Thursday, June 22, 2017

Doanld Trump

by -
Sessions Testifies
Sick of the partisan witch-hunt Jeff? So are we!

In what seemed to a pretty intense combative interaction, during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden asked him why he had recommended the dismissal of James Comey. Sessions was also accused by the senator of “stonewalling” the bureau’s investigation into Russian collusion.

“I believe the American people have had it with stonewalling,” Wyden began. “The American people don’t want to hear that answers relevant questions are privileged and off limits. Or that they can’t be provided in public, or that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for witnesses to tell us what they know.”

“We are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions,” he continued, “and stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable. And General Sessions has acknowledged that there is no legal basis for this stonewalling.”

“So now to questions,” Wyden said, “last Thursday I asked former Director Comey about the FBI’s interactions with you, General Sessions, prior to stepping aside from the Russian investigation. Mister Comey said that your continued engagement with the Russian investigation was ‘problematic.’ And he, Mr. Comey, could not discuss it in public.”

“Mr. Comey also said that FBI personally had been calling for you to step aside from the investigation at least two weeks before you finally did so,” he added. “Now in your prepared statement you stated you received only ‘limited information necessary to inform your recusal decision.’ but given Director Comey’s statement, we need to know what that was.”

“Where you aware of any concerns at the FBI or elsewhere in government about your contacts with the Russians,” Wyden asked, “or any other matters relevant to whether you should step aside from the Russian investigation?”

“Senator Wyden,” Sessions answered forcefully, “I am not stonewalling.”

“I am following the historic policies of the Department of Justice,” he explained. “You don’t walk into any hearing or committee meeting and reveal confidential communications with the president of the United States, who’s entitled to receive confidential communications in your best judgement about a host of issues. And after being accusing of stonewalling for not answering, so I would push back on that.”

“Secondly, Mr. Comey, perhaps he didn’t know,” Sessions continued, “but I basically recused myself the day, the first day I got into office, because I never accessed files, I never learned the names of investigators, I never met with them, I never asked for any documentation, the documentation of what little I received was mostly already available in the media and was presented by the senior ethics public responsibility, professional responsibility attorney in the department.”

“General Sessions,” Wyden said after some disagreement, “respectfully, you’re not answering the question.”

“Well what is the question?” Sessions demanded.

“The question is, Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?”

“I, why don’t you tell me? They are none, Senator Wyden!” Sessions angrily responded. “There are none! I can tell you that for absolute certainty.”


“You, this is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me,” Sessions accused. “And I don’t appreciate it. And I tried to give my best and truthful answers to any committee I’ve appeared before, and it’s really a, people are suggesting through innuendo that I have been not honest about matters and I’ve tried to be honest.”

“I want to ask you point blank,” Wyden continued, “why did you sign the letter recommending the firing of Director Comey when it violated your recusal?”

“It did not violate my recusal,” Sessions responded loudly. “It did not violate my recusal. That would be the answer to that, and the letter that I signed represented my views that had been formulated for some time.”

“That answer in my view doesn’t pass the smell test,” Wyden challenged him. “The president tweeted repeatedly about his anger about investigations into his associates and Russia. The day before you wrote your letter he tweeted, ‘the collusion story was a total hoax,’ and asked, ‘when will this tax-payer funded charade end?” I don’t think your answer passes the smell test.”

In response, Sessions made it clear that the letter he wrote only represented his views regarding the situation in question. In a testimony earlier, Sessions stated that he would not be answering certain questions to protect the possibility that President Trump may use his executive privilege in the future.

by -
Glenn Beck

You can’t make this stuff up.

On his program this week, Glenn Beck . . . again, you can’t make this stuff up . . . channeled the voice of God to say, “I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, ‘Look how close your liberty is to being lost.’”

Beck then went back to his worldly voice to say, “The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist (as president).”

The political personality was referring to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his sudden death.

Without equivocation, Beck was telling his listeners that God took the life of Justice Scalia in order to wake up Americans to vote for Ted Cruz.

Again, you can’t make this stuff up.

Beck took to Facebook to quell the backlash over his statement saying it was “outrageous” to say that he said God killed Scalia to help Cruz.

Glenn Beck went further to explain, “What I did say is ‘perhaps God allowed Scalia to die at this time to wake America up to how close we are to the loss of our freedom.’”

The nuance didn’t help Beck as both Cruz and Beck supporters alike have commented that the statement was “beyond absurd.”

While Beck and Christians around the world believe in “divine providence,” Cruz’s newly religious pronouncements are suspect among evangelical voters.

In the most recent polls, frontrunner Donald Trump holds a large advantage with the evangelical voting base. Last month, Trump received the endorsement of Jerry Fallwell, Jr.

But with Beck’s help, Ted Cruz has continued to shift his strategy to reach Constitution and TEA Party voters and instead has delivered more speeches that sound like sermons rather than policy points to appeal to evangelicals.

Polls show that evangelical voters are no different than other voters in the same age and socioeconomic status. They largely are untrusting of politicians and Washington and call for change in the process.

While a candidate that represents their values is important, they recognize the divide in responsibility between morality and government.

It is the job of elected officials to manage government in line with the Constitution, while it is the job of society, churches, communities and individuals to take responsibility for morality through acts, activism and parenting.

Like other voters, evangelicals want to keep government out of their homes and choose to take personal responsibility for their lives and the wellbeing of their families.

Ted Cruz may not realize that voters . . . evangelical or not . . . want government to get out of the way.

As for Glenn Beck, the radio host could use more bible study.

Galatians 6:5, “For each will have to bear his own load.”

God isn’t doing Ted Cruz any favors; it’s up to Ted Cruz to make his own path and prove to all Americans that he is the right man to lead this nation. From there, Cruz can lead by example and embody the characteristics that will prove him as a proper witness for God.

So far, with his underhanded tactics and lack of integrity that has surrounded his campaign, the senator from Texas is failing to represent the character of Christians.

Christian voters are smart. A candidate can’t hold up a Bible, quote scripture and speak with a pastor’s sway and easily snag their vote. A candidate will be judged on their actions, not just their words.

by -

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz attempted to confused and deceive viewers of the most recent presidential debate when pressed on the constitutionality of his presidency due to his Canadian birth.

Cruz quipped back at the man who brought up the issue, Donald Trump, by questioning if Trump was eligible as his mother was not a U.S. Citizen.

In the past, Donald Trump called for the investigation of President Obama’s qualifications, not because Obama’s father was not a citizen, but because Obama’s birthplace was in question.

Ted Cruz and most others familiar with the Constitution know that if a child is born on U.S. soil, that person is a natural born citizen.

Trump was born in Queens, New York.

However, Cruz was born in Canada.

Cruz was not born on a military base, at an embassy or any other place considered to be “U.S. Soil.”

In defending his argument and confusing Americans, Ted Cruz brought up John McCain’s foreign birth and argued that under Trump’s theory, McCain was not qualified either.

John McCain who was born in Panama . . . in the Panama Canal Zone . . . which was considered U.S. Soil until 1979.

The real question that Cruz must answer is the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen.”

Clearly, a child born in America or what is considered U.S. Soil is a Natural Born Citizen.

For children born overseas to a U.S. citizen, parents must report the birth to the nearest U.S. Embassy and complete form FS-240 in order to establish citizenship for the child.

If Cruz’s parents had to process that paperwork then his qualification for president is in question (Note that Rafael “Ted” Cruz’s father did not become a U.S. Citizen until 2005).

The U.S. State Department states, “Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship or U.S. nationality at birth in one of the following current or former territories or outlying possessions of the United States during relevant time periods are not eligible for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen because such persons are not considered to have been born abroad.”

Those current and former territories include: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Swains Island, Panama Canal Zone, Mariana Islands and the Philippines.

Cruz’s place of birth, Calgary, Canada is not on the list.

Cruz’s citizenship is arguably not “natural” in that upon his birth – or before the age of 18 – the parents of the presidential contender had to complete the State Department’s “Consular Report of Birth Abroad” (CBRA).

In order to avoid a legal quagmire, Cruz needs to produce his CBRA, which will include the age that he applied to citizenship.

Born in 1970 in Canada, Ted Cruz moved to Texas in 1974.


NSA Leaker

The Department of Justice recently announced in a statement, the charges against a government contractor who allegedly leaked classified documents to the media. The...