im-not-a-liberal
Thoughts

I’m NOT A Liberal

I have to chuckle at how badly people can take something you say and mangle it beyond recognition. I recently had occasion to be a “victim” of misunderstanding on a recent post I wrote as a guest-blogger on another site. I wouldn’t have even written this post, perhaps, except an article that I wrote for Eagle Rising got over 13,000 shares on Facebook. And so, it seemed perhaps I should take some of the comments into consideration here and respond.

I’m NOT a liberal, no matter what they say…

The post basically was an opinion piece, stating that Donald Trump is saying some things that the public connects with, and that we really do need to consider some of his points – especially when it comes to things like immigration and border security.

Besides, for all his failings, Trump’s stunning popularity is not merely because of his “showman” personality. He is popular because he is saying what a lot of people on the street believe is true. He is saying what the career politicians seem reluctant to say, and what the media seems to avoid like the plague (perhaps, because much of the senior staff in the media are married to staffers or are former staffers themselves). People are tired of the constant race-baiting from the current administration – the double-standards about white-on-black crime vs. black-on-white crime and the like. People are tired of the constant pandering to special interest groups. Yes, I do believe this is it.

And I might have to go so far as to say I agree with Trump when he says we should build a wall.

I often say it’s everybody’s lot in life to be misunderstood once in a while. And I suppose, if I think about it, maybe the misunderstanding is partly my fault. But if people were paying attention to what I actually said, they would have realized that some of the accusations they made were kind of baseless. But once someone calls me a liberal, they’ve hit below the belt. So let’s clear this up once and for all:

I’m NOT A Liberal

This isn’t so much about defending myself or clearing my name as it is a concern that some stupid comments were made, and I’d hate to think that people can get away with not thinking clearly. Some of these comments betray either a lack of clear thinking or a short attention span (or both). And I like the idea of thinking CLEARLY. Check my web site and you’ll see that thinking CLEARLY is what that is all about.

The article was about Donald Trump’s stance on building a wall along the Mexican border. Now, I don’t REALLY think the U.S. should build a wall, necessarily. Not a REAL wall. The idea is good in theory; but there are tunnels, too. And a wall would be so blasted expensive. The POINT is that the southern border needs to be a lot less porous. And I think THAT is a great idea to implement. And not even for the illegal Mexicans coming in so much as for the radicals that are coming across the border every day and night. THEY have plans to harm us. That is a bad thing. In case you were not aware of a recent interview between Greta Van Susteren and Representative Duncan Hunter, it went like this:

Van Susteren: Hold on. Stop for one second.

Hunter: They are going to be bombing American cities coming across from Mexico.

Van Susteren: Let me ask a question. You say that they are coming in the southern border, which changes all the dynamics Do you have any information that they are coming in through the southern border now?

Hunter: Yes.

Van Susteren: Tell me what you know.

Hunter: At least ten ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the border in Texas.

Van Susteren: How do you know that?

Hunter: Because I’ve asked the border patrol, Greta.

Van Susteren: And the border patrol just let’s ISIS members come across the border?

Hunter: No. They caught them at the border. Therefore, we know that ISIS is coming across the border. If they catch five or ten of them, you know that there are going to be dozens more that did not get caught by the border patrol. That’s how you know. That’s where we are at risk here, is from ISIS and radical Islamists coming across the border. Once again, they don’t have a navy, air force, nuclear weapons. The only way that Americans are going to be harmed by radical Islam — Chairman Dempsey said the same thing. He said that’s where the major threat is here, that’s how these guys are going to infiltrate through America and harm Americans. 

Ya know, most of the stuff that the politicians promise when they’re debating is stuff I seriously can’t see they have power to enforce. The fact is, though, that one thing the president has is the ability to affect the frame and the tone of the debate. And we sure do need to be talking about this. These people are not a “J V” team.

I’M NOT A LIBERAL. REALLY. For the record, let me state my positions on a few key points. And after that, if you STILL want to insist I’m a liberal because you MISUNDERSTOOD what I said, you’re still entitled to be wrong; but you’ll have to live with that.

FOR THE RECORD:

I’M PRO-LIFE: the woman’s right to choose ends with the baby’s right to live. Period. Look, I realize there are (relatively rare) cases of rape and incest; but two wrongs don’t make a right. And we, as a society, have probably fallen down badly when it comes to making a place for these little ones when they show up, and showing love, support and compassion for the mothers who carry them to term. But killing them is not the answer. For the record, I will say that I think abortion done for the profit of the clinic is one of the biggest abuses of women going, all in the name of “helping” them. It just exchanges one problem for another.

I’M PRO-2ND AMENDMENT: I don’t pack a pistol, and don’t have any intent to do so. In fact, where I live, it’s illegal right now anyway. But I’m thinking about how the idea is appealing with all of the nonsense that the government is pulling lately. Look. I realize that letting everyone carry one is letting the criminals have them too. But they have them anyway. (I know, I know, it’s a weak argument… maybe. But access to arms doesn’t translate into crime by itself. Lawlessness does. If you have a lawless society because of an unrealistic sense of entitlement, THAT might be the biggest contributor to the gun violence problem. And THAT is taken care of as a byproduct of a good spiritual revival.) Guns are hard to come by in Mexico; they are easily obtained in Switzerland, and nobody gets hurt. And the 2nd amendment is to protect people from an overreaching GOVERNMENT. You’ve got an overreaching government NOW.

I’M PRO-REPBULICAN: Jeez, Louise, when I said I was an “undecided voter,” it DIDN’T mean that I was torn about whether, given an opportunity, I would vote REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAP. FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD. In the context, the remark was about not knowing whether Trump or Cruz would ultimately be the better candidate to DEFEAT Hillary. The WHOLE POINT is that either one is a whole lot better than HILLARY. My concern was about which one could do it. (Read the article again, if you missed that, ok? For your own good.)

By the way, on the Trump vs Cruz gig, you have the added benefit with Trump that he’s already said if he’s elected, he will prosecute Hillary. That’s gotta be worth something right there.

I’M PRO BORDER SECURITY: NO deals on illegals, ESPECIALLY until AFTER you secure the border. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARTICLE. It WASN’T about building an actual, physical wall. (It might be a great idea, but somebody’s gotta PAY for the stupid thing, right?) Look, Trump said we’ve got to slow the flow through the border until we know what’s going on. And Cruz is saying we need to increase police patrols and police presence in these neighbourhoods. They’re BOTH getting flack from the bleeding hearts. And they’re both RIGHT. PROFILING isn’t always a bad thing (unless you’re a liberal).

I don’t know that I would normally write an article like this one, except that it will be a handy reference point for future posts when I need to explain my positions on things.

And like I said, in case you missed it, I’m not a liberal. Hope I cleared that up.

Read More
Donald Trump should be thrilled the Pfizer violated its contract
Analysis, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Trump Should Be Happy That Pfizer Violated Its Contract

Trump should be happy that Pfizer violated its contract by fraud.

For some, that sounds ridiculous. For many of us, it's pretty obvious that Pfizer violated its contract by committing fraud in trying to pass these vaccines off to the department of defense.

Naomi Wolf uncovered this truth recently. Pfizer was supposed to deliver its results to the department of defense by a supposed "drop dead date" but purposely held off for 3 weeks, in an apparent attempt to delay a "solution" for the Covid crisis, and thereby throwing the 2020 election to Biden.

Ben Armstrong makes some good points about this on his show

Ben Armstrong nailed it. First time I've heard him but he's pretty good with this one, for sure.

He hits on some good points. Trump is arrogant. So arrogant, in fact, he might not be able to admit this to himself or not. But his best bet and his best chance of winning in 2024 might be for him to recognize and admit he was duped in the run-up to the 2020 election.

If he can admit to his followers that he got sucked in to lies from the likes of Fauci and that the vaccine turned out to be a disaster, it would certainly a lot further ahead.

Pfizer violated its contract with the DOD to throw the election.

Naomi Wolf uncovered this stuff and he talks about it in the video.

Take a look.

Pray for Trump. If he can ever see this and admit it, it will get him a "world apart" ahead in the 2024 election race.

Do you want to see how bad Pfizer has done against the american people?

Study shows 74% of deaths are due to the covid vaccines

Read More
The founding fathers paid an incredibly high price to sign the declaration of independence
Analysis, FAITH INSPIRATION

Declaration Of Independence: A Valuable Lesson In The High Price Of Bravery, And Why We Should Care

There was a high cost in signing the declaration of independence. Very high, indeed.

At first, that probably sounds a little overblown. Maybe a lot overblown.

But the problem is that there are some things that we take for granted. Or worse yet, we might totally miss them, because of the context in which we learn them.

Seeing this event from a fresh perspective helps to see these men as brave for their time. In the historical context, signing that declaration was actually a potential death sentence.

Dr. Peter McCollough, on his blog, "Courageous Discourse," pointed this out. I actually hadn't thought about it until I read what he had written about it.

Consider what Dr. MrCollough says,

We now look back on the Declaration of Independence with the benefit of knowing that the bold enterprise actually worked out—that is, that the American colonists prevailed in the war against Britain and achieved their independence from the British Crown.

However, at the time the 56 signers actually signed the document (on August 2, 1776), it was FAR from clear that their endeavor would work. In signing their names to the document, they knew they were committing High Treason and were therefore subjecting themselves to being put to death and their property confiscated. The latter penalty was almost as terrible, because most of them (in their thirties and forties) had wives and children who were dependent on them.

Did you ever think of it that way? Or have you always seen a neat and sanitized version of what that event looked like?

I think we miss much of what that was like for them because, like church history, we hear of the polished, "end of the story" version of what happened in that moment.

I think it is difficult for us to grasp what was going on in that room at the time.

And I draw the analogy to how we (many of us, anyway) grow up hearing bible stories as kids, so that, by the time we understand what happened to Jesus on the cross, we've been preconditioned to see it through the lens of it being "temporary," because we already know he rose from the dead.

And, as such, we don't get the full impact.

When Jesus was being crucified, the disciples weren't grasping in that moment that it was temporary. 

Try to grasp the mindset in the room in that moment the framers were signing the declaration.

In 1811, reflecting back on the occasion in a letter to John Adams, the Pennsylvania representative, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote:

The pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants. The silence and gloom of the morning was interrupted,

I well recollect, only for a moment by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, who said to Elbridge Gerry at the table, "I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing."

"From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead."

This speech procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.

Brave men. Truly brave men.

Were they flawed men? Of course. We should not pretend they were not flawed.

The founding fathers had slaves.

This doesn't whitewash that. I'm not saying we should overlook the issue of slavery, or the blight it was on our history that it took so long to rid the culture of it.

It seems that many (if not most) of the founding fathers had slaves. But it also seems like they were generally kinder to them than their contemporaries. 

I'm sure there are many things in today's society that will be looked back on (if we are here that long) that will be seen through the lens of history as less than ideal; perhaps even reprehensible.

But that is not what this article is about.

This is about present realities that we often overlook in history, when looking at events in the rear view mirror.

These men were signing a document that effectively put them in direct opposition to Britain - in rebellion, actually - and if history had ended up working out differently, they might have instead been painted as traitors to the government.

The article continues:

As things turned out, none of them were actually put to death for treason, though some were imprisoned and lost their property.

A particularly poignant case was Francis Lewis (1713-1802) of New York. His wife died as an indirect result of being imprisoned by the British, and he lost all of his property on Long Island during the war. When his wife died, Lewis left Congress and completely abandoned politics.

As things have worked out, in today's light, they are seen by most of us as heroes. The history is written by the winning side.

 Whether they were heroes or just men with some blind spots, they were brave men, and were willing to pay a great price for what they believed.

As the article says,

Nowadays, safely ensconced on America’s college campuses, it has become fashionable for professors and students to criticize the signers—and especially the author, Thomas Jefferson—as privileged white men, many of whom owned African slaves.

(And yet, in the end, slavery was abolished, again at a great cost.)

The declaration of independence was signed in 1776. The civil war was fought almost 100 years later. Times were different and circumstances were different.

In 1776, the country was united against a foreign enemy. Almost 100 years later, "the enemy was us." That is, the country was divided and it became a horrible price that would be paid to bring an end to slavery.

Within that 100 year window, there was a lot of bravery, a lot of injustice.

Some of the people who gained their freedom from the tyranny of England were the ones who kept others in tyrannies of their own by owning slaves.

But somehow, I don't think the signers of the declaration would have been the ones opposing freedom for the slaves.

It's just that you can only fight so many wars at a time, or deal with so many blind spots all at once.

And I bring this up today because today is the day this article came across my news feed - coinciding with the 4th of July holiday where Americans celebrate their independence from what was a tyrannical government.

But we have blind spots too.

This weekend is also the weekend that marks the date of the release of a movie about a very different and very horrible kind of slavery: that of the slavery of children in the crime of human trafficking.

It might not be a surprise to my readers that there is this huge, ugly blight on humanity that persists these days.

But for the majority of Americans, they celebrate the Independence Day weekend without much thought to what it cost the founders to establish the United States as a country.

Many also fail to recognize the horrible tyranny that is going on all around them - tyrants who live in the same country, enjoying the same freedom, and yet abusing, enslaving and torturing children.

"Sound Of Freedom" is a movie that was created to draw attention to this horrible, pervasive and almost unspeakable evil going on all around us in this world.

But no matter how horrible, it needs to be spoken about, even at a potential cost.

"Sound of Freedom" is a movie about child trafficking, child sex slavery and the sale of human body parts for profit.

Hopefully (and for many, prayerfully) history will come out quickly on the right side of the children who are being treated as cattle and sex toys and little factories for body parts and adrenochrome suppliers. 

Right now, all the big money is on the side of pretending this isn't really a problem. But in the end, history will be written by those who will have won this battle.

Does our culture have its blind spots? Of course, it does. History repeats itself from time to time.

Ironically, it's hard to identify blind spots because, well..... they're blind spots.

But this is one that some of us can see.

We need to see it, to look it square in the face, to be brave enough to speak out and draw attention to the stunningly large and cancerously horrible problem.

If you don't believe this is a problem, think about this: the movie has been sitting, completely finished and ready to go for three years.

But it has taken this long for the producers of it to be able to bring it to the theaters.

Hollywood and its dark money and power have been fighting the release of this film with everything they've got.

Jim Caviezel and Mel Gibson have been pushing this issue into the media, always as an uphill battle. There are some really evil, rich people who don't want this stuff ever to be known.

Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel both talk about their reputations, even their lives - being threatened for daring to speak out against this multi-BILLION-dollar child sex trafficking industry.

Do these men have blind spots? Perhaps.

Mel Gibson does, anyway. He's made some disparaging remarks about Jewish people, gotten arrested for drunk driving.

And we can choose to look at his failures, or we can look past that, seeing that in spite of the fact that he is, like many, a flawed man, he is a brave man.

And what about Donald Trump?

Talk about a flawed man. Proud? Brash? Coarse? Yes.

But whether you realize it or not, Donald Trump, since he was running for office, spoke about the swamp and the need to drain it.

Many people (particularly many of the ones who voted for him and pushed so hard to want him re-elected) are well aware that he is well aware of these issues. They are also well aware of what he was doing to try to save these children.

So are they flawed men? Some of them sure are. But they are brave men.

These are all brave men for pushing so very hard against a very rich and powerful entrenchment of evil and abuse of the little ones among us.

Hopefully, now that it's hit the theatres, this movie will be the beginning of a turning point: a point in time where history will be able to look back and say, "that was a horrible, ugly thing that made us all less than fully human."

If you can take the time, please watch this video clip of Jim Caviezel discussing the depth of the problem of this issue that most of us would probably find quite easy to assume "just cannot be."

This video may load slowly. Please give it some time. The servers are often overloaded as people are waking up to this reality, almost all at once, because it has hit a movie screen, and suddenly is becoming "real." Be patient, and please watch this.

What is your life worth? What is the life of those children worth?

Perhaps you're one of many who didn't know this was going on. Now you do. Now, if you say nothing, you are without excuse.

Maybe worse yet, you're among those who have been aware but have been afraid to speak out for fear of backlash, or worse yet, you fear for your safety if you are among the first to speak out.

But if you don't, who will?

Hopefully, someday soon, we will see a world, in unison, saying, "how could that have POSSIBLY gone on for so long? Thank God that is all now behind us."

And maybe someday, Caviezel, Gibson and Trump will be remembered, not merely for their failures, but for the fact that in this, they are true heroes.

See also....
Canada Is Getting Downright Gruesome Regarding Organ Donation
Read More
feed, NEWS CURRENT EVENTS

Bragg Drops Case Against Jordan, Allowing House GOP to Depose Ex-Manhattan Prosecutor

Reprinted from NOQ report.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has dropped his effort to quash a congressional subpoena to a former prosecutor who worked in his office, a congressional aide told The Epoch Times in a statement on Friday.

“This evening, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office withdrew its appeal in Bragg v. Jordan. Mr. Pomerantz’s deposition will go forward on May 12, and we look forward to his appearance,” Russel Dye, spokesperson for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to The Epoch Times in a statement.

“Bragg caved. Jim Jordan won,” the House Judiciary Committee wrote in a statement on Twitter Friday.

The development wrapped up a legal clash between Bragg and House Judiciary Republicans, whereby Bragg had attempted to stop the lawmakers from requesting testimony from Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who investigated former President Donald Trump’s finances. Pomerantz left Bragg’s office in February 2022 in protest of Bragg’s initial unwillingness to bring an indictment against Trump.

A grand jury, encouraged by Bragg, brought an indictment against Trump in late March, prompting Jordan to initiate a probe into what he calls a “politically motivated” prosecution against a former president. Jordan subpoenaed Pomerantz to seek his testimony as a part of that probe. In response, Bragg sued the House Judiciary Committee and Pomerantz to prevent Pomerantz from testifying.

That lawsuit led to a hearing on Wednesday in the Southern District Court of New York, and a subsequent decision by District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ordered that the congressional panel has the authority to become involved in the investigation of Trump and declined Bragg’s request for a court injunction on the congressional subpoena.

Bragg wrote in a court filing that he intended to appeal the lower court’s decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19. On the same day, the court issued a temporary administrative hold on the return date of the House Judiciary Committee’s congressional subpoena of Pomerantz. This administrative hold did not reflect the court’s opinion on the merit of Bragg’s case, the court indicated in an April 19 filing, but serves as a short pause as the court considers whether to extend the freeze on the subpoena as Bragg appeals the case.

A three-judge panel was originally scheduled to decide early next week on this matter.

Bragg on Friday dropped the appeal, wrapping up the legal contention between him and the House lawmakers.

“Our successful stay of this subpoena blocked the immediate deposition and afforded us the time necessary to coordinate with the House Judiciary Committee on an agreement that protects the District Attorney’s privileges and interests. We are pleased with this resolution, which ensures any questioning of our former employee will take place in the presence of our General Counsel on a reasonable, agreed upon timeframe. We are gratified that the Second Circuit’s ruling provided us with the opportunity to successfully revolve this dispute,” Bragg’s office wrote in a statement on Friday on Twitter.

Judge’s Comments

During the district court hearing on Wednesday, the court affirmed the congressional lawmakers’ position that requesting Pomerantz’s testimony serves a valid legislative interest and that Pomerantz, due to his own conduct, is not protected by confidentiality privileges.

In her order, Vyskocil agreed with the congressional lawmakers’ reasoning that testimony by Pomerantz can help inform current and pending legislation. This includes a bill that, if enacted into law, would bar the use of federal funds to investigate a sitting or former president (the Accountability for Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods, or ALVIN, Act) and another that would allow Congress to remove an action or prosecution against a former president (H.R. 2553).

“It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection,” the judge wrote, adding that the U.S. Constitution protects lawmakers from litigation when their actions serve a valid legislative interest.

She rejected Bragg’s attempt to use a Supreme Court decision (Trump v. Mazars) to justify his case. In that decision, the highest court ruled in Trump’s favor and stated that the congressional committees couldn’t subpoena Trump’s financial statements because doing so would violate the separation of power between the executive and legislative branches.

During the Wednesday hearing, Bragg’s attorneys said that the reasoning in Trump v. Mazars applies to this case, and that the committee’s subpoena is an unconstitutional intrusion of the legislative branch into a state executive branch prosecution. Vyskocil disagreed.

“The congressional subpoena in Mazars was directed at materials pertaining to the sitting President of the United States,” Vyskocil wrote in her ruling, noting that Trump clearly represented the executive branch then.

“In contrast, here, the subpoena was issued to a private citizen who is no longer employed by any state government and who has written a book and spoken extensively about the subject matter of the congressional inquiry,” she wrote. “The Court is not persuaded that Mazars applies to this case.”

In her ruling, Vyskocil also rejected Bragg’s reasoning that Pomerantz enjoys confidentiality privileges and thus must not be compelled to reveal information about his former employment at the Manhattan DA’s office. Vyskocil noted that because she cannot predict what Congress would ask and what Pomerantz would say, it is not logical to say that such hypothetical statements would violate privilege.

“Bragg’s throw-everything-at-the-wall approach to privilege is unpersuasive,” Vyskocil wrote. “This Court will not quash a subpoena based solely on Bragg’s seemingly endless string of ‘what ifs.’”

Pomerantz, in an April 17 court filing, wrote that he would be put in an “impossible position” if he were to testify in Congress because he could face criminal prosecution if he testifies—violating confidentiality laws—or if he refuses to testify—committing contempt of Congress.

The judge dismissed this concern.

“[T]he Court notes that Pomerantz is in this situation because he decided to inject himself into the public debate by authoring a book that he has described as ‘appropriate and in the public interest,’” Vyskocil wrote in her Wednesday order.

“[Bragg] cannot seriously claim that any information already published in Pomerantz’s book and discussed on prime-time television in front of millions of people is protected from disclosure as attorney work product (or otherwise).”

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

The post Bragg Drops Case Against Jordan, Allowing House GOP to Depose Ex-Manhattan Prosecutor appeared first on NOQ Report – Conservative Christian News, Opinions, and Quotes.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the NOQ REPORT are not necessarily those of "Cogny Mann." But it is certain that we share a lot of overlap in our philosophies and worldviews.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

Durham to testify before House Judiciary Committee

On June 20, Special Counsel John Durham will testify appear before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door briefing. The next day, he will testify in front of the Judiciary Committee about his 300-page reportdetailing his investigation into the FBI probe of alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian officials.

The news broke Friday that Durham will be testifying on the report, which found the Department of Justice and the FBI did not have “any actual evidence of collusion” between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Instead, the agencies began their Crossfire Hurricane investigation based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” the report said. “Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” Durham wrote.

The report also confirmed that the FBI did not give due consideration to the possibility that the Steele Dossier, which was used to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page, was Russian disinformation.

FBI leaders displayed “serious lack of analytical rigor,” according to Durham, and they relied significantly on. “investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents,” referring to staffers and allies of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose campaign funded the Steele dossier through its law firm Perkins Coie.

National Review reminds readers, “The dossier was created by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele and accused Trump and his campaign aides of collaborating with Kremlin officials.”

Durham released his report nearly four years after then-attorney general Bill Barr tasked him with investigation the origins of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The FBI responded to the report in saying that the “conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time.”

“Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented,” the bureau said. “This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez heckled and booed at Town Hall

On June 20, Special Counsel John Durham will testify appear before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door briefing. The next day, he will testify in front of the Judiciary Committee about his 300-page reportdetailing his investigation into the FBI probe of alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian officials.

The news broke Friday that Durham will be testifying on the report, which found the Department of Justice and the FBI did not have “any actual evidence of collusion” between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Instead, the agencies began their Crossfire Hurricane investigation based on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” the report said. “Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” Durham wrote.

The report also confirmed that the FBI did not give due consideration to the possibility that the Steele Dossier, which was used to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page, was Russian disinformation.

FBI leaders displayed “serious lack of analytical rigor,” according to Durham, and they relied significantly on. “investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents,” referring to staffers and allies of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose campaign funded the Steele dossier through its law firm Perkins Coie.

National Review reminds readers, “The dossier was created by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele and accused Trump and his campaign aides of collaborating with Kremlin officials.”

Durham released his report nearly four years after then-attorney general Bill Barr tasked him with investigation the origins of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

The FBI responded to the report in saying that the “conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time.”

“Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented,” the bureau said. “This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

DeSantis to declare presidential run next week?

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Florida Republican governor Ron DeSantis is expected to be announcing his run for president next week. DeSantis will be joining a GOP field which includes former President Donald Trump, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and talk show host Larry Elder.

A RealClearPolitics average of national polls has Trump leading the race with 56 percent support with DeSantis following at a distant second with 19.9 percent support. However, that support comes despite having not formally entered the race yet.

DeSantis’ camp reportedly will file formal candidacy paperwork with the Federal Election Commission next week. Donors are supposedly meting in Miami on May 25 and a formal campaign kickoff event is expected to follow.

National Review reports:

In early March, Ken Cuccinelli, who previously served as the acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security under Trump, announced the launch of the Never Back Down PAC to urge DeSantis to run for president. The PAC has raised millions of dollars and may soon receive more than $80 million from a state committee DeSantis recently gave up control of, according to the report.

Indicators that DeSantis could be joining the race include moving his Tallahassee offices to a new location on Monday. “The move will likely cost more than $5,000, which would trigger a 15-day countdown for the team to file a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission” writes National Review.

DeSantis’s press secretary, Bryan Griffin, also announced he was exiting the governor’s office to “pursue other avenues of helping to deliver the governor’s success to our country.”

National Review writes:

DeSantis has already participated in a number of campaign-like events and made headlines over the weekend as he interacted one-on-one with voters in Iowa, shedding his reputation as a leader who struggles with retail politicking. He made an unscheduled appearance in Des Moines at a barbecue joint on Saturday while Trump, the front-runner, canceled his own rally in Des Moines that day because of “severe weather.”

The optics of the weekend in Iowa were a win for DeSantis, who also announced a day earlier the endorsements of more than three dozen Republicans in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. The endorsements, which amounted to more than a third of the Republicans in the state legislature, were more than any GOP candidate received in 2016. DeSantis also notched a flurry of endorsements in New Hampshire and Florida in recent days.

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott files for 2024 presidential run

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Florida Republican governor Ron DeSantis is expected to be announcing his run for president next week. DeSantis will be joining a GOP field which includes former President Donald Trump, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and talk show host Larry Elder.

A RealClearPolitics average of national polls has Trump leading the race with 56 percent support with DeSantis following at a distant second with 19.9 percent support. However, that support comes despite having not formally entered the race yet.

DeSantis’ camp reportedly will file formal candidacy paperwork with the Federal Election Commission next week. Donors are supposedly meting in Miami on May 25 and a formal campaign kickoff event is expected to follow.

National Review reports:

In early March, Ken Cuccinelli, who previously served as the acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security under Trump, announced the launch of the Never Back Down PAC to urge DeSantis to run for president. The PAC has raised millions of dollars and may soon receive more than $80 million from a state committee DeSantis recently gave up control of, according to the report.

Indicators that DeSantis could be joining the race include moving his Tallahassee offices to a new location on Monday. “The move will likely cost more than $5,000, which would trigger a 15-day countdown for the team to file a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission” writes National Review.

DeSantis’s press secretary, Bryan Griffin, also announced he was exiting the governor’s office to “pursue other avenues of helping to deliver the governor’s success to our country.”

National Review writes:

DeSantis has already participated in a number of campaign-like events and made headlines over the weekend as he interacted one-on-one with voters in Iowa, shedding his reputation as a leader who struggles with retail politicking. He made an unscheduled appearance in Des Moines at a barbecue joint on Saturday while Trump, the front-runner, canceled his own rally in Des Moines that day because of “severe weather.”

The optics of the weekend in Iowa were a win for DeSantis, who also announced a day earlier the endorsements of more than three dozen Republicans in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. The endorsements, which amounted to more than a third of the Republicans in the state legislature, were more than any GOP candidate received in 2016. DeSantis also notched a flurry of endorsements in New Hampshire and Florida in recent days.

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

Sara A. Carter calls out Biden ‘border policy hypocrisy’ on Fox and Friends Weekend

President Donald Trump has the support of 70 percent of voters, despite a concerted effort by Democrats and anti-Trump media to target him.

A recent new national poll by NBC news reveals that GOP voters aren’t dissuaded by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump or any  other legal investigations. Maybe it’s because the evidence about actual corruption is piling up against President Joe Biden and his family?

Trump also has a double-digit lead over potential GOP rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. It appears that as of now the former president is the clear frontrunner for the GOP and has received substantial support from lawmakers in his state of Florida over the past month.

DeSantis, however, has still to announce his candidacy for President. He took a swipe at Trump at a Saturday event over Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A leader must have the confidence to stand all alone if need be,” said DeSantis and as reported by Fox. He made the speech at the Utah GOP Convention on Saturday.

“And so for us, as I got into office, COVID presented that situation for us because we were in a situation – the third-largest state in the country – one of the highest percentage of elderly, economy based on tourism, which we needed to travel to continue,” he said.

Trump also continues to take his own swipes at DeSantis, calling him DeSanctus on his Truth Social media platform.

“The ‘Consultants’ are sending DeSanctus, and demanding that he go immediately, on an emergency Round the Wold tour of U.S. representative population countries, like South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Israel in order to up his game and see if he can remove the stain of his failing campaign,” Trump said.

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

70 percent of GOP VOTERS back Donald Trump, clear frontrunner

President Donald Trump has the support of 70 percent of voters, despite a concerted effort by Democrats and anti-Trump media to target him.

A recent new national poll by NBC news reveals that GOP voters aren’t dissuaded by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump or any  other legal investigations. Maybe it’s because the evidence about actual corruption is piling up against President Joe Biden and his family?

Trump also has a double-digit lead over potential GOP rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. It appears that as of now the former president is the clear frontrunner for the GOP and has received substantial support from lawmakers in his state of Florida over the past month.

DeSantis, however, has still to announce his candidacy for President. He took a swipe at Trump at a Saturday event over Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“A leader must have the confidence to stand all alone if need be,” said DeSantis and as reported by Fox. He made the speech at the Utah GOP Convention on Saturday.

“And so for us, as I got into office, COVID presented that situation for us because we were in a situation – the third-largest state in the country – one of the highest percentage of elderly, economy based on tourism, which we needed to travel to continue,” he said.

Trump also continues to take his own swipes at DeSantis, calling him DeSanctus on his Truth Social media platform.

“The ‘Consultants’ are sending DeSanctus, and demanding that he go immediately, on an emergency Round the Wold tour of U.S. representative population countries, like South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Israel in order to up his game and see if he can remove the stain of his failing campaign,” Trump said.

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More