Sunday, September 8, 2019

Anti-Trump dossier played role in launching probe,

contrary to Comey, FBI claims

Evidence suggests that the discredited, Democratic Party-financed dossier landed at FBI headquarters weeks before the bureau officially started the Trump-Russia investigation on July 31, 2016.

The Justice Department’s John Durham has been investigating the central question of how the Trump-Russia probe began.

Dossier timing is one of Mr. Durham’s key concerns. The FBI hierarchy has said it officially started investigating Trump campaign aides free of any dossier presence.

An examination of available testimony by The Washington Times shows evidence to the contrary. Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s stunning but discredited allegations of a wide and deep Trump-Kremlin conspiracy were available to FBI decision-makers beforehand, the evidence suggests.

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who began the counterintelligence investigation, has acknowledged relying on the dossier. When when asked by Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, at a June 2018 closed session about when he first obtained dossier allegations, Mr. Strzok refused to say.

Former FBI Director James B. Comey has provided a precise timeline while promoting his memoir, “A Higher Loyalty.” He categorically ruled out the presence of dossier information at FBI headquarters before July 31, the day campaign adviser George Papadopoulos became a target.

“The information that triggered it was the Papadopoulos information that came in late July,” Mr. Comey said. “The FBI didn’t get any information that’s part of the so-called Steele dossier, as I understand it, until after that. And so the investigation was triggered entirely separately from the Steele dossier.”

James A. Baker, former FBI general counsel, was asked by House investigators last year whether the allegation that started the investigation on July 31 had anything to do with the dossier.

“Based on the information that I have seen in the public domain, I think I can answer it. And I think the answer is it did not have to do with the dossier,” he testified.

‘Trying to fool the FBI’

The dossier’s role is one of the questions Attorney General William Barr wanted answered when he chose Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, as a special investigator. His mission is to determine the probe’s origins and decision points.

Mr. Barr has chastised Mr. Strzok for his text messages that showed a deep bias against Mr. Trump. The attorney general has questioned the 2016 FBI decision to use informants for a what he called a “peripheral player” — Papadopoulos.

There is evidence that dossier material arrived before July 31.

⦁ Mr. Steele beseeched Rome-based FBI agent Michael J. Gaeta to visit London in early July 2016 to hear his sensational allegations against candidate Trump. Mr. Gaeta won trip approval from Victoria Nuland, who was assistant secretary of state.

Mr. Gaeta arrived at Mr. Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence office in Londonon July 5 and was greeted with horror stories. Mr. Steele handed him dossier pages. FBI practice would be for Mr. Gaeta to fill out a Form 302 containing Mr. Steele’s charges and circulate it to headquarters in Washington.

⦁ That same month, Ms. Nuland has said, she was given several dossier pages. She said she instructed staff to give the documents to the FBI.

“The dossier, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview,” Ms. Nuland said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate. And that was our reaction when we saw this. It’s not our — we can’t evaluate this.”

⦁ In testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Glenn R. Simpson, co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, said he gave Mr. Steele permission in early July to start talking to the FBI. Mr. Simpson was a paid Clinton campaign agent and handled Mr. Steele.

“And by approximately early July, like 1st or 2nd, I had given my assent to him doing it as a professional obligation or a citizenship obligation. And then that’s when he did it, sometime around the Fourth of July,” Mr. Simpson testified.

Question: “So in early July, is it fair to say in early July that you knew that Mr. Steele had taken some information to the FBI?”

Answer: “I think he said he was going to, and then later he told me he did.”

A House Republican staffer told The Washington Times: “We have genuine concern Steele and Simpson were trying to fool the FBI into investigating Trump much earlier than the public testimony suggests. This is one of the big questions John Durham is looking into.”

After a nearly two-year investigation into President Trump and colleagues, special counsel Robert Mueller in March said he didn’t find a Trump-Russia election conspiracy. His 448-page report, when compared with the dossier, eviscerates Mr. Steele’s conspiracy allegations, of which a Washington Times analysis found to have totaled 13.

Mr. Strzok could have settled the question of when dossier material first reached his counterintelligence desk when he testified in a closed-door session before a House task force last year. But he declined to answer, citing the Mueller investigation that was still open.

“When did you first read it?” Mr. Jordan asked.

“Again, that gets into a level of investigative detail about an ongoing investigation that I don’t think the FBI or the special counsel want me to answer,” Mr. Strzok said. “I am happy to answer it, but I defer to what I think the appropriate FBI equities are in this regard.”

Mr. Strzok became famous with the disclosure of his strident text exchanges with his then-lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Both expressed deep dislike for Mr. Trump during the investigation.

What is missing so far in the investigation of the dossier is a gauge of how Mr. Steele influenced FBI decision-makers and their attitudes toward Mr. Trump and his aides. Mr. Steele depicted them as traitors and felons conspiring with Kremlin operatives to hack Democratic computers and conduct information warfare.

Again, Mr. Mueller didn’t find this.

Conspiracy allegations

Although Mr. Strzok officially began the investigation on July 31, events indicate it started earlier, perhaps as a preliminary inquiry.

Stefan Halper, a Cambridge University professor and foreign policy figure in Washington, was an FBI Trump-Russia informant. His graduate assistant reached out to Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, in late June 2016 and invited him to a security conference, the Daily Caller reported. Mr. Halper also touched base with campaign adviser Sam Clovis in mid-July.

Mr. Steele began work for the Democrats, through Fusion GPS, in mid-June.

His first dossier memo, one of 17 completed in December 2016, is dated June 20. Mr. Steele’s Kremlin intelligence operatives were his sources. Mr. Steele said Mr. Trump was a Moscow informant and was receiving regular dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Mueller, assigned to find “any links” between Trump associates and the Kremlin, found no such relationship.

Mr. Steele’s July 19 memo alleged a Trump-Russia “extensive conspiracy.” It said that during Mr. Page’s public speaking engagement in Moscow he had discussed bribes for sanctions relief.

The Mueller report confirmed none of this and, in fact, found no conspiracy.

No Trump campaign adviser was charged with any election conspiracy.

It is documented publicly that the FBI received dossier allegations in August 2016, shortly after the official investigation started.

The key link was Bruce Ohr, then an associate deputy attorney general at the Justice Department. Mr. Ohr testified that he met with Mr. Steele in Washington on July 30, 2016, talked with him via social media and ferried the information directly to FBI headquarters. His first stop was then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Ms. Page in August.

Mr. McCabe launched a counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Trump in May 2017, shortly after the president fired Mr. Comey.

How the dossier’s unfounded allegations of a Trump-Kremlin relationship influenced that decision is not known publicly. In his memoir “The Threat,” Mr. McCabe avoided any dossier discussion to include his role.

He has suggested that Mr. Trump was a Russian agent — a supposed relationship not found by Mr. Mueller.

The FBI had an immediate interest in hearing Mr. Steele, who had worked as an informant on soccer scandals.

Agents cited the dossier as the primary piece of evidence to obtain at least one yearlong wiretap on Carter Page. Mr. Comey briefed President Obama on the dossier and later President-elect Trump.

FBI agents met with Mr. Steele a second time in Rome and agreed to pay him $50,000 to keep investigating Mr. Trump. The FBI eventually assigned a case agent to Mr. Steele in 2017 for continuous flow of anti-Trump information.

By that time, the Trump investigation was well underway. Australia notified the FBI in mid-July that Papadopoulos told one of its diplomats that he heard Moscow may own thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. The Australian tip triggered Mr. Strzok to open an investigation.

The answer to exactly when Mr. Strzok and his unit first received dossier material is likely contained in a secret 113-page transcript. It is an interview by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with Mr. Gaeta, the agent who met Mr. Steele in London on July 5.

The transcript of that hearing is now in the intelligence community’s hands. Agencies are determining how many of Mr. Gaeta’s words can be released to the public.

In the bestselling book “Russian Roulette,” reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Mr. Gaeta, after hearing Mr. Steele on July 5 recite Mr. Trump’s crimes, told the former spy, “I have to report this to headquarters.”

Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, has acquired FBI-Russia documents through open documents lawsuits.

“They are giving us nothing on Gaeta. Unusually secretive on him and the whole cabal,” Mr. Fitton told The Times.

Hand Signals

BabylonBee

https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-common-racist-hand-signals

The Bee Explains: Common Racist Hand Signals

September 6th, 2018

If there’s one thing you’ve noticed about white nationalists, it’s that they have hands. And something they’ve been doing a lot with their hands lately is sending out secret messages in support of white supremacy. If you see anyone doing any of these hand gestures, you can be certain they are a racist and should report them to the nearest racism reporting facility (usually Twitter).

Racism is A-OK.

This racist hand symbol is very popular right now. It’s to say “OK” as in “Racism is A-OK.”

One Race to Rule Them All

This sign signals to other people that you believe one race is superior to all the others. Just say no to the One symbol.

V is for Violent Bigotry

This is very similar to the “One” symbol, but doubly racist because it is two fingers instead of one. Some people think this means “peace” or “two,” but they are probably secret racists.

The Palm of Hitler
This sign is formed by having all five fingers extended, five being approximately the number of letters in Hitler. Used extensively in World War II and the Trump administration.

The Rock of White Supremacy
This racist symbol represents “Rock,” which is used to crush scissors, scissors being two blades working together and thus a symbol of multiple races living in harmony. It is better to lose every game of rock-paper-scissors you ever play than to choose Rock.

The Evil Eye of Prejudice
In this classic racist sign propagated by notorious bigot and Satanist Ronnie James Dio, the index and pinky fingers are extended and kept separate to symbolize how races should be segregated.

Wiggly Fingers of Cthulhu
Wiggle your fingers rapidly back and forth. Commonly used by servants of Cthulhu to signal their hatred for all races as they summon the Great Sleeper to devour people of all colors.

Handshake of Hate
This may seem innocuous at first, but it implies racism by suggesting they own your hand. Slavery, anyone? If someone tries this one on you, punch them in the face (being careful not to make the “Fist” shape above).

Cool-Guy Finger Guns
This is the one hand gesture you can be sure is not meant to symbolize white supremacy as it is only used by cool people. Anyone doing double finger guns is definitely too cool to be a racist. (They might, however, be an NRA member and thus a domestic terrorist. Oh well. At least they are not racist).

What’s your favorite racist hand sign? Form it now!

Sunday Talks: Rep Doug Collins -vs- Maria Bartiromo on House Impeachment Plans

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler has announced his intent to proceed with a formal impeachment investigation of President Trump. Ranking member of the committee, Doug Collins, appears on Fox News to discuss the Nadler plan.

Additionally, Rep Collins discusses the return of the legislative branch from their summer recess and the possibilities for the legislative calendar.

Sunday Talks: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -vs- Chris Wallace

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appears on Fox News for an interview with swamp gatekeeper Chris Wallace. Geopolitical topics include the cancelled Taliban negotiations; the ongoing nuclear ambitions of Iran; and Pompeo’s political career.

Aren’t and Never Should Be

Source: Daily Signal

Here’s Why We Aren’t—

and Never Should Be—

a Pure Democracy

Jarrett Stepman — August 29, 2019

This debate, if you can call it that, was launched on Twitter by two freshmen lawmakers, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas.

Crenshaw noted on Twitter that the Electoral College prevents pure democracy, and that’s a good thing.

Ocasio-Cortez said a few days later that, essentially, the mask has slipped and Republicans and conservatives have revealed that they want to end democracy.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Debating the terminology of how we define ourselves is perhaps less instructive than the larger focus on what institutions actually have made us free and successful.

There is a strange assumption from some that democracy simply means “good things I like.” Therefore, “more” democracy—however that is defined—is inherently better than less.

This leads to absurdities like slapping “democratic” in front of socialism to reframe socialism as something other than the failed ideology that it is.

Slapping “democratic” in front of socialism doesn’t make the reality of socialism any better than putting “democratic” in front of fascism.

Ultimately, socialism and fascism have been mostly democratic expressions of the popular will, or “general will,” as French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau would put it.

But these political ideologies, taken to their logical extent—with the eventual diminishment of individual rights and checks on power—end in tyranny.

Socialism in Venezuela came about democratically, after all.

This isn’t to say that the inclusion of democracy in a political system is inherently bad. After all, a cornerstone of the American system is the idea that the people—not kings or dictators—are sovereign, and that they shall rule.

But for the people to rule effectively, pure democracy must be curtailed.

Democracy can be nimble and responsive to changing circumstances, but also fickle and ruthless—little more than mob rule in its unrestrained form.

Majority rule must be balanced by putting the brakes on majority tyranny. These brakes are apparent all throughout our system.

And this is why the Electoral College—which today is actually fairly democratic—is such an important institution for a vast and diverse country like the United States.

Advocates of abolishing the Electoral College insist that anything other than a measure of the national popular vote is unfair in how we choose presidents. But not a single other office, law, or policy in this country is decided in this way.

Senators represent vastly different numbers of people, based on the state they come from. The House of Representatives is selected on a district-by-district basis. Local politics determine national laws.

The Supreme Court is highly undemocratic, with several layers of distance between any sort of democratic process and appointment of justices by the president and confirmation by the Senate.

The Electoral College’s state-based system ensures that political candidates must appeal to a wide variety of Americans.

Yes, some Democrats get frustrated by the fact that racking up vote totals in some of the largest blue states can’t secure victory in presidential elections, but that is no reason to change an electoral process that has succeeded for over two centuries.

The Founding Fathers had differing views about what level of democracy was exactly right for our large and growing republic. Most held a deep skepticism, however, about implementing any kind of pure democracy without constraints.

Tyranny, whether in the form of one man or millions, is still tyranny, and is the natural result of putting all power in the hands of one man or many.

“It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy,” John Adams wrote to his friend, John Taylor.

Adams continued:

Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

Adams here provides a keen insight into human nature. Unchecked power has always been the bane of liberty, whether in the hands of “good” people or “bad.”

The framers of the Constitution wanted American institutions to be stable and enduring; responsive to changing circumstances, yet immune to the wild mood swings of pure democracy that put societies in a state of perpetual revolution.

It doesn’t take long to understand that some of the best parts of our political system—like the First Amendment that protects the freedoms of speech and the press—are deeply anti-democratic.

And these elements of our constitutional republic are rightly celebrated as key components of American success and exceptionalism.

The bottom line is, the U.S. political system is a unique blend of ideas that includes an important, but limited, place for democracy.

Democracy alone doesn’t produce freedom or prosperity, and it is certainly not an unqualified good.

Sanford announces challenge to Trump

written by Rachel Frazin for "The Hill"

Former South Carolina governor and congressman Mark Sanford said on Sunday that he will challenge President Trump in 2020 as a Republican.

"I’m here to tell you now that I am going to get in," he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I think we need to have a conversation on what it means to be a Republican," Sanford added. “As a Republican Party, we have lost our way.”

The former governor also said he was particularly concerned about the debt and deficit spending.
“We have got to have a national conversation and a Republican conversation on where are we going on debt and deficit,” he said.

When host Chris Wallace told Sanford that he "basically" has "no chance" of defeating Trump, the candidate replied, “I think you probably would have said that same thing to Donald Trump just a matter of months ago as he faced the likes of Jeb Bush and others.”

Pressed on whether he believed he had a real chance in 2020, Sanford said, “You never know.”

“Let’s go out and force or try and create a conversation on that which is not being talked about in this presidential cycle,” he added.

Wallace also questioned Sanford about an extramarital affair that caused a scandal while he was governor.

“I learned a level of humility, a level of empathy that I didn’t have before,” Sanford said. “It is something of great regret. It’s something I’ve apologized extensively for.”

“In contrast to the president, where he says there’s not a single thing that he sort of regrets or apologizes for, I profoundly apologize for that,” he added.

Trump has also been accused of having affairs, notably with adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Sanford said last week that he was focused on Hurricane Dorian would wait until after the storm had passed to announce his decision on a White House bid.

He previously said he would give himself until Labor Day to make a choice.

Since announcing his potential White House bid, the former lawmaker has visited New Hampshire and Iowa, causing further speculation that he would launch a campaign.

Sanford could face an uphill battle. The Republican parties in Kansas and Sanford’s home state of South Carolina on Saturday voted to cancel their GOP primaries.

The president also has continued to have support from most Republicans. A recent Morning Consult poll found that 85 percent of them approved of him.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld (R) and former Rep. Joe Walsh are also challenging Trump for the Republican nomination.

Rachel Maddow Pushes Hard On New Conspiracy Theory

written by Elizabeth Vaughn for RedState

Hot on the heels of MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell’s false and humiliating report that Russian oligarchs had co-signed President Trump’s loans with Deutsche Bank, Rachel Maddow is beating the drums on a new conspiracy theory. The latest conception comes from a reckless editorial published last week by the Washington Post which claims that Trump is slow walking $250 million in aid to Ukraine until they agree to help him win the 2020 election by damaging Joe Biden’s campaign.

The editorial is entitled, “Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election.” The editors write:

Some suspect Mr. Trump is once again catering to Mr. Putin, who is dedicated to undermining Ukrainian democracy and independence. But we’re reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.

The strong-arming of Mr. Zelensky was openly reported to the New York Times last month by Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who said he had met in Madrid with a close associate of the Ukrainian leader and urged that the new government restart an investigation of Mr. Biden and his son.

The editors cite as their source Rudy Giuliani, who is one of the President’s most ardent supporters. The use of Giuliani as a source of malicious information about Trump tells us immediately that the New York Times has conveniently taken his words, which we are not told in their editorial, out of context.

At any rate, Maddow has jumped at the opportunity to promote this story. Here’s what she told her viewers in her smarmy, sanctimonious way. The clip is shown in the tweet below.

We have known that President Trump is holding up this aid to Ukraine. We have known that that is dodgy, given how much of a favor that is to Vladimir Putin and Russia. And given that the President is contradicting the Pentagon and insisting on holding back that money. Given that the Trump administration hasn’t told anyone they’re doing this. They just hope that no one will notice. It’s been pretty obvious that something dodgy and worrying is going on here.

But, if the Washington Post is right that Ukraine is not getting its military aid unless they do something to try to hurt Joe Biden’s presidential campaign…???

They’re trying to get Ukraine to help Trump beat Biden, his expected rival for the 2020 campaign. They want Ukraine’s help with that. They want Ukraine to cook something up against Biden or they don’t get their money.

If that’s really what’s going on here, I honestly am going to walk out of this movie.

If only she would.

There is nothing to rebut. Maddow’s remarks, as well as those of the Washington Post, are entirely devoid of facts. Both are nothing more than wishful speculation.

Doesn’t she realize that, as Vice President, Biden himself once threatened to withhold $1 billion of aid to the country unless the Ukrainian President fired the prosecutor who was about to question his son, Hunter Biden, on his business dealings. Worse still, Biden insisted the order be carried out by the time his plane left the country which was to happen in six hours. The prosecutor was fired as requested.

During a 2018 speech before a group of foreign policy strategists, Biden boasted about this incident.

Did she not learn anything from O’Donnell’s embarrassing “if true” report two weeks ago. I suppose she believes she can always point to the Washington Post as her source. But the Post doesn’t have any evidence either. And twisted words from Rudy Giuliani do not constitute a source.

The top brass at NBC Universal shouldn’t be surprised if they receive another missive from Trump’s attorneys over this.

Rachel Maddow is not a journalist, she’s a propagandist.

This is what desperation looks like.

A “Grand Bargain” on guns

Guns are in the news again. Democrats shamelessly use every mass shooting tragedy as an opportunity to take away the God-given and constitutional rights of gun-owning Americans.

Never forget what Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for President Barack Obama, once said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Did you know that 41 people were shot -- seven of them killed -- over the Labor Day weekend in Chicago? Isn't that a "mass shooting?" Doesn't Democrat-controlled Chicago already have the strictest gun control in the country?

Nonetheless, I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to give Democrats a crown jewel of what they've demanded for decades.

I want President Donald Trump to call their bluff. Democrats want "universal background checks" on all gun sales. Let's give it to them -- as soon as Democrats agree to federal government-issued photo and fingerprint ID for every voter in America.

Now there's a grand bargain. Isn't that an offer too good to refuse? Democrats claim they want to stop gun violence. They claim universal background checks are the answer. So why would they reject this offer? Are they so frightened by voter ID that they're willing to let gun violence and mass shootings continue unabated?

What's so scary about voter ID? Don't Democrats claim "election integrity" is a top priority? Aren't they worried about "foreign interference" in U.S. elections? So why isn't it a priority to prevent voter fraud?

If illegal immigrants are voting in U.S. elections, isn't that the very definition of "foreign interference"? I know, Democrats claim it's not happening. Then why are they afraid of voter ID? If illegal immigrants aren't voting, then Democrats have nothing to fear.

Plus, you get universal background checks in the bargain. It's a big win for Democrats, right? Mass shootings will instantly be prevented, right?

If it's so important for every gun buyer to undergo a background check, why shouldn't every voter's identity be confirmed? If it's a reasonable requirement for gun owners, why isn't it a reasonable requirement for voters?

I'm willing to compromise. Why aren't Democrats?

The proof of gun control's failure is Chicago and every other U.S. inner city controlled by Democrats. These cities have strict gun control but are plagued by massive gun violence.

Want more proof? Mexico might have the strictest gun control on the planet. There is one gun store in the entire country of Mexico. That didn't stop even one of the 33,000 murders in Mexico last year.

The proof is our great ally the United Kingdom. They have strict, strict gun control and a violent crime rate comparable to America's. How do liberals explain that?

Gun control doesn't work. But if it makes liberals feel all warm and fuzzy, let's compromise. President Trump, please offer background checks for every gun purchase in America, in return for voter ID for every citizen. Watch the response. Watch every liberal's head explode. Democrats will lose their minds.

Democrats will never compromise. Not even to save lives. Not even to prevent the murder of children. Democrats will never allow voter ID.

So, go ahead and make the offer, Mr. President. Call it "The Grand Bargain." They'll never take it.

Massively Corrupt Massachusetts Mayor Caught in Bribery, Kick-back and Extortion Scheme

Fall River, Massachusetts, Mayor Jasiel F. Correia II (27), has been arrested for extorting marijuana vendors for hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes; extorting a building owner for cash and a Rolex watch in exchange for activating the water supply to a commercial building; and demanding that his chief of staff give him half of her salary in return for appointing her and allowing her to keep her city job.

BOSTON – […] Prosecutors say Correia agreed to sign non-opposition letters in return for significant six-figure payments from four marijuana vendors looking to open businesses in the city of nearly 90,000 about an hour’s drive south of Boston. The letters are required to obtain a license to operate a marijuana business in Massachusetts, where cannabis is legal.

Correia, 27, appeared in Boston federal court Friday afternoon and pleaded not guilty. (read more)

The DOJ announcement is Available Here

What Democrats Are Really Pushing

written by Derek Hunter for Townhall

Everyone once in a while, even if by accident, liberals tell you who they really are, what they think, and what they want to do. Whether it slips out or they deliberately put it down in a statement, it’s a quick little glimpse into what’s going on in the void behind their vacant eyes. This week saw a few of these glimpses.

It was a bit of irony that the same people who spent years insisting pouring water up the nose of the man who masterminded the September 11th attacks was torture, would inflict 7 hours of Democrats babbling about climate change on the American people. Luckily, and sensibly, very few Americans bothered to tune in. (Sympathy to those stuck in airports. Even on mute, the crazy crept through.)

While all called for things like banning coal, oil drilling, fracking, and nuclear power, they also want to mandate the use of electric cars. None addressed, nor were asked by any of the crowd or the so-called journalist cheerleaders moderating the clown show exactly where they planned to get all the electricity to charge those cars. Once you ban the means of generating 82.9 percent of our electricity (you can add another seven percent since there’s no way any Democrat would support the building of another damn), you’re left with wind (6.6 percent) and solar (1.6 percent). They might as well have called for putting sails on cars.

But that wasn’t what stuck out to me after watching that inadvertent in-kind donation to Republicans (every candidate said at least three things that should end up in campaign ads next year). What hit me was what Julian Castro said about education.

Asked whether climate change should be taught in schools, he obviously said yes – Democrats support the education system indoctrinating kids with everything except the ability to read, write, and think independently. What bothered me was what he said next.

“I think if we're going to get there though, and this doesn't just apply to curriculum about the environment, it applies to a whole bunch of other stuff. We need to do things like end the system of people that get elected, whether it's in Texas or other states, they get elected and then they sit on a state-wide board that determines what is in curriculum. Too oftentimes right-wing conservatives have taken over these boards in places like Texas and they affect who gets into the history books, its slanted view on social studies…” (Emphasis added.)

He’s saying he wants to end the people having a voice in education.

To every Democrats running for president, anyone not in complete agreement with them is a “right-wing conservative.” At this point you have to assume liberals chant “This is what democracy looks like” because they like the irony of it.

Meanwhile, on the local level, “sanctuary” Montgomery County, Maryland, has seen a rash of reported sex crimes against children in the last few weeks. There have been seven illegal aliens arrested since the end of July for sexual crimes against children.

Rather than care about protecting the innocent, the sanctuary county is rallying to the defense of itself.

In a statement Thursday, the group of wealthy, mostly white county government officials issued a statement condemning the Trump administration and “local and national conservative news outlets” for reporting on this epidemic. For good measure, they added “neo-Nazi sympathizers,” because being disgusted by illegal sexually violating children makes you a neo-Nazi to the left now, even when the victims are, in many cases, family members and minorities themselves.

The elected accessories after the fact continued, saying, “These individuals and organizations should be ashamed for spreading false information seeking to establish a baseless, illogical and xenophobic connection between a person’s failure to obtain legal status and their propensity to commit a sex crime.”

Unaddressed in the statement is what remains unaddressed by all these rich racist leftists seeking cheap labor so they and their children don’t mess their manicures – how many innocent people being victims of crime will it take for them to care? How many children have to have their lives destroyed for these Democrats to support deporting anyone, especially criminals? It’s clearly more than the seven we know of in five weeks. And lord knows how many more they’ve managed to sweep under the rug.

I honestly don’t know how they sleep at night, how they can look at their children and not be disgusted with themselves. But when you ascribe to a political philosophy responsible for more than 100 million deaths you have to believe individuals are expendable. Even children.

So Democrats want to ban everything that made us energy independent (and lowered our CO2 output, by the way), while opposing the public having a voice in education, and condemn reporting on illegal alien crime. Agenda über allies (with German used deliberately).

This is just a sample of what they’re pushing, an accidental peek into their plans because they let the curtains open a little bit to expose their priorities. If this is what they’re willing to admit to in the pursuit of power, what do you suspect they’ll do if they obtain it?