Five Judges on the Ninth Circuit Deliver Exemplary Dissent From “Contrived Comedy of Errors” in First Decision on Travel BanEdit

On March 15, five Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal delivered what Professor Jonathon Turley termed a “vociferous dissent” which has received, as he noted, “a surprising lack of media attention…”. Upon discovering Prof. Turley’s article, and a couple of others in the same vein, I conducted my own search and while not claiming even the slightest degree of skill in electronic searches, I could find not a single word of this remarkable decision in the New York Times, although, to my surprise, it was reported in both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

The cited article notes the following salient points about the initial opinion while also noting the unusually direct language used by the dissenting Judges, termed by another commentator as “ruthless”, which gives one at least some hope that common (and legal!) sense may ultimately prevail in what another writer has termed this “contrived comedy of errors”:

“The dissenting judges objected that there is an “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors of the panel. It called those errors “fundamental” and even questioned the manner in which the panel reached its decision with a telephonic oral argument. The dissent raised many of the problems that various commentators have raised, including myself. The lack of consideration to opposing case law, failure to address the statutory authority given to the President, and the sweeping dismissal of executive authority are obvious flaws. (These problems are also apparent in the ruling in Hawaii, though it was based on establishment rather the due process grounds) The dissenting judges refer to the “clear misstatement of law” in the upholding of the district court. so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.”

The Judges also made the point, thought to be long-settled before Judge Robart issued the first ruling in this case, that “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.”

Prof. Turley sums up the heart of the reason this opinion offers at least some glimmer of optimism that the Courts will finally get back to basics and follow established legal principles instead of concentrating on what the President said on the campaign trail as opposed to what appears “within the four corners of the document”, the analysis we were taught in Law School and which has been the accepted standard ever since, as follows:

“The opinion has all of the legal analysis that is so conspicuously absent in the panel decision, which dismissed or ignored countervailing case law of the Supreme Court and even the Ninth Circuit. … “

We heard more than most of us ever wanted to hear about “hope and change” for the past 8 years– this opinion is definitely my version of “hope” in the sense that if Justice Gorsuch is on the bench by the time these ill-considered cases reach the High Court, it is almost impossible to imagine that they could possibly stand. That is my fervent hope. Thus, I strongly agree with Professor Yoo’s analysis: “I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would allow the judiciary to exercise such intrusive review into the motives of the head of a co-equal branch of government.”


True Story: A Neighbor Saw My “Make America Great Again” Flag–And Cried!

This little story definitely falls under the heading of “you can’t make this stuff up!”!

I am very proud of my flagpole in my front yard and have proudly flown “Old Glory” for many years. I try hard to keep it replaced when our frequent South Louisiana storms “have their way with” them and I try hard to observe all the rules with regard to the proper care of the American flag.

I was very happy recently to see an ad for a beautiful red flag with large white lettering reading “Make America Great Again” and immediately ordered it to fly with my brand new American flag, without ever giving a thought to the fact that someone might be so offended by the mere sight of the flag that they would voice loud complaints about it. Therefore, I was delighted when the flag came in and I immediately ran it up the flagpole to take its place of honor right below my spanking new American flag.

Shortly thereafter, I got a call from a neighbor and long-time friend, who explained that he was simply doing his duty as grievance Chair of the Homeowners’ Association in conveying to me a complaint he had received from a neighbor, who told him that as they were from Mexico the mere sight of the flag so upset them that they cried for quite some time after seeing it. My friend made it clear that he was doing his duty, but not necessarily in an enthusiastic way, and in the course of the conversation, he said words to the effect “I must tell you, I really like that flag!” He asked for my response and I asked whether he wanted the dignified response or the one I would really like to give, and he said as he had known me for many years he could probably guess what the “undignified” response would be! So, I responded that it would take a final order of a Court of competent jurisdiction ordering me to take down the flag before it would move one inch; I have had no further complaints. As a matter of fact, another neighbor called me asking for information as to where he could get one for his own flagpole!

If someone tries to tell me there is no such thing as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” I have a true story ready for them; it is real and it is really quite chilling to actually know someone to whom the mere sight of his campaign slogan on a piece of cloth causes them physical upset!

Although if I were truly fair about it, I would have to admit that when I saw a pink knit cap recently at a soccer match, commonly identified by a feline reference and which has become something of an icon for women in The Resistance, if that’s what it’s called this week, I did feel some kind of emotion, mostly sadness for the rather pathetic specimen who was wearing it.

But I did not cry. And if I had, I would never, ever, ever admit it to one living soul!



A “Muslim Ban”? Only to those too lazy to read the Executive Order itself.

My legal training and education, and many decades of practicing trial law, finally led me to approach the hysterical chorus of claims that the President’s recent Executive Order was a “Muslim ban” in what really does appear lately to be “the old-fashioned way”—to read and study Judge Robarts’s opinion, to read and study the order itself and to listen to (most of) the appellate arguments. I came away from that experience with not only a clear understanding of what the Order actually says (and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not say), but also an abiding conviction that very few of the baying bloodhounds of the press have bothered to read the Executive Order in view of the near-identical and, in some cases, inane characterizations of the order and the law on which it is based.

Based on my old-fashioned approach, and with the caveat that as a member of the Bar I am ethically constrained from any kind of personal disparagement of a member of the Judiciary, here, for what they may be worth, are my observations and conclusions.

First, the opinion of the District Court in Seattle was, with all due respect, overbroad, over-reaching and devoid of any reasoning or citation of authority whatsoever—the opinion did not even mention the actual content of the Executive Order nor did it even attempt to analyze the legal authorities upon which it is based. Although I have not researched this aspect of it in depth, I found it inexplicable that this court would make its order apply “Nationwide”, thus, in real terms and not just theoretically, overruling the decision of another Federal District Court, District Judge Nathaniel Gorton of Boston, which had just the day before ruled in a diametrically opposite manner, holding the order legal and fully enforceable. I was more than a little surprised when not a single Judge on the appellate panel last evening even mentioned this most unusual attempt of a single Judge in one Judicial District to have its order apply to the entire nation. As noted below, that was but one of my very serious concerns about the appellate argument, parts of which sounded like a recording of a freshman year (maybe even High School Moot Court exercise), again, with all due respect.

Second, The Executive Order is very carefully written to be anything but a Muslim ban!

As I could only dream of writing as cogently, clearly and persuasively as Heather MacDonald, I will simply adopt her brief refutation of this Democrat, media, academia, far left (but I repeat myself!) talking point:

“This executive order is far from a “Muslim ban,” pace the press. Millions of Muslims remain as eligible for entry after the executive order as they were before it. The order singles out entries from seven countries based on evidence of the heightened Islamic terror threat there. If doing so is impermissible because those seven countries have Muslim-majority populations, then national security has been completely sublimated to political correctness. It is not the U.S.’s fault that the individuals creating the most worldwide havoc with bombings and beheadings of civilians are Muslims motivated by radical Islamic ideology. The U.S. is forced to take its enemies as and where it finds them.”

“Have Islamic terrorists come from other countries? Yes, but the seven countries selected by the decree are now the site of the most contagious terrorist ideology and chaos, according to the Obama administration and now the Trump administration as well. The critics cannot simultaneously argue that the pause is too sweeping—taking in a handful of Muslim-majority countries—and that it is not sweeping enough—not taking in more Muslim-majority countries.”

This has been the consistent view of several analysts from many publications who have also taken the “old-fashioned” approach and have actually read the document before uttering sheer and total banalities about it. What a unique concept! We can only hope more and more “journalists” will return to that time-honored practice, which is admittedly not for the faint of heart or for those members of the chattering class who are simply too lazy to take the few minutes it would take anyone to read this document.

One of the clearest statements I found, and also one of the most entertaining, was this one from an apparently small paper in the Washington, D.C. area, entitled, appropriately enough, “Obsession”:

“The word on the street in the DC-environs where I live, is that President Trump has slapped a moratorium on entry to the USA by Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Animists, Hindus, Moonies, Rosicrucians, Hari-krishnas, Shintoists, and adherents of any other religions with odd-sounding names. Reporters, pundits, politicians, “educators,” clergy, students, professional agitators and stoned advocates for free pot are shouting from the housetops that “this is not who we are,” and vowing to fight Mr. Trump’s “Hitlerian” discrimination against religion to the last man, woman or whatever. Dark whispers are even circulating that Trump really wanted to set up “detainee camps” for Muslims and others, but was restrained by “moderates” on his staff (assuming that there are any).”

“OK, OK – enough of that tongue-in-cheek stuff, although the overheated accusations of “Hitlerian” religious discrimination are all too true. All seriousness aside, though, Mr. Trump did not bar followers of Islam (or of any other religion). His order:

  • Suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days;
  • Barred Syrian refugees indefinitely;
  • Blocked entry into the United States for 90 days by citizens of seven countries (i.e., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen);
  • Barred green card holders from those countries from re-entering the United States, although the administration said exemptions could be granted.”

“Indeed, just finding this straightforward summary of Mr. Trump’s order took some digging, as most media organs are obsessed with the “religious discrimination” story-line. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) made a big media splash (so to speak) by publicly “weeping” over Mr. Trump’s “mean-spirited” order, while vowing to fight it with his last breath. (Somehow, he and multitudes of like mind overlooked the fact that the seven nations named in the order were originally cited as “terrorism-prone” by the Obama administration two years ago.)”

Among the biggest cries of anguish of the far left is the fact that the order gives priority to victims of religious-based persecution. As noted in a recent edition of “Rubin Reports”, this is hypocritical coming from those who claim to always stand with minorities of all kinds, everywhere. Here is what Ben Stein of The Daily Wire had to say on this aspect of the Order, along with the applicable section of the Order:

6. Priority Is Given To Victims of Religious-Based Persecution. The media has labeled the order Islamophobic based on this provision, but here’s what it actually says:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

“As David French points out at National Review, the current definition of refugee under law states, “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to . . . that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . religion [among other things].” This executive order isn’t a major change to that standard, and it is designed to give priority to Syrian Christian refugees who have largely been left high and dry by the Obama administration.”

Third, with regard to the Appellate arguments of Monday evening, February 7, 2017, it is difficult to come up with any word within the constraints of respect for the Judiciary other than disappointing, both as to the quality of appellate advocacy on the part of the attorneys, particularly the dismal performance of the attorney representing the Government, and the questioning of the Court. We are taught early, and reminded time and time again, that it is dangerous to second-guess lawyers “in the pit” about their own cases, as they usually know many times more than anyone else does about their case. However, I did find myself wondering, with all the resources of the Government and considering the momentous importance of this appeal, why any one of a number of well-known and highly skilled appellate counsel could not have been found to present the case on behalf of the Government. I found the Solicitor General of the State of Washington, on the other hand, quite impressive. However, I was deeply troubled by not only the numerous inquiries into statements made by President Trump in the course of the campaign about “banning Muslims” and similar statements by Mr. Giuliani, which did not seem at all relevant to the question to be decided, but also the openly and forcefully adversarial tone in which some of the questions were asked, especially by one of the Judges on the panel.  Any attorney who has had any appellate experience at all has run into some hostile questioning from time to time, but the tone of some of this Court’s questioning seemed to be unusually pointed and, at times, unnecessarily so. I also found Judge Friedland’s asking “What if the order said “No Muslims”? to be, and there is no other way to put this, simply inexplicable, and felt real sympathy for Government counsel as he tried to show the obvious—that this is not the order we are dealing with in this case.

To borrow a little from the Chinese Proverb, we seem to be living in Orwellian times, in which we are lied to day in and day out by groups which not long ago were looked to for information with which we could be the informed electorate Mr. Jefferson said was so critical to the maintenance of a healthy Republic. Some members of these groups, i.e., politicians of a certain stripe and almost all  of the mainstream media(approximately 93% are registered Democrats), seem to have abandoned all pretense of any objectivity whatsoever and have adopted the practice of The Big Lie which was at the heart of Orwell’s writing. The more this Trump Derangement Syndrome continues, the more incumbent it is upon the citizenry to approach major issues like the one considered here “the old-fashioned way” and realize that if one is to know what is in a certain document or law or other writing, assume the media is lying to you about it, as they usually are. Or, as one of the more colorful columnists on the scene today recently put it, “everything said about President Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a lie, including that it’s a “Muslim ban.”









Pleasant Musings on Day Two

James A. George

I want to record my feelings and observations on this day after the inauguration of our new President, Donald J. Trump, in view of the truly historic nature of this event and the resurgence of good, old fashioned American patriotism it has given rise to! I really feel this is the dawning of a new day for a new America and that we have been given, in effect, one more chance by God, to at least try to “get it right” this time, after so many years–8 to be sure, maybe, according to many, 16-24–of drifting away from all the values which made America the exceptional “City upon a hill” our last real President talked about. I feel different this morning, in a way which is hard to put into words, but it comes close to to a lightness of spirit, almost a giddiness, if that’s not too ridiculous  a visage for a man of 82 ½ years!  But that’s what I am feeling right now, mid-morning on the day after the beginning of a new era for the USA, and, for that matter, the world.

The Pomp and Circumstance yesterday were just, quite simply, thrilling to see and, more—much more—importantly-to feel- America is back! The President’s Inaugural Address was very, very courageous and unrelentingly plain-spoken, “taking it to “ the Establishment, which was sitting all around him! The Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Ryans, Pelosis, Schumers, all there on the dais with him and he let them all have it right between the eyes, and said there would be a “transfer of power” from the Establishment Government back to the people. How beautiful it was to hear those words and to feel the power of bedrock conviction we all know he says them with! And his mentions of God as our Protector was in such stark contrast to the 8 years in the secular wilderness of the Hussein Obamas—secular, that is, with one glaring exception, Islam!  All of this, plus a clear call to a return to the Jacksonian populism of “America First”, something not heard from an American leader, assuming, arguendo, one can honestly call Barack Hussein Obama an American leader, and putting our interests ahead of the interests of other Nations, many of which have been sworn enemies who chant Death to America every day of their lives.

While the President was the star of the day, as was most befitting, another star helped enormously to add to the special luminosity of the day, and that was America’s new Princess, The First Lady! What a beautiful First Lady we now have, with such an almost regal bearing and aplomb, and, of course, sense of style.

There were several magnificent lines in the President’s speech, one of my favorites of which was “When you open your heart to patriotism, there  is no room for prejudice.” In the maelstrom of abuses, insults, lawlessness, arrogance, hubris, name-calling We The People suffered through in the last 8 years, something profound happened while The Establishment was busy taking care of its own—they lost the consent of the governed and a most unlikely Tribune came along and earned the trust of the people. He now has won the consent of the governed, and may a Merciful God guide him  to just and right leadership as he brings America back from the abyss of the last 8 years.

God Bless America!

A Window Into A Depraved Culture

Heather Mac Donald has just published ,under the above title, an excellent analysis, in which statement I am repeating myself as all of her works are excellent, especially her recent book, The War on Cops, about the horrific societal changes which produced the four individuals who tortured a disabled white man for hours last week in Chicago. As usual with her writings, she makes several points about what brought us to this point and marshals solid research to back up her arguments.

After detailing the extremely graphic insults hurled at their victim, she notes (Heaven Forfend!) that all four animals who committed this deed which would have been –we hope! — unthinkable in days not very long gone, were black and were driven by influences such as racial victimology, inner-city gang culture, and black anti-white animus. It has been noted by other observers that members of the mainstream media struggled mightily against even vaguely admitting what was so obvious–made glaringly more obvious by the fact that the savages furnished the world with a streaming video of the acts they were so proud of, including binding and gagging the victim,  making him drink toilet water, cutting a portion of his scalp from his head as he whimpered — and they were laughing all the time! Bear in mind that this cruelty took place over a period of several days, not just hours.

The author notes some recent publications such as those written by Ta-Nehesi Coates, Between the World and Me and Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow which together argue that America aspires to the “shackling” and “destruction” of “black bodies” and that our country seeks to reimpose de facto segregation on blacks through the criminal justice system. Our race baiting President has insisted in the waning days (Hallelujah!) of his utter failure of a Presidency  that blacks are the victims of a racist criminal-justice system.

Reading her article will give you new insights into how absolutely unmoored from the America I know some of these groups are, such as the Chicago chapter of Black Lives Matter embracing as its motto “Stop killing us” and broadcasting total fabrications which are easily refuted by a quick reference to readily available statistics. As a citizen of the beleaguered city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, I have more than a little familiarity with how quickly these myths can take wing and the destruction of lives and property such irresponsible screaming and bellowing can cause.

As she usually does in her superb analyses, Ms. Mac Donald sets out many most persuasive statistics to buttress her arguments, such as the fact that:

“Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are 13 percent of the population. This data accords with the last published report on interracial crime from the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Bureau stopped publishing its table on interracial crime after 2008, the first year of the Obama presidency.”

In passing, one must ask why it was so necessary to stop publishing figures on interracial crime upon the commencement in office by the first Black President; inconvenient facts, perhaps?

In another fine examination of this act of wanton savagery by John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, In Facebook Torture, Victim’s Eyes Terrify Most , the author examines the issue from another angle, by trying to see what our unacumstomed eyes simply do not want to see, through the eyes of our law enforcement defenders who see and live through the unthinkable precincts of hell over and over again:

“And when Chicago’s top cop talked of it, he said something worth considering again.

“It makes you wonder what would make individuals treat somebody like that,” said Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson. “It still amazes me how you still see things that you just shouldn’t. I’m not going to say it shocked me, but it was sickening.”

Johnson’s been a cop in Chicago for decades, so he’s seen worse. We haven’t, but he and other police have.

With City Hall pushing body cameras for all police, I figure the rest of us should soon be able to see what cops see, at the crime scene, with all the brutality that we try to shield ourselves from.

Because cops work in that world where people do such things to each other. Where criminals laugh and inflict pain, on babies, old people, anyone. Most of the rest of us haven’t been to that place and we’d be psychologically damaged if we did.”

That last statement is worth pondering again– it is just not possible for me, even after more than 82 years on this Old Earth, to visualize the reality of criminals of this degree of –yes, depravity– laughing while inflicting pain on defenseless babies, women, children, anyone, including someone who expressed an opinion favorable to a political candidate they were told they have to hate!

No one could possibly improve on Kass’ conclusion as to this entire sordid episode:

“And binding and gagging a disabled man, poking at him with a knife as he cowers in a corner, carving a chunk out of his scalp as he whimpers while the kidnappers laugh, all that brutality is certainly hateful enough.

We’re sickened and shocked because we watched it all on video.

But I wonder how we’d feel if we had access to those police body cam recordings, to see what cops see when they walk up and look into a victim’s eyes.

Like Eddie Johnson we’d be sickened. And like him, eventually, we wouldn’t be shocked.”

I pray for our new President and his Administration in many ways and that they will be guided to many sound decisions as they start the arduous process of repairing the extensive damage wrought by that last eight years of sheer and utter incompetence, race-baiting and corruption, but I do harbor very genuine concerns that the racial divide left by this Worst President In American History will be with us in one form or another for a very, very long time.






“Rubes in the hinterlands”

Jim George, Proud Deplorable (and rube)

A letter to the editor appeared in our paper, The Baton Rouge Advocate, this morning which contained the above words describing all of us “deplorables” down here in South Flyover Country (and from sea to shining sea!)and it just called so loudly for an answer I simply could not resist answering, as it were, “the call of the loon”. The letter was entitled “Electoral College bad way to pick President”, and the writer listed several reasons in support of his position in that regard, including the following:

“Third, the historical excuses for the Electoral College have become anachronistic. Mass media and the constitution have seen to that. Now that information is so plentiful and so readily available to everyone, there is absolutely no need to rely on educated and informed surrogates to do the thinking for the rubes in the hinterland. Slaves were freed in by the Emancipation Proclamation and made full citizens by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, thus obviating any need to afford the additional advantage previously given to southern states by the Electoral College system.”(Emphasis mine)

My response, just submitted to The Advocate for their consideration of an alternate and hopefully reasonable viewpoint, is as follows, and is submitted for your perusal and comment, if any:

“In a letter which appeared in the November 21, 2016, issue, the writer, perhaps quite inadvertently, revealed, in a single phrase, the mindset which delivered the Trump Presidency to America, including those like the writer who would have preferred to be celebrating President Hillary Rodham Clinton now. In his discussion of the reasons supporting his position that, to quote the title, the “Electoral College [is a] bad way to pick [P]resident”, he states, apparently referring to the Electors, that “there is absolutely no need to rely on educated and informed surrogates to do the thinking for the rubes in the hinterland” which truly tells the entire story of why we now have a President-Elect Trump and a Vice-President Elect Pence. As a proud member of that reviled “basket of deplorables” so sneeringly condescended to by the Democrat nominee before her Manhattan audience of elite grandees, in which she called me, and those who joined me in that hated “basket” that day, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and, as if that were not enough, “you name it” just for good measure! The writer, and those similarly inclined, may not wish to admit it, but “deplorables” like me, or, shall we say, “rubes” in our “hinterlands”, are quite simply sick of being the subject of what appeared to many of us to be a continuing wave of sneer and snark and condescension, so we elected the person we thought, in good faith, would Make America Great Again, for–to answer the insulting cast of Hamilton recently in their “lecture” to the future Vice-President of the United States–, “all of us.” “

“As I noted the occupation of the writer was indicated to be “librarian”, I would suggest he is well situated to take advantage of the large body of scholarly research on the origins of, and the reasons for, the Electoral College, one more brilliant gift of the greatest group of geniuses ever gathered in history, our Founding (if I may be pardoned for this bit of non-PC language) Fathers. Should he take advantage of all that research, he will undoubtedly learn, in addition to the fact that we are not, in fact, a democracy, but a Democratic Republic, that were it not for the Electoral College, every Presidential election would be decided by four states, 3 very blue and 1 very red, in which event we “rubes in the hinterland” would, for all intents and purposes, lose the franchise. Surely, the writer and those of like mind would not wish that, even for those they hold in such obvious contempt that they refer to us as “rubes”, would they? God Bless America, and thank God for the Founding Fathers!”

There was a great piece recently in American Thinker entitled “Is Hypocrisy a Character Trait of the Left?” and the answer was, not exactly surprisingly, a resounding yes. However, it definitely would appear that one character trait which seems to be missing among the left, in addition to even the slightest scintilla of a sense of humor, is a sense of irony leading to a near-total inability to see that what happened to their candidate was, in large part, this precise kind of condescension and snark.

“We Don’t Have Many Presidents Left”

Jim George

So said one of our dearest friends recently in discussing this election season, based on the fact that she and My Lady are “of a certain age” and I am a good decade past them on that dark scale. Because of the level I have acquired on that dreaded counter, I may well have only one President left and, with all due respect to those many citizens, including some (many?) friends, acquaintances and family, who will use one of the most precious rights ever given mankind to vote for the only presidential candidate under active criminal investigation (before you cite Mr. Comey’s latest letter, note that the Clinton Criminal Family Foundation is still under active investigation), a person who is probably the most deeply corrupt and blatantly dishonest person to ever run for the White House.

I am writing this on the eve of Election Day 2016 in order to set out my thoughts on my choice at a time well before anyone has even an inkling of the actual outcome at least 24 hours after this is posted. For the same reason, to assure there can be no “shading” of these remarks by the influence, real or imagined, of who will actually win, I wish to express my concern at the number of our fellow citizens with obviously functioning minds who have had access to the very same information I have studied over the years about this truly wretched and openly unethical person who will cast their precious vote for her tomorrow, or have already done so in early voting.

I can—and do—respect their obvious right to vote for such a thoroughly lawless person and still wonder how anyone who knows what she is, what she represents, what the scurrilous gang she surrounds herself with represents (have they read even one Wikileaks release?) and the cloud of sleaze which will surround her from Day One could even consider giving her their vote. When a person like Doug Schoen, one who has made his living as a consultant to nothing but Democrat candidates states very openly, and I might add, very courageously, that he cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton in view of his certain knowledge that her election will precipitate a Constitutional crisis due to the many (justifiable and well founded!) investigations she and her sycophants will undergo, it speaks volumes against the fitness of such a person to serve in any office, much less the highest office in the land.

As I am speaking my mind so that the record will be one of clarity as to where I stood well before there was either a President Trump or a, God forbid, President Clinton (does no one remember the open sewer of slime the first one was?), I will also express my astonishment at the numbers of citizens voting for Clinton who are members of the Learned Profession of the Law, whose very existence is due to, and devoted to the preservation of, the American Rule of Law. It is, quite simply, beyond me and my admittedly limited intellect to fully grasp how a person trained in the sacred principles of the Law, and, yes, I do know I am showing what a dinosaur I am by using “quaint” words like that, could even think about voting for a person who, as outlined in an excellent analysis on Ricochet this morning by Dave Carter , responded to the FBI’s investigation by:

  • Providing two BlackBerry devices with their SIM or SD data cards removed.
  • Destroying or losing 13 of Hillary’s personal mobile devices being sought by the FBI as evidence while claiming publicly that she only used one device.
  • Deleting server backups to avoid FBI examination.
  • Wiping laptops with BleachBit when notified that they contained records sought by the FBI and the House Benghazi Committee.
  • Permanently deleting emails from her “PRN” [Platte River Networks] server after those emails were subpoenaed.
  • Manually deleting backups of the PRN server after her records were subpoenaed.

Despite these extraordinary efforts by the candidate and her staff to circumvent lawful subpoenas by hiding and destroying evidence, further FBI investigation discovered:

  • 2,093 emails that the State Department classifies as Confidential or Secret despite Hillary’s claims that there were no classified emails..
  • 193 emails (totaling 81 individual email chains) that ranged in classification, at the time they were sent, from Confidential to Top Secret/Special Access Program.
  • 8 Top Secret email chains.
  • 37 Secret email chains.
  • 36 Confidential email chains.
  • 7 Special Access Program email chains.
  • 3 Sensitive Compartmentalized Information email chains.
  • 37 Not Releasable to Foreign Government email chains.
  • 2 Releasable Only to Five Allied Partners email chains.
  • 12 of the above email chains which were withheld by Clinton attorneys, but which the FBI recovered using other methods.
  • The above email chains also contained classified information from CIA, DOD, FBI, NGA, and NSA.

As a person who spent many decades as a member of the Bar engaged in civil litigation in many Courts of Law, the conduct of this person, and those in her group of courtiers, would definitely get me indicted and disbarred and I would be laughed out of the Courtroom if I tried to mount any kind of defense against, just to take one example, the deliberate destruction of evidence known to be under subpoena at the time the order to destroy was given.

A recent article went through a very helpful analysis of the dictionary definition of “corrupt” and reached the following conclusion, with which, it will not surprise the reader to learn, I fully agree:

Under’s definition of “corrupt” one finds the following:

  1. Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:
  2. Debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil:
  3. Infected; tainted.

When used as a verb with an object we find:

  1. To destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery.
  2. To lower morally; pervert.

Don’t these definitions perfectly describe Hillary Clinton?

Returning to Mr. Carter’s fine analysis, as I could not possibly improve upon the elegance with which he sums up the evil which is Hillary Diane Rodham, these words perfectly sum up the reasons I plan to be there when the polls open tomorrow morning at 6 am to cast my vote for the candidate who has given voice to the many “Forgotten Men” and “Forgotten Women” across our Beloved Nation:

The failure of the progressive industrial complex and their enablers in both parties is, in a pivotal way, an intellectual failure because as Bill Buckley observed, “…all intellection is moral, because disembodied from moral precepts, thought is misleading, empty, vulgar.” For all the talk of Donald Trump’s vulgarity, his “moral precepts” do not revolve around bribery, subterfuge, lawlessness, the destruction of evidence, the compromising of national security, and a network of accomplices both in and out of government who actively undermine the democratic process.

Over 40 years ago, a President was forced to resign over a mere fraction of what the Clinton political machine has wrought. Under the circumstances, we must not entrust instrumentalities of the state to a presidential candidate whose moral compass consistently points the wrong way, whose administration would make the Nixon administration look like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

I pray for Mr. Trump and Gov. Pence and I pray for all the citizens of this, the Greatest Nation ever created by the mind of man but, most of all, I pray for our Beloved Nation, the United States of America!

God Bless America!

The Chicago Way

One of my favorite columnists, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, has an excellent analysis out this morning entitled, appropriately enough, What Plagues Clinton in the final days: The Chicago Way, in which he sets out a nice, succinct statement of all the ways the Clintons’ thirty years of sleaze is catching up with them in the last stretch of the campaign.

Using the full force of his many years of experience of reporting political news in the place which gave that special treatment its name, he notes that one thing which is different this time, as is the case with anyone with half a brain who experiences Chicago politics on a day-to-day basis, is that everyone knows the system is rigged now that it is all out in the open for all to see:

“Something they’ve felt for years, whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge, something they were mocked from saying outright:

It’s rigged.

Now that this is commonly understood by the people, and has become a daily feature of the presidential campaign — with both sides leveling the charge — and the Department of Justice mired in politics, the republic is treading on dangerous ground.”

Emphasizing the fact that this time the voters have it all laid out right in front of their eyes, if they just take a moment to see it and understand the depth of its rottenness and decay and corruption, he says:

“It’s a ripe mess and voters know it. It’s right there in front of them. And this has outraged many liberal pundits, who perpetuate the myth that they speak truth to power even as they rally around the desperate establishment queen. The wits of our modern Versailles continue to ridicule voters who dare think the system is rigged, and call them foolish, deplorable hicks or mentally ill.

But media ridicule and the mocking of voters who have been left behind in this economy has its limits. All it does, really, is stoke cynicism in the final days, leaving Mrs. Clinton and her friends scrambling one step ahead of a closing Trump.”

After reviewing the cast of bottom-feeders which have performed in this Theater of Sleaze just in the past few weeks, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile and the open and blatant rigging of the DNC against Bernie Sanders, he sums up the recent battle between the FBI and The “Justice” Department:

“And now comes the worst of all, what seems to be that proxy war, fought through the media, between FBI agents investigating Clinton on a series of fronts and the Department of Justice which has reportedly tried to shut those investigations down.

Yes, it’s corrosive. It is the Chicago Way writ large.

And pretending it is something else blinds Americans to dangers yet to come, no matter who is elected president in November.”

This is an outstanding summary of the tsunami of slime we have witnessed in this campaign– in such volume it is hard to fathom even for those of us who try to stay abreast of the new eruptions every day — and I highly recommend it for your careful consideration.

God Bless America!


By Jim George

Hillary Clinton has finally been called, by one of those rarest of creatures, a Congressman with a very sturdy backbone, what many of us have believed she is and has been for a very, very long time– a traitor to her country, clearly guilty of treason.

Here is the brief story on his remarks, which should be read and considered by every person who is privileged to call themselves Americans–truly the luckiest people on the planet– but especially those who are about to make the tragic mistake of voting for this traitor:

“Michael McCaul on Hillary Clinton server, hacks: ‘It’s treason’

“By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times – Thursday, November 3, 2016

Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Thursday said Hillary Clinton’s exposing sensitive information to potentially multiple hacks from foreign actors amounts to treason.

““This is why you have security protocols — to protect classified information,” Mr. McCaul said on “Fox and Friends.” “She exposed it to our enemies, and now … our adversaries have this very sensitive information that not only jeopardizes her and national security at home, but the men and women serving overseas.”

““In my opinion, quite frankly, it’s treason,” said Mr. McCaul, Texas Republican.


“Citing sources familiar with the FBI’s investigations, Fox News reported Wednesday that there is about a “99 percent accuracy” that at least five foreign intelligence agencies successfully hacked Mrs. Clinton’s private email server she set up to use as secretary of state.

Mr. McCaul said Mrs. Clinton “absolutely” would be exposed to potential blackmail from such countries if elected president.

““The concern I’ve had all along is she has had seven special access programs on these devices. Those are the most classified, sensitive secrets in the federal government — many of them covert operations,” he said”

I well and truly pray that enough Americans see this Congressman’s remarks, consider them carefully and prayerfully, and ask themselves the simple question: Do I really want to vote for someone who has sold herself–and America’s foreign policy– to the highest bidder?

I knew the answer to that question a long time ago. I pray that enough citizens will answer it soundly and intelligently, with the interests of our Beloved Nation before all other considerations.

God Bless America.

A Fish Called Obama Or The Fish Rots From The Head


James A. George

As one who very publicly proclaimed his belief that James Comey was one of the most honest, incorruptible public servants in Washington, before he permanently stained himself and his agency with the corruption so endemic to that swamp of mendacity in these times, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the serious damage his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton has done to our Nation. And, as one who really believed in his integrity and probity, I can certainly agree with his own words in describing himself in a Senate Committee hearing –“a deeply flawed and fallible human being.” That deficiency, obviously not peculiar to Mr. Comey, is one which addresses itself to Mr. Comey and those he has dragged with him into such disrepute. However, as with so much of the lawlessness which will forever be the real legacy of this most corrupt administration in our history, the damage to the Rule of Law—the very foundation of our Republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers—carries the potential of being dangerous and far-reaching. Should, God forbid, Hillary Clinton be elected President, it could well become permanent.

In a post recently on, the author observed the following, in a piece appropriately entitled “James Comey Is A Disgrace”:

“When James Comey was not eroding everyone’s belief in the competence of the FBI, he was acting as a political hack for the Obama’s and Clinton’s. One of the largest intelligence breaches in American history takes place and director Comey’s response is to hand out immunity to almost everyone involved, ask no follow up questions, and then say he could not prove intent by Hillary Clinton. John Schindler does an excellent job documenting the sham of an investigation.

“It’s prudent to judge people by comparing how they found something against how they left it. James Comey has destroyed the credibility of the FBI. The man is a disgrace. I do not care if he was feeling pressure from Obama, if he was uncomfortable with that pressure then he should have resigned. He is just another apparatchik along with Loretta Lynch and John Koskinen in an increasingly corrupt and incompetent government.”

I am  a great admirer of the writings of Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor who was the lead prosecutor of “the Blind sheik” in the successful prosecution of that radical Islamic terrorist for his role in planning the first World Trade Center attack in the early ‘90’s. Thus, when he analyzes matters prosecutorial, this non-criminal-defense lawyer credits his opinions as highly as any commentator on the scene today. Way back in the distant mists of February, he opined that

“As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.”


“Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.”

He concluded at that time:

“To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.”

More recent analyses have shown rather clearly that, in all probability due in large part due to the President’s own exposure to liability (see, e.g., United States v. Nixon) if these e-mails were to be made public, as they absolutely would be in any prosecution of Clinton, there never was a plan to do anything but let her skate.

As McCarthy discussed a few days ago, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, her Chief of Staff during her tenure as Secretary of State (N.B.: not her attorney), who was a target of the investigation, was allowed to represent Clinton as her attorney in her “voluntary” interview—an “unheard-of accommodation … made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.”

He further notes that Comey kept stressing that Clinton’s interview was “voluntary” and that she could impose any conditions on her appearance she wanted to impose. This is, of course, pure fantasy, as any person in that situation (except, of course, The Dowager Duchess of Chappaqua) who insisted on having present in her interview a target of the investigation, who was not her lawyer, would have simply been handed a subpoena and directed down the hall where a Grand Jury would be waiting for her to testify—“under oath and all by her lonesome, without any of her lawyer legion in attendance.”

In the Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel addressed questions posed by Rep. Tom Marino, a former Justice Department prosecutor, as to why

“…. Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?”

“Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” ”

The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.

She then illustrates how easily Mills conned (there really is no other way to describe the way she lied her way into both the interview with Clinton and her own immunity agreement) the apparently eager-to-please FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers by telling them she did not know about Clinton’s server until they both left the State Department. At one point, she even said she didn’t even know what a server was! As McCarthy observed, these obvious fabrications don’t even pass the laugh test, but they were accepted hook, line and sinker by these inside-the-Beltway “investigators” (why does the phrase “Keystone Kops” come to mind?) who were busy constructing their Potemkin village to help Clinton stagger to the White House.

Now, if all that pile of corruption stench is not overpowering enough, it has just been learned that side agreements were reached with Mills and another member of the Clinton team in which the FBI agreed (1) to destroy their laptops after reviewing their contents and (2) limited their search to no later than January 31, 2015, preventing the Bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice. According to a Fox News summary of these truly bizarre agreements:

“Judiciary Committee aides told that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.”

“Committee aides also asked why the FBI and DOJ would enter into a voluntary negotiation to begin with, when the laptops could be obtained condition-free via a subpoena.”

“The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.” ”

“Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.”

““You’re essentially extending immunity to everyone,” one aide said.”

These house-of-mirrors shenanigans have now been brought to the attention of the D.C. Bar Association in a letter outlining the ethical violations by the Republican National Committee. Based on the Clintons’ records over the past 30 years, there is scant reason for optimism that these transgressions, which would bring this lawyer and any other not favored by the aura (perhaps “aroma” might be more appropriate here) of the Clintons into a disciplinary hearing, will be acted upon, but perhaps there is some reason to hope that the Bar will fairly discharge its obligations.

This strange and – may I say it?—deplorable parade of one corrupt act following closely upon the heels of another has even caused scholars of a decidedly leftist persuasion to raise questions about the glaring double-standards being applied. One such scholar had this to say:

“As Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and who first defended the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary,  recently put it:”

“Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate.”


As Americans who love our country and who simply do not want to believe that the persons leading our government are engaged in the destruction of evidence, lying under oath, impeding proper investigations, granting favorable treatment and immunity to certain favored persons where no one else in the country would ever get such treatment—even to targets of a criminal investigation. As a lawyer who practiced in many Courts of Law for many years, it is especially grievous—painful!—to witness the steady dismantling of the Rule of Law by conduct which is clearly, under any objective analysis, thoroughly and deeply corrupt.


One of the best summaries of what we’re faced with was written by Col. Lawrence Sellin (U.S. Army, Ret’d), a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, and captures the way so many of us feel about the sewer known as the Obama Administration. He said:


“Comey’s performance in office is symptomatic of a problem that cuts across the entire political-media establishment, namely the desperate attempts being undertaken by those trying to preserve the corrupt status quo.”

“As part of that effort, the FBI Director joins a long list of aspiring office holders and fawning journalists willing to exchange integrity for the opportunity to audition for a seat at Hillary Clinton’s Presidential dinner table.”

“President Trump should fire James Comey.”

It is my fervent wish that this is President Trump’s second official act, right after ordering his Justice Department to forthwith issue an indictment against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

God Bless America.