Deep Staters and Swamp Creatures Are Everywhere, But President Trump Rolls Right Over Them

AMERICANS ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THAT SITTING QUIETLY WHILE DEEP STATE RADICALS SHRED THEIR COUNTRY IS NOT THE BEST IDEA. And, it is about time. Enter the Equal Justice Tour. • • • THE EQUAL JUSTICE TOUR STARTED RIGHT AT GROUND ZERO. In Chappaqua, New York. Canada Free Press wrote about it, not the Fake news media. The title of Doug Hagmann's Wednesday article was "Americans Unite to Demand Justice." Hagmann said : "The Equal Justice Tour kicked off in Chappaqua, New York. Something happened this weekend that is just too big to ignore, although It is unlikely that you will see any mention of this event on the evening news or read about it in newspapers. A spirited group of American patriots, many traveling from several hundred miles away, gathered in Chappaqua, New York, the hometown of Hillary Clinton, to demand that justice -- equal justice be restored to our nation. The Equal Justice Tour kicked off in Chappaqua, New York, where citizens assembled outside the home of Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday, May 26, 2019, to call attention to her illegal activities as documented by FBI Director James Comey during her tenure as Secretary of State. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton used an unauthorized, unsecured server to store, send and receive classified emails, exposing some of the nation’s most sensitive information to hostile foreign powers. She deleted tens of thousands of emails, used software to irretrievably erase the server, and physically destroyed computer and telephone hardware while under FBI investigation. Despite the obvious violations of law, Clinton was 'exonerated' by former FBI Director James Comey on July 5, 2016. Hillary Clinton was also Secretary of State during the September 11, 2012, attack on the State Department sanctioned CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans, including a US Ambassador, were murdered. It was during the congressional hearings about Benghazi that her personal server was discovered. For the first time in nearly two decades, Hillary Clinton was publicly called out at her home and on her home turf by Americans concerned about restoring America to the principles of our Founders and the US Constitution. By all accounts, Hillary Clinton took notice as did so many others in Chappaqua and beyond. At the time of this report, at least one member of the US Department of Justice was aware of the events of The Equal Justice Tour this weekend and the demand for action on the part of the Department of Justice to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton." • Hagmann wrote : "As Sunday progressed, the crowd of supporters for 'equal justice' grew, and so did the positive reinforcement by passersby by a 7-3 margin. This writer spoke with three separate people who were driving by our meeting point, turned around and stopped to offer their encouragement and support. Interestingly, two of the three stated that they reside in New Castle, Westchester County, NY, and the third lives in Elmsford, NY. 'If she broke the law as [former FBI Director James] Comey said she did, then yes, she should be held accountable, especially if her emails fell into the hands of our enemies,' stated a 46-year-old female resident of Elmsford, NY. When asked for her name she declined, stating 'I have to live here -- you don’t know what it’s like, these people who support [Hillary Clinton] don’t care what she’s done -- it’s like a cult.' The call for equal justice extended into Memorial Day as Hillary Clinton, accompanied by former President Bill Clinton and New York Governor Cuomo marched in their hometown parade." • Hagmann said : "Participants of The Equal Justice Tour, including “Coach” Dave Daubenmire, tour founder and one of the event organizers, attended the parade in Chappaqua, holding signs and demanding justice. It was evident that Hillary and Cuomo took notice, as did many others along the parade route. It was noted that the news media appeared careful not to photograph or video any of the participants or the signs that shadowed the former Secretary of State." • Why are Americans willing to march for "Equal Justice"? Doug Hagmann's explanation is clear : "Just over three years ago, millions of Americans enthusiastically embraced the prospect of the restoration of the rule of law amid the chants of 'drain the Swamp.' Sick of the status quo and a two-tiered system of justice, Americans voted to return America to the rule of law and the framework of the US Constitution. Today, a thousand days later, we are still mired in the Swamp of corruption. The criminal 'elite' who held positions of power continue to walk free and unencumbered by the laws that govern the rest of us. This is about to change by the works and deeds of Americans who refuse to accept inequity or remain indifferent for the sake of convenience. The change sought by more than half of America, if it is to come, and come it must, will originate from 'we, the people.' We cannot rely solely on government or expect change without our voices being heard and more importantly, without our presence being felt. It is up to us to be the impetus for change and demand action from those who work for us. In the words of Robert Kennedy, '[T]he glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the Constitution -- nor by the courts -- nor by the officers of the law -- nor by the lawyers -- but by the men and women who constitute our society -- who are the protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law.' The torch for equal justice was lit over the weekend, its bright light a beacon summoning all Americans who seek to restore our nation to its founding principles of equal justice and the rule of law. Now lit, it will not be easily extinguished, but only made brighter by patriotic Americans who care about the moral future and integrity of the laws of our nation." • Hagmann says The Equal Justice Tour is "just getting started, raising awareness and demanding accountability for the crimes committed by public servants who behaved more like royalty -- and were treated the same." It is our duty, as Hagmann states, "to keep the pressure on the current Department of Justice and enlist the support of the Executive branch to see that equal justice prevails for members of the 'Deep State.' The vehicle for change is The Equal Justice Tour. It might be one of many, but it is a powerful one indeed." • • • JUDICIAL WATCH IS ANOTHER POWERFUL EQUAL JUSTICE TOOL. Canada Free Press noted this Deep State review by Judicial Watch : "Today, Judicial Watch aired its hard-hitting panel reviewing the Deep State Coup against President Trump! The panel also discussed the corruption at the FBI, corrupt handling of the Clinton Investigation, the Obama Administration’s hand in the Russia hoax, the Mueller Probe, and other important topics. The panel featured a litany of high profile guests that include some of the greatest minds on this important issue : Dr. Carter Page; Chris Farrell, Director of Investigations and Research at Judicial Watch; Victoria Toensing, partner at the law firm Toensing & DiGenova; Chuck Ross, investigative reporter at the Daily Caller; moderated by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. You can watch the panel discussion on the Deep State and its corruption at < https://youtu.be/XKunDsQuhec >. • • • THE DEEP STATE HAS TENTACLES THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS OBVIOUS. Canada Free Press wrote an article on Wednesday about former Attorney General Jeff Sessions "burying a federal investigation." Author Lee Cary said what most of us knew -- there was something wrong with Sessions a AG, but it was hard to pinpoint exactly what it was. Cary gives the perfect example of the Sessions misfire as AG : "During his tenure as Attorney General of the US Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions gave a lesson in how to abort an investigation into the Clinton Foundation before it started. Here are the four steps to killing the investigation of the Russian Uranium One Deal, and more. ( I.) Appoint an investigator who’s a hold-over from the Obama administration. But, don’t announce the appointment right away, in order to avoid fanfare from the media, and scrutiny from those suffering from critical thinking. Sometime in the Fall of 2017, according to TheHill, 'Attorney General Jeff Sessions quietly tapped [John] Huber -- apparently last fall -- to work in tandem with the Justice Department’s inspector general to determine whether conservative allegations of abuse at the FBI and the Justice Department merit investigation.' Here’s Huber’s basic vita : 'John W. Huber (born 1967) is an American lawyer who has served as the United States Attorney for the District of Utah since June 2015. He was first nominated for the position by President Barack Obama in February 2015. Huber offered his resignation in March 2017 at the request of the Trump administration. However, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions subsequently appointed Huber as interim US Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Huber was renominated by President Donald Trump in June 2017. On August 3, 2017, he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to an additional four-year term as a U.S. Attorney.' Skepticism concerning Huber’s appointment surfaced early. Again, from TheHill came this : 'One former senior Justice Department official called the appointment ‘window dressing...more aimed at placating Congress than anything else.’ Brett Tolman, who was the US attorney for Utah prior to Huber and a former counsel in the Senate Judiciary Committee under Hatch, also said the appointment is ‘form over substance...to pacify those that might be clamoring for [a second special counsel].’ With his contrary opinion, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley approved of the Huber appointment saying that, 'by having Huber work with the Department of Justice, the administration is combining all the work of the DOJ inspector general and previous investigations, with an active prosecutor who can quickly bring charges, seek indictments, and get results for President Trump -- far more quickly than a second special counsel could.' Turley called Session’s move 'brilliant.' That’s what he said. The Professor’s reasoning sounds...professorial. But, unfortunately, nothing came quickly, or even at all, from Huber and the DOJ inspector general collaborating -- if they ever did. Utah US Senator Orin Hatch strongly endorsed Huber’s nomination. Uranium mining is an important industry in Utah. ( II.) Appoint someone far from DC : The Out-of-Sight/Out-of-Mind Factor. Since his appointment became known, reports of Huber’s progress are...non-existent. Finally, one news outlet noticed the deafening silence coming from Huber. In an article with a title that alluded to the play 'Waiting for Godot,' a Spectator USA writer asked, 'Waiting for Huber : whatever happened to the investigation into FBI abuse of power?' Answer: Like Godot - it never appeared. Nearly 18 months after US Attorney John W. Huber was appointed to investigate whether the Obama-era FBI and Department of Justice abused their power when they obtained spy warrants on Trump campaign operatives and their handling of alleged pay-for-play Clinton Foundation schemes, there’s no sign of any activity. Members of Congress remain in the dark about what if any progress has been made, and likely witnesses say they haven’t been contacted.' No grand jury. No subpoenas. No indictments. No witnesses interviewed -- particularly the key one, William Campbell. In short, the Huber investigation has shown no signs-of-life. Campbell’s attorney, and former Justice Department prosecutor Victoria Toensing, called the Huber investigation 'a head fake...It’s a farce. It’s an embarrassment how this has been handled.' Toensing is renowned for her clarity and candor. Meanwhile, all the juicy, bombshell news about Trump’s Collusion with Putin and the Russians (not the Siberian Rock Band) dominated the MSM Northeast Corridor big news sources, centered around the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Three-Letter-Acronym TV networks. ( III.) Assign someone a wide mission, and the liberty to ignore it all. Huber has been more than just a no-show concerning his alleged investigation into Uranium One. He’s also failed at his other assigned tasks. Again, the Spectator USA reported on April 3, 2019 that : '[T]he Justice Department just found the document authorizing Huber to look into how the department handled the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One, after claiming no such document existed. The Department testified in Federal court that ‘when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.’ But in response to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, a DOJ lawyer now says they found the document that started Huber’s work.' What a Surprise! Poof! The missing document suddenly appears. It’s a miracle. There’s even more in his mission that Huber has neglected. Realclearinvestigations.com reported last December 22, 2018, that Sessions assigned Huber to investigate alleged FBI misrepresentations to the FISA Court. A very bad thing to do. 'Sessions told Congress he also tasked Huber with looking into whether FBI investigators and Justice lawyers misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] court by making deliberate misrepresentations about evidence presented against Page, whom they targeted as a ‘Russian agent.’ Allegations include omitting material facts and exculpatory evidence undermining their probable-cause case.' As we approach two years of Hubering, all we’ve heard from his team of investigator are...crickets. But what’s worse than silence is their negligence. The story of “Batman and Robins,’ the two forensic finance-crime experts who, on December 13, 2018, appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, was told here on March 23, 2019. Later, on April 3, 2019, the Spectator USA reported what The Dynamic Duo told the committee about their strange contact with Huber’s staff in Utah. '[P]rivate financial-crimes investigators Lawrence Doyle and John Moynihan say they sent evidence of alleged Clinton Foundation pay-for-play schemes, tax fraud, and misappropriation of funds to Huber’s office by mail in April and again in May, but heard nothing back. They were told the materials had been ‘lost’ when they followed up, so they re-sent them by FedEx in October, only to finally receive a call on November 30 [2018] that an assistant US attorney would ‘review’ it.' Lost? Twice? Resent a third time? Accidentally? That’s hard to believe. Okay, it’s not possible to believe. And finally, there’s step 4 -- the short and easy one. ( IV.) When asked about the investigation, say 'No comment.' There’s apparently an on-going cricket infestation in Utah that reaches all the way to DC." • Lee Cary's conclusion is deadly in its accuracy : "So, how should we understand the Huber episode? Why would then Attorney General Sessions do what Victoria Toensing called a 'head fake.' On April 4, 2018, The Hill posted an article entitled 'Mystery surrounds Sessions appointee to FBI investigation.' That mystery remains unsolved. But a clue surfaced recently. According to an April, 24, 2019, Associated Press article that posted on USNews.com. : 'Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday said it is time to move past special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and ‘get on with the business of America...The [Mueller] process was followed and a decision has now been rendered. I think it deserves respect...I have the greatest confidence in the integrity of our system.’ About a month earlier, in late March 2019, a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Karl 'Bush’s Brain' Rove said essentially the same thing. It was entitled : 'Move On From Robert Mueller, Mr. President, Obsessing over the investigation’s origins isn’t the way to win over swing voters.' Coincidence? Maybe. But it may represent efforts to push a GOP Establishment meme calling Republicans to forgive-and-forget. If so, the meme died quickly. BUT, an unanswered question lives on : How is it that Jeff Sessions assigned responsibility to a US Attorney to investigate Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, and the alleged misleading of the FISA Court by senior FBI officials, and did not want to see anything come of it?" • The sad answer, too late to heal all the errors AG Sessions presided over, is that the Deep State takes many forms, and the Swamp where the Deep Staters live is filled with politicians and media culprits whose names will undoubtedly shock us if they are ever fully revealed. [NOTE : Since November 2007, Lee Cary has written hundreds of articles for several websites including the American Thinker, and Breitbart’s Big Journalism and Big Government (as “Archy Cary”). His work has been quoted on national television (Sean Hannity) and on nationally syndicated radio (Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin). He is quoted in Jerome Corsi’s book “The Obama Nation,” in Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny.” His pieces have posted on the Drudge Report and on the website Real Clear Politics. Cary holds a BS in Economics from Northern Illinois University, and a Masters and a Doctorate in Theology from the Methodist seminary at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. He served in Vietnam with the US Army in Military Intelligence. Cary lives in Texas.] • • • TRUMP AND HIS NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL. TheHill posted an article on MAy 26 about an interview George Papadopoulos gave to AM 970's "The Answer" in New York. PApadopoulos talked about AG Bill Barr's new powers, cheering the President's decision to direct Attorney General William Barr to declassify information related to the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign, calling it a sign Trump was going "on the offense." TheHill said : "Papadopoulos told John Catsimatidis that his prosecution and the prosecutions of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former national security advisor Michael Flynn were unsuccessful attempts to force Trump to cooperate with the special counsel investigation. 'They wanted to make an example out of us. They wanted to squeeze us in order to get Trump. It didn’t work,' Papadopoulos said in the interview. 'President Trump is now on the offense. And once he starts declassifying materials -- as you probably have been seeing in the media about my case, where I’m basically telling informants that I have nothing to do with the Russians, yet they still use it against me -- you might start seeing people on the other side going to jail for conspiracy. And I hope they do.' Papadopoulos added that the federal government targeted him because of his connection to the President and not because of actual wrongdoing. 'Most people who work for Donald Trump, if not all of them, either got bankrupt, their life thrown in a whirlwind, or found themselves in short or long jail sentences. My short answer to you is if the feds want to get you, they’re going to get you,' he argued." Papadopoulos was released from prison in December after serving time for his conviction for lying to investigators about foreign contacts. In his new book, he states that he was pressured into signing a plea agreement with the threat of charges pertaining to working as an unregistered foreign lobbyist. He told Catsimatidis : "I was faced with a choice : accept the charges that I lied or face FARA charges. I made a deal. A deal forced on me. My story is part of a larger story. The story of Trump and the story of stopping Trump, or trying to. The Trump presidency was the primary target of all this insanity." • This Deep State America is not what America is, and these Swamp Deep Staters are surely going to get their comeuppance as AG Barr works his way through the files that must be piled up waist high in his office. • • • THE BEAUTY OF DONALD TRUMP IS THAT HE JUST KEEPS MOVING HIS "AMERICA FIRST" AGENDA FORWARD. Nobody in the mainstream media has said much about it, but TheHill published an article on May 26 about the intelligence President Trump, John Bolton, Patrick Shanahan, and Mike Pompeo have been citing as the reason for their slight military build-up in the Middle East. TheHill's reporter Chris Mills Rodrigo wrote that Representative Will Hurd (R-Texas) said the intelligence on Iran as a rising threat is "credible." Hurd, a former CIA officer, told CBS's Face the Nation : “I’ve seen the intelligence, it’s very credible intelligence. This intelligence was produced by hard-working men in the CIA, in our intelligence community. It’s our military leaders that are asking for some of these moves to make sure that we’re protecting our folks in that region. I don't think anybody wants to go to war with Iran, but we need to be prepared to protect our troops that are already there.” Iran tensions have been high since the Trump administration last year pulled out of the Obama-era nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions on Teheran, said Rodrigo, and : "The situation has escalated in recent weeks, particularly after the administration sent a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East amid what officials called 'troubling and escalatory indications and warnings' from Iran that had not been publicly identified. Trump said Friday that he would send about 1,500 troops to the Middle East to counter Iran's influence, again citing intelligence about Iran. Lawmakers were briefed last week by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan on the intelligence supporting these military moves. Democrats and foreign intervention skeptics have been critical of the moves, accusing Trump of being the one provoking conflict." • BUT, as usual, President Rump and his team are right, but the lapdog media covers the truth up and gives interviews to ProDems who say whatever is necessary to push along their fantasy that the President is dangerous because does not understand what his actions could lead to internationally. HOW WRONG they are. • And, Canada Free Press gives another example that proves how well President Trump understands what he is doing. David Singer wrote an article on Wednesday that opens with this : "Hamas and the PLO will be left to hang out and dry -- having been responsible for prolonging the Jewish-Arab conflict that should have been resolved decades ago. Freedom from PLO and Hamas rule awaits Gaza and West Bank Arabs." We have received NO information from the mainstream media about it, but the fact is, says Singer, that : "Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar" have announced their participation in the 'Prosperity for Peace Conference' in Manama on 25-26 June -- jointly convened by President Trump and Bahrain (“Manama Conference”) -- [it] promises to offer unique opportunities for Gaza and West Bank Arabs to emigrate to other Arab countries to seek better lives for their families. Tens of millions of desperate people have fled their birthplaces in recent years seeking entry illegally into other countries. There is no reason to believe that Gaza and West Bank Arabs would not similarly want to emigrate if offered the opportunity to do so legally. Gaza and West Bank Arabs have personally suffered under the oppressive rule of Hamas in Gaza since 2006 and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the West Bank since 1993. They have not been given the opportunity at any time to determine their own future in free and fair elections -- except in 2006 when the PLO refused to accept the result. A bitter internecine struggle since then has ensued between Hamas and the PLO for political control of the Gaza and West Bank Arab populations that still remains unresolved. Elections are not even being contemplated to resolve this impasse. The policies espoused by both Hamas and the PLO in relation to Israel have wrought disaster on Gaza and West Bank Arabs both in regard to their personal lives and economic prospects for themselves and their children. The UAE has voiced its support for the Manama Conference and what it hopes will be achieved : 'The UAE supports all international efforts aimed at supporting economic progress and increasing opportunities in the region, and alleviating the suffering of people in the region, particularly our brothers in Palestine...It (the Conference) aims to lift the Palestinian people out of misery and to enable them for a stable and prosperous future.' " Singer tells us that "Hamas and the PLO are both violently opposed to the Manama Conference and have indicated they will not be attending. They are well aware of the threat an exodus from Gaza and the West Bank would pose to their hold on power and financial privilege. Hamas -- which has turned Gaza into a hell hole since Israel unilaterally disengaged from there in 2005—had the gall to declare : 'We warn Arab states against the malicious activities aimed to pave the way for normalisation with the Israeli occupation and involvement in the deal of the century.' Saeb Erekat -- secretary general of the PL -- —expressed his opposition against the Conference claiming : 'There will be no economic prosperity in Palestine without the end of the occupation.' " BUT, Singer describes the "many exciting initiatives expected to be presented at the conference," including Saudi Arabia’s already announced NEOM project -- a planned US$500 billion mega city. The project includes a bridge spanning the Red Sea, connecting the proposed city to Africa. Some 10,000 square miles (25,900 square kilometers) -- the size of Israel -- have been allocated for the project -- which will be close to the borders of Jordan and Egypt. The opportunities for work and the prospects of enjoying happier and safer lives in being part of NEOM and other to-be announced projects would prove irresistible for Gaza and West Bank Arabs -- fed up with decades of deprivation and suffering supposedly pursuing the goal of 'ending the occupation' by creating another Arab State. Hamas and PLO threats, objections and non-attendance will not see the Manama Conference cancelled. Hamas and the PLO will be left to hang out and dry -- having been responsible for prolonging the Jewish-Arab conflict that should have been resolved decades ago." WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME we read about an American President co-hosting a conference whose aim is to create homes, jobs, and security for Gaza and West Bank Arabs??? Don't strain -- the answer is NEVER before. • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TAKING A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS. In the total absence of any help from Democrats in Congress, or their propagandist media, to solve the southern border crisis, President Trump is doing everything he can that doesn't require Congress. Even then, Democrats find Obama-appointed federal judges who are willing to stop the President's actions with injunctions that they apply nationwide, forcing the President to go to appellate courts and finally the Supreme Court to break the injunctions. • The flood of illegal immigrants pouring over the southern border is escalating at an alarming rate. Newsmax reported on Thursday that : "Border Patrol set a record early Wednesday morning, apprehending 1,036 migrants attempting to illegally cross the southern US border near El Paso, Texas, snapping the previous high of 424 set last month, NBC News reported. A majority of the migrants were coming from Central America's Northern Triangle -- El Salvador (76), Guatemala (515), and Honduras (135) -- and traveling in the largest group ever apprehended for 'safety in numbers,' according to the report. Families comprised 934 of the people, while 63 children and 39 single adults traveled alone, per NBC News, citing two US officials and a document it had obtained. The record numbers come as President Donald Trump on Thursday teased his 'biggest statement on the border,' which will come later in the day or Friday. A third US official expects this large apprehension to be a 'major part of his announcement,' per the report. As Congress struggles to act on immigration [read that, refuses to act because the Democrats control the House], President Trump builds the wall through national emergency funding reappropriated from Defense budgets, large-scale migration has continued to grow. March and April reported over 100,000 undocumented immigrants, illegally and legally crossing the border -- the highest total in 12 years -- and a DHS official expects that number to exceed 120,000, according to the report. • Well, President Trump did make his"biggest statement on the border" on Thursday evening. CNBC broke the news that the President tweeted that the US will impose a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports from June 10. Here is his tweet : "@realDonaldTrump On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied." The Democrats and media will have a "Get Trump" feast with this news. • • • DEAR READERS, as we slip into the weekend, there's one more story that never got air time on any mainstream media outlet this week. Western Journal Conservative Tribune reported on Wednesday that : "As many Americans know and appreciate, the foundation for President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is the protection of Americans. It’s one of the reasons his supporters voted for him and, quite frankly, it’s what Americans should be able to expect of any President. Since taking office in 2017, Trump hasn’t backed down from taking on what he considers foreign and domestic threats, but former officials from President Barack Obama’s administration might be in a position to hinder Trump’s ability to keep one major international rival at bay. According to a report by the Washington Examiner, Samir Jain -- a former senior director for cybersecurity policy under Obama’s National Security Council and now a partner with the international law firm Jones Day -- was recently hired by the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei as a lobbyist. Jain works alongside James Cole, who was Obama’s deputy attorney general from 2011 to 2015. Huawei hired Cole for legal representation in 2017, the Examiner reported." The Conservative Tribune asks, "So, what’s the big deal, right?" The answer is, says the Tribune : "According to the Examiner, the US government suspects that Huawei may be working directly with the Chinese government in an attempt to access data flowing through 5G cellular networks across the world, ultimately posing a major cybersecurity threat for Americans. In an effort to defend against these threats, as The Associated Press reported, Trump recently signed an executive order that calls out foreign adversaries for exploiting vulnerabilities within communications technology, ultimately declaring a national emergency and demanding action be taken against such companies. But that raises the question : What are these former high-ranking Obama officials doing at Huawei? It’s not like Jain doesn’t know the threat his new employer poses for communication across the globe. HIs Jones Day biography notes that he represented the Department of Justice in 'White House cybersecurity meetings and international negotiations, such as China’s agreement not to engage in cyber-enabled intellectual property theft for commercial gain.' Despite his knowledge of the cyber-warfare originating out of China, Jain and his colleague Cole are now siding with (and being paid by) the very entity they previously worked together to fight." • The Conservative Tribune goes on to state that : "In fact, Cole is defending Huawei from a long list of charges brought on recently by Trump’s Department of Justice. The charges include criminal conduct such as 'bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to commit money laundering, obstruction of justice, illegal actions related to dodging Iran sanctions, and more,' according to the Washington Examiner." • We can imagine President Trump's reaction to all this. He put it in an April 15 tweet : "@realDonaldTrump Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei hires former Obama Cyber Security Official as a lobbyist. This is not good, or acceptable! @FoxNews @SteveHiltonx." • As the Conservative Tribune says, "Samir’s and Cole’s hypocritical actions will only cause more headaches for the US Justice Department as it works to get to the bottom of these budding, international security threats." • We can now add two names ot the list of Democrats who seem to prefer China and its money over the well-being of the United States -- Jain, Cole, Feinstein, Biden father and son. Which Democrat will be next to jump on the China gravy train??

Mueller's Latest Words Ooze Impeachment, and Pelosi Is the Lone Democrat Who Sees That It Will Kill the Party

THE LATEST -- AND LAST?? --- WORDS FROM ROBERT MUELLER. Could America be so lucky? OR are we now being set up for a "secret" -- in congressional parlance 'closed door' -- meeting of Robert Mueller with the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee, so that chairman Jerry Nadler can then leak to us what Mueller 'said' -- whether he said it or not being irrelevant. • • • MUELLER REFUSES TO DECLARE PRESIDENT TRUMP EITHER GUILTY OR INNOCENT OF OBSTRUCTION. Special counsel Robert Mueller played to his Deep State monitors on Wednesday, May 29, when he said : “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.” • The Washington Times wrote on Wednesday : "Special counsel Robert Mueller delivered a valedictory statement Wednesday before he resigned from his two-year investigation into President Trump, saying he could not exonerate the President of criminal wrongdoing. Though he’d said as much in his 448-page report, hearing it from the mouth of the man who spent two years investigating Mr. Trump was a dam-break moment for many Democrats on Capitol Hill and on the 2020 presidential campaign trail, who said Mr. Mueller’s statement was an invitation to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump. In a nine-minute statement from the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington Mr. Mueller said his work was done, he was shutting down the special counsel’s office and would resist calls to testify to Congress or speak publicly, saying his 448-page report spoke for itself. But it was his summary that rekindled the impeachment fire for many Democrats. 'If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,' Mr. Mueller said. 'We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.' He also signaled that he didn’t bring charges against Mr. Trump because of longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting President cannot be charged. Yet he did make such a determination on one aspect of his investigation, saying there was 'insufficient evidence' to conclude the President or his team conspired with Russia to subvert the 2016 election. But when it came to whether the President obstructed justice in trying to stymy investigations into the election, Mr. Mueller said they didn’t attempt to reach a conclusion because of the department’s policy. 'We concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the President committed a crime,' he said." • The Washington Times went on to say : "The seemingly contradictory statements fueled diametrically opposed reactions from the president’s supporters and his political opponents. A host of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates said it’s time to pursue impeachment, though those lawmakers who would actually spearhead an inquiry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, were more circumspect, saying they will continue to pursue their ongoing investigations. All the same, Mr. Nadler said Mr. Mueller’s statement was dangerous news for Mr. Trump, undercutting his claims that he was exonerated. 'It falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing,' the congressman said, adding that impeachment remains an option down the road. Republicans, led by Mr. Trump, said they didn’t see any revelations from Mr. Mueller. 'Nothing changes from the Mueller Report,' the President tweeted. 'There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.' Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, echoed the President’s sentiments. 'Today’s statement by Mr. Mueller reinforces the findings of his report. And as for me, the case is over....Mr. Mueller has decided to move on and let the report speak for itself. Congress should follow his lead.' The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, urged his colleagues on the left to back off their impeachment hunt. 'Relitigating the 2016 election and reinvestigating the special counsel’s findings will only further divide our country,' Mr. Collins said." • The Washington Times said it is "not yet clear what role Mr. Mueller will play as Democrats do proceed on Capitol Hill," adding that Mueller "...pointedly signaled his resistance to testifying. He said Wednesday’s statement was the only time he planned to speak about his investigation and if he called, his comments would likely disappoint lawmakers. 'Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,' he said. Mr. Nadler, who had been among those demanding Mr. Mueller appear publicly, begged off when asked if he still wants to hold that hearing. 'Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we needed to hear today,' the chairman said. But House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland and intelligence committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, said they still want to hear more from the special counsel. Mr. Schiff said there are important counter-intelligence matters, which Mr. Mueller could detail for Congress, related to his findings of Russian attempts to interfere in the election. 'While I understand his reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew on his charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many questions he can answer that go beyond the report,' the congressman said." • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GUILTY BUT I CANNOT SAY IT. That is pretty much what Robert Mueller said on Wednesday. The Washington Times highlighted the Mueller press conference : "Wednesday’s press conference was Mr. Mueller’s first public remarks on the Russia election meddling probe since being appointed nearly two years ago. He stood alone at the lectern -- in contrast to Attorney General William P. Barr, who in announcing the release of the report last month was flanked by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward O’Callaghan. Mr. Mueller cited a Justice Department regulation as the reason he couldn’t pursue charges against Mr. Trump, undercutting claims by Mr. Barr that the President’s actions didn’t amount to obstruction. But a joint statement by Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, disputed that the special counsel contradicted Mr. Barr. 'The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,' the statement continued. Mr. Mueller did try to ease some of the apparent tension between himself and Mr. Barr stemming from decisions surrounding the release of the report. Mr. Mueller said he had fought for Mr. Barr to release broad summaries of the special counsel’s findings, but Mr. Barr withheld those, saying his goal was to get the full report out, in redacted form, as quickly as possible. 'At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The attorney general preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. I do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.' ” • • • WHAT DID MUELLER ACTUALLY SAY? TheHill lists five takeaways : " §§§ Mueller gives pro-impeachment Dems an argument. Mueller said that if his office 'had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.' He also said that Department of Justice guidance prohibited his office from bringing charges against the President, and that the same guidance states 'that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.' Liberals pounced on those comments as a green light for an impeachment inquiry....In some ways, Mueller’s appearance makes Pelosi’s job more difficult. The special counsel gave ammunition to those saying it is Congress’s constitutional duty to move forward with impeachment, but he did little to change the political calculus. Pelosi has long seen impeachment as politically risky for a party hoping to win back the White House next November. Her statement generally indicated that her position on the issue hasn’t changed, but it’s likely to be more difficult now to quiet some of the calls for impeachment coming from within her caucus. §§§ GOP says case closed. While Democrats who want to impeach Trump have some new talking points, Republicans seized on Mueller’s statements as bolstering their own familiar argument : It’s time to move on.... Republicans have been saying this ever since Attorney General William Barr first released his memo summarizing the Mueller report, and nothing the special counsel said Wednesday is going to change that argument. While Mueller once again made it clear that he was not exonerating Trump, it’ll be up to Democrats to take any next steps. Polls have shown that many Americans are ready to move on from Mueller, and that’s one reason Pelosi has tread so cautiously on the impeachment issue. §§§ Mueller doesn’t want to testify. Mueller made it clear he does not want to testify to Congress, raising a problem for Democrats who will have to decide whether they want to subpoena him. 'I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter,' Mueller said. 'I am making that decision myself -- no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.' Nadler has said it is imperative that Mueller testify and that the committee would subpoena him if necessary. But Democrats are unlikely to love the optics of subpoenaing him. Nadler sidestepped questions Wednesday about a subpoena, stating : 'Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we need to hear today.' If Mueller does appear, it’s unlikely he’ll say much based on Wednesday’s comments. Mueller made it crystal clear that anything he’d say is already in his report. 'Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. The report is my testimony.' Mueller said. The House Intelligence Committee also has sought Mueller’s testimony, though that would likely take place behind closed doors. §§§ Mueller seeks to quash differences with Barr. In a March 27 letter revealed last month, Mueller objected to Barr’s memo on his report, arguing it failed to capture the 'context, nature, and substance' of his investigation. He also pushed Barr, a longtime friend of the special counsel, to immediately release more of the report, something Barr declined to do. But on Wednesday, Mueller did not offer criticism of Barr, saying he didn’t question his 'good faith' decision in waiting to release a redacted version of the special counsel’s full report. 'We appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. I do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision,' Mueller said. Democrats had seized on Mueller’s letter to bolster their argument that the attorney general mishandled the report to try to help Trump. Mueller didn’t help their argument at all, showing no evidence of frustration or disappointment with Barr. Mueller also threw cold water on Democrats’ suspicions that the Justice Department is trying to block him from testifying before Congress. §§§ Mueller puts emphasis on Russian meddling. While much of the media coverage on Mueller’s press conference focused on his comments about obstruction, it was clear the former longtime chief of the FBI was focused on Moscow. Mueller said he was initially tasked with investigating the scope of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and he outlined a pair of indictments brought forward by his office against Russian military officers who hacked Democrats ahead of the election and a Russian troll farm. 'I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments -- that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.' " • • • I COULDN'T FIND AN UNDERLYING CRIME, SO LET'S IMPEACH HIM. That was the conclusion of the Thursday Canada Free Press article by Sher Zieve, an author and political commentator whose op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites. Zieve rightly said : "If there is no underlying crime...there can be no “obstruction of justice!" Zieve went on : "I have never before witnessed such a sham of a legal system or -- even worse -- experienced the horror that the real criminals were the ones running it. The additional horror is that other gangsters have and/or are replacing those who have been fired (some likely awaiting the day when they will be arrested) or have run for the proverbial hills upon realizing what may soon be revealed. Having personally experienced this lifetime for not quite -- but getting closer each day -- a century, I do have some small perspective with regards to history. Mueller -- with all of the Trump-haters on his staff -- could find that President Trump committed no crime. So, in his own rather sleazy way, he turned it over to Congress to impeach him. This is the caliber of human being we currently have in upper management within the bowels of the US government." • Zieve summarizes the basis for the investigation, which she calls "a foundation of sand" : "A self-proclaimed Trump-hater and (former?) British MI-6 agent who worked with some Russians to create (out of whole cloth) the now-infamous 'Trump Dossier' : The Clinton Campaign and DNC funded the 'Dossier' : 'The DNC and Clinton campaign-funded research continued through the end of October 2016, according to the Post’s report. The 'Dossier' was requested and paid for by the Clinton Campaign. Excerpt : 'According to the report, lawyer Marc E. Elias, who represented both Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, and his law firm Perkins Coie retained the firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate any connections, according to the Post. Before then, a still-unknown Republican client funded Fusion GPS’ research during the Republican primaries. Fusion had hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research.' The Mueller investigation began as a counter-intelligence investigation which metastasized into a full-blown criminal investigation...with NO CRIME mentioned! As a stated crime is required by law before this type of investigation may begin, Mueller’s investigation...was illegal from its inception. As a very large side-note, 'collusion' is still not a crime. If there is no underlying crime...there can be no “obstruction of justice!” • Sher Zieve then lambasts the Democrat Deep Staters : "The crimes which were committed by members within our own governmental agencies (DOJ/FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) are the greatest uncovered in the history of our country and are vast to the point that the uncovering of the worldwide Deep State conspiracy against POTUS Trump continues. Note : Within the UK, it appears to reach the very highest levels of government....Our country was close to demise before Donald J. Trump was resoundingly elected to the presidency of the USA. Considering all of the blocks placed in his way by the DNC, RINOs and US government 'intelligence' agencies, Trump’s accomplishments are nothing less than remarkable...and legendary. Think what he will accomplish in his second term of office." • • • THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS DEAD. "Will it please stop breathing. That was what Canada Free Press's Judi McLeod wrote on Thursday : "Deep State and its bogus investigation is dead but won’t lay down. Why did Special Counsel Snake Robert Mueller III choose May 29, 2019 to slither off into retirement? Other than to add enough fuel to keep Democrat Impeachment plans going straight up to Election Day, it’s because the 2020 Election Campaign is well underway. All the Deep State Coup ever had on President Donald Trump was the largely debunked, dirty, pornographic Christopher Steele Dossier -- featuring the outlandish Golden Shower Conspiracy, paid for by Hillary Clinton and a just as desperate DNC. The Deep State Coup and its contrived two-year-long ‘investigation’ collapsed the moment John & Josephine Public identified the prostitutes performing -- on the same Moscow bed Barack and Michelle Obama once slept in -- as the fevered fantasy of someone’s filthy imagination, imploded on itself. The Moscow bed that played the most prominent role in Steele’s dirty Dossier was, after all, not marked with ‘Kilroy was here’ or identifying graffiti of any other kind. Two years after the collapse of the Dossier, Special Counsel Robert Mueller collapsed like the proverbial empty suit before our very eyes yesterday." • McLeod is highly critical of the Mueller investigation : "Although Mueller and his pro-Clinton Dream Team members held centre stage for more than two years, theirs was never a legitimate investigation from the get-go. Millions of average citizens knew that Donald Trump was duly elected by people who voted, not courtesy of conspirational Russian collusion; knew that there was never any need for a $35-million taxpayer funded ‘investigation’ that ran on nothing but fumes for more than two years. It took Mueller two years to keep a debunked conspiracy going, and eight minutes to throw the ball back into Congress’ court....The unvarnished truth is that the special counsel did have evidence that the President had committed no crime, but refused to admit it, with Clinton and the Democrats waiting to use it to impeach Trump before he could be elected for a second time. Mueller said it was impossible to indict a sitting President. If he knew that, then why the 2-year investigation that destroyed so many lives?" • Rush Limbaugh had the same comclusion : "He didn’t add to anything. He continued the injustice of all of this. 'If we had evidence the President did not commit a crime, if we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.' That’s not what you do in this country. If you have evidence he did commit a crime, you say so, but you can’t say so and you haven’t said so and you won’t say so because there isn’t any." • McLeod picked up the Limbaugh line of reasoning : "From the moment this report came out and from the moment the attorney general characterized this report, what’s been the position of the Democrat Party, from Pelosi to Jerry Nadler, to Pencil Neck Schiff, the media, everybody? It's that Mueller has evidence and that Barr is not releasing it and we need to talk to Mueller. We gotta get to Mueller. Mueller, there’s gotta be more in this report. Barr is lying. Barr is handpicked by Trump. Barr is covering for Trump. We need to talk to Mueller. All of it was done for Hillary who wanted from the get-go to overturn the election results of 2016. Something impossible to do -- even if she takes another run for the 2020 presidency. In spite of all Mueller and the Deep State have tried -- and are still trying to do for her -- Obama’s former Secretary of State wears a big sign reading PC -- Politically Corrupt -- on her back. At the end of the day the Deep State and its bogus investigation is dead but won’t lay down. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton and her surrogates, including your pal James Comey, will soon be joining you in boring retirement, Mr. Mueller." • EVEN the NEW YORK TIMES said it in a Thursday Op-Ed by David Leonhardt about the Mueller investigation -- Leonhardt began by saying, "Throughout his investigation of President Trump’s campaign, Robert Mueller has acted honorably - but he is, after all, a NYT reporter. Here is the heart of Leonhardt's opinion iece : " But in the final stages of the inquiry, he has...been surprisingly ineffective and muddled. His public remarks yesterday, as he resigned as special counsel, underscored the problems with his end game. He has declined to clear Trump of wrongdoing. He has also declined to accuse Trump of wrongdoing. Either choice was within his power as special counsel. Instead, Mueller has left the country with a tortured non-conclusion....His statement marginally increases the pressure on the House of Representatives to open impeachment hearings. But it mostly leaves the country exactly where it was, with Trump’s defenders believing he’s innocent and his critics believing he’s guilty." • American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson also said it from the conservative side on Wednesday : "Robert Mueller's 11 A.M. statement to the media today stuck to what was in his report (which he said 'speaks for itself') but selectively highlighted and sequenced points intended to damage President Trump, providing obvious bait for impeachment proceedings....It is not the job of prosecutors to state that a suspect 'clearly did not commit a crime' -- only to state whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. In discussing the second part of the report on obstruction, he repeated the point : 'If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.' Immediately, he followed with this : 'The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. This juxtaposition implies that the real thing they did 'not make a determination' about was the policy against indicting. That is sly to the point of misleading." Lifson says, and he will be proven right, is that "Democrats will be vociferously arguing that." That is, the Democrats will now cry out about flaws in the DOJ policy about indicting that sitting Presidents and try to blame that on some obscure, long since retired Republican bureaucrat. • Lifson also noted Mueller's rather haughty refusal to speak again on the subject : "He also took the Olympian position that this would be the last thing he has to say, which is why he would not take questions. He mentioned that if he is subpoenaed to testify to Congress, he will not say anything that was not in the report....This would foreclose any questions as to why he felt it was the job of a federal prosecutor to 'exonerate' a person under investigation, instead of a simply black-white prosecute-or-not-prosecute decision, as is the customary procedure." • One educated guess would be that Mueller does not want to testify or speak any more because he would finally be forced to admit that he found NO EVIDENCE that President Trump had obstructed justice. • • • GIULIANI AND DERSHOWITZ GET THE MUELLER PLOY RIGHT. Liberty Headlines published an article on Thursday about Rudy Giuliani titled "Giuliani Trashes Mueller Statement on Trump as ‘Perversion.’ " As Rudy Giuliani so correctly noted : "This is the first case ever where someone has to prove his innocence..." • Dave Goldiner and Chris Sommerfeldt of the New York Daily News wrote that Rudy Giuliani slammed Robert Mueller’s statement Wednesday as a “perversion” and suggested the special counsel overstepped his bounds by asserting he would have cleared President Donald Trump of criminal wrongdoing if he could. The ex-New York mayor-turned-personal Trump lawyer said Mueller should have stayed silent and let his report speak for itself, instead of expanding on his decision to not exonerate the president of obstruction during a rare public appearance at Justice Department headquarters. “He and his team have buffaloed all of you into accepting a perversion of the norm,” Giuliani told the New York Daily News. “This is the first case ever where someone has to prove his innocence.” • Giuliani portrayed Trump as a victim of an out-of-control prosecutor in Mueller, a theme that may shape the #MAGA response to Mueller’s statement. “Indecision for a prosecutor is a decision. Prosecutors don’t conclude you didn’t do it,” Giuliani said. “You normally cannot prove a negative." Giuliani told Fox News earlier on Thursday : "The real question is to whether it’s ethical at all for him to be discussing it or writing about (whether to clear Trump).” • In an article published in TheHill, Alan Dershowitz compared Mueller to former FBI Director James Comey, who has been widely criticized for his statements about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal in 2016 : “By implying that President Trump may have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. By putting his thumb -- indeed, his elbow -- on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias,” Dershowitz wrote. “He also has distorted the role of a prosecutor in our justice system.” • • • GINGRICH SAID WHAT WE ALL KNOW. That a special prosecutor can, and has in the past, noted when Presidents were guilty of crimes. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News on Wednesday that outgoing special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a "convoluted, complex" report that did not conclude anything about President Donald Trump, but there was not any reason he could not have said the President was guilty of wrongdoing if the evidence presented itself. "You know, Ken Starr issued an independent counsel report on Bill Clinton," Gingrich told Fox News' 'America's Newsroom' after Mueller offered his statement concerning his extensive report on the President. "He used the word guilty 11 times. Six of them were obstruction of justice. It wasn't complicated. He just said you asked me to report, here is my report. He is guilty." If Mueller had used the word guilty once, "we would be in a different world," Gingrich added. "He didn't come out and say President Trump is guilty of anything, where Starr said Clinton was guilty of 11 counts. That is a major difference where we are today." Meanwhile, Gingrich noted millions of dollars were spent and 500 people were interviewed by "left-wing lawyers that didn't like Trump," but they did not find sufficient evidence against Trump. "At some point in the hunt you have to decide there are no deer in the forest, and the fact is, they couldn't prove anything," Gingrich said. "They ought to relax and just say you know, in the absence of proof in America, you are innocent. Therefore, by definition, President Trump is innocent." • • • WILL THERE EVER BE A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will decide that -- or be ousted by dissident Democrats if they become too unruly to accept her leadership. • Liberty Headlines wrote on Thursday that : "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled unwillingness Wednesday to take a leap that many on the political left have already made -- impeachment. Investigating and potentially impeaching Trump dominated Capitol Hill hall talk on Wednesday, both behind closed doors where influential Democrats urge starting an inquiry and out loud among progressives demanding action. Pelosi didn’t utter the word Wednesday in her terse five-paragraph statement issued two hours after Mueller left it to Congress to investigate Trump further. 'The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power...The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy. The American people must have the truth.” • Mueller said he didn't have the power to indict the President : “Under long-standing department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited.” • House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York saw the statement as a charge to Congress to look further into allegations that, among other things, Trump may have obstructed justice....House committees have been pursuing different allegations from the Mueller report. Judiciary has issued subpoenas to former White House aides Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson. It also wants to hear from former White House counsel Don McGahn, who ignored a Judiciary Committee subpoena to testify. The House Ways and Means Committee has issued subpoenas for Trump’s tax returns, which he refuses to turn over. The House Oversight Committee is seeking documents from Trump’s accounting firm. Trump’s attorneys challenged the subpoena but a federal judge last week ruled against them. They plan to appeal. How far Congress’ investigations go will depend largely on two factors : Pelosi’s directives and political reality." • Liberty Headlines lays out the political reality : "Democrats control 235 of the House’s 435 seats. It would probably take 218 votes to approve an article of impeachment. Thirty-one Democrats elected in 2018 represent districts that Trump won in 2016, and Republicans see several more Democratic seats as vulnerable. Most of the incumbents with potentially tight races have been clear that the public wants to hear about economics, health care, immigrant and other issues that impact their day to day lives -- not impeachment. Among them is Representative Lucy McBath, a Georgia Democrat who won her seat last year with 50.5% in a district Trump narrowly won in 2016. She did not mention impeachment : 'We need the full (Mueller) report and its underlying evidence, and we need this Administration to stop stonewalling Congress. This blanket policy of refusing to comply with congressional oversight must end.'....Representative TJ Cox, a California Democrat who won his seat last year by less than a thousand votes, said though investigations should proceed he was not ready to call for impeachment proceedings : 'The troubling conclusions of the Mueller report are the beginning of a discussion on how to protect our democracy, not the end. And it’s why it is important for Congress to continue the work of investigating, asking the tough questions, and holding the administration accountable.' " • Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House. But convicting the President requires a trial by the Senate, and support of two-thirds of Senators to remove him from office • BUT, says Liberty Headlines : "The other uncertainty about the Democrats’ path rests largely with Pelosi and her allies. The speaker told San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club Wednesday that only 38 House Democrats have called for an impeachment inquiry. But pressure is growing. Last week, some House leaders tried to convince Pelosi to consider impeachment; she refused but called a special meeting of House Democrats Wednesday to discuss the road ahead. Afterward, she said Trump was engaged in a cover-up. She continued to warn that there are political risks, though, and Wednesday her tone did not change." • • • DEAR READERS, if you need more proof that there is NO EVIDENCE of obstruction, just read again the Op-Ed by David Leonhardt published by the New York Times this morning (above). The NYT knows and Leonhardt knows that there is NO EVIDENCE of obstruction by President Trump, but they are still trying to finesse an impeachment proceeding in the hope that it will bring down Trump because #NeverTrump Republicans will bolt to their side. I rarely agree with David Leonhardt -- and in his Op-Ed, he is not saying that Trump is innocent of obstructing justice -- but he does nail Mueller for being part of the problem in trying to say nothing. Leonhardt knows that Mueller can't call for impeachment by saying he has evidence that the President obstructed justice because there is no evidence, and Leonhardt knows Mueller didn't have the honorable grace to say he has no evidence. The NYT and David Leonhardt are carrying water for the Deep State -- they are messengers just as Mueller is -- and their endgame is to destroy Trump in any way possible. • As I've been saying in our blog for two years, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. We can take that to the bank because if there were evidence, Mueller would be shouting it from the rooftops. • Speaker Pelosi, the political animal, is right when she says the House Democrat majority must find the evidence or shut up. She would like to impeach Trump but she knows that there is NO EVIDENCE !!! ​Chuck Todd, the twit who now hosts Meet the Press, said it last night on NBC Nightly News -- when Pelosi agrees to allow impeachment proceedings to begin, we will know there is evidence. Of course, he tried to infer by his body language that there is evidence, but like Mueller, if he had even an inkling of it, he would be screaming for impeachment. • Pelosi is trying to save what's left of the Democrat Party, but most Democrats are too impeachment obsessed to see it. Sher Zieve quoted Proverbs : “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him : haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers” __Proverbs 6:16-19. • It is a perfect description of the Democrat Party. We are not dealing with normal people on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Margaret Thatcher's Bruges Speech Vision Is the Best Advice for Britain and the EU Today

WITH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS OUT OF THE WAY, BREXIT IS BACK. German Chancellor Merkel and French President Macron are arguing about who will replace Jean-Claude Juncker as the next European Commission president -- anybody, including Felix the Cat will be an improvement -- but Brexit cannot be ignored, and the UK's candidates to be Conservative replacement for Prime Minister Theresa May are all flexing get-tough-with the-EU muscles. • • • IS A 'NO-DEAL' BREXIT POSSIBLE? It is, if there is no agreement that the British PArliament approves by October 31. At least that's the standard EU answer, but we need to remember that this is virgin territory and a lot is being made up as they go along. • The UK Express wrote on Sunday that : "EU WARNED: Brussels told to be READY for no deal Brexit -- 'Britain will do just fine!' THE European Union has been warned if it does not renegotiate the Brexit deal then Britain will instead 'thrive and prosper' under a no deal scenario, political commentator Nile Gardiner has warned." Gardiner, Margaret Thatcher’s former advisor, insisted Britain will do “just fine” under a no deal Brexit as he called for the next Conservative leader to take a tough stance on the European Union. Speaking to CNN, Gardiner said : “It think that the next British Government will seek a renegotiation of the EU withdrawal agreement with Brussels. If the EU is not willing to renegotiate then undoubtedly I think we are heading for a no deal scenario." Gardiner added : "But Britain has been preparing for the possibility of a no deal now for the last two years. I think much of Europe has been prepared for the prospect of a no deal and I expect that under a no deal scenario, Britain will do just fine actually as the world’s fifth largest economy." Gardiner stated that Britain is : "The fastest growing major economy in Europe today and I think that under a no deal scenario Britain will then strike trade deals with countries across the world including the United States. And I think Britain will continue to thrive and prosper under a no deal scenario.” • Nile Gardiner, who is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, told CNN that Prime Minister May’s handling of Brexit was “absolutely disastrous” and insisted she was right to resign. Gardiner said Boris Johnson, who is the frontrunner for next Tory leader, is likely to strike a “very powerful” and “more robust” relationship with US President Donald Trump. Speaking about the future of Britain, Gardiner, a politics expert said : “You could see a new British Conservative Government more closely aligned actually with Washington than it is with Brussels. So, I would expect to see a particularly strong US-UK special relationship post-Theresa May.” • The Express noted that : "The US President, who is scheduled to travel to the UK in the first week of June for an official state visit, claimed her decision is for the 'good of her country.' Mr Trump added : "I feel bad for Theresa, I like her very much, she is a good woman. She worked very hard. She is very strong. She decided to do something that some people were surprised at, some people were not. It is for the good of her country. But, I like her very much. In fact, I will be seeing her in two weeks.” • Theresa May resigned as Prime Minister last Friday, after a meeting with the 1922 Committee Chair Sir Graham Brady, following a Cabinet revolt over her latest Brexit plan and the delay of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. PM May gave a moving speech outlining her resignation, saying while standing outside 10 Downing Street : "It is and will always remain a matter of deep regret to me that I have not been able to deliver Brexit." • • • MARGARET THATCHER'S BRUGES SPEECH. It was September 20, 1988. Addressing the College of Europe in Bruges, Prime Minister Thatcher gave what has become known as "the Bruges Speech." Margaret Thatcher’s historic Bruges Speech provided inspiration for a generation of Eurosceptics, and it is as relevant 31 years after it was delivered as it was in 1988. Mrs. Thatcher said the European Community could only succeed if sovereign states were allowed to retain their independence. She said any attempts to consolidate power with Brussels as the capital of a “European conglomerate” would ultimately fail, arguing instead that “success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre.” And she said while the United States of America had thrived to become the world’s biggest superpower, Europe’s complex history and distinctive nations meant a ‘United States of Europe’ would never work. She said: “Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity : “It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.” It was an uncompromising statement of Thatcher's vision for the European Community -- which would later become the EU. She urged against measures which could “suppress nationhood” and ultimately lead to a European superstate. Faced with what she saw as a power grab by the then European Commission chief, Jacques Delors, Mrs Thatcher intervened in an effort to keep the European project on track and outlined a series of guiding principles which she hoped would “chart the way ahead.” Three decades later, Margaret Thatcher's important lessons laid out in the Bruges Speech are especially relevant as the EU engages in a major debate over which direction Europe should take next. The British Prime Minister wasn't trying to torpedo the European project. Her aim was to save it. Thatcher herself called it "far from ‘anti-European.' " BUT, Mrs. Thatcher, who campaigned to remain in the European Community in 1975, also warned against the European Community becoming a “narrow-minded, inward-looking club” which failed to grasp trade opportunities elsewhere in the world. And, an August 2018 poll by YouGov found that the British ranked the chance for the UK “to make its own trade deals with countries outside the EU” as their second-highest priority in the Brexit talks. • • • A PAPER BY THE AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS CENTER. Kai Weiss, the Research and Outreach Coordinator at the libertarian Austrian Economics Center, wrote a paper for the 30th anniversary of the Thatched Bruges Speech what was published by Mises Wire on September 20, 2018. Weiss said : “Today, with the next debate on which way the European Union is heading, we should keep in mind what Lady Thatcher said.” His analysis of the Bruges Speech was this : "Europe is today in the midst of a debate on the future of the European Union. It is not the first one: back before the Maastricht Treaty was passed in 1992, political leaders were discussing as well about where the EU, or as it was called back then, the European Community, was heading. Should it go the way of the 'ever closer union,' or revert back to the fundamental principles? There was a split going through Europe on questions like this. This was the situation in which the British prime minister Margaret Thatcher found herself on September 20, 1988, when she stepped in front of a crowd at the College of Europe in Bruges. 'I decided that the time had come to strike out against what I saw as the erosion of democracy by centralization and bureaucracy, and to set out an alternative view of Europe’s future,' she would later write in her memoirs The Downing Street Years. The result was today’s infamous yet magnificent ‘Bruges Speech,’ which was far from being anti-EU, but a stark warning against Brussels, and an attempt to save the EU in the wake of federalists demanding more and more integration. This week, we are celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of this speech. And, as it turns out, it has stood the test of time shockingly well. Indeed, many of the warnings that Thatcher put forth are even truer today....In Thatcher’s vision, the European heritage is of crucial importance. She tries to teach us that Europe can be proud of its history. While wars did play too big of a role in the past, Europe is still the continent in which the ideal of individual liberty prevailed before anywhere else. It is the continent which brought forth many of the greatest innovations, artistic pieces, literary works, and intellectuals the world has ever seen. Great Britain has played an instrumental part in the European story, Thatcher makes clear : 'Our links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history.' Britain has contributed mightily to European history and its values with the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, and many other major steps on the path to freedom. But so has Britain benefitted from its link to mainland Europe, for instance having “borrowed that concept of the rule of law which marks out a civilized society from barbarism.' This special relationship, says Thatcher, must be retained. Today this is even truer: on the eve of Brexit, it is of the utmost importance to keep this mutual understanding between the two sides intact, regardless of whether Britain is in- or outside of the EU. Despite the millennia- long European history of (much) success, we need to remember that it is the long history of Europe that is important, not the EU (the latter being only sixty years old) : 'Europe is not the creation of the Treaty of Rome. Nor is the European idea the property of any group or institution.' Not everyone who criticizes the EU is automatically anti-European -- an important point in today’s world in which Europe and the EU are most of the time used synonymously. Rather, the European Union is a tool which can be used to promote the values Europeans defended so often in the twentieth century : the EU 'is not an end in itself,' but rather 'a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people.'....What is the way to future prosperity? For Thatcher, it is 'to deregulate and remove the constraints on trade.' It means 'action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention.' instead of increasing centralization and regulatory efforts, Europe should remain a champion of free enterprise. History -- and the Soviet Union, should be enough proof that centralized decision-making doesn’t work. The EU should not only be pro-trade to the inside, however. Instead, it should be globally oriented : 'Europe never would have prospered and never will prosper as a narrow-minded, inward-looking club,' she warned. Free trade with the outside world -- something that the EU is lacking to this day (while forcing all member states to comply with its trade policy), is one of the most important competences of Brussels : 'we must ensure that our approach to world trade is consistent with the liberalisation we preach at home. For this, a strong relationship with America is needed. For Margaret Thatcher, the US was indeed to a certain extent part of Europe, 'in the sense that she shares a common heritage of civilised values and a love of liberty.' It is a natural fit between the two sides of the Atlantic, since the core values are shared with one another. In the face of today’s trade wars and agressions on both sides, it would be all the worse if this relationship would be squandered in just a few months’ time....If there is any argument with which the prime minister hit home continuously, it was her stark opposition to a centralized federal state, ruled by the Brussels bureaucracy. The idea of a United States of Europe is a utopia that 'never comes, because we know we should not like it if it did.' Instead of politicians trying to create a single European identity, the mantra should be unity in diversity : 'Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.' In Margaret Thatcher’s opinion, the EU should stay a supranational organization which is based on voluntary cooperation between sovereign states, rather than one federal state. She perhaps felt alone with this opinion when she presented it thirty years ago. But today, with another debate on the future of the European Union -- and even farther down the road of the 'ever closer union,' we should keep in mind what Lady Thatcher said, and 'to raise the flag of national sovereignty, free trade and free enterprise -- and fight.' Indeed, as the prime minister wrote in her memoirs, 'if there was ever an idea whose time had come and gone it was surely that of the artificial mega-state.' • • • THE BRUGES SPEECH TEXT. Today, as the UK tries to figure out who it is and what it wants vis-à-vis the European Union, and as the EU tries to figure out how to deal with the populist-nationalist uprising that threatens to destroy the EU altogether, reading Margaret Thatcher's Bruges Speech is the best place to start in trying to understand the issues and values at stake. Here is the entire Bruges Speech. • 1988 September 20. Margaret Thatcher Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech") : "Prime Minister, Rector, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen : First, may I thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to Bruges and in very different circumstances from my last visit shortly after the Zeebrugge Ferry disaster, when Belgian courage and the devotion of your doctors and nurses saved so many British lives. And second, may I say what a pleasure it is to speak at the College of Europe under the distinguished leadership of its Professor Lukaszewski Rector. The College plays a vital and increasingly important part in the life of the European Community. And third, may I also thank you for inviting me to deliver my address in this magnificent hall. What better place to speak of Europe's future than a building which so gloriously recalls the greatness that Europe had already achieved over 600 years ago. Your city of Bruges has many other historical associations for us in Britain. Geoffrey Chaucer was a frequent visitor here. And the first book to be printed in the English language was produced here in Bruges by William Caxton. BRITAIN AND EUROPE. Mr. Chairman, you have invited me to speak on the subject of Britain and Europe. Perhaps I should congratulate you on your courage. If you believe some of the things said and written about my views on Europe, it must seem rather like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of peaceful coexistence! I want to start by disposing of some myths about my country, Britain, and its relationship with Europe and to do that, I must say something about the identity of Europe itself. Europe is not the creation of the Treaty of Rome. Nor is the European idea the property of any group or institution. We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation. Our links to the rest of Europe, the continent of Europe, have been the dominant factor in our history. For three hundred years, we were part of the Roman Empire and our maps still trace the straight lines of the roads the Romans built. Our ancestors -- Celts, Saxons, Danes -- came from the Continent. Our nation was -- in that favourite Community word -- 'restructured' under the Norman and Angevin rule in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This year, we celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the glorious revolution in which the British crown passed to Prince William of Orange and Queen Mary. Visit the great churches and cathedrals of Britain, read our literature and listen to our language : all bear witness to the cultural riches which we have drawn from Europe and other Europeans from us. We in Britain are rightly proud of the way in which, since Magna Carta in the year 1215, we have pioneered and developed representative institutions to stand as bastions of freedom. And proud too of the way in which for centuries Britain was a home for people from the rest of Europe who sought sanctuary from tyranny. But we know that without the European legacy of political ideas we could not have achieved as much as we did. From classical and mediaeval thought we have borrowed that concept of the rule of law which marks out a civilised society from barbarism. And on that idea of Christendom, to which the Rector referred -- Christendom for long synonymous with Europe -- with its recognition of the unique and spiritual nature of the individual, on that idea, we still base our belief in personal liberty and other human rights. Too often, the history of Europe is described as a series of interminable wars and quarrels. Yet from our perspective today surely what strikes us most is our common experience. For instance, the story of how Europeans explored and colonised -- and yes, without apology -- civilised much of the world is an extraordinary tale of talent, skill and courage. But we British have in a very special way contributed to Europe. Over the centuries we have fought to prevent Europe from falling under the dominance of a single power. We have fought and we have died for her freedom. Only miles from here, in Belgium, lie the bodies of 120,000 British soldiers who died in the First World War. Had it not been for that willingness to fight and to die, Europe would have been united long before now -- but not in liberty, not in justice. It was British support to resistance movements throughout the last War that helped to keep alive the flame of liberty in so many countries until the day of liberation. Tomorrow, King Baudouin will attend a service in Brussels to commemorate the many brave Belgians who gave their lives in service with the Royal Air Force -- a sacrifice which we shall never forget. And it was from our island fortress that the liberation of Europe itself was mounted. And still, today, we stand together. Nearly 70,000 British servicemen are stationed on the mainland of Europe. All these things alone are proof of our commitment to Europe's future. The European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one. We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, people who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities. Nor should we forget that European values have helped to make the United States of America into the valiant defender of freedom which she has become. EUROPE'S FUTURE. This is no arid chronicle of obscure facts from the dust-filled libraries of history. It is the record of nearly two thousand years of British involvement in Europe, cooperation with Europe and contribution to Europe, contribution which today is as valid and as strong as ever. Yes, we have looked also to wider horizons -- as have others -- and thank goodness for that, because Europe never would have prospered and never will prosper as a narrow-minded, inward-looking club. The European Community belongs to all its members. It must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members. And let me be quite clear. Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community. That is not to say that our future lies only in Europe, but nor does that of France or Spain or, indeed, of any other member. The Community is not an end in itself. Nor is it an institutional device to be constantly modified according to the dictates of some abstract intellectual concept. Nor must it be ossified by endless regulation. The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations. We Europeans cannot afford to waste our energies on internal disputes or arcane institutional debates. They are no substitute for effective action. Europe has to be ready both to contribute in full measure to its own security and to compete commercially and industrially in a world in which success goes to the countries which encourage individual initiative and enterprise, rather than those which attempt to diminish them. This evening I want to set out some guiding principles for the future which I believe will ensure that Europe does succeed, not just in economic and defence terms but also in the quality of life and the influence of its peoples. WILLING COOPERATION BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. My first guiding principle is this : willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community. To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality. Some of the founding fathers of the Community thought that the United States of America might be its model. But the whole history of America is quite different from Europe. People went there to get away from the intolerance and constraints of life in Europe. They sought liberty and opportunity; and their strong sense of purpose has, over two centuries, helped to create a new unity and pride in being American, just as our pride lies in being British or Belgian or Dutch or German. I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the world. But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy. Indeed, it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. Certainly we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country; for these have been the source of Europe's vitality through the centuries. ENCOURAGING CHANGE. My second guiding principle is this: Community policies must tackle present problems in a practical way, however difficult that may be. If we cannot reform those Community policies which are patently wrong or ineffective and which are rightly causing public disquiet, then we shall not get the public support for the Community's future development. And that is why the achievements of the European Council in Brussels last February are so important. It was not right that half the total Community budget was being spent on storing and disposing of surplus food. Now those stocks are being sharply reduced. It was absolutely right to decide that agriculture's share of the budget should be cut in order to free resources for other policies, such as helping the less well-off regions and helping training for jobs. It was right too to introduce tighter budgetary discipline to enforce these decisions and to bring the Community spending under better control. And those who complained that the Community was spending so much time on financial detail missed the point. You cannot build on unsound foundations, financial or otherwise, and it was the fundamental reforms agreed last winter which paved the way for the remarkable progress which we have made since on the Single Market. But we cannot rest on what we have achieved to date. For example, the task of reforming the Common Agricultural Policy is far from complete. Certainly, Europe needs a stable and efficient farming industry. But the CAP has become unwieldy, inefficient and grossly expensive. Production of unwanted surpluses safeguards neither the income nor the future of farmers themselves. We must continue to pursue policies which relate supply more closely to market requirements, and which will reduce over-production and limit costs. Of course, we must protect the villages and rural areas which are such an important part of our national life, but not by the instrument of agricultural prices. Tackling these problems requires political courage. The Community will only damage itself in the eyes of its own people and the outside world if that courage is lacking. EUROPE OPEN TO ENTERPRISE. My third guiding principle is the need for Community policies which encourage enterprise. If Europe is to flourish and create the jobs of the future, enterprise is the key. The basic framework is there: the Treaty of Rome itself was intended as a Charter for Economic Liberty. But that it is not how it has always been read, still less applied. The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70's and 80's is that central planning and detailed control do not work and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results. The aim of a Europe open to enterprise is the moving force behind the creation of the Single European Market in 1992. By getting rid of barriers, by making it possible for companies to operate on a European scale, we can best compete with the United States, Japan and other new economic powers emerging in Asia and elsewhere. And that means action to free markets, action to widen choice, action to reduce government intervention. Our aim should not be more and more detailed regulation from the centre: it should be to deregulate and to remove the constraints on trade. Britain has been in the lead in opening its markets to others. The City of London has long welcomed financial institutions from all over the world, which is why it is the biggest and most successful financial centre in Europe. We have opened our market for telecommunications equipment, introduced competition into the market services and even into the network itself -- steps which others in Europe are only now beginning to face. In air transport, we have taken the lead in liberalisation and seen the benefits in cheaper fares and wider choice. Our coastal shipping trade is open to the merchant navies of Europe. We wish we could say the same of many other Community members. Regarding monetary matters, let me say this. The key issue is not whether there should be a European Central Bank. The immediate and practical requirements are : • to implement the Community's commitment to free movement of capital -- in Britain, we have it; • and to the abolition through the Community of exchange controls—in Britain, we abolished them in 1979; • to establish a genuinely free market in financial services in banking, insurance, investment; • and to make greater use of the ecu. This autumn, Britain is issuing ecu-denominated Treasury bills and hopes to see other Community governments increasingly do the same. These are the real requirements because they are what the Community business and industry need if they are to compete effectively in the wider world. And they are what the European consumer wants, for they will widen his choice and lower his costs. It is to such basic practical steps that the Community's attention should be devoted. When those have been achieved and sustained over a period of time, we shall be in a better position to judge the next move. It is the same with frontiers between our countries. Of course, we want to make it easier for goods to pass through frontiers. Of course, we must make it easier for people to travel throughout the Community. But it is a matter of plain common sense that we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants. That was underlined graphically only three weeks ago when one brave German customs officer, doing his duty on the frontier between Holland and Germany, struck a major blow against the terrorists of the IRA. And before I leave the subject of a single market, may I say that we certainly do not need new regulations which raise the cost of employment and make Europe's labour market less flexible and less competitive with overseas suppliers. If we are to have a European Company Statute, it should contain the minimum regulations. And certainly we in Britain would fight attempts to introduce collectivism and corporatism at the European level -- although what people wish to do in their own countries is a matter for them. EUROPE OPEN TO THE WORLD. My fourth guiding principle is that Europe should not be protectionist. The expansion of the world economy requires us to continue the process of removing barriers to trade, and to do so in the multilateral negotiations in the GATT. It would be a betrayal if, while breaking down constraints on trade within Europe, the Community were to erect greater external protection. We must ensure that our approach to world trade is consistent with the liberalisation we preach at home. We have a responsibility to give a lead on this, a responsibility which is particularly directed towards the less developed countries. They need not only aid; more than anything, they need improved trading opportunities if they are to gain the dignity of growing economic strength and independence. EUROPE AND DEFENCE. My last guiding principle concerns the most fundamental issue -- the European countries' role in defence. Europe must continue to maintain a sure defence through NATO. There can be no question of relaxing our efforts, even though it means taking difficult decisions and meeting heavy costs. It is to NATO that we owe the peace that has been maintained over 40 years. The fact is things are going our way: the democratic model of a free enterprise society has proved itself superior; freedom is on the offensive, a peaceful offensive the world over, for the first time in my life-time. We must strive to maintain the United States' commitment to Europe's defence. And that means recognising the burden on their resources of the world role they undertake and their point that their allies should bear the full part of the defence of freedom, particularly as Europe grows wealthier. Increasingly, they will look to Europe to play a part in out-of-area defence, as we have recently done in the Gulf. NATO and the Western European Union have long recognised where the problems of Europe's defence lie, and have pointed out the solutions. And the time has come when we must give substance to our declarations about a strong defence effort with better value for money. It is not an institutional problem. It is not a problem of drafting. It is something at once simpler and more profound : it is a question of political will and political courage, of convincing people in all our countries that we cannot rely for ever on others for our defence, but that each member of the Alliance must shoulder a fair share of the burden. We must keep up public support for nuclear deterrence, remembering that obsolete weapons do not deter, hence the need for modernisation. We must meet the requirements for effective conventional defence in Europe against Soviet forces which are constantly being modernised. We should develop the WEU, not as an alternative to NATO, but as a means of strengthening Europe's contribution to the common defence of the West. Above all, at a time of change and uncertainly in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we must preserve Europe's unity and resolve so that whatever may happen, our defence is sure. At the same time, we must negotiate on arms control and keep the door wide open to cooperation on all the other issues covered by the Helsinki Accords. But let us never forget that our way of life, our vision and all we hope to achieve, is secured not by the rightness of our cause but by the strength of our defence. On this, we must never falter, never fail. THE BRITISH APPROACH. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is not enough just to talk in general terms about a European vision or ideal. If we believe in it, we must chart the way ahead and identify the next steps. And that is what I have tried to do this evening. This approach does not require new documents: they are all there, the North Atlantic Treaty, the Revised Brussels Treaty and the Treaty of Rome, texts written by far-sighted men, a remarkable Belgian -- Paul Henri Spaak -- among them. However far we may want to go, the truth is that we can only get there one step at a time. And what we need now is to take decisions on the next steps forward, rather than let ourselves be distracted by Utopian goals. Utopia never comes, because we know we should not like it if it did. Let Europe be a family of nations, understanding each other better, appreciating each other more, doing more together but relishing our national identity no less than our common European endeavour. Let us have a Europe which plays its full part in the wider world, which looks outward not inward, and which preserves that Atlantic community -- that Europe on both sides of the Atlantic -- which is our noblest inheritance and our greatest strength. May I thank you for the privilege of delivering this lecture in this great hall to this great college ." • • • DEAR READERS, as Isaac Newton said, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Margaret Thatcher is one of those giants. Europe and Britain would do well to follow her 1988 Bruges Speech advice today.