Anyone surprised ? constitution ? What constitution ?? Now's the time for Deerfield residents to exercise their "OPEN CARRY" rights

They're Coming For 'Em: Illinois Suburb's Gun Confiscation Law Set To Go Into Effect    Jun 04, 2018 Matt Vespa

It’s June. It might not be a big deal for most, but for the law-abiding gun owners of Deerfield, Illinois—it’s the time when a new gun confiscation law goes into effect. The Chicago suburb recently passed a law, where AR-15s and other firearms that look scary, along with a host of handguns, have to be transferred out of the village limits, turned over to the police, or destroyed. Owning these firearms is not permitted within Deerfield and non-compliance could carry a $250-$1,000/ day fee. Yes, the National Rifle Association has joined a lawsuit against the provision. It’s absurd. Gun ownership has been banned in a slice of America. That’s grossly unconstitutional (via Chicago Tribune):

In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.

This seems to mean, your little .22 cal semi-auto plinking rifle is now illegal

  READ MORE    

No, Really: How, Why, and When Did the Feds' Russia Probe
Into Trump Associates Actually Begin? Guy Benson  Posted: Jun 04, 2018

Let's begin by reviewing a few points as a backdrop to this post: First, as I've written numerous times, Robert Mueller's team must be allowed to complete its work without interference -- though I've also said that it would behoove the special counsel not to stray too far from the core mission, and I agree with ranking Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat Mark Warner that it's likely in the nation's interest for the probe to wrap up sooner rather than later.  I also analyzed Rep. Trey Gowdy's significant public comments last week regarding the "spy gate" controversy surrounding the Trump campaign informant with whom the FBI worked during the early stages of the Russia/collusion probe Mueller inherited.  In short, I thought it was meaningful that Gowdy, who was one of the few members of Congress to receive a classified briefing on the matter, effectively endorsed the Bureau's actions on that front, also highlighting that investigators were not targeting Donald Trump. I'll turn to my skepticism of the feds' official account in a moment, but first, I'd like to address a few criticisms of Gowdy I've seen: 
(1) I find the more outlandish line of accusation that Gowdy has been taken in by the "deep state' to be utterly ludicrous on its face.  Gowdy is a fair-minded and committed conservative who gave the Obama administration fits over his pursuit of the truth on Benghazi and other issues.  It's true that as a former federal prosecutor, he may be more defensive of the FBI than other observers.  But let's not forget his intense cross-examination of then-FBI chief James Comey about his controversial decision not to recommend criminal charges over Hillary Clinton's email scandal.  He was hardly obsequious or overly deferential during that exchange.  I also find this comment from Gowdy's former close colleague and friend Jason Chaffetz to be an important contribution to the debate about the South Carolinian's credibility.  Bear in mind that Chaffetz has been an outspoken Trump defender in many cases and hasn't pulled punches about the Russia matter and the FBI:

READ MORE   

Part of what's wrong in Washington......"Little Chuckie Schumer" making demands of Trump. Do the dems even know what Trump is going to try to negotiate with N. K. ?? At least Trump got us to the table, MORE than any other sitting President has done since the start of the Korean war, Jun 25, 1950... Dems need to see what Trump has in mind before they go making demands

Senate Democrats vow to buck Trump on North Korea without tough deal    By Patricia Zengerle  

© REUTERS/Leah Millis Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to members of the media during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington

Top Senate Democrats on Monday told President Donald Trump not to make a deal that leaves North Korea with nuclear weapons, and threatened to maintain or toughen sanctions on Pyongyang if that condition is not met.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (a crybaby) and ranking Democrats from national security committees released a letter to Trump laying out demands for any pact, which they said must be permanent.

Trump plans a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12, the latest twist in the high-stakes diplomacy over U.S. attempts to eliminate Pyongyang's nuclear arms program.

The Democrats also told Trump to lean hard on Kim's ally China, to ensure it "will do all it can to help secure an agreement and then insist on strict North Korean compliance with such an agreement."

Easing sanctions under a deal would likely need approval from Congress which has passed sanctions on North Korea. Since most legislation needs 60 votes to pass the 100-member Senate and Trump's fellow Republicans hold only 51 seats, that would require Democratic support.

The Democrats' demands include North Korea dismantling and removing every nuclear, chemical and biological weapon, ending production and enrichment of uranium for weapons purposes and permanently dismantling its nuclear weapons infrastructure.

They said North Korea must also agree to suspend ballistic missile tests and commit to robust inspections.

"Now that the meeting will proceed as planned, we want to make sure that the president's desire for a deal with North Korea doesn't saddle the United States, Japan and Korea with a bad deal," Schumer told a conference call with reporters.

Democrats have been struggling to balance their support for peace with North Korea and frustration with what they see as Trump's refusal to work with them. On Monday, they said they want Trump to achieve "a lasting and strong agreement," but he must respect allies and engage closely with lawmakers.

"We just can't settle for something less than what will ultimately make the peninsula, the region and the world more secure," said Senator Bob Menendez, (a criminal) the top Foreign Relations Committee Democrat.

Schumer said talks with North Korea are far more perilous than negotiations over Iran's nuclear program because Tehran did not have nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles, unlike Pyongyang.

Trump enraged Democrats and frustrated allies last month by announcing he was pulling out of the Iran deal. Many Republicans said Trump was right to withdraw from the pact reached by Democratic former President Barack Obama because it was not a treaty approved by Congress.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Alistair Bell)

Obama-Land’ Costing Illinois Taxpayers $172 Million   by Martin Walsh
The taxpayers are now stuck with the $172 million bill that Obama allies promised would be paid for by private donations. 

Obama busted lying to residents about presidential center. 

Former President Barack Obama vowed to Illinois taxpayers that they would not be stuck paying for his massive center, but a new report from Zero Hedge shows he lied again. He lied about private donations paying for Obamaland, and now his out of control ego is going to cost taxpayers for something they have been fighting to stop.
A new report on Friday revealed that the Obama Presidential Center — which is being built in Chicago, Illinois — is going to cost the taxpayers $172 million. Despite promising his home city and state that he wouldn’t stick them with the bill, Obama is doing just that with a massive center dedicated to himself.
The recently passed budget, which will be signed by Democrat Gov. Bruce Rauner this month, specifies that Obama’s presidential center will be paid for by the taxpayers. While forcing Illinois resident to pay the bill, Obama has simultaneously taken over the state and been exposed in a massive lie.

Here’s what an Obama Foundation spokesperson said last year about the presidential center:

“Construction and maintenance will be funded by private donations and no taxpayer money will go to the foundation.”

The $38.5 billion state budget, which can be read here, explicitly states that $172 million will be allocated toward construction, maintenance, and re-configuring roadways around the gigantic center.
Moreover, many people living in the city are fighting the construction. Not only is it illegal to build a center like that on public land, the excavations have unearthed bodies and artifices, which are basically being tossed like rubbish to make room for Obama’s ego trip.

Perhaps this massive lie and bombshell story would be dominating mainstream media headlines if it didn’t involve Obama, the darling of the Left.

Obama allies are also lying about it being a presidential library. No books, paper, or documents will actually be stored at the center, but will instead be at another location that the Obamas took over.
As previously reported by Conservative Daily Post, Obama’s gigantic center will feature a museum of the self-absorbed couple, a test kitchen, an activity-center, basketball court, yoga centers, and many other items that were not agreed to in the 2015 deal. The massive center is nothing more than a project for the Obama’s to glorify themselves.
Residents were against the center before they knew they were going to be stuck footing the bill.

With Obamaland set to take up a major chunk of downtown Chicago, residents worry about an increase in crime and traffic.
Sadly, this is just the latest reminder about why so many Americans are glad Obama is out of office and wish he would go away for good.

He lied to people (again), and now residents are stuck with the $172 million bill for a center they never wanted in the first place.

President Bill Clinton on Monica Lewinsky, #MeToo and whether his apology was enough     Eun Kyung Kim

Former President Bill Clinton feels he's apologized enough over the Monica Lewinsky scandal and said he has no plans to directly ask the former White House intern for forgiveness.

"I do not. I have never talked to her. But I did say, publicly, on more than one occasion, that I was sorry," he told TODAY's Craig Melvin. "That's very different. The apology was public."
Clinton reflected on Lewinsky against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement as he and author James Patterson sat down with TODAY to discuss their new thriller, "The President Is Missing."

While some Democratic leaders, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, have suggested that Clinton should have resigned at the time, the former president defended his decision to instead fight impeachment charges. He said he wouldn't have changed his approach, in light of #MeToo.
"Well, I don't think it would be an issue. Because people would be using the facts instead of the imagined facts. If the facts were the same today, I wouldn't," he said.
In 1998, Clinton admitted to having an affair with Lewinsky, a scandal that launched a lengthy investigation and resulted with the second-ever presidential impeachment in United States history.

Clinton said his critics are now pouncing on that affair because of their frustration with President Trump, who has been accused by numerous women of inappropriate sexual behavior, all of which Trump has denied.
"A lot of the facts have been conveniently omitted to make the story work, I think partly because they were frustrated that they got all these serious allegations against the current occupant of the Oval Office. And his voters don't seem to care," Clinton said. "I think I did the right thing. I defended the Constitution."
Clinton said Trump's alleged sexual predatory behavior "hasn't gotten anything like the coverage that you would expect."
Earlier this year, Lewinsky penned an essay in Vanity Fair taking responsibility for her part in the White House scandal. But she also pointed out that Clinton used his power to his advantage.
"He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better," she wrote. "He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college."
Lewinsky also admitted that she was diagnosed with PTSD from the unrelenting public scrutiny.
Clinton said he doesn't feel any more responsibility about the affair now then he did when the scandal rolled out 20 years ago.
"I felt terrible then. And I came to grips with it," he said.
He also reiterated that he asked for forgiveness publicly.
"I apologized to everybody in the world," he said.
But Clinton also questioned why other past presidents haven't been held to the same standards as he has.
"Do you think President Kennedy should have resigned? Do you believe President Johnson should have resigned?" he said.
Clinton did defend the #MeToo movement, calling it "way overdue." But, he added, "it doesn't mean I agree with everything. I still have some questions about some of the decisions which have been made."

Reporters ??? Sometimes I wonder where their heads are at (up their ass ?) ..... 7-2 DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A NARROW DECISION TO ME.

Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute   By Lawrence Hurley 29 mins ago

© REUTERS/Rick Wilking Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.

The commission had said Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote, referring to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.



"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy said.

Of the 50 states, 21 including Colorado have anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.
The closely watched case before the Supreme Court, which in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, pitted gay rights against religious liberty. President Donald Trump's administration intervened in the case in support of Phillips.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

LOCK HER UP ! ! !

Inspector General Releases Draft Report Of Clinton Email Scandal  by Austin Lewis
Many people say Huber already has a grand jury in motion.

Inspector General Horowitz just released his draft report to the FBI and DOJ. Soon, it will be in front of Congress, and will know what happened during the Clinton email server investigation.

In 2016, evidence uncovered in an investigation by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation showed that Hillary Clinton committed a crime, for which she was never charged.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, at the behest of President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has spent more than a year reviewing the case. Now, his full report is close to release, the draft version has been sent to the FBI and the DOJ. It seems that the contents of the report were enough to cause U.S. Attorney John Huber to already impanel a grand jury. Hopefully, his report shows the real wrongdoing and there will be no more cover-ups of criminal Clinton conduct.

Hillary Clinton was investigated because classified information was found on her personal email server (and other people’s laptops). Generally, removing classified information is a crime in the United States. However, for some reason, even though there was plenty of evidence, her supporters in the FBI helped her skirt punishment.

This watchdog report, painstakingly researched since January 2017, will tell the American people WHY she was never charged, and what happened during the investigation that led to that conclusion.
If report is accurate, it will likely lead to indictments. U.S. Attorney John Huber was brought into the investigation late in 2017, and many accounts suggest that he has already impaneled a grand jury. Generally, that only happens when a government prosecutor is preparing to charge people with federal crimes.
According to Representative Jim Jordan, a republican from Ohio, a number of people are anxiously awaiting the release of this report.

Jordan, and others in Congress, first found out that the report was done in a letter delivered on Wednesday. In that letter, the Inspector General, who has held that position since 2012, said that he had sent the draft report to both the FBI and the DOJ, so that they can suggest necessary redactions to protect classified and sensitive information.

Horowitz has looked at many things in preparing this report, including claims that it was improper for James Comey to make his recommendation about not prosecuting then-candidate Hillary Clinton public.
Since the report has not been released for the public’s consumption yet, it’s hard to know what it will contain. However, there is some evidence to suggest a few things about the report.
For example, the report has already resulted in a criminal referral for Andrew McCabe, which put him in legal jeopardy

READ ON

Playing the Black Card   By Kelly May 29, 2018

Candace Owen is a refreshing new voice prepared to turn the tables on the classic black political narrative of victimhood and oppression. Do her the favor of watching this video.

In America, there’s a card more valuable than any card from Visa or American Express. What is it? How can you get one? Candace Owens, Communications Director for Turning Point USA, answers these questions.

I did look into this picture before posting it, ABC and Whoopi claim it is photo shopped. I don't know but if REAL....the "View" should be yanked off the air IMMEDIATELY ! ! It wouldn't surprise me if this is true.....



How is Whoopi and View still being aired? Shame on you ABC!

Trey Gowdy Shut Down The Deep State Leakers With These Nine Words

The “spygate” scandal is reaching crisis levels.
FBI and Department of Justice officials are being forced to share details of the attempts to implant a spy in the Trump campaign in a meeting with members of Congress.
But before the meeting could even take place, Trey Gowdy shut down the Deep State leakers with these nine words.
Congress – led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes – has been pressing the DOJ and FBI to turn over documents relating to the efforts of an FBI spy snooping around the Trump campaign.
The FBI and DOJ have responded with the laughable claim that turning over these documents would risk exposing the source’s identity and threaten national security.
These claims were blown out of the water when leaks that clearly came from the DOJ and FBI about the spy’s biography appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post which rendered it child’s play to guess the spy’s identity.
Congress is empowered to conduct oversight, and given that the FBI used the fake news Christopher Steele dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, there is every reason to suspect that the intentions of the FBI to sicc a spy on Trump were not on the up-and-up.
So the DOJ was forced to obey the Constitution and set up a briefing for Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes on spygate.
But the Democrats complained about not being included—even though the leaks have come from Democrats and their allies in the Deep State.
That’s when Gowdy responded to their grumbling with nine simple words: “Show up with an open mind and closed lips.”

The Daily Caller reports:

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter requesting that a meeting between Trump and the House Intelligence Committee be bipartisan.
Gowdy said he doesn’t care who attends the meeting, but the only thing he would ask is “if you’re going to show up, show up with an open mind and closed lips.”
“In other words, don’t leak like a sieve when we get through with the meeting,” Gowdy continued.
The South Carolina Republican said that many members of the House have already moved to impeach the president before Special Counsel Robert Mueller released any report on his investigation. 
Gowdy added that he is willing to sit down with “a Democrat who is serious about what our law enforcement agencies did in 2016,” but added that it’s not his meeting and he is not in charge of the invite list.”

Gowdy’s comments about leaking struck a nerve.
The last time Gowdy and Nunes met with Rosenstein about getting documents about the spy, Rosenstein – or his Deep State allies – leaked that the White House came down against Nunes and Gowdy and agreed with the DOJ in protecting the documents they sought.
That was not the case.
So Gowdy fired a warning shot that similar behavior will not be tolerated.

I've posted this a number of times and it's as relevant today as it was in 1965

If I Were the Devil: Paul Harvey (Warning for a Nation) 1965

IMPACT THE NATION AND SHARE THIS ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER!
If I were the devil . . . I would gain control of the most powerful nation in the world;
I would delude their minds into thinking that they had come from man’s effort, instead of God’s blessings;
I would promote an attitude of loving things and using people, instead of the other way around;
I would dupe entire states into relying on gambling for their state revenue;
I would convince people that character is not an issue when it comes to leadership;
I would make it legal to take the life of unborn babies;
I would make it socially acceptable to take one’s own life, and invent machines to make it convenient;
I would cheapen human life as much as possible so that the life of animals are valued more than human beings;
I would take God out of the schools, where even the mention of His name was grounds for a lawsuit;
I would come up with drugs that sedate the mind and target the young, and I would get sports heroes to advertise them;
I would get control of the media, so that every night I could pollute the mind of every family member for my agenda;
I would attack the family, the backbone of any nation.
I would make divorce acceptable and easy, even fashionable. If the family crumbles, so does the nation;
I would compel people to express their most depraved fantasies on canvas and movie screens, and I would call it art;
I would convince the world that people are born homosexuals, and that their lifestyles should be accepted and marveled;
I would convince the people that right and wrong are determined by a few who call themselves authorities and refer to their agenda as politically correct;
I would persuade people that the church is irrelevant and out of date, and the Bible is for the naive;
I would dull the minds of Christians, and make them believe that prayer is not important, and that faithfulness and obedience are optional;
I guess I would leave things pretty much the way they are. 

You say..There ought to be a law against harmful immigration"..well there is.. McCarran- Walter Act of 1952

 

Wouldn't it have been interesting if, at some point during the presidential campaign, if one of the candidates asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington, D.C., ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952 ?"

 

I did not know of this act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.

 

Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

 

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities and even people of certain religions

(Muslims).

 

The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.

 

Congressmen and senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our late president called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

 

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, surprise, surprise!"

 

It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

 

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president, whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

 

"The president may, by proclamation and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

 

Who was president when this was passed?

Democrat Harry Truman.

 

Who do you suppose last used this process?

Democrat Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States.

 

But Carter actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government.  And then he deported a bunch of them.

 

Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

 

So, what do you say about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democratic senators, representatives and the Obama Administration?

 

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."

 

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should or could be refused immigration to OUR country.

 

Authenticated at:  (look under 1952)

 

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/ USimmigration Go ahead… read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Immigration_and_Nationality_ Act_of_1952

Donald Trump Surprised Robert Mueller With An Announcement No One Saw Coming

Special counsel Robert Mueller is in a standoff with President Trump’s lawyers over an interview.
Some experts believe Mueller is trying to lure the President into a perjury trap.
But Donald Trump’s lawyers shocked everyone when they made an announcement about Mueller before a meeting about spygate.
Trump turned the political world upside down when he went on the offensive after revelations that the FBI dispatched a spy to snoop around his campaign.
This development cast the Russia investigation in a completely new light.
Now Trump and his supporters are convinced the FBI was carrying out a political vendetta on behalf of the Obama administration during the 2016 election.
After the White House announced there would be a meeting between Congressional leaders and FBI and Department of Justice officials to discuss spygate, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani revealed the meeting could lead to Trump sitting for an interview with Mueller.

Read More.

SATAN RULES BRITAINIA

Palin Smith