President Trump has just announced, “It’s time for a new policy — one defined by two simple rules: We will BUY AMERICAN and we will HIRE AMERICAN.” #MadeInAmerica (Video is at the bottom of this page.)
My comment to President Trump is he as President of course can hire and buy American for his administration. But the fact is the best outcome for consumers is buying the best price and quality in the free market economy. The U.S. doesn’t make or sell the best of everything. Some countries are actually better suppliers of some things because of a myriad of reasons.
It is wrong-headed and WAY out of Trump’s legitimate role as President to use the bully pulpit to insist people buy American. Technically I suppose you could say Trump was only talking about government purchases, but in reality, he was using the bully pulpit to say, “Buy American”.
No, as Adam Smith said,
By pursuing his own interest [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
— Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book IV, Chapt. II, IV.2.9 (1776).
The REAL answer is what Trump partially referred to at the end of this clip: GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE FREE MARKET BY ENDING HIGH TAXES & UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REGULATIONS, MINIMUM WAGE, & UNION PROTECTION. THAT will allow American companies to compete in the free market once again.
Once again as in many things, so in our economy, government is not the solution, government is the problem. Thank you, President Trump, for at least partially addressing government interference as the core issue of our languishing businesses and economy.
It’s time for a new policy — one defined by two simple rules: We will BUY AMERICAN and we will HIRE AMERICAN. #MadeInAmerica
Posted by Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Ref: Pro-life Leaders Rally to Support Charlie Gard [Medical Treatment] by Rachel del Guidice, DailySignal.com.
U.S. pro-life leaders are asking the British government to honor parental rights and allow the parents of a terminally ill infant to seek medical care abroad.
“In the tragic case of Charlie Gard, the British government has unjustly decided that his life doesn’t have the value of others,” said Tina Whittington, executive vice president of Students for Life of America, at a press conference Thursday.
Read more at
Comment by Jim Newell:
So much for “benevolent socialism” and “benevolent socialized medicine” AKA “single payer” AKA mindless government force taking charge of your healthcare which government doesn’t nor can care anything about. Government only cares about power and force.
“Socialized medicine”. All that means is government instead of you in control of your healthcare. “Socialism.” All that means is “soft” fascist government oppression, robbing you of your God-given freedoms. “Benevolent socialism” is an oxymoron like “benevolent fascism”.
The answer to the age-old misery of government oppression is always God-given individual freedom. The answer to healthcare run by the government (AKA “DMV healthcare”) is healthcare run by the voluntary cooperation between patients and their doctors in the market economy free from government interference which produces the highest quality, most available, and lowest cost healthcare in the world.
Note: In the United States, healthcare run by the federal government is not only oppressive, disastrous, and deadly, it is illegal because it is unconstitutional.
Comment by Jim Newell:
In 2008, President Barack Obama clearly stated he intended, if elected, to “fundamentally change America.” If his Senate record where he constantly voted to the left of socialist Bernie Sanders wasn’t enough, his eight years in the White House made it obvious that he meant replacing America’s Free Constitutional Republic with some form of socialist-fascist state until American national sovereignty could be relinquished to a global dictatorship.
Everything Obama said and did was geared to his goal including the people he hired to accomplish his agenda. In the wake of the departed and IMO corrupt Obama Administration is a corrupt, subversive, and treasonous group of people in the federal government and the media who want to continue Obama’s effort to basically overthrow America’s Free Constitutional Republic. This group in Washington D.C. is known as the “deep state” – the “shadow government.”
The following article by a former FBI agent chronicles the weight of evidence of the continuing corrupt and illegal activities of some of the Obama Administration’s hires and appointees and I think is worth reading. IMO, Trump should root out and discard all ex-Obama people from government as presumptively corrupt. The battle for the recovery of America continues.
Article posted By John Ligato On In Poli
URL Source: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/former-fbi-agent-deep-state-exists-and-is-trying-to-bring-down-trump/print
Fifteen years ago, I would have suggested a tinfoil hat for anyone who believed in the deep state. But recent events have made me rethink my diagnosis. The term “deep state” intimates a conspiracy somewhere in the woodshed. But it’s basically two or more people who get together and agree on something bad.
In the case of a shadow government, that something is to impede or overthrow the legitimate government. The current political environment offers convincing evidence that individuals are attempting to do just that. They utilize legal and illegal means in an effort to annul the will of the people. Their ultimate goal is to end the presidency of Donald Trump.
As an FBI agent, I was careful to separate facts from fiction when investigating cases. The public can make wild conjectures and cite gossip as gospel, but law enforcement officers must deal in facts. So, does a deep state currently exist in American today?
Let’s examine that possibility through the eyes of an investigator. I’ll provide evidence both direct and circumstantial and offer an analysis based on those facts. There is also a residual effect of the deep state, which results in the incidental recruitment of like-minded individuals. A legal term would be unindicted co-conspirators. These folks share the ideology of the main players and act as unwitting surrogates. They eventually become active participants in the shadow government. I’ll provide examples of surrogates and demonstrate how they also contribute to the deep state.
Fact/Known: James Comey reduced his alleged obstruction of justice meeting with President Trump to a memo. James Comey intentionally leaked that memo with the stated intent to trigger the special counsel statute. James Comey met with his friend, special counsel Robert Mueller, prior to Comey’s testifying before a congressional committee.
As an investigator, I would not consider the leaked memo to be direct evidence since it is basically written hearsay and depends on Comey’s memory and veracity. The memo is no different from two drivers providing contradicting observations of the same traffic accident. Victim — The Trump presidency.
Analysis: In my experience, if someone admits to a specific wrongdoing once, leaking, it’s a good bet that it wasn’t his first time. A burglar never strikes once. There are dozens of unsolved leaks, and Director Comey was in the position to have access to the information contained in those leaks.
Comey was asked under oath if he believed the president attempted to obstruct justice in the Flynn case. He replied that it was up to the special counsel to determine if obstruction occurred. Comey’s desire for a special counsel is actually an admission that he believes the president did obstruct justice. He wouldn’t wish a special counsel to prove that the president didn’t commit a crime. Why else would he do it?
But when questioned on Loretta Lynch’s orders to call the Clinton e-mail investigation a “matter,” he felt no similar compunction for an investigation. As an investigator, this tells me that Mr. Comey has a political and ideological agenda that affected his judgment and impartiality.
Unknowns/Further Investigation: Mueller’s meeting with Comey, prior to his testimony before Congress, raises my investigative hackles. They reviewed what Comey could and could not say publicly about the obstruction conversation. In essence, you had a prosecutor coaching his main witness in the court of public opinion. This is anything but impartial since millions of Americans heard only one side — deep state stuff for sure.
I’d want to know the substance of that Mueller-Comey chat, specifically if Mueller has already established President Trump’s guilt. Since obstruction of justice can be interpreted differently by two attorneys viewing the same set of facts, an investigation can also be conducted to prove a preconceived belief.
Surrogates/Co-conspirators: Mr. Comey’s leak provided tacit approval and emboldened other like-minded federal employees to leak.
Fact: Susan Rice admitted on MSNBC that she sometimes sought the identities of Trump associates who communicated with foreigners, a request known as “unmasking” in the intelligence community. Victim — The Trump presidency.
Rice’s admission came after she initially told PBS’ Judy Woodruff that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates. Inconsistent statements are called clues in law enforcement. The fact that Rice has furnished other inconsistencies is called a pattern, or MO. There was the Benghazi video and the Bowe Bergdahl fib.
Supporting evidence includes the fact that the White House does not conduct investigations. Not criminal investigations, and not intelligence investigations. Generally, it is the FBI that conducts investigations concerning American citizens suspected of acting as agents of foreign powers.
So if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, the FBI, CIA or NSA would have done it. There would have been no need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. The national security adviser is not an investigator. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it.
Analysis: If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests: It was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic Party interests. If it was critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked them.
Fact: Democrats are not psychologists.
Victim: The Trump Presidency.
The current weapon of the deep state is the accusation that President Trump is mentally unbalanced. If an FBI agent ever concluded that a subject of our investigation was mentally imbalanced, the first question the defense attorney asked would be: “Well, Agent Ligato, at what medical school did you earn your degree in psychology?”
I would be immediately discredited, and anything I said after that would be moot. But many of our elected Democratic officials stare somberly at the camera with their University of Google degrees and make medical diagnoses.
Surrogates: The rank and file of the “hate Trump” posse frequently repeat the diagnosis whether they believe it or not.
Fact: Our media have become part of the deep state. Some are active players, and others are unwitting surrogates based on their ideology. In the not too distant past both the FBI and the media were fact-finders. We shared the standard of burden of proof by relying on multiple and reliable sources. My actions as a law enforcement officer could have a profound effect on citizens ranging from destroying their reputation to taking their freedom. I could not sit on the witness stand and cite gossip, rumors or anonymous sources to convict someone.
The media also have the ability to ruin reputations and lives with unfounded allegations and accusations. This power comes with the responsibility to get it right, but today’s media make the most outrageous accusations, citing anonymous sources with impunity and then hiding behind a privilege that doesn’t exist.
Our attorney general was permitted a perjury reboot and allowed to admit to a memory lapse — only after the committee produced a copy of the affidavit with his signature.
CNN has recently been “outed” for committing deep state tactics. There are many journalists who are so lazy and incompetent that they merely reprint or report other people’s news stories, many of which turn out to be fake news.
Surrogates: The mainstream media act as surrogates of the deep state with the intended purpose to degrade and destruct the Trump presidency.
Fact: Conflict of interest charges are routinely ignored and downplayed when perpetrated by Democrats.
A few examples include John Podesta’s financial interest in the Joule Company, a Russia-based energy company partially owned by the Russian government. The allegation is that the Clinton family and Russia both benefited from an alleged “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the Russian owners of a mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton, paid for by a Russian investment bank, bolsters the circumstantial evidence of an inappropriate relationship between Russia and the Clintons. The specific charges of extortion, public corruption, and bribery are difficult to prove. The investigation is tedious, but there seems to be an abundance of facts and circumstantial evidence.
The FBI would certainly conduct a preliminary inquiry into these allegations and forward the results to the Justice Department. Due to the amount of public interest in the case, one would surmise that Justice would pronounce the matter either closed or indict someone. But that would require the highly political office of the attorney general under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to admit a “scintilla” of Democratic wrongdoing.
Speaking of Lynch and conflicts of interest, we have the attorney general’s tarmac meeting with our former president while his wife was under investigation. These facts and circumstances would be considered probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred, yet we are left with unsubstantiated rumors that the FBI has yet to open an investigation.
Analysis: The above corruption matters merit an FBI investigation, but the most blatant conflict of interest, and the one that can have a significant effect on the Trump presidency, is the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. This statute should only be enacted when there is underlying evidence of criminal activity and not rumors and anonymous sources. The statute also spells out what constitutes a conflict of interest.
The language seems to have been written for the Mueller-Comey relationship. It calls for a recusal if there is a personal or political relationship between the counsel and potential witnesses or targets. Comey fits into both categories, yet Mueller refuses to recuse himself. This taints his impartiality and his integrity. Victim — The Trump presidency.
Fact: Selective non-prosecution of Democrats, or — “Nobody goes to jail anymore!”
As a retired law enforcement officer, I am astonished by the continuing criminal activities by members of the Democratic Party. Examples include: perjury under oath by Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, James Clapper, and Huma Abedin; refusal to answer questions under oath by Lois Lerner, Loretta Lynch, and a significant memory lapse by Cheryl Mills; and obstruction of justice by Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton, and several tech guys who destroyed evidence.
A flagrant example of selective prosecution is Eric Holder. He testified under oath that he had no knowledge of the James Rosen affidavit. Our attorney general was permitted a perjury reboot and allowed to admit to a memory lapse — only after the committee produced a copy of the affidavit with his signature. Any other individual would be eating off metal trays. Just ask Martha Stewart, who went to prison for lying to FBI agents.
Victim: The Republicans/All Americans.
Fact: Robert Mueller’s tenure as the FBI director resulted in a significant reduction of the FBI’s long-standing independence. A byproduct of this loss was the politicization of the bureau, and the opportunity for the deep state to play. The Justice Department always had a political component. JFK appointed his brother as attorney general, and Hillary Clinton demanded a female attorney general during her husband’s presidency. But Loretta Lynch’s meeting with Bill Clinton days before James Comey’s announcement of Hillary’s innocence was all about the deep state.
The FBI had always remained at arms length concerning selective prosecution until Mueller effectively merged the FBI with the Justice Department. The FBI never considered targets based on political party, ideology, or race. Our criteria was simply criminal activity.
Many liberal individuals spout similar or more offensive speech, but they are civilians and not entrusted with U.S. secrets.
Prior to Mueller’s directorship, the FBI opened cases, investigated cases, opened informants, and then presented our findings to the U.S. Attorney. At the conclusion of Mueller’s tenure, FBI agents were required to obtain approval from Justice to open certain cases, informants and many investigative techniques.
This muddied the waters and resulted in Director Comey’s July 5, 2016, announcement that the FBI was not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton. The FBI had never made recommendations on guilt or innocence. That is the Department of Justice’s purview. We at the FBI are fact-finders.
Analysis: One outcome of Mueller’s politicizing the FBI is Comey operating outside our charter by leaking official documents and making a decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton. Further proof of the bureau’s politicization is Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
The wife of the No. 2 man in the FBI received $943,000 in campaign contributions from democratic PACs, $650,500 of which came from the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and now Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. McCabe failed to report the contribution because technically, he wasn’t required to do so under IRS regulations.
The campaign contributions came during the period McCabe was investigating Hillary Clinton. If we connect the dots in this Greek tragedy, we see Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, the Clintons — and another round of Comey and Mueller, which culminated in the special counsel. Victim — The Trump presidency.
Fact: The leaks of Eric Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and Reality Winner damaged national security. Although Snowden and Manning’s leaks occurred during the Obama presidency, there are several dynamics that tie these leaks to the deep state. The trio received top-secret clearances despite plenty of indicators that they were security risks. Why were they granted top secret clearance? FBI agents no longer conduct the background security investigations on contract employees, and the result is shoddy work.
The background check has been farmed out to for-profit corporations that are on the clock. Their contract renewal is based on turning over these cases quickly, but a proper background investigation for a top secret clearance takes time and effort.
An example of how flawed individuals are routinely handed the keys to our national secrets is the social media postings of Reality Winner. Her employer was Pluribus International Corporation based in Alexandria, Virginia. The company is a government contractor, and as an employee Winner had a top secret security clearance.
Two postings on Winner’s Facebook page should have alerted her background investigator to a problem. The two postings were: “Why burn a flag… Donald Trump thinks crosses burn much better”; and, “On a positive note, this Tuesday (election of Trump), we became the United States of the Russian Federation….”
Many liberal individuals spout similar or more offensive speech, but they are civilians and not entrusted with U.S. secrets.
Winner had an obvious hatred of President Trump fueled by ideology. Did she have a First Amendment right to speak her mind? Most definitely, but that didn’t entitle her to a top secret clearance. Most of the FBI agents in my era would have considered Winner a security risk.
There are also some miscellaneous factors contributing to the deep state — such as the unwitting surrogates who feel that America is not exceptional and carry some vague guilt concerning white privilege and entitlements. They wave the deep state flag of “the resistance,” which paints a picture of a futuristic sci-fi flick with good guys fighting mutant evildoers. But these resisters place bandanas on their faces, break windows, block traffic, and burn cars.
Liberal mayors order police officers to “stand down,” which has the effect of normalizing attacks on police officers. It all contributes to anarchy, making it acceptable to throw bricks at police officers and loot stores. My father was a Philadelphia police officer in the 1950s and ’60s, and any object tossed his way would end in an arrest and some counseling. Most officers feel the same way.
There’s a misguided concept of patriotism with many of today’s youth that contributes to the dark state. Take Snowden, Manning and Winner, who may be the brightest but certainly not the best. They considered leaking to be a patriotic act due to their rigid ideology, which embraces and accepts diversity for all things except thought.
So, does the deep state exist with a goal of destroying the Trump presidency? I rest my case.
John Ligato (USMC-retired) is a former deep-cover FBI special agent and author of the new book “The Near Enemy: A John Booker Thriller.”
Government, and its GOP and Dem buddies, hates the Declaration of Independence (D of I) and the Constitution because of the limitations of and freedom from government those precious documents represent. But America is about WE the People who LOVE AND REJOICE OVER LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE.
Michael Ramirez’s drawing is a good illustration.
We the People need to take back OUR country, OUR freedoms, and OUR D of I and Constitution from the clutches of the self-serving politicians in both the Democratic Party and the GOP. Americans need to reclaim their God-given FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT once again.
It is time to restore our Free Constitutional Republic!
LET FREEDOM RING!
May God ever bless America.
Happy Independence Day everyone!
Interesting and informative article about a very relevant subject: fighting Muslim bandits. In this case, the Muslims were pirates off the Barbary Coast who were pillaging American ships in the 1700’s. We were fighting the Muslims from America’s very beginnings. Islamic jihad itself has been around for centuries.
The following is an article titled The Forgotten War that Changed American History, By Janet Levy, published by American Thinker, June 22, 2017 and reprinted here for your exhortation, edification, and comfort. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/the_forgotten_war_that_changed_american_history.html
In the late 1700s, the newly independent republic of the United States was continually beset by piracy at sea from four Muslim Barbary Coast states: Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco. The U.S., with limited military resources and staggering debts from the War for Independence, sought to establish secure routes for international commerce to spur rapid economic growth needed to build the emerging country. Yet the U.S. faced constant Ottoman attacks on its merchant ships. American and European ships venturing into the region routinely faced capture of crewmembers, who risked being held as slaves until hefty ransoms were paid. The persistent Barbary pirate raids created a major crisis for a new nation that could not afford to either suffer from economic isolation or pay the exorbitant tributes demanded by the pirates.
In Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates (Sentinel, 2015), coauthors Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger explore “the forgotten war that changed American history.” In an action-packed thriller that aptly captures the time, place, politics, and circumstances, the authors chronicle the crisis leading up to the Barbary Wars and their triumphant aftermath.
The authors begin their chronicle with 1785, when the American merchant vessel, the Dauphin, was intercepted off the coast of Portugal by an Algerian cannon-equipped vessel, suffering the same fate as many ships of the day venturing near the Barbary Coast. Together with the crew of the schooner Maria, captured the same year, the sailors were shipped off to Algiers to spend years or their entire lifetimes in slavery under the Ottomans.
Kilmeade and Yaeger explain that North African coastal states sustained their fiefdoms by routinely sending off ships to cruise the east Atlantic and Mediterranean looking for prey. For centuries, ships had been attacked in international waters and had their crews and cargoes held for ransom, even those belonging to the great naval powers of the day, France and Great Britain. Rather than fight the pirates, these countries preferred to pay annual tributes to purchase safe passage for their vessels.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, then respective American ambassadors to Britain and France, were confounded by the Muslim practice of attacking a nation outside the context of war and absent an identifiable threat. To understand the problem and negotiate a reasonable solution, Adams visited the office of Tripoli’s envoy to Great Britain in London, who welcomed him with great hospitality. When the Tripolitan ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, returned the visit a few days later, Adams perceived him as “a benevolent and wise man” with whom the United States could conduct business.
Sharing his positive perceptions and plans to broker an arrangement with Abdrahaman for safe passage of U.S. merchant ships, Adams invited Jefferson to join him in negotiations. Much to their mutual surprise, Abdrahaman unreasonably demanded exorbitant sums of gold for himself and informed the statesmen that additional sums would be required to buy peace with Tunis, Morocco, and Algeria.
Both Adams and Jefferson registered astonishment at the excessive tribute amounts and inquired how the Barbary States could justify “[making] war upon nations who had done them no injury.” The Tripolitan ambassador declared that “all nations which [have] not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” Kilmeade and Yaeger describe the two founders as being “horrified by the [envoy’s] religious justification for greed and cruelty.” Exhibiting no remorse or regret, the Tripolitan further explained that “every mussulman who was slain in warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
Interestingly, Jefferson had read the Koran while in law school, been perplexed by its values, and dismissively relegated a spot for the Muslim holy book next to his collection of Greek mythology. Kilmeade and Yaeger point out the irony of Jefferson, author of “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” being confronted by the stark reality of Islamic doctrine.
Adams and Jefferson knew they couldn’t afford to relinquish trade in the Mediterranean and realized they were at an impasse. While Adams preferred to pay for peace in a negotiated settlement and viewed a potential war as too costly and unwinnable, Jefferson, a steadfast believer in the freedom of the seas, recognized the necessity of commissioning an American navy to obtain freedom of passage through battle. Furthermore, he didn’t trust the Barbary pirates to keep their word and thought a military solution would permanently end the threat.
As a young nation, America was in a difficult predicament. Trade in the Mediterranean was essential, but any exorbitant payments to pirates would have to be borrowed and piled on to the already burdensome war debt. The founders had to decide between the costs of building the capacity to patrol the waters and making ever increasing payments to guarantee safe passage.
In 1789, Jefferson returned to the United States to become the first secretary of state under George Washington. Even with the increased number of enslaved American ship crewmembers and the continuing threat to American trade in the Mediterranean, President Washington wanted neither a standing army nor navy and favored a policy of neutrality in foreign affairs. His administration made payments to ensure U.S. ships passage through the seas.
Kilmeade and Yaeger relate that, in the end, America’s course of action changed after Algeria in 1793 sent out a new flotilla of eight ships to roam the Atlantic near Gibraltar and specifically seek American ships. Following the capture of ten American ships, Washington’s political leaders decided to begin building a permanent, professional U.S. Navy despite deep divisions among political parties and regions of the country.
Meanwhile, under presidents Washington and Adams, tributes had continued to be paid to Muslim leaders of the Ottoman Empire. But that policy changed as well because of the humiliation suffered in 1800 by the USS George Washington, the first American warship to enter the Mediterranean. The ship arrived safely in Algiers but failed to carry a significant enough tribute to satisfy the bashaw of Algeria. Under threat of attack, the despotic ruler, along with his extensive entourage and cargo, commandeered the ship and its crew for a visit to the sultan of Constantinople.
After receiving a full report in October 1800 of what had occurred to the George Washington, then-president Jefferson responded with a flotilla of U.S. Marine Corps ships as a show of power to repel future attacks. The declaration of war and naval blockade that followed on Jefferson’s orders served as a watershed in the Barbary conflict.
In 1802, with outrage still fresh over the George Washington and Tripoli’s continued seizure of American ships, Jefferson signed into law “An Act for the protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan Corsairs.” This legislation authorized the president to end the failed era of appeasement and diplomacy and freed him to pursue a military response against the pirates.
In their book, Kilmeade and Yaeger detail a series of inconclusive battles that occurred afterward until, in 1805 in the Battle of Derna, U.S. Marines achieved a turning point under the leadership of self-declared “General” William Eaton, a former Army captain. Eaton captured Tripoli and raised the American flag in victory, an action memorialized in a line of the Marines Hymn, “to the shores of Tripoli.”
Although Eaton saw that a complete victory over Tripoli was imminent, Jefferson’s State Department appointee, Tobias Lear, preferred to exercise diplomatic authority. Lear prematurely signed an armistice agreement, an action later condemned as an “inglorious deed” and “the basest treachery on the basest principles.” With news of Eaton’s initial military success, Lear used the triumph to broker a peace rather than see the conflict through to a successful military end. Sadly, Eaton’s victory against the Barbary leaders – the complete humbling of the Tripolitan leader – was underestimated, a declaration of peace was signed, prisoners freed, a small tribute paid, and the near dethroned bashaw of Tripoli retained his kingdom.
Shocked to receive an order to retreat, Eaton had planned to continue the fight to Benghazi and Tripoli for a complete defeat of the enemy. Instead, he was forced to relinquish ground valiantly fought for by his men, a dangerous sign of weakness in a region that respected only strength.
In the end, Jefferson’s decision to fight for the freedom of navigation of the seas proved to be the right one. Eaton’s successful mission demonstrated that interference with American commerce and the captivity of American seamen required a strong response.
Ultimately, America received two important benefits from this incomplete victory: the free flow of American shipping in the region and the promise that future American captives would not be enslaved, but be treated as POWs.
The First Barbary War, marking the first time that the American flag was raised in victory on foreign soil, had ended with America standing up to the pirates, something the established European naval powers had not done. The young nation’s navy now had valuable experience and had proven that it could effectively fight for its interests. As a critical military legacy, it marked the emergence of the young nation as a force to be reckoned with in foreign seas. It was the first American victory outside the Western hemisphere and the first conflict in which the U.S. Navy worked in concert with U.S. land forces to demonstrate that American forces could fight as a cohesive unit in the execution of a war far from home to sustain national honor and respect.
With naval experience under its belt, the U.S. was now well prepared to return to the Maghreb during the War of 1812 and win handily. As a result of that British-instigated conflict which lasted a mere 48 hours, full shipping rights, minus financial fealty, were won for all American ships as well as restitution for damaged vessels and stolen goods.
It wasn’t until 1815 that the naval victories won by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments. After a decisive victory in Algiers, Decatur sailed to Tunis and Tripoli, where he reached similar agreements, gaining reparations and the releases of American and European slaves. Thus, Kilmeade and Yaeger conclude in their dramatic retelling of this mostly forgotten war that the Americans under James Madison finally put a stop to the centuries-old practice of Barbary kidnapping, theft, terror, and slavery. From this early international victory in the Barbary Wars, the U.S. embarked on its journey to become one of the world’s greatest military and economic superpowers.
WILD BILL’S ANTI-ISLAMIC-JIHAD SPEECH
Below is the video of a speech by William Finlay AKA Wild Bill for America at an anti-Islam rally in Canada. Although I know little about Wild Bill, I liked what he said here and believe these are exactly the things Americans need to hear about the threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties, and peaceful way of life.
In this speech, Wild Bill, who is a retired police officer, names a few of the many astonishing and unconscionable abuses found in Sharia Law and the Quran:
– Sharia Law regarding rape: For rape to be proven, the woman has to provide four male witnesses of “impeccable character”. Without those witnesses, the woman can be arrested and savagely punished including public lashing or “honor killing” for having sex outside of marriage.
– The Quran regarding rape: Rape jihad. Men may rape any non-Muslim women who they “capture”.
– The Quran regarding wife beating: Quran 4:34 commands Muslim men to beat their rebellious, disobedient wives.
– Sharia Law regarding slavery: Muslims have the right to seize non-Muslims from their homes, put them in chains, and sell them on the auction block to the highest bidder.
At 19:45 in the video, he reaches “the crux of the battle [with Islam]”.
“Which system of law will reign supreme in the USA? As of today the U.S. Constitution is the [Supreme] Law of the Land. But all Muslims are required under Islam to do what they can to make Sharia law the supreme law of the land wherever they are living.
“No matter how long it take, there will be a steady, serious push to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law. Most will work through political means. Some will do it through acts of violence.”
WILD BILL’S ARREST IN CANADA
Wild Bill was later arrested at the airport by Canadian police for “hate speech” ostensibly for the notes he had in his iPad in connection with this speech. His very interesting and relevant comments about his arrest are in the video below.
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN
What are the take-aways from all of this? Many, but two things stand out in bold relief:
1. Sharia Law, as required by Islam is an abusive dictatorial code that is not only unconscionable, but absolutely unconstitutional. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land in America, forms a republic and mandates that every state of the Union have “a Republican form of Government” (U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4). As such, formal Islam, which is primarily a political system upon which the religious Quran rides, is illegal anywhere in the U.S. because it requires dictatorial and abusive Sharia law which is unconstitutional.
2. “Hate speech” laws are just more Leftist fascist tyranny and incursions into our constitutionally-protected God-given right to freedom of speech. “Hate speech” laws should be made null and void at the state level and federal level because these laws are unconstitutional and, therefore, acts of tyranny.
We should move heaven and earth to get state and congressional legislation passed that outlaws Sharia Law anywhere in the U.S. Dictatorial and abusive Sharia law contends with the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land so it is illegal and invalid at the national level. Also, Sharia law is not a republican form of government and is, therefore, unconstitutional in any state of the Union (U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 4). Outlawing Sharia Law in the U.S. should be a top priority in Congress.
“Hate speech” laws should also be repealed as unconstitutional.
We are in a war whether we like it or not. At its root, it is a spiritual war against the forces of darkness and the spirit of antichrist against whom we are to resist and over which we already have the victory (Eph 1:20-21, 2:6, 6:12). This spiritual war also clearly takes on political and cultural dimensions wherein we also must resist those who have aligned with darkness – what I call the Lying Left. Our task as Christians is twofold: 1) love the sinner and win him by the gospel of grace of Jesus Christ, and 2) hate the sin and tyranny, and fight the good fight of faith and freedom to the point of bayonet and blood if necessary against those who seek to impose tyranny.
Our fight for souls is offensive while our fight for freedom is mainly defensive but absolutely resolute, and can temporarily become offense as we run the Lying Left and the Islamic jihadists back into their caves.
May God help as to have a clear vision of our goal to restore our Free Constitutional Republic, trusting in the Providence and Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ who has already given us the victory from which we fight spiritually for souls, and politically and legally for freedom. Amen.
The Golden State Warriors (GSW) were by far the leader in assists and team play in the 2016-2017 season with 30.1 average assists per game, way ahead of second place Boston who had 25.5.
In the critical Game 3 of the 2017 Finals between GSW and the Cleveland Cavaliers (Cavs), GSW who won in the closing minutes, had 29 assists versus the Cavs 17. Interestingly, GSW had more assists than the Cavs in each quarter except in the third, the only quarter that ended with the Cavs ahead.
I also think I see a pattern with GSW, at least in the playoffs, which is a tendency when things get hot and heavy, to move away, like many teams do I imagine, from team play and assists to one-man-show heroics, often in desperate 3-point attempts. In Game 3, GSW stormed out of the gate in the first quarter with 13 assists versus the Cavs 4 assists and GSW lead at the end of the quarter 39-32. But from there GSW’s assists went down to 8 in the second quarter and 4 in each of the last two quarters.
GSW’s leaders in assists in Game 3, Green, Curry, and Iguodala, went from multiple assists in the first half to one assist each in the second half and GSW almost lost. I think moving away from team play and assists is why GSW lost to the Cavs in 2016.
Rebounding is another key to GSW’s success, rebounding 44 times versus the Cavs 37 in Game 3. GSW rebounding stayed steady throughout the game. Though important, turnovers don’t seem to be as critical as assists to GSW. In Game 3 GSW turned the ball over more than the Cavs.
If GSW “dances with what brung ’em” and keeps up the team play and assists throughout Game 4, they should win. The key is not panicking and going into one-man-show heroics. They need to play all loosey goosey and play their game – the most fun team to watch in the NBA because it is full of passing and team play.
Ref: Article by Nicolas Loris and Katie Tubb from the Daily Signal
4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement
Comments by Jim Newell:
Four Reasons I Think Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement:
- U.S. agreement to the Paris Accord is illegal because it is unconstitutional and, therefore, it is an unenforceable agreement in the U.S. It is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not authorize the feds to regulate commerce because of “climate change” or global warming”.
- The Paris Accord is immoral because it violates God-given individual freedom and God-sanctioned national sovereignty in the interests of those who want to obtain power and benefit over individuals and nations.
- Besides being illegal in the U.S. and immoral, the Paris Accord and its BASIS is greatly flawed because “global warming” and “climate change” due to man’s activities is contrary to the weight of evidence but rather is being used as an excuse to further the Leftist agenda of weakening national sovereignty in order to promote global totalitarian government.
- Besides being illegal in the U.S. and immoral, the Paris Accord and its EFFECT is greatly flawed as it economically weakens the nation as pointed out by Trump and the referenced Daily Signal article.
God bless President Donald Trump who is helping to begin the process of restoring America’s Free Constitutional Republic.
Ref: By TMZ 5/31/17 Barron Trump Thought Kathy Griffin’s Beheaded Trump Image Was His Dad
Comment by Jim Newell:
This action by Kathy Griffin could be grounds for a lawsuit for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress to a Third-Party Relative (Barron) which requires
1) intent or reckless disregard of risk of severe emotional distress (SED)
2) extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds all tolerated bounds of civil society that was directed at the victim
3) action caused third-party relative (Barron) severe emotional distress
*check* (if Barron actually thought that was his dad)
Kathy Griffin better lawyer up and I hope the Trump family goes after her HARD. Make an example of her and by doing so, back off these decrepit Leftists.
Note: I am normally not litigious. I graduated from law school but one of the reasons I didn’t pursue being a lawyer was I hated the idea of seeking litigation. Way too many lawsuits and way too many lawyers. However, this would be legit IMO.
Also, it appears she didn’t violated any criminal law that I know of. She showed a disgusting picture of Trump. No comment or threats. One might say the threat was implied. But an actionable threat against a public figure must be more than just a staged media event which this was. Nothing criminally actionable that I can see but Trump’s son represents an actionable issue IMO and I think he should pursue it.
House Republicans put a political poison pill in the health care bill they passed last week. Moreover, the House GOP leadership is adamant on a tax boost that will slam working families. Unless corrected by Senate Republicans, these two blunders will let Democrats win back the House next year.