AG Bill Barr Speaks About The Damage to Our Nation From The “Resistance”…

A rather lengthy speech by U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to the Federalist Society is getting some increased attention today for the specific focus on how the executive branch has been weakened over the past several decades.

More specifically, AG Barr discusses how, in the Trump-era, the resistance movement has abdicated their legislative power and responsibility in favor of a politically motivated intent to harm the constitutional executive power.  [Video and Transcript below]

.

[Transcript] – Good Evening. Thank you all for being here. And thank you to Gene [Meyer] for your kind introduction.

It is an honor to be here this evening delivering the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. I had the privilege of knowing Barbara and had deep affection for her. I miss her brilliance and ebullient spirit. It is a privilege for me to participate in this series, which honors her.

The theme for this year’s Annual Convention is “Originalism,” which is a fitting choice — though, dare I say, a somewhat “unoriginal” one for the Federalist Society. I say that because the Federalist Society has played an historic role in taking originalism “mainstream.” While other organizations have contributed to the cause, the Federalist Society has been in the vanguard.

A watershed for the cause was the decision of the American people to send Ronald Reagan to the White House, accompanied by his close advisor Ed Meese and a cadre of others who were firmly committed to an originalist approach to the law. I was honored to work with Ed in the Reagan White House and be there several weeks ago when President Trump presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As the President aptly noted, over the course of his career, Ed Meese has been among the Nation’s “most eloquent champions for following the Constitution as written.”

I am also proud to serve as the Attorney General under President Trump, who has taken up that torch in his judicial appointments. That is true of his two outstanding appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh; of the many superb court of appeals and district court judges he has appointed, many of whom are here this week; and of the many outstanding judicial nominees to come, many of whom are also here this week.

***********

I wanted to choose a topic for this afternoon’s lecture that had an originalist angle. It will likely come as little surprise to this group that I have chosen to speak about the Constitution’s approach to executive power.

I deeply admire the American Presidency as a political and constitutional institution. I believe it is, one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution, and has been one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people. More than any other branch, it has fulfilled the expectations of the Framers.

Unfortunately, over the past several decades, we have seen steady encroachment on Presidential authority by the other branches of government. This process I think has substantially weakened the functioning of the Executive Branch, to the detriment of the Nation. This evening, I would like to expand a bit on these themes.

♦ First, let me say a little about what the Framers had in mind in establishing an independent Executive in Article II of the Constitution.

The grammar school civics class version of our Revolution is that it was a rebellion against monarchial tyranny, and that, in framing our Constitution, one of the main preoccupations of the Founders was to keep the Executive weak. This is misguided. By the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, monarchical power was effectively neutered and had begun its steady decline. Parliamentary power was well on its way to supremacy and was effectively in the driver’s seat. By the time of the American Revolution, the patriots well understood that their prime antagonist was an overweening Parliament. Indeed, British thinkers came to conceive of Parliament, rather than the people, as the seat of Sovereignty.

During the Revolutionary era, American thinkers who considered inaugurating a republican form of government tended to think of the Executive component as essentially an errand boy of a Supreme legislative branch. Often the Executive (sometimes constituted as a multi-member council) was conceived as a creature of the Legislature, dependent on and subservient to that body, whose sole function was carrying out the Legislative will. Under the Articles of Confederation, for example, there was no Executive separate from Congress.

Things changed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. To my mind, the real “miracle” in Philadelphia that summer was the creation of a strong Executive, independent of, and coequal with, the other two branches of government.

The consensus for a strong, independent Executive arose from the Framers’ experience in the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. They had seen that the War had almost been lost and was a bumbling enterprise because of the lack of strong Executive leadership. Under the Articles of Confederation, they had been mortified at the inability of the United States to protect itself against foreign impositions or to be taken seriously on the international stage. They had also seen that, after the Revolution, too many States had adopted constitutions with weak Executives overly subordinate to the Legislatures. Where this had been the case, state governments had proven incompetent and indeed tyrannical.

From these practical experiences, the Framers had come to appreciate that, to be successful, Republican government required the capacity to act with energy, consistency and decisiveness. They had come to agree that those attributes could best be provided by making the Executive power independent of the divided counsels of the Legislative branch and vesting the Executive power in the hands of a solitary individual, regularly elected for a limited term by the Nation as a whole. As Jefferson put it, ‘[F]or the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary….”

While there may have been some differences among the Framers as to the precise scope of Executive power in particular areas, there was general agreement about its nature. Just as the great separation-of-powers theorists– Polybius, Montesquieu, Locke – had, the Framers thought of Executive power as a distinct specie of power. To be sure, Executive power includes the responsibility for carrying into effect the laws passed by the Legislature – that is, applying the general rules to a particular situation. But the Framers understood that Executive power meant more than this.

It also entailed the power to handle essential sovereign functions – such as the conduct of foreign relations and the prosecution of war – which by their very nature cannot be directed by a pre-existing legal regime but rather demand speed, secrecy, unity of purpose, and prudent judgment to meet contingent circumstances. They agreed that – due to the very nature of the activities involved, and the kind of decision-making they require – the Constitution generally vested authority over these spheres in the Executive. For example, Jefferson, our first Secretary of State, described the conduct of foreign relations as “Executive altogether,” subject only to the explicit exceptions defined in the Constitution, such as the Senate’s power to ratify Treaties.

A related, and third aspect of Executive power is the power to address exigent circumstances that demand quick action to protect the well-being of the Nation but on which the law is either silent or inadequate – such as dealing with a plague or natural disaster. This residual power to meet contingency is essentially the federative power discussed by Locke in his Second Treatise.

And, finally, there are the Executive’s powers of internal management. These are the powers necessary for the President to superintend and control the Executive function, including the powers necessary to protect the independence of the Executive branch and the confidentiality of its internal deliberations. Some of these powers are express in the Constitution, such as the Appointment power, and others are implicit, such as the Removal power.

One of the more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is their breathless attacks on the “unitary executive theory.” They portray this as some new-fangled “theory” to justify Executive power of sweeping scope. In reality, the idea of the unitary executive does not go so much to the breadth of Presidential power. Rather, the idea is that, whatever the Executive powers may be, they must be exercised under the President’s supervision. This is not “new,” and it is not a “theory.” It is a description of what the Framers unquestionably did in Article II of the Constitution.

After you decide to establish an Executive function independent of the Legislature, naturally the next question is, who will perform that function? The Framers had two potential models. They could insinuate “checks and balances” into the Executive branch itself by conferring Executive power on multiple individuals (a council) thus dividing the power. Alternatively, they could vest Executive power in a solitary individual. The Framers quite explicitly chose the latter model because they believed that vesting Executive authority in one person would imbue the Presidency with precisely the attributes necessary for energetic government.

Even Jefferson – usually seen as less of a hawk than Hamilton on Executive power – was insistent that Executive power be placed in “single hands,” and he cited the America’s unitary Executive as a signal feature that distinguished America’s success from France’s failed republican experiment.

The implications of the Framers’ decision are obvious. If Congress attempts to vest the power to execute the law in someone beyond the control of the President, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the President. So much for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary executive.

♦ We all understand that the Framers expected that the three branches would be jostling and jousting with each other, as each threatened to encroach on the prerogatives of the others. They thought this was not only natural, but salutary, and they provisioned each branch with the wherewithal to fight and to defend itself in these interbranch struggles for power.

So let me turn now to how the Executive is presently faring in these interbranch battles. I am concerned that the deck has become stacked against the Executive. Since the mid-60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the Executive branch’s authority, that accelerated after Watergate. More and more, the President’s ability to act in areas in which he has discretion has become smothered by the encroachments of the other branches.

When these disputes arise, I think there are two aspects of contemporary thought that tend to operate to the disadvantage of the Executive.

The first is the notion that politics in a free republic is all about the Legislative and Judicial branches protecting liberty by imposing restrictions on the Executive. The premise is that the greatest danger of government becoming oppressive arises from the prospect of Executive excess. So, there is a knee-jerk tendency to see the Legislative and Judicial branches as the good guys protecting society from a rapacious would-be autocrat.

This prejudice is wrong-headed and atavistic. It comes out of the early English Whig view of politics and English constitutional experience, where political evolution was precisely that. You started out with a King who holds all the cards; he holds all the power, including Legislative and Judicial. Political evolution involved a process by which the Legislative power gradually, over hundreds of years, reigned in the King, and extracted and established its own powers, as well as those of the Judiciary. A watershed in this evolution was, of course, the Glorious Revolution in 1689.

But by 1787, we had the exact opposite model in the United States. The Founders greatly admired how the British constitution had given rise to the principles of a balanced government. But they felt that the British constitution had achieved only an imperfect form of this model. They saw themselves as framing a more perfect version of separation of powers and a balanced constitution.

Part of their more perfect construction was a new kind of Executive. They created an office that was already the ideal Whig Executive. It already had built into it the limitations that Whig doctrine aspired to. It did not have the power to tax and spend; it was constrained by habeas corpus and by due process in enforcing the law against members of the body politic; it was elected for a limited term of office; and it was elected by the nation as whole. That is a remarkable democratic institution – the only figure elected by the Nation as a whole. With the creation of the American Presidency, the Whig’s obsessive focus on the dangers of monarchical rule lost relevance.

This fundamental shift in view was reflected in the Convention debates over the new frame of government. Their concerns were very different from those that weighed on 17th century English Whigs. It was not Executive power that was of so much concern to them; it was danger of the legislative branch, which they viewed as the most dangerous branch to liberty. As Madison warned, the “legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” And indeed, they viewed the Presidency as a check on the Legislative branch.

The second contemporary way of thinking that operates against the Executive is a notion that the Constitution does not sharply allocate powers among the three branches, but rather that the branches, especially the political branches, “share” powers. The idea at work here is that, because two branches both have a role to play in a particular area, we should see them as sharing power in that area and, it is not such a big deal if one branch expands its role within that sphere at the expense of the other.

This mushy thinking obscures what it means to say that powers are shared under the Constitution. Constitution generally assigns broad powers to each of the branches in defined areas. Thus, the Legislative power granted in the Constitution is granted to the Congress. At the same time, the Constitution gives the Executive a specific power in the Legislative realm – the veto power. Thus, the Executive “shares” Legislative power only to the extent of the specific grant of veto power. The Executive does not get to interfere with the broader Legislative power assigned to the Congress.

In recent years, both the Legislative and Judicial branches have been responsible for encroaching on the Presidency’s constitutional authority. Let me first say something about the Legislature.

• As I have said, the Framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling between the Congress and the President. Unfortunately, just in the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character.

Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

A prime example of this is the Senate’s unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process. The Senate is free to exercise that power to reject unqualified nominees, but that power was never intended to allow the Senate to systematically oppose and draw out the approval process for every appointee so as to prevent the President from building a functional government.

Yet that is precisely what the Senate minority has done from his very first days in office. As of September of this year, the Senate had been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees — each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay an inevitable confirmation. How many times was cloture invoked on nominees during President Obama’s first term? 17 times. The Second President Bush’s first term? Four times. It is reasonable to wonder whether a future President will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.

Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.

Of course, Congress’s effective withdrawal from the business of legislating leaves it with a lot of time for other pursuits. And the pursuit of choice, particularly for the opposition party, has been to drown the Executive Branch with “oversight” demands for testimony and documents. I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its Legislative Power. But the sheer volume of what we see today – the pursuit of scores of parallel “investigations” through an avalanche of subpoenas – is plainly designed to incapacitate the Executive Branch, and indeed is touted as such.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.

In recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by Congress in the area of executive privilege. The Executive Branch and the Supreme Court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in Executive Branch decision-making necessarily means that some communications must remain off limits to Congress and the public. There was a time when Congress respected this important principle as well. But today, Congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good-faith attempts to protect Executive Branch equities, labeling such efforts “obstruction of Congress” and holding Cabinet Secretaries in contempt.

One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.

The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.

In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.

Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?

For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media.

• Let me turn now to what I believe has been the prime source of the erosion of separation-of-power principles generally, and Executive Branch authority specifically. I am speaking of the Judicial Branch.

In recent years the Judiciary has been steadily encroaching on Executive responsibilities in a way that has substantially undercut the functioning of the Presidency. The Courts have done this in essentially two ways: First, the Judiciary has appointed itself the ultimate arbiter of separation of powers disputes between Congress and Executive, thus preempting the political process, which the Framers conceived as the primary check on interbranch rivalry. Second, the Judiciary has usurped Presidential authority for itself, either (a) by, under the rubric of “review,” substituting its judgment for the Executive’s in areas committed to the President’s discretion, or (b) by assuming direct control over realms of decision-making that heretofore have been considered at the core of Presidential power.

The Framers did not envision that the Courts would play the role of arbiter of turf disputes between the political branches. As Madison explained in Federalist 51, “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” By giving each the Congress and the Presidency the tools to fend off the encroachments of the others, the Framers believed this would force compromise and political accommodation.

The “constitutional means” to “resist encroachment” that Madison described take various forms. As Justice Scalia observed, the Constitution gives Congress and the President many “clubs with which to beat” each other. Conspicuously absent from the list is running to the courts to resolve their disputes.

That omission makes sense. When the Judiciary purports to pronounce a conclusive resolution to constitutional disputes between the other two branches, it does not act as a co-equal. And, if the political branches believe the courts will resolve their constitutional disputes, they have no incentive to debate their differences through the democratic process — with input from and accountability to the people. And they will not even try to make the hard choices needed to forge compromise. The long experience of our country is that the political branches can work out their constitutional differences without resort to the courts.

In any event, the prospect that courts can meaningfully resolve interbranch disputes about the meaning of the Constitution is mostly a false promise. How is a court supposed to decide, for example, whether Congress’s power to collect information in pursuit of its legislative function overrides the President’s power to receive confidential advice in pursuit of his executive function? Nothing in the Constitution provides a manageable standard for resolving such a question. It is thus no surprise that the courts have produced amorphous, unpredictable balancing tests like the Court’s holding in Morrison v. Olson that Congress did not “disrupt the proper balance between the coordinate branches by preventing the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Apart from their overzealous role in interbranch disputes, the courts have increasingly engaged directly in usurping Presidential decision-making authority for themselves. One way courts have effectively done this is by expanding both the scope and the intensity of judicial review.

In recent years, we have lost sight of the fact that many critical decisions in life are not amenable to the model of judicial decision-making. They cannot be reduced to tidy evidentiary standards and specific quantums of proof in an adversarial process. They require what we used to call prudential judgment. They are decisions that frequently have to be made promptly, on incomplete and uncertain information and necessarily involve weighing a wide range of competing risks and making predictions about the future. Such decisions frequently call into play the “precautionary principle.” This is the principle that when a decision maker is accountable for discharging a certain obligation – such as protecting the public’s safety – it is better, when assessing imperfect information, to be wrong and safe, than wrong and sorry.

It was once well recognized that such matters were largely unreviewable and that the courts should not be substituting their judgments for the prudential judgments reached by the accountable Executive officials. This outlook now seems to have gone by the boards. Courts are now willing, under the banner of judicial review, to substitute their judgment for the President’s on matters that only a few decades ago would have been unimaginable – such as matters involving national security or foreign affairs.

The Travel Ban case is a good example. There the President made a decision under an explicit legislative grant of authority, as well has his Constitutional national security role, to temporarily suspend entry to aliens coming from a half dozen countries pending adoption of more effective vetting processes. The common denominator of the initial countries selected was that they were unquestionable hubs of terrorism activity, which lacked functional central government’s and responsible law enforcement and intelligence services that could assist us in identifying security risks among their nationals seeking entry.

Despite the fact there were clearly justifiable security grounds for the measure, the district court in Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit blocked this public-safety measure for a year and half on the theory that the President’s motive for the order was religious bias against Muslims. This was just the first of many immigration measures based on good and sufficient security grounds that the courts have second guessed since the beginning of the Trump Administration.

The Travel Ban case highlights an especially troubling aspect of the recent tendency to expand judicial review. The Supreme Court has traditionally refused, across a wide variety of contexts, to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action. To take the classic example, if a police officer has probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, his subjective motivations are irrelevant. And just last term, the Supreme Court appropriately shut the door to claims that otherwise-lawful redistricting can violate the Constitution if the legislators who drew the lines were actually motivated by political partisanship.

What is true of police officers and gerrymanderers is equally true of the President and senior Executive officials. With very few exceptions, neither the Constitution, nor the Administrative Procedure Act or any other relevant statute, calls for judicial review of executive motive. They apply only to executive action. Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an Executive official’s “real motive” — often after ordering invasive discovery into the Executive Branch’s privileged decision-making process — have no more foundation in the law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge’s real motive for issuing its decision. And courts’ indulgence of such claims, even if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on the President’s constitutional prerogatives.

The impact of these judicial intrusions on Executive responsibility have been hugely magnified by another judicial innovation – the nationwide injunction. First used in 1963, and sparely since then until recently, these court orders enjoin enforcement of a policy not just against the parties to a case, but against everyone. Since President Trump took office, district courts have issued over 40 nationwide injunctions against the government. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued a total of two nationwide injunctions against the government. Both were vacated by the Ninth Circuit.

It is no exaggeration to say that virtually every major policy of the Trump Administration has been subjected to immediate freezing by the lower courts. No other President has been subjected to such sustained efforts to debilitate his policy agenda.

The legal flaws underlying nationwide injunctions are myriad. Just to summarize briefly, nationwide injunctions have no foundation in courts’ Article III jurisdiction or traditional equitable powers; they radically inflate the role of district judges, allowing any one of more than 600 individuals to singlehandedly freeze a policy nationwide, a power that no single appellate judge or Justice can accomplish; they foreclose percolation and reasoned debate among lower courts, often requiring the Supreme Court to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture with limited briefing; they enable transparent forum shopping, which saps public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary; and they displace the settled mechanisms for aggregate litigation of genuinely nationwide claims, such as Rule 23 class actions.

Of particular relevance to my topic tonight, nationwide injunctions also disrupt the political process. There is no better example than the courts’ handling of the rescission of DACA. As you recall, DACA was a discretionary policy of enforcement forbearance adopted by President Obama’s administration. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the closely related DAPA policy (along with an expansion of DACA) was unlawful, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision by an equally divided vote. Given that DACA was discretionary — and that four Justices apparently thought a legally indistinguishable policy was unlawful —President Trump’s administration understandably decided to rescind DACA.

Importantly, however, the President coupled that rescission with negotiations over legislation that would create a lawful and better alternative as part of a broader immigration compromise. In the middle of those negotiations — indeed, on the same day the President invited cameras into the Cabinet Room to broadcast his negotiations with bipartisan leaders from both Houses of Congress — a district judge in the Northern District of California enjoined the rescission of DACA nationwide.

Unsurprisingly, the negotiations over immigration legislation collapsed after one side achieved its preferred outcome through judicial means. A humanitarian crisis at the southern border ensued. And just this week, the Supreme Court finally heard argument on the legality of the DACA rescission.

The Court will not likely decide the case until next summer, meaning that President Trump will have spent almost his entire first term enforcing President Obama’s signature immigration policy, even though that policy is discretionary and half the Supreme Court concluded that a legally indistinguishable policy was unlawful. That is not how our democratic system is supposed to work.

To my mind, the most blatant and consequential usurpation of Executive power in our history was played out during the Administration of President George W. Bush, when the Supreme Court, in a series of cases, set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict – decisions that lie at the very core of the President’s discretion as Commander in Chief.

This usurpation climaxed with the Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene. There, the Supreme Court overturned hundreds of years of American, and earlier British, law and practice, which had always considered decisions as to whether to detain foreign combatants to be purely military judgments which civilian judges had no power to review. For the first time, the Court ruled that foreign persons who had no connection with the United States other than being confronted by our military on the battlefield had “due process” rights and thus have the right to habeas corpus to obtain judicial review of whether the military has a sufficient evidentiary basis to hold them.

In essence, the Court has taken the rules that govern our domestic criminal justice process and carried them over and superimposed them on the Nation’s activities when it is engaged in armed conflict with foreign enemies. This rides roughshod over a fundamental distinction that is integral to the Constitution and integral to the role played by the President in our system.

As the Preamble suggests, governments are established for two different security reasons – to secure domestic tranquility and to provide for defense against external dangers. These are two very different realms of government action.

In a nutshell, under the Constitution, when the government is using its law enforcement powers domestically to discipline an errant member of the community for a violation of law, then protecting the liberty of the American people requires that we sharply curtail the government’s power so it does not itself threaten the liberties of the people. Thus, the Constitution in this arena deliberately sacrifices efficiency; invests the accused with rights that that essentially create a level playing field between the collective interests of community and those of the individual; and dilutes the government’s power by dividing it and turning it on itself as a check, at each stage the Judiciary is expressly empowered to serve as a check and neutral arbiter.

None of these considerations are applicable when the government is defending the country against armed attacks from foreign enemies. In this realm, the Constitution is concerned with one thing – preserving the freedom of our political community by destroying the external threat. Here, the Constitution is not concerned with handicapping the government to preserve other values. The Constitution does not confer “rights” on foreign enemies. Rather the Constitution is designed to maximize the government’s efficiency to achieve victory – even at the cost of “collateral damage” that would be unacceptable in the domestic realm. The idea that the judiciary acts as a neutral check on the political branches to protect foreign enemies from our government is insane.

The impact of Boumediene has been extremely consequential. For the first time in American history our armed forces is incapable of taking prisoners. We are now in a crazy position that, if we identify a terrorist enemy on the battlefield, such as ISIS, we can kill them with drone or any other weapon. But if we capture them and want to hold them at Guantanamo or in the United States, the military is tied down in developing evidence for an adversarial process and must spend resources in interminable litigation.

The fact that our courts are now willing to invade and muck about in these core areas of Presidential responsibility illustrates how far the doctrine of Separation of Powers has been eroded.

♦ In this partisan age, we should take special care not to allow the passions of the moment to cause us to permanently disfigure the genius of our Constitutional structure. As we look back over the sweep of American history, it has been the American Presidency that has best fulfilled the vision of the Founders. It has brought to our Republic a dynamism and effectiveness that other democracies have lacked.

At every critical juncture where the country has faced a great challenge –

– whether it be in our earliest years as the weak, nascent country combating regional rebellions, and maneuvering for survival in a world of far stronger nations;

– whether it be during our period of continental expansion, with the Louisiana Purchase, and the acquisition of Mexican territory;

– whether it be the Civil War, the epic test of the Nation;

– World War II and the struggle against Fascism;

– the Cold War and the challenge of Communism;

– the struggle against racial discrimination;

– and most recently, the fight against Islamist Fascism and international terrorism.

One would have to say that it has been the Presidency that has stepped to the fore and provided the leadership, consistency, energy and perseverance that allowed us to surmount the challenge and brought us success.

In so many areas, it is critical to our Nation’s future that we restore and preserve in their full vigor our Founding principles. Not the least of these is the Framers’ vision of a strong, independent Executive, chosen by the country as a whole.

[END]

This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Deep State, Legislation, media bias, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

685 Responses to AG Bill Barr Speaks About The Damage to Our Nation From The “Resistance”…

  1. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (WBEN 930am radio) – Long-time Roger Stone supporter Michael Caputo was defiant at Friday’s court appearance for one of the president’s closest allies. Stone was found guilty of all seven federal charges including lying to Congress, tampering with a witness, and obstruction of a House intelligence probe. The charges came as a result of the Mueller report.

    Caputo turned his back to the jury during the appearance in court according to reporters. The Western New York native who played a role in Trump’s campaign said he didn’t agree with the jury and that Stone’s actions were no different than democrats such as Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, James Comey, and others.

    “The problem we have in America is that Congress spends so much time lying to us and they don’t really care if their allies lie back to them,” Caputo told WBEN. “The problem here is not that Roger Stone lied to Congress. The problem is that Roger Stone convinced a billionaire to run for president and took away everything from these Washington beltway types. That’s what he’s being punished for.”

    Caputo said he had no respect for the jury due to its lack of republican representation. He said the jury foreman, the person who acts as a spokesperson for the jury, was a former democratic candidate for Congress. “This whole thing was a sham from the start,” Caputo said.

    “When the jury stood up to leave the room, my legs wouldn’t lift me,” Caputo said. “I didn’t plan to do it. My legs just wouldn’t lift me after two weeks of watching this charade. When I was told to stand up, I did. But I turned my back on what I thought was a very disrespectful enterprise. The proceedings themselves were a disrespect to the Constitution of the United States.”

    Caputo also claimed he was threatened by a US Marshal after Caputo said he would rather die than to work that Marshal’s job. “That can be arranged,” Caputo claimed the Marshal said.

    Apparently the extrajudicial persecution of our president and friends of Trump continues unabated. So who is really in charge of the DOJ , Trump or Obama?

    Liked by 17 people

    • ms doodlebug says:

      What have ‘we’ done to stop the corruption? For decades, it is we who have silently allowed people we know are corrupt to be elected and re-elected. We allow our children to be taught propaganda, that if it feels good it is good. We allow local government to declare sanctuary for people in our country illegally. We allow our local governments to establish safe spaces for illegal drug use while allowing corrupt people to prevent securing our border over which the drugs flow. The list of what we have allowed is long and evil.

      And now, we are allowing the corrupt people we allowed to be elected and re-elected for decades to continue a coup to overturn the presidency of the President we constitutionally elected. We are allowing our media to broadcast propaganda on behalf of the corrupt.

      We are allowing control of our government of the people, by the people, and for the people to be controlled by people we know are corrupt. And we foolishly expect one man, maybe two or three, to put an end to the corruption that we allow.

      Liked by 11 people

      • willyeye says:

        To be fair, we as conservatives have been taught to be good, decent and honorable people. We are taught to respect the votes of other Americans even if they are not in line with our beliefs. The corrupt liberals began a plan 50 years ago and they had a great strategy. Part of that plan was to take America from us without most of us even realizing they were doing it to us. To do so they commandeered the colleges ( and now even the education of our children), the media, the role models (celebrities and pro athletes), the judiciary, and even most of the government bureaucracy (the deep state). But spread out over 50 years, it never looked like things were really changing that much. They allowed us to become accustomed to one thing at a time so they could change everything before we really knew what was happening. And for the majority of us, the realization came too late.

        Even now, there are hundreds of thousands of “good” conservatives who still believe we have to fight back honorably or we are just as bad as the people that have taken America from us. They have not even reached the point where they realize that Trump’s way of fighting back is our only hope of saving this country, short of an all out civil war. A few have seen the light. People like Levin and Beck. Others just don’t get it yet. It breaks my heart that my grandchildren will not be able to enjoy our once great America when they become adults, unless of course Trump and Barr win. Pray that they succeed!

        Liked by 14 people

        • ms doodlebug says:

          For sure, we need to pray, but we also need to remember that it is up to us to choose good instead of evil every day of our adult lives. Here’s an OT scripture I love…Deut. 30:19-20.

          “I call heaven and earth to record THIS DAY against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
          That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

          By birth, by the blood of our forefathers, the United States is the land given to us. It is our choice whether to choose good or evil for our land on ‘THIS’ day and every day.

          Another scripture I love is 2 Sam 23:11-12:
          “And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentils: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the Lord wrought a great victory.”

          We must stand in ‘our’ field to defend it for the Lord to have a great victory. Imho, this is not a call to violence. This is, nonetheless, warfare against the spiritual wickedness in high places.

          Liked by 4 people

        • Justin Green says:

          We’re going to have to physically fight this in the end. Unfortunately, that’s the conclusion I continue to reach.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ms doodlebug says:

            What would physically fighting achieve in the end? Both sides would still believe whatever they believe and act accordingly. They may, however, become more secretive, always plotting against each other. That’s not victory.

            Liked by 1 person

          • John says:

            Thereis no escape.No other solution.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Raptors2020 says:

              Oh come on. Fight whom?

              Half of Americans don’t vote. Why not start there? Convince your friends and neighbors to go vote. Offer to drive people to the polls on election day. Really mundane, easy stuff.

              Like

              • vladdy says:

                Consider teaching for yourself or suggest it to kids or mid-life career changers who have their heads on right. We gave up the schools petulantly because “we don’t like them.” Well, it’s tough, but that’s what we have right now. Yeah, some can go private and some can home school, but if you want to change things on a bigger scale, help get cons/trades into the classrooms (not just on school boards, as we always hear. ), teaching.

                Most people have no idea the harassment older, trad teachers go through even down to silly little things like admin suggesting they check out a brand-new teacher’s room and what they’re doing (to a 20-30 year veteran teacher) just because they have smart boards 9r some silly appearance-deep things going on. (The bigger things are the “gotcha” meetings you are ordered to attend without prep, only to walk in and find several parents, staff, admin, etc. who have been discussing you for the past two hours without your knowledge and have already come to a conclusion about you.) This could change with more of us in the schools– strength in numbers and all.

                Like

          • MelH says:

            Why aren’t there protestors ruining every day like there were at the Kavanaugh conformation hearings? We need a few rallies on the steps of congress and in the mall. We need the mailboxes of the democrats bombarded with hate mail every day. Wreck their dinner in restaurants. But you could forget all that and impeach Schiff. What happened when the President started that movement? Where did it stop and why?

            Like

        • WhiteBoard says:

          very well put.

          the sickness of this is that how could any human join into such a long term plan? that they will never see nor experience. it feels as if they have a mental virus, that makes them one blob of some type of organism progressing forward.

          Do not allow people to say BARR wont do anything and that just how it is.

          Barr is listening to us through every surveillance means determing if he can have inaction, or if we will not accept it!! … KEEP HIS FEET TO THE FIRE! let him know he has NO CHOICE but to act because we WILL NOT ACCEPT tyranny.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Willyb63 says:

        the problem with conservatives is that we are too CONSERVATIVE..we have allowed this mess to get worse and worse until we let OBama come in and he has come perilously close to establishing socialism firmly in the USA. We have tens of milliosn of women and young people who just don’t see the danger.

        Liked by 3 people

      • sturmudgeon says:

        ms doodlebug: Excellent! Thank You.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Tl Howard says:

      Lindsay Graham, go after the judge!

      Like

      • VoteAllIncumbantsOut says:

        Loved the speech from Barr and I couldn’t agree more with what he said.
        We’ve all seen it coming over the years, prepare accordingly is all I will add.

        Nothing will change until we VoteAllIncumbantsOut, period. End of story. We the people control elections not them, this is what the founders gave us and up to this point in time, we’ve failed them miserably!

        Liked by 5 people

        • ms doodlebug says:

          I wonder what would happen if hundreds, perhaps thousands of people filed ethics complaints against Adam Schiff. We can do that (https://oce.house.gov/contact-us/make-a-submission). Of course, there is no ethics rule against lying so it would not be investigated. But I would bet that if ethics complaints started pouring in about Schiff and other democrats, Nancypoo would hear about it. Just another way to speak up, speak out, and get a message across?

          Liked by 3 people

        • dr D says:

          While term limits might be a good idea, the idea of voting out all incumbents might sound smart, but i think it’s always wiser to judge people as individuals.

          People like Nunes, Jordan, Stefanik, et al don’t deserve to be voted out because they’re incumbents.

          Liked by 2 people

        • swissik says:

          May I say, not meaning to brag, I became a citizen in 1963 and I NEVER voted and do not now for incumbents. Reason: I couldn’t name one that was so beneficial to the country that it would warrant a return to office. Full disclosure: I don’t vote party I vote the individual running for office and therefore have voted for dems and repubs.

          Liked by 1 person

        • MelH says:

          “We the people control elections” is a pipe dream made possible because the Dems waaaaay under-estimated the amount they would have to cheat in order to win. Remember, Soros owns the voting machines in 21 States.

          Like

      • Georgia says:

        He’s useless from what I see as to him…says a few good things every once in awhile does nothing, he could be doing alot to help the country with his Committee he Chairs and he isn’t doing anything….

        Liked by 2 people

    • Lulu says:

      That Marshal should lose his job and be redflagged if he lives in MD – bet he does. We now have US Marshals threatening to kill American citizens and he probably could kill anyone who voted for the President and walk.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sherri Young says:

      “obstruction of a House intelligence probe”

      Was that a criminal referral from Schiff?

      Like

    • hawkins6 says:

      I thought about Michael Caputo and his past articulate comments about his own dealings with the Weissmann/Mueller jackals before I read your comment. His condemnations are compelling and factually true from the slim pickings I’ve learned about the biased trial but I never knew the foreman was a former Dem candidate. The public needs to learn the full truth of this politically corrupted trial.

      IMO, this has been a grossly unfair trial but if A/G Barr tried to intervene in any way with the remaining W/M trials and end the prosecutory abuse, he would fall into the Resistance’s trap. Obama Judge Berman, one or more DOJ leakers from the prosecuting team, the press and the crazed Schiff House Dems would immediately accuse Barr of interfering with the Mueller investigation in its final despicable case and another major scandal and House investigation would begin.

      Liked by 3 people

      • dayallaxeded says:

        The corrupt Demonrats and their cadres will whine and screech regardless of what PDJT or Barrky or anyone else who’s not “chosen” by them and their handlers do. This is PDJT’s biggest failing, in my view–trying to work with or at least not overly inflame the left. He and all of us should do our utmost to inflame the crooked left–the more they screech, the more angry and crazed they are, the more likely we’re doing the right thing!

        Like

  2. CM-TX says:

    I’ve thought for a long time that PDJT has very little authority– & only because it’s been allowed to be stripped away from him/the Office of. Not his fault, but I would like to see him object louder– each & every time they do it.

    And while Barr obviously sees the issues, that does not convince me of his intent to fix it. He could just as easily be outlining an ongoing agenda he’s a part to. Actions speak louder than words.

    In his prior speech, he was focused on the attacking of Christian values.
    On that same note, a recent point made by author, Eric Metaxas: the reason the Framers included the “Separation of Church & State” was NOT to protect The State from the Church, but to PROTECT the Church from The State.

    That message, like so many others, has been lost along the way. During which we’ve had the usurpation of our Gov’t by a bunch of clueless parasites– having the audacity to think they know better than those who came before them. Particularly those who had the knowledge, foresight, & intellect to create a Republic as our Gov’t.
    Meanwhile these same parasites can’t even determine right from wrong– in the most basic of their professional/daily life scenarios.

    So while I’m glad Barr has a handle on the problems… what exactly is he going to do about it?? We’re waiting, & our patience has been pushed beyond it’s limit.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Revelation says:

      ” the reason the Framers included the “Separation of Church & State” was NOT to protect The State from the Church, but to PROTECT the Church from The State.”

      Its why the Gay Marriage issue will prove to be problematic, as demonstrated by Beto et al, that churches that refuse to capitulate tot he gay agenda will feel the weight of state come crashing upon them.

      That’s what it was always about. Attack the church, in the same way they attack the family etc.

      Of course, no one will mention Islam or its attitude to gays or women. Islam is another tool in the lefts arsenal to attack the west.

      Liked by 9 people

    • fhb says:

      1.DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD THAT IS COMING OUT OF OBAMAS MOUTH IT IS DUAL SIDED….HE HAS TAKEN TO “NOT CALLING FOR A REVOLUTION” BUT THAT IS WHAT HE AND THEY WANT . HE JUST DOES NOT WANT TO BLAMED FOR ANYTHING AS IT WILL GO WRONG [SEE I TOLD THEM NOT TO DO IT]…HE IS OPENLY SIGNALING BECAUSE HE AND THEY KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET HIS WORDS…BLACK LIVES MATTER GROUP & AND THE HORDES OF ILLEGALS [DON’T COME HERE YOU’LL BE SENT BACK BUT IT MULTIPLIED IN NUMBERS AND FREQUENCY. SEE HOW THAT GOES…DON’T DO THIS BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN AND WANT DONE. 2.THIS TALK OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE…THE DEMS HAVE A SCHEME A WICKED EVIL SCHEME GOING…PRETTY MUCH LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO VIRGINIA AND FLIPPING ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA FROM REPUBLICAN TO DEMOCRAT. THAT IS WHY ABRAMS IS STILL BELLYACHING TODAY …SHE KNOWS THAT WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS TO GUARANTEE HER WIN., BUT THEY WERE OUTSMARTED BECAUSE THEIR GAME WAS OUTED AND BUSTED. THEY’RE GONNA DO IT AGAIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION NEXT YEAR. 3. THOSE ELECTRONIC VOTING BOOTHS ARE RIGGED. and needs to be replaced with verifiable paper ballots.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Green Bucket says:

      On another site I saw a comment that the President has the authority to fire every single person in the federal government that isn’t elected. If this is true, I sure wish he would!

      Keep the military going of course, but the rest of the Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia dwellers that think they’re better than us – go suck an egg!! Nobody elected you and you don’t get to give the orders anymore…

      Don’t give them unemployment either, they’ve ripped us off long enough. Let them fend for themselves like the rest of us have ALWAYS had to.

      If AG Barr doesn’t move on Spygate soon, it will be too late – the fuse is almost lit

      Liked by 4 people

      • Julian says:

        Of course he can if he wanted to. It’s why he can’t fire the Vice-President or Members of Congress, or Governors for that matter – they’re all elected.

        Like

      • BruceC says:

        On another site I saw a comment that the President has the authority to fire every single person in the federal government that isn’t elected. If this is true, I sure wish he would!

        It is indeed very true … in fact I heard several people yesterday mention that when former President Obama took office, he did this very thing on his second day!

        Liked by 3 people

        • FanGirl says:

          I don’t remember the hearings.

          Like

        • dayallaxeded says:

          None of that is true, at least not in the facile way it’s written. POTUS can fire his appointees at will, but he can’t replace them without Senate confirmation, so it’s a trick bag. POTUS can’t just fire rank and file bureaucrats without good cause–kind of like civil service on the local level.

          Obama didn’t fire everyone when he took office. He didn’t have to, b/c Shrub hadn’t fired any of the Clintonistas who’d taken over FedGov over the prior 8 years. People need to understand that the Deep Stank has been entrenching and metastasizing at least since LBJ/CIA couped JFK. The Bushies were/are all part of the globullshit plot, dating back to that same time-frame, through the present.

          It was Poppy Bush who pushed through the unconditional opening of our markets to Red China (as Nixon’s ambassador to China) and who got the original anti-USA NAFTA BS rolling for the Klintoon Krime Kartel to complete. Would any patriot worth even the tiniest grain of salt push for and sign the Patriot Act? No! Would any patriot or basic law-abiding, law-enforcing government office holder turn a blind eye to vandalism and grand theft of government property by a predecessor and their staff? No! Shrub did both and a whole lot more that demonstrated without a doubt that he was controlled by his Poppy’s Deep Stank and globullshit puppet masters, just like the Klintoon Krime Kartel.

          Obama was dropped into a pre-established, cozy little spot with cadres already in place. But he was so narcissistic, incompetent, and their agenda was so crazy, he/they still failed with most of what they wanted to achieve, except the continued metastasizing of the Deep Stank within FedGov, which happened by attrition of good people and continued hiring and promotion of socialists, globullshits, assorted crooks, and sycophants. Obama’s incompetence and the transparent anti-Americanism of his cadres and their agenda was a bridge too far for most Americans, but they would’ve achieved their goals and become entrenched beyond any capacity to have them removed through political/electoral means, had anyone other than PDJT won the last presidential election.

          PDJT cannot just fire everyone in FedGov who’s not elected. He and his MAGA appointees can make a whole lot of strategic hires, promotions, and fire a few people in key positions, which would have an immense impact on every aspect of FedGov functioning, especially in the DOinJ. The key is to get MAGA people in the positions that will become “acting” officials when the appointees above them are terminated. QED. It could almost cease to matter if the Senate slow walks confirmation of replacements, since the MAGA acting personnel would be, well, acting! Why this hasn’t been happening, at least since Sessions recusal, is a YUGE mystery to me.

          Like

    • YvonneMarie says:

      Right.
      Because how did Obama get all that power to spy on American citizens
      President Trump is exposing all the flaws & warts in all three branches of
      our federal govt…

      Liked by 4 people

    • Paolo says:

      How can u say he doesn’t intend to fix it, going the speech was specially addressing the problem, dude…

      Casting doubts as if he was Linux

      Liked by 3 people

    • John55 says:

      This is a Congressional problem. If Congress had Trump’s back then he could fire all these “resistance” types with impunity. His hands are tied because a great many Republicans have made it clear that they will treat any such action on Trump’s part as grounds for removing him from office.

      And of course, the buck ultimately stops with we the people. It is we Republican voters who have sent all these crooked Republican Senators and Representatives to DC.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. 335blues says:

    There is at least one glaring omission from Barr’s otherwise excellent speech that is extremely relevant
    in the attack on our Constitution by the marxist left.
    That is the attack on the Bill of Rights in general, and the second amendment
    Right to Keep and Bear Arms in particular.
    It is infinitely clear to me, and millions of other Americans, that it is necessary
    for the marxists to delete our right to keep and bear arms if they are ever to
    “transform” America into their vision of utopia, which is of course, communism.
    I am more than a little concerned with Mr. Barr’s zealousness with which he
    seeks to limit American’s right to ams.
    Therefore, I demand that he publicly specifically declare his intentions, vis-a-vis our 2nd amendment,
    with the same clarity that he has described his understanding of the ‘Separation of Powers’
    described in our Constitution.
    Especially in the area of the 2nd amendment it absolutely necessary that the federal government
    take care to remove rights guaranteed to individual citizens for only the gravest of reasons.

    Liked by 9 people

    • FanGirl says:

      Does it matter if he pays lip service to the 2nd Amendment?

      Like

    • loteal2014 says:

      He believes in the constitution as it was written. He will not try to take those rights from us. No worries here. He seems through the bullshit by the left. We can only hope Trump and Barr stay in power. One more democratic leader… and that might be the end of our constitutional rights.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Boots says:

        He will not try to take those rights from us. No worries here. (per loteal2014)
        ————-
        Horseshit! He approves of assault weapon ban. Floated a plan to make all private person to person firearm sales to go through a federally licensed dealer, thereby allowing BATF to create an unlawful database of private citizens who sold private property to another citizen.

        Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically forbids federal govt from creating such a database. Barr KNOWS THAT! But he’s promoting a scheme that will directly, severely, and willfully violate that law.

        Barr is no friend to gun who understand the original intent and thus are no compromise gun owners. He’s only a friend to gun owners who are willing to concede their God given rights 1/8 inch at a time, in the name of so called common sense gun laws, to anti-Second Amendment people like Barr.

        Under federal law the dealer must turn in

        Liked by 2 people

    • willyeye says:

      Just some food for thought: I think a lot of conservative gun owners have this belief that only conservatives have guns and we need them in the event we need to defend ourselves from the commies. I think many of us believe that guns are our thing and that liberals will never have them. I think this is naive. Look at the Antifa groups in Europe; they’re using weapons regularly. We need to make sure that the commies never get the guns and use them against us. We have to be careful that their dreams of confiscation do not end up putting all of the guns in their hands. Just one more reason to protect the 2nd amendment from the liberals.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Mike says:

      They don’t want utopia. They want your liberties and subjugate to their rule.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Ma McGriz says:

      AG Barr’s speech had a topic, and it wasn’t the 2nd Amendment.

      This is an important speech, and when he opines on the 2nd Amendment, it will no doubt have our riveted attention.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Pale rider says:

      My thought on these worthless rabble Barr and the rest, is they would trade our rights for peace In their miserable lives instead of justice. Which by the way would reap a lasting harvest of peace.
      It’s become apparent by lack of deeds to any measurable capacity. Measurable in the form of results that are lasting or that better our current government.
      So because of lack of results he is no better maybe worse than the perpetrators IMHO.
      And I’m speaking as an american who has watched closely Sessions, Wray, now Barr bring forth nothing but travel expenses and paper shuffling. Now the Schiff show and Roger Stone nonsense heaped on endless money pits of trials and setups dismantling the power behind Trumps election.
      I’d take one Elise Stefanik or Sidney Powell over a thousand bondo Barrs. They shows people who can accomplish results exist so why do we have such duds in offices of power??
      I don’t want a dictator, but every injustice that goes unpunished before the public eye will scream louder for action, justice. Maybe that’s the whole plan, I often wonder.
      A principal here that becomes apparent. Prolonged hope of justice brings about separation, and a host of negative reactions, just as simple as ‘fences make good neighbors’. We know that, they know that.
      We don’t hate each other but simple R and D as an affiliation now is tearing our country apart because of this.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dayallaxeded says:

        The only peace authoritarians and especially communists want for free-thinking, individually responsible and moral people is the peace of the grave. Until we all understand this fundamental fact, we’re all deluding ourselves about the severity and urgency of the situation.

        Academically excellent speeches aren’t going to get the job done. End the anti-USA citizenry secrecy by FedGov–if they can’t “reveal” it to us, they shouldn’t be doing it! Prosecute those inside FedGov who lie, cheat, steal, and try to usurp the will of the people and do that first, before pursuing a single private citizen for anything!

        First up, revise Comey’s exoneration speech for HELLary’s crimes back to the terms used before Stroker got his hands on it, which tracked the terms of the criminal statute. Put it in the form of an indictment and put the wicked witch of Arkancide in the dock. No justice, no peace!

        Like

  4. I wonder when the dealer forces the players to show their cards?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Revenant says:

    There has been a re-alignment of power away from the political branches to the civil service regulatory state.

    Congress doesn’t legislate so much as pass enabling acts. The regulators draft the real laws. Nominally part of the Executive Branch, these agencies all feel that their sworn duty is first to “defend the agency.” Regulatory rulemakings are an undemocratic process that nevertheless results in a regulation that has the force of law. Courts (through the Chevron Doctrine) give wide deference to agency rulemakings.

    Other agencies (like the FBI/DOJ/CIA/State Department) feel that it is their job to design US foreign policy and that the political leadership are figureheads who should just rubber-stamp whatever the agencies say should be policy.

    These agencies are the Deep State. They are the new petty nobility who strive to be our lords and masters.

    Liked by 19 people

  6. Ray says:

    Talk is cheap. Cut the cord. the You can’t even call the so called resistance Liberals. They are denizens fighting to keep power many voters are trying to take back.
    The apparent retreat of Prosecuting McCabe in particular with his well documented lying is what has made the Democrat infection so bold. Along with easy convictions for POTUS supporters.Schiff lies obviously to the camera and media spins it for him.
    The bureacracy sees to it that pet Judges try cases involving POTUS supporters and they get favorable rulings almost everytime.
    In my view Barr needed to charge and convict people, simple as that. Right now they do not have to obey regulations, laws ,due process,precedent because they are not penalized for abuse.

    Liked by 11 people

    • loteal2014 says:

      When did you first hear the word resistance after Trump won? Listen closely to Hillary’s conceding speech dressed in purple with Bill by her side. She all but says the words…we are at war. Her anger is apparent. She’s behind everything, 💯

      Liked by 5 people

      • Tl Howard says:

        It would be interesting to know just how much of the swamp that is the resistance is Clinton- inspired or Clinton-bought & paid for or Clinton-owned. The Clintons have created a mafia structure w/in state and fed government. Once in, you cannot get out, not unless you want your career destroyed.

        Liked by 3 people

    • loteal2014 says:

      I haven’t read that McCabe prosecution has been dropped. I think it’s still in limbo, until Yesterday. Did I miss something? Please dish.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tl Howard says:

        It’s in limbo. The judge said, “This isn’t hard!” but as far as I know, he didn’t let McCabe “off.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • dwpender says:

        Judge Walton is handling a narrow FOIA suit. He neither did not has any authority to “let McCabe off.” That’s entirely up to DOJ — which can indict him at any time until the Statute of Limitations has run. Too many fine CTH posters have been falling for media-spin that a “deadline” regarding asserting a “pending investigation” FOIA defense was tantamount to a judicial ruling that DOJ must decide one way or another on indictment by November 15.

        BTW, I agree with Walton’s frustration about how long it has taken DOJ to decide whether to charge such a simple case. He has no more authority than I do, however, to force DOJ’s hand.

        Liked by 1 person

    • 1riot1ranger says:

      Barr can’t convict shit. That’s the problem. No matter who he indicts, they won’t be convicted, period. That’s why this is all a matter of timing so they don’t go to trial before the election.

      Only wildcard is if they managed to indict someone in a different state. Unlikely.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Brutalus says:

        As much as I would like convictions…indicting, arresting, and trying these bastards would be enough for me…a daily parade of them going to court with their expensive lawyers and daily reports of the evidence laid out against them would be enough for me….of course, I want these bastards to go to jail, but that is down the road….the real question is if I can get grand jury indictments in the first place in some of these jurisdictions and what are the options regarding preliminary hearings, creative jurisdictions, venue changes, and yes, far fetchedly military tribunals for sedition…I know the left and media would go nuts on something like that, but at this point, f em

        Liked by 1 person

      • ann says:

        Change the damn rules. Moses didn’t decree trials must be in DC!

        Liked by 1 person

  7. DSP2 says:

    Obama’s fundamental change. Bureaucrats ignoring the constitution. They must all be weeded out from top to bottom.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. IGiveUp says:

    Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe: Trump supporters not human beings.

    (I’m guessing that means it’s ok to do anything to them)

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/peak_disdain_for_trump_supporters_from_harvard_law_professor_laurence_tribe.html

    Liked by 4 people

    • Greg1 says:

      That IS the same argument used by abortionists.

      It was the same argument used against Native Americans.

      It was the same argument democrats used against slaves.

      Once democrats declare people are not human beings that is their green light to do anything they can get away with.

      Liked by 6 people

      • glissmeister says:

        Hey. We are all just stimulus-response organisms to be shaped and formed at will, by experts practicing scientific socialism. According to them that’s settled science.

        The last 100 years of the US education bureaucracy, its pathological arrogance and stupidity are based upon and within the principles of that obsolete “scientific” doctrine.

        You and your children are a “blank slate” to them. Without soul. A stimulus-response organism. It’s a whopper of a thought disorder. That’s why the system is such a disaster, it’s was formed to be and largely still operates as an institution of mass child indoctrination and dehumanization. The Left is merely doing what what was supposed to have been done all along. That’s why it normalized so easily in the universities.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Tl Howard says:

      Tribe is a total dirt bag.

      Liked by 4 people

      • American Heritage says:

        I may be mistaken, but it seems to me Tribe is an old Leftist activist/intellectual who appears to consistently employ Communist rhetoric and theory to advance totalitarian interests in this country. Dehumanizing people by targeted propaganda is the bedrock strategy of every police state that ever existed. His remarks on MSNBC are beyond despicable.

        That’s why we need to be afraid of the “White privilege/supremacy” the Democrats have launched against conservative, white, Christians. Being dehumanized means that you have been declared literally “not human,”and are fair game for whatever the brutal overlords care to subject you to. It’s how Communism has justified the genocidal “disposal” of troublesome subjects in every monstrous regime they created in the 20th Century.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Tl Howard says:

          The older he’s gotten, the more hyperbolic his writings. Guess he figures he doesn’t have much time let for the country to crumble in front of his eyes.

          Liked by 3 people

  9. CopperTop says:

    While Barr talks sense…this: “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said.

    GEE : ya think he’s figured out that an overthrow of our ‘system’ ENDS Secret Service protection for his daughters? Sure he can afford body guards, but he knows how close things actually come with body guards vs a the fill service of the US govt protecting them.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Eagles says:

    Amazing I saw it last night as it happened published here fthanks for Barr’s speech published and I am ready to read you guys a lot today

    Liked by 1 person

  11. wildsailor2018 says:

    Thank you for posting this Sundance. It was very enlightening.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. Phil aka Felipe says:

    To AG Barr and to each of us who agree with his speech, we need to heed the principles of these words:

    “If ye KNOW these things, HAPPY are ye if you DO them.”

    – Jesus

    Liked by 5 people

  13. Minority of One says:

    Between Barr and Graham we have enough hot air to fly a balloon. And those two are doing more than 90% of the GOP! Sad situation.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. loteal2014 says:

    So reading through this, in a nutshell, the president and Congress really have no voice, the power lies in the courts, and not necessarily the Supreme Court, but district and federal. No wonder Soros stacked them. That’s what happened in Houston where I live. Only way to rectify is to start all over, otherwise how do we stop the madness.

    Liked by 4 people

    • willyeye says:

      Isn’t Trump putting a dent in their ownership of the courts?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Judith says:

        In theory, he is. But I don’t trust the GOP as far as I can throw them. Will they really confirm MAGA judges? Why would they?

        After all, they are the UNiparty, and so have been perfectly content with the status quo for many, many decades now.

        Hint: MAGA is *not* the status quo. UNiparty RINO is. Bush’s Agenda 21: New World Order is. Read it and weep for America.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mac says:

      No, in the existing governments, in this country, all the true power lies with the Executive, as it controls the vast majority of the armed forces, both military and civilian, in this country. The legislature and the courts have control of a very small armed police force. Our society only functions as long as all parties play by the rules. Over the last 50 years, the legislature and the judiciary have stopped playing by the rules. This leads to civil war.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ann says:

        The DOJ can change the damn rules
        Moses didn’t decree trials must be held in DC!

        Yet Barr has done nothing to oust LIU, or to shut down those totalitarians in NY C.

        30 years of blatant criminality UNPUNISHED. No damn excuses

        This is def con 4. . Change your precious damn rules. NOW.

        Like

  15. Russ says:

    It’s a shame that he’s not in a job where he could do something about it

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Ma McGriz says:

    Oh my goodness.

    I love this guy.

    This is a speech I’ll watch again, and I know some folks who’ll be thrilled to see the transcript.

    I don’t know who to hug first….sundance or bill barr.

    This man’s words fill me with hope and determination.

    Liked by 7 people

  17. MACAULAY says:

    I am concerned to see a brilliant analyst like Sundance progress gradually from Optimist (The Big Ugly) to serious Pessimist, and while admitting he knows way more than me—I can’t see Barr saying things like this only to decline to prosecute any or all future referrals.

    Bill Barr just does not seem to be an All Hat and No Cattle kind of guy (like Lindsay Graham)…he was reaching the end of a great career; had already been Attorney General; did not need to feed his ego, if it needed feeding, by being so again—and then, after assuming that position again out of what I believe to be Patriotic Duty—then say there was spying and the answers to his questions about it only caused him more questions—then this wonderful speech!

    I have been back and forth on whether we will see Justice for the Obama/Clinton Crime Cartel, but I am going to believe in Barr and retain Hope for a few more weeks.

    If Horowitz is a whitewash, or if prosecutions are declined…then its over. But today, after reading this from Barr—I predict the beginning of the destruction of the Corrupt Deep State is about to begin..

    Liked by 11 people

    • willyeye says:

      I have been a believer in Barr for quite awhile. I believe that if God brought us Trump, then God brought Barr to Trump. I keep believing that Barr is the real deal and that there’s a good reason as to why there have been no indictments as of yet. Barr is not a stupid man and he likely has a plan as to how to drain the swamp. It obviously can’t be done overnight. I keep thinking that Barr is stringing along people like McCabe and Comey, perhaps saving them for potentially being the snitch that breaks the whole thing wide open in exchange for a deal. And when I say wide open, I’m hoping to get lucky and get the people behind the coup; people like Obama and the Clintons.

      Why else would Barr give a speech like this? He obviously will ruffle some feathers with this kind of talk, but he doesn’t care. I think he really believes in what he says. I think he has some kind of ingenius plan that he can’t tell us about because it will be a warning for the corrupt coup plotters to escape without punishment. So it’s all becomes about timing. Maybe part of that timing is about the impeachment that Barr knew would eventually manifest itself, or also about the 2020 campaign and election. Maybe Barr feels he has to let the perpetra(i)tors bury themselves and commit to things like a fake impeachment before he begins the final chapter of his grand plan. If we lose faith, we lose our great country.

      And by the way, Barr may not even really like Trump. But I think Barr made the decision to become AG again because he believes in making America great again and he believes in Trump. MAGA!

      Liked by 5 people

      • Ma McGriz says:

        Great post, wallyeye.

        ” he has to let the perpetrators bury themselves and commit to things like a fake impeachment before he begins the final chapter of his grand plan. ”

        This is one of the hard things about law enforcement. In most cases the crimes have to be committed before anything can be done.

        Bill Barr impresses me as someone with patience of a cat on a gopher hole.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mac says:

      What you have to realize is that Barr is not interested in prosecuting anyone or redressing wrongs. He wants to save the Union from Civil War.

      We are rapidly approaching the point where a significant number of citizens will have decided that there is a concerted effort to overthrow the legitimate government for which they voted. They are fast approaching the point where they will feel it necessary to take up arms to protect this nation from insurrection. When that happens, if it happens, then the future of this nation is totally in doubt.

      Bill Barr is part of a faction of the Establishment, possibly the most sane faction, which does not want to see this happen. He is the tip of the spear in the effort to convince the faction(s) which is trying to unseat Trump, to back down. They, seemingly overcome with an insane hate for need to unseat Trump, are actually ramping up their attempts to unseat him. Barr is now in the position of being forced to actually indict or charge criminal miscreants from the current administration. We shall see. Remember, criminal indictments of officials from the last administration could well trigger the armed insurrection which Barr, et al, is trying to avoid.

      This is just another shot across the bow of the insane anti-Trump faction.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ezpz2 says:

      Macaulay,

      There’s optimism. There’s pessimism.

      Then there is REALISM, which is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It just is.

      Sundance reflects the reality that is, not what some wish it to be.

      Liked by 1 person

      • MACAULAY says:

        Perceptions, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. What was Sundance’s state when he was talking about the coming Big Ugly all the time? Was he too Optimistic, or has Reality changed?

        .

        Like

    • LULU says:

      Add my LIKE, Macaulay…

      Like

    • Barr’s flowery words are actually more worrisome to me, than if he had remained silent.
      It is TOTALLY compatible with tactical decepticon behavior of deep staters to provide lip service that is compatible with patriotic goals, while at the same time doing *nothing* of substance to further those goals. Trump’s exposure of the many stealth RINOs over the past 3 years should have already proven that much to us.
      These flowery words could be Barr’s meaningless verbal offering, meant to temper his upcoming failures to do anything meaningful from a prosecutorial standpoint.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. LULU says:

    Anyone, anywhere, who has had doubts about AG Barr should read every word of this speech. Here he is. He understands fully what our government, under our Constitution, is supposed to be. I trust him to do the right thing.

    I am so glad that Sundance posted this. Now copy it off and spread it around…

    Liked by 6 people

  19. hokkoda says:

    “Those powers must be exercised under the President’s supervision.” – Barr

    The question is whether he understands that the Managerial State does not agree nor does it respect the idea that the President of the United States supervises them. In fact, they believe quite the opposite.

    It’s easy to give a speech drawing a line between Congress and the President. But that is not the problem. In fact, throughout the Obama Administration, Conservative Inc argued that the GOP Congress was not exercising its power to reign in abuses of Presidential power.

    All of this distracts from the true problem: the fourth branch of government – the Mediocracy. The Mediocracy, aptly named, is a neologism describing the merger of the permanent bureaucracy and its dominant media establishment. It is also, of course, a play on words describing the inevitable result of this merger: mediocrity.

    The most difficult element to stand in the phony impeachment hearings is the dual realization that all of this is heavily scripted media theater starring intellectually vapid policy lightweights with questionable allegiances. The Mediocracy is staffed by people long on credentials and short on skill. Is it any wonder that US policy in Ukraine is such a mess, and that the people who made it so lost their minds when Trump tried to change it, given the stupidity we saw from those bureaucrats in Congressional testimony last week?

    It’s a good speech, I suppose. But Barr continues, either out of ignorance or spite, to be blind to the fact that the problem is the Mediocracy and its ongoing attempts to seize power from elected officials and by extension from the American people.

    He also whines about FOIA…when we know that without organizations like Judicial Watch, we would not know key facets of the anti-Trump coup. Barr quickly brings it back to Congressional subpoenas, but it’s clear he finds FOIA to be a problem too.

    This is your classic Government Party circle jerk about “originalism” in a country where we haven’t had Constitutional government in 30 years. They’re all living in a past, yearning for a past, that is not coming back short of a massive gutting of the Mediocracy.

    Like

    • CarloV says:

      He whined about FOIA in the sense that u cannot any document from congress or anything and that congress has built a secrecy fortress impenetrable and that they can penetrate others secrecy plying an unfair unbalanced game of powers that should be balanced

      He likes the FOIA cos it grants views of what is going on and he would like to see that on congress and courts too

      Liked by 1 person

      • hokkoda says:

        The context I heard is that the Executive agencies spend huge amounts of time responding to FOIAs and subpoenas and document requests.

        However, to your point, I have often wondered how we got to the point that Congress can demand documents from the WH, but the WH doesn’t demand documents from Congress. For example, any emails/communications between Schiff’s staff and the so-called “whistleblower”…I agree totally with that.

        Liked by 2 people

  20. Concernedcitizen says:

    AG Barr can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk? I’m encouraged that he can walk the walk after hearing his speech. The key phrase in the speech, “the Resistance is dangerous.” Yes, AG Barr, yes it is. Now go out and do something about it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • hokkoda says:

      He can’t do that while trying to isolate it to Congress. The Resistance is deeply embedded in the Managerial State, and it’s woven into the fabric of the dominant media.

      The FBI didn’t use the media to advance its resistance efforts. It collaborated with their allies in the media. This collaboration is well documented by agency, by news outlet, even by individual reporter, on this website.

      Liked by 1 person

      • concernedcitizen says:

        Some indictments and prosecutions of the seditious conspirators will change the landscape drastically.

        Liked by 4 people

        • hokkoda says:

          Change will to might, and we’ll be closer to agreement. This problem is broader and deeper than a couple dozen bad actors in DOJ and CIA. IF those things actually happen, and that is a big IF, and IF those things result in convictions and prison time, another big IF in our Leftist court system, it MIGHT have an effect.

          But don’t bet on it.

          Liked by 2 people

  21. Johnny Boost says:

    Ok, you’ve made your speech. Now put down the bagpipes and get to work.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Fools Gold says:

    While I agree with vast majority of what Barr said, today would have been an excellent day to announce the arrest and prosecution of the small group who conspired with the former president to overthrow our duly elected and current MAGA President Donald J Trump!

    Liked by 5 people

  23. Zorro says:

    AG Barr, this couldn’t be more true.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Zorro says:

      See above.

      Liked by 7 people

  24. B Woodward says:

    AG Barr left out a little subchapter on how the courts have recently usurped the Constitutional powers of the President and the Congress. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 5 Supreme Court Justices usurped Congressional powers and imposed a judicial demand (for gay marriage) on all states–the new non-constitutional constitutionality.

    FEDERAL SUPREMACY vs. UNBRIDLED TYRANNY by J. B. Williams
    http://newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams312.htm

    Is Gay Marriage a Law? As most Americans learned in Social Studies, the U.S. Constitution assigns all Federal law-making authority to the Federal legislature, the U.S. Congress, in Article I.

    “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    As the U.S. Congress has passed no law regarding “gay marriage” or any “constitutional right” thereto, no such law actually exists.

    However, a recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court “opinion” by Justice Kennedy on June 26, 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges held “The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”

    First, the 14th Amendment makes no mention of marriage rights, due to the fact that the 14th is an “immigration and naturalization” amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with marriage or marriage license rights. The mere notion that the “high court” would use the 14th Amendment to redefine marriage rights in America is blatant insanity on its face.

    But more importantly, the issue of “Federal Supremacy” and “separation of powers” makes it impossible for the Judicial Branch to “make law” of any kind, much less any law which reigns “supreme” over any State or the Constitution itself.

    Last, the Tenth Amendment reserves the authority over all matters “not delegated to the Federal Government” in the enumerated powers of each of the three branches, to the States and the People respectively, which means that no branch of the Federal Government has any constitutional authority over “marriage” at all.

    So, as “no such law exists,” on what basis did the lower Federal Court issue a demand for Ms. Davis (a Kentucky county clerk) to adhere to a law which does not exist, and on what basis did U.S. Marshals arrest and jail Ms. Davis for breaking a law that does not exist?

    Truth about Federal Supremacy

    To be sure, the concept of Federal Supremacy is real, it exists in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
    But what is “federal supremacy,” when does it apply and when doesn’t it apply?

    In order for Federal Supremacy to apply, the following three conditions must exist…

    1. The law must be made by the law-making authority of Congress alone, not the Executive or Judicial branches.
    2. Such law must be made “in pursuance thereof;” which means said law must be in the continuation or furtherance of the “Supreme Law” of the United States itself.
    3. That law may not be in direct or indirect violation of any other part of the U.S. Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights.

    Any law not made by Congress is not a law at all. Any law made by congress which is not “in pursuance thereof” is also not a law; and any law which directly or indirectly violates any part of the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, is by legal definition, “unconstitutional” — “invalid and void on its face.”

    “The Supremacy Clause also requires state legislatures to take into account policies adopted by the federal government. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.”

    Read that again, “If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action.” (Note that it refers only to Congress, as it is Congress alone which holds any law-making authority whatsoever.)

    Obviously, if the “law-making” branch of the Federal Government (Congress) is restrained from these activities, then the two branches with no law-making authority at all, cannot act in such a manner either.

    Federal Supremacy applies only to “constitutional acts” by the Federal government. “Unconstitutional acts” of the Federal government do not enjoy “supremacy” or even the force of law.

    Unbridled Tyranny

    The arrest and incarceration of Kim Davis is not an act of “law enforcement.” It is an overt act of Federal tyranny. An elected County official has been arrested and jailed by our Federal government, for refusing to adhere to a law that does not actually exist.

    This amounts to the worst possible kind of tyranny. The kind of tyranny that allows the Federal government to arrest and jail a private citizen of the United States, an elected public official, for simply refusing to follow orders of the Federal government, when no law exists and the Federal government has no such right.

    Our laws define “tyranny” very clearly, “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.”

    Whenever the Judicial Branch assumes the “unconstitutional” power to “make law,” the proper legal term for such acts is “judicial tyranny.” When the Executive Branch assumes such powers without any constitutional authority to do so, the proper legal term is “Executive tyranny.”

    Blatant acts of “tyranny” qualify as “acts of treason” in the United States. Open assaults on the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an act of “overthrowing the constitutional form of government” via acts of tyranny, no matter which branch of the Federal government is engaged in those acts, and today [while usurper Obama is in the White House], all three branches of the Federal Government are engaged in these acts.

    Where does it all end?

    It all ends in total lawlessness… It ends with the Constitution and Bill of Rights being interpreted right out of existence. It ends with the rule of scumbag lawyers, rather than the Rule of Constitutional law.

    Liked by 4 people

    • hokkoda says:

      He spends the last 5-10 minutes on the Judiciary, using the Travel Ban as his core example. It’s imbalanced…most of his time is spent in Congress…but he does speak to the problem of courts second-guessing Trump policies and the problem of judicial review and the problem of courts reviewing “subjective motivations” and the problem of nationwide injunctions.

      His big whiff in this speech is the Deep State. Which is a real thing that sounded kooky a few years ago, but which is now being celebrated as “the resistance” in the Mediocracy.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Zippy says:

        “Which is a real thing that sounded kooky a few years ago”

        For anyone with any knowledge of history gained from personally DIGGING for documented facts, NO it didn’t. It was only portrayed as such by the lapdogs -OF- the deep state, the corporate media who didn’t do the digging FOR us as they should have, the 1st Amendment being designed for THEM and their most important and key function as watchdogs over government. That ended LONG ago if performing that function would expose the deep state.

        Liked by 1 person

        • hokkoda says:

          I will amend my statement to say “which was portrayed as kooky a few years ago”. My point being that they are now out in the open, which is right where they do not want to be…seen.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Zippy says:

            They know that, very unfortunately thanks to their lapdog press, the clearly exposed fact of their existence won’t reach most of the audience it would have otherwise. The morons who voted for Hillary last time still will supplemented by the Trump Derangement Syndrome victims. We can only hope that more conservatives and indies bother to come out to vote for Trump in 2020 in order to compensate for that.

            Liked by 1 person

            • hokkoda says:

              Depends on whether the NeverTrumpers back another siphon candidate like they did with Johnson/Weld in 2016. Add 75% of their 4,000,000 vote total to Trump’s and he cracks 50%. I don’t think we’re going to see that kind of disunity in the 2020 election. Trump got two SCOTUS and almost 200 federal judges so far. Even the NeverTrumpers recognize that Trump is the most consequential POTUS since Reagan in terms of economics, foreign policy and the courts. They may not like it, but he’s done a better job implementing “conservative” policies than the so-called “conservatives” did in 8 years of Bush.

              Liked by 1 person

    • cheering4america says:

      I agree with all of your points, and would add that the Judicial Activism is exactly how we have ended up GIVING AWAY our nation to our Replacement Population, since 1982, by virtue of a 1982 DICTA (!) comment claiming that the foreign national babies of foreign nationals who are here ILLEGALLY (i.e. invaders) must be awarded ownership, or American citizenship, to reward their parent for her illegal behavior. Insanity is too mild a word.

      I do not agree however that AG Barr failed to address this. While not specifically referring to these particular issues, he made it clear that this Judicial Activism is contra-Constitutional, of recent vintage, and poses risks even for national security.

      Liked by 2 people

    • American Heritage says:

      “The rule of scumbag lawyers” … it’s here, and we call it “lawfare.”

      Liked by 3 people

  25. CNN_sucks says:

    Sessions will be part of the danger Barr had mention if elected in the senate. Sessions had the opportunity to punish Lerner for targeting tea party but he didn’t. His deep state allegiance prevail. Don’t be fooled of voting for him. He will shive our president again…and again.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Zippy says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • glissmeister says:

      Yeah. The institution is sick. Very sick. More tragedies will become apparent as the process churns and some of the insiders finally begin to get what they deserve.

      Liked by 1 person

    • B Woodward says:

      There, I fixed a little error in AG Barr’s speech:

      “The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration President Trump , it is the Left Congress, Judicial Branch, and the rogue elements of usurper Obama’s administration that is are engaged in the systematic shredding of norms the Constitution and the undermining of the rule of law.

      Apparently AG Barr lost the last page of his speech–the page that outlines how he is going to assist the POTUS in clawing back the President’s Constitutional powers–indeed the Constitutional Republic itself.

      Liked by 3 people

  27. covfefe999 says:

    Barr made me cry. I have never in my life even teared up listening to a speech about the Constitution. Among other reasons I cried because it’s such a relief to hear someone in a position of great power speak plainly about the abuses we are witnessing.

    And let me apologize everyone, because I greatly contributed to this mess we are now in by voting stupidly for so many years. I was a hard-core Dem til 2008. I am a well-educated person (sciences) but I was incredibly STUPID when it came to all matters related to politics and history. I voted into office the very people who have caused us to be in this awful position right now.

    If we re-elect Trump amd maintain the GOP majority in the Senate, Trump will be able to appoint more Supreme Court Justices and other judges who will, for decades to come, prevent the Democrats from usurping the Constitutionally-provided powers to future Republican Presidents.

    And while you’re all at it, strip the majority from those disgusting POS Dems so a GOP-controlled House and Senate can pass legislation to improve immigration, health care, and so much more. Maybe they can finally implement an ID requirement for voting in federal elections, wouldn’t that be awesome?

    Liked by 4 people

    • glissmeister says:

      It was beautiful. I truly believe in Barr and Trump. This crisis has no simple fixes. The cure can be as dangerous as the disease.

      I pray they have the grace and patience to intuit their way through this incredible mess. They are dealing with a failed generation of perniciously medicated mentally ill who have infiltrated into trustee executive position across our governments, major corporations, institutions and political culture.

      We should not underestimate the grand societal experiment of widely-prescribed SSRIs within modern society. The German research illuminating a “double-sword” phenomenon and adverse side-effect of “conflict avoidance is good” is a apparent death knell for reliable trustee performance. Trustees and executives exist to impose conflict and protect what has been entrusted to them. Drug them with SSRIs and maybe you get the disorder and failure to act you see across a panoply of modern American institutions. So much of what has gone wrong arises from gravely warped notions of preventing conflict, reacting to felt-thought offenses and protecting the pathology in the name of the greater good. Such thought disorders would seem to need chemical help.

      Liked by 3 people

  28. Samiam says:

    Talk is cheap, we need to think ahead. I worry in the event of a civil war, they will have a huge advantage over us. We are under mass surveillance and they will hear our ‘chatter’ in the same manner they hear that of the terrorists.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. Joebkonobi says:

    If there are no indictments, including McCabe, AG Barr’s are just words floating around in the universe. If no indictments AG Barr will be aiding and abetting the “resistance” in the coup of a duly elected President.

    I want to trust Barr but need to see some positive action towards real accountability for the coup plotters and restoration of justice for the people the coup plotters entrapped and destroyed their lives.

    Liked by 4 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      You don’t think a federal investigation of the traitors is real action? You’re expecting it to be all wrapped up now else it’s not legitimate? I understand your frustration, I’m frustrated too, but you’ll be much better off, you’ll be more objective, and you’ll feel a heck of a lot better if you can be more patient. As I wrote in another comment there are more signs than not that Barr is our ally. Let him do his job and enjoy the good things that he is doing. We’ll see what happens. If he doesn’t produce THEN criticize him. But criticizing him now because he’s not meeting your timeline or fulfilling your desire to punish the traitors really isn’t reasonable.

      Liked by 2 people

  30. Phil aka Felipe says:

    Four justices on the Supreme Court probably agree with Barr’s speech; Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

    Hopefully, President Trump is soon able to add one more that will join them, making five reliable originalists to ensure against the unreliability of Roberts.

    That one event could impede and reverse the progressive, seditious momentum we see today.

    Liked by 4 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      Let’s use our collective mental powers to will Ginsburg into retirement. I’m actually suspicious that she’s even functional at this time, after seeing her oxygen-deprived deep blue fingers at an event on Nov 10, just 2 days before she “fell ill” with the “stomach bug” and missed 2 of the only 6 days of oral arguments in November. Let Trump appoint a third justice now, and more after he wins again in Nov 2020.

      “Justice Ginsburg RETIRE!!!! Justice Ginsburg RETIRE!!!!!” This is going to be my mantra now. 🙂

      Like

    • sturmudgeon says:

      Has any RELIABLE source seen Ginsberg? recently…

      Like

  31. I S says:

    In this speech AG Barr talks about the constitution and how people are doing everything they can to change it…he talks about restoring the division and roles of the 3 branches of government and how the branches use the judiciary as a way of stopping or not negotiating compromise for the best of the country and/or counties… for those that are saying Barr isn’t doing anything…. he is saying he will not step in the constitution…he won’t break the law…if these people broke the law they will pay… that’s is what we want a return to real law…not just one person wacking another and being just as bad or unlawful as your opponents.

    Like

  32. “In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.”

    That is probably the most accurate and well articulated description of “progressives” I have ever read. Well done AG Bill Barr! 👏

    Liked by 4 people

  33. islandpalmtrees says:

    Is voting alone, capable of restoring the lost balance?

    Doctor Barr has accurately defined the symptoms of the patient but not the cure. How are the citizens, to reset the balance of power as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. When their own representatives are complicit and bombarded by propaganda.

    I’m left wondering, how long our Republic will stand if the separation of powers issue goes unaddressed. How much more distortion can the Republic allow before we see a more violent means to restoring the balance of power between the branches of our government.

    We have all seen, members of the legislative branch willing to use their positions and authority to hide acts of corruption for the gain of wealth and power to include threatening the executive branch with impeachment.

    It seems, infinitely clear that the three branches of our government are incapable of self-correction. And we the people, have no means of enforcing adherence to the Constitution by these same three branches, or is the means to self correction another revolution.

    Like a cancer, if it goes unchecked our patient will surely die.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jeff says:

      Thomas Jefferson believed that a revolution was necessary every thirty years or so, just to keep the government in check.
      “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • islandpalmtrees says:

        And this scares me

        Like

      • dwpender says:

        The young Jefferson also suggested that every 20 years all laws, contracts and obligations thereunder should expire, and the people should then consider anew what was wise. Madison talked him out of this view, saying chaos would result.

        I do wonder how much worse off than we are today we would be if we abolished 99% of our federal laws and regulations (really, unconstitutionally made laws by another name), and rethought their wisdom.

        I do hope to live to see the day when some Congress (with Presidential assent), with one short, simple law, repeals enormous portions of the U.S. Code and each and every regulation promulgated thereunder.

        Liked by 3 people

      • MACAULAY says:

        Jefferson was most worried that America would develop large rotting cities such as existed in Europe in his time. Well, we are there.

        And the fight is between these rotting cities and the Heartland, which the Elitists believe are filled with rubes and rednecks. They look South and West of say, Northern Virginia—and see nothing but scenes from the movie “Deliverance”.

        In their disgusting arrogance, they forget that the Heartland keeps them from starving and freezing to death.

        Liked by 2 people

    • sturmudgeon says:

      IMO, it all boils down to whether or not there is an axe taken to ‘voter fraud’… and Soros Inc. is at present in control of that issue, to the detriment of legal voters.

      Liked by 3 people

  34. John Obidienzo says:

    “…..instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”–the resistance

    AG Barr in his historical perspective pinpoints the origins of ‘the deep state’ aka ‘the administrative state’ and most recently referred to in the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman as ‘the InterAgencies.’ Barr identifies them as the “independent agencies.”

    “Congress has in recent years also largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing the national government. They either decline to legislate on major questions or, if they do, punt the most difficult and critical issues by making broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from Presidential control. This phenomenon first arose in the wake of the Great Depression, as Congress created a number of so-called “independent agencies” and housed them, at least nominally, in the Executive Branch. More recently, the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Branch, a single-headed independent agency that functions like a junior varsity President for economic regulation, is just one of many examples.”

    He took some time to put together this historical perspective. It certainly lends brilliant context to what is happening right now. My question is–has he put as much time, and more, to rooting out the operators who have–“by any means necessary”–committed crimes in pursuit of that “resistance?” And will they be prosecuted, punished, and made example of along the way to dismantling and reforming the agency he heads and other corrupt administrative bureaus that interconnect the “independent agencies?”

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Jeff says:

    We’re not the only ones reading this speech. The Deep Staters are reading it too. And in their eyes, this speech is downright incendiary. almost to the point of naming names. This is Barr placing the dynamite at the base of the dam.
    And Barr knows this, and he knows that they know.
    That he chose to drop this at this particular time is a point of interest to me. He knew this speech was going to be widely publicized, within the circles of those concerned. It may be an indication that events are about to unfold in short order, because you don’t tell your targets that you’ve got them dead to rights unless you’re about to drop the hammer.
    Just one man’s opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      You’re right, this speech has been widely publicized and the Democrat propaganda media has produced their obligatory outrage articles. People are calling for Barr’s impeachment. lol This is how they usually handle their fear, by engaging in toddler-style tantrums and issuing dire threats.

      Liked by 2 people

    • CarloV says:

      Barr used the incendiary word to describe the way the left tries to shred law , for example: By shredding the Electoral college

      Liked by 3 people

  36. covfefe999 says:

    I’ve been reading through the comments here and I’m seeing the expected sh*t talk about Barr. It’s a shame there couldn’t be more discussion about the content of his speech. It seems most of you didn’t even bother to listen to it. If you don’t have much time, set the speed at 1.5x. Barr speaks so clearly you will have no trouble listening to the entire thing at that fast pace.

    Trump made the near-fatal mistake of appointing Jeff Sessions as the AG and, later, Rosenstein as the DAG. Someone should have warned Trump, if he did not understand at the time, that Sessions was compromised because of the campaigning he had engaged in and it would be leveraged to the fullest extent by the Dems. The mistake caused TWO YEARS of damage. Two years! This isn’t Barr’s fault, and taking out you frustrations on Barr is pointless.

    Barr has been the AG since February. 9 months now. Early on he spoke openly about his belief that Trump was the victim of spying. In fact, I think he spoke about it PRIOR to his confirmation. I believe Barr is responsible for getting Mueller to end the witch hunt, because prior to Barr’s confirmation Mueller had announced (or it was leaked) that he was planning to drag it out longer. Barr launched a federal investigation of the Dems which is still ongoing. He has now spoken openly and very clearly about what the Dems are doing to destroy the US.

    If you have lost your patience, try to get it back. It’s not healthy to have a permanenly pessimistic or anxious attitude. People get sick operating like this! Many of you justify it as being reasonable, but it’s not reasonable. If you look objectively at the evidence you’ll see that there are more signs that Barr is our ally than signs that he is not. The fact that the Barr-Durham investigation hasn’t been completed yet isn’t evidence of anything. And certainly the fact that Barr or Durham haven’t done to any of the Dems what the Dems have done to Manafort, Flynn, and others isn’t evidence of anything. The desire for Barr to do illegal immoral things to others is downright irrational.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Jeff says:

      I read every glorious word of that transcript. The history lesson alone was worth the price of admission. Further, Barr knowing that this speech would be made public, may also have been serving public notice that he sees all and knows all.

      Liked by 4 people

      • sturmudgeon says:

        Jeff: “The history lesson alone was worth the price of admission.” Right, Jeff. Thanks for your comment, and many thanks to Sundance for the Transcript. Reading transcripts does more for me than watching/listening the videos, as I am ‘hearing impaired’.

        Liked by 3 people

    • gda53 says:

      Well said. A thousand likes.

      Like

    • Georgia says:

      The Jury is out on Barr. However, he heads the DOJ and has done so now for nearly a year (and he came in very experienced having run it before so he could have been right on top of things from day one)– one of the biggest problems is the lawlessness of the DOJ and the Prosecutors there– we know that operating unethically has nearly zero consequences there, the NYC Office is full of Clintonites persecuting the President and those who helped him etc.– Are you saying Barr could not do anything about this yet as AG? Why not? He has no power over the unethical conduct at issue by the Prosecutors in the Flynn case? No power over what is going on in the NYC Office that spends all its time trying to find something on the President or those who support him? He can’t remedy the historical abuses where Dems/Leftists/Clinton etc. get away with crimes because of the Leftist politics at the DOJ? There are many problematic/politicized people at the DOJ– Do you disagree?– He can’t do anything about that in nearly a year in? Hopefully we see some real reform at the DOJ soon! Barr has all the power necessary to do it and to do it swiftly….

      Liked by 1 person

    • John Obidienzo says:

      “9 months now,” Covfefe999. That [is] the painstaking human gestation period. Giving birth is an agonizing event, and if you are correct, and I think you are–that speech was the first stage of labor–the ‘baby’ is due any day now.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Tom Hansen says:

    After watching Barr’s speech live on line, I was very encouraged that Barr has a very keen handle on what has been happening to Trump by the Democrats and the Judiciary, and that by his acknowledgement of what has actually occurred, that he will indeed seek justice against those who have been involved with the treasonous coup against the President.

    I believe, via this speech he was projecting his intent of what the future in the short term will hold for those that participated in the conspiracy against Trump. Because Barr holds the Office of the Presidency in such high esteem, he will definitely be going after the coup plotters with prejudice.

    The impending Horowitz report, the declass of docs to be made available to the public, and the eventual Durham results will be not only damning but devastating to the Democrat Party and Party leaders.

    Barr said let the chips fall where they may, and in my view, the Democrat Party may go down in flames like the Hindenburg dirigible when all is said and done.

    Liked by 5 people

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      The Democratic Party may well go down in flames but so will those calling themselves Republicans too. Keep in mind that we have the unholy alliance of the SSCI and the IC.

      The only way, I can see for the IC to be controlled is by way of controlling their funding and that responsibility belongs with the legislative branch.

      Liked by 2 people

  38. ILOT says:

    This was the most refreshing thing I have heard from anyone DC in quite some time. I think the level of naivete inherent in some posts is significantly higher than the reality of what can be done in short order. I for one have had high confidence that the circle of coup plotters is small enough, their actions egregious enough that Mr. Barr can and will hold them to account. I’ve also maintained that if he doesn’t, our once great Republic is history. In his own words Mr. Barr said as much. So I think calls for indictments “yesterday” are premature and calling Mr. Barr the “swamp” serves no purpose. We all need to find a way to show support for Mr. Barr and let him know we are looking toward a new dawn as he holds those that would subvert the Office of The President to account.

    Liked by 4 people

  39. Bit Coyne says:

    We went from the worst AG in history, Sessions to the best AG in our history, Barr—in just a few months. Isn’t Democracy wonderful? We need to be cheered by the takeover of Democracy and win in Bolivia and the win against Totalitaranism in Chile. The 4th Turning will result in the destruction of Marxist/Communist Socialism and a Free World. Just 15 more years until FREEDOM.

    Liked by 1 person

    • islandpalmtrees says:

      I will hold my final opinion of AG bar until the FISA report is released. And then I will be properly filled with admiration for his work. Assuming I see a number of prosecutions. But, keep those optimistic thoughts coming. I think we all need them!

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Sherri Young says:

    We finally have a chance to get proactive.

    The judge who is the presumed nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg is none other than Amy Berman Jackson, the judge who is presiding over the Roger Stone kangaroo court trial.

    Both of the senators from Texas are on the judiciary committee. Their offices will be hearing from me. Whether or not your senators are on Judiciary, contact their offices now by email or fax or on Monday by telephone. No snail mail, because all physical correspondence has to be screened for biohazard offsite. When the SCOTUS seat becomes vacant, contact them again and tell them that Amy Berman Jackson is a no-go. She is a district judge. If her name comes up for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, contact your senators again and say, “No.”

    Like

  41. Rick says:

    That was a fine ivy league speech on the current erosion of our Constitution. A ride down the executive road into our bureaucracies calls for further exploration. How they came about having Federal trials for criminal bureaucrats in the solid blue, solidly biased Washington DC swamp is a problem of epic proportions. The Constitution demands a trial by our peers, so I ask, where are the Conservatives peers in DC? To quote Ted Cruz: ‘they are no where to be found!” And after all, aren’t Federal employees serving all of america? If so, then Court cases need not be from DC or even Virginia.

    There is no justice for conservatives in the swamp. So knowing this particular problem, what can be done about correcting it? Shouldn’t our esteemed AG require all Federal trials of Federal employees be conducted away from the swamp, where juries could be drawn from the private sector? Aren’t federal jurors from basically two places: 1) Government, 2) Large Corporations? Now, if a Government employee is charged with a crime, which group of jurors is more likely to be fair? It’s common sense.

    Another area the AG can work on under the executive branch is policing the investigators and prosecutors. It’s clearly evident how his own department vigorously prosecutes ‘process’ crimes against Conservatives, but turns the away from much larger crimes committed by democratic operatives masquerading as ‘investigators’ in the FBI and ‘prosecutors’ in the DOJ. I would suggest that Bob Barr, if he’s not already baiting his traps, would examine his own charges behind Flynngate and Stonegate for their transparent partisan fruits.

    Bob’s points regarding the co-equal branches of government are very important today. This structure between the powers is very delicate. For example, wouldn’t we all want an outside entity to stop Obama from opening the flood gates to illegal aliens, if it were needed? But as a co-equal power, he could in theory do even more damage than he already did. You see, with a good man as President, i want him to exercise all of his power, even to the point of thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court if need be. But with a wicked man in power, I kind of like having a check in place, especially when our republic is so divided. So it’s a very delicate situation.

    Was it Ben Franklin who said, it’s your republic, if you can keep it? Another said our system of government would not survive under the ungodly. You can see that at work with the co-equal power argument.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A good essay from Barr–agree with the gist of it. It’s reassuring to have an AG again who knows Fisher Ames from Fisher-Price. However, the Rule of Law is more precarious than he indicates. If there is no accountability for this Deep State Coup all bets are off. That means they will do it again.

      Barr himself is the most well-positioned man in America to avert this outcome.

      Liked by 2 people

  42. BocephusRex says:

    I feel like this ‘speech’ is nothing more than a CYA move to pre-empt the outrage when NOBODY is indicted for ANYTHING–if even McCabe isn’t prosecuted and made an example as a ‘public servant betraying the trust, then they are pretty much ALL untouchable–I HOPE I AM WRONG–

    Liked by 2 people

  43. CanaCon says:

    I’d love to hear Chief Justice Roberts and Cryin’ Chuck rebut that speech.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. pristach says:

    Look in the mirror, Bill Barr.

    Your old button down GOP Party is just as complicit in this cabal. Blaming the Left is deceptive.

    Do you have the guts to call them out, too?

    I don’t think so.

    Liked by 2 people

  45. I’ve only ONE thing to say to Mr. Barr: We want PROSECUTIONS, not pretty words, Mr. Barr
    (and I mean prosecutions against Democrats — not entrapment-style ‘process crimes’ against Trump allies)

    Liked by 3 people

  46. Craig Furlong says:

    Great speech by AG Barr…one for the Ages.
    I hope many will learn and hear of it for it is a game changer.
    And change is what we really need now.

    May the Lord Jesus help us as we pray for our Country.
    Here’s a wonderful OT verse to encourage us:
    Micah 6:8
    He has told you, O man, what is good;
    And what does the Lord require of you
    But to do justice, to love kindness,
    And to walk humbly with your God?

    Please keep and take it to heart. Thanks.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Eric says:

    Deeds, not words.

    Liked by 3 people

  48. hawkins6 says:

    This was a formal lecture to the Federalist Society and not a place to discuss ongoing criminal investigations. Hopefully, the “Durham–Horowitz” investigations will soon end in a fair and just manner and every indicted and guilty Resistance law breakers will be punished appropriately.

    A/G Barr’s speech is a fabulous and highly informative lesson on many important legal and political subjects including the “Resistance’s” persistent and anarchistic attempts to disrupt and weaken the established powers of the Executive via a series of never ending vicious dirty trick politics. If they are allowed to continue, the foundation of the Republic will be permanently damaged.

    Thanks to sundance, I’ll read the transcript a few more times so I can fully absorb A/G Barr’s wisdom and insights.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. anthohmy says:

    My favorite hippie was crying by the end and we are listening again.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Don says:

    Adults KNOW what’s been going on and why. What we want to know is when this sedition is going to be properly dealt with and true justice be done. The obvious first step is to clean out justice and the legal systems.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s