Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic
This group does not have any discussions yet.
Comment
Judicial Watch Finds New Classified Emails, Others Confirm Collusion Between State Department and clinton Foundation.
Apr/25/18 3:30 PM Katie Pavlich
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has found a series of new emails belonging to former Democrat presidential candidate killary clinton that contain classified information.
They were stored on her unsecured server. Further, they show collusion between the clinton Foundation and the State Department.
Out of 281 pages of new emails, ten contain classified information and "appear to be among those that clinton had attempted to delete or had otherwise failed to disclose."
Here's the list of classified information they found:
A document labeled “plan” was completely redacted as classified.
A November 2012 email chain discusses the “Mid East” and includes then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, Blair as “aclb” and cinton.
Another November 2012 email chain discusses the “Mid East” and includes Sullivan, clinton's office manager Claire Coleman, Blair and clinton.
A November 2012 email chain fully redacted is titled “Mid East Peace” and includes Blair, clinton, obuma’s -Special Envoy to the Middle East David Hale.
Sullivan and Blair's Chief of Staff and former Downing Street aide Catherine Rimmer.
In an April 2011 email exchange between Blair, clinton and Sullivan concerning “Israel,” Blair says he “had another long session with BB Netanyahu.”
A May 2011 exchange concerns “Israel” and includes Blair, clinton and Sullivan.
A May 2011 email concerns “Palestinians” and includes Blair, clinton and Sullivan. Blair says, “I’ve also sent you a paper.”
A June 2011 email regarding “Israel” includes Blair, Sullivan and clinton. Blair says, “Saw Israeli PM. Put the concept of a Q statement. He was receptive. Palestinians interested too. I know there are discussions also you guys are having. And the French initiative….”
In a July 2011 email – with several national security redactions – written by Blair to clinton and Sullivan, Blair says, “I saw BB… Molcho, chief negotiator in the Israeli negotiating team with the Palestinians, will speak to -David Hale. I can see Cameron and Sarkozy with David… I saw Egyptians….”
A September 2010 email exchange is titled “Info for you,” and includes Sullivan, Blair and cinton. Blair writes that he just spent three hours with Netanyahu, and Sullivan, using his Sprint BlackBerry, he writes “We have pitched this to redacted.”
Pg 2)
And on the clinton Foundation:
Several of the emails demonstrate the commingling of clinton State Department and clinton family foundation business:
In a November 2010 email with subject line, “How do I get through to bill clinton,” Rafael Anchia, a lawyer with Haynes Boone, asks clinton campaign official Ed Meier if he could get to the “gatekeepers” to get bill clinton to give a speech in Spain, noting that “a large bank is willing to pay for it.”
Meier forwarded the email to former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan who forwarded it to former Deputy Chief of Staff huma abedin.
abedin sent it to bill clinton’s scheduler at the clinton Foundation, Terry Krinvic, who provided clinton’s contact information, to which Sullivan responded, “Awesome.”
In September 2011, Abedin sent Sullivan an email concerning the clinton Global Initiative (CGI) with “Potential questions for Closing Plenary conversation between Secretary clinton and chelsea clinton” in which abedin included some “proposed questions” to put to killary and chelsea clinton.
Four days later, Sullivan forwards a revised list of questions (completely redacted as interagency deliberative process) to abedin and clinton’s Chief of Staff, cheryl mills, saying, “Here are my proposed questions.”
“It is shameful that killary clinton attempted to delete or hide classified information and that obuma appointees james comey and lorretta lynch refused to prosecute her,”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said about the finding. “It is clear that the clintons were using the State Department to run an extensive influence peddling scheme. Americans should be concerned that while untold resources are devoted to the abusive Mueller special counsel investigation of President Trump, this Justice Department seems uninterested in prosecuting the clintons.”
Federal Judge: Mr. Trump, You Have 90 Days To Restart DACA!
Apr/25/18 11:40 AM Matt Vespa
Well, the battle over what to do for recipients enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been thrown back into the frying pan.
Like crabgrass, this issue keeps arising—and causing headaches for the Trump administration.
The Trump White House decided to gradually phase out the constitutionally questionable program, effectively rescinding an executive order issued by former resident
obuma.
Yet, politically, they couldn’t leave almost one million illegal aliens subject to immediate deportation; the political consequences would be too great.
So, they added in a six-month enforcement delay, affording Congress time to pass a DACA fix.
In other words, the Trump White House gave Congress time to pass the law the right way.
Democrats weren’t playing ball. This was the best option since close to a dozen state attorneys general threatened to sue the Trump administration should they do nothing on DACA.
White House lawyers felt rightly that they couldn’t defend the law in court. So, here we are. Failed DACA fixes, government shutdowns over illegal aliens, and Democrats turning down the legalization of 1.8 million illegals, putting them on the pathway to citizenship, in exchange for border wall funding.
It’s been a whirlwind—an issue that’s been a thorn in the side of the administration. Health care is the other one.
So, what’s new? A federal judge says DACA has to be restarted, though he gave Department of Homeland Security three months to better elaborate on why this program should go,(via NYT):
In the biggest setback yet for the Trump administration in its attempt to end a program that shields some undocumented young adults from deportation, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the protections must stay in place and that the government must resume accepting new applications. Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that the administration’s decision to terminate the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was based on the “virtually unexplained” grounds that the program was “unlawful.” The judge stayed his decision for 90 days and gave the Department of Homeland Security, which administers the program, the opportunity to better explain its reasoning for canceling it. If the department fails to do so, it “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications,” Judge Bates said in the decision.
The ruling was the third in recent months against the Trump administration’s rollback of DACA.
Federal judges in Brooklyn and in San Francisco each issued injunctions ordering that the program remain in place. But neither of those decisions required the government to accept new applications.
For all the lawyers out there, feel free to chime in, but I thought the constitutionally shaky ground for DACA stemmed from the fact that the executive passed legislation.
We have separation of powers; DACA crossed that line. And the notion that a succeeding president can’t rescind an executive order of his predecessor sounds ridiculous.
On The Hill, there's chatter of a new DACA fix that has the support of at least 218 members of the House, which is enough for passage. It's a way to pressure Speaker Ryan to hold a vote, which he wasn't going to do!
We'll see what happens now though.
GA GOP Candidate Lashes Out At Anti-Constitutional Carry Opponent.
Apr/24/18 by Tom Knighton
As a Georgia resident, I’ve been pleased with how we’ve managed to get back many of our rights in recent years. However, despite the pro-gun consensus in much of the state, it seems they haven’t progressed as far as I think they probably should have. After all, this is the pro-gun South. Why are we still requiring a permit when so many other states have gone with constitutional carry.
Then today, I get a press release from GOP gubernatorial candidate and state senator Michael Williams that seems to suggest an answer.
WILLIAMS SLAMS CAGLE FOR OPPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY. Apr/24/18
Conservative businessman and Republican candidate for governor, Senator Michael Williams released the following statement on Casey Cagle’s opposition to Constitutional Carry.
Yesterday, Cagle shockingly admitted to 11Alive News that he opposes Constitutional Carry and any other legislation that expands gun rights in Georgia.
“It seems every day another one of my fake conservative opponents slips up and tells the truth. Just one week after duping the NRA into believing he supported gun rights, Casey finally admitted he opposes Constitutional Carry, a basic gun right provided by the Constitution. Regular Georgians don’t have taxpayer funded armed security guards by our side every day like Casey. The 2nd Amendment is our security. When I’m governor, I will sign Constitutional Carry into law, expand gun rights, and allow law-abiding citizens to use their constitutional rights without government intrusion or permission.”
Yesterday, Casey Cagle told 11Alive’s Doug Richards that he opposes Constitutional Carry and that he doesn’t know any areas where gun rights need to be expanded in Georgia.
Republican Senator Michael Williams has co-sponsored and authored Constitutional Carry legislation in the Georgia State Senate multiple times over the last 4 years.
Sure enough, Cagle says exactly that.
In fact, he specifically states his opposition to constitutional carry!
But Cagle also said he’s not in favor of “constitutional carry” proposals that would allow legal gun owners to conceal and carry handguns without a permit.
A bill to eliminate carry permits got no traction in the 2018 session of the legislature.
“Georgia is in a very good position where our gun laws stand today,” Cagle said, adding he knows of no areas where gun rights need to be expanded in the state.
Cagle, our current Lt. Governor, is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination at this time.
However, this comment is a real problem for me.
We don’t need a permit to exercise our First Amendment rights. I can stand on a public street corner and say whatever I want without a permit. While permits are required for large protests, that has more to do with logistics than trying to limit speech in any way.
I don’t need a permit to exercise my right to not incriminate myself in a court of law. I simply exercise the right. That’s the thing about rights. They’re rights. You don’t need permission to exercise them.
But the Second Amendment is clearly about the right to keep and bear arms. Why must I beg for government permission to carry a handgun?
Georgia is a permissive open carry state; you need a permit to carry either concealed or openly, so it goes expressly against the Second Amendment to require permits for the carry of a handgun!
So NO, Lt. Governor Cagle, Georgia is not in a very good position where our gun laws stand.
It’s in a better position than it was a decade ago, but there’s still work to be done, and as a Georgia voter, I have to say that if you’re unwilling to help us get there, I’m sure one of the other candidates you’re running against will be happy to oblige us.
Confucius sys:
......"When in danger, or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and Shout."
Texas A&M Shuts Down 2 Chinese Learning Institutes Deemed National Security Threats.
Apr/18/18 Helle Dale
Tensions between the U.S. and China just reached two college campuses in Texas.
On April 9, the Texas A&M University system announced its intention to close two 'Confucius Institutes' located at its College Station and Prairie View campuses, respectively.
The Chinese government-funded institutes offer language and cultural programming for students, but a recent letter from Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Michael McCaul, R-Texas, flagged them as “a threat to U.S. national security,” saying they serve “as a platform for China’s intelligence collection and political agenda.”
In response, university Chancellor John Sharp decided to close the two institutes.
He released a statement saying:
We have great respect for Congressmen McCaul and Cuellar. I don’t question their judgment, nor their patriotism. In addition, they have access to classified information we do not have. We are terminating the contract as they suggested.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.
This action follows similar decisions by the University of Chicago and Pennsylvania State University to sever their ties with China. Concerns over the Confucius Institutes, which are located at universities around the world, have been growing in recent years and have come under increased scrutiny from members of Congress, the media, and academic organizations like the American Association of University Professors.
Located primarily in the United States and other Western countries, ostensibly to 'further Chinese language' training and cultural programs, the number of institutes funded and controlled by the Chinese Ministry of Education has mushroomed.
According to a 2017 study by the National Association of Scholars, from their beginning in 2004, the number of Confucius Institutes housed at colleges and universities has grown to well over 1,000 worldwide and 103 in the United States.
In addition, over 500 Confucius classrooms are housed at American high schools.
In a hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on Feb. 15, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked FBI Director Christopher Wray what the intelligence community thinks of this Chinese presence on American campuses of higher education.
Wray confirmed that the FBI is monitoring Confucius Institutes around the U.S. and has ongoing investigations of some of them. He said:
"I think the level of naiveté on the part of the academic sector about this creates its own issues. They’re exploiting the very open research and development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they’re taking advantage of it.
Pg 2)
The institutes are complicit in these efforts to covertly influence public opinion and to teach half-truths designed to present Chinese history, government, or official policy in the most favorable light."
A major problem with the institutes is that the five-year contract signed by the host academic institutions gives the Chinese government total control over staffing and curriculum.
According to a report from the National Security Agency, teachers are paid and dispatched by the Chinese government, as are the institutes’ directors.
American academic deans have no input into Confucius activities and course offerings, and may not even know that a Confucius Institute is landing on their campus.
But with China offering grants of about $100,000 to $150,000 to cover annual operating expenses and with all staffing expenses paid for, U.S. colleges and universities have gratefully accepted the offer. ***GREED!***
Yet in doing so, they have sacrificed their academic integrity and independence, and potentially created inroads for Beijing to “covertly influence public opinion and to teach half-truths” to our students.
This is right on.
But why do we have border patrol when the stinking feds do not support them! Allowing a caravan of undocumented and some converted to Islam coming up from Honduras and Guatemala. When they leave their country, what happens to the $$ we send to those countries to help their people. Supplement the BP with N and U.S. Army.
Otherwise we are going to be run over just like Europe.
Why have ICE when these hordes are allowed in.
If Americans leave the country and return we must show ID, passports etc.
And this "Caravan" displays nothing.--
well except papers provided by Mexico!
Border Patrol Agents Are American Heroes!
Apr/3/18 Sen. Ted Cruz
The following is adapted from a speech Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, delivered on April 3 at the National Border Patrol Council in Edinburg, Texas, and has been edited for length.
Growing up, my dad would tell me stories about the legends of Texas history. I’d dream of fighting alongside Col. William Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett at the Alamo, or conquering the Wild West.
In the last five years I’ve served in the Senate, I have been incredibly privileged each and every day to encounter heroes every bit as glorious as those we looked up to as children.
They’re farmers, ranchers, and small business owners. They’re first responders and law enforcement, and members of the military—all of whom rush toward danger instead of away from it.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.
And they’re the brave men and women of the Border Patrol, who go out every day in dangerous territory, risking their lives to protect the safety and security of our communities, of our families, of our homes.
One such man was Border Patrol Agent Javier Vega Jr., known as “Harvey” by his friends and family. On Aug. 3, 2014, Harvey was enjoying family time with his wife, Andrea; his sons, Jiovanni and Jarod; and his parents, Javier Sr. and Marie. They were fishing in one of their favorite spots, an isolated area in Willacy County about 35 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.
As they were enjoying their day, two men, who were later identified as criminal illegal aliens, approached the family and attempted to rob them, subsequently opening fire on the family. Harvey was shot and killed during the commission of this criminal act while attempting to protect his family from these two criminals, who had BOTH been previously DEPORTED SEVERAL times!
Javier Sr. was also hit during the shootout, and is still recovering to this day.
Harvey lost his life doing what he had been doing all his life: protecting others.
As a former Marine, Harvey was drawn to the Border Patrol out of a sense of duty and patriotism.
Harvey has since been recognized and memorialized in the National Peace Officers Memorial and the Customs and Border Patrol Valor Memorial, and this coming May he’ll be honored in the Texas Peace Officers’ Memorial.
We salute the bravery, the heroism, and the sacrifice of heroes like Javier Vega.
Agents Remigio Guerra III and Anthony Anderson are both recipients of the prestigious Newton-Azrak Award, the Border Patrol’s highest award for bravery. Both agents are from the Laredo South Station.
They received this award for actions that resulted in the rescue of four illegal aliens from the Rio Grand River. Anderson risked his life by jumping into the river and pulling the subjects onto dry land, with the assistance of Guerra.
Pg 2)
The Newton-Azrak Award, in turn, is named after Patrol Inspectors Theodore L. Newton Jr. and George F. Azrak, who were killed in the line of duty after they were ambushed, overtaken, kidnapped, and executed by drug smugglers.
The death of those heroes prompted the inception of the Newton-Azrak Award, and it is particularly significant that this award has been given to two agents who saved lives, at the risk of their own.
And then there’s our friend, union President Paul Perez.
Thankfully, Hurricane Harvey didn’t hit the valley. But like any Texan, Paul doesn’t view his sphere and responsibility as limited to the immediate community in which he lives.
He stepped forward and helped lead relief efforts, to bring Border Patrol agents to help those in Hurricane Harvey. Boats and jet skis and agents went up to Houston to help rescue people in high-water rescue situations, because suddenly we had the Rio Grande in downtown Houston.
Over 2,000 man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods were donated by Border Patrol agents. The agents donated water, food, hygiene products, and medical supplies to the cities of Refugio and Port Aransas. The donated goods were transported from the union’s office in Edinburg in one 18-wheeler, seven U-Haul trucks, and two flatbed trailers.
Paul didn’t sit around and say, “Gosh, that’s really terrible what’s happening up there, sure hope somebody does something about it.”
That’s not Texas!
In Texas, when you see a need, you step forward and solve it.
Right now, there’s a great debate about the direction this country should go. It’s about different visions, different sets of ideas. There are some in Washington who believe our immigration laws shouldn’t be enforced, and that our borders should be open; that our cities should be sanctuaries for those who come to break the law; who believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are mere “rough drafts,” not deserving of protection.
But that’s NOT Texas!
The sense of duty to our fellow Americans, respect for the laws of the land, and boundless spirit of self-sacrifice shown by the heroic men and women of the Border Patrol is who we are.
Now, That’s Texas!
Gorsuch Defends the Rule of Law in Immigration Case.
Apr/18/18 John-Michael Seibler
If you take anything away from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion concurring with the Supreme Court’s so-called “liberal” bloc in an immigration case this week, it should be his continued faithfulness to the rule of law and the separation of powers.
In Sessions v. Dimaya, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court’s opinion—joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and in part by Gorsuch—holding that part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines a “crime of violence” for purposes of removal proceedings, is unconstitutionally vague.
Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion expressing concerns about how vague laws can lead to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.
Some media outlets and noted conservatives have suggested that Gorsuch’s opinion is surprising or misguided, ruling with the liberal justices and against the Trump administration.
For example, a New York Post headline reads, “Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices in Supreme Court Immigration Vote.” And Mark Levin tweeted, “Gorsuch blows it, big time.”
Whatever you think of any immigration policies or other issues surrounding this case, one thing is clear: Gorsuch faithfully applied fundamental constitutional principles and upheld the rule of law.
In many ways, Gorsuch also carried on Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy.
Consider what the law in this case required, and what Gorsuch wrote.
Legislative News
Congressional Quarterly
C-SPAN
Roll Call
Stateline.org
The Hill
Washington Post
Politics Section
Boston Globe
Dallas News
Denver Post
Los Angeles Times
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Stop Island Park Wildlife Overpasses
Seattle Times
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
USA Today
Beltway Buzz
CQ Politics
First Read
The Hotline
The Note
The Page
Washington Wire
Mike Allen's Playbook
Politico
Roll Call
The Hill
CNN Political Ticker
The Swamp
The Fix
Washington Whispers
Fish Bowl DC
Online Political Sites
Alternative Press Index
Capitol Hill Blue
CommonDreams.org
Digg.com Politics
Drudge Report
Political Insider
Political Wire
Politico
PopPolitics
Real Clear Politics
Salon.com
Slate
Stateline.org
TCOT Report
TomPaine.com
US Politics Guide
© 2025 Created by WTPUSA. Powered by
You need to be a member of Bullheaded Texan's "Open Thread" to add comments!