Tuesday, February 14, 2017

BREAKING: White House National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn Has Resigned

BREAKING: White House National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn Has Resigned White House National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn has resigned after controversy surrounding his communications with Russia. Here is the full text of Flynn's resignation letter, bolding is mine:
In the course of my duties as the incoming National Security Advisor, I held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors. These calls were to facilitate a smooth transition and begin to build the necessary relationships between the President, his advisors and foreign leaders. Such calls are standard practice in any transition of this magnitude.

Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.

Report: Trump Won't Tolerate Anti-Israel Agenda in UN

By Jeffrey Rodack / NEWSMAX  

Image: Report: Trump Won't Tolerate Anti-Israel Agenda in UNThe Trump administration is letting it be known to Palestinian leaders and the United Nations that it will no longer tolerate anti-Israel actions, The Washington Free Beacon reports.

White House officials and congressional sources told the Free Beacon that President Trump will "unabashedly support Israel" in the months and years ahead.
Their comments came after the administration stunned the U.N. by moving to block the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as a special U.N. representative for Libya.

Sources inside the White House told the Free Beacon the move was meant to signal to the Palestinians that this type of action undermines Israel.

"The United States was disappointed to see a letter indicating the intention to appoint the former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister to lead the U.N. Mission in Libya," said Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Just a Thought...
General Flynn and Washington Leaks
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor

As most of you know by now General Flynn resigned last night as National Security Advisor because of his contact with the Russian ambassador during the transition period and for his 'supposed' lying to VP Mike Pence. However, it seems that the NSA had been 'monitoring' Flynn's phone calls during that time...which means it was still Obama's NSA at that time.

So...with all the 'leaks' now coming out of Washington, it is my opinion that this was a deliberate act of sabotage by the Obama 'shadow government' (and know it is real) to try and discredit and 'take down' the Trump administration with a little personal payback for General Flynn thrown in for good measure for his turning his back on his party...and YES General Flynn was a registered Democrat.

As for the 'leaks' there is a simple solution...if legal Trump needs to FIRE each and every employee from each and every agency NO matter their rank or position that was put into place by Obama and his cronies.

Today, Tuesday, February 14th from 7to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss the Constitution's upholding of Trump's travel ban, defining the Democrat party, and numbers maybe even Democrats can understand.

Hope you can tune in at: http://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/
A Calculatingly Clever Political Move
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  
– The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

And so the battle rages on between President Trump and the rule of law vs. liberal judges and justices who flagrantly violate the law that is our Constitution. And what a sad situation it truly is for even after having survived eight long traitorous years of a presidency where America’s allies became our enemies and America’s enemies became that president’s friends, and with us now finally having a president who truly wants to keep the homeland and ‘We the People’ safe, he is being forced to fight tooth-and-nail to do so.

And doing so President Trump is, but he is fighting an uphill battle against the very people that are supposed to follow the rule of law not interpret it in such a way as to push forward their own personal political agendas. And sadder still is that that scenario reaches all the way up to the Supreme Court...our nation’s highest court...yet a court also rife with some who not only let their personal beliefs guide their decisions, but who fail to understand the law as written in the very document they swore to serve and protect.

..."[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver." 
 – Justice Antonin Scalia in his 1997 Tanner Lecture 

And know that the Constitution clearly defines the duties that belong to the states and those that belong on the federal level, yet today’s liberal courts willingly and knowingly choose to either ignore the very words their rulings should be based upon or to blur the distinction between state and federal duties in order to reach a decision that fits their political agenda and the Constitution be damned.

A huge difference indeed and critical to understanding just how wrong the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got it when they upheld the lower court’s ruling to stop President Trump’s temporary travel ban from going into effect...a ban that affected citizens from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Syria from entering the U.S. for 90 days, halted the refugee program for 120 days, and indefinitely barred the acceptance of Syrian refugees.

So what does the Constitution say regarding immigration into our country and how does it affect what President Trump wanted to impose in regards to his travel ban is the question. First, it must be understood that the right to freely travel is indeed an inherent natural right afforded American citizens falling under the banner of the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but that right was not fully recognized as such until a 1969 Supreme Court ruling came down in the case of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). This was the case filed on behalf of a 19-year-old unwed mother of one who was pregnant with her second, who was (I believe rightfully) denied welfare benefits...the 'gimme-gimmes' were at it even back then...based upon the grounds that she had not lived "in-State" for a year before her welfare application was filed, a requirement under then Connecticut law. 

So when the then left-leaning Supreme Court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor their decision established within U.S. law as fundamental the "right to travel" as a privilege of citizenship that was now to be understood as protected by Article IV...the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. But, and this is critical, nowhere in the ruling did it say that the “right to travel” would be given to foreign nationals to freely travel into our country.

And herein lies the crux of the issue we now face for while the courts should protect 'natural rights' given to American citizens it cannot and should not interfere with said rights and give those same rights to non-citizens based upon misinterpretations...whether deliberate or not...of the law as written. In other words they must be faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution, being that while Congress does indeed have the Constitutional authority to establish laws of naturalization and/or immigration they do not have the right nor Constitutional authority to create blanket legislation that allows non-citizens the rights of born or naturalized Americans.

And as such, thrown out should be any talk of blanket amnesty for illegals that Democrats so desperately want, and as for President Trump’s temporary travel ban where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put the ‘so-called’ rights of muslim college students above that of American citizens, that too should be thrown out.

So in regards to the right to freely travel as it relates to President Trump’s temporary travel ban as per what the law intended...foreign nationals whether immigrants, refugees, and most especially those out to kill us all, have no right to “freely travel” to come here nor do we as a country have a legal right to take them in for they are not citizens. Remember, the Constitution was written to be the laws for and to be the protection of American citizens alone and for liberal judges to adjudicate decisions in such a way as to blanket cover all the world’s people is just plain wrong for the law is as it is, and the law should not and must not be manipulated via reckless intent and interpretation by those wishing to bend it to fit their own personal or political ideologies or agendas.

And the Fourteenth Amendment is clear on this as it defines who are citizens and who are not as in "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." meaning the rights we citizens are afforded as per the Constitution does not allow for foreigners to be put above the rights of American citizens nor does it say we must welcome into our country those intent on doing us harm. 

Also, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, empowers Congress, “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and this combined with Congress’s shared power with the president to govern the foreign policy of the nation, does indeed give Congress and the president discretion on who enters this country, how long they can stay, under what specific conditions they can enter or stay, and by what process some of them can become citizens.

And all this translates into President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning travel to the U.S. of those from seven muslim countries deemed a danger to America in that they harbor, train, operate from, or afford protection to those wishing to do us harm, was most assuredly Constitutionally sound and that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision handed down did indeed not only go against the set perimeters of Constitutional law in regards to the separation of powers, but also adjudicated their vision of how to conduct foreign affairs instead of letting the president do what he needed to do as Commander-in-Chief in regards to protecting these United States.

And in their ruling in favor of what the liberals love to call ‘social justice’ these justices went against Constitutional law for the Constitution does not...I repeat does not...delegate to the federal government the power to make decisions regarding immigration, it only gives the federal government the power over naturalization, as in giving Congress the power to restrict “migrants” eligibility for citizenship. This means that with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals being a federal court...thus being part of the federal government...they did indeed overstep their bounds when refusing to lift the restraining order as per a lower court’s ruling that stopped Trump's temporary travel ban from being implemented even though much needed precedent for its implementation had already been set. 

To see those cases of precedent please refer to my article 'Precedent Had Already Been Set.'

In addition is the fact that the Constitution itself gives the president the right to issue such an order. And while executive orders do not require Congressional approval, they do, according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, have the same legal weight as if they were passed by Congress even though they are not actual legislation. 

So where do we go from here now that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken it upon themselves to interpret the law as per their whims and not as laid down in the Constitution. Where do we go as said court claimed Trump’s executive order as written violated the Establishment Clause because it was discriminatory towards a certain group of people (muslims) and singled out a certain religion (islam)...which it did not as can be seen in my article 'Tim Scott, Activist Judges, and an Unconstitutional and Traitorous Ruling'....an order that I personally believe was not tough enough and for the obvious reason that muslims put sharia law above our rule of law which is the Constitution, something these judges either failed to take into account or simply chose not to take into account.

Where do we go...we go to President Trump himself to turn this wrong right and who issued the following statement upon hearing the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling, “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country...you’ll be seeing that sometime next week,” letting everyone know that he will not be giving into a ruling that truly does put our nation’s security in jeopardy. 

And while Trump could have an 11-judge Circuit Court panel review the decision to see if his order as it stands should be heard by the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know two things...first, even if he does this it does NOT mean this is the final outcome only that it could be reviewed and second, know Trump does have tricks up his sleeve including that he could use The Refugee Act of 1980 to 'manipulate' refugee numbers down...as in set the ceiling lower on the annual numbers let in and from which countries specifically...as is his right to do. But being the smart man that he is, President Trump knows he cannot risk taking this to the Supreme Court as the court is now evenly split along ideological lines and if their vote also splits along those lines the 9th Circuit’s ruling would stand...meaning the delusional left wins and ‘We the People’ lose yet again.

So President Trump’s most likely options include either a reworking of the order’s language in such a way that is more likely to pass legal scrutiny...such as clarifying that the order does not apply to legal permanent residents and other certain visa holders...both key points of contention in his order as it now stands. Or he could actually shelve that order and write a brand new executive order that will actually toughen the ban by zeroing in on more specifics thus tightening our security even more, and if written correctly there will be nothing the courts, the Democrats, or his naysayers on the left can do for like they found out with the ‘nuclear option’ they will find that sometimes things should have been left as was and not as they want or wish it to be. 

And with a man as calculatingly clever as Donald Trump is maybe this was his plan all along...root them out...find out both their weakness and their wants...and then go in for the figurative political ‘kill’ so to speak.

Something to think about now isn’t it...just saying.


Today, Tuesday, February 14th from 7to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss the Constitution's upholding of Trump's travel ban, defining the Democrat party, and numbers maybe even Democrats can understand.

Hope you can tune in at: http://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/