Posted on

Bibi1581 Blog 10/16/2018: Morning Edition

Disclosure: European Union laws require that visitors from its domain must be given information about cookies used and data collected on our blog. In many cases, these laws also require that they need to consent to the use of the cookies. does not collect data on our visitors using cookies, and it is not responsible if third parties have placed them in our content without permission. Please control cookies using your browser settings.






1…………> Today’s White House Tweets: President Trump


16 minutes ago

Is it really possible that Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie was paid by Simpson and GPS Fusion for work done on the Fake Dossier, and who was used as a Pawn in this whole SCAM (WITCH HUNT), is still working for the Department of Justice????? Can this really be so?????

24 minutes ago

“Conflict between Glen Simpson’s testimony to another House Panel about his contact with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. Ohr was used by Simpson and Steele as a Back Channel to get (FAKE) Dossier to FBI. Simpson pleading Fifth.” Catherine Herridge. Where is Jeff Sessions?

38 minutes ago

“Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!

2 hours ago

Incredible number just out, 7,036,000 job openings. Astonishing – it’s all working! Stock Market up big on tremendous potential of USA. Also, Strong Profits. We are Number One in World, by far!

2 hours ago

For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter). Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!

3 hours ago

“8X more new manufacturing jobs now than with Obama.” @cvpayne

3 hours ago

The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!

3 hours ago

“Op-Ed praises Trump Administrations efforts at the Border.” @FoxNews The Washington Examiner States, “Finally, the government has taken steps to stop releasing unaccompanied minors to criminals and traffickers.” This was done by the Obama Administration!

3 hours ago

Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!

3 hours ago

Now that her claims of being of Indian heritage have turned out to be a scam and a lie, Elizabeth Warren should apologize for perpetrating this fraud against the American Public. Harvard called her “a person of color” (amazing con), and would not have taken her otherwise!

  • 4 hours ago

    Pocahontas (the bad version), sometimes referred to as Elizabeth Warren, is getting slammed. She took a bogus DNA test and it showed that she may be 1/1024, far less than the average American. Now Cherokee Nation denies her, “DNA test is useless.” Even they don’t want her. Phony!






2…………> Stop “Activists Judges”: AG Sessions Statement



The judiciary is given respect from the Executive and the Legislative branches. That is why the two political branches follow and enforce the rulings of the Judicial branch—even when we disagree. But judges are not sent from Olympus. They are not all-knowing, and the Founders did not establish the federal judiciary to be the final arbiter of all critical questions in our society. And so, the Judicial branch must show significant respect for the Executive branch and Congress. I fear, in a variety of ways, that honor has been eroding. You are all probably familiar with the term “judicial activism.”

An activist judge has traditionally been defined as one who goes beyond the law in a given case and injects his or her personal opinion or policy preferences into judicial rulings. This improperly takes the policymaking prerogative away from the democratically accountable branches. One argument for activism was advocated openly by President Obama when he declared his judicial nominees must judge with “empathy.” It is a seductive argument. But whatever empathy is, it’s more akin to emotion, bias, and politics than law. Such an approach is a direct threat to law, and since law and law alone protects our liberties, it’s a threat to our freedom and the democratic process. We at the DOJ fight against this heresy relentlessly. The rule of law is more than an outcome. It is a formal process that creates an opportunity for a jury or a court to produce a just outcome—and a just outcome may not be the politically popular one. Judicial activism is therefore a threat to our representative government and the liberty it secures. In effect, activist advocates want judges who will do for them what they have been unable to achieve at the ballot box. It is fundamentally undemocratic. Too many judges believe it is their right, their duty, to act upon their sympathies and policy preferences. In the recent DACA litigation, for example, a judge last year told one of our DOJ litigators, “You can’t come into court to espouse a position that is heartless.” Not illegal. Not unlawful. Heartless.







3…………> From Distant Stars: Zircon


An incredibly rare mineral known as reidite was found deep within the long-buried Woodleigh Crater near Shark Bay, approximately 500 miles north of Perth, Australia.

The reidite is only formed under the extreme pressure created when rocks from outer space slam into the Earth’s crust, and the current discovery is only the sixth time the mineral has been discovered on Earth.

Previous research estimated the crater to be between 40–80 miles in diameter, so if Woodleigh is found to have a diameter of more than 65 miles, it would be classified as the most massive impact crater in Australia.

“There are not many impact craters on earth that are larger than 100km in diameter,” Dr Cavosie said.

“The significance is that once they get to be much larger than 100km in diameter they enter a class of impact event that is large enough to cause mass extinctions and influence biological evolution. For instance, the large impact crater in Mexico that is contributed to causing the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is 180km in diameter.And that one is not even twice as large as what Woodleigh may be” he explained.







4…………> “Stormy Out”: Trump Wins



A US judge has dismissed adult film actress Stormy Daniels’ completely qrotesque defamation lawsuit against President  Trump and ordered her to pay his lawyer’s fees, saying free speech laws protected a tweet the President had written referring to her. In his ruling, Judge S James Otero said Mr Trump’s tweet is protected by freedom of speech.

“The Court agrees with Mr. Trump’s argument because the tweet in question constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ generally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States,” Judge Otero wrote.

“The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.” Charles Harder, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, hailed the ruling as a “total victory.” “No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than a total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels,” Mr. Harder said in a statement.







5…………> “ Poverty Is Forbidden”: Hungary “



“Habitual residence in a public space is forbidden,” the Hungarian Constitution now reads, freshly amended by Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his social policy experts that have long wanted to solve the problem that has been humanity from the dawn of time: i.e. institute a legal ban on homelessness.

Both the government and several local authorities have repeatedly failed to push through such a law, being stopped both at the Constitutional Court and most recently Hungary’s Curia, the Supreme Court, in 2016. This June, parliament passed a constitutional amendment banning homelessness, making an appeal in the Constitutional Court no longer possible. Should the US be next to adapt such a legislation? 



Please visit to read Bibi1581 historic blogs

Posted on

Bibi1581 Blog For 10/04/2018: Morning Edition

Disclosure: European Union laws require that visitors from its domain must be given information about cookies used and data collected on our blog. In many cases, these laws also require that they need to consent to the use of the cookies. does not collect data on our visitors using cookies, and it is not responsible if third parties have placed them in our content without permission. Please control cookies using your browser settings.






1…………Today’s White House Tweets: President Trump



3 hours ago

This is now the 7th. time the FBI has investigated Judge Kavanaugh. If we made it 100, it would still not be good enough for the Obstructionist Democrats.

  1. Retweeted

    10 Nov 2016

    While armed with the power of our Vote, we proudly & peacefully revolted Never doubt this was an American revolution #PresidentTrump

  2. This is a very important time in our country. Due Process, Fairness and Common Sense are now on trial!

  3. 3 hours ago

    Our country’s great First Lady, Melania, is doing really well in Africa. The people love her, and she loves them! It is a beautiful thing to see.

  4. 5 hours ago

    The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians. Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!


2…………> GRU Caught Red-Handed: PA


A grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania has indicted seven defendants, all officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, for computer hacking, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. According to the indictment, beginning in or around December 2014 and continuing until at least May 2018, the conspiracy conducted persistent and sophisticated computer intrusions affecting U.S. persons, corporate entities, international organizations, and their respective employees located around the world, based on their strategic interest to the Russian government. Among the goals of the conspiracy was to publicize stolen information as part of an influence and disinformation campaign designed to undermine, retaliate against, and otherwise delegitimize efforts of international anti-doping organizations and officials. The victims had publicly exposed a Russian state-sponsored athlete doping program and to damage the reputations of athletes around the world by falsely claiming that such athletes were using banned or performance-enhancing drugs. The charges were announced at a press conference by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Scott W. Brady, FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Cyber Division, Eric Welling, and Director General Mark Flynn for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

“State-sponsored hacking and disinformation campaigns pose serious threats to our security and our open society, but the Department of Justice is defending against them,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

“Today we are indicting seven GRU officers for multiple felonies each, including the use of hacking to spread the personal information of hundreds of anti-doping officials and athletes as part of an effort to distract from Russia’s state-sponsored doping program. The defendants in this case allegedly targeted multiple Americans and American entities for hacking, from our national anti-doping agency to the Westinghouse Electric Company near Pittsburgh. We are determined to achieve justice in these cases and we will continue to protect the American people from hackers and disinformation.”

The defendants, all Russian nationals and residents, are Aleksei Sergeyevich Morenets, 41, Evgenii Mikhaylovich, Serebriakov, 37, Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, 32, Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, 30, and Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, 27, who were each assigned to Military Unit 26165, and Oleg Mikhaylovich Sotnikov, 46, and Alexey Valerevich Minin, 46, who were also GRU officers. The indictment alleges that defendants Yermakov, Malyshev, Badin, and unidentified conspirators, often using fictitious personas and proxy servers, researched victims, sent spearphishing emails, and compiled, used, and monitored malware command and control servers. When the conspirators’ remote hacking efforts failed to capture log-in credentials, or if the accounts that were successfully compromised did not have the necessary access privileges for the sought-after information, teams of GRU technical intelligence officers, including Morenets, Serebriakov, Sotnikov, and Mini, traveled to locations around the world where targets were physically located. Using specialized equipment, and with the remote support of conspirators in Russia, including Yermakov, these close access teams hacked computer networks used by victim organizations or their personnel through Wi-Fi connections, including hotel Wi-Fi networks. After a successful hacking operation, the close access team transferred such access to conspirators in Russia for exploitation.







3…………> Hacker, Internet Abuser: MA


A Massachusetts man was sentenced today to 210 months in prison for conducting an extensive cyberstalking campaign against his former housemate, her family members, co-workers, friends, and others, including hacking into her online accounts, posting fraudulent sexual solicitations in their names, sending unsolicited images of child pornography, and making over 120 hoax bomb threats.

Ryan S. Lin, 25, formerly of Newton, Massachusetts, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts, who also ordered him to serve five years of supervised release following his prison sentence. Lin pleaded guilty in April 2018 to seven counts of cyberstalking, five counts of distribution of child pornography, nine counts of making hoax bomb threats, three counts of computer fraud and abuse and one count of aggravated identity theft. Lin was arrested in October 2017 and has been held in custody since. As part of Lin’s plea agreement, Lin agreed to be sentenced to a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 17 ½ years in prison. According to admissions made in connection with his plea and evidence presented at sentencing, from about May 2016 through Oct. 5, 2017, Lin engaged in an extensive cyberstalking campaign against a 25-year-old female victim. Lin, the victim’s former housemate, hacked into the victim’s online accounts and devices and stole the victim’s private photographs, personally identifiable information, and individual diary entries, which contained highly sensitive details about her medical, psychological and sexual history, and distributed the victim’s material to hundreds of people associated with her. Lin also created and posted fraudulent online profiles in the victim’s name and solicited rape fantasies, including “gang bang” and other sexual activities, which in turn caused men to show up at the victim’s home.

Lin also created a false social media profile in the name of the primary victim’s housemate in Waltham and posted that he was going to “shoot up” a school in Waltham, stating that there would be “blood and corpses everywhere.” These threats expanded beyond Waltham and became part of an extensive and prolonged pattern of threats to local schools, private homes, businesses, and other institutions in the broader community. Ultimately, Lin pleaded guilty to having made over 100 bomb threats, including 24 in a single day.









4…………> Activist Judges vs Trump & Co: Unconstitutional Overreach


A United States judge blocked the Trump administration from ending protections that have allowed 300,000 immigrants from four countries to live and work legally in the United States, saying the move would cause “irreparable harm and great hardship” to immigrants from Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador.

The  Judge cites Trump’s rhetoric against Mexican people and African countries, a ruling slammed by the Justice Department, saying it “usurps the role of the executive branch”.

US District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco granted a request for a preliminary injunction against the administration’s decision to end temporary protected status, or TPS, for people from Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador.








5…………> The Bashful Spies: China High-Tech Spooks



Servers databanks on Apple and Amazon computer networks had been scooped up illegally using tiny chips inserted on server circuit boards made by a company called Super Micro Computer, according to Bloomberg News following a year-long investigation by two of its reporters who uncovered evidence of the wide-ranging attack, which gave Beijing access to 30 large companies and many federal agencies.

Apple, Amazon and Super Micro have rejected Bloomberg’s claims, calling them “untrue”. In particular, saying it had found “no evidence” to support the allegations.


Please visit to read Bibi1581 historic blogs

Posted on

Bibi1581 Blog For 03/1/2018: Morning Edition

1…………> Remove “Dead Wood”: Chicago PD

“We’re in the middle of a serious crime fight, and we’re finally making real progress, so I don’t know how you can turn over crime strategy and every policing decision to some group of people who have absolutely no law enforcement experience,” Chicago’s police superintendent Eddie Johnson blasted efforts for greater civilian oversight of the department, citing “real progress” in fighting crime, just hours after at least eight people were reportedly wounded in overnight shootings, and short time later two men were slain on the city’s South Side of the “windy city”.

Is he the same politically correct Rahm Emanuel stooge who presided over the city that cuddled Mexican and US drug dealers, leading to nearly 4000 deaths during the infamous reign of our beloved 1st Muslim President, Grand Ayatollah Barack Obama.




2…………>Activist Judges: Separation Of Powers

Attorney General Speech in Front of the Federalist Society

Thank you, Professor Barnett, for that kind introduction, and thank you for your leadership at the Center for the Constitution.

I want to express my gratitude once again to the Federalist Society. For 35 years the Federalist Society has been an eloquent voice—perhaps the most eloquent voice—in defence of the rule of law.

That is an idea that always deserves—and always needs—defending.

Our Founders set up a marvellous system in which Congress writes our laws, the Executive Branch carries out our laws, and the Judiciary applies those laws to cases and controversies.

But this group knows well that there is always a serious risk that some judges will fail to respect our representatives in Congress and the Executive Branch and, instead, claim the power to set policy— power courts do not have.

For example, we recently had a judge tell one of our fine lawyers openly in court that “you can’t come into court to espouse a position that is so heartless.” Not illegal. Not unlawful. Heartless.

When I said publicly that it is not a judge’s job to decide what is “heartless,” –that it’s the job of the American people and its representatives to establish what the law is—this same judge then said that I “seem to think the courts cannot have an opinion.”

That’s wrong. Judges should issue opinions—legal opinions that pertain to the legal questions of the case, not to politics or policy or personal sentiment.

As Attorney General of the United States, I am shocked by the actions of certain judges who fail to respect the constitutional responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches. These branches are coequal and the courts are not superior.

Although the courts are empowered to decide specific cases and controversies, they do not have the final word on every policy dispute. On matters of policy, the branches that are directly accountable to the people must be given proper respect.

The new vehicle used by activist judges to direct executive policy is the issuing of nationwide injunctions—orders that block the entire United States government from enforcing an executive branch policy or executing a statute. And not just in one district, but nationwide. Not just to parties before the court, but against everyone, everywhere.

Courts have been calling them nationwide injunctions, but it would be just as fitting to call them non-party injunctions or limitless injunctions—since they bind all of America and grant relief to those who are not parties to the case. And they are usually preliminary injunctions, so they block important government actions before a trial.

Scholars have not found a single example of any judge issuing this type of extreme remedy in the first 175 years of the Republic. But President Trump has been hit with 22 in just over one year in office—on issues like DACA, the travel order, sanctuary cities, and the service of transgender people in the military.

While you may have heard differently, we believe that each of these executive actions is justified under the lawful powers of the chief executive. We are eager to defend these actions before the Supreme Court and are confident of a positive result.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already issued three extraordinary opinions by which they essentially reversed the vast majority of injunctions on the travel matter and granted an extraordinary writ of mandamus to stop a district court judge’s extreme discovery order.

It’s hard enough to manage this colossal government under the laws passed by Congress, much less facing a host of nationwide injunctions imposed by just one of 600 district judges—injunctions that result in great cost and turmoil.

It took more than 200 years for the first 22 nationwide injunctions to be issued. Now we’ve had 22 in just over one year. Clearly, something has changed.

It’s not as though there weren’t legal controversies before 1963. There were many. They were hotly contested. But nobody issued a nationwide, limitless injunction.

In 1897, in Scott v. Donald, for example, the Supreme Court found a law unconstitutional and even recognized that many others besides the plaintiff might be entitled to relief. But the Court issued an injunction that only prevented application of the law to the plaintiff.

During the New Deal controversies, courts concluded that one new tax was unconstitutional more than 1,600 times.

They issued more than 1,600 injunctions. But each of those injunctions applied only to the plaintiff, and the government collected the tax in good faith from more than 71,000 other taxpayers before the Supreme Court later held it unconstitutional.

In truth, this is a question of raw power—of who gets to decide the policy questions facing America: our elected representatives, our elected president or unelected lifetime-appointed federal judges.

Today, in effect, single district court judges are going beyond proper adjudicative bounds and making themselves super-legislators for the entire United States. 

That means that each of the more than 600 federal district judges in the United States can enjoin a law or regulation throughout the country—regardless of whether the other 599 disagree.

These limitless injunctions are contrary to the structure of our government, to the role of our judiciary, and they hamper or even block the proper functioning of our government—and they importantly and dramatically undermine the power of the people to control their government.

Let me share some concerns.

First of all, these nationwide injunctions encourage forum shopping. There is a reason why so many lawsuits have been filed against the Trump Administration in California and Hawaii, and why others were filed against the Obama Administration in Texas.

Litigants are looking for the most favourable forum in which to advance their goal of binding the whole nation—virtually always to secure a policy outcome that could never win at the ballot box or in the legislature.

Second, limitless injunctions cut off the discussion among lower courts.

We know that the first court to rule on an issue isn’t always right. Our federal judicial system is set up so that district courts in different parts of the country can consider issues at the same time. Those issues may then be appealed to one of the twelve circuit courts. When those circuit courts disagree, then the Supreme Court can take up the case.

Non-party injunctions short-circuit our system. The federal government is forced to appeal the first nationwide injunction, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court—which can take 18 months or longer. The effect is to cut off opportunities for other courts to weigh in.

And often these are preliminary injunctions, meaning a full case record has not been developed before the vast scope of the injunction directs the policy of the government.

Third, when a single district judge issues a nationwide injunction while similar cases are pending elsewhere, the first ruling by the first district judge somehow becomes authoritative while contrary rulings by equally authoritative district judges have no effect.

A telling example of this is the litigation over the rescission of the DACA policy.

Parties have sued in several courts across the country, meaning that several judges are considering the issue and will issue rulings that should be binding on the plaintiffs in those cases only.

Yet a federal judge in San Francisco and a federal judge in New York both felt they had the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, granting relief to others who were not parties to the case.

Then, just this week, a federal judge in Maryland held that the DACA rescission was lawful. So the plaintiffs in that Maryland case lost—but by the rulings of the San Francisco and New York judges, they obtained relief anyway.

Fourth, limitless injunctions circumvent the class certification process required by statute and by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That’s because they provide the benefits of class certification without the procedural protections.

Fifth, limitless injunctions create an absurd situation in which a plaintiff only needs to win once to stop a national law or policy—but the government needs to win every time to carry out its policies. That makes governing all but impossible.

My predecessor, Attorney General Robert Jackson faced a similar problem. In 1937, he lamented that “no administration can halt its policies…to seek the judiciaries’ views.

The government cannot learn the judge’s views until after the law is passed and then only after a lapse of years…Moreover, the judicial contribution is always negative. It may tell what cannot be done…but it never tells what can be done. Government by litigation has destroyed effective enforcement of public policy.”

He didn’t know how good he had it.

The Department of Justice has been fighting the unprecedented number of limitless injunctions in the courts, and we are well aware of what is at stake.

For example, last year, I made the common sense decision that our state and local law enforcement grants should go to states and cities that actually cooperate with federal law enforcement, including the enforcement of the immigration laws.

To receive this grant money, jurisdictions need to certify their compliance with the federal law barring restrictions on communications between state and local agencies and the Department of Homeland Security.

They have to allow our ICE agents access to detention facilities to meet with aliens and inquire into his or her right to remain in the United States.

And third, they have to provide at least 48 hours advance notice to ICE before releasing an alien if ICE has asked for notice. These are small but important requests for cooperation.

This allows ICE to know about aliens who are arrested and can decide whether to take custody of them. These are aliens who have committed crimes or are suspected of having committed crimes. They are serious enough criminals that the local authorities have arrested them.

And yet some cities think only their law enforcement interests deserve vindication, not those of the federal government. Why, then, should the federal government give grants to these cities?

Well, unsurprisingly, several of these sanctuary cities have sued us. These cities want federal funding—but they don’t want the federal law or to comply with the most reasonable cooperation requirements.

Sure enough, the first city to the courthouse—Chicago—found a local district judge who agreed with its claims. We disagree with the merits of that ruling, and we think we will ultimately prevail on this legal question.

Normally, this would be a discrete error affecting one city’s grant, and we would correct it on appeal in due course. But instead of issuing an injunction for the city, the judge enjoined the federal government from imposing these conditions on any state or city across

What possible interest does Chicago have in this sweeping relief? Chicago’s only plausible interest—its own grant money—would have been fully and completely vindicated by an injunction applying only to Chicago.

Meanwhile, other judges are considering this question.

A judge in San Francisco recently denied a preliminary injunction to that city, but it doesn’t matter because the judge in Chicago decided to grant relief to every city.

By not acting as a district court of limited jurisdiction, this judge in Chicago has halted the grant process for the entire country and has created the need for an expedited appeal in the Seventh Circuit to correct this overreach.

The increasing frequency of limitless injunctions is simply unsustainable, and the ever-more extreme nature of these injunctions is only making it more obvious just how unconstitutional they are.

The Supreme Court has not yet issued a definitive ruling on the merits of nationwide injunctions. So far, when the Court has had relevant cases before them, it has resolved them on other grounds.

But we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will soon send a clear message to the lower courts that injunctions ought to be limited to the parties of the case.

The scope of relief is at issue in a number of high profile cases right now. We will soon be arguing the merits of the President’s travel ban, and we have asked for a review of this aspect of the case, as well.

This is not a political or a partisan issue. It is a constitutional issue and a rule of law issue.

This has been a problem for administrations of both parties. Until President Trump, the President with the most limitless injunctions was President Obama, and President Clinton was in second place.

But the Department of Justice—under Democratic and Republican administrations alike—has been consistent over these past several decades that nationwide injunctions gravely threaten the rule of law.

They threaten the proper respect for the separation of powers, and indeed the very functioning of the other two branches of the federal government.

The American people vote for those other two branches of government. They want their votes to count. They want their voices heard. The political branches need to be able to act.

This is my message: We hope the Supreme Court will resolve this issue.

There can be no question that courts should put an end to nationwide injunctions and keep activists on both sides of the aisle from paralyzing the federal government.

In order for our system to function, the Court must end government-by-litigation. I am hopeful that soon they will, and that—with your help—we will restore the rule of law in this country.

Thank you.



3…………> Trump On The attack: PA

While President Trump was speaking at a campaign rally in Moon Township, Pa., in a show of support for Rick Saccone, who faces a tough special congressional election outside of Pittsburgh, he urged support for the GOP hopeful and said that the Democrat Conor Lamb, was likely to vote the party line despite efforts to distance himself from the Pelosi/Schumer liberals .

Mr Trump did not miss the chance to slam NBC “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd, recalling that, “It’s 1999, I’m on ‘Meet the Press,’ a show now headed by sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd,” Trump said. “He’s a sleeping son of a b—-, I’ll tell you.” 

Then the President brilliantly concluded that CNN coverage of his meeting with Comrade Un was in his words, “Fake as hell, CNN. The worst. So fake.” 



4…………> Tariff Wars: Friend & Foes 

“There are no winners in a trade war, and it would bring disaster to our two countries as well as the rest of the world. China does not wish to fight a trade war, nor will China initiate a trade war, but we can handle any challenge and will resolutely defend the interests of our country and our people,” Commerce Minister Zhong said, echoing a statement by Wang Hejun, a ministry official, warning that the tariffs “will surely have a serious impact on the normal international order”.

President Trump’s announcement that the US will impose a 25% tariff on steel and 10% on aluminium imports while granting Australia, Mexico and Canada  exemptions had divided the world into two camps, friend and foes, a clear and present danger to the globalist “New World Disorder” promulgated by past two US administrations, a prelude to a Forex war and currency devaluations.

The European Union and Japan urged the US to grant them exemptions from metal import tariffs, as the US has promised to not impose the tariffs on “our ally, the great nation of Australia”. 



5…………> Trump On The Road: Slogan 

Despite 2020 election being two years in the future, President Trump is already using the “Make America Great” again slogan with an exclamation mark, a sure sign that he envisions another four years in the White House. 

Please visit to read Bibi1581 historic blogs