President Suggests John Kerry Broke the Law in Advising Iran

H/T The Political Insider.

I hope Lurch Kerry gets jacked up for trying to undercut President Trump.

President Trump Monday morning suggested that former Secretary of State John Kerry may have broken the law by running afoul of the Logan Act.

The President announced via Twitter that his administration was moving toward a goal of reducing Iranian oil exports to zero by eliminating waivers from U.S. sanctions granted to some of the nation’s biggest purchasers.

The hope is that pressure will lead to Iran abandoning their nuclear and missile programs and to stop funding radical Islamic terrorism.

In taking this action, Trump explained that the Iranian regime is “being given VERY BAD advice by John Kerry” and those “who helped him lead the U.S. into the very bad Iran Nuclear Deal.”

Trump then suggested Kerry’s meddling amounted to a violation of the Logan Act.

Big Violation?

Kerry admitted in an interview this past September to conducting rogue diplomacy with a top Iranian official, unauthorized by the government.

“I met with him at a conference in Norway,” Kerry said, speaking about Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. “I think I saw him in a conference in Munich at the World Economic Forum. So I’ve probably seen him three or four times.”

He urged Iran’s leaders to “wait out the Trump Administration.”

The Logan Act states that:

“Any citizen of the United States … who, without authority of the United States … carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Kerry’s admission coincided with previous reports that he had been holding then-secret meetings with Zarif.

As the former Secretary of State did not have the authority to conduct these talks from the administration, it seems we have a clear-cut violation on our hands.

Is He Guilty?

If nothing else, Kerry colluded with a foreign government clearly hostile to the United States. It would seem like Democrats would be all over an investigation of such blatant collusion.

The reality, however, is that the Logan Act is a rarely successful pursuit, having only resulted in indictments twice – in 1802 and 1852 – with neither having actually resulted in a conviction.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time of Kerry’s admission to meeting with the Iranian regime said he’d let legal experts discuss the probability of illegality, but claimed his actions were at best “unseemly and unprecedented.”

“A former secretary of state engaged with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, and according to him, he was talking to them, he was telling them to wait out this administration,” Pompeo explained.


Finally, A Real Attorney General

H/T Town Hall.

I must admit I thought Jeff Sessions was a good choice for Attorney General until he got the job and proved he was a train wreck.

William Barr seems to be the man to get the job done that Jeff Session’s could not or would not.

It has been quite a while since Americans have witnessed an honorable and effective Attorney General serving in that important position. The two Attorneys General during the Obama administration were hopelessly partisan and extremely protective of the President.

Eric Holder famously claimed that he was “the President’s wing-man” who was “there with my boy.” Obviously, he worked non-stop to protect the President from any legal trouble and congressional investigations. Whether it was Operation Fast and Furious, the IRS Tea Party abuse scandal or the Benghazi terrorist attack, Attorney General Holder was insistent on shielding Barack Obama from any trouble. He was so committed to that goal that Holder became the first U.S. Attorney General to be held in Contempt of Congress for refusing to release documents related to the Fast and Furious investigation.

He was succeeded as Attorney General by Loretta Lynch, who continued the policies of Eric Holder. She not only protected Obama, but she also evidently believed it was necessary to protect Hillary Clinton. Right before the Department of Justice officially decided to exonerate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in the investigation of the handling of her personal email communications, Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport. Supposedly, the two discussed golf and grandchildren among other inane topics for 20+ minutes while the investigation of Hillary never was mentioned. Of course, no one should believe such as ridiculous cover story, which just shows the measures that Democrats will take to protect one of their prominent party leaders.

When President Trump was elected, he decided to choose U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as his Attorney General.    At first, it was believed that Sessions would be a fine Attorney General. He was a stalwart conservative during his Senate career. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he was the first United States Senator to endorse Donald Trump for President.

Unfortunately, his utter ineptitude was only exposed after he assumed the position of Attorney General. His horrific mistake was to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election. This one misguided determination overwhelmed any positive decisions he may have made as Attorney General. In addition, it was totally unnecessary since Sessions did not meet with Russian officials in any improper context during the 2016 campaign. His interactions were both formal and minimal, so the recusal decision was mind boggling.

The President was apoplectic and claimed he would have never appointed Sessions if he knew that Sessions would recuse himself from something so monumental. Obviously, Sessions bowed to pressure from within the Department of Justice. By recusing himself, Sessions allowed his Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, to oversee the investigation and make the determination whether a special counsel was warranted.

Not surprisingly, Rosenstein elected to launch a special counsel investigation and appointed Robert Mueller to oversee the probe. This started the $35 million two-year witch hunt which has distracted the Trump administration from its beginning and cast a shadow over almost everything the President has accomplished.

Sessions was a very weak Attorney General who could not stand up to the “Deep State” wing firmly entrenched in the Department of Justice. Fortunately, after the mid-term elections, President Trump forced Sessions to finally resign, and the search began for the type of Attorney General Trump supporters had been expecting from the start of his term.

After a search and a brief tenure by Interim Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, the President selected William Barr for this critical position. Barr had previously served for two years as Attorney General during the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Both Democrats and Republicans expressed admiration for Barr and praised his unblemished record of integrity and his vast legal background. During confirmation hearings, Barr gave an impressive performance setting the stage for a tenure as Attorney General that has been both consequential and controversial.

Since the day his second tenure as Attorney General began on February 14, Barr has been subjected to unfair media attacks and congressional harassment. After he summarized the Mueller report, Barr was summoned to testify before Congress. Instead of joining the criticisms on president Trump, Barr actually claimed that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign. He also stressed that “spying on a political campaign is a big deal.” He is now investigating whether this unprecedented monitoring of a presidential campaign was warranted.

This announcement infuriated congressional Democrats and their allies in the media. It was similar to the rage that greeted Barr when he concluded that the Mueller investigation not only exonerated President Trump for Russian collusion, but also for obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s team officially cleared the President of Russian collusion charges, but not for obstruction of justice. This dereliction of duty by the Special Counsel’s office of partisan Democrat prosecutors forced Barr, assisted by Rosenstein, to make the decision. After examining the evidence and ten instances noted by Mueller, including some that Barr believed did not merit consideration of obstruction of justice, the President was exonerated.

At his stellar press conference on Thursday, Barr summarized the Mueller report and gave his reasoning for making the determination about the President. In doing so, Barr has withstood vicious criticism from the media and Democrats, who now claim that he is a Trump “stooge.”

In reality, Barr is no one’s stooge. As a former Bush administration member, he is also deeply rooted in the political establishment. Nevertheless, he has displayed remarkable courage to move forward with these decisions and finally end this nightmare for the country.

It took a few years for President Trump to get it right, but he finally found a real U.S. Attorney General, who insure that justice will be served.


Schiff: Dems ‘May’ Take up Impeachment Proceedings if It’s the ‘Best Thing for the Country’

H/T Breitbart.

Just because the House brings Impeachment charges does not mean the President will be removed from office Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton were impeached but not removed from office.

The question Pencil neck Adam Schiff and the DemocRats need to ask is Are they willing to pay the heavy political price for impeachment?

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Democrats “may” take up impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

Schiff said, “I think Elizabeth Warren makes an important point and that is the level of evidence in the Mueller report is serious and damning and under normal circumstance would by think without question within the realm of impeachable offenses

He continued, “We’re in an environment today where the GOP leadership people like Kevin McCarthy are willing to carry the president’s water no matter how corrupt or dishonest the president’s conduct may be. In those kinds of circumstances, when Mitch McConnell won’t stand up to the president either, that means impeachment will be unsuccessful.”

He added, “Now it may be we undertake impeachment nonetheless. I think what we’ll have to decide as a caucus, what’s the best thing for the country Is this the best thing for the country, take up an impeachment proceeding? To do otherwise sends a message that this conduct is somehow compatible with office? Or is it in the best interest of the country to not take up impeachment that we know will not be successful in the Senate because the Republican leadership won’t do its duty? That’s a very tough question.”

TOXIC: Democrats Begin Rejecting and Refunding Political Donations Given By Ilhan Omar

H/T Godfather Politics.

While DemocRats publicly are playing word games instead of condemning Ilhan Omar and her anti-Semitism they are doing it privately by refusing or returning her donations to their campaigns.

Some Democrats in the House of Representatives are finally starting to realize that anti-Semitic Minn. Rep. Ilhan Omar is entirely toxic and they are starting to return or refuse her political donations.

One of the ways top politicians spread their influence is to donate their excess campaign money to other politicians in an effort to make those other pols beholden to them.

Omar has engaged in this ages old Washington practice so that she can gain some measure of control over her fellow Democrats.

But such donations can be a double-edged sword, especially when the pol seeking to spread influence becomes highly controversial like Omar has. Once voters find out their representative has taken money from a virulent hater like Omar, that donation becomes a problem.

Some Democrats have come to realize this and they are turning their backs on Omar’s cash.

The Washington Free Beacon reported on Wednesday that the reelection campaign for Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) left a $2,000 contribution from Omar off its quarterly fundraising report, and, when pressed by the Free Beacon, admitted that they left the money off the report because they decided to reject it.

“McBath’s rejection of the donation is more important than it may sound,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. “The Sixth District has a significant Jewish population – particularly in Sandy Springs and east Cobb County.”

North Carolina Democrat Dan McCready is also rejecting Omar:

WSCO TV reporter Joe Bruno reported on Wednesday that Dan McCready (D-NC) also returned a $2,000 donation from Omar.

“Dan McCready has refunded a $2000 donation from Rep. Ilhan Omar,” Bruno reported. “A spokesperson for McCready tells me Dan believes there is no place for divisiveness in politics and he didn’t feel it was appropriate to accept the donation.”

“Records show McCready refunded the donation on March 30. Omar donated the $2000 on November 6,” Bruno added.

Some Democrats did accept the donations.

At least three Democrats accepted the Jew hating Omar’s cash, including Reps. Lauren Underwood (D-IL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), and Jahana Hayes (D-CT).

8th Grade Boy Kicked Out of School for Making Project Honoring Fallen Soldiers

H/T Godfather Politics.

The administration was heavy-handed in their suspension and they are being tyrannical in denying people their First Amendment right to condemn the school administrations actions.  

An 8th grade boy was suspended and kicked out of his school all because he made a replica of a monument honoring fallen U.S. soldiers, according to reports.

Tyler Carlin was suspended from Celina Middle School in Celina, Ohio, after reproducing the fallen soldier monument called the “Battle Cross” consisting of a pair of combat boots, and an upturned M-16 rifle with a steel pot helmet on top.

Once the boy brought the art project to school, administrators dropped the hammer on the boy for bring a weapon to school. Carlin was given a three-day suspension for the memorial replica.

The “gun,” though, was a nerf gun, not a weapon that could fire anything dangerous.

Some kids criticized the school, according to Fox 45:

One protester named Tyler said the protest was the result of the school board not allowing the community to express their First Amendment rights. According to Tyler, residents in the Celina community said on social media that it was wrong for Carlin to be suspended. Tyler said Celina Public Schools took those comments down and said they should state their concerns at a school board meeting.

“They had a veteran go to the board meeting, like they said we should to state our opinion,” he said, “and as soon as she got her name out, they walked her out without even giving her a chance at her First Amendment rights. So, if they won’t give us our First Amendment right where it’s supposed to be, we’ll take them right here.”

The student appeared on “Fox & Friends” to decry the idiotic action by the school.

Carlin was asked by co-host Brian Kilmeade why the monument meant so much to him.

“This means so much to me because that was the last chance that… the military, their friends got to say goodbye to them and then they had to go back out and fight,” Carlin said.

“Also, my dad’s friend is like a grandpa to me. And he, like, showed me his war stories from Vietnam… he just showed me all about that.”

The boy’s parents said they intend to take the school to court over the incident.

Swalwell Calls on Barr to Resign: ‘He’s Lost the Credibility of the American People’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

In spite of what Representative Eric Swalwell(DumbassCA)says Attorney General William Barr is still credible to many Americans.

Attorney General William Barr does not need to resign.

Trump ‘acted guilty’

Trump Is a Threat to the Constitution? Nice Try, Nancy

H/T AmmoLand.

The threat to the Constitution does not come from President Donald J.Trump instead the threat comes from the DemocRat Party.

USA – -( This week, two high-profile Democrats mouthed their party’s delusional mantra that President Trump is a threat to the Constitution — a rich allegation from those would dismantle major pillars of our republican system of government.

While the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris was still burning, quixotic impeachment crusader, Rep. Steve Cohen, said on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” “What he has done to the Constitution and the rule of law is as bad as that fire did to Notre Dame. He’s torching the entire structure of government and the people’s respect for it. And the Congress needs to act.” Poor form, poor judgment and just plain over-the-top insanity.

The next day on CNN, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “Everything is at stake in this election: the Constitution of the United States, with the president who’s trying to usurp the power of the legislative branch of government; the environment in which we live; a Republican Party that is in denial about the assault on climate and the climate crisis, which is a health issue, a national security issue, an economic and jobs issue, and a moral issue.” Misguided, incoherent hyperbole.

I doubt that these dueling attacks were coordinated. When the party sings from the same hymnal — at least on Trump — conspiratorial coordination is unnecessary. But it’s noteworthy that they’re still beating this drum, even though their collusion gambit has backfired, and considering that they are the ones engaging in a full-scale assault on the Constitution. Let us count the ways.

The framers believed our rights are God-given, and thus inalienable, and they sought to ensure them by designing a system of limited government.

Just providing for the people’s democratic participation would be insufficient to secure their liberty, because people can vote themselves into tyranny. They knew men aren’t angels and that, left to their own devices, they would eventually subjugate others. So, in addition to establishing the Bill of Rights, they divided power among different levels of government — national, state and local — and within the federal branch — legislative, executive and judicial. They crafted a partially but not purely, democratic system. Indeed, they imposed safeguards against pure democracy (including the Electoral College), which they knew would lead to mob rule.

Democrats complain about Trump’s supposedly authoritarian disposition — pointing to his bullying nature and combative tweets, as if Stalin, Mao or Hitler would have relied on such anemic methods to amass their power and terrorize their people. Please don’t respond that Trump is engaged in Nazi-like propaganda, or that he threatens the freedom of the press by calling the “fake news media” the “enemy of the people.” Trump is mostly defending himself against the daily barrage of propaganda leveled against him by a dishonest, monolithic, leftist media that is the arm of the Democratic Party. His rhetorical rejoinders seek to showcase the unfairness and dishonesty of his detractors. And unaccompanied by any effort to muzzle them, they are, in the scheme of things, harmless. They are certainly no threat to the Constitution.

Long before their recent barrage of proposals to alter and circumvent the Constitution to make it easier for them to win elections, the Democrats worked in other ways to undermine our system of limited government. Their judicial activism resulted in the judiciary usurping powers from the other two political branches, thereby upsetting the constitutional scheme. Their penchant for their presidents to issue unlawful executive orders has also undermined the balance of powers. Their passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 resulted in an enormous power shift from Congress to unelected, unaccountable, executive branch, bureaucrats whose administrative agencies are models of the type of tyranny the framers warned about, because they combine legislative, executive and judicial powers under one tent.

By the way, the allegedly anti-Constitution ogre, President Trump, has done more to disempower this “fourth branch of government” than any other president, so the constitutional system is stronger, not weaker, as a result.

More recently, Democrats have proposed a rash of disturbing ideas designed to alter our system of government through fundamental changes in our elections. The same Steve Cohen, who’s now yelling about President Trump’s threat to the constitutional order, introduced a bill to effectively eliminate the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the president and vice president.

Democrats have advanced proposals to pack the Supreme Court, and a majority of them have voted to reduce the voting age to 16, which is egregious on multiple levels and unwise. In addition, Pelosi introduced the euphemistically dubbed For the People Act, which would overhaul federal election laws to micromanage and centralize the election process now administered by the states, and which would favor the election of Democrats. Other examples of Democrats’ mischief that impairs free and fair elections, include their opposition to voter ID laws, and their objection to a citizenship question on the census form.

And please don’t get me started on the Democrats’ failed coup to delegitimize and oust President Trump, or their ongoing efforts to baselessly impeach him. Suffice it to say that he represents no threat to the Constitution, but Democrats do. But why shouldn’t they? Many of them have openly said that America is not that great, so why trifle over preserving the integrity of the document whose ideas make it unique?

David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh

About David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “The True Jesus: Uncovering the Divinity of Christ in the Gospels.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at

Here’s Hollywood’s Mueller Report Meltdown

H/T Godfather Politics.

Poor Little Snowflakes in Hollyweird have been hit by the Trump 2020 Train.

Hollywood celebrities should stick to their craft, professional acting. When it comes to politics they are in way over their heads.

Hollywood Meltdown is a great day for America! It is election night all over again, judging from the left freaking out.

I can’t wait for the master expert level troll James Woods to start hammering his fellow actors.


I pity the fools 

Hollywood’s Mueller Report Meltdown: ‘Complete Whitewash,’ ‘Trump Is Guilty As Hell’

Hollywood joined Democrats and the establishment media in going into full meltdown mode Thursday following Attorney General William Barr releasing the full Mueller report to the public. Celebrities…

30 people are talking about this

Hollywood joined Democrats and the establishment media in going into full meltdown mode Thursday following Attorney General William Barr releasing the full Mueller report to the public. Celebrities accused President Donald Trump of being “guilty” and called the report a cover-up.

As Barr already stated in his letter to Congress in March, the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election found no evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia and did not recommend criminal charges against the president for obstruction of justice.

Hollywood, having learned nothing since their last Mueller meltdown, simply quadrupled down on their claims that President Trump is a criminal. More

As if I didn’t think so before, I am now convinced that Hollywood people are the low information kind and lack the ability to comprehend complex matters!

And now, the Hollywood Mueller Meltdown as promised:

John Cusack


Barr = complete whitewash coverup
A press circus orchestrated by the White House – 💯 corruption

550 people are talking about this



poor donald …

Rick Wilson


The Attorney General of the United States just defended obstruction because of the President’s hurt feelings.

271 people are talking about this
I seriously doubt that the “Meathead” knows what “prima facie” means. Great to see these idiots so apoplectic.

Rob Reiner


Prima Facie: Trump is guilty as hell.

6,270 people are talking about this

Mia Farrow


Just stunning to see the Attorney General in the role of Trump’s personal attorney

278 people are talking about this

Debra Messing



Ana Navarro-Cárdenas


Barr looks like a teddy bear. But he is complicit. He is duplicitous. He is disloyal to the Constitution. He is in dereliction of duty. He strategically & meticulously planned this charade today when people are distracted by a Holiday week & Congress not in session. He is devious

297 people are talking about this

Jamie Lee Curtis


“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

326 people are talking about this

Sophia Bush


Glad the report helps us get to the bottom of things.

Rep. Don Beyer


Actual pages of the Mueller report as redacted by Attorney General Barr:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
182 people are talking about this

Patricia Arquette


I wish a reporter would have asked Barr if Mueller finished with his investigation unimpeded or if he was asked by anyone to conclude it or if funding was stopped in any way.

348 people are talking about this

rob delaney


I’m not counting on even a Dem led House to do what’s right, so I’d never thought the Mueller report would solve all our problems (We will; through direct action, unions, strikes, protests, primarying, etc) but holy shit it is damning & the president is a garden variety criminal.

332 people are talking about this

Embedded video

Kathy Griffin


Look folks, we can still have a sense of humor while dealing with Orange Dumbass. I have many other items where you can take your anger and have a giggle at the same time. Go to  to check them out.

895 people are talking about this

Patton Oswalt


Sooooooo it’s not illegal if you’re really upset?

1,462 people are talking about this

‘Woke’ Librarian Claims Libraries Are Racist — No, This Is Not Satire

H/T Clash Daily.

Channeling Jonathan Quayle Higgins III  with a British accent I declare “Oh My God!”

In the ever-expanding list of things that are racist, you can add libraries.

Back in December 2017, Tucker Carlson posted an epic thread on Twitter where he listed 100 ridiculous things that Leftists complain are racist. Among the entries that included tamarisk trees in California, Dr. Seuss, the state of New Jersey, milk, Bitcoin, the solar eclipse, and credit reports, he missed the most obvious one — libraries.

At least, it’s obvious to “woke” librarian, Sofia Leung.

Library Journal tweeted out a link to Leung’s blog post that claimed that libraries “promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence.

Library Journal


Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. Via @sofiayleung 

8,822 people are talking about this

Her blog covers the topics of libraries, social justice, and critical race theory.

Leung starts by praising Marie Kondo, the decluttering guru who now has a Netflix show. Kondo’s method of “tidying up” includes rather radical and impractical means of decluttering by assessing possessions on whether or not they “spark joy.” (So, I guess it’s ok to get rid of that toilet plunger?!)

Leung was attempting to “connect the dots” on how she came up with the premise that libraries are havens of white supremacy by using Kondo’s principles, a podcast she listened to, a chat she had with another “woke” librarian with whom she was sharing an AirBnB as they attended the “White AF” conference, and her understanding of critical race theory.

By definition, critical race theory presupposes that racism is inherent in American society and it centers race as the primary focus for analysis of legal, social, and educational issues. It is the theory that leftists point to that “reveals” that America is a systemically racist country and that “whiteness” and “white supremacy” is valued by those that hold the reigns of power — which in itself is racist.

Many that ascribe to critical race theory hold the bizarre and incompatible view that race is a “social construct” and should, therefore, be dismissed — unless it means to suppress white people (especially white men) and elevate literally anyone else.

Leong explains that because so many books (historically) have been written by “straight, white men,” libraries are monuments to the worldview and ideas of “straight, white men” as though that is one unified view.

If you look at any United States library’s collection, especially those in higher education institutions, most of the collections (books, journals, archival papers, other media, etc.) are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property with all of the “rights to use and enjoyment of” that Harris describes in her article. When most of our collections filled with this so-called “knowledge,” it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color. Collections are representations of what librarians (or faculty) deem to be authoritative knowledge and as we know, this field and educational institutions, historically, and currently, have been sites of whiteness.

She also claims that “white” people have stolen ideas from people of color without credit to those communities and thereby marginalize them.

Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. They are paid for using money that was usually ill-gotten and at the cost of black and brown lives via the prison industrial complex, the spoils of war, etc. Libraries filled with mostly white collections indicates that we don’t care about what POC think, we don’t care to hear from POC themselves, we don’t consider POC to be scholars, we don’t think POC are as valuable, knowledgeable, or as important as white people. To return to the Harris quote from above, library collections and spaces have historically kept out Black, Indigenous, People of Color as they were meant to do and continue to do. One only has to look at the most recent incident at the library of my alma mater, Barnard College, where several security guards tried to kick out a Black Columbia student for being Black.

Source: Sofia Leung

Ummmm… which is it? Is the “white” perspective the prime example of horrible, monolithic tunnel-vision, or do nefarious white people steal from people of color and promote those ideas as their own? You can’t have it both ways.

Why is it the “woke” anti-racists sound so darned racist all of the time? Oh, it’s because they keep judging an entire group of people based on the color of their skin which is the actual definition of racism. 

Oh, and by the way, the incident at Barnard College that Leung referenced isn’t so cut and dry. It seems that the student was looking for free food late at night and when caught by campus police wandering on campus late at night ignored the request to show his Student ID. The campus police followed him into the library (ironic!) and again asked him to show his Student ID because it was after 11 pm, which is in line with the college’s policy. He still refused, and only after campus police grabbed his arm did someone start filming the incident. So, to sum up, he was belligerent, refused to obey the officers who were just following policy, and then called it racism.

But if you’re looking through the lens of “critical race theory” the details of an event don’t matter — the only thing that does matter is skin color.

What these advocates of the inherently racist “critical race theory” don’t realize is that they have become the thing that they hate the most — they are vile racists.

You can’t judge a book by its cover, you can’t judge the ideas of an author based on their skin color, but I think it is completely fair to judge someone based on the ideas that they have clearly expressed. As she has revealed in her article, Sofia Leung is racist against white people.

16th Amendment as written: no tax on wages or salaries

H/T BarbWire.

We were sold a pig in the poke so to speak when it came to the 16th Amendment.

This is why the whole Damned system needs to be scrapped and a flat or fair tax implemented.

The current tax code is now four million words long, more than four times longer than the collected works of Shakespeare, and six to seven times longer than the Bible. It requires 25 volumes to contain it, and takes up nine feet of shelf space.

According to Forbes, it takes Americans over six billion hours to comply with its filing requirements. That’s the equivalent of 8,758 lifetimes. In people years, not dog years.

This monstrosity is based entirely on the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress:

“to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

Now the 16th Amendment had to be ratified by the American people. How in the world did the framers of this misbegotten gargantua convince the American people to do this to themselves.

Easy. They lied to us.

They told us “income” meant one thing when they convinced us to vote for it, then they changed its definition when it went into effect and nailed us all to the wall.

The American people were led to believe that the “income” that would be taxed under this amendment was what we today call “unearned income,” that is, profit from investments, dividends, interest, capital gains, and net income from business and corporate earnings.

The term “income” did not apply to wages and salaries. That was considered “earned income,” income received from labor, and not “unearned income,” the money fat cats made from investments and their corporations. What we call “unearned income” was the target of the 16th Amendment.

The American people were told that the income tax provision would apply only to the top one percent of wage earners, and would sock them with a one percent tax on income. The rest of America – you know, the ones that had to vote for this thing – were told we would be left alone. None of this would apply to us.

Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, virtually the sole source of income to the federal government came from tariffs collected on imported goods. That itself was a profound limitation on the size and reach of the federal government. In 1910, for instance, the budget for the entire federal government was $1.042 billion dollars. You read that right. The entire federal budget in 1910 was one billion dollars.

Now ordinary Americans complained that tariffs burdened them but gave a built-in profit margin to American manufacturers. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that production costs for manufactured items were the same in the U.S. as, let’s say, Europe. If importers had to pay, for example a five percent tariff on everything it wanted to sell in the United States, then U.S. manufacturers could raise their prices four percent – pure, unadulterated profit for them – and still undercut international competition.

Since the increased cost for these goods fell upon ordinary, hard-working Americans while at the same time padding the already heavy wallets of the Vanderbilts and the Mellons and the Carnegies and the Rockefellers, working Americans began to feel that they were being taken advantage of, that they were in effect bearing all the cost of funding the federal government, and that the tariff system was essentially a perpetual, taxpayer subsidized bailout for American tycoons.

So, the 16th Amendment was proposed as the solution. It was sold to the American public as a way to make the rich pay their “fair share.” No longer would the federal budget be balanced on the backs of the working poor, no sir. The free ride for the corporate fat cats was over. We were going to sock it to ‘em, by golly.  It was billed as a “soak the rich” scheme.

The meaning of the word “income” was clearly understood at the time. For instance, the authoritative Black’s Dictionary of Law, in its 1891 edition (reiterated verbatim in 1910), defined “income tax” this way:

“A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices.” (Emphasis mine throughout.)

West Publishing Co produced a widely used Judicial and Statutory Definition of Words and Phrases in 1904. It defined:

“income tax” as a “tax which relates to the product or income from property or from business pursuits…[it] includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business.”

You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of “income.” The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits.

As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate:

“An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”

Roger Foster wrote, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913 in 1914. In it he writes:

“[I]t is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue.”

So, wages and salaries were exempt from taxation under the 16tth Amendment; investment and dividend income and profits from business were not.

According to Investopedia, “unearned income” is “Any income that comes from investments and other sources unrelated to employment services.”

As Phil Hart says in his book, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?:

“It is the annuity check you get in the mail from your investments, it’s your passive income. It is not the money you worked for. It is the net income, the profit left over from your ‘income property’ after you have paid all your expenses and taxes on the property. It is the interest income that accrues to your savings account even while you sleep” (p. 236).

Hart adds:

“[T]he target of the income tax amendment was income from unincorporated businesses and from investments” (p. 243).

He concludes:

“The people of America simply did not think the 16th Amendment was ever going to tax the wages or salary of a working man” (p. 313).

But it wasn’t long before the federal government, insatiably greedy for our money, changed the definition of “income” from the one we had voted for – investment and dividend income and corporate profits – to include wages and salaries. And so the march to a 3.8 million-word Leviathan began. It wasn’t long before ordinary working stiffs like you and me got completely hosed. A law intended to soak the rich instead now threatens to drown us.

Most folks, including me, will pay their taxes for the simple reason that they don’t want to go to jail. But the bottom line is this: if we are to be guided, as we should be, by the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and the intent of the American people when they voted for the 16th Amendment, then there is absolutely no constitutional authority for your wages or salaries to be taxed by Uncle Sam. None, nada, zilch, zip.

Host, “Focal Point” on the American Family Radio Network