↓ Archives ↓

Archive → June 19th, 2017

Maybe it’s time to investigate the investigation

Maybe it’s time to investigate the investigation

777 Shares

As the investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia becomes increasingly confusing, it may be time to take a look at the investigation itself. Something doesn’t quite add up. Here are some things we learned over the weekend.

A report out in The Washington Post last week signaled that FBI special prosecutor Robert Mueller had expanded the investigation into whether Trump or his associates “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 presidential election to include an inquiry into whether the president may also have tried to cover his tracks when he fired former FBI head James Comey.

Trump took to Twitter shortly after the story broke, ridiculing the expanded inquiry as an unnecessary “witch hunt.”

Mainstream press analysis mostly sneered that the president’s response is a sign of nervousness of what may be about to come out of the investigation. The only problem with the MSM summation of the situation is that Trump’s tweets, though riddled with his characteristic Twitter tone, didn’t say anything that the bulk of middle America isn’t already thinking.

One of Trump’s early Friday tweets read: “After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my ‘collusion with the Russians,’ nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!”

Despite the heavy drama and hype surrounding both Comey’s and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent appearances before the Senate to discuss the situation, Trump is completely right. Americans are on the same page today in terms of understanding what, if anything, out of the ordinary happened prior to the election to cause such a national fracas.

We know that we still have no idea what the political circus barkers on the left are talking about when they speak of collusion and meddling. A thorough analysis of the situation provides only this: The nation’s most secretive and bureaucratic law enforcement and  spying agencies– FBI, CIA, NSA– have produced vague reports declaring that the election system of the most powerful nation in the world was undermined by social media sh*t stirrers and some hacked emails that were never very secure in the first place.

We also know that, to Comey’s knowledge, the FBI wasn’t investigating Trump specifically at the time of the former director’s firing. We know that Sessions was in the same building as a Russian official prior to the election and they met. The purpose of the meeting, we don’t know. Everything is a mess of he said and she said.

Some of the things being said are getting attention– they just aren’t telling us anything about Trump or “collusion.”

For instance, we know based on Comey’s testimony that there may well have been some serious obstruction of justice ahead of the election. It’s just that, the obstruction we’re talking about now involves former Attorney General Loretta Lynch coaching Comey on how to talk about the investigation into Clinton’s emails in a way that made a serious breach of the public trust seem only like a “matter.”

We know that Comey’s decision to leak his memos to a friend, who subsequently leaked the documents to friendly press, was likely inappropriate. And if it weren’t problematic enough when he admitted to being a leaker, things got even more confusing when his own former agency refused to release the documents to the public.

Trump and his administration are right in the middle of trial by public. But the public doesn’t have any of the facts in the case– only a series of unnamed sources, shady intelligence reports and pre-mature verdicts trumpeted by the opposition and amplified by a media machine that rolled over for the Washington establishment decades ago.

Here’s another of Trump’s Friday tweets, referring to Rod Rosenstein, the current top man at the Justice Department on Trump’s case: “I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt…”

Also on Friday, this ABC report regarding Rosenstein rolled out:

The senior Justice Department official with ultimate authority over the special counsel’s probe of Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election has privately acknowledged to colleagues that he may have to recuse himself from the matter, which he took charge of only after Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ own recusal, sources tell ABC News.

Those private remarks from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are significant because they reflect the widening nature of the federal probe, which now includes a preliminary inquiry into whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice when he allegedly tried to curtail the probe and then fired James Comey as FBI director.

Rosenstein, remember, appointed Mueller to lead the Trump investigation. Now, he appears pretty likely to get the hell out of the way before the dominoes begin to fall.

Why? Well, probably because something stinks.

Mueller, it was reported late Friday, has added at least 13 lawyers to the team investigating president. According to the same report, he plans to add more.

Think about that for a moment.

Ranks of folks at the Justice Department, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and members of Congress– our protectors, leaders, best and brightest– are all looking into the Trump/Russia/collusion situation. No one has found much of anything. Media has already charged, tried and convicted Trump. Hell, half the country thinks the guy is getting weekly payroll checks from the Kremlin. All without the first firm, admissible in court, piece of evidence being shared with the public.

If it’s such an open and shut deal and things are so crystal clear, why does Mueller need an army of lawyers?

This investigation needs to run its course– but not without a secondary investigation into the investigation on its heels.

Source: Will County News

GOP members not voting yes on Health Care bill

GOP House Member State AHCA Stance & DC Number. Call them and ask them to wake up!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe they want single payer like Obama and Hillary
Don Young
Alaska
Undecided
202-225-5765
Andy Biggs
Arizona
No
202-225-2635
Darrell Issa
California
Undecided
202-225-3906
David Valadao
California
Undecided
202-225-4695
Ken Calvert
California
Undecided
202-225-1986
Steve Knight
California
Undecided
202-225-1956
Jeff Denham
California
No
202-225-4540
Mike Coffman
Colorado
Undecided
202-225-7882
Brian Mast
Florida
Undecided
202-225-3026
Carlos Curbelo
Florida
Undecided
202-225-2778
Mario Diaz-Balart
Florida
Undecided
202-225-4211
Neal Dunn
Florida
Undecided
202-225-5235
Daniel Webster
Florida
No
202-225-1002
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Florida
No
202-225-3931
Adam Kinzinger
Illinois
Undecided
202-225-3635
Peter Roskam
Illinois
Undecided
202-225-4561
 
 
 
Randy Hultgren
Illinois
Undecided
202-225-2976
Susan W. Brooks
Indiana
Undecided
202-225-2276
Steve King
Iowa
Undecided
202-225-4426
David Young
Iowa
No
202-225-5476
Kevin Yoder
Kansas
Undecided
202-225-2865
Thomas Massie
Kentucky
No
202-225-3465
Bruce Poliquin
Maine
Undecided
202-225-6306
Justin Amash
Michigan
Undecided
202-225-3831
Erik Paulsen
Minnesota
Undecided
202-225-2871
Mark Amodei
Nevada
No
202-225-6155
Rodney Frelinghuysen
New Jersey
Undecided
202-225-5034
Christopher H. Smith
New Jersey
No
202-225-3765
Frank A. LoBiondo
New Jersey
No
202-225-6572
Leonard Lance
New Jersey
No
202-225-5361
Claudia Tenney
New York
Undecided
202-225-3665
Elise Stefanik
New York
Undecided
202-225-4611
John J. Faso
New York
Undecided
202-225-5614
Dan Donovan
New York
No
202-225-3371
John Katko
New York
No
202-225-3701
Walter B. Jones
North Carolina
No
202-225-3415
Michael R. Turner
Ohio
No
202-225-6465
Brian Fitzpatrick
Pennsylvania
No
202-225-4276
Charlie Dent
Pennsylvania
No
202-225-6411
Patrick Meehan
Pennsylvania
No
202-225-2011
Ryan A. Costello
Pennsylvania
No
202-225-4315
Rob Wittman
Virginia
Undecided
202-225-4261
Tom Garrett
Virginia
Undecided
202-225-4711
Barbara Comstock
Virginia
No
202-225-5136
Dave Reichert
Washington
Undecided
202-225-7761
Jaime Herrera Beutler
Washington
No
202-225-3536
David B. McKinley
West Virginia
Undecided
202-225-4172

Source: Will County News

Bernie Sanders, religious bigot?

Bernie Sanders, religious bigot?

161 Shares

Democrats are enjoying throwing around the word impeachment.

They should remember that impeachment is a political process rather than legal one.

The House needs the support of its representatives, and those representatives need the support of voters in their districts to really pull it off.

Expulsion is also a political process. It’s one way to rid the House or Senate of a member whose behavior is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional.

What would qualify a U.S. Senator for expulsion?

Considering every senator swears an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, blatantly violating the Constitution in the course of performing one’s official duties would qualify, but would enough senators and their constituents support the process?

That’s for you to decide.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution absolutely forbids a religious litmus test for public service. It is simply illegal for a senator to deny a presidential nominee a position in government because that nominee is a devout Muslim, Jew, Baha’I or adherent to any other religious order.

What Senator Bernie Sanders doesn’t understand is that this also applies to Christians.

In no uncertain terms, Sanders declared a nominee to the White House Office of Management and Budget unfit for service for the sole reason that he is a Christian.

You see, this goes back to last year when a Wheaton College professor stated that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.”

The Christian college administration said, no, no, no, this belief completely contradicts our teachings as clearly outlined in the Wheaton College “Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose.”

Controversy, arguing and great gnashings of teeth darkened the campus.

The professor was fired and many students and graduates wrote to support the decision.

One of those writers is alumnus Richard Vought, whose opinion piece defending the college’s decision, titled, “Wheaton College and the Preservation of Theological Clarity,” includes the theological philosophy that “Muslims do not simply have a deficient (nontrinitarian) theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned…in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Senator Sanders was outraged at this religious belief.

In Vought’s hearing for Deputy Director of OMB, Sanders grilled Vought not on his qualifications or years of excellent service, but rather upon Vought’s personal religious belief.

With no understanding of the term, “deficient” within the theological context of “nontrinitarian,” the remarkably ignorant Sanders went on a red-faced blubber.

“In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders said. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.”

Asked a question about his personal beliefs, Vought stated quite calmly, “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian, that’s how I should treat all individuals.”

Sanders continued to listen with his mouth, not his ears.

“And do you think your statement that you put in that publication, ‘They do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ the Son, and they stand condemned,’ do you think that’s respectful of other religions?”

Notably, Sanders did endorse Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, whose religion makes some rather harsh claims about nonbelievers. So clearly, he just doesn’t like Vought’s particular religion.

“I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about,” Sanders said. “I will vote no.”

Under Article VI, the Constitution states, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Sanders did just that.

Perhaps it is time to invoke Article I, Section 5, clause 2, the “expulsion” clause.

— Rick Jensen

Source: Will County News

The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government

The Christian’s relationship to U.S. government

American flag and Bible

“We must obey God rather than men…”

And thus spoke the Peter the apostle to the council, (Luke 5:29 NASB) in response to the high priest’s questioning about why he and the apostles were teaching Christ in the temple in defiance of the council’s instruction the day after an angel of the Lord released them from their prison.

And that’s the example the Christian must follow.

But in Romans 13, Paul tells us that we must be in subjection to the governing authorities.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

Some of our more conservative brethren would tell us that there is little we can or should do or say in response to an abusive government because it is “established by God.” In fact, I know many of our conservative brothers and sisters who don’t even bother to follow politics at all or even vote, preferring instead to be content with being “in subjection.”

I have even seen some claim that if we so much as question the authority of our “leaders” or point out the corruptions of the politicians and government institutions that we are engaging in a spirit of rebellion; and not just rebellion against earthly authorities but against God. But is it? If we write or speak about corrupt government institutions, politicians or bureaucrats, are we acting contrary to God’s word in Romans 13?

To be a Christian, we are to be like Christ. In Matthew 23, Christ told His disciples that the scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves in Moses’ chair (had taken for themselves Moses’ authority) and they (the disciples) were to do what the rulers told them to do, but not do as the scribes and Pharisees did, because they were hypocrites. The scribes and Pharisees claimed to follow the law and held the people to the law but did not follow it themselves.

That sounds very much like the political class of today who walking the halls of power in the District of Criminal and in most state capitols.

Then Jesus called out the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in the eight “woes” he uttered as recorded in verses 13 through 29, pointing out their wrongdoing.

The Apostle Paul was imprisoned, stoned, beaten and left for dead for obeying God rather than man. In Acts 22 we read that after Paul was seized in Jerusalem because he “preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place (Acts 21:28 NASB),” he was taken away by Roman guards at the direction of the Jews and stretched out with thongs so as to be scourged. The text reads:

But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman.” The commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” And he said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born a citizen.” Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. Acts 22:25-29 (NASB)

What Paul did here was to invoke his rights as a citizen. He did so again in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to Caesar over his imprisonment, defying the Jewish ruling authorities, who he believed he had not wronged.

So clearly our example in Scripture is we can use the legal rights available to us under the laws.

Now back to Romans 13. America’s is designed as a citizen-oriented representative government, not a monarchy or dictatorship. The Constitution was created as chains to bind men’s powers. Every politician in America swears an oath to abide by it. The powers they  have they get from the Constitution.

So understanding Romans 13 in context of American government we should read Romans 13 this way, as Chuck Baldwin has pointed out:

Every person is to be in subjection to the [U.S. Constitution]. For there is no [Constitution] except from God, and [it is] established by God. Therefore whoever resists [the Constitution] has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed [the Constitution] will receive condemnation upon themselves. For [the Constitution is] not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of [the Constitution]? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for [the Constitution] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore [the Constitution] is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for [the Constitution is a servant] of God, devoting [itself] to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7 (NASB)

The 1st Amendment protects (to some extent) our freedom to engage in speech and to petition government for redress of grievances. When we point out in speech or writing the corrupt nature of politicians and government institutions, and how they have exceeded the authority granted them under the Constitution, we are doing no more than Christ did when he called out the scribes and Pharisees, and no more than Paul did when he invoked his rights as a Roman citizen under Roman law.

So we can be politically active and not be in violation of God’s law. Telling our friends and neighbors that our institutions and politicians are corrupt is not a violation of God’s law. Guaranteeing our ability to inform others of the government’s transgressions so they can petition their representatives intelligently is precisely one of the 1st Amendment’s purposes. Engaging in political discourse or pointing out corruption is neither a violation of man’s law nor God’s. And we are to obey the law whether the “leaders” do so or not, as Christ told his disciples.

But we should also remember Paul’s admonition in Titus 3:2-5.

“…to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us…”

Source: Will County News

Trump News June 19, 2017

Today, President Donald J. Trump will host a working session with technology leaders in the private sector to develop creative solutions that will streamline government services. Modernizing government is an enormous undertaking and requires the best minds working in concert toward providing services that are effective and cost-efficient.

TODAY’S EVENTS

10:30 AM: President Trump receives his daily intelligence briefing

11:30 AM: President Trump and the First Lady welcome President Juan Carlos Varela and Mrs. Varela of Panama

11:35 AM: President Trump meets with President Varela

11:50 AM: President Trump has a working luncheon with President Varela

1:30 PM: Press Gaggle with Press Secretary Sean Spicer

5:00 PM: President Trump participates in an American Technology Council roundtable

6:00 PM: President Trump participates in an American Technology Council reception

PHOTO OF THE DAY

President Donald J. Trump signs the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States’ Toward Cuba | June 16, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

WHITE HOUSE UPDATES

On Friday, President Trump visited Miami where he announced changes to United States’ policy toward Cuba.

On Friday, President Trump approved a Kansas disaster declaration and ordered Federal assistance to supplement State and local recovery efforts.

President Trump issued a statement on the passing of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry announced that the Department of Energy awarded six research contracts to accelerate U.S. supercomputing technology.

The application period for the Fall 2017 White House Internship Program closes this Friday, June 23. Interested applicants can apply here.

WHAT WE ARE READING

“Trump’s new measures are designed to exert more pressure on Havana to reform itself. … Trump is right to recalibrate this policy without jettisoning it wholesale.”Miami Herald

Let’s support the president and send the message to Havana that if the military regime wants millions from America, its anti-American foreign policy and repression at home must change.” Frank Calzon, Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, in USA Today

***Editor’s note: In the June 15th edition of 1600 Daily, the attribution for The Des Moines Register op-ed should have been “Secretary Acosta in The Des Moines Register.”

Source: Will County News