Jeff Sessions confirmed as Attorney General

From the


The Senate has confirmed Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general in the Trump administration.

The 52-47 vote broke largely along party lines and capped weeks of divisive battles over Sessions, an early supporter of Donald Trump and one of the Senate’s most conservative Republicans.

No surprise there. It’s fairly well known that Senator Jeff Sessions will actually enforce the law and abide by the rule of law, as opposed to the two prior racist occupants who could only see cases through the lenses of race and sex.

Democrats laced into Sessions over his ties to Trump and his record on civil rights and immigration. Republicans lauded his four decades in public service and his commitment to fairness and the rule of law.

The nomination drew wide attention after an imbroglio in which Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren earned a rare rebuke for quoting Coretta Scott King, widow of the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., criticizing Sessions in 1986.

In reference to that incident, please see my very prior post. Then watch this — completely skewering the notion that Sessions is some kind of racist — as the niece of Martin Luther King Jr, Dr Alveda King, remarks:

Senator Sessions had to endure this kind of questioning from one of the largest and most officious bozos in the senate, Al Franken.

As my college professors used to say, “compare and contrast” the above interrogation by Franken to the interview by Senator Ted Cruz, below.

The proper thing has been done, the Department of Justice will be clean again, and actual investigations into corruption and various violations of the law — by anyone — may be instigated. My confidence level in the DOJ has increased geometrically. I would suspect that the IRS, the State Department, other governmental entities, national organizations, cities, counties and states — as well as persons — are on official notice.

The rule of law has returned to the Justice Department.



ACLU Immediately Threatens To Sue Jeff Sessions

Excerpted From The Hill: The American Civil Liberties Union vowed to sue Jeff Sessions if he violates the Constitution immediately after he was confirmed by the Senate as attorney general.

“If he violates the Constitution, we’ll sue,” the ACLU tweeted on Wednesday night.

I might be forced to conclude: the honeymoon is over before it started.

On the other hand: Sessions is now in session.



Under Hillary presidency: EO on guns

hillary-clinton-common-goodFrom the

Feingold: Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns

by Joe Schoffstall

Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who is running again in an attempt to win back his old Senate seat, was recorded at a fundraiser saying that Hillary Clinton might issue an executive order on guns.

That should come as no surprise given her background and history. We knew it was in her playbook.

Feingold can be heard in the video discussing what Hillary Clinton could do in relation to guns if she were to be elected president.

“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do to uhh…,” a person asks Feingold within the video. “Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold responds.

“Oh, so she can, I know that Bara…” the questioner counters. Feingold then talks of President Obama’s executive orders throughout his two terms.

“He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting periods. But what we all need is the Senate, have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House,” Feingold says.

I wrote earlier that with Obama enacting such sweeping Executive Orders (EOs) he is setting precedent than can be followed by other presidents. The objection is not necessarily with the number of EOs signed by Obama — in fact he has signed, to date, 252 EOs in seven years compared to George Bush’s 291 in eight years, contrasted with Bill Clinton’s 364 in eight years — but with the overarching and wide-ranging content of the EOs, subject matter best left to Congress and not to one man.

Obama’s EOs are the most restrictive in the history of the presidency, utilizing more compulsory, binding and legally obligatory words like “must” and “shall” than the six prior presidents.

Further, Obama has stated he has done so specifically because the entire DC process is frequently too slow and cumbersome for his taste.

When the president — any president — publicly states that his or her intent is to purposely bypass Congress, that eliminates the concept of “checks and balances” and thusly tends to condense the three branches of government — the Judicial, Legisaltive and Executive — into one: the Executive.

With that follows an imperial presidency and on the heels, nothing good save perhaps that of tyranny.

Finally, I ask: when was the last time a Demorat or Leftist increased your American freedoms instead of reducing them?

I’ll wait.



Millennial snowflakes: ALL colleges should be “safe spaces”

Millennial SnowflakesRight.  Because Life is just like that — one big Safe Space.

I mean, I was stupid in college.  I was voting Demorat.

But for fuck’s sake, I wasn’t that stupid.

I was taking a full college load and working for four radio stations, was Photo Editor for the college newspaper, woke up at 5 AM and went to bed at 10 or 11 PM.  I paid my tuition, had to buy my own used car in order to get to work.

At my peak I had six jobs, four at radio stations, one at a newspaper, one at the college.  Plus my classes.  I never had a moment to consider protests or safe spaces or microaggressions.  I was too busy worrying about how I would pay for my textbooks.

So I bought used textbooks and then learned: they were already highlighted with the salient points.  They wouldn’t be salient points if they weren’t highlighted, right?

And that’s how I passed college.  Only a portion of my weekends were free.


Student Snowflakes: ALL Universities Should Be Safe Spaces

by Kieran Corcoran

University students are crying out to be swaddled in the cotton wool of trigger warnings and safe spaces, a worrying new survey has found.

Fragile youths also said they love no-platform policies, newspaper bans and knocking down statues to shelter them from controversial or unpleasant ideas.

The sky-high levels of support for thought-policing emerged from a survey of just over 1,000 students in the UK.

How sad is that?

Its findings are also likely to be broadly applicable in the US, where safe space culture originated.

48% of all students surveyed agreed that all universities should have safe space policies to police debate, with only 20% opposing the idea. Women favored safe spaces by a considerable margin.

Women.  Imagine that.  The most emotive and most coddled sex extant — except for trannies, cross-dressers and the rest of the 31 flavors.

The survey, conducted by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) also showed that students are terrified of being triggered, with 68% backing their use.

Such policies are already having absurd results. A student in Edinburgh was almost ejected from a debate for raising her hand in violation of the safe space policy.

And trigger warning culture has permeated as far as Oxford University law lectures – which students have the option to skip if they find the crimes up for discussion “distressing.

The crimes discussed in a text book are “distressing.”  Such petunias, you are.

Confusingly, the survey found most students pay lip service to free speech – with 60% agreeing universities “should never” limit it.

But in practice many of them turned on a dime to support censorious policies in practice.

NEVER trust Millennials when it comes to their support for our foundational documents.  I am convinced they 1) are not even remotely familiar with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and 2) frighteningly willing to shed those rights with which they are unfamiliar.

The rights that so many Americans have died for.


They are “educated.”

But they have not learned.



You want to read a great article about so-called “safe spaces”?  Click on this to read Camille Paglia’s article.  You might think that Paglia is a right winger.  Uh, no.  Full transcript is here.

Your government working AGAINST you

Founders_Finger_GulagUnder Barack Hussein Obama.  With the overt and covert/tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama.

First, from the

FBI tells teachers to inform on students who express ‘anti-government’ and ‘anarchist’ political beliefs as high schools are ‘ideal targets’ for extremist recruiters

by Wills Robinson

  • Document urges faculty members to assess behavior of students 

  • They suggest to watch for certain signs, such as tendency toward violence

  • Bureau hopes indications could prevent future terrorist attacks 

  • They believed it would help reduce the number of youngsters joining terrorist or anti-government groups

It would seem to me the real “extremist recruiters” could be some of the teachers already employed in public schools.

The FBI wants teachers to inform on ‘anti-government’ or ‘anarchist’ students.

In a document titled ‘Preventing Violence and Extremism in Schools’, the bureau urges faculty members to assess concerning behavior of schoolchildren as they may be ’embracing extremist ideologies’.

They also list a number of indications, such as violent tendencies, which may be a sign they are planning an attack or may want to join a terrorist group.

Officials then want staff to pass on information to authorities in a bid to prevent any actions which could put others in danger.

In other words, the United States government wants to make an enemy out of me once again — but oddly enough, only during Leftist administrations.  The federal government wants to make an enemy of its soldiers, of those who believe in religion (excepting that of Islam) and those who believe in the Second Amendment.

Obama American CRAZIESThose who cling to their God and guns.  Who believe in the US Constitution.  Who believe in the Bill of Rights.  Who believe in a religion other than Islam.

Second, the US Department of Justice was actually contemplating prosecution of those who deny climate change/global warming.

Seriously.  The actual Obama-sanctioned Belief Police.


AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

by Jon Street

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

A Democrat asked and was answered:

“My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

Corporations first.  You and me next.

Finally: who else is an enemy of the federal government, according to official US government documents as per Michael Snyder?

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

Am I — we — truly the danger to America?  Am I the one to be feared and tattled-upon?  Am I the one over which you should worry?

Obama True Danger To America

Or should you worry about a Hillary Clinton, a Bernie Sanders?

I think you have your answer.



When troops SHOULDN’T follow their “leaders”


Under Leftist regimes, such as today’s under Mr Obama (and please notice, significantly, since 2008, I have never successively linked in my blog the words “Obama” and “President”), the military is nothing but a useful mule or tool for various forms of societal change.

The Left, frankly, despises and disdains the militaryall its members, its leaders, its troops — unless and until it can be corrupted for use regarding a societal, global — and not a national DEFENSE — issue.

There is a reason that a greater number of military officers have voluntarily left or been forced to leave under this administration than most any other.

There is a reason that military chaplains — save those of Islam — have been under attack under this administration than any other.

As Jeff Fuller writes at

Why troops avoid a fight

Soldiers won’t follow clueless leaders into battles they can’t win

by Jeff Fuller

What does this experience (as delineated in the article if you click it above) offer to those clever, young staffers crafting military tactics and rules of engagement in the White House National Security Council (NSC) for our military units in Iraq and Syria?

Do not expect any military unit, especially a bunch of Iraqi Sunni soldiers led by corrupt Shiite officers, to risk their lives in a fight against ISIS fighters. They will not. And neither would many American troops without effective leaders, adequate weapons, communications, Medevac and close air support, and a fighting chance to win.

A more important paragraph:

But at some point up the chain of command, they have general officers who risked their lives in combat in the past but will not speak truth to the young NSC staffers who set the currently amateurish rules of engagement, define the limits of military power and craft empty speeches in which President Obama declares with a straight face that our goal is to degrade and defeat ISIS.

In other words: our troops are beginning to discriminate and separate the lies from the truths, the wheat from the chaff.  Because their most intimate posteriors are now “on the line.”  A further lesson from history:

As someone who cares deeply for our country and still carries grenade fragments from battle, I can only hope that at some point, our troops will be able to say that their senior military leaders choose the truth over political and career expediency. In Vietnam, much of the foolishness was generated by military officers who either never understood battle or had forgotten its lessons. Now this Peter Principle tendency has been exacerbated by the youngsters who rule the NSC.

To the military: for whom will you die and when, if ever, will you draw the line?

Having written that, there is a serious lesson to be learned — also — by the LE Sheepdogs of this nation:


I learned quite a number of things in my 41 years of service to civilian law enforcement.  As a Sergeant for a major LE agency on the Left Coast, and having served as my department’s Rangemaster and EVOC Supervisor (and a number of other specialized positions, with another separate three state and federal agencies), I learned that there is a vast chasm between what one says and what one does.  I learned to respect a few ranks but not to respect the persons wearing those ranks because altogether too many of them were corrupt and violated their own oaths — yet were promoted still because of nepotism or melanin or their ability to don the requisite knee pads required for a sundry of appointments and coronations.  They too often spoke one line and physically violated another.  And trust me: cops can sense the stinking bullshit of hypocrites from miles away.  Verbal detritus does not a leader make.

I learned from my SBSLI class that dissent is a good thing.  Dissent was certainly required in this circumstance.

And dissent will become a major, a huge issue in the future of the military and civilian law enforcement.  That is to say: the Sheepdogs.

Just what is a Sheepdog?  I am a long-time Sheepdog, far beyond the years where most average Sheepdogs quit.  I am also a Silverback, far beyond the years where most others with less stamina (or more sense) quit.

That said, what might be a common denominator between military and civilian LE “leaders”?

I say this: there are way too many “test takers” and “test passers.”  There are “managers” who can sort out widgets and beans and push paper, but there is a dearth of true “leaders of men.”  Managers are good with paper and bits and bytes.  Leaders are good with people.  Actual humans.

I am convinced of the incontrovertible: leaders are born.  They cannot be “made.”  Persons either possess “leadership skills” or they do not.  You can see and acknowledge a true “leader” from elementary school right up through college and beyond.  One cannot “teach” what is truly the unteachable: leadership.  True leadership.

And true leadership is this: if I asked my troops to do “X,” would they do it for me?  If another Sergeant asked, would they do it for them?  A true leader gets things done not when he or she demands, but when he or she “suggests” or asks.  Or even by a mere presence, subsumed.  But in the crucible of extremis, would my troops do what I asked?  Frankly, I’d like to think they would if, for no other reason, than how I treated them under “normal.”  They would know that I readily recognize the difference between “standard” and “critical.”


My point being:

In the not too terribly distant future, military troops and civilian LE troops are going to have to make a terrible and critical decision.

Will they follow their so-called “leaders”?

At this point, I would suggest: you should weigh that decision very carefully because many of your “superiors” and “leaders” are neither superior nor leaders.

I suspect and submit that you already know who it is that you would follow, and who it is that you would not.  Those who are — in the colloquial — “full of shit” and those who are not.  Those who treated you with inherent respect, did not take advantage of you, did not make you the butt of jokes, did not rule their rank over you, those who were firm, fair and consistent.  You knew you would encounter the same person over any number of days, and not Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde.

The person who said, if they were “disappointed” in you, you would have a serious internal speech with yourself to the point of questioning your entire ethos.

I was once told, by an ancient and doddering Sergeant in my department many years ago, that one must only do three things to have a successful career: 1) Do you job, 2) Tell the truth, and 3) Don’t be malicious.

It would seem that too many of our so-called “leaders” violate one or more of those aspects on a continuing basis.  Some seem to get promoted for it.

If you think — after all of this — that I’m leading up to something, you would be correct.

A country that allows political hacks to set military operations policy has lost its way. And we are lost, for sure.”  — Lt. Col. Jeff Fuller

“God bless America, the finest experimental nation ever created at the hands of Mortal Men.”— BZ

So I said back in 2006.

The point is this.  At some time, there will be upheaval in the US.  It’s just going to occur, plain and simple.  America cannot keep on its current path of unsustainable spending and philosophy.  There is only so much cash and good will to be found in the American Taxpayer — who foots the bill for not only the United States but much of the rest of the planet as well, in terms of largesse to other countries.

When that crash comes — and I do not know when or how it will manifest itself — there must be in the military and civilian LE spheres those who will truly honor their oaths.  They must truly be Oathkeepers.  They must respect the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Bottom line: there will come a time when soldiers in the military and law enforcement officers must follow their conscience and their oaths, because their leaders are going to order them to abrogate law.

It’s coming.

They must be prepared.