Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Netherlands: 1,400 Underage Dutch Girls Forced into Sex Slavery Each Year by ‘Migrant Background’ Males

Netherlands: 1,400 Underage Dutch Girls Forced into Sex Slavery Each Year by ‘Migrant Background’ Males


A view of a room in the first Museum of Prostitution in Amsterdam, called 'Red Light Secrets', in The Netherlands, on January 31, 2014. The museum, in the Amsterdam Red Light District, gives an inside view of the world of the Dutch prostitutes. AFP PHOTO / ANP / KOEN VAN …
Koen van Weel/AFP/Getty

Every year more than one thousand underage Dutch girls are groomed and then blackmailed into sex slavery by young pimps with migrant backgrounds, an investigation has revealed.

With gifts, drink, and drugs, so-called ‘loverboys’ will seduce a girl into agreeing to become his sex partner before taking pictures or video footage of the encounter which will then be used as leverage to force her into prostitution, Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagbladreports.
“These men are mostly Moroccans, Turks, Caribbeans, and Roma. The lion’s share of them have a migrant background,” said Gideon van Aartsen from Watch Nederland, an initiative which coordinates with the nation’s police on efforts to fight child sexual exploitation (CSE).
He told the newspaper that selling sex with schoolgirls is a “lucrative trade” that can earn “up to 800 euros a day on a girl” for ‘loverboys’, most of whom are part of larger networks that are also involved in trafficking illegal drugs and weapons.
Annually around 1,400 Dutch minors fall victim to ‘loverboys’ — a term used in the country to refer to young men who lure underage teens into relationships then force them into the sex industry — according to police human trafficking experts Marijke van Overveld and Esmee Huijps.
They said that with the advent of video smartphones it is no longer necessary for the men to have to convince victims that they’re in a relationship as used to be the case when grooming girls into sexual slavery.
“The seduction process takes only between a week and a fortnight now, when it used to take months,” said Huijps, explaining that girls are told they must either agree to work as a prostitute or else footage of them having sex will be uploaded to social media.
“Once they have a compromising video of you, that is enough for blackmail. Especially for young girls, whose parents do not know anything.”
Lamenting the cruelty and abuse to which trafficked girls are subjected, van Aartsen told Algemeen Dagblad: “These girls, who are just minors, are given orders like ‘make sure you bring three [female] friends, and I’ll let you get away with f***ing five men fewer each day.’”
So-called loverboys have also been known to make their victims roll a die, and then force her to see that many customers before the end of the day, he added.
As is the case with many victims of the predominantly Muslim grooming gangs who prey on underage girls in towns including Rotherham and Oxford across the UK, girls who fall victim to ‘loverboys’ in the Netherlands are “largely, but not always, vulnerable women from a lower social class and who have an unstable home life”, according to the report.
Before the massive scale of CSE in Britain came to light, Times journalist Alice Thomson asked what UK authorities could learn from the Dutch approach to the problem after attending a sex education lesson at a high school there in which a former victim of the phenomenon told “horrified” pupils about her experiences.
“In Britain it has been hard to get anyone to listen,” she noted in 2011, stating that establishment attitudes on race relations are “part of the problem”, as “police, social workers and charities don’t want to pin such a disgusting crime on even a tiny minority in a particular ethnic community”.
By contrast, she writes that in the Netherlands, “where they have been debating the issue for a decade”, authorities “confronted the issue of race, admitting that the majority, though not all of those who have been involved in grooming girls, have been of Moroccan and Turkish descent”.
The Labour MP for Rotherham, where organised sex abuse, rape, and trafficking of girls went unchallenged by authorities for three decades, was forced to resign from her position in the party last year after writing a piece pointing out that the majority of perpetrators in the town are from Pakistani backgrounds and almost all their victims white.
And Breitbart London reported earlier this year how controversial campaigner Tommy Robinson was suspended from Twitter for citing research published by the Quilliam Foundation in December which showed that 84 per cent of convicted grooming gang members are from Muslim backgrounds.

You want illegal collusion, here it is! Let's admit the Democrat establishment are the culprits.


Sen. Ron Johnson Sends Letter to FBI – Discovers Secret Deep State “Sensitive Matter Team” Behind Phony Dossier

On Monday Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to the FBI Director regarding phony Steele Russia dossier.

Explosive new e-mails show FBI brass discussed dossier briefing details with CNN.

Senator Johnson accused the FBI of having a “sensitive matter team” as reference by FBI Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki in an January 6, 2017 email to unspecified recipients.
Johnson wants to know the members of the “sensitive matter team” who were aware of the phony dossier used to spy on candidate Trump.
FBI has a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

The battle for parental rights.

Pass 'right to try' to advance my child's life — tomorrow, it could be yours


Britain Sick Baby Charlie Gard
Recently, two children of the United Kingdom, Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard, became victims of a failed system that denied them the opportunity to access experimental treatments.


Lawmakers have another chance to make things right by passing "Right to Try" legislation that will give terminally ill patients one more shot at life. Legislation making experimental drugs and treatments accessible for individuals with life-threatening conditions is set to be voted on Tuesday by the House of Representatives.
Thanks to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a similar bill passed the Senate last August and is a lead priority for President Trump. Until now it has been in political limbo due to a lack of bipartisan backing. 
As the mother of a child with cystic fibrosis, a life-threatening illness, I want options when it comes to experimental treatments that could prolong my daughter’s life. But as an American and taxpaying voter, I also want to see Congress working to take morally correct action for the most vulnerable and sickest among us.
Recently, two children of the United Kingdom, Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard, became victims of a failed system that denied them the opportunity to access experimental treatments. As the world watched, their parents emotionally fought to access these unconventional medical options — but in the end, they lost. In America, we must learn from their tragic loss and do right by our own sick individuals who are fighting, against all odds, to stay alive. 
Opponents argue that increased risk is involved and it makes this legislation unsafe for recipients. But this bill would still require all experimental drugs to pass initial safety testing by the FDA. Often, this onerous process of approval means key medications get bogged down in the pipeline waiting years before receiving a final endorsement — years that many terminally ill patients don’t have.
Patients facing terminal illnesses should have the choice to take the risks associated with experimental medications. Parents of a sick child or a patient only turn to experimental drugs as a last resort. Patients are well informed of the risks and complications these avenues of care may create, but they are willing to take those risks to potentially save or extend their life. That should be their choice. 
The past few years we’ve seen success in the cutting red tape and freeing businesses from the regulatory burden inflicted upon us by the federal government. That should be true of the drug approval process as well, especially when it comes to the unhealthy and terminally ill. 
Like other parents of sick children, I’m constantly monitoring several key medications currently in the approval pipeline that could improve my daughter’s quality of care and increase her life expectancy. But the fact remains that our status quo drug approval process is unnecessarily complicated and often inaccessible for average Americans.
As a country that values the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, we should allow more options for the terminally ill. This is not careless, it’s compassionate.
One day, experimental medications could save my daughter's life. Or, it could be your child whose life is saved thanks to the right to try.
Mary Vought (@maryvought) is a Republican strategist. She resides in Arlington, Va., with her husband and two children.

In a totalitarian regime the government agencies are to protect us from ourselves. The FBI is more concerned with political power then anything else.


BREAKING: E-mails Show FBI Brass Discussed Dossier Briefing Details With CNN



New e-mails show former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was surprisingly knowledgeable about CNN's understanding of and deliberation about a dossier briefing given to Donald Trump days before CNN ever reported on the matter.
Newly revealed e-mails show that former Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) deputy director Andrew McCabe was keenly aware of CNN’s internal understanding of a secret briefing about the infamous Steele dossier, days before CNN published any stories on the matter. The e-mails, which were obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), also reveal that top officials used coded language to refer to the salacious and unverified allegations made by Steele.
Former FBI director James Comey briefed then-President-Elect Donald Trump on January 6, 2017, on at least one unproven allegation contained in Steele’s dossier, which was jointly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. CNN broke the story about the dossier briefing on January 10, 2017, touching off a firestorm of hysteria that culminated in not just the firing of Comey by Trump, but the eventual appointment of Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Robert Mueller.
Comey claimed that he was compelled to brief Trump on the dossier because “CNN had [it]” and was “looking for a news hook.”
Hours before Comey briefed Trump, FBI chief of staff James Rybicki e-mailed staff that Comey “is coming into HQ briefly now for an update from the sensitive matter team.” Just as the same officials dubbed the Clinton e-mail investigation the “mid-year exam” and the anti-Trump counterintelligence investigation “Crossfire Hurricane,” they also used various phrases using “sensitive” to refer obliquely to the dossier.
Two days after the briefing, on January 8, 2017, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who earlier this year was fired and then referred for criminal prosecution by the DOJ inspector general for repeatedly lying about media leaks, wrote an e-mail to top FBI officials with the subject, “Flood is coming.”
“CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story,” McCabe wroteto Comey, Rybicki, and two others. “The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment.” He did not detail how he came to know what CNN’s “trigger” was for publishing the dossier briefing story.
Although the January 10 story from CNN also claimed that Trump was presented with a two-page summary of the dossier, which was not part of the official intelligence community assessment given to Trump, Comey himself later claimed that he did not give the two-page document to Trump, raising questions about whether McCabe himself was a source for CNN’s assertion that Trump had been given the entire two-page document during the briefing.
Shortly after sending his e-mail to Comey and other FBI officials, McCabe e-mailed then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and her deputy, Matthew Axelrod. McCabe used the subject line “News” in his e-mail to the DOJ officials.
“Just as an FYI, and as expected,” McCabe wrote, “it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting.” It is not clear how McCabe came to be so familiar with CNN’s understanding of the dossier, its briefing, or how close CNN was to reporting on the matter.
In a Monday letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Sen. Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, asked the director to provide a list of all members of the “sensitive matters team” referenced by Rybicki in his January 6 e-mail. Johnson also requested that Wray provide all details about how FBI officials “first learned that media outlets, including CNN, may have possessed the Steele dossier.”
To date, there is no public evidence that the FBI ever investigated the leaks to media about the briefing between Trump and Comey. When asked in a recent interview by Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier, Comey scoffed at the idea that the FBI would even need to investigate the leak of a secret briefing with the incoming president.
“Did you or your subordinates leak that?” Baier asked.
“No,” Comey responded. “I don’t know who leaked it.”
“Did you ever try to find out?” Baier asked.
“Who leaked an unclassified public document?” Comey said, even though Baier’s question was about leaking details of a briefing of the incoming president, not the dossier. “No,” Comey said.
Johnson requested a response from Wray by 5:00 p.m. on June 4.
Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

No matter how silly the charge repetition repeating "racist" is the goal. This is about as faux as compassion gets.

Oakland mayor says Trump was ‘racist’ to call MS-13 gang members ‘animals’

Oakland mayor says Trump was ‘racist’ to call MS-13 gang members ‘animals’
Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf berated President Trump as a "racist" for his comments deriding violent MS-13 gang members as "animals." (Image Source: YouTube screenshot) 

The California mayor who tipped off illegal aliens to help them escape ICE raids said that President Trump was “racist” to call violent gang members “animals,” and even referred to them as “vulnerable.”
Here’s what she said 
In an interview with Erin Burnett on CNN, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf derided the president for calling MS-14 gang members “animals.”
“I have to ask you about something else the president has said,” Burnett said towards the end of the interview. “This is a controversial thing, he’s come under criticism for it, but he’s owning it. Calling members of the violent MS-13 gang ‘animals.’ Today the White House tripled down on that, they actually put out a press release and they titled it ‘What You Need To Know About The Violent Animals of MS-13.'” 
“The president has repeatedly stood by those words,” she added. “You obviously have seen this. Is that a fair use of the word?”
“I believe that this president’s language is racist,” Mayor Schaaf answered. 
“It is fear-mongering and it is trying to distract the American people from the job that elected officials are supposed to do,” she added. “And that’s improve the lives of the people that we’re supposed to represent, instead of casting blame and dispersion against a very vulnerable population.” 
“That’s what we’re doing here in Oakland,” she continued. “Oakland is a very proud, diverse, sanctuary city. Our crime has gone down over the last few years. We are working on safety by lifting up our children and getting them college degrees, that’s the work that politicians should be doing, not trying to blame others for their own failings.” 
Here’s the video of Mayor Schaaf’s comments:

President Trump was criticized roundly in the media for his comments about MS-13 gang members, but many news outlets corrected their stories after it was pointed out by many of his allies that they were misrepresenting his comments to apply to all illegal aliens. 
Mayor Schaaf came under fire from the White House after it was reported that she had tipped off illegal aliens about enforcement action from federal immigration officials in order to help them escape detection. Trump told Attorney General Sessions that he should investigate her actions as a possible violation of the law.

White South African farmers claiming persecution at home seek refuge in Australia. SA on the road to Zimbabwe's food shortages.


White South African farmers claiming persecution at home seek refuge in Australia


White South African farmers claiming persecution at home seek refuge in Australia
More than 200 farmers from South Africa have applied for humanitarian visas in Australia after allegedly suffering attacks for being white, according to the Australian Home Affairs Ministry.
“The type of criteria they of course have to meet – or the key one – is evidence of persecution, so that's exactly what we will be looking at,” Home Affairs Deputy Secretary Malisa Golightly said. Home Affairs said 89 refugee visa applications relating to 213 people had been received, although they did not specify their ethnicity or any other details.
News reports emerged earlier this year revealing that white farmers in South Africa had faced persecution after the country's government approved a new law allowing for the confiscation of their lands, which would be transferred to black citizens.
Following the reports, Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton announced his willingness to start fast-tracking humanitarian visas for South Africans who had endured violent rural crime at home and wished to move Down Under. The step was slammed by the South African opposition, which called Australia, and those willing to escape there, ‘racist.’
The controversial legislation was endorsed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who pledged to hand the lands owned by white farmers since the 1600s to black citizens of the country without compensation for the owners. South Africa’s 50 million citizens are predominantly black, but 72 percent of farmland reportedly belongs to whites.
The legislation evoked strong disapproval both in the country and internationally, with a reported upsurge in violence against white farmers. Last year, some 82 people were killed in a record 423 farm attacks, and there have been 109 attacks and more than 15 murders in 2018, Afriforum, a South African civil rights group reported in March.
The controversial reform may jeopardize commercial farming in the country, according to the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa. Experts say that the South African government may repeat the mistake made by the government of Zimbabwe, which had passed through a state-sanctioned purge of white farmers in 1999-2000. The measure plunged the country into famine.

The double standard: "shoot to kill" can be said about Trump but not Democrats.


Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe Warns Dems Pushing Trump Impeachment: ‘You Have to Shoot to Kill’



Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe appeared on CNN’s New Day to discuss his new book, To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, and the #Resistance Twitter influencer warned Democrats against throwing down the impeachment card too hastily.
CNN’s Chris Cuomo noted that Tribe’s book “comes with a note of political caution,” that “Democrats shouldn’t be rushing down the road of impeachment.”
Tribe explained that the impeachment is not about “garden variety crime,” but “abusing the authority that we give to high officials like the president.” The professor went on to give examples of offenses that Trump could commit that would not constitute crimes, but would be impeachable, including failing to protect the country in favor of enriching himself personally.
“But it will be available only if we don’t use it loosely, and ring the bell every time something looks amiss,” Tribe said. “You can’t be the boy who cried wolf and have a viable impeachment power. You can’t use it over and over again against the same president.”
“If you’re going to shoot him, you have to shoot to kill,” Tribe said. “And that requires an overwhelming majority of a bipartisan kind. Otherwise you’re just going to nick the guy, and make him feel empowered and vindicated.”
Watch above, via CNN.

Monday, May 21, 2018

As if?

Elizabeth Warren Boldly Pledges to Never Take Money from a Group that Has Never Donated to Her
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Native American* Democrat from Massachusetts, has boldly pledged to refuse to accept donations from the National Rifle Association. Which really does not change anything because, according to OpenSecrets.org, the NRA has never donated to Sen. Warren in the first place. 
Still, Sen. Warren is being praised for this decision announced via NowthisNews.com in which she proudly proclaims, "It's time we strip the NRA of its stranglehold over our children's lives." She is technically the first Senator to refuse to accept NRA money. 
Sen. Warren has never really been a fan of the NRA. In February, she promised to fight the NRA at every turn. 
That should be a pretty obvious sign that she was not going to be getting any money from them in the future. So, Sen. Warren declaring that she refuses to accept their money is a little bit laughable. It is purely a symbolic move for the Democratic base. It kind of comes across a little desperate. Sen. Warren is akin to the mean kid in high school who was not invited to hang out and then declares, "Well, I didn't want to hang out with you anyways." 
*She has never actually proven that she is a Native American aside from saying that it is part of her family folkore

States Get A Windfall From GOP Tax Cuts, But Will They Return The Money To Taxpayers?

Facebook

States Get A Windfall From GOP Tax Cuts, But Will They Return The Money To Taxpayers? 

Tax Cuts: When Republicans were putting together their tax reform plan last year, a chorus of critics warned that it would devastate state budgets. Like so many other claims, this turned out to be false.
The New York Times reported in November, for example, that "state and local officials in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey and California are warning the tax plan will strain state budgets."
A "news analysis" in the Washington Post said the tax law would make "it harder for states and cities to pay their bills."
A widely cited National Education Association report claimed the GOP tax bill would "blow a nearly $250 billion hole in state and local revenue" that would put "nearly 250,000 educationjobs at risk."
But once President Trump signed the tax reform into law, state budget officials started reporting that revenues will actually increase because of it.
New York's Department of Taxation and Finance, for example, reported in January that it expects tax revenues to go up by $1.1 billion in 2019 because of the tax law. This is a state, mind you, whose governor, Andrew Cuomo, described the tax bill as a "missile of destruction … aimed at New York."
Michigan figures revenues will be $1.7 billion higher in 2019. Georgia calculates that state revenues will climb by $5.2 billion over five years. Pennsylvania expects a $340 million bump over the next two years.
The Tax Foundation, which has been collecting this data, reports that 18 states so far say they expect at least a modest boost in revenues as result of the Republican tax plan.
The reason for this windfall is that the tax bill expanded the tax base — by limiting or ending deductions — in exchange for lower income tax rates. In states that rely on federal tax law for their own income taxes, this can result in extra revenue if those states keep their income tax rates the same. (States could also get more tax revenue as tax reform boosts economic growth.)

Will States Cut Taxes?

To some extent, then, the tax cuts shifted a bit of the tax burden to the states. Is that a bad thing? Not if the states use the windfall to cut their own tax rates or reform their tax code.
Three states — George, Idaho and Iowa — have already done so. Iowa's bill, passed this month, will cut taxes by $2 billion over six years. Republicans in Minnesota — which expects to get a $416 million bump in 2019 — are pushing the state to cut tax rates for the first time since 2000. (There's been no word yet if Gov. Cuomo will return New York's windfall to its taxpayers.)
"The federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gives states an unexpected chance to improve their competitiveness," noted Jonathan Williams, chief economist at the American Legislative Exchange Council. "That is the untold story of federal tax reform."
Given the amount of other misinformation peddled by critics of the GOP tax cuts, we're not surprised that nobody knows about this fact, either.

How Democracies End: A Bureaucratic Whimper

How Democracies End: A Bureaucratic Whimper

By | May 21st, 2018
This is the way the world endsNot with a bang but a whimper.         ― T.S. Eliot
One strange trait of the die hard NeverTrump Republicans and progressives is their charge that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy. Trump, as is his wont, says a lot of outrageous and weird things. But it is hard in his 16 months of rule to find any proof that Trump has subverted the rule of law.
Most of the furor is over what we are told what Trump might do, or what Trump has said, or which unsavory character in Europe likes Trump. These could be legitimate worries if they were followed by Trump’s anti-democratic concrete subversions. But so far, we have not seen them. And there has certainly been nothing yet in this administration comparable to the Obama-era efforts to curb civil liberties. 
While we understand those on the left refuse to believe that a constitutional “legal scholar” like Obama would even think of allowing the executive branch to go rogue, it is indeed strange that in almost every NeverTrump attack on Trump’s conduct, there is almost no recognition or indeed worry that we have been living through one of the great challenges to constitutional government in our history. 
Does anyone remember that the Obama Administration allowed Lois Lerner (“Not a smidgen of corruption”) more or less to weaponize the IRS to help the Obama 2012 reelection effort? Does anyone remember Eric Holder’s surveillance of the Associated Press journalists and Fox News’s James Rosen? Why have conservative constitutionalists focused on what Trump has said rather than the strange treatment accorded to investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson by U.S. intelligence and investigatory agencies? Do we even remember the Benghazi pseudo-video narrative and the strange jailing of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula
Is there even curiosity about why and how the departing Obama Administration suddenly and vastly expanded the number of agencies that could have access to classified surveillance in its aftermath? Do we remember the more than 20 times Obama warned before reelection that he was not a “king” and, as a constitutional scholar, could not by fiat offer blanket amnesties? Do the authorities in California realize that they are resorting to the extralegal states-rights arguments that South Carolina on the eve of the Civil War and Alabama in the early 1960s used to nullify federal laws?
But stranger still is what we already know of the 2016 election, and the lack of outrage from constitutionalists, who daily warn us of what Trump might do—when we already know what the U.S. government has done in violation of civil rights, constitutional principles, and likely federal laws. So far there is no information that Stephen Bannon ordered taps on reporters, or that Nigel Farage was hired by Trump to find Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton, or that Stephen Miller requested the unmasking of surveilled names associated with the Clinton campaign and then leaked them to the press.
But we do know that U.S. officials, including the head of the FBI and chief deputies in the Justice Department, misled a FISA court to obtain intelligence surveillance on U.S. citizens, by providing information that they knew at the time, but did not disclose to the court, was by their own private admission unverified, compiled by a foreign national whom they had used and fired as an unreliable informant, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and served as the basis for news accounts that were used in circular fashion to verify to the court the dossier’s contents.
We do know that members of the Obama intelligence and national security teams—Susan Rice and Samantha Power among others—requested the names of American citizens surveilled (likely obtained through improperly obtained FISA warrants) to be unmasked. Then someone illegally leaked their names to the press to damage the Trump campaign and his presidential transition.
We do know that FBI Director James Comey, in succession, has admitted that he in singular fashion took notes of a confidential one-on-one meeting with the president, briefed him on the existence of a campaign dossier on him, did not disclose that it was purchased by the Clinton campaign, assured him that he was not the subject of a FBI investigation at a time either he or his subordinates were leaking the opposite to the media, and then, after being fired, leaked those memos (at least one of which was classified) to the media to ensure the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the president, who turned out to be a friend of Comey’s, Robert Mueller. Comey by his own admission has also stated that he calibrated the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton to the likelihood of her election to the presidency. FBI directors in a lawful society are not supposed to do such things.
We do know that the FBI placed some sort of an informant in the camp of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign in association with gathering information about data used by a foreign national and a paid operative of the Clinton campaign, Christopher Steele, in his effort to collude with Russians against the campaign efforts of Donald Trump.
We do know that the deputy director of the FBI is currently under investigation for lying to federal investigators, on at least four occasions, about his own conduct in investigating candidate Hillary Clinton—at a time not long after Clinton-related political action committees gave several hundred thousand dollars to the political campaign of his wife.
We do know now that both James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, head of the CIA, knowingly gave false testimony under oath to Congress. Clapper has previously lied about the surveillance of American citizens; he has lied about his knowledge of the Steele dossier, and likely also lied about leaking its contents. Brennan had lied under oath to Congress about the U.S. drone assassination program, lied about CIA surveillance of computers used by U.S. Senate staff, lied about leaking the existence and promulgation of the Steele dossier, and lied yet again to Congress that the dossier was not used to prompt a CIA investigation into so-called collusion. 
Again, the government’s two highest intelligence officials did not tell the full truth about their knowledge of the Steele dossier or their own roles in promulgating its contents. In a constitutional republic both such reprehensible officials who betrayed the public trust would be subject to criminal investigations for knowingly lying under oath to Congress and undermining the sinews of constitutional government.
We do know that senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr met with the architects of the Steele dossier and that at the time his wife was working on the Clinton-purchased Fusion/GPS Steele dossier, information not disclosed as required by the law on a federal form.
Mueller’s special investigatory team, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the media have not yet found any credible evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Indeed, it is more likely that the indictments and confessions of some Trump campaign officials and Michael Flynn, on counts having nothing to do with collusion, either will be dropped, retracted, or will not lead to convictions, given much of the information used against them was obtained by misleading a FISA court judge and through improper conduct at the highest level of the FBI.
There is a reason why over a half-dozen top FBI officials either have been fired, reassigned, resigned, or retired. We have not yet seen the inspector general’s full report, but its publication may lead to more departures from both the FBI and the Justice Department, if not to criminal prosecutions. 
If the present constitutional crisis really involves high federal officials and former federal officials who were colluding with foreign governments, then we have ample evidence that 1) Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation received large sums of money from Russian-related interests in association with ongoing requests to buy into companies that might control North American uranium stocks; that 2) John Kerry has met clandestinely with members and former members of the Iranian government to craft joint strategies to save the so-called Iran Deal, from which the president of the United States just withdrew; and that 3) Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired a foreign national to use sources from other foreign nationals to help subvert the campaign of her 2016 opponent.
We are all worried, on occasion, by nationalist and anti-democratic movements abroad in former democratic countries. We all sometimes wish Donald Trump would ignore personal spats and curb his tweeting and thus let his considerable accomplishments speak for themselves. 
But that said, the current and chief threats to Western constitutional government are not originating from loud right-wing populists in Eastern Europe, or from Trump wailing like Ajax about the rigged deep state. 
Rather, the threat to our civil liberties is coming from supposedly sanctimonious and allegedly judicious career FBI, Justice Department, and intelligence agency officials, progressive and self-described idealistic former members of the Obama national security team, and anti-Trump fervent campaign operatives, all of whom felt that they could break the law—including but not limited to illegally monitoring American citizens, and seeking to warp federal courts and even the presidential election because such unsavory and anti-constitutional means were felt necessary and justified to prevent and then subvert the presidency of Donald J. Trump.   
It is willful blindness for progressives and NeverTrump Republicans to overlook what has happened only to damn what has not happened. The dangers in America are not from transparent right-wing authoritarians (who are easily spotted in their clumsiness), but from mellifluous self-styled constitutionalists, whose facades and professions of legality mask their rank efforts to use any anti-constitutional means necessary to achieve their supposedly noble egalitarian ends.
This is the way democracies end—not with a loud boisterous bang, but with insidious and self-righteous whimpers.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.