Libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano, an early on supporter of Trump has changed his views. Following two plus years observing Trump’s actions, his blazing Twitter feed, and his volumes of lies and obstruction Judge Napolitano recently said the following.
Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions and that’s what the president did by obstruction, where is this going to end? I don’t know, but I am disappointed in the behavior of the president.
If he had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom, he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior. But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior, that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, that is condemnable.
Watch the complete video from “Judge Napolitano’s Chambers” here.
The criticism from the longtime Fox News stalwart is the latest in his gradual evolution into one of the network’s most ferocious critics of the president. During a different monologue of the same show last week, Napolitano said what he saw in the report was enough to “prosecute” Trump.
The increasingly frequent and relentless criticism from Napolitano is a stark departure for the judge, who was known to be a Trump favorite at the start of his presidency. Throughout 2018, Trump frequently quoted the judge’s analysis verbatim on Twitter. In 2017, there were even rumors that Napolitano would be tapped for a Supreme Court seat.
It is now time for the Congress of the United States to do its job. The million dollar question is does it have the backbone. The billion dollar question is, if Congress actually has the backbone to do there’s will the Senate have the courage to do the same?
My bet? Very likely not.
We are living in the Era of Trumpism. An era that is essentially void of ethical values and principles. America, having elected an individual whose only dicernable values are money and what’s in it for me, now has a Head of State that is, for all intent and purpose, running our nation rudderless.
It is for the above stated reasons that we are posting Is The US Founded Upon Christian Principles? It is our hope rational thinking folks will read the article and identify for themselves why Donald j. Trump is indeed a clear and present danger to ourcontinued exstance as a representatie democracy. Evangelicals in paticular seem not to understand ourFounder’s thinking. Nor do a very many conservatives and libertarians of other Christian denominations.
And now the teaser…
Christians claim that the US Constitution and therefore the US itself is founded upon uniquely Christian principles, and that the Christian principles have Biblical sources.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the influential US Founders, a Deist, described the fact that in the deliberations by Virginia statesmen for the wording or the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, which preceded the US Constitution 1st Amendment, the Virginians rejected the linkage of the name “Jesus Christ” to the phrase “the holy author of our religion”:
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” 
What are the Christian principles Christians claim are the principles upon which the US Const. and therefore the US was founded? (2)
Full article BELOW THE FOLD.
America is passing through another phase of its evolution as a nation-state that arguably has grown too large for its own good. At the same time the world has become a smaller place, the result of technological advances and the changing demographics our nation is going through, the result of massive immigration. Through all of this two generations stand in fear of losing the nation of their childhood and the one they raised their children in.
While there are certainly many factors that attributed to the election of Donald J. Trump the fear that our nation was losing its WASP identity certainly ranks at the top of the factors list. The great melting pot now seems gripped with fear. Donal J. Trump, a man rightly accused of xenophobia, bigotry, misogyny, gross dishonesty, and a man lacking a clear cohesive vision appealed to their fears. Fears that were easily manipulated, especially given the regular reoccurrence of terror driven by religious extremism worldwide.
Trump was viewed by many as just what America and the west needed. A man without political experience, someone lacking in diplomacy (political correctness to the right), a man who would make the best deals for the USA, build a wall to divide us from our southern neighbors, halt immigration (especially muslims and darker skinned people), and restore our economy to the power house it once was.
Since assuming office he has essentially accomplished little of his “agenda”. Other than a stream of rather meaningless executive orders, a travel ban the courts rightly put a stop to, a healthcare bill that would result in 23 million becoming uninsured, raise premiums, and hurt his core supporters the most, a never-ending stream of tweets, insulting and alienating foes and allies alike, yanking us out of the Paris climate agreement, and becoming ever more mired in scandal and possible obstruction of justice charges the man in the big seat has done very little good for our country.
As Trump supporters watch the unfolding investigations and live testimony we hope they will finally realize the man they put in the most powerful and demanding job of the free world is both unqualified and inept for the job they elected him to do. Buyer remorse is never as good as the buyer doing due diligence before buying. But with any luck it will prevent them from making the same serious mistake in the future.
Political maneuvering at its finest. Anyone what to wager a bet on exactly why O’Connell recommended Garland for FBI Director?
POLITICO – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has encouraged President Donald Trump to nominate Merrick Garland to lead the FBI, the Kentucky Republican said Tuesday.
“I have spoken with the president about it. I recommended Merrick Garland,” McConnell told Bloomberg Politics’ Kevin Cirilli.
“Yeah, it may surprise people, but he has a deep background in criminal law,” he continued. “He was the prosecutor in the Oklahoma City bombing case. And I think it would make it clear that President Trump will continue the tradition at the FBI of having an apolitical professional.”
Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey last week amid a looming investigation into potential collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The administration suggested the ousting came at the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but Trump later told NBC News that he would have fired Comey regardless of the recommendation.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Thursday first floated the idea of Garland leading the FBI. Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was nominated by former President Barack Obama to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court last year but was blocked by Senate Republicans, who maintained that the next president should fill the vacancy, as Trump eventually did.
“Instead of a special prosecutor, @realDonaldTrump should nominate Merrick Garland to replace James Comey,” Lee tweeted Thursday.
Yup. Our vote is for cynical political game playing by republicans. Also our view is Trumpgate calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
Article continues BELOW THE FOLD.
When something doesn’t work leave it to the GOP to double and triple down on failed policies. Attorney General Sessions has ordered federal prosecutors to “seek the maximum punishment for drug offenses.” expect another growth cycle in increasing prison populations.
NPR – The United States puts more people behind bars than any other country, five times as many per capita compared with Britain or Spain.
It wasn’t always like this. Half a century ago, relatively few people were locked up, and those inmates generally served short sentences. But 40 years ago, New York passed strict sentencing guidelines known as the “Rockefeller drug laws” â€” after their champion, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller â€” that put even low-level criminals behind bars for decades.
Those tough-on-crime policies became the new normal across the country. But a new debate is under way over the effectiveness of tough sentencing laws.
Rockefeller, New York’s Republican governor, had backed drug rehabilitation, job training and housing. He saw drugs as a social problem, not a criminal one.
But the political mood was hardening. President Richard Nixon declared a national war on drugs, and movies like The French Connection and Panic in Needle Park helped spread the sense that America’s cities were unraveling.
Late in 1972, one of Rockefeller’s closest aides, Joseph Persico, was in a meeting with the governor. He says Rockefeller suddenly did a dramatic about-face.
“Finally he turned and said, ‘For drug pushing, life sentence, no parole, no probation,” says Persico.
That was the moment when one of the seeds of the modern prison system was planted.
The Rockefeller drug laws sailed through New York’s Legislature. And pretty quickly this idea of getting tough, even on petty criminals, went viral, spreading across the U.S. Other states started adopting mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws – and so did the federal government.
Journalist and historian Scott Christianson has written for decades about drug crime and America’s prison system. He says we’re just coming to terms with the impact of these policies – on poor neighborhoods, on race relations and on taxpayers.
“I think that this state and our society really has to do some hard thinking and to reflect on the impact of this long-term war on drugs – what it has meant for our society and what it has cost,” Christianson says.
Half a million Americans are serving long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. Those inmates make up 48 percent of the inmate population in federal prisons.
“I concluded very early that this was a failure. It’s filling up the prisons, first-time offenders,” Persico says. “This was obviously unjust – and not just unjust, it was unwise; it was ineffective.”
This debate is far from over. Supporters of mandatory minimums say the policy has helped reduce crime in some cities, including New York, and they point to modest declines in the use of some drugs, particularly cocaine. Persico says Rockefeller himself never expressed any second thoughts or reservations about the policy that carries his name.
And now, Attorney General Sessions Orders Tougher Drug Crime Prosecutions.