RSS Feed

Category Archives: Reposted

Media? What Media?

Posted on

By what right or measure does “the media” claim its current self endowed titled of The Free Press? They are in no way free as they are well known to be employed by large corporations who support globalism and are in bed with the Democratic Party. Just to be clear, it would be equally as bad if they were controlled or manipulated by the Republican Party, especially if the Republicans were advocating anti-American policies and working to fundamentally change or make obsolete substantial portions of our Constitution. They have become so obvious about their prejudices that they are even selective about what news items they will actually report! When the media is driving the news and manipulating the dialogue for the entire nation, elevating gossip and hearsay over facts, policies and agendas then things have just gone too far!

Where was this “media” when Obama’s administration was caught up in “fast and furious”? Why were there no continuous interviews targeting the administration for gun running? Why was there no outrage from the press when a border agent was murdered and then later when those guns began surfacing in the US? Why was the press not shocked? Why was there no rumor of an independent prosecutor or an investigative committee?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430153/fast-furious-obama-first-scandal          http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Where was “the media” criticism when Obama started bringing in members of the Muslim Brotherhood to work in the White House? Why were there no questions when an enemy organization was allowed to rewrite and revise the procedures and training practices of the military, the FBI, the CIA and those are just the ones we know about! The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization and supports the jihad movement and its activities. Why was there no media coverage of this? Why wasn’t this critical and important information on every front page in America?             http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/            http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/expert-fbi-neutered-by-muslim-brotherhood/                                     https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/fbi-document-purge/

Why did “the media” cover up for Comey when he made his announcement about Hillary Clinton and the email investigation. He obviously, plainly and clearly deliberately lied about what the statute (18 USC section 793) required. Do you have to be a democrat to tell a bald faced lie on national TV and suffer no consequences? Where was “the media’s” reference to the actual statute? Why did not one reporter check to see if intent was a requirement at all? (Intent is not a requirement, it is deliberately not a requirement) Where were the talk show demands for accountability? How could the exposure of our nation’s secrets be disregarded and unpunished? Where was “the media”?

Why did Obama surveil so many Americans? How many did he collect information on? Why is “the media” talking about White House gossip and attacks on President Trump instead of this? Why did Obama sign that Executive Order right before he left office promoting more sharing of information between intelligence agencies when it allegedly only encourages leaks? Why has there been no editorial questioning this? Where is “the media” on such a topic of true concern, is our government spying on us? Are the intelligence services out of control? Without a decent investigative press we may never know.                                                                                                                                                http://planetfreewill.com/2017/05/28/new-revelations-shed-light-extent-nsa-spying-obama/   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-24/fisa-court-finds-very-serious-fourth-amendment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-search                                               http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/ask_james_rosen_and_angela_merkel_about_obama_spying.html

There are other issues that I think should have been brought into the light also. We never did find out the particulars about Benghazi and no one was held accountable. The shameful use of the IRS to handicap conservative organizations before an election was horrendous and once again, no one was held accountable. There are literally mountains of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation and the way they set the State Department up as a “pay for play” deal. That isn’t news? That isn’t important or shocking? It involved citizens, corporations and foreign governments, yet our press barely even gave it acknowledgement. Clinton’s Uranium deal should definitely be investigated. Yet there has been little coverage, not at the time it occurred and not now. Where is “the media”? If they are so afraid of every small interaction with Russia then Clinton’s facilitation of the sale of 20% of America’s uranium reserves to Russia should be the biggest story of the year!

So, we do not really have a legitimate mainstream media, we actually have a propaganda machine. As American citizens we can either be manipulated sheep or we can be intelligent consumers. I can not trust the networks or cable channels since they all push a liberal point of view. I have gone elsewhere…and, either way, I highly recommend fact checking!

RePost From Judicial Watch on Robert Mueller:

Posted on

Now that Robert Mueller has been appointed special counsel to investigate if Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election it’s worth reiterating his misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI director. Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records back in 2013 documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Muslims after secret meetings between Islamic organizations and the FBI chief. Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.

As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical Islamist groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various Islamist organizations, including those with documented ties to terrorism. Among them were two organizations— Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case. CAIR is a terrorist front group with extensive links to foreign and domestic Islamists. It was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine.

The records obtained as part of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit show that Mueller, who served 12 years as FBI chief, met with the Islamist organizations on February 8, 2012 to hear their demands. Shortly later the director assured the Muslim groups that he had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices nationwide. The purge was part of a broader Islamist operation designed to influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at-large. The records obtained by Judicial Watch also show similar incidents of Islamic influence operations at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.

Here are some of the reasons provided by Mueller’s FBI for getting rid of “offensive” training documents: “Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.” It’s crucial to note that Mueller himself had previously described the Muslim Brotherhood as a group that supports terrorism in the U.S. and overseas when his agency provided this ludicrous explanation. Here’s more training material that offended the terrorist groups, according to the FBI files provided to Judicial Watch: An article claiming Al Qaeda is “clearly linked” to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing; The Qur’an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God; Sweeping generality of ‘Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance;’ conflating Islamic Militancy with terrorism. The list goes on and on.

Mueller’s actions have had a widespread effect because many local law enforcement agencies followed the FBI’s lead in allowing Islamic groups like CAIR to dictate what anti-terrorism material could be used to train officers. Among them are police departments in three Illinois cities— Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park—as well as the New York Police Department (NYPD). In the case of the Lombard Police Department, CAIR asserted that the instructor of a training course called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” was anti-Muslim though there was no evidence to support it. Like the FBI, Lombard officials got rid of the “offensive” course. The NYPD purged a highly-acclaimed report that’s proven to be a critical tool in terrorism investigations after three New York Muslims, two mosques and an Islamic nonprofit filed a lawsuit.
Considering Mueller’s role in much of this, it makes him a bizarre choice to lead the heated Russia investigation. The goal, apparently, is to determine of Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and if President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials. In the Justice Department announcement, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein describes Mueller as person who qualifies to lead the probe because he exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command. “Special Counsel Mueller will have all appropriate resources to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and I am confident that he will follow the facts, apply the law and reach a just result,” according to Rosenstein.

Repost from RussP.us (Russ Paielli)

Posted on

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the “Radical Republicans” were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln’s Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn’t we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn’t we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and “ni**er-loving” (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower’s primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never “switched” on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party — which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues — makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties “switched,” and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That’s quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist — at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth — a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater’s vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes “true” simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ’s Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats — and blaming “racist” Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course — but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it “reverse racism,” but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit “benevolent” white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don’t fall for it.

I ran across this website and liked this post so much I just had to repost it. I don’t know know if I have ever read a better short summary on this issue!

RussP.us

60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries

By Patrick Goodenough | February 16, 2017 | 4:20 AM EST

60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries

(CNSNews.com) – Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.

Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.
Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.

Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations. Trump’s Jan. 27 order barred entry to the U.S. of all refugees for 120 days; prohibited entry to refugees from Syria indefinitely; and blocked all entry – immigrant and non-immigrant – by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days. (The order does not itself name the seven countries, referring instead to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).” 

That law, signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015, required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns. Two months later Obama’s DHS added Somalia, Yemen and Libya to the list of “countries of [terrorist] concern.”)
In the week between Trump’s inauguration and his Jan. 27 executive order, a total of 2,090 refugees were admitted to the U.S., of whom 918 (43.9 percent) were from the identified countries: 296 from Syria, 218 from Iraq, 211 from Somalia, 155 from Iran, 37 from Sudan, one from Yemen and none from Libya.

The following seven-day period – from the day of the executive order to the day before the judge’s restraining order – only 19 refugees were admitted from the countries of concern (18 Somalis and one Iraqi, all but two arriving on the actual day of the order). Those 19 comprised just 2.2 percent of the total 861 arrivals over that period.

The next week, from Feb. 3 to Feb. 9, saw 1,180 refugees arrive, 882 (74.7 percent) of whom were from the countries of concern.

Last Saturday, Trump tweeted that 77 percent of refugee admissions since Robart’s ruling, which was subsequently upheld on appeal, “hail from seven suspect countries.” (The actual figures at that time, according to the Refugee Processing Center data, were 402 refugees from Syria, 340 from Iraq, 155 from Somalia; 115 from Iran; 38 from Sudan; and none from Yemen or Libya, amounting together to 71.7 percent of the total admissions.)

Since then the proportion of refugees from the countries of concern has declined somewhat, although the countries continue to account for a disproportionate number of the total contingent of refugees admitted since Feb. 3.
While those five countries alone – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sudan – have provided 60.1 percent of the refugee arrivals from Feb. 3 until today, another 22 countries have together accounted for the remaining 39.9 percent.
Those 22 countries are Afghanistan (25), Bangladesh (2), Bhutan (96), Burma (147), Burundi (2), Central African Republic (12), China (1), Cuba (17), Democratic Republic of Congo (347), El Salvador (23), Eritrea (48), Ethiopia (15), Honduras (3), Moldova (10), Pakistan (24), “Palestine”(2), South Sudan (6), Russia (22), Tanzania (1), Uganda (4), Ukraine (213) and Vietnam (8).

Apart from the majority of 1,424 Muslims, other religions represented among the refugees admitted since Feb. 3 include Christians, (including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and evangelicals, from countries including Iraq, Iran, DRC, Ukraine and Burma), Buddhists (mostly from Bhutan), Hindus (from Bhutan), Baha’i (from Iran), Yazidis (from Iraq) and Ahmadis (from Pakistan).

RePosted From RECLAIM OUR REPUBLIC

We hear about the Political arguments and the Constitutional arguments over President Trump’s temporary ban but this post by Reclaim Our Republic, one of my favorite blogs, boils the issue down to what is important. We should consider why the President has plenary power over immigration.

I’m putting up a partial transcript, as this video is being deleted fast. One deletion said it violated a “hate-speech” policy, meaning “, we can’t let the truth slip out!!!”

Steven Gern, a 10-year veteran of the Marine Corps working in Iraq, uploaded a video to his Facebook page on Wednesday talking about President Trump’s immigration order and Gern’s own experiences asking locals how Americans are dealt with in the countries that were on the watch list. 
In the short time it’s been on Facebook, the clip has been viewed over 35 million times, racked up over 1.4 million shares, 250 thousand “likes,” and almost 60 thousand comments.

Here’s the transcript of Gern’s viral statement:

“I work currently in Iraq, which is one of the countries that’s on the list. Obviously, in the United States, a lot is going on – and over here, this is a lot going on, as well, just a lot of things y’all don’t see.
The other morning, we were having a discussion on the executive order, and a lot of the Iraqis showed their displeasure in this executive order, and why they feel like they’ve been betrayed by the United States…

So, I listened to what they had to say, and after they were done yelling and screaming about their opinion on things, I asked a simple question, and I got an answer to that simple question, and I got it without hesitation. My simple questions was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’

They answered me, and said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘Okay, what would happen if I went in town?’”

They said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour. I would be tortured first, and after they were done torturing me, I would probably be beheaded. It would go on video for everybody to see as an example.

The point I’m trying to make is – this is the local populace that would do this. This isn’t ISIS. This isn’t al-Qaeda. So, my question to them was pretty simple after that.

If you would do this to me, in your country, why would I let you in my country? All this means to me is that if you had the opportunity to take the life of an American, you would do it.

Maybe that’s something y’all need to think about back there. If this is the way some of these cultures feel… about Americans, why would you be so naive to believe that, if they came to the United States, they would do anything any different than what they would do right here in their own country”

I’m just trying to inform you about what’s actually happening on the ground in one of the ‘banned countries’ – something you should probably think about. I can’t go out in town here. Why should they go out in town in my country?”

Gern’s Linkedin profile reveals a long and decorated career as a Marine and security specialist operating in the Middle East. The profile summary reads:

Driven, exacting and self-motivated professional with 10+ years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps and 10+ years as a Personal Security Specialist in a High Threat Environment. Embody and reinforce core values that define success in team building, training, program management, and continuous improvement. Respected as a sound Leader, professional program manager, and technically and tactfully competent security consultant. Skilled in identifying and correcting flaws, deficiencies and gaps in security in any High Threat environment.

Our Liberal Outreach: Watch, and then Share with a “liberal” so that they Might Come to Know the TRUTH…

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13150/viral-video-marine-working-iraq-praising-trumps-chase-stephens

These people are thieves and monsters. Why Clintons Must Be Prosecuted

Dec 5, 2016 by Douglas J. Hagmann | The Hagmann & Hagmann Report   The nation of Haiti could easily serve as the most visibly damning evidence of the most despicable type of self-enrichmen…

Source: These people are thieves and monsters. Why Clintons Must Be Prosecuted

 

This is a repost from one of my favorite blogs, RECLAIM OUR REPUBLIC. Justice should be equal for all and as we all believe, no one should be above the law!

YELLOWHAMMER NEWS – Jeff Sessions

This is the best article I have seen on Jeff Sessions. It incorporates the details that most others leave out. I wish that there was more, but it is accurate and right on point!

YELLOWHAMMER NEWS

Sessions broke the back of the KKK in Alabama. Now the media wants you to think he’s racist.

WRITTEN BY BRIAN ELLIS ON NOVEMBER 20, 2016 AT 5:20 PM CST

President-elect Donald J. Trump over the weekend nominated Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to serve as United States Attorney General, signaling that he is serious about returning the Justice Department to its core of mission of “ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

Sen. Sessions’ credentials are impeccable.

Assistant United States Attorney. United States Attorney. Alabama Attorney General. United States Senator. A combined 35 years of public service and a lifelong commitment to the rule of law.

And yet if you read the New York Times and Washington Post, or watch MSNBC and CNN, you would think President-elect Trump brought segregation-era George Wallace back from the dead and appointed him to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (In reality, Sessions campaigned against Wallace as a college Republican, but that’s a story for another time.)

The media constantly point back to Sen. Sessions’ failed confirmation after then-President Ronald Reagan nominated him to a federal judgeship as evidence that he is, as CNN puts it, “dogged by allegations of racism.” During Senate confirmation hearings in 1986, Sessions was accused of making racially insensitive comments.

When a former Justice Department colleague came forward with the accusation, Sessions did the unthinkable in Washington: he told the truth. He conceded that he had made a joke that was being taken out of context.

And his actions clearly backed that up, because at the moment Sessions made the unfortunate joke, he was tenaciously leading a fight to deliver justice for the family of an African American man who had been viciously murdered by the KKK. And this is the part of the story the media never tell.

Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American man, was walking home when he was kidnapped by two Klan members, who drove him to a secluded area, nearly beat him to death with a tree limb, tied a noose around his neck, strangle him, then slit his throat and hung him from a tree.

KKK member Henry Francis Hays was responsible for the vicious murder, and did so at the order of his father, Klan leader Bennie Hays, who ordered the killing “to show Klan strength in Alabama.”
Sessions was so disgusted by what had happened that he allowed the State of Alabama to try the case, rather than making it a federal case, because Alabama had the death penalty.
Years later, when Sessions was Alabama Attorney General, the story came full circle as he oversaw the execution of Mr. Hays.

Barry Kowalski, the now-legendary civil rights attorney and former Special Counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, recalls Sessions’ involvement with the case.
“Senator Sessions could not have been more supportive of our investigations, and in the Michael Donald case specifically, he personally contributed to making sure his killers were brought to justice.”
In short, Jeff Sessions made Henry Hays the first white person to be executed in Alabama for the murder of a black citizen since 1913. Additionally, Mr. Hays is the only known member of the KKK to be executed in the United States in the 20th century for murdering an African American.
The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan,” which the Associated Press in 1997 noted bankrupted the KKK in Alabama.
And yet these days the AP is busy cranking out stories about Sessions’ “racial issues” and claiming that he’s facing “a tough senate confirmation,” even though he has already garnered bi-partisan support and Republicans clearly have the votes to confirm him.
If you want to know the truth, listen to what the people who actually know Jeff Sessions have to say.
Larry Thompson, who worked closely with Sessions at the Justice Department and went on to serve as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, said this week that Sessions “does not have a racist bone in his body.”
“I have been an African American for 71 years and I think I know a racist when I experience one,” he added. “Jeff Sessions is simply a good and decent man.”
William Smith, who Sessions tapped to be the first African American to ever serve as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Sessions “a man of high character and great integrity” who always “treated me like family.”
U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow said Sessions “has done more to protect the jobs and enhance the wages of black workers than anyone in either house of Congress over the last 10 years.”
Civil rights attorney and founder of the Black American Leadership Alliance Leah Durant said Sessions “has been a leader in the fight for preserving American jobs and ensuring opportunities for African American workers.”
And Kenyen Brown, the Obama appointee who now fills the very same US Attorney seat that Sessions once sat in, called Sessions “a man of outstanding character with an impeccable reputation for integrity.”
Jeff Sessions is a brilliant legal mind with a titanium spine, but most importantly, he is a good man. And that, in short, is why liberals and their allies in the media are resorting to 30-year-old, trumped-up lies to try to take him down — because that’s all they have.

 

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world

larrysmusings

This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and comments on random issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Rouser

Wake up. Ask Why?

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

SMALLGOVREPORT

Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: