The Most Important Election in 222 Years


In 1796, America under George Washington enjoyed peace and prosperity unforeseen by even the most optimistic Founders.  The election of 1796 was arguably the most important in the nation’s history because it represented our first true transfer of power.  Many had urged Washington to be king.  Instead, he willingly gave his power back to the people, who then placed it into the hands of our second president, John Adams.  Though Adams beat Thomas Jefferson by a mere three electoral votes – and won just 71 out of 276 cast – thoughts of monarchy were forgotten, and America was set on a course it maintained for the next 204 years.


The presidential election of 2000 established a new paradigm, where the winner of the contest was considered illegitimate by a large part of the opposition.  Ditto 2004 and 2016.  Though the effort to de-legitimize President Bush was interrupted by 9/11, the new paradigm appears fixed: Democrat winners are as American as apple pie, and Republican winners are cheaters.  The peaceful transfer of power is no longer a given.



As troubling as the new paradigm is, it is just another convenient political gambit for the irresponsible left.  The prominence of the new paradigm should alarm every freedom-loving American.  If unchecked, in time, it will force a breaking point.  It also speaks to a palpable division that goes beyond anything we’ve seen since at least the Civil War.  Politics is no longer the art of reasonable compromise; it has become an exercise in grudging, chafing tolerance, with one side consumed by a passionate hatred for the other side – a spreading hatred that threatens to consume both sides.  America is at a tipping point, and the 2018 elections will likely determine which direction we take for a generation or more.


The fact that we still have a chance to save the country from the collectivist ash heap is miraculous, given that almost every force in society is aligned against its salvation:


  • We toil under the baleful eye of the leftist corporate media, which ignores our successes; amplifies every perceived failing; and paints conservatism as intolerant and incompetent, stuffy, and stultifying.
  • A small but loud resistance movement inside conservatism is endlessly paraded before the country, obsessing over what is “crass” and “gauche.”  It is animated by a reeking desperation for approval of everyone outside the right and is utterly useless against a left that never puts form over substance.
  • The population is widely dependent upon the largess the government has been dispensing for generations.
  • The left seems near the end of its long march through society’s consciousness-forming institutions, dominating the media and almost wholly controlling academia, the arts, the sciences, and entertainment and making serious inroads into religion.
  • The strings that connect and control the digital age are in the hands of the left, hands that gleefully strangle voices on the right.
  • Even as “the right” controls the federal government, recent events have shown that rogue leftist elements within government are active and treasonous.
  • The left is utterly ruthless, while the right still pretends propriety and decorum are indispensable hallmarks of civilization rather than civilization-threatening indulgences. 


Problems such as the national debt and unfunded entitlements were once considered paramount.  One can be forgiven for pining for such simple times.


Given the forces arrayed against us, it is hard to imagine that one election could make much difference.  Cynics will argue that the cause is lost, the Republic died long ago in all but form, and the ascendancy and normalization of the left insures that it will be generations before it can be restored to its former glory.  The combined power of the forces of unmaking seem congealed to form an fixed object.  If that is so, then moving the left off its political center of gravity will require an unstoppable force.


The relentlessly energetic engine of that force exists in the person of President Trump, but the body of it consists of those Americans who still value freedom over entitlement, individualism over conformity, work over idleness, nationhood over globalism, and faith over self-worship and idolatry.


The elections this year are critical not because of any dire consequences that may directly result.  Even if Republicans lose control of the House in 2018, Trump will remain in power and will be able to place the Department of Justice into more vigorous hands, so the ongoing coup against his presidency can still be exposed.  It’s likely that victorious Democrats will try to hamstring his agenda with endless investigations, but he may merely settle into a more combative mode, achieving his ends through executive action or budgetary intransigence.


Even if the president can get along with fewer people in his corner, the fact that he will be more empowered to pursue his agenda if Republicans win is a given.  Issues as fundamental as whether we will alter the population by importing poverty or importing merit are at stake.


As important as many of Trump’s agenda items are, this year’s election is the most important in more than two centuries because the left has fully embraced the new paradigm of illegitimacy.  Leftists have never been more clearly defined, and the present moment affords us the best chance we have ever had to turn decisively away from their road to ruin.  For the first time in a generation, the president and his allies have the country moving in the right direction, defined not by statistics, but by the fact that what he has already accomplished offers conservatism a real chance to be shown to work.  All of the propaganda and histrionics of the left will fall on deaf ears if the people are confident about the direction of the country.  The left still represents a cacophonous minority; most Americans are still animated by a desire to secure their place in a world where they can feel proud of themselves and their country.


We’ve been told for months that the left’s ascendancy in the House is a foregone conclusion: Trump alienates many people, and opinion polling is cast in stone, so don’t bother voting.  Given that context, a Republican victory will be a devastating blow to the left and its machinations.  Sitting out the elections is not merely a self-absorbed statement that you are offended by Trump’s personality; it is agreement that the left and its allies can be trusted with power.


The election of President Trump was a richly deserved blow to the establishment and to a political party that despises you if you are not a member of its club of malcontents.  For the first time since their ascendancy, the left and their enablers are off balance and fully exposed.  You can either help to deliver them a crippling blow or extend your hand to help them up.  In this election, inaction is the most telling vote you can cast – it will say everything about you that is really worth knowing.










In 1796, America under George Washington enjoyed peace and prosperity unforeseen by even the most optimistic Founders.  The election of 1796 was arguably the most important in the nation’s history because it represented our first true transfer of power.  Many had urged Washington to be king.  Instead, he willingly gave his power back to the people, who then placed it into the hands of our second president, John Adams.  Though Adams beat Thomas Jefferson by a mere three electoral votes – and won just 71 out of 276 cast – thoughts of monarchy were forgotten, and America was set on a course it maintained for the next 204 years.


The presidential election of 2000 established a new paradigm, where the winner of the contest was considered illegitimate by a large part of the opposition.  Ditto 2004 and 2016.  Though the effort to de-legitimize President Bush was interrupted by 9/11, the new paradigm appears fixed: Democrat winners are as American as apple pie, and Republican winners are cheaters.  The peaceful transfer of power is no longer a given.


As troubling as the new paradigm is, it is just another convenient political gambit for the irresponsible left.  The prominence of the new paradigm should alarm every freedom-loving American.  If unchecked, in time, it will force a breaking point.  It also speaks to a palpable division that goes beyond anything we’ve seen since at least the Civil War.  Politics is no longer the art of reasonable compromise; it has become an exercise in grudging, chafing tolerance, with one side consumed by a passionate hatred for the other side – a spreading hatred that threatens to consume both sides.  America is at a tipping point, and the 2018 elections will likely determine which direction we take for a generation or more.


The fact that we still have a chance to save the country from the collectivist ash heap is miraculous, given that almost every force in society is aligned against its salvation:


  • We toil under the baleful eye of the leftist corporate media, which ignores our successes; amplifies every perceived failing; and paints conservatism as intolerant and incompetent, stuffy, and stultifying.
  • A small but loud resistance movement inside conservatism is endlessly paraded before the country, obsessing over what is “crass” and “gauche.”  It is animated by a reeking desperation for approval of everyone outside the right and is utterly useless against a left that never puts form over substance.
  • The population is widely dependent upon the largess the government has been dispensing for generations.
  • The left seems near the end of its long march through society’s consciousness-forming institutions, dominating the media and almost wholly controlling academia, the arts, the sciences, and entertainment and making serious inroads into religion.
  • The strings that connect and control the digital age are in the hands of the left, hands that gleefully strangle voices on the right.
  • Even as “the right” controls the federal government, recent events have shown that rogue leftist elements within government are active and treasonous.
  • The left is utterly ruthless, while the right still pretends propriety and decorum are indispensable hallmarks of civilization rather than civilization-threatening indulgences. 


Problems such as the national debt and unfunded entitlements were once considered paramount.  One can be forgiven for pining for such simple times.


Given the forces arrayed against us, it is hard to imagine that one election could make much difference.  Cynics will argue that the cause is lost, the Republic died long ago in all but form, and the ascendancy and normalization of the left insures that it will be generations before it can be restored to its former glory.  The combined power of the forces of unmaking seem congealed to form an fixed object.  If that is so, then moving the left off its political center of gravity will require an unstoppable force.


The relentlessly energetic engine of that force exists in the person of President Trump, but the body of it consists of those Americans who still value freedom over entitlement, individualism over conformity, work over idleness, nationhood over globalism, and faith over self-worship and idolatry.


The elections this year are critical not because of any dire consequences that may directly result.  Even if Republicans lose control of the House in 2018, Trump will remain in power and will be able to place the Department of Justice into more vigorous hands, so the ongoing coup against his presidency can still be exposed.  It’s likely that victorious Democrats will try to hamstring his agenda with endless investigations, but he may merely settle into a more combative mode, achieving his ends through executive action or budgetary intransigence.


Even if the president can get along with fewer people in his corner, the fact that he will be more empowered to pursue his agenda if Republicans win is a given.  Issues as fundamental as whether we will alter the population by importing poverty or importing merit are at stake.


As important as many of Trump’s agenda items are, this year’s election is the most important in more than two centuries because the left has fully embraced the new paradigm of illegitimacy.  Leftists have never been more clearly defined, and the present moment affords us the best chance we have ever had to turn decisively away from their road to ruin.  For the first time in a generation, the president and his allies have the country moving in the right direction, defined not by statistics, but by the fact that what he has already accomplished offers conservatism a real chance to be shown to work.  All of the propaganda and histrionics of the left will fall on deaf ears if the people are confident about the direction of the country.  The left still represents a cacophonous minority; most Americans are still animated by a desire to secure their place in a world where they can feel proud of themselves and their country.


We’ve been told for months that the left’s ascendancy in the House is a foregone conclusion: Trump alienates many people, and opinion polling is cast in stone, so don’t bother voting.  Given that context, a Republican victory will be a devastating blow to the left and its machinations.  Sitting out the elections is not merely a self-absorbed statement that you are offended by Trump’s personality; it is agreement that the left and its allies can be trusted with power.


The election of President Trump was a richly deserved blow to the establishment and to a political party that despises you if you are not a member of its club of malcontents.  For the first time since their ascendancy, the left and their enablers are off balance and fully exposed.  You can either help to deliver them a crippling blow or extend your hand to help them up.  In this election, inaction is the most telling vote you can cast – it will say everything about you that is really worth knowing.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Oregon Legislature’s Counsel: Bloomberg-Funded Lawyer in DOJ Not Entirely Legal

A "special assistant attorney general" who has been working for Oregon’s Department of Justice, yet whose salary was being paid by Michael Bloomberg using a pass-through agency, is working in circumstances partially or completely contrary to Oregon law, according to an analysis by the office of legal counsel that serves the Oregon State Legislature.

The scheme of third-party sources paying for this attorney and others like him was uncovered and reported in late August by Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

Horner’s investigation found similar arrangements in AG offices in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York, and shows that the attorneys were hired to focus on climate change issues.

While the effort has many layers, in general it begins with Bloomberg’s funding of a specialty school within New York University’s School of Law, the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center.

The Center’s website states that part of their mission is to work "with interested attorneys general to identify and hire NYU Law Fellows who serve as special assistant attorneys general in state attorney general offices, focusing on clean energy, climate and environmental matters."

However, the center also pays the salaries when the "special assistant attorneys general" (SAAG) are taken on at an attorney general’s office (OAG). Horner’s report suggests these efforts are at best unethical, and often times illegal.

For example, Oregon law gives the attorney general wide latitude in hiring assistant attorneys, but the law also states that, "each assistant shall receive the salary fixed by the Attorney General, payable as other state salaries are paid."

The legal analysis by the legislature’s office of legal counsel obtained by the Washington Free Beacon determined that the SAAG working in the Oregon Department of Justice "is not receiving a salary fixed by the Attorney General, and his salary is not paid as other state salaries are paid. This arrangement does not comply with [Oregon Revised Statute] 180.140 (4)."

In performing the analysis, the legislative counsel’s office examined the employment contract for SAAG Steve Novick, and noticed that "the documents also require the DOJ and Mr. Novick to report to and collaborate with the [NYU] Center."

"Although these duties may be minimal, they arguably prevent Mr. Novick from ‘devot[ing] the full time of the assistant to the business of the state’ as required" by the same Oregon statute cited previously, the letter added.

A similar situation may exist in New York, where 2 SAAGs have been hired, according to Horner’s findings, and state law provides that the attorney general may appoint "attorneys as he may deem necessary and fix their compensation with the amounts appropriated therefor."

The Free Beacon inquired with the New York Attorney General’s office earlier this week about the legality of employing SAAGs funded by outside sources, and has not received a response.

Emails previously obtained by Horner show that the Oregon DOJ struggled with the issues created by having a third-party source paying the SAAGs salary.

"Are we sure it is correct to refer to him as a ‘volunteer.’ And not an employee," Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum asked in an email to office colleagues. "Can you be an unpaid employee of the State? As a [Special Assistant Attorney General] doesn’t that make one an employee? I find it strange to call someone who is working under our supervision with the title of SAAG and who is getting paid (by a third party) the same as he would if he were working for DOJ as a regular AAG—a volunteer."

While the issue of whether one state employee is paid in the exact same manner as another may sound like a technicality to some, Horner suggested that it subverts the system of checks and balances in place to ensure public oversight of government behavior.

"Of course, no legislature can waive the Constitution, and nothing on the books or, so far, imagined by Oregon’s DoJ gets around the due process and separation of powers problems this scheme poses," Horner wrote in an email after reviewing the letter.

"Now seems like an opportune moment to let the world in on their secret: where does Oregon’s AG find the authority to allow wealthy donors to fund prosecutors to pursue issues of importance to the donor?" Horner continued. "If the Attorney General of Oregon in fact has the statutory authority to take in privately funded prosecutors, her DoJ has yet to reveal it."

The situation also raises conflict-of-interest questions.

"Is a National Right to Life chaired prosecutor for purposes of investigating abortion providers, or an NRA prosecutor for investigating opponents of the Second Amendment, also acceptable? If not, why not?" Horner asked.

The Free Beacon reached out to several members of the Oregon State Legislature, only one of whom responded and said on background that elected officials were unlikely to comment immediately on the letter.

The Oregon Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman with the NYU Law School State Impact Center said they stood by a previous statement made to the Free Beacon in August.

"We fundamentally disagree with the premise of CEI’s factually flawed report," the spokesman said at the time. "The State Impact Center operates within legal and ethical rules to assist state AGs through the substantial legal expertise of its leadership team on clean energy, climate and environmental laws and policies and through its fellows program in which state AG offices direct the day-to-day work of fellows."

The post Oregon Legislature’s Counsel: Bloomberg-Funded Lawyer in DOJ Not Entirely Legal appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Experts tried to prove conservative numbers on illegal immigration wrong – and were shocked

A new study is casting doubt on the traditional statistic cited by experts about the number of illegal aliens who reside in the U.S., and it says it might be as much as twice as many.

“A sanity check on the existing number”

When most experts debate the issue of illegal immigration and what to do about it, they generally accept the figure of 11.3 million persons present in the U.S. illegally.

But the new Yale-affiliated study says that might be drastically underestimating the number, and it could be as high as 22 million.

The researchers said they were attempting to give a “reality check” on the statistic they considered to be aiding a conservative political agenda.

They were shocked to discover many more illegals than 11.3 million according to their model.

“Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was 50% higher,” remarked Edward Kaplan, the William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Operations Research at the Yale School of Management. “That caused us to scratch our heads.”

“The number has been higher all along”

The previous 11.3 million estimate is an extrapolation from a Census Bureau survey, and had been used for decades.

But when the researchers tried to replicate the number with a different methodology, they were surprised at the findings.

Their estimation depends on simple logic applied to deportation and death statistics, but they discovered that this mathematical model concluded a mean number of 22 million illegal immigrants.

The researchers made it clear that they weren’t concluding there was a recent influx of illegal immigrants, but rather that the estimate has been too low, for decades.

“What we’re saying is the number has been higher all along,” said Kaplan.

Here’s a video of the researchers discussing their findings:

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

BREAKING: Rosenstein Discussed Wearing a Wire in Plot to Take Down Trump — A SECOND TIME


BREAKING: Rosenstein Discussed Wearing a Wire in Plot to Take Down Trump — A SECOND TIME

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
September 21, 2018

As Cristina Laila reported earlier on Friday —

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year spoke with DOJ and FBI officials about wearing a wire and secretly recording President Trump to be able to build a case that Trump is unfit to hold office.

DAG Rosenstein began plotting Trump’s removal shortly after FBI Director Comey was fired.

James Comey was fired on May 9th, 2017 and DAG Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump-Russia collusion a week later.

Rosenstein has been acting as Attorney General since Jeff Sessions recused himself from his duties after he was sworn in.

Rod Rosenstein denied that the earlier accusations that he was discussing wearing a wire to take down Trump.

Rod Rosenstein signed a FISA warrant to spy on Trump in June 2017.

Rosenstein signed the final FISA Renewal – sometime around June 29, 2017. After Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.

Now this…

New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt tweeted out late this afternoon the NY Times learned since their breaking report that Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire a SECOND TIME!

Oh my. The New York Times is getting the dirt on Rosenstein from a Lisa Page memo.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

Announcement: We have disabled the ability to post graphics after experiencing an attack of inappropriate image spam over the last several days. Thanks for your understanding.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Michigan mom charged with larceny for taking away daughter’s phone as punishment

Jodie May of Grandville, Michigan, was forced to appear before a district judge earlier this week on a larceny charge for taking away her daughter’s cellphone as punishment.

May took the iPhone 6 from her 15-year-old daughter in April after the teenager got in trouble at school, according to reports.

“I was just being a mom, a concerned parent and disciplining my daughter,” May told WOOD-TV.

How did this happen?

What began as discipline became a criminal matter after May’s ex-husband reported it to Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office and claimed she committed a crime.

After the mom’s arrest in May, she was immediately released on $200 bond. May was facing a misdemeanor larceny charge, which carries a punishment of up to 93 days in jail, the TV station reported.

Shortly before the bench trial began on Tuesday before Ottawa County District Judge Judy Mulder, prosecutors added another charge to the case: larceny by conversion. That charge was also punishable by up to 93 days, according to the report.

But before the first witness was called, yet another twist was added.

“I’ve had an opportunity to discuss this case with the victim in this case, or at least the person we believed owned the property,” Ottawa County assistant prosecutor Sarah Matwiejczyk told the judge.

The prosecutor said she determined the phone is in fact owned by the daughter, not the ex-husband.

“The mother defendant being the mother of the minor child, I believe that changes the case significantly,” Matwiejczyk reportedly said. “Therefore, we’re requesting that the charges be dismissed.”

How did the mom react?

May called the entire situation “ridiculous.”

“I think it’s ridiculous,” May told the TV station. “I can’t believe I had to be put through it, my daughter had to be put through it, my family. I’m very surprised, but I’m very happy with the outcome.”

May’s court-appointed attorney, Jennifer Kuiper-Weise, said she was ready for a court battle.

“We knew this was parental discipline,” said Kuiper-Weise, a former assistant prosecutor in Ottawa County. “We knew that it would come across that way.”

She also questioned why the charges were ever filed.

“The case was authorized on a probable-cause basis, and unfortunately at times there are misdemeanor cases that are not thoroughly vetted, and unfortunately Miss May was a victim of that,” Kuiper-Weise told WOOD.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com