Defending The “Defender In Chief”: John Yoo On Trump’s Fight For Presidential Power


An Interview with John Yoo

Monday, August 3, 2020

On the occasion of his new book, Defender in Chief: Donald Trump’s Fight for Presidential Power, Hoover visiting fellow and Berkeley Law School professor John Yoo joins the show to make a spirited case against the criticisms of Donald Trump for his supposed disruption of constitutional rules and norms. The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump is a threat to the rule of law and the US Constitution. Mainstream media outlets have reported fresh examples of alleged executive overreach or authoritarian White House decisions nearly every day of his presidency. In the 2020 primaries, the candidates have rushed to accuse Trump of destroying our democracy and jeopardizing our nation’s very existence. In his book and on this show, John Yoo argues the opposite: that the Founders would have seen Trump as returning to their vision of presidential power, even at his most controversial and outrageous. It’s a fascinating and often humorous discussion that could not be more timely.

Recorded on July 29, 2020

Democrats Refuse to Help the People & Demand State Pensions Funds Must be Bailed Out


The Democrats are deliberately trying to hurt the people in hopes that they will blame Trump. The basis for this approach is traditional during a recession, the President is defeated such as Hoover in 1932. What they are also doing is demanding bailouts for the Blue States to cover their own pensions. This is putting government employees above the people. As reported before, they have promised the Blue governors that if they keep the lockdowns and hurt the people enough to vote against Trump, they will bail out all the state employee pension funds which are broke. Indeed, the 2020 elections will be a monumental turning point in the United States if the Democrats win.

Can Truth and Reconciliation Prevent the Crash & Burn?


QUESTION: Hi Marty,

After Apartheid, South Africa assembled the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Do you think there is any chance that in five or so years that we could have a similar commission where politicians, business leaders, scientists and media figures admit their crimes and lies in exaggerating the virus? In such a commission victims can also give statements about the lives and livelihoods lost due to the fake lockdown.

SMD
ANSWER: I seriously doubt that will happen near-term. Perhaps it will occur after they have destroyed everything post-2032, and those who thought the left would be Utopia discover that they too will surrender all their freedom. We are in such a political crisis where the right just wants to be left alone and the left demands they are subjugated and reduced to economic slaves. This is certainly not the country I had thought I lived in. My family has fought in every war since the American Revolution. My cousin still has the musket on the wall from the Revolution. All I can do is hope for is the breakup of the United States to be able to live in peace or be forced to leave. Perhaps this is the choice many of our ancestors had to make to leave Europe in search of freedom.

This political crisis has devolved into such hatred it is unimaginable. It began with Hillary calling anyone who voted for Trump “deplorable” and this has escalated into not just class warfare, but race, political warfare, and an all-out war against the history and the past. Even the US military base in the Indian Ocean is under attack because the USA leases it from Britain and they are calling this colonialism. We are declining into the collapse of Western Civilization as we have known it. There is nothing that will stand the test of time. Everything offends someone and civilization requires cooperation where everyone benefits by coming together. This rising tide of hatred is tearing everything apart. Perhaps now you will understand why Socrates’ forecast that the United States and the European Union will break apart. Our civilizations cannot be maintained with such hatred and confrontation.

You cannot allow one philosophy to subjugate everyone else. That is NOT what a free society is all about. You cannot allow even religion to take control of government (i.e. Iran). What if that Muslim Shiye philosophy took hold in the USA and Congress then enacts laws that women must wear hijabs, niqab veil burqas, jilbabs, or face covers to uphold Islam tradition? Whatever the philosophy or religion one group has, they have no right to impose it upon everyone else. We have reached the point where the United States is no longer a free society. There is no respect for human rights, which includes the right to be left alone to pursue your life, liberty, and happiness. What you earn is not respected and you can no longer try to build wealth for your family to leave behind, for even that is subject to confiscation under inheritance taxes.

Sally Yates Testifies to Senate Judiciary – Main Justice Deflects, Pointing Fingers At FBI…


The Senate testimony of former Deputy AG Sally Yates is ongoing. So far the Yates responses to questioning are predictable in the extreme.  [The Mistresses of Mirrored Halls – 2017 ]

It was always visible that when the Main Justice small group would be questioned they would deflect accountability by pointing blame toward the responsibilities of the FBI. That is exactly what Sally Yates is doing.

Senate Judiciary Livestream – Fox News Livestream – Fox Business Livestream

.

I will have more on this later…. busy, busy.

.

Deutsche Bank & Jeffrey Epstein


The mystery of Jeffrey Epstein, which extends beyond the sex with underage girls, has been just exactly where did his money come from? I have stated that I believe what truly lurked behind the surface was an attempt to entrap powerful people for the sole purpose of blackmail. Recently released transcripts show that he did respond that Bill Clinton owed him favors. This may be more of a window into things yet to come.

An interesting twist is the US District Judge Esther Salas presiding over a class-action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank was the target for assassination. Her son opened the door and her husband was standing behind him. The boy was killed and her husband was rushed to the hospital. The suspect was an attorney who was terminally ill who had only argued one case before her, which was not very dramatic. Roy Den Hollander later shot himself and is dead.

Judge Salas was assigned to handle a class-action lawsuit brought against Deutsche Bank by Ali Karimi on behalf of investors who purchased securities from the bank between 2017 and 2020. The complaint alleges that the bank “failed to properly monitor customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,” federal court records show.

The Jeffrey Epstein affair is far from over his connections to “the club” run curiously deep and even to Bill Gates and Al Gore. His so-called girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell was involved with Bill Clinton and allegedly solicited girls for his operation. She was also the daughter of Robert Maxwell who was part of “the club,” and Bill Browder was his understudy allegedly and was the target of the Magnitsky film. Even ABC News knew about Epstein three years before but refused to publish anything.

Sunday Talks: Senator Ron Johnson – What Did Obama Know?


When ODNI James Clapper walked into the oval office on January 4, 2017, with “tech cuts” (transcript excerpts) from the Flynn/Kislyak phone call, essentially Clapper infected the White House with a paper record that the Obama administration was aware of the FBI investigating the incoming administration.  Re-creating plausible deniability was the primary motive behind the January 5th meeting and the subsequent Susan Rice memo.

.

Why is it important to understand the duality of purpose for the appointment of the special counsel run by the figure-head (in name only) of Robert Mueller?…

…Because from the outset the seventeen Lawfare lawyers who formed the resistance unit operation took control over the DOJ.

That was a large purpose of their installation. The Mueller resistance unit controlled everything, including every impediment to congress.

Despite the fact they should have been aware of this, many individual Senators and congressional representatives now claim they had no idea of this purpose. Setting aside their willful blindness; all that stuff is in the rear-view and only leads to anger in a debate that needs to look forward; the issue now becomes putting indisputable evidence, an actionable trigger, in front of them and forcing public confrontation. Action. Nothing else matters; drive action.

At the same time, USAO John Durham [and S.P. XXXXX ] are facing ‘irrefutable’ evidence that holds two purposes: (1) undeniable evidence of a very specific cover-up operation that came, purposefully, from the agenda of the resistance unit to throw a blanket over the most serious abuse of power in modern history; and (2) evidence that ‘we the people’ know.

It might seem odd at first, but knowledge that we know, and possess the evidence to prove beyond doubt, is an insurance policy in the quest for truth and justice. This includes evidence that cannot be ignored even if they disappear the delivery mechanism. The truth has no agenda, and in this case the truth is a weapon.

Sunday Talks: Jason Miller -vs- Insufferable Chris Wallace…


While CTH is not necessarily a fan of Jason Miller, this is the time to put all factions aside and focus on winning the election.  That said, Miller pushes back accurately and effectively against the intentional and manipulative media spin by swamp guardian Chris Wallace.

Why Has SCOTUS Chief Roberts Abandoned Conservatism?


Does Judge Roberts Enjoys His Dalliances With the Strumpet Liberalism?

Kelly OConnell image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 2, 2020

Why Has SCOTUS Chief Roberts Abandoned Conservatism?

Why can’t Republican presidents count on their Supreme Court picks to be reliably conservative? And, how was previously “conservative” Chief Judge John Roberts bamboozled into switching sides? Or did he just slump into compromise? Is Roberts proud of himself or merely insensate to his devolving circumstances? Maybe Roberts is the Caitlyn Jenner of SCOTUS, proving O’Sullivan’s Law – that all institutions degenerate into liberalism except those founded as strictly conservative.

Recall, during Roberts’ nomination he told the Senate he had no explicit judicial philosophy, adding: “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” This is an existential view of judging. Roberts’ main interest is preserving SCOTUS’ reputation and power. 

Obamacare & Nine Unelected People

Roberts chief problem was highlighted in 2012 when President Obama threatened SCOTUS, warning the ‘unelected’ supreme court to not strike down his healthcare law. Why didn’t Chief Roberts bristle at this outrageous manipulation? Instead, Roberts was cowed, realizing Obama had the ability and will to destroy the Courts’s reputation through countless media hit pieces by his enablers. As years pass, in an unsavory example of Stockholm Syndrome, Roberts is now a liberal convert. But Roberts pantomimes anger towards much less Trump provocation as he knows Donald is much less ruthless than Barack.

Roberts Folds in Eye of Storm

Roberts had a chance to teach the left a lesson about bad laws. Rejection might have caused Obama to lose his next election. But, instead of dumping the badly flawed Obamacare, Roberts folded in the eye of the storm arguing a convoluted, nonsensical trick for saving it by turning the insurance mandate penalty into a tax. Justice Scalia wrote Roberts saved the law through “somersaults of statutory interpretation.” Yet, he did save his and the Court’s reputation from an unholy, scorched earth propaganda attack by Obama’s media minions.

Natural Law 

Natural Law claims a “law above the law” exists as a model for human laws. The Natural Law itself became a medieval proximate model for societal instruction, invading every topic of study. The Natural Law then gave birth to Anglo-American Common Law. From this came the crown jewels of Western jurisprudence – the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But inevitably, Natural Law lost favor, stripping the Common Law of it’s cache and majesty.

Positive Law
In it’s place came “Positive Law” or “man-made law.” Consider Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law tasked to eject any superstition or morality. And yet, the challenge of driving morality or religion out of law was doomed to fail. Ronald Dwarkin’s Judge Herculus in Law’s Dominion, brings a kind of Natural Law back by claiming there is always one best answer for a case than all other options.

Roberts & Legal Realism

In telegraphing his fixation with politics and court stability, Roberts reveals his philosophy as Legal Realism, which states law should be composed as how it actually exists. In other words, Roberts can rule however he likes then claim he was pragmatically ruling as should be which then achieves the greatest good. So, Roberts believes SCOTUS is at the center of society and is unafraid to play politics to save his beloved Court. For instance, in rejecting Louisiana’s demand for abortionists to have hospital privileges in case of emergencies, a common sense idea, Roberts prefers court stability over the lives of unborn babies.

Will to Power
So where does this leave us? Roberts has unwittingly accepted Nietzsche’s Will to Power, claiming that whoever has the power can use it without any explanation, as long as claiming it is pragmatic – for the greatest good. Law becomes transactional, not representing any deep truth, but just another tool in the work bench of modern society. And so Roberts waves his wooden hammer and sends countless kids to the grave as being too inconvenient to save.

CONCLUSION
Roberts rules as a Progressive, believing law exists to make society better.  In this view, there is no deeper meaning or ultimate right or wrong. Roberts thinks he is chief judge to protect SCOTUS’ legitimacy. But, if America is to survive even a few more decades, we must find better qualified justices willing to honor the Natural Law which gave rise to the Constitution. And they must believe a firm right and wrong do exist, and great judges take big risks to fight for truth, even when unpopular.

More Frightening Than Covid-19: Dems Stealing 2020 Election Through Mail-In Vote


Americans will wake up after election to a world much worse than Covid-19 and its accompanying lockdown because they will wake up to the living nightmare of socialism

Judi McLeod image

Re-Posted from the Canada free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 1, 2020

More Frightening Than Covid-19: Dems Stealing 2020 Election Through Mail-In Vote

President Donald Trump is doing what the mainstream and social media are failing to do: warning the nation that November will bring “the greatest election disaster in history” if the Democrats get away with making Election 2020 a complete MAIL-IN VOTE!

The media is hellbent for leather to dominate the news with Covid-19 scaremongering stories— knowing that it is fear of Covid-19 that will will keep the masses from getting out to voting booths.

In fact, given their aiding and abetting their mayors and governors in denying protection to citizens in blue cities and states currently under attack from the violence of Black Lives Matter and antifa, the MAIL-IN VOTE is the only way Democrats can be elected.

Even Fox News seems in on the impervious side of this clear and present danger to the Republic

The president is up against it far more now than he was when Adam Schiff worked through Congress trying to Impeach him, is in far more hot water now than he was when 99 percent of the media were blaming him for colluding with the Russians to “steal” the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to fighting off the Democrats stealing the election through the Michelle Obama-run Mail-In Vote via her absurdly described “non-partisan” efforts with her ‘When We All Vote’ project, President Trump stands alone.

Where are the Republicans?

Mainstream and social media seem not to know or do not care about the high risk of fraud that comes with a total mail-in vote.

Even Fox News seems in on the impervious side of this clear and present danger to the Republic:

“President Trump doubled down Friday on his warnings surrounding expanded mail-in ballots, declaring November will bring the “greatest election disaster in history” a day after he controversially suggested delaying the vote. (Fox News, July 31, 2020).

A day after he controversially suggested delaying the vote?

They are two separate issues, and surely mail-in-ballots have enough “news” gravitas on their own.

“They think they’re going to send hundreds of millions of ballots all over the United States and it’s gonna come out,” he told reporters at the White House following a meeting with members from the National Association of Police Organizations. “You won’t know the election result for weeks months, maybe years after. Maybe you’ll never know the election result. That’s what I’m concerned with – it’ll be fixed. It’ll be rigged. People oughta get smart.” (Fox News)

“He suggested people vote in person or submit absentee ballots.

“This is going to be the greatest election disaster in history,” he continued on Friday. “And by the way, you guys like to talk to about Russia and China and other places? They’ll be able to forge ballots, they’ll forge them. They’ll do whatever they have to do.”

“The president has repeatedly raised concerns involving broad mail-in voting, which is expected to be more widely used in the November election out of concern for safety given the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans have drawn a distinction with standard absentee ballots given the process in place to obtain one.

“But on Thursday, Trump caused a firestorm when he floated the idea of delaying the election until it could be conducted in person. Trump has no authority to do so, as the Constitution gives Congress the power to set the date for elections, and even Republicans pushed back at the suggestion.

“You’re sending out hundreds of millions of universal mail-in ballots. Hundreds of millions. Where are they going? Who are they being sent to? It’s common sense,” Trump said. “I want an election, and a result, much more than you. I think we’re doing very well. … I don’t want to see a rigged election.”

“On Friday, he insisted he wants the election to take place, and even said, “I wish we’d move it up, okay?”

“He said officials are working to fix the issue, but said the government was “not prepared for an onslaught of millions of ballots pouring in.”

“Absentee ballots, great. Going to the polls, great,” he added. “If you do universal mail-ins with millions and millions of ballots, you’re never gonna know what the real result of an election is. It’s gonna be a very, very sad day for our country.”

“Trump cannot change the election date without the approval of Congress, and policymakers in both parties have largely made clear they would oppose such a move.

“Earlier this month, NAPO endorsed Trump for president, after endorsing then-Vice President Joe Biden in both the 2008 and 2012 elections.

“In announcing NAPO’s support for Trump, President Michael McHale wrote Trump’s support is necessary “during this time of unfair and inaccurate opprobrium being directed at our members by so many.”

“We particularly value your directing the Attorney General to aggressively prosecute those who attack our officers,” McHale wrote in the letter.

‘Donald Trump: ‘China Must Be Very Happy’ Democrats Using Coronavirus to ‘Screw Up’ Election’ (Breitbart, July 31, 2020)

“President Donald Trump said Friday that China was likely delighted Democrats were trying to implement mail-in voting in the 2020 election, which he said would lead to a “catastrophic” result.

“They’re using the China virus, China must be very happy about it, because they hit us with a virus and now they screw up an election like you will never see,” Trump said about the Democrats.”

Meanwhile, while the mainstream and social media seem to be studiously avoiding the topic;  if no way can be found to stop the Democrats from transforming the the election from in-person and absentee voting to a universal mail-in vote,  Americans will wake up after election to a world much worse than Covid-19 and its accompanying lockdown because they will wake up to the living nightmare of socialism—the one thing Democrats and the media won’t be able to blame on President Donald Trump.

Public School Funding Per Student Averages 80% More Than Private Schools


Re-posted from Just Facts Daily By James D. Agresti

According to the New York Times, one of the main reasons why public K–12 schools are reopening more slowly from Covid-19 lockdowns than private schools is because public schools generally have less money. Times reporter Claire Cain Miller makes this claim three times in a single article, but her assertion is the polar opposite of reality and has been so for decades.

Twenty-five years ago, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) estimated that public K–12 schools spent an average of 43–52% more per student than private schools in the 1991–92 school year. Since then, DOE data shows that inflation-adjusted average spending per public school student has risen by 40%.

Consistent with that DOE data, new research by Just Facts reveals that average public K–12 school funding per student is about 80% higher than private schools. Specifically, the latest DOE data shows that governments spent an average of $14,439 for every student enrolled in K–12 public schools in the 2016–17 school year. In comparison, Just Facts estimates that private schools spent an average of $8,039 per student in the same year.

The figure for private school spending was determined by Just Facts with data from the DOE and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. All methodological details are provided in the footnotes located here, and all data and calculations are shown in this spreadsheet.

Furthermore, DOE’s figure for public school spending per student doesn’t include the costs of state government administration, unfunded pension liabilities, and public worker post-employment benefits (like health insurance). In contrast, Just Facts’ figure for private schools is comprehensive and includes all spending by private consumers, nonprofit organizations, and governments. This means that the full public school funding advantage is greater than 80%.

The Times’ Deception

Miller doesn’t even attempt to document the following claims that she makes in her article, which is titled “In the Same Towns, Private Schools Are Reopening While Public Schools Are Not”:

  • “Private schools have always had more flexibility, and usually more money” than public schools.
  • Public schools “tend to have less money” than private schools.
  • “Public schools typically don’t have the resources that private schools do….”

She also alleges without evidence that “public schools faced a funding crisis even before the pandemic.” In reality, the latest DOE data shows that inflation-adjusted spending per public school student is at an all-time high and has grown by 20% since 2000, 93% since 1980, and 3.8 times since 1960:

As Bernie Sanders has done, one can make it seem like funding has declined by cherry picking certain years in certain states, but the primary trend has been upwards, not downwards. This applies in nearly every state, which experienced anywhere from a 1% decrease to a 114% increase in inflation-adjusted spending per student between 1996 and 2016.

Miller also gives Robert Pianta, the dean of the school of education at the University of Virginia, a platform to claim without proof that Covid-19 “has exposed a great deal of inequity” in the education system. Less than a year ago, the Washington Post issued a correction for an op-ed by Pianta in which he wrote that “public funding for schools has actually decreased since the 1980s, adjusting for constant dollars.” That statement is at blatant odds with DOE data, which shows that the average inflation-adjusted spending per public school student rose from $10,316 in 1989 to $14,439 in 2016, or by 40%.

Just Facts provided documentation of the facts about public and private school spending to Miller and the Times corrections desk on July 17th. Ten days later, they have not responded or issued a correction. This adds to an extensive list of uncorrected falsehoods published by the Times.