Charlie Daniels to Schumer: There is ‘Not One Drop of Happiness in your Life’

BY:   
May 24, 2017 4:07 pm

Charlie Daniels / Twitter

Country singer Charlie Daniels penned an open letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) saying the Senate minority leader does not have “one drop of happiness” in his life and that he has “opened Pandora’s box” by going after President Donald Trump.

Daniels, who is known for the hit song “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,” wrote a letter published by CNS News criticizing Schumer for having what Daniels suggested was a blind allegiance to the Democratic party.

“There’s something sinister about seeing you bent over the lectern in the Senate Chamber,” Daniels wrote. “There is not one drop of happiness in your life, forecasting a dismal future for America if anything President Trump proposes passes both houses, is signed and becomes law.”

Daniels acknowledged Schumer must have been disappointed when Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. But Daniels then said Schumer has forgotten about the working people and the empty factories, and has taken advantage of inner cities with empty promises.

The country singer castigated Schumer and the Democratic party for blaming Russia for their presidential loss.

“Instead of looking inward at the real cause for your party’s loss, you had to find a scapegoat, and if it hadn’t been Russia, it would have been something else,” Daniels wrote.

He then asked Schumer whether he honestly believed that Trump colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Will you lay your hand on a Holy Bible and tell America that you believe in your heart that Donald Trump has actually colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to the detriment of the United States of America?” Daniels asked before he guessed that Schumer’s special council would only come up with superficial answers.

Daniels wrote that Schumer has “opened Pandora’s Box and thrown away the lid,” and asked Schumer questions regarding scandals that have plagued Democrats. Daniels cited issues including Hillary Clinton signing off on allowing a Russian agency to purchase a company holding up to 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity, Clinton’s email server and former top IRS official Lois Lerner pleading the 5th and retiring with full benefits.

“You see, sir, Pandora is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and what is revealed in the coming months could well be a two-edged sword,” Daniels wrote. “Be careful what you wish for.”

VIDEO: ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ » Politichicks.com

 |  June 7, 2017

Please watch this video and see the TRUTH about the global warming SCAM!!!

 

This devastating documentary produced by Britain’s Channel 4 may not be on any American networks, but it is available here:

In this documentary, distinguished scientists and experts specializing in climate-related fields, speak and present compelling visuals revealing the truth about the entire climate change scam.

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.

 

 

 

 

Daniel Greenfield: Day 1 » Politichicks.com

By Daniel Greenfield January 24, 2017
 

Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 8.00.07 AMIn the first days of 2017, Washington D.C. was empty. It was a city holding its breath. Secret Service police officers in balaclavas waited at the White House as a black SUV carrying departing staffers passed. It had not been so long ago that they came into the city as if they owned it and the entire country. Now the same men and women who ran and ruined the lives of millions were scrolling through job postings on their smartphones. They watched Obama speak from faded screens at sports bars and they cried.

They knew it was coming. Day 1.

The parties and the protests are underway. Hundreds of thousands of Americans and anti-Americans have converged on the city: Tea Party housewives from Milwaukee suburbs and snarling Marxists from the ANSWER coalition, small businessmen from Houston and Berkeley J20ers outshouting the schizophrenic homeless panhandlers at Union Station.

While Trump and Pence are at St. John’s Episcopal Church, Black Lives Matter will be howling abuse at D.C.’s black police officers at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. As Trump takes his oath of office, the Future is Feminist Counterinaugural Action will try to disrupt the event with their “bodies.” As Trump speaks to unify America, leftist protesters plan to smoke pot on the National Mall.

They can’t stop what’s coming. And they know it. The crying Obama staffers loading boxes into their cars and the Marxists biting their lips as they color in their signs on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial feel it. The pundits of the Post, the non-profit parasites and the entire cocktail party circuit can sense it.

Day 1 is more than just a day. It’s the end of an era. It’s the end of Obama.

Berlin, November, 1989. Moscow, August, 1991. Washington D.C., January, 2017. That’s the closest you can come to describing it. It’s the fall of an evil empire. There are breaths of fresh air as the cleansing rain washes away eight years of oppression, lies and corruption into the sewers of the city.

Day 1.8-years

Trump has executive orders ready to go. While the ceremonies run their course, real change is already underway. The parade that matters is the slow march of Obama’s minions leaving and Trump’s people coming in. The transition began as a trickle, a few here and there, but is swiftly becoming a takeover.

The “landing team members” have moved in. And Obama’s people are moving out to be replaced by “beachhead teams”. What started with dozens and then hundreds will become thousands. These clashing armies wear uniforms of black suits and skirts. They wield smartphones and task lists. And they run the country.

That’s what the “peaceful transition of power” touted by Obama really means. A force of men and women the size of a small army will depart and another will arrive and take their place. They will do it without a shot being fired. The transition will not be entirely peaceful. The mobs of protesters will see to that. And the boycott of the inauguration by House Democrats is a rejection of that transition of power.

The roadblocks, barricades and fences are there to block the radical left’s plots to physically shut down the inauguration. Meanwhile their political allies in Congress are building roadblocks and barricades to jam up Trump’s nominees in endless committee sessions and hearings.

They can’t stop Day 1. But they are doing everything that they possibly can to slow it down.

Their battle plan is to confirm as few of Trump’s people as possible. The longer it takes to get new leaders into place, the longer it will take those leaders to bring in new people to make reforms. The endless hearings aren’t just political theater. They are an organized effort by the left to retain control of the government for as long as possible while tangling Trump’s agenda in red tape right from the start.

The protesters and the politicians have the same agenda. They want to stop reform from Day 1.

Walk past the White House, a modest building, serene and gracious with all the attention of the world on it, over to the monstrosity that Mark Twain once dubbed “the ugliest building in America.”

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, that pile of Second Empire mansard roofs and porticoes, which looks as if Napoleon III had set up shop in the heart of our national government, is where the patriots struggling to overthrow another progressive unconstitutional emperor will mobilize.

Forget the balls. The truly fancy footwork will happen as Trump’s beachhead teams try to take over parts of the government. And the real protests won’t be the freak shows with giant signs, mock heads, pink costumes and joints. It will be a grim battle fought in the undercity of the bureaucracy.

And it will be an unrelenting battle that will go on for years.shrimp

While Trump takes his oath of office, moving trucks will be transporting the Obama occupation out of the White House. The first of the moving vans has already come and gone. And when all the moving trucks have transported away the last of the occupation, a new wind will blow through the White House.

Despite the roadblocks and the sabotage, Day 1 is coming.

Team Trump is ahead of schedule and under budget. A fifth of the funds are even being returned. When all the t-shirts are sold and the flyers are carried away in trash bags, there will be a new government.

And for the first time in eight years, it will be an American government.

That is what Day 1 really means. Not an era, but an error has ended. Day 1 means the restoration of freedom and the end of tyranny. It means security at home and respect abroad. It means change.

There were those who celebrated and those who mourned the fall of the USSR. So too there are those who celebrate and those who mourn the end of Obama. The tears of leftist hipsters crying over Obama are no different than those of the old women holding up Stalin’s portrait on May Day in the Red Square.

As the day ends with the Liberty and Freedom Ball, millions will celebrate because these words have meaning once again. They will celebrate because they have been liberated and now they are free.

Day 1 means many things to many people. Most of all it means that millions have reason to hope.

After midnight, in the last days of the last year, I stood at the Lincoln Memorial. Though millions visit it, the vast space was empty. The first Republican president watched over Washington D.C. in silence.

Or almost empty.

A large rat scurried down the steps and vanished into the shadows. Mr. Lincoln watched it go. As he now watches Obama depart.

(This article was originally published here at Front Page Magazine.)

Follow Daniel Greenfield’s blog Sultan Knish.B7ziW2nCMAELJox

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.