKE SHACK

@shakeshack

To learn more about Equal Justice Initiative, head to this link: http://eji.org  https://twitter.com/shakeshack/status/1270828664800845825 

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
SHAKE SHACK

@shakeshack

Last week, we shared the immediate actions we’re taking to become better allies, not only for our Black colleagues, but for the entire Black community. That included a $100K donation to @eji_org. We stand behind the important work Equal Justice Initiative does every day.

View image on Twitter
267 people are talking about this

A Brilliant Mind – Young Black Voice Delivers Red Pill To Urban White Liberal…


According to people on the Twitter this young black woman is Beverly Beatty, and the conversation is in/around the occupied territory known as CHAZ.   That said, Ms. Beatty delivers a remarkably effective two minute elevator speech; to an urban white liberal.

What the video shows is an empowered delivery of Red Pill truth. WATCH:

.

There are many more people like Ms. Beverly Beatty than Democrats would ever admit. These empowered, articulate voices for conservative freedom -regardless of race- are antithetical to the political interests of the DNC.  Strong in the truth is this young lady.  Well done.

Supreme Court Votes 6-3 To Recognize “Gay” and “Transgender” Under 1964 Civil Rights Act Definition of “Sex”…


There is considerable conversation, on all sides of the issue, surrounding a 6-3 supreme court decision today recognizing “gay” and/or “transgender” persons as being protected by the 1964 civil rights act under the definition of “sex”.  Factually, the decision authored by Judge Gorsuch writes those terms into the legislative definition; that’s a problem.

However, that said, for all practical purposes and intents, sexual orientation has been a protected employment category -as viewed by the Dept. of Labor and EEOC- since the mid-90’s. So some of the over-the-top exclamations, in both directions, are moot amid the world of practical application.

As to the issue of SCOTUS usurping the legislative responsibility for the practical wording of law, yes, this ruling is an issue, and Judge Alito is absolutely correct in all corners of his dissent.  Justice Gorsuch has opened a can of worms for downstream consequences unrelated to employment eligibility; and a myriad of potential future cases based on gender orientation are likely to flow to the court; so the big picture is problematic.

All arguments surrounding the issue of SCOTUS writing legislation through the delivery of opinion are merited and worthy.  However, on the specific application of ‘gender’ to employment eligibility, today’s ruling was already in place.  Amy Howe has a good encapsulation at SCOTUS Blog:

“Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a half century ago, Title VII’s ban on discrimination protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees. Because fewer than half of the 50 states currently ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, today’s decision is a major victory for LGBT employees.”

[…] Gorsuch framed the question before the court as a straightforward one: “Today,” he wrote, “we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.” The answer to that question, he continued, “is clear.” When an employer fires an employee “for being homosexual or transgender,” that employer “fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

[…] Justice Samuel Alito filed a sharp dissent that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. While conceding that the result that the majority reached “no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses,” Alito stressed that there “is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He compared the majority’s opinion to a “pirate ship,” writing that although it sails “under a textualist flag” – that is, it purports to adhere to the text of Title VII – “what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that court should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.” “If the Court finds it appropriate to adopt this theory,” Alito complained, “it should own up to what it is doing.”  (read more)

In the bigger picture, because Title VII as drafted does not protect gay and lesbian employees, nor does any honest review of the 1964 statute imply such a definition, the responsibility to amend Title VII belonged to congress and the president in the legislative process, not to the Supreme Court.  That’s the bigger problem with the SCOTUS decision.

Congress should be, and is, responsible for defining the term “because of sex” as it applies in the original legislation; as it was written to eliminate employment discrimination.  What the supreme court did today was textually, and arguably constitutionally, outside the parameters of their role.

The only modicum of upside optimism stems from reminding ourselves that practically speaking the ruling today was already, technically, in place. The executive branch already viewed sex-based employment discrimination as against EEOC rules.  However, the severe downside is further movement toward legislation being created by the courts.

I think Justice Alito is correct… The Supreme Court has just opened themselves up to a lot more work coming on their calendar.

Blue Bloods Have Gone Oprah!


We’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!

Joan Swirsky image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesApril 18, 2020

Blue Bloods Gone OprahAmong the TV shows I gravitate to with my husband Steve, a former athlete, include live baseball, basketball and football games, historical documentaries, and both true crime shows and crime dramas like Law & Order, Forensic Files, Chicago PD, and Blue Bloods––all studies in the greatest mystery of all time, human behavior.

When Blue Bloods debuted in September 2010, we thought it was excellent, featuring in-depth and provocative episodes, and at last embodying the conservative values we embraced, including a distinct lack of the three-legged stool on which Progressives base their so-called values: moral relativism, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

The show is about the Reagan dynasty in NY City, where the following characters are presented every week with daunting challenges, moral dilemmas, high-action chases and arrests, and touching family dramas:

  • Frank Reagan, a widower and the New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner, played by Tom Selleck.
  • His father Henry Reagan, also a widower and a former NYPD Commissioner, played by Len Cariou.
  • Frank’s son Danny, played by Donnie Wahlberg, a tough, street-smart detective, and his partner Maria Baez (played by Marisa Ramirez). Danny was happily married to R.N.  Linda (played by Amy Carlson) before her death, and they were the parents of two sons played by real-life brothers Andrew and Tony Terraciano.
  • Frank’s daughter Erin, played by Bridget Moynihan, a letter-of-the-law Bureau Chief in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and divorced mother of daughter Nicky (played by Sami Gayle). Erin works closely with Anthony Abetemarco, a detective in the D.A.’s office (played by Steve Schirripa).
  • Frank’s son Jamie, played by Will Estes, a Harvard Law School graduate who chose to become a street cop, promoted to sergeant, and then married to his NYPD partner––a beautiful blonde from a decidedly dysfunctional background––“Eddie” Janko, played by Vanessa Ray.
  • Frank’s Chief of Staff, Garrett Moore, who is also the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, played by Gregory Jbara.
  • I cannot omit the very gorgeous and fabulous actress Abigail Baker who plays Commissioner Reagan’s chief aide as Detective Abigail Hawk.

Suffusing the drama is the Commissioner’s late son Joe, an NYPD detective who was murdered by a corrupt gang of police officers and whose memory continues to haunt the Reagan family.

THE OLD FORMAT

Every week for the past many years, all these characters presented compelling and original drama with episodes addressing themes such as the unreliability of eyewitnesses, the difficulty of identifying sociopaths, the nefarious inner workings of the New York mafia, the dangers of nepotism within the ranks, the reluctance of sexual assault victims to come forward, the complexity of solving murder cases, on and on and on.

In every episode, it was clear that the protagonists––members of the NYPD from the top on down––knew the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, legal and illegal.

Right was the teenage kid from the projects who resisted following his thug friends into a life of crime; wrong were the thugs who chose a life of crime, including robbery, rape and murder.

Good were the people who yearned for a safe neighborhood coming forward to identify the bad guys, in spite of great risk to themselves and their families; bad were the drug dealers and corrupt politicians who covered for the bad guys.
Legal were the follow-the-rules cops who crossed every “t” and dotted every “I”; bad were the on-the-take judges who ruled against them.

Riveting. Illuminating. Thought-provoking. Influential. Worthy of our time.

THE OLD VALUES

Among the most refreshing qualities of the show was––not is––the great respect the children and grandchildren exhibited toward their father, the Commissioner, and their grandfather, the former Commissioner.

Every week, viewers were treated to the Reagan clan gathering around a huge dining-room table for a sumptuous dinner consisting of platters of roast turkey and roast beef, mountains of salad and vegetables, and heaping portions of baked and mashed potatoes, where one or another member of the family would say Grace before the meal, thank their Lord Jesus Christ for their bounty, make the sign of the Cross, and in unison say Amen.

While serious discussions and good-humored kidding took place around the table, philosophical disagreements also abounded. Yes, quizzical looks and raised eyebrows and even scowls were evinced, but there was always a refreshing absence of the dismissive, rude, hostile and insulting behavior and the repulsively foul language we’ve become accustomed to in shows ranging from newscasts to award shows to daytime talk shows to “Housewives” dramas. And there was never any sign or sight of an iPhone!

RATINGS DON’T LIE

According to Wikipedia, the pilot episode 10 years ago garnered 15,246 million viewers, and the ratings remained sky-high for about seven seasons. But from season eight on, the ratings began to plunge, with season nine seeing the lowest in the show’s history.

No mystery to me, as the Blue Bloods audience witnessed this once-terrific show go Oprah––turning into both a social service and finger-wagging forum designed to set Commissioner Frank Reagan and his unenlightened family straight, to teach them the Progressive values that the leftist writers they hired wanted them to learn: how to be a moral relativist, a multiculturalist, a politically correct jerk.

CLUELESS WRITERS

It is abundantly clear that the current writers had never watched the show, had no idea about the rock-ribbed simpatico dynamics of the Reagan family, had contempt for the police, and had a deep loathing of the Christian religion and prayer and even the mention of Jesus.

Why else would they have the always respectful sons of Frank Reagan and their grandfather Henry speak to them with such antagonistic, disrespectful language? Why would they feature rookie and even senior policemen speak to the Commissioner in such brazenly inappropriate terms? Why would they completely eliminate the prayer before eating dinner and any reference to Jesus?

Why? I know nothing about corporate media or who calls the shots and ultimately determines content. But this is an all-important election year and we already see the Murdoch boys pushing their properties––The Wall St. Journal and Fox News, among others––in a distinctly leftward direction, so it’s not a far stretch to theorize that anti-Trump CBS-TV is also pushing their popular shows along the same route.

After all, why would they drag a veteran leftist, the seemingly dotty 90-year-old Ed Asner, out of his comfortable California home to star in a preposterous episode where the writers wasted our time watching Asner and his old friend Commissioner Reagan show off their knowledge of ancient movies?

Why? Clearly the writers want to make the Commissioner look like a regular guy, to reduce his gravitas, to make him less important.

Why would they feature the toughest guy in town, Commissioner Reagan, visiting the new Mayor of NYC––who told him the City needed a tougher P.R. person than Reagan’s longtime Chief of Staff Garrett Moore––and then portray the Commissioner as an emotional, conflicted, hand-wringing wuss over a simple executive decision?

Why? Again, an attempt by the writers to make the Commissioner look incapable of taking charge and getting something done––sort of like Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Of course, the goal of the real wusses who are writing this junk is to convince the viewing public that they’ve been wrong all along about Blue Bloods, that what we should really believe is that the police are the problem, prayer is the problem, Jesus is the problem, and we should vote for all the leftwing candidates who believe this tripe.

As for me and Steve, we’ve dropped this leftist travesty forever, and are now enjoying both reruns and new episodes of the quite fabulous and compelling Chicago PD!