Can and Should Trump End Mueller's Witch Hunt Now?

By Eddie Howell

Will President Trump fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller? Can he? There are plenty of opinions being currently published addressing these questions. What would be the results of firing Mueller? Or the results of not firing him?

My own thoughts on this begin with the fact, as I believe it is a fact, that the Mueller investigation is a sham, a charade, and a witch hunt designed to destroy Donald Trump. It is an investigation in search of a crime. It is entirely unfair to the president and harmful to America. It is a drain on American taxpayers' money and resources which should be used to go after actual criminals.

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz has interesting comments on the problems of special counsel investigations and prosecutors going too far in looking for a crime in violation of the rights of people they are investigating. (YouTube video dated 07/22/2017)

Peter Beinart at The Atlantic thinks that the Trump team may regard firing Mueller as a good move, and I think that's probably correct. An article by Doyle McManus in The Los Angeles Times says, as do others, that if Trump moved to fire Mueller, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. A New York Times article headline says “Trump Can't Just Fire Mueller,”

It's in the interest of the Anti-Trump Witch Hunt to say that Trump can't fire Mueller and that if he did (or tried), it would bring on dire consequences. The Swamp seems to think the Trump presidency could not survive an attempt to fire Mueller, and hopes that if he doesn't fire the special counsel, Mueller will dig up enough dirt, real or imagined, to force Trump out and destroy his life as much as possible.

So, as Trump understands, regarding the Mueller investigation, he (Trump) is between a rock and a hard place. Should he suffer the consequences of removing Mueller now, or wait until Mueller announces his findings, which, whatever the facts may be, will be designed to damage Trump as much as possible. Trump, in making a decision to fire or not to fire, must choose between those two alternatives. Or so it seems to me.

I do not accept the statement that Trump cannot legally fire Mueller. His army of lawyers can figure out how to manipulate and exploit the regulations to accomplish Mueller's firing legally and effectively. The president has authority concerning regulations and their enforcement. He is head of the Executive Branch of government. Mueller is under the authority of the Executive Branch. The legal niceties can certainly be dealt with and the firing accomplished if the president decides to do it. What Mr. Trump must be concerned about is which choice is the better in terms of risk of damage to himself and America. Most of his voters still support him strongly. GOP members of Congress may speak against firing Mueller, but most Republican voters would support it, understanding that Mueller's role is simply part of the Swamp's hysterical hate campaign to destroy Trump, facts or no facts.

A Politico article by Matthew Nussbaum lists ways Trump could fire Mueller. It is not true that Trump can't fire Mueller. The article also suggests that if he did, Congress could bring back an independent counsel statute and bring back Mueller to continue, beyond Trump's grasp.

Congress would have to have a veto-proof majority for that to happen.

Another idea for Trump, if he wants to fire Mueller, might be to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself and fire Mueller. Then shut down the FBI Russia investigation.

The globalists and establishment denizens of the Swamp are determined to get rid of Trump, and they very well may yet do it whether Trump fires Mueller or not. But they may also be making a very big mistake if they think they can defeat Trump easily.

I would like see Mueller shown the exit. I think Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be fired as well. I hope he won't fire Sessions. But the only one who can or should make a final decision about firing Mueller is President Trump. It's not a question of whether he can do it, but, for the sake of his presidency and America, whether he should.

With the Clintons, Dishonesty Is Just Part of the Problem

By Eddie Howell

The documentary motion picture “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, based on his book of that name is available for free viewing on YouTube

There's an old one-liner that goes, “I've read so much about the dangers of smoking that I've decided to give up reading.” That's sort of how I'm beginning to feel about politics in America these days – I've read so much about the fawning so-called “journalists” who love Hillary, and the lying liberals who seize on every opportunity, real or imagined, to demean Donald Trump, it's just disgusting.

Trump has a very good chance of becoming our next president if the left doesn't assassinate him.

I watched the documentary “Clinton Cash” on YouTube the other day, and I must say, it seemed very factual and well-sourced. I plan to read the book as soon as it arrives at my house from Amazon.

[I also plan to see Dinesh D'Souza's documentary “Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” currently in theaters. It is based on D'Souza's book of the same name.]

Based on the film “Clinton Cash,” and what has been reported over the years about the scandal-a-week Clintons, it seems to me that Hillary is like Al Capone, only on a much larger scale, and probably a lot meaner. She almost makes Capone seem like a philanthropist by comparison.

The scale of Clinton corruption and hypocrisy is breath-taking. By selling influence and virtually inviting bribes, directly, and through their “charitable” foundation, the Clintons have amassed great wealth for themselves and their friends through shady, and often taxpayer-funded, schemes. In Haiti, for example, with Bill representing the United Nations' and Hillary the United States' relief efforts after the devastating earthquake several years ago, great promises of rebuilding were made. Large contracts were awarded to Clinton cronies, but very little helpful rebuilding work was actually done. But the Clintons and their friends made a great deal of money at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, using the people of Haiti, then the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Similarly in Africa and elsewhere, the Clintons have praised and propped up tyrannical dictators in order to get lucrative concessions awarded to their friends, friends who have directly paid them six-figure speaking fees and/or contributed millions to their foundation. And so it goes. As the film points out, they have often back-tracked (flip-flopped) on some of their cherished liberal principles to do some of these deals – things like environmental concerns, human rights abuses, and other issues. As is often said, “follow the money,” and Schweizer and friends have done that and it turns out that many millions of dollars have found their way to the Clintons personally and to their foundation in very questionable circumstances.

The Clintons are adept at saying the right things, but if one observes what they actually do, one must wonder how they get away with these things.

America has seen some rich, profit-making families, but never on this kind of scale, profiting from influence peddling on the basis of past and present government offices held. It is shocking and would be much more so if more people were paying attention.

But dishonest activities are not the only, and not even the main, thing that makes the Clintons a blight on America. Their political agenda is, I believe far more dangerous than their crooked money-making schemes. They are right in step with the globalist elites who are working toward a one-world government that holds tight control over everyone and everything. Agenda 21, anyone? Saul Alinsky?

Their kind of “progressivism” (Hillary's that is, not what President Bill Clinton practiced) threatens doom for the American ideal of liberty. The Bill of Rights would soon be out with the daily trash, starting with the Second Amendment, then the First, and so on, until our “rights” would be defined by a statement of political correctness, in line with what the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, etc., want.

Hillary, as president, would double down on Obama's policy failures (though from the Progressives' standpoint, successes) in health care, taxes, “social justice.” race-baiting, etc. She would continue to push onerous taxes (but ever-greater borrowing), reams of regulations, massive legislation that no one reads, all aiming at total control over the local neighborhoods from police to housing to land use. Their ideal would be a docile, government-dependent population living in small spaces, driving small cars that cannot go far or fast, or, better, no cars, just public transportation. Eventually the majority of people would be on food stamps and in poverty, maybe getting “free college,” but with nothing meaningful to use it for. The elites would be the exceptions, living like the Obamas live now in terms of luxury and a degree of freedom. Eventually, dissidents would be placed in re-education (FEMA?) camps or just eliminated entirely.

All that sounds (and is) extreme, but it would take place over several years and a few generations, little by little, as the government became able to neutralize opposition in order to implement it. At some point, even “elites” who were no longer helpful would be gotten rid of also. These things would happen gradually but methodically. “Progressives” have pursued their agenda since the days of Woodrow Wilson and before, and history shows that they flirted seriously with fascism and Soviet communism along the way, and have been enamored of collectivism in general, and great executive power in particular. As a present-day example, Obama, often and on many issues, shows his disdain for the government-limiting Constitution, bypassing Congress and ruling by decree.

Conservatives have complained and even sued, but Congress generally has shown little to no inclination to seriously stand up to Obama's usurpations. And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan et al wonder why people are upset with the establishment, including the Republican establishment?

Personally, I say away from the GOP with those Republicans who will vote for Hillary. Their days of GOP influence will soon be over. Trump is not everyone's choice for president, but he is the only one with a chance to beat Hillary. The fate of the nation is at stake. The next election and the next few years will show whether America is willing to stand up for her principles, and whether Western Civilization is deemed by the people in all Western countries to be worth saving. To the extent that the globalists have their way here and in the West generally, there will be large Muslim population growth, greatly increased terrorism, much more racial strife and the obliteration of America as a sovereign nation. There will be more unconstitutional treaties and regulations, bad trade deals, crime, poverty, and general misery. That's if the globalists win. The Brexit vote and the Donald Trump presidential campaign represent a movement that is probably our last best chance to stop globalism and preserve America as America.

ADDENDUM: HOW THE GLOBALISTS' PLANS MIGHT FIT INTO

END-TIME BIBLE PROPHECY

Some people who might be labeled “conspiracy theorists” have said that the Bible-prophesied Antichrist (“The Beast”) and false prophet of Revelation have appeared already, and they name who they believe it is. I'm not prepared to think that, although things seem to be moving in such a manner, that if left unchecked, it will soon be feasible for these satanic characters to appear. See Revelation, Chapter 13. Consider: Technology is already in place that could be used to implement the “mark of the beast,” insofar as not allowing anyone to buy or sell unless he or she possessed some required physical or electronic “mark” is concerned. Two things pointing toward this are (1) the cashless society – everyone could buy or sell only through a universal banking system, with every transaction recorded, monitored, and fully traceable, and (2) negative interest rates, which would preclude earning anything from savings or checking deposits, with balances gradually and selectively dwindling, so as to reduce or eliminate economic power of account holders. Negative interest rates are currently being used in some places, and the idea of a cashless society is being talked up, and seems to appeal to some people. What's not in place yet is the religious aspect, whereby people will worship the Antichrist, which is what the “mark” would signify. Scripture says that those who refuse to take the mark will be put to death, and those who take the mark can never be saved, but would spend eternity in hell. Our secular-minded world would greatly be deceived into believing the Antichrist's lie. But this is how the Antichrist could come to power – through a one-world government, trying to take control over everyone and everything. Of course, they couldn't do it entirely, but great damage would be done and millions of souls forever lost, and many saved only by giving up their physical lives. Only the return of Jesus Christ will prevent all humanity from being wiped out. But He will return and prevent this total destruction, and set up His righteous kingdom.

Many Christians believe these things will happen soon. It may be fairly soon, or not for a considerable time. One thing certain is that no one knows when Christ will return. When He does, it will be unexpected. Another thing certain is that He will return. Therefore, Christians are advised to be ready.

Needed: Effective Opposition to the Democrats by the GOP

President and Mrs. Obama

By Eddie Howell

Ever-increasingly for the last several years, it has become evident that people who truly cannot be trusted with political power have been the ones in charge. Barack Obama has shown himself to be the communist-mentored socialist-fascist that he actually is, as well as, it seems, a race-baiting hate monger not much different from his “spiritual” mentor “Rev.” Jeremiah Wright. As a Christian, the president is a strange specimen indeed. If all this weren't enough, he has actively worked to undermine the American economy with his crackpot schemes on “climate change” (such as the failed cap and trade bill, and now the evil new EPA regulations), weird financial regulations that keep “too-big-to-fail” in place while making things tougher on smaller banks.

His administration has seen a mind-boggling increase in public debt (which can never be paid) and annual deficits. He has been a far bigger promise breaker and liar than Bill Clinton, which is really saying something. (“If you like your health-care plan you can keep your plan,” just for starters.)

Jonathan Gruber should be thanked for shedding some light on the thinking of the administration during the development of Obamacare: it was designed to be sold to the “stupid” American people, who were smart enough to recognize that it was not a good plan, and mostly did not support it. Yet they suffered from it in millions of cases by receiving a severe downgrade of their insurance coverage and are set to receive even more insulting and injurious blows from it as time goes on.

Obama presided over an IRS that deliberately went after his political enemies. His claims of ignorance are not believable. He fiddled while the American outpost in Benghazi burned. Nor did his secretary of state Ms. Clinton bother to respond to repeated requests for security help there. And why was Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on September 11 anyway? That episode in itself should have resulted in deep apologies and major resignations, but the administration basically blew it off, and lied to the families of the dead Americans that some cockamamie video was responsible, then went after the producer of the video with a vengeance.

Political careers should have ended over the items mentioned above. Obama and his cronies have shown themselves unfit to serve in public office. And so far, I haven't even mentioned Michelle Obama's school lunch disasters, by which it's hard not to think of her as just mean. And her endless vacations. I have suggested before that the president and his family be budgeted for about a billion dollars annually for vacations in the hope that they would stay out of the country more of the time.

* * *

Meanwhile, the GOP has some troubles of its own. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, the leadership doesn't like their base. Just when Republicans, fresh from strong mid-term election victories, need to be at their best, the leaders are afraid that something conservative might happen if the dissenters get their way and that would, well, mess up some things for the cocktail-circuit “leaders.” Apparently, most of the House members didn't want to upset the apple cart, so they were contented to support Speaker John Boehner. I would prefer to see Louie Gohmert as speaker. But all that is minor stuff in the big picture compared to the disaster the Democrats have foisted upon us.

Patrick Buchanan points out that Democrats have plenty to worry about regarding their people, some of whom, including the president, to the chagrin of most Democratic voters, miss few opportunities to stir up racial turmoil, and who regard “Rev.” Al Sharpton as a guiding light on racial matters. Most Americans, as Buchanan says, have sided with the police (even more so after two officers were murdered in New York) and against the rioters whose “protests” were often far from “peaceful,” and against DeBlasio, Sharpton, etc.*

So, except for the things mentioned here and some others, like ISIS terrorists, Iranian leaders playing Obama for a sucker in the worst way, the mistreatment of Israel, and a good many other issues, things aren't too bad. Republicans have an opportunity to show some backbone and some leadership in Washington if they so choose. I hope they have the courage to be the opposition party they're supposed to be.

*Paragraph updated 01/13/15. Highlighted portion was corrected. Previously, it read as though I was painting Democrats in general as race hustlers, which, of course, they are not. The leaders who are represent a problem for the party.

Government Policies Are Bringing About America’s National Decline

Occupy Wall Street protester.  Photo: Dreamstime.com

The New York Times reports that “a deep sense of economic anxiety and doubt about the future hangs over the nation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with Americans’ distrust of government at its highest level ever.”

Further, “Not only do 89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, but 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress — warnings for Democrats and Republicans alike.”

The distrust of government and impatience with the status quo is reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” period. The cure for the “malaise” turned out to be serious changes in economic policy, a sense of cheerful optimism, and pride in America, things championed by President Ronald Reagan.

Today, the Tea Party represents a responsible citizen movement with actual ideas for improving the nation’s economic situation, and actions taken toward accomplishing an improvement. The mob known as Occupy Wall Street (or Occupy ---) demands that the government redistribute the wealth of the rich to them in the form of free college tuition, housing, health care, etc. They are in sympathy with Europeans who have demanded to keep their government benefits uninterrupted, despite the fact that their nations' governments are on the verge of default and bankruptcy.

As Chris Adamo at Renew America points out,

Throughout Europe, the spurious and unsustainable promises of socialist utopia, Ponzi schemes all, are collapsing, leaving entire segments of the population in the throes of riots and revolt. The few remaining adults on the continent are faced with the reality that the massive funding needed to prop up the sham was bound to eventually run out, and now no longer exists. As a result the dream of socialist beneficence simply cannot keep going, no matter how hysterically the short-sighted and morally vacant masses demand it.

These OWSers seem convinced that there is plenty of money to go around, if only the wealthy would “pay their fair share.” More likely, they have no clue about it except they don’t like the idea of people having more than they have – unless they’re celebrities. Actually, America’s public debt obligations are so huge that even if the rich gave up all their annual income to be redistributed, it would not even begin to solve the problem.

The challenge the GOP candidates face is this: Somehow, face up to the fact that nothing being done by the Obama Administration, nothing being suggested by OWS, and nothing the “super committee” is likely to come up with will help in the least. In fact, any of these are making and will make the situation much worse. The results of the 2012 presidential election will in all probability mean the difference between economic and currency collapse, or a real chance at a recovery that everyone can recognize as a recovery.

How the OWS protesters could support Barack Obama in view of the economic damage his administration has done, can be explained only by the fact that the protest’s money and energy is coming largely from people who have no use for America as it has been anyway, and would like to see the whole system fall. Communists, Socialists, Nazis, and fascists are eagerly awaiting what they hope will be the collapse of capitalism and the inauguration of a socialist paradise.

Economically, what they want is not only not feasible, it is not possible, unless they want something like Soviet communism, which is bound to fail. This involves the end of individual liberty and the institution of slavery. We are on Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” already; we need to reverse this, not accelerate it. People who are willing to trade their liberty for government “benefits” will be disappointed if they get their request.

See short video depicting the ideas of Hayek’s classic book in cartoon form here. The presentation is a bit dated, but the ideas are not:

Class warfare, stirring up the mob against the supposedly unjust success of the wealthy is the classic appeal. Liberal agitators, and probably the mainstream media, are just waiting for more violent outbursts to occur.

People who want some corrections made, but not a violent upheaval, ought to consider the fact that it is possible to address America’s economic situation in a responsible way that would bring about substantial improvement fairly quickly. This involves electing a competent Republican president and a Congress that will get rid of the “super committee” and reverse their results, and face up to the task of cutting the size and scope of the federal government and reining in the ridiculous spending.

At the least, it should be recognized that Obama has accomplished nothing positive for the economy. Actually, he has brought about much economic, social and cultural destruction. Short of direct divine intervention, four more years of Barack Obama would bring about the tragic failure of American freedom and prosperity for many years to come. That’s how serious our plight is.

Related articles

• Government Lowers The Standard of Living (economicnoise.com)
• Why It's the Mises Institute (lewrockwell.com)
• United Socialist States of America? (fidlerten.com)

Eddie’s Simple But Reliable Voting Guide

The primaries are over, and the general elections draweth nigh. It has been predicted that Republicans will make major gains in the November elections, but the Democrats are still in charge for one more session of Congress, a lame-duck affair, in which they may try to vote in some of their least-liked policies.

I am suggesting a highly simplified, yet very effective voting guide that will help our country avoid a good many problems, and solve some of the aggravating troubles we currently have. With President Barack Obama still in office and ready to wield the veto pen, the GOP can at least (1) propose better policies, and (2) slow down the Obama agenda. With the people supporting conservatism, the GOP can be surprisingly successful.

The voting guide I am recommending is simply this: Avoid voting for any candidates of the Democratic Party. For every Democratic congressional candidate defeated, Obama loses a vote in Congress. Even the “conservative” Democrats vote with the president most of the time, and in fact are not very conservative.

People who live in states where the budget is in a large deficit can generally see how this is most often attributable to liberal Democratic state officials who love to spend.

It’s true that there are some RINOs left. Not all the best conservatives won their primaries, but that should have been taken care of in the primary campaigns. Many good conservatives did win. None had a “D” by their name. It is important that Democrats be defeated if we are to stop Obama’s fascist-socialist-Marxist plans from coming to further fruition. It is to be hoped that Obamacare can be stopped by defunding, and later by repeal. That likely won’t happen unless there is a Republican majority in the House, but the Republicans, even if they fail to gain control of either house, should at least be able to deny the Democrats the 60-vote supermajority they would need in the Senate to pass controversial bills.

Some people are saying they’ll vote against all incumbents, but that is not a reliable way to change the direction of Washington. Voting against an incumbent Republican will only facilitate the election of some Democrat, who in all likelihood will be ten times worse than the Republican, even if the Republican leaves a lot to be desired.

The Tea Party is not essentially anti-incumbent, but pro-conservative. They know that with liberals in charge, we will face economic disaster through uncontrolled spending and higher taxes. Their policies will ensure perpetual high unemployment and an eventual currency collapse.

Continuing Democrat majorities will also ensure more anti-life policies, more anti-Christian and pro-Islamic attitudes, and less freedom for individuals. For those who want to vote for the “person, not the party,” when you vote Democratic, no matter how good the candidate seems, you are voting for the party of Chicago-style operations, forced unionism, food taxes, carbon taxes, and increasingly centralized government and endless Keynesian spending. Any thought of a balanced budget is a low priority with these people, no matter what is said.

This voting guide is simple, but will be found to be effective if it is used.

If Republicans win, strong effort must be made to hold them to their promises. They have disappointed us before. But this can be done, and is greatly preferable to giving the socialists more time in office.

(Not authorized by any candidate, party or campaign. Personal opinion only.)

Illustration: Dreamstime.com