Elizabeth Lynne Cheney

Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is a traitor.

Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is a traitor.

Elizabeth Cheney is a treasonous politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Wyoming’s at-large congressional district since 2017. Cheney is the House Republican Conference Chair, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership.

In voting to impeach President Trump, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by declaring him guilty before due process.

Regarding the mob violence at the U. S. Capitol building, Rep. Cheney stated that the president “lit the flame of this attack.” To be sure, he enflamed the marchers to the Capitol, but he did not incite to a riot. The mob itself chose to do that.

The Constitution does not protect speech that incites a riot. Trump did not tell the marchers to march to the Capitol and engage in violence.

In fact, he stated to them, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Rep. Cheney declared, “Everything that followed” at the Capitol “was his doing.” No, it was not his doing; it was the doing itself of many of the mob. She makes a faulty leap of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: after his comments, therefore because of his comments. The law and the Constitution don’t work that way. Nowhere did the president state or imply that the marchers should next march to the Capitol for violent insurrection.

Rep. Cheney then charges the president with “betrayal… of his oath to the Constitution.” In unwitting irony, it is Cheney who betrays her oath to the Constitution by declaring guilt before due process.

She should have taken the route that Sen. Mitch McConnell carefully did: Wait to see what the evidence says — which implements due process.

On January 17, 2021 the Republican Party Central Committee in Carbon County, Wyoming voted unanimously with 45 votes to censure Cheney for her vote to impeach President Trump.

The Committee declared that “she voted in favor of the Democrats’ rushed impeachment article, denying President Trump due process.” The Committee was accurate in its charge.

It is understandable that one week later State Senator Anthony Boucher tossed his hat into the ring in the Republican primary against Rep. Cheney.

I want to relate a true story that explains the distinction between enflaming people and inciting a riot. These are constitutionally two entirely different things.

In the late ‘60s when I was a college professor at a mid-sized Michigan university, nearly every campus in America was protesting the country’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

One well-known and revered professor at my university decided in a Hyde Park manner to protest the war. He set up a PA system in the center of campus and blasted his protests of the war.

After dark, student mobs destroyed the campus. The destruction got so violent and widespread that military helicopters were flown in to tear-gas the entire campus, dispersing the students.

Was this the professor’s constitutional right to engage in free speech on a public, not private, campus, or did he incite a riot? He enflamed students, but he did not instruct or suggest that they should violently destroy much of the campus.

I take this as the professor’s constitutional right to free speech on a public campus — much as I take President Trump’s right to protest to his followers, even enflame them, but not incite them to mob violence and destruction.

I’ve always liked Liz Cheney’s politics and wish she would have made the critical distinction between Trump’s enflaming comments and incitement to riot.

With unanimous censure by her party leaders in Wyoming, she could lose her seat.


Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor.

Mark Zuckerberg is a traitor, not just to this country, but to democracy everywhere.

As the CEO of Facebook, a business that has the attention of billions of people, Mark Zuckerberg has incredible power.

And that’s what makes the Facebook chief executive “the most dangerous person in the world,” New York University Stern School of Business professor Scott Galloway said on “Bloomberg Markets: The Close” on Wednesday, Aug 9, 2019.

Galloway, who teaches marketing and is a self-made millionaire entrepreneur, made the comment while discussing Facebook’s move to integrate the messenger services of the various platforms it owns: WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger. (Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.) While customers will still be able to use all three messenger apps individually, the three services will all be running off of the same back-end technical infrastructure when Zuckerberg’s plan is completed, either by the end of this year or in early 2020.

“Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram and the core platform, Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people,” Galloway said in the Bloomberg interview. “What could go wrong?”

Indeed, more than 2.7 billion people use at least one of those Facebook-owned services each month, the company says. And more than 2.1 billion use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger every day on average, according to Facebook.

“The notion that we are going to have one individual deciding the algorithms for an encrypted backbone of 2.7 billion people is frightening — regardless of that person’s intentions,” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

That’s because a variety of public voices and perspectives should, at least in theory, help keep the democratic process healthy, Galloway tells CNBC Make It.

A “key safeguard for society is diversity of media/viewpoints, checks and balance,” Galloway says. He adds that people should be concerned by “the notion that one set of algorithms, controlled by one person who cannot be removed from office” would have a significant influence over the platform through which billions of Facebook users around the world consume information every day. Another relevant matter of concern regarding Zuckerberg and Facebook, Galloway adds, is that the social networking giant has already faced high-profile criticism regarding “bad actors” (such as Russian propagandists) using the platform to spread misinformation and sow discord through Facebook and Instagram.

″[Zuckerberg] has not demonstrated ability, or will, to ensure the doomsday machine will not be weaponized (repeatedly) by bad actors,” Galloway says.

Meanwhile, Facebook’s move to integrate its messaging infrastructure could actually be an effort to build a defense against a possible pending antitrust case, Galloway argues.

At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice said it was opening an antitrust review of some of the nation’s largest tech companies, and while no companies were named specifically, the DOJ is launching the review based on “new Washington threats” from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Zuckerberg wants to get to the point where, if the government were to attempt to break up Facebook, the company would try claim it is not possible without killing the entire social network and taking out the economic benefits with it, Galloway says. “What Facebook is doing is taking prophylactic moves against any sort of antitrust so that [Zuckerberg] could say, ‘It would be impossible to unwind this now,’” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

This argument, though, is not likely to work, antitrust lawyer Steven Levitsky tells CNBC Make It. “No one likes to ‘unscramble the eggs’ of a corporate integration. But when companies have operated separately, and only now become integrated, it’s obvious that they can be separated again,” Levitsky says. “The cost of the separation is one that the defendant would have to bear.”

Facebook may also try to claim that if it were broken into smaller pieces it won’t be able to compete with Chinese tech behemoths, such as the Chinese messaging and mobile payment app WeChat and social media video app Tik Tok, Galloway tells CNBC Make It in a follow-up phone call.

This, Galloway says, is called the “national champions’ argument” in economics: “If you, in any way, diminish our size and power, we won’t be able to defend our shores against the Chinese companies that are coming for us,” Galloway says. He doesn’t by that argument. “Smaller, more nimble, agile companies have shown an ability to be just as effective countervailing forces than large lumbering ones,” he says.

“This is absolutely bad for the planet, bad for society and it is clear where they are going,” Galloway says. He also called the federal regulators’ approval of Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram a “failure.”

“I think we all probably regret that now,” Galloway said. To this, the Federal Trade Commission had no comment, a spokesperson told CNBC Make It.

Facebook did not respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.


Additional Information

Mark Zuckerberg’s Pact with the Devil

This is a column about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, but it starts with an old story about Intel and Monsanto from the book Accidental Empires. Stick with me here and you’ll soon understand why…

There was a time in the early 1980s when Intel suffered terrible quality problems. It was building microprocessors and other parts by the millions and by the millions these parts tested bad. The problem was caused by dust, the major enemy of computer chip makers.

Semiconductor companies fight dust by building their components in expensive clean rooms. Intel had plenty of clean rooms, but it still had a big dust problem, so the engineers cleverly decided that the wafers were probably dusty before they ever arrived at Intel. The wafers were made in the East by Monsanto. Suddenly it was Monsanto’s dust problem.

Monsanto engineers spent months and millions trying to eliminate every last speck of dust from their silicon wafer production facility in South Carolina. They made what they thought was terrific progress, too, though it didn’t show in Intel’s production yields, which were still terrible. The funny thing was that Monsanto’s other customers weren’t complaining. IBM, for example, wasn’t complaining, and IBM was a very picky customer, always asking for wafers that were extra big or extra small or triangular instead of round. IBM was having no dust problems.

If Monsanto was clean and Intel was clean, the only remaining possibility was that the wafers somehow got dusty on their trip between the two companies, so the Monsanto engineers hired a private investigator to tail the next shipment of wafers to Intel. Their private eye uncovered an Intel shipping clerk who was opening incoming boxes of super-clean silicon wafers and then counting out the wafers by hand into piles on his super-unclean desktop, just to make sure that Bob Noyce was getting every silicon wafer he was paying for.

There is a business axiom that management gurus spout and big-shot industrialists repeat to themselves as a mantra if they want to sleep well at night. The axiom says that when a business grows past $1 billion in annual sales it becomes too large for any one individual to have a significant impact. Alas, this is not true when it’s a $1 billion high-tech business, where too often the critical path goes right through the head of one particular programmer or engineer or even through the head of a well-meaning clerk down in the shipping department. Remember that Intel was already a $1+ billion company when it was brought to its knees by desk dust.

The reason that there are so many points at which a chip, a computer, or a program is dependent on just one person is that these tech companies lack depth. Like any other new industry, this is one staffed mainly by pioneers, who are, by definition, a small minority. People in critical positions in these organizations don’t usually have backup, so when they make a mistake, the whole company makes a mistake.

Which brings us back to Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook has been getting a lot of bad press lately because its platform has been a particularly effective medium for pushing extreme political positions backed by provable lies. The problem, say Facebook critics, is the company’s resistance to controlling such posters if they are, say, the President of the United States of America. While Facebook might shut down you or me if we tried to do the same thing, they haven’t shut down or edited President Trump, which the company says is all in the interest of free speech.

Yeah, right.

Facebook is under a siege of sorts as advertisers boycott the company’s platform over this issue. Facebook lives or dies by advertising so this is a real threat to the company if it grows and endures. It would be easy to solve the problem if Facebook just took a more rational policy, treating all posters the same, Presidents and paupers alike.

Why doesn’t Facebook just make this problem go away?

One theory is that the company fears President Trump, who is always happy to threaten any outfit he perceives as throttling his political message. If Facebook can just keep shuffling its feet until the election, the thinking goes, then Trump will lose and his threats will lose with him.

But I have a different theory. My theory is that Facebook’s policy on political free speech is entirely — and deliberately — attributable to Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s position is Zuck’s position and it will only change when Zuckerberg feels he has made his point, whatever that is.

To understand why this is the case, just look at Facebook’s stock structure. Yes, stock structure.

Facebook has two types of shares identified as A and B. A shares are the common shares the company sold when it went public in 2012. Each A share carries one vote at the company’s annual meeting. Facebook B shares are original founder shares, which aren’t traded on any exchange, but each B share gets 10 votes at the annual meeting.

Through his B shares, Mark Zuckerberg holds 57.9 percent of all possible Facebook shareholder votes. He, as an individual, has voting control of the entire enterprise. He can’t be fired. He can’t even be effectively opposed. Facebook will never face the wrath of an activist investor.

Looking back to that story about Intel and Monsanto, Mark Zuckerberg engineered a lifetime position as Facebook’s key man with every critical path going directly through him. Like de Gaulle said of France, Facebook literally is Zuckerberg.

Jump now to 2020 and we can see that Facebook’s free speech position is Zuckerberg’s position because of this Faustian deal. So why doesn’t he change it and be less of a dick? Because power doesn’t exist if it is not wielded.

Even if Facebook changes policies, it will do so very slowly, because Zuckerberg doesn’t want to look vulnerable.

I don’t know what’s happening inside Facebook, but I’d guess that this is an instance when Zuckerberg wants to remind everyone who is the boss.

That’s how Tony Soprano might have handled it.


Additional Information

Could Mark Zuckerberg be Executed by a Firing Squad?

Legal experts weigh in on the Facebook founder’s legal jeopardy

Many people have suggested lately that Zuckerberg could face jail time for his misleading testimony to Congress over the last few years.
Jail time? Is that really enough?

If it is true that Cambridge Analytica and the Russians had enough data to determine how each and every Facebook use in America was going to vote, and they provided that information to the Trump campaign, then some jurists have suggested that the offense of undermining democracy in America is traitorous and punishable by death.

“But it is highly unlikely a firing squad would be used,” explains one of the Winkelvoss twins, sorry don’t know which, can’t tell them apart. “The firing squad hasn’t been used since 2010 in Utah when Ronnie Lee was executed. But that was by the State of Utah. The federal government hasn’t used the firing squad since the famous deserter Eddie Slovik was executed in 1945 in France by a firing squad for running away from battle.”

Then the other Winkelvoss twin chimes in (man are they tall and handsome and strapping!).

“The traitor of all traitors, Benedict Arnold, was not even executed by firing squad,” says this Winkelvoss. “He in fact escaped and lived out his life in England, but his partner in sedition and treason, Major John Andre, was hanged for his crimes. What Zuckerberg has done is fairly on a par with Andre and Arnold. America’s enemy was the beneficiary in both cases. In Zuck’s case it was Russia.”

But it is highly unlikely that Mark Zuckerberg will be hanged. According to hanging expert Evan Spiegal, “The last time someone was hanged was Rainey Bethea in 1937, for the rape of a 70-year-old woman in Kentucky. This was more or less a lynching. Although the mob is angry at Zuckerberg, I can’t really see them stringing him up.”

But what about the guillotine?

“The guillotine was only used in North America only in the French Carribean, and was discontinued in the 1890s,” says a guy with French accent, who looks suspiciously like Chris Hughes with a fake mustache. “The only people to die of guillotine in the US have been suicides, in which case the guillotines were home-made by the suicides themselves.”
So it’s not likely that Zuckerberg will face the guillotine. What about just the plain axe? Off with his head like they did in England?

“The famous pirate Blackbeard was rumored to have been beheaded in North Carolina for his crimes in 1718 but he was also shot,” says Palmer Lucky, through a virtual reality machine.

“Most of the people beheaded in the British colonies were Native Americans,” continues Mr. Lucky. “Miles Standish, the famous pilgrim, executed the chief Wituwamat by beheading him in 1623 for resisting white settlement. That’s why we dress up as pilgrims and celebrate Thanksgiving every year by cutting the head off a turkey.”

I’m not sure about this Lucky guy — he’s rumored to be a Trump supporter after all. But it does seem unlikely that any of these barbaric methods of execution will be used against the Zuck.

“If he were executed,” says an expert in jurisprudence (always loved that word) Mr. Eduardo Saverin. “It would most likely be by lethal injection.”

Well, there you have it. Mark Zuckerberg may be fined, sternly chastened, or even criminally prosecuted for his corporate misbehavior, but it is highly unlikely that he will be blindfolded, given his last cigarette, and then shot twenty or thirty times.

But at least a few people we interviewed seem like they are kind of hoping for it.


Brian J. Smith

Brian J. Smith is a traitor.

Brian J. Smith is a traitor to our Nation byway of using his position as president and chief operating officer of The Coca-Cola Company. In this role, he is responsible for leading the company’s global field operations into an unconstitutional new world of diversity, inclusion and equity, the acronym DIE aptly applies. In other words, thanks to Brian J. Smith, the Coca-Cola Company has now been forced to adopt this socialist form of left-wing ideology.

Consequently, Coca-Cola has sent out notices to law firms demanding that the company will “require diversity among law firms who bill it for work in the United States and reduce payments if they do not comply.”

Because of pressure from the Marxist, anti-American Black Lives Matter, many Fortune 500 companies have pledged to address alleged racial inequality more aggressively.

In fact, there is almost a competition among firms to see who gets the highest score of diversity and inclusion.  How is this accomplished?

To determine the Best Workplaces for Diversity, Fortune partnered with Great Place to Work® to analyze anonymous survey feedback representing more than 4.8 million US employees.

The Best Workplaces for Diversity list focuses on the experiences of women, people of color, LGBTQ people, employees who are Boomers or older, and people who have disabilities. The ranking is based on what these employees themselves report in a 60-question Trust Index© survey about the trust, pride and camaraderie they experience in their workplace, and how those experiences compare to their colleagues’ reports of the same workplaces. Great Place to Work also consider[s] employees’ daily experiences of innovation, the company’s values, and the effectiveness of their leaders, to ensure they’re consistently experienced, as well.

The remaining 15 percent of the rank is based on the diversity of the company’s overall workforce and its management, senior leadership and board, taking into account industry trends.

Lori George Billingsley.is a traitor.

Coca Cola Company’s Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer, Lori George Billingsley, explains how Coca-Cola is creating a culture of diversity and inclusion.

The company that once touted “Red, White, and You,” has come a long way to now being a leading proponent of the racism that is the underbelly of diversity.

Thus, Coca-Cola’s general counsel is urging law firms to “effect real systemic change” by adhering to new requirements that [mandate that] outside counsel allocate a portion of work to diverse attorneys — specifically Black lawyers — or risk losing money or even future legal business.”

Dare I call this blackmail?  Dare I call it racist?

In essence, “Coke said it will require quarterly reporting about the makeup of legal teams that do work for it and self identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, women, Hispanic/Latinx, LGBTQ, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or persons with disabilities. For those working on new matters for Coke, ‘at least 30 percent of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from Black attorneys.'”

It said the percentages, which are roughly equal to those of the U.S. population overall, will be adjusted over time to eventually hit at least 50 percent of billed time coming from diverse attorneys, with half from Black attorneys.

Firms that fail to meet the targets will be docked 30 percent of their fees, and those who continue to come up short may no longer be considered for Coke work.

Apparently like everything that is radically left-wing, merit does not matter. This is identity politics on steroids.

The fact that there are fewer Black lawyers must be, according to Leftist group think, because of racism. It could never be because fewer Black people choose to enter the legal profession or that because of another brainchild of left-wing philosophy, affirmative action, fewer Blacks succeed in the field.

America already has many protections against discrimination, i.e., the EEOC, and yet the legal profession is now being told it must break the law so that Coca Cola can have the final say in its virtue signaling and its adherence to Black Lives Matter demands.

Of course, the natural result of this is many more people will suddenly self-identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, LGBTQ+, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or a person with disabilities.”

Heck, I should now claim Hispanic heritage because probably an ancestor of mine was one of the Spanish conversos who were exiled or murdered during the Spanish Inquisition!

Another result will be the deep resentment among different groups because one group is being promoted not based on merit but because of identity politics.

This is just another embodiment of Marxist class warfare now redefined.

This, of course, is always the aim of the Left.  They will mouth diversity, inclusion, and equity.  But anyone who sees through this will note that “equity is not equality. It is a substitute for equal rights. Equity requires the authorities to determine who gets what according to the race, the ethnicity or other status of the beneficiaries. It is updated Marxist claptrap  in which race replaces class.”

This is because the purveyors of this racist ideology couched in alleged empathy and compassion believe that a “lower than population percentage of blacks in any desirable category must be the result of systemic racism.”

What Coca Cola is touting is Critical Race Theory, which is now rampant in schools and businesses in America. Trump banned the use of Critical Race Theory but Biden reinstated it on the first day he issued his slew of executive orders.

We are now in the throes of a hideous left-wing takeover of this country. The term ‘diversity’ now excludes white straight males. Thus, to achieve equity, you first have to take away equality for individuals who were born in the wrong identity group. Merit has no bearing on anything any longer in this country. Consider that 85% of Biden’s new political appointees to the Office of Personnel Management identify as people of color, women or LGBTQ.

It is ironic that businesses, the mainstay of our economic engine, have now taken on the face of tyranny.

I would hope that Americans decide that Coca-Cola is no longer their choice of drink. I would request that these now-designated groups perceive that they are being held to the soft bigotry of low expectations. That to gain a foothold because of something they had no control over such as their race is an abiding insult that lowers self-esteem and pride and worth.

I pray that the legal minds push back hard on Coca-Cola and their dictatorial edicts . I would appeal to the lawyers to stand up and proclaim that such demands are completely contrary to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and are merely more tools in the leftist arsenal to weaken, eviscerate and eventually destroy America.


James E. Boasberg

James Boasberg is a traitor.

James E. Boasberg is a traitor.

James E. Boasberg a Federal District Court Judge has treasonously clarified that the FBI can falsify evidence without much fear of punishment.

The government employees of the “resistance” who never accepted Donald Trump as our president have finally performed a useful public service. Together with the judges of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they have demonstrated for all Americans how easy it is to turn the spying tools of the federal government against domestic political opponents.

“Even after the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Department of Justice found “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in a series of approved surveillance warrant applications to spy on Trump associate Carter Page —and even after a criminal conviction of an FBI attorney for doctoring an email to make it appear that the patriotic Mr. Page had never assisted U.S. intelligence—the FISA judges are still refusing to apply any significant punishment to the government officials who misled them.

Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post reports:

    The former FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email that other officials relied upon to justify secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser was sentenced Friday to 12 months of probation, with no time behind bars.

Prosecutors had asked that Kevin Clinesmith, 38, spend several months in prison for his crime, while Clinesmith’s attorneys said probation would be more appropriate. Clinesmith pleaded guilty last summer to altering an email that one of his colleagues used in preparing an application to surreptitiously monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page…

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg said that Clinesmith’s conduct had undermined the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved the FBI’s flawed applications to surveil Page. “Courts all over the country rely on representations from the government, and expect them to be correct,” Boasberg said.

But if the representations about a Trump associate are not correct, don’t expect Judge Boasberg to actually do anything about it. This is the kind of appalling Beltway abuse of power that inspired voters to elect Mr. Trump in the first place.

Brooke Singman and Jake Gibson of Fox News have more on today’s decision:

    U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg on Friday during Clinesmith’s sentencing hearing said Clinesmith had suffered by losing his job and standing in the eye of a media hurricane.

Is Judge Boasberg joking when he suggests the convict has suffered from some kind of media circus? Readers wondering how often Clinesmith has been trailed by a pack of press photographers will note that the rare stories about him are generally illustrated with a years-old official photograph. In the months after his offenses were detailed by the Justice inspector general, there was an almost complete blackout of the story in major media outlets.

The Journal’s Byron Tau offers additional reporting on the judge’s decision to be lenient:

    “Mr. Clinesmith has lost his job in government service—what has given his life much of its meaning,” said Judge Boasberg.

The judge responsible for punishing an attorney who helped the FBI abuse its powers to target a political campaign and then a presidency with a collusion hoax that poisoned our politics for years is concerned about the criminal’s personal search for meaning? Instead of community service, perhaps Judge Boasberg should have just ordered Clinesmith to live, laugh and love.

On the other hand, if the judge wanted at least to pretend to be concerned about a crime that went straight to the heart of our democratic process, he might have spent a moment exploring the meaning of Clinesmith’s texts about “the crazies” who supported Mr. Trump and “la resistance” within the government.

As for the victim in this case, Carter Page really did face a media hurricane. Pete Williams of NBC News notes:

    Page himself addressed the judge before the sentence was imposed, saying the disclosures that he was being investigated had resulted in death threats.

    “This manufactured scandal and associated lies caused me to adopt the lifestyle of an international fugitive for years,” Page told the hearing, conducted by video conference because of the pandemic. “I often have felt as if I had been left with no life at all. Each member of my family was severely impacted.”

    Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg said that while Clinesmith’s actions were serious, the warrant application probably would have been approved anyway without his misstatement. Boasberg also serves as the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The judge is wrong, which suggests that Mr. Boasberg couldn’t even be bothered to read the inspector general’s report. There was a reason Clinesmith doctored the infamous email and it was only after his fabrication that another official signed off on the final renewal of the surveillance warrant.

Three years ago it was asked:

    Can it possibly be true that the evidentiary standards for obtaining a federal warrant allowing the government to spy on the party out of power are significantly lower than in a professional newsroom?… it appears either that the Obama administration engaged in historic abuse or that the FISA court cannot be trusted to protect our liberties, or perhaps both.

We now know that the answer is both. Until the abolition of the FISA court, no American’s liberty will be safe.


Additional Information

Read more at . . . Outrage: FBI lawyer who lied to FISA Court to wiretap Carter Page gets a slap on the wrist and sympathy from federal judge handing down sentence.


Lindsey Olin Graham

Lindsey Olin Graham is a traitor.

Lindsey Olin Graham is a traitor.

Lindsey Olin Graham is a treasonous American politician serving as a Republican, and also the senior United States Senator from South Carolina, a seat he has held since 2003. Since 2019, he has been the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

On August 18, 2019, Lindsey Graham called for new unconstitutional gun laws with wanting to shut down “Hate Sites” on the internet as defined by the Liberal Left.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham went on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo this morning to discuss possible legislation in the upcoming Senate session.

Lindsey discussed new gun laws and shutting down offensive websites:

Lindsey Graham: We’re not going to take people’s guns away… We want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are hateful or mentally ill. The red flag legislation grants the states that have these red flag laws, the president is focused on that. Working with Senator Manchin we can perhaps enhance background checks. The guy is Philadelphia had been convicted 6 or 8 times. How the hell did he get a gun to begin with. The guy in El Paso was on one of these white supremacist hate sites where they radicalize each other. We should shut those sites down. The guy in Dayton was kicked out of school because he had a rape list, a kill list. He was clearly violent. Why did that guy get a gun to begin with.

The Democrats love this. Since forever they have been pushing stricter gun legislation that will make it harder for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves. The repeat felon in Philly who shot six police officers was using an illegal weapon.

How will new laws stop this guy from getting a gun?

And pushing to remove offensive “hate sites” plays right into the left’s hands. The left defines ANY conservative website as a hate site. Since 2016 the American left and tech giants have removed conservative content, conservative publishers and billions of conservative page views from social media sites and the internet. They say it’s to battle “fake news” or “offensive content.”

To sum it all up, Lindsey Graham has treasonously called for unconstitutional restrictions on the First and Second Amendments. This makes him an outright traitor and very dangerous man.


UPDATE: September 2, 2019

Senator Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), plans to introduce an unconstitutional bill that would provide grants to encourage the passage and enforcement of so-called “red flag” laws that suspend people’s Second Amendment rights without due process.

“There are plenty of judicial proceedings every day in America where somebody is adjudged to be a danger to themselves and others and they’re put into a mental health facility,” Graham told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum. “That goes on all the time, so that process would apply to gun ownership…We have judicial hearings all over America every day, dealing with people who become a danger to themselves and others, and this is just an extension of that concept.”

Graham did not mention that the standards for involuntary psychiatric treatment are notably stricter than the standards for taking away people’s guns under unconstitutional red flag laws. Under Florida’s Baker Act, for example, the state has to show by clear and convincing evidence “a substantial likelihood” that a candidate for commitment, because of “mental illness,” will “in the near future…inflict serious bodily harm on self or others, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm.”

Florida’s red flag law, by contrast, authorizes a judge to issue a final gun confiscation order, which lasts up to a year (and can be extended), when there is clear and convincing evidence that “the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others.” No psychiatric diagnosis is required, “significant danger” is undefined, the purported threat need not be imminent, and the judge “may consider any relevant evidence.” Those permissive standards help explain why Florida judges issue final “risk protection orders” 95 percent of the time.

“Nobody’s going to lose their gun unless they have their day in court,” Graham assured MacCallum. That is simply not true. All 17 states with red flag laws (and the District of Columbia) allow judges to issue preliminary gun confiscation orders without giving the respondent a chance to rebut the claims against him. The maximum length of such ex parte orders ranges from a week in Nevada to six months (for “good cause”) in Maryland. Fourteen days is the most common limit.

Those limits are not necessarily followed in practice. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms.

In some states, the standard for ex parte orders is minimal. New York requires “probable cause” to believe the respondent is “likely to cause serious harm” to himself or others. Other states are stricter. Vermont requires showing by “a preponderance of the evidence” that the respondent poses “an immediate and extreme risk.” The experience in Florida and Maryland suggests that judges almost always agree to issue ex parte orders.

An honest defense of red flag laws would grapple with these issues. But Graham prefers to pretend they do not exist. Dismissing critics of red flag laws as “libertarians,” he told MacCallum “the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact,” which is the sort of thing treasonist politicians say when they find constitutional rights inconvenient.


UPDATE: January 8, 2021

Angry supporters yell ‘traitor’ to Lindsey Graham at airport.

Sen. Lindsey Graham was verbally harassed by supporters of President Trump at Washington’s Reagan National Airport on Friday after his public break with Trump.

Video Transcript:

– You traitor! You traitor! You traitor! You’re a traitor!

[MAN LAUGHS]

Lindsey Graham, you are a traitor to the country. You know it was rigged! You know it was rigged! You know it was rigged! You garbage human being. It’s going to be like this forever, wherever you go, for the rest of your life.

Audit the vote! Audit the vote! Audit the vote! Audit the vote! Piece of [BLEEP].

Audit the vote. Audit our vote. Audit our vote. Audit our vote!

Audit our vote! Audit our vote! Audit our vote! Audit our vote!

– You’re gonna be arrested!

– Yeah, you can try to–

– Traitor! Sell your soul out!

– You son of a [BLEEP]. You better join [INAUDIBLE]. [BLEEP]. Piece of [BLEEP].

– You don’t represent him anymore.