Raping Justice

Senator Chuck Grassley

And so we all wait, with bated breath, to see whether Dr. Blasey Ford will deign to speak with the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Personally, I doubt it, mostly because her motives might come out. But I’m no expert, nor do I want to be. Who is? Probably as much as anyone, R.S. McCain is, and he wrote about it in The American Spectator yesterday. Let’s take a look.

Where were you in the spring of 1982? Can you verify your whereabouts and produce evidence to establish that you weren’t molesting prep-school girls in suburban Maryland? Christine Blasey Ford insists she’s a victim and, while the main suspect is Brett Kavanaugh, perhaps no man can be entirely sure he won’t be summoned before the Senate Judiciary Committee in some future investigation.

Feminist “rape culture” discourse, which has sowed a climate of sexual paranoia on university campuses in recent years, has escaped its native habitat and is now wreaking havoc in our politics, to say nothing of its damaging effect on our culture. Do I want to discuss what allegedly happened at a party in Montgomery County, Maryland, on an unspecified night in 1982? Do you want to read such a discussion? Do any of us want to watch such a claim litigated on national TV with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser testifying in front of a Senate panel, with cable-news pundits endlessly rehashing every angle of the sordid saga day after day?

No, we don’t. Particularly since it is apparent that while somebody may have attacked Dr. Ford, this entire attack is nothing but politics and a further unhinged scream of rage that Donald Trump is President.

One who sees clearly, perhaps because this is even more prevalent in the UK, is Laura Perrins, Co-Editor of The Conservative Woman. She notes:

First, the allegation is serious – namely that Kavanaugh held down Ford, groped her, attempted to remove her clothes and covered her mouth when she tried to call out. As I said, they were both minors at the time. However, secondly, and let’s be clear, there is no way this allegation can be seriously or fairly challenged either in a court of law (it is 36 years ago and I believe out of time under statute of limitations) or in the Senate politically. [Maryland, where the incident supposedly took place, apparently doesn’t have a statute of limitations, but that isn’t relevant, really. The Democrats, and Ford, don’t want justice, they want Kavanaugh destroyed. Neo]

The Democrats have set up a checkmate scenario here: any challenge by the Republicans against the testimony of an event that happened 36 years ago will be seen as bullying and harassing victims of sexual assault. In the #MeToo era this is toxic. As CNN gleefully pointed out: ‘If Republican senators attempt to impugn her character, they will disgrace themselves in the eyes of the American people.’Checkmate.

In sum, Kavanaugh is seriously limited in his defence. In fact many on the Left are saying that, as it will be men asking questions of the accuser, this disqualifies them straight off. So if the Judiciary committee don’t call Ford, they are not taking the allegation seriously. If they do call Ford, they are disqualified from asking her any questions by the mere fact of being men. Checkmate.

Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary committee, could have brought this to the attention of the committee and FBI weeks ago. Instead she kept quiet, knowing it would leak eventually. And so the media circus continues and the show trial begins. Where were you, Brett Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, at a time we can’t specify, on a day we can’t specify, in a place we can’t specify? If this sounds Kafkaesque, it’s because it is.

One of the reasons I love ConWom is because of plain common sense like this, and she’s right, there is no way out? Or is there. Gateway Pundit tells us that Sen Grassley laid down the law yesterday.

“It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this,” Grassley wrote, “The FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee.”

“You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story. I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday. In the meantime, my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her,” said Grassley.

“The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominee and consenting to the nomination if the circumstances merit. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone”

The short form of that is well known to all Americans of my generation: “Put up or shut up”. And that is the key. Conservatives have allowed the left to bully us for decades, and of course, they have taken advantage. When we elected President Trump we gave conservatives permission to fight back. And that is the key. Bullies stop bullying when they get a few sharp punches to the nose. You know it, I know it, we all know it. It’s time and past time for a brawl on this playground.

R.S. McCain ends this way:

Whether Ford’s accusation is true or not, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein orchestrated the leak and subsequent release of Ford’s letter, not merely to sink Kavanaugh and level accusations in a way that would make it difficult for the judge to defend himself, but also to try and delay Republican efforts to confirm any nominee until after the midterms.”

There is only one possible way to resolve this. “We the People of the United States” are still sovereign in our national affairs, and the verdict in the case of Ford v. Kavanaugh will not come from the senators in the hearing room, but from the people themselves on Nov. 6. May God grant us the wisdom to judge rightly.

Amen. From his keyboard to God’s eye. I think the people will. If the Senate caves to this bullying, well, they will never have another chance to put a solid Constitutionalist on the Court. This is the last trench, the battle must be won.

And you know, even Sens. Flake, Collins, and Corker appear to be on board. Maybe they, like us, have finally figured out that enough is enough.

Advertisements

Down the Memory Hole

Yesterday, we talked about overt thought-crime in England. Today for something different we will speak of the suppression of scientific research, for political reasons in the United States.

Joy Pullman wrote an article earlier this week, in The Federalist, outlining the difficulties encountered by an author who published a paper highlighting that men are both more intelligent and less intelligent than women. In other words: different. It’s a fascinating subject, reaching back to an unresolved question that Darwin himself raised. Here’s some of it.

study exploring Darwinian reasons there are both more highly intelligent and intelligence-deficient men than women was actively suppressed by professors at prestigious universities, all for merely discussing the reality that the sexes are different, says the study’s coauthor. A journal editor and professor at Smith College told him it was repressed because several academics worried about the “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.”

That has to be about the most stupid possible reason not to publish in the history of knowledge – the wrong people might read it. It can only make sense if one believes that one’s political opponents are more intelligent than one is. The truth is the truth, it does not need political support – but lies do.

And so what has happened? Right (and not-so-right) wing media have picked up not only the article but its attempted suppression and are hyping it internationally. As it should be.

After the study had been yanked from acceptance at MI [Mathematical Intelligencer], an editor at the New York Journal of Mathematics offered to review it for publication. It was accepted there, and published online. Just three days later, however, the study was deleted from its online location after a University of Chicago senior math professor and her husband launched another round of complaints, and a different study was swapped into its place at the same link. It’s like the study was never there.

Hill writes at Quillette of his discussion with a NYJM editor about the deletion:

I pointed out that if the deletion were permanent, it would leave me in an impossible position. I would not be able to republish anywhere else because I would be unable to sign a copyright form declaring that it had not already been published elsewhere. Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and ‘harass the journal’ he had founded 25 years earlier ‘until it died.’ Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated.

The earlier journal editor who had also encouraged and conveyed the acceptance of the paper, then wrote back to say it had been subsequently un-accepted, told Hill “she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation, [Marjorie] Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky.”

You really should read the whole thing. It’s both fascinating and terrifying.

But this particular study, while useful, is unlikely to cost lives, even if it is memory-holed but what of others? Joy continues:

As Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, writes in a preface to an NAS study about modern science’s irreproducibility crisis, “the inability of science to discern truth properly and its politicization go hand in hand.”

The NAS study from April notes that hard-science researchers believed they could insulate themselves from the corruption of identity politics that is now endemic to academia. By now that has been well disproved. It is becoming increasingly common for even hard science research to be aborted in utero. I just wrote last week about how Ivy League Brown University took a study about transgender children off its website and chastised the author rather than the memory-hole contingent.

That one being memory-holed will very likely cost lives, and mental health, given the appalling suicide rate among trans-genders.

[…] Back to the NAS [National Associaciation of Scholars] study:

Findings from experimental work or observational studies turn out, time and again, to be irreproducible. The high rates of irreproducibility are an ongoing scandal that rightly has upset a large portion of the scientific community. Estimates of what percentage of published articles present irreproducible results vary by discipline. Randall and Welser cite various studies, some of them truly alarming. A 2012 study, for example, aimed at reproducing the results of 53 landmark studies in hematology [blood medicine] and oncology [cancer treatment], but succeeded in replicating only six (11 percent) of those studies [emphasis added].

If bad results are not scrutinized early, they can infect their entire subject matter with dangerous falsehoods. Here’s an example also from the NAS study.

In March 2017 a graduate student named Tim van der Zee calculated that critics had already made serious, unrebutted allegations about the reliability of 45 of [a certain researcher’s] publications. Collectively, these publications spanned twenty years of research, had appeared in twenty-five different journals and eight books, and—most troubling of all—had been cited more than 4,000 times. Wansink’s badly flawed research tainted the far larger body of scientific publications that had relied on the accuracy of his results.

In hematology, deep in the heart of medicine, and cancer treatment, the studies are unreliable. Doesn’t bode well for our healthcare, does it?

Joy ends with this:

This set of interlinked phenomena create a dangerous feedback loop where fraud begets fraud, and people — and civic institutions, perhaps even ultimately societies — die. The answer to corruption is not more corruption, of course. It is integrity. If our nation’s leaders and institutions will not provide it, then it is time for a new generation of leaders and institutions to prepare to be worthy to take their places. That means me, it means you, it means us, and now.

That’s a good summary, to which I have little to add, at least that is printable.

 

Thoughtcrime in England

Well, we haven’t talked too much about Britain lately. Partly because we have an election coming up, and I agree it may be the most important midterm in our lifetimes, and so we are thinking a good bit about it. But Britain offers us a glimpse of what’s in store for us if we lose, and it ain’t pretty. Jonathan Turley, who is no one’s idea of a conservative, wrote a few days ago:

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech. Now the South Yorkshire police department is making it clear that it does not just want citizens to report crimes but “incidents” involving offensive or insulting comments. This follows an effort to make wolf whistles a crime in England.

His words are true, and they are important, but what struck me on reading this is the sheer number of links on the loss of free speech in Britain. I count it as eleven that he considered important enough to write about. That is shocking and shameful, especially in a country that once led the world in freedom.

Professor Turley wrote this time about the South Yorkshire Police, the very same bunch that covered up the organized mass rape, drugging, prostitution, and sex trafficking of white, underage, Christian girls by (mostly) Muslim gangs. I refuse to use the word grooming because I consider it nothing but a politically correct euphemism to hide the horrendous nature of the practice.

Now, we are informed, they want us to:

“In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it.”

Which is, of course, arrant nonsense, and merely designed to make people afraid to voice their opinions or even facts that are verified, for fear of being reported to the police. And yes, the BBC, and almost all other media, print and electronic, are complicit.

It is not a new practice, it was most famously practiced by the East German government agency known as the Stasi. It is reliably reported that 1 in 5 East Germans was a Stasi informer. Sounds like the South Yorkshire Police (and other police agencies in Britain) want to contest that record.

Gavin Ashenden, the former Chaplain to the Queen, also has some thoughts on the matter, and they are very worthwhile.

He [George Orwell in 1984] warned of how a state setting out to control its citizens would do it by manipulating language. He called it doublethink. And the media would follow the same pattern with what he called ‘Newspeak.’  Slowly but surely the reality of things would be hidden by language that covered the truth with a fog.

Each week the news brings more of what we experience as doublespeak in the media. Hate crimes are one of the most corrupting and dangerous ones.

At first sight, it seems almost beyond belief that a police force could decide that thought crime was more important than actual crime.

But in England, that’s what’s happening.

Take for example South Yorkshire police. They have a particularly poor record of dealing with real crime. It was that force that decided to humiliate Cliff Richard by calling in the press helicopter to cover their break in on his house, even though he was innocent. It was they who covered up over the true record of the Hillsborough disaster. And currently, it was they who ignored the mass rape of the Rotherham teenage white girls, by predatory groups of men from one distinctive faith community (known amongst some commentators as the ‘Voldemort community’ – the faith that the media dare not or will not name.)

Heckova a record isn’t it? Anything goes when the authorities want to repress free expression and especially Christianity, which is Cliff Richards real crime.

It’s not as if it’s just happening in S. Yorkshire.

The police get to make it up as it goes along now it seems. Manchester police claim: “Greater Manchester Police now recognises alternative sub-culture hate incidents. These are incidents based on someone’s appearance and include Goths, Emos, Punks and other similar groups. This means they will also record any such incidents as a hate incident. “Other similar groups” What does that mean? Anything the police want it to mean.

One of the practical problems  with pursuing issues of private hate is that you can’t get inside someone’s head to test if it really is hate you are dealing with. What if it’s just dislike, antipathy, fear, distaste, misunderstanding or shyness?

What we are developing, with some speed is the idea and practice of ‘thought crime’ where the police set out to criminalise your feelings and your thoughts. Actually, it’s not even that. It’s what other people feel your feelings and thoughts and opinions are.

Which is where Orwell comes in again. Because hate doesn’t mean hate. It means attitudes the state doesn’t want you to have or express. Hate crime is thought-crime; and thought-crime is state censorship of thought and the expression of thought, which in other places is called ‘free speech.’

Do read the entire article which is valuable. But he is entirely correct, it is nothing less than the government telling you how you are allowed to think, and telling you that you shall be punished if you don’t toe the line. Not to mention that many people will tell them about your heresy. For that is the operative term. It has become a new secular religion and is insanely jealous of its prerogatives.

And do not make the mistake of thinking it is a British or European problem. Do you really think the left in the United States is not exactly like this, as well? How many conservatives have been shouted down, deplatformed, essentially shut up?

Yeah, I’ve lost count, as well.

American Sovereignty

The other day, National Security Director John Bolton made an official address to the Federalist Society. He said some important things.

“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.”

One of many things I like about Bolton (and President Trump, for that matter) is that he doesn’t mince words, he says exactly what he means, and means what he says as well. Very refreshing in a public servant.

Scott Johnson at PowerLine had some thoughts on the address, as well.

It is a great speech. It is an educational speech. It is an inspiring speech. Bolton speaks from deep knowledge of the subject. As he relates: “I was honored to lead US efforts internationally to protect Americans from the court’s unacceptable overreach, starting with un-signing the Rome Statute. At President [George W.] Bush’s direction, we next launched a global diplomatic campaign to protect Americans from being delivered into the ICC’s hands. We negotiated about 100 binding, bilateral agreements to prevent other countries from delivering US personnel to the ICC. It remains one of my proudest achievements.”

Paul Mirengoff also at PowerLine adds this.

I have personal experience with the ICC. In the late 1990s, I was part of a team of lawyers that defended a war crimes case before that body.

Of the three judges who heard the case, only one was from a well-functioning democracy. In fact, if memory serves, one of the judges was from China.

Aspects of the proceedings were quite alien to our justice system. The main piece of evidence against our client was hearsay that was subject to no exception recognized in American law. It was admitted, “in the interests of justice.” The interests of justice as perceived by foreign judges, including one from China.

Looking over the current roster of ICC judges, my impression is that fewer of them come from undemocratic nations. On the other hand, Europe is now more anti-Israel and, indeed, more anti-U.S. than it was twenty years ago.

Paul, in particular, knows of what he speaks. It’s well out of my field. But one does not have to be a lawyer to realize that if one is an American (or an Israeli) it is never going to be a good idea to let an American be judged according to Chinese (or European, for that matter) standards. We have maintained our freedom against all comers for more than 240 years by asserting our sovereignty. By all means, including war itself.

Almost a hundred years ago, we refused to ratify the Versailles Treaty ending the First World War, even though President Wilson was one of the key architects of it because we realized that the League of Nations infringed on our sovereignty, and thereby imperiled out citizens’ freedoms. Nothing has changed except the name of the players.

Here’s the speech:

Slaughtering Sacred Cows

Yesterday I spoke of my frustration with the almost-a-war in Afganistan. It seems that perhaps the president shares my feelings, according to Brandon J. Weichert, in The American Spectator.

In this case, Trump’s presidency has attempted to challenge the status quo that dominates Washington, D.C. and prevents reasonable policy from being made. […]

And this slaughtering of sacred cows is always, in my experience, necessary to getting an organization running correctly. If anybody ever tells me, “We’ve always done it this way,” that’s all the reason I need to make sure it changes. Comfort implies complacency and other bad things.

During last year’s strategy review for the failing war in Afghanistan, for instance, Trump grew incensed at the advice his generals were giving him about the strategy. Trump is reported to have argued that their advice was akin to the bad advice a highly paid consultant gave to the owners of the elite 21 Club in Manhattan during their disastrous remodel in 1987.

According to Trump, the overpriced consultant’s “lousy advice cost the owner a year of lost business and that talking to the restaurant’s waiters instead might have yielded a better result.” To add insult-to-injury, Trump is reported to have argued that “the tendency is to assume if someone isn’t a three-star general he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and that… talking to lower-ranking workers has gotten him better outcomes in business.”

Boy, is that ever the truth. One will never get the real story from the headquarters weenie, or the guy who makes his money making it take longer. Get out in the field, or down on the factory floor and talk to the people doing the job. Traditionally, I think it was the sergeants in the military, roughly equivalent to foremen in my world, that is where you get the unvarnished truth.

For Trump, who fancies himself as a bit of a turnaround man, the advice of the military leadership in Washington is useless. After all, these leaders have had 20 years to fix the mistakes — and they haven’t.

My friend David Danford recently argued that the military’s optimism about any mission is often why the country finds itself in quagmires, such as Afghanistan. Danford, who teaches at West Point, is correct. His solution is to inspire greater cynicism in American military leaders.

Not too sure about the workability of his solution, but I think he has the problem pegged.

Earlier this month, the outgoing American military commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Army General John Nicholson Jr., advocated for the United States to end its engagement there. After all, General Nicholson (rightly) argues that things will never change in Afghanistan until Afghans stop killing Afghans — which will likely never happen.

General Nicholson is a good man, I think.

Brandon sums up with this:

Fact is, just because the United States hasn’t officially lost in Afghanistan or that Washington has managed to prevent South Korea from being invaded by the North does not mean that America is winning. In 2005, the geopolitical analyst George Friedman wrote that the United States was so powerful that it didn’t need to win wars; it merely needed to ensure that it did not lose them. Such a paradigm is insane — especially for those footing the bill, both in terms of blood and treasure.

For a country with the world’s largest defense budget, having “strategists” say that the best thing the United States can do in war is to neither lose nor win them is exactly why a political outsider with extensive business — but little political — experience won in 2016. Trump’s election was the apotheosis of the decades-long failure of America’s bipartisan fusion party (the so-called “Deep State”).

Of course, in the face of such failure, the bipartisan consensus among America’s political elite is immune to change. When challenged about the efficacy of the Afghan War strategy, Trump is belittled and called “insane” by anonymous government officials. After questioning the desirability of keeping American forces hostage to a nuclear-armed Pyongyang on the Korean peninsula, Trump is derided by shadowy “experts” and accused of coddling dictators. Rather than reassess their strategies, and make hard choices, America’s professional “strategists” are merely doubling-down on a losing hand (clearly, their lack of business acumen means they’re unfamiliar with the “sunk cost fallacy”).

What Trump is doing is slaughtering many sacred cows in Washington, D.C. For this reason alone, the “Deep State” has decided Trump’s presidency must be ended.

Winning is good and losing is bad, sometimes very bad. What is worse is standing around bleeding American blood and money, to no purpose, forever. That is unforgivable. As General Patton once put it:

“Lead me, follow me, or get the hell out of my way.”

No wonder Washington wasn’t too fond of him.

Anniversaries

Seventeen years ago today the World Trade Center was hit. It was a disaster visited on us on the scale of Pearl Harbor, made worse because its victims were civilians. It was also an intelligence failure, the perpetrators should have been easy to catch, all were what we now call ‘known wolves’. Our government ignored the warnings.

And so began the so-called Global War on Terror.

Other than the Kabuki theater of airport security, and the invasion of American’s rights by our government, there have been two campaigns. One in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Neither has been successful, although Iraq came close before Obama ordered the big bug out.

But it has kept a lot of money flowing from the government to a lot of special interests. Seventeen years is a long time – if we can’t win a war against some 7th-century tribesman (and there are legitimate reasons why that is harder than a modern society) in that time, well, maybe we should just call it a day. We can always blow it up again when they get out of line.

No real shame in that. Alexander the Great couldn’t get it done, neither could the British Empire at its height, or the Soviet Union. It’s a quagmire and a money pit.

But six years ago, we saw the results of feckless leadership, we saw it in Benghazi.  Daniel John Sobieski wrote about it for American Thinker.

The arrogance of the man who lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their sons’ caskets as they were returned to the country they fought for is mind-boggling.  As he attempted to rewrite many chapters of his failed presidency in a speech at the University of Illinois, he called the accurate and documented reports of the criminal negligence of secretary of state Hillary Clinton and himself during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on our Benghazi compound a mere “conspiracy theory.”

Conspiracy theories don’t produce body bags, sir, but perhaps you don’t remember that night all too well because you spent the time four brave Americans were being killed under your command in Libya readying up for a Las Vegas fundraiser.

Kris Paronto, former Army Ranger and CIA contractor who fought with his colleagues on the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi, remembers that night and tweeted his response to the then-president’s arrogant and dismissive ridicule of their sacrifice and your incompetence:

Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama ?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies & shoot rpg’s & Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent

Obama and Hillary had plenty of warnings that the security at Benghazi was woefully inadequate, that the compound was swimming in an ocean of terrorist training camps.  They ignored these warnings, and when the attack happened, they did nothing when a rescue mission could have been mounted.  Instead, stand-down orders were given to would-be rescuers, and following the attack, the infamous video lie was concocted and spread over the airwaves, with President Obama repeating it no fewer than six times in a speech before the United Nations.

Hicks, the last man to speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens, has exposed the video lie, documenting how he told Hillary’s State Department what was happening in real time that fateful night and how her State Department ignored warnings from Chris Stevens and others about the gathering terrorist storm and the woeful  lack of security.

Now retired, private citizen Hicks goes farther, telling Fox News Hillary Clinton broke laws while condemning four Americans to death at the hands of terrorists:

Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs “to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.”

This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.  And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.

The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure.  It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi.  Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”

Keep reading, there’s more at the link.

This is the action of at best, a feckless, but more likely seditious, if not actually treasonous government. This is the history of the so-called deep state, and why it must be rooted out. It is not American government as we have known it. I’m not sure what label to apply to it, but I want nothing like it in America.

It is the major threat to the liberty of America, and Americans.

%d bloggers like this: