FBI Raids Anonymous Safety Deposit Boxes, Requires Identity to Reclaim Stuff

Here is an interesting case that doesn’t quite pass the smell test. I would think that with all the FBI has to do now with investigating Trump and the rest of the Trumpsters in America, a little bit of “avoiding currency reporting requirements” would not be high on the list. But what the heck. The FBI grows stronger every day and isn’t that the point of this? Just how far can and will they go?

In a case that’s already sparked one lawsuit, a Beverly Hills strip mall business which rents private, anonymous safe deposit boxes was raided by the FBI last month – at which time the agency conducted a blanket seizure of hundreds of customers’ belongings.

To retrieve their valuables, customers will need to “identify themselves and subject themselves to an investigation to verify their legal ownership,” according to the Los Angeles Times, which noted that one customer has already gone to court claiming that the government overreached by confiscating the contents of every security box.

The FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency took five days to go through and process all the boxes after the raid began on March 22, according to court documents. US prosecutors argued on Friday that while the original warrant remains under seal, the magistrate judge who approved it thought that the sweeping seizures were appropriate.

“The government seized the nests of safety deposit boxes because there was overwhelming evidence that USPV was a criminal business that conspired with its criminal clients to distribute drugs, launder money, and structure transactions to avoid currency reporting requirements, among other offenses,” prosecutors claimed in papers filed in Los Angeles federal court.

The indictment was unsealed on Friday – just one hour before a court-issued deadline to respond to a lawsuit brought by a US Private Vaults customers who alleged that the blanket seizure was unconstitutional.

The unnamed customer, listed in court papers as John Doe, said the search warrant should not have authorized seizure of the jewelry, currency and bullion that he kept in his three boxes at U.S. Private Vaults, because there was no probable cause to suspect the person committed a crime.

“Just as the tenant of each apartment controls that space and therefore has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, each of the hundreds of renters of safety deposit boxes … has a separate reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her separately controlled box or boxes,” the person’s attorney, Benjamin N. Gluck, wrote in the complaint. –Los Angeles Times

The customer seeks to stop the FBI from requiring anonymous customers to reveal themselves and undergo an investigation to verify legal ownership of their valuables – with attorney Benjamin Gluck arguing that the government is holding his  client’s goods “hostage” until he identifies himself. Gluck pointed to a statement by assistant US Attorney Andrew Brown describing the procedure for retrieving valuables.

“Though Mr. Brown perhaps deserves credit for his candor, his announced plan is grossly improper and manifestly unconstitutional,” wrote Gluck, noting that Brown had previously conceded in court papers that some US Private Vaults customers were “honest citizens to whom the government wishes to return their property.”

“But the majority of the box holders are criminals who used USPV’s anonymity to hide their ill-gotten wealth,” he wrote. “To distinguish between honest and criminal customers, the government must examine the specific facts of each box and each claim, precisely what the anonymous plaintiff wants to prevent by refusing to disclose not only his identity, but even the specific boxes he claims are his.”

Read more at Zero Hedge

Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her lack of respect for our constitution

For those interested in a postscript to one of the most dangerous times of our Republic, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Obama administration were prepared to sell out America to world government. Her view of our constitution should be a warning of what the coming election could bring us. More Supremes of her persuasion, and a government that has lost its respect for our constitution. From an earlier post:

Recall Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution.

She begins with an historical defense:

From the birth of the United States as a nation, foreign and international law influenced legal reasoning and judicial decision making.  Founding fathers, most notably, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were familiar with leading international law treatises, the law merchant, and English constitutional law.  And they used that learning as advocates in legal contests . . . . The law of nations, Chief Justice Marshall famously said in 1815, is part of the law of our land.  Decisions of the courts of other countries, Marshall explained, show how the law of nations is understood elsewhere, and will be considered in determining the rule which is to prevail here.  Those decisions, he clarified, while not binding authority for U. S. courts, merit respectful attention for their potential persuasive value.

After quoting from Paquete Habana, Ginsburg turns her attention to the hostility to both foreign and international law on display in the U.S. Senate during Elena Kagan’s recent confirmation hearings (e.g., including the Senator who indicated he was “troubled” that Kagan “believes we can turn to foreign law to get good ideas”).  She contrasts these exchanges with The Federalist’s use of the law of nations and both positive and negative examples from abroad to defend the Constitution.

In terms of her own views, Justice Ginsberg did not mince words:

On judicial review for constitutionality, my own view is simply this:  If U.S. experience and decisions may be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so too can we learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against fundamental instruments of government and charters securing basic rights. . . . The U.S. judicial system will be the poorer, I have urged, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

And the rest of the speech continues in a similar vein, with Justice Ginsberg raising and then contesting the views of foreign/international law opponents (including Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule) while citing a series of “examples” of recent cases where the Court reached a decision with the aid of foreign and international law sources (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and, of course, Roper v. Simmons).

The most interesting part of the speech was Justice Ginsburg’s list of other sources besides foreign and international law that are appropriate for constitutional adjudication:

Judges in the United States, after all, are free to consult all manner of commentary — Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the internet age, any number of legal blogs.  If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?

Read more

For more see an earlier post as well:

Washington Examiner:

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

Keep reading…

From an earlier post done in October, 2013

Ted Cruz: DOJ argues that International Treaties can trump Constitution

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

America: Democratic, or Socialist?


America: Democratic, or Socialist?

by Mustang

The plague of socialism is not something recently foisted upon us by the arrival of politicians like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or the congresswoman everyone calls AOC.  Americans have struggled with this topic for quite some time, which given socialism’s unhappy impact on the human condition (nation following nation, era following era), one would think that by now, lovers of freedom should have figured it out.

Woodrow Wilson

Maybe we would have figured it all out were it not for people like Woodrow Wilson, a lawyer, a teacher, a politician, and a devout communist, who served as president of the United States (1913-1921), and President of Princeton University (1902-1910).  Wilson’s background makes one wonder, what made voter’s think he was the right man at that time in our history?

Even if we ignore the fact that he was a lawyer, a teacher, and a politician (three strikes, in my opinion), did anyone read what he wrote?  Perhaps not … in the late 19th century, most Americans were illiterate and had little time for reading the inane discourses of committed socialists —which begs the question, who (back then) even knew what socialism was?

As an academic, Wilson had plenty of time to write books and infect the minds of his students.  In 1885 (20 short years after the Civil War), Wilson became a regular contributor to the journal, Political Science Quarterly.  In his first contribution, an essay titled “Congressional Government” suggested that the United States must adopt a parliamentary system.  Why?  Because, according to Wilson, the United States Constitution was radically defective.

How?  Because the US Constitution did not provide a branch of government with conclusive authority to decide what should be done, and how.  Twelve or so years after Wilson’s administration, certain government officials began speaking of “Czars” to run various agencies and departments of the United States government; it began under the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945).

The term supposes absolutism in running various branches of our government —and there’s nothing American about that.  Roosevelt, by the way, was elected to the presidency on an unprecedented four occasions.

Woodrow Wilson’s first book was titled The State.  In it, Wilson suggested that government could legitimately promote the general welfare through authoritarianism.  Of course, it was difficult to argue with him on this issue given the circumstances of child labor and unsanitary industrial conditions of the time, but we should wonder, if the people rule through their elected representatives, why should it be necessary to institute and protect an authoritarian government?

The State was widely used in American colleges through the 1920s, which probably explains political thinking in the United States for the following forty-to-fifty years.  He also laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state by insisting that charitable efforts be removed from the private domain and “made the imperative legal duty of the whole.”

During their respective administrations, Wilson and Roosevelt implemented this concept through taxation.  Henceforth, the government would see to matters of charity “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need”—a hallmark phrase attributed to Karl Marx in 1875.

Wilson’s fourth book, a five-volume work titled History of the American People (1902), no doubt inspired the faux-historian Howard Zinn in the 1960-70’s.  At this point, there should be little doubt about the impact to American society and culture, indeed the entire framework of our nation, of the opinions of academics, lawyers, and politicians.

On the one hand, we encourage the free exchange of ideas; on the other hand, a cautious citizen will always question what they read or hear.  Wilson was better educated than most Americans in his own day, but he certainly had no advantage by the level of his intelligence.  In modern parlance, Wilson was an egghead.

We should also pay closer attention to what the so-called intelligentsia tell us in their oratory.  On 22 August 1887, Woodrow Wilson offered remarks about socialism.  Wilson is somewhat difficult to read because his speaking and writing style reflects a bygone age.

Note: I have had students in high school who were unable to read any cursive writing, which appears to underscore the sign of the times in American education.  But in reading Wilson, one must consider the purpose of his remarks, which appeals to emotion rather than intellect.

In any case, while the full text of his remarks can be read here, a short summary follows: “I point these remarks particularly at current discussions of socialism, and principally of ‘state socialism,’ which is almost the only form of socialism seriously discussed among us, out-side the Anti-Poverty Society.

Is there not a plentiful lack of nerve and purpose in what we read and hear nowadays on this momentous topic. One might be excused for taking and keeping the impression that there can be no great need for the haste in the settlement of the questions mooted in connexion[sic] with it, inasmuch as the debating of them has not yet passed beyond its rhetorical and pulpit stage.

It is easy to make socialism, as theoretically developed by the greater and saner socialistic writers, intelligible not only, but even attractive, as a conception; it is easy also to render it a thing of fear to timorous minds, and to make many signs of the times bear menace of it; the only hard task is to give it validity and strength as a program in practical politics.

Yet the whole interest of socialism for those whose thinking extends beyond the covers of books and the paragraphs of periodicals lies in what it will mean in practice. It is a question of practical politics [emphasis added], or else it is only a thesis for engaging discourse.”

“Roundly described, socialism is a proposition that every community, by means of whatever forms of organization may be most effective for the purpose, see to it for itself that each one of its members finds the employment for which he is best suited and is rewarded according to his diligence and merit, all proper surroundings of moral influence being secured to him by the public authority.

‘State socialism’ is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.”

“Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest[sic] logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same [emphasis added].

They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals [emphasis added].  Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.

Of course, Wilson was lying.  Democracy and Socialism are as incompatible as a nest of pythons in an infant’s crib.  Democracy is a political ideology; socialism is an economic theory—one that so far in world history, has been proved unworkable in the context of humanitarianism and democratic ideology.

It is possible to modify one to accommodate the other, but in doing so, significant changes are made to the essential tenets.  In order to achieve equal outcomes, it is necessary to take from some in order to give it to another.  This does not appear what our enlightened founding fathers had in mind.  The United States Constitution provides unalienable rights.  To the extent that human society can cooperate with one another, it should … but socialism seeks to impose its will, according to how the politician of the day defines its necessity.  The concept of “cooperation” is thus redefined and, again, not in the way our founders intended.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson once suggested that an educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.  I believe his exact quote was, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”  Mr. Jefferson, recently reviled in the pulp-press as a slave owner (which is only about one-third of the story), also told us, “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history: whether man shall be allowed to govern himself, or be ruled by a small elite.”

If society is unable to decide how our children are educated, then we have lost our control over the future direction of the United States of America.  Our children today are NOT being educated; they are being brainwashed by such men as Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Howard Zinn, every Democrat in the House of Representatives, and every President who ever embraced socialism as the “way forward.”

In conclusion, some additional food for thought:

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force; socialism by vote.  It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.” —Ayn Rand

“The purpose of socialism is communism.”  —Vladimir Lenin

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

For the best in conservative news push the button.


Supreme Court’s Decision To Duck a Foie Gras Case – End of Food Freedom?


First they came for our toilets. Then our shower heads. Then our lightbulbs. Now they implement a foie gras ban. There really isn’t any limit to how much our newly minted legislators and generation Z’s now want to get their hands on our food supply. Oblivious to the cost of of their demands. Apparently the Supremes have little taste for the case as well.

foie gras definition is – the fatted liver of an animal and especially of a goose usually served as a pâté.

Setting aside the debate regarding the method used to develop the fatted liver, when and where will it stop in regulating raising livestock? Free range chickens only? Pork, Beef. How about farm raised fish?




The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it would not (yet) hear an appeal in a case challenging California’s unconstitutional and much-reviled foie gras ban. The case will now head back to U.S. District Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a temporary setback for foie gras producers, chefs, and others fighting the law. They’ve vowed to continue their efforts.

Michael Tenenbaum, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, told me this week that he and his clients look forward to proceeding with the case and that they’re confident they will prevail.Meanwhile, though, restaurants and others in California that serve foie gras could face fines of $1,000 for any violation of the law.


Culinary leaders—from California chefs to French foie gras producers—are aghast.

Those interested in learning more may do so by reading the April column on the amicus brief, the brief itself, and other earlier columns on foie gras over the years.)

“We noted in our brief that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed bans on various types of foods and liquors as ‘lunacy’ and ‘despotic,'” says Manny Klausner, a former editor of Reason, a Reason Foundation co-founder and board member, and attorney who joined me on the Reason/Cato amicus brief. “The Supreme Court’s denial of cert. is a sad occasion for those who support Free Minds and Free Markets.”

In the amicus brief and elsewhere—including this O.C. Register op-ed last year—It was argued that the implications and reverberations of the foie gras case extend well beyond foie gras and could ensnare almost any conceivable animal product, including beef, pork, and chicken.

The concerns expressed then are even more apparent today given that the Supreme Court—also this week—rejected challenges to two separate animal-rights laws in Massachusetts and California that, just like the foie gras ban, serve as unconstitutional impediments to interstate commerce in animal products. (The laws, while different from one another, restrict the ability of farmers to cage egg-laying hens and other livestock.)

Interfering with interstate commerce is exactly what these laws intend and what they do. Consider that a poll (much touted among animal-rights groups) last year found nearly half of respondents want to ban slaughterhouses and so-called “factory farming.” A full one-third of Americans, the poll claims, want to ban all livestock farming. Period. A ban on livestock farming would mean that nearly all animal-derived foods—from prime rib to pork chops, bacon, and chicken McNuggets—would disappear for good.

But there’s more. With the foie gras ban and the Massachusetts and California animal-rights laws allowed to stand—for now, at least—there is little doubt that other U.S. states where livestock farming and exports of animal products play a leading economic role will find creative ways to retaliate against California and Massachusetts. Animal rights supports might not like these laws so much.

Lawmakers in a state impacted by California’s animal-rights laws, say, might pass a law that says all eggs sold in their state may come only from caged hens. (Any old justification would do, but let’s go with the food-safety argument that they’re more hygienic than eggs from free-roaming chickens.) Such a law would effectively spell the end of California egg exports to that state. More at Reason


College allows student handing out the U.S. Constitution after 2-year legal battle


Day after day we need to battle the absurd Marxism that is destroying our schools and colleges. It is hard to believe that it took a long drawn out legal battle just to retain this basic right given to us by our founders. What is worse, it is luck. It could have turned out a whole lot differently had they not settled. Luck of the draw apparently.

After a two-year battle, the Los Angeles Community College District has agreed to abolish a policy that limited student expression to “free speech zones,” available only through application.

Pierce College student Kevin Shaw was handing out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution in November 2016 when an administrator told him that he would have to confine his activity to the school’s “free speech zone.”


The school told Shaw that he would have to apply for access to the 616-square foot zone and that his failure to comply would result in his removal from campus.


On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Community College District agreed to settle the lawsuit, as well as to revoke the unconstitutional policy that recognized all campuses within the district as “non-public forums,” effectively removing free speech restrictions placed on 150,000 students, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

“I wish it hadn’t taken two years for my school to conclude I had a right to free expression,” Shaw told Campus Reform.

“All the same, I’m thankful to know future students won’t have to worry about being harassed for expressing political opinions.”

Zero Hedge

Welcome to the Coup d’état underway – Brennan and Democrats urge anarchy


Intervention of the Sabine Women

The Coup d’état is underway. Make no mistake. The Dems are creating anarchy and the rate we are going may be successful. The Kavanaugh debacle with the Democrats not even willing to give Grassley a copy of the unredacted letter written by Ford with her claims.

More scurrilous are the efforts by the Democrats to keep and support Rosenstein’s henchmen in refusing an order from Trump to totally declassify numerous documents bearing on the absurd Russia Russia Russia investigation.

Wish America luck, a few more months and it looks like we will know the answer. The GOP caving on Kavanaugh, add information withheld from the White House will do it. The topper will be losing the November election to the Dems and there will be no turning back.

Here are two excerpts that deserve the complete read.

UPDATE: Video of Brennan has been added below! How Arrogant! Not the Andrea Mitchell interview.

The combination of arrogance, hubris and desperation within a letter (pdf here) from the four Democrats on the intelligence oversight Gang of Eight, is palpable even in text format.

Legislative branch members: Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner write a letter today to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, demanding the executive branch cabinet members withhold information from the White House.

Perhaps more stunningly, and extra-constitutionally (meaning outside the framework of constitutional separation of power), within the jaw-dropping letter the four Democrats outline previous verbal conversations and current agreements with Coats, Rosenstein and Wray where the Cabinet officers agreed to keep information away from the White House Chief Executive, the President.

That third paragraph is particularly interesting: …”the verbal assurance you provided us that DOJ and FBI would not provide the White House“…

More at Conservative Tree House


Now from the Communist Brennan:

Former CIA director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan called on FBI director Christopher Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to “push back” on any directive from the White House that may have a “negative impact” on the Mueller investigation.


Brennan called on “individuals of conscience” in the administration to remember that they took an oath of office not an oath to Donald Trump. Moments prior Brennan admonished people who are abusing their powers to “protect” Trump.

“I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign,” Brennan said of the trio.

“A number of individuals are trying to protect Mr. Trump and abusing their authorities and their powers, whether it be in Congress or within the executive branch,” Brennan said on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. “And this is something that I am hoping that individuals of conscience are going to stop and prevent because I am concerned that this is just one indication that Mr. Trump is going to increasingly look for steps to take in order to further to try to subvert the Mueller investigation.” Video and more over at  Real Clear Politics


Democrats lose one more State Legislature won’t be able to stop Constitutional Amendments

News Alert gave us this story to think about. We hear about the massive losses of the Democrats thanks to Obama, but could this be the real gift? Term limits come to mind as my first fix. The ultimate draining the swamp.

Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments.

View image on Twitter

Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments.

Federal Park Ranger Mocks Founders, Constitution … Tour of Independence Hall!

One by one the very foundations of our culture are under attack. So kids visiting Independence Hall had to hear this weasel show contempt for our founders. I give you a few of her snippets. Don’t bother reading the full rant on the evil founders who by the way were willing to give up their lives and fortunes for us. And just what are we leaving our children? Here we go

A federal employee of the National Park Service who offers guided tours of Independence Hall in Philadelphia — the birthplace of the Constitution — stunned a group of tourists this week by telling them the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were the product of “class elites who were just out to protect their privileged status.”

Holly Holst provided a tour Monday afternoon at Independence Hall laced with factual inaccuracies and disparaging comments about the Founders and the Constitution.

Several attendees of her tour group on Monday told PJ Media that Holst had explained to them that “the Founders knew that when they left this room, what they had written wouldn’t matter very much.” Holst told the group that the “most important part of the Constitution written at Independence Hall was the ability to change it.”

Holst also inaccurately told the tour group that “King George III paid more attention to Parliament” than the colonists “because they were right there and could remove him from office.” Parliament did not possess the power to remove the king from office in the 1770s, and does not possess that power today.

H/T and more at :PJ Media

Jarrett: ‘Obama hasn’t forgotten a thing’ about Constitutional Law

As much as I cannot tolerate any more visuals of Obama, I find Valerie Jarrett even more offensive to my sensibilities. Valerie managed to find her way over to CNN for an interview. I give you a couple of clips. This first one is rare when trying to find the logic. Poor Barry, he has been “waiting, waiting, and waiting” for Congress to act. So what is Barry to do? It would be so unkind not to act and help out those poor souls flooding our country. Then we have excuse for why no one made it to France for the march..

Valerie Jarrett: Obama “hasn’t forgotten a thing” about Constitutional law



Published on Jan 15, 2015

“I think we certainly got the substance right but it would have been great to participate in the parade and we’re delighted Secretary Kerry is there now,” said Jarrett.

Turley: ‘Obama tears at the very fabric of our Constitution’

Here we go. We know the drill. Is this the beginning of the Fall of the United States? There are many speaking out on what our Emperor is about to do. The clip below from Progressive Jonathan Turley and Megyn Kelly sums it up completely. Now Obama can go back out on the stump, organizing once again. Perhaps the real reason why he is doing what he apparently plans to do. Feeding his ego is a priority, so now he can visit his precious few “friendlies.”  Obama is so disappointed since the major networks have declined his wish to carry his latest edict live tonight.

Jonathan Turley: Obama’s Executive Amnesty ‘Tearing at the Very Fabric of the Constitution’

This says it all.


%d bloggers like this: