The Attack On America – Here and Now

The Attack On America – Here and Now

    Prior to the attack on America on September 11, 2001, the first edition of The Attack on America described the constant presence in societies throughout the ages of those emanating evil and injustice who perpetrate the attacks on those seeking to live, according to the words of the Declaration of Independence, availing themselves of those “unalienable Rights” “endowed by our Creator’.

It looks at the progressions from the Framers’ and Founders’ intentions described in the ideologic preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, to governments arising from and motivated by the rejection of truth and justice as defined by immutable Law. From studying history to five hundred before Christ, those who gave birth to America saw that the immutable Law displayed in “the laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God” translated into the unchanging reality of human behavior. “Before matter, energy, time, space, and all abstract reality, there was first Law giving everything order.” – The Attack on America

Focusing on the history of the American political tradition, it follows the ideologic changes in America from colonists in the first Great Awakening, through the Revolution, the great Civil War, etc. to the present.

The 2nd edition of The Attack on America discusses and validates what the First Edition forecasts. Not a prediction, it highlights the consequences of failed human behavior throughout history magnified and accentuated in political action.

Beyond Reason examines, in detail, the how and the why humanity has constantly and repetitively rejected Truth and Justice to embrace the failed ideologies of its own invention. Studying history in the American political tradition, it is abundantly apparent and vividly displayed that the crises we exist in are a result of following the lies and deceptions unrelentingly tempting our species in every environment and political organization over time.

Set My People Free examines how individual error and failure, when translated by choice to the political organizations we empower and authorize, result in governments that never succeed or endure. “True freedom is found within the bounds of God’s intention.” – Set My People Free

Attorney General Barr’s comments below reiterate and emphasize the messages and truths expressed in The Attack on America, Beyond Reason, and Set My People Free. Liberty and justice for all as defined by immutable Law evinced in the indelible reality of true science and history uncontaminated by lies, deceptions, discrimination, and prejudice are the prime requisites of any successful enduring government. Called by any name, in any belief system, whether acknowledging or denying the one true God, the Ten Commandments control all human relationships.

The attack on America is here and now! Those “domestic” enemies in our midst, some would call traitors, were and are recognized by those who paid and pay for our freedom.

The Committee for the Constitution

 

Attorney General William P. Barr’s Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame

South Bend, IN | Friday, October 11, 2019

    Thank you to the Notre Dame Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture for graciously extending an invitation to address you today. I’d also like to express gratitude to Tony de Nicola, whose generous support has shaped – and continues to shape – countless minds through examination of the Catholic moral and intellectual tradition.

    Today, I would like to share some thoughts with you about religious liberty in America. It’s an important priority in this Administration and for this Department of Justice.

We have set up a task force within the Department with different components that have equities in this area, including the Solicitor General’s Office, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, and other offices. We have regular meetings. We keep an eye out for cases or events around the country where states are misapplying the Establishment Clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith, or cases where states adopt laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion.

From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before.

They crafted a magnificent charter of freedom – the United States Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.

This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.

In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.

There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.

That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.

But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.

The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society.

They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition.

These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.

Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.

Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:

    “Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their appetites…. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

    So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.

They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”

This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:

    “Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

    How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but over time the harm is real.

Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules – its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.

I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack.

On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.

On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.

Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.

In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.

Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.

As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is more causalities in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.

I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.

Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But where is the progress?

We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can sustain human social life?

The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.

Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without religion.

We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?

What we call “values” today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.

Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has been shaken.

In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if things go too far.

The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.

This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the “pendulum will swing back.”

But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back.

First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.

Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.

Part of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our life have any meaning or purpose? But, as Blaise Pascal observed, instead of grappling with these questions, humans can be easily distracted from thinking about the “final things.”

Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.

There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.

In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.

But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad consequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.

So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.

The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.

The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on which we depend.

Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society.  It can be called the system of “macro-morality.”  It is in some ways an inversion of Christian morality.

Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation.

The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. One’s morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather on their commitment to political causes and collective action to address social problems.

This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our private lives, while we find salvation on the picket-line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that.

Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these moral systems. I was attending Mass at a parish I did not usually go to in Washington, D.C.  At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee got up to give his report to the parish. He pointed to the growing homeless problem in D.C. and explained that more mobile soup kitchens were needed to feed them. This being a Catholic church, I expected him to call for volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the visits that the Committee had made to the D.C. government to lobby for higher taxes and more spending to fund mobile soup kitchen.

A third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.

Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.

First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then, the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on.

More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit – they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice.

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate.

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty.

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds.

The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.

A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’ teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarity between the sexes.

This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon dismiss the case.

Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the State requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents. In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values; those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave.

At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are starved of funds – students who would otherwise choose to attend them are told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere.

Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort and, eventually, will undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation if they adhere to their religious character.  If these measures are successful, those with religious convictions will become still more marginalized.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our country.

But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back toward sanity.

As Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made this country great.

And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal private lives.

We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world beyond ourselves.

This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of our church.

Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our children.

Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.

We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and Notre Dame.

Protecting and Defending the Constitution Means Obeying It

Protecting and Defending the Constitution Means Obeying It

            The book, Set My People Free describes the failures of Congress to constitutionally address the changing political and economic circumstances of our times. It suggests constitutional remedies and solutions available for Congress to correct those failures. Only by obeying the original intention of the Constitution can those we elect to represent us protect and defend it.

With the House unconstitutionally passing Articles of Impeachment against President Trump, a whole new dimension of members of that body violating their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution has been entered. Their actions have moved the attack on America on to a battlefield as real as any in our great Civil War. These “domestic” enemies have, with lies and deceptions, insidiously escalated the attack on America to a level surpassing that of those “foreign” enemies on September 11, 2001. They threaten the very structure of government intended and ratified in “the supreme law of the land”.

The Constitution is very clear. Impeachment shall occur for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Under constitutional authority, Article I, Section 8, Congress may make laws defining such crimes and misdemeanors. Upon passage by both the House and Senate, signing by the President or override of a veto, Congress enacts law which is still subject to judicial scrutiny. The three branches have separate and equal constitutionally defined authority. Grounds for impeachment are to be found in the rule and order of law as enacted by both the Senate and House concurring.

The House and the Senate alone may only each make rules for their own conduct and administration. Nowhere in the U.S. Code is there any law unicamerally enacted or defined.

The House is without constitutional grounds to impeach except under the rule and order of law enacted under constitutionally defined due process. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as interpreted by the House are not found in the U.S. Code as a crime, let alone a “high” crime, or misdemeanor.

     A member of the Senate should move for the Chief Justice to constitutionally dismiss the impeachment!

Alternately, Constitutional scholars can argue that the Senate with a two thirds vote could override the dismissal.

Any member of the House of Representatives voting for impeachment on the grounds of abuse of power or obstruction of Congress should be removed from office with due process for violation of their oath of office. Unfortunately, due process will not take place until after the next Congressional election assuming that those elected would uphold their oath of office.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights afford protections and safeguards against a failed Congress, as well as against judicial activism, socialism, unbridled capitalism, and all the failed political “isms” rejected by true science and uncorrupted uncontaminated history.

But, freedom and justice for all are not free. Every loyal American must fight in this great new civil war against those “enemies, foreign and domestic” who attack the original intention of the Constitution.

Remember that without calling to the greed and avarice of the public majority, the 16th Amendment; fueling and enabling the unconstitutional tyranny of the administrative state, and responsible for the unconstitutional unconscionable national debt; would have never been ratified. Also recall that this Committee stated that if for no other reason than to confront judicial activism, President Trump should be elected. Now, those we elected betray our trust and unconstitutionally impeach a duly elected President who has sought only to fulfill his campaign promises to the American people.

The Committee for the Constitution

Impeachment, All Smoke and Mirrors – An Attempt to Cover Up the Truth

IMPEACHMENT

Smoke and Mirrors – An Attempt to Cover Up the Truth

Darrell Smallwood

November 6

    Here’s a summary for those of you who care to know the REAL reason why the House of Representatives are calling for impeachment of President Trump.

    Hunter Biden is former Vice-President Joe Biden’s son. He is 45 years old with a long history of drug abuse. Hunter Biden was kicked out of the military in 2014 for testing positive for cocaine. Shortly after that he was appointed to the board of directors of Burisma, Ukraine’s largest private producer of gas.

    Two weeks before he was appointed, his father the Vice President of the United States encouraged Ukrainian leaders to place him on their board. Hunter Biden has ZERO experience or knowledge in the gas industry or in the Ukraine. He was paid $50,000 a month for his position on the board and a money transfer of 3 MILLION dollars was made from the Ukraine through Latvia, Cyprus, and finally to the US into accounts owned by Hunter Biden.

    The top prosecutor in the Ukraine was investigating corruption and was getting ready to interview Hunter Biden regarding his dealings with Burisma and the apparent money laundering of the 3 million dollars. Before Hunter Biden could be interviewed Joe Biden leaned on the Ukrainian government and threatened to withhold over 250 MILLION in US foreign aid unless the prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was fired. The investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma ended, the Ukraine got the financial aid.

    Hunter Biden was also involved in a deal with China where his father the Vice President was working on US business. This deal netted Hunter Biden over 1.5 BILLION dollars! That story will bust wide open next. I mean what would cause China to hand over 1.5 BILLION dollars to a known drug addict who just happens to be the son of the Vice-President? Think that through America. It gets worse!!

    The Vice-President Joe Biden took his son Hunter on Air Force Two with him to China in 2013. Ten DAYS after that trip, the Bank of China signed this deal with Hunter Biden’s company for over a 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS!! Some of this money went to a company called Henniges who makes very sensitive military equipment for the US military.

    Do you want to know who else was involved in the China deal as Hunter Biden’s partners? You can’t make this stuff up people! While John Kerry was Secretary of State his stepson Chris Heinz and mob boss Whitey Bulger’s nephew Billy Bulger we’re partners in the company along with Hunter Biden. Wow right? The sons of the two most prominent decision makers in America!! How did that escape scrutiny!!

    Amazing how the media isn’t even a tiny bit interested in this, and how as soon as it starts getting reported, they start impeachment proceedings against President Trump! They are hoping no one is paying attention, that the American people are too stupid, lazy, indifferent, and apathetic to pay attention. Don’t be one of those Americans. For goodness sake wake up and start actually thinking again instead of letting the media tell you what and when to be outraged about. Good grief what has happened to critical thinking?? Do most people even know they are merely pawns?


    Could it be that President Trump was trying to prevent American taxpayer dollars from being diverted by Ukrainian corruption? Or, how does an investigation of Ukrainian corruption illegally interfere in U.S. elections?  Speaking and knowing the truth and should always direct every decision, personal or public!

CftC 

Dr. Gorka Stunned By Biden-China Deal: ‘Potentially One Of The Biggest Pay-For-Play Scandals Outside Of Uranium One’

Author Peter Schweizer’s new book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, reveals how Hunter Biden secured a billion-dollar deal with Chinese investors ten days after his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, visited China in 2013.

Breitbart News reported:

    According to an exclusive New York Post excerpt from the book, the Biden billion-dollar China deal occurred as follows. In 2013, Hunter Biden was managing partner in the private equity firm Rosemont Seneca Partners. The Chinese funds were managed by Rosemont Seneca Bohai,  which did not involve Chris Heinz.

In December of that year, Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days after the trip, a subsidiary of the Bank of China named Bohai Capital signed an exclusive deal with Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz’s Rosemont to form a $1 billion joint-investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST. The deal was later increased to $1.5 billion.

“The Chinese government was literally funding a business that they co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision makers,” writes Schweizer in Secret Empires.

    Appearing on Fox News Thursday evening, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, said he believes the agreement is a massive scandal.

Gorka: “The stepson of John Kerry, the son of Joseph Biden, when they were cabinet members of the Obama administration, create a new investment fund… then inked a billion-dollar deal with the Chinese government — the Bank of China. Then, together they proceeded… to buy a U.S. manufacturing company called Henniges, making very sensitive equipment — crucial to our American military here at home. This, look, I am very rarely at a loss for words Stuart, but this is potentially one of the biggest pay-for-play scandals we have ever seen outside of Uranium One.”

The Attack On America

    The Democrats’ impeachment charade indelibly stains American political history, and validates the Framers’ and Founders’ fear of the public majority.

    Meeting in secret in the sweltering summer heat from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in the old Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia, their only greater fear was unlimited government, primarily the Federal government.

    Studying history to 500 years before Christ, they saw how majority opinion driven by the ever present failings of humanity led to the failure and ultimate destruction of government. Verified by the the legislative history of the Convention, confirmed in writings such as the Federalist Papers; the Anti-Federalist Papers; Justice Joseph Story’s “A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States”; the voluminous writings of those representing their states at the Convention; the legislative histories of the ratifying conventions for the Constitution and the separate later ones for the Bill of Rights; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights address their concerns.

    The Constitution establishes a structure for our government with the checks, balances, and safeguards framed to protect the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” spelled out in the ideologic preamble to the Constitution – the Declaration of Independence. Experiencing the reality of the magnitude of the many miracles that permitted colonists with no standing army or navy to defeat the mightiest army and navy in the world at the time, led them to ground this “supreme law of the land” on the immutable Law from the Source of those “unalienable Rights” indelibly incorporated in the Bill of Rights which specifically limit governments.

    From a legal perspective, “high crimes and misdemeanors” as would specify impeachment are defined by the rule and order of law. The House of Representatives alone has no authority to institute any law other than as relates to its own conduct, procedures, etc. Constitutionally, any law originating in the House must pass the Senate in some agreed upon construction, then it must be signed by the President, and is still subject to judicial oversight. “Abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” as defined by the House alone hold no legal weight!

    From a constitutional view, Congress has no power or oversight over the executive branch except a prescribed by the Constitution. By original intention, the separate branches are checks and balances on the political power of each other. Article II, Sections 2 and 3, describe the President’s authority in foreign relations. Congress has no constitutional authority in foreign relations except for the Senate’s advise and consent role.

    Apart from the fact that the House Democrats have no legal standing to impeach without evidence of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” as determined by the rule and order of law, they violate their oath of office by failing to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution. Worse, on multiple counts they specifically violate multiple sections and provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without being held accountable to the prime requisite for successful and enduring government  – justice for all. The crimes of Benghazi, Uranium One, the compromises of national security by Hillary, Comey and FBI criminals, etc. need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Joining the liberal media, they attack the America envisioned by those who paid in blood for our freedom. Any public official voting to impeach President Trump or supporting impeachment on the grounds currently presented; voting for or supporting partial birth abortion; who votes to or hinders our border protections; who gives taxpayer money to the undeserving; who in any way obstructs the Bill of Rights; etc. must be removed from office!

CftC