The U.S. is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and Yes, It Matters. Keep it that way. Here's why!

The U.S. is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and Yes, It Matters.

THE DEMOCRAT LEFT IS TRYING TO CONVERT IT INTO A "DEMOCRACY" = "MOB RULE" .. THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS A SOCIALIST OLIGARCHY!

WE MUST FIGHT THEM WITH DEADLY FORCE TO KEEP IT A REPUBLIC!

THEN WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT PUNISHES ANY POLITICIAN OR GROUP THAT TRIES TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights, repeatedly emphasized that the United States is a “republic” and not a “democracy.” In stark contrast, Jonathan Bernstein, a Bloomberg columnist and former political science professor recently insisted:

• “One of this age’s great crank ideas, that the U.S. is a ‘republic’ and not a ‘democracy’, is gaining so much ground that people in Michigan are trying to rewrite textbooks to get rid of the term ‘democracy’.”
• “For all practical purposes, and in most contexts, ‘republic’ and ‘democracy’ are synonyms.”
• When Madison said that the Constitution established a “republic” and not a “democracy,” he was using a “mild form of propaganda” and “none of this had to do with specific institutions or forms of government. Just word choice.”

Those statements, along with the bulk of Bernstein’s column, are misleading or patently false. In reality:

• People were not trying to remove the term “democracy” from Michigan textbooks. Instead, they proposed education standards that would teach students that the U.S. is a “unique form of democracy.”
• The proposed standards made clear that the U.S. is not merely a “democracy” or a “republic” but a “democratic” and “constitutional republic” that “limits the powers of the federal government.”
• In Madison’s day and now, there are crucial differences between democracies and republics that are vital to the issues of human rights and equal justice.

The Michigan Standards
In 2014, the Michigan Department of Education began to revise its social studies standards, releasing a draft of them in 2018. Soon thereafter, critics began attacking the planned changes as “far-right.” Beyond the issue of whether or not this generalization is cogent, some of the specific allegations used to support it are plainly false.
For example, a Change.org petition signed by more than 75,000 people claims that the standards “would eliminate references to climate change.” In fact, the older standards contain only one reference to climate change, while the newer standards contain two. Notably, these are social studies standards, not environmental science standards.
The article that started the uproar over this issue, which was published by a Michigan news outlet called Bridge, reports that the newer standards “limited” climate change “to an optional example sixth-grade teachers can use when discussing climate in different parts of the planet.” This is deceitful in three respects:

1. The newer standards also mention climate change in the context of contemporary global issues.
2. The older standards’ lone reference to climate change also appears only in the sixth-grade section of the standards.
3. The Michigan Department of Education’s comparison of the older and newer standards states 74 times that the newer standards “relocated” numerous subjects to an “examples column” that spans most of the document. This includes climate change and many other topics, like “Independence Day,” “respect for rule of law,” “taking care of oneself,” “Constitution Day,” and “respect for the rights of others.”

Contrary to what Bridge led its readers to believe, this is not a case of global warming being singled out and relegated to an optional example. This was a general layout change that involved numerous issues, including many conservative ones. Yet instead of correcting Bridge, other media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Detroit Free Press repeated these specious allegations.
Likewise, Bernstein’s claim that people were trying to purge the term “democracy” is untrue. The newer standards use the word “democracy” 34 times, including 21 times in the phrase “American Democracy.” In fact, the newer standards actually use the term “democracy” one more time than the older standards.
The newer standards also repeatedly state that the U.S. is a “unique form of democracy” called a “constitutional republic.” This differs from other republics like the People’s Republic of China or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It also clashes with the agenda of many people in the United States, including some of the nation’s most prominent politicians.
Why It Matters 
Bernstein leads his readers to believe that there is no practical difference between republics and democracies. He asserts that “when Madison said the U.S. was a republic and not a democracy, he meant (in today’s vocabulary) that it was a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Given that all modern democracies employ a ‘scheme of representation,’ that’s an unimportant distinction today.” Bernstein quotes a grand total of five words from one of Madison’s writings to make that case, but the full historical record shows otherwise.
Early during the convention at which the Constitution was written, Madison declared that the government it creates must provide “more effectually for the security of private rights and the steady dispensation of Justice.” He said that violations of these ideals “had more perhaps than any thing else, produced this convention.”
Madison then singled out “democracy” as the cause of those abuses and pointed out that all societies are “divided into different Sects, Factions, and interests,” and “where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger.” He stressed that:

• this is “verified by the histories of every country, ancient and modern.”
• this is the cause of slavery, “the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”
• it is the duty of the convention to “frame a republican system” of government that will better protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

Other delegates to the Constitutional Convention concurred with Madison. Edmund Randolph of Virginia observed “that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U.S. labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy….” Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts stated: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.”
For the purpose of curbing such evils, Madison and the other framers of the Constitution developed a system of checks and balances on the powers of the government that they formed. In the words of Madison, these provisions were to “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part” and “will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States.”
One of these features is the Electoral College, which was designed to prevent highly populated states from dominating the election for U.S. president. As shown below in the electoral precinct map from Washington State University professor Ryne Rohla, the vast majority of America’s communities voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Yet Hillary Clinton’s personal vote count was higher, mainly due to support in big cities:  AND ILLEGAL  VOTERS WHO HAVE BEEN ASSISTED IN VOTING FOR THE BIG GOVERNMENT CANDIDATE! Mod rule assures that the will of the masses will be taken as final and the meritocracy will be stripped away and replaced by a Marxist Ideology of Free every thing for everybody who cannot afford it and taking it away from those that do.. until nobody has anything except the "RULING CLASS"

How they will sustain this in America is very simple. The Natural resources of America is valued about $400 Trillion. They will exploit it all to sustain their Control. We have 1000 times more Natural resources than Venezuela. Venezuela stripped their country and it lasted 28 years and made Hugo Chavez a $ 4 Billion dollar man. Imagine what the controllers of America could do for 250 years!

Exposing the falsity of Bernstein’s storyline, most Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College based on arguments about democracy. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for example, said of the Electoral College: “It’s gotta go. We need a national popular vote. It would be reassuring from the perspective of believing that we’re a democracy.” Educators build support for such agendas when they teach students that “the U.S. is a democracy” without any qualifiers.
Another major implication is the centralization of power. President Trump and former President Obama have complained about opposition parties standing in the way of their agendas, but the founders created different branches of government for the expressed purpose of “keeping each other in their proper places.” As detailed in Federalist Paper 51, this entails a separation of powers between:

• the states and federal government.
• the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the federal government.
• the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

A mere “representative democracy,” as described by Bernstein, does not necessarily have such features. And without them, a “stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker,” as stated in Federalist 51. Such governments, wrote the paper’s author, are akin to “anarchy,” because “the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.”
Nonetheless, some people wish the Constitution didn’t have all of these provisions. For instance, Sanford Levinson, a professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin has called the Constitution “imbecilic” because its “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” causes “gridlock” that “prevents needed reforms.” He would prefer that the U.S. government had more elements of a “direct democracy.”
All of these facts reveal major differences between the words “democracy” and “republic.” Hence, Bernstein’s blurring of these terms fosters ignorance of the crucial reasons why the founders of the U.S. structured the government as they did.
The Foremost Matter
The most substantial check on unfettered democracy created by the U.S. founders is Article V of the Constitution, which allows it to be amended with the approval of three-quarters of the states. This high bar is meant to stop a simple majority from trampling on the rights of others. At the same time, it gives the Constitution flexibility to change if there is widespread agreement.
Yet, Professor Levinson has argued that the “worst single part of the Constitution” is “surely Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world.” He would like to make it easier to change, which would also make it easier for democratically elected majorities to strip people of their constitutional rights. This includes, for example, freedom of speech, the “right to be tried by an impartial jury,” the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This is why George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention and first U.S. President, highlighted the import of Article V in his farewell address to the nation:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Many politicians and jurists have attempted to undercut this restraint on democracy. One of the most candid admissions of this came from Thurgood Marshall, a liberal icon who mentored President Obama’s second Supreme Court appointee, Elena Kagen. When asked to describe his judicial philosophy, Marshall responded, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”
This view is reflected in a third grade social studies textbook titled Our Communities from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. It states: “The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges. They make sure our laws are fair.”
Marshall’s doctrine—which violates the oath of office that every public official takes to uphold the Constitution—allows a majority of the Supreme Court to flout the Constitution based on their personal notions of right and wrong. Since Supreme Court justices are appointed for life by the president and confirmed by the Senate, these elected officials can effectively void the Constitution by appointing jurists with such mindsets.
That is what occurred in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Korematsu v, United States. In this World War II-era case, six of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s appointees to the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for Roosevelt to put U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into detention camps without any evidence that the individuals were disloyal to the United States. These justices ruled in this way in spite of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment requirement that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Had the justices faithfully applied the U.S. Constitution in Korematsu, this infringement of human rights would not have happened. However, under democratic standards, it could, and it did.
Conclusion
After the uproar that ensued when the Michigan Board of Education released draft social studies standards in May of 2018, an election changed the composition of the board from an equal number of Republicans and Democrats to two Republicans and six Democrats. This new board released an altered draft of the standards in March of 2019.
These latest standards never use the phrase “constitutional republic,” which appeared 43 times in the previous standards. Instead, they use similar phrases among a jumble of other terms to describe the U.S. government, such as “republican government,” “constitutional government,” “American democracy,” “representative republic,” and “Constitutional Democracy.”
To Madison and other framers of the Constitution, the words “democracy” and “republic” had important differences. Democracy meant majority rule, and it still has this connotation today. A republic, on the other hand, meant a democratic government with limited powers that are widely divided among different voting blocs in order to protect the rights of as many people as possible.
Towards that end, the founders of the U.S. produced what is now the longest-standing constitution of all nations in the world. As explained by Encyclopædia Britannica, it is “the oldest written national constitution in use,” and it “has served as a model for other countries, its provisions being widely imitated in national constitutions throughout the world.”
Like many words, the meanings of “democracy” and “republic” have changed over past centuries, and neither now fully describes the United States or differentiates it from other “republics” like the People’s Republic of China. A term that arguably does that is “democratic constitutional republic.” This captures in modern terminology the key elements that the founders put in place.
The U.S. also distinguishes itself from other democratic constitutional republics by virtue of its stronger protections against tyranny by majorities. However, the practical application of this is sometimes undercut by politicians and jurists who violate their oaths of office and place their personal agendas over that of the Constitution.

FIND AN ALTERNATIVE PLATFORM. Facebook and Twitter have a plan to throttle our content as we go into 2020. Now is the time to fix it!

WARNING....FIND A NEW COMMON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR CONSERVATIVES NOW OR FACE A BLEAK 2020 !

 

We have a little over a YEAR and a HALF from the next Election. Now is the time that a Conservative platform has to be chosen for all to use. The time for Capitalistic squabbling is over. Unless we come together and choose one Platform that is promoted for all Conservatives and then ALL C0NSERVATIVES Migrate to that platform... the Social media battle is already lost!


I have migrated to www.mewe.com there must be many more... but The heavy hitters like Alex Jones and Milo and Laura Loomer must all come together and announce a platform they will use and then call upon their followers to migrate to it. We can have a voice in 2020 on social media. If not we will all be selective blocked banned, Shadow banned by real live censors and algorithms and have no concerted voice in 2020. THE TIME IS NOW In place of twitter I use www.gab.ai



Time is short.. no time for the "this platform or that platform is better" squabbles. Join all then!

Better yet..choose one and migrate. Then tell Hannity and Levin and EVEN DONALD TRUMP to promote the platform. Any platform is better than Facebook and Twitter!

START NOW !

...and please don't tell me some other platform is better.. it maybe.. but this one seems to have a presence based on the fact that google+ closed and a lot of members have moved here ! Its growing faster than other platforms.

I do not have a dog in this alternative platform fight.. I just need to have a platform with millions of members NOW!

Soon it will be too late. They block you and they will ban you and in a worst case scenario if left alone they will even ban Donald Trump with his millions of followers.

Here is why Kamala Harris is Ineligible to be president or Vice President .. HERE IS WHY! ITS IN THE CONSTITUTION

Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President or Vice President! 

Check The Constitution!

READ UNDERSTAND AND SHARE! MORE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS AND SHARE IT WITH LAW MAKERS

Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to serve as President or Vice President. She is not a “natural born” citizen. Neither of her parents were American at time of her birth. Those 2 Offices are the only two that the Constitution says MUST be Natural Born Citizens!

There is no argument except the one that is used by defeatist Conservatives.. "well we let Hussein Obama do it"! OK BUT NEVER AGAIN .. NEVER AGAIN!

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for holding the office of president or vice president. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.
.... and please do NOT give me the "Wong Kim Ark" argument. The Supreme Court can rule on one case and make the term "Natural Born Citizen" vague for one case but they cannot Amend the Constitution. Read Article 5 of the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution requires a process. It needs 2/3 of the 50 States to vote in favor of the amendment. ( men in Black robes who are appointed for life do not make laws for the Country Period!)

Here is the Link..  Click on it!

Constitutional Amendment Process

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WE MUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.. THEN WE CANNOT ALLOW EXCEPTIONS.

Children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
People born with divided loyalties, allegiance and citizenship are not naturally Americans.
The children of foreign nationals are precisely who the founders were excluding from the office.
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen.
No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.

  Preamble!The left has gotten the American people to reject one of the most valuable safeguards bequeathed to us by the founders.
The natural born citizen clause served us well until we allowed it to be ignored.

Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama should be proof enough of the wisdom of the founders when they tried to prevent him from being President by requiring someone who could only be a US citizen and nothing else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Naturally a US citizen because there is no other possibility.
One cannot be anything else and also be a natural born citizen.

It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii if his father was a foreign national.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
People born with divided loyalties, allegiance and citizenship are not naturally Americans.
The children of foreign nationals are precisely who the founders were excluding from the office.
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen.
No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.
Obama told us he was born a British subject.
Who believes Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Monroe, Madison, etc. would have found him to be a natural born citizen?
Who believes they would have thought the recently deceased King of Thailand was eligible to be President?
He was born in Cambridge MA.
Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009, happened with the complete cooperation of both parties.
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
Confuse people about the clear meaning of a three word phrase and voila, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.
The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
Jindal, Rubio, Haley, George P. Bush and Cruz were all up and comers and the future of the party and ineligible.
The truth of the Kenyanesian Usurpation will never see the light of day because both parties cooperated in the violation of the Constitution.

See my blog how Nancy Pelosi Forged the Hawaii Document that put Obama on the Ballot

HOW OBAMA & NANCY PELOSI STOLE THE ELECTIONS IN 2008 BY FORGING THE HAWAII CERTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR OBAMA. ( FULL DETAILED EXPOSE. PLEASE READ AND SHARE ) ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO EXPOSE THE FACTS.

ELECTIONS?? ITS A SCAM NOW... ITS ALL BEEN RIGGED.
Stalin said it best: "It does not matter who votes in the election.. .. It matters who counts the VOTES!!!"

Click here for that detail https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-obama-nancy-pelosi-scam-detailed.html

Let me explain as simply as I can!

FIRST YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" AND A "NATURALIZED CITIZEN"
 ( Please link to the blue links for reference articles!)  https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naturalized-citizen/

FACTS

1. The Wikipedia entry states that Harris’s mother, Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, was from India, arriving in Berkeley, CA in 1960.
Dr. Harris passed away in February 2009.  Her “Legacy” obituary states that she arrived alone in the U.S. at the age of 19 after having earned her undergraduate degree from Delhi University.

2. 
Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica.  It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but does not provide the year.Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization!

After her parents divorced when she was seven, Wikipedia reports, Harris’s mother was granted full custody of her two daughters, after which they moved to Quebec, Canada.   Dr. Harris’s obituary, reposted at SFGate on March 22, 2009, states that her medical research took her to McGill University in Montreal for 16 years.  It further reads, in part:

Her passion for science was augmented by a fervent commitment to social justice. While a student at Berkeley in the ’60s, she became fully engaged in the Civil Rights Movement, leading to a lifelong fight against injustice, racial discrimination and intolerance. She instilled these values in her daughters, who in turn have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of justice and equality – one as the first female elected District Attorney of SF and the other as vice president of Peace and Social Justice at the Ford Foundation in NY.

According to Wikipedia, Harris graduated from Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, presumably in 1981 or 1982.  However, Harris’s U.S. Senate biography does not say that she lived and obtained most of her public education in Canada: ASK WHY !! ITS TO COVER UP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE QUALIFICATION OF "Natural Born Citizen"

Senator Kamala Harris talks in her bio how she was born in and grew up in CA. But, she did not grow up there during her formative years!  She is engaging in clever wordsmith-ing deception about her early life narrative. She is avoiding any focus on how much of her early life was spent living in Canada. 

She is also avoiding transparency about her parents citizenship status when Kamala was born. Kamala actually spent all her formative years in Canada with her foreign born mother when her mother moved there when Kamala was age 7.  She graduated from high school in Canada. 

Kamala Harris is definitely not a person the founders and framers envisioned as being eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, that is a future person after the founding generation was gone who is free from any foreign influences at and by birth, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the USA and only the USA. She was born with lots of foreign influence and allegiance claims on her via her two foreign national, non-U.S. Citizen parents when she was born and spending all her formative years in a foreign country.  Likewise she is not eligible to be the Vice President per the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. She is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States. She fails the Three Legged Stool Test.

Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards since both of her parents were foreign nationals who were NOT U.S. citizens when Senator Harris was born in the USA. She is missing two legs of the three legs of the ‘natural born Citizen’ test. She is of course a basic “Citizen” at birth per the Wong Kim Ark legal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1898, and as such she is eligible to be a U.S. Senator, but she is not a “natural born Citizen” at birth, and thus is NOT eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military or the Vice President, per our U.S. Constitution. She inherited multiple allegiances at birth due to her parents being foreign nationals living in the USA when she was born. Senator Kamala Harris did not have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to the USA and only the USA.

 

Some other politicians besides Kamala Harris (D) in the two major political parties who have been mentioned for future election to high national political office, who are also not a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards are:  Marco Rubio (R), Ted Cruz (R), Bobby Jindal (R), and Nikki Haley (R). Both major political parties are choosing to ignore the founders and framers intent and understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is in order to run candidates that they believe are very marketable political candidates. This started in a major way in the 2008 election cycle with Obama vs McCain.

For more information about the ‘natural born Citizen’ term read this White Paper essay – The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How the Natural Born Citizen Term was Put Into Our U.S. Constitution as to eligibility for the office of the President of the United States.

Read the following essays regarding the presidential eligibility term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution:
1.  Natural born Citizen and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ 

2.  Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution – The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret):  http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

3.  U.S. Constitution Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html … or …  http://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

Cannot be President and Commander In Chief

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen‘ of USA – NOT Eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military per U.S. Constitution

Both of Senator Kamala Harris’s parents were not U.S. Citizens when Kamala was born. Kamala Harris was born to a Jamaican Citizen father (minus one stool leg) and to a Citizen of India mother (minus the 2nd stool leg).

  Senator Kamala Harris’s staff has refused to answer any questions regarding the citizenship status of her parents when she was born. The normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Kamala Harris was born in 1964. Her father emigrated from Jamaica to the USA in 1961. Her mother emigrated from India to the USA in 1960. Thus there was not sufficient time for either of Kamala’s parents to become naturalized U.S. Citizens. Kamala’s father eventually became a naturalized U.S. Citizen per his bio. It is not known at this time if Kamala’s mother ever became a naturalized U.S. Citizen. She moved to Canada with Kamala when Kamala was about seven years old. It is possible that Kamala’s mother might have naturalized at some point as a Canadian citizen. Kamala Harris’s mother is now deceased. As I said in the first sentence, Senator Harris is not being transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any questions on this subject. Given Kamala Harris’s year of birth, and her parents emigration years, she was born in the USA to two foreign nationals and thus inherited their respective birth nation’s citizenship when she was born, in addition to being a basic Citizen by being born in the USA to aliens legally domiciled here. Thus Senator Kamala Harris was born with citizenship and required allegiance at birth to three countries. This is hardly what the founders and framers intended when they selected the “natural born Citizen” requirement for the person who would in the future be permitted to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, once the founding generation was gone.

As per ‘Principles of Natural Law‘ in place at the time of the founding of our country and when the founding documents including the U.S. Constitution were written, a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born Citizens or naturalized Citizens) of that country when their child is born in the country. See ‘The Three Legged Stool Test‘ for a graphic presentation of this constitutional requirement as to who can be President and Commander in Chief or our military. See the Euler Diagram shown to the right for a logic diagram presentation of this constitutional requirement.

SO YOU SEE?

WANT TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION AGAIN ?

AT WHAT POINT DO YOU SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND START THE COUNTER REVOLUTION.

Make no mistake they have started the revolution already. We are already counter Revolutionaries!

FACTS ABOUT THE "BOGUS PALESTINIAN STATE"

#FAKEPALESTIANSTATE

 

 
FACTS ABOUT THE "BOGUS PALESTINIAN STATE" WHAT THE LEFT , THE COLLEGE PROFESSORS AND THE OBAMAS AND THEIR ISLAM LOVING ISLAMODICK BRIGADE WILL NOT TELL YOU.

“In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn’t capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan’s King Hussein. I can’t help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.”The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. …Palestine has never existed…as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.”

– Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily
When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine.When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called “the holy land” (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).
“Yasser Arafat and the Islamists who control the Wets Bank and Gaza talk of ‘the need to realize justice for the Palestinian people, to restore their international status and their seat in the United Nations.’ They referred to it as ‘our country, Palestine’ and expressed the hope that it would be ‘restored its freedom.'”The meaning of this message is clear: Palestine is a country that belonged to the Palestinians until it was invaded and usurped by the Jews. Jerusalem was the Palestinian capital now being Judaized by Israel. Justice will be served only if the Palestinians are allowed to re-establish their sovereignty in it.

“That all this is unadulterated fiction has not prevented many governments from accepting it. Nor has it deterred pundits from upbraiding Israel for failing to ‘give back’ Palestinian land.

“In fact, there never has been a state called Palestine, nor have the Palestinian Arabs ever been an independent people, and Jerusalem never has been an Arab or Muslim capital. Jerusalem has had an absolute Jewish majority for more than a century (and a plurality before that), and for the last three thousand years, only the Jewish people have called it their capital…To inveigh against ‘Judaizing’ Jerusalem is like protesting the Arabization of Cairo.”

Today's Palestinians are not the original Palestinians of ancient times. The real Palestinians were Greeks not Arabs. Greek people are the original indigenous people which disappeared over 5,000 years ago after they were defeated by the Jews. The Israelis are the now the indigenous people of the area, not the fake Palestinians lying to people claiming they are the original ones. Today's fake Palestinians are descendants of Arab Muslims who later and infested the area.

The Palestinians:
No, they are not any ancient people, but claim to be. They were born in a single day, after a war that lasted six days in 1967 c.e. If they were true Canaanites, they would speak Hebrew and demand from Syria to give them back their occupied homeland in Lebanon, but they are not. If they were Philistines, they would claim back the Isle of Crete from Greece and would recognize that they have nothing to do with the Land of Israel, and would ask excuses to Israel for having stolen the Ark of the Covenant.

More about the largely vacant desolate land of Israel "Palestine" in the 1800s - massive Arab immigration following Jews' return = the true origin of the (today's) so called "Palestinians"

How odd that such last names as al-Masri (the Egyptian,), al-Djazair (the Algerian), el-Mughrabi (the Moroccan), al-Yamani (the Yemenite) and even al-Afghani are so common among those claiming to be "Palestinians."

Today's Palestinians are immigrants from many nations: "Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudaneese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, Tartars, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Bulgarians, Georgians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians, Copts, Maronites, and many others." (DeHass, History, p. 258. John of Wurzburg list from Reinhold Rohricht edition, pp. 41, 69).

There are villages populated wholly by settlers from other portions of the Turkish Empire in the 19th century. There are villages of Bosnians, Circassians, and Egyptians. -Parkes, James William, History of the Peoples of Palestine, Hammondsworth, Great Britain, 1970, p. 212.

There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece, and Italy, Turkomen settlers, a fairly large Afghan colony, Motawila, immigrants from Persia, tribes of Kurds, a Bosnian colony, Circassian settlements, a large Algerian element, Sudanese… -Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 ed.

[Ibrahim Pasha, the 1831 Egyptian conquerer of Palestine] "left behind him permanent colonies of Egyptians at Besian, Nablus, Irbid, Acre, and Jaffa. Into Jaffa alone, "at least 2,000 people have been imported." -Ernst Frankenstein, Justice For My People, London, Nicholson and Watson, 1943, p. 127.

In 1860, entire Algerian tribes immigrated en masse to Safed. The Muslims of Safed, are "mostly descended from these Moorish settlers and from Kurds that came earlier to the city."
-De Haas, Jacob, History of Palestine, The Last Two Thousand Years, New York, 1934, p. 425.

"I learn of the arrival of about 6,000 of the Beni Sukhr Arabs at Tiberias who are very seldom seen this side of the Jordan."
-British Consul James Finn in apers Relating to the Distubances in Syria, no. 2, June 1860, p. 35.

After 1870, "the [Turkish] forward policy included…the planting of Circassian colonies in the country."
-Smith, CG in Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem, 1975, p. 93.

"The Arabs would have sat in the dark forever had not the Zionist engineers harnessed the Jordan river for electrification. Now they swarm into Palestine in seeking the light."
- Winston Churchill, 1922 "A Peace to End All Peace"

"This illegal [Arab] immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery."
-Palestine Royal Commission Report, London: 1937

"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied until their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
-Winston Churchill, 1939.

MV: "Recently the Israeli government forcibly expelled hundreds of children solely because there are not Jewish."

Liar. They were deported, along with their parents, because their parents had overstayed their visas. Any country in the world does the same thing.

MV: "Israel set up a propaganda hospital in Haiti after the devastating earthquake as part of its "Brand Israel" campaign hoping that a phony show of sympathy will make people forget about Israeli killing and occupation of millions of Palestinians. Only the American media, naturally, went along with the ploy. After the cameras left, Israel entirely fled from Haiti."

Another lie. After the Israeli field hospital left–a hospital dedicated to emergency treatment rather than long-term convalescence–(after being the wonder of the other delegations for its equipment and expertise in emergency medicine), a large group of Israeli teachers, social workers and aid workers arrived to treat trauma and rebuild schools, they're still there. A contingent of the Israeli police also spent six months in Haiti at that government's request, to help preserve law and order. They returned with the highest compliments of the Haitian government.

MV: "The biggest infiltrators are the occupying Zionists who came, conquered and continue to oppress."

The biggest lie of all. Many Arabs identify their origins by their family names. Here are some of the most common family names among the "Palestinians":

"Masri" = from Egypt-Hamas member of Parliament, Mushir al-Masri (the word "masri" littelery means "the egyptian" in arabic !).
"Khamis"= Bahrain "Salem Hanna Khamis" "al-Faruqi"= Mosul, Iraq
"al-Araj" = Morocco, a member of the Saadi Dynasty "Hussein al-Araj"
"al Lubnani" = the Lebanese
"al-Mughrabi" = the Moroccan (Maghreb" – meaning "West" in Arabic, and usually referring to North Africa or specifically to Morocco)
"al-Djazair" = the Algerian
"al-Yamani" = the Yemeni "Issam Al Yamani"
"al-Afghani" = the Afghan
"al-Hindi" = the Indian "Amin al-Hindi"
"Iraqi" = from Iraq.
"halabi" = from Aleppo, Syria
"El Baghdadi" = from Baghdad Iraq.
"Tarabulsi"= Tarabulus-Tripoli, Lebanon.
"Hourani" = Houran Syria.
"al-Husayni" = Saudi Arabia.
"Saudi" = Saudi Arabia.
"Metzarwah"= Egypt.
"Barda---wil" = "Salah Bardawil" HAMAS legislator in Gaza; Egypt, Bardawil Lake area.
"Nashashibi" = Syria.
"Bushnak" = Bosnia
"zoabi"= from Iraq: "Haneen Zoabi".
"Turki" = Turkey "Daud Turki"
"al-Kurd" = Kurdistan.
"Haddadins" = YEMEN descended from Ghassanid Christian Arabs.
"Arab Abu-Kishk" = Egypt.(Bedouins)
"Arab al shakirat" = Egypt (Bedouins)
"Arab al zabidat" = Egypt (Bedouins)
"Arab al aramsha" = Egypt (Bedouins)
"Abu Sitta" = In Arabic' Abu means father and sitta means six. Translated it actually means father of six. (The Abu Sitta family primarily received this name because around the year 1700, a well known knight of the large Al-Tarabeen tribe always had six slaves (i.e. fedawyah, bodyguards), 3 on each side, with him. They were with him wherever he went, day or night. Hence the name "ABU SITTA." = Egypt (Bedouins) "Salman Abu Sitta ".)

Even Yasser Arafat, the most famous "Palestinian" and leader of the P.L.O terrorist organization, was not native to Judea. He called himself a "Palestinian refugee" but spoke Arabic with an Egyptian accent. He was born in 1929 Cairo, Egypt. He served in the Egyptian army, studied in the University of Cairo, and lived in Cairo until 1956! His full name was Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini. "Al-Qudwa" tribe origin?

Yasser Arafat also proudly stated in his authorized biography that, "If there is any such thing as a Palestinian people, it is I, Yasser Arafat, who created them."

link.

THE MYTH OF THE SO-CALLED "PALESTINIANS": ...

Date: 03-06-94 From: SHLOMOH SHERMAN To: LOUISE HAGAN Subj: Palestinian Mythology Conference: (9) Religion

[...] OK. Let's talk about displaced people. The Land of Israel (whom the gentiles call Palestine) was a Jewish country since the arrival of Abraham. There was always a Jewish presence there. In the years 70 CE and 135 CE, the Romans forcefully removed large numbers of the Jewish population from the LOI and brought them to Rome as slaves.

Nevertheless, the LOI continued as a Jewish country according to G-d's promises. During the 4th century, the Roman Empire became Christian, and Rome turned the LOI into a Byzantine country in which non-Jewish were brought in and settled by Rome. During the 5th century, there was an economic depression in the Eastern Empire and some of the Jewish population moved to neighboring countries to earn a living. At the same time, Rome encouraged more and more gentile Christians to take up residence in the country. Still, the majority of the population was Jewish.

During the 7th century, the newly converted Arab Moslems came up out of the Arabian Penninsula and conquered the LOI, driving out the Byzantines. Many of the native population, both Jewish and non-Jewish were forcefully converted to Islam and the country was forcefully ARABIZED. Those Jews still living there had pressure put upon them to become Moslems. Some did become Moslems and lost their Jewish identity. Those individuals of the population that became Moslem were ARABIZED. That is, they took up the Arab language and for all purposes were acculturated to "look like" Arabs.

From the 7th century onwards, LOI was an ARAB-SPEAKING country. That does not mean that the people living there were "real Arabs". They were not. They were, in fact, descendants of the original Jewish population and of the Greek speaking population that the Byzantines imported to Christianiize the Land.

Towards the end of the first Christian millenium, the Land was under the control of the Turkish Moslems. From the time immediately following the First Crusade, the Land fell into a sad state. The Turks misuded it economically and ecologically. A once fertile Land under Jewish rule now became a forrest-denuded, malarial swamp. Many people, both Jews and non-Jews left. Most of them were gentiles. The population thinned out. Hardly anyone lived there. The Land was administrated by absentee Turkish landlords. It had became a non-productive province and the Turks didnt care one fig about it. They had more lucrative and productive lands to administer. Starting in the 1500s thru the 1900s, Jews from Europe returned in waves to the LOI. They found a small non-Jewish population scattered here and there throughout the Land. These people were of various nationalities. None of them called themsleves "Palestinians". There was no such entity. The Land was still ARABIZED and the returning Jews were loyal to the Turkish masters. They did everything possible to restore the Land because they loved in a way that no gentile inhabitants had. They cleared much of the swampland and planted trees and made the Land fertile again. The Turks gave them no thanks. The gentile inhabitants had never done anything like that. They had been content to just let the Land go to hell.

As the Land became productive under the hands of the returning Jews, it became more viable and economically productive. The presence of the Jews and their productivity created jobs. Gentile Arabs from the surrounding lands began to pour into LOI to finf work. The Turks encouraged this because they didn't want the Land to become "too Jewish." Beginning in the 19th century, the Turks encouraged Moslems from various countries to come to the LOI, promoising them free land if they did. Many Moslems took up the offer, many of them from BOSNIA came and settled there. THESE WERE EUROPEAN MOSLEMS THAT TOOK ON LOCAL ARAB COLORING AND ASSIMILATED INTO THE NON-JEWISH POPULATION, THEREBY BECOMING "ARABS".

The Turks then began the policy of restricting the Jews to certain areas of the Land, giving the more favored area to Moslems. Much of this area consisted of the present day Judea and Samaria, the so-called "West Bank of Palestine". After the First World War, when the British conquered the Turks, they took the LOI away from the Turks and made it a British "protectorate". They continued to call the Land "Palestine" and called EVERY INHABITANT IN IT, BOTH JEW AND GENTILE, "PALESTINIANS". That name was an English invention just as the "ARAB" inhabitants of the Land had been a TURKISH INVENTION. In those 2 centuries, 19th and 20th, NO ONE WAS DISPLACED EXCEPT JEWS!!!

The British then proceded to do what they have done everywhere they have gone, divide and conquer. They promised both the Jews and the non-Jews that the Land would be given to their communities, but because they were very interested in oil and had a basically anti-Jewish attitude, they favored the "Arabs". The first thing they did was stop all Jewish immigration into the country while they allowed and encouraged gentile immigration. Nationalism was on the rise. The non-Jewish Arabized population of the LOI wanted a national identity and they were content to take the name and identity imposed upon them by the Turks and the British, namely "Palestinians". The Jews did not need to take that identity. They had their own G-d given identity.

The leadership of the "Palestinian" nationalist movement needed a rallying focus, so they used the commonality of religion. Islam became the focus of "Palestinianism". In 1929, a pogrom was organized in Hebron. Every member of the Jewish community there was murdered, man, woman, child. The British knew who the instigators were. They did nothing to apprehand them. In 1936, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem called for another pogrom against the various Jewish communities of the LOI. By that time, the Jews of the LOI had obtained weapons for their own self defense. They fought back. The British moved through all the Jewish areas and confiscated all weapons they found in the hands of Jews. They left the weapons of the Arabs alone.

It was a known fact that the British did not like the Jews because the Jews refused to act like good colonial third world natives. They considered themselves the equals of the British. The British could not stand it. They were used to treating all colonials as second class citizens. The Jews said to them, "We are not natives. We are as good as you." The British did not like that at all. They could depend on the Arabs to act like good little dark skinned boys. That made them comfortable. AND the surrounding Arab countries had OIL!!! Why irritate them by irritating their co-religionists in the LOI?

In order to placate the Arabs, the British told the Jews that they were NOT going to hand over the "whole land of Palestine" to them, only the "west bank of Palestine." Do you know how the "Palestinian leadership rewarded the British?" They signed a deal with the Nazi Germans to advance the German cause in the Middle East. War between Germany and Britain was immanent and everyone knew it. The Germans promised the Arabs that if they would ally themselves with Germany, they (the Germans) would solve the "Jewish problem" for the Arabs at the war's conclusion. The Jews remained loyal to the British government. It didn't matter one whit. In order to gain back the Arab sympathies on the eve of war, the British assured the Arabs that no further Jewish immigration into the Land would be allowed. Ships carrying Jews from Europe tried to enter "Palestine". The British refused them entry and forced them to return to a Europe where the gas chambers awaited them.

WW II broke out. The Arab sympathy was with Germany. They prayed for a German victory. Anwar Sadat, later to become President of Egypt, became a German spy and anti-British terrorist. The Grand Mufti was to be put under arrest by the British but he escaped andfled to Germany, spending the duration of the war there. During the war itself, Jews tried to enter "Palestine" to escape from the Nazis. The British turned them away. After the war, the British continued their policy of not letting Jews enter even though many DISPLACED European Jews had no where else to go.

At this time, the UN wanted the British to give up their mandate on "Palestine". The British further renegged and told the Jews that only part of the "West Bank" would be theirs. They would have to share the area with the non-Jewish residents. The Jews agreed. The Arabs did not. THEY WANTED THE WHOLE LAND FOR THEMSELVES.

The surrounding Arab countries ] told the non-Jewish residents of the Land that when the British left, their armies would come in and drive the Jews into the Sea. The non-Jewish population was encouraged to evacuate the Land in order to open the way for the Arab armies to operate. Many of them did just that, hoping to come back immanently to a land JUDENREIN. The Bitish left in May, 1948. Israel declared itself a state in the truncated area that the British had left them. Five Arab countries attacked Israel. The Jordanian army moved into the area of the "West Bank" that was to become the "Palestinian" state, and instantly annexed it to Jordan. No one protested. Jordan ruled the "Palestinian" state for 19 years. No one protested and said that the "Palestinians" were displaced and had to have their own country.

For 19 years the Jordanians treated their West Bank people like second class citizens. They were denied 3 basic rights. They were not allowed to open factories in the west bank, they were not allowed to build universities on the west bank, no west bank "Arab" was allowed to have a driver's license. No one protested. The Jordanians denied Jews access to their holy places in Jerusalem. No one protested. The Jordanians took tomb stones from Jewish cemetaries and turned them into lutrines. No one protested.

In May, 1967, Egypt and Syria got together and declared war on Israel, threatening to drive the Jews into the Sea. No one protested. King Hussein of Jordan called upon his "Arabs" in the west bank to get knives and kill every Jew that they found. The Israelis warned the Jordanians that if they entered the war, Israel would take the west bank away fomr them. Jordan entered the war and lost the west bank that it had illegally annexed 19 years earlier. The Israelis found evidence of inhumane treatment of people in the West Bank by the Jordanians. No one protested. Everybody was busy protesting against the Israeli "aggressor" and the "poor displaced Palestinians".

Some people have all the propaganda luck. The bleeding heart liberal media went anti-Israel to sell more newspapers. The Soviet Union took up the "Palestinian" cause to win the Arabs over to their side in the cold war. From 1967 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Israel acted as the best ally of the United States, handing over the latest in captured Soviet weaponry to America, asking nothing in return. Israel was repaied by the anti-semitic State Dept of the USA by being pressured to give back territory to the "poor Palestinians". Meanwhile one thing remains to be told. In 1948, when Israel bacame a state, there were Arabs living there. The Israelis granted them full citizenship. No Arab was asked to leave Israel.

That same year, Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Lybia, and others KICKED OUT THEIR JEWISH CITIZENS AND MADE THEM LEAVE ALL THEIR EARTHLY BELONGINGS BEHIND! No one protested.

You call yourself a Christian and you grieve for the poor displaced Palestinians? You are just one more gentile hoodwinked by the Arab propaganda mill, abetted by the anti-Israel media who want to sell newspapers, and the Oil company whores who think oil is more important than justice. Cry your crocodile tears, sister. Don't expect any sympathy from me. The fact that you allow your sympathy for the poor mistreated "non-jews" of the Middle East to over-ride your concern for Biblical prophecy tells me a lot about the so-called Christians in this country who claim to be Bible believers. You are Bible believers so long as it is not good for the Jews. And the hell with real justice and G-d's word.

ADDENDUM - Incidently, there never was a national or geographical entity called "Palestine" in the historical sense that we usually ascribe to nations or geography. "Palestine" was the designation given to the Land Of Israel by the Romans when they incorporated it into their Empire as a province. They named it after the Philistines, the traditional enemies of Israel, in order to humiliate their new Jewish subjects. Since the Arabs living in the Land Of Israel insist that they are the descendants of the ancient Caananites, why don't they refer to themselves as Caananites rather than Philistines? Arab humor: Take my hostage, please!

SHARE FACTS

Robert Mueller as a "Special Prosecutor" failed his Task in the Obstruction Case!

As Special “Prosecutor” Mueller and his gang of thugs are not in a position to “conclusively [determine] that no criminal conduct occurred” because they are operating as a “prosecutor”.
“Making conclusive determinations of innocence or Guilt is never the task of the federal prosecutor,” in American  Jurisprudence. If that were not the case the Federal Prosecutors could have found Bill Clinton guilty.

 “What “prosecutors” are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. They do not get to incriminate someone without being able to bring charges. The only places that works are in African  and South American Banana Republics and in Dictatorships posing as Democracies! NOT IN AMERICA.

 “In the American justice system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to ‘conclusively determine’ it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. What the Mueller Monkey Brigade did was to look for the Bananas in the Prosecution.
Mueller is a sham and a Disgrace to the Marine Corps whose motto “semper Fidelis” was spat upon and abused and dragged through the mud by this aged crooked has been who himself was turned by ideology or was too cowardly a Marine to stand up and take incoming fire from the Left Soaked rag tag band of Obama and Clinton Cronies and cheerleaders who were all singing for their future supper!

Mueller is a disgrace for declining to reach a conclusion as a good prescutor should have on obstruction of justice, having failed to do so shows his cowardice or his political leaning… or just maybe he was always a DIRTY COP from the time he was the Obama Clinton Uranium Mule being paid for his part in the dirty deal and then being blackmailed going forward!  Yes failing to do so violates the investigation’s obligation to make a prosecutorial decision. Shame on Mueller and his assholes!


Now lets go back in time. 

This is the text of the Authorization as a "Special Prosecutor"
 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including;

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

5/17/19 Date

Rod J. Rosenstein Acting Attorney General

   CFR 600.4(a)  States

Code of Federal Regulations
  Title 28 - Judicial AdministrationVolume: 2Date: 2018-07-01Original Date: 2018-07-01Title: Section § 600.4 - Jurisdiction.Context:
     Title 28 - Judicial Administration. CHAPTER VI - OFFICES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. PART 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL.
 
    § 600.4
    Jurisdiction.
    (a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
    (b) Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
    (c) Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

In the highligted parts there is the inference that if Mueller and his Dog Catchers fin any "Other Evidence" they should take it where it leads.

Paul Manafort was entrapped in this investigation and he gave up The Podesta Brothers. They include Tony Podesta the go between for Hillary and Obama. He was in violation of the FERA Act. He was NOT Prosecuted. because he was too close to Obama!

LOOK PEOPLE THE WHOLE SCHEME WAS SET UP TO MAKE SURE THAT OBAMA AND HILLARY DO NOT GET CAUGHT FOR STEALING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
#Followthemoney   That is what this whole thing is all about. Everyone in the upper echelon of the Obama Admin has been paid and then continued to hide the Crime or were black mailed into going along!

FOLLOW THE MONEY!