Trump And Obama Brilliantly Compared; “Reason vs Treason”

The Trump Administration is being panned by leftists as politicizing the Department of Justice – like during the Obama years, it was a beacon of fairness, impartiality and a complete lack of political bias.

What a joke.

Under Barack Obama, the Department of Justice was used as a political weapon to go after enemies, support friends and manipulate the levers of government. It’s worth noting just a few of the most egregious examples of the political weaponization of the Justice Department under Barack Obama:

Back in October, we reported that the Obama Administration created a slush fund to siphon settlement money from companies found culpable in the 2008 financial collapse. That slush fund sent millions of dollars to leftist activist groups like the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League and NeighborWorks America.

This was all done in secret, of course – or at least without consulting Congress. Three years ago, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, warned the Obama Administration that they needed to disclose where the money was going, but they never did.

Back in 2012, after George Zimmerman fatally shot Tayvon Martin in Florida, the Community Relations Service (CRS), a unit of DOJ, deployed to Sanford, “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting,” according to DOJ documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

The rally featured prominent racial provocateur Rev. Al Sharpton as a speaker. The unit “was in Florida as part of their mandated mission,” a CRS spokeswoman told The Daily Caller. The mission is to serve as a “‘peacemaker’ for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin,” according to department’s website.

Fast and Furious

The DOJ gave guns to Mexican cartel members in the hopes of tracking the guns higher up the chain. When the operation went awry, as it was destined to, the DOJ engaged in a cover-up. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ effort backfired when authorities lost track of 1,000 firearms they allowed straw buyers to take across the border.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress after Obama asserted executive privilege to avoid turning over the documents, which Congress sought to explain why the DOJ decided to withdraw as inaccurate in a February 2011 letter. The letter claimed top officials were unaware of the operation until long after its conclusion.

We have the The Tarmac Meeting

Former President Bill Clinton’s meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the summer of 2016 on the Phoenix airport tarmac was as shady as it got.

Former FBI Director James Comey testified in June 2017 that the ethically dubious meeting forced him to hold an independent press conference announcing Clinton’s use of a private email server was “extremely careless,” but decided against recommending charges. He further testified that Lynch asked him to refer to the investigation as a “matter,” so as to downplay its significance — a request Comey admitted made him feel “queasy.”

We have Interference with State Voter Laws

Under Barack Obama, the DOJ spent most of a decade fighting voter ID laws in Texas. After the Supreme Court weakened the Voter Rights Act in 2013, Texas moved ahead to implement their own law.

This prompted the Obama DOJ to issue a legal challenge on a basis the law was intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Holder’s opposition to the High Court’s ruling drew intense criticism from Republican lawmakers and governors who argued the move represented an affront to the Constitution.

“This end run around the Supreme Court undermines the will of the people of Texas, and casts unfair aspersions on our state’s common-sense efforts to preserve the integrity of our elections process,” former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in a statement.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.

 

Muslim Was Paid Nearly $2,250,000

For Fake Abuse Claims Against Troops In Iraq

This is why we see so many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” faked by Muslims in the U.S. and the West in general: becoming a victim brings one laudatory press attention, and in many cases money and special favors.

Al-Sadoon said: “It was all about money – people exaggerating sometimes what they see.’ He blamed the British legal system ‘for making it so easy.’”

Indeed. British authorities, primed with endless victimhood posturing by Muslims in Britain, were ready and willing to see British troops in Iraq as abusive, racist, “Islamophobic” louts, and eager to pay for such stories.

This is why we see so many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” faked by Muslims in the U.S. and the West in general: becoming a victim brings one laudatory press attention, and in many cases money and special favors.

It was a racket, all of it” indeed.

Go and read the full story here: Daily Mail

 

 

 

 

 

 

“‘It was a racket, all of it’: Iraqi refugee admits faking hundreds of compensation claims against British troops while working for man paid £1.6m by law firm,” by Miles Dilworth, Daily Mail, February 14, 2018 (thanks to David):

 

Forget the Media Caricature.

Here’s What I Believe I support U.S. generosity, decentralized power, evidence-based science, and open discourse.

Over the past 18 months, I have been the subject of intense speculation and public scrutiny, in large part because of the philanthropic investments of the Mercer Family Foundation and the political contributions made by my father and me. I don’t seek attention for myself and much prefer to keep a low profile. But my natural reluctance to speak with reporters has left me vulnerable to the media’s sensational fantasies.

Some have recklessly described me as supporting toxic ideologies such as racism and anti-Semitism. More recently I have been accused of being “anti-science.” These absurd smears have inspired a few gullible, but vicious, characters to make credible death threats against my family and me.

Last month a writer for the Financial Times suggested mysteriously that my “political goals are something she has never publicly defined.” In broad strokes this is what I believe:

I believe in a kind and generous United States, where the hungry are fed, the sick are cared for, and the homeless are sheltered. All American citizens deserve equality and fairness before the law. All people should be treated with dignity and compassion. I support a United States that welcomes immigrants and refugees to apply for entry and ultimately citizenship. I reject as venomous and ignorant any discrimination based on race, gender, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

As a federalist, I believe that power should be decentralized, with those wielding it closely accountable to the people they serve. There is obviously a role for the federal government. But I support a framework within which citizens from smaller political entities—states, counties, cities, towns and so on—can determine the majority of the laws that will govern them. Society’s problems will never be solved by expensive, ineffective and inflexible federal programs.

Forget the Media Caricature. Here’s What I Believe
Photo: iStock/Getty Images

I am deeply committed to research and the scientific method. I have degrees from Stanford in biology, mathematics, and operations research and engineering economic systems. I believe that genuine scientific discovery flourishes only in an atmosphere of dispassionate, open-minded inquiry, with research evaluated according to neutral, evidence-based criteria. I oppose politicized science, in which researchers cannot study certain subjects—or even ask certain questions—for fear of career-ending backlash and persecution.

These beliefs shape my philanthropy and my political activity. I support ideas and policies, not individual politicians as people. The only thing I ask of the politicians I back is that they be true to the promises that they made to their constituents during their campaigns.

I supported Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign because he promised to tackle entrenched corruption on both sides of the aisle. I continue to support President Trump, which does not mean I agree with every position he has taken or every thought he has tweeted. I remain hopeful that he will continue striving to fulfill his campaign promises.

I own a minority stake in Breitbart News (where I have no editorial authority) because I believe it adds an important journalistic voice to the American conversation. Stephen Bannon, its former chairman, took Breitbart in the wrong direction. Now that Mr. Bannon has resigned, Breitbart has the opportunity to refine its message and expand its influence.

I have chosen to involve myself with important policy issues, and with some of the institutions that discuss them, because I am, first and foremost, a mother. I am raising my children to be humble, productive citizens who will treat all people with dignity, respect and empathy. I want them to accept personal responsibility and to be aware that they alone will have to answer for their choices and actions. I hope that my children will show stoicism and perseverance through adversity, as well as an ability to think for themselves and challenge conventional wisdom when necessary.

I also hope that they will embrace debate as a vital part of human progress. I am devoted to protecting individual rights to ensure that my children will mature in a country where they cannot be persecuted or imprisoned or have their livelihoods destroyed because of their thoughts and beliefs.

This country was founded on the principle of open discourse. Intellectual diversity and vigorous, reasoned debate have been fundamental to America’s success, making us the freest, most prosperous and most innovative society in human history. But we have lost our way. As my family and I know firsthand, America is now a society that threatens, pillories, and harms those who dare to question the status quo.

But questioning the status quo is more important now than ever. America’s future depends on it.

Ms. Mercer is president of the New York-based Mercer Family Foundation.

Appeared in the February 15, 2018, print edition.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions need to go.

 

Since becoming Attorney General, Jeff Sessions has had a tough go. From lying under oath about meeting with Russians, to being berated by President Trump, to now nixing an Obama-era policy that allowed states to legalize marijuana, many feel it is high time Sessions step down. But others argue he is just doing his job, and some liberals warn firing Sessions would only mean replacing him with someone worse. 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is rescinding an Obama-era policy of “non-interference with marijuana-friendly state laws” which allowed states to legalize pot without fear of crackdown from the federal government.

[The Obama-era policy] represented a major shift from strict enforcement to a more hands-off approach, so long as they didn’t threaten other federal priorities, such as preventing the distribution of the drug to minors and cartels… The memo will be rescinded but it’s not immediately clear whether Sessions will issue new guidance in its place or simply revert back to older policies that left states with legal uncertainty about enforcement of federal law.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday rescinded a trio of memos from the Obama administration that had adopted a policy of non-interference with marijuana-friendly state laws.

Fox News contributor and former Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz says Attorney General Jeff Sessions “needs to go” in order to fix “major systemic problems” in the Department of Justice.

Republican Reps. Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio are calling on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, criticizing his Justice Department for not cooperating with Congress and for leaks related to its Russia investigation.

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation, but it would appear he has no control at all of the premier law enforcement agency in the world,” the congressmen wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Examiner. “It is time for Sessions to start managing in a spirit of transparency to bring all of this improper behavior to light and stop further violations. If Sessions can’t address this issue immediately, then we have one final question needing an answer: When is it time for a new attorney general? Sadly, it seems the answer is now.”

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his time has come,” Chaffetz said on “The Story.” “He’s gotta go. I agree with Meadows and Jordan on this.”

As for me I am extremely unhappy with Sessions and his performance since entering the position for a number of reasons Ray Charles can see that.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has become an ineffective Republican establishment elephant and while this is sad, it’s time for him to go.

News You Can Use for February 8, 2018

Clinton Received MILLIONS from Russia In Exchange For…

By Andrew West

Those still defending the actions of career criminal Hillary Clinton deserve a medal for their stubbornness in the face of their obvious visual and moral handicaps.

What the liberal media once claimed was a far too cruel nickname in “Crooked Hillary” now seem like a farce.  It would as if someone were to describe the amicable, late children’s television icon Fred Rogers as “a tolerable fella” in that neither description comes close to scratching the surface on these two distinctly opposed public figures.

Now that Clinton has been forced into a retreat of sorts, having been irrevocably embarrassed by populist President Donald Trump during the 2016 general election, there is more muck being unearthed from beneath her feet than could be found in the Okefenokee Swamp.

Read The Full Story Here: