Case Closed: Trump’s Executive Order IS Legal & Constitutional

As this is published The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reviewing and will either nullify or affirm a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) granted by a lower court that blocks enforcement of the President’s Executive Order.

The opposition media have established their hostile Trump narrative.  In it they characterize President Trump as an unstable bigot lurching from boorish tweets to ill-considered executive orders, causing misery, outrage and turmoil.  Aided by hysterical attacks from Democrats and entrenched special interests, the media twist and bend every Presidential speech, comment, tweet into consistency with the narrative.

7-countries-map 2Thus, Trump’s Executive Order (EO) to temporarily suspend the refugee program and to block visitors and immigrants from seven nations that are beset by terrorism has met a tsunami of media venom.  It has been widely portrayed as thoughtlessly thrown together, and as either illegal or Unconstitutional or both because, according to hysterical Trump critics…

  • it’s a “Muslim ban”
  • it “helps our enemies,”
  • “it’s in conflict with our values as a nation,”
  • “it’s heartless,”
  • it “caused chaos at airports,”
  • it “scares immigrant families and children,”
  • it provoked mass protests in several cities,
  • it may block people who have helped US troops and have thus been promised an opportunity to immigrate to America.

If any of the President’s virulent critics had stopped yelling long enough to actually read the executive order which is here on the White House website for all the world to see, they would they would have discovered that it was actually pretty modest in scope.  

The EO was carefully, even meticulously prepared, and fully supported by the Constitution and existing law.  In fact the laws that support it are cited within the EO.  It includes processes that enable the Department of Homeland Security to grant exceptions in individual cases, including people who have helped our troops, when doing so is in the national interest.  It exempts people who have already been granted permanent resident status (green card.)

The Constitutional and legal support for the EO are rock solid.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority to pass laws regulating immigration.  Exercising that authority Congress granted to the President via a 1952 law the following authority – exact quote from the law (8 USC 1182)

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This law does not require the President to satisfy any court or any media personality or any political adversary that his finding that a particular class of alien – in this case people from the seven designated nations – is detrimental to the interests of the United States.  Congress delegated the decision only to the President with no review or veto from anyone else, including the courts.  Period.

The Courts can not find the EO violates the Constitution, because the authority was delegated to the President by Congress who, under the Constitution are empowered to regulate immigration.

That some people are unhappy, for any reason, with the President’s finding is irrelevant. That this EO may provoke outrage among citizens of the seven countries is irrelevant. That one or more of the objections listed above may be valid is simply irrelevant.  Under the Constitution and the law The President has been granted sole authority and Trump has lawfully exercised that authority. 

The only recourse for those who oppose the EO would be to pass new legislation that changed the law quoted above.

Let’s deal specifically with the “Muslim ban” allegation. Unfortunately, Trump himself provided an opening for this objection when, during his campaign, he issued a written press release calling for such a ban.  But the EO is not a campaign announcement and it is not Muslim ban, not even close. There are 44 Muslim majority nations.  Trump’s EO affects only seven of them, where 205.4 million or approximately 12.1 percent of the 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide reside.  Thus 88% of the world’s Muslims are unaffected by the E.O.  Calling it a Muslim ban is a deliberate act of deception, designed to inflame Islam’s believers worldwide.

The EO is the subject of a court battle because the Attorney General of  Washington State asked Judge James Robart of the US District Court in Seattle to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop enforcement.  His request was based entirely on arguments like those listed above and on speculation as to future “damage” to Washington’s businesses, colleges, and tax revenue that excluding visitors and immigrants from these seven countries might cause. But the court does not have the authority to assess and judge such matters.  In fact, in his final paragraphs Judge Robart did a fine job of describing the limited, legitimate power of the court under the Constitution [emphasis added]

“Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.  That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimate exercise democratic control over those branches.  The work of the Judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws and more importantly, our Constitution.”

If Judge Robart believed these words he would have denied the request for a TRO.  Instead, his ruling is exactly what he says is not the work of the court! Washington State’s Attorney General did NOT argue that the law empowering the President to determine a certain class of aliens is detrimental to the interests of the United States is Unconstitutional.  He didn’t argue that Executive orders limiting certain classes of aliens are illegal or Unconstitutional. Instead he asked the court to find fault with the wisdom of this specific EO.  Yet astoundingly, Judge Robart issued the TRO without citing any statute or case law precedent.  He did say “the State is likely to succeed on the merits,” apparently based on considerations other than the law and the Constitution.


State of Washington’s request for a TRO

Response from the Trump Administration in opposition to TRO

Judge Robart’s order issuing the TRO

Yes There Is Evidence of Democrat Sponsored Illegal Voting

Predictably, the establishment political-media herd have stampeded to denounce President Trump’s assertions that millions of Presidential election votes were cast illegally.  Their rebuttal tactic is to pound the table and shout, repeatedly and emphatically that there is “no evidence!” of voter fraud.

Vote-place-8-languagesWell, there is evidence.  And some of the evidence implicates the Democratic Party as the author of some forms of voter fraud.  Indeed, the establishment’s adamant and unyielding denial is contrived to shield Democrats from scrutiny because, as everyone tacitly agrees, vote fraud, if it occurs, benefits Democrats.

Let’s define “evidence”:

  • The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (Oxford Living Dictionary)
  • Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion (

Evidence is not proof.  But it contributes to proof.  That witnesses say the bank robber was a tall white man in his 20s who walked with a limp is evidence against Joe who is tall, white, 26, suffers from a knee injury and lives near the bank.  It wouldn’t be enough for a conviction, but it is enough to qualify Joe as a person of interest for police to investigate further, looking for more evidence.

We’ll come back to Joe in a moment. First, consider some evidence of Democrat party facilitation of vote fraud, specifically voting by non-citizens, which is illegal.

English is the official language of the United States. Government business is done in English.  Court proceedings are conducted in English.

Foreign born individuals can complete a process called “naturalization” to become U.S. citizens with all the same rights and privileges of natural born Americans.  One of the requirements of naturalization is ability to speak, read and write English.  They must be fluent enough to comprehend this study guide of questions and answers. Here are three examples of questions they must be able to read, comprehend and answer verbally:

  • What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?
  • What does the Judicial Branch of the federal government do?
  • There are four Amendments to the Constitution about who can vote.  Describe one of them.

Obviously, these questions require a much higher level of English fluency than “vote here.” So one has to wonder why such a simple phrase has to be translated into six languages on the sign pictured above.

Ca-voter-guideSo given that English fluency at a fairly high level is required to earn the right to vote by becoming a citizen why would California print ballots in nine foreign languages?  Could it be because the Democratic Party that runs this state believes its candidates benefit from non-citizen voters and wants to help them?  “Of course not,” sniff California government officials – all of whom are Democrats.  

Also, California has implemented a new law that includes automatic voter registration of people who apply for or renew drivers licenses.  Since citizenship is not required for a license, Californians wonder if there’s a verification process that keeps non-citizens from being registered to vote?  The question has been asked over and over for months but so far, there has been no coherent answer from State authorities.

Again, not yet proof but this is evidence that non-citizens vote in California with the blessing of the political establishment.

Here’s more evidence from New York City.  Last summer Mayor De Blasio boasted that his administration has made it possible for New Yorkers to register and vote in six foreign languages.  The Mayor offered no reason why people who have been certified fluent in English by The US Citizenship and Immigration Services should need forms and ballots printed in foreign languages.  The Mayor didn’t mention any citizenship verification process.

These facts would seem to be more than enough evidence of attempts to encourage and facilitate vote fraud to justify a further investigation.  But the establishment vehemently opposes any such investigation because, they say, there are no “documented cases of large scale vote fraud.”  But if nobody ever investigates how would such cases be discovered and documented?

Now let’s look again at our fictitious suspect Joe, who matches the description of the bank robber.  If the police had the same attitude as the media and the Democratic Party they would ignore Joe because, before any investigation or trial takes place, there is no documented case of Joe robbing the bank!

One last bit of evidence: Who fights ferociously against common sense, innocuous vote fraud prevention measures, such as requiring a photo ID to simply verify that the person who seeks to vote is the person who is registered to vote? Democrats and their media cheer leaders.

Donald Trump Inaugural Speech – Full Text

C170120121336-donald-trump-inaugural-address-sot-2-00000613-large-169hief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.

We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.

You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;
Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;
We’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own;
And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.

One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”

We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.
When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.

We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.

We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

The time for empty talk is over.

Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

You will never be ignored again.

Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Wealthy Again.

We Will Make America Proud Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.

Fake News About Russians and The Election

The breathless New Years Eve headlines were that President Obama retaliated against the Russians for “hacking the election.”

He ordered some 35 Russian personnel, variously described in the media as diplomats or intelligence analysts or spies, to leave the U.S.  Two residential facilities or “compounds” they occupied have been seized and locked down by federal authorities.

But “the election” was NOT hacked.

Instead, emails were stolen from accounts belonging to the Democrat National Committee and the chairman of the Clinton campaign.cnn-headline

The establishment media herd has stampeded to publish hysterical but false accounts claiming the Russians, personally directed by Vladimir Putin, hacked the election in order to help Donald Trump win.  These stories cite as their sources a “thirteen page report” from Homeland Security and the FBI.

The media and their Democrat party partners hope that busy Americans will have these two reactions to the phrase “thirteen page report:”nyt-headline

  1. They will assume it to be 13 pages of detailed evidence, proving that the Russians “hacked the election to help Trump win,” and
  2. They will decide it would take too much time and effort to plow through thirteen pages of governmentese jargon so they won’t look for it or attempt to read it.

The most declarative, clearest sentence from the 13 page report is on page 2:

The US Government confirms that two different Russian Intelligence Services actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party.

nbc-headlineAgain, this does not say “the election” or any voting machine or vote tabulating system was hacked. Only the emails of Democrat Party officials were hacked.

Anyone who was paying attention during the final weeks of the election already knows the personal Gmail account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta was compromised, and that thousands of his emails were stolen and then published online by Wikileaks.  As we reported in detail here these emails were embarrassing but only served to confirm the impression made by the candidate herself that she was autocratic and contemptuous of the American people.

But stealing emails from Democrat party officials is not “hacking an election.”

Nowhere in this report is there even a hint that any voting machine or vote tabulating system was touched. The document does not claim or even infer that Putin was involved or that helping Trump win was the mission of those who stole the emails.  Trump’s name does not appear.  Putin’s name doesn’t appear.  The words “Democratic party” don’t appear.

The report doesn’t explain how they reached the conclusion that Russian Intelligence services were involved.  The only evidence offered to connect Russia to the theft of the emails is that the method, “spearphising” or tricking people into revealing their user names and passwords, is consistent with a method used by cyber criminals believed to be Russian or associated with Russian Intelligence Services.

But anyone, anywhere in the world, can attempt to steal information using the same method.  Indeed, virtually everyone with an email address has been targeted by so-called spearphishing attempts.  Last week I received what I knew immediately was a spearphishing email because it told me to go to a web site and enter the username and password for my account at a bank where I don’t have an account.

The first three pages of the report are dense, jargon filled prose purporting to discuss the theft of emails but without actually revealing anything significant.  The remaining ten pages are devoted to generic, non-specific advice for network administrators on how to prevent hacking.  Nowhere in those remaining pages is there any mention of the Democrats’ stolen emails or the election.

So in reality, the “13 page report” is only three pages, and even those are designed to plant perceptions without providing any factual backup.

Yet the New York Times, Washington Post, and several other establishment news organizations continue to claim “the election” was “hacked,” an obvious attempt at deception, to plant in the minds of Americans the perception that the wrong candidate won the election because Russian hackers, directed by Putin somehow altered the vote counts.

And apparently they’ve had some success.  A recent poll shows half of Democrat voters believe Russians tampered with vote totals to get Trump elected.

These so-called “mainstream news” sources have recently been on a campaign, sanctimoniously grumbling about sites like Liberty works and hundreds of others they accuse of publishing “fake news.”  Some media personalities have even called for government intervention, in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

But their malevolent attempt to undermine confidence in the election and to delegitimize the Trump Administration before it begins is the worst sort of fake news.

Russian Hack Conspiracy Theory Fails to Overturn the Election

The Electoral College has voted and attempts to subvert it have failed.  Donald Trump won, as he should have. 

russians-did-it-dogBut, in an eleventh hour effort to overturn the election the political-media establishment has been in total eruption mode with commentators and websites howling that Russia somehow “hacked the election” and urging Republican Electors to vote against Trump.  They claim Russian ruler Vladimir Putin intervened to help Trump snatch what was supposed to have been, what all the left’s most respected, establishment glitterati predicted would be, Hillary Clinton’s unstoppable march to victory.  On December 15 Mrs. Clinton, echoing hysterical media headlines, told an audience of high-end donors who wanted to know why their money was wasted…

Vladsmall-hillary-3imir Putin himself directed the cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me.

This incendiary language, “cyber attacks against our electoral system” is obviously intended to plant the perception that Putin directed a squad of diabolical techno-goons who somehow reached into local polling precincts to change vote counts, thus changing the outcome of the election. 

But, there is absolutely no report from any federal, state or local government agency indicating that there is even a suspicion that Russia or anyone else “hacked” or altered any voting machine or vote tabulating system. Period.

The only substance behind all this uproar is that in the weeks leading up to the election Wikileaks published thousands of emails that had been stolen from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s personal Gmail account.  Many of them were damaging to the public image of the candidate and her team.  Some revealed that Podesta and his staff harbored elitist, condescending attitudes toward millions of voters, even including some they thought would vote for Hillary.

Podesta’s Gmail wasn’t “hacked” in the sense most of us understand the word.  No outsider broke through Gmail firewalls.  Instead, Podesta stupidly fell for a phishing scam that sent him to a fake page where he voluntarily entered his password, thus allowing whoever initiated the phishing to simply log in to his Gmail account and download copies of all the emails therein.

The media-manufactured crisis began with this breathless, opening paragraph in a December 9 Washington Post front page article titled “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House”:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the electoral system.

The source of the content of a secret CIA assessment?  Unidentified “officials” who “spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters” [sic] who, the Post claims, knew something about a “closed-door briefing on Capital Hill” with “key senators.”  So far the CIA has not presented evidence to support this conclusion.  So far no “key senators” have acknowledged being briefed.

Then the Post tucked this bit of detail into the eleventh paragraph of the same article:

…intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.

Wow! What if the Washington Post really wanted to present unbiased news in proper context?  Would it not put the eleventh paragraph first?  Then, the second paragraph might say that unnamed, unidentified, “officials” nevertheless say Russian government officials directed the WikiLeaks publication of emails, and helping Trump win was their motive. An honest headline to the article might have been: “CIA and other Officials Disagree About Russian Middling in the Election.”

There have since been more articles and TV reports expanding on the Post’s claims.  Now, we’re told that the directors of the FBI and the CIA and their boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, all agree that Putin personally directed the project that stole Podesta’s emails and provided them to Wikileaks in order to help Trump.

But none of these articles or reports include hard evidence or Congressional testimony from anyone in the Intelligence Community.  The last time we were offered anything close to evidence was an October statement from Director Clapper:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

“Consistent with methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts”?  Well, how many methods are there?  Again, Podesta was the victim of a phishing scam, a method so common almost all of us have received similar emails.  So Clapper’s assertion is like saying the police are confident that Sam robbed the gas station because even though the robber wore a mask his method, pointing a gun at the clerk and running away with the money, was “consistent” with Sam’s.

The Democrats’ apparent argument is that publishing Podesta’s emails on Wikileaks was the deciding factor that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  But Hillary herself exposed the elitism, the scorn for Middle America, the arrogance of her campaign in her own vile accusations while speaking to an audience of elite, liberal donors at the posh Cipriani Club 55 on Wall Street:

little-hillary-flipflopYou could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic?—?you name it…Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America.

Republican candidates are routinely called racist and those other ists and ics in Mrs. Clinton’s rant.  But it is unusual for a politician to revile tens of millions of private citizens with such venom.

Good, decent people believe that racism – prejudice or antagonism or government sanctions against people of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior – is evil. Thus they consider an accusation that they are racist to be a deeply offensive accusation that they are evil.

Good, decent people who have suffered losses in the Obama economy are especially offended when they hear themselves attacked as evil in front of a giggling, cheering audience of the smug, government-media-Wall Street elite, the guys who presume to be superior to the rest of us, and seek the power to direct our culture and our economy, and, who also are fully insulated by our tax dollars from the consequences of their own stupidity and malfeasance.

In a video that went viral and was seen by millions on TV, Hillary told another group of pompous elites that “deep seeded religious beliefs have to change.”  These would of course be the Christian and Jewish beliefs that fail to conform with the latest, trendy, progressive “values.”  On the other hand, Donald Trump, who appears to have little knowledge of the Bible and whose personal life does not seem to indicate a desire to be Christ-like, emphatically promised to protect Evangelicals’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion.  Is it any wonder then, that he was the overwhelming favorite of Evangelical voters?  Is there any doubt he would have been even if there had been no exposure of the mocking, sneering emails?

Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Podesta has disputed the authenticity of the emails that were published by Wikileaks.  In reality this “hacking” served only to confirm what voters who were paying attention already knew about Hillary and her arrogant staff and her imperious donors.

However, it is important to clear the air regarding possible Russian involvement with possible direction by Putin.  If the Intelligence community has genuine proof, in the form of intercepted communication between top Russian government officials, or Putin himself, and someone who is verified to be the individual who operated the phishing scam against Podesta we the people have a right to see it. If they do not have such proof they should step up and say so.

What is NOT acceptable is continued attempts to overturn the election and discredit the President based on leaked rumor and unconfirmable conspiracy theories.


The Christmas Miracle

From “The Message” Bible, a translation from the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts to contemporary American English.


Luke 1:

26-28 God sent the angel Gabriel to the Galilean village of Nazareth to a virgin engaged to be married to a man descended from David. His name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name, Mary. Upon entering, Gabriel greeted her:

“Good morning!
You’re beautiful with God’s beauty,
Beautiful inside and out!
God be with you.”

29-33She was thoroughly shaken, wondering what was behind a greeting like that. But the angel assured her, “Mary, you have nothing to fear. God has a surprise for you: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son and call his name Jesus.

He will be great,
be called ‘Son of the Highest.’
The Lord God will give him
the throne of his father David;
He will rule Jacob’s house forever—
no end, ever, to his kingdom.”

34Mary said to the angel, “But how? I’ve never slept with a man.”

35The angel answered,

The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
the power of the Highest hover over you;
Therefore, the child you bring to birth
will be called Holy, Son of God.

Luke 2:

1-5: About that time Caesar Augustus ordered a census to be taken  throughout the Empire. This was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Everyone had to travel to his own ancestral hometown to be accounted for. So Joseph went from the Galilean town of Nazareth up to Bethlehem in Judah, David’s town, for the census. As a descendant of David, he had to go there. He went with Mary, his fiancée, who was pregnant.

6-7: While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. She gave birth to a son, her firstborn. She wrapped him in a blanket and laid him in a manger, because there was no room in the hostel.

8-12: There were sheepherders camping in the neighborhood. They had set night watches over their sheep. Suddenly, God’s angel stood among them and God’s glory blazed around them. They were terrified. The angel said, “Don’t be afraid. I’m here to announce a great and joyful event that is meant for everybody, worldwide: A Savior has just been born in David’s town, a Savior who is Messiah and Master. This is what you’re to look for: a baby wrapped in a blanket and lying in a manger.”

13-14: At once the angel was joined by a huge angelic choir singing God’s praises:

Glory to God in the heavenly heights,

Peace to all men and women on earth who please him.

15-18: As the angel choir withdrew into heaven, the sheepherders talked it over. “Let’s get over to Bethlehem as fast as we can and see for ourselves what God has revealed to us.” They left, running, and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger. Seeing was believing. They told everyone they met what the angels had said about this child. All who heard the sheepherders were impressed.

19-20: Mary kept all these things to herself, holding them dear, deep within herself. The sheepherders returned and let loose, glorifying and praising God for everything they had heard and seen. It turned out exactly the way they’d been told!

Why Hillary Lost in Three Charts

msmUp until about 9 p.m. election night, the smug elites of the political-media establishment were unanimous in their faith that of course Queen Hillary of the House of Clinton Political Machine would vanquish the crass, inept Trump with no experience, no consultants, no visible “ground game,” no clue.

Now they’re immersed in shock, disbelief, grief, and despair.  They’re indulging in anger at 60 million voters – not one of whom they’re acquainted with – people they disdain as racist ignoramuses.  But the real motivations of Trump voters are not hard to understand.  They fall in two, overlapping categories: Economic and cultural.  In this post we deal with economics.

Hillary Clinton lost because her implicit promise was to preserve and build upon President Obama’s economic “accomplishments.”  He managed to force a tax increase through Congress in 2012. She promised even higher taxes.  She vowed to continue his breathtaking  roll out of new regulations, burying employers, entrepreneurs and investors in prohibitions, mandates and mind-numbing complexity with harsh penalties, including stiff fines and even prison time for violations.  And, of course there’s Obamacare, a government take-over of health insurance, coupled with complex new regulations of health care providers.gdp-obama-vs-average

The voters’ obvious question was, after eight years, how have Obama’s economic policies performed? Let’s start with the most comprehensive measure of overall economic health, the quarterly, Gross Domestic Product reports from the Commerce Department.  The first chart, above, measures economic growth during the economic recovery beginning with the first quarter after the end of the 2008-2009 recession.

The Obama era post-recession economy turned out to be the weakest since the government began issuing quarterly GDP growth reports in 1947.  As the chart shows, we’re enduring a growth rate that is less than half of average.nov-2016-labor-participation

The next chart, above, debunks Obama-Clinton claims of low unemployment.  In fact, the only reason the official unemployment rate has declined at all, from it’s 9.8% peak in 2010 is an unprecedented reclassification of working age Americans from “unemployed to “out the labor force.”

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working age people who “participate” in the labor force either by being employed or by being counted as unemployed.  When jobless people become discouraged and don’t actively seek employment every week they are reclassified from “unemployed” to “out of the labor force,” and are no longer counted in computing the official unemployment rate.

This decline in the labor force participation rate during an economic recovery has never happened before.  Because so many jobless people aren’t counted as unemployed the decline in the unemployment rate is, for the first time ever, a negative indicator.  If all jobless people were counted, raising the participation rate to a pre-recession level the unemployment rate would be well above 9%.

The uncounted jobless are still there, still available for work, and when job openings are advertised some of them apply, increasing the supply of available employees, which results in lower wages for whoever is fortunate enough to land a job.

Most of them don’t research employment statistics but virtually every voter outside the Washington D.C.-Manhattan-Hollywood bubble knows someone who, after years of productive work has found him/herself without a job and without hope of finding a job that pays as well as the one he/she lost, or any job at all at any wage.  Few of them saw our chart before voting but they “feel” the effects.

Finally, the federal debt. In response to the 2008-09 recession President Bush began and then President Obama – with the enthusiastic support of Congressional Democrats – ratcheted up the largest ever spike in federal spending.  Obama’s promise was that it would “immediately jumpstart job creation.”

Obviously, massive spending didn’t deliver.

But spending was never cut back to normal levels.  Even after four years of irresponsible and risky cuts to military budgets, federal spending in 2016 is an astonishing 63% higher than it was before the recession, after adjusting for inflation. 

The third chart, below, illustrates the result of runaway, uncontrolled spending, an unprecedented, reckless escalation in government debt. debt-obama-up-8t

For his part, Donald Trump consistently promised tax cuts on business and employers couple with a regulation rollback, starting with a brilliant new requirement that for every new regulation imposed upon the American people, two existing regulations must be revoked.  And of course, he will repeal Obamacare.

President-elect Trump overcame a lot of negative baggage to win the election.  We at Liberty Works will enthusiastically support his initiatives to improve economic opportunity, dramatically increase employment and restore sanity to federal spending.


Hillary Tells Her Donors Your Religious Beliefs “will have to change”

Hillary Clinton’s closing theme, repeated at every campaign event is about “unity.”  Like Barack Obama before her, she promises that somehow she will “bring us together” so we’ll all agree with those progressive schemes to expand the power, reach and cost of government.

President Obama had some success in tightening the progressive vice on America: Stepped up immigration, a breathtaking expansion in Federal regulatory power, and of course Obamacare.  But his successes provoked resistance, anger and rebellion at the ballot box.  Democrats lost 69 House seats and 13 Senate seats in three elections since his Presidency began. 

The Progressive movement reacted as it always does, not by trying to sell for its positions in the marketplace of ideas.  Instead Progressives seek to silence opposition, to delegitimize resistance to growing government power. They’ve had some success, notably on college campuses and in the establishment media.  But there is still stubborn resistance. 

In this video presents her final solution to political opposition. She seems to be calling for government to forcibly change your beliefs if you dare to disagree.

Hillary Clinton Has Disqualified Herself

The best question was about the Supreme Court.  Hillary Clinton’s preposterous answers disqualify her for the office of President.

third-presidential-debateUnfortunately, we’ve come to a depressing moment in American history.  The political-media-academic establishment abhors the Constitution, shouting down anyone who wants it enforced and obeyed, calling us “extremist” or “nutcase” or “bigoted.”  This was the context for Moderator Chris Wallace’s first question.

WALLACE: The first topic is the Supreme Court….First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country?  And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders words mean what they say or is it a living document to e applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?

The first part was asked from, and affirms the point of view of the Progressive Left that somehow the Supreme Court could or should “take the country” to some new place.  But the second part of the question is critically important and asking it was an heroic act of defiance of the establishment. It identifies the core difference between what the establishment calls “the liberal wing” and “the conservative wing” of the Supreme Court. 

The Conservatives should be called Originalists because they do indeed believe that the founders words meant what they said, and the original plain meaning of the Constitution’s text should be applied by the Court to settle current disputes.  The liberals largely ignore the actual Constitution, substituting the opinions of modern elites and their own thoughts which they claim constitutes a “living” or “flexible” Constitution.

Here’s a portion of Hillary’s answer, including three rhetorical questions:

small-hillary-3You know, I think when we talk about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election, namely, what kind of country are we going to be?  What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens?  What kind of rights will Americans have?

Hillary’s thoughts and rhetorical questions are incoherent and utterly divorced from the the Constitution that created the Supreme Court.

  1. The Constitution absolutely does not empower nine, non-elected judges to decide anything so expansive and ambiguous as “what kind of country are we going to be.”  The court’s job is to resolve disputes over the interpretation of the Constitution and/or federal law.
  2. In asking “what kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens?” who does Hillary mean by “WE”?  Well, among the elites in her progressive bubble “we” is always government. But the Constitution not empower the Court or any branch of government, including to provide opportunities, or to decide which opportunities to allow.
  3. Her question, “What kind of rights will Americans have?” is comprehensively answered in the body of the Constitution and the first ten amendments.  The legitimate job, indeed the sworn duty, of judges is to support and defend that Constitution, not to determine now what rights citizens do or do not have.

Hillary Continued…small-hillary-2

And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.

Well, millions who own shares of corporations as individuals or through pension funds, mutual funds or 401K funds, and the employees of corporations, are also Americans, as are the wealthy. The Justice’s duty is not to take a fixed, predetermined “stand” against some Americans, but to judge and decide each case on its merits, in accordance with the law and the Constitution.  And by the way, the Justices all swore an oath of office that includes, “…I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich…”

More of Hillary’s answer…small-hillary-3

For me that means that we need a supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of Women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community…

The Justice’s duty is to protect the rights of every person, not just those of Hillary’s targeted voting blocks or one the Left’s favored “communities.”

Hillary ended up with…small-hillary-2

I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we…stand up and basically say, the Supreme Court should represent all of us.

But the Justices are not representatives!  Under the Constitution we have 435 representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate.  Rather than represent anyone, the Supreme Court Justices’ job is to apply the Constitution, and/or laws duly enacted by Congress to decide the cases before them.

Hillary ignored the second, and most important part of Wallace’s question, should the Constitution be interpreted as if the words mean what they say, or should the Justices beliefs override those words.  She ignored it because her answer, if she were honest, would have to be that in her opinion the words of the Constitution are of little or no consequence.

What about Trump’s answer?  The first two-thirds didn’t address either of Wallace’s questions except to stress his support for Justices who would retain the second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms.  He did finally finish up with a direct answer, exactly the answer that one who wants to be President should have offered, to Wallace’s second question:

smal-trump[T]he Justices I am going to appoint will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.  And I believe that’s very, very important.  I don’t think we should have Justices appointed that decide what they want to hear. It’s all about the Constitution, and so important, the Constitution, the way it was meant to be.

Hillary’s media cheer leaders are often heard bellowing that Trump is unfit, that his ideas have utterly disqualified him from the Presidency.  But if they were educated in the Constitution they would be appalled at her apparent lack of understanding.  They would have to, if they had any integrity, declare her apparent ignorance of the legitimate, Constitutional role of the court to be disqualifying.

Who Is The Real Threat to Women?

So Donald Trump chose to immerse himself in the Manhattan-Hollywood celebrity culture and was caught on a hot mike boasting that his fame empowered him to abuse women.  Disgusting. 

Of course Hillary Clinton isn’t the least bit embarrassed that the disgusting, amoral Manhattan-Hollywood, celebrity culture where young women who haven’t yet “made it” are exploited and abused daily, supports Democrats in every election with celebrity endorsements and high-end fund raisers. When it comes to Hillary’s own campaigns, desire for cash supplants sanctimonious indignation.

Would a Trump Presidency be worse for women than a Clinton presidency? Let’s compare Trump’s trash-talk with a recent Obama Administration decree – fully supported by Hillary Clinton – that deliberately, unambiguously subjugates women and girls, in service of one of the Progressive movement’s trendy new causes.

Under new “guidance” from the Obama Administration any male student of any age who “self-identifies” as a girl has the right to, and must be permitted to, use girls restrooms, locker rooms and showers. Any girls or parents who object have no rights or recourse.

In May of this year the Obama Departments of Justice and Education sent a notice to every school district in America setting forth, and threatening financial penalties for disobedience to, the President’s new “Significant Guidance” with regard to transgender students.  Under the so-called “guidance” which is actually a set of requirements, a student IS whatever gender he/she asserts he/she is.  That his/her “gender identity” is simply mistaken, that it does not correspond with physical reality, is irrelevant. Common sense is irrelevant.

Here is the relevant, anti-female paragraph:

“Restrooms and Locker Rooms: A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity.  A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.”

Again, for purposes of this “guidance” the definition of transgender is a student whose “gender identity” is the opposite of his/her actual, biological sex.  And a student’s “Gender Identity” is whatever the student says it is.  This same notice forbids school officials from applying any biological, psychological or legal criteria to verify a boy’s asserted female “identity.”  He is whatever he says he is, and he can change what he says he is any time for any reason or no reason.

In the bizarro Progressive world, if an 18 year old (the age most students reach in their senior year of high school) boy says he’s female, he must be permitted to shower and dress next to 15-16-17-18 year old girls. Objections from the girls or their parents are to be summarily rejected because, as the Directive from Washington arrogantly snorts…

“The desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of student.”

So, requiring a boy to use the boys locker room would somehow “disadvantage” him if says his gender identity is female.

So which candidate would, as President, would be more offensive to women and girls?  The one who, twelve years ago, acted like a trashy-mouthed frat boy while in the company of other trashy-mouthed frat boys, in a culture that favors teh Democrat Party and celebrates such behavior?  Or, the one who approves of, and will continue to use the menacing power of the federal government to force girls to submit to co-ed locker rooms, just so progressives can feel important.

Next Page »