OAN Investigation Shows Betrayal

While “media” types submerge themselves in Democrat debate nonsense and distortions about President Trump, One America News has decided there are other issues that need investigating.

One of them is the attempt by former Obama officials to interfere in our policies towards Iran.
DC Whispers explains:

Yet another HUGE story that has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. Thankfully, OAN has been following the ongoing developments that outline how former Obama officials in conjunction with multiple contacts in Congress, have recently been caught working with Iranian officials to defeat the remarkably successful Trump administration’s actions in isolating and possibly hastening the collapse of the #1 sponsor of state terrorism that is the Iranian regime.

Let that sink in. Former Obama officials and current members of Congress are working to support and maintain one of the worst human rights violators in the entire world. The Iranian government has a long history of brutalizing women, homosexuals, and other religious and/or racial minorities. The regime is also directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of U.S. military men and women. And on a no-doubt related note, the #1 geopolitical supporter of the terrorist-loving Iranian government (besides the former Obama administration) is Russia, which sells hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military goods to the regime every year. That’s right, the very same Russian government that Democrats here in America say is a threat to our own democracy is working hand-in-hand with former Obama officials to help prop up the radical mullahs who have forced the wonderful Iranian people to live under the boot of their oppressive regime for far too long.


Here’s the report:

Debate Round 2

I was unable to watch the Democrat debates.

Not because of any time constraint, previous commitments or health reasons. Well, maybe health reasons. Mental health. It is distressing to see these fanatics who could change our beloved nation into a third world hell hole just because they want power. Their radical ideas are like a virus. I don’t want to give them any opportunity to infect me.

But, there is twitter. At least for now. The conservatives who did watch had interesting comments that best all the political analyses cable and network TV foist upon us.

Here are a few.

Many picked upon Biden’s first words. Greg Gutfeld: “did joe biden say his first thing to do as president is defeat donald trump?” Raymond Arroyo, too: “Asked what he would do on his first day as President, @JoeBiden answered: “Defeat Donald Trump.” Uhhhh.”

Yes, that’s pure Biden.

Pat Sajak said what a lot of us were thinking, “This could be worse. It could be a dinner party and I could be there.”

Liz Wheeler of OAN summed up: “Kamala Harris won Joe Biden is old Bernie’s a nut Buttigieg spoke Spanish & not Norwegian? C’mon Gillibrand’s rude Nobody knows what Bennett’s talking about Hickenlooper who? Williamson’s recruiting for her cult Swalwell wants to carry a torch Yang is a boss for not wearing a tie.”
Jack Posobiec from the same network noticed, “I’m from Pennsylvania I’m a Veteran I’m a gun owner I’m a Christian I’m a father and a husband And not one of these Democrats is trying to represent people like us.”

That seems to be lost on the DNC.

From Robert J. O’Neill: “Watching the debate. Remember: You can vote socialism in. You’ll need to shoot your way out.”
Trump strategist Brad Parsale: “Free college. Free health care. Free houses. Free cars. Free boats. Free airplanes. Free ice cream. Nobody has to work! Everyone just gets everything for FREE! Amazing! Democrats have invented the money tree! 🌲 😲”
Dilbert creator and commentator Scott Adams declared “Harris is the big winner. Biden is the big loser. Bernie broke even. Yang failed to make a mark. Buttigieg looked the smartest but “not ready.” Others not so relevant.”

Abby Johnson who is the protagonist in the movie about Planned Parenthood said, “Just an FYI, @SenGillibrand. I am a woman who is profoundly against abortion. Stop pretending to speak for me or any other women. You don’t. Your immorality is your own.”
“This debate is a wind farm,” was another comment from Gutfeld.
Senator Lindsey Graham wrote, “Two nights in this is becoming @realDonaldTrump’s election to lose. Democrats are on the path to making Trump look like George Washington. The more they talk, the better he looks.”
This post, again from Posobiec, sums it up: ““America Last” – DNC Slogan 2020”

Best SCOTUS Analysis

Amy Howe from Howe on the Court breaks down the Supreme Court ruling on including the citizenship question on the census:

Opinion analysis: Court orders do-over on citizenship question in census case

The fate of a question about citizenship on the 2020 census remains up in the air today. Although the Trump administration had hoped that the Supreme Court would clear the way for it to include such a question, the justices instead sent the issue back to the Department of Commerce. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in ruling that the justification that the government offered at the time for including the citizenship question was just a pretext. The decision left open the possibility that the Trump administration could try again to add the citizenship question, but the clock is ticking: The government has repeatedly told the justices, in urging them to resolve the case quickly, that it needs to finalize the census questionnaire by the end of this month.
The dispute began last year, when Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that the 2020 census would include a question about citizenship. Questions about citizenship have been used on the census before, although since 1950 such questions have only been asked on forms that go to some (but not all) households. The government wanted to ask everyone about their citizenship on the 2020 census, Ross explained, to obtain data that would help the Department of Justice to better enforce federal voting-rights laws.

Ross’ announcement drew an immediate legal challenge from New York and other state and local governments, as well as immigrants’ rights groups. The challengers contended that including a question about citizenship on the census will lead to inaccurate results, because households with undocumented or Hispanic immigrants won’t respond. And that, they argued, could lead states with large immigrant populations – which tend to lean Democratic – to lose billions in federal funding and possible even seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

With the stakes so high, the dispute proved to be a particularly contentious one. The government came to the Supreme Court for the first time last fall, asking the justices to block the depositions of Ross and John Gore, a senior official in the Department of Justice, and to bar the district court from allowing additional fact-finding outside the official record for the decision. The Supreme Court gave the government a partial victory, barring the challengers from deposing Ross but allowing the deposition of Gore and the additional fact-finding.

In November 2018, the justices agreed to weigh in on the clash over evidence. But that case was transformed into a review of the merits of the dispute after a federal district judge in New York blocked the government from including the question. Judge Jesse Furman ruled that, in deciding to include a question about citizenship, Ross had committed a “smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut violations” the federal law governing administrative agencies.
The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to take up the case immediately – without requiring the government to first seek relief from a federal appeals court. Time is of the essence, the government told the justices: It needs to know whether it can include the citizenship question by the end of June, so that it can finalize the census questionnaire and start to print the forms.

The justices granted the government’s request in February. In addition to the question of whether Ross’ decision complied with federal laws governing administrative agencies, the justices also asked the federal government and the challengers to brief whether the decision to include the citizenship question violates the Constitution, which requires an “actual Enumeration” of the U.S. population every 10 years. The addition came after a federal judge in California ruled that the use of the citizenship question also violates the “enumeration clause”; the government wanted to avoid a scenario in which it prevailed in the Supreme Court but was nonetheless prohibited from including the citizenship question by a different lower-court ruling on an issue that the Supreme Court hadn’t addressed.

The justices heard oral argument in the case in late April. Although most cases are quiet after oral argument, the oral argument in this one was followed by a series of events worthy of a made-for-TV movie. In late May, the challengers notified the justices about new evidence indicating that Thomas Hofeller, a Republican redistricting strategist, had played a key role in the decision to add the citizenship question to the census, and that the question had been added to provide whites and Republicans with an advantage in future elections. The evidence came from several hard drives that Hofeller’s estranged daughter had found while going through his things after his death last year. Stephanie Hofeller had shared the hard drives with the North Carolina chapter of the watchdog group Common Cause, which is involved in a partisan-gerrymandering case in that state, after she called the group seeking a recommendation for a lawyer for her mother.
The challengers returned to the Supreme Court last week. Emphasizing that the district court had agreed that the new allegations were “serious” but concluded that its hands were tied because the case is now before the justices, the challengers told the Supreme Court that it should either uphold the district court’s ruling or send the case back to the lower court for more fact-finding in light of the new revelations. The challengers argued that if the Trump administration actually wanted to add the citizenship question to give an advantage to whites and Republicans, that would be “the diametric opposite” of what the administration has maintained throughout this lawsuit.

The government pushed back, dismissing the challengers’ allegations as a “conspiracy theory” that was “implausible on its face” and urging the justices to go ahead and decide the case.

Things became even more interesting – and, for the justices, more complicated – earlier this week. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sent another challenge to the use of the citizenship question back to a federal district court in Maryland so that the lower court could consider, in light of the new evidence, whether Ross had added the question because he intended to discriminate against Hispanics. In a concurring opinion, Judge James Wynn suggested that U.S. District Judge George Hazel might want to consider whether to temporarily block the government from including the citizenship question on the census questionnaire. The 4th Circuit’s order led to another flurry of last-minute filings in the Supreme Court. In a letter to the justices on Tuesday afternoon, the federal government again implored the justices to go ahead and resolve the dispute over the citizenship question now, including the question whether Ross had intended to discriminate against Hispanics. The government had addressed this issue in its brief in the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco stressed. And in any event, because the census questionnaire needs to be finalized by the end of June, the 4th Circuit’s order makes it likely that the justices will inevitably have to tackle this question one way or another, so it would be better to do so now in this case, instead of having to do it on an emergency basis in the Maryland case.
The challengers responded on Wednesday afternoon. In a letter from New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, they urged the justices to deny what they characterized as the government’s “extraordinary request” to decide the discrimination question now. Except for a “single conclusory paragraph” in the government’s brief, they emphasized, the issue wasn’t briefed or argued in the case in the Supreme Court.

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court today explained that the district court had overturned Ross’ decision to add the citizenship question for two reasons. The first is that it wasn’t supported by the evidence before Ross, because the Census Bureau had recommended that the citizenship data be gathered from administrative records instead. But neither approach was perfect, Roberts concluded, so it was reasonable for Ross to decide to use the citizenship question instead of the administrative records. And it was also reasonable for him to decide that it would be worth it to include the citizenship question even though it might result in a lower response rate from households with residents who are not U.S. citizens.

But the district court had also ruled that Ross’ rationale for including the citizenship question – that the Department of Justice had asked for the data to better enforce federal voting-rights laws – was a pretext for its actual reasoning, and here the court agreed. “The evidence showed,” Roberts wrote, that Ross “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.”
Roberts acknowledged that courts should be “deferential” when reviewing an agency’s action, but he countered – citing Judge Henry Friendly, for whom he clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit – that “we are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” And here, when “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” judicial review calls for “something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.” “In these unusual circumstances,” Roberts concluded, the district court was therefore correct to send the case back to the Department of Commerce for it to provide a better explanation.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. In his view, the Supreme Court’s “only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision.” Because the “Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative,” Thomas argued, that “ought to end our inquiry.”

The court’s four liberal justices joined Roberts in agreeing to send the case back to the Department of Commerce, but Justice Stephen Breyer also filed an opinion that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. They maintained that, even if Ross’ decision to add the citizenship question wasn’t pretextual, it still violated the federal laws governing administrative agencies because he decided to ask the question even though all of the evidence “indicated that asking the question would produce citizenship data that is less accurate, not more.”

Justice Samuel Alito also filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He began by lamenting that it “is a sign of our time that the inclusion of a question about citizenship on the census has become a subject of bitter public controversy and has led to today’s regrettable decision.” He would have ruled that the decision to add the citizenship question to the census fell within the discretion of the Department of Commerce and could not be challenged at all.

Thanks again, John Roberts.

Oregon Targets GOP

(Credit Don Surber)

Have you at all followed what’s going on in Oregon?

Probably not as the media ignores anything negative about Democrats.

In short, the Democrat governor has pushed a severe cap and trade environmental bill that would greatly curtail business in that state. The GOP senators objected and got frustrated after any attempt they made to soften the bill was rejected.

So they did the only option left to them. They fled the state to prevent a required quorum to pass the bill.

Mr. Reagan, who is from Oregon, lays out the case and the implications for our country.

Gohmert Fingers Mueller

Among those objecting to the deification of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Congressman Louis Gohmert (R-TX) stands out.

He has written a 48 page dossier, shall we say, detailing Mueller’s long history of screw ups, mistakes, political attacks and unjust prosecutions. It’s worth a read. Gohmert writes as he sounds – simply and to the point, so it is not difficult to look at this document. You can find it here: https://www.hannity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gohmert_Mueller_UNMASKED.pdf

In it you come across the terrible things Mueller has done, beginning with the Whitey Bulger case in which four innocent men were accused of murder and imprisoned. It appears someone was getting a payoff from mob guy Bulger and Mueller continually blocked the release of the innocent ones. Wonder why?

Then there is the anthrax case, which he botched completely. Of the two accused, one killed himself and the other was later found innocent and paid more than $5 million of taxpayer money for Mueller’s mistake. You will particularly enjoy the part about the dogs.

Then there was his bud James Comey, who chased AG Ashcroft to his hospital bed and succeeded in getting him to recuse himself in the case of Scooter Libby. The tactics they used on Libby sound very familiar. Think Michael Flynn.

On his greatest hits list is the prosecution of Republican Senator Ted Stevens who lost his seat after allegations of money cheating; then there is Martha Stewart, caught in a process lie; the overlooked CAIR and Holy Land Foundation coverup; the Boston bombing Tsarnaevs; Mueller’s move to get rid of long serving FBI agents; the FBI’s failure in 3 Islamic attacks; and his attempt to alter the FBI training manuals. And that’s not all.

Quite a list of bad behavior, in case you had forgotten.

It’s imperative new AG Barr gets to the bottom of these terrible people who pervert our justice system.

2020 Condensed

Victor Davis Hanson has a way of getting right to the nub of things.

In this quote he describes the 2020 election:

On one side in 2020 is socialism, “Medicare for All,” wealth taxes, top income tax rates of 70 or 80 or 90 percent, a desire for a Supreme Court of full of “wise Latinas” like Sonia Sotomayor, insidious curtailment of the First and Second Amendments, open borders, blanket amnesties, reparations, judges as progressive legislators, permissible infanticide, abolition of student debt, elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau and the Electoral College, voting rights for 16-year-olds and felons, and free college tuition.

On the other side is free-market capitalism but within a framework of fair rather than unfettered international trade, a smaller administrative state, less taxation and regulation, constitutionalist judges, more gas and oil, record low unemployment, 3-4 percent economic growth, and pressure on colleges to honor the Bill of Rights.

The choice couldn’t be clearer, could it?

If You Read One Story Today…

It should be this one, which appeared in The American Thinker.

It is scary to think this person has been in charge of crime and justice in our nation for decades.

Robert Mueller: A Scary and Mendacious Man
By John Dale Dunn

Robert Mueller’s troublesome, unethical, and corrupt FBI career prior to his appointment as the special counsel on the Trump-Russia Collusion investigation deserves a serious vetting. I provide here two points of reference: a monograph by sitting congressman and former Texas State Court judge Louie Gohmert titled “Robert Mueller: Unmasked” and a book by Louisiana attorney and sitting Louisiana state senator John Milkovich titled Robert Mueller: Errand Boy for the New World Order.

Congressman Gohmert’s 48-page monograph is a discussion of a “long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.” Gohmert focuses on 18 examples, including:

Collusion with Boston mobster Whitey Bulger in criminality and framing innocent men for murder that resulted eventually in the release of innocent parties and 100 million dollars in compensation for for DOJ Boston Office misconduct.
The FBI with Mueller as director harassed and hounded Congressman Curt Weldon in revenge for criticizing FBI failures related to 9-11.
Dishonest prosecutions of Senator Ted Stevens.
Prosecutorial abuses in the anthrax murder investigations post 9-11, producing one suicide and one award of 6.8 million dollars to the other innocent target.
Mueller’s unethical acceptance of the special prosecutor position when he was conflicted by his longtime personal and professional relationship with James Comey.
Mueller hired extremely partisan, biased, and conflicted attorneys for his special counsel team.
Mueller’s investigation ignored that FISA applications evidence presented to justify warrants to surveil Trump associates were not verified and thus a fraud on the court and illegal.

Louisiana State Senator John Milkovich

Milkovich’s book, Robert Mueller: Errand Boy for the New World Order (2018), recounts Robert Mueller’s history of prosecutorial misconduct before his appointment as special counsel in the Trump matter.

Mr. Milkovich: “Mueller has left his imprint on some of the most notorious episodes of government wrongdoing of the last thirty years.” Mr. Milkovich is and was assiduous in his research and provides almost 400 endnotes and more than 125 items of bibliography as reference sources for his 165-page self-published book. When I asked him about the tough calls, he pointed to the sources and compelling evidence.

Mueller misconduct and his position in the DOJ/FBI:

1. 9-11-2001 — FBI Director Failure of the FBI to investigate suspicious characters reported to the FBI in the fall of 2000 by Dr. David Graham, former Air Force officer and dentist friend of Mr. Milkovich, who suspected that the men were planning a terrorist attack on Barksdale Air Force Base, home for a Nuclear B52H Air Wing. Dr. Graham reported his concerns to the local FBI office and was “stunned and outraged” in September 2001 when he saw after 9-11 that two of the men were in the group of 9-11 terrorist hijackers. Dr. Graham protested to the FBI, was rebuffed, raised a political ruckus, threatened to write a book, and shortly thereafter was poisoned but survived with severe injuries and disability. During his treatment at two medical facilities, FBI agents appeared and encouraged physicians to let Dr. Graham die because they said he was mentally ill and suicidal.

2. Boston Mob 1984 — Asst. U.S. Attorney and Acting U.S. Attorney Boston Providing cover for the Whitey Bulger Winter Hill Boston gang that committed murders and, of course, other crimes. The FBI framed four men, who were convicted and incarcerated for murder. The FBI was found culpable, and more than $100 million was awarded in compensation to the injured parties.

3. Pan Am 103 1988–2001 — Chief of the Criminal Justice Division of the DOJ Was in charge of the investigation of the 1988 Pan Am 103 Lockerbie plane bombing killed 258 passengers and 11 on the ground. Army major Charles McKee, who headed a Middle East hostage rescue team, was returning to the U.S. on Pan Am 103 with evidence to expose CIA-sponsored criminal activity. After the plane was destroyed, Mr. Mueller supervised an army of FBI agents on the investigation, and finally, 12 years later, the case went to trial by a panel of Scottish judges. Two Libyans were tried for murder; Al Amin Fhima was found not guilty, and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was found guilty, sentenced to 20 years. Many references by Mr. Milkovich provide a case that asserts that the FBI’s incompetent investigation failed to bring to justice Ahmed Jibril, the terrorist who arranged to plant the bomb, and others, including CIA agents, who were complicit in the bombing order to eliminate Major McKee.

4. BCCI 1991,92 — Chief of the FBI Criminal Justice Division Mr. Mueller was actively and energetically involved in providing cover for the criminal malfeasance and perfidy by officials of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), cover-ups for black ops, money-laundering, and financing of international criminal activities. Mr. Mueller and the FBI interfered with the investigation by Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau.
5. Ruby Ridge 1992 — Chief of the FBI Criminal Division The FBI tried to get Randy Weaver to be an undercover informant on separatist groups in Idaho, but he was not cooperative. Then federal agents (Marshals and what the FBI claimed to be a hostage rescue team) surrounded his isolated cabin in the mountains, and there was a 11-day siege, punctuated by a killing of Weaver’s wife from cover while she stood on a porch holding a baby. In addition, the son was shot in the back with a machine gun, running from the gunfire. Mueller objected publicly to anyone who would criticize the FBI conduct.
9-11-2001 — FBI Director Mueller was named FBI director one week before 9-11-2001, and his conduct and actions related to the catastrophe are another indication of his corrupt nature. Milkovich makes the case that not only did Mueller arrange to evacuate Saudis after 9-11, but he obstructed, covered up, and obfuscated what the FBI knew about the terrorist plot and Saudi involvement before the attacks.
6. 9-11-2001 — FBI Director Mueller was named FBI director one week before 9-11-2001, and his conduct and actions related to the catastrophe are another indication of his corrupt nature. Milkovich makes the case that not only did Mueller arrange to evacuate Saudis after 9-11, but he obstructed, covered up, and obfuscated what the FBI knew about the terrorist plot and Saudi involvement before the attacks.

7. Anthrax Terror Post 9-11-2001 — FBI Director when the post-9-11 anthrax mailings killed five and injured 14 others in the D.C. area shortly after 9-11, Mr. Mueller as FBI director was heavily involved in the investigations and accusations of two scientists who ended up innocent. Dr. Bruce Ivins committed suicide, and Steve Hatfill won an award of $5.8 million dollars when he sued the FBI for prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Milkovich focuses on Ivins and does not discuss the Hatfill matter in his book.
Mueller said he had no regrets about the anthrax investigations even though the perps were never found and two men’s lives were turned upside-down by FBI malfeasance and incompetent, abusive investigations. Mr. Milkovich details the incompetence and abuse in the Ivins investigations and indictment.

The last two chapters of Mr. Milkovich’s book lay out the case for the danger of the expanded power and reach of the administrative and surveillance state and the effort led by Mueller and his prosecution gang to accomplish a coup d’état.

Versailles in Reverse

Louis XIV famously constructed the palace of Versailles to ensure that the nobility would be attracted to the glamor and the prestige and leave their own castles and Paris to come to his court. This made sure that he always had an eye on them and kept them under his control.

Washington DC needs to do the same – in reverse. We need to get those bureaucrats out of their cushy jobs where they protect each other and construct their own government. I’d like to see the IRS in Davenport, HHS in Texas, etc. You get the picture.

President Trump and Agriculture Sonny Perdue are doing just that. Why wouldn’t agriculture people want to be closer to farms? Makes sense.

Not to the employees. They want to stay in DC. Maybe they get allergic smelling hay.

According to the Hill:

Members of the American Federation of Government Employees turned their backs on Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on Thursday, apparently over plans to relocate them from Washington to the Kansas City area.

Perdue announced Thursday that two of the Department of Agriculture’s research agencies, the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, will be relocated to be closer to major farming regions, according to Politico.

While Perdue has justified the relocation as a way to improve customer service and save taxpayers up to $20 million per year, some ERS employees have said it is a political move, according to the publication.

Specifically, some ERS staff have expressed suspicions the relocation is an attempt to shrink the agency and weaken its ability to conduct research that does not align with the Trump administration’s policy agenda.

Bingo. And the American people’s agenda, too.

Let’s hope this movement spreads to other agencies. Without their bureaucratic scaffolding to keep their structures the way they want them, maybe some money would be saved, some superfluous employees removed, dedicated replacements hired and our needs be met.