Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Paul Howard Jr., held a press conference earlier this afternoon to announce eleven charges against police officer Garrett Wolfe for the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks. The shooting took place at a local Atlanta Wendys.
In what appears to be a decision heavily influenced by local politics, DA Howard is charging officer Garrett Wolfe with felony murder; an unlawful killing with malice, forethought and specific intent. It looks like Howard is purposefully making a mess.
During his press remarks the district attorney stated Mr. Rayshard Brooks was “calm, cordial and really displayed a cooperative nature – he was almost jovial” after he was found “peacefully sleeping” in his car outside the Wendy’s Friday night and subjected to a sobriety test. According to the DA “for 41 minutes and 17 seconds, [Brooks] followed their instructions, he answered the questions,” Howard said. “Mr. Brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for driving under the influence.”
There is something rather unusual about the way DA Paul Howard framed the encounter between the police and Rayshard Brooks, because CCTV video and body-cam footage do not support the district attorney’s version of events. Obviously in a courtroom the defense is going to replay the DA statements while they run simultaneous footage of Mr. Rayshard Brooks resisting arrest, fighting with police and ultimately taking one of the officers’ tasers to use as a weapon.
The highly coordinated press conference narrative, as outlined by what seems like a not very astute district attorney, is very much at odds with what most people have already seen in the videos of the encounter. The purposeful disconnect gives the impression that DA Brooks is intentionally trying to throw the court case in advance.
There’s something very sketchy going on in the political background…. and I cannot help but wonder if Paul Howard Jr. is planning to be defeated in the next election (he seems in trouble) and is, as an intentional and self-centered plan, trying to set-up his political successor with a lose/lose scenario.
The eleven charges which include felony murder seem positioned from a district attorney who knows he won’t be around to deal with the case details. Howard can present himself as the community hero today and force his successor into the role of legal villain. That scenario is exactly what this looks like. Recently:
ATLANTA — Fulton County’s long-time district attorney faces two separate state investigations, but it could be voters who remove him from office.
District Attorney Paul Howard came in second in the primary election for his seat on Tuesday, the worst election showing he’s had since taking office in 1997. He now advances to a runoff with Democratic challenger Fani Willis.
“What you will overwhelmingly see, is that the people of Fulton County, Georgia, they desperately want a change,” Willis said on Wednesday. (June 10, 2020)
The lead investigative agency, The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), didn’t even know the press conference was going to be held today [LINK] and they have not completed their investigation. They had no idea the DA was going to file charges:
It is brutally obvious DA Paul Howard Jr. is setting a political trap for the next Fulton County District Attorney. The weird press conference and charges are ridiculous.
Regardless of internal Atlanta politics, the message to police is chilling. I would not want to be living anywhere around Fulton county, Georgia; because I suspect there is going to be a massive drop in law enforcement. Crime will likely rise, violence will likely escalate, and the suffering community will be the same black neighborhoods who might currently be thanking DA Howard without realizing what consequences are looming.
Here’s the press conference. It is cognitively disjointed all the way through; and seemingly run by people who have no clue what they are doing as they put a seemingly rushed media presentation together on the fly.
The representative image of Atlanta, Georgia, is really quite bad. WATCH:
.
Also, here’s the Body-Cam footage (incident takes place at 41:00).
.
Also here’s the CCTV video from Wendy’s (shooting at 28:30)
.
Eye Witness video of the fight with police:
Angela Stanton King
✔@theangiestanton
Officer involved shooting last night in Atlanta, GA (District 5) I grew up in this neighborhood. It’s time to have the conversation! RESISTING arrest, excessive force, & justified shootings this young man is deceased. #RayshardBrooks#Atlanta#Police#District5
When NBC published their background conversation with Google yesterday the media outlet made a big legal mistake. NBC not only outlined the mechanics of a racketeering and antitrust violation, via Google’s power to control on-line ad revenue as a weapon to target NBC’s competition, but NBC outlined the actual collaborative communication.
NBC did the worst thing possible, they published the quotes from Google’s response to them where Google willingly accepted the request from NBC without pause. The collusion was not only clear, it was self admitted. What made the issue more explosive was the NBC article explained the motives of both organizations; the targeting was intentional and specific. The goal was to take-down The Federalist news outlet by removing their revenue. There was no ambiguity of purpose, and Google knowingly agreed with the intent.
Within hours of realizing the consequences of the publication, the legal offices of NBC and Google both activated and attempted damage control. The NBC article was completely rewritten and the communication between them and Google –as quoted– was removed. For its part Google published a statement saying no action had been taken, and later they professed no action would be taken. However, the damage was already done.
NBC’s hubris put both Google and NBC in the sunlight of their own admissions.
Google’s monopoly control of internet ad revenue made their agreement with NBC to target a competitor a transparent, and admitted, antitrust violation. Without question, that stark admission is what triggered the timing of the DOJ public statement today.
The DOJ needs congress to take action, modify the law, and update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
There are many aspects to the 230 immunity section regarding the responsibility of a platform provider to ensure no criminal activity (child exploitation, sex trafficking, terrorism organization etc.) is taking place; while 230 simultaneously gives the provider immunity from liability if they do not successfully intercept the action. That was the bulk of intent and purpose of the original law.
Additionally, platform providers have been using the Section 230 immunity to engage in targeted censorship and control over political viewpoints on their services. That’s the part that gets most of our/user attention…. and if the immunity was removed, people could challenge the platform provider, sue them and force them to justify their action in court.
Both of those prior points are important; the first is really important to the DOJ; but they are not the real epicenter of the issue from the perspective of the provider(s).
Big Tech cares about not being held criminally liable, yes; and Big Tech cares about being able to control ideology, yes. However, neither of those two factors are as important to Big Tech as MONEY. Without financial control over the internet, Big Tech collapses.
The heart of the Big Tech’s financial issue for Section 230 immunity surrounds this:
(DOJ) …”A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.”…
As we expected the DOJ wants to target Big Tech for antitrust violations. The issue surrounds commerce, not speech. Demonetization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws.
Antitrust intervention is warranted because the content being generated on these on-line, digital platforms, is being arbitrarily valued by the platform agency GoogleAds and not the free market. When Google devalues content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.
The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.
The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that should afford the DOJ the opportunity to step in.
Democrats in congress will fight to help Big Tech retain the monopoly. It is doubtful any legislative action will take place prior to the November 2020 election. However, if President Trump can win reelection and if Democrats can be defeated in the House and Senate, it’s possible this might finally be addressed…
But remember…. Big Tech will go to the mattresses this year to try and help Democrats. There are trillions at stake.
President Barack Obama joins a toast with Technology Business Leaders at a dinner in Woodside, California, Feb. 17, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Earlier today White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a press briefing with the press pool. [Video and Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – MS. MCENANY: Good afternoon, everyone. Great to join you today. So, five years ago today, nine innocent parishioners of a historically black church were killed during an evening Bible study in Charleston, South Carolina. We all remember that tragedy, and this was a despicable act of evil that happened five years ago today. So we remember that somber day at that Charleston church, as our hearts still break for the victims and our prayers go out to the families.
Yesterday, President Trump led and brought our nation together behind real, meaningful, substantial change to ensure that we have safe streets and safe policing. Part of that was having an incentive structure to implement the highest professional standards in our police departments through an accreditation process.
This accreditation entails making sure you have de-escalation practices in place, use of force tactics in place. Part of that is prohibiting chokehold, except in the event where lethal force is used. It also incentivizes information sharing and makes sure that if they have an officer who’s had multiple uses of excessive force, that that information is sent to a national database.
And then, finally, another prong of this was having co-responders, who are experts in mental health, going alongside law enforcement, because we know law enforcement officials often have to deal with mental health, homelessness, and addiction. And having a co-responder, who is an expert in this process, will go a long way.
This is project — progress. It’s tangible action. And it’s solutions.
And today, Senator Tim Scott said this is “not a binary choice” between supporting police officers and between supporting victims of grave injustices, like George Floyd. It’s not a binary choice. There are not sides here. This is about America coming together. This is about human decency. And this is about justice. And when we see injustices, we recognize them.
As President Trump said yesterday, all children deserve equal opportunity because we are all made equal by God. That is so true.
First, let me point out that I have sat across from a police officer family that lost their loved one. I saw a little girl named Charlie, who will forever grow up without a father; who will forever grow up without a father for prom, for the father-daughter dance. And it was heartbreaking to know that she lost her father, who was a valiant hero.
But yesterday, I sat across from families who lost their loved ones in mass instances of injustice. And it was heartbreaking to hear their stories. It was a real tragedy. It was a tearful moment. It was an emotional moment. And it’s one that the President, when I asked him in the Oval Office about it afterwards, he said this: “I love those families. I want to help those families.” And President Trump means that. Because this is about humanity. That is ultimately what this is about.
And Senator Scott shared a very beautiful Bible verse with those families yesterday, and I just want to read it here, to close. Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to his purpose.” He shared that Bible verse with those families, and it was particularly meaningful to me and, I think, to the families, as well.
And, with that, I’ll take questions. Yes.
Q First of all, you did a great job dealing with that feedback. I know that’s not — that’s not —
MS. MCENANY: Mix-minus.
Q Mix-minus — it’s the worst.
MS. MCENANY: Yes. Thank you.
Q All right. So the Trump administration — the Trump Justice Department has appointment six U.S. attorneys to examine the actions of the President’s political adversaries, but they’ve only opened one federal investigation into systemic bias in policing. So my question to you is: Why are so many resources being allocated to make sure the President and his allies were treated fairly by law enforcement and not the same for millions of black Americans?
MS. MCENANY: So I think you’re comparing two things that it’s not accurate to compare on the level of the number of —
Q They’re Justice Department investigations.
MS. MCENANY: — attorneys looking into.
First, we all know that this administration was dragged four years through a bogus investigation founded upon a dossier full of lies, funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. It was an injustice to the American people who elected President Trump as President of the United States, who was then bogged down by an investigation, which ended up with two words: no collusion.
That’s one —
Q But there were convictions. There were guilty pleas.
MS. MCENANY: That’s the first part of your question.
But as to the second part, this President has taken real, tangible, concrete action on the issue of policing. We saw that yesterday. Guess who hasn’t led? Democrats. They’ve engaged in meaningless symbolism as we saw them, you know, kneeling for minutes on end. But this President isn’t about gestures. It’s not about symbolism. It’s about action. It’s about making sure someone like George Floyd never dies in that manner ever again in this country.
Q He did not mention racial bias yesterday, nor does that executive order.
MS. MCENANY: This — first of all, this executive order addresses the issue at hand. And I thought my colleague Ja’Ron Smith handled this really well yesterday when he said this about the executive order on this very question from you. He said, “A lot of people want to make it about race, but it’s about communities and individuals. You’re trying to fix something that — you can’t really fix the heart of people, but you can fix individual pieces that deal with the real problem, which is access [to] opportunity.”
You can fix schools and remedy the disparities we see in schooling. You can fix policing to the degree we can, at the federal level, to incentivize good behavior and fair practices. You can fix the economy, as President Trump has done. He brought about the lowest economic unemployment rate for African American individuals, and paychecks going up prior to this pandemic when we had to artificially shut down the economy. You can fix the individual pieces, but it’s up to our country to change hearts.
Yeah.
Q Does the President — the President talked about chokeholds yesterday. The bill that’s been unveiled by the Republican Senator Scott and other Republicans does not ban chokeholds. Does he think it should?
MS. MCENANY: The President is fully in support of the Scott bill. They are working closely on that. And our EO puts an end to that, or incentivizes through the accreditation process to put an end to chokeholds in the — unless there’s lethal force used. We fully support the Scott bill and every element of it.
And one thing I would note about the Scott bill is: For years, we’ve tried to make lynching a federal crime in this country, and the Scott bill does it. It’s a great bill. It’s more great action from Republicans, and we hope we can have bipartisan support on that.
Q But to be clear, the executive order does not ban chokeholds. I mean, you can’t actually do that, I don’t believe, through an executive order. And this bill does not ban chokeholds. Do you think, does the President think that chokeholds simply should be banned?
MS. MCENANY: So what I have from the Justice Act here is that this will also end the practice of utilizing chokeholds. And I would underscore the executive order does that through an incentivizing process. So we’ve done what we can, and we’ll continue to do more and we’ll continue to work with the Scott bill. And there might be amendments to it, there might not. But we want to see this come to fruition.
Yes.
Q Because it does incentives; it doesn’t actually ban the practice? It encourages, but it doesn’t not actually ban the practice?
MS. MCENANY: Yes. Well, that is —
Q (Inaudible) Democrats (inaudible).
MS. MCENANY: We’re incentivizing to ban chokeholds and lessen the case of where lethal force is used. That’s the process that we’re using, and I’ll tell you this: It’s a much better process than the Democrats who, so far, have offered zero — nothing — except a lot of bad ideas about this that would ultimately, I would note, defund the police department.
Yes.
Q Kayleigh, in the last day, 96 people in Tulsa have contracted the coronavirus. I’m wondering about this rally coming up on Saturday. Will the President or the White House take responsibility if people get sick and catch the coronavirus at this rally on Saturday?
MS. MCENANY: So the campaign has taken certain measures to make sure this is a safe rally: temperature checks, hand sanitizers, and masks. So we are taking precautions.
Q But you’re not requiring people to wear masks.
MS. MCENANY: They will be given a mask. It’s up to them whether to make that decision. CDC guidelines are recommended but not required.
Q And the CDC guidelines suggest that people practice social distancing. You’re not going to be able to practice social distancing in a rally with thousands of people. So aren’t you, in essence, bringing people to a rally where they won’t be abiding by those guidelines, adhering to those guidelines?
MS. MCENANY: It’s the personal choice of individuals as to what to do. But if we want to talk about internal coherence, I believe that the media needs to work on internal coherence.
This wonderful New York Post story — I don’t think Steven Nelson is here, but good job to the New York Post — highlights the hypocrisy of the media where this is okay: protesting; this is not okay: Trump rallies.
It’s really remarkable, and I think the American people have taken notice when, for instance, NBC tweets at 4:05 p.m. on June 14th: “Rally for Black trans lives draws [packed] crowds,” in Brooklyn Museum Plaza, seeming to be lauding the protests. And then, less than an hour and a half later, they say, “President Trump plans to rally…but health experts are questioning that decision.” CBS had a similar logically inconsistent tweet.
Q Kayleigh, these are protesters protesting against injustice, against racism and police brutality. This is a rally — a political rally. They’re — they’re not going to be demonstrating for any kind of cause other than supporting the President. And I go back to my original question: Will the White House, will the President take responsibility if there are people who catch the coronavirus and get sick? As you know, you’ve been to these rallies.
MS. MCENANY: So have you, by the way.
Q Many of the people who go to the rallies — I’ve been to them too —
MS. MCENANY: Yes.
Q — are elderly. Probably half, preexisting conditions that put them at risk for serious complications if they catch this virus.
MS. MCENANY: So, first, let me note, you’ve been to rallies — these Trump rallies. We do rally in support of something. We rally in support of the President who got us the lowest number of black unemployment in the history of our country and paychecks going up. We rally that HBCU funding for historically black colleges and universities is permanent because of President Trump.
Q Right. But you’re not answering my question.
MS. MCENANY: We rally — but to say —
Q Will the President, will the White House take responsibility if people get sick?
MS. MCENANY: No, because you — Jim, you suggested —
Q Can you answer that question?
MS. MCENANY: You suggested that we don’t rally on behalf of anything. So let me note one more thing: We rally on behalf of —
Q I said you rally on behalf of the President. That’s why you’re going.
MS. MCENANY: We rally on behalf of criminal justice reform and the FIRST STEP Act, which President Obama and Vice President Biden talked about, but we did.
And I would note this: If we want to talk about the efficacy of what we’re doing, 1,300 health experts signed a letter about the protest, saying, “We do not condemn these gatherings. We support them as vital.” So you have the health experts on one side saying this, and then, all of a sudden, a Trump rally is different.
Q Okay. You’re dancing around — you’re dancing around the question. You’re holding up a newspaper headline. That’s very nice.
MS. MCENANY: And I’ve taken five of your questions. Work on your internal cohesion, and get back to me, Jim.
Yes, please.
Q Ms. McEnany, you have not answered the question. Will the President, will the White House —
MS. MCENANY: I answered five of your questions. And last —
Q But my first question has not been answered. Will the President, will the White House take responsibility —
MS. MCENANY: I said to you we are taking precautions.
Q — if people get sick?
MS. MCENANY: I said to you we are taking precautions: masks, hand sanitizer.
Q So you’re not going to take responsibility?
MS. MCENANY: Zeke.
Q Kayleigh, so for attendees at this rally, the campaign is requiring them to sign a waiver to waive them of liability, acknowledging that there’s an assumed risk with going to that rally. Does not the President have some responsibility himself to ensure — to set an example of for the nation to stop — you know, to prevent these larger gatherings or ensuring social distancing so that the American people — and people around the world, for that matter — follow his example and (inaudible) the most safe environment? Why is the President not following CDC guidance in doing that?
MS. MCENANY: We are doing temperature checks, hand sanitizers, masks. When you come to the rally, as with any event, you assume a personal risk. That is just what you do. When you go to a baseball game, you assume a risk. That’s part of life. It’s the personal decision of Americans as to whether to go to the rally or whether or not to go to the rally.
But I would note that this concern for the rallies has been largely absent when it came to the protesters. People really note when CBS says, “Thousands participate in a rally in a silent march for black trans lives,” and then less than — this more than an hour and a half later, “President Trump moving ahead with the rally. Serious risk of spreading coronavirus.” It’s really inconsistent. The media seems to not be interested in health so much as the ideology behind certain events.
So, you know, for instance, you go and the lockdown protesters were widely condemned by the media — who were protesting the lockdown — but then, all of a sudden, this protest for Black Lives Matter is lauded. It makes no sense. Ideology is driving the line of questioning in many of these cases, when it should be — if you’re focused on science, you should be out there asking these same questions about the protests.
Q Well, Kayleigh, public health officials here, local officials, mayors in large — many of the cities where there have been protests have encouraged those who attended those large gatherings and others to get tested four or five days after their attendance at the event. Does the President want attendees at his own rally on Saturday to get tested four or five days later to make sure that they didn’t get the virus there? And who should they inform if they do come down with the virus after the rally?
MS. MCENANY: It’s their personal decision as to whether they want to get tested after, but I’d note testing capability is, thanks to President Trump, 23.7 million people tested in this country so far. That’s an extraordinary number.
So, testing is out there and available if someone chooses to do that.
Jen.
Q Sorry, Kayleigh, just one more. Excuse me — sorry. Has the White House been monitoring this outbreak of violence between Indian and Chinese troops? And does the White House have any reaction? Is the President getting on the phone and talking to the relevant countries there?
MS. MCENANY: So the President is aware of it. We’re monitoring the situation between Indian and Chinese forces along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh.
So we’ve seen that the Indian Army statement that 20 Indian soldiers died as a result of the confrontation today, and we extend our deepest condolences on that.
Jen.
Q To follow up on Zeke, has the Coronavirus Task Force been consulted? Have they done any modeling on how many people could get sick at the Tulsa rally or die from the Tulsa rally? Have they even been consulted about the rally?
MS. MCENANY: The Coronavirus Task Force — they’re meeting today. I would first point that out. They meet regularly, and they monitor the whole country. So they don’t zone in on a Trump rally; they zone in on the whole country and analyze it through a database lens.
Q So they haven’t specifically done modeling on the rally?
MS. MCENANY: They look at the entirety of the country. That would include the state of Oklahoma, but they look at all 50 states in close consultation with governors.
Q And on Jay Powell — this morning, the Fed chairman, Jay Powell, this morning said that he thinks it would be appropriate for there to be more federal stimulus. Does the White House have any comment on his comments?
MS. MCENANY: You know, it’s something that’s being looked at, of course — a phase four. And no announcements on what those elements be, and wouldn’t want to get out ahead of the President. But I would note that this economy is robust and growing and coming back stronger than anyone could think from this because of the President.
I mean, you look at retail sales surging, 17.7 percent; unemployment insurance weekly claims falling. We have the fastest growth rate in American history in the third quarter.
So we artificially shut down the economy, but we have a robust recovery happening and taking place, and that’s thanks to President Trump. And there are a lot of good metrics, like new business applications skyrocketing, small businesses now opening at about 80 percent, Apple mobility index that’s practically pre-pandemic levels.
So there’s more work to be done, and phase four will address that, should it take place.
But we are encouraged by what we’re seeing, that the Donald Trump economy is coming back, because ultimately, investors and business owners have faith in this President.
Yes, Jeff.
Q Thank you, Kayleigh. You mentioned testing just now. The President has also both been tweeting and saying publicly, on Monday, that if the country just stopped testing, that there would be no — or virtually no cases left. That doesn’t make sense. Can you explain what he means by that?
MS. MCENANY: Yeah, it’s entirely logical. When you do more testing, you identify more cases. Countries that don’t do as much testing don’t identify the same number of cases. I mean, it’s pretty logical exactly what he said.
Q Okay, so it’s about identifying them. Because he seemed to suggest that if we weren’t testing, then those cases wouldn’t exist. Is that — is that just a misunderstanding?
MS. MCENANY: No, that — that wasn’t — that was not at all what he was saying. He was saying, when you test, you end up identifying more cases. And we’ve tested 23.7 million people; positivity rate of 5.9 percent. So we are in a good place when it comes to testing.
Yes.
Q And just along those same lines, the Vice President today wrote an op-ed — I believe in the Wall Street Journal — playing down the prospects of a second wave. Does the White House — is the White House just confident that there’s not going to be a second wave of the coronavirus?
MS. MCENANY: The White House is confident that we have enough testing to identify asymptomatic individuals; that we have therapeutics that are promising; that we are working on a vaccine with Project Warp Speed that we hope will be there by the end of the year and we think will be. And we have a robust public-private partnership that has shored up America’s supply chain.
So we are in a good place, and that’s what the Vice President was noting.
Jon.
Q Thanks a lot, Kayleigh. Two subjects. The first question has to do with the lawsuit that was filed against John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, by the Department of Justice yesterday. The DOJ did not file a lawsuit against Simon & Schuster, nor did it file an injunction against the publisher. Why not? Do you still expect this book to hit bookstores, to be on Amazon, to be available for people to read on the 23rd of this month?
MS. MCENANY: So that — as to why they went down that particular path, that’s a question for DOJ. But what I would note is this book is full of classified information, which is inexcusable. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton should know all too well that it’s unacceptable to have highly classified information from the government of the United States in a book that will be published. It’s unacceptable. It has not gone through the review process, and that’s where we currently stand.
And I’d refer you back to Barr’s comment on this, which is, “We don’t believe that Bolton went through that process.” It hasn’t been completed, the process, and therefore he “is in violation of that agreement.” That was part of his quote from Monday.
Q Then, on the other subject, the executive order the President signed yesterday. During that event, in his comments, he acknowledged that there are, indeed, bad police officers. Is the President opposed to the idea of removing qualified immunity for police officers, even bad police officers?
MS. MCENANY: Yeah, so qualified immunity, let me note, is a total and complete non-starter. What qualified immunity would do is it would really enable the police in this country to do their job. That’s in the Democrat bill.
And I’d argue this: You know, Democrats, they say, “Defund the police, defund the police.” We hear that from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Congresswoman Omar and others. Well, what does the Democrat bill do? By removing qualified immunity, what you’re essentially doing is not allowing police to do their job. There would be a decrease in policing in this country. Our streets would not be safe.
What President Trump has done is worked with the law enforcement to improve law enforcement, to ensure that the bad cops that exist are pushed out of the system. The overwhelming majority of cops are good, so we’ve got to address the handful that are bad, and that’s what the President’s order has done.
But taking away qualified immunity would make the streets of this country a whole lot less secure. Just look at what happened when we didn’t have ample law enforcement out on Lafayette Square: A church burned and multiple officers injured.
Q So how do you handle the situation, Kayleigh, of a bad police officer hiding behind the shield of qualified immunity?
MS. MCENANY: Look, I would note that also the court has litigated this pretty strongly. It’s been adjudicated. The Harlow court — in that decision, Harlow, the Supreme Court talked about achieving a balance between allowing victims to hold officials accountable while also minimizing the social cost to the whole — the cost of police officers, for example, pulling back.
So the Supreme Court has litigated this for decades and has approached what they think is the appropriate balance with qualified immunity.
And I think it would go a long way just doing what the President did yesterday: having that national database of offenders so we ensure that a police officer doesn’t leave one department and then go to another.
Francesca.
Q Thank you, Kayleigh. You outlined the White House’s position on qualified immunity, defunding the police. But you also said earlier that the Democratic bill is full of bad ideas. What are the other “bad” ideas, besides those two, that the President would not sign a policing bill if they wound up in the final version?
MS. MCENANY: So, one of the things the bill does is it undermines due process. The Democrat bill would undermine the due process rights of every officer by making pending and unsubstantial allegations available to the public, causing reputationable [sic] — reputational damage based on allegations alone. That’s a really good example, because what our database does is once a claim has been adjudicated, we know something was done wrong, it goes into a database that remains private. It protects privacy of the officers, but it is utilized to ensure that officer does not get to go to another department.
What the Democrat bill would do is: If someone submits an allegation, well, we’re going to violate the due process rights of this officer and put it into a system.
We have to balance everything in this situation, making sure our good, hardworking, overwhelmingly good police officers are able to do their job, but ensuring that we do not have victims like the victims I heard about yesterday in the excruciating, painful, devastating stories of their sisters, of their mothers and of their fathers.
Q So, sorry, one other question on that and something else. So you’re saying those are the three? That’s it?
MS. MCENANY: There’s a number of things, but those are the ones that I’ve listed out so far. There’s a number of problems in the bill.
Q And on the President’s rallies, he has also said that he has rallies on the books in North Carolina and also Florida, two states that have seen recent spikes in coronavirus. Who told the President that it would be safe to have rallies in states that are seeing spikes right now?
MS. MCENANY: Well, we are confident that there are embers out there that exist, that we’ll be able to put out those embers. Florida has a great governor. He’s done a great job so far. We work closely with Governor DeSantis, and we believe that we will be at a safe place.
Yes.
Q But who said it was safe?
Q Kayleigh, Justice Gorsuch’s decision from the Supreme Court this week against anti-LGBT discrimination was focused on employment civil rights law, but also had implications on housing, healthcare. How does the President want this implemented? Does he wanted it implemented as extensively or as narrowly as possible?
MS. MCENANY: So what the President says is he’s read the decision, they’ve ruled; we live with the decision, and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court. So that’s where he stands currently. And in terms of how it’s implemented, DOJ will lead the multi-agency effort to help provide certainty to the regulated parties.
Q I understand DOJ’s rule, but the President also has the opportunity to express his opinion and to lead, much like President Obama, in 2013, who said he hoped the marriage decision from the Supreme Court would be implemented as extensively as possible. What is President Trump’s view on the appropriate scope of the Court’s decision?
MS. MCENANY: So DOJ will be guiding that entirely, so I will leave that to DOJ.
Q And, finally, has the President — will the President have any conversations with DOJ about the implementation about the Court’s decision?
MS. MCENANY: Not that I’m aware of. He might have had one I don’t know about, but not that I’m aware of.
Q And one more question. Does the President think that the Gorsuch decision is a win for civil rights?
MS. MCENANY: Sorry?
Q Does the President think the Gorsuch decision is a win for civil rights?
MS. MCENANY: So one thing I would say — I have not talked to the President about that personally, but one thing I wanted to read was from the Kavanaugh dissent. There are some real concerns that this was a complete distortion of how we do statutory interpretation, and Kavanaugh lays that out very nicely.
But one thing Justice Kavanaugh did say, and I thought it was a very powerful quote, is: “Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers…” — which was a grave concern as the separation of powers point that the DOJ argued in court — “it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”
So I thought that that was a very good quote from Justice Kavanaugh.
Yes. Alexandra.
Q Thank you. On the plans to reduce U.S. troops in Germany, is there a timeline you can share with us? And could this decision, this plan, be changed or softened if Berlin agreed to increase its defense spending?
MS. MCENANY: So the President addressed our presence — American troop presence in Germany, and he said we’re bringing that number down from 52,000 — about what it’s at now — to 25,000. And the rationale for that, he articulated, was that Germany is very delinquent in their payments to NATO. They’re paying 1 percent. They’re supposed to be at 2 percent, and even 2 percent is low. It should be much more than that.
Q Would he change his plan if Germany agreed to increased (inaudible)?
MS. MCENANY: I wouldn’t get ahead of the President on making that decision.
Michael.
Q Hi. Thanks, Kayleigh. I have one question, and then I have two quick questions from colleagues who have sent to me as the pool person.
So, on my question, back when two White House officials tested positive for COVID, we all reported on an email that went out to West Wing employees instructing them that masks were mandatory to be worn in the West Wing at all times, with the exception of being when they were sitting at their desks, alone. Obviously, none of the White House people that I’ve seen today have been wearing masks at all.
Has that been rescinded? Has that instruction to West Wing employees been rescinded formally, or is it just still in place but nobody is paying attention to it? Or —
MS. MCENANY: So, masks are recommended, but not requi- –required. Excuse me. As I said.
Q Okay. And two quick questions.
MS. MCENANY: Could I — I want to get to everyone in the room, so —
Q Well, these are from people who can’t be in the room because of the restrictions.
MS. MCENANY: I understand. But I want to make sure I get to everyone in the room, and then we can come back.
Q Okay.
MS. MCENANY: So, Rob.
Q Can I just get a clarification on your equivalence between protests in the streets and this rally on Saturday? Is it the White House position that outdoor events carry the same risk as indoor events?
MS. MCENANY: It’s our position that the media should not be making decisions about their guidelines to us about social distancing based on political ideology or what they think is the worthiness of the cause.
Q But my point is, there a good scientific reasons for treating the two events different. One is outdoors and one is indoors.
MS. MCENANY: Right. And there’s not a good logical reason for this, so that’s the one thing I would keep going back to.
And can I also ask — can you tell us anything —
MS. MCENANY: Yes, Owen.
Q — about the Secretary of State’s trip to Hawaii to meet his Chinese counterpart?
MS. MCENANY: So, I have no information on that.
Owen. Yes.
Q Blake. Different mask.
MS. MCENANY: Oh, sorry. Blake. They subbed you in.
Q No worries. No worries.
MS. MCENANY: Good to see you Blake.
Q You too. A couple on the economic front. Earlier this month in Maine, the President was talking about Maine lobster, and he said the following: He said, “If the European Union doesn’t drop that tariff immediately, we’re going to put a tariff on their cars, which will be equivalent.” Can you give us an update on that? What is “immediately”? What is the status of potential tariffs on EU autos?
MS. MCENANY: I haven’t inquired about that today, but I will inquire about that, and I’ll try to get back to you before five, if that works.
Q And secondly, an infrastructure bill — can you just sort of give us a broad outline of what the administration wants to see? Is that a reauthorization of the highway bill that comes up at the end of the year? Is that added on to a potential phase four stimulus? What is the administration — what does the White House want as it relates to infrastructure?
MS. MCENANY: Yeah, I don’t want to get ahead of the administration on our official plans for that. Infrastructure is something we’ve talked about for a long time, and it’s something that we think that we could find common ground on. But it’s up to Democrats to really come to us and make that happen. It’s been mentioned as potentially a phase four, but that’s not in stone, but that has been mentioned. No formalized plans, though, on where infrastructure stands.
Q Is that a trillion dollars? Is it a trillion dollars? Up to it?
MS. MCENANY: We don’t have a number on that right now.
Yes.
Q On the Tulsa rally, can you give us a sense of which health experts the campaign and the White House consulted before deciding to hold it? Did anyone talk to the CDC about whether it be a good idea?
MS. MCENANY: Look, we are taking every single safety precaution that we can. And again, I would note this is probably question number 10 on rallies. And while we appreciate the great concern for our rally goers, you should exhibit that same concern for the protesters who are out there who are not socially distancing, in many cases, and not wearing masks.
Chanel.
Q Thank you, Kayleigh. Going back to the international front on China and India, you just mentioned that the administration is monitoring the situation, but the President has mentioned that he would be willing to mediate the conflict between China and India. Now, if he were to do so, what does that look like? Does that mean — does that look like a one-on-one conversation? Does that mean bringing the two leaders together? Has the President indicated what mediation looks like for China and India?
MS. MCENANY: So, again, no formal plans on that beyond what I already said in expressing our absolute condolences to the Indian soldiers that died as a result of today’s confrontation. We extend our deepest condolences there.
And I would note just that during the phone call on June 2nd of this year that President Trump had with Prime Minister Modi, they did discuss the situation on the India-China border.
Q On the relationship between President Trump and President Xi, the Chinese forces have been moving thousands of troops to that region that — it doesn’t seem like that region is going to see de-escalation anytime soon. If you were to characterize President Trump’s relationship with President Xi today, would you —
MS. MCENANY: Yeah, I —
Q Would you venture into that realm?
MS. MCENANY: I would just say what the President has said before: that he is really appalled at the fact that the coronavirus came out of China. They weren’t allowing flights into China but were allowing flights out. They slow-walked information. The WHO seemed to partner with China in slow-walking that information about asymptomatic spread.
So that is an appalling state of events, and the President is very upset by that action of China — or inaction, in some cases, I should say.
Thank you all very much. I hope you have a great rest of the day, and I hope we start seeing more consistent headlines. Thanks very much.
This afternoon President Trump announces the PREVENTS Task Force Roadmap which highlights the admin’s work to prevent veteran suicide and offer mental health resources to veterans. Anticipated Start Time 2:15pm ET [Video Added]
Something the mainstream and social media hope you will never come to realize: Most everyone other than the street protesters remains under coronavirus lockdown.
While the majority of civilized society is held under government-imposed lockdown, meaning with no place to work, no place to worship, no place to go—purportedly for their own safety in a raging pandemic—hundreds of thousands of ‘protesters’—(millions if counted worldwide) are allowed out to protest, pillage and burn cities down.
Let that sink in if only in order to clearly see how a pandemic panic can be used to help take down Western society.
Is it only citizens locked down in their homes that are capable of spreading a deadly virus?
Why was American society subjected to months of dire warnings issued on a daily basis by Doctors Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx on televised White House Task Force press conferences?
Where are media darlings Fauci and Birx now that a more realistic pandemic is ransacking, looting and burning America down?
Is it only citizens locked down in their homes that are capable of spreading a deadly virus?
What magic wand keeps protesters immune to coronavirus?
Surely this should come as irrefutable proof that the pandemic was used as cover for a mass lockdown.
Out on the streets the wholesale destruction of historic monuments has changed to setting houses with flags on display afire.
“Police are investigating a string of arsons, targeting Citrus Heights homes with American flags on display. (CBS13, June 8, 2020)
“At least four homes were targeted in the Sungarden neighborhood early Saturday morning. So far, police say they don’t know the motive.”
Try spreading anti-Americanism as the same motive that sees ‘taking a knee’ on the increase at sporting events.
“A charred pole is all that’s left of the American Flag that had been flying outside Marie Nuzzi’s home. (CBS13)
“If it had burned longer it would have caught the house on fire,” Nuzzi said. “Somebody’s lives, for what?”
“The fire was set at about 3 a.m. Saturday morning and burnt out before reaching the house where Nuzzi and three other family members were sleeping inside.
“Arsonists also set the trees on fire outside another home on Nuzzi’s street where smaller American flags are on display around the front lawn. At least two other American flags were also set on fire.”
“There’s just no respect there,” Nuzzi said.
“In Citrus Heights it’s a stars and stripes serial arson investigation.
“Police are asking for the public’s help looking at surveillance cameras and ring doorbell video from Saturday at around 3 a.m. to help them try to identify the suspects.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had her own way of showing respect to the American flag:
“An elected official, who is responsible for ensuring the Democratic Party passes legislation in the House, seemingly shunned military protocol by honoring a dead suspect who did not serve the country. (The BL, June 16, 2020)
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) presented a relative of George Floyd with a ceremonial burial flag even though the deceased Minnesotan had never served in the U.S. armed forces.
“Philonise Floyd received the honor during a media photo opportunity held after he delivered his recollection of events, leading up to his brother’s death, to House Judiciary Democrats.
“Philonise Floyd’s heart-wrenching testimony to House Judiciary Democrats left its mark on us all,” Pelosi said on Twitter. “May this flag, which flew over the Capitol on the day of his brother’s murder, serve as a symbol of our shared commitment to securing justice for George and all victims of police violence.”
“The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) website describes the burial flag as an adornment to honor the memory of a veteran’s military service to the nation.
The flag is usually draped over the casket or urn, containing the remains of the deceased person, before being folded into a triangle shape and handed to the closest living relative at a special ceremony.
The world has been turned upside down by the Democrat/Media/Entertainment Industry hatred of Donald Trump
“Generally, the flag is given to the next-of-kin, as a keepsake, after its use during the funeral service,” the website said. “When there is no next-of-kin, VA will furnish the flag to a friend making request for it. For those VA national cemeteries with an Avenue of Flags, families of Veterans buried in these national cemeteries may donate the burial flags of their loved ones to be flown on patriotic holidays.”
Meanwhile, with thousands of small businesses hanging on by a thread, governments are “phasing” in return to work permission.
How many small businesses will have gone bankrupt by the time the government phases them back in?
There are no fights by any leader of any Religion fighting to have churches reopened without the restriction of reducing congregants to 30 percent.
That’s because there was no fight by any church leaders when authorities closed the churches down in the first place.
How many of the elderly sent to nursing homes died as a result of Coronavirus without the benefit of Last Rites?
How many babies who made it past the slaughter of abortion died without being baptized?
How many weddings had to be put off?
When will the media start telling the truth about what is happening to Western Society instead of mocking the masses by reporting that bloodthirsty street thugs out there are really only “peaceful” protesters?
When—if ever—will the public masses wake up to the fact that above all the pandemic panic was the master exploitation of not letting any crisis go to waste, by globalist leftists?
The world has been turned upside down by the Democrat/Media/Entertainment Industry hatred of Donald Trump.
Will the masses ever see that given the tyranny now dominating our world, that their corrosive hatred of Donald Trump is a luxury we can’t afford?
This piece of disinformation sounds like it was written by Bert and Ernie of the Muppets: CHINA WARMS TO FOUR MORE YEARS OF TRUMP PRESIDENCY, published by Bloomberg News yesterday. The article claims that numerous high-level “Chinese officials” are thinking that a Biden presidency would be detrimental to Beijing’s interests.
Where to begin?
Why not start with the name, ‘Bloomberg,’ as in Michael, failed Mayor of the Big Apple and failed presidential candidate for the Democrat Party nomination, avowed mortal enemy of Donald Trump and oh, yes, owner of the Bloomberg business empire, publisher of Bloomberg News.
And just like a singing troupe of parrots
Bert: “Those Chinese leaders are really scared of Joe Biden!”
Ernie: “They know if he becomes President, he’ll get the whole world to gang up on China because he’s such a keen, decisive and articulate leader.”
Another good place to look is at the Chinese Communist Party, whose ‘summertime and the livin’ is easy’ treatment from the Obama Administration, now wants to portray Biden as their worst nightmare in hopes of getting American voters to switch to Biden. It’s called ‘reverse psychology’ in some circles and ‘psychological warfare’ in others, but one would have to be pretty sappy to fall for it.
Lest we forget that Dopey Joe was number two in command in the Obama Administration.
Zhou Xiaoming, a former Chinese trade negotiator, is quoted in the article as saying, “If Biden is elected, I think this could be more dangerous for China, because he will work with allies to target China, whereas Trump is destroying U.S. alliances.” And just like a singing troupe of parrots, “four Chinese officials” echoed that sentiment.
They even had room to introduce some reality as the article goes on to quote Zhou “I don’t think the election will change the relationship in a fundamental way. The deep feeling in the U.S. is that the U.S. should contain China. Whether Trump wins, or Joe goes to Washington, things will get worse.”
As indeed one would expect, given that China has just infected the entire planet with a novel new virus.
MSM, whose lies, disinformation and anti-American provocations, have become ever more strident
Another sector that would benefit greatly from this disinformation campaign is the Washington Establishment, Democrat or Republican, who see Donald Trump as a rogue wave that undermines the sand on which their castles are built. Just imagine, Chuck Schumer, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Stacy Abrams and the majority of the old-time Washington insiders looking to depose Trump over the past three and a half years, likely now see this as their last chance to nullify the Donald Trump Phenomenon. If I were a part of this cabal, I’d latch onto that straw in a New York minute, in hopes of returning to what was ‘normal’ in 2016.
Finally, there is the so-called MSM, whose lies, disinformation and anti-American provocations, have become ever more strident in their calls to turn the Ship of State around. Their hopes are that a Biden victory will finally put ‘paid’ to the Trump Phenomenon and return to the days when no one in Washington gave a hoot about fly-over country or the deplorables living in it. If they can convince enough Americans that China is seriously afraid of Biden, then just maybe they can convince enough Americans fed up with China’s antics to swing the vote to Dopey Joe.
In any case, this campaign exposes exactly what these people think of the average American: dumber than a doorknob and easily influenced by shiny objects. Let’s hope this wishful thinking continues through election day, when Americans can decide on their own which candidate would provide a better future.
There are two kinds of people in this world – builders and destroyers. You know who you are.
Our forefathers were builders who rejected monarchy in favor of limited government and the challenge of self-rule. Our forefathers understood the difference between servitude and citizenship. They chose freedom and built a more perfect union – a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The building of the United States of America was the most successful experiment in individual freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.
Our forefathers built America with a Constitution articulating its secular laws, and the Ten Commandments articulating its moral laws
Our forefathers built America with a Constitution articulating its secular laws, and the Ten Commandments articulating its moral laws. We are a Judeo-Christian country built on the Judeo-Christian foundation of the Ten Commandments. Let’s examine them.
Commandments 1-4 codify rules for membership in the group, they are the unifying principle of monotheism. Monotheism is at the heart of the Ten Commandments and its moral laws. Freedom and independence require self-respect, self-control, and respect for others. It is a delicate balance that requires maturity and the ability to agree to disagree.
Commandments 5-10 codify the ethos of individualism and respect for others: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The Constitution and the Commandments define the balance between self and society, and between the individual and the group. There is no disagreement about the need for mutuality or respect for the individual.
Collectivism is an affront to individualism, adult mutuality, and the morality of Judeo-Christian tradition. Collectivism, whether socialism, communism, Islamism, or globalism, destroys the value of the individual and insists the value of the group takes precedence. The problem, of course, is that even in collectivism the group is made up of individuals!
The humanitarian hoax of collectivism is the destruction of the individual. Socialism is the destructive democrat party platform being marketed as altruism. Radical blue state Democrat leaders are telling the citizens of their states that anarchy, looting, robbery, rape, murder, and mayhem perpetrated by destroyers will bring equality and social justice. It is a lie. Anarchy precedes tyranny.
We still have the choice between builders and destroyers in November. We can choose between ordered liberty or the Seattle CHAZ—Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone that has become the country’s first No-Go zone. The radical Democrat destroyers support anarchy and the defunding of police departments, but without law enforcement there is only anarchy. Ask yourselves, “Do you want to live in the anarchist country of CHAZ?”
CHAZ is the predicted escalation of radical Democrat sanctuary cities and sanctuary states that protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens
CHAZ is the predicted escalation of radical Democrat sanctuary cities and sanctuary states that protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens. In CHAZ the criminals have taken over the government. This is how violent revolutions begin. This is what the radical Democrat destroyers are offering you in November. Voter beware!
Law-abiding communities, black and white, are builders who want to live the American dream of freedom and equality rooted in American individualism articulated in the Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Law-abiding communities, black and white, reject the destroyers of the radical leftist Democrat party who foment racial divisiveness and religious divisiveness by embracing Antifa anarchists, Black Lives Matter supremacists, and Islamic sharia law supremacists who are all diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the Ten Commandments.
The Democrat hype of the coronavirus pandemic and their support of anarchist pandemonium are both tactical weapons in the radical leftist Democrat war of destruction against America and America-first President Donald J. Trump.
There are two kinds of people in this world – builders and destroyers. You know who you are.
The 2020 presidential election is a battle between builders and destroyers. The outcome will determine if the dreams of our forefathers for a more perfect union of citizenship and individualism prevail, or if the radical Democrat destroyers successfully surrender our country to collectivism and servitude.
Before you cast your vote in November, remember Communist China Premier Zhou Enlai’s dismissive comment, “One of the things about Americans is that they have absolutely no historical memory.” The radical leftist Democrat destroyers are counting on you to forget the millions of people killed in the name of collectivism.
Remember that every group is made of individuals, this means if you choose radical Democrat collectivism you are choosing to destroy your self.
Remember that the ruling elite always take care of the ruling elite. The radical Democrat political party does not represent individualism and American interests. The radical Democrat party leaders are lobbyists for their globalist financiers who fully intend to bring socialism to America in preparation for the internationalized new world order of their globalist bosses.
There are two kinds of people in this world – builders and destroyers. Be a builder and reject the destroyers in November.
Treason and tyranny are ancient and succeed due to deception and ignorance based upon lies and mental laziness. However, tyranny endures well in a culture of fear due to viable threats, the demonstration of physical force, and outright violence. What Americans and the entire world are seeing in this time is an attempt at overthrowing the United States of America. The worst enemy is the internal enemy because those ones once trusted, are different from who they appeared to be in a different time, or in a different light. America now has to deal with the domestic enemies in our midst whether we want to or not, whether we like it or not.
Treason is as old as the United States of America, although a majority of Americans would not realize it. Treason goes all the way back to the beginning of the nation. While citizens just celebrated Flag Day and the birthday of the U.S. Army, many Americans would likely be shocked to know that U.S. Army officers at the highest levels under George Washington had plotted to take over the infant Republic. The Newburgh Conspiracy is not well known. However, it is reviewable via many historical sources. Top officers who did not share George Washington’s belief that the U.S. should be a free country, intended to seize control of the U.S. Army before General George Washington could disband the troops after the revolution.
The Democrat insurrection built steadily soon after Lincoln won the 1860 election
That treason ended with General Washington. Through a loyal officer, the old general found out about some details of the timeline of the implementation of treasonous actions. He then called a pre-emptive meeting of all his officers, and he essentially talked them out of their dark treachery by appealing to the conscience of each of them, as well as reminding them of a deeper purpose behind the War for Independence. General George Washington is viewed by some historians as the embodiment of the ideals and virtues behind the War. Indeed, he understood that the new nation would no longer abide by the norms of tyranny.
Treason visited the United States once again, although many Americans were not taught about it. Treason led to the near destruction of the fledgling Republic in the days of the American Civil War. It is not well known because there are other aspects of the Civil War that are viewed as having more importance. Yet, evidence of the treason in the White House just after Abraham Lincoln was elected president can be reviewed through various historical sources. The attempt to create a new nation from the old nation was the basic concept, and the propaganda at the time from the Confederate States tried to justify the insurrection as the “Second Revolution.”
Democrats before the elecion of 1860 threatened to secede from the Union if an anti-slavery candidate were elected POTUS. In that time, Southern Democrats had institutionalized racism in their “peculiar institution” of African slavery that they justified in various ways. Christian voices and abolitionists threatened that institution by shedding light on it. Abolitionists were the most vociferous in to eliminate slavery. They saw it as a violation of moral law. The southern slave owners also felt threatened by Abraham Lincoln, and though not an abolitionist, Lincoln was on record as hating slavery.
The Democrat insurrection built steadily soon after Lincoln won the 1860 election. First, South Carolina seceded from the Union. Democrat Governor Gist of South Carolina demanded that President James Buchanan surrender U.S. forts in Charleston Harbor. A second letter dated January 12, 1861, from the newly elected Governor Francis W. Pickens additionally demanded that Buchanan surrender Fort Sumter because, “I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina.”
More dramatically, treasonous activity surfaced in Buchanan’s White House well before newly elected president Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as president in 1861
Rumors reached president-elect Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois, that President Buchanan had surrendered the federal forts in South Carolina. Reports indicate that when Lincoln heard the rumors, he was purported to have said that if it were true, Buchanan should have been hanged.
Lincoln understood the Constitution. The rumors, however, were unsubstantiated. Nevertheless, southern Democrats in President Buchanan’s cabinet were outraged that Buchanan would not surrender federal forts to Governor Pickens. More dramatically, treasonous activity surfaced in Buchanan’s White House well before newly elected president Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as president in 1861.
Buchanan’s pro-southern cabinet included four men who were substantial slave owners, who sought to undermine Lincoln. But, in undermining Lincoln, they were undermining the nation, as they breached treasonous territory. Democrat John Floyd of Virginia, Secretary of War, made threats to resign if Buchanan refused to hand over federal forts—even in the event that the president would order supplies or soldiers to reinforce the fort against potential insurrection. Posing the possibility, Floyd stated that “It would be an act of aggression against South Carolina which I cannot be a party to; I will resign my office before I will sign such an order.”
Even more treacherous was Secretary Floyd’s diversion of significant arms shipments and military hardware to southern forts. Those forts were seized directly after Fort Sumter fell. Floyd was also suspected of diverting $850,000 out of the U.S. Treasury with a vague excuse of dealing with “Indian affairs.”
Buchanan’s Secretary of the Treasury, Howell Cobb of Georgia, may have assisted Floyd with the disappearance of the huge sum. Cobb eventually resigned in December 1860. Then on February 4, 1861, Cobb became president of the convention of seceded states. Under Howell Cobb’s guidance, southern Democrats drafted a constitution for the Confederate States of America (CSA) and elected Senator Jefferson Davis as provisional president.
Democrat insurrection built steadily soon after Donald Trump won the 2016 election
Floyd and Cobb seemingly did as much damage as possible before resigning. Floyd resigned in a display of self-righteous indignation over Buchanan’s handling of Fort Sumter. President Davis was formally elected to a full six-year term on November 6, 1861 and inaugurated on February 22, 1862. As president of the C.S.A., Davis, called up 100,000 men from the militias in the rebel states, and readied for war.
Such treason successfully led to seizing control of the southern based U.S. Army forts as well as the weapons and munitions. President Davis initiated the war by ordering Confederate forces to seize Fort Sumter. The ensuing war was intended to defend the southern tyranny over their slave populations. However, suspicions indicate that the intent (minus the propaganda) aimed for destroying the Union, which had become an impediment to the expansion of slavery.
Today, Democrat insurrection built steadily soon after Donald Trump won the 2016 election. Trump is a direct impediment to the expansion of the tyranny of the criminal cabal of Democrat leaders, Socialist-Democrats (infant Communists), the Globalists, and some “Never Trumper” GOP elitists. But recently, the target of the political criminal cabal is the hardworking American citizens who trust in Trump.
True Americans are aware. The worst enemy is the internal enemy—the domestic enemy. Treason and the physical force and outright violence of their brownshirt militants like Antifa and the Black Lives Matter group must be met by the unity of the people of conscience. It requires a “top-down and a grassroots-up” response. Trump and true patriots need to continue to shine light upon the dark treasonous endeavors of the domestic enemy.
The “Midnight” that Archbishop Sheen foretold many years ago, is now full upon us; the forces of death rule the world, using any and all means possible to crush opposition.
Greetings to all of you. Unfortunately, this corona virus has made it impossible to generate a newsletter for June 2020. Our only option was to pen a president’s message and an editorial, and to post them on our website and facebook page.
“It is necessary that the good, the children of light, come together and make their voices heard…..Before the power of prayer, the deceptions of the children of darkness will collapse, their plots will be revealed, their betrayal will be shown, their frightening power will end in nothing, brought to light and exposed for what it is: an infernal deception.” (Archbishop Carlos Maria Vigano)
The movement to allow abortion, to enshrine it into law and then to make all of us pay for it, was built entirely on deception
The movement to allow abortion, to enshrine it into law and then to make all of us pay for it, was built entirely on deception. Euthanasia and assisted suicide were built entirely on deception. The total disregard for God as the Giver and Taker of human life; the belief that man has the “right” to decide who is to be born and when we are to die, are no different than the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, based on the deception of the Serpent. The devil, whom God, Himself, called a liar and a murderer, and the prince of this world, deceived Adam and Eve. He will deceive anyone who will listen to him, with whatever lie will appeal to them. Today he is deceiving governments and whole nations. “If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” (Adolf Hitler)
The next stage of deception is fast upon us; the body parts of babies murdered in abortion are being sold for “research”; the cells of these poor children are being used in vaccines (generating even more blood money for abortionists). Body parts, such as heart and lungs, are being removed from men and women, while still alive, to transplant into men and women with defective organs, so that they can live. To give up one’s life for another is a wonderful thing, BUT, it is not a wonderful thing when one is murdered to save another’s life. Lies and deception are designed to make us feel guilty if we do not sign organ donor cards. (In the U.K. a law is being considered to declare that the bodies of persons who “die” belong to the state for purposes of organ harvesting, unless that person said no to organ donation.)
“A nation that will cannibalize its babies for parts will abandon its elders to secret abuse and choking, solitary deaths. Such a nation fears death, because it believes nothing comes after. So it also fears life. (John Zmirak)
The “Midnight” that Archbishop Sheen foretold many years ago, is now full upon us; the forces of death rule the world, using any and all means possible to crush opposition. The “slippery slope” is now far more slippery and wide, the agents of “Death” bolder. The battle of “Powers and Principalities” is in full swing. There is no middle ground.
Please pray. Pray to God for deliverance from this crushing evil darkness. Only He can help us now.
The Approach of Midnight – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
There is civil unrest rising within the major media institutions in Europe and the United States including the New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post just for example. The younger generation journalists are starting to rebel against management for the fake news. What is repeatedly coming out is demands for news organizations’ core value needs to be the truth. They are objecting to what has been the perception of objectivity. Some journalists have simply not written a word for a week. The civil unrest we see in the streets is not really racist as much as it is against the establishment. This was not helped by the Supreme Court’s decision to deny cert to a case on qualified immunity. This decision may go down with Dread Scot which said blacks had no constitutional rights in an effort to prevent a civil war. This decision trying to support the status quo is equally wrong. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says a government employee is an exception. The Bill of Rights is by no means a list of POSITIVE rights – it is a NEGATIVE restraint upon government. There is no foundation whatsoever to create any immunity for any government office when the sovereign of the nation is “We the People” not the government.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
It is brutally obvious DA Paul Howard Jr. is setting a political trap for the next Fulton County District Attorney. The weird press conference and charges are ridiculous.
Angela Stanton King
this young man is deceased. #RayshardBrooks #Atlanta #Police #District5
Centinel2012 