RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/408250-rosenstein-guided-by-politics-not-a-pursuit-of-justice

The New York Times’s blockbuster report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein broached the subject of seeking President Trump’s ouster cannot be separated from his appointment of a special counsel.

From the start of the Trump administration, politics has overwhelmed law enforcement. It was the political uproar stoked by the May 9, 2017, firing of FBI Director James Comey that induced Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel, Robert Mueller, to investigate President Trump. There was insufficient basis in law to do this. But that turned out to be of no more moment than the complete absence of any basis to remove the president under the 25th Amendment, the harebrained proposal the Times reports Rosenstein was floating at exactly the same time.

To be clear, the special counsel regulations require the existence of a factual basis for a criminal investigation — a crime — before a prosecutor is assigned. Moreover, a special counsel, who by regulation is recruited from outside the government, is not supposed to be assigned absent a Department of Justice (DOJ) conflict of interest so profound that the department is ethically barred from investigating the crime in question.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein could satisfy neither of these conditions. To this day, he has never specified a crime the president is suspected of committing. And there is no conflict; Mueller not only recruited prosecutors from the Justice Department, he has transitioned the two Russia indictments he’s brought to Justice Department components.

Both of these actions would be improper if there were an actual conflict. But, of course, there isn’t one because, again, Rosenstein has not specified a crime. It is the crime allegedly committed by a president that creates a conflict for the president’s Justice Department and calls for an outside prosecutor.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-nomination-battle-like-orwells-1984/

Truth, due process, evidence, rights of the accused: All are swept aside in pursuit of the progressive agenda.

George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is no longer fiction. We are living it right now.

Google techies planned to massage Internet searches to emphasize correct thinking. A member of the so-called deep state, in an anonymous op-ed, brags that its “resistance” is undermining an elected president. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and NSC were all weaponized in 2016 to ensure that the proper president would be elected — the choice adjudicated by properly progressive ideology. Wearing a wire is now redefined as simply flipping on an iPhone and recording your boss, boy- or girlfriend, or co-workers.

But never has the reality that we are living in a surreal age been clearer than during the strange cycles of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

In Orwell’s world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology — the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one’s life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality — warps everything from the use of language to private life.

Oceania’s Rules

Senator Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had long sought to destroy the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Much of their paradoxical furor over his nomination arises from the boomeranging of their own past political blunders, such as when Democrats ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, in 2013. They also canonized the so-called 1992 Biden Rule, which holds that the Senate should not consider confirming the Supreme Court nomination of a lame-duck president (e.g., George H. W. Bush) in an election year.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senate-republicans-eye-monday-tuesday-floor-vote-kavanaugh

Senate Republican leaders want to schedule a floor vote for Monday or Tuesday on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court “unless something derailed it along the way,” according to Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune of South Dakota.

Thune told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday that if all goes according to plan, Republicans could get the procedural gears turning over the weekend. That assumes Thursday’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee featuring Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexual assault, does not alter the current trajectory that Senate GOP leaders have set.

When asked if that meant floor debate on Kavanaugh could take place Monday or Tuesday, he said, “I would think so, if things were to stay on schedule, unless something derailed it along the way.”

“Again, we’ll see what happens on Thursday. But at this point, if nothing changes, my assumption would be from a timing standpoint that we could begin that process Friday, Saturday timeframe and wrap it up next week sometime,” the Republican Conference chairman said

Under that timeline, a Judiciary Committee markup might take place Friday, allowing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to file a cloture to cut off debate on the nominee as early as Saturday, which would set up a Monday vote to limit the debate on the Supreme Court nominee.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271415/castros-torture-american-pows-vietnam-jamie-glazov

Editors’ note: Last Friday, Sept. 21, 2018, our nation, led by our president, solemnly marked National POW/MIA Recognition Day, during which we honored all American prisoners of war and expressed our deep gratitude and respect for what they endured and — as empirical evidence suggests — in some cases may very well be continuing to endure. Indeed, we pay tribute to those who never returned — and, of course, also to their suffering families. In honor of this sacred day, Frontpage has deemed it important to run Jamie Glazov’s article, Castro’s Torture of American POWs in Vietnam from Breitbart’s Dec. 8, 2016 issue. We hope that our leadership and citizens will take serious action on this issue. We will always remember and we will never forget.

*
Castro’s Torture of American POWs in Vietnam.
By Jamie Glazov

The death of communist tyrant Fidel Castro has yielded much-deserved coverage of the monstrous nature of his tyrannical rule.

What has gone virtually unreported, however, is the direct and instrumental role Castro played in the torture and murder of American POWs in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The story of Castro’s atrocities against American soldiers in this conflict is rarely ever told, least of all by our mainstream media.

During the Vietnam War, Castro sent a gang of his henchmen to run the “Cuban Program” at the Cu Loc POW camp in Hanoi, which became known as “the Zoo.” As Stuart Rochester and Frederick Kiley have documented in their book Honor Bound in a chapter entitled “The Zoo, 1967–1969: The Cuban Program and Other Atrocities,” one of the primary objectives of this “program” was to determine how much physical and psychological agony a human being could withstand.

Castro selected American POWs as his guinea pigs. A Cuban nicknamed “Fidel,” the main torturer at the Zoo, initiated his own personal reign of terror. He was described in documents based on POW debriefings as “a professional who was trained in psychology and prison control in Russia or Europe.”

Among Fidel’s torture techniques were beatings and whippings over every part of his victims’ bodies, without remission.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271417/stop-appeasing-democrats-bruce-thornton

From the playground to geopolitics, appeasing an aggressor invites only more aggression. This timeless truth of human nature is one that we moderns can’t seem to accept. We reflexively assume that a rational accommodation or concessions will be reciprocated by those proven to be ready to use any means necessary to achieve their aims, no matter how amoral, unfair, or vicious. Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court illustrate that this false assumption leads only to more demands, and ultimately to defeat.

The last-minute accusations from Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who claims that decades ago Kavanaugh groped her at a high school party, and Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a frat party at Yale, are transparent acts of aggression against the judge and Republicans, one engineered by the Democrats.

Senator Dianne Feinstein sat for months on Ford’s letter and then––just as the Dems did in 1991with Anita Hill’s charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas’s during his hearings––released it only when Kavanaugh appeared to be heading for confirmation. Feinstein still hasn’t given the Judiciary Committee an unredacted copy of the letter. A few weeks after Ford went public, and after Kavanaugh said he had dairies from that summer detailing his whereabouts, The New Yorker published Ramirez’s account of a drunken party filled with obscene drinking games where he exposed himself to Ramirez.

Given that the Democrats had made public in advance their intention to derail the hearings and confirmation by any means possible, the timing of both sexual assault charges reeks of premeditated contrivance intended to delay confirmation as long as possible. But in the face of this naked ploy to bork Kavanaugh and derail the confirmation process for partisan advantage, the Republicans seem to be reverting to their customary preemptive cringe. All the Dems have to do is squeal “sexism” and Republicans start negotiating and offering concessions. Of course, after each concession comes another demand.

First the Dems demanded that Ford, a long-time Democrat activist, “be heard.” So last week the Chairman of Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, granted another deadline extension for Ford to decide whether to testify before the Committee on Monday. Senator Dianne Feinstein calls these concessions “bullying deadlines.” As Feinstein put it, “Show some heart. Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.” Ford doesn’t “feel” like she can testify on Monday because she’s afraid of flying, despite offers from the Committee to travel to her in California. Then she feared for her life because of death threats ––threats also made to Kavanaugh, his wife and two young daughters–– so she now demands enhanced security measures. The Committee caved and moved the date to Thursday.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politics-of-destruction-1537831889

Say this for Deborah Ramirez. The second woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault more than 30 years ago may not clearly recall what happened, but her story does clarify the ugly politics at play. Democrats are using the #MeToo movement as a weapon of political destruction to defeat a Supreme Court nominee and retake Congress.

Ms. Ramirez’s story, as recounted by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker on Sunday, has more holes than even initial accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s. Unlike Ms. Ford, she does recall the place and year—a hall at Yale in their freshman year. Ms. Ramirez says that at a party Mr. Kavanaugh exposed himself and pushed his privates into her face, amid laughter from other men in the room, until she pushed him away.

Mr. Kavanaugh says the event “did not happen” and is “a smear, plain and simple.”
***

Even the sympathetic New Yorker writers concede that Ms. Ramirez was at first reluctant to talk about the incident. But after six days of “assessing her memories,” and after consulting with a Democratic lawyer, she felt confident enough to speak up. Even so, Ms. Ramirez concedes that she was drunk at the time to the point of being “on the floor, foggy and slurring her words.”

The reporters could not find a single other eyewitness who put Mr. Kavanaugh at the party. One of Ms. Ramirez’s confirming witnesses is an unidentified man who says he heard about it from someone else. Another classmate, Richard Oh, says he overheard a female student whose identity he can’t recall telling another student about such an incident at the time but with no reference to Mr. Kavanaugh.
Potomac Watch Podcast

https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/OTB_Press_Release_War_on_Waste_Campa
Open Letter To President Donald Trump Published at The Wall Street Journal

Former U.S. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and Founder of OpenTheBooks.com, ask the commander in chief to wage a “War on Waste.”

Today, in The Wall Street Journal, the national transparency organization OpenTheBooks.com launched a two-page ad encouraging President Donald Trump to wage a three-pronged attack against federal waste:

1. Post White House expenditures online;

2. Cut executive agency waste; and,

3. Report monthly progress to the
public.

“As commander in chief, President Donald Trump can lead the ‘War on Waste,’” OpenTheBooks CEO and
Founder Adam Andrzejewski said. “America is facing a spending crisis. We are asking the president to defend
the American taxpayer and cut the egregious waste, fraud, and taxpayer abuse from executive agency
budgets.”
“With $21 trillion in federal debt, remember, it’s not your money, but your children’s money that our elected
politicians are spending,” said Dr. Tom Coburn, former U.S. Senator from Oklahoma and Honorary Chairman of
OpenTheBooks.com. “We are calling on the president to prioritize fiscal restraint.”
Listed on the two-page advertisement at The Wall Street Journal are 100 examples of federal waste. The
examples include $1.2 trillion wasted on mistaken and improper payments among 20 federal agencies; billions
of dollars spent conferring 43 days of paid time off for federal bureaucrats each year; millions of dollars
wasted on federal grants that fund video games, sex education for prostitutes, and frivolous studies – i.e. $1
million to study ‘where it hurts the most to be stung by a bee’; and much more.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/california-passes-law-allowing-12-year-olds-get-tax-paid-transgender-treatments/

You have to be 16 obtain a driver’s license in California, 18 to buy a rifle, engage in consensual sex, or get married without parental consent, and 21 to buy a handgun, alcohol, or marijuana. But in the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.

The recently enacted California law was written to “provide that the rights of minors and nonminors in foster care, as described above, include the right to be involved in the development of case plan elements related to placement and gender affirming health care, with consideration of their gender identity.”

The new law also includes this provision: “All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.”

That means that all tax-paying Californians will help to pay for all the various services included in these transition cases, regardless of your opinion of the matter.

The law’s authors seem to mean well. The bill also states:

It is the policy of the state that all minors and nonminors in foster care shall have the following rights:

(1) To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect.

(2) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.

Those provisions within this law—and many of the others that follow them—are laudable at first glance. Who would oppose kids living in safe homes and being free of abuse? But meaning well often differs from doing well. The difference can be found in the sub-provisions that enunciate the methods for the well-meaning provisions. One provision says, for example:

The right of minors and nonminors in foster care to health care and mental health care described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 16001.9 includes covered gender affirming health care and gender affirming mental health care. This right is subject to existing laws governing consent to health care for minors and nonminors and does not limit, add, or otherwise affect applicable laws governing consent to health care.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/24/two_big_takeaways_from_the_rosenstein_bombshell_138146.html

What should we make of the New York Times’ shocking story that Rod Rosenstein, the second highest official in the Department of Justice, wanted to “wear a wire,” secretly record President Trump, and gather evidence to oust the president via the 25th Amendment? Rosenstein has effectively admitted that he did say something like that, but he has termed it scathing sarcasm, mocking colleagues who pushed him to investigate Trump more aggressively. All this happened when the administration was young and Rosenstein had only been in office a couple of weeks.

The Times’ story has huge implications, both for its substance and for its provenance (who leaked it and why). The two most important takeaways are these:

First, the insiders who tried to nail Trump before the election and afterwards are now turning on each other as they try to wriggle out of their own criminal exposure.
Second, the leak sets a dangerous trap for Trump. He is bound to be infuriated and might be tempted to fire Rosenstein before the Senate votes on Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court justice and before the American people vote in November. Walking into that trap would be political malpractice.

Let’s look closer at each implication. At this stage, we don’t know who leaked the damaging comments. But we do know they must have come from a top law-enforcement official present at a very contentious meeting with Rosenstein. Parts may have come from a one-on-one meeting between Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, who was then the FBI’s second-in-command and whose boss, James Comey, had just been fired.

These are the same insiders from Loretta Lynch’s DOJ and Comey’s FBI who cleared the gonna-be-president Hillary Clinton of her legal liabilities and then tried to pin those liabilities on her opponent. Their weapon against Trump was America’s powerful counter-intelligence surveillance capabilities. Those are supposed to be used only against suspected spies and require warrants from a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hence, FISA).

The safeguards broke down because they were deliberately—and cleverly—evaded. To get the court’s authorization, top DOJ and FBI officials relied on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee without clearly informing the court about their biased source. Instead, they hid the vital information in an indirectly worded footnote. They failed to tell the court that key supporting evidence (a news article) actually came from the same source. It wasn’t additional evidence at all. Nor did they disclose that the FBI had officially severed its ties to this source for leaking but that the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr was still meeting with him and providing the bureau with his information. They apparently failed to tell the FISA court that the subject of the warrant, Carter Page, had willingly cooperated with U.S. authorities when they asked to interview him.

Kavanaugh’s accuser and the curious George Soros links By Cheryl K. Chumley
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-links-ge/

Look at what’s going on with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court, and the fingerprints of George Soros are all over it.First there was a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros.

What are those ties?The group, Demand Justice, established in 2018, gets its money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund — and the Sixteen Thirty Fund received roughly $2.2 million from the Open Society Policy Center, one of Soros’ outlets, between the years of 2012 and 2016.
Who is Christine Blasey Ford, Part II: The Soros connection
https://www.worldtribune.com/who-is-christine-blasey-ford-part-

The lawyer representing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser is a leader in an organization that has been directly funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, reports say.Debra Katz, who is representing Christine Blasey Ford, is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight. Last month, Katz’s organization, along with several other left-leaning groups, co-signed a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Charles Grassley demanding Kavanaugh records. Katz has also donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.Fox News noted that Katz “also has a history of downplaying or dismissing accusations made by women against Democratic politicians – including former President Bill Clinton and former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.”In June, the Daily Caller found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties” to Soros.
FORD’S ATTORNEY DEBRA KATZ HAS CLOSE TIES TO GEORGE SOROS https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/fords-attorney-debra-katz-has-close-ties-to-george-soros/

Debra Katz, who is the lawyer for Christine Ford, is a long-time political activist, with strong ties to George Soros, also known as “The Evil One”. Even though the Democrats insist that Ford is not political, she has marched in several anti-Trump demonstrations, works for a company that makes the abortion pill, has a lawyer with ties to Soros and has an adviser who has worked for Biden, Clinton and Obama. She is also the one that brought Anita Hill to the spotlight.