Archive for the ‘Dirty Democrats’ Category

WHOA: Look What Was Discovered About The Judge Who Struck Down Trump Sanctuary City Order

As we reported yesterday, Executive Order 13768, which gave the attorney general and secretary of Homeland Security the power to withdrawal federal funds from sanctuary cities for not being in compliance with federal law, was blocked by a federal judge.

From Allenbwest

The White House quickly released a statement condemning the judge, stating “Once again, a single district judge — this time in San Francisco — has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father’s arms. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands.”

The judge in question was San Francisco’s William Orrick, an Obama appointee who ruled that the order violated the Constitution by attempting to punish local governments by seeking to “deprive local jurisdictions of congressional allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard.” The man is apparently unaware of Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the “Supremacy Clause,” which establishes that federal law triumphs over state law.

His ruling was ridiculous, and given his history, it’s quite obvious it was entirely politically-motivated. As HotAir reported, You don’t have to look very far for some evidence that this judge has a partisan streak. Orrick is the same judge who granted a restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that released undercover videos of Planned Parenthood back in 2015. And according to the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, Orrick was an Obama campaign bundler who collected more than $200,000 for the candidate in 2008. He had also previously raised more than $100,000 for candidate John Kerry in 2004.

As Allahpundit pointed out last night, the judge’s decision doesn’t appear to interfere with AG Jeff Sessions ability to withhold some federal money from sanctuary cities, so the impact of the injunction may be more symbolic than anything else. And on that count, CNN’s Chris Cillizza argues the politics of the decision are a win for the Trump administration. He stated that “there is nothing the Republican base — and the bulk of Republican elected officials — hate more than what they view as liberal judges run amok. It’s the epitome — to Republicans — of liberals trying to institute their will on a populace without ever letting people vote or have their opinions heard.

Had there truly been something unconstitutional in the order, you’d think another judge would’ve challenged it earlier than three months after it was signed.


Rush Limbaugh: Bill O’Reilly Departure Was Not ‘Natural’, It Was A ‘Campaign

Thursday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh called Bill O’Reilly’s departure from the Fox News Channel a “campaign,” and not a “natural” event.

Limbaugh pointed to the origin of the story, which was first published in The New York Times and how it may have something to do with an internal struggle of “corporate intrigue” within Fox News.

From Breitbart

Partial transcript as follows:

Why do The New York Times break the story? Out of the blue, they want to do a story on O’Reilly and Fox with whatever number of payouts to women. Where’d this come from? Nothing just comes out of the ether folks. They are not sitting there over at the New York Times waiting for ideas to pop into their head and then one second some reporter, ‘You know what I think I’m going to do a story on what a sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly is.’ That is not how it happens.

The reason that it starts in The New York Times is important is because the second aspect is the corporate intrigue that I mentioned that is also behind this. It is — I don’t work there so there is no quicksand —but there is a battle for power going on there between sons of Rupert Murdoch and Rupert. And they are not conservatives my friends. In fact, they are — what is the generation before millennials? X? Their friends are all liberal, their wives. One of their wives works for the Clinton Global Initiative. One of the wives when this New York Times story, ‘You can’t keep the man on the air you just can’t this is embarrassing. It’s embarrassing to us, it’s embarrassing to dad company. You can’t do this.’ And the fact that the story ran on The New York Times was such a profound shock, sadness, and embarrassment that they felt that had to do something. That is why the fact that is started on The New York Times is crucial. There is two reason it is important. The Times is not just appearing out of nothing out of the ether.

Here’s the timeline, story New York Times. How long did it take before you started hearing about massive advertiser defections, just a day, right? You think that was natural? No, this was a campaign, folks. That’s why this is so frustrating to me, even after all this time, these campaigns are not immediately spotted for what they are. Therefore, people are not able to deal with them. And this one should have been expected given what’s been going on the last two years there. Tey should have been ready for this. But see the bottom line is they were.

Fox is not going to be the way it is for long. There is a massive –shakeup coming, and it is generational. It is generational and political. It is like anything else, nothing ever is constantly the same, there is change everywhere. But it has been amazingly easy to sit from a distance and watch this, it’s amazing how easy it appears, at least to me, that this massive and rapid transformation is occurring.




Many Americans are of the belief that the longer politicians are in Washington, the more susceptible to corruption they become. Today’s notably aged Democrats certainly have a way of lending credibility to that notion.

Allen B West reports,

And though corruption knows no particular age, race or creed, there’s one group of Washington insiders who seem to pop up on the malfeasance radar with somewhat stunning regularity — the Congressional Black Caucus.

From Charlies Rangel (D-NY) being found guilty of eleven ethics violations to shamed former-Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-FL) being indicted, pleading guilty to 22 federal counts and facing a potential sentence of 357 years to Alcee Hastings (D-FL) (a formerly impeached federal judge) busted for misusing public funds to pay his girlfriend $2.5 million, CBC members are no strangers to the ethics microscope as they seem to be perpetually the subjects of investigations.

Now it’s Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) turn. Again. Waters, whose incessant tweets and tirades about Donald Trump have become a thing of internet legend, was named “one of the most corrupt members of Congress” by the non-partisan group CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) for a virtually endless string of accusations and/or violations. Waters made the CREW list in 2005, 2006, 2009 and appears poised to keep the roll alive in 2017.

The Washington Free Beacon is reportingthat Waters has used public funds to pay her daughter, Karen Waters, over $600,000 since 2006:

In 2010 Waters was brought up on three counts of ethics violations by the House Ethics committee for her Congressional advocation on behalf of a bank in which she had a financial interest. Well, actually not her, but her husband…somehow that’d different. From The Hill:

“The House ethics committee on Monday outlined its charges against Rep. Maxine Waters, who is accused of helping a bank in which her husband owned stock secure federal bailout funds.

The committee charged the 10-term California Democrat with three counts of violating House rules and the federal ethics code in connection with her effort to arrange a 2008 meeting between Treasury officials and representatives with OneUnited bank.

The panel said Waters, who sits on the Financial Services Committee, broke a House rule requiring members to behave in a way that reflects “creditably” on the chamber. The committee said that by trying to assist OneUnited, she stood to benefit directly, because her husband owned a sizable amount of stock that would have been “worthless” if the bank failed.”

This swamp cannot possibly be drained quickly enough.

RAMPANT CORRUPTION: Podesta Company Paid One Billion Rubles from Russian Govt


The Putin Government gave John Podesta 35 millions dollars (1 billion rubles) while he advised Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

From The Gateway Pundit

Investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer went on FOX and Friends to discuss Kremlin influence on US politics — and how the Clinton camp was in bed with the Putin regime.

Peter Schweizer: In 2011 John Podesta joined the board of this very small energy company called Joule Energy based out of Massachusetts. About two months after he joins the board a Russian entity called RUSNANO puts a billion rubles, which is about $35 million, into John Podesta’s company. Now, what is RUSNANO? RUSNANO is not a private company, Steve. It is a fund directly funded by the Kremlin. In fact the Russian finance minister called RUSNANO “Putin’s Child.” So you have the Russian government investing in one of John Podesta’s business in 2011 while he is an adviser to Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

Steve Doocy: OK. Does anybody in the Trump circle rise to the level that there is this kind of money involved?

Peter Schweizer: No.

And, once again, the frenzy on the left is all a disguise to hide their own rampant corruption.

DIRTY,DIRTY,DIRTY – Pelosi’s husband invested in solar firm weeks before lucrative expansion

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s husband bought up to a quarter million dollars of stock in a now financially troubled green energy company just weeks before it announced a major 2014 acquisition that sent stock prices soaring, public records show.

SunEdison told regulators last week that it is eyeing bankruptcy under the weight of $11.7 million in debt. But in late 2014, investors were bullish on the company, which manufactures and operates solar and wind power facilities.

Its 2014 purchase of wind energy company First Wind “further bolstered the reputation of the company,” wrote one market-watcher at the time. “Perhaps unsurprisingly, SunEdison’s stock soared an astounding 29% on news of this acquisition alone.”

Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, had invested just in time. He bought between $100,000 and $250,000 in SunEdison stock on Oct. 24, 2014, according to congressional financial disclosures. The company announced its First Wind acquisition on Nov. 17.

Pelosi’s office did not respond to questions about the timing of the purchase and whether she or her husband had any advance knowledge of the deal.

Pelosi has previously been accused of trading stock based on information gleaned through her official duties. She participated in Visa’s initial public offering as the company fought a House bill to subject credit card companies to increased regulation. The measure failed to pass.

(SIC) Nebraska Dems Offer New Arrivals ‘Refugee Welcome Baskets’ with voter registration forms!

The Nebraska Democrat Party is handing new refugees voter registration cards they are ineligible to use.

In a video posted to YouTube showed the “Refugee Welcome Basket” program organized by the state’s Democrats, Conservative Review reported.

From BizPac Review

“Nebraska has, and welcomes the most refugees and immigrants on a per-capita basis,” Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb said.

“When [President Trump] put in his racist travel ban we put out a call to action to Democrats across the state saying ‘help us create welcome baskets for refugee and immigrant families who are making Nebraska their home,’” she said.

Kleeb explained the types of items in the basket, which included a voter registration.

“We made sure that we had individuals write a little note to the families, and then inside each basket there’s also a letter from the Nebraska Democratic Party welcoming the family to Nebraska,” she said.

“It’s signed by me as chair of the party, and then we include a sticker in here for them to put on their car. It also includes a voter registration form,” she added.

Kleeb had a feeble excuse for including voter registration in the welcome baskets when confronted by Conservative Review.

“It is not illegal to be handing out voter registration forms so folks start to get familiar with the forms,” she said. “Once they become citizens, it is our hope, like back in the day you would hear these stories of the Democrats in Ellis Island welcoming the Irish with food and a voter registration form, so it’s really that same concept.”

Kleeb told Conservative Review that the forms were included for the refugees so that “they start to get familiar with democracy and how you become a voter in our country.”


After Democratic lawmakers’ years of shrieking and televised temper tantrums over how shutting down the federal government somehow approximates treason, Democrats have suddenly embraced the tactic in their quest to keep the nation’s borders wide open for Muslim terrorists and illegal aliens.

Democrats are threatening to force a shut-down of the government after it runs out of operating funds after April 28.

Outnumbered in both houses of Congress, and facing a Republican in the White House for the first time in eight years, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats say they will oppose efforts to finance President Trump’s planned border wall in spending legislation needed to keep the government open for business. Adding favored projects to must-pass spending bills, instead of dealing with the projects as freestanding legislation outside the budget process, is a time-honored way of getting things done in Congress. Both parties do it when in the majority.

But Schumer is now a professional obstructionist committed to undermining the Trump administration so at long last he sees things differently.

“The border wall is impractical and unpopular,” said Schumer on Sunday, “a pointless burden that this administration is trying to pay for by taking money away from the programs that actually keep Americans safe.”‎

Democrats wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Senate leaders warning that they will throw a wrench into efforts to appropriate funds for wall construction if the request is wrapped inside in a spending measure needed to keep the government’s doors open beyond April 28.

“Given these and other concerns, we believe it would be inappropriate to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in control of the Congress to avert a government shutdown so early in President Trump’s Administration,” the Democrats wrote.

Republicans would have trouble overcoming a Schumer-led filibuster. Sixty votes are usually needed to clear a spending bill in the Senate and Republicans control only 52 seats, meaning they have to win over some Democrats to get measures approved.

In the Democrats’ letter, the lawmakers whine about specifics of the border wall proposal. They say it “could cost as much as $25 million per mile,” which in the scheme of things isn’t a whole lot of money. “First, many experts believe that such a border wall will not work,” they wrote. “Second, there is real concern that the Administration, put simply, has no plan to build the border wall.”

They drone on in the letter about how eminent domain may be used for the portions of the wall to be built on land that is currently privately owned, where it will be placed, and how Mexico will be made to pay for it.

If only these trained left-wing seals in Congress had been as concerned about the good faith of the Obama administration during the Obamacare saga!

According to a summary of the letter,

Democrats wrote they are ready to start negotiations on a spending bill to keep the government open past the April deadline. But they expect such a deal will still respect a two-year bipartisan budget agreement to equally fund military and domestic programs. That agreement was reached in 2015 by congressional leaders and President Obama and is set to expire in September.

Meanwhile, President Trump is moving forward with at least the planning component of border wall construction.

Trump has already issued Executive Order 13767 on “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” The Jan. 25 directive targets so-called sanctuary cities that resist federal immigration law enforcement and orders that preparations be made for a southern border wall.

“A nation without borders is not a nation,” Trump said at the time. “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders.”

EO 13767 acknowledges that “Congress has authorized and provided appropriations to secure our borders [and that] the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility.” The order calls for the “immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border,” and directs the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to take “all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct” the wall using authority under existing law.

It is unclear what the total bill for the wall will be but at some point the Trump administration will need to seek funding from Congress.

According to a Fox News summary,

To build the wall, the president is relying in part on a 2006 law that authorized several hundred miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile frontier. That bill led to the construction of about 700 miles of various kinds of fencing designed to block both vehicles and pedestrians.

The Secure Fence Act was signed by then-President George W. Bush, and the majority of that fencing in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was built before he left office. The last remnants were completed after President Obama took office in 2009.

The same order also calls for putting 5,000 more Border Patrol agents in the field and canceling “catch-and-release” policies for illegal aliens. And a separate executive order “calls for hiring 10,000 additional officers; restoring the so-called Secure Communities program and other local partnerships; prioritizing the deportation of illegal immigrant criminals; directing the State Department to use leverage to ensure illegal immigrants are taken back by their country of origin – and moving to strip federal grant money to sanctuary states and cities that ‘harbor’ illegal immigrants.”

President Trump has praised the Secure Communities program. Radical activists on George Soros’s payroll bragged last year about killing it during the Obama era.

And given the chance, Chuck Schumer and his colleagues will kill the program, along with any efforts to secure the nation’s porous border, again and again.

Liberal Activist Pleads Guilty To 14 Counts Of Voter Fraud—That Thing The Left Says Doesn’t Happen

That thing the left says doesn’t happen happened again.

Despite the persistent claim by those on the left that voter fraud doesn’t exist, a liberal activist from Ohio pleaded guilty to 14 counts of voter fraud on Monday. Rebecca A. Hammonds, who was originally charged with 35 counts, was sentenced to six months in prison.

Hammonds, a paid Ohio Organizing Collaborative canvasser, was charged with “falsely registering people to vote and forging signatures on voter registration forms” in Columbiana County, reports The American Mirror.

“It was fraud. It was dozens of forms where people that were deceased or just forged flat out,” said Adam Booth, Columbiana County elections director. “They signed their name and it wasn’t even the voter, the wrong date of birth, wrong streets.”

Booth said the criminal was caught in the fraud scam because his officer took the right precautions, making sure “all the information matches up, from their first name, middle name, last name, to all the identifiers.”

Associate assistant attorney general Brian Deckert suspects Hammonds committed fraud out of “human laziness,” as he noted that she wasn’t paid by signature, but at an hourly rate.

It wasn’t “a situation where she had a quota system,” said Deckert. “I think it just may have come down to human laziness.”

Hammonds was facing up to one year in prison per count of voter fraud, but was only sentenced to six months.

“I just can’t overlook this. You attempted to violate the integrity of our election process in the county,” said residing Judge C. Ashley Pike.

“You made a mockery of our system,” added Judge Pike. “If 180 days [in the county jail] doesn’t teach you a lesson, nothing will.”

Democrats have long been suspected of committing voter fraud, and have been quick to call foul whenever conservatives bring up the serious issue, essentially labeling such fraud as a myth used to enact “racist” laws which would require individuals to show a simple form of photo ID before voting. But as James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos revealed during the 2016 election, voter fraud does indeed occur, often as a coordinated effort by those on the left.

“According to Democratic operative Scott Foval, who works for top Democratic operative Bob Creamer, operatives rent cars to drive to different sites,” explained Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, referring to O’Keefe’s videos outlining the voter fraud. “Foval said, ‘you can’t prove conspiracy.’ Foval explained, ‘You know what? We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f***ing a******s for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now.'”


Watch O’Keefe’s video on Democratic voter fraud, below:



By John F. Di Leo –

As the Trump Administration began, two terms took over our discourse, from keyboard warriors on social media to the formal political theorists of the mainstream media. These two terms are not exactly antonyms, as one is a verb and the other is a gerund, but they certainly are diametrically opposed to each other: Draining the Swamp on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other.

Draining the Swamp was easy to say, easy to understand, easy to cheer for. We all know there’s corruption in the federal government, both in regular terms (people breaking the law while holding a public trust) and in philosophical terms (people whose very roles are by definition destructive, such as a regulator whose job is to put good people out of work).

“Drain the Swamp!” is a great line to shout at a protest, or to chant during a march. It’s a wonderful exclamation with which to close a theme in a campaign speech, and it’s well worth doing. But actually doing it, when the time comes, is hard.

The Deep State is the reason that Draining the Swamp is so hard. When we talk about “the state” in this context, we’re not talking about one of the fifty, we’re talking about government in general. It’s made up of elected officials, and their political appointees, and all the civil servants, from newbie to career, who fill the massive government of the United States of America.

Our Founding Fathers intended a tiny state: lots of free citizens, very very few in government. But we went off the rails early in the 20th century, and government mushroomed. The Deep State is a reminder that much of government is huge, deep, distant, and apparently untouchable.

The Founding Fathers intended a government so small that each election could correct errors, if errors were made… but civil service reforms – well-intentioned, of course, always well-intentioned – minimized that ability to the point that it became almost impossible for elections to correct errors at all!

Ever more government positions became “Hatched” – protected from firing by political officeholders or their political appointees – until the point was reached where the entire government exists on its own, a massive civil service bureaucracy almost entirely independent of the will of the voters.

It shouldn’t take a degree in Political Science to realize that this is utterly contradictory to the will of the Framers and the design of our American system.

The Federal Departments

Generally speaking, the President and Vice President are elected, and then they appoint a department head to every Cabinet-level department, and he or she then appoints several “under-secretaries” and “special assistants,” most of whom need Senate approval. They appoint a few aides… and after that, almost 100% of the employees of that department and all its agencies are protected members of the civil service. This means that perhaps they can be fired for cause or for budget cuts – perhaps – but not for policy changes directed by the new administration.

We elect Presidents to make such changes, but our system only easily supports one kind of change. It’s easy for a new President or Congress to expand government, to hire new people and direct them toward new regulations, but it’s very difficult indeed for a new President or Congress to trim the sails of that existing government. It’s almost impossible to fire them, or to restrict an agency that has gone too far.

Once upon a time, Congress passed a law to set up a new agency or to promulgate a new regulation; for a new Secretary to trim back such agencies and regulators requires a single-minded attack strategy for which few have time.

The Department of Justice

Let’s look, for example, at the department of the hour, the one most in the news these days: the U.S. Department of Justice. The same things we’ll discuss here have happened in every department; everything that follows here can be found at Treasury, at Education, at Health and Human Services, etc. But let’s just look at the DoJ for now.

We all know certain things about the job of the Attorney General: that he manages the selection of federal judicial appointments for the President to choose from… he manages special prosecutors when needed… and of course the DoJ manages lots of federal prisons… and federal prosecutions of businesses under anti-trust violations and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

That’s a full time job right there.

But over the years, without the public even noticing, Congress and the Presidents have created lots more jobs, lots more agencies, that have had to wind up somewhere, and a lot of them have wound up in the DoJ. Spend a few minutes online, at, and see the DoJ’s organizational chart for yourself.

For instance:

The Defending Childhood Initiative is a program built around the occasional necessity of children to be witnesses in criminal cases.
The Elder Justice Initiative similarly builds a federal agency around the specific circumstances of nursing homes, retirement, and similar issues focused on the elderly.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a numbers agency, a collecting house for data from cities, counties, and states, which then produces reports that put all this data to use. And that data gets reported to Congress, to academia, and to media.
The Community Oriented Policing Services office assists cities in managing new approaches to policing, such as non-violent dispute resolution.
The Office for Access to Justice provides help to people who can’t afford top-dollar attorneys to represent them in court or help them when they’ve been wronged.
It’s easy to see why each of these agencies, and dozens more, were created in the first place. There are good intentions at their heart. But in practice, as the Left has gotten control of such offices, particularly in the Clinton and Obama administrations, they have been filled with people who believe in using the federal government as a cudgel to direct local and state policy in their direction.

The federal DoJ has been used to completely take over the management of local police forces. It has been used to force high schools to let boys and girls use each others’ bathrooms and locker rooms. It has been used to fund national groups who fly into a community from outside and sue local businesses, landlords, and governments on political grounds completely foreign to those communities.

Sometimes that’s appropriate, as it was in the days of the civil rights efforts of the 1960s. But all too often, it’s not just inappropriate, it’s an unconstitutional encroachment of the rights of the states and the people under the 10th Amendment.

The idea of an independent civil service – a totally well-intentioned concept, remember – has therefore caused the problem we have today.

If one administration appointed a few political appointees and tons of civil service appointees, then when a new administration comes in, only the political appointees are purged; the civil service appointees are protected for life.

What kind of appointees do you think Janet Reno’s, Eric Holder’s, and Loretta Lynch’s hiring authorities selected for those civil service positions?

When the Office for Access to Justice was created in 2010, it was staffed with “true believers” in the Leftist approach to justice – completely pro-criminal, completely discarding the protection of the victims. And when that Community Oriented Policing Services office was established in 1994, it was Janet Reno’s staff who hired the original civil service employees there too.

In both of these cases, think about the years of their establishment. After both 1994 and 2010, left-wing extremists had six more years to fill up those agencies with their kind of activists before Republican administrations came into office. We’ve chosen only two examples to feature here; there are many more, in this and every department.

Personnel is Policy

One of the best-remembered truisms of the Reagan administration is the pithy statement, “Personnel is policy.” This isn’t to diminish the rule of law, of course; conservatives are the truest advocates of the rule of law… but it is to stress that if you believe in the rule of law, you must appoint employees who believe in it too.

If your staff disagrees with your direction, they can undermine it. So the Reagan administration tried, in the 1980s, to do what it could to staff up with good people. But thanks to the aforementioned civil service rules, they couldn’t force out the bad ones. We have therefore always had both good and bad – pro-American and anti-American – bureaucrats throughout our federal bureaucracy.

The Right has an institutional disadvantage in this struggle: as a general rule, conservatives don’t want to work for government; liberals do. So when liberals enter these agencies, especially at the outset, they are more likely to remain, safely Hatched, for their entire careers. When conservatives enter, they often to do so only to gain experience so they can move up in the private sector.

Any new administration is likely, therefore, to inherit a bureaucracy already naturally skewed in the favor of big government.

So we now look at a new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions of Alabama… a senator for the past two decades, a state level Attorney General and former US attorney before that. Perfectly experienced for this new position.

Congress and the public rightly expect him to focus – full time – on the obvious jobs. Running the FBI, the DEA, the selection of judicial appointments. They will nag him on matters like prosecutions of companies who’ve been alleged to violate the big corporate rules, and they will nag him to appoint special prosecutors whenever they smell blood in the water anywhere in government.

But this administration was elected to Drain the Swamp… to remove the corruption that’s been baked into Washington DC for decades.

This means prosecutions of crooked politicians who’ve been getting away with it for years. It means new commissions to root out such corruption within the civil service.

And somehow he must also find time to deal with the termites in the Deep State… the civil servants – agencies chock full of them – who, in their normal course of employment as federal bureaucrats, undermine our very system.

If this administration is to make any real progress, somehow the new Attorney General must find a way to turn agencies like the ones listed here – and dozens more – away from their long path of undermining our system, and turn them back toward useful, constitutional goals. This is possible, though difficult, with some of these agencies.

But with some of these agencies, it may be impossible. We have a host of agencies in our federal government that are so populated with true believers in what can only fairly be called tyranny that the only solution is to close down the agencies entirely.

And that’s where the names of these agencies come into play. Imagine an administration that calls for the closure of something called the “Community Oriented Policing Services” or the “Office for Access to Justice.” Imagine the optics of that, as they say in Washington.

If it’s discovered that a birthday cake was poisoned, you naturally remove the birthday cake from your child’s party rather than serve it. But you know that half the kids will report back to their parents “they refused to serve the birthday cake!”

Optics. Just one of the many challenges that the Deep State has baked into the political system.

As we read of “leaks” from the Washington establishment in the days and months and years to come… as we hear of resistance from within the government to the changes that our nation so desperately needs… remember how deeply infested the government is with termites – with people who live their very lives to overregulate, to exceed their authority, to hamstring the free market in every way they can.

The Deep State is full of people who were hired in the Obama years, the Clinton years, and the Carter years, to do exactly what the 2016 election revolted against. They’re still there, and they’re very hard to get rid of.

In addition, many of those people got themselves promotions over the years, to work in Human Resources, to work as managers and supervisors and directors. You know what that means: they were empowered to do more hiring themselves.

So even during the Reagan administration, and the Bush I and Bush II administrations, there were Carter and Clinton era appointees hiring more of their kind of people into the government. While the Presidents and cabinet Secretaries gave orders from the top, bureaucrats continued to be hired into the civil service by civil service holdovers, to thwart those orders!

This is why President Trump’s order for a hiring freeze in the federal bureaucracy is so critical. It’s not just for budgetary reasons; it’s because, somehow, we have to stop expanding the regulatory state, and somehow get control of the regulators already in place after a century of uncontrolled expansion.

Somehow, if this nation is to survive, the Deep State must be made to understand that their protections as civil servants do NOT overrule the voters’ protections under the Constitution.

We must, somehow, return to the ways of the Founding Fathers. We must again learn to appreciate the limitless potential afforded only by limited government.