On Friday, Attorney General William P. Barr delivered the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention.
The most significant part of the speech, to me, was when Barr slammed the political left for their endless attacks on Trump, and their bogus narrative that Trump is subverting the Constitution.
One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.
Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.
Barr also specifically called out the resistance.
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.
Oh, but he wasn’t done there:
In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
I strongly encourage you to watch (or read) the whole thing. After eight years of having partisan radicals running the show and turning the Department of Justice into a political weapon for Barack Obama, it’s refreshing to see we have an advocate for the Constitution and the rule of law again.
Yep, that’s right. Just a “commonsense” law allowing the police to enter your home and check to ensure that your firearms are being stored properly. Shaw bases his argument on what’s called an “appeal to authority,” in this case his status as a veteran. His column is even called “Take It From A Veteran: Gun Control Will Actually Protect Our Right To Keep And Bear Arms.”
I appreciate Mr. Shaw’s service, but being a veteran doesn’t make you an expert on gun control laws. I wanted to call this column “Take It From A Guy Who’s Been Covering The Gun Issue For Fifteen Years: Gun Control Will Not Actually Protect Our Right to Keep And Bear Arms”, but it’s a little wordy.
The Diplomad: “W. Lewis Amselem, long time US Foreign Service Officer; now retired; served all over the world and under all sorts of conditions. Convinced the State Department needs to be drastically slashed and reformed so that it will no longer pose a threat to the national interests of the United States.”
Despite having just bought a new Sig P226 Legion and a Sig P365 (both excellent), I spent much of the day listening to the so-called impeachment hearings . . . sigh . . . gotta get a life.
I don’t know what was more depressing, the hearings themselves or the comments afterwards by the so-called punditry class. These pundits, left and right, were chattering on and on about “take-aways” from the testimony. Yes, Bill, there was this and there was that, and, of course, that there . . . PLEASE STOP!
Let me give you the one take-away y’all need, and remember this comes from a former denizen of the Foggy Bottom Swamp, one who used to swim and crawl with all them swamp creatures.
What you saw were a couple of career dips–neither of whom I know personally–whining a familiar whine that one can hear echoing in the halls of Foggy Bottom and just about anywhere else where “PROFESSIONAL” civil servants congregate. What is it? Simple: THEY are not paying attention to us!
You saw Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent all in a knot because the President had an “irregular” channel he used to conduct foreign policy in Ukraine. Wow! I didn’t realize that we had elected Taylor and Kent!
Let me put it in nice simple terms so that the Swamp Beings will understand: The President sets and conducts foreign policy, not State, not the NSC, not the DOD, not any other alphabet agency. He does not have to go through State or NSC to conduct said policy; he does not have to consult with Kent or Taylor or anybody else on Ukraine or any other aspect of foreign policy.
All Presidents have used “irregular” channels going back at least to Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. All have used messengers and negotiators outside the established bureaucracy for different diplomatic missions. There is nothing unusual or illegal or impeachable for doing this. The bureaucracy doesn’t like it, so what?
More of this “impeachment” nonsense to come.
Alex Vindman Is Living, Breathing Proof That The Deep State Exists, And It Is Corrupt.
Democrats and the Deep State have elevated more policy disagreements to what amounts to an attempted coup. Just listen to Alex Vindman.
Remember the original ‘Seven Days In May’ movie with Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster? A military officer let his supposed patriotism override his oath to defend the Constitution ( which makes the President the head of State and maker of Policy) because he didn’t hold with the political and policy decisions of the President and decided to do something about it. This is as close a deal as you can get in real life to what this officer did: Decide he didn’t like the President’s policy as it conflicted with what he figured policy should be.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is living, breathing, testifying proof the Deep State exists. He has shown his true colors and the agenda of the self-appointed elites who think they run this country.
Let me state categorically that I am not implying dual loyalty or questioning Vindman’s patriotism or even his devotion to duty as he sees it. I’m questioning his judgment about where that duty lies and the execution of those duties as a military officer and civil servant.
Vindman’s Testimony Gives the Game Away
But Vindman gave the game away with his prepared testimony. He believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act. So he did, as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress. From the statement: “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”
There is a lot of wrong in those two sentences, which profoundly illustrate the fundamental flaw Vindman and his fellow Deep Staters operate under. The interagency he mentions is a collection of staff from the major agencies like the State Department, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, who meet to coordinate and plan implementation of policy. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what policy the United States will follow. That is 100 percent the purview of the president.
Donald Trump’s election has triggered a level of treachery that threatens the basis of our constitutional republic. The words “constitutional crisis” are bandied about too often, but this incident fits the bill all too well. Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley is promoting her book that debuts tomorrow and gave an interview yesterday to CBS in which she revealed the shocking news that two senior appointees to the Trump White House were conspiring against him and attempted to enlist her in their cabal to seize his constitutional powers for themselves.
Fox News summarizes:
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley blasted former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, recalling a private conversation where they defended resisting President Trump, telling her they did so out of necessity.
Haley told “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell that she did not appreciate having the former officials confide in her, as she described in her new book, “With All Due Respect.”
“[I]nstead of saying that to me, they should’ve been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan,” Haley said.
Haley said that the two men “confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country” and how “Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president’s decisions was because, if he didn’t, people would die….”
“Saving the country” is the excuse offered by virtually all coup-plotters when they override the established powers and install their own people in power. It is the logic of a banana republic. Haley responded entirely appropriately:
“It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing,'” Haley told O’Donnell. “But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing. And it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want. And it was offensive.”
Here’s the entire interview.
Question mark? No, no question at all.
The details of this case are simply horrifying. One woman tried for years to conceive a child, but couldn’t. When she finally consulted a fertility specialist, she discovered, according to the Virginian-Pilot, that her “Fallopian tubes had been burned down to nubs, making it impossible to conceive naturally.” It turned out that her physician, Dr. Javaid Perwaiz of Chesapeake, Virginia, had tied her tubes without telling her was doing it or obtaining her consent. And she was by no means the only woman whom Dr. Perwaiz victimized in this way.
Dr. Perwaiz’s website is the soul of helpfulness, noting that he has “practiced in the Chesapeake region for over 30 years, providing expert and individualized care to his patients.”
Personally following each and every patient throughout their pregnancy, he is available 24/7 to meet all of your requests and expectations. His experienced office staff will individualize your care and coordinate your insurance coverage. They provide friendly and knowlegable service for all your healthcare needs. Same day appointments are often available.
About the good doctor we are told that he was “educated abroad,” with no hint as to where — it was actually in his native Pakistan, as the Virginian-Pilot notes: “Perwaiz has had a medical license since at least 1980, according to state records, having attended medical school in his native Pakistan and completed a residency at Charleston Area Medical Center.”
The fake, far-left fact check site Snopes accidentally confirmed that Democrats have sought to impeach every elected Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Naturally, while confirming this, the garbage fire of fake news that is Snopes rated what is “mostly true” as “mostly false.”
The claim is: “Have Democrats Tried to Impeach Every GOP President Since Ike?”
Snopes decided to fact check this claim based on a popular meme that shows a black and white photo of Gen. Eisenhower above a caption that reads “INTERESTING FACT!!! Did you know Democrats have tried to impeach every Republican President since Eisenhower???”
Looking to debunk this mostly true claim, Snopes accidentally confirms that Democrats have indeed tried to impeach every elected Republican president since Eisenhower [emphasis mine]:
The U.S. has had six republican presidents since Eisenhower left office in 1961: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. The claim is wrong on its face because Democrats made no effort to impeach Ford. While a handful of Democratic lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against five of the last six Republican presidents, in most cases these efforts weren’t taken seriously by the party at large. Nixon and Trump have been the only Republican presidents since Ike who have faced a serious threat of impeachment.
So, Snopes has indeed confirmed that Democrats have “introduced articles of impeachment against five of the last six Republican presidents,” the sole exception being Gerald Ford, who was not elected.
Ford was not even elected to the vice presidency; he was appointed by Nixon after his original vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned in disgrace over a matter that had nothing to do with Watergate.
What’s more, Ford was president for only a little more than two years.
But there you have it — confirmation from a left-wing fact check site that Democrats sought to impeach five of the last six Republican presidents and sought to impeach every Republican elected to the presidency since Eisenhower.
Granted, the meme that claims Democrats tried to impeach every president since Ike is not 100 percent accurate. But after Snopes confirmed the meme was 5/6th correct, why is a mostly accurate claim hit with a verdict of “mostly false”?
I think we all know the answer to that one…
Because it is a damning fact that proves just how anti-democratic the Democrats are, what a bunch of sore losers they are, and Snopes is not a real fact-checking site, it is a Palace Guard for the political left.
So Snopes splits hairs between what it describes as “serious” impeachment efforts and efforts that never went beyond a lawmaker introducing articles of impeachment.
So what we have here is Snopes making a subjective opinion about what “tried to impeach every elected Republican president since Eisenhower” means — and wouldn’t you know it? — Snopes’s subjective opinion falls right into the category of aiding and abetting the left.
But by any objective, pro-science standard, the meme in question is MOSTLY TRUE.
Regardless, we should at least thank Snopes for doing the hard work that proves for a fact the following…
Democrats Have Tried to Impeach Every Elected GOP President Since Eisenhower…
Another attack carried out by cartel gunmen in Northern Mexico left one dead and a second wounded from a traveling family.
The attack took place during the early morning hours on Thursday, according to local reports. The victims were traveling in a pickup in a rural mountain community near the Sonora-Chihuahua border when gunmen opened fire on the outskirts of Sahuaripa.
Breitbart Texas law enforcement sources say a woman identified as Arcelia Gracia López, 30, and her brother Rodrigo, 40, plus another unidentified adult were traveling to the town of Yécora. While on the road, they came upon a group of gunmen who opened fire–fatally striking Arcelia and wounding Rodrigo. The unidentified adult was uninjured. The assailants then sped away in at least one truck.
The area around Sahuaripa is approximately 165 miles south from Bavispe, the site of the narco-terror attack that murdered three women and six children near a rural Mormon community.
The rural mountain communities along the eastern section of Sonora is known for the heavy presence of cartel activity with operatives patrolling unchallenged in convoys of armored vehicles with military-style weapons. Sources recently reported convoys in communities of Sahuaripa, Yécora, Rosario de Tesopaco.
Democrat presidential candidate billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends tens of millions of dollars pushing for extreme gun control laws, demonstrates that he knows literally nothing about firearms.pic.twitter.com/SCjpNdQm6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 7, 2019
Michael Bloomberg is probably running for president. That’s bad news.
According to the New York Times, the former New York City mayor is making preparations to file for the Alabama Democratic primary. Alabama isn’t an early voting state, but it has an early registration deadline. Key Bloomberg advisers told the Times that this doesn’t mean he’ll surely enter the race, but that he will if he thinks it’s necessary: “We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated — but Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that.”
While I certainly understand the abstract appeal of the idea of adding a more moderate voice to a Democratic primary field that currently boasts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as front-runners, voters shouldn’t mistake Bloomberg for someone any more hospitable to liberty and freedom. In fact, the former mayor has made an entire career out of cracking down on individual liberty and building up the nanny state.
Don’t forget, he spent his tenure as NYC mayor fighting the problems that truly matter by … attempting to ban large sodas? And since leaving office, he’s spent much of his time crusading against vaping despite it being much healthier than traditional smoking.
Even on more serious issues, Bloomberg shows contempt for freedom and constitutional liberties. For instance, he supports a robust anti-Second Amendment agenda, which includes everything from so-called universal background checks to all-out bans on certain types of guns to bans on entire age groups from exercising their right to self-defense. And he’s spent millions of dollars trying to elect legislators willing to whittle away at the Second Amendment.
He fairs only somewhat better on First Amendment issues.
For instance, Bloomberg openly dismisses the idea of a free press when he says he expects his reporters at Bloomberg News to never cover him critically. Imagine that attitude in the Oval Office in the hands of someone who has already displayed ample willingness to use the powers of the government to squash individual liberties. Bloomberg’s contempt for press freedom led even a Washington Post writer to decry his “disturbing attitude toward the First Amendment — and democracy generally.”
Oh, and Bloomberg thinks marijuana legalization is “the stupidest thing anyone has ever done.” That’s right, he believes we should throw people in cages for smoking a plant in their backyard. Of course, I doubt the mayor wants to play by his own rules — he has admitted to smoking weed in the past.
There are, of course, some things to like about Michael Bloomberg. He supported charter schools as mayor of New York City and is at least somewhat fiscally conservative. And in a field that included aspirants as insufferable as Beto O’Rourke and Bill de Blasio, there’s no way he’ll be the most obnoxious candidate we’re forced to hear out.
But none of this makes the mayor’s policy positions any less disqualifying.
Bloomberg’s affinity for the nanny state and antipathy toward personal liberty led a writer at the libertarian magazine Reason to dub him a “billionaire busybody who can be counted on to oppose individual freedom in almost every area of life.” Let’s hope that billionaire busybody doesn’t become our next president.
Actually it’s not ignorance, it’s mendacity, otherwise known as lying through her teeth.
Elizabeth Warren is the current favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, but one wonders how voters will react when they learn about her bizarrely radical agenda. Warren openly advocates making all private health insurance–the kind that a large majority of Americans have–illegal. She hasn’t begun to think through the implications of this extreme proposal, but when voters begin to contemplate it, my guess they will vote against her, enthusiastically.
Yesterday Warren was asked what would become of all those people who are now employed in the health insurance industry. Her answer shows her ignorance of insurance, as well as of the economy in general:
Q: Where do those who work in health insurance go when private insurance is eliminated?
Sen. Warren: "No one gets left behind. Some of the people currently working in health insurance will work in other parts of insurance. In life insurance, in auto insurance, in car insurance." pic.twitter.com/KGJ4Eg9VKR
— The Hill (@thehill) November 2, 2019
Because insurance is insurance, right? Health insurance, life insurance: it’s all the same! And if we adopt Warren’s plan, the demand for auto accident claims adjusters will magically increase.
Perhaps the politest thing we can say here is that Warren is not a detail person. Which doesn’t deter her from undertaking to destroy the most widely-used and most popular methods of obtaining medical care for one’s family.
A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine’s former government.
According to the Washington Examiner, discussions with the whistleblower – revealed by RealClearInvestigations as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, “and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.”
Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.
On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw nothing illegal about the conversation.
“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.
And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;
Bureaucrats’ Hurt Feelings On Foreign Policy Don’t Justify Impeachment.
Privileged bureaucrats are so high on their self-righteousness that they actually think they’re protecting the Constitution by obstructing the foreign policy of the elected president.
Maybe it’s more than just ‘hurt feelings‘. How about exposing their criminal acts?
In recent testimony during his confirmation hearing, the nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Russia said, “Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent — I don’t think that would be in accord with our values.”
Never? Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Remember when Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and still maintain his support? Suppose a candidate for office did shoot somebody and the only witness was a Russian national who then hopped a plane back to Moscow.
Now suppose that the only way to prosecute this candidate would be for his political rival (the incumbent president) to request cooperation from Russia to extradite this material witness back to the United States to participate in a trial. Should he do it?
Partisanship Is the Deciding Factor
Obviously, in today’s climate, the answer depends on one critical fact: Whose side is the candidate on? If the candidate aligns with the left, then investigating a political opponent would be totally beyond the norms established by our cherished traditions. But if the candidate opposes the left, then the deep state will step in “to protect the country from that menace.”
You see, it’s perfectly fine for Hillary Clinton to use her campaign funds to hire foreign national Christopher Steele to investigate Trump using (probably made-up) Russian sources. And there’s nothing wrong with the FBI using those partisan Steele smears to investigate the Obama administration’s political opponent.
Crossfire Hurricane, the official operational title for the investigation, employed assistance from the British government and an Australian diplomat. So the left believes there’s nothing wrong with asking a foreign government for help to investigate a domestic political opponent — so long as that opponent is Trump. After all, “Nobody is above the law, not even Donald Trump.” But if the shoe ends up on the other foot and Trump is the one investigating, it’s a constitutional crisis!
If you listen for more than a few minutes, you realize what’s really going on here is that Trump failed to prostrate himself before the “dedicated career professionals” who possess the “experience and expertise” that Trump supposedly lacks in foreign policy. Read your Constitution. Article II vests the power of foreign policy in the elected president. These “dedicated career professionals” aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.
Maybe the framers made a drafting error in the Constitution? Or maybe we shouldn’t have a national impeachment circus over the hurt feelings of bureaucrats.
CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears.
These close connections between the Washington Post’s Ignatius and individuals connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda.
The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion.
Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.
In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment.
Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense…………
Ever since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the mask has been slipping from the “deep state.” But last week, The New York Times ripped it off completely.
“President Trump is right: the deep state is alive and well,” says a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. The deep state, she explains, is a small number of experts who sometimes openly, sometimes covertly, oppose and undermine the constitutionally elected president of the United States.
In 2018, former FBI Director James Comey insisted “there is no deep state.” At that time, they called themselves simply “the resistance,” but they have since grown more honest (or rather more shameless).
Now, they concede they resist Trump not because he threatens some constitutional status quo, but because he threatens their claim to rule and the persistent drift toward a political revolution they’ve been working toward for decades.
They aim to change our form of government from a constitutional republic that seeks “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” to a bureaucratic technocracy that seeks to impose on the American people a Neo-Marxist understanding of justice in the name of a “global struggle for human dignity and freedom.”
This from the article: “he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy…” There is a huge fallacy in this. Anyone know what it is? https://t.co/L1Jfgck6G2
— Brit Hume (@brithume) November 2, 2019
THE PRESIDENT WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE ON TREATIES, AND THE CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR, SETS FOREIGN POLICY, NOT THE ‘ADMINISTRATIVE STATE’ (BUREAUCRAPS) BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE NOT THE BUREAUCRAPS!
THEIR DUTY AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS TO CARRY OUT THE ORDERS OF THE EXECUTIVE.
IF ANY MILITARY OFFICERS, AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE, HAVE ‘CONCERNS’ ABOUT POLICY, THEY CAN RESIGN IF THEY CAN’T ACCEPT IT, BUT OTHERWISE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW ANY AND ALL LEGAL ORDERS PASSED DOWN FROM THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDEMAN WAS THE ONE SUBVERTING FOREIGN POLICY, NOT THE PRESIDENT.
No matter which end of the political spectrum, when the bureaucrap hirelings decide to run policy that should be done by the people elected to do that, you have a system that has been corrupted. That they openly take pride in it is scary.
Former CIA Director John E. McLaughlin joined former CIA Director John Brennan this week with “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan to discuss the current coup attempt on President Trump.
These partisan hacks believe they know what is best for America and not President Trump — more wars, open borders and unfair trade agreements to destroy the US middle class.