Conservative columnist George F. Will
Burke was right then. Will is right today. The way to protect the nation today from the triumph of evil is for good men, and good women, to vote Democratic in the midterm elections. I have absolutely no idea where this rubbish came from. It is not George Will who was writing this article – that distinction goes to Brent Budowsky, opinion contributor, and appeared in The Hill. There is an important disclaimer that appears just below this clown’s name and just above the title that states, “The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.”
And this is where I must leave all of you. With a statement like that now I want to vilify The Hill for even allowing this piece of rubbish appear in their truly (for the most part) accurate journalism.
Yet first, “Trump’s said the order does not alter the “zero tolerance” policy itself that the administration put in place in April. Under that policy, the administration has sought to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible, including those involving families with children.”
Because the Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, the result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in the number of children detained separately.
On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security said 2,342 children have been separated from their parents since last month. Now, that is a figure that needs some serious looking into. From my days of investigative journalism, when one considers the number of human beings that the Department of Homeland Security with the United States Department of Immigration and Customs (ICE) right there with them in the vetting process, I have come to grave doubts as to whether these offspring actually belong to the parents. And in this process, there is far more evidence that they are not, rather than that they are.
Who can possibly rule out that these children are in fact, human bondage for sale or trade one they get their crossing? Or what is peculiar about a child not being able to locate their parents – what is there to rule out drug mules? A teenager or a young adult is going to get frisked every time before a child would. However, for my suggestions, that is precisely what they are – suggestions. As we all know, worse things have happened.
Now then, I want everyone who is reading this article to understand something. This “zero tolerance” stratification that has everyone talking has a far different origin than what the “fake media” and the mainstream media has led you to believe. And the proof is in the pudding – a little research and a lot of answers.
Now, all things being equal, here is a quote dated April 8, 2018, made be AG Jeff Sessions, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new “zero-tolerance” policy Friday for immigrants who crossed into the country illegally through the Southwest border. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/04/07/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-announces-new-illegal-immigration-policy/496190002/
We believe that there is a misunderstanding between the Immigration Reform bills that have been duly placed upon the American people partially by Congress and partially by former President Barack Obama.
It is further a belief by our staff here at The Contemplative Thinker.com that in actuality what has happened is the executive order that was signed by President Barack Obama which took illegal immigrants and renamed them “Asylum-Seekers” during the pitiful and most recent surge in immigration of unaccompanied minors.
In the waning hours of his presidency, Barack Obama, backed by every Democrat Party member to be found, had that executive order drawn up for his signature in July of 2016.
What was originally an illegal immigrant not being supported by their parents or with parents not available were instructed by Obama to claim the rights under the Asylum Act; consequently, these minors were being treated as “asylum-seekers” rather than illegal immigrants. Shortly thereafter, their parents were made knowledgeable of this process and in order to keep law and order in a land that defines itself as a land based on the “rule of law” saw and experienced a Creditable Fear for Asylum-Seekers jump from 5.000 in 2009 upwards of 94,000 in 2016.
McCain, in a new memoir, chides Trump for undermining U.S. values
The 81-year-old senator has also been both a critic and target of Trump, who during his 2016 presidential campaign disparaged McCain’s war record by saying he was not a hero after enduring 5-1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
Now c’mon, everyone on earth has an opinion. Do you think a human being shot down in battle is a hero? Better still, and I do accumulate some grief from this one. Would this make a person who took at least two separate Bar exams to pass and become a lawyer, who never practiced law in his life, tried like so many others must start his own magazine?
Here is my single most example; a failed lawyer and publisher just like his uncle Ted, then in not too much time thereafter crashed his aircraft into the ocean during a heavily failing marriage? Is this how we measure up our heroes? Of course, I was addressing John Kennedy Jr.
“His lack of empathy for refugees, innocent, persecuted, desperate men, women, and children are disturbing. The way he speaks about them is appalling,” said McCain, who still chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee despite his long medical absence from Washington. Take your opinion and shove it!
“Bigger misfits haven’t been seen inside a White House since William Taft got stuck in his bathtub,” McCain wrote, referring to early 20th-century President William Howard Taft.
McCain concluded his memoir by citing Robert Jordan, the main character in Ernest Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” who said as his death approached: “The world is a fine place and worth fighting for and I hate very much to leave it.”
“And I do too,” McCain wrote. “But I don’t have a complaint. Not a one. It’s been quite a ride.” Oh really?
It is amazing at how stupid some people are…
I recused myself from any investigation into the campaigns for president, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. At all times throughout the course of the campaign, the [Senate] confirmation process, and since becoming attorney general, I have dedicated myself to the highest standards.
Here are some key moments during Sessions’ nearly three hours of testimony, including his thoughts on Trump’s private conversations with FBI Director James Comey, later fired by the president, and his own role in that termination.
Sessions stressed that he determined he would recuse himself from any Justice Department and FBI work on the Russia matter based on a statute, not because he thought he had done anything wrong.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last month named former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the election, including any collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign.
What Sessions Knew About Trump, Comey Talk
Sessions recalled that Comey expressed concerns to him in mid-February about keeping to appropriate channels for communications between the FBI and the White House.
Sessions said he agreed with the concern, and told Comey to make sure established protocols were followed.
Sessions recalled speaking with Comey, likely on the day after the FBI director’s one-on-one Feb. 14 conversation with Trump in the Oval Office. At that meeting, Comey testified to the same committee last week, Trump told him he hoped he could go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn, whose contacts with Russians were under investigation.
“During his testimony, Mr. Comey discussed a conversation he and I had about a meeting Mr. Comey had with the president,” Sessions said, adding:
While he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversation with the president, Mr. Comey expressed concern about the proper communications protocol with the White House and with the president. I responded to his comment by agreeing that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to be careful to follow department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House.
At this and several other junctures, Sessions said he trusted that Comey, a Justice Department veteran, would know what to do or who to consult, and would not be intimidated by the president.
Before Taking Office, Sessions Wanted ‘Fresh Start’ at FBI
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., asked Sessions whether he ever talked to Comey about his job performance before the firing, to which Sessions said no.
But, the attorney general, speaking of himself and Rosenstein, said: “Before I was confirmed and before he was confirmed, we agreed that a fresh start was needed at the FBI.”
Warner expressed skepticism as to why—if that was the case— Comey’s firing didn’t happen until the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was well underway.
Sessions Resents ‘Detestable’ Idea of Colluding With Russians
Sessions was adamant that he did not work with Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential race, rejecting the suggestion as insulting.
“Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election,” Sessions said. “Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign.”
Several senators asked Sessions about whether he knew of any leading campaign officials who had meetings with, or colluded with, Russians. At one point, the former senator from Alabama said:
I was your colleague in this body for 20 years, and the suggestion that I participated in any collusion, or that I was aware of any collusion with the Russian government to hurt this country—which I have served with honor for over 35 years—or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process, is an appalling and detestable lie.
Cotton Compares ‘Caper’ Plots to Spy Novels
Sessions said he doesn’t recall speaking with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel when candidate Trump delivered a foreign policy campaign speech there April 27, 2016. He said he did see the ambassador during a public gathering sponsored by the Republican National Committee and met with Kislyak last year in his Senate office.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., mocked aspects of some Democrats’ allegations in the investigation, asking what senators believed happened at the Mayflower Hotel. Cotton first brought up the original focus of the probe:
Did Donald Trump or any of his associates collude with Russia in hacking those [Hillary Clinton campaign] emails and releasing them to the public? That’s where we started six months ago. We have now heard from six of the eight Democrats [on the committee] and to my knowledge, I don’t think a single one of them asked that question. They’ve gone down a lot of other rabbit trails, but not that question.
Maybe that is because Jim Comey said last week, as he said to Donald Trump, that on three times he assured him that he was not under investigation. Maybe it’s because multiple Democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence thus far, after six months of our investigation, and 10 months or 11 months of an FBI investigation, of any such collusion.
Cotton went on to ask Sessions, “Do you like spy fiction?” He rattled off the names of some best-selling authors, then asked, “Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?”
Sessions answered, “No,” but immediately admitted, “Yes, I do,” to some laughter.
Cotton sounded serious, but in a satirical way:
Have you ever, in any of these fantastical situations, heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people, to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?
Sessions thanked him for the question.
“It’s just like ‘Through the Looking Glass,’ what is there,” Sessions said, referring to the book “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and adding:
I explained in good faith, I had not met with Russians because they were suggesting that I, as a [Trump campaign] surrogate, had been meeting continuously with Russians. I said I didn’t meet with them. Now, the next thing you know, I’m accused of some sort of perception of plotting, some sort of influence campaign, for the American election. It’s just beyond my capability to understand.
Any White House Tapes ‘Probably’ Should Be Preserved
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked whether Trump had a recording system in the White House. Sessions said he didn’t know.
Rubio: “If there was such as system, would there be an obligation to preserve those records?”
Sessions: “I don’t know, Sen. Rubio, probably so.”
In a tweet, Trump had suggested that Comey better hope no “tapes” of their conversation exists.
Mum on Private Conversations With Trump
“I cannot and will not violate my duty to protect confidential communications with the president,” Sessions told senators during his opening statement.
That vow nettled Democrats again and again. At one point, Sessions responded to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that under longstanding Justice Department policy, “I’m not able to discuss with you, nor confirm or deny, conversations with the president.”
Feinstein noted that last week, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats both declined to talk about their private conversations with Trump.
“It would be easy to answer no if it was no,” Feinstein said of whether something was said in a particular conversation.
Sessions replied: “It would be easy to answer yes if it was yes, too. Both would be improper.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., aggressively accused Sessions of “impeding” and “obstructing” the Senate’s investigation.
When Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, pressed him, Sessions said Trump hasn’t invoked executive privilege on the conversations.
Clash With Wyden: ‘You Tell Me’
Along the same lines, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., accused Sessions and other administration officials of “stonewalling.”
Wyden had one of the fiercest exchanges with Sessions, asserting, “Americans don’t want to hear that answers to questions are privileged and off limits, or that they can’t be provided in public, or that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for witnesses to tell us what they know.”
Sessions: “Sen. Wyden, I am not stonewalling. I am following the historic policies of the Department of Justice.”
Wyden, later: “The question is, Mr. Comey said there were questions with respect to [Sessions’] recusal that were problematic and he couldn’t talk about them. What are they?”
Sessions, angrily: “Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Sen. Wyden. I can tell you that for absolute certainty. This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and I don’t appreciate it.”
How long is 30-years..?
DEM 2016 Clinton
Oh…we say that each 10-years that pass along are a decade. So numerically if we were to add three decades together we should arrive at 30-years. A completely different way to look at it would to just look at the various spans — in the years since we are trying to see what 30-years may entail. For the sake of this writing the writer chooses to use normative definitions; whereby, a decade represents a 10-year period of time and a generation is three times that or 30-years.
So let’s try it another way. It anyone is a CBS fan of Survivor, the television show now airing its current competition of generations, in this particular case, it is the Gen X’ers v. The Millennial Generation. There is a substantial difference whereby for television or some rule unbeknownst to me the producers of Survivor have selected to use a different version of the term generation and that is an amount of time that represents 20-years. But again, I choose not to muddy the waters and let’s just leave it at a decade equals a 10-year period of time and a generation equals a 30-year time occurrence.
Having qualified that, someone who was born in the original Millennial generation must be born during the late year of 1986. Therefore, if it was on this day (October 19, 1986) in 1986 then adding 30 years on to that would come out to October 19, 2016, or maybe we should use days. Right then, the total amount of days equals 10,960 days or 263, 016 hours. Decades and generations are inclusive until the “World Time People” (?) make the end of the time and naming a new generation.
I use this measuring data primarily to figure out how many days my loved ones and I have been alive. However, for this exercise, I have decided to use this time measurement pursuant to how long Hillary Rodham Clinton counts as her experience in job-related matters.
Hillary Clinton states that her experience that qualifies her for the office of President has been 30 years in the making. Now this is counting her as being the First Lady or basically the spouse of the sitting president. William Clinton, the 42 President of the US was originally born as William Jefferson Blythe III, then somehow changed to William Jefferson Clinton after his mother married a man named Clinton from Hot Springs, Arkansas and owned a car dealership. Bill Clinton, as he preferred served in a rocky presidency from 1993 until 2001.
Bill Clinton was an alumnus of Georgetown University, where earned a Rhodes Scholarship to attend the University of Oxford. Clinton is married to Hillary Clinton, who served as United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, who was a Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, and who is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in 2016.
This forthcoming information is a clear representation of Hillary Clinton’s judgment pursuant to what would be the best for her future in Washington D.C. In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury before a grand jury and obstruction of justice during a lawsuit against him, both related to a scandal involving White House (and later Department of Defense) employee Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in 1999 and served his complete term of office. The Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus between the years 1998 and 2000, the last three years of Clinton’s presidency. In foreign policy, Clinton ordered U.S. military intervention in the Bosnia and Kosovo wars, signed the Iraq Liberation Act in opposition to Saddam Hussein, and participated in the 2000 Camp David Summit to advance the Israeli–Palestinian peace process with of course his private dealings with the Chinese and missile technology whilst in China.
Cut! Let’s get to the commonality of the two. Hillary Rodham Clinton was a typical collegiate activist. However, what many people don’t know or chose to know are about the bouts throughout life that she is documented as having. First and foremost were the many lawsuits and a potential grand jury indictment (which was handed down, yet never executed) regarding her real estate ventures along with the Rose Law Firm. What is apparent from the lawsuits and investors is that she willfully and knowingly absconded with a lot of their money. Shortly thereafter now being the First Lady she somehow avoided being charged in a potential commodities exchange futures contract where she actually bought the contract ($1,000) and just at the height of the market was able to sell that contract for who knows how much? It was about $500,000 in six months.
Being married to the POTUS does indeed have its privileges! Yet, for the sake of this article, there are two instances that could definitely keep someone from being broke upon departure from the White House.
Since Bill Clinton’s impeachment process was just about over, Hillary Clinton used her contacts to get elected to the U.S. Senate. I believe she was running for a seat vacated by a much older man who endorsed her and therefore she won the election. She won the election, albeit, knowing absolutely nothing about being a senator. Suffice it to say that from 2006 until May of 2008 she was actively engaged in her campaign for the president facing Barack Obama. So I ask, how much experience did she actually gain from 2001 until 2006 as a senator? Furthermore, what has she done in this nation during that time?
As I’m sure you are all aware the list above could continue on and on and on simply looking for some kind of accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers. I believe that we could define America’s form of government by addressing these three questions. Continued from yesterday’s writing:
The IG determined it was the IRS’s deliberate intention to withhold information about illegal aliens from the INS.
“IRS management and the Office of Disclosure Litigation indicated that the IRS intentionally will not provide information to the INS,” said the IG report. “The rationale for this policy is that the Illegal Immigrant Statute is a ‘general’ statute and does not change IRC Section 6103.”
By giving illegal aliens a tax identification number and allowing them to file tax returns as if they were citizens or legal immigrants, the IRS deliberate intention to withhold information about illegal aliens from the INS.
“IRS management and the Office of Disclosure Litigation indicated that the IRS intentionally will not provide information to the INS,” said the IG report. “The rationale for this policy is that the Illegal Immigrant Statute is a ‘general’ statute and does not change IRC Section 6103.”
“Some of the tax advantages that are being realized by illegal aliens treated as residents include receiving spousal exemptions, standard deductions, and even some erroneous earned income credits,” said the IG.
In sum, the IG concluded, despite the 1996 immigration reform law, the IRS had made its own policy decision to simply “legalize” illegal aliens.
“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made a policy decision to issue IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to illegal aliens so tax filing obligations could be met,” said the IG. “This IRS policy, to ‘legalize’ illegal aliens, seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) mission to identify illegal aliens and prevent unlawful alien entry.”
“Based on national security risks, the ITIN process is an area of vulnerability and concern,” said the IG. “With an accepted form of government-issued identification like an ITIN, it is easier for terrorists and their sympathizers to operate in an open society while planning hostile actions.”
In January 2004, in response to concerns raised by then-Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa), TIGTA published another report about the problems caused by the IRS’s policy toward illegal aliens.
This report revealed that the number of tax returns filed by “unauthorized” aliens using ITINs was increasing, raising concerns about illegal aliens committing identity theft—by using stolen Social Security Numbers—and raking in refundable tax credits, such as the Additional Child Tax Credit.
TIGTA’s Assistant Inspector General for Audit Gordon C. Milbourn sent a memorandum to then-IRS Commissioner Mark Everson citing TIGTA’s concerns.
“Specifically, unauthorized resident aliens filing U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns (Form 1040) identified with an ITIN would qualify for accelerated disbursements of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC),” Milbourn wrote.
He then restated TIGTA’s concern that issuing ITINs to illegal aliens conflicted with congressionally enacted immigration law—this time citing the 1986 amnesty law.
This information came from the actual IRS reports as well as the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration. All one need do is to total up the actual payments in individual disbursements, in addition to Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).”
Now how do you feel? What I am asking is how do you feel about three of the most important agencies in the United States, to be clear I have identified blatant, reckless, and disregard by our administration officials to include their very dishonest acts within the agencies where Inspector General’s have been appointed by Presidents of our nation.
Furthermore, I have listed the grandest purveyor of funding on the planet and how they and they alone decided to make disbursements of billions of dollars to a collective group of people all living at the same address? Not only in Atlanta Georgia but Oxnard California as well.
So ostensibly we have an executive branch of government the IRS, giving orders to another branch of the executive called the SSA with non-disclosure papers amid the principles, and within billions of dollars, in funds and tax credits, going to an abnormally large bit of population who happen to live, bank at the same addresses, to wit: the illegal immigrant population, yet another executive branch of government, the INS who has gone along with these abhorrent means and yet how many of “We the People” know anything about these transactions?
How do I feel? Loaded with unadulterated anxiety! To be sure ladies and gentlemen I’m reasonably certain we all have been bombarded by Mr. Divine’s talking advertisements concerning “buy gold and silver,” yet as for me it is just another means of our unfaithful elected officials drawing our attention elsewhere.
Has it donned on anyone yet why President Obama would want to sign one document and clear the roads for 10 million illegal aliens? Moreover, since this kind of operating has gone on for at least seventeen years or longer that we know of, how should those who are definitely involved be brought to justice?
How many billions upon billions of dollars be spent with reckless disregard? First allow me to add that untold scores of people within the Social Security Administration (SSA) have known about these unauthorized payments, all at one residence and same bank operating with fatuous ININ’s that is overwhelmingly cut into our pockets.
Sure I get anxious when my mind even ponders retirement inasmuch as I know the funds that I paid into that account are no longer available. So do I, therefore, wonder where the funds have gone, or who is spending them?
From the earliest of times in America is it consistent to say that America is an island and that we — the inhabitants of the island — have not wanted or desired to share this island with the rest of the competing world powers. I think it is safe to say that Americans have been resolute to prevent in the Western Hemisphere a replication of the eternally warring and competing for great powers of Europe. When America was first becoming a nation, that is the proper time being mentioned here.
What concepts that are being vastly overlooked here is that there is no way America would have won the revolution with the United Kingdom had it not been for so many other — very well equipped, trained with years of experience warring nations that literally roamed the earth. It is an interesting endeavor coming to the realization that what is now Florida basically through the Carolina’s, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, all the way to the eastern seaboard of Louisiana was owned and had quite a prosperous Spanish resume. In fact, once Mexico is considered — basically post warring with the Spaniards, one could easily say that they inhabited most of Texas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and California upwards to Oregon and Washington.
Before we all get too far on what belongs to whom or especially before President Obama begins to pay out reparations (money lost) for those who thought that land was theirs first, let’s consider these facts. Basically, there were thirteen commonwealths or lands taken from the indigenous peoples. Interestingly now had their own constitutions on the eastern seaboard. Above that, there were the French from Maine to Illinois, and there is a very good reason why the Minnesota Vikings are referred to as their name implies.
In the beginning, America knew about foreign European powers as well as Austrasia powers that would take diplomacy and lots of money to work out an agreement. The concept of America as an island explains most of America’s history. It certainly explains why we turned out back on Europe for the first century and a quarter of our independence in order to conquer and populate the most important and favored part of this island and to eliminate any threat to it from the north or the south. It explains why — although weak, newly independent, and lighted populated — we laid out the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 to close off colonization or influence in the Western Hemisphere, thereby preventing any world power from challenging us on our island.
As usual, I am running a bit long here so I look forward to exchanging historical notions as well as why various decisions have been made. This much I must leave you to contemplate on… and that is that until recent (very recent) leadership one needs to ask themselves about the history of the great presidents. Why is it that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, J. F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and maybe some others have such a long, lasting, legacy that separates them from all the others?
Just one last thing — and this is a commentary on those in college now and especially in the future — a college degree does not entitle one to work; a college degree does not separate you into a different “class or caste” of people; actually, attending college is the most fundamentally sound way to teach the human being “How to learn.” Of 100% of applications to gain admittance to any school of business, 86% are for admittance to the degree seeking accountants. Of that 86% original enrollment, less than 10% accomplish a degree in accounting.
Therefore, having specified what college is for — to teach people How to Learn — when I think about the latest news of the nation’s flag is not to be displayed, or what on earth is happening to our 1st Amendment rights, it is all too plain for me to see that most of those on college campuses still have not been taught how to learn.
The Contemplative Thinker 
