Gingrich: Trump Will Repeal 60-70% of Obama’s Executive Orders – FAKENEWS

21st Century Wire says…

In a recent interview former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, told Fox that Trump will likely be vetoing out the majority of executive orders made by Obama.

If we examine the mountain of executive orders that were penned under the Obama administration, we must wonder if Gingrich isn’t making a good point and an accurate assessment about President Elect Trump’s intentions with regards to his promise to “drain the swamp.” Obama had very little luck getting many of the draconian, unconstitutional policies his administration wanted to see enacted approved by Congress so he leaned heavily on Executive Orders to push policies and conflicts that would not have been approved by Congress otherwise.

Perhaps this will be one of the early indicators of how serious Trump is about rolling back policies that have proven to be detrimental to Americans.


US President-elect Donald Trump may reverse up to 70 percent of President Barack Obama’s executive orders, practically erasing the legacy of the first African-American head of state, Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox.

“I think in the opening couple days, he’s going to repeal 60 to 70 percent of Obama’s legacy by simply vetoing out all of the various executive orders that Obama used because he couldn’t get anything through Congress,” Gingrich said in an interview with “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox Business.

Obama, who signed over 260 executive orders in his two terms in office, urged Trump, who will be inaugurated on January 20, not to circumvent Congress when trying to enact his agenda. Obama used his executive powers to push through labor, climate and immigration reforms after Congress refused to go along with his proposed programs.

READ MORE: ‘US refusal to veto UN Israeli resolution symbolic gesture by lame duck Obama’

“My suggestion to the president elect is, you know, going through the legislative process is always better, in part because it’s harder to undo,” Obama told NPR last week. “In my first two years, I wasn’t relying on executive powers because I had big majorities in … Congress and we … [were] able to get bills passed. Even after we lost the majorities in Congress, I bent over backward consistently to try to find compromise and a legislative solution to some of the big problems that we’ve got.”

READ MORE: ‘We are rooting for his success’: Obama on Trump victory as he urges smooth transition

Obama noted that Trump is “entirely within his lawful power” to sign new executive orders and “if he wants to reverse some of those rules, that’s part of the Democratic process.”

Gingrich believes that by exercising such power Trump will just sign Obama’s legacy away.

“I think President Obama is beginning to figure out that his legacy is like one of those dolls that as the air comes out of it, it shrinks and shrinks and shrinks,” Gingrich said.

During the election campaign Trump did promise to repeal Obama’s initiatives, telling his voters in North Carolina in September that his administration would “eliminate every unconstitutional executive order and restore the rule of law to our land.”

That promise now seems a reality especially after Obama failed to honor his promise of a “smooth” transition to Trump after his victory. The rift between the future administration and Obama’s office became apparent on Friday when the US abstained from voting at the UN Security Council, allowing an anti-Israeli settlement resolution to pass, despite a strong calls for Trump to “veto” the document.

“He [President Obama] is in this desperate frenzy. What he’s actually doing is he’s setting up a series of things to distract Trump, which will make his liberal allies feel good about Democrats and hate Republicans when Trump rolls them back,” Gingrich noted…

Continue this story at RT

READ MORE MSM LIES AT: 21st Century Wire MSM Files

Read More Articles Here…


via 21st Century Wire

December 29, 2016 at 02:19AM

ANGRY CONGRESS SET To Cut Off Funding To U.N…Threatens To Expel Palestinian Diplomats From U.S. Soil After Obama’s Final Assault On Israel – FAKENEWS

Barack Hussein Obama is anything but a lame-duck President. Apparently dividing our nation, financially devastating low and middle-income families with a disastrous universal health care plan, flooding it with unvetted immigrants and dangerous illegal aliens, and leaving us with a $20 TRILLION debt isn’t enough. Obama has to turn Israel over to a group of hard-line Muslim terrorists on his way out. The good news is, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s helping to embolden a spineless Congress who’s about to put the brakes on

Congress is already setting the stage to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations in the wake of a contested vote last week in which the Obama administration permitted an anti-Israel resolution to win overwhelming approval, according to congressional leaders, who told the Washington Free Beacon that the current administration is already plotting to take further action against the Jewish state before vacating office.

Other punitive actions by Congress could include expelling Palestinian diplomats from U.S. soil and scaling back ties with foreign nations that voted in favor of the controversial measure, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation both on and off the record.

The Obama administration is still under bipartisan attack for its decision to help craft and facilitate the passage of a U.N. resolution condemning the construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem, a move that reversed years of U.S. policy on the matter.

The Free Beacon was the first to disclose on Monday that senior Obama administration officials played a key role in ensuring the measure was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council. This included a phone call by Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the measure.

While Biden’s office continues to dispute the claim, reporters in Israel and Europe confirmed in the intervening days that the call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko did in fact take place.

With anger over the issue still roiling, leading members of Congress told the Free Beacon on Wednesday that they will not delay in seeking retribution against the U.N. for the vote. This could include cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N. and stripping the Palestinian mission’s diplomatic privileges.

Lawmakers also will work to rebuff further attempts by the Obama administration to chastise Israel on the international stage. This would include freezing funds that could be spent by the administration on further U.N. action.

“The disgraceful anti-Israel resolution passed by the UNSC was apparently only the opening salvo in the Obama administration’s final assault on Israel,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) told the Free Beacon. “President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Power, and their colleagues should remember that the United States Congress reconvenes on January 3rd, and under the Constitution we control the taxpayer funds they would use for their anti-Israel initiatives.”

“The 115th Congress must stop the current administration’s vicious attack on our great ally Israel, and address the major priorities of the incoming administration,” Cruz said, expressing his desire to work with the incoming Trump administration to reset the U.S. relationship with Israel.< Senior congressional sources currently working on the issue further disclosed to the Free Beacon that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are in an uproar over the Obama administration, which they accuse of plotting behind closed doors to smear Israel.

“Not content with spending the last eight years using the United Nations to undermine American sovereignty, the Obama administration has finally trained their sights on Israel and is trying to exploit this unelected and unaccountable international body to impose their resolution of the Palestinian issue on Israel,” one senior congressional aide told the Free Beacon. “Enough is enough.”

While the Trump administration will not take office until the end of January, Congress will be working overtime before then to stop the Obama administration from further damaging the U.S.-Israel relationship, according to the source, who hinted that a full cut-off of U.S. funding to the U.N. currently is on the table.

“A new administration will arrive on January 20th, but in the intervening weeks Congress has an important role mitigating the damage President Obama can do in his final hours,” the source said. “Why on earth would we throw good taxpayer dollars after bad in support of the UN, which has proven itself again and again utterly unable to encourage any positive progress? Just take Syria — if they were doing anything over the last five years, it should have been working out a fair and equitable adjudication of the Syrian war.”

“Instead, they’ve proven themselves utterly useless–in fact they’ve probably made a gut-wrenching catastrophe worse,” the source explained. “There’s no reason to think this action will turn out any more favorably.”

For entire story –WFB

The post ANGRY CONGRESS SET To Cut Off Funding To U.N…Threatens To Expel Palestinian Diplomats From U.S. Soil After Obama’s Final Assault On Israel appeared first on

Read More Articles Here…



December 29, 2016 at 02:18AM

Obama names 2 new national monuments in Utah, Nevada – FAKENEWS

SALT LAKE CITY — President Obama designated two national monuments Wednesday at sites in Utah and Nevada that have become key flash points over use of public land in the U.S. West, marking the administration’s latest move to protect environmentally sensitive areas in its final days.

The Bears Ears National Monument in Utah will cover 1.35 million acres in the Four Corners region, the White House said. In a victory for Native American tribes and conservationists, the designation protects land that is considered sacred and is home to an estimated 100,000 archaeological sites, including ancient cliff dwellings.

It’s a blow for state Republican leaders and many rural residents who fear it will add another layer of unnecessary federal control and close the area to energy development and recreation, a common refrain in the battle over use of the American West’s vast open spaces.

In Nevada, a 300,000-acre Gold Butte National Monument outside Las Vegas would protect a scenic and ecologically fragile area near where rancher Cliven Bundy led in an armed standoff with government agents in 2014. It includes rock art, artifacts, rare fossils and recently discovered tracks.

The White House and conservationists said both sites were at risk of looting and vandalism.

“Today’s actions will help protect this cultural legacy and will ensure that future generations are able to enjoy and appreciate these scenic and historic landscapes,” Obama said in a statement.

His administration has rushed to safeguard vulnerable areas ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. It has blocked new mining claims outside Yellowstone National Park and new oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean.

Obama’s creation and expansion of monuments covers more acreage than any other president.

But Trump’s upcoming presidency has tempered the excitement for tribal leaders and conservationists, with some worrying he could try to reverse or reduce some of Obama’s expansive land protections.

Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, who opposes the Bears Ears Monument, has suggested presidents have the power to undo monuments, though it has not been done before.

A coalition of tribes pushed for the creation of Utah’s eighth national monument, though the tribes asked Obama to make it about 500,000 acres larger than the monument he named Wednesday.

Tribal members visit the Bears Ears area to perform ceremonies, collect herbs and wood for medicinal and spiritual purposes and do healing rituals.

Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye called it an exciting day for his tribe and people of all cultures.

“We have always looked to Bears Ears as a place of refuge, as a place where we can gather herbs and medicinal plants, and a place of prayer and sacredness,” Begaye said. “The rocks, the winds, the land — they are living, breathing things that deserve timely and lasting protection.”

The Navajo Nation is one of five tribes that will get an elected official on a first-of-its-kind tribal commission for the Bears Ears monument. The panel will provide federal land managers with tribal expertise and historical knowledge about the area, federal officials said.

Tucked between existing national parks and the Navajo reservation, the proposed monument features stunning vistas at every turn and a mix of cliffs, plateaus, towering rock formations, rivers and canyons across wide expanses covered by sagebrush and juniper trees.

Opponents agree the area is a natural treasure worth preserving but said the federal designation would create restrictions on oil and gas development as well residents’ ability to camp, bike, hike and gather wood.

No new mining and oil and gas development will be allowed within the monument boundaries, said Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Members of Utah’s all-GOP congressional delegation had backed a plan to protect about 1.4 million acres at Bears Ears, while opening up other areas of the state for development.

To many residents in the small, predominantly Mormon town of Blanding that sits near the new monument, the proposal is a thinly veiled, repackaged push from environmental groups who recruited tribes after previous attempts at the designation fizzled out.

In Nevada, retiring Democratic Sen. Harry Reid has pushed for protections at Gold Butte, a remote area northeast of Lake Mead, but GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation have been vocal opponents.

Bundy is one rancher who does not recognize federal jurisdiction in the area. He was accused of illegally allowing his cows to roam there after failing to pay more than $1.1 million in fees and penalties.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges in the 2014 standoff with U.S. agents trying to round up his cattle.

Read or Share this story:

Read More Articles Here…


via USATODAY – News Top Stories

December 29, 2016 at 02:13AM

Herman Cain Takes Down Kerry’s Anti-Israel Speech With One Line That Says It All – FAKENEWS

Herman Cain really nailed it.

Amid the reams of statements reacting to Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech defending the Obama administration’s betrayal of one of America’s closest allies in the world, plenty of Obama apologists have sounded off, as have plenty of outraged conservatives.

But none summed up the right-side reaction with the rapier-sharp mockery Cain thrust into the conversation.

On Fox News’ “Outnumbered” Wednesday, the syndicated radio host and former GOP presidential contender summed it up with one sentence any conservative can understand.

“The only thing worse than a one hour-plus speech by John Kerry is a one-hour speech by President Obama,” Cain said.

As a one-liner, it’s tough to beat, and like all great jokes, it’s built on a fundamental truth.

Both Obama and Kerry obviously love to hear themselves talk, both have astonishingly little to say, and what they do say is almost uniformly a cause for outrage among the saner, conservative half of the American public. (As far as is known, Kerry’s voice never sent a thrill up anyone’s leg, though.)

The biggest problem of Kerry’s speech, Cain said, was that it was based on a flawed premise: That the Palestinians – and the Arab world in general – will ever accept Israel and its inherent right to exist in return for a permanent peace in the region.

“Security is the most important thing. If you demand that the occupied territory be given to the Palestinians, Israel becomes a sitting duck,” said Cain. “This is why Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israelis are simply not going to go along with that approach.”

Check it out below. (Cain’s comments come at the beginning of the discussion.)

As usual, the business magnate was dead on. Literally from the day Israel declared its existence in a hostile neighborhood, the Arab world has sought to stamp it out.

The peace agreements it has reached with neighboring countries – Jordan and Egypt – have been based entirely on the knowledge of the Arab countries that the Jewish state is more than capable of holding its own in a military engagement. It is, in fact, capable of destroying the very countries that wish to destroy it.

If the Arabs could have rid the world of the Jewish state at some point over the past seven decades, they would have done so.

And that’s what makes comments like Kerry’s so risible.

As Fox News contributor Eboni Williams pointed out, the main obstacle to peace between Israel and the Arabs has nothing to do with “settlements” (though how any Jewish construction in the city of Jerusalem could be considered a “settlement” defies both logic and history).

It boils down to “recognition of Israel’s right to exist,” Williams said. “Until that is acknowledged, really in Arabic, by the Palestinian people, we can’t move forward with this.”

But acknowledging that inconvenient truth by the Obama administration, and flunkies like John Kerry, would mean putting the responsibility for ending the conflict exactly where it belongs – on the Palestinians and Arabs who’ve been supporting the terror war against Israel for almost 70 years.

John Kerry and President Obama will never admit that, no matter how long they talk.

Read More Articles Here…


via The Point

December 29, 2016 at 02:10AM


Image may contain: 1 person, suit and text


Reuters:   Trump says Sprint to bring 5,000 jobs back to U.S.

U.S President-elect Donald Trump said on Wednesday wireless carrier Sprint Corp (S.N) will bring 5,000 jobs back to the United States and OneWeb, a new company, will be hiring 3,000 people.

“I was just called by the head people at Sprint and they are going to be bringing 5,000 jobs back to the United States, they are taking them from other countries,” Trump told reporters outside his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

“And also OneWeb, a new company, is going to be hiring 3,000 people. So that’s very exciting,” he added.



BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — Japanese electronics company Panasonic and U.S. electric car maker Tesla said Tuesday they plan to begin production of solar cells at a factory in Buffalo, New York.

The two companies said they finalized an agreement calling for Tokyo-based Panasonic to pay capital costs for the manufacturing. Palo Alto, California-based Tesla made a “long-term purchase commitment” to Panasonic.

Their statement gave no financial figures.

The factory in Buffalo is under development by SolarCity Corp., a San Mateo, California-based solar panel company owned by Tesla. The photovoltaic cells and modules will be used in solar panels for non-solar roof products and solar glass tile roofs that Tesla plans to begin making, the announcement said.

Production is due to begin in mid-2017. Tesla said it will create 1,400 jobs in Buffalo, 500 in manufacturing and plans further expansion in Buffalo.

READ MORE:–finance.html 




Read More Articles Here…


via 70news

December 29, 2016 at 02:06AM

The Real 'Clash of Civilizations'? Spiritual Roots of Russo-American Conflict – FAKENEWS

© Pavel Kazachkov
The Kremlin in Moscow

Whatever Russia is called outwardly, there is an inner eternal Russia whose embryonic character places her on an antithetical course to that of the USA.

The rivalry between the USA and Russia is something more than geopolitics or economics. These are reflections of antithetical worldviews of a spiritual character. The German conservative historian-philosopher Oswald Spengler, who wrote of the morphology of cultures as having organic life-cycles, in his epochal book

The Decline of The West

had much to say about Russia that is too easily mistaken as being of a Russophobic nature. That is not the case, and Spengler wrote of Russia in similar terms to that of the ‘Slavophils’. Spengler, Dostoyevski, Berdyaev, and Solzhenistyn have much of relevance to say in analyzing the conflict between the USA and Russia. Considering the differences as fundamentally ‘spiritual’ explains why this conflict will continue and why the optimism among Western political circles at the prospect of a compliant Russia, fully integrated into the ‘world community’, was so short-lived.

Of the religious character of this confrontation, an American analyst, Paul Coyer, has written:

Amidst the geopolitical confrontation between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the US and its allies, little attention has been paid to the role played by religion either as a shaper of Russian domestic politics or as a means of understanding Putin’s international actions. The role of religion has long tended to get short thrift in the study of statecraft (although it has been experiencing a bit of a renaissance of late), yet nowhere has it played a more prominent role—and perhaps nowhere has its importance been more unrecognized—than in its role in supporting the Russian state and Russia’s current place in world affairs.1

Russia’s ‘Soul’

Spengler regarded Russians as formed by the vastness of the land-plain, as innately antagonistic to the Machine, as rooted in the soil, irrepressibly peasant, religious, and ‘primitive’. Without a wider understanding of Spengler’s philosophy, it appears that he was a Slavophobe. However, when Spengler wrote of these Russian characteristics, he was referring to the Russians as a still youthful people in contrast to the senile West. Hence the ‘primitive’ Russian is not synonymous with ‘primitivity’ as popularly understood at that time in regard to ‘primitive’ tribal peoples. Nor was it to be confounded with the Hitlerite perception of the ‘primitive Slav’ incapable of building his own State.

To Spengler, the ‘primitive peasant’ is the wellspring from which a people draws its healthiest elements during its epochs of cultural vigor. Agriculture is the foundation of a High Culture, enabling stable communities to diversify labor into specialization from which Civilization proceeds.

However, according to Spengler, each people has its own soul, a conception derived from the German Idealism of Herder, Fichte et al. A High Culture reflects that soul, whether in its mathematics, music, architecture; both in the arts and the physical sciences. The Russian soul is not the same as the Western


, as Spengler called it, the ‘Magian’ of the Arabian civilization, or the Classical of the Hellenes and Romans. The Western Culture that was imposed on Russia by Peter the Great, what Spengler called


, is a veneer.

Spengler stated that the Russian soul is

‘the plain without limit’



The Russian soul expresses its own type of infinity, albeit not that of the Westerner’s


soul, which becomes


by its own technics at the end of its life-cycle.


(Although it could be argued that Sovietism enslaved man to machine, a Spenglerian would cite this as an example of


). However, Civilizations follow their life’s course, and one cannot see Spengler’s descriptions as moral judgements but as observations.

The finale for Western Civilization according to Spengler cannot be to create further great forms of art and music, which belong to the youthful or ‘spring’ epoch of a civilization, but to dominate the world under a technocratic-military dispensation, before declining into oblivion like prior world civilizations.

While Spengler saw this as the fulfilment of the Western Civilization, the form it has assumed since World War II has been under U.S. dispensation and is quite different from what might have been assumed under European imperialism.

It is after this Western decline—which now means U.S. decline—that

Spengler alluded to the next world civilization being Russian


According to Spengler, Russian Orthodox architecture does not represent the infinity towards space that is symbolized by the Western high culture’s Gothic Cathedral spire, nor the enclosed space of the Mosque of the Magian Culture,


but the impression of sitting upon a horizon. Spengler considered that this Russian architecture is ‘not yet a style, only the promise of a style that will awaken when the real Russian religion awakens’.


Spengler was writing of the Russian culture as an outsider, and by his own reckoning must have realized the limitations of that. It is therefore useful to compare his thoughts on Russia with those of Russians of note.

Nikolai Berdyaev in

The Russian Idea

affirms what Spengler describes:

There is that in the Russian soul which corresponds to the immensity, the vagueness, the infinitude of the Russian land, spiritual geography corresponds with physical. In the Russian soul there is a sort of immensity, a vagueness, a predilection for the infinite, such as is suggested by the great plain of Russia.6

The connections between family, nation, birth, unity and motherland are reflected in the Russian language:

род [rod]: family, kind, sort, genus

родина [ródina]: homeland, motherland

родители [rodíteli]: parents

родить [rodít’]: to give birth

роднить [rodnít’]: to unite, bring together

родовой [rodovói]: ancestral, tribal

родство [rodstvó]: kinship

Western-liberalism, rationalism, even the most strenuous efforts of Bolshevik dialectal materialism, have so far not been able to permanently destroy, but at most repress, these conceptions—conscious or unconscious—of what it is to be ‘Russian’

. Spengler, as will be seen, even during the early period of Russian Bolshevism, already predicted that even this would take on a different, even antithetical form, to the


import of Marxism.

It was soon that the USSR was again paying homage to Holy Mother Russia rather than the international proletariat, much to Trotsky’s lament.

‘Russian Socialism’, Not Marxism

Of the Russian soul, the ego/vanity of the Western culture-man is missing; the persona seeks impersonal growth in service, ‘in the brother-world of the plain’. Orthodox Christianity condemns the ‘I’ as ‘sin’.


The Russian concept of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’, and of impersonal service to the expanse of one’s land, implies another form socialism to that of Marxism. It is perhaps in this sense that

Stalinism proceeded along lines often antithetical to the Bolshevism envisaged by Trotsky, et al.8

A recent comment by an American visitor to Russia, Barbara J. Brothers, as part of a scientific delegation, states something akin to Spengler’s observation:

The Russians have a sense of connectedness to themselves and to other human beings that is just not a part of American reality. It isn’t that competitiveness does not exist; it is just that there always seems to be more consideration and respect for others in any given situation.9

Of the Russian traditional ethos, intrinsically antithetical to Western individualism, including that of property relations, Berdyaev wrote:

Of all peoples in the world the Russians have the community spirit; in the highest degree the Russian way of life and Russian manners, are of that kind. Russian hospitality is an indication of this sense of community.10

Taras Bulba

Russian National Literature starting from the 1840s began to consciously express the Russian soul. Firstly Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol’s

Taras Bulba

, which along with the poetry of Pushkin, founded a Russian literary tradition; that is to say, truly Russian, and distinct from the previous literature based on German, French, and English. John Cournos states of this in his introduction to

Taras Bulba


The spoken word, born of the people, gave soul and wing to literature; only by coming to earth, the native earth, was it enabled to soar. Coming up from Little Russia, the Ukraine, with Cossack blood in his veins, Gogol injected his own healthy virus into an effete body, blew his own virile spirit, the spirit of his race, into its nostrils, and gave the Russian novel its direction to this very day.

Taras Bulba is a tale on the formation of the Cossack folk. In this folk-formation the outer enemy plays a crucial role. The Russian has been formed largely as the result of battling over centuries with Tartars, Muslims and Mongols.11

Their society and nationality were defined by religiosity, as was the West’s by Gothic Christianity during its ‘Spring’ epoch, in Spenglerian terms. The newcomer to a


, or permanent village, was greeted by the Chief as a Christian and as a warrior: ‘Welcome! Do you believe in Christ?’ —’I do’, replied the new-comer. ‘And do you believe in the Holy Trinity?’— ‘I do’.—’And do you go to church?’—’I do.’ ‘Now cross yourself’.


Gogol depicts the scorn in which trade is held, and when commerce has entered among Russians, rather than being confined to non-Russians associated with trade, it is regarded as a symptom of decadence:

I know that baseness has now made its way into our land. Men care only to have their ricks of grain and hay, and their droves of horses, and that their mead may be safe in their cellars; they adopt, the devil only knows what Mussulman customs. They speak scornfully with their tongues. They care not to speak their real thoughts with their own countrymen. They sell their own things to their own comrades, like soulless creatures in the market-place…. . Let them know what brotherhood means on Russian soil!13

Here we might see a Russian socialism that is, so far from being the dialectical materialism offered by Marx, the mystic we-feeling forged by the vastness of the plains and the imperative for brotherhood above economics, imposed by that landscape. Russia’s feeling of world-mission has its own form of messianism whether expressed through Christian Orthodoxy or the non-Marxian form of ‘world revolution’ under Stalin, or both in combination, as suggested by the later rapport between Stalinism and the Church from 1943 with the creation of the Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs.

14 In both senses, and even in the embryonic forms taking place under Putin, Russia is conscious of a world-mission, expressed today as Russia’s role in forging a multipolar world, with Russia as being pivotal in resisting unipolarism


Commerce is the concern of foreigners, and the intrusions bring with them the corruption of the Russian soul and culture in general: in speech, social interaction, servility, undermining Russian ‘brotherhood’, the Russian ‘we’ feeling that Spengler described.


The Cossack brotherhood is portrayed by Gogol as the formative process in the building up of the Russian people. This process is not one of biology but of spirit, even transcending the family bond. Spengler treated the matter of race as that of soul rather than of zoology.


To Spengler, landscape was crucial in determining what becomes ‘race’, and the duration of families grouped in a particular landscape—including nomads who have a defined range of wandering—form

‘a character of duration’

, which was Spengler’s definition of ‘race’.


Gogol describes this ‘race’ forming process among the Russians. So far from being an aggressive race nationalism it is an expanding mystic brotherhood under God:

The father loves his children, the mother loves her children, the children love their father and mother; but this is not like that, brothers. The wild beast also loves its young. But a man can be related only by similarity of mind and not of blood. There have been brotherhoods in other lands, but never any such brotherhoods as on our Russian soil.18

The Russian soul is born in suffering

. The Russian accepts the fate of life in service to God and to his Motherland. Russia and Faith are inseparable. When the elderly warrior Bovdug is mortally struck by a Turkish bullet, his final words are exhortations on the nobility of suffering, after which his spirit soars to join his ancestors.


The mystique of death and suffering for the Motherland is described in the death of Tarus Bulba when he is captured and executed, his final words being ones of resurrection:

‘Wait, the time will come when ye shall learn what the orthodox Russian faith is! Already the people scent it far and near. A czar shall arise from Russian soil, and there shall not be a power in the world which shall not submit to him!’20


A dichotomy has existed for centuries, starting with Peter the Great, of attempts to impose a Western veneer over Russia. This is called


The resistance of those attempts is what Spengler called ‘Old Russia’.


Berdyaev wrote: ‘Russia is a complete section of the world, a colossal East-West. It unites two worlds, and within the Russian soul two principles are always engaged in strife—the Eastern and the Western’.


With the orientation of Russian policy towards the West, ‘Old Russia’ was ‘forced into a false and artificial history’.


Spengler wrote that Russia had become dominated by Late Western culture:

Late-period arts and sciences, enlightenment, social ethics, the materialism of world-cities, were introduced, although in this pre-cultural time religion was the only language in which man understood himself and the world.24

‘The first condition of emancipation for the Russian soul’, wrote Ivan Sergyeyevich Aksakov, founder of the anti-Petrinist ‘Slavophil’ group, in 1863 to Dostoyevski, ‘is that it should hate Petersburg with all this might and all its soul’. Moscow is holy, Petersburg satanic. A widespread popular legend presents Peter the Great as Antichrist.

The hatred of the ‘West’ and of ‘Europe’ is the hatred for a Civilization that had already reached an advanced state of decay into materialism and sought to impose its primacy by cultural subversion rather than by combat, with its City-based and money-based outlook, ‘poisoning the unborn culture in the womb of the land’.


Russia was still a land where there were no bourgeoisie and no true class system, but only lord and peasant, a view confirmed by Berdyaev, writing: ‘The various lines of social demarcation did not exist in Russia; there were no pronounced classes. Russia was never an aristocratic country in the Western sense, and equally there was no bourgeoisie’.


The cities that emerged threw up an intelligentsia, copying the intelligentsia of Late Westerndom, ‘bent on discovering problems and conflicts, and below, an uprooted peasantry, with all the metaphysical gloom, anxiety, and misery of their own Dostoyevski, perpetually homesick for the open land and bitterly hating the stony grey world into which the Antichrist had tempted them. Moscow had no proper soul’.


Berdyaev likewise states of the


of the upper class that ‘Russian history was a struggle between East and West within the Russian soul’.



Berdyaev states that while


introduced an epoch of cultural dynamism, it also placed a heavy burden upon Russia, and a disunity of spirit.


However, Russia has her own religious sense of mission, which is as universal as the Vatican’s. Spengler quotes Dostoyevski as writing in 1878: ‘all men must become Russian, first and foremost Russian. If general humanity is the Russian ideal, then everyone must first of all become a Russian’.


The Russian messianic idea found a forceful expression in Dostoyevski’s

The Possessed

, where, in a conversation with Stavrogin, Shatov states:

Reduce God to the attribute of nationality? … On the contrary, I elevate the nation to God…. The people is the body of God. Every nation is a nation only so long as it has its own particular God, excluding all other gods on earth without any possible reconciliation, so long as it believes that by its own God it will conquer and drive all other gods off the face of the earth…. The sole ‘God bearing’ nation is the Russian nation….31

This is Russia as the


, as the ‘nation’ whose world-historical mission is to resist the son of perdition, a literal Anti-Christ, according to the Revelation of St. John, or as the birthplace of a great Czar serving the traditional role of nexus between the terrestrial and the divine around which Russia is united in this mission. This mission as the


defines Russia as something more than merely an ethno-nation-state, as Dostoyevski expressed it.


Even the USSR, supposedly purged of all such notions, merely re-expressed them with Marxist rhetoric, which was no less apocalyptic and messianic, and which saw the ‘decadent West’ in terms analogous to elements of Islam regarding the USA as the ‘Great Satan’. It is not surprising that

the pundits of secularized, liberal Western academia, politics, and media could not understand, and indeed were outraged, when Solzhenitsyn seemed so ungrateful when in his Western exile he unequivocally condemned the liberalism and materialism of the a ‘decadent West’. A figure who was for so long held up as a martyr by Western liberalism transpired to be a traditional Russian and not someone who was willing to remake himself in the image of a Western liberal to for the sake of continued plaudits.

He attacked the modern West’s conceptions of ‘rights’, ‘freedom’, ‘happiness’, ‘wealth’, the irresponsibility of the ‘free press’, ‘television stupor’, and referred to a ‘Western decline’ in courage. He emphasized that this was a spiritual matter:

But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.33

These are all matters that have been addressed by Spengler, and by traditional Russians,

whether calling themselves Czarists Orthodox Christians or even ‘Bolsheviks’ or followers of Putin


Spengler’s thesis that Western Civilization is in decay is analogous to the more mystical evaluations of the West by the Slavophils, both reaching similar conclusions. Solzhenitsyn was in that tradition, and Putin is influenced by it in his condemnation of Western liberalism.

Putin recently pointed out the differences between the West and Russia as at root being ‘moral’ and religious


Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual.34

Spengler saw Russia as outside of Europe, and even as ‘Asian’. He even saw a Western rebirth vis-à-vis opposition to Russia, which he regarded as leading the ‘colored world’ against the whites, under the mantle of Bolshevism. Yet there were also other destinies that Spengler saw over the horizon, which had been predicted by Dostoyevski.

Once Russia had overthrown its alien intrusions, it could look with another perspective upon the world, and reconsider Europe not with hatred and vengeance but in kinship. Spengler wrote that while Tolstoi, the


, whose doctrine was the precursor of Bolshevism, was ‘the former Russia’, Dostoyevski was ‘the coming Russia’. Dostoyevski as the representative of the ‘coming Russia’ ‘does not know’ the hatred of Russia for the West. Dostoyevski and the old Russia are transcendent. ‘His passionate power of living is comprehensive enough to embrace all things Western as well’. Spengler quotes Dostoyevski: ‘I have two fatherlands, Russia and Europe’. Dostoyevski as the harbinger of a Russian high culture ‘has passed beyond both Petrinism and revolution, and from his future he looks back over them as from afar. His soul is apocalyptic, yearning, desperate, but of this future he is




To the ‘Slavophil’, Europe is precious. The Slavophil appreciates the richness of European high culture while realizing that Europe is in a state of decay. We might recall that while the USA—through the CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom—promoted Abstract Expressionism and Jazz to Europe (like it now promotes Hi-Hop, which the State Department calls ‘Hip-Hop diplomacy’), the USSR condemned this as ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’. Berdyaev discussed what he regarded as an inconsistency in Dostoyevski and the Slavophils towards Europe, yet one that is comprehensible when we consider Spengler’s crucial differentiation between





Dostoyevsky calls himself a Slavophil. He thought, as did also a large number of thinkers on the theme of Russia and Europe, that he knew decay was setting in, but that a great past exists in her, and that she has made contributions of great value to the history of mankind.36

It is notable that while this differentiation between




is ascribed to a particularly


philosophical tradition, Berdyaev comments that it was present among the Russians ‘long before Spengler’:

It is to be noted that long before Spengler, the Russians drew the distinction between ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’, that they attacked ‘civilization’ even when they remained supporters of ‘culture’. This distinction in actual fact, although expressed in a different phraseology, was to be found among the Slavophils.37

Dostoyevski was indifferent to the Late West, while Tolstoi was a product of it, the Russian Rousseau.

Imbued with ideas from the Late West, the Marxists sought to replace one Petrineruling class with another. Neither represented the soul of Russia

. Spengler stated: ‘The real Russian is the disciple of Dostoyevski, even though he might not have read Dostoyevski, or anyone else, nay, perhaps because he cannot read, he is himself Dostoyevski in substance’. The intelligentsia hates, the peasant does not. He would eventually overthrow Bolshevism and any other form of


. Here we see Spengler unequivocally stating that the post-Western civilisation will be Russian.

For what this townless people yearns for is its own life-form, its own religion, its own history. Tolstoi’s Christianity was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and he meant Marx. But to Dostoyevski’s Christianity, the next thousand years will belong.


To the true Russia, as Dostoyevski stated it, ‘not a single nation has ever been founded on principles of science or reason’.


By the time Spengler’s final book,

The Hour of Decision

, had been published in 1934 he was stating that Russia had overthrown


and the trappings of the Late West. While he called the new orientation of Russia ‘Asian’, he said that it was ‘a new


, and an idea with a future too’.


To clarify, Russia looks towards the ‘East’, but while the Westerner assumes that ‘Asia’ and East are synonymous with Mongol, the etymology of the word ‘Asia’ comes from Greek


, ca. 440 BC, referring to all regions east of Greece.


During his time Spengler saw in Russia that,

Race, language, popular customs, religion, in their present form… all or any of them can and will be fundamentally transformed. What we see today then is simply the new kind of life which a vast land has conceived and will presently bring forth. It is not definable in words, nor is its bearer aware of it. Those who attempt to define, establish, lay down a program, are confusing life with a phrase, as does the ruling Bolshevism, which is not sufficiently conscious of its own West-European, Rationalistic and cosmopolitan origin.42

Of Russia in 1934, Spengler already saw that ‘of genuine Marxism there is very little except in names and programs’. He doubted that the Communist program is ‘really still taken seriously’. He saw the possibility of the vestiges of


Bolshevism being overthrown, to be replaced by a ‘nationalistic’ Eastern type which would reach ‘gigantic proportions unchecked’.


Spengler also referred to Russia as the country ‘least troubled by Bolshevism’,


and the ‘Marxian face [was] only worn for the benefit of the outside world’.


A decade after Spengler’s death the direction of Russia under Stalin had pursued clearer definitions, and


Bolshevism had been transformed in the way Spengler foresaw.



As in Spengler’s time, and centuries before, there continues to exist two tendencies in Russia: the Old Russian and the


. Neither one nor the other spirit is presently dominant, although

under Putin Old Russia struggles for resurgence. U.S. political circles see this Russia as a threat, and expend a great deal on promoting ‘regime change’

via the National Endowment for Democracy, and many others; these activities recently bringing reaction from the Putin government against such NGOs.


Spengler in a published lecture to the Rheinish-Westphalian Business Convention in 1922 referred to the ‘ancient, instinctive, unclear, unconscious, and subliminal drive that is present in every Russian, no matter how thoroughly westernized his conscious life may be—a mystical yearning for the South, for Constantinople and Jerusalem, a genuine crusading spirit similar to the spirit our Gothic forebears had in their blood but which we can hardly appreciate today’.


Bolshevism destroyed one form of Petrinism with another form, clearing the way ‘for

a new culture that will some day arise between Europe and East Asia. It is more a beginning than an end

‘. The peasantry ‘will some day become conscious of its own will, which points in a wholly different direction’. ‘The peasantry is the true Russian people of the future. It will not allow itself to be perverted or suffocated’.


The arch-Conservative anti-Marxist, Spengler, in keeping with the German tradition of


, considered the possibility of a Russo-German alliance in his 1922 speech, the Treaty of Rapallo being a reflection of that tradition. ‘A new type of leader’ would be awakened in adversity, to ‘new crusades and legendary conquests’. The rest of the world, filled with religious yearning but falling on infertile ground, is ‘torn and tired enough to allow it suddenly to take on a new character under the proper circumstances’. Spengler suggested that ‘perhaps Bolshevism itself will change in this way under new leaders’. ‘But the silent, deeper Russia,’ would turn its attention towards the Near and East Asia, as a people of ‘great inland expanses’.


While Spengler postulated the organic cycles of a High Culture going through the life-phases of birth, youthful vigor, maturity, old age and death, it should be kept in mind that a life-cycle can be disrupted, aborted, murdered or struck by disease, at any time, and end without fulfilling itself. Each has its analogy in politics, and there are plenty of Russophobes eager to stunt Russia’s destiny with political, economic and cultural contagion. The Soviet bloc fell through inner and outer contagion.

Spengler foresaw new possibilities for Russia, yet to fulfil its historic mission, messianic and of world-scope,

a traditional mission of which Putin seems conscious, or at least willing to play his part

. Coyer cogently states: ‘The conflict between Russia and the West, therefore, is portrayed by both the Russian Orthodox Church and by Vladimir Putin and his cohorts as nothing less than

a spiritual/civilizational conflict



The invigoration of Orthodoxy is part of this process, as is the leadership style of Putin, as distinct from a Yeltsin for example.

Whatever Russia is called outwardly, whether monarchical, Bolshevik, or democratic, there is an inner—eternal—Russia that is unfolding, and whose embryonic character places her on an antithetical course to that of the USA



[1] Paul Coyer, (Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism,


, May 21, 2015,

[2] Oswald Spengler,

The Decline of The West

, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1971, Vol. I, 201.

[3] Ibid., Vol. II, 502.

[4] Ibid., Vol. I, 183-216.

[5] Ibid., 201

[6] Nikolai Berdyaev,

The Russian Idea,

Macmillan Co., New York, 1948, 1.

[7] Oswald Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., Vol. I, 309.

[8] Leon Trotsky,

The Revolution Betrayed: what is the Soviet Union and where is it going?

, 1936.

[9] Barbara J. Brothers, From Russia, With Soul,

Psychology Today

, January 1, 1993

[10] Berdyaev, op. cit., 97-98.

[11] H Cournos,’Introduction’, N V Gogol,

Taras Bulba & Other Tales

, 1842

[12] N V Gogol, ibid., III.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T A Chumachenko,

Church and State in Soviet Russia

, M. E. Sharpe Inc., New York, 2002.

[15] Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., I, 309

[16] Ibid., II, 113-155.

[17] Ibid., Vol. II, 113

[18] Golgol, op. cit., IX.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid., XII.

[21] Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., II, 192.

[22] Berdyaev, op. cit., 1

[23] Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., II, 193

[24] Ibid., II, 193

[25] Ibid., II, 194

[26] Berdyaev, 1

[27] Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., II, 194

[28] Berdyaev, op. cit., 15

[29] Ibid.

[30] Spengler,

The Hour of Decision

, Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1963, 63n.

[31] Fyodor Dostoevski,

The Possessed

, Oxford University Press, 1992, Part II: I: 7, 265-266.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, ‘A World Split Apart’ — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978

[34] V Putin, address to the Valdai Club, 19 September 2013.

[35] Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., II, 194

[36] Berdyaev, op. cit., 70

[37] Ibid.

[38] Spengler,

The Decline

, op. cit., Vol. II, 196

[39] Dostoyevski, op. cit., II: I: VII

[40] Spengler,

The Hour of Decision

, Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1963, 60

[41] Ibid., 61

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid., 63.

[44] Ibid.,182

[45] Ibid., 212

[46] D Brandenberger,

National Bolshevism: Stalinist culture and the Formation of Modern Russian National Identity 1931-1956

. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 2002.



, Vladimir Putin signs new law against ‘undesirable NGOs’, May 24, 2015

[48] Spengler, ‘The Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems’,

Politische Schriften

, Munich, February 14, 1922.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Paul Coyer, op. cit.

Read More Articles Here…


via Signs of the Times

December 29, 2016 at 02:05AM

Ann Coulter: Tweeting the 2016 Campaign – FAKENEWS


@AnnCoulter Jan. 1 (one year ago)
HAPPY NEW YEAR! Highlights: The Obamas hire a moving company; the class-action lawsuit, Donors v Jeb; and of course … President-elect Trump!


@AnnCoulter Jan. 12
… even GOP response to Obama’s SOTU is a paean to immigrants. And GOP can’t figure out why Trump is sweeping the country.

@AnnCoulter Jan. 12
Trump should deport Nikki Haley.

@AnnCoulter Jan. 15
Bush campaign lands the coveted Lindsey Graham endorsement, bringing an additional 0.0% support to the juggernaut that is Jeb!

@AnnCoulter Jan. 26
Recall: Rubio was not asked about his single legislative accomplishment — amnesty bill — until the SIXTH debate.

@AnnCoulter Jan. 30
Sweaty little liar Rubio sucks up to Iowans with Jesus talk, but he tried to replace them with 30 million Mexicans.

@AnnCoulter Jan. 30
Rubio’s immigration bill issued 33 MILLION green cards in 10 yrs — or 271 new immigrants for every 1 GOP caucus-goer in Iowa.

@AnnCoulter Feb. 1
Trump is the leading GOP vote-getter tonight, among natural-born-American candidates.

@AnnCoulter Feb. 6
Assume Fox News is declaring Rubio “winner!”

@AnnCoulter Feb. 9
MSNBC reporting Trump won EVERY SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC in NH: conservatives, independents, Repubs, college ed, no college ed, religious, etc.

@AnnCoulter Feb. 17
Hey South Carolina! The woman who ripped down your Confederate symbols & demands no pause in Muslim immigration just endorsed Marco Rubio.

@AnnCoulter Feb. 20
Tonight is the night Trump won the nomination. I love you Iowa, but you embarrassed yourself again.

@AnnCoulter Feb. 24
Everyone’s asking Rubio if there are any states he could actually WIN. You bet there are! Sinaloa? Chiapas? Jalisco? Maybe even Oaxaca.

@AnnCoulter Feb. 26

@AnnCoulter Feb. 26
Meanwhile, the “bombshell” in Trump’s tax returns appears to be his paying for Mitt Romney’s sex change operation.

@AnnCoulter March 1
So far, Marco Rubio has won precisely the same number of GOP primaries all year as Evander Holyfield.

@AnnCoulter March 2
New anti-Trump PAC hires former Bush campaign flack Tim Miller. That’ll do the trick … especially if he brings Jeb!’s exclamation point.

@AnnCoulter March 11
For those who like their daily Hitler analogy: Lefty brownshirts just forced cancellation of a peaceful Trump rally in Chicago.

@AnnCoulter March 11
Anyone else notice the Mexican flags being waved by the anti-Trump Chicago mob?

@AnnCoulter March 12
Left-wing fascists violently shut down a peaceful Trump rally last night & Cruz + the entire media took the animals’ side.

@AnnCoulter March 12
Kasich’s threat not to support Trump as nominee has left America puzzled. On street corners everywhere you hear: “Who’s John Katich?”

@AnnCoulter March 15
To beat Rubio, Trump had to beat: Fox, entire MSM, National Review, Salem Radio, every major GOP donor … MAYBE VOTERS WANT LESS IMMIGRATION!

RT @tedcruz March 22
Our hearts break for the men and women of Brussels this morning.

@AnnCoulter reply:
Civilization could use a little less heartfelt sentiment and a lot more Muslim-banning. GO TRUMP!

@AnnCoulter March 29
Like Americans everywhere, I know I’ll always remember where I was when news arrived of the tragic assault on Michelle Fields.

@AnnCoulter March 31
Romney lost the white vote to Obama, or barely won whites in 10 swing states. Trump only needs a few of them to win.

@AnnCoulter March 31
Trump’s working class white vote gives him a number of paths to electoral victory. Other GOPs have no path.

@AnnCoulter March 31
True, I’ve gone from supporting Trump to wildly supporting Trump. Report: “Coulter appears to sour on ‘mental’ Donald Trump”

@AnnCoulter April 8
@DailyCaller: GOP Establishment Money Funding Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson to Attack Trump

@AnnCoulter April 8
In Massachusetts alone, 20k Dems switched to R to vote for Trump. I think we can lose the pundit class.

@AnnCoulter April 25
If new Cruz/Kasich axis fails to stop Trump, isn’t next chess move Jeb!/Jindal? Or maybe McCain/Dole! Carly/Willkie. Romney/Stassen?

@AnnCoulter April 25
61,500 Democrats have switched their registration to Republican in PA, so far in 2016. GO TRUMP!

@AnnCoulter April 26
This campaign is far from over. Still need to choose the theme of Trump’s inaugural ball, and which high school bands to invite.

@AnnCoulter April 27
Lizard-man in Earthling suit discusses basketball: Cruz calls hoop a ‘basketball ring’

(Cruz announces Carly Fiorina as his VP)

@AnnCoulter April 27
Guess we best stay glued to the TV today, in case Cruz decides to give his inaugural address or appoint a new Secretary of the Interior.

@AnnCoulter April 28
DRUDGE: TRUMP MOST VOTES IN REPUBLICAN HISTORY! It’s beginning to look like the wall is more popular than “Hispanic outreach.”

@AnnCoulter April 29
What I like most about immigrants is their gratitude. “TRUMP SUPPORTERS BEATEN, BLOODIED BY ‘MEXICAN-FLAG WAVERS’”

@AnnCoulter May 3
Jake Tapper just claimed Trump has offended every single group “from Muslims to Hispanics.” One group he hasn’t offended: AMERICANS.

(House Speaker Paul Ryan Refuses to endorse Trump)

@AnnCoulter May 12
So far, Trump has received 10,994,897 votes & counting. Monumentally irrelevant whether or not Ryan chooses to make it 10,994,898.

@AnnCoulter May 27
GUARANTEE: Next Memorial Day weekend won’t find President Trump in an Axis country, groveling.

@AnnCoulter Aug. 21
NYT op-ed tally since Trump clinched nomination: 102 anti-Trump, 0 pro-Trump, 22 pro-Hillary, 7 anti-Hillary.

(Trump Phoenix immigration speech)

@AnnCoulter Aug. 31
After Trump’s triumphant visit with the Mexican president today, he should skip this speech & start putting together his transition team.

@AnnCoulter Aug. 31
Wow. This doesn’t sound like “softening.” GO, TRUMP!!!

@AnnCoulter Aug. 31
Trump: “Our greatest compassion must be for our American citizens.”

@AnnCoulter Aug. 31
I hear Churchill had a nice turn of phrase, but Trump’s immigration speech is the most magnificent speech ever given.

@AnnCoulter Sept. 18
Trump has really stepped in it this time: He called NYC explosion a “bomb” 24 hours before it was confirmed to be a bomb. DISQUALIFYING!

@AnnCoulter Oct. 4
I tuned in an hour late. Has Tim Kaine interrupted Pence’s every syllable with, “Will Donald Trump release his taxes?”!

@AnnCoulter Oct. 12
ABC lies: “Trump boasts of grabbing women without their consent.” What he actually said: “They let you do it.” That’s not assault, morons.

@AnnCoulter Oct. 19
Finally a debate topic that has any effect on Americans’ lives. Heroin problem is 100% a result of our open border. THANK YOU, MR. TRUMP!!!

@AnnCoulter Oct. 19
Trump doesn’t need to cut entitlements — he’s going to stop dumping 3d world immigrants on the country sucking up those entitlements.

@AnnCoulter Nov. 6
Brett Baier show on Coyote News is reporting — as fact — that Trump “insulted” Khizr Khan’s wife. CAN SOME MEDIA OUTLET QUOTE THIS “INSULT”?

@AnnCoulter Nov. 8
Is it too late to impeach him? @NYMag: George W. Bush and Laura Bush Did Not Vote for Trump

@AnnCoulter Nov. 9
Proposed Trump victory speech: “I still say he was born in Kenya. Good night.”

@AnnCoulter Nov. 21
EVERY DAY IS CHRISTMAS IN TRUMP’S AMERICA! Report: Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’

@AnnCoulter Nov. 21
Trump to CNN chief Jeff Zucker, “I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed.”

@AnnCoulter Nov. 28
Brutal attack on Americans by Somali refugee today demands urgent electoral reform! Next time, we must be allowed to vote for Trump twice.

@AnnCoulter Dec. 19
Bill Clinton says Trump knows how to get angry white men to vote for him. What angry white men? They’re all happy now.

Read More Articles Here…


via Breitbart News

December 29, 2016 at 02:00AM

Dissecting Slander: The Untold Story of Jeff Sessions’ 1986 ‘Borking’ – FAKENEWS


Decades-old racially charged allegations against Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) parroted by the establishment media and a handful of far left Senate Democrats do not hold up under scrutiny, an extensive investigation conducted by Breitbart News has found.

There are essentially three central allegations the left levels against Sessions. The first pertains to his involvement in a 1980s voter fraud case, which, evidence shows, Sessions prosecuted to ensure a fair elections for black Democratic citizens of the county. The second involves allegations from a former assistant attorney, who was described by co-workers as a “disaffected” employee with a “bad attitude problem” and whose testimony was vigorously debunked by highly credible witnesses. The third involves accusations from an ex-Department of Justice attorney whose credibility was brought into question after he was forced to recant portions of his testimony, in which he fabricated false allegations against Sessions.


In recent weeks, the populist Senator’s partisan opponents—eager to relive the contentious 1986 confirmation hearings that resulted in Ted Kennedy’s successful “Borking” of Sessions from a federal judgeship before such a term even existed—have dredged up these sensational allegations from their 30-year slumber.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in mid-November:

Instead of embracing the bigotry that fueled his campaign rallies, I urge President-elect Trump to reverse his apparent decision to nominate Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. Thirty years ago, a different Republican Senate rejected Senator Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship. In doing so, that Senate affirmed that there can be no compromise with racism; no negotiation with hate. Today, a new Republican Senate must decide whether self-interest and political cowardice will prevent them from once again doing what is right.

Breitbart News, however, went back and read the original 565-page transcript of the 1986 hearing to separate fact from fiction. Upon reviewing the transcript and interviewing individuals with first-hand knowledge of the case, the portrait that emerges is one of a faithful public servant derailed by discredited allegations.

Contrary to the slander peddled first by Kennedy and regurgitated now by Warren, the evidence and testimony from the 1986 hearing depicts a man who cares deeply for the equal and just treatment under the law of all Americans, and who has stood at the vanguard of the various civil rights battles of our times. Sessions, whose favorite book is To Kill a Mockingbird authored by his fellow native Alabamian Harper Lee, was credited during the hearing for helping to obtain the first death penalty conviction of a white man for the murder of a black citizen in Alabama since before World War I.

Throughout the hearing, multiple civil rights leaders testified to Sessions’ dedication and “unequivocal commitment to the prosecution of criminal civil rights cases”— describing him as a prosecutor who went “above and beyond” the call of duty to aid the civil rights division of the Department of Justice at a time when it was not always politically popular to do so in the South.

During the course of the hearing, Judge Cain Kennedy, an African American judge on Alabama’s 13th judicial circuit court, testified to Sessions’ “excellent” reputation in a letter he signed with the other circuit judges. It it he endorsed Sessions and asserted that he was “confident” Sessions “would rule impartially in all matters presented to him” and that the court would be “fortunate” to have someone of Sessions’ stature. Similarly, Larry Thompson, an African American and former U.S. attorney in Atlanta who went on to serve as Deputy U.S. Attorney General under President Bush, described Sessions as a “loyal colleague” and a “good man and an honest man untainted by any form of prejudice.”

Indeed, the contrast between the originally reported allegations and the revelations of the hearing was so stark that the Birmingham News editorial board, which initially called on “Sessions’ sponsors… [to] withdraw his nomination” in March of 1986, eventually reversed its position entirely by May of 1986—urging the Senate to reconsider and “put aside partisan motives” to view Sessions’ “nomination with an open mind.”

Yet despite all of the revelations to come out of the hearings’ proceedings, a new generation of reporters have now taken up their predecessors’ role as chief organ for the same few grave, yet baseless, soundbites proffered by Ted Kennedy and the ghosts of Democrats past.

Sessions’ 1986 confirmation hearing, the Washington Times’ Charlie Hurt writes, was Kennedy’s trial-run for what would become his sabotage just one year later of President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork. “Even before they coined a term for it — Borking — they did it to Jeff Sessions, a decent man with a stellar legal reputation,” Hurt wrote. “With only the flimsiest of accusations and innuendos from suspect testimony, Mr. Sessions was duly smeared in the worst way he could imagine.”

“Kennedy took the truth and warped it. He lied,” wrote the state editor of Sessions’ hometown paper, the Mobile Press-Register, in March of 1986.  

Against the backdrop of the Sessions’ tainting led by the late Massachusetts Senator — marred with his own record of moral impropriety spanning from his expulsion from Harvard for cheating to the abandonment of Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket in his car submerged on Chappaquiddick Island — emerged a formidable foil to Kennedy, who stepped forth as Sessions’ greatest advocate, American war hero, Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton. The unwavering patriot, who famously outsmarted his North Vietnamese captors to expose how American POWs were being tortured, described the 1986 hearing as a “circus” and characterized the media’s treatment of Sessions as “a tragedy.”


To this day, one of the left’s central allegations against Sessions stems from his involvement in prosecuting a 1985 voter fraud case in which three black defendants were accused of having altered the absentee ballots of black voters in order to thwart the election of black Democratic candidates, whom the defendants opposed, and instead to help hand the election over to candidates the defendants favored.

Because the defendants, most notably, Albert Turner, were civil rights activists, the U.S. attorney’s office — and Sessions, by extension — was accused of having prosecuted the case out of racial motivations.

Sessions’ opponents in corporate media have been quick to pick up on this narrative and have even demonstrated a willingness to obscure inconvenient facts that would undermine it. For instance, USA Todays Mary Troyan and Brian Lyman wrote an entire article about the Perry County case and the accusations of the prosecution’s racial motivations without once mentioning that both the complainants and the victims in the case were also black Democrats.

Washington Post “fact-checker” Michelle Ye Hee Lee claims to have “read the ~600 page 1986 Jeff Sessions hearing transcript so you don’t have to.” Yet if readers were to rely upon Lee’s synopsis for their information on the case, they would have no knowledge of the significant testimony of LaVon Phillips, a 26-year-old African American legal assistant to the Perry County district attorney with intimate knowledge of the Perry County case who testified on Sessions’ behalf during the 1986 confirmation hearing.

Phillips testified that in the 1980s, black voters in Perry County began “voting more of their convictions, their interests, rather than relying on the, per se, black civil rights leadership.”

“When this happens,” Phillips said, the established “black power base… becomes neutralized” and may object to the loss of power. “This is what is happening in Perry County.”

Phillips explained that in 1982 the Perry County’s district attorney’s office had “received several complaints from incumbent black candidates and black voters that absentee ballot applications were being mailed to citizens’ homes without their request.” Phillips said that their office performed an investigation and sought an indictment against Turner — empaneling a grand jury whose racial makeup was eleven blacks and seven whites.

Phillips additionally testified that, in 1982, Turner was alleged to have engaged in illegal voting activities by picking up absentee ballots, even though he himself ran as a candidate in that election. Phillips testified that Alabama’s criminal code “sternly spells out that no candidate is to solicit, pick up, or even… touch an absentee ballot.” Sessions has separately said that a handwriting expert informed his office that Turner had even written his name on absentee ballots during that election.

While the majority-black grand jury returned no indictments against Turner in the 1982 election, it did find that a fair election was “being denied the citizens of Perry County, both black and white,” and “encourage[d] vigorous prosecutions of all voting laws”— even requesting that an outside agency monitor the election.

After the grand jury issued its findings, the district attorney approached Sessions about taking additional action, but Sessions “literally refused to prosecute the case,” Phillips said. According to Sessions’ testimony, that’s because “it was expected that these problems would not continue after the actions of the Perry County Grand Jury.”

Nevertheless, the problems apparently persisted, and a week before the 1984 primary election, Sessions said he received a call from the district attorney informing him that two black Democratic officials, Reese Billingslea and Warren Kinard, whose candidacies were opposed by Albert Turner, “were very concerned that a concerted effort was being made to deny a fair election” through the use of absentee ballots.

Billingslea wrote a letter on Sessions’ behalf for the 1986 confirmation hearing in which he expressed his appreciation for Sessions’ “professionalism” and role in the investigation.

“I was one of the first black candidates elected in Perry County Alabama,” Billingslea wrote. “During the [1984 primary] campaign I was approached by many of my supporters who informed me… that my opposition had stated publically that they would do anything to get rid of me…. I became convinced that there was concerted, well-organized effort was being made to steal the election from me through the absentee ballot box…. I spoke with him [Sessions] and requested his assistance…. From everything that I was aware, Mr. Sessions and the United States Attorney’s office handled the investigation with the highest professionalism.”

After receiving the call, Sessions took limited action: requesting visual surveillance of the post office building the day before the election.

An examination of the absentee ballots deposited revealed that some had been visibly altered, Sessions said. The altered absentee ballots collected and deposited by Turner had all been “changed in the same manner,” Sessions explained, from “non-Turner-supported candidates to Turner-supported candidates.”

The Sheltons, an African American family in Perry County, were “devastated” to learn their ballots had been changed by Turner without their permission, Phillips said.

Turner apparently even admitted to having changed the Sheltons’ ballots from the candidates they initially voted for to candidates that he favored—claiming that he had their permission to do so. However, the Sheltons ardently denied this, and Sessions noted that it was unlikely they would have given Turner permission since the candidate the Sheltons wanted to vote for, but whom Turner opposed, was their cousin.

However, Sessions explained that despite the evidence, the prosecution was “outgunned” by an impressive team of lawyers representing the defendants (only two lawyers in Sessions’ office had been assigned to the case to face off against the, at one time, 11 lawyers filing motions for the defendants). Testifying on Sessions’ behalf in 1986, William Kimbrough Jr., Sessions’ Democratic predecessor as U.S. attorney, explained that just because a jury returns a verdict against the prosecution does not mean the prosecutor was unjustified in bringing the case forward.

“Quite often, in the South, you do not win civil rights cases. That is not to say they should not be brought,” he explained. “I personally tried a number of civil rights cases involving police brutality or alleged police brutality, and I do not believe I won one of them. I do not apologize to anyone for having brought the case. There was probable cause to believe that somebody’s rights had been abused…. You bring the case because the case needs to brought.”


Most of the allegations related to Sessions’ comments on race come primarily from a single source, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. attorney and an African American who worked with Sessions for four years.

Yet, as Sen. Denton noted during the confirmation hearing, “all significant allegations by Mr. Figures have been either refuted or denied—all of them.”

For instance, one of Figures’ most sensational allegations that he “was regularly called boy” by Sessions and others in the office (emphasis added).

Figures’ charge was denied by everyone in the U.S. attorney’s office alleged to have witnessed it. Figures himself, Denton noted, even changed his own story during his testimony—going on to “sheepishly den[y]” his original claim that he was called boy “regularly.”

One of Figures’ proclaimed witnesses, assistant U.S. Attorney Ginny Granade, denied his testimony — as did another colleague, Ed Vulevich.

Vulevich, who had served for 17 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations, testified that Figures suffered from a “persecution complex,” had difficulty “getting along with people” and kept “very much to himself.”

“I might best describe it as the man in a football stadium with 80,000 people but he thinks that when the team huddles, they are all talking about him,” Vulevich said.

The sentiment seemed corroborated by William Kimbrough, Sessions’ Democratic predecessor, who had himself hired Figures. Kimbrough explained that Figures appeared “disaffected” and “had some difficulty” working in a Republican office.

Moreover, although his associations received virtually no media attention, Figures allegedly failed to disclose his ties to individuals who likely harbored ill will against Sessions.

“When Figures testified,” Denton charged, “he failed to disclose his personal and financial interests in the Perry County issue,” namely that the day prior to testifying against Sessions, Figures was hired to defend a disputed election plan in Perry County, which had been drawn up in part by none other than Albert Turner.

Yet perhaps further indicative of Figures’ possible prejudice against Sessions was his allegation involving a joke that Sessions made about the Klu Klux Klan.

The joke was made as Sessions’ office was pursuing the Michael Donald case, in which a black teenager was abducted and murdered by the Klan. Sessions pushed for the case to be tried by the local district attorney rather than the federal government, so that Klansman Henry Hays could be given the death penalty (Hays would not have received the death penalty had the case been tried by the federal government). The successful prosecution ultimately set into motion a series of actions that resulted in financially bankrupting the Klan in Alabama. Democratic Judge McRae credited Sessions as being responsible for getting Hays sentenced to death. “[I] can assure you the State’s conviction of Henry Hays would not have been possible without Jeff Sessions’ assistance,” McRae testified.

This sentiment was echoed by Bobby Eddy, a Democrat and investigator from the Mobile district attorney’s office in the Michael Donald case, who has also been credited with having broken open and solved the 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four girls. “Without his [Sessions’] cooperation, the State could not have proceeded against Henry Hays on a capital murder charge,” Eddy testified.

To place this in historical context, Sessions was essentially responsible for helping to make Hays the first white person to be executed in Alabama for the murder of a black citizen since 1913.

While discussing the case with Figures, and by some accounts two Department of Justice civil rights attorneys, Sessions was informed that the prosecution was struggling to collect evidence because some of the Klansmen had been smoking marijuana and were unable recount crucial events. In response, Sessions told the group that he hadn’t known the Klan smoked marijuana and sarcastically joked that he had thought they were okay until he was informed of such.

With the exception of Figures, everyone who heard the joke — including civil rights attorneys Albert Glenn and Barry Kowalski — immediately understood that it was intended humorously.

“I took it wholly as a joke and humor,” Glenn said. “There was no question in my mind at the time that it was meant humorously.”

Barry Kowalski, a self-described lifelong Democrat who would go on to become a famed civil rights attorney and one of the lead prosecutors in the Rodney King trial, testified that he even relayed Sessions’ joke to others “in a humorous vein as well”— something an esteemed civil rights attorney would likely not have done if he had suspected it to have any pretense of racial insensitivity. Kowalski explained that in his mind it was clear “operating room humor” made by a U.S. attorney as he was working to prosecute the Klan.

Yet the media’s reporting on Figures’ allegation has stripped it of all context to distort its meaning and wrongly imply that Sessions respected the Klan. Consider the media coverage below:

“A former coworker testified that Sessions said the Ku Klux Klan was an acceptable organization until he learned that its members used marijuana.” – CNN

“As a U.S. Attorney in Alabama in the 1980s, Sessions said he thought the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” – Politico 

“[Sessions] famously said of the Ku Klux Klan that he was okay with them, ‘until I learned they smoked pot.’ Sessions later said he was joking.” – Forbes 

In reality, the joke actually conveys the exact opposite sentiment: the humor is predicated upon the condition that the joke teller believes the Klan is evil— otherwise the joke doesn’t make any sense. As Sessions explained during the hearing, it would be the equivalent of saying, in jest: “I do not like Pol Pot because he wears alligator shoes.” Even Joe Biden, who attacked Sessions for having made the joke—despite having his own long record of making racially insensitive jokes— acknowledged: “I could see how someone could say that humorously. That [statement] does not mean you are defending the Klan.”

As Sen. Denton observed, if the media were to apply to Figures the same standard of judging a man’s statements without any regard for context as they applied to Sessions, one could equally accuse Figures of having called the NAACP “subversive”—a comment which Figures claims to have made “in jest.”

For his part, LaVon Phillips rejected Figures’ attack against Sessions for joking about the KKK as “ridiculous.” Daniel Bell, the deputy chief of the criminal section of the civil rights division with the Department of Justice, similarly testified that he has never heard Sessions make remarks that he considered to be racially insensitive. “As a matter of fact, my experience with him is that he does not make racial jokes or insensitive jokes,” Bell said.

The sentiment was echoed by State Judge Braxton Kittrell, a Democrat, who sentenced Henry Hays to death. “I have never known him to make racial slurs or remarks,” Kittrell testified. “If he, in fact, had made the remarks which have been attributed to him, I am satisfied that they have been taken out of context, as Jeff Sessions is not that kind of person.”


Perhaps some of the gravest allegations leveled against Sessions come from a J. Gerald Hebert, who during the 1986 hearing was accused of having undermined his own credibility — raising the specter of perjury and defamation — by smearing Sessions with demonstrably false allegations, which he eventually had to admit were “in error.” Hebert now directs the voting rights and redistricting program at the George Soros-funded Campaign Legal Center.

In 1986, Hebert, then a senior trial attorney in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division who has also reportedly been one of the main redistricting lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, testified that Sessions had called the NAACP and the ACLU “un-American.” Figures testified to having had a similar discussion with Sessions.

When questioned about the allegation, Sessions explained that he was referring to particular positions the groups have taken on foreign policy issues — such as their views on the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. Both then and now, the media have seemed eager to deny this essential context. Sessions “never said he thought that the NAACP or the ACLU were flatly un-American or Communist inspired, yet he has been convicted of it in the media of our land,” Denton observed at the time.

Hebert additionally testified that he once asked Sessions about a judge, who apparently called a white lawyer who handled civil rights cases a “disgrace to his race.” Hebert claimed that when asked about the judge’s comment, Sessions said either, “well, maybe he is” or “well, he probably is” (Byron York notes that Hebert changes his testimony throughout the hearing as to how Sessions responded).

Denton noted that it was Hebert — not Sessions — who, in quoting another, described the white civil rights lawyer as a “disgrace to his race.” Hebert himself never accused Sessions of using the phrase.

Yet while Hebert’s allegations have been parroted ad nauseam in recent media reports, journalists fail to mention that Hebert was forced to recant testimony in which he made up serious, yet demonstrably false allegations against Sessions. Specifically, Hebert falsely testified that Sessions sought to block an FBI civil rights investigation. “Mr. Sessions had gotten in touch with the agents and had called off the investigation,” Hebert claimed. Hebert even said that there had been a conversation with Sessions about the particular investigation in which Sessions “indicated that he did not think the investigation should go forward” — a conversation, which, as it turns out, never actually took place.

A review of the Department of Justice’s record revealed that Hebert’s testimony was not true. Sessions had nothing to do with the investigation because the case arose prior to Sessions’ being U.S. attorney. Yet during his testimony, Hebert “constructed a conversation with Mr. Sessions on that subject… [which] never took place at all,” Denton explained.

“My testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee…. [regarding the FBI voting investigation] was in error. My recollection on this matter has now been refreshed. I have no knowledge that Mr. Sessions ever interfered with any voting investigations in the Southern District of Alabama… I apologize for any inconvenience caused Mr. Sessions or this Committee by my prior testimony,” Hebert said in written testimony.

Interestingly, Hebert “has a history of crying wolf about claims of racial discrimination,” with profound consequences for innocent people, J. Christian Adams told Breitbart

“Hebert, the leading critic of the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general, has a history of making things up about racial issues— so much so, in fact, that a federal court imposed sanctions in one of Hebert’s voting cases,” Adams recently wrote. “Hebert’s exaggerations about racism in one federal court case [United States v. Jones] resulted in sanctions being imposed by a federal judge, costing the United States taxpayer $86,626.”

In that case, the court chastised Hebert’s team at the Justice Department, writing that it was “unconscionable” that they would “carelessly” hurl “unfounded allegations” of racial discrimination and impugn a person’s good name without any regard for the truth. The court wrote:

A properly conducted investigation would have quickly revealed that there was no basis for the claim that the Defendants were guilty of purposeful discrimination against black voters. Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons wrongfully branded by the United States as public officials who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. We can only hope that in the future the decision makers in the United States Department of Justice will be more sensitive to the impact on racial harmony that can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination. The filing of an action charging a person with depriving a fellow citizen of a fundamental constitutional right without conducting a proper investigation of its truth is unconscionable.

A cursory review of recent news coverage shows that more than a dozen reports cite Hebert’s allegations against Sessions without mentioning that Hebert was accused of undermining his own credibility and had to recant fabricated allegations he made against Sessions.

Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post tried to justify his omission of Hebert’s recanted testimony by characterizing Hebert’s accusation that Sessions blocked an FBI civil rights investigation as a “minor” issue.

“The story stands for itself,” Reilly told Breitbart in an email, referring to his story which prominently featured Hebert’s accusations against Sessions. “That Hebert corrected the record on a minor aspect of his testimony that was based on mistaken recollection does not change the facts laid out in the piece.”

Interestingly, despite opposing Sessions in 1986, Hebert still testified to Sessions’ character and described him as “a man of his word.”

Today, however, apparently emboldened by the passage of time from the original events and the media’s evident refusal to critically examine any of the allegations made against Sessions before printing them, Hebert has adopted a greater flourish for the dramatic in laying out his indictment of Sessions.

Jeff Sessions as attorney general “should make every American shudder,” Hebert wrote in a Washington Post op-ed last month.

In his op-ed, Hebert expressed his need to “once again” add to the public record the now 35-year-old conversation he claims to have had with Sessions. It is unclear from his op-ed, however, why Hebert — now 30 years more senior — thinks the reader ought to believe his recollection of his interactions with Sessions, considering that his recollections had previously been “in error” and needed to be “refreshed.”


While many things are a testament to Sessions’ character, perhaps nothing speaks more than his actions after enduring Kennedy’s 1986 “Borking.”

While most individuals subjected to such a campaign of personal destruction would retreat from public service, Sessions, without complaint and without carrying a grievance, would go on to become the state’s Attorney General and eventually its U.S. Senator.

He succeeded Sen. Howell Heflin, the Alabama Democrat who ultimately voted against Sessions during his 1986 confirmation. When Senator Arlen Specter switched party registration, Sessions ironically replaced the former Republican who voted against him in 1986 as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. As Congress’s fiercest champion of a pro-American worker agenda that upholds the legacy of late civil rights leader heroine Barbara Jordan, Sessions has squarely taken on what is perhaps the most lasting legacy of his 1986 nemesis, Ted Kennedy: namely Kennedy’s 1965 immigration rewrite that threw open the nation’s floodgates to foreign workers, imperiling civil rights by diminishing the wage and job opportunities of black Americans.

As a lawmaker, Sessions went on to develop a reputation for his firm commitment to the rule of law, so much so that a vote against Sessions for Attorney General could stand to imperil conservative Democrats— such as Sens. Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly— as it could be viewed as a decision to throw in with Chuck Schumer against law and order.

Sessions “is the most popular person in Alabama except for maybe Nick Saban. And it’s all earned in my opinion,” Tucker Carlson said in 2014, noting that Sessions made history by running unopposed in both his last primary and general election contests.

“For twenty years, Sen. Sessions has been representing a state whose population is nearly one-third African American,” one Republican operative recently told Breitbart. “If he were as bad as the left is now falsely trying to paint him out to be, why didn’t they run a Democrat against him?”

As the late Senator Arlen Specter said upon looking back on the 1986 hearing, “My vote against candidate Sessions for the federal court was a mistake because I have since found that Sen. Sessions is egalitarian.”

As for Joe Biden, one of Sessions’ chief opponents in 1986, he told CNN in December, “The president should get the person that they want for that job, as long as they commit, under oath, that they are going to uphold the law.”

While he would not go so far as to admit his own error three decades ago, he acknowledged that he no longer regards Sessions as insensitive to race. “People change,” Biden said simply.

As Alabama’s elected representative, Sessions eventually came to sit upon the very Senate Judiciary Committee that rejected him— harboring no ill will nor animosity towards the men who opposed him, but instead becoming their partners and forging meaningful relationships with them, such as his friendship with far-left progressive Senator Al Franken.

Franken letter to Sessions

With these men, Sessions spearheaded legislative reforms and never once voiced a complaint about their unfair treatment of him. Confident in his own dignity rendered to him by both his faith in God and the people of Alabama whom he represents, Sessions similarly never felt the need to plead his case publicly after all these years — assured in the belief that his own actions would speak louder than the allegations of his opponents.

While corporate media seems willing to allow a handful of partisans to resuscitate the discredited allegations of the ghosts of Democrats past to once again smear the good name of a decent public servant, those who know Sessions best say they are unwilling to “stand idly by” and let history repeat itself.

“Sen. Sessions is a good man and a great man. He has done more to protect the jobs and enhance the wages of black workers than anyone in either house of Congress over the last 10 years,” U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow recently told Breitbart.

“I know him personally and all my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama,” said Sen. Quinton Ross, the Democratic leader of the Alabama Senate who is also African American. “We’ve spoken about everything from civil rights to race relations and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people.”

“I should have volunteered to stand by his side and tell the story of his true character at his confirmation hearing,” Donald V. Watkins, an African American who attended law school with Sessions, wrote on his Facebook page. Watkins recalled how Sessions was the first white student to invite him to join a campus organization, LifeZette reports. “The fact that I did not rise on my own to defend Jeff’s good name and character haunted me for years,” Watkins wrote. “I promised Jeff that I would never stand idly by and allow another good and decent person to endure a similar character assassination if it was within my power to stop it.”

Read More Articles Here…


via Breitbart News

December 29, 2016 at 02:00AM

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely: John Kerry’s Mideast Plan Is ‘Impossible’ – FAKENEWS

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely: John Kerry’s Mideast Plan Is ‘Impossible’


TEL AVIV — The Israeli-Palestinian negotiating formula proposed during a speech Wednesday by lame-duck Secretary of State John Kerry is “impossible and does not correspond with reality,” Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely stated.

“The formula proposed by Secretary Kerry is impossible and does not correspond with reality. For 25 years Israel tried similar formulae but instead of peace we got islands of terror,” said Hotovely in a statement emailed to Breitbart Jerusalem.


“At the end of the day a resolution won’t be reached through speeches or unilateral moves at the UN. The Jewish People won’t give up its land for a terror state,” she said.

Breitbart’s Joel B. Pollak reported on the so-called peace plan outlined in Kerry’s speech:

He outlined basic principles for a peace agreement creating two states, including territorial compromise based on the “1967 lines” (the 1949 armistice lines), with land swaps to “reflect practical realities on the ground.” He said that Palestinians and Israelis should provide “full, equal rights for all of their citizens,” and that the issue of Palestinian refugees should be resolved in a way that preserved Israel as a Jewish state, including financial compensation and resettlement elsewhere. He said that peace required a non-militarized Palestinian state, with a full end to Israeli military occupation, and normalization of Israel’s relations with its neighbors.

Controversially, Kerry’s peace plan also includes Jerusalem as the capital of “the two states” — an outcome that Israel has not accepted, except in the peace terms offered at Camp David in 2000, which the Palestinians rejected.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Read More Articles Here…


via Breitbart News

December 29, 2016 at 02:00AM

Israeli Minister: ‘Obama Is History, We Have Trump’ – FAKENEWS

Israeli Minister: ‘Obama Is History, We Have Trump’


TEL AVIV – “Obama is history. We have Trump,” Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev said on Tuesday, adding that President Barack Obama never supported Israel.

Regev also told Israel’s Channel 2 that the anti-settlement resolution at the UN Security Council, which the U.S. failed to veto, proved the international body was always anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.


“Who is Obama?” Regev asked rhetorically. “Obama is history. We have Trump.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, meanwhile, said that Israel will not be Obama’s “punching bag.”

“We’re not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night as the Obama administration helps push such a grave resolution,” Netanyahu’s spokesman David Keyes said.

The vote, which passed 14-0, prompted Netanyahu to summon 12 ambassadors from countries that supported the resolution. He also summoned U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro to explain the decision to abstain from the vote.

Regev and other Israeli officials have expressed their approval of the incoming Trump administration because Obama is widely seen here as having betrayed Israel with the resolution, which also defines the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall – Judaism’s holiest site – as “occupied Palestinian territory.”

“No organization in the world can point to a failing in the connection between the land and the Jewish people,” Regev said.

Earlier in the day Regev attended an unveiling ceremony for an ancient street dating back to King David’s Jerusalem.

“No resolution in any international forum is as strong as the steadfast stones on this street. No other people in the world has such a connection and link to its land, neither in Senegal, New Zealand, Ukraine nor Malaysia,” she said in her speech.

“Fifty years ago, we turned hope into reality: Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, was once again united, and we will never agree to its being divided a second time,” Regev said, in reference to the Israel’s conquest of the Old City in the 1967 defensive war.

Regev condemned two more resolutions passed by the UN’s culture agency in October that ignored Jewish ties to Jerusalem.

“Several weeks ago UNESCO declared that there is no such link,” Regev said. “The ridiculous vote in Paris cannot cancel thousands of years of history. Today we respond to this distortion of history and say in a loud and clear voice: Jews lived in Jerusalem and will continue to live in Jerusalem. Jews built Jerusalem and will continue to build Jerusalem. Thus it was 2,000 years ago, thus it is today and thus it will remain forever.”

Read More Articles Here…


via Breitbart News

December 29, 2016 at 02:00AM