Skip to content

Democratic Congressman suggests taking up arms against Donald Trump

March 19, 2018

  If you spend any time on Facebook you have probably seen quite a bit of gun control debate in the wake of the school shooting in Florida. You have surely seen memes posted by pro-second amendment people which remind everybody the second amendment was put in place in order to protect the people from a tyrannical government, while this is countered by anti-second amendment people who claim it is silly to think in this day and age we can take up arms against the government.

  However while this debate is raging among the people it is rare indeed for a member of the Congress to suggest we might be getting close to taking up arms against the President but that is what Democratic Representative Tom Suozzi did at a recent town hall meeting. Here is more:

A Democratic congressman from Long Island implied that Americans should grab weapons and oppose President Trump by force, if the commander-in-chief doesn’t follow the Constitution.

Rep. Tom Suozzi made the remark to constituents at a town hall last week, saying that folks opposed to Trump might resort to the “Second Amendment.”

“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi said in a newly released video of the March 12 talk in Huntington. “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

A listener then blurts out, “What’s the Second Amendment?”

The left-leaning Democrat says, “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.”

The spectators laughed — some nervously. 

  This is unbelievably irresponsible, especially after the attempted assassination of Steve Scalice and other Republicans at a charity softball game practice by a lestist, and needless to say the Republicans are not happy:

“This video is incredibly disturbing. It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the president of the United States,” said National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Chris Martin.

  I find it ironic that suddenly Democrats are pro-second amendment and pro-original intent after all this time. I also still remember the heat Donald Trump took for saying second amendment people might be able to stop Hillary Clinton but I do not see that same outrage from the left now.

  In Donald Trump’s case I wrote here that I thought he was probably talking about motivated second amendment voters heading to the polls to vote against Hillary Clinton en masse in order to stop her from becoming the President but this is clearly not what Tom Suozzi was implying and yet there are crickets from the left…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium



Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends

March 18, 2018

john-15-13  John 15:13: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (KJV) This is a relatively simple Bible verse to understand on the surface–to lay down one’s life to protect a friend is the greatest love a person can display toward a person he truly loves. To give your life to save a life, what more dedication can a person show, but how many people are actually willing to do it? Most of us think we would do it but none of us know how we would react to a life or death situation until/unless it presents itself to us. 

  But while this Bible verse is easy to understand from a human standpoint it comes with greater implications when put into context because Jesus laid down his life willingly for His friends; past, present, and future–not just the eleven. Or should I say the twelve? Could Judas have been saved if he repented and asked for forgiveness instead of killing himself? Just a thought, I do not know…

  Jesus laid down His life willingly (more on that shortly) to save all of us–we are all Jesus’ friends if we accept Him as our Lord and Savior. I use John 15:14 as an example of this when Jesus says “you are all my friends.” Jesus is talking directly to His apostles here but Jesus died for all of us, not just His apostles, so I believe all disciples of Christ are included in this teaching. (If I have misinterpreted this verse or applied too broad of an interpretation here I will gladly accept correction.)

  I am “tempted” here to say Jesus laid down His life for people He did not know but I am reminded of Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” so He does know us and He saved us, but He did more than save our bodies, He saved our souls.

  This brings me to John 10:18: “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.” (KJV) I get a shiver down my spine every time I read these words! The Pharisees and the Sadducees were looking for excuses to kill Jesus from early on but every time they tested Him (do not put the Lord your God to the test, Deuteronomy 6:19, Luke 4:12) Jesus had a brilliant response they could not counter. But when Jesus’ time had come and it was time for Him to be glorified His life was not taken from Him, He laid it down willingly. This is incredibly powerful to me!

  During Jesus’ illegal trial it must have seemed odd to his accusers that instead of defending Himself He remained mostly silent, but on the occasions on which He spoke He seemed to condemn Himself. It must have seemed to His accusers that He wanted to die, but that is not true. Matthew 26:39 shows us Jesus did not want to die  but Jesus knew that He needed to die to save us all and that is a huge difference! 

 This leads me to another powerful verse: “For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45 KJV)

  A ransom is defined as “a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.” The “other payment demanded” was the life of Jesus and the prisoners who were released are all of those who are slaves to sin (Romans 6:20 NIV) if we accept the ransom as paid in full.

  So in closing I will ask, are you one of Jesus’ friends? Have you accepted the ransom?

  I had intended to end this post here but it occurred to me after rereading what I wrote that my post is not quite complete, in fact it seems a little watered down. I made it sound as if, in today’s equivalent and admittedly probably a bad analogy, all you have to do is like or friend Jesus on Facebook and all will be okay. But Jesus added a condition which I neglected when He said “you are all friends” in John 15:14 because Jesus continues with “if ye do whatsoever I command you.”

  It is not enough to say you love Jesus, you have to live Jesus and obey Jesus. I will be the first to admit this is not always easy to do. Jesus’ last command is known as the great commission and it comes to us in Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations.” This is something I struggle with but I pray that by beginning to open up about my faith on America’s Watchtower it will eventually give me the confidence to spread the Word in person.

Sunday, March 18th open thread: ‘Fisherman’s Blues’

March 18, 2018

  open-threadHere is the open thread for Sunday, March 18th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.

  Last week we discussed 9 stories, did you miss any of them? If so there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. I understand that all of you are busy and cannot always find the time to check the blog for updates so why not subscribe to America’s Watchtower and receive email updates whenever I write a new post? That is the easiest way to follow the blog to ensure you never miss another post.

  In addition to subscribing you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. But you will get more than that for I often post links to articles probably will not be writing about so it is a great way to keep up with what is happening.

  The Twitter widget in the sidebar is fully interactive. This widget updates my tweets in real time and allows you to respond to or retweet my tweets right from the blog. It also allows you to tweet me right from America’s Watchtower.

  Well, yesterday was Saint Patrick’s Day so here is The Waterboys performing “Fisherman’s Blues” live. 

frui diem

Jeff Sessions fired Andrew McCabe hours before his retirement

March 17, 2018

  I have to admit I am surprised because I did not think Jeff Sessions would have the courage to do it but late last night the Attorney General, acting on the recommendation of the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, fired Andrew McCabe hours before he was set to retire.

  Here is more:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions late Friday night accepted the recommendation that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who took the reins of the agency during the turbulent days after the abrupt firing of James Comey, be terminated — two days before he was to retire and become eligible for full pension benefits.

Though McCabe — who has been attacked by President Donald Trump — stepped down as deputy director in late January, he remained on the federal payroll, planning to retire on Sunday. The firing places his federal pension in jeopardy.

Unlike Trump’s removal of Comey last year, which produced widespread resentment inside the FBI, McCabe’s termination was recommended by the agency he served for 21 years.

“After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility,” Sessions said in a statement at about 10 p.m. ET Friday night. “The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.”

  You probably noticed in the quote above how the article tries to link this firing to Donald Trump even as it states the recommendation came from the FBI in what I believe is an obvious attempt to surround this firing in controversy.

  It is also interesting to note how the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility stated Andrew McCabe “lacked candor” while under oath–what a cute way of saying he was not honest while under oath.

  In addition to his lack of “candor” the grounds for dismissal, as recommended by the FBI, was his authorizing leaks of an ongoing investigation to the mainstream media. But of course the very same media will ignore this fact as they play up the Donald Trump angle. There are other reasons why Andrew McCabe’s firing was justified and you can read about it here.

  One last thing I noticed in the article I linked to above: it states that Andrew McCabe’s firing puts his pension in jeopardy, it does not say he will lose his pension. I do not know how this works but this makes one think there is still a process to go through in which the future of his pension will be decided.

  If in his firing Andrew McCabe is allowed to keep his pension than this is no better than the Lois Lerner situation and is nothing but an attempt to placate Donald Trump’s base while actually doing nothing.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Newly released texts show Peter Strzok had a personal relationship with the judge presiding over the Michael Flynn case–and it gets worse…

March 16, 2018

  Shortly after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in the Russian investigation the judge overseeing the case abruptly recused himself from the case. This always seemed fishy: we were given no reason for the sudden recusal but it was odd that he should step down after the plea because there was obviously some kind of conflict of interest which should have required him to recuse himself before the plea. And now we might know what it is.

  According to this story Peter Strzok was friends with the judge who was presiding over the case, Rudolph Contreras, and this judge was also on the FISA Court. On top of that it looks like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were conspiring to set up a meeting with him. Here is more:

“Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]!” Page excitedly texted Strzok on July 25, 2016. “Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago.”

“I did,” Strzok responded. “I need to get together with him.”

“[He] said he’d gotten on a month or two ago at a graduation party we were both at.”

    Upon sharing this information with each other Peter Strzok’s first reaction was to say he needed to meet with Rudy Contreras and more texts reveal what appears to be an attempt to set up just such a meeting. Here is more:

Strzok: “….She brought up a good point about being circumspect in talking to him in terms of not placing him into a situation where he’d have to recuse himself.”

Page: “I can’t imagine you either one of you could talk about anything in detail meaningful enough to warrant recusal.” Page then goes back to discussing a different issue saying, “Anyway, maybe you meant to, but didn’t.’

Strzok: “Really? Rudy. I’m in charge of espionage for the FBI. Any espionage FISA comes before him, what should he do? Given his friend oversees them?”

Page: “Standards for recusal are quite high. I just don’t think this poses an actual conflict. And he doesn’t know what you do?”

Strzok: “Generally he does know what I do. Not the level or scope or area but he’s super thoughtful and rigorous about ethics and conflicts. (redacted) suggested a social setting with others would probably be better than a one on one meeting. I’m sorry, I’m just going to have to invite you to that cocktail party. Of course you’ll be there. Have to come up with some other work people cover for action.”

  You can clearly see in these texts that Peter Strzok was concerned about this connection being discovered and it appears as if there was a conspiracy between Peter Strzok and some woman we only know as “she” at this point to set up a dinner meeting with others in order to be inconspicuous.

  We do not know if this meeting took place or not but we do know the FBI got a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign by withholding information from the FISA court and we do know the FBI was hiding these texts from the Congressional investigation so there seems to be something here. 

  Despite all of this it is being reported that Jeff Sessions will not fire Andrew McCabe.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

The FBI recommends firing Andrew McCabe before he retires

March 14, 2018

  Back in January, and amidst scandal, FBI Director Andrew McCabe announced his retirement beginning on March 18th. Here are a few links to stories I wrote at the time about what was going on with Andrew McCabe when he decided to retire:

  Justice Department review expected to criticize Andrew McCabe for authorizing the disclosure of information of an ongoing investigation

Did Andrew McCabe edit his notes on Michael Flynn’s interview and then destroy the evidence?

Former DC attorney claims the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report will show Andrew McCabe had the FBI fabricate evidence

  And of course he held that meeting with Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and others in which an “insurance policy” against Donald Trump was discussed. The “insurance policy” most likely being the Russian dossier.

  Andrew McCabe is currently using his paid time until his retirement goes into effect but now it is being reported here that the  FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility has recommended Andrew McCabe be fired. Here is more:

CNN has learned the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility has recommended McCabe be fired and now the decision is up to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The issue stems from findings in an internal Justice Department watchdog report that claims he misled investigators about his decision to authorize FBI officials to speak to the media about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

That report, which has been complete for over a week, according to the source, has not been released publicly. The office is currently examining how investigations were handled at the department and the FBI in advance of the 2016 presidential election, including, notably, the Hillary Clinton email server probe.

“The Department follows a prescribed process by which an employee may be terminated. That process includes recommendations from career employees and no termination decision is final until the conclusion of that process. We have no personnel announcements at this time,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

  The decision now falls on Jeff Sessions. The question is, will the Attorney General have the courage to fire Andrew McCabe just a few days before he is set to retire or will he protect a fellow swamp creature and allow him to walk away with a nice little golden parachute?

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium


Appeals Court upholds Texas ban on ‘sanctuary cities’

March 13, 2018

  Way back in May Texas passed a bill which was signed into law by Governor Bill Abbott which cracked down on sanctuary cities in the State. Here is more on the Texas law:

As passed, SB 4 allows local law enforcement officers to question the immigration status of people they detain or arrest and punishes local government department heads and elected officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration “detainers” — requests by agents to turn over immigrants subject to possible deportation — in the form of jail time and penalties that exceed $25,000.

  As you can read in the above-linked article, liberals in the State challenged this law to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and today it is being reported the court has upheld most of the law. Here is more:

A federal appeals court has upheld the bulk of a Texas law targeting “sanctuary cities” that is backed by the Trump administration as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration.

The ruling Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans allows Texas to enforce what critics call the toughest state-level immigration measure in the country.

The law allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they’re in the U.S. legally and threatens sheriffs with jail time for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

Here is what Governor Abbott tweeted about this decision:

Paraphrasing New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, it’s on to California…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium