No! The Supreme Court is NOT the Final Arbiter of what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional – Freedom Outpost

By Matthew Trewhella

A false belief that almost all Americans hold to in our day is the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or unconstitutional. The adherents of this belief – and there is a sea of lawyers in this country who have a vested interest in furthering this odious fiction – actually have the hubris to point to the Constitution itself and say that the Constitution declares the judiciary to be the final arbiter.

They proffer Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the ‘supremacy clause’ – for their notion of judicial supremacy. But when you read Article 6, paragraph 2, you realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned, nor are federal courts of any kind mentioned. Article 6, paragraph 2 – known as the supremacy clause actually gives supremacy to the Constitution!

Wholly opposite of this view of ‘judicial supremacy’ was the view held by America’s founders. They viewed the judiciary as being the weakest branch of the government.

In a letter penned in 1823, Thomas Jefferson stated: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous.”

Alexander Hamilton who was the most favorable to the judiciary – wanting to allay the fears that other of the founders had of the judiciary – stated: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in the capacity to annoy or injure them.”

James Madison – known as the architect of the Constitution – stated: The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” He said, In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”  The legislature does not bow down to the judiciary – rather it predominates.

The judiciary is not the strongest – it does not write laws – it is not the final arbiter. Rather, as the founders stated – they are supposed to be the most helpless, the most harmless, the weakest, and the least dangerous to the Constitution. All that has been turned on its head. Now all other branches bow down to the judiciary – as though they can do no other than obey. America has replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy.

We now have social transformation without representation.

Jefferson warned of this 200 years ago. He wrote in a letter in 1820 to an early judicial supremacist:“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He went on to write: “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

And that is what the Supreme Court is in our day – despots.

And they are not the final arbiters – as Jefferson states, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

Jefferson stated in another letter in 1821 – a year later: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

And the judiciary has been doing exactly that for 200 years now. Rewriting the Constitution – giving themselves powers never granted them in the Constitution. Usurping all other government jurisdictions.

Men will forbear and so we should – but there comes a point where forbearance becomes sin. There comes a point where forbearance becomes cowardice. There comes a point when men realize they no longer have the convenience of acting indifferent towards the unjust and immoral actions of their government. And I submit to you that the lawlessness of the judiciary should not be forborne.

I submit to you that the murder of the preborn should not be forborne. The perverting of marriage, the rewriting of the First Amendment, and a host of other evils by the federal judiciary should not be forborne.

Senator Oliver Ellsworth, the primary drafter of Article 3 of the Constitution which delineates the function of the judiciary, promised the people of his state before the Constitution was ratified that the judiciary was “not to intermeddle with your internal policy.”

Now every governor in America bows down and bends over to the judiciary. They accommodate murder – they accommodate perversion of marriage – they’ll accommodate boys in the girl’s shower rooms too.

Alexander Hamilton – the founding father with the biggest love affair with the judiciary while trying to calm concerns of other founders stated that the judiciary “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

In other words, Hamilton expected the executive branch to check the judiciary if they made immoral/unjust or constitutionally-repugnant rulings. But now, the judiciary not only has the compliance of the President (not to mention Congress), but they also have the compliance of every governor in America. None interpose.

Their duty is not to accommodate or bow down – but to interpose.

The judiciary is the tyrant. They are lawless. We are under the despotism of an oligarchy. And this lawless authoritarianism of the federal courts must be broken – it will only be broken by the interposition of the lesser magistrates.

No where does the Constitution bind us to a suicide pact with SCOTUS.

As legal historian Alpheus Thomas Mason wrote not too long ago: “Implicit in the system of government the Framers designed is the basic premise that unchecked power in any hands whatsoever is intolerable.” The Supreme Court must be checked – and it must be checked by the state magistrates. Congress is not going to do it – Congress is a weakling. The state magistrates need to do their God-given duty and check the lawlessness of the judiciary.

How the Dred Scott Decision Proves that the Supreme Court CANNOT be the Last Word in American Law ⋆ The Constitution

Sometimes out of tragedies come amazing victories. Legal scholars consider the Dred Scott decision one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court rulings in history. However, it was the last nail in the coffin that pushed the country into a war that finally abolished slavery.

In 1820, Congress settled much of the contention about slavery, forbidding it in the North with the Missouri Compromise. Though Northern abolitionists still wanted to rid the country of the institution altogether, they as least approved confining to the South.

Then in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act negated the Missouri Compromise. Frustrated, abolitionists formed a political party specifically focused on eradicating slavery.

Dred Scott’s fight for freedom reached the Supreme Court as racial tensions were beginning to boil.  Several slaves already succeeded in winning their freedom.  Yet that occurred at state levels. This would be national.

Dr. John Emerson purchased Scott from the Blow family in the early 1830’s in the slave state of Missouri. An Army surgeon, Emerson received transfers to free territories and states where Scott accompanied him. Scott married Harriet Robinson in 1838, which resulted in her ownership transferring to Emerson.

The couple returned to Missouri with Emerson and his wife, Irene, where Emerson died in 1843.  Scott believed he earned his freedom due to his years in free territory where slavery was outlawed.  Scott attempted to purchase his family’s freedom from Irene Emerson.  When she refused, he decided to sue.

Scott won his freedom in his first lawsuit. Emerson then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and prevailed. By this time, however, Emerson had moved to Massachusetts. She transferred ownership to her brother, John Sanford, from New York, thus forcing Scott to turn to Federal Courts. After loosing that decision in 1854, Scott took his fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Republican Platform during the 1856 election included just 9 principles. Of those, six related to equality and civil rights for blacks as outlined in the Declaration.

However, the Democrat Platform, led by James Buchanan, read:

“All efforts of the abolitionists…are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and…all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” 

As Buchanan transitioned into the White House in early 1857, the Supreme Court heard the Dred Scott vs. Sanford arguments. Holding true to the Democrat principles, Buchanan sent letters to Northern judiciaries, urging them to vote against Scott. Five of the nine judges were Southerners. With one Northerner already pro-slavery, Buchanan encouraged a decision across sectional lines for the “happiness of the people”.

Buchanan suggested to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that done properly, this ruling would end the slavery argument permanently. Both men served under Andrew Jackson, “Father of the Democrat Party”, who also appointed Taney to the court. He understood Buchanan’s advice and obliged.

Buchanan addressed the upcoming ruling at his inauguration, boldly announcing, “To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be.” Of course he would as a justice already informed him of the outcome.

The court issued its ruling two days later on March 6, 1857. Scott lost in a 7-2 decision. The two dissenters were Northern Republicans while the rest were all Democrats from both sides.  Buchanan wanted to avoid a Northern vs Southern ruling.  What he got was a Republican vs Democrat one.

In his 55-page opinion, Taney ruled Scott had no right to sue as he was not a citizen. Referring back to the Missouri ruling, his opinion could have stopped there.  But it didn’t.

First, Taney claimed Congress had no authority to prohibit territories from allowing slavery, rendering the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Taney then argued the Founders agreed Africans were not citizens and never meant for the Declaration or Constitution to apply to them. However, in 1776, blacks were voting citizens in several states.

Justice Benjamin R. Curtis in his dissent wrote:

At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, All free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.”

Taney’s argument was sloppy at best. An outright propaganda lie at worst.

Taney also invoked the Fifth Amendment, claiming slaves, as property, could not be taken from their owner when entering a free state without due process.  Yet the Founders carefully chose their wording in the Declaration to avoid such a defense. Originally phrased, “Life, Liberty and Property,” Founders purposely re-worded it to “Pursuit of Happiness,” fearing slaveholders would apply the property argument to slaves.  Unfortunately, Taney made the false claim anyway.

Taney not only ruled slaves were non-citizens then, he declared they never could be, regardless whether they were free or slaves. It rejected citizenship rights of blacks forever.

Democrat progressives try to spin Taney’s decision, claiming he wanted to remove slavery from the Federal Government and put it to the states. However, by declaring blacks, free or otherwise, could never be citizens, he actually cemented their fate forever in slavery. By citing the Fifth Amendment, he rendered free states impotent in preventing slavery from entering their boarders.

Southern Democrat slaveholders cheered the ruling, declaring it the law of the land. On the other hand, Northern Republicans rebelled, more determined than ever to defeat slavery and give blacks equal rights.

Over the next several years, Republicans fought back, including Abraham Lincoln. The Scott ruling inspired his “House Divided” speech, warning another decision may come soon declaring it unconstitutional for a state to forbid slavery entering its boarders.

“What Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state.”

Furthermore, he argued if the Supreme Court determined Congress unauthorized to limit slavery, it was only a matter of time until they concluded the same with states.

“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.”

By 1860, Republicans gained the presidency on their anti-slavery platform. With the secession of seven Southern states by Lincoln’s inauguration, war was inevitable. In sweet irony, Taney performed Lincoln’s swearing-in.

Following the verdict, the Blow family repurchased the Scotts and freed them on May 26, 1857.  Dred Scott died 18 months later, but as a free man.

After the Civil War, Republicans rectified the dreadful Dred Scott decision, making all natural born blacks citizens, by passing the 14th Amendment without one single Democrat vote.

Many scholars still revere Taney as an outstanding judiciary regardless of this ruling. However, his legacy is forever tarnished by the Dred Scott Decision.

One hundred and sixty years ago, Democrats used the courts to push their agenda onto the citizens regardless of their objections.  Eventually, the people rose up and took the country back.   And so goes the election of 2016.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

The Strata-Sphere » Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

Source: The Strata-Sphere » Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

 

There is a lot of breaking news this weekend as the nation learns that a sitting President (Obama) looks to have used the nation’s national security apparatus – which is empowered to protect this nation from foreign enemies and threats – for crass political gain (read “personal gain”).  If this is even partially true, this would be Watergate on steroids and irreparably tarnish the Obama administration for all history.

These high stakes may also explain the irrational fear and hate by the democrat leadership we have seen in their scorched-Earth actions since the election.  Events may be unraveling on them big time, events that started last summer in a very different world.

Let’s begin by setting down a hard and fast rule to blunt the coming weasel words from team Obama. The President runs his administration. The President’s cabinet has some individual authority, but they confirm with the Commander-in-Chief anything that could erupt back on them either legally or politically. No cabinet member – especially the Attorney General – would run near or across legal or ethical lines without concurrence (i.e., cover from) the top person.

To say Obama did not “order” the “wire tap” against the Trump campaign is as ridiculous as it sounds. Note: Trump used figurative parentheses when he tweeted “wire tap”, so read that as meaning “surveillance” legally.

It is not like the Captain of a ship actually “weigh’s the anchor” themselves! Captains order it be done. Or more accurately, it is one step of a process that has been established by the command chain so that when the Captain orders the ship to prepare to “get under way” this action is taken. However executed, the Captain is legally responsible for the people under him, and any mistakes they make. This would include any issues or damage done “weighing” the anchors.

So when someone tries to split hairs about who ordered the surveillance on Team Trump, remember this:

First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court.

The fact is no one would be dumb enough to run afoul of the laws protecting the American People from our intelligence apparatus without top cover – because these represent very, very serious crimes. So let’s stop pretending AG Lynch did this on her own. If this happened, it was all coordinated.

We also need to start with specifying which laws were broken, and then get to the all critical timeline – because that is where we will discover how thin the ice is under Team Obama.

The best overview of the laws broken is here, and the following excerpts summarize the issues our nation faces. To understand the issues one must understand the very narrow and special role the FISA Court and our Intelligence Apparatus plays in our nation. Because of its special powers, it is very restricted on what it can do.

Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

Emphasis mine. As we deal with this explosive situation, remember the core issue. It is not run-of-the-mill political skulduggery (is there any other kind?). It is the criminal misuse of a critical national defensive capability. Liken it to using a military weapon against your political opponent, because that is the nearest and best analogy. If Obama ordered the military to intervene with Team Trump during the election, that would not be much different from using the intelligence powers to intervene. This is not on the same level as using the IRS to target political opponents – not by a long shot.

Why is this the case? Because the FISA court operates outside the US Constitution, and therefore any misuse is much more serious:

FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

Again, emphasis mine.  The capability to use our intelligence resources against any entity is restricted to critical national security. These resources are NOT to be applied for other legal matters, such as questionable business interests, hacking computers, etc. This is important because the evidence seems to show Team Obama tried to abuse these resources – and were rebuffed!

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” … The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

This is the crux of Obama’s legal trouble. In order to legally capture information about members of the Trump Campaign (one of which was a sitting Senator), then retain it and distribute it, the reason would have to border on high crimes and treason – not “discussions” or “hacking” or “business transactions”. Even coordinating national policies and treaties with foreign leaders would not rise to the level of urgency required to invoke these intelligence resources.

To summarize, it is Team Obama’s collection, retention and distribution of  information protected by the US Constitution that constitute the high crimes here, specifically when it pertains to members of Trump’s campaign, emphasized here:

This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime.

Since the Fake News media has been reporting these very same details to the public, and citing current and former Obama administration sources, it is not debatable on whether laws were broken. They were.

Bottom line: this should never have happened:

At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.

So how did this happen? How did our extensive intelligence apparatus come to be misused against members of the Trump campaign?

Well, the simplest answer seems to be Team Obama misled the courts:

This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.

President Trump now owns the records of the United States of America. One thing he and his Attorney General (former Senator Sessions) can get their hands on are these affidavits to the FISA Court. If they are as damning as some believe they must be, then Team Obama is going to be in serious trouble.

Remember, back when this all started no one believed Trump would win and be given the keys to all the evidence lockers. Which is why one has to ask why did Team Obama double down in January and push the laws even further?

Team Obama has a responsibility to the FISA Court to not disclose any information on US Citizens accidentally caught up in a surveillance activity, but this is what they began doing in January 2017.  This may be the second smoking gun – diligently reported by the Fake News media.

That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press.This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.

Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law.

There is much more in the article, so please take the time to read the whole thing.

This is about as open-and-shut as you can get in my humble opinion. All this has been faithfully reported (i.e., corroborated) by the Fake News media – citing sources. Along with the internal trail of documents the government is required to keep, it would seem Team Obama has a real problem on their hands.

So let’s visit the timeline of events (best one can be found here), and recall that when all this started Hillary was a shoe-in as the next POTUS. Therefore she would be able to keep a lid on all the critical internal government documents Team Trump now has unfettered access to.

  1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

Note that the article above identifies a prior attempt to gain surveillance through the normal criminal courts process, before this event. This is one month prior to the RNC and DNC conventions. At this time Trump as POTUS seems to be pure fantasy.

This prior attempt is confirmed (supposedly independently) by Andrew McCarthy:

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

….

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.  …  In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request.

Both the normal courts and the FISA court reject the administrations requests. These requests should be made public ASAP.

Very few people expected Hillary to lose the election at this stage. Bernie was clearly on his way to being vanquished from the Democrat ticket. The effort in June 2016 is clumsy and quickly abandoned. Hillary has her email problems, but she also looks invincible.

I would note one other event on this timeline, when former President Bill Clinton tried to secretly meet with Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she regrets her controversial meeting over the summer with former President Bill Clinton, saying she should have recognized ahead of time how it would be perceived by the public.

Mrs. Lynch had met with Mr. Clinton privately after the two wound up on the same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, just days before FBI Director James Comey would announce that he would not press charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

AG Lynch is the only person authorized to make FISA court requests. Coincidence?

Anyway, nothing happens for months, until …

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

By October 2016 things are looking really serious for Hillary, but not desperate yet. The Democrats are trying to find a way to neutralize the Podesta emails, which expose serious collusion with the Fake New media. They also remind everyone of Hillary’s own email issues.

But more importantly, the Clinton Foundation was being exposed as a pay-for-power enrichment scheme (rivaling anything thrown at Team Trump in the last few weeks). Did all these events panic the White House and the Democrat power structure? Did they attempt a Hail Mary and try and resurrect their plan to use our nation’s Intelligence Apparatus against Trump?

Not an unreasonable assumption to be honest. And somehow Team Obama actually get the authority for surveillance (maybe by withholding key information about Trump?). Anyway, no one is challenging the fact surveillance began.

But after losing the election to the GOP, team Obama does something stupendously stupid: they issue a memo that attempts to overturn very clear laws about dissemination so they can try and “leak” damning innuendo about Trump through their surrogates in the Fake New media:

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

The new rules, which were issued in an unclassified document, entitled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA), significantly relaxed longstanding limits on what the NSA may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.

  • Jan 3rd 2017 – Loretta Lynch signs off on rule changes for phone taps.
  • Jan 12th 2017 –  WaPo reports On Phone Calls Anonymous Intel Sources

Obama’s administration had become so addicted to circumventing laws by executive orders, procedures, rules, etc they apparently went to that well one time too many.

There is no legal cover behind an illegal rule. This is not going to protect these people from legal jeopardy (may reduce their sentences somewhat). And the more players involved (Lynch, her successor Yates, etc) the more this runs into the RICO statutes.

Team Trump looks to have a great case here. Plus they have access to the government “smoking gun” documents spread throughout. I do not understand why Obama’s administration would dig their legal hole deeper in disseminating the classified information the law required them to delete and not leak. But they did.

So what does that indicate about team Obama? Either colossal stupidity, uncontrolled panic, or a combination of both. Maybe by they time they realized Trump would find the FISA court records their only avenues was to try and turn public opinion using their robots in the Fake News media.

All Trump has to do is let out the smoking gun documents one at a time. Let the left deny and parse words, then drop his counterveiling bombshells.

Rinse and repeat.

If this is as bad as some say, Trump will milk this all the way – as he should.

 

 

 

 

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong, Again!

By Adrian Vance

The Weather Channel, founded by John Campbell, but now under new owners, attacked a Breitbart News piece on climate change “…of cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change.” They were responding to a Breitbart article declaring global land temperatures made their “steepest fall on record last year” and were met with “…an eerie silence by scientists.”

This is not surprising to anyone who follows “man-caused global warming.” It has been the greatest cash-cow, full employment program for Ph.D.s in Physics, Chemistry, Political Science, International Relations and lastly Meteorology, the only field that should be affected as the data is clear, but academic leeches are stuck hard and fast on the carcass of “anthropogenic global warming” and they will not relent until they have bled it white.

Every physical scientist knows it is a false issue only justified by, “…more money for science…” and they are not kidding. It has netted  $1 trillion and that does not include many millions for new textbooks in areas that will have to be replaced when the fraud is exposed.  The publishers know:  They all have physical scientist consultants who have told them the truth if they wanted to hear it.  According to Breitbart, “The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare” and we second that with a demo-experiment you can do in your home for less than $10 and we could teach this at a high school. You can do it at home. See: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

endthelieIn response to Breitbart, The Weather Channel said climate change was real and Breitbart was lying which is interesting as they fired Dr. Heidi Cullen when she was caught in a “global warmng” lie saying, “Methane is a greenhouse gas 500 times more potent than CO2,” when it does not absorb IR much more than nitrogen which is classified as “transparent” to infrared radiation, IR, heat energy and there are actually no “greenhouse gases.”

”Science doesn’t care about your opinion,” Weather Channel Meteorologist Kait Parker said of Breitbart” adding,  “It will not change the future nor the fact that the Earth is warming.”  The Weather Channel then launched a scathing attack on Breitbart, accusing them of  “…cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change,” when this is clearly what NASA, NOAA and now the Weather Channel have been caught doing.

The Brietbart piece was entitled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists.”  It noted global land temperatures had dropped one Celsius degree in the last year but the news “…had been ignored by the alarmist community.”

This is a monumental change given the size and mass of gases in the atmosphere as it represents a huge change in the energy we receive from the sun.  It should not be surprising as the sun has been quiet for the last decade showing few sunspots.  They are like bubbles in boiling water showing more energy is entering the pot that normal evaporation can abibe so bubbles form explosively.  Black sunspots are solar bubbles.

Evidence of solar cooling includes earlier fall migrations of ducks and geese from Canada.  In northern California where ten years ago they were not seen until late October and early November some are flying over in late August with the greatest number now coming south in September.

While the Weather Channel does not typically offer opinion beyond weather and climate science, “…in this case we felt it important to add our two cents,” wrote they in a post on its’ website Tuesday.

Meteorologist Kait Parker denied the Breitbart, and other climate change skeptics, claims global temperatures are decreasing, and proceeded to pick apart the article piece by piece.

Addressing the claim global land temperatures had their “biggest and steepest fall on record,” the meteorologist pointed out, “this trend was based on just one satellite estimate,” when the Earth is 71% covered water is misleading.

The weather experts also disputed Breitbart’s claim that any recent warming was simply the result of El Niño which is now thought to be driven by very deep water volcanoes in the Indian Ocean, the deepest of all Earth’s seas.

El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015,’ Parker said. “However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest.”  This statement is in error as the warmest year on record was 1934.

The Weather Channel said thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that “greenhouse gases” produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and “will keep doing so,” when there are no “greenhouse gases” as they would have to form a solid, transparent, glass-like shield to make Earth a “greenhouse” and no gas can form a solid, transparent or opaque.icyalgore

Climate change “experts” for the channel, Bob Henson and Jeff Masters, warn that “artificial debates” over climate change were “a distraction from the important discussions which should be taking place.”  What could be more important then whether or not the issue is false?  Nonetheless they contend:

“Scientific debate in this area is real and perfectly legitimate. Likewise, how we respond to climate change is a matter of public policy, one that demands healthy debate and engagement from citizens and political leaders.”  “Engagement from?”  Is this an error in grammar or an outing of intention?

“It’s something else entirely to foster suspicion about the very bedrock of climate change science, which is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies and accepted by every major scientific organization on Earth.”  Those “peer reviewed” journals are all garage and basement printed, low circulation pamphlets with “peers” who are associates often on the same faculties as the authors who take turns being “peer reviewers.”

“Human-produced greenhouse gases are causing the Earth system to warm, and this trend will continue, along with shorter-term ups and downs. There are too many important debates and decisions ahead of us to waste time on artificial ones.”  Again the error expands as the primary “greenhouse gas,” CO2 actually causes a decline in atmospheric temperature as you can see in the demo-experiment at: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

The Weather Channel ended its piece, by offering to help Breitbart next time they needed to fact check an article noting, “I’m sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong. A third of the world’s polar bears ‘will disappear in the next 40 years because of melting sea ice.”

We note that a recent Polar Bear census has noted there are more then ever, but this may be due to better counting than we have had in the past noting natural history, mistakenly called “science,” is open to question and notorious for rubber “facts.”

Source: The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

global_warming_hoax

Pew Research: Americans Don’t Believe There’s A ‘97% Consensus of Climate Scientists

The study which concluded there’s 97% consensus of climate scientists believing the man-made global warming hypothesis is simply bogus. It’s laden with faulty research.Thankfully the American Public isn’t buying the 97% nonsense, according to a Pew study released earlier this week .

Any objective examination of the methodology of the study will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. But sadly the present federal government, as well as liberals all across this nation believe the study and do not allow any discussion despite the fact that global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.

Just 27% of Americans say that almost all climate scientists agree human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change. This perception is at odds with a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which accessed more than 9,000 scientific publications and concluded: ‘The science now shows with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Apparently Americans aren’t as stupid as climate scare-mongers, progressives, and Democratic Party politicians think we are.

The study reporting the 97% consensus, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”  by John Cook and friends, published in 2013 by the University of Queensland was .

According to Watts Up With That, when the source data for the study was published online, the University of Queensland got so worried the study would be exposed they threatened a lawsuit over any use of Cook’s “97% consensus” data for a scientific rebuttal. That threat is antithetical to the scientific method, which says that, for a study to be valid, it must be possible to repeat it and achieve the same results as the initial study. But, the University of Queensland was hiding that Cook’s study was a qualitative study which relied on opinion and produced biased results.

Cook and his buddies looked at peer-reviewed studies and subjectively classified them as either agreeing or disagreeing with the climate change hypothesis. Based on the methodology the 97% figure was really 97% of the hand-picked studies they reviewed and they decided supported the hypothesis.

When investigative journalists at Popular Technology  looked into the 97% study, they found it falsely classified some of the scientists’ papers as supporting the global warming hypothesis. Instead of arriving at their own opinions the Popular Technology report relied on the opinions of scientists conducted the research and wrote the papers.

Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, aggressive climate change skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the “consensus” position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded:

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American reported that, out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is not only less than 97% but it is less than 0.97%.

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn’t actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW. So now its 97 percent of one-third of selected scientists in a sampling of research papers. That’s a far cry from the 97 percent of all scientists claimed by President Obama and many of the media stories. And, as we will show below, even this admitted dramatically lower consensus claimed by the study is fraught with problems and falls apart further under examination.

Another criticism of the Cook’s paper is it didn’t define the “consensus” they were looking for. Is the 97% for people who believe the global warming is real, or people who believe it’s real and caused by mankind?

There are scientists, for example, who believe the Earth just went through a warming period caused by high sunspot activity. Many of those scientists blaming sunspots either work or consult for the U.S. or British Governments. Those scientists believe that we have entered a period of low sunspot activity and that might cause a mini-ice age.

Princeton physicist William Happer in explained in Climate Depot, “if global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago.” Climate scientists are, of course, obsessed with man’s carbon dioxide emissions. But Happer says this is essentially nonsense. “All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player” in previous eras of warming, he said last week in a Climate Depot podcast. “We’ve had ice ages with 10 times more CO2 than we have today. That’s not supposed to happen, according to current computer models, but it did happen.”

The bottom line is that any objective examination of the methodology used by Cook and the University of Queensland will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. And despite the fact that politicians and liberals are trying to shove the consensus down our throats, according to Pew Research, Americans aren’t buying it either.

An Open Letter to Liberal Hollywood Celebrities! ⋆ The Constitution

By Jerry Johnson   http://constitution.com  

An open letter to Hollywood celebrities was floating around social media just after the Presidential election.  I have no idea who the author is, but I liked the points they were making.

During this last election cycle, Hillary called out her liberal Hollywood elite friends en masse to help her campaign.  She had to because that woman is so boring!

What I can’t wrap my head around is why Hollywood celebrities are stupid enough to comment on politics?

I know people who won’t see a Matt Damion movie because Matthew continues to insult them with his leftist dribble.

Think of all the celebrities who called Trump and his supporters racist, sexist, and xenophobes!  I’m sure they will remember those moments fondly.  Think of that the next time your movie bombs or no one buys one of your songs. Doesn’t anyone remember the Dixie Chicks?

This letter was written with people in mind like Elizabeth Banks, Jon Bon Jovi, Meryl Streep, Demi Lovato, Sarah Silverman, America Ferrera, Amy Schumer, George Clooney, Robert De Niro, and Katy Perry (I didn’t include Rosie O’Donnell cause not even the left cares what she thinks.)

It is my hope that the folks mentioned above will get it.  But I doubt they will.

I’ve taken the letter and reworked it to my style. So here we go.

Dear Hollywood celebrities,

It’s time to wake up now.  Get this!  The only reason you exist is for my entertainment.  Some of you are beautiful. Some of you can deliver a line with such conviction that you bring tears to my eyes. Some of you are so convincing that you scare the crap out of me. And others are so funny you can make me laugh uncontrollably.

But you all have one thing in common.  You only exist and have a place in my world to entertain me. That’s it. Nothing else!

You make your living pretending to be someone else. You play dress-up like a 5-year-old.

Your world is a make believe world.  It is not real.  It doesn’t exist.  You live for the camera while the rest of us live in the real world.

Your entire existence depends on my patronage.  I crank the organ grinder, and you dance.

Therefore, I don’t care where you stand on issues. Honestly, your opinion means nothing to me.  Just because you had a lead role in a movie about prostitution doesn’t mean you know what it’s like to be a prostitute.  Your view matters far less to me than that of a someone living in Timbuktu.

Believe me or not, the hard truth is that you aren’t real. I turn off my TV or shut down my computer, and you cease to exist. Once I am done with you, I go back to the real world until I want you to entertain me again.

I don’t care that you think BP executives deserve the death penalty. I don’t care what you think about the environment.  I don’t care if you believe fracking is bad.  I don’t care if you call for more gun control.  I don’t care if you believe in catastrophic human-induced global warming. And I could care less that you supported Hillary for President.

Get back into your bubble. I’ll let you know when I’m in the mood for something pretty or scary or funny.

And one other thing.  What was with all this “I’ll leave the country if Donald Trump wins”?  Don’t you know how stupid that made you sound?

What did you think my reaction was going to be?  I better not vote for Trump or we’ll lose Whoopi Goldberg?  Al Sharpton?  Amy Schumer?  Leave.  I don’t care! And don’t let the door hit you in the a** on your way out.

Make me laugh.  Make me cry. Even scare me. But realize this, the only words of yours that matter is scripted — just like your pathetic little lives.

I may agree with some of you from time to time, but in the final analysis, it doesn’t matter. In my world, you exist solely for my entertainment.

So, shut your pie hole and dance, monkey, DANCE!

Killing the Truth in Academia

General Robert E Lee
rlee@suthenboy.com
 
Preamble: The purpose of this blog is to discuss the principal curricula being taught in academia today as well as its impact on students and consequences to America. 
I was appalled by the disgusting reaction to Trump’s victory throughout academia, particularly by college students and instructors. Their behavior was reprehensible, embarrassing to America, and sadly, expected in today’s once hallowed bastions of higher learning. Something is drastically wrong in academia when instructors and students require coloring books, animals to hug, safe spaces to mourn, crying rooms, psychological help, relief from exams, and time off to assuage their despair, despondency, and anger. Far worse however, is their blatant rejection and defiance of America’s traditional election process because it did not provide the result they sought.
 
In my opinion the root cause of this abhorrent behavior is the culture of academia into which students are being indoctrinated by far left wing instructors propagating Marxism subtly disguised as progressivism. Sound ridiculous, please read on before commenting on my sanity. I also encourage you to read my 8/26/15 blog ‘Academic Shock’ to more fully appreciate the breadth and dangers of what is being instilled in students throughout academia today.
The following statements exemplify modern day fundamental building blocks of education: 
  • There are no facts, only interpretations – Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs and socially constructed – Marxism’s Worldview
Academia’s Standard Curricula: The curricula throughout politically correct academia today includes radical left wing self-proclaimed elite professors/instructors teaching students to reject objective truths and replace them with relative truths: i.e., perspectives or points of view to which each person is entitled regardless of how inconsistent with the truth they are. Notwithstanding how outrageous a relative truth may be, e.g., the Holocaust is a myth, at best it is taught to be a more unfortunate perspective on the matter instead of being repudiated as a lie. This self-serving cavalier attitude within the arrogant professorial domain adversely affects students in ways that include the following:
  • Disregards and renders truth meaningless
  • Erodes the legitimacy of serious opinion
  • Deprives students of a much needed solid education founded on traditionally accepted disciplines of study  
Another result of rejecting objective truths is that facts are considered as matters of opinion relative to and dependent upon the interests, prejudices, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin of the speaker rather than the truth or falsity of what the speaker says. The premise being that truth is somehow invented rather than discovered, and ergo, relative to the speaker.
 
Harvard historian Simon Schama perfectly exemplifies this arrogant attitude toward truth in the prologue to his fatuous book “Dead Certainties” (1991). Schama assures his readers “the claims for historical knowledge must always be fatally circumscribed by the character and prejudices of its narrator.” In other words, the historian’s supposed limitations make stating historical truth impossible, which is utter nonsense.
 
The Genesis of Relative Truths: This repugnant affront to traditional education, its truths and inherent values, is rooted in Cultural Marxism. This ideology was conceived, circa 1921, at the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt Germany by a group of radical Marxist intellectuals who rejected traditional Economic Marxism because they realized it was incapable of destroying and dominating the West. Cultural Marxism was based on behavioral psychology to achieve mass compliance with a desired goal(s), and ultimately replaced Economic Marxism. It is modern day Marxism euphemistically referred to as progressivism to hide the true ideology but Marxism nonetheless. The great majority of progressives are ignorant of the ideology they are propagating and just happy following the heard of sheep.
 
Unlike Karl Marx, the founding Cultural Marxists envisioned catalyzing the complete destruction of Western traditions, values, and culture by a lengthy, indefensible, peaceful cultural revolution wherein traditional morals and authority would be rejected. Once achieved Western culture would be supplanted by Cultural Marxist ideology.
 
In 1933 as National Socialism was gaining momentum in Germany the founders fled to America and set up shop at Columbia University in NYC. They began sowing the seeds of their cultural revolution by diffusing Cultural Marxist ideology through key spheres of influence, initially focusing on academia, politics, the MSM and film industry. The founders knew that progress would be slow but remained patient and steadfast while assiduously propagating their ideology.
 
The ’60s Boomer Rebellion: The founders’ fortunes dramatically changed for the better in the middle 1960s with the student “Boomer” rebellion wherein morality and authority were rejected and individual freedom to do as one pleased was exalted. The father and ultimate leader of this rebellion throughout academia was Herbert Marcuse, a founding member of the Frankfurt School and elite, well-respected university professor. Marcuse coined the chant, “make love not war” that became poplar throughout academia.
 
Deconstructing Truth: Marcuse’s methodology for rebellion included deconstructing the language, e.g., he coined the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of American culture. Deconstruction destabilizes and reconstructs clear definitions, the content and text of language, traditions, being, institutions, objective knowledge, reason, truth, legitimate hierarchies, authority, nature, and all that is considered universal. 
 
Marcuse was esteemed by the masses rebelling against the establishment. He catalyzed the confusion and obliteration of traditionally accepted culture through deconstruction which was primarily responsible for a major breakdown in the nation’s social conformity, particularly among impressionable young people.
 
The Intent of Deconstruction: Deconstruction is used by Cultural Marxists as the method of analysis that will show the correctness of their ideology in every situation and provide the answers they seek. This is done by taking any text, removing all meaning from it and re-inserting the meaning sought. For instance, Cultural Marxists uniquely use deconstruction to prove that any text illustrates the oppression of minorities, e.g., blacks, women, homosexuals, etc., by reading that meaning into the text’s words regardless of its actual meaning. The overused ‘race card’ routine should come to mind.
Outrageous examples include Shakespeare writing about suppressing women, and the Bible being about race and gender. Furthermore, morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are considered products of different historical epochs and socially constructed. Ergo, the truth is relative, dynamic, and meaningless in the hands of a deconstructionist academician poisoning young minds to suit her or his agenda.
 
The Impact on Academia: The consequences of intentionally obfuscating and skewing the truth to fit a desired end have been particularly devastating in academia. Dissident ‘Boomers’ of the ’60s and their acolytes have dominated academia’s professorial domain for years. They were spoon fed and indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism as students, and as instructors are likewise actively propagating and spoon feeding that same ideology to their students. Among other things, they have intentionally undermined the integrity and very ideas of many academic disciplines in fields of study with generally agreed upon subject matters.
 
Study Groups: Instead of academic emphasis being placed on traditional disciplines, e.g., history, math, science, and literature, it is placed on race, ethnicity, and gender taught through study groups. There is an endless proliferation of such groups throughout academia which are typically comprised of the so-called “historically disadvantaged” minorities considered as ‘sacred cows’ by today’s politically correct progressives. This situation clearly evinces a breakdown of long accepted academic disciplines and is strongly encouraged by the respective educational administrations, also highly concentrated with progressives. 
 
Superficially the common mantra and favorite code words of study groups are inclusion, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, social justice, sex education, and other such terminology connoting kindness. Notwithstanding the seemingly innocuous terms however, they are critical components of Cultural Marxism being cleverly disguised as progressivism as mentioned aforesaid. Ironically, to force compliance with their position on a matter, these inclusive, tolerant groups spew vile hatred towards and demonize everyone in disagreement with them, particularly straight White males.
 
Radical Left Wing Professors: Ultra-radical radical left wing instructors with personal anti-American agendas teach the pseudo study groups that include the following: women’s studies; gay studies; transgender studies; Asian studies; Afro-American studies; African studies; Indian studies; and the list goes on ad nauseam. While these groups are hyped as being cross- disciplinary they are anti-disciplinary because their sole purpose is to diffuse Cultural Marxist ideology in lieu of America’s culture, values and traditions. Among other Marxist concepts instructors use relative truth and deconstruction to achieve their desired anti-American goals. Carefully note, there are no male, White, or Western European studies. The only reference to Whites in any of these study groups is in demonizing and blaming them for the perceived ‘ills’ of the world’s ‘historically disadvantaged minorities’.
 
Cultural Studies: Cultural studies is the group most repugnant to traditional education because content is entirely discretionary with the instructor and accordingly, characterized by attitudes and agendas instead of empirical facts. There are two mandatory requisites for cultural studies: (1) political animus: (2) hostility to factual truth. Generally, students are strongly encouraged and often mandated to take this ridiculous course that is underpinned by ‘White Guilt’. 
Below are examples of relative truths students are taught by politically correct radical left wing Marxist ideologues with an aversion to empirical evidence and everything American.  
  • Columbus was an evil, bloodthirsty marauder who committed the American Holocaust, while the Indians were peaceful, environmentally sensitive creatures who lived in blissful harmony with each other and the earth. 
  • Cortez, who conquered Mexico on behalf of Spain, was a mass murderer and the Aztec conquest evinced European Imperialism perpetrating the greatest genocide in all human history.
  • Early pilgrims slaughtered their Indian guests at a Thanksgiving feast
It should be abundantly clear that present day curricula taught by Marxist instructors precipitated the behavior of academia that resulted from Trump’s win. More ominous, however, is the poisonous Marxist ideology into which students are being indoctrinated by instructors that loathe and want to destroy traditional American culture and values.

Is A Civil War Brewing In The USA? – Patriot Tribune

Source: Is A Civil War Brewing In The USA? – Patriot Tribune

If a civil war is brewing in America it’s because it is being bought and paid for by billionaire George Soros. Who should have his citizenship revoked, be exiled, and forbidden to engage in any business, organization, or charitable, non-profit organization. Plus his assets should frozen to fulfill a restitution that repays communities for the destruction his paid lemmings committed. George Soros needs to be kicked out of our country.

Corruption at America’s Highest Levels of Government

Corruption at America’s Highest Levels of Government
 
Hillary-What-Difference-copyThe purpose of this blog is twofold: 1. Point out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s complicity and willful, subjective involvement in a corrupt effort to ensure Hillary Clinton is elected president; 2. For you to carefully consider whether her character represents the ethical and moral standards reasonably expected of the U.S. Attorney General or any person serving at the highest level of our government.
 
Never in America’s history has the depth of blatant unbridled corruption in the presidency and judicial system been more clearly exemplified than on July 5, 2016, when FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and the matter was closed. There is not a doubt in my mind that this fraud perpetrated on America’s rule of law, judicial system and her citizenry was architected well in advance by corrupt amoral liars Obama, Lynch, Clintons’ long time hack Comey, and the Clintons. For details see my 9/8/16 blog The Clinton – Comey Nexus.
 
Miscarriage of Justice at the Highest Levels of Government: The reason for such a disgraceful miscarriage of justice should be abundantly clear by now: Obama, Lynch and Comey want the candidate whose character is as corrupt, dark and evil as theirs to be president. That stellar individual is Hillary Clinton, a proven evil, amoral pathological liar and rapacious, ruthless career criminal.
 
It is a dark, unprecedented time in America when the President, Attorney General, and FBI Director use the power of their respective offices acting under color of title to illegally facilitate their goal. Equally appalling is America’s President aggressively supporting vile Clinton, who should be under indictment, while she is the target of multiple legitimate, long overdue criminal investigations all involving felonies. However, in addition to other character traits, Obama is a crude, classless boor and such comportment is expected.
 
U. S. Attorney Lynch: Pursuant to President Bill Clinton’s nomination in 1999, Lynch served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn until joining the law firm of Hogan & Hartson in March 2002. She remained there through April, 2010 then returned to her old position as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn when Obama appointed her.
 
Hogan & Hartson began preparing and filing the Clintons’ tax returns in 2004, and were among Hillary’s largest financial supporters in the legal industry during her first presidential campaign. I cannot speak to a relationship between the Clintons and Lynch during her stint at the law firm. However, knowing the depth of the vile Clintons’ corruption and use of key people it is not a stretch to assume that developing a solid relationship with ex U.S. Attorney Lynch was in their cross hairs. Soon thereafter it was accomplished.
 
HSBC Money Laundering Case: HSBC was implicated in the largest international money laundering case in U.S. history. Its executives admitted to laundering billions of dollars from arms dealers, drug traffickers, and power players from around the world from 2006 through 2010. As much as $881M laundered through the bank’s U.S. arms was from Mexican drug cartels and their various middle east terrorist allies in violation of multiple banking laws.
 
For the sake of brevity, criminal charges were never filed against the bank or any of its executives. Instead, in December, 2012, Lynch, acting in her capacity as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York and with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s acquiescence, brokered a ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreement’ wherein HSBC Bank USA agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine and admitted to the following felonies: 
  • Willful criminal conduct
  • Gross violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, including failure to establish and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program,
  • Failure to establish due diligence in laundering of over $881 million
The U.S. in turn agreed to drop its criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors and employees. In other words, HSBC committed multiple serious felonies and walked without incurring any criminal consequences, gratis Obama, Holder and Lynch.
 
At a bare minimum this sweetheart deal did not even rise to the dignity of a slap on the wrist because the fine was less than chump change to HSBC. It still reeks from the rancid stanch of corruption emanating from a quid pro quo wherein Obama, Holder, and Lynch were the other beneficiaries. Congress went through the usual feigning of outrage, held meaningless hearings, etc., then swept the farcical performance off to ‘la-la land’ to join its other charades.
 
Coincidence or Quid Pro Quo: I have never believed in coincidences but rather have always felt that things happen for a reason. For instance, consider the following events:
  • Comey was an executive in senior level management and a director of HSBC during the time it was laundering the aforesaid $881M
  • Obama named Comey FBI Director in 2012
  • During the same time HSBC was and likely remains tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation that received up to $81M in ‘pay to play donations’ from a few of its clients
  • On November 11, 2014 Obama named Lynch, still serving as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, as Attorney General
  • Lynch and Sleazy Willy Clinton got caught meeting secretly for 30 minutes in her plane parked at a remote corner of the Phoenix airport a few days before Comey announced his egregious decision not to charge Clinton. 
No coincidences here but rather each evinces a quid pro quo underpinned by corruption.
 
A Friend at DOJ: The law and ethics notwithstanding, Lynch is determined to do whatever it takes to facilitate a Clinton presidency, and prevent her from facing criminal prosecution. In connection therewith the following is public information, and one can only speculate what Lynch and Obama are doing privately, but be assured it is most likely not legit.
 

1. On October 28 Comey unexpectedly broke protocol and without Lynch’s knowledge announced that he had reopened the previously closed criminal investigation of Clinton’s email scandal. His reasoning was based on the NYPD and some of his agents discovering some 650,000 emails on a laptop shared by Clinton’s chief aide at State, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Wiener while investigating a sex case involving Wiener. Abedin is a Muslim with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and many of the emails were from the State Department. Knowing this explosive information would be leaked sooner than later Comey acted on his own to avoid further embarrassment and prevent Lynch, a staunch supporter, defender, and friend of Clinton from thwarting his efforts.

 

2. According to the MSM and insider accounts Lynch was angry and vehemently resisted assisting Comey in the new investigation. However, since Comey had made the announcement and to save face she appointed assistant AG Peter Kadzik to head the criminal investigation of the laptop’s content. Incredibly, Lynch knew Kadzik was best friends with Clinton’s campaign manager, corrupt liar unctuous John Podesta. Wikileaks produced an email from Kadzik’s private gmail account giving Podesta a ‘heads up’ about filings the DOJ would be making in the first Clinton email matter. In effect this was ‘DOJ insider information’ to which Podesta was not entitled. Sending it was against policy and likely illegal, but inconsequential to Lynch since Kadzik’s act was intended to benefit Clinton.

 

3. Lynch ordered FBI agents investigating the organized criminal enterprise known as the Clinton ‘Pay to Play’ Foundation to stand down, notwithstanding an ‘avalanche’ of inculpatory evidence supporting a multitude of felonies.

 
Connect the Dots: The dots between Lynch and the vile career criminal Clintons are present, very telling, and easy to connect: they evince a crystal clear pattern of criminal corruption at the highest levels of our government that is repugnant to all decency. It should be abundantly clear that Lynch is illegally using her position as Attorney General to facilitate a Clinton presidency. She is intentionally thwarting the legal process involved in criminal investigations by overtly and covertly shielding for Clinton and this corrupt liar will never indict her. Needless to say, Lynch and people of her sordid character will occupy every key position in a Clinton administration as they do in Obama’s lawless one and it will be business as usual in the toxic DC pit where lying and corruption rule supreme.
 
America’s Next President: This will likely be the most important election in America’s history because Clinton and Trump want to place our country on diametrically opposed paths for the foreseeable future. Clinton claims America is already great and not in need of change except for open borders to all and increasing the number of Muslim aliens to support by 550%. Trump knows that America is badly broken and can only be made great again by controlling immigration, and eliminating the accepted culture of corruption and lying that permeates the Washington DC swamp.
 
A Clinton Presidency: I am certain that a Clinton presidency will replicate the culture of rampant corruption and amoral pathological lying Obama has instilled in his administration only on steroids. This is the type of culture in which the Clintons are proven experts; they will also wreak havoc on America to complete the destruction of her traditional culture and values commenced by Obama. Remember, Clinton is a hard core Marxist mentored by and an acolyte of anti-US Marxist Saul Alinsky, as is Obama. Alinsky wrote the radical activist’s bible, ‘Rules for Radicals’, wherein he educated his followers on how to cause chaos and systemic disruption to destroy America.
 
A Trump Presidency: If you are sick of corrupt lying career politicians subordinating America’s interests to their personal greed and want a better, safer, more productive America for yourself and your family’s future, vote for Trump. It is time to change the failed, corrupt amorality of DC with a highly successful outsider who sincerely loves and will put the best interests of America first and foremost … Donald Trump.
View archived blogs at Suthenboy Archives

A Simple Experiment Disproves the Climate Change Alarmists ⋆ The Constitution

By Adrian Vance

Climate Alarmist Dr. Joe Romm claims atmospheric CO2 will rise to 910 parts per million, ppm, by the year 2100 where today it is 390 ppm, a 233% increase in 84 years and turn America into Death Valley.  We simulate this with two 2.5 liter plastic bottles for a shocking outcome costing less than $10, with no million Dollar grant or trips to exotic places to read papers, eat truffles and drink Champagne on your Federal tax Dollars.

In addition to the bottles, we need two lab “stick” thermometers, 650 milliliters of pure water, 1/8th tsp. of baking soda and a few drops of Distilled White Vinegar to simulate the 2100 AD atmosphere of America as predicted by Dr. Romm.  We suggest this be done in every General Science classroom in America.  It is low in cost and highly educational.

The bottles must be clear, not tinted, and “2.5 liters.”  There are other sizes and it is critical.  Lab thermometers are $2.39 each on Ebay.  Baking soda and “White Distilled Vinegar” are common pantry items plus a medicine dropper is common in most homes or $1.00 in a drug store.

 

Thermometer accuracy is easily confirmed by putting them into a tall glass of ice and water, where they should say 0° Celsius. Then, into a pot of boiling water where they should say 100° Celsius if you are at sea level.  If you are above sea level the boiling point will be lower.

In Chicago, at 650 ft,  it is 99.5° C, which is the level for most of the nation east of the Mississippi, but in Denver, at 5280 ft. it is 95° C and the far west is all over the place with Death Valley below sea level where the boiling point is 101°C!  Nonetheless, we are only interested in how thermometers track one another.  They must be consistent.  If one is a degree warmer than the other it must be consistently so through the 20 to 35 degree range.

Put both thermometers in a glass two cup measure with one cup of cold tap water.  Wait a few minutes then read the thermometers. They will say 15 to 20 degrees. Add one cup of hot water from that tap and track the change as it will rise from the temperature of house cold water to the higher temperature of the hot and cold water mix.  And, they should move through the range together or with the same difference consistently.  If not return the unit not showing the correct temperature in ice water.

Plastic bottle caps are drilled by a Phillips screwdriver with a 1/4 inch shaft with the tip held over a candle flame for 30 seconds.  The handle insulates heat so you can hold it. The hot tip goes through plastic like butter leaving a hole just large enough for a thermometer.  Both thermometers are pushed into the caps three inches while the plastic is soft.  On cooling they freeze in place, but can be removed later with careful twisting using your thumb and forefinger near the cap.

The volume of the “2.5 liter” soda bottle is actually 2,725 milliliters. Use bottled water, to avoid municipal water chlorine and fluorine, putting 325 milliliters into each for a net air volume of 2.4 liters over water.  This simulates Earth’s air as 71% is covered by water and the green areas put almost as much water vapor into air as do the seas.

2.4 liters is 1/10th “molar volume” of air at 20° Celsius, the normal room temperature in the United States. “Molar” refers to “mole,” a contraction of “molecular” and means the volume of a gas with a mass of one molecular weight in grams.

For experimental work we use molar volumes for accuracy.  The details are cumbersome so we omit them here, but present them completely at:

http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/09/future-atmosphere-notes.html

We set up the two bottles, one with water alone, labeled “2016 AD” air with 390 ppm of CO2 naturally and “2100 AD” with 910 ppm artificially.  This can be done outside, but we favor a window sill as these bottles are easily tipped by a breeze and window glass does not block infrared, IR, energy. When the sun is low little IR comes through all the air. After 10 AM, when the sun angle is above 45 degrees, IR passes through less air and the glass where it cannot when the angle is less than 45 degrees.  Be sure the thermometers are shaded from direct sun with foil “hats,” only reading the temperature of the air in the flasks.

The two temperatures rise as the sun elevates and fall slowly after noon until 3 PM, then fall quickly as solar radiation passes through more atmosphere.

To test the effect of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere from the 390 ppm of today to 910 ppm for the year 2100 AD as claimed by Dr. Joe Romm, we only need to put half a 1/8th teaspoon of baking soda in the “2100 AD” bottle, swirling to dissolve it.  We need 1.25 drops of White Distilled Vinegar and can make a perfect dose by taking two drops of the acid, add six drops of water and then use five drops of that solution in the simulator.

Put the cap with thermometer on and let it sit overnight to react fully to  create the Romm 910 ppm CO2 air of 2100 AD.  Put the two bottles in a window sill and record their temperatures each hour.  What do we see?

According to Dr. Romm the 2100 AD bottle will get hot, going over 40 Celsius degrees, 104 Fahrenheit!  But what happens?  The 2100 AD bottle tracks precisely with the 2016 bottle air with less CO2 in it!  The CO2 was an insignificant component of the atmosphere at 390 PPM and it would be at 910 PPM.  It is just that simple.  As we have seen, “warmists” are prone to overplay everything from polar bear deaths to all the ice melting at the poles when there are more polar bears than ever in history, probably because they are getting fat on the Five Star garbage left by warmist scientists.

For 150 years atmospheric scientists have required a gas must have at least one percent of the atmosphere to be significant.  We can add enough CO2 to make that the case in our simulator.  Our one-tenth molar volume simulator

needs 24 ml of CO2 which we can generate by taking four drops of the acid, adding one drop of water and then using four drops of that in the second bottle for a 20% dilution.

One percent is 10,000 parts per million, ppm, which shows the real effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and by having a “control” bottle tracking ordinary air over water we will see that it is a cooling component.

 

If Dr. Romm were correct the air in the “2100 AD” bottle would heat faster and more than the “2016 AD” flask, perhaps going over 40º C by noon, but it declines!  This dashes all alarmist claims.  Without them they will get no grants, book contracts, TV appearances or tenure.  When realized it will kill the gravy train of academia.  This is an undeniable fact!  Many of academia feel they are entitled to wealth and fame because they are “smart.”

Virtually everything written and published about “global warming” and/or “climate change” has been fraudulent and done by those seeking political power, government grants, high-paying government jobs or academic tenure as the colleges and universities are dependent on Federal money.  It is just another tale of corruption in America and you can prove it with a two soda bottles, a box of baking soda, a bottle of vinegar and one medicine dropper.

Adrian Vance

Adrian Vance is a writer and producer of educational films, filmstrips and audio programs with over 325 productions from script to screen. See a partial list of my credits at http://worldcat.org . And, have written for ten national magazines, been on the masthead of two as an Editor, done a dozen books and am an FCC licensed broadcaster with ten years of on-air experience in radio and television. See my blog, “The Two Minute Conservative” at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com where you will find over 3200 daily pieces, enough material to produce 25 novel length books.