Political Corruption Riddle? Why can the disgraced Joe Biden Crime Family “run and not hide” and hide and not run?” Because of Joe’s crisis of character. Joe and his Biden Crime Family sold and monetized Joe’s Vice Presidency and in the process sold out America and that is why Joe should withdraw quickly.

A hard ball political riddle? Why can the disgraced Joe Biden Crime Family “run and not hide” and “hide and not run?”

Answer? Because of Joe’s crisis of character. Joe and his Biden Crime Family sold and monetized Joe’s Vice Presidency and in the process sold out America, that is why Joe should withdraw quickly.

 Because the evidence is overwhelming.

1.    Because Joe and Barak gave $1.7 billion much in small bills, plus $50 to 150 billion to IRAN during Joe’s tenure as VP, the money used to foment terrorism and support IRAN’s military and nuclear efforts.

2.    (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/yes-obama-helped-fund-the-iranian-regime/;https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/07/facebook-posts/facebook-claim-wrongly-states-obama-gave-iran-150-/https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/477666-obama-[and Joe Biden] should-apologize-for-shameful-cash-payment-to-iranhttps://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html)

3.    Because Joe’s Crime Family “bagged” $3.5 million from RUSSIA. “The GOP report … states that between May 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015, Baturina sent 11 wires in the amount of $391,968.21 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA LLC, a technology startup based in Buffalo, New York. The transactions all listed ‘Loan Agreement’ in the payment details section. Nine of the 11 transactions, totaling $241,797.14 were first sent from Baturina’s accounts to a [Hunter Biden] Rosemont Seneca Thornton bank account, which then transferred to the money to BAK USA, according to the report.”

4.    (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8799121/Russian-paid-3-5M-Hunter-Biden-did-open-doors-business-enter-market.html)

5.    Because Joe’s Crime Family “bagged” $1.5 billion from IRAQ.

6.    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/15b-contract-in-iraq-for-bidens-little-brother-exposes-obama-ahead-of-debate

7.    Because they “bagged” as much as $80 thousand a month and $16.5 million from Ukraine.

8.    https://tass.com/world/1090971

9.    Because Joe “withheld” $1 billion from Ukraine until Ukraine fired a prosecutor looking into Burisma and Joe bragged about it on world television. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/25/heres-what-happened-with-the-bidens-and-ukraine/#6741c1973938https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html

10.Because Joe’s Crime Family “bagged $1.5 billion from China communists and transferred military technology to the Chinese and Joe is forever soft on China and compromised in dealing with China which is the greatest  existential threat to the United States of America there is. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-we-know-about-hunter-bidens-dealings-in-china-11570181403https://nypost.com/2019/05/11/the-troubling-reason-why-biden-is-so-soft-on-china/

11.Because out of greed Joe allowed his crack compromised son to serve as “bag man” for the Biden Crime Family and do so with some of the worst criminals on the planet. (See Hunter Biden’s laptop emails which are not Russian disinformation as Adam Schiff shrilling shouts. And see Peter Sweizer’s books and new video.)

12.Because Joe, “the big guy,” like the Sopranos, took 10% to 50% of the proceeds from his Crime Family members, and don’t even think to go there that Joe is some nice guy. Joe is definitely not a nice guy. Joe is only a nice guy like Tony Soprano is a nice guy. (Documented in Hunter’s laptop. Further documented by Rudy Giuliani’s Common Sense and Glenn Beck and Peter Sweizer and Tom Fitton. )

13.Because Joe, lied about his Crime Family’s activities during the earlier debate.

14.Because Joe and Barak were complicit with Hillary, Nancy, Chuck, Strok, Page, Schiff, Nadler, the Democratic National Committee and multiple democrats and even some republicans, and the fake news, in the fake surveillance of POTUS TRUMP and the TRUMP family and the Trump campaign and in “Hillary and John Podesta’s Russia collusion narrative” [Hillary paid for the fake dossier] and Nancy Pelosi’s and Adam Schiff’s fake “obstruction narrative” and bogus impeachment of POTUS Trump.

15.Because “Joe Biden’s character” makes the answer to this hard ball political riddle easy. Joe’s character is why Joe Biden and his Crime Family are disgraced before the nation and can “run and not hide” and “hide and not run” for the high office of President of the United States, why Joe needs to confess to his Crime Family activities and apologize to the nation, because all of their graft and corruption is there in living color for us to view.

16.To Joe we say, “Come on, man.” Joe you should withdraw today like you withdrew earlier after acknowledging your law school plagiarism. Just admit you are not well and let the nation move on with 4 more years of POTUS TRUMP. (Further documented by Rudy Giuliani’s Common Sense and Glenn Beck and Peter Sweizer and Tom Fitton.) 

BARREL & PORK. (c) 2020 We report. You decide.

DID HUNTER BIDEN STICK IT TO HIS ABUSIVE FATHER JOE BIDEN BY LEAVING HIS LAPTOP WITH THE TECH GUY? LOOKS LIKE IT. THIS WASN’T AN ACCIDENT ON THE PART OF HUNTER. BARREL & PORK. We report! You decide!

1.      BARREL, did Joe Biden lie to America and has he stolen money and is his family The Biden Crime Family and should Joe withdraw in disgrace? BARREL, IT SURE LOOKS LIKE HUNTER BIDEN STUCK IT TO HIS ABUSIVE FATHER SIMPLY BY LEAVING HIS LAPTOP AT THE TECH SHOP. THIS WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT. HUNTER, REGARDLESS OF HIS USE OF CRACK OR ALCOHOL, IS WAY TOO SMART LIKE A FOX.

2. Yes, PORK. Listen to Rudy Giuliani’s recent Common Sense podcast. See https://rudygiulianics.com/ of which following is a transcript.

2.     “Welcome to Rudy Giuliani’s Common Sense. This is another episode and this is a very important one. 

3.      “We’re going to summarize the state of the evidence against the Biden Crime Family.

4.      “It’s really mounted up since the disclosures of the emails and texts and photographs of Hunter Biden and now things that were proven by witnesses, documents, and video tapes, that were ignored and lied about by the press, are now proven by Hunter Biden’s own words.

5.      “Let me assure you that this is his hard drive.

6.      “It was given to my lawyer by the gentleman who had repaired it.

7.      “It had been left behind by, he says, a drunken Hunter Biden who came in and had a very hard time even signing and did describe what he wanted.

8.      “He came back one time to supply a keyboard and then after it was repaired he never returned even though there was substantial notices to return.

9.      “After a while when the gentleman heard things on the news suggesting that the Bidens may or may not have been involved in criminal activity he became very concerned that possibly he was holding some kind of illegal material.

10.   “So it was now his property according to the contract signed by Hunter Biden which we have right here.

11.   “The property was abandoned and property that is abandoned under the law becomes the property of the person that is in possession of it.

12.   “So he had every right to listen to what was there and look at what was there and he was shocked .

13.   “What he saw he said was clear evidence of a crime, clear evidence that the Bidens were lying over and over again .

14.   “And then on the photographs clear evidence of criminal activity and some activity I would have a hard time describing and really should be left to more private discussion.

15.   “In short, what these photographs display is a Hunter Biden who is a very serious I would say degenerate crack addict.

16.   “What that means is he doesn’t get rehabilitated.

17.   “When he goes into rehabilitation there is even picture of him going out at night smoking crack.

18.   “So what it looks like is all during the period of time when he was taking millions and millions and millions of dollars there would be pictures of him sitting in a closet smoking dope or engaged in sex while smoking crack with the woman, sometimes on his own.  

19.   “It proves without any doubt that none of this money was intended for Hunter Biden because nobody would pay this guy ten dollars.

20.   “You couldn’t be sure if you gave him ten dollars to go get a bottle of milk for you that he’d come back.

21.   “So there’s no way that some of the biggest criminals in the world are going to be paying him $10,000,000 to $14,000,000 or $30,000,000 or investing in a $1,500,000,000 (one point five billion dollar) completely ridiculous private equity fund.

22.   “So what commodity did Hunter have to sell?

23.   “That’s pretty easy isn’t it?

24.   “The Vice Presidency of the United States.

25.   “Which … his uncle and Joes younger brother had been doing for the prior twenty years.

26.   “And that’s why this is a crime family.

27.   “I know their name is not Italian.

28.   “But you know, this RICO statute applies to political corruption. It applies to white collar crime.

29.   “I am the first one to really use it to effectively bring down the Mafia, the Mafia drug dealers, the Teamsters Union, the Fulton Fish Market, the private carding industry, and then Wall Street, and then after that United States Congressmen, and a substantial number of New York City officials, New York State officials, Republican and Democrat, probably that’s what got me elected mayor.

30.   “Didn’t do it for that reason but that’s what made me well known in New York and taught me what was wrong with New York.

31.   “So I know this statute backwards and forwards and this is a perfect case for it because this Biden Family was engaging in the business of crime.

32.   “And their commodity? Joe’s public office.

33.   “And Joe, you will see, shared in the proceeds which is clearly admitted by his co-conspirators.

34.   “So let me outline it for you so that you will be able to follow all of this.

35.   “And there will be more than what I am just saying but I am taking four that will get the most prominence.  

36.   “Now we’re going to focus on when he was Vice President of the United States because that’s where the big money was made.

37.   “Before he was Vice President of the United States he made substantial amounts of money through the lobbying of his brothers, the fact that his son had a no show job with a major bank in Delaware. Joe Biden was the only Democratic Senator that lobbied in favor of banks, against using the bankruptcy laws, because all democrats were in favor of that.

38.   “Theoretically, they like to say they represent poor people.

39.   “Joe was representing the rich bank that was employing his son in a no show job which is how his drug addict son began his career.

40.   “But nobody else would employ him because he’d be out two three days a week.

41.   “You know. Looking for crack.

42.    “It’s a terrible problem.

43.   “And I don’t mean to pick on Hunter for being an addict.

44.   “That’s a terrible affliction.

45.   “As a father, I blame Joe Biden. I say to myself.

46.   “I don’t know if I had a child afflicted by that wouldn’t I take care of them and keep them in rehabilitation.

47.   “Would I expose them to the most crooked man in Ukraine, one of the most crooked people in China, to probably the most crooked woman in Russia?

48.   “Would I do that to a drug addict son? Just because of greed?

49.   “I don’t know. I think this is Joe Biden’s fault.

50.   “But in any event I have outlined four transactions here. [TWO SET FORTH IN THIS POST.]

51.   “And these are the principle players that we can identify from the analysis we have done so far of the texts and the emails and the photographs.

52.   “And I have to say we have analyzed about a quarter of it. For it is very, very extensive.

53.   “So what you have, and I will summarize them really quickly is let’s call this JOE THE POINT MAN.

54.   “Obama was very, very comfortable with that designation POINT MAN.

55.   “So when IRAQ, when we were negotiating to end our role in IRAQ it was really, really critical for the national security interests of the United States that we retain troops there so that we could keep IRAN from basically creating an extension of the Islamic Republic of IRAN empire.

56.   “And Joe Biden was sent to do that.

57.   “Now that was probably a very foolish decision by President Obama because Joe Biden honestly had never succeeded at any negotiation ever.

58.   “Robert Gates, his co-cabinet member in the Obama administration, probably commenting on this and any number of other things including his opposition to killing Bin Laden said that Joe Biden had never been correct on any matter of foreign policy in his entire life.

59.   “That’s a quote from his fellow cabinet member.

60.   “Well, he [Joe] went to IRAQ.

61.   “He was supposed to negotiate this agreement that the IRAQIS would allow ten to twenty thousand American troops to stay behind and have immunity from prosecution so  they couldn’t get caught in the cross fire between the Sunis, the Shias, and the other elements there.

62.   “Of course, he failed.

63.   “But the Biden Crime Family came out of it really good. Really, really good.

64.   “James, his brother, who had no experience in housing was all of a sudden miraculously made part of a one point five billion dollar ($1,500,000,000), seems like a convenient number for them, one point five billion dollar housing deal in IRAQ.

65.   “And like Hunter, James had no experience – in building houses.

66.   “He [James] was a sleezy lobbyest on K street.

67.   “And I say sleezy advisedly because it was all over the newspapers if you care to ask and every time it would come up Joe would say I don’t know my family’s business.

68.   “After a while, that becomes kind of an incredible answer, doesn’t it.

69.   “[THE IRAQ DEAL] Then of course we have the Russian situation, that’s the IRAQ situation [pointing to descriptive diagram], the money goes to his brother and as you will see about half that money will end up in the pocket of Joe Biden.

70.   “As well, James will be responsible for some of the Biden family expenses.

71.   “‘Cause Joe didn’t pay for much. [Ad]

72.   “Thank you for returning to the discussion of the Biden Crime Family.

73.   “[THE RUSSIAN DEAL] The second one we have is Russia. Russia is a little cloudy. Don’t know it as well. We’re just digging it out but it is quite clear that Hunter Biden received $3.5 million dollars ($3,500,000) from the wife of the mayor of Moscow, the former mayor of Moscow, since deceased. Catarina Batarina.

74.   “Catarina is quite a character.

75.   “I mean she’s now considered the wealthiest woman in Russia.

76.   “Probably the most dangerous woman in Russia.

77.   “She more or less double crossed her husband to get him out of office and placate Putin.

78.   “Putin might have actually had a good reason to get rid of her husband.

79.   “Because her husband whom I knew because he was the mayor of Moscow when I was mayor of New York.

80.   “Her husband was really an out of control crook.

81.   “He was taking money from Putin’s friends.

82.   “Not a good idea.

83.   “So they got him out and she became even closer to Putin as a result of that.

84.   “So when you think of that $3.5 million dollars, I want you to remember that it is coming from one of Putin’s allies.

85.   “Remember, Russian collusion that the democrats charged the president with.

86.   “There was no Russian collusion.

87.   “We now know from the Brennan notes that Hillary made that up.

88.   “But even more galling than that no Republican got any money from Russia.

89.   “These characters got $3.5 million dollars ($3,500,000) from Putin’s best friend.

90.   “And the press doesn’t care.

91.   “The press doesn’t care.

92.   “Actually, it’s a little bit more than $3.5 million.

93.   “It’s closer to $3.8 because there were two laundered payments that I think can be easily proven.

94.   “And we still don’t know why.

95.   “Because Biden lied about it during the debate when he said there was no such transaction.

96.   “I don’t know that if Joe just thinks he can say this and because the press is like sickeningly on his side, as the moderator was.

97.   “Nobody is going to really pay attention to the documents that show the money.

98.   “But we got ‘em Joe.

99.   “Anybody interested in truth and fairness is going to want to see them.

100.          “So now let’s get to Ukraine [IN THE NEXT POST] which we have heard a lot about.

BARREL, IT SURE LOOKS LIKE HUNTER STUCK IT TO HIS ABUSIVE FATHER SIMPLY BY LEAVING HIS LAPTOP AT THE TECH SHOP.

BARREL & PORK. © 2020. We report! You decide!       

Have the BLACKS AND HISPANICS AND NATIVE AMERICANS AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND CAUCASIAN AMERICANS BEEN CONNED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALL THESE YEARS? Well, think about it. Was the Democratic Party the party of slavery, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan, Lynching, Poll Taxes, Segregation, Japanese-American Internment? Yes. And is it the party of BLACK abortion, HISPANIC abortion, Native American abortion, Caucasian abortion, Asian American abortion? Yes – responsible for killing 300,000,000+ babies. And is it the party of socialism and anarchy? Sure looks like it. SO HAVE THE DEMOCRATS PULLED THE WOOL OVER THE BLACKS AND HISPANICS AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND THE REST OF AMERICA FOR ALL THESE YEARS? HAVE THEY CONNED AMERICA? YES THEY HAVE. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND US. ALL WE WANT FROM EACH PARTY AND THEIR POLITICIANS IS SIMPLE. WE WANT TO BE FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS. That is why no one in his or her right mind will vote for Joe and everyone will vote for Donald in a heartbeat.

1. PORK, is it true about the Democrats?

2. Is what true, BARREL?


3. That the Democrat Party was 

4. THE PARTY OF SLAVERY?

5. THE PARTY OF JIM CROW? 

6. THE Ku Klux Klan PARTY?

7. THE PARTY OF LYNCHING?

8. THE PARTY OF POLL TAXES?

9. THE PARTY OF SEGREGATION?

10. THE PARTY OF JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT?

11. YES, it is true, BARREL.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/democrat-party-may-be-due-for-a-date-with-cancel-culture-princeton-professors-argue


12. PORK, is it also true about the Democrats?

13. Is what also true, BARREL?


11.  THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PARTY OF ABORTION?

12.  YES, BARREL, it is true. Just since Roe v Wade more than 300,000,000 American babies have been murdered, killed, destroyed, sent to land fills, torn apart, flushed, chemically wiped out.


12.  THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PARTY OF ABORTION OF THE BLACKS.

13.   YES, BARREL, it is true. Just since Roe v Wade more than 50,000,000 BLACK babies have been murdered, killed, destroyed, sent to land fills, torn apart, flushed, chemically wiped out.


14.  THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PARTY OF ABORTION OF HISPANIC AMERICANS?

15.   YES, BARREL, it is true. Just since Roe v Wade more than 50,000,000 HISPANIC/LATINO babies have been murdered, killed, destroyed, sent to land fills, torn apart, flushed, chemically wiped out.


14.  THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE PARTY OF  ABORTION OF ASIAN AMERICANS, NATIVE AMERICANS, CAUCASIAN AMERICANS?

15.   YES, BARREL, it is true. Just since Roe v Wade more than 200,000,000 Asian American plus Native American plus Caucasian American babies have been murdered, killed, destroyed, sent to land fills, torn apart, flushed, chemically wiped out.

16. And BARREL, it looks like it is also true that the Democratic Party is the party of socialism and communism and anarchy as well? It sure looks like it.


http://www.numberofabortions.com/ See the footnote about  250,000,000 chemically induced abortions.


SO HAVE THE DEMOCRATS PULLED THE WOOL OVER THE BLACKS AND HISPANICS AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND THE REST OF AMERICA FOR ALL THESE YEARS? HAVE THEY CONNED AMERICA? YES THEY HAVE. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND US. ALL WE WANT FROM EACH PARTY AND ITS POLITICIANS IS SIMPLE. WE WANT TO BE FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS.
That is why no one in his or her right mind will vote for Joe and everyone will vote for Donald.

BARREL & PORK. We report! You decide!

ObamaBidenFakeNews and others Gate? What is it? BARREL & PORK. WE REPORT! YOU DECIDE!

1. BARREL, what is 

2. Obama

3. Biden

4. Comey

5. Clinton

6. Brennan and Clapper

7. McDonough

8. Power

9. Rice

10. Yates

11. Strok

12. Paige

13. Pelosi and Podesta

14. Schumer

15. Nadler

16. Schiff 

17. and Fake News Media and Others 

18. Gate and how does such relate to General Flynn and POTUS TRUMP? 


19. PORK, ObamaBiden and Fake News Media and Others Gate is the accusation 

20. and what more and more with passage of time and release of once classified documents appears to be the confirmed truth that 

21. Obama, 

22. Biden, 

23. Clinton, 

24. Comey, 

25. Brennan, 

26. Clapper, 

27. McDonough, 

28. Power, 

29. Rice, 

30. Yates, 

31. Strok, 

32. Paige, 

33. Pelosi and Podesta, 

34. Schumer, 

35. Nadler, 

36. Schiff, 

37. and others including Steele and Fusion GPS and the Ohrs and others including certain FBI and State Department and DNC actors and other “whistleblowers” and Fake News Media


38. wrongfully 

39. and seditiously 

40. and even for some traitorously

41. conspired 


42. either as principals

43. or as accessories


44. to criminally harm and steal the 2012 election from Mitt Romney and the 2016 election from Bernie Sanders


45. and to remove General Flynn from office because he knew too much about ObamaBidenDNC activities,


46. and to criminally harm POTUS TRUMP and steal the 2016 election from POTUS TRUMP and after his election marginalize and remove from office 

47. the sitting President of the United States DONALD TRUMP 

48. and his family

49. and in the process marginalize the Republican party

50. and prevent POTUS TRUMP’s reelection in 2020 by means of

51. a partisan 

52. impeachment

53. using lies about “Russian Collusian” and a fake Russian dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton

54. using lies about POTUS TRUMP obstructing Justice re Ukraine when in fact there was a transcript of his discussions with the Ukrainian president,

55. using fake FISA warrants to surveil POTUS TRUMP and his campaign and others, including using FBI entrapment of General Flynn in order to “cause him to lie,”

56. using lies about POTUS TRUMP’s dealings with the Ukrainian president 


while glossing over Joe Biden’s admitted nefarious quid pro quo dealings with Ukraine and Joe’s son sudden billion dollar windfall from China [incidentally where did the billion dollars from China go?], 


57. framing General Flynn, 

58. framing Carter Page, 


repeatedly framing POTUS TRUMP, [now lying about the COVID 19 response of POTUS TRUMP and VP Mike Pence],


59. including numerous other falsehoods, unmaskings, and clandestine initiatives, 


including Adam Schiff lying about POTUS TRUMP multiple times while at the same time it was Adam Schiff who was obstructing justice, 


60. while at the same time many if not all of these same people were in fact colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice – 


using the age old tactic of Saul Alinsky to accuse your opponent of what you are doing.


61. As corollary, ObamaBiden and others Gate also includes 


the accusation documented as true by Peter Sweizer investigative journalist that Joe  


enriched his family and himself using his office as vice president 


via China (billion dollars to his inexperienced son and start-up hedge fund) 


and the sweetheart contracting Iraq building deal for his brother, 


and Ukraine/Russia Burisma million dollar board connection for his son, 


with the real deal behind the Ukraine deal being the Biden’s involvement in funding  a proxy war against Russia according to Glenn Beck, 


and of course there was the fact as Joe admitted on camera that Joe was guilty of compelling Ukrainian officials quid pro quo to fire a person investigating Burisma which included Joe’s son before Joe would release U.S. money to Ukraine.


62. In American politics, this is a definition of what ObamaBidenFakeNews and others Gate is. 


BARREL, given Joe’s 


ObamaBidenFakeNews and others Gate and


his repeated gaffes 


and mental lapses and senility


and the misuse of his office to enrich himself and his family 


and his misuse of China and Ukraine relationships


and the many accusations of misconduct with women and girls now including Tara Reade, 


Joe’s wife Jill and the DNC


will be smart to accept the handwriting on the wall


and pull the plug on Joe’s now disastrous third candidacy 


and gracefully withdraw while Joe can still come up out of his basement with Jill’s help. 


There is no way Joe can debate POTUS TRUMP 


let alone carry on a successful campaign. 


On the debate stage, Joe is and will be a deer in the headlights. 


The longer his campaign continues, the clearer it is that he is a third time try fatally flawed candidate who is incompetent to serve as POTUS.


The DNC needs to jettison Joe gracefully and look to Bernie and Governor Cuomo.

WE REPORT! YOU DECIDE!

Tara Reade burns up Joe’s political career. BARREL & PORK. We report. You decide!

(c) 2019, 2020

              1. PORK, should Joe Biden withdraw?


2. Yes, BARREL, he should withdraw. Whether innocent or guilty, Joe should cut his losses and withdraw. His political career has run its course and now is burned toast and a lost cause. Tara Reade has burned Joe Biden. Joe’s political career is burned toast. POTUS TRUMP’S poll numbers eclipse Joe’s. Yes, BARREL, Joe should withdraw if he is smart.


3. Joe will never make it now. In 2016, 

POTUS TRUMP’s real poll numbers eclipsed Hillary’s. Now in 2020, POTUS TRUMP’s real poll numbers eclipse Joe’s. We have said it before and say it again, the polls do not determine who wins the presidential office. The media coverage does. And the sheer overwhelming media coverage of POTUS TRUMP eclipses the media coverage of all politicians in the U.S. combined.


4. If Joe stays in the race, all he will do is gaffe and take the democratic party down with him. His presence will take governors down and Senators and House congress men and women. His presence will take Nancy Pelosi down and Schiff and Nadler and many others. 


5. Why? Because there are now multiple credible witnesses supporting Tara Reade – no matter how shrill Nancy Pelosi and several others are in support of Joe. Regarding poll numbers BARREL, don’t you for one minute believe that Joe leads POTUS TRUMP. Joe has little or no media coverage compared to POTUS TRUMP. POTUS TRUMP has done a major great job dealing with COVID 19 despite democrat naysayers and the whole nation recognizes this. The few who trash him no matter what he does  keep the myth alive that he is behind. Truth is, there is no way the negative media groups can make Tara Reade go away or block POTUS TRUMP’S reelection.


6. Regarding the Tara Reade disclosure, her mother is a witness even though she is now deceased. This witness detail was found on a Larry King program. And others have come forward who confirm Tara’s story. Joe’s “DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS” response, to quote Geraldo, says it all.


7. So Tara has taken away Joe’s woman vote and the men vote as well. She put a nail in his political coffin.


8. And this puts Bernie back front and center.


9. Maybe Governor Cuomo. 


10. No question POTUS TRUMP is now guaranteed a second term.


11.  BARREL, John Nolte wrote and Breitbart just published: 16 Reasons Why I Believe Joe Biden Sexually Assaulted Tara Reade, published in Breitbart at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/26/nolte-16-reasons-why-i-believe-joe-biden-sexually-assaulted-tara-reade/

2.     Read JOHN NOLTE 26 Apr 202068:40 for a better discussion than I can muster.

3.     “When Reade originally came forward in April of 2019, she joined about a half-dozen women who have credibly accused Biden of unwanted touching. And I say “credibly” because Biden has serially committed acts of unwanted touching in public. [As an aside, Joe also committed Ukraine Quid Pro Quo and boasted about it in public.] We have countless videos of Biden making women and children uncomfortable with inappropriate hair-sniffing, nuzzling, kissing, and getting handsy.” [Jeff Sessions slapped Joe’s hand when Joe tried to get friendly with Jeff’s granddaughter.]

4.     “Now, however, Reade tells a much more lurid and disturbing story of being sexually assaulted by Biden. While working for the then-Delaware Senator while in her mid-20s, she says he cornered her in a hallway, thrust his hands up her skirt, penetrated her vagina, and when she objected, he said something to the effect of, “Come on, I heard you like me.”

5.    “Reade further alleges that after she complained, there was retaliation. She lost her job.”

6.     “So here are the reasons why I now believe Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade…

7.     “Reade Did Not Change Her Story [Has not to-date.]

8.     “Experts Say Assault Victims Frequently Don’t Tell the Full Story All at Once

9.     “Reade is a Lifelong Democrat

10.  “Reade Worked in Biden’s Senate Office in 1993

11.  “Witness Number One. Reade told her brother about the alleged sexual assault at the time it happened. McHugh has talked to Reade’s brother and says the details of their stories are the same.

12.  “Witness Number Two. Reade told a friend about the alleged sexual assault at the time it happened. McHugh has talked to Reade’s friend and says the details of their stories are the same.

13.  “Witness Number Three Reade told a friend about the alleged assault about 15 years after it happened, so sometime around 2008. McHugh has talked to this woman and this woman confirms Reade told her a “horrific” story about Biden.

14.  “Witness Number Four McHugh spoke with an intern who worked under Reade in Biden’s Senate office at the time. The intern knew nothing about the alleged assault, but McHugh says, “she said … in mid-April of 1993, Tara was abruptly no longer her supervisor. So the timing matches exactly with what Tara was saying.”

15.  “And what Reade is saying is that she was fired for filing a complaint.

16.  “Reade Invites Scrutiny. Unlike Blasey Ford, who hid behind her lawyers and little girl voice, Reade is inviting scrutiny, has asked investigative reporters like McHugh to dig into the details of her allegation.

17.  “Liars never invite scrutiny. They dodge it and look for excuses to avoid it.

18.  “Scrutiny Has Only Bolstered Reade’s Claim Since Reade invited this scrutiny, details have only bolstered her claim, not contradicted it. Most notably…

19.  “Mom’s Anguished Call to Larry King Live. Reade has been telling interviewers she told her mother, Jeanette Altimus, at the time about the alleged assault. Unfortunately, Altimus passed in 2016, so there is no way to verify this… Except there is… Reade’s been telling journalists that sometime in 1993 her mother called into CNN’s Larry King Live asking for advice about her daughter’s problems with a “prominent senator.” That video clip has now been found, and is a crucial and damning piece of evidence in support of Reade’s allegation.

20.  “The University of Delaware Refuses to Open Biden’s Senate Papers

21.  “Biden Is Not Demanding the University of Delaware Open His Papers

22.  “Look at the difference between Kavanaugh and Biden…

23.  Kavanaugh could not wait to defend himself in public, to put forth all the documentation asked for, to do whatever he could to invite whatever scrutiny was required to prove his innocence.

24.  “Biden, on the other hand, is [was] in hiding. He has not even said a word about the allegation (it helps that in a series of interviews with friendly fake reporters like Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, and George Stephanopoulos, he wasn’t asked). [The claim that the NY Times exonerates him is bogus. The endorsements by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama don’t help and are borderline if not completely bogus.]

25.  “Further, Biden is not asking the University of Delaware to throw open his senate papers while begging reporters to dig through them knowing this will prove no one filed a sexual harassment complaint against him.

26.  “Biden is acting like a guilty man. The guilty have everything to hide.

27.  Innocent men, like Kavanaugh, have nothing to hide.

28.  “The Media are Terrified of This Story. Within a few weeks, on top of countless hours of broadcast time, CNN published nearly 700 stories in support of Blasey Ford’s ridiculous lies. As of this writing, CNN has published only two [a few] stories about Reade, both of them [originally] favorable to Biden. [Now the media outlets including NY Times are turning against Joe.]

29.  “No one [few] in the media has [have] dared ask Biden about the allegation, and when the media do bring it up, they try to write Reade off as a crank, as an unstable Putin supporter (an allegation McHugh says is false).

30.  This “… is exactly what the media [and Hillary] did to Bill Clinton’s victims. Paula Jones was smeared as trailer trash. Monica Lewinsky was defamed as a crazed stalker. Kathleen Willey was slandered as an unstable gold digger. Juanita Broaddrick was swept under the rug. …

31.  “If the media believed they could debunk and discard Reade’s allegation with facts, they would be all over this story. They know they can’t, so they are treating it like its radioactive — because it is.

32.  “Biden Has a Long Pattern of Inappropriate Touching. Biden’s sense of entitlement when it comes to inappropriately touching women and CHILDREN, is well-established. If he behaves this way in public, imagine his behavior in private.

33.  “Reade Faces Prison If She’s Lying. Last month, Reade filed a formal criminal complaint against Biden, and one of the penalties for filing a false complaint is prison. 

34. “So while Reade is inviting investigative reporters to dig into and possibly debunk her allegation, she is also risking prison if that debunking occurs.

35.  “Bottom line…

36.  Reade is behaving like someone desperate to expose a terrible truth, while Biden is behaving like someone with something terrible to hide.

37.  “Additional evidence could certainly change my mind. But right now the only people who do not want this investigated are Joe Biden and his media allies.

38.  “Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

39.  “2020 ElectionMediaPolitics#MeTooCNNJake TapperJoe BidenJohn Noltesexual assaultTara Reade

40.  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/26/nolte-16-reasons-why-i-believe-joe-biden-sexually-assaulted-tara-reade/

41.  Yes, PORK, Biden enriched himself and his family with multi-millions if not billions of dollars via China.


42. He enriched himself and his family with multi-millions if not billions of dollars via Ukraine – and Joe’s bragging about his Ukraine Quid Pro Quo in public is his political legacy killer.


43. Now Tara Reade is front and center and will not go away.


44. And Joe has nowhere to go. 


45. No wonder he has been sleepy and holed up hiding in his basement. No wonder his wife speaks for him.


46. No wonder it took POTUS Obama so long to endorse. POTUS Obama knew all about this.

47. BARREL, Joe [has been] in hiding. 


48. His wife is speaking for him. 


49. For the good of the Democrat party and to save face, Joe is well advised to use health and cognitive decline as his excuse for dropping out. 


50. With Tara Reade and China and Ukraine facts on the table, with the fact that he owns all of POTUS Obama’s negative policies and actions that made us less free, safe, and prosperous, there is no way Joe can win an election even if the media does not have the fortitude to tell the honest truth about Joe’s failings or POTUS TRUMP’S amazing successes to-date, keeping more than 300 of his political promises. 


51. It will be POTUS TRUMP in a massive landslide and there is nothing the Democrats can do about it given their current situation with Joe. Couple this with the fact that the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and others have done nothing to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS – spending our precious time and millions of our dollars in a fruitless, foolish “the Russians did it” impeachment.]

52. “MORE WITNESSES – unlike the Kavanaugh situation. “Two more people who knew Tara Reade in the ’90s reportedly came forward on Monday to back the former Senate staffer’s claims of sexual misconduct against Joe Biden.

53. “Lynda LaCasse, a former next-door neighbor of Reade’s and a self-described supporter of Biden spoke on the record with Rich McHugh of Business Insider about past conversations they had with Reade about the allegations.

54. ““This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” LaCasse told Business Insider, recalling a conversation with Reade that occurred in either 1995 or 1996.

55. “Another past acquaintance, Lorraine Sanchez, a former colleague, also recalled past conversations with Reade, though she said did not recall Reade referring to Biden by name.

56. ““[Reade said] she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC,” Sanchez told the publication, “and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.”

57. “Biden himself has not addressed the claims from Reade — but his campaign has vehemently denied the allegations.

58. “Reade on Monday confirmed to Fox News the accuracy of how her conversations with LaCasse and Sanchez were described and expressed her deep gratitude towards them for coming forward.

59. ““I am touched that they would step forward knowing the targeted harassment I have received since I made my history with Joe Biden public. I appreciate their candor and bravery,” Reade said in a statement.

60. “LaCasse and Sanchez could be cited as more evidence supporting Reade’s allegation.

61. “They join Reade’s friend, who says they were told about the alleged assault at the time it happened but has chosen to remain anonymous, and her brother Collin Moulton, who recalled Reade describing an incident with Biden involving a “gym bag” as others who have backed her claims. The friend and Moulton both gave interviews to the Intercept.

62. “LaCasse told Business Insider: “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him. And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”

63. “LaCasse said that Reade was “upset” when she told her about the allegation and “the more she talked about it, the more she started crying.” She said she remembered urging Reade to file a police report but did not recall specific details from the alleged incident, like the location or remarks Biden had allegedly made to Reade.

64. ““I don’t remember all the details,” LaCasse told Business Insider. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”

65. “LaCasse, a retired staffer of San Luis Obispo General Hospital, said she lived in the same apartment complex as Reade in Morro Bay, Calif. She recalled how the two of them had talked about “violent stories” they’ve experienced, which was when Reade told her “about the senator that she had worked for and he put his hand up her skirt.”

“Nolte: Fact Checking 3 Falsehoods in Biden Campaign’s Tara Reade Talking Points

“Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is reportedly sharing talking points trying to discredit his sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade. The problem is, this script makes not one, not two, but three false claims.

“Here is the full text of the talking points, per the far-left BuzzFeed:

“Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed,” the talking points read, according to a copy sent to two Democratic operatives. “In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”

“Here’s the bottom line,” they read. “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

“CLAIM #1: The New York Times conducted a “thorough review” of Reade’s allegations.

VERDICT: False.

Lie number one is the claim the New York Times conducted a “thorough review” of the Tara Reade’s increasingly-credible sexual assault allegation against Biden. We now know the Times did no such thing. A ton of corroborating evidence has been exposed since the Times released its sloppy “investigation,” which proves the Times was nothing close to thorough.

“CLAIM #2: The Times’ reporting “has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”

VERDICT: False.

The second lie is that the New York Times concluded Joe Biden did not sexually assault Tara Reade. Even the far-left Times felt the need to debunk that straight-up falsehood — humiliating would-be VP Stacey Abrams, who already spread that fake news all over CNN primetime.

“Our investigation made no conclusion either way,” a Times spokesperson told BuzzFeed Wednesday morning.

“CLAIM #3: There has never even been a “hint” or “rumor” of similar behavior from Biden “ever” in history.

VERDICT: False.

The third lie is this nonsense about no “complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

To begin with, while Reade’s allegation — that Biden shoved his hand up her skirt in 1993, penetrated her vagina with his fingers, and then fired her after she complained — is by far the most serious, Tara Reade is the eighth woman — number eight! — to accuse Biden of misconduct.

“What’s more, there is also this 2008 report in a left-wing publication that definitively proves rumors and hints about Biden’s sexual misconduct have been around for more than a decade:

Biden is a notorious flapjaw. His vanity deludes him into believing that every word that drops from his mouth is minted in the golden currency of Pericles. Vanity is the most conspicuous characteristic of US Senators en bloc, nourished by deferential acolytes and often expressed in loutish sexual advances to staffers, interns and the like. On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident. [emphasis added]

“So not only is [was] Joe Biden refusing to address Reade’s credible allegations directly (he has yet to comment on them and the fake news media have not asked him to comment), not only has he so far refused to call on the University of Delaware to release the Senate papers that might hold Reade’s alleged harassment complaint against him, he is also issuing talking points that are so flagrantly untrue the New York Times felt the need to speak up.

“With her desire to have investigative reporters check out the details of her story and her call for Biden to release his Senate papers, Reade continues to act like a woman with nothing to hide.

“With his refusal to protest his own innocence, to open up his papers, and the issuing of at least three lies in his talking points, Joe Biden continues to act like a man with everything to hide.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.


Joe and his campaign are burnt toast. BARREL & PORK. WE REPORT. YOU DECIDE.

                    1. PORK, should Joe Biden withdraw?

2. Yes, BARREL, he should withdraw. 

3. He will never make it now. POTUS TRUMP’s poll numbers eclipse Joe’s. 

4. If he stays, all he will do is take the democratic party down with him. His presence will take governors down and Senators and House congress men and women. His presence will take Pelosi down and Schiff and Nadler and many others. 

5. Why? Because there are now multiple credible witnesses supporting Tara Reade no matter how shrill Nancy Pelosi and several others are. Regarding poll numbers, don’t believe that Joe leads POTUS TRUMP. Joe has little or no media coverage compared to POTUS TRUMP. POTUS TRUMP has done a major good job dealing with COVID 19 and the whole nation recognizes this with the exception of a few who would trash him no matter what he does. There is no way the negative media groups can whitewash Tara Reade and make her go away.

6. Regarding the Tara Reade disclosue, her mother is a witness even though she is now deceased. The detail was found on a Larry King program. And others have come forward.

7. So there goes the complete woman vote and the men as well.

8. Puts Bernie back front and center.

9. Maybe Governor Cuomo. 

10. No question POTUS TRUMP is now guaranteed a second term.

11.  BARREL, John Nolte wrote and Breitbart just published: 16 Reasons Why I Believe Joe Biden Sexually Assaulted Tara Reade, published in Breitbart at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/26/nolte-16-reasons-why-i-believe-joe-biden-sexually-assaulted-tara-reade/

2.     Read JOHN NOLTE 26 Apr 202068:40

3.     “When Reade originally came forward in April of 2019, she joined about a half-dozen women who have credibly accused Biden of unwanted touching. And I say “credibly” because Biden has serially committed acts of unwanted touching in public. We have countless videos of Biden making women and children uncomfortable with inappropriate hair-sniffing, nuzzling, kissing, and getting handsy.”

4.     “Now, however, Reade tells a much more lurid and disturbing story of being sexually assaulted by Biden. While working for the then-Delaware Senator while in her mid-20s, she says he cornered her in a hallway, thrust his hands up her skirt, penetrated her vagina, and when she objected, he said something to the effect of, “Come on, I heard you like me.”

5.     “Reade further alleges that after she complained, there was retaliation. She lost her job.”

6.     “So here are the reasons why I now believe Joe Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade…

7.     “Reade Did Not Change Her Story

8.     “Experts Say Assault Victims Frequently Don’t Tell the Full Story All at Once

9.     “Reade is a Lifelong Democrat

10.  “Reade Worked in Biden’s Senate Office in 1993

11.  “Witness Number One. Reade told her brother about the alleged sexual assault at the time it happened. McHugh has talked to Reade’s brother and says the details of their stories are the same.

12.  “Witness Number Two. Reade told a friend about the alleged sexual assault at the time it happened. McHugh has talked to Reade’s friend and says the details of their stories are the same.

13.  “Witness Number Three Reade told a friend about the alleged assault about 15 years after it happened, so sometime around 2008. McHugh has talked to this woman and this woman confirms Reade told her a “horrific” story about Biden.

14.  “Witness Number Four McHugh spoke with an intern who worked under Reade in Biden’s Senate office at the time. The intern knew nothing about the alleged assault, but McHugh says, “she said … in mid-April of 1993, Tara was abruptly no longer her supervisor. So the timing matches exactly with what Tara was saying.”

15.  “And what Reade is saying is that she was fired for filing a complaint.

16.  “Reade Invites Scrutiny. Unlike Blasey Ford, who hid behind her lawyers and little girl voice, Reade is inviting scrutiny, has asked investigative reporters like McHugh to dig into the details of her allegation.

17.  “Liars never invite scrutiny. They dodge it and look for excuses to avoid it.

18.  “Scrutiny Has Only Bolstered Reade’s Claim Since Reade invited this scrutiny, details have only bolstered her claim, not contradicted it. Most notably…

19.  “Mom’s Anguished Call to Larry King Live. Reade has been telling interviewers she told her mother, Jeanette Altimus, at the time about the alleged assault. Unfortunately, Altimus passed in 2016, so there is no way to verify this… Except there is… Reade’s been telling journalists that sometime in 1993 her mother called into CNN’s Larry King Live asking for advice about her daughter’s problems with a “prominent senator.” That video clip has now been found, and is a crucial and damning piece of evidence in support of Reade’s allegation.

20.  “The University of Delaware Refuses to Open Biden’s Senate Papers

21.  “Biden Is Not Demanding the University of Delaware Open His Papers

22.  “Look at the difference between Kavanaugh and Biden…

23.  “Kavanaugh could not wait to defend himself in public, to put forth all the documentation asked for, to do whatever he could to invite whatever scrutiny was required to prove his innocence.

24.  “Biden, on the other hand, is in hiding. He has not even said a word about the allegation (it helps that in a series of interviews with friendly fake reporters like Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, and George Stephanopoulos, he wasn’t asked). [The claim that the NY Times exonerates him is bogus. The endorsement by HC is bogus.]

25.  “Further, Biden is not asking the University of Delaware to throw open his senate papers while begging reporters to dig through them knowing this will prove no one filed a sexual harassment complaint against him.

26.  “Biden is acting like a guilty man. The guilty have everything to hide.

27.  “Innocent men, like Kavanaugh, have nothing to hide.

28.  “The Media are Terrified of This Story. Within a few weeks, on top of countless hours of broadcast time, CNN published nearly 700 stories in support of Blasey Ford’s ridiculous lies. As of this writing, CNN has published only two stories about Reade, both of them favorable to Biden.

29.  “No one in the media has dared ask Biden about the allegation, and when the media do bring it up, they try to write Reade off as a crank, as an unstable Putin supporter (an allegation McHugh says is false).

30.  This “… is exactly what the media [and Hillary] did to Bill Clinton’s victims. Paula Jones was smeared as trailer trash. Monica Lewinsky was defamed as a crazed stalker. Kathleen Willey was slandered as an unstable gold digger. Juanita Broaddrick was swept under the rug. …

31.  “If the media believed they could debunk and discard Reade’s allegation with facts, they would be all over this story. They know they can’t, so they are treating it like its radioactive — because it is.

32.  “Biden Has a Long Pattern of Inappropriate Touching. Biden’s sense of entitlement when it comes to inappropriately touching women and CHILDREN, is well-established. If he behaves this way in public, imagine his behavior in private.

33.  “Reade Faces Prison If She’s Lying. Last month, Reade filed a formal criminal complaint against Biden, and one of the penalties for filing a false complaint is prison. 

34. “So while Reade is inviting investigative reporters to dig into and possibly debunk her allegation, she is also risking prison if that debunking occurs.

35.  “Bottom line…

36.  “Reade is behaving like someone desperate to expose a terrible truth, while Biden is behaving like someone with something terrible to hide.

37.  “Additional evidence could certainly change my mind. But right now the only people who do not want this investigated are Joe Biden and his media allies.

38.  “Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

39.  “2020 ElectionMediaPolitics#MeTooCNNJake TapperJoe BidenJohn Noltesexual assaultTara Reade

40.  https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/26/nolte-16-reasons-why-i-believe-joe-biden-sexually-assaulted-tara-reade/

41.  Yes, PORK, Biden enriched himself and his family with multi-millions if not billions of dollars via China.


42. He enriched himself and his family with multi-millions if not billions of dollars via Ukraine.


43. Tara Reade is front and center.


44. Joe has nowhere to go. 


45. No wonder he is sleepy and holed up hiding in his basement. 


46. No wonder it took POTUS Obama so long to endorse. POTUS Obama knew all about this.

47.  BARREL, Joe is in hiding. 


48. His wife is speaking for him. 


49. He is well advised to use health and cognitive decline as his excuse for dropping out. 


50. With Tara Reade and China and Ukraine facts on the table, with the fact that he owns all of POTUS Obama’s negative policies that made us less free, safe, and prosperous, there is no way Joe can win an election. 


51. It will be POTUS TRUMP in a massive landslide.

52. MORE WITNESSES – unlike the Kavanaugh situation. “Two more people who knew Tara Reade in the ’90s reportedly came forward on Monday to back the former Senate staffer’s claims of sexual misconduct against Joe Biden.

53. “Lynda LaCasse, a former next-door neighbor of Reade’s and a self-described supporter of Biden spoke on the record with Rich McHugh of Business Insider about past conversations they had with Reade about the allegations.

54. ““This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,” LaCasse told Business Insider, recalling a conversation with Reade that occurred in either 1995 or 1996.

55. “Another past acquaintance, Lorraine Sanchez, a former colleague, also recalled past conversations with Reade, though she said did not recall Reade referring to Biden by name.

56. ““[Reade said] she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC,” Sanchez told the publication, “and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.”

57. “Biden himself has not addressed the claims from Reade — but his campaign has vehemently denied the allegations.

58. “Reade on Monday confirmed to Fox News the accuracy of how her conversations with LaCasse and Sanchez were described and expressed her deep gratitude towards them for coming forward.

59. ““I am touched that they would step forward knowing the targeted harassment I have received since I made my history with Joe Biden public. I appreciate their candor and bravery,” Reade said in a statement.

60. “LaCasse and Sanchez could be cited as more evidence supporting Reade’s allegation.

61. “They join Reade’s friend, who says they were told about the alleged assault at the time it happened but has chosen to remain anonymous, and her brother Collin Moulton, who recalled Reade describing an incident with Biden involving a “gym bag” as others who have backed her claims. The friend and Moulton both gave interviews to the Intercept.

62. “LaCasse told Business Insider: “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him. And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”

63. “LaCasse said that Reade was “upset” when she told her about the allegation and “the more she talked about it, the more she started crying.” She said she remembered urging Reade to file a police report but did not recall specific details from the alleged incident, like the location or remarks Biden had allegedly made to Reade.

64. ““I don’t remember all the details,” LaCasse told Business Insider. “I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”

65. “LaCasse, a retired staffer of San Luis Obispo General Hospital, said she lived in the same apartment complex as Reade in Morro Bay, Calif. She recalled how the two of them had talked about “violent stories” they’ve experienced, which was when Reade told her “about the senator that she had worked for and he put his hand up her skirt.”

https://thebeardedpatriot.com/biden-struggles-to-bury-sexual-assault-allegation-as-new-evidence-comes-to-light/

Nolte: Fact Checking 3 Falsehoods in Biden Campaign’s Tara Reade Talking Points

Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is reportedly sharing talking points trying to discredit his sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade. The problem is, this script makes not one, not two, but three false claims.

Here is the full text of the talking points, per the far-left BuzzFeed:

“Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed,” the talking points read, according to a copy sent to two Democratic operatives. “In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”

“Here’s the bottom line,” they read. “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

CLAIM #1: The New York Times conducted a “thorough review” of Reade’s allegations.

VERDICT: False.

Lie number one is the claim the New York Times conducted a “thorough review” of the Tara Reade’s increasingly-credible sexual assault allegation against Biden. We now know the Times did no such thing. A ton of corroborating evidence has been exposed since the Times released its sloppy “investigation,” which proves the Times was nothing close to thorough.

CLAIM #2: The Times’ reporting “has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”

VERDICT: False.

The second lie is that the New York Times concluded Joe Biden did not sexually assault Tara Reade. Even the far-left Times felt the need to debunk that straight-up falsehood — humiliating would-be VP Stacey Abrams, who already spread that fake news all over CNN primetime.

“Our investigation made no conclusion either way,” a Times spokesperson told BuzzFeed Wednesday morning.

CLAIM #3: There has never even been a “hint” or “rumor” of similar behavior from Biden “ever” in history.

VERDICT: False.

The third lie is this nonsense about no “complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”

To begin with, while Reade’s allegation — that Biden shoved his hand up her skirt in 1993, penetrated her vagina with his fingers, and then fired her after she complained — is by far the most serious, Tara Reade is the eighth woman — number eight! — to accuse Biden of misconduct.

What’s more, there is also this 2008 report in a left-wing publication that definitively proves rumors and hints about Biden’s sexual misconduct have been around for more than a decade:

Biden is a notorious flapjaw. His vanity deludes him into believing that every word that drops from his mouth is minted in the golden currency of Pericles. Vanity is the most conspicuous characteristic of US Senators en bloc, nourished by deferential acolytes and often expressed in loutish sexual advances to staffers, interns and the like. On more than one occasion CounterPunch’s editors have listened to vivid accounts by the recipient of just such advances, this staffer of another senator being accosted by Biden in the well of the senate in the weeks immediately following his first wife’s fatal car accident. [emphasis added]

So not only is Joe Biden refusing to address Reade’s credible allegations directly (he has yet to comment on them and the fake news media have not asked him to comment), not only has he so far refused to call on the University of Delaware to release the Senate papers that might hold Reade’s alleged harassment complaint against him, he is also issuing talking points that are so flagrantly untrue the New York Times felt the need to speak up.

With her desire to have investigative reporters check out the details of her story and her call for Biden to release his Senate papers, Reade continues to act like a woman with nothing to hide.

With his refusal to protest his own innocence, to open up his papers, and the issuing of at least three lies in his talking points, Joe Biden continues to act like a man with everything to hide.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/29/nolte-fact-checking-3-falsehoods-in-biden-campaigns-tara-reade-talking-points/

Did COMPLICIT Joe Biden and POTUS OBAMA give Iran billions or is this fake news? Looks like it is not fake news, folks. BARREL & PORK.

1. BARREL, there is a commonly used euphemism which needs to be exploded.

2. A euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable term for a term that might offend or be unpleasant or challenge the integrity of a person or persons or an organization.

3. What is that euphemism, PORK?

4. That euphemism, BARREL, is this phrase “The Obama Administration” which is used so cavalierly and dismissively by the press.

5. How so, PORK?

6. Well, BARREL, the truth is “The Obama Administration” is simply an obfuscatory way and even a deceitful way of saying “POTUS OBAMA and JOE BIDEN and the democrats.”

7. POTUS OBAMA and JOE BIDEN and the democrats” were and they still are “the Obama Administration.”

8. You are right, PORK.

9. Didn’t Joe Biden and POTUS OBAMA and the democrats give Iran billions of dollars used by Soleimani and Iran leadership to foment terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere and thereby harm our military personnel and further the Iranian nuclear ambitions?

10. Or is this fake news?

11. Doesn’t look like fake news, BARREL.

12. And Yes, POTUS OBAMA and I am going to call him COMPLICIT JOE BIDEN and the democrats did give Iran billions of dollars – a billion in cash – which was used  to a serious degree to foster terrorism in the Middle East and to harm Israel and our military and civilians.

13. There is even indication that they did so because they hated Israel.

14. See Investors.com and Washington Times and CNBC and The Wall Street Journal regarding how the Obama administration – which is POTUS OBAMA and COMPLICIT Joe Biden — secretly gave Iran billions of dollars.

15. INVESTORS.COM. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-iran-terrorism/;

16. WASHINGTON TIMES. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/inside-the-ring-obama-era-cash-traced-to-iran-back/;

17. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html;

18. WALL STREET JOURNAL. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-two-more-planeloads-of-cash-to-iran-after-initial-payment-1473208256

19. But PORK, can’t Joe Biden and the democrats wiggle out of this one by saying, “But I was only the Vice President. Or, they are no longer in power. I was not responsible. We were not responsible.”

20. Nope.

21. Much of the anti-POTUS Trump democrat liberal press may want to give Joe and the democrats a pass but the truth is “The Obama Administration” was and still is “then POTUS OBAMA and COMPLICIT JOE BIDEN and THE DEMOCRATS.”

22. All three are responsible for the many initiatives they took during the Obama time in office – initiatives which have harmed us and our FREEDOMS, SAFETY, and PROSPERITY.

23. They are signally responsible for giving Iran billions which Iran used for terrorism to the harm of all countries in the Middle East including Israel and to the U.S. and if we do a little research I suspect to the harm of England, Australia, Germany, France, Russia, China and other countries as well.

Why are the democrats losing so badly? Answer: Adam Schiff. Barrel & Pork.

  1. Why are the democrats losing so badly, BARREL?

2. PORK, They are losing and I understand a great number of voters are leaving the democratic party because since POTUS Trump was elected Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and their crony democrats and republicans have done nothing to help us.

3. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO HELP US – REGARDLESS OF OUR RACE, CREED, OR ORIENTATION – BE FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS – while at the same time POTUS Trump has helped us – BLACKS, HISPANICS, JEWS, NATIVE AMERICANS, WHITES, ASIAN AMERICANS – be free, safe, and prosperous.

4. Nancy and Adam and their cronies have done nothing to help us have freedom of religion.

5. They have done nothing to help us have freedom of speech.

6. They have done nothing to help us have freedom of assembly including freedom from crime.

7. They have done nothing demonstrable to help us be safe from crime, and terrorism, and the immense expense caused by those who have entered our country unvetted.

8. They have done nothing to help us be free and safe by means of a strong military – at the same time nothing to help us stop spending trillions on foreign wars.

9. They have done nothing to help us and our veterans.

10. They have done nothing to help us have more and better jobs.

11. They have done nothing to help us stand up to China.

12. They have done nothing to help us resolve the North Korea or Middle East situations.

13. They have done nothing to help us build a viable economy.

14. They have done nothing to help us cut healthcare costs.

15. They have done nothing to help us prosper through better infrastructure.

16. They have done nothing to help us prosper by getting rid of regulations.

17. They have done nothing to help us prosper by cutting our taxes.

18. They have done nothing to protect our unborn. Instead they have done just the opposite resulting in deaths of millions of our unborn children.

19. They have done nothing to help us be free, safe, and prosperous as has POTUS Trump.

20. You are right, BARREL.

21. In a nutshell, summed up, what you are saying is this fact. Adam Schiff and his secret investigations are the problem for the democrats and for the nation. Adam Schiff has diverted all attention of the democrat legislators and even some republican legislators away from helping us – diverted attention by slandering POTUS Trump.

21. If Mrs. Pelosi and Chuck Schumer really care for us the electorate and still want to win elections, they would be well advised to get rid of Adam Schiff and all this investigation, impeachment nonsense and focus on helping us be free, safe, and prosperous.

Video Steve Jobs agrees with POTUS Trump. Steve speaks to democrats and republicans.

BARREL, this video of Steve Jobs says it all. Steve speaks from beyond the veil of death to us. He really describes what POTUS Trump is doing and Steve says to the democrats and equally to the republicans where their focus ought to be if they are to be relevant in this world.

So everybody chill out and take a good look at what Steve says and how he responds to an insult and overlay this on the current approach of so many people in dealing with and misunderstanding POTUS Trump.

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/20-years-ago-steve-jobs-demonstrated-the-perfect-w.html

BARREL, all POTUS TRUMP and FLOTUS TRUMP are saying to the naysayer critics in both parties, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well to any who are obvious communists and socialists, as well to all of the media, Hannity, Carlson, Maddow, CNN anchors, MSNBC anchors, Fox News anchors, Drudge, Breitbart, WSJ, New York Times, Infowars, the list goes on and on, all POTUS TRUMP and FLOTUS TRUMP are saying is:

“HELP US AMERICANS BE FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!”

Right on, PORK.  Right on!

Has Kamala Harris beaten Joe badly and locked up the 2020 POTUS nomination? Looks like it. BARREL & PORK.

1. So, BARREL, where are we with democratic party politics today?

2. Has Kamala Harris beaten Biden and secured the Democratic Presidential Nomination?

3. Looks like it, PORK.

4. One Quinnipiac poll shows Joe with a very slight lead over Senator Kamala Harris for the 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination by 2 points only. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631

5. Another shows Harris and Biden tied. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/joe-biden-kamala-harris-virtual-tie-democratic-nomination-new-poll-n1025

6. I think push comes to shove and Harris is way ahead.

7. Like everyone thought Hillary was ahead of POTUS Trump.

8. Proved not to be so.

9. All this tells me Joe’s lead has evaporated.

10. He is on a downward trajectory heading once again for a 3rd or 4th time toward failure to obtain the nomination.

11. Keep in mind that nothing fails like failure.

12. So all this tells me he hasn’t got momentum.

13. His age.

14. His multiple gaffes.

15. His rambling inability to think.

16. The left leaning Democratic party will not let him carry the torch.

17. Why?

18. Because he is a disaster not just waiting to happen. He is a disaster that is in the midst of happening.

19. His responsibility for the many failed Obama initiatives.

20. His Russia misuse of his office connection.

21. His China misuse of his office connection.

22. His multiple failures to secure the nomination in the past.

23. His flip flopping on policy.

24. Again, his gaffes.

25. His negatives cannot be overcome.

26. So, PORK, I’m going to walk out on a limb and say: Senator Kamala Harris will secure the nomination for President.

27. Julian Castro or Cory Booker will be Vice President.

28. A woman and a Hispanic or Black is the democratic dream team.

29. Kamala Harris alone has the good looks.

30. She has the youth.

31. She has the brains.

32. She has the no non-nonsense take no prisoners chutzpah to stand up to POTUS Trump and not just give him a run for his money in debate but also along the campaign trail.

AG Barr and Mr. Huber WHO IF ANY are the accessories? BARREL & PORK.

A. BARREL, is AG Barr or Mr. Huber or someone else in the FBI, DOJ, Inspector General, or media taking the time to ask the question “Are there accessories to the various crimes that appear to have been committed against the nation and against POTUS Trump?


B. PORK, what do you mean?


C. Well, BARREL, if you read Peter Sweizer’s investigative journalism and listen to Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh and others, it looks to me like some of the politicians and media owners and journalists and company owners have committed serious crimes and others are accessories to those crimes? 


Here are only a few questions: when did 

– Chuck Schumer and or 

– Nancy Pelosi and or 

– Paul Ryan and or 

– Mitch McConnell and or 

– Peter Strok and or 

– Lisa Page and or 

– Brennan or 

– McCabe or 

– Comey or 

– Lynch or 

– Rice or 

– Hillary or 

– Brazile or 

– Wasserman-Schultz or 

– Podestas or 

– then POTUS Obama or 

– Biden or 

– Holder or 

– Bill or 

– CNN or 

– MSNBC or 

– the New York Times or 

– Washington Post or 

– any of the media personalities 

– and media owners and management and outlets or 

– any of the Senators or 

– any from the House know about:


– the Russian collusion fake narrative and

– the fake dossier and 

– the FISA warrant scam and 

– Uranium One and 

– all the Pay to Play money from foreign countries and 

– Pay to Play money from Chinese and Russian corporations and 

– Email-gate and

– Tech transfers to the Chinese and Russians and

– A billion in cash to the Caliphate, and

– Conspiracy to marginalize a duly elected POTUS?

In other words, did one or more of these folks either know and fail to step forward, or aid and abet, or actually participate, and in the process, and did they enrich themselves at the public trough? 

1.    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#Relative_severity_of_penalties:

2.    BARREL, an accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.

3.    The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

4.    The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latinfor “guilty mind”), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus(Latin for “guilty act”).

5.    If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose).

6.    The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

7.    Contents

8.    Elements

8.1.                    1.1Relative severity of penalties

8.2.                    1.2Conspiracy

8.3.                    1.3Criminal facilitation

8.4.                    1.4Knowledge of the crime

8.5.                    1.5Exceptions

9.    2Usage

10.           3History

11.           4Specific laws

11.1.               4.6United States

12.           5See also

13.           6Notes and references

14.           Elements

15.           In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way.

16.           An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed.

17.           A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way.

18.           The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

19.           Relative severity of penalties

20.           The punishment … for accessories varies in different jurisdictions, and has varied at different periods of history.

21.           In some times and places accessories have been subject to lesser penalties than principals (the persons who actually commit the crime).

22.           In others accessories are considered the same as principals in theory, although in a particular case an accessory may be treated less severely than a principal.

23.           In some times and places accessories before the fact (i.e., with knowledge of the crime before it is committed) have been treated differently from accessories after the fact (e.g., those who aid a principal after a crime has been committed, but had no role in the crime itself). 

24.           Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties.

25.            Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.

26.           Conspiracy

27.           In some situations, a charge of conspiracy can be made even if the primary offense is never committed, so long as the plan has been made, and at least one overt act towards the crime has been committed by at least one of the conspirators.

28.           For example, if a group plans on forging bank checks, and forges the checks but ultimately does not attempt to cash the checks, the group might still be charged with conspiracy due to the overt act of forgery.

29.           Thus, an accessory before the fact will often, but not always, also be considered a conspirator.

30.           A conspirator must have been a party to the planning of the crime, rather than merely becoming aware of the plan to commit it and then helping in some way.

31.           A person who incites another to a crime will become a part of a conspiracy if agreement is reached, and may then be considered an accessory or a joint principal if the crime is eventually committed.

32.           In the United States, a person who learns of the crime and gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an “accessory before the fact”.

33.           A person who learns of the crime after it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an “accessory after the fact”.

34.           A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an “accessory before and after the fact”, but this usage is less common.

35.           Criminal facilitation

36.           In some jurisdictions, criminal “facilitation” laws do not require that the primary crime be actually committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability.

37.           These include state statutes making it a crime to “provide” a person with “means or opportunity” to commit a crime, “believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime.”[1]

38.           Knowledge of the crime

39.           To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed.

40.           Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape.

41.           A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

42.           Usage

43.           The term “accessory” derives from the English common law, and been inherited by those countries with a more or less Anglo-American legal system. The concept of complicity is, of course, common across different legal traditions. The specific terms accessory-before-the-fact and accessory-after-the-fact were used in England and the United States but are now more common in historical than in current usage.

44.           United States

45.           U.S. jurisdictions (that is, the federal government and the various state governments) have come to treat accessories before the fact differently from accessories after the fact.

46.           All U.S. jurisdictions have effectively eliminated the distinction between accessories before the fact and principals, either by doing away with the category of “accessory before the fact” entirely or by providing that accessories before the fact are guilty of the same offense as principals.

47.           The Model Penal Code’s definition of accomplice liability includes those who at common law were called accessories before the fact; under the Model Penal Code, accomplices face the same liability as principals.

48.           It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial.[2]

53.           However, modern U.S. jurisdictions punish accessories after the fact for a separate criminal offense distinct from the underlying crime and having a different (and less severe) punishment.

54.           Some states still use the term “accessory after the fact”; others no longer use the term, but have comparable laws against hindering apprehension or prosecution, obstruction of justicetampering with evidence, harboring a felon, or the like.

55.           Such crimes usually require proving

56.           (1) an intent to hinder apprehension or prosecution and

57.           (2) actual aid in the form of either

58.           (a) harboring the criminal,

59.           (b) providing specified means (such as a disguise) to evade arrest,

60.           (c) tampering with evidence,

61.           (d) warning the criminal of impending arrest, or

62.           (e) using force or deception to prevent the arrest.[3]

63.           Federal law has followed both these trends.

64.           The U.S. Code effectively treats as principals those who would traditionally have been considered accessories before the fact at common law:[4]

65.           Whoever

66.           aids,

67.           abets,

68.           counsels,

69.           commands,

70.           induces or

71.           procures

72.           the commission of an offense,

73.           is punishable as a principal.

74.           Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

75.           However, federal law treats accessories after the fact differently from principals.

76.           Accessories after the fact face a maximum of only half the fine and half the prison time that principals face.

77.           (If the principal faces the death penalty or life imprisonment, accessories after the fact face up to 15 years’ imprisonment.)

78.           Federal law defines accessories after the fact as persons who provide criminals with certain aid in order to hinder a criminal’s apprehension or prosecution:[5]

79.           Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed,

80.           receives,

81.           relieves,

82.           comforts or

83.           assists the offender

84.           in order to

85.           hinder or

86.           prevent

87.           his apprehension,

88.           trial or

89.           punishment,

90.           is an accessory after the fact.

So Mr. Barr and Mr. Huber, here are only a few questions: 

When did 

– Chuck Schumer and or 

– Nancy Pelosi and or 

– Paul Ryan and or 

– Mitch McConnell and or 

– Peter Strok and or 

– Lisa Page and or 

– Brennan or 

– McCabe or 

– Comey or 

– Lynch or 

– Rice or 

– Hillary or 

– Brazile or 

– Wasserman-Schultz or 

– Podestas or 

– then POTUS Obama or 

– Biden or 

– Holder or 

– Bill or 

– CNN or 

– MSNBC or 

– the New York Times or 

– Washington Post or 

– any of the media personalities 

– and media owners and management and outlets or 

– any of the Senators or 

– any from the House know about:


– the Russian collusion fake narrative and

– the fake dossier and 

– the FISA warrant scam and 

– Uranium One and 

– all the Pay to Play money from foreign countries and 

– Pay to Play money from Chinese and Russian corporations and 

– Email-gate and

– Tech transfers to the Chinese and Russians and

– A billion in cash to the Caliphate, and

– Conspiracy to marginalize a duly elected POTUS?

In other words, did one or more of these folks either know and fail to step forward, or aid and abet, or actually participate, and in the process did they misuse their offices and enrich themselves at the public trough? 

What have democrats done since POTUS Trump took office? Answer: Criticize POTUS Trump. Better answer: Nothing.

SINCE POTUS TRUMP TOOK OFFICE, BARREL, WHAT HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE FOR BLACK, HISPANIC, LATINO, JEWISH, CAUCASIAN, ASIAN AMERICANS?

PORK, All the democrats have done during the same time frame is criticize and investigate POTUS Trump. 


That’s all.

BARREL, Since he took office, what has POTUS Trump done? For Black, Hispanic, and Latino Americans? Jewish Americans? Native Americans? Asian Americans? Caucasian Americans?

PORK, he has already kept most all of his several hundred campaign promises. 

1.       Freedom of Religion. He is helping us worship how, where, or what we pleases so long as we do not infringe on rights of others.

2.       Freedom of Speech and Education. He is helping us speak without censure of political correctness. Helping us receive all education possible.

3.       Freedom to bear arms. He is helping us to protect self, family, and community.

4.       Safety. He is improving our military. He is reducing threat and actual terrorism and wars.

5.       Safety. He is improving wall and other security at the borders together with a call for more immigrants to come through the front door.

6.       Safety. He is improving security by bolstering police forces cross country.

7.       Safety. He is protecting against democrat abortion. 50,000,000+ Black unborn babies and 50,000,000+  surgically and 200,000,000+ Native American, Jewish American, Asian American, Caucasian American unborn babies have been chemically killed since democrat Roe v Wade in 1973. NO BLACK OR HISPANIC OR LATINO OR NATIVE AMERICAN OR JEWISH AMERICAN OR ASIAN AMERICAN OR CAUCASIAN AMERICAN, NO ONE, WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT UNTIL THEY JETTISON THEIR HATE CRIME GENOCIDE CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY CRIMINAL POLICY OF KILLING OUR UNBORN CHILDREN.

8.       Prosperity. He is generating millions of jobs and a robust economy with fewer regulations and manufacturing in the U.S.

9.       Prosperity. He is lowering taxes

10.   Prosperity. He is increasing wages and income significantly.

What have democrats done to help us be free? Answer. Nothing.

What have democrats done to help us be safe? Answer. Nothing.

What have democrats done to help us be prosperous? Answer. Nothing.

ABORTION LETTER TO PELOSI, ABERLY, AND WEN. BARREL & PORK.

BARREL, take a few minutes and read Richard Linford’s letter to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood’s Chairman Naomi Aberly and President Dr. Leana Wen. It is titled:

ABORTIONS – AMERICA’S UNBORN BABY KILLING FIELDS AND MILLSTONES.

It reads:

The 300,000,000+ unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade tipping point has been reached.

IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES.

300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been killed surgically and chemically since Liberal Democrats sponsored Roe v Wade – 50,000,000+ were Black babies. 50,000,000+ were Hispanic babies. 200,000,000+ were Jewish, Native American, Asian American, and Caucasian babies. THE TIPPING POINT LONG AGO WAS REACHED. IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES. Here is how we must do so.

A letter to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and

Planned Parenthood Chairwoman Naomi Aberly, and

Planned Parenthood President Dr. Leana Wen.

cc.

POTUS  Donald J. Trump,

Fox News Sean Hannity,

MSNBC Rachel Maddow,

Chris Matthews,

New York Times (letters@nytimes.com.)

The Republican Party

The Democratic Party

from Richard W. Linford

I am an attorney at law.

I served as state chairman and national board member of The National Conference of Christians and Jews [and Muslims]. (NCCJ).

IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES. Here is how we must do so.

Dear Nancy, Naomi, and Leana,

1.      300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been killed (50,000,000+) surgically and (250,000,000+) chemically  during the 46 years since 1973 Roe v Wade.

2.      6,521,739+ unborn American babies have been killed surgically and chemically on average per year during the 46 years since 1973 Roe v Wade – the equivalent in numbers of a Jewish holocaust per year.

3.      50,000,000+ of the 300,000,000 killed were Black babies.

4.      50,000,000+ of the 300,000,000 killed were Hispanic/Latino babies.

5.      200,000,000+ of the 300,000,000+ killed were Asian, Caucasian, Jewish, and Native American babies.

6.      The 50,000,000+ surgical abortion number was taken from Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute abortion website.

7.      250,000,000+ is the approximate number of babies aborted chemically. Add 50,000,000+ to 250,000,000+ and we have the number 300,000,000+. “* The Guttmacher footnote reads: The [number of] abortions [shown] in the “up-dated daily” counters on this site are almost all “surgical abortions”.  We [meaning the Guttmacher Institute and or Planned Parenthood] have made no attempt to tally the totals for “chemically-induced abortions” here [in the counters].  The Pharmacists for Life organization estimates that there have been approximately 250 million babies aborted chemically since 1973 in the USA. http://www.pfli.org/” See http://www.numberofabortions.com/* The abortion numbers for Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos were extrapolated.

8.      1,522,802,735+ IS THE NUMBER OF SURGICAL ABORTIONS WORLDWIDE SINCE 1980 according to Guttmacher Institute detail. http://www.numberofabortions.com/

9.      THESE NUMBERS ARE CONSERVATIVE.The World Wide abortion counter text says that it gives one of the more conservative estimates of the number of abortions world-wide since 1980.

10.  THE GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE IS A DIVISION OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD. See http://www.numberofabortions.com.

11.  THE GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE FOOTNOTE LISTS THE SURGICAL KILLINGS COMMITTED BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

12.  4,068,749 killings in the US from 1977 thru 2005.

13.  264,943 killings in the U.S.A. in 2005.

14.  289,750 killings in 2006.

15.  305,310 killings in 2007.

16.  324,008 killings in 2008.

17.  331,796 killings in 2009.

18.  329,445 killings in 2010.

19.  333,924 killings in 2011.

20.  327,166 killings in 2012.

21.  327,166 killings in 2013.

22.  323,999 killings in 2014.

23.  Chemical abortions performed or facilitated by Planned Parenthood are not included in these numbers.

24.  Bottom line, these are Planned Parenthood’s “conservative” numbers. 

25.  THE WORD ABORTION.

26.  Use of the word abortion is a misnomer if not a prevarication or an obfuscation.

27.  Calling it what it really is, it is killing the unborn babies of America. [And the world.]

28.  THE WORD INFANTICIDE.

29.  It is the crime of killing a very young child, usually within a year of birth.

30.  Infanticide is also used to describe a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

31.  KILLINGS OF BLACK AND HISPANIC/LATINO UNBORN BABIES SINCE ROE v WADE.

32.  Commenting on a recent Wall Street Journal article titled: About the Black Abortion Rate. Written by Jason L. Riley, July 10, 2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697:

33.  This Wall Street Journal op ed states that in New York City thousands more black babies are aborted each year than are born alive,

34.  Jason quotes Jesse Jackson as saying at the time of Roe v Wade in 1973, Abortion is “murder.”

35.  Jesse Jackson also said: “[W]e [blacks] used to look for death from the man in the blue coat and now it comes in a white coat.”

36.  Blue coat is law enforcement officers. White coat is doctors and nurses who perform abortions.

37.   “In the intervening decades, [Jesse’s] views allegedly shifted. “Mr. Jackson [who labors to personify ‘civil rights’] [according to Jason] “abandoned the pro-life ship to run for president in 1984.”

38.  Jason states, “leaders of black civil-rights organizations [I add, like Jessee] today are joined at the hip with abortion-rights proponents such as Planned Parenthood.”

39.  The killing rate among black mothers is more than three times higher than it is for white mothers.

40.  Once again, and paraphrasing, in New York City thousands more black babies are killed by Democrat liberal policies than are born alive each year.

41.  Why is this so? Is the truth the fact that Planned Parenthood has placed a number of its abortion clinics in close proximity to the Black community, if not directly in Black neighborhoods, because Black women are more easily talked into having abortions?

42.  Is the truth that there has been and still is a conscious Margaret Sanger eugenics genocidal/crime against humanity prejudice against blacks and a concomitant ongoing effort to control the black population? And the Hispanic Latino population?

43.  Is it true that Planned Parenthood is “joined at the hip” with and funding Black civil rights organizations, which would obviously facilitate Planned Parenthood’s ability to access the Black community, retain a political climate favoring abortion, while talking Black women into having abortions?

44.  Not as an aside, ostensibly to curry favor and gain influence, Planned Parenthood gave Hillary Clinton the Margaret Sanger award, and today, as presciently observed by POTUS Trump during his 2016 debates with Hillary, we see an ever increasing concerted effort to push for abortion on demand, late term abortion, and even efforts to permit infanticide killing of the just born infant.

45.  Continuing from Jason and the Wall Street Journal: “Nationally, black women terminate pregnancies at far higher rates than other women.

46.  “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population.

47.  – The [never] discussed flip side of “reproductive freedom” is that

48.  – abortion deaths far exceed those via cancer,

49.  – abortion deaths far exceed those from violent crime (e.g. Chicago and Baltimore),

50.  – abortion deaths far exceed those from heart disease,

51.  – abortion deaths far exceed those from AIDS and

52.  – abortion deaths far exceed those from accidents.

53.  “Racism, poverty and lack of access to health care are [three] typical explanations for these disparities.

54.  “… Black women have much higher abortion rates even after you control for income.

55.  One argument used to explain away the higher number of Black abortions reads: “The more plausible explanation [has] to do with marriage.  Unmarried women are more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy, and black women are less likely than their white, Asian and Hispanic counterparts to marry.”But are they?

56.  A QUESTION FOR NANCY PELOSI. WHY THE FOCUS ON THE FEW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND LACK OF FOCUS ON THE MILLIONS OF OUR UNBORN WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED NEEDLESSLY?

57.   “Why is the Liberal media [and the Democratic Party] more concerned about the children of illegal immigrants and not [at all] concerned about the vast number of unborn Black and Hispanic and other babies who are being killed unceremoniously? 

58.  Is it true that the Democratic Party has this policy/attitude because the implementation of a policy of favoring illegal immigration holds out the prospect of more democratic votes?

59.  Is it true, Nancy, that you and your Democrat colleagues are receiving vast sums of campaign financing money from Planned Parenthood and others with like agendas? Hence your reluctance to rock the Planned Parenthood gravy train?

60.  Is the truth also that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are making egregious sums of money from the government for the abortions they perform, not to mention the many sterilizations?

61.  Is it true, Nancy, that you received huge campaign financing from Planned Parenthood and this is the reason you invited Dr.Leana Wen, President of Planned Parenthood, to POTUS Trump’s State of the Union address as your guest.

62.  If we conducted an audit of your campaign finances Nancy would we find out that you owe Leana in return?

63.  Notwithstanding the answers to these questions, what does happen when we interview women who have had an abortion and we ask them about their remorse years later?

64.  Do all if not most women regret killing/murdering/aborting their unborn babies? Jason says the answer is YES. 

65.  What happens when we “Interview fathers who never got to meet their child”? Is there serious regret on their part? The answer again is probably YES for most if not all.

66.  Judging from what is done as well by what is said, Nancy, and paraphrasing Jason’s words, are “Democrats and Millennials … being led by the nose by Progressive Liberals [down the abortion trail] and [it is] time to stop the group think [and rethink this whole killing fields 300,000,000+ tipping point matter]?”

67.  Reaching the number of 300,000,000+ killings of our unborn constitutes a horrific tipping point!

68.  It is time for Democrats to jettison their abortion platform position altogether!

69.  YES IT IS.

70.  300,000,000+ killings of our unborn since Roe v Wade means it is finally time for Planned Parenthood to “cut the baby in half” and give up its abortion practice altogether and focus on adoption instead of the killing fields of abortion!

71.  YES it is.

72.  NANCY, NAOMI, AND LEANA, WHETHER YOU ADMIT IT OR NOT ABORTION – THE KILLING OF 300,000,000+ OF OUR UNBORN BABIES SINCE ROE v WADE, NOT RUSSIA, NOT NORTH KOREA, NOT IRAN, NOT JOBS, NOT MANUFACTURING, NOT INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT THE BORDER WALL, NOT THE DIVERSIONARY INVESTIGATIONS, IS THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM OUR NATION FACES.

73.  With that in mind, I am asking you, Nancy, Naomi, Leana, and all Democrats, to do an about face, jettison your policy of killing the unborn, and go forward championing the right to life of the unborn plus adoption of those babies who are “not wanted for whatever reason.”

74.  BLACKS AND HISPANICS/LATINOS.

75.  POTUS Trump has repeatedly promised to help Black American communities.

76.  Yet, helping Black Americans is much more than jobs and employment.

77.  Evidence is overwhelming that the press and the Liberal Left including most if not all Democrats are far more interested in giving illegal immigrants unfettered access to America than in the immense abortion genocide crime against humanity [and now infanticide] that has plagued our country from its inception.

78.  This discussion is not about trimesters and viability, this discussion is about preservation of the Black family.

79.  This discussion is about preservation of the Hispanic and Latino family.

80.  It is about preservation of all families.

81.  This discussion is about Roe v Wade which is the seminal case that triggered the American abortion epidemic which has resulted in the killing of 300,000,000+ of our unborn babies..

82.  Given this devastation and destruction caused to Black and Hispanic and Latino and other American families, it does not take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that a fundamental tenet of the Democrat Left is the socialist subordination and final destruction of the family and all social institutions and their replacement with Government — with the socialist globalist elitist agenda being accomplished in large measure by abortion killing on demand and illegal immigration through open borders. 

83.  Looking at what has been done and what has been said to destroy Black and Hispanic and other families by Democrat liberal policies, it is not hard to conclude with Jason Riley that the destruction of American churches and civic associations and families is an undergirding tenet of the Left as well.

84.  I agree with Jason Riley.

85.  To the Left it would appear that the all too apparent abortion eugenics genocidal crime against humanity – the destruction of the Black and Hispanic/Latino cultures and communities — is unimportant.

86.  While the media and politicians and special counsels divert us voters with their endless investigations, added Black and Hispanic and Latino and other unborn babies are killed.

87.  The Democrat Left has this same plan for non-Black and non-Hispanic families as well – my family included as well as yours.

88.  Again, see Wall Street Journal article titled: About the Black Abortion Rate. Written by Jason L. Riley, July 10, 2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-talk-about-the-black-abortion-rate-1531263697

89.  THINK ABOUT IT NANCY, NAOMI, AND LEANA. There are just over 37 Million Black Americans today. Since your Liberal Democrat Roe v Wade abortion policy, 50,000,000+ Black unborn girl and boy babies have been Dismembered/dissolved/killed/murdered/flushed/sent to landfills/used in bizaar experiments/had their spines severed/aborted.

90.   Since Democrat Roe v Wade 50,000,000+ Hispanic/Latino unborn girl and boy babies have likewise been killed/murdered/aborted.

91.  50,000,000+ is more than the current Black population in America. 

92.  50,000,000+ is barely short of the current Hispanic/Latino population in America.

93.  Regardless of any rationalization by you and your Democrat Liberal Left, 300,000,000+ aborted/killed/murdered unborn babies by any stretch of the imagination is a eugenics/genocide/ crime against humanity/and now infanticide – i.e. Virginia; it is a crime or series of crimes against the unborn and now against the just born, at the grossest, most wicked levels, a crime justified in today’s society only by your so-called Democrat liberal Roe v Wade socialist values. 

94.  Every honest parent or grandparent ought to weep over the unwritten obituaries of the myriad unborn whose lives Liberal Democrat Socialist policies have in secret and unceremoniously snuffed out.

95.  Killing of our children is not just a tragedy, Nancy, Naomi, and Leana, murdering our children is criminal activity of the highest order.

96.  Such is much, much worse than the plethora of murders in Chicago and Baltimore.

97.  All it takes is one look at one photograph of an aborted baby and no person in or out of the Black or Hispanic communities, for that matter in her or his right mind, can rationalize away this corruption of morals and decency.

98.  It is inconceivable that a thinking Black, Hispanic, Latino, or person of any other group would vote Democrat until a Democrat Statesman or Stateswoman steps forward within the Democratic party and altogether eliminates this Liberal Democrat abortion policy and initiative.

99.  THE CONTROVERSY.

100. On its surface, this controversy swirls around what you have conveniently named “reproductive rights” or “a woman’s right to choose.” What is on the abortion operating table though is the “reproductive wrongs” not the “reproductive rights.”

101. What is at stake is the unborn baby’s right to life not a woman’s right to pleasure or comfort or “her own body.” Even more than this, what is at stake is the future of our nation.

102. What is at stake is the right of the Black Community not to be destroyed by this continuing eugenics genocide/crime against their humanity/and now infanticide.

103. What is at stake is the right of the Hispanic and Latino Community, the right of all peoples, not to be destroyed in like fashion.

104. THINK ABOUT YOUR PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROPAGANDA DRIVEN AGENDA AND ECONOMICS.

105. Abortion providers including Planned Parenthood take in more than a billion dollars annually and multi-billions of dollars of revenue over time and in the main for performing abortions.

106. By simple definition, you are killing babies for money.

107. Horrific forced and so-called voluntary sterilization of ethnic communities also generates part of your revenue and is another discussion altogether and not included as part of this discussion.

108. The subject of Sterilization in America awaits a courageous set of New York Times or Fox News or for that matter CNN journalists.

109. The U.S. government provides multi-millions of dollars annually and billions over time to abortion providers including those of you at Planned Parenthood.

110. From your annual report, Naomi, which you signed, and which is online, we read: “After 102 years, Planned Parenthood’s mission remains the same: to provide care, no matter what. Last year, our more than 600 health centers provided that care – which includes birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, safe and legal abortion, and so much more – to 2.4 million people across the country.”

111. First, although an abortion may in certain jurisdictions and under certain conditions be “lawful,” there is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.

112. Second, you write “We will continue building a world where all people have access to “Care.” No matter what.”

113. Is this prevarication? Yes it is. The word prevarication is a fancy way to say lie.

114. Let’s be truthful. What you are saying is that you will continue building a world where all people have access to abortion on demand. No matter what.

115. Third, you pitch a second propaganda lie that 12 million Americans are in favor of killing, murdering, selling or donating body parts, flushing, sending to land fills, splitting of spinal cords, of our unborn.

116. Your report then obfuscates in stating that “Medication abortion [is] available in 357 health centers.

117. Ladies, there is no such thing as “Medication abortion.”

118. You and or your PR handlers made up this phrase “Medication abortion.”

119. Use of the phrase “Medication abortion” is propaganda and obfuscation.

120. There is no such thing as “Medication abortion” and you know it.

121. This is prevarication at its finest.

122. Your Planned Parenthood report further documents its initiative to “expand reproductive rights in Latin America and into Africa.

123. The Planned Parenthood world-wide agenda is to foster abortion on demand throughout all nations thereby expanding the abortion genocide crimes against humanity killing fields exponentially.

124. The code words you use are “access to care.” That phrase as you use it primarily and simply means “access to kill an unborn baby on demand.”

125. You characterize yourself and your constituents as “Defenders.”

126. Again, this is smokescreen propaganda.

127. You aren’t defending anything except what can only be construed as your billion dollar gravy train.

128. Your policies and actions have resulted in the murder, killing, abortion of 300,000,000+ of our unborn baby girls and boys.

129. At the same time you have banked amazing wealth.

130. All the while the Democratic Party is influenced by your campaign contributions.

131. Another lie, and one no doubt set to galvanize your funding support base, is that people like Judge Kavanaugh and others are in the business of denying legitimate health care. Not so.

132. No one is in the business of denying legitimate health care.

133. You have redefined the words “legitimate health care” by conflating abortion with healthcare.

134. Abortion is not “health care.”

135. Abortion is killing the unborn for an annual revenue sum of $1,665,000,000.

136. Abortion is killing unborn babies, all the while diverting us with discussions about ethereal points along the gestation continuum, and unending investigations, for money. 

137. Your report shows annual revenues of $1,665,000,000 at minimum, more than a third of which came from “Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants.” 

138. Yes, ladies, as you well know, that is a billion and a half dollars.

139. Notwithstanding your 501 C3 and 501 C4, anyone who suggests that your abortion industry and the abortion industry in general is an eleemosynary charity and not big business is lying or has his or her head in the sand not wanting to do or acknowledge or handle the truth. And obviously you do provide some added services to women.

140. To protect and augment your government and privately funded gravy train, your report shows that you spent:

141. $45,000,000 for Public Policy, [Looks like lobbyists are making huge sums from your abortion initiatives.]

142. $13,000,000 to engage communities [Looks like an excuse to fund local abortion initiatives and organizations], and

143. $76,000,000 for Advocacy, [Looks like law and accounting firms are making huge sums from abortion.]

144. $193,500,000 for management and general, [Looks like you and your board and your management are making serious salaries and vast sums from your abortion initiatives] plus

145. $102,000,000 for fundraising and at the end of the day you had

146. $244,000,000 of excess revenue over expenses, just in one year, which you banked or turned over to investment bankers who manage your portfolio. 

147. IS THERE CAUSE FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND CLASS ACTION CIVIL SUITS?

148. I think so. Yes, there is. Complete with attendant auditing and deep discovery.

149. I am an attorney at law and I think I know a set of potential winnable cases when I see them.

150. Given the 300,000,000+ number, it is not difficult at all to conclude that Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party and those supporting and performing and funding abortions may well be guilty of the evil crimes of Genocide, the grossest Crimes Against Humanity, and now even Infanticide – all actions that warrant criminal prosecution and civil class actions.

151. Given the 300,000,000+ number, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that pro-abortion legislators and judges, and abortion providers including Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party, yourselves included, and some misguided persons and companies who provide you with funding, including no doubt a number of closet liberal republicans, may be individually and collectively guilty of these same crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity – and now even infanticide crimes [i.e. Virginia] against the just born – not to mention the crimes for harming women who have been talked if not conned into having an abortion – again, it is not difficult to suggest the need for the DOJ to take a hard look at possible criminal prosecution and for law firms across the country to take a hard look at filing civil class actions.

152. It took years for the government and nation to get the act together so as to focus on the tobacco industry.

153. At some point there was a tipping point and Ladies 300,000,000+ is tipping point.

154. The ordinary meaning of genocide is murder of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.

155. Has the government or Planned Parenthood fostered and funded the murder of ethnic, racial, or religious groups? Looks like both have done so.

156. Can government officers and the Planned Parenthood Board and officers hide behind any shield when it comes to genocide and crimes against humanity and infanticide? I think not.

157. Does killing 50,000,000+ Black unborn babies since Roe v Wade in 1973 constitute a eugenics driven genocide crime against the Black community?  Probably does.

158. How about 50,000,000+ Hispanic/Latino unborn babies?  Likewise.

159. How about 200,000,000+ Jewish, Native American, Asian, Caucasian unborn babies? Looks like it.

160. How many deaths, how many murders, how many killings of our unborn children and grandchildren is enough  to reach the tipping point so as to generate a formal repudiation of all abortion and formal criminal charges and massive class action civil lawsuits?

161. Are 300,000,000+ killings enough? Absolutely.

162. Are 50,000,000+ killings enough? Yes.

163. Are 200,000,000+ killings enough? Absolutely.

164. Should the FBI and Department of Justice take on the abortion industry like they took on the Tobacco industry and investigate the abortion industry carefully and work together to issue indictments? Yes they should.

165. THE TIPPING POINT WAS REACHED LONG AGO.

166. Notwithstanding, the tipping point has now been reached what with 300,000,000+ killings.

167. I predict aggressive pro-life litigators will take on the task of digging up and harrowing these Planned Parenthood and other abortion killing fields to the tune of billions of dollars if not trillions.

168. Is it time for POTUS Trump and the DOJ to appoint a special counsel to investigate the abortion infanticide sterilization industry and its ties to the Democratic Party. The 300,000,000+ tipping point has been reached. Bring on the special counsel. I for one would welcome such an appointment.

169. LADIES, WHAT IS GENOCIDE AND WHAT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY?

170. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people [babies], especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

171. Synonyms are

172. racial killing,

173. massacre,

174. wholesale slaughter,

175. mass slaughter,

176. wholesale killing,

177. indiscriminate killing,

178. mass murder,

179. mass homicide,

180. mass destruction,

181. annihilation,

182. extermination,

183. elimination,

184. liquidation,

185. eradication,

186. decimation,

187. butchery,

188. bloodbath,

189. bloodletting,

190. pogram,

191. ethnic cleansing,

192. Holocaust,

193. AMERICAN SKIRTS ARE NOT CLEAN CONSIDERING THE GENOCIDE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY KILLING FIELDS INVOLVING OUR NATIVE AMERICANS.

194. A few minute study and one is hard pressed to deny that America is charged with the largest genocide in world history – with the killing of several millions of Native Americans.

195. I ask you three ladies, what is the difference between killing off 70,000,000 indigenous Native American people and killing 300,000,000+ unborn babies – 50,000,000+ Black unborn babies and 50,000,000+ Hispanic and Latino unborn babies and 200,000,000+ Jewish, Native American, Asian American, Caucasian American unborn babies?

196. This same genocidal crime against humanity policy is continued today against Native Americans in the guise of Planned Parenthood and government sponsored abortions and sterilizations of Native Americans.

197. But again, forced or heavily encouraged sterilization is a discussion topic for another day and no doubt for litigation as well.

198.  “Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginal population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history, and “there was, at last, almost no one left to kill.”[47] [Divide 76 million by 6 million and what do you get? You get 12.6 holocausts.]

199. “According to anthropologist Russell Thornton, for the American Indians “the arrival of the Europeans marked the beginning of a long holocaust, although it came not in ovens, as it did for the Jews.

200. “The fires that consumed North America Indians were the fevers brought on by newly encountered diseases, the flashes of settlers’ and soldiers’ guns, the ravages of “firewater,” the flames of villages and fields burned by the scorched-earth policy of vengeful Euro-Americans.”[61] 

201. “David Quammen likened colonial American practices toward Native Americans to those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling both genocide.[62] 

202. “Some authors, including Holocaust scholar David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide.[63]

203. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Americas

204. Does this genocidal crimes against humanity killing continue today in America, only in a different form and disguise?

205. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now [i.e. Virginia] that of infanticide of Native American babies?

206. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now infanticide of Black American babies?

207. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now infanticide of Hispanic and Latino American babies?

208. Does it continue in the killing fields of abortion and now infanticides of Jewish and Native American, and Indian, and Asian and Caucasian unborn babies?

209. Does it continue in the forced and heavily encouraged sterilizations, again a topic for another day?

210. Sure it does.

211. AMERICAN SKIRTS ARE NOT CLEAN CONSIDERING THE GENOCIDE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY KILLING FIELDS OF SLAVERY AND OUR BLACKS.

212. Historically, “estimates by Patrick Manning are that about 12 million slaves entered the Atlantic [slave] trade between the 16th and 19th century, but about 1.5 million died on board ship. About 10.5 million slaves arrived in the Americas. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage, more Africans … died during the slave raids in Africa and forced marches to ports. Manning estimates that 4 million died inside Africa after capture, and many more died young. Manning’s estimate covers the 12 million who were originally destined for the Atlantic, as well as the 6 million destined for Asian slave markets and the 8 million destined for African markets.[68]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_toll

213.  LADIES, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE?

214.  Article 6 of the Rome Statute defines the crime of “genocide” as any of the following acts, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or, religious group.

215.  It is killing members of a group.

216.  It is causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. See http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.html

217.  WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY?

218.  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7 reads:

219.  For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

220.  Murder;

221.  Extermination;

222.  Enslavement;

223.  Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

224.  Imprisonment or

225.  Other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

226.  Torture;

227.  Rape, 

228.  sexual slavery,

229.  enforced prostitution,

230.  forced pregnancy,

231.  enforced sterilization [a topic for another day],

232.  or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

233.  Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on

234.  political,

235.  racial,

236.  national,

237.  ethnic,

238.  cultural,

239.  religious,

240.  gender as defined in paragraph 3,

241.  or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law,

242.  in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

243.  Enforced disappearance of persons;

244.  The crime of apartheid;

245.  Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing

246.  great suffering,

247.  or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

248.  For the purpose of paragraph 1:

249.  ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State [the USA] or organizational [Planned Parenthood and Democratic Party] policy to commit such attack;

250.  Elements of a Crime against Humanity. According to Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity do not need to be linked to an armed conflict and can also occur in peacetime, similar to the crime of genocide.

251.  This same Article provides a definition of the crime that contains the following main elements:

252.  A physical element, which includes the commission of “any of the following acts”:

253.  Murder;

254.  Extermination;

255.  Enslavement;

256.  Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

257.  Imprisonment;

258.  Torture;

259.  Grave forms of sexual violence;

260.  Persecution;

261.  Enforced disappearance of persons;

262.  The crime of apartheid;

263.  Other inhumane acts.

264.  A contextual element: “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” [against Blacks? Against Hispanics? Against Native Americans? Of course.]; and

265.  A mental element: “with knowledge of the attack”

266.  The contextual element determines that crimes against humanity involve either large-scale violence in relation to the number of victims –

267.  [Does 300,000,000+ qualify? How about 50,000,000+? Sure they do.]

268.  [Is this the tipping point? Of course it is.] –

269.   or its extension over a broad geographic area (widespread), 

270.  or a methodical type of violence (systematic).

271.  This excludes random, accidental or isolated acts of violence. 

272.  [No one can argue that abortion is a random, or accidental, or isolated act of violence.]

273.  In addition, Article 7(2)(a) of the Rome Statute determines that crimes against humanity must be committed in furtherance of a State [USA] or organizational [Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party] policy to commit an attack.

274.  The plan or policy does not need to be explicitly stipulated or formally adopted and can, therefore, be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.

275.  In contrast with genocide, crimes against humanity do not [even] need to target a specific group.

276.  [There is no question but what Blacks are targeted and Hispanics and Latinos are targeted. There is no question but what Native Americans are targeted.]

277.  Instead, the victim of the attack can be any civilian population,

278.  regardless of its affiliation or identity.

279.  Another important distinction is that in the case of crimes against humanity, it is not necessary to prove that there is an overall specific intent.

280.  It suffices for there to be a simple intent to commit any of the acts listed,

281.  with the exception of the act of persecution, which requires additional discriminatory intent.

282.  The perpetrator must also act with knowledge of the attack against the civilian population and that his/her action is part of that attack.

283.   [1] For example, William Schabas, Unimaginable Atrocities – Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2012 – p. 51-53.

284.  [2] For example, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999, p.62

285.  SO LADIES, IT IS TIME.

286. THE TIPPING POINT HAS ARRIVED.

287. IT IS TIME TO PROHIBIT AND ELIMINATE ABORTION ALTOGETHER EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES.

288. IT IS TIME TO RECOGNIZE ABORTION FOR WHAT IT IS – THE GENOCIDE AND CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND NOW INFANTICIDE KILLING AND MURDER OF OUR UNBORN?

289. YES IT IS.

290. IT IS TIME TO REMOVE THIS CANCEROUS TUMOR FROM AMERICA’S HEAD.

291. IT IS TIME TO REMOVE THIS ALBATROSS, THIS MILLSTONE, FROM AROUND THE NECKS OF THE BLACK AND HISPANIC AND OTHER COMMUNITIES?

292. It is time to do so:

293. Because it is the morally right thing to do.

294. Because it is the ethically right thing to do.

295. Because it is the legally and Constitutionally right thing to do.

296. Because it is the philosophically right thing to do.

297. Because it is the socially right thing to do.

298. Because it is the theologically/religiously right thing to do.

299. THE TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED AND IT IS TIME TO CUT OUT THIS CANCER AND ELIMINATE THIS SCOURGE.

300. NOW IS THE TIME.

301. LADIES, THIS DISCUSSION WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE UNLESS I TAKE A MINUTE AND PUT IT IN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF ITS THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS.

302. Whether you are a believer or not, the Holy Scriptures teach that you and I are daughters and sons of heavenly parents.

303. Scriptures teach that we lived with our heavenly parents prior to our mortality and that we have always had and always will have our same general appearance, identity and personality.

304. We did not just flare into existence at conception or at some time during our gestation prior to our physical birth.

305. The birth process is the DNA driven process by which we came and our unborn come from heaven into mortality.

306. Scriptures teach that every unborn child is a spirit child of God, and like it or not you are  my sisters and I am your brother.

307. Your mortality is very short and usually too short, as is mine. 

308. Mortality is your very short God given “out of His presence” individually designed test of your and my character.

309. As such, it is easy to conclude that if we are in favor of, and if we knowingly foster and promote and perform, the killing of our spirit sisters and brothers, if we are in favor of killing and in fact are engaged in killing our unborn babies, we are failing our mortal test badly at the moment.

310. Notwithstanding, we still have some time left in mortality before our death.

311.  Scriptures testify that this life is the very short time to repent and prepare once again to meet our Heavenly Father and His Son when we die where we will be judged according to our thoughts, words, and actions.

312.  Luke 17:2 reads “It were better for him [or her after mortality] that a millstone were hanged about his [or her] neck, and he [or she be] cast into the sea, than that he [or she] should offend one of these little ones.”

313.  So how much does a millstone weigh? The weight of a biblical millstone is no light matter. It is as much as 1,500 kilograms or 3,300 pounds.

314.  Jesus the Christ is saying if we harm a little unborn baby girl or baby boy the penalty is far worse than death by drowning with a millstone of 3,300 pounds hanged about our neck!

315.  This thought is sobering and worth thinking deeply about as both moral construct and theological constraint.

316.  This is also of consequence given the fact that for those who take time and have eyes to see it is increasingly apparent that end times are upon the world and Christ will descend from his throne in heaven and return in fearsome great glory and power in the not too distant future to judge you and me and the world. 

317.  Read Revelation 19 and Matthew 25 if you are not afraid of a “Come to Jesus” sobering read.

318.  So because all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God, ladies, we would all do well  to repent of our sins today.

319. So I ask you, Nancy, Naomi, and Leana, are you three women willing to leave as your legacy the fact that you and your liberal democrat policies and friends caused untold pain, suffering, and death to millions of unborn babies and their mothers and other family members and at the same time run the risk of having to explain your actions at the judgment bar of God when you die?  I think not. I think you are smarter than that.

320.  How many unborn baby killings/murders/deaths are we as a nation willing to stomach before we and your Liberal Democrat political party, and your Planned Parenthood Board, and your leadership officers and medical providers turn this around and eliminate altogether this 300,000,000+ scourge and 3,300 pound millstone around the neck of our nation altogether?

321.  IN SUMMARY.  

322.  THE TIPPING POINT OF 300,000,000+ UNBORN BABY KILLINGS HAS BEEN REACHED.

323.  THE TIPPING POINT OF 50,000,000+ UNBORN BLACK BABY KILLINGS HAS BEEN REACHED.

324.  THE TIPPING POINT OF 50,000,000+ UNBORN HISPANIC AND LATINO BABY KILLINGS HAS BEEN REACHED.

325.  I predict serious criminal prosecutions and civil class action suits are waiting in the wings.

326.  It is time to turn this matter around while there is still patience.

327.  It is time to voluntarily cease and desist committing abortions altogether except in extreme instances.

328.  It is time for great statesmen and stateswoman politicians and great lawyers and great law firms to stand up and be counted and take whatever government investigations, special counsels, criminal and civil case actions are necessary.

329.  IT IS TIME TO ELIMINATE THE SCOURGE OF ABORTION COMPLETELY.

330.  THE 300,000,000+ TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED.

331.  The horrific internet pictures and facts about abortion can no longer be kept in the closet.

332.  We are long past the time when the Democratic Political Party of abortion and the Planned Parenthood organizational policies and complicit medical and pharmaceutical providers can get away with killing/murdering/ripping apart/sending to landfills/flushing/using tiny body parts in bizaar experiments/severing spinal cords/ selling body parts/committing abortions with impunity and behind closed doors.

333.  300,000,000+ IS THE TIPPING POINT, LADIES.

334.  The abortion party and its gravy train is over whether you acknowledge this fact of unborn life or not.

335.  THESE ARE RATIONAL SOLUTIONS!

336.  IT IS PAST TIME for all Democrats if for no other reason than self-preservation to jettison their current abhorrent abortion policy and eliminate all abortion except in extremely rare cases.

337.  IT IS PAST TIME for all Americans to ‘LOVE’ all of our unborn babies regardless of ethnicity, to “LOVE” our precious little ones who are incapable of protecting themselves.

338.  IT IS PAST TIME for Planned Parenthood and all abortion providers to stop this abhorrent practice of abortion and instead focus their treasure and energies on adoption.

339.  IT IS PAST TIME for POTUS to declare a national holiday of freedom and independence from abortion – to celebrate the freedom and right to life of our defenseless children, born and unborn.

340.  IT IS PAST TIME for Congress to pass a WE LOVE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, BORN AND UNBORN amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on  these inalienable rights and principles:

340.1.                  We LOVE and TREASURE our CHILDREN, born and unborn.

340.2.                  Each of our children, born or unborn, is guaranteed her or his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

340.3.                  No person or organization may traffic in or harm our children, born or unborn without consequence.

340.4.                  No person may commit or perform an abortion or infanticide, or accept remuneration of any kind for an abortion or infanticide.

340.5.                  No abortion may be performed on our unborn children, except as agreed to by the mother in the case of incest, rape, or to protect the health of the mother.

340.6.                  Each and every child is to be brought to term and where the mother elects not to care for or is incapable of caring for the child, that child is to be placed for adoption.

341.  IT IS PAST TIME for Congress to strengthen and approve criminal statutes making it illegal for anyone to traffic in children, or perform or take or give remuneration of any kind for an abortion except as approved by the mother,  in the case of incest, rape, or to protect the health of the mother, under penalty of a fine of $X and imprisonment of not less than Y years.

THE TIPPING POINT HAS BEEN REACHED, NANCY, NAOMI, AND LEANA.

IT IS TIME TO CEASE ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN EXTREMELY RARE INSTANCES.

Best personal regards, Richard W. Linford r.linford@comcast.net

Mexico murders. Build the wall.

BARREL, Howard Stern and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer need to read this article which top notes the level of violence that further makes the case for a wall – and not a steel one that can be sawed through.

1.      “In an area known for its gruesome violence, 20 bodies were found near the Mexican border city of Nuevo Laredo on Wednesday.

2.      “Most all of them, 17, were burned.

3.      “The discovery, reported by Reuters, marks the latest in grisly murders that have plagued the northern state of Tamaulipas – next to the U.S. border – in large part because of drug cartels.

4.      “The city of Nuevo Laredo itself borders the Rio Grande, directly across the river from Laredo, Texas.

5.      “Hundreds of bodies have been found in unmarked graves over the years. And while much of the crime is blamed on warring cartels, some of it also is believed to have occurred at the hands of the Mexican Marines.

6.      “More than 200 Marines were dispatched to the area to try to control violence in the area.

7.      “But after gunmen attacked three Marine patrols last year, the violence surged.

8.      “And the Marines apparently retaliated, attacking people suspected of having been involved in the ambush, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

9.      “Aside from the frequent discovery of mutilated bodies in the area, more than 5,000 people are missing in Tamaulipas, the newspaper reports.

10.  “Violence in the area soared after the Sinaloa cartel, which had been led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, established its presence there to control smuggling routes between the Nueva Laredo region and U.S., a key drug trafficking spot along the border.

11.  “But after Guzman was extradited to the U.S. in 2017 to stand trial in New York, the cartel split into factions that engaged in bloody battles to wrest control of the lucrative route.

12.  “A 2018 Congressional Research Service report noted: “A new transnational criminal organization, Cartel Jalisco-New Generation, which split from Sinaloa in 2010, has sought to become dominant with brutally violent techniques.”

13.  “The report added: “In 2017, Mexico reached its highest number of total intentional homicides in a year, exceeding, by some counts, 29,000 murders.

14.  “In the 2017-2018 election period that opened in September 2017 and ran through June 12, 2018, 114 candidates and politicians were killed allegedly by crime bosses and others in an effort to intimidate public office holders.”

15.  “Elizabeth Llorente is Senior Reporter for FoxNews.com, and can be reached at Elizabeth.Llorente@Foxnews.com. Follow her on Twitter @Liz_Llorente.  https://www.foxnews.com/world/mexican-police-find-20-bodies-most-burned-close-to-u-s-border

BREXIT TODAY NOT TOMORROW. EVERY COUNTRY SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT, FREE, SAFE, AND PROSPEROUS. BARREL & PORK

  1. What do you think of BREXIT, PORK?

    BARREL, every country should be free and independent. I have 52 REASONS Why the United Kingdom should leave the European Union and regain its “INDEPENDENCE,” “FREEDOM,” and “SOVEREIGNTY” AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, and if the current PM won’t or is incapable of making it happen, then vote in a new one who will help the people be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, BARREL.

    1. ANGER WITH PRIME MINISTERS. The British people are angry with David Cameron and Theresa May because they have not been firm in support of the INDEPENDENCE, SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM, SAFETY, and PROSPERITY of the British people. Their compromises are problematic to say the least.
    2. ANGER WITH PRIME MINISTERS. Tensions among the British people are at a breaking point regarding the wave of asylum seekers and migrants invading from the Middle East and Africa.
    3. CONTROL. Leaving most if not all onerous control by EU institutions is a primary reason for leaving the EU. Freedom to choose for oneself no matter the consequences is at the heart of BREXIT independence.
    4. CONTROL. The idea that laws governing British citizens are decided by politicians from other nations is troubling at best. The EU polygamous relationships between the countries tends to be counterproductive.
    5. COST OF BELONGING TO THE EU. The budget contribution for the EU is onerous and without commensurate benefits.
    6. CUSTOMS. Remaining in the EU customs union is problematical given EU customs regulations.
    7. ECONOMICS. Economics is a reason. Britain’s privileged position is under threat from Germany and France and others. Contrary to some opinions, competitiveness as between European “states” is often heightened and not mitigated by EU involvement.
    8. ECONOMICS. Financial and economic regulations are onerous.
    9. ECONOMICS. Non-euro currencies (e.g. the pound) are at risk.
    10. ECONOMICS. There are limitations to an EU single market.
    11. ECONOMICS. There is lack of financial control and autonomy.
    12. EU BUREAUCRACY. The European Union’s excessive “German and Belgium and French” globalist bureaucracy is problematical and often antithetical to the values and interests of the UK.
    13. EU CONTROL. The European Union is highly controlling.
    14. EU CONTROLS FRONTIERS. Frontiers of the state of Britain, including fishing waters, are curtailed at a European level.
    15. EU AS GLOBALIST INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES. UK National sovereignty is marginalized, minimized, jeopardized by globalist agendas. Nationalism is a virtue not a vice as globalists would have one believe.
    16. EU DYSFUNCTION. The European Union is highly dysfunctional.
    17. EU EURO. The common euro currency threatens the pound.
    18. EU IS EXCESSIVELY BUREAUCRACTIC.
    19. EU LACK OF DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY. The European Union’s lack of democratic accountability is discomfiting.
    20. EU SUPERSTATE. The British people are suspicious of a political union with the rest of Europe because the thrust and agenda is toward a “global” and “globalist” “European superstate” including an EU military, ostensibly to compete with the United States, or to counter threats from those within or without the EU.
    21. EXPENSE. The expense of participation is onerous without commensurate benefits.
    22. HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS. UK has historical connections with many other parts of the world from its past empire and commonwealth relationships and is quite capable of making its own treaties and trade arrangements.
    23. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Asylum seekers are not remaining in the first EU country they enter as promised.
    24. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Immigration is increasing while paying lip service to its reduction. The immigration waves have all the earmarks of an invasion of the west.
    25. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Immigration policy is unclear and favors open borders, and unvetted cross-country movement, each of which threaten Great Britain’s identity as a people.
    26. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Remaining in the EU Single Market and submitting to EU requirements mandating free movement of people from anywhere in the EU without careful vetting is extremely risky, causing more problems than it is worth and makes no sense.
    27. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The border-free Schengen area is problematic to say the least. It comprises 26 European states that have abolished passports and all forms of border control. With the movement of peoples unchecked this a recipe for terrorist and military disaster.
    28. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The idea and practice of free movement across borders throughout Europe is fraught with perils including conflicts with cultures and religions and economic interests.
    29. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. The wave of asylum seekers – the EU’s open borders plans to resettle hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa – is disturbing and destabilizing.
    30. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. An invasion of vast numbers of people is moving uncontrolled without proper vetting or control across the continent, with the result that many are taking over enclaves in the UK.
    31. IMMIGRATION/MIGRATION/INVASION. Limits on the number of migrants are discussed but are not implemented.
    32. INDEPENDENCE. Leaving the EU means the UK will jettison the globalist agenda and be more nearly independent and will take responsibility for its own economy, security, and laws.
    33. LANGUAGE BARRIERS. Language difficulties are significant given the unchecked immigration/migration/invasion.
    34. PRINCIPLES. No deal is indeed better than a bad deal. No deal, if it comes to that, simply means Great Britain will be independent.
    35. REGULATIONS. Standardization of everything from labor regulations to the size of olive oil containers threatens Europe with persistent low growth and high unemployment.
    36. REGULATIONS. Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty required official notification of the EU by the UK government, and PM May triggered the article on March 29, 2017.
    37. REGULATIONS. Disentangling the UK from EU regulations though difficult is doable and contrary to some opinions is not a major problem in “settling the status of millions of UK citizens residing in the EU and non-EU citizens in the UK”and although it will require present and future UK-EU security cooperation, the final withdrawal deal approved “by a super majority of EU countries” has bearing on the EU and is irrelevant to the European Parliament.” Whoever permits the provision requiring a “super majority approval,” as an excuse for preventing Great Britain from withdrawing, deserves significant opprobrium.
    38. REGULATIONS. EU laws and regulations are onerous. Independence, indeed separateness, and the common law, is a primary source of strength of Great Britain.
    39. REGULATIONS. Opt-outs have failed to protect UK interests.
    40. REGULATIONS. Reduction of EU regulations has not been forthcoming.
    41. REGULATIONS. There is limited ability to negotiate with the EU.
    42. SOVEREIGNTY. “Ever closer union with EU “states”” is antithetical to British independence and sovereignty.
    43. SOVEREIGNTY. Destruction of national sovereignty by the globalist agenda has been a result of getting involved with the EU.
    44. SOVEREIGNTY. Reclaiming independence and sovereignty is a primary reason for leaving the EU.
    45. STATUS of the UK. The UK did not lose the first or second world war and was not invaded during the second world war either. The UK has a unique history having just recently ceded control over large areas of the world. With its penchant for industry, its economic system, and its common law system, it is destined for continued greatness, which is best realized by being independent and by not ceding its options to the EU governing board comprised of Germany, France, Belgium and others.
    46. STATUS of the UK. The UK was not invaded during second world war.
    47. STATUS of the UK. The UK was victorious in second world war. Now territorial ambitions of other actors, including those who lost the second world war, appear to be realized by so-called “peaceful migration” which by any other definition is simple invasion.
    48. TERRORISM. EU nationals traveled to Syria to fight with the self-proclaimed Islamic State and now many have returned with their radical ideas and terrorist activities thereby making the UK vulnerable — jeopardizing the safety and security of British citizens.
    49. TERRORISM. Knife attacks and car and truck attacks in Great Britain have increased in number and this increase can be traced to the immigration/migration/invasion policies of the EU.
    50. TERRORISM. Terrorist attacks in Europe have not been eliminated as promised.
    51. TRADE. There is inability to integrate with the European Coal and Steel Community.
    52. TRADE. There is inability to integrate with the European Economic and Cultural Community. Again, BARREL, Great Britain, and for that matter each country, needs to be independent, sovereign, and free of entanglements.
    53. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-brexit-means?gclid=CjwKCAiA0O7fBRASEiwAYI9QAu7PR4EDTGCeR0OXy7BKq2TCh0nRip1v2UoGbcJo8Vi2MSEecFvlNRoCzuMQAvD_BwE

What 5 Steps can POTUS Trump take to guarantee he will only serve one term? BARREL & PORK

PORK, what steps can POTUS Trump take to guarantee that he will be a one term president?


BARREL, I think POTUS Trump can guarantee that he will be a one term president if he fails to keep us FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS, if he fails to clearly show the nation all the promises he has kept. 


[YOU MAY WANT TO BUY RICHARD LINFORD’S NEW BOOK “RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?]

In particular, he can guarantee that he will be a one term president simply by taking all or some combination of the following five steps:


STEP 1. IMMIGRATION. Fail to control the border and stop the invasion and fail to build the wall as he promised. 


STEP 2. ABORTION. Fail to protect the BLACK, HISPANIC, JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN AMERICAN unborn as he promised.** 


3. JOBS AND TAXES. Fail to keep front and center the message to BLACKS and HISPANICS and ALL OTHER AMERICAS that he is helping them with jobs and tax breaks as he promised. 


4. RULE OF LAW. Fail to indict and prosecute and bring to justice those including rich and famous who have aggrandized and enriched themselves by prostituting their elected or appointed offices as he promised. 


5. MESSAGE. Fail to show and teach the nation’s Republican and Democrat WOMEN, MEN, YOUTH, BLACKS, HISPANICS, JEWISH AMERICANS, NATIVE AMERICANS, ASIAN AMERICANS, CAUCASIAN AMERICANS all of the promises he has kept and the immense good he has done during his term in office.


** Since democrat founded Roe v Wade in 1973 more than 300,000,000+ unborn American babies have been surgically and chemically murdered, killed, flushed, sent to land fills, sold for body parts, aborted: 50,000,000+ of the 300,000,000+ were BLACK babies. 50,000,000+ were HISPANIC babies.


[YOU MAY WANT TO BUY RICHARD LINFORD’S NEW BOOK “RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?]

BARREL & PORK IMAGE AND POSTS

(C) Copyright 2018

Linford Corporation

r.linford@comcast.net

FREE BOOK RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER? BARREL & PORK

To sponsor Richard W. Linford’s new book RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER? BARREL & PORK are giving away a free copy here below.  An ebook copy can be purchased for $4.95 on amazon.com by clicking here:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KPLTMDC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542662387&sr=1-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+Jeff+Sessions

RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?

Was AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes.  Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.

Richard W Linford

RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER? 

Was the AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.

© Copyright 2018

Linford Corporation

All domestic and international rights reserved

Foreword. Some accept Jeff Sessions’ recusal at face value while such should not be the case. Judging Jeff Sessions’ recusal by what politicians and political groups did and do, by the effect of their votes and actions, not simplistically by what they say, suggests that AG Sessions’ recusal was  engineered to the extreme harm of POTUS TRUMP.  Acting AG Matthew Whitaker would be remiss to recuse himself and POTUS Trump would be remiss to let him.

RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?

Was the AG Sessions’ recusal falsely engineered to the extreme harm of Jeff Sessions and POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should Acting AG Whitaker recuse himself? No.

 

  1. RECUSAL DEFINED?
  2. “Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. “
  3. https://www.google.com/search?q=recusal&oq=Recusal&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.1520j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
  4. Another definition. “The verb recuse is used in legal situations and means to remove someone from a position of judicial authority, either a judge or a member of a jury, who is deemed unacceptable to judge, usually because of some bias.” “The Latin recusare, meaning “to refuse” is the place to start in the history of recuse. You can recuse someone else, but also yourself.
  5. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/recuse
  6. Recusal “… means to disqualify oneself as a judge in a particular case. It means to remove oneself from participation in a situation in order to avoid a conflict of interest.”
  7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recuse

 

  1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DEFINED?
  2. A conflict of interest is “a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.” A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.” https://www.google.com/search?ei=C0TrW_HRAfHBjgTT66LoBQ&q=conflict+of+interest&oq=conflict+of+interest&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i20i263j0j0i20i263j0l7.6693.9500..9771…0.0..0.125.2180.1j19……0….1..gws-wiz…….35i39j0i131j0i67j0i131i67.DJJsVT6g4OM
  3. A conflict of interest “is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. Conflicts of interest involve dual relationships; one person in one relationship and a relationship in another situation.
  4. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-a-conflict-of-interest-give-me-some-examples-398192

 

  1. HOW ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST RESOLVED?
  2. Through recusal. Either a person recuses himself or herself, as in the U.S. Supreme Court justices, or a person can be compelled to recuse himself by virtue of administrative decree, edict, order, command, or injunction.

 

  1. Through waiver. The opposition can waive any conflict of interest.

 

  1. Through contract. Parties can agree to terms of a recusal.

 

  1. Through insurance. The party with the alleged conflict of interest can provide a pledge or insurance guaranteeing he or she will not permit earlier or present conflicts to make a difference in decisions or actions.

 

  1. The party with the alleged conflict of interest can refuse to accept a recusal, thereby setting the stage for litigation of the matter before a court of law or administrative judicial body.

 

 

  1. WHAT ARE JUDICIAL EXAMPLES OF RECUSAL?
  2. Clarence Thomas recused himself in a case involving Virginia because his son attended Virginia Military Institute.
  3. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner recused herself from participation in telecommunications cases. Why? Because she owned stock in telecommunications companies.
  4. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from participation in insurance related matters because of a connection he had to Lloyd’s of London.
  5. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself from several cases Arizona attorney James Brosnahan argued before the Supreme Court because James Brosnahan gave testimony against Justice Rehnquist during his confirmation hearing.
  6. Three Supreme Court Justices – Scalia, Souter, and Thomas recused themselves in a death penalty appeal because they knew the victim’s son.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification. Legal Citations provided at this URL.

 

  1. WHAT ARE JUDICIAL EXAMPLES OF REFUSAL TO RECUSE?
  2. Justice Hugo Black did not recuse himself in the Jewell Ridge Coal case.
  3. Even though in the past he opined that arrests were valid, Associate Justice Rehnquist refused to recuse himself in a case involving validity of certain arrests.
  4. Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in a case involving VP Dick Cheney as a party even though Justice Scalia was a participant in a hunting trip with Mr. Cheney.
  5. Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in a Pledge of Allegiance-related case, notwithstanding Justice Scalia stated his view that a party’s claims had no merit.
  6. There are a number of other federal cases where judges refused to recuse themselves, one involving federal judge Leon Higginbotham, one involving Paul Borman, one involving Michael Mukasey.
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification.  Legal Citations provided at this URL.

 

  1. RECUSAL IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES?
  2. The concept of recusal applies to administrative agencies.
  3. Perhaps the most famous recusal to-date is that of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
  4. He recused himself from matters relative to “Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
  5. Sessions claims he did not give up his responsibility to serve as the nation’s law enforcement officer.
  6. Sessions claims he merely ceded control of “Russia investigations” to Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
  7. https://www.romper.com/p/what-does-recuse-mean-jeff-sessions-is-stepping-away-from-russia-investigations-41995

 

  1. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATION MR. SESSIONS RELIED UPON AS LEGAL SUPPORT FOR HIS RECUSAL?
  2. He relied on Department of Justice regulation: Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2, Code of Federal Regulation, title “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.”
  3. 2(a) and (b) read:
  4. (a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
  5. (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
  6. (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
  7. (b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
  8. (1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
  9. (2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
  10. ( c) For the purposes of this section:
  11. (1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
  12. (2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
  13. (d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.

 

  1. DID MR. SESSIONS COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE REGULATION UPON WHICH HE RELIED? ANSWER: IT APPEARS THAT HE DID NOT.
  2. Paragraph b) of the DOJ regulation reads: An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher.
  3. Sessions was obligated to “report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor [POTUS Trump].” Did he do this? No he did not.

 

  1. UNLIKE RECUSAL IN THE MATTER OF A SUPREME COURT OR OTHER JUDGE WHEREIN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WILL OR WILL NOT RECUSE THEMSELVES, WHOSE CHOICE WAS IT WHETHER MR. SESSIONS RECUSE HIMSELF OR NOT?
  2. According to the DOJ regulation Mr. Sessions relied upon, the choice as to whether Mr. Sessions should recuse himself belonged to POTUS Trump.
  3. Why? Because The DOJ regulation reads:
  4. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
  5. (1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
  6. (2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
  7. Who was Mr. Sessions’ supervisor?
  8. Answer: POTUS Trump.
  9. Again, whose choice was it whether Mr. Sessions recuse himself?
  10. Answer: POTUS Trump’s choice.
  11. Session arbitrarily decided to and then announced that he was recusing himself.

 

  1. WHAT DIFFERENCE DID MR. SESSIONS’ RECUSAL MAKE?
  2. Sessions said it was “absurd” to suggest that his recusal would render him unable to manage the Department of Justice?
  3. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/13/heres-the-regulation-that-sessions-said-required-him-to-quit-probe.html
  4. Was it absurd to suggest that his recusal would render him unable to manage the Department of Justice?
  5. Was he in fact able to manage the Department of Justice?
  6. The answer is no.
  7. He was only able to manage a part of the Department of Justice.
  8. For his work combating gangs, dealing with drug and immigration issues, and DOJ related matters other than “Russians involved in influencing the U.S. election,” Mr. Sessions is
  9. He focused his administration on “rolling back the work of the Obama administration in liberalizing drug laws, reducing mass incarceration, and ending federal monitoring of troubled police departments.
  10. With all the good work he did, however, did his recusal make it impossible for him to manage and direct matters pertaining to the “Russian interference in the 2016 election”?
  11. Did his recusal make it –
  12. (1) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in “Russian” connections to the democratic party including the Clintons and the Podestas? and
  13. (2) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in “Russian” connections to Hillary Clinton including investigating whether she misused her office and colluded with the Russians and took vast sums of money from the Russians and others as campaign funds or otherwise in return for influence, whether she paid a million dollars for the “Russian dossier, “whether she took control of democratic party funds to the harm of Bernie Sanders, whether she colluded with others, including perhaps then POTUS Obama, to damage a sitting president POTUS Trump by using ill-gotten FISA warrants?
  14. Did his recusal make it (3) impossible for him to manage and direct and call grand juries and investigate and indict and prosecute those involved in the “Russian” elements of the Mueller investigation(s)?
  15. His recusal made such impossible. There is no indication Mr. Sessions provided management and direction to matters pertaining to “Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
  16. This was left to Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein who had oversight for the “Russian investigation.” Mr. Rosenstein apparently appointed and gave Mr. Mueller the investigative latitude he enjoys.
  17. Today Matthew J. Whitaker serves as acting Attorney General. He has not recused himself and any recusal would be determined by POTUS Trump if there is a continued call for recusal.
  18. Looking at the political landscape, what appears to a reasonable person, to a reasonable investigative journalist, to a reasonable special counsel, is this:
  19. It would appear that the democrats manufactured the “Russians” did it narrative as a smokescreen to cover their own perfidy in dealing with the Russians.
  20. To-date there is no indication the Russians colluded with POTUS Trump.
  21. There is a reasonable conclusion that the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Mr. Podesta and others, including the complicit media on the left, manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative.
  22. If Mr. Sessions knew the Democrats manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative, then he is either a closet liberal and party to the elaborate, far reaching fraud on the Republican party and the nation, and his recusal was intentionally designed to hamstring POTUS Trump and prevent POTUS Trump from carrying out his duty as regards criminal actions, OR
  23. If Mr. Sessions did not know that the Democrats manufactured the “Russians influenced the 2016 election” narrative, then he has been deceived by the Democrats. In this case, Mr. Sessions’ recusal was misinformed.
  24. Either way, as a consequence of the Democrat falsehood, and the subsequent Sessions recusal,
  25. (1) we the American people are not just saddled with the multi-million dollar Mueller special investigation,
  26. (2)We are saddled with a two tier justice system where the rich and famous commit felonies and escape grand jury indictment and subsequent arrest, prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.

 

  1. CONSEQUENCES OF THE SESSIONS RECUSAL?
  2. To-date, after all this time, we the people still have no answers to critical questions.
  3. Did the Democrats collude with the Russians?
  4. Did the Democrats receive funds from the Russians?
  5. Did the Democrats manufacture the “Russians interfered in the 2016 election” narrative?
  6. Did they, including then Barack Obama, and closet or open liberals in the Republican Party, engineer Mr. Sessions’ recusal and the “Mueller special counsel” in order to marginalize a duly elected sitting president POTUS Trump?
  7. Have they aggressively followed the Saul Alinsky principle of accusing your opponent of the very same thing you are guilty of?
  8. Did Hillary Clinton and her campaign wrongfully confiscate millions of dollars of Democratic national committee funds to the great harm of Bernie Sanders and others?
  9. Did Hillary Clinton with give or take a million dollars fund the fake “Russian” dossier denigrating POTUS Trump and do so through a Democrat law firm and fusion GPS and operatives?
  10. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email and servers and Blackberries to knowingly, or unknowingly, transfer classified information to the Russians and Chinese and others? Either way, this is felonious conduct.
  11. To what degree were the FBI leadership and other FBI persons complicit in activities that harmed and still harm POTUS Trump? Mr. Comey? Mr. Clapper? Media personalities? Others?
  12. Had Mr. Sessions failed to “recuse himself,” had he adhered to the policy and given POTUS Trump his right to choose, would we have answers to each of these questions?
  13. Is it reasonable to conclude that indictments would have been issued beyond the few seeming inconsequential indictments issued by Mr. Mueller to-date?

 

  1. FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS, MARK LEVIN, AMONG OTHERS, CALLED FOR JEFF SESSIONS TO RESIGN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  2. In April of 2018, MARK said: “The buck stops on the Attorney General’s desk, even if he recused himself as he did with the Russian matter. This is not the Russian matter. And the entire [Justice] Department is out of control now and its country first, over any politician, even if I’ve known that politician for a long, long time, his attorney general now.“I watch the president of the United States here now. He doesn’t deserve any of this. He didn’t do anything. He didn’t do anything. What do you think it is, Chappaquiddick?

    “And so it’s time for the Attorney General to step aside and for the president of the United States, he can make a recess appointment, … [of] somebody … who’s going to take … charge over what’s going on in this country.

    (Real Clear Politics, Mark Levin: Time For Jeff Sessions To Resign, Posted by Ian Schwartz, April 9, 2018. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/04/09/mark_levin_time_for_jeff_sessions_to_resign.html)

 

  1. WHAT ABOUT MR. SESSIONS’ RESIGNATION AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?
  2. Sessions’ resignation was made according to Mr. Sessions at POTUS Trump’s instance.
  3. His letter of resignation reads:
  4. “Dear Mr. President,
  5. “At your request, I am submitting my resignation.
  6. “Since the day I was honored to be sworn in as Attorney General of the United States, I came to work at the Department of Justice every day determined to do my duty and serve my country.
  7. “I have done so to the best of my ability, working to support the fundamental legal processes that are the foundation of justice.
  8. “The team we assembled embraced your directive to be a law and order Department of Justice.
  9. “We prosecuted the largest number of violent offenders and firearm defendants in our country’s history.
  10. “We took on transnational gangs that are bringing violence and death across our borders and protected national security.
  11. “We did our part to restore immigration enforcement.
  12. “We targeted the opioid epidemic by prosecuting doctors, pharmacists, and anyone else who contributed to this crisis with new law enforcement tools and determination.
  13. “And we have seen results.
  14. “After two years of rising violent crime and homicides prior to this administration, those trends have reversed – thanks to the hard work of our prosecutors and law enforcement around the country.
  15. “I am particularly grateful to the fabulous men and women in law enforcement all over this country with whom I have served.
  16. “I have had no greater honor than to serve alongside them.
  17. “As I have said many times, they have my thanks and I will always have their backs.
  18. “Most importantly, in my time as Attorney General we have restored and upheld the rule of law – a glorious tradition that each of us has a responsibility to safeguard.
  19. “We have operated with integrity and have lawfully and aggressively advanced the policy agenda of this administration.
  20. “I have been honored to serve as Attorney General and have worked to implement the law enforcement agenda based on the rule of law that formed a central part of your campaign for the Presidency.
  21. “Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. President.
  22. “Sincerely, Jeffery B. Sessions
  23. (CNN politics, Read Jeff Sessions’ resignation letter, Wednesday, November 7, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/sessions-resignation-letter/index.html)
  24. Again, I for one praise Mr. Sessions for the good that he has done.
  25. What is missing from his letter is any indication whatsoever that he helped resolve the serious issues raised by the above questions.

 

  1. SHIFTING GEARS, WHAT OF MATTHEW J. WHITAKER’S APPOINTMENT AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL? WHAT OF THE CALL BY DEMOCRATS AND OTHERS FOR MR. WHITAKER TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM GIVING OVERSIGHT TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION?
  2. POTUS Trump appointed Matthew J. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General and this despite the fact Rod Rosenstein was Assistant Attorney General.
  3. POTUS Trump is authorized to make the appointment of Mr. Whitaker to serve as Acting Attorney General.
  4. You can read the Department of Justice Memorandum justifying Mr. Whitaker’s appointment. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5113276/Read-the-Justice-Department-Memo-defending.pdf.
  5. This document is also included herein as APPENDIX A.
  6. One might have thought Mr. Rosenstein had a shot at being chosen to succeed Mr. Sessions but Mr. Rosenstein didn’t get the nod from POTUS Trump.
  7. Why not?
  8. Who knows for certain?
  9. Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein was complicit in the appointment of Mr. Mueller.
  10. Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein has not helped resolve the issues set forth in the above list of questions.
  11. Perhaps because Mr. Rosenstein was part of the problem not part of the solution.
  12. The fact is “Mr. Rosenstein was not chosen by POTUS Trump.”
  13. Matthew George Whitaker chosen.
  14. Whitaker was born October 29, 2969 in Des Moines, Iowa.
  15. He is an American lawyer and politician.
  16. He is now Acting United States Attorney General, Appointed November 7, 2018 pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.
  17. He was appointed after resignation of then AG Jeff Sessions at POTUS Trump’s instance.
  18. Whitaker was appointed by POTUS Donald Trump.
  19. At time of appointment, Mr. Whitaker was serving as Chief of Staff to AG Jeff Sessions.
  20. Earlier he served as a U.S. Attorney during the Bush Administration.
  21. He is a graduate of Ankeny High School and University of Iowa.
  22. He holds these degrees –
  23. a bachelor’s in communications,
  24. an MBA, and
  25. A Juris Doctorate Law Degree.
  26. He played tight end for U of Iowa Hawkeyes football team.
  27. He played in Iowa’s Rose Bowl game 1991.
  28. Whitaker worked for regional law firms; served as corporate counsel for a national grocery company; was a small businessman; served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa; served as managing partner of a law firm; served as chairman of several political campaigns; ran for U.S. Senate in Iowa; served as executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust; served as a CNN contributor; then he joined the Department of Justice.
  29. He is an evangelical Christian.
  30. He obviously got along well enough with POTUS Trump.
  31. He does not support the Mueller investigation.
  32. He is in favor of prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
  33. He has no legal or ethical obligation or reason to step aside from giving oversight to the Mueller investigation or from prosecuting Mrs. Clinton.
  34. As is to be expected, he has garnered his share of criticism.
  35. The Wikipedia article about him is obviously a “left” biased hit piece designed to highlight all of Mr. Whitaker’s faults and establish in a public record the negative reasons why Mr. Whitaker should be rejected as Acting AG and AG and why he should recuse himself from giving oversight to the Mueller investigation.
  36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney)

 

  1. A FEW CONCLUSIONS? Does investigative journalism and forensic evidence support the following? If so, the DOJ and Mr. Mueller need to indict and prosecute.
  2. 1) Was the fake “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative manufactured by the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and others as an excuse for their overwhelming, unexpected 2016 loss to POTUS Trump?
  3. 2) Following the classic Saul Alinsky Rule for Radicals which is to “attack your opponent for anything wrong you are doing,” have the Democrats including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and others including complicit media outlets and personalities manufactured and promoted the fake “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative and foisted which is to say wrongfully imposed the same off on the nation and world? Was this a great lie created to cover up the actual felonious collusion by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign and others including actors like John McCain with the Russians?
  4. 3) Was the Democrat false narrative and great lie created to cover up the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party collusion with and funding to and funding from the Russians? Did Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign people pay Russians give or take a million dollars for a false dossier denigrating POTUS Trump? Did the Clintons receive serious hundreds of thousands of dollars and even millions in money from the Russians and other country representatives in return for influence including giving away 20-50 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russians? And if the latter is true, does such rise to the level of treason?
  5. 4) Have the Russians been attempting to influence our elections for years and is this an old accusation pre-dating POTUS Trump’s election, a Russian activity well known by then POTUS Obama and his administration? Did the Russians have any influence on the 2016 election? Is there any indication that votes were influenced by the Russians?
  6. 5) Did POTUS Trump collude with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton or was it the other way around? Did Hillary Clinton and her campaign operatives collude with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from POTUS Trump?
  7. 6) Did POTUS Trump work with the Russians and change the outcome of the 2016 election in his favor? Or is it just the opposite. Did Hillary Clinton and her operatives and the Democratic Party work with the Russians and promote the false “Russians influenced our elections and Donald Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative to the harm of POTUS Trump and the Republic Party and thereby cause the immense turmoil we have experienced in the country?
  8. 7) Did Jeff Sessions meet with the Russians in order to influence the election?
  9. 8) Was and on a continuing basis is still the tragic fallout from the Democrat false narrative the Jeff Sessions misinformed recusal? In other words, did the Democrats falsely engineer the Jeff Sessions recusal?
  10. 9) Did the Russians initiate the Assange Wikileaks hacking and leaking of emails? Or did Mark Rich or another inside the Democratic National Committee office offload hacked emails to Wikileaks?
  11. 10) As a consequence of Mr. Sessions’ recusal, are we the American people now saddled with a two tiered justice system? Have the rich and famous who allegedly did collude with the Russians and pay the Russians for a fake dossier and receive thousands if not millions of dollars from the Russians in return for influence and 20-50 percent of U.S. uranium, to-date, escaped indictment and prosecution for their felonies?
  12. 11) If it is true that the “Russians influenced the 2016 election and POTUS Trump colluded with the Russians” narrative was feloniously manufactured by the Democrats and disaffected Republicans and is overwhelmingly false, is it not then time for Acting AG Whitaker, and any new AG if Mr. Whitaker is not so appointed at a later date, and for Mr. Mueller, to unseal any additional indictments they may have from grand juries, assuming they have such indictments under seal, and answer these many questions and indict those including the rich and famous who have used their offices to enrich themselves, those who have lied to the nation, those who have feloniously enriched themselves and broken election laws to the tune of millions of dollars?
  13. 12) Is it true or false that Mr. Mueller has given the nation value for his work? Is it true or false that he has issued a few minor indictments to-date which in the grand political scheme are of little or no value and which suggests that his investigation may turn out to be a colossal boondoggle wherein he and high priced attorneys have banked serious millions of dollars while their work product to-date is not worth the fortune paid them?
  14. 13) In other words, will Mr. Mueller’s far reaching investigation uncover answers to the heretofore stated questions including those found in paragraphs 92 thru 103?
  15. 14) If Mr. Mueller’s work is in fact laudatory, which hopefully it is, is it possible we will soon be pleasantly surprised by an AG Whitaker and Mr. Mueller joint press conference wherein they disclose a number of indictments and arrests?
  16. 15) Is it possible that the grand jury has been called and has deliberated and all we are waiting for is the right time for Mr. Mueller and Mr. Whitaker to unseal and issue the indictments, make the arrests, and surprise us by letting the nation know which party and which individuals actually colluded with the Russians and committed felonies?

 

  1. A CONCLUDING THOUGHT?
  2. There are a great number of us Americans, who work hard at being law abiding and who labor to conduct their lives based on a fairness ethic, who are discouraged because of the lack of answers and the drawn out nature of matters.
  3. We believe Mr. Whitaker would be remiss to recuse himself.
  4. We believe POTUS Trump would be remiss to permit such to take place.
  5. As for recusal, by appointing Mr. Whitaker, we hope POTUS Trump is saying to the Democrats, “burn me once by engineering the Jeff Sessions AG recusal, fie on me.”
  6. Burn me twice by once again trying to engineer an AG recusal, fie on thee.
  7. Hopefully, recusal of Mr. Whitaker isn’t going to happen. Hopefully, there will be no recusal this time around.
  8. Hopefully, those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the people, those who have feloniously broken election and other laws, will now be held accountable.
  9. We believe POTUS Trump when he says he wouldn’t have picked Jeff Sessions as Attorney General had he known that Mr. Sessions was going to recuse himself.
  10. Today the corollary is also true. We believe POTUS Trump would not have picked Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General if there were a hint that he would recuse himself.
  11. Should there be any kind of a change of heart on the part of Mr. Whitaker, which is unlikely, keep in mind the Federal Regulation section (b).
  12. Read paragraph (b) again. Title 28, Chapter I, Section 45.2, Code of Federal Regulation, title “Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship” 45.2(b) which reads in full:

 

  1. “(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph [in this situation Mr. Whitaker] (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher [in this situation POTUS Trump is Mr. Whitaker’s supervisor]. If the supervisor [POTUS Trump] determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
  2. (1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
  3. (2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
  4. ( c) For the purposes of this section:
  5. (1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
  6. (2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
  7. (d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
  8. [Private individuals or organizations have no cause of action against Mr. Whitaker or POTUS Trump if Mr. Whitaker or POTUS Trump does not recuse Acting AG Whitaker.]

 

  1. WHEN MUCH IS SAID AND LESS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DONE TO PROVIDE SERIOUS ANSWERS, PERHAPS THE WASHINGTON POST STATES IT BEST:
  2. “Acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from overseeing the special-counsel probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people close to him who added they do not believe he would approve any subpoena of President Trump as part of that investigation.” (National Security, Acting attorney general Whitaker has no intention of recusing himself from Russia probe, associates say, By Devlin Barrett, Matt Zapotsky and Josh Dawsey, Washington Post, November 8, 2018.)

 

 

 

  1. APPENDIX A
  2. Department of Justice
  3. Office of Legal Counsel
  4. Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530
  5. November 14, 2018

 

  1. S. Department of Justice
  2. Office of Legal Counsel
  3. Office of the Assistant Attorney General
  4. Washington DC 20530
  5. November 14, 2018

 

  1. MEMORANDUM FOR EMMET T. FLOOD
  2. COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

 

  1. Re: Designating an Acting Attorney General

 

  1. After Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions 111 resigned on November 7, 2018, the President designated Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to the Attorney General, to act temporarily as the Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d. This Office had previously advised that the President could designate a senior Department of Justice official, such as Mr. Whitaker, as Acting Attorney General, and this memorandum explains the basis for that conclusion.

 

  1. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General accords with the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, because he had been serving in the Department of Justice at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year. See id. 3345(a)(3). The Department’s organic statute provides that the Deputy Attorney General (or others) may be Acting Attorney General in the case of a vacancy. See 28 U.S.C. 508. But that statute does not displace the President’s authority to use the Vacancies Reform Act as an alternative. As we have previously recognized, the President may use the Vacancies Reform Act to depart from the succession order specified under section 508. See Authority of the President to Name an Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. 208 (2007) (“2007 Acting Attorney General”).

 

  1. We also advised that Mr. Whitaker’s designation would be consistent with the Appointments Clause of the US. Constitution, which requires the President to obtain “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” before appointing a principal officer of the United States. US. Const. art. 11, 2, cl. 2. Although an Attorney General is a principal officer requiring Senate confirmation, someone who temporarily performs his duties is not. As all three branches of government have long recognized, the President may designate an acting official to perform the duties of a vacant principal office, including a Cabinet office, even when the acting official has not been confirmed by the Senate.

 

  1. Congress did not first authorize the President to direct non-Senate-confirmed officials to act as principal officers in 1998; it did so in multiple statutes starting in 1792. In that year, Congress authorized the President to ensure the government’s uninterrupted work by designating persons to perform temporarily the work of vacant offices. The President’s authority applied to principal offices and did not require the President to select Senate-confirmed officers. In our brief survey of the history, we have identified over 160 times before 1860 in which non-Senate-confirmed persons performed, on a temporary basis, the duties of such high offices as Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, and Postmaster General. While designations to the office of Attorney General were less
  2. [page] 1

 

  1. frequent, we have identified at least one period in 1866 when a non-Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General served as Acting Attorney General. Mr. Whitaker’s designation is no more constitutionally problematic than countless similar presidential orders dating back over 200 years.

 

  1. Were the long agreement of Congress and the President insufficient, judicial precedent confirms the meaning of the Appointments Clause in these circumstances. When Presidents appointed acting Secretaries in the nineteenth century, those officers (or their estates) sometimes sought payment for their additional duties, and courts recognized the lawfulness of such appointments. The Supreme Court confirmed the legal understanding of the Appointments Clause that had prevailed for over a century in United States v. Eaton, 169 US. 331 (1898), holding that an inferior officer may perform the duties of a principal officer “for a limited time[] and under special and temporary conditions” without “transform[ing]” his office into one for which Senate confirmation is required. Id. at 343. The Supreme Court has never departed from Eaton’s holding and has repeatedly relied upon that decision in its recent Appointments Clause cases.

 

  1. In the Vacancies Reform Act, Congress renewed the President’s authority to designate non-Senate-confirmed senior officials to perform the functions and duties of principal offices. In 2003, we reviewed the President’s authority in connection with the Director of the Officer of Management and Budget who is a principal officer, and concluded that the President could designate a non-Senate-confirmed official to serve temporarily as Acting Director. See Designation of Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 27 Op. O.L.C. 121 (2003) (“Acting Director of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama placed non-Senate-confirmed officials in several lines of agency succession and actually designated unconfirmed officials as acting agency heads. President Trump, too, has previously exercised that authority in other departments; Mr. Whitaker is not the first unconfirmed official to act as the head of an agency in this administration.

 

  1. It is no doubt true that Presidents often choose acting principal officers from among Senate-confirmed officers. But the Constitution does not mandate that choice. Consistent with our prior opinion and with centuries of historical practice and precedents, we advised that the President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General on a temporary basis did not transform his position into a principal office requiring Senate confirmation.

 

  1. The Vacancies Reform Act

 

  1. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General comports with the terms of the Vacancies Reform Act. That Act provides three mechanisms by which an acting officer may take on the functions and duties of an office, when an executive officer who is required to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.” 5 U.S.C. 3345(a). First, absent any other designation, the first assistant” to the vacant office shall perform its functions and duties. Id. 3345 Second, the President may depart from that default course by directing another presidential appointee, who is already Senate confirmed, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office. Id. 3345(a)(2). Or, third, the President may designate an officer or employee within the same agency to perform the functions and duties of
  2. [page] 2

 

  1. the vacant office, provided that he or she has been in the agency for at least 90 days in the 365 days preceding the vacancy, in a position for which the rate of pay is equal to or greater than the minimum rate for GS-15 of the General Schedule. Id 3345(a)(3). Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the statute imposes time limits on the period during which someone may act. Id. 3346. And the acting officer may not be nominated by the President to fill the vacant office and continue acting in it, unless he was already the first assistant to the office for at least 90 days in the 365 days preceding the vacancy or is a Senate-confirmed first assistant. Id. 3345(b)(1)-(2); see also Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. SW General, Inc, 137 S. Ct. 929, 941 (201 7).

 

 

  1. The Vacancies Reform Act unquestionably authorizes the President to direct Mr. Whitaker to act as Attorney General after the resignation of Attorney General Sessions on November 7, 2018.1 Mr. Whitaker did not fall within the first two categories of persons made eligible by section 3345(a). He was not the first assistant to the Attorney General, because 28 U.S.C. 5 08(a) identifies the Deputy Attorney General as the first assistant to the Attorney General” “for the purpose of section 3345.” Nor did Mr. Whitaker already hold a Senate-confirmed office. Although Mr. Whitaker was previously appointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, he resigned from that position on November 25, 2009. At the time of the resignation of Attorney General Sessions, Mr. Whitaker was serving in a position to which he was appointed by the Attorney General.

 

  1. In that position, Mr. Whitaker fell squarely within the third category of officials, identified in section 3345(a)(3). As Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor, he had served in the Department of Justice for more than 90 days in the year before the resignation, at a GS-15 level or higher. And Mr. Whitaker has not been nominated to be Attorney General, an action that would render him ineligible to serve as Acting Attorney General under section 3345(b)(l). Accordingly, under the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, the President could designate

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 1 Attorney General Sessions submitted his resignation “[a]t [the President’s] request,” Letter for President Donald J. Trump, from Jefferson B. Sessions Attorney General, but that does not alter the fact that the Attorney General “resign[ed]” within the meaning of section 3345(a). Even if Attorney General Sessions had declined to resign and was removed by the President, he still would have been rendered “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” for purposes of section 3345(a). As this Office recently explained, “an officer is “unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” during both short periods of unavailability, such as a period of sickness, and potentially longer ones, such as one resulting from the officer’s removal (which would arguably not be covered by the reference to “resign[ation]. Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *4 (2017); see also Guidance on Application of Federal Vacancies Reform Act of1998, 23 Op. O.L.C. 60, 61 (1999) (“In floor debate, Senators said, by way of example, that an officer would be “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” if he or she were fired, imprisoned, or sick”). Indeed, any other interpretation would leave a troubling gap in the ability to name acting officers. For most Senate-confirmed offices, the Vacancies Reform Act is “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer. 5 U.S.C. 3347(a). If the statute did not apply in cases of removal, then it would mean that no acting officer – not even the first assistant – “could take the place of a removed officer, even where the President had been urgently required to remove the officer, for instance, by concerns over national security, corruption, or other workplace misconduct.
  2. [page] 3

 

  1. Whitaker to serve temporarily as Acting Attorney General subject to the time limitations of section 3346.

 

 

  1. The Vacancies Reform Act remains available to the President even though 28 U.S.C. 508 separately authorizes the Deputy Attorney General and certain other officials to act as Attorney General in the case of a vacancy.2 We previously considered whether this statute limits the President’s authority under the Vacancies Reform Act to designate someone else to be Acting Attorney General. 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. 208. We have also addressed similar questions with respect to other agencies’ succession statutes. See Designating an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 41 Op. O.L.C. (2017) (“Acting Director of Acting Director of 0MB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 121 n.1. In those instances, we concluded that the Vacancies Reform Act is not the “exclusive means” for the temporary designation of an acting official, but that it remains available as an option to the President. We reach the same conclusion here: Section 508 does not limit the President’s authority to invoke the Vacancies Reform Act to designate an Acting Attorney General.

 

  1. We previously concluded that section 508 does not prevent the President from relying upon the Vacancies Reform Act to determine who will be the Acting Attorney General. Although the Vacancies Reform Act, which “ordinarily is the exclusive means for naming an acting officer,” 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 209 (citing 5 U.S.C. 3347), makes an exception for, and leaves in effect, statutes such as section 508, “[t]he Vacancies Reform Act nowhere says that, if another statute remains in effect, the Vacancies Reform Act may not be used.” Id. In fact, the structure of the Vacancies Reform Act makes clear that office-specific provisions are treated as exceptions from its generally exclusive applicability, not as provisions that supersede the Vacancies Reform Act altogether.3 Furthermore, as we noted, “the Senate Committee Report accompanying the Act expressly disavows” the View that, where another statute is available, the Vacancies Reform Act may not be used. Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 17 (1998)). That report stated that, “with respect to the specific positions in which temporary officers may serve under the specific statutes this bill retains, the Vacancies [Reform] Act would continue to provide an alternative procedure for temporarily occupying the office.” Id. We therefore concluded that the President could direct the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division to act as Attorney General under the Vacancies Reform Act, even though the incumbent Solicitor General would otherwise have served under the chain of succession specified in section 508 (as supplemented by an Attorney General order).
  2. __________

 

  1. 2 Under 28 U.S.C. 508(a), in the case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, “the Deputy Attorney General may exercise all the duties of that office, and for the purpose of [the Vacancies Reform Act] the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General.” If the offices of Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are both vacant, “the Associate Attorney General shall act as Attorney General,” and “[t]he Attorney General may designate the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorneys General, in further order of succession, to act as Attorney General.” Id. 508(b).

 

  1. 3 One section (entitled “Exclusion of certain offices”) is used to exclude certain offices altogether. 5 U.S.C. 3349c. Office-specific statutes, however, are mentioned in a different section (entitled “Exclusivity”) that generally makes the Vacancies Reform Act “the exclusive means” for naming an acting officer but also specifies exceptions to that exclusivity. Id. 3347(a)(l).
  2. [page] 4

 

  1. At the time of our 2007 Acting Attorney General opinion, the first two offices specified in section 508(a) and (b)”Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General” were both vacant. See 31 Op. O.L.C. at 208. That is not currently the case; there is an incumbent Deputy Attorney General. But the availability of the Deputy Attorney General does not affect the President’s authority to invoke section 3345(a)(3). Nothing in section 508 suggests that the Vacancies Reform Act does not apply when the Deputy Attorney General can serve. To the contrary, the statute expressly states that the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant to the Attorney General” “for the purpose of section 3345 of title 5” the provision of the Vacancies Reform Act providing for the designation of an acting officer). 28 U.S.C. 508(a). It further provides that the Deputy Attorney General “may” serve as Acting Attorney General, not that he “must,” underscore that the Vacancies Reform Act remains an alternative means of appointment. 4 These statutory cross-references confirm that section 508 works in conjunction with, and does not displace, the Vacancies Reform Act.

 

  1. Although the Deputy Attorney General is the default choice for Acting Attorney General under section 3345(a)(1), the President retains the authority to invoke the other categories of eligible officials, “notwithstanding [the first-assistant provision in] paragraph 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(2), (3). Moreover, there is reason to believe that Congress, in enacting the Vacancies Reform Act, deliberately chose to make the second and third categories of officials in section 3345(a) applicable to the office of Attorney General. Under the previous Vacancies Act, the first assistant to an office was also the default choice for filling a vacant Senate-confirmed position, and the President was generally able to depart from that by selecting another Senate-confirmed officer. See 5 U.S.C. 3347 (1994). That additional presidential authority, however, was expressly made inapplicable “to a vacancy in the office of Attorney General.” See also Rev. Stat. 179 (2d ed. 1878). Yet, when Congress enacted the Vacancies Reform Act in 1998, it did away with the exclusion for the office of Attorney General. See 5 U.S.C. 3349c (excluding certain other officers).5

 

  1. Our conclusion that the Vacancies Reform Act remains available, notwithstanding section 508, is consistent with our prior opinions. In Acting Director of OMB, we recognized that an OMB-specific statute, 31 U.S.C. 502(f), did not displace the President’s authority under the Vacancies Reform Act. See 27 Op. O.L.C. at 121 n.1 (“The Vacancies Reform Act does not provide, however, that where there is another statute providing for a presidential designation, the Vacancies Reform Act becomes unavailable?). More recently, we confirmed that the President could designate an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFLPB”).

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 4 We do not mean to suggest that a different result would follow if section 508 said “shall” instead of “may,” since as discussed at length in Acting Director such mandatory phrasing in a separate statute does not itself oust the Vacancies Reform Act. See 41 Op. O.L.C. *7-9 n.3, The point is that, in contrast with the potential ambiguity arising from the appearance of “shall” in the CFPB-specific statute, section 508 expressly acknowledges that the Deputy Attorney General is the first assistant but will not necessarily serve in the case of a vacancy in the office of Attorney General. 5 When it reported the Vacancies Reform Act, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs contemplated that the Attorney General would continue to be excluded by language in a proposed section 3345(c) that would continue to make section 508 “applicable” to the office. See S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 13, 25; 144 Cong. Rec. 12,433 (June 16, 1998). But that provision “was not enacted as part of the final bill, and no provision of the Vacancies Reform Act bars the President from designating an Acting Attorney General under that statute.” 2007 Acting Attorney General, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 209 n.1.
  2. [page] 5

 

  1. notwithstanding 12 U.S.C. 5491(b)(5), which provides that the Deputy Director of the CFPB “shall” serve as Acting Director when the Director is unavailable. See Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. We reasoned that the CFPB-specific statute should “interact with the Vacancies Reform Act in the same way as other, similar statutes providing an office-specific mechanism for an individual to act in a vacant position.” Id at *7-9 n.3. We noted that the Vacancies Reform Act itself provides that a first assistant to a vacant office “shall perform the functions and duties” of that office unless the President designates someone else to do so, 5 U.S.C. 3345(a), and that mandatory language in either the CF PB-specific statute or the Vacancies Reform Act does not foreclose the availability of the other statute. Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *7-8.

 

  1. Courts have similarly concluded that the Vacancies Reform Act remains available as an alternative to office-specific statutes. See Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc. 816 F.3d 550, 55 5-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, which has its own office-specific statute prescribing a method of filling a vacancy); English v. Trump, 279 F. Supp. 3d 307, 323?24 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that the mandatory language in the CFPB-specific statute is implicitly qualified by the Vacancies Reform Act’s language providing that the President also “may direct” qualifying individuals to serve in an acting capacity), appeal dismissed upon appellant’s motion, No. 18?5007, 2018 WL 3526296 (DC. Cir. July 13, 2018).

 

  1. For these reasons, we believe that the President could invoke the Vacancies Reform Act in order to designate Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General ahead of the alternative line of succession provided under section 508.

 

  1. The Appointments Clause
  2. While the Vacancies Reform Act expressly authorizes the President to select an
  3. unconfirmed official as Acting Attorney General, Congress may not authorize an appointment mechanism that would conflict with the Constitution. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 883 (1991). The Appointments Clause requires the President to “appoint” principal officers, such as the Attorney General, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” U.S. Const., art. 11, 2, cl. 2. But for “inferior Officers,” Congress may vest the appointment power “in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Id.

 

  1. The President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General is consistent with the Appointments Clause so long as Acting Attorney General is not a principal office that requires Senate confirmation. If so, it does not matter whether an acting official temporarily filling a vacant principal office is an inferior officer or not an “officer” at all within the meaning of the Constitution, because Mr. Whitaker was appointed in a manner that satisfies the requirements for an inferior officer: He was appointed by Attorney General Sessions, who was the Head of the Department, and the President designated him to perform additional duties. See Acting Director of OMB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 124-25. If the designation constituted an appointment to a principal office, however, then section 3345(a)(3) would be unconstitutional as applied, because Mr. Whitaker does not currently occupy a position requiring Senate confirmation.
  2. [page] 6

 

  1. For the reasons stated below, based on long-standing historical practice and precedents, we do not believe that the Appointments Clause may be construed to require the Senate’s advice and consent before Mr. Whitaker may be Acting Attorney General.

 

 

  1. The Attorney General is plainly a principal officer, who must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. See Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1997); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 670-72 (1988). The Attorney General has broad and continuing authority over the federal government’s law-enforcement, litigation, and other legal functions. See, e. g, 28 U.S.C. 516, 533. The Supreme Court has not “set forth an exclusive criterion for distinguishing between” inferior officers and principal officers. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 661. “Generally speaking, the term “inferior officer” connotes a relationship with some higher ranking officer or officers below the President.” Id at 662. There is no officer below the President who supervises the Attorney General.

 

  1. Although the Attorney General is a principal officer, it does not follow that an Acting Attorney General should be understood to be one. An office under the Appointments Clause requires both a “continuing and permanent” position and the exercise of “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2051 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Officers of the United States within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause, 31 Op. O.L.C. 73, 74 (2007). While a person acting as the Attorney General surely exercises sufficient authority to be an “Officer of the United States,” it is less clear whether Acting Attorney General is a principal office.

 

  1. Because that question involves the division of powers between the Executive and the Legislative Branches, “historical practice” is entitled to “significant weight.” Nat’l Labor Relations Bd v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550, 2559 (2014); see also, e. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689 (1929). That practice strongly supports the constitutionality of authorizing someone who has not been Senate-confirmed to serve as an acting principal officer. Since 1792, Congress has repeatedly legislated on the assumption that temporary service as a principal officer does not require Senate confirmation. As for the Executive Branch’s practice, our non-exhaustive survey has identified over 160 occasions between 1809 and 1860 on which non-Senate-confirmed persons served temporarily as an acting or ad interim principal officer in the Cabinet.

 

  1. Furthermore, judicial precedents culminating in United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (1898), endorsed that historical practice and confirm that the temporary nature of acting service weighs against principal-officer status. The Supreme Court in Eaton held that an inferior officer may perform the duties of a principal officer “for a limited time [ ] and under special and temporary conditions” without “transform[ing]” his office into one for which Senate confirmation is required. Id. at 343. That holding was not limited to the circumstances of that case, but instead reflected a broad consensus about the status of an acting principal officer that the Supreme Court has continued to rely on in later Appointments Clause decisions.
  2. [page] 7

 

 

  1. Since the Washington Administration, Congress has “authoriz[ed] the President to direct certain officials to temporarily carry out the duties of a vacant PAS office one requiring Presidential Appointment and Senate confirmation] in an acting capacity, without Senate confirmation.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 934; see also Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. at 2609 (Scalia J., dissenting in relevant part) (observing that the President does not need to use recess appointments to “fill vacant offices because “Congress can authorize “acting” officers to perform the duties associated with a temporarily vacant office” – “and has done that, in one form or another, since 1792”). Those statutes, and evidence of practice under them during the early nineteenth century, did not limit the pool of officials eligible to serve as an acting principal officer to those who already have Senate-confirmed offices. This history provides compelling support for the conclusion that the position of an acting principal officer is not itself a principal office.

 

  1. In 1792, Congress First “authorized the appointment of ‘any person or persons’ to fill specific vacancies in the Departments of State, Treasury, and War.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 935 (quoting Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 37, 8, 1 Stat. 279, 281). Although the statute expressly mentioned vacancies in the position of Secretary in each of those Departments, the President was authorized to choose persons who held no federal office at all – much less one requiring Senate confirmation. Although the 1792 statute “allowed acting officers to serve until the permanent Officeholder could resume his duties or a successor was appointed,” Congress “imposed a six-month limit on acting service” in 1795. Id. at 935 (citing Act of Feb. 13, 1795, ch. 21, Stat. 415). In 1863, in response to a plea from President Lincoln, see Message to Congress (Jan. 2, 1863), Cong. Globe, 37th Cong, 3d Sess. 185 (1863), Congress extended the provision to permit the President to handle a vacancy in the office of “the head of any Executive Department of the Government, or of any officer of either of the said Departments whose appointment is not in the head thereof.” Act of Feb. 20, 1863, ch. 45, 1, 12 Stat. 656, 656. The 1863 statute allowed the duties of a vacant office to be performed for up to six months by “the head of any other Executive Department” or by any other officer in those departments “whose appointment is vested in the President.” Id.

 

  1. In 1868, Congress replaced all previous statutes on the subject of vacancies with the Vacancies Act of 1868. See Act of July 23, 1868, ch. 227, 15 Stat. 168. That act provided that, “in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the head of any executive department of the government, the first or sole assistant thereof shall . . . perform the duties of such head until a successor be appointed or the absence or sickness shall cease.” Id, 1, 15 Stat. at 168. In lieu of elevating the first or sole assistant,” the President could also choose to authorize any other officer appointed with the Senate’s advice and consent to perform the duties of the vacant office until a successor was appointed or the prior occupant of the position was able to return to his post. Id 3, 15 Stat. at 168. In cases of death or resignation, an acting official could serve for no longer than ten days. Id. The 1868 act thus eliminated the President’s prior discretion to fill a vacant office temporarily with someone who did not hold a Senate-confirmed position. Yet, it preserved the possibility that a non-Senate-confirmed first assistant would serve as an acting head of an executive department.
  2. [page] 8

 

  1. Over the next 120 years, Congress repeatedly amended the Vacancies Act of 1868, but it never eliminated the possibility that a non-Senate-confirmed first assistant could serve as an acting head of an executive department. In 1891, it extended the time limit for acting service in cases of death or resignation from ten to thirty days. Act of Feb. 6, 1891, ch. 113, 26 Stat. 733. In 1966, it made minor changes during the course of re-codifying and enacting title 5 of the United States Code. See S. Rep. No. 89-1380, at 20, 70-71 (1966); 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349 (1970). Congress amended the act once more in 1988, extending the time limit on acting service from 30 to 120 days and making the statute applicable to offices that are not in “Departments” and thus are less likely to have Senate-confirmed first assistants. Pub. L. No. 100-398, 102 Stat. 985, 988 (1988).

 

  1. Accordingly, for more than two centuries before the Vacancies Reform Act, Congress demonstrated its belief that the Appointments Clause did not require Senate confirmation for temporary service in a principal office, by repeatedly enacting statutes that affirmatively authorized acting service – even in principal offices at the heads of executive departments – by persons who did not already hold an appointment made with the Senate’s advice and consent.

 

 

  1. Not only did Congress authorize the Presidents to select officials to serve temporarily as acting principal officers, but Presidents repeatedly exercised that power to fill temporarily the vacancies in their administrations that arose from resignations, terminations, illnesses, or absences from the seat of government. In providing this advice, we have not canvassed the entire historical record. But we have done enough to confirm that Presidents often exercised their powers under the 1792 and 1795 statutes to choose persons who did not hold any Senate-confirmed position to act temporarily as principal officers in various departments. In the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson Administrations, other Cabinet officers (or Chief Justice John Marshall) were used as temporary or “ad interim” officials when offices were vacant between the departure of one official and the appointment of his successor. See, e. Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1 774497], at 13??14 (1971); see id at 12 (explaining that the list of Cabinet officers excludes “[s]ubordinates acting temporarily as heads of departments” and therefore lists only those who served ad interim after an incumbent’s departure).

 

  1. President Jefferson made the first designation we have identified of a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve temporarily in his Cabinet. On February 17, 1809, approximately two weeks before the end of the Jefferson Administration, John Smith, the chief clerk of the Department of War, was designated to serve as Acting Secretary of War. See id. at 14; Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the War Department (Feb. 17, 1809), Founders Online, National Archives, (“Whereas, by the resignation of Henry Dearborne, late Secretary at War, that office is become vacant. I therefore do hereby authorize John Smith, chief clerk of the office of the Department of War, to perform the duties of the said office, until a successor be appointed”). As chief clerk, Smith was not a principal officer. He was instead “an inferior officer . . . appointed by the [Department’s] principal officer.” Act of Aug. 5, 1789, ch. 6, 2, 1 Stat. 49, 50. The next Secretary of War did not enter upon duty until April 8, 1809, five weeks after the beginning of the Madison Administration. See Biographical Directory at 14.
  2. [page] 9

 

  1. Between 1809 and 1860, President Jefferson’s successors designated a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve as an acting principal officer in a Cabinet position on at least 160 other occasions. We have identified 109 additional instances during that period where chief clerks, who were not Senate confirmed, temporarily served as ad interim Secretary of State (on 51 occasions), Secretary of the Treasury (on 36 occasions), or Secretary of War (on 22 occasions). See id. at 15-19; 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Before the Senate of the United States, on Impeachment by the House of Representatives for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 575?81, 585-88, 590-91 (Washington, GPO 1868); In re Asbury Dickins, 34th Cong, Sess., Rep. CC. 9, at 4?5 (Ct. C1. 1856) (listing 18 times between 1829 and 1836 that chief clerk Asbury Dickins was “appointed to perform the duties of Secretary of the Treasury” or Secretary of State “during the absence from the seat of government or sickness” of those Secretaries, for a total of 359 days).6 Between 1853 and 1860 there were also at least 21 occasions on which non-Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries were authorized to act as Secretary of the Treasury.7

 

  1. We have also identified instances involving designations of persons who apparently had no prior position in the federal government, including Alexander Hamilton’s Son, James A. Hamilton, whom President Jackson directed on his first day in office to “take charge of the Department of State until Governor [Martin] Van Buren should arrive in the city” three weeks later. 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 575; see Biographical Directory at 16. President Jackson also twice named William B. Lewis, who held no other government position, as acting Secretary of War. See 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 575. Moving beyond the offices expressly covered by the 1792 and 1795 statutes, there were at least 23 additional instances before 1861 in which Presidents authorized a non-Senate-confirmed chief clerk to perform temporarily the duties of the Secretary of the Navy (on 21 occasions), or the Secretary of the Interior (on 2 occasions).8

 

  1. At the time, it was well understood that when an Acting or ad interim Secretary already held an office such as chief clerk, he was not simply performing additional duties, but he was deemed the Acting Secretary. We know this, because the chief clerks sometimes sought

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 6 See also Act of July 27, 1789, ch. 4, 2, 1 Stat. 28, 29 (providing that the chief clerk in what became the Department of State was “an inferior officer, to be appointed by the [Department’s] principal officer”); Act of Sept. 2, 1789, ch. 12, 1, 1 Stat. 65, 65 (providing for an “Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury,” later known as the chief clerk, who “shall be appointed by the said Secretary”). The sources cited in the text above indicate that (1) the following chief clerks served as ad interim Secretary of State: Aaron Ogden Dayton, Aaron Vail (twice), Asbury Dickins (ten times), Daniel Carroll Brent (five times), Daniel Fletcher Webster, Jacob L. Martin (three times), John Appleton, John Graham, Nicholas Philip Trist (four times), Richard K. Cralle, William S. Derrick (fifteen times), William Hunter (seven times); (2) the following chief clerks served as ad interim Secretary of the Treasury: Asbury Dickins (eight times), John McGinnis, and McClintock Young (twenty-seven times); and (3) the following chief clerks (or acting chief clerks) served as ad interim Secretary of War: Albert Miller Lee, Archibald Campbell (five times), Christopher Vandeventer, George Graham, John D. McPherson, John Robb (six times), Philip G. Randolph (five times), Samuel J. Anderson, and William K. Drinkard.

 

  1. 7 See 1 Trial of Andrew Johnson at 580-81, 590-91 (entries for William L. Hodge and Peter Washington); Act of Mar. 3, 1849, ch. 108, 13, 9 Stat. 395, 396-97 (providing for appointment by the Secretary of an “Assistant Secretary of the Treasury”).

 

  1. 8 See Biographical Directory at 14-17 (chief clerks of the Navy in 1809, 1814-15, 1829, 1831, and 1841); id. at 18 (chief clerk of the Department of the Interior, Daniel C. Goddard, in 1850 (twice)); In re Cornelius Boyle, 34th Cong, 3d Sess., Rep. CC. 44, at 3, 12-13 (Ct. C1. 1857) (identifying 13 times between 1831 and 1838 that chief clerk John Boyle was appointed as Acting Secretary of the Navy, for a total of 466 days).
  2. [page] 10

 

  1. payment for the performance of those additional duties. Attorney General Legare concluded that Chief Clerk McClintock Young had a claim for compensation as “Secretary of the Treasury ad interim.” Pay of Secretary of the Treasury ad Interim, 4 Op. Att’y Gen. 122, 122-23 (1842). And the Court of Claims later concluded that Congress should appropriate funds to compensate such officers for that service. See, e. g, In re Cornelius Boyle, 34th Cong, 3d Sess., Rep. CC. 44, at 9, 1857 WL 4155, at *4 (Ct. C1. 1857) (“The office of Secretary ad interim being a distinct and independent office in itself, when it is conferred on the chief clerk, it is so conferred not because it pertains to him ex officio, but because the President, in the exercise of his discretion, sees fit to appoint Dickins, 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 9, at 16, 1856 WL 4042, at *3.

 

  1. Congress not only acquiesced in such appointments, but also required a non-Senate-confirmed officer to serve as a principal officer in some instances. In 1810, Congress provided that in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Postmaster General, “all his duties shall be performed by his senior assistant.” Act of Apr. 30, 1810, ch. 37, 1, 2 Stat. 592, 593. The senior assistant was one of two assistants appointed by the Postmaster General. Id. When I Congress reorganized the Post Office in 1836, it again required that the powers and duties of the Postmaster General would, in the case of “death, resignation, or absence” “devolve, for the time being on the First Assistant Postmaster General,” who was still an appointee of the Postmaster General. Act of July 2, 1836, ch. 270, 40, 5 Stat. 80, 89. On four occasions before 1860, a First Assistant Postmaster General served as Postmaster General ad interim. See Biographical Directory at 17-19 (in 1841 (twice), 1849, and 1859).

 

  1. On the eve of the Civil War in January 1861, President Buchanan summarized the Chief Executive’s View of his authority to designate interim officers in a message submitted to Congress to explain who had been performing the duties of the Secretary of War:

 

  1. The practice of making . . . appointments [under the 1795 statute], whether in a vacation or during the session of Congress, has been constantly followed during every administration from the earliest period of the government, and its perfect lawfulness has never, to my knowledge, been questioned or denied. Without going back further than the year 1829, and without taking into the calculation any but the chief officers of the several departments, it will be found that provisional appointments to fill vacancies were made to the number of one hundred and seventy-nine . . . . Some of them were made while the Senate was in session, some which were made in vacation were continued in force long after the Senate assembled. Sometimes, the temporary officer was the commissioned head of another department, sometimes a subordinate in the same department.

 

  1. Message from the President of the United States, 36th Cong, 2d Sess., Exec. Doc. No. 2, at 1-2 (1861) (emphases added).

 

 

  1. When it comes to vacancy statutes, the office of Attorney General presents an unusual case, albeit not one suggesting any different constitutional treatment. The office was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789, see Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 35, 1 Stat. 73, 93, and the Attorney General was a member of the President’s Cabinet, see Office and Duties of Attorney
  2. [page] 11

 

  1. General, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. 326, 330 (1854). But the Attorney General did not supervise an “executive department,” and the Department of Justice was not established until 1870. See Act of June 22, 1870, ch. 150, 1, 16 Stat. 162, 162. Thus, the terms 0fthe 1792, 1795, and 1863 statutes, and of the Vacancies Act of 1868, did not expressly apply to vacancies in the office of the Attorney General.

 

  1. Even so, the President made “temporary appointment[s]” to the office of Attorney General on a number of occasions. In 1854, Attorney General Cushing noted that “proof exists in the files of the department that temporary appointment has been made by the President in that office.” Office and Duties of Attorney General, 6 Op. Att’y Gen. at 352. Because the 1792 and 1795 statutes did not provide the President with express authority for those temporary appointments, Cushing believed it “questionable” whether the President had the power, but he also suggested that “[p]erhaps the truer view of the question is to consider the two statutes as declaratory only, and to assume that the power to make such temporary appointment is a constitutional one.” Id Cushing nonetheless recommended the enactment of “a general provision . . . to remove all doubt on the subject” for the Attorney General and “other non-enumerated departments.” Id.

 

  1. Congress did not immediately remedy the problem that Cushing identified, but Presidents designated Acting Attorneys General, both before and after the Cushing opinion. In some instances, the President chose an officer who already held another Senate-confirmed office. See Acting Attorneys General, 8 Op. O.L.C. 39, 40-41 (1984) (identifying instances in 1848 and 1868 involving the Secretary of the Navy or the Secretary of the Interior).9 In other instances, however, non-Senate-confirmed individuals served. After the resignation of Attorney General James Speed, for instance, Assistant Attorney General J. Hubley Ashton was the ad interim Attorney General from July 17 to July 23, 1866. See id. at 41; Biographical Directory at 20. At the time, the Assistant Attorney General was appointed by the Attorney General alone. See Act of March 3, 1859, ch. 80, 11 Stat. 410, 420 Attorney-General is hereby[] authorized to appoint one assistant in the said office, learned in the law, at an annual salary of three thousand dollars[x]”).10

 

  1. On other occasions between 1859 and 1868, Ashton and other Assistant Attorneys General who had not been Senate confirmed also signed several formal legal opinions as “Acting Attorney General,” presumably when their incumbent Attorney General was absent or otherwise

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 9 This list is almost certainly under-inclusive because the published sources we have located identify only those who were Acting Attorney General during a period between the resignation of one Attorney General and the appointment of his successor. They do not identify individuals who may have performed the functions and duties of Attorney General when an incumbent Attorney General was temporarily unavailable on account of an absence or sickness that would now trigger either 28 U.S.C. 508(a) or 5 U.S.C. 3345(a).

 

  1. 10 In 1868, Congress created two new Assistant Attorneys General positions to be “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” and specified that those positions were “in lieu of,” among others, “the assistant attorney-general now provided for by law,” which was “abolished” effective on July 1, 1868. Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 71, 5, 15 Stat. 75, 75. A few weeks later, Ashton was confirmed by the Senate as an Assistant Attorney General. See 18 Sen. Exec. J. 369 (July 25, 1868). He was therefore holding a Senate-confirmed office when he served another stint as Acting Attorney General for several days at the beginning of the Grant Administration in March 1869, see Biographical Directory at 21, and when he signed five opinions as “Acting Attorney General” in September and October 1868.
  2. [page] 12

 

  1. See Case of Colonel Gates, 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 70, 70 (1864) (noting that the question from the President “reached this office in [the Attorney General’s] absence”). 11 In 1873, when Congress reconciled the Vacancies Act of 1868 with the Department of Justice’s organic statute, it expressly excepted the office of Attorney General from the general provision granting the President power to choose who would temporarily fill a vacant Senate-confirmed office. See Rev. Stat. 179 1st ed. 1875). There is accordingly no Attorney General-specific practice with respect to the pre-1998 statutes.

 

 

  1. Well before the Supreme Court’s foundational decision in Eaton in 1898, courts approved of the proposition that acting officers are entitled to payment for services during their temporary appointments as principal officers. See, e. g. United States v. White, 28 F. Cas. 586, 587 (C.C.D. Md. 1851) (Taney, Circuit J.) often happens that, in unexpected contingencies and for temporary purposes, the appointment of a person already in office, to execute the duties of another office, is more convenient and useful to the public, than to bring in a new officer to execute the Dickins, 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 9, at 17, 1856 WL 4042, at *3 (finding a chief clerk was entitled to additional compensation “for his services as acting Secretary of the Treasury and as acting Secretary of State”). Most significantly, in Boyle, the Court of Claims concluded that the chief clerk of the Navy (who was not Senate confirmed) had properly served as Acting Secretary of the Navy on an intermittent basis over seven years for a total of 466 days. 34 Cong. Rep. CC. 44, at 8, 1857 WL 4155, at *1-2 (1857). The court expressly addressed the Appointments Clause question and distinguished, for constitutional purposes, between the office of Secretary of the Navy and the office of Acting Secretary of the Navy. Id. at 8, 1857 WL 4155 at *3 (“It seems to us . . . plain that the office of Secretary ad interim is a distinct and independent office in itself. It is not the office of Furthermore, the court emphasized, the defining feature of the office of Secretary ad interim was its “temporary” character, and it must therefore be considered an inferior office:

 

  1. Congress has exercised the power of vesting the appointment of a Secretary ad interim in the President alone, and we think, in perfect consistency with the Constitution of the United States. We do not think that there can be any doubt that he is an inferior officer, in the sense of the Constitution, whose appointment may be vested by Congress in the President alone.

 

 

  1. When the Supreme Court addressed this Appointments Clause issue in 1898, it reached a similar conclusion. In United States v. Eaton, the Court considered whether Congress could authorize the President alone to appoint a subordinate officer “charged with the duty of temporarily performing the functions” of a principal officer. 169 US. at 343. The statute

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 11 There were two additional opinions signed by Ashton as “Acting Attorney General” in 1864 and 1865 (11 Op. Att’y Gen. 482; 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 127); as well as four signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General John Binckley in 1867 (12 Op. Att’y Gen. 231; 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 229; 12 Op. Att’y Gen 222; 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 227); two signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General Titian J. Coffey in 1862 and 1863 (10 Op. Att’y Gen. 492; 10 Op. Att’y Gen. 377); and one signed as “Acting Attorney General” by Assistant Attorney General Alfred B. McCalmont in 1859 (9 Op. Att’y Gen. 389).
  2. [page] 13

 

  1. authorized the President “to provide for the appointment of vice-consuls . . . in such a manner and under such regulations as he shall deem proper.” Id. at 336 (quoting Rev. Stat. 1695 (2d ed. 1878)). The President’s regulation provided that case a vacancy occurs in the offices both of the consul and the vice-consul, which requires the appointment of a person to perform temporarily the duties of the consulate, the diplomatic representative has authority to make such appointment, with the consent of the foreign government . . . immediate notice being given to the Department of State.” Id. at 338 (quoting regulation). Pursuant to that authority, Sempronius Boyd, who was the diplomatic representative and consul-general to Siam, appointed Lewis Eaton (then a missionary who was not employed by the government) as a vice-consul-general and directed him to take charge of the consulate after Boyd’s departure. Id. at 331-32. With the “knowledge” and “approval” of the Department of State, Eaton remained in charge of the consulate, at times calling himself “acting consul-general of the United States at Bangkok,” from July 12, 1892, until a successor vice-consul-general arrived on May 18, 1893. Id. at 332-33. In a dispute between Boyd’s widow and Eaton over salary payments, the Court upheld Eaton’s appointment, and the underlying statutory scheme, against an Appointments Clause challenge. Id. at 334-35, 352.

 

  1. The Constitution expressly includes “Consuls” in the category of officers whose appointment requires the Senate’s advice and consent. US. Const. art. ll, 2, cl. 2. The Eaton Court, however, concluded that a “Vice-consul” is an inferior officer whose appointment Congress may “vest in the President” alone. 169 US. at 343. The Court held that Eaton’s exercise of the authority of a Senate-confirmed office did not transform him into an officer requiring Senate confirmation:

 

  1. Because the subordinate officer is charged with the performance of the duty of the superior for a limited time and under special and temporary conditions, he is not thereby transformed into the superior and permanent official. To so hold would render void any and every delegation of power to an inferior to perform under any circumstances or exigency the duties of a superior officer, and the discharge of administrative duties would be seriously hindered.

 

  1. The Court concluded that more than forty years of practice “sustain the theory that a vice-consul is a mere subordinate official,” which defeated the contention that Eaton’s appointment required Senate confirmation. Id at 344. In so doing, the Court cited Attorney General Cushing’s 1855 opinion about appointments of consular officials, which had articulated the parameters for that practice. See id.12 Significantly, the Court also made clear that its holding was not limited to vice-consuls or to the exigencies of Eaton’s particular appointment. Rather, the Court emphasized that the temporary performance of a principal office is not the same as holding that office itself. The Court feared that a contrary holding would bear upon “any and every delegation of power to an inferior to perform under any circumstances or exigency.” Id at
  2. __________
  3. 12 In the 1855 opinion, Attorney General Cushing explained that a vice-consul is “the person employed to fill the [consul’s] place temporarily in his absence.” Appointment of Consuls, 7 Op. Att’y Gen. 242, 262? (1855). He noted that consuls had to be Senate-confirmed, but vice-consuls were regarded as the “subordinates of consuls” and therefore did not require “nomination to the Senate.” Id. at 247.
  4. [page] 14
  5. 343 (emphasis added). In View of the long history of such appointments, Eaton simply
  6. confirmed the general rule. It did not work any innovation in that practice. .
  7. The Court has not retreated from Eaton, or narrowed its holding, but instead has repeatedly cited the decision for the proposition that an inferior officer may temporarily perform the duties of a principal officer without Senate confirmation. In Edmond, the Court observed that “’inferior officers’ are officers whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U.S. at 663. But the Court also observed that there is no “exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers” and restated Eaton’s holding that “a vice consul charged temporarily with the duties of the consul” is an “inferior” officer. Id at 661. In Morrison, the Court emphasized that a subordinate who performed a principal officer’s duties “for a limited time and under special and temporary conditions” is not “thereby transformed into the superior and permanent official,” and explained that a Vice-consul appointed during the consul’s “temporary absence” remained a “subordinate officer notwithstanding the Appointment Clause’s specific reference to “Consuls” as principal officers.” 487 U.S. at 672-73 (quoting Eaton, 169 U.S. at 343)). Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Morrison similarly described Eaton as holding that “the appointment by an Executive Branch official other than the President of a “vice-consul,” charged with the duty of temporarily performing the function of the consul, did not violate the Appointments Clause.” Id. at 721 (Scalia, .. dissenting). Likewise, in his dissenting opinion in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 537 F.3d 667 (DC. Cir. 2008), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 561 U.S. 447 (2010), then-Judge Kavanaugh cited Eaton to establish that “[t]he temporary nature of the office is the . . . reason that acting heads of departments are permitted to exercise authority without Senate confirmation.” Id at 708 n.17 (Kavanaugh, J. dissenting). Notably, Judge Kavanaugh also cited our 2003 opinion, which concluded that an OMB official who was not Senate confirmed could serve as Acting Director of OMB. See id. (citing Acting Director of 0MB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 123).

 

  1. In SW General, the Court acknowledged the long history of Acts of Congress permitting the President to authorize officials to temporarily perform the functions of vacant offices requiring Senate approval. 137 S. Ct. at 935. Although the Court’s opinion did not address the Appointments Clause, Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion suggested that a presidential directive to serve as an officer under the Vacancies Reform Act should be viewed as an appointment, and that such a direction would “raise [ ] grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.? Id. But Justice Thomas also distinguished Eaton on the ground that the acting designation at issue in SW General was not “special and temporary” because it had remained in place “for more than three years in offices limited by statute to a 4-year term.” Id. At 946 n. 1. Justice Thomas’s opinion may therefore be understood to be consistent not only with Eaton, but also with the precedents of this Office, which have found it “implicit” that “the tenure of an Acting Director should not continue beyond a reasonable time.” Status 0f the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1 Op. O.L.C. 287, 289-90 (1977). Even under Justice Thomas’s opinion, Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General, which was made one week ago, and which would lapse in the absence of a presidential nomination, should qualify as “special and temporary” under Eaton.
  2. [page] 15

 

 

  1. Executive practice and more recent legislation reinforces that an inferior officer may temporarily act in the place of a principal officer. In 1980, for instance, this Office raised no constitutional concerns in concluding (in the context of a non-executive office) that the Comptroller General was statutorily authorized to “designate an employee” of the General Accounting Office to be Acting Comptroller General during the absence or incapacity of both the Senate-confirmed Comptroller General and the Senate-confirmed Deputy Comptroller General. Authority of the Comptroller General to Appoint an Acting Comptroller General, 4B Op. O.L.C 690, 690-91 (1980).

 

  1. Most significantly, in 2003, this Office relied on Eaton in concluding that, although “the position of Director [of is a principal office, . . . an Acting Director [of is only an inferior officer.” Acting Director of OMB, 27 Op. O.L.C. at 123. We did not think that that conclusion had been called into question by Edmond’s statement that an inferior officer is one who reports to a superior officer below the President, because in that case “[t]he Court held only that [g]enerally speaking” an inferior officer is subordinate to an officer other than the President,” and because Edmond did not deal with temporary officers. 27 Op. O.L.C. at 124 (citations omitted). Assuming that for constitutional purposes the official designated as acting head of an agency would need to be an inferior officer (and that the OMB official in question was not already such an officer), we further concluded that the President’s designation of an acting officer under the Act should be regarded as an appointment by the President alone” a constitutionally permissible mode for appointing an inferior officer. Id. at 125. Since then, Presidents George W. Bush and Obama each used their authority under the Vacancies Reform Act to place non-Senate-confirmed Chiefs of Staff in the lines of succession to be the acting head of several federal agencies.13 In three instances, President Obama placed a Chief of Staff above at least one Senate-confirmed officer within the same department.14 And, in practice, during the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations, multiple unconfirmed officers were designated to serve as acting agency heads, either under the Vacancies Reform Act or another office-specific

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 13 See Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Social Security Administration, 71 Fed. Reg. 20333 (Apr. 17, 2006); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Council on Environmental Quality, 73 Fed. Reg. 54487 (Sept. 18, 2008) (later superseded by 2017 memorandum cited below); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to Act as President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 76 Fed. Reg. 33613 (June 6, 2011); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Millennium Challenge Corporation to Act as Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, 77 Fed. Reg. 31161 (May 21, 2012); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the General Services Administration to Act as Administrator of General Services, 78 Fed. Reg. 59161 (Sept. 20, 2013); Memorandum, Designation of Officers of the Office of Personnel Management to Act as Director of the Office of Personnel Management, 81 Fed. Reg. 54715 (Aug. 12, 2016); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the National Endowment of the Humanities, 81 Fed. Reg. 54717 (Aug. 12, 2016); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the National Endowment of the Arts, 81 Fed. Reg. 96335 (Dec. 23, 2016); Memorandum, Designation of Officers or Employees of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to Act as Director, 82 Fed. Reg. 7625 (Jan. 13, 2017); Memorandum, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Council on Environmental Quality, 82 Fed. Reg. 7627 (Jan. 13, 2017).

 

  1. 14 See Executive Order 13612, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Agriculture, 77 Fed. Reg. 31153 (May 21, 2012); Executive Order 13735, Providing an Order Within the Department of the Treasury, 81 Fed. Reg. 54709 (Aug. 12, 2016); Executive Order 13736, Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, 81 Fed. Reg. 54711 (Aug. 12, 2016).
  2. [page] 16

 

  1. 15 Those determinations reflect the judgments of these administrations that the President may lawfully designate an unconfirmed official, including a Chief of Staff, to serve as an acting principal officer.

 

  1. Congress too has determined in the Vacancies Reform Act and many other currently operative statutes that non-Senate-confirmed officials may temporarily perform the functions of principal officers. By its terms, the Vacancies Reform Act applies to nearly all executive offices for which appointment “is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 5 U.S.C. 3345(a); see id (excluding only certain members of multi-member boards, commissions, or similar entities). And it specifically provides for different treatment in some respects depending on whether the vacant office is that of an agency head. Id 3348(b)(2). Moreover, the statute contemplates that non-Senate-confirmed officials will be able to serve as acting officers in certain applications of section 3345(a)(1) as well as in all applications of section 3345(a)(3), which refers to an “officer or employee.” The latter provision had no counterpart in the Vacancies Act of 1868, but it was not completely novel, because clerks, who were not Senate-confirmed, were routinely authorized to serve as acting officers under the 1792 and 1795 statutes.16

 

  1. Congress has also enacted various statutes that enable deputies not confirmed by the Senate to act when the office of the Senate-confirmed agency head is vacant. See 12 U.S.C. 4512(f) (providing for an Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency); id 549l(b)(5) (providing for an Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection); 21 U.S.C. 1703(a)(3) (providing for an Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy); 40 U.S.C. 302(b) (providing for an Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration); 44 U.S.C. 2103(c) (providing for an Acting Archivist). All of those provisions contemplate the temporary service of non-Senate-confirmed officials as acting

 

  1. __________

 

  1. 15 For example, during this administration, Grace Bochenek, a non-Senate-confirmed laboratory director, served as Acting Secretary of Energy from January 20, 2017, until March 2, 2017; Tim Home, a non-Senate-confirmed Regional Commissioner, served as Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration from January 20, 2017, until December 12, 2017 (pursuant to a designation under a GSA-specific statute); Phil Rosenfelt, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy General Counsel, served as Acting Secretary of Education from January 20, 2017, until February 7, 2017 (pursuant to a designation under a statute specific to that department); Don Wright, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary, served as Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services from September 30, 2017, until October 10, 2017; Peter O’Rourke, a non-Senate-confirmed Chief of Staff, served as Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs from May 29, 2018, until July 30, 2018; and Shelia Crowley, a non-Senate-confirmed Chief of Operations, served, upon President Obama’s designation, as Acting Director of the Peace Corps from January 20, 2017, until November 16, 2017. During the Obama administration, Darryl Hairston, a career employee, served as Acting Administrator of the Small Business Administration from January 22, 2009, until April 6, 2009, and Edward Hugler, a non-Senate-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary, served as Acting Secretary of Labor from February 2, 2009, until February 24, 2009. During the Bush Administration, Augustine a non-Senate-confirmed Executive Associate Director served as Acting Director of OMB from June 10, 2003, until late June 2003, consistent with our opinion.

 

  1. 16 Echoing the movement in the early nineteenth century to chief clerks rather than Senate-confirmed officials from other departments, section 3345(a)(3) was reportedly the product of a desire to give the President “more flexibility” to use “qualified individuals who have worked within the agency in which the vacancy occurs for a minimum number of days and who are of a minimum grade level.” S. Rep. No. 105-250, at 31 (additional views of Sen. Glenn et id at 35 (minority views of Sens. Durbin and Akaka).
  2. [page] 17

 

  1. principal officers, and these statutes would appear to be unconstitutional if only a Senate-confirmed officer could temporarily serve as an acting principal officer. Similarly, other current statutes provide that, although the deputy is appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, the President or the department head may designate another official to act as the agency head, even though that official is not Senate-confirmed. See 20 U.S.C. 3412(a)( 1) (providing that “[t]he Secretary [of Education] shall designate the order in which other officials of the Department shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary . . . in the event of vacancies in both” the Secretary and Deputy Secretary positions); 31 U.S.C. 502(f) (providing that the President may designate “an officer of the Office [of Management and Budget] to act as Director”); 38 U.S.C. 304 (providing that the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs serves as Acting Secretary “[u]nless the President designates another officer of the Government”); 42 U.S.C. 7132(a) (providing that “[t]he Secretary [of Energy] shall designate the order in which the Under Secretary and other officials shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary . . . in the event of vacancies in both” the Secretary and Deputy Secretary positions); 49 U.S.C. 102(e) (providing that the Secretary of Transportation shall establish an order of succession that includes Assistant Secretaries who are not Senate-confirmed for instances in which the offices of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy are vacant); 4O U.S.C. 302(b) (providing that the Deputy Administrator serves as Acting Administrator of General Services when that office “is vacant,” “unless the President designates another officer of the Federal Government”); cf 44 U.S.C. 304 (limiting the individuals whom the President may choose to serve as Acting Director of the Government Printing Office to those who occupy offices requiring presidential appointment with the Senate’s advice and consent).

 

  1. Indeed, if it were unconstitutional for an official without Senate confirmation to serve temporarily as an acting agency head, then the recent controversy over the Acting Director of the CFPB should have been resolved on that ground alone – even though it was never raised by any party, the district court, or the judges at the appellate argument. On November 24, 2017, the Director of the CF PB appointed a new Deputy Director, expecting that she would become the Acting Director upon his resignation later that day. Acting Director of CFPB, 41 Op. O.L.C. at *2 n. 1. The Director of the CFPB relied on 12 U.S.C. 5491(b)(5), which expressly contemplates that a non-Senate-confirmed official (the Deputy Director) will act as a principal officer (the Director). The President, however, exercised his authority under 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(2) to designate the Director of OMB as Acting Director of the CF PB. See English, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 330. When the Deputy Director challenged the President’s action, we are not aware that anyone ever contended that the Deputy Director was constitutionally ineligible to serve as Acting Director because she had not been confirmed by the Senate. If the newly
  2. installed Deputy Director of the CFPB could lawfully have become the Acting Director, then the
  3. Chief of Staff to the Attorney General may serve as Acting Attorney General in the case of a vacancy.

 

 

  1. The constitutionality of Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General is supported by Supreme Court precedent, by acts of Congress passed in three different centuries,
  2. and by countless examples of executive practice. To say that the Appointments Clause now
  3. [page] 18

 

  1. prohibits the President from designating Mr. Whitaker as Acting Attorney General would mean that the Vacancies Reform Act and a dozen statutes were unconstitutional, as were countless prior instances of temporary service going back to at least the Jefferson Administration.

 

  1. There is no question that Senate confirmation is an important constitutional check on the President’s appointments of senior officers. The Senate’s role “serves both to curb Executive abuses of the appointment power, and to promote a judicious choice of [persons] for filling the offices of the union.” Edmond, 520 US. at 659 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, the “constitutional process of Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation . . . can take time: The President may not settle on a nominee to fill an office; the Senate may be unable, or unwilling, to speedily confirm the nominee once submitted.” SW General, 137 S. Ct. at 935. Despite their frequent disagreements over nominees, for over 200 years, Congress and the President have agreed upon the value and permissibility of using temporary appointments, pursuant to limits set by Congress, in order to overcome the delays of the confirmation process.

 

  1. If the President could not rely on temporary designations for principal offices, then the efficient functioning of the Executive Branch would be severely compromised. Because most Senate-confirmed officials resign at the end of an administration, a new President must rely on acting officials to serve until nominees have been confirmed. If Senate confirmation were required before anyone could serve, then the Senate could frustrate the appropriate functioning of the Executive Branch by blocking the confirmation of principal officers for some time. See 144 Cong. Rec. 27496 (Oct. 21, 1998) (statement of Sen. Thompson) (noting that section 3345(a)(3) had been added because “[c]oncerns had been raised that, particularly early in a presidential administration, there will sometimes be vacancies in first assistant positions, and that there will not be a large number of Senate-confirmed officers in the government,” as well as “concerns . . . about designating too many Senate-confirmed persons from other offices to serve as acting officers in additional positions?). A political dispute with the Senate could frustrate the President’s ability to execute the laws by delaying the appointment of his principal officers.

 

  1. The problems with a contrary rule are not limited to the beginning of an administration. Many agencies would run into problems on an ongoing basis, because they have few officers subject to Senate confirmation. Thus, when a vacancy in the top spot arises, such an agency would either lack a head or be forced to rely upon reinforcements from Senate-confirmed appointees outside the agency. Those outside officers may be inefficient choices when a non-Senate-confirmed officer within the agency is more qualified to act as a temporary caretaker. At best, designating a Senate-confirmed officer to perform temporary services would solve a problem at one agency only by cannibalizing the senior personnel of another.

 

  1. It is true that these concerns do not apply to the current circumstances of the Department of Justice, which is staffed by a number of Senate-confirmed officers. Following Attorney General Sessions’ resignation, the President could have relied upon the Deputy Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or an Assistant Attorney General to serve as Acting Attorney General. But the availability of potential alternatives does not disable Congress from providing the President with discretion to designate other persons under section 3345(a)(3) of the Vacancies Reform Act. Nothing in the text of the Constitution or historical practice suggests that
  2. [page] 19
  3. the President may turn to an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate if, but only if, there is no appropriate Senate-confirmed official available.
  4. The President’s designation to serve as Acting Attorney General of a senior Department of Justice official who does not currently hold a Senate-confirmed office is expressly authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(3). Mr. Whitaker has been designated based upon a statute that permits him to serve as Acting Attorney General for a limited period, pending the Senate’s consideration of a nominee for Attorney General. Consistent with our 2003 opinion, with Eaton, and with two centuries of practice, we advised that his designation would be lawful.
  5. [Signed]
  6. STEVEN A. ENGEL
  7. Assistant Attorney General
  8. [page]20

 

 

 

 

  1. THIS WRITER?
  2. Richard is an attorney at law, and has served as an advertising and marketing and operations executive, a copy and slogan and technical and fiction writer, an auditor, an educator, and as CEO, Executive Vice President, and Vice President of several companies, one of which was among the largest privately owned broadcasting companies in the world. He works at being an oil, acrylic, and watercolor artist, and more than 800 of his oil, acrylic, and watercolor paintings are found on fineartamerica.com or www.richard-w-linford.pixels.com. He has written more than 75 non-fiction and fiction books listed in this appendix to this small work, most of which are available on www.amazon.com (type Richard W. Linford.) He was co-producer of audio programs The World’s 100 Greatest Books, The World’s 100 Greatest People, and The World’s 50 Greatest Composers, their lives and their music. He served as state chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (and Muslims) and on NCCJ national board for 14 years, as chairman of a multi-county Red Cross, and on other non-profit boards. He currently serves as the representative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Utah State Volunteers Active in Disaster Board.

 

 

 

 

  1. Most of Richard’s Writings are on Amazon.com. Type Richard W. Linford.

 

  1. His art – 800+ oil and acrylic paintings – is found at richard-w-linford.pixels.com or by typing Richard W. Linford in www.fineartamerica.com.

 

 

 

 

  1. If you have observations feel free to talk to him via linford@comcast.net.

 

 

 

 

  1. Following is a catalog of his book subjects and titles, most of which are found at amazon.com and which can be accessed by clicking on the link following a title below or by typing Richard W. Linford or Richard Linford in the amazon.com search box.

 

  1. ABS OF STEEL. HOW TO BUILD SIX-PACK ABS OF STEEL THE QUALITY REP WAY! Man or Woman! In the Privacy of your own home!https://www.amazon.com/HOW-BUILD-SIX-PACK-STEEL-QUALITY-ebook/dp/B010EM6MY6/ref=sr_1_85?ie=UTF8&qid=1502472532&sr=8-85&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. MARKETING. Jackalope Mindset: Focus on your Jackalope! Break through the social and media clutter. Sell yourself, your products and your services. https://www.amazon.com/Jackalope-Mindset-clutter-yourself-services-ebook/dp/B01LG786EW/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&qid=1502472693&sr=8-35&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. Marty and The UK Brexit High Anxiety Hotel and Restaurant. A short story. An allegory. https://www.amazon.com/Marty-Mouse-Brexit-Anxiety-Restaurant/dp/152109649X/ref=sr_1_49?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870920&sr=8-49&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. BAKING SODA USES? 325 ARM & HAMMER BAKING SODA USES??? (Sodium Bicarbonate; Bi-carbonate Soda) USES THAT PEOPLE CLAIM WORK??? https://www.amazon.com/325-HAMMER-BAKING-SODA-USES-ebook/dp/B011CF6U0K/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1502486878&sr=8-6&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. BEST PRACTICE AND BEST PRACTICES. THE POWER OF BEST PRACTICE AND BEST PRACTICES. https://www.amazon.com/Power-Best-Practice-Practices/dp/1521361398/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-24&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. BLINDING FLASHS OF THE OBVIOUS. IN SEARCH OF 500 NOT SO BLINDING AND BLINDING FLASHES OF THE OBVIOUS. https://www.amazon.com/SEARCH-500-BLINDING-FLASHES-OBVIOUS-ebook/dp/B01N0EHXVM/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-9&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. BRAIN POWER. Better Brain! Super Brain! Supercharge Your Brain! Supercharge Your Brain 1209 Ways! https://www.amazon.com/Better-Brain-Super-Supercharge-Your-ebook/dp/B014EVX8WW/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-14&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. BUSINESS TURNAROUND. HOW TO BEGIN TURNING YOUR BUSINESS AROUND IN 30 MINUTES: Save a fortune on consulting services! https://www.amazon.com/BEGIN-TURNING-BUSINESS-AROUND-MINUTES-ebook/dp/B011T55SUG/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-8&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. BUSINESS TURNAROUND. Stop Strolling Around Naked In Your Business Empire Like “ALITTLEKINGLY”. Begin to turn your business around now. https://www.amazon.com/Strolling-Around-Business-Empire-ALittle/dp/1575740206/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&qid=1505839392&sr=8-36&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. BUY or LEASE, and DRIVE a FORD AMERICAN “LUXURY” CAR and TRUCK TODAY! 222 AFFIRMATIONS. HONORING FORD MOTOR COMPANY. GREATEST CAR AND TRUCK COMPANY AND BRAND IN THE WORLD. Don’t procrastinate. Do it now! https://www.amazon.com/LEASE-DRIVE-AMERICAN-LUXURY-TRUCK-ebook/dp/B07GQBJYP2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535389923&sr=8-1&keywords=bUY+LEASE+DRIVE+A+FORD&dpID=514BieDNMkL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. CONCORD, CALIFORNIA. concord in the Son: honoring concord california. https://www.amazon.com/concord-Son-honoring-california-ebook/dp/B00ZSRASYS/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-34&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. INTERMEDIATION. Disintermediation, Intermediation, or Both: 200 steps to greater prosperity by eliminating or adding intermediaries. https://www.amazon.com/Disintermediation-Intermediation-Both-eliminating-intermediaries-ebook/dp/B01DMIJ0DY/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&qid=1505838733&sr=8-27&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. Sleep While The Wind Blows! Survival Checklists! Prepare Now! When a disaster or emergency happens, your time for preparation is over! https://www.amazon.com/Sleep-While-Wind-Blows-preparation-ebook/dp/B00P00RUOO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-1&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=51-6x1719WL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. Andrew Chipman’s Christmas Angel. https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Chipmans-Christmas-Richard-LInford/dp/1575740176/ref=sr_1_38?ie=UTF8&qid=1505839508&sr=8-38&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. Andy Pepper and Prince Kalid’s Solid Gold Western Flyer X-53. https://www.amazon.com/Pepper-Prince-Kahlids-Solid-Western-ebook/dp/B01EYXVZOI/ref=sr_1_76?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-76&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. Driving Mabel for Christmas Dinner. https://www.amazon.com/Driving-Christmas-Dinner-Richard-Linford-ebook/dp/B078HB4XC3/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-22&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=5178sLG1twL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

  1. I Am the Count of Monte Cristo. Short story. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_6?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ArICHARD+w+lINFORD&page=6&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985

 

 

 

 

  1. JOSHUA REDSHIELD’S DNA AND THE ILLUMINATI? A TECHNOTHRILLER (JOSHUA REDSHIELD AND THE ILLUMINATI Book 1. https://www.amazon.com/JOSHUA-REDSHIELDS-DNA-ILLUMINATI-TECHNOTHRILLER-ebook/dp/B01E91I4S0/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-30&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. The Bulletproof Invincible Man. Sheik Harun al-Rashid – A short story. https://www.amazon.com/Bulletproof-Invincible-Man-Sheik-al-Rashid-ebook/dp/B011FKPMP6/ref=sr_1_62?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-62&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. The KITE MAKER’S DAUGHTER: A fabled story for every daughter and every son? An allegory. https://www.amazon.com/KITE-MAKERS-DAUGHTER-daughter-allegory/dp/1718028172/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534887731&sr=8-1&keywords=The+KITE+MAKER%27S+Daughter

 

  1. The Minimalist: 89 EMAILS TO MY MARINE SON RAFAEL. https://www.amazon.com/Minimalist-EMAILS-MARINE-RAFAEL-novel/dp/1980353794/ref=sr_1_61?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-61&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. The Receiver. A short story about an appointed Securities and Exchange Commission Receiver, his work and response. https://www.amazon.com/Receiver-short-Richard-W-Linford-ebook/dp/B0134GYM2I/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-18&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. THE WHITE UNICORN CODE: Mystery of the Lady with the Unicorn and other Unicorn tapestries. https://www.amazon.com/White-Unicorn-Code-tapestries-2010-07-21/dp/B01F9GTEM4/ref=sr_1_94?ie=UTF8&qid=1534883070&sr=8-94&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. The Young Marine and the Snow an allegory. https://www.amazon.com/Young-Marine-Snow-Allegory/dp/1575740192/ref=sr_1_37?ie=UTF8&qid=1505839508&sr=8-37&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford; https://www.amazon.com/Young-Marine-Snow-short-allegory-ebook/dp/B011PHGFH8/ref=sr_1_83?ie=UTF8&qid=1534882887&sr=8-83&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. Waiting with Brutus Caesar Anthony the 7th, William and Mary, for SAM THE MECHANIC MAN. https://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Brutus-Anthony-William-MECHANIC/dp/1521158010/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&qid=1505839176&sr=8-32&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. WESTERN. The Cowboy Bar L Dude Ranch, Five Guests, and the Mean Banker. https://www.amazon.com/Cowboy-Dude-Ranch-Guests-Banker-ebook/dp/B0756JG4K2/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-27&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. Seven DEADLY NEGATIVE HABITS of Highly Ineffective People plus The Young Knight with the short lance and the Black Knight – An Allegory. https://www.amazon.com/DEADLY-NEGATIVE-HABITS-Highly-Ineffective/dp/1549957171/ref=sr_1_55?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-55&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. HABITS OF LOSERS. How to Lose! 70 habits of losers who abuse or lose friends, health, influence and money! https://www.amazon.com/How-Lose-habits-friends-influence-ebook/dp/B01AAV6CGO/ref=sr_1_40?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-40&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP AND SUGAR BELLY. https://www.amazon.com/HIGH-FRUCTOSE-SYRUP-SUGAR-BELLY-ebook/dp/B01B554JAK/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1505838733&sr=8-28&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. A letter to my grandson, Jason: You are a son of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. I love you. Your grandpa. https://www.amazon.com/letter-grandson-Jason-Heavenly-grandpa-ebook/dp/B01AOWGOQC/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-33&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. ANGELS. ARE SHOULDER ANGELS AMONG US? Yes. There are good and bad angels. https://www.amazon.com/ARE-SHOULDER-ANGELS-AMONG-US-ebook/dp/B00Q3GX8Q8/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-12&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. ARTICLES OF FAITH. My 32 Articles of Faith in God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ: Based on Joseph Smith’s 13 Articles of Faith, LDS Gospel Principles, and my understanding of the doctrine and Church of Jesus Christ. https://www.amazon.com/Articles-Faith-Father-Jesus-Christ-ebook/dp/B011DTKQSC/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-10&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. BEHOLD THE MAN: Jesus is The Christ, The Great Jehovah, The Holy Messiah who soon will come! https://www.amazon.com/Behold-Man-Christ-Jehovah-Messiah-ebook/dp/B011YLLSKO/ref=sr_1_43?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-43&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Christmas and Easter Opus. Honoring and testifying that GOD OUR HEAVENLY FATHER AND HIS BELOVED SON LIVE. https://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Easter-Opus-Honoring-testifying-ebook/dp/B00ZS53A0O/ref=sr_1_51?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-51&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=51eBFOrba7L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. COME UNTO CHRIST: REPENT AND PRAY MIGHTILY FOR FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS! Meditations on Repentance, Prayer, and The Book of Mormon, Book of Enos: The Jesus Christ papers. https://www.amazon.com/COME-UNTO-CHRIST-Forgiveness-MEDITATIONS-ebook/dp/B01N5HJFUW/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-12&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. DEATH. DEATH SOLUTION HOW TO AVOID YOUR DEATH? https://www.amazon.com/DEATH-SOLUTION-HOW-AVOID-YOUR-ebook/dp/B01LTGUPZ8/ref=sr_1_49?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-49&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. HONORING PRESIDENT MARION G. ROMNEY. Noble Apostle of Jesus the Christ the Holy Messiah. https://www.amazon.com/Honoring-President-Marion-G-Romney-ebook/dp/B077GY3ZSX/ref=sr_1_54?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-54&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS: JESUS CHRIST IS THE HOLY MESSIAH: HE SOON WILLL COME TO BEGIN HIS MILLENNIAL REIGN OF PEACE. https://www.amazon.com/JESUS-CHRIST-PAPERS-MESSIAH-MILLENNIAL-ebook/dp/B01EEK4386/ref=sr_1_77?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-77&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Meditations on Jesus The Christ and the Book of Mormon, Book of Moroni. https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Jesus-Christ-Mormon-Moroni-ebook/dp/B01MDJT7R7/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-8&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. ENEMIES. How to get rid of your enemies? https://www.amazon.com/How-get-rid-your-enemies-ebook/dp/B01KVY0VK8/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-6&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. GRANDPA TO GRANDSON. A letter to my grandson, Jason: You are a son of our Heavenly Father and Mother. I love you. Your grandpa. https://www.amazon.com/letter-grandson-Jason-Heavenly-grandpa-ebook/dp/B01AOWGOQC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542222675&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+a+lETTER+TO+MY+GRANDSON+jASON

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. GRANDPAS. GRANDSONS. GOD COULDN’T BE EVERYWHERE SO HE CREATED GRANDPAS: 692 WAYS TO BE A BETTER GRANDPA TO YOUR GRANDSON. https://www.amazon.com/GOD-COULDNT-EVERYWHERE-CREATED-GRANDPAS-ebook/dp/B01EKKIAZ2/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-36&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=51kbey4orcL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. HOLINESS! Worship the LORD in the Beauty of Holiness! https://www.amazon.com/HOLINESS-Worship-Beauty-Holiness-Christ-ebook/dp/B06XDHCBS6/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-29&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Honoring God the Son whose Second Coming is near: Holy Names, Titles and Concepts that describe Jehovah Jesus Christ The Holy Messiah. https://www.amazon.com/Honoring-whose-Second-Coming-near/dp/1521473811/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&qid=1505838733&sr=8-30&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Honoring Moses and Thomas S. Monson, Prophets of God. https://www.amazon.com/Honoring-Moses-Thomas-Monson-Prophets/dp/1521399239/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-23&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Meditations on The Book of [the Prophet] Jacob as found in the [Holy] Book of Mormon including Meditations on The Prophet [Zenos’] Allegory of the Tame and Wild Olive Trees. https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Book-Mormon-Prophet-Jacob-ebook/dp/B07F98LM3V/ref=sr_1_38?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-38&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=611X8baOG4L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. The Holy Ghost Power and Gift. https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Ghost-Power-Gift-Meditations-ebook/dp/B06W2KB7MZ/ref=sr_1_48?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-48&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. TWELVE RULES FOR ETERNAL LIFE. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=TWELVE+RULES+FOR+ETERNAL+LIFE&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS VOLUME 1: THE MANY WITNESSES THAT “HE LIVES!” https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Papers-Witnesses-Jehovah/dp/1575740214/ref=sr_1_70?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-70&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=51v8JgbrR9L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Jesus Christ lives! The many witnesses. Volume 1. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_6?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3ArICHARD+w+lINFORD&page=6&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Jesus Christ’s True Church: 70 characteristics with scriptural references. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christs-True-Church-characteristics-ebook/dp/B01BO9849E/ref=sr_1_44?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-44&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE RESURRECTED HOLY MESSIAH. He will come someday in power and great glory. Kindle ebook edition. https://www.amazon.com/JESUS-CHRIST-RESURRECTED-HOLY-MESSIAH-ebook/dp/B07KFQZTFN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542217215&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+Jesus+is+The+Christ%2C+The+Holy+Messiah; Paperback edition. https://www.amazon.com/JESUS-CHRIST-RESURRECTED-HOLY-MESSIAH/dp/1731249470/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1542217290&sr=8-2&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+Jesus+is+The+Christ%2C+The+Holy+Messiah+Paperback&dpID=51NQQxwkjGL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. LIFE. DEATH. he planted Utah strawberries and then he died: richard w Linford. https://www.amazon.com/planted-utah-strawberries-then-died-ebook/dp/B00ZQ1OO64/ref=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-28&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. MARRIAGE. Choose Your Love! Love Your Choice! 22 Anti-divorce Principles for Christian Couples. https://www.amazon.com/Choose-Your-Love-Choice-Anti-divorce-ebook/dp/B011EQ9KSG/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-21&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=61DnI9110OL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. MEDITATIONS on “THE IMITATION OF CHRIST by Thomas A Kempis” BOOK ONE “Admonitions Profitable for the Spiritual Life”: Translated by Rev. William Benham. Meditations by Richard W.  https://www.amazon.com/MEDITATIONS-IMITATION-Admonitions-Profitable-Spiritual-ebook/dp/B01L2SANDW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1502471298&sr=8-4&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Meditations on Jesus the Christ and the Book of Mormon, Book of Moroni – Come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. Read the Book of Mormon at lds.org. Ask God if these things are not true. https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Jesus-Christ-Mormon-Moroni-ebook/dp/B01MDJT7R7/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1502484088&sr=8-6&keywords=richard+linford

 

 

 

 

  1. MINISTER TO THE ONE NEAREST TO YOU – MOTHER TERESA Her life – with 1248 faith promoting facts, quotes and stories This ebook and paperback book are available on amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/MINISTER-ONE-NEAREST-YOU-promoting-ebook/dp/B07JJX1YJJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542215988&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+Minister&dpID=51GPQ02LCkL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. PEACE. PUT DOWN YOUR THOUSAND STONES – Peace between Muslim, Jew and Christian – 304 thoughts – With all thy being, be at peace! https://www.amazon.com/PUT-DOWN-YOUR-THOUSAND-STONES-ebook/dp/B01DREDVC4/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-12&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. PERSECUTION. HAUN’S MILL TREBLINKA TOO: The Persecution. https://www.amazon.com/HAUNS-MILL-TREBLINKA-TOO-Persecution-ebook/dp/B0106R3T0Y/ref=sr_1_42?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-42&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. PRAYER. PRAY ALWAYS TO OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN IN THE SACRED NAME OF HIS BELOVED SON JESUS CHRIST: The Purifying Power of Humble Prayer. https://www.amazon.com/ALWAYS-FATHER-HEAVEN-SACRED-BELOVED-ebook/dp/B01GWD5FSU/ref=sr_1_75?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-75&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. PRIESTHOOD KEYS. APOSTOLIC KEYS. All Apostolic Keys of the Holy Priesthood and Kingdom of God were conferred upon the Prophet Joseph Smith. https://www.amazon.com/APOSTOLIC-KEYS-Apostolic-Priesthood-conferred-ebook/dp/B01BPSQID8/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869792&sr=8-35&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. REPENT. Repent America or Be Destroyed Like the Jaredites! Repent and Serve The God of This Land who is Jesus Christ! https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Richard+W+Linford+Repent+America

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS – The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost – Our Divine Origin, Mortality and Destiny. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Papers-Mortality-Destiny-ebook/dp/B01GEYJ47K/ref=sr_1_57?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-57&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. THE HOLY GHOST. POWER AND GIFT. MEDITATIONS. https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Ghost-Power-Gift-Meditations-ebook/dp/B06W2KB7MZ/ref=sr_1_30?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-30&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. THE LION OF JUDAH ROARS! REPENT! https://www.amazon.com/LION-JUDAH-ROARS-REPENT-Jehovah-ebook/dp/B00ZVB02DS/ref=sr_1_92?ie=UTF8&qid=1534883070&sr=8-92&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. THE MANY WITNESSES THAT “HE LIVES!” https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Papers-Witnesses-Jehovah/dp/1575740214/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&qid=1505840223&sr=8-35&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST THE MESSIAH Libretto Sacred Oratorio. The Second Coming as a destruction from the Almighty is near! Repent! https://www.amazon.com/SECOND-COMING-MESSIAH-Libretto-Oratorio-ebook/dp/B0103H3U0Q/ref=sr_1_91?ie=UTF8&qid=1534883070&sr=8-91&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. SABBATH BREAKING. Sabbath Breaking and Sports as The Worlds’ Religion: Fix it Richard! https://www.amazon.com/Sabbath-Breaking-Sports-Worlds-Religion-ebook/dp/B010MJFH06/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-31&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. JESUS CHRIST PAPERS. Would Jesus Christ Do That? Is the first question! https://www.amazon.com/Would-Jesus-Christ-first-question/dp/1575740168/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1505838470&sr=8-25&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. MAKE MORE PEPPERONI “MONEY.” How to Make More Pepperoni?: How did Steven Jobs; Fed de Luca; Warren Buffett; Bill Gates; Larry Ellison; Carlos Slim; Fred, Charles, David Koch; do it. https://www.amazon.com/How-Make-More-Pepperoni-pepperoni-ebook/dp/B011F4WZP2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542216656&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+How+to+make+more+pepperoni&dpID=51qKBQOtG5L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

  1. MATEO CERVANTES SERIES. NOVEL. Mateo Cervantes – The Old Cowboy Prospector and The Buckskin Rocinante. https://www.amazon.com/Mateo-Cervantes-Prospector-Buckskin-Rocinante-ebook/dp/B06WLN34PD?keywords=Mateo+Cervantes&qid=1539887390&sr=8-1&ref=sr_1_1

 

 

 

 

  1. MELANIA TRUMP. MELANIA TRUMP – HONORING FLOTUS. https://www.amazon.com/MELANIA-TRUMP-Honoring-FLOTUS-intelligent/dp/1521995273/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1502471298&sr=8-2&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. 7 MARRIAGE GIFTS FOR 7 DAYS: To make your good marriage great or your bad marriage better. https://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Gifts-Days-marriage-better/dp/1575740249/ref=sr_1_69?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-69&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=41pb0KXJj-L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

 

  1. 199 Ways to Make Your Good Marriage Great or Your Bad marriage Better: Romance and improve your marriage today. https://www.amazon.com/Ways-Make-Marriage-Great-Better/dp/1575740184/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-14&keywords=Richard+W+Linford; https://www.amazon.com/Ways-Make-Marriage-Great-Better/dp/1575740184/ref=sr_1_66?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878879&sr=8-66&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. How to Make More Pepperoni? How did Steven Jobs; Fred de Luca; Warren Buffett; Bill Gates; Larry Ellison; Carlos Slim; Fred, Charles, David Koch; and the Waltons make more pepperoni and how can you? https://www.amazon.com/How-Make-More-Pepperoni-pepperoni-ebook/dp/B011F4WZP2/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-9&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. COWBOY POETRY. Mustangs Running With The Judas Horse: How to Write Cowboy Poetry. https://www.amazon.com/Mustangs-Running-Judas-Horse-Cowboy-ebook/dp/B010OTOLS8/ref=sr_1_88?ie=UTF8&qid=1534883070&sr=8-88&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. Honoring God the Son whose Second Coming is Near; Holy Names and Concepts that describe Jehovah Jesus Christ The Holy Messiah. https://www.amazon.com/Honoring-whose-Second-Coming-near/dp/1521473811/ref=sr_1_64?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-64&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. Honoring Moses and Thomas S. Monson, Prophets of God. https://www.amazon.com/Honoring-Moses-Thomas-Monson-Prophets/dp/1521399239/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-23&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. HONORING PRESIDENT MARION G. ROMNEY. Noble Apostle of Jesus the Christ the Holy Messiah. https://www.amazon.com/Honoring-President-Marion-G-Romney-ebook/dp/B077GY3ZSX/ref=sr_1_54?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-54&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. HONORING SEAN HANNITY. His critics fail in their attempts to dishonor and marginalize him. https://www.amazon.com/HONORING-SEAN-HANNITY-Political-marginalize-ebook/dp/B07HPFRFK1/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542216701&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+Honoring+Sean+Hannity

 

 

 

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. Honoring Stephen R Covey October 24, 1932 to July 16, 2012 Life is not accumulation! Think win-win! https://www.amazon.com/HONORING-STEPHEN-COVEY-October-1932-ebook/dp/B0784CYSJJ/ref=sr_1_59?ie=UTF8&qid=1534870960&sr=8-59&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. KILLING BILL O’REILLY. The LEFT tried to KILL BILL’S CAREER! They failed! Bill is back with a VENGEANCE! https://www.amazon.com/KILLING-BILL-OREILLY-CAREER-VENGEANCE-ebook/dp/B077SH9Z1X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-3&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. Push Your Limits! Honoring General John Francis Kelly! Semper Fidelis! [Always faithful! Always loyal!] The marines have landed at the US White House! https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Honoring-General-Francis-Fidelis/dp/1522066187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502471298&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. PERFORMANCE AND SUCCESS. PUSH YOUR LIMITS! Honoring Ueli Steck with His two Golden Ice Axes In memoriam. A revolutionary way to live your life by challenging and speed climbing your seemingly impossible physical and spiritual mountains. https://www.amazon.com/limits-Honoring-Steck-Golden-memoriam-ebook/dp/B0727ZL9QS/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1502484088&sr=8-10&keywords=richard+linford

 

 

 

 

  1. DID THE PATIENT DIE ON THE OPERATING TABLE? OBAMACARE 101 THOUGHTS: Is Obama’s “Affordable Health Care” Plan affordable? Is Universal Health Care the answer? https://www.amazon.com/PATIENT-OPERATING-TABLE-OBAMACARE-THOUGHTS-ebook/dp/B01DOR17HU/ref=sr_1_79?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-79&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. DONALD TRUMP: 307 Promises and Positions. https://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-307-Promises-Positions-ebook/dp/B01BWDHLVO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-7&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. KILLING BILL O’REILLY. The LEFT tried to KILL BILL’S CAREER! They failed! Bill is back with a VENGEANCE! https://www.amazon.com/KILLING-BILL-OREILLY-CAREER-VENGEANCE-ebook/dp/B077SH9Z1X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-3&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. 19 Executive Orders I Recommend President Obama sign Before He Leaves Office. https://www.amazon.com/Executive-Orders-Recommend-President-Obama-ebook/dp/B010ODV0TM/ref=sr_1_89?ie=UTF8&qid=1534883070&sr=8-89&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. 50 Reasons to Honor President Barak Obama!: Even if you didn’t vote for him! https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Honor-President-Barack-Obama-ebook/dp/B010OD6FOC/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-15&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. 50 Reasons to Honor President George W. Bush!: Even if you didn’t vote for him! https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Honor-President-George-Bush-ebook/dp/B012PG4KSE/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1502484088&sr=8-8&keywords=richard+linford

 

 

 

 

  1. 28 Reasons I WILL NOT VOTE FOR Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine in November! 30 Reasons I will VOTE FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP. https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Hillary-November-PRESIDENT-President-ebook/dp/B01KWEX9MO/ref=sr_1_39?ie=UTF8&qid=1534869921&sr=8-39&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. Marty Mouse and The UK Brexit High Anxiety Hotel and Restaurant. A long story. An allegory. https://www.amazon.com/Marty-Mouse-Brexit-Anxiety-Restaurant/dp/152109649X/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-27&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. North Korea Solution – THE UNIFIED REPUBLIC OF KOREA! Tear down that DMZ wall Wise Leader Kim Jong-un! President Donald J. Trump. https://www.amazon.com/North-Korea-Solution-President-peacefully/dp/1521131716/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-26&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. Repent America or Be Destroyed Like the Jaredites! https://www.amazon.com/Repent-America-Destroyed-Like-Jaredites-ebook/dp/B013FDG8L8/ref=sr_1_82?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-82&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. THE ART OF THE STEAL – THE LITTLE RED POLITICAL BIBLE, ALMANAC, AND CAMPAIGN HANDBOOK. 237 LESSONS FROM THE 2015-2016 TRUMP AND OTHER AMERICAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. https://www.amazon.com/ART-STEAL-POLITICAL-2015-2016-CAMPAIGNS-ebook/dp/B01E7K829E/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-15&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. TRUMP: NO THIRD TERM IN WHITE HOUSE FOR BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON!: TRUMP Pence LANDSLIDE! Follow blog. https://www.amazon.com/TRUMP-HILLARY-CLINTON-LANDSLIDE-richlinfordreport-com-ebook/dp/B01LP5JR2U/ref=sr_1_72?ie=UTF8&qid=1534878985&sr=8-72&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. The Power of Best Practice and Best Practices. https://www.amazon.com/Power-Best-Practice-Practices/dp/1521361398/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-26&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. RAINMAKER, WHO STOPPED THE RAIN DANCE AND TURNED OFF MY RAIN? Rainmaking for lawyers and non-lawyers. https://www.amazon.com/RAINMAKER-STOPPED-RAIN-DANCE-TURNED-ebook/dp/B00Q7QH9NC/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-11&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. In Search of Silence. https://www.amazon.com/Search-Silence-521-quiet-thoughts-ebook/dp/B01M7UCRX8/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-10&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. SPEED LEARNING. SPEED READING.Speed Learning Checklists: How to speed learn your way to greater expertise and fortune. https://www.amazon.com/Speed-Learning-Checklists-greater-expertise-ebook/dp/B0106L853G/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-11&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. SURVIVAL CHECKLIST HANDBOOK. https://www.amazon.com/SURVIVAL-CHECKLIST-HANDBOOK-Principles-Checklists-ebook/dp/B00PXLSD6E/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-15&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. ABS. ED. LOW TESTOSTERONE, ED, AND 6-8 PACK ABS: 558 thoughts to help you maintain and increase your T, overcome ED, and build 608 Pack Abs. https://www.amazon.com/LOW-TESTOSTERONE-6-8-PACK-ABS-ebook/dp/B01BCX3Q90/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-16&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

 

  1. Think and Grow Smart!  Think and Grow Rich! The Story of Ineptitude and the foolish cutting of the Golconda Great Mogul Diamond – The Largest Diamond Found in India Coupled with 50 Tried and True Ancient and Modern Knowledge and Wealth Wisdom Principles. https://www.amazon.com/Think-Grow-Smart-Rich-Principles/dp/1521710155/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-21&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. 730 Ways to Compress and Extend Your Time and Get More Done. For Businesses, Non-profit organizations, Professional firms, Librarians, and Clergy who have SO MUCH TO ACCOMPLISH! SO LITTLE TIME! https://www.amazon.com/Ways-Compress-Extend-Your-Time-ebook/dp/B012BLRWFG/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868603&sr=8-18&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

  1. Waiting with Brutus Caesar Anthony the 7th and William and Mary Waiting for SAM THE MECHANIC MAN, A long story. An allegory for our auto-driven times. I write. You read. You decide. https://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Brutus-Anthony-William-MECHANIC/dp/1521158010/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-25&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. The White Unicorn Code: Mystery of the Lady with the Unicorn and other Unicorn tapestries. https://www.amazon.com/White-Unicorn-Code-Mystery-tapestries/dp/1452852383/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1502487183&sr=8-13&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

  1. WEIGHT REDUCTION. HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP AND SUGAR BELLY: 550 thoughts to help you lose your ugly fat and rip your set of six or eight pack abs no matter your age! https://www.amazon.com/HIGH-FRUCTOSE-SYRUP-SUGAR-BELLY-ebook/dp/B01B554JAK/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1534868802&sr=8-20&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD&dpID=617Lfk2i3XL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. WORLD PRISON REFORM SOLUTIONS? 2016 – 2017 INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH REPORT  In Search of Prison Reform — Are our prisons an ethical stain on American society? https://www.amazon.com/WORLD-PRISON-REFORM-SOLUTIONS-2016-ebook/dp/B01N3LDTJ5/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1505837336&sr=8-7&keywords=Richard+W.+Linford

 

  1. WORLD ANTI-TERRORISM SOLUTIONS IN SEARCH OF POSITIVE WAYS TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM 2016 – 2017 COUNTER TERRORISM RESEARCH REPORT 1st Edition. https://www.amazon.com/WORLD-ANTI-TERRORISM-SOLUTIONS-BIBLE-TERRORISM-ebook/dp/B01N4A1UVN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542216822&sr=8-1&keywords=Richard+W+Linford+In+Search+of+Positive&dpID=51DLvlksHKL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

 

 

 

 

  1. WORLD WATER SOLUTIONS? 2016 – 2017 INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH REPORT: CHEAP? WATER PURIFICATION, SALT WATER DESALINATION, ATMOSPHERIC WATER GENERATION. https://www.amazon.com/WORLD-WATER-SOLUTIONS-2016-PURIFICATION-ebook/dp/B01M12XHTA/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&qid=1502473575&sr=8-32&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

 

 

 

 

  1. YOU ARE GREAT. YOU HAVE THE POWER! BECAUSE YOU ARE GREAT! Paint yourself a WHITE, BLACK, GREEN, RED, GOLD SWAN today (My free verse poem). https://www.amazon.com/YOU-HAVE-POWER-BECAUSE-GREAT-ebook/dp/B011D9024K/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1534865760&sr=8-13&keywords=rICHARD+w+lINFORD

 

 

 

 

  1. A Number of Articles and Papers, one of the most read Ensign articles from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is his 20 Ways to Make Your Good Marriage Great, Ensign 1983. He was responsible for writing and producing an earlier version of The Church Welfare Services Handbook and Essentials of Home Production and Storage and similar manuals. A Number of Talks, Poems, and Critical Reports. [Not found at amazon.com.]

 

 

 

 

  1. His art – 800+ oil and acrylic paintings – is found at richard-w-linford.pixels.com

 

  1. One of his blogs – POTUSWARS(tm)(c) FLOTUSWATCH(tm)(c) PEACE! RichLinfordReport(tm)(c) richlinfordreport.com

 

 

 

 

  1. RECUSAL OF JEFF SESSIONS! RECUSAL OF MATTHEW WHITAKER?
  2. Was the AG Sessions’ recusal engineered to the extreme harm of POTUS TRUMP? Yes. Should recusal apply to Acting AG Whitaker? No.
  3. © Copyright 2018
  4. Linford Corporation
  5. All domestic and international rights reserved

 

 

POLITICAL ALBATROSS SYNDROME. We think Democrats are suffering from POLITICAL ALBATROSS SYNDROME. BARREL & PORK.

BARREL, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Clintons and Obamas and the democrats cannot sidestep the fact that they have negative messages and they have done nothing to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS. Chuck and Nancy and Clintons and Obamas and their cronies have no platform of substance that is helpful to us. Their policies are all albatrosses around their necks. The democrats are suffering from what I call POLITICAL ALBATROSS SYNDROME. 


Unless the democrats jettison their current leadership and their albatrosses, they have little or no hope of winning elections and governing.


What do you mean, albatrosses and albatross syndrome, PORK? 


BARREL, the albatross is a very big sea bird. 


In the poem “The Rime of the ancient Mariner,” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the sailor who shoots and kills the friendly albatross is compelled by the ship crew to wear the albatross carcass around his neck as a terrible punishment because the crew blames the sailor for the horribly bad luck that befalls the ship and the crew.


Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Clintons and Obamas and their cronies have saddled the rank and file democrats with policies that don’t work and now at minimum these 5 albatrosses are hanging around the necks of Chuck and Nancy and Clintons and Obamas and their cronies and by extension all democrats, and they must jettison and get rid of them if they are ever to be relevant, win elections, and govern well, if at all – hence my characterization – the democratic party leadership and many if not all democrats are suffering from political albatross syndrome.


1) ALBATROSS ONE. They have done nothing of substance to help us be FREE. 


2) ALBATROSS TWO. They have done nothing of substance to help us be SAFE. 


3) ALBATROSS THREE. They have done nothing of substance to help us be PROSPEROUS. 


4) ALBATROSS FOUR. They have a policy of CRITICISM and ACCUSATIONS of POTUS Trump and anyone, Judge Kavanaugh included, who does anything to help us be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS. 


5) ALBATROSS FIVE. They have a policy of INVESTIGATIONS designed to marginalize POTUS Trump and all efforts to help us, to help America, be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS. 


6) ALBATROSS SIX. They have a globalist policy of open borders without proper vetting and e-verification and this to our definite harm. 


All women want to be safe. 


All men want to be safe. 


All who come to America need to come through the front door, be vetted and e-verified. 


Our borders are valued and must be protected with troops, with a wall, whatever is necessary. 


All immigration into the U.S. must be orderly.


7) ALBATROSS SEVEN. They have a globalist policy of open abortion to the genocidal destruction of BLACK babies and HISPANIC babies and NATIVE AMERICAN babies and JEWISH AMERICAN babies and ASIAN AMERICAN babies and CAUCASIAN babies. 


You and I both know, BARREL, that primarily on the democrat’s watch and at their instance more than 300,000,000 American unborn babies have been surgically and chemically killed, murdered, dismembered since Roe v Wade in 1973. 


50,000,000+ were BLACK babies. 50,000,000+ were HISPANIC babies. (It is no wonder we see BLEXIT – and Walkaway – with Blacks and Hispanics and others leaving the democratic party in droves.)


The other 200,000,000+ were JEWISH, NATIVE AMERICAN, ASIAN AMERICAN, and CAUCASIAN babies.


The only one who is keeping his positive campaign promises front and center with laser focus on helping us and our unborn be FREE, SAFE, and PROSPEROUS is POTUS Trump and most of his colleagues.

BUY “KILLING BILL O’REILLY” – HOW THE LEFT TRIED TO KILL BILL’S CAREER AND FAILED. BARREL & PORK.

WE BARREL & PORK ENDORSE RICHARD’S NEW BOOK “KILLING BILL O’REILLY” – How the LEFT tried to kill Bill’s career and failed. Bill is back with a vengeance. By Richard W Linford.

Buy it on amazon.com.  Click on this link.

https://www.amazon.com/KILLING-BILL-OREILLY-CAREER-VENGEANCE-ebook/dp/B077SH9Z1X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1540940572&sr=8-2&keywords=Richard+W+Linford

\