http://jamieglazov.com/2017/12/07/glazov-moment-top-10-facts-about-flynns-plea/In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie shares the Top 10 Facts About Flynn’s Plea, unveiling what the establishment media doesn’t want you to know. Don’t miss it!And make sure to watch Jamie’s stirring speech delivered at a recentAmerican Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles. where he focused on United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Jihad,reflecting on how: “I thought we escaped the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union came to us.”
One of the most dishonest and pernicious phrases in the cultural-Marxist lexicon—much favored by Barack Hussein Obama during his eight years in office—goes like this: “The arc of history bends toward justice.” The former president borrowed the phrase from Martin Luther King, Jr., who lifted it from the abolitionist Theodore Parker; attached to the moral struggle of the civil-rights movement, it has become a club with which to beat troglodyte conservatives into submission.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/07/the-arc-of-history-bends-toward-what-exactly/
But this is arrant nonsense. As I observe in my forthcoming book, The Fiery Angel:
This fantastic notion derives from the Hegelian-Marxist belief in history as an abstract, almost sentient, force akin to the old notion of Destiny, but with a bastardized Christian teleological impulse. Indeed, the entire Leftist notion of “progress” and its political expression, “progressivism,” stems from it. An “arc of history” that “bends toward justice” is the next best thing to God.
The obvious derivation of this concept, from both the spirituality of Christianity and the rationalism of the Enlightenment—a Deity as the great Watchmaker in the sky, overseeing the orderly ticking of the universe—should be at once obvious. Given the Leftist fondness for Darwin’s theory of natural selection and of the origin of species, this is an odd, contradictory theory for atheists to hold. But, to quote the Emperor in Amadeus, there it is.
The problem, of course, is that they don’t believe in God—the “invisible man in the sky,” to use one of their choice terms of derision. They consider almost any form of religious belief—except Islam!—to be little better than prehistoric superstition, as outmoded as Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, and Wotan. That the concept of a Deity established itself at the origins of humanity and is found in every culture and civilization is to them simply proof of how widespread this confederacy of dunces really is.
But they do believe in something very like God, which they call by various names, including “justice” and its political corollary, “independence.”
Which brings us to the FBI.
This month, Nebraska regulators approved the Keystone XL Pipeline after years of legal and partisan back-and-forth. And it comes at a critical juncture – not only for America’s ability to transport energy resources but also for the country’s opportunity to bolster international relationships around the world by helping key allies meet their energy needs.
Once a point of weakness, energy has quickly become one of the United States’ strongest assets. Only a decade ago America relied on foreign suppliers to meet nearly two-thirds of oil demand. It now produces almost 80 percent of consumption here at home. Just within the last year, the country has become a net exporter of liquefied natural gas and crude oil. Nearly 35 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by natural gas-fired plants, offsetting coal more and more, which is helping to reduce carbon emissions.
This remarkable domestic energy turnaround is equipping U.S. officials with a powerful diplomatic lever, and the Keystone XL’s approval adds an important arrow to the quiver. Greater energy independence has already begun to undo the stronghold on markets once held by OPEC and other oil cartels. Increasingly, consumer habits have started to dictate production schedules, which has and likely will continue to alleviate prices.
The media echo chamber spent the week speculating about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller can or will nab President Trump on obstruction-of-justice charges. All the while it continues to ignore Washington’s most obvious obstruction—the coordinated effort to thwart congressional probes of the role law enforcement played in the 2016 election.
The news that senior FBI agent Peter Strzok exchanged anti-Trump, pro-Hillary text messages with another FBI official matters—though we’ve yet to see the content. The bigger scandal is that the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Mr. Mueller have known about those texts for months and deliberately kept their existence from Congress. The House Intelligence Committee sent document subpoenas and demanded an interview with Mr. Strzok. The Justice Department dodged, and then leaked.
The department also withheld from Congress that another top official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, was in contact with ex-spook Christopher Steele and the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS. It has refused to say what role the Steele dossier—Clinton-commissioned oppo research—played in its Trump investigation. It won’t turn over files about its wiretapping.
And Mr. Mueller—who is well aware the House is probing all this, and considered the Strzok texts relevant enough to earn the agent a demotion—nonetheless did not inform Congress about the matter. Why? Perhaps Mr. Mueller feels he’s above being bothered with any other investigation. Or perhaps his team is covering for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Seventy-six years ago on Dec. 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese fleet surprise-attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the home port of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Japanese carrier planes killed 2,403 Americans. They sunk or submerged 19 ships (including eight battleships destroyed or disabled) and damaged or destroyed more than 300 planes.
In an amazing feat of seamanship, the huge Japanese carrier fleet had steamed nearly 3,500 miles in midwinter high seas. The armada had refueled more than 20 major ships while observing radio silence before arriving undetected about 220 miles from Hawaii.
The surprise attack started the Pacific War. It was followed a few hours later by a Japanese assault on the Philippines.
More importantly, Pearl Harbor ushered in a new phase of World War II, as the conflict expanded to the Pacific. It became truly a global war when, four days later, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.
The Japanese fleet had missed the three absent American carriers of the Pacific Fleet. Nonetheless, Japanese admirals were certain that the United States was so crippled after the attack that it would not be able to go on the offensive against the Japanese Pacific empire for years, if at all. Surely the wounded Americans would sue for peace, or at least concentrate on Europe and keep out of the Japanese-held Pacific.
That was a fatal miscalculation.
The Japanese warlords had known little of the tireless efforts of one Democratic congressman from Georgia, Carl Vinson.
For nearly a decade before Pearl Harbor, Vinson had schemed and politicked in brilliant fashion to ensure that America was building a two-ocean navy larger than all the major navies of the world combined.
Following Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for “lying to the FBI”, there seem likely to be further feverish developments in Robert Mueller’s “Russia investigation”. Professor William Jacobson asks the obvious question:
Why is Robert Mueller even investigating the presidential transition?
The Order appointing Mueller concerns election interference, not post-election political decisions of the winning candidate.
Indeed. First, it shouldn’t be a crime to lie to the FBI given the way the FBI lies to us with impunity. Yours truly thirteen years ago:
Martha, it seems, will be going to jail for telling a lie. Not in court, not under oath, not perjury, but merely when the Feds came round to see her about a possible crime. They couldn’t prove she’d committed a crime, so they nailed her for lying while chit-chatting to them about the non-crime. And for that they’re prepared to destroy her company.
It’s true that it’s an offence to lie to the Feds. But, as my New Hampshire neighbours Tom and Scott, currently in my basement stretching out a little light carpentry job to the end of the winter, are the first to point out, the Feds lied to the public about Waco and Ruby Ridge (another bloodbath) for years. If the Feds can lie to the people, why can’t the people lie to the Feds?
Martha Stewart wound up behind bars for telling a lie in a matter in which there was no underlying crime. In the case of Flynn, I heard some bigshot in Congress argue that Flynn’s lies were somehow “material” to the investigation. But, as Professor Jacobson points out, it’s hard to see how Russia can “interfere” with the election after it’s been held. Flynn’s conversations occurred in his capacity as a senior figure in the incoming administration. That’s the normal business of diplomatic relations – and it is most emphatically not the business of minor policemen within a leaky and insecure permanent bureaucracy.
So Flynn’s “lies” are not material – unless the Deep State is “investigating” the winning side in the election for engaging in the usual business of government.
Second, I happened to speak to the FBI about a certain matter a couple of months back. Very pleasant lady. Thought it all went well. But my lawyers were dead set against it – because, if you go to see the Feds in the context of some or other investigation and you chance to be infelicitous about this or that, you’ll find that suddenly you’re the one being investigated for, as noted above, the one-way crime of lying to the authorities. Did Flynn, in fact, lie? When you’re shooting the breeze with G-men, mistakes or faulty recollection can be enough to land you in prison – if the Feds think it useful to them to threaten you with that. When Flynn pleaded guilty, was he, in fact, guilty? Or was he rather a ruined and broke man who could no longer withstand the pressure of the metaphorical electrodes with attendant billable hours?
I think we all know the answer to that. As I always say, the process is the punishment. And the Federal Government (which wins 97 per cent of cases it brings to court) can inflict a more punishing process than anyone this side of Pyongyang. This is a vile business that does no credit to a civilized society.
Third, as longtime readers, listeners and viewers know, I strongly dislike the uniquely American “presidential transition” period. As you know, in, say, the Westminster system, if a prime minister loses on a Thursday, his goes to the Palace to resign on the Friday, and he moves out of Downing Street on the weekend. The new cabinet ministers are in place the following Monday or Tuesday. The “transition” is part of the general institutional sclerosis of Washington, and certainly no friend to swamp-drainers: A year after Trump’s election, key positions in every cabinet department – Deputy Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Under-Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Deputy Secretaries, Deputy Assistant Under-Secretaries – are still held by Obama appointees.
Well, you say, that’s business as usual with Chuck Schumer. What can you expect? But in this case the losing party decided to take the opportunities afforded by the transition to the next level. As I put it back in October:
During the stupid and anachronistic two-and-a-half-month electoral “transition”, the outgoing Administration worked round the clock to de-legitimize and cripple their successors.
Hence Susan Rice and Samantha Power frantically “unmasking” all the way up to inauguration day.
I’m taking a “wait and see” attitude on FBI agent Peter Strzok, who is now enmeshed in a political storm involving both the Clinton and the Trump investigations. You know why? Well . . . it’s because I can’t stand the Clintons.
What difference does that make? Well, because I didn’t like them any better in 2001.
That was when I used to run the satellite U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York — the office based in White Plains that oversees federal law enforcement in six counties north of the Bronx. This venue gave me supervision for a time over a piece of the Clinton pardons investigation, the probe that arose out of clemency grants Bill Clinton issued in the last hours of his presidency. One involved four defendants convicted of a massive financial fraud in New Square (which is in Rockland County). They were members of a Hasidic upstate community that tended to vote as a bloc, and so the theory was that Clinton had commuted their prison sentences in exchange for the community’s electoral support for his wife, Hillary Clinton, who then was running for the Senate.
As readers of these columns may recall, I believe the Clinton pardons were deeply corrupt, and that the officials involved in them should never again have been permitted to hold positions of public trust. But whether people are fit for political office is a very different question from whether they should be subjected to a federal criminal prosecution. On that question, I was a strong “no.”
It didn’t matter how I felt about Bill and Hillary personally or politically — which was no secret to my law-enforcement friends and colleagues. This was a strict legal matter, and my sworn duty, like that of every other Justice Department prosecutor, was to enforce the law without fear or favor. President Clinton had the unreviewable authority to grant clemency. While the unsavory rationale for the commutations was obvious, it was far from clear that a politically motivated pardon was actionable, even if we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been a corrupt quid pro quo arrangement — which we couldn’t. End of story.
Walk around any college campus, and you will see the names of distinguished faculty and generous donors adorning most of the buildings. Likewise, many campuses feature statues, memorials, or plaques dedicated to individuals or events of historical significance to that particular school, or the school’s home state. Such monuments typically seek to connect us with the past by preserving the memory of someone or something of consequence—institutional history.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/06/monumental-dishonesty/
Remembering the past is not the same as celebrating it, but erasing the past dooms us to forget the lessons it offers—both good and bad.
Although the coverage in the media has dissipated, the craze for monument destruction has not abated in the wake of the Charlottesville uproar this summer. Indeed it has spread, especially on college campuses. Oregon State University is just one school where the mania has reached a fever pitch. Not content to erase all memory of those with confirmed pro-slavery views (in a state that never allowed slavery), OSU has now moved on—in many cases without solid or tangible evidence—to remove the names of persons rumored or “suspected” of possibly harboring such regrettable views.
But OSU is not unique in its willingness to tear down its past.
In recent years, other universities—including my alma mater, the University of Texas—have begun renaming buildings and mothballing statuary recognizing Confederate-era figures who have fallen out of political fashion. The stated concern is that students with delicate sensibilities might be offended by a reminder of uncomfortable periods in history, in the unlikely event that they even bothered to notice the objectionable statues or were aware of the figures whose names are engraved on the pedestal or building wall. Texas was part of the Confederacy, so cleansing the UT campus of imagery related to the Civil War effectively expunges an important part of the state’s heritage.
I suspect that the real motive for removing historical references is not to make the campus “inclusive,” or to provide students with a “safe space,” but rather of advancing identity politics—pitting people against one another based on group characteristics. Another factor is a simple desire on the part of the Left—now dominant in higher education—to exert its power. As John Davidson has noted, “the purpose of this relentless war on the past is not really to adjudicate America’s historical sins or educate the young about them, but to justify political force in the present day.”
The Supreme Court has allowed President Trump’s ban on travelers from Islamic terrorist-infested nations to take full effect, marking a huge victory for the rule of law, common sense, and U.S. national security.
“This a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people,” U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said after the orders were handed down.
At 7 to 2, the vote Monday to lift two lower court stays hindering enforcement of Presidential Proclamation 9645 while several legal challenges inch their way through the judicial system, wasn’t even close. Unsurprisingly, leftist Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the Trump administration’s application to rescind the stays. As is its custom, the Supreme Court did not offer a rationale for its decision in the orders.
That the Supreme Court took this dramatic action suggests it may be ready to permanently rule that Trump’s efforts to protect Americans by regulating the flow of visitors to the United States from trouble spots around the world are lawful.
Critics of President Trump falsely claim the proclamation is a “Muslim ban,” even though it leaves out the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries on earth. And even if it did single out Muslims, it should still survive constitutional scrutiny, many legal experts say. The Constitution’s prohibition of so-called religious tests doesn’t apply to immigration policy, which is why no one raised a fuss during the Cold War when the U.S. set aside visas specifically for Soviet Jews escaping religious persecution.
“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret,” whined Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “He has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter.”
While Jadwat droned on calling Trump and ordinary Americans who support his policies religious bigots and racists, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) offered a more reasonable appraisal of the high court’s actions.
“There’s always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.
It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.
The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was.
Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.
Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”
No doubt.
That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.
George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton.
Or one of her associates.
Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.
Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.
