abortionist Robert Rho on trial for manslaughter in abortion death amid media blackout-

– 23Ih.,b63– April 12, 2018 By Cheryl Sullenger

Queens, NY – The criminal trial of an abortionist, Robert Rho, who caused the death of an abortion patient in 2016, is currently underway in the Queens Supreme Court in New York. Although it is a case that should be of national interest, few people are aware of it. That’s because the trial is experiencing a complete media blackout.

The trial involves the death of 30-year old Jaime Morales, who reported to the Liberty Women’s Healthcare office in Flushing, New York, on July 9, 2016, for an elective second trimester abortion with clinic owner Robert Rho.

Rho thought that the abortion on Morales went without complication until staff noticed she was bleeding heavily in the recovery room. Rho determined that she required a second abortion procedure, but even that did nothing to control the profuse bleeding.

A woozy Morales continued to bleed and even collapsed once at the clinic. Even though she was too unstable to release, Rho discharged Morales to her sister, and they began the drive to the sister’s home in the Bronx. Along the way Morales fell off the back seat of the car and became non-responsive as a result of continued hemorrhaging.

Morales was transported by ambulance to a Bronx-area hospital where she was pronounced dead later that evening.

According to news reports at the time, an autopsy revealed horrific internal injuries inflicted by Rho during one or both abortion procedures he conducted on her that day. Rho had lacerated her cervix, punctured her uterus and sliced her uterine artery. Any one of those injuries would cause heavy bleeding, but together, they proved catastrophic.

Had Rho not released Morales in her unstable condition, and instead called an ambulance, she might be alive today, and Rho would only be facing the possibility of a malpractice suit instead of jail time.

A grand jury was convened to investigate Morales death and indicted Rho on one count of Second Degree Manslaughter (Reckless Homicide), a Class C Felony that carries a penalty of 3 1/2 to 15 years in prison.

Rho was arrested and booked on October 11, 2016. He entered a “not guilty” plea during his arraignment the following day and was released on $400,000 bail.

At first Rho appeared remorseful for his actions that led to Morales’ needless death. He surrendered his medical license and closed his abortion clinic. A speedy resolution to the criminal case was expected.

However, the case was marked by repeated delays. For the next eighteen months, Rho remained out on bail with scheduled hearings every three months.

It is assumed, but not confirmed, that a plea bargain was offered by Assistant District Attorney Brad A. Leventhal and rejected by Rho. A jury trial was set and now it appears that Rho is fighting for his freedom – an irony considering his victim, Ms. Morales, can never be freed from the grave where Rho put her.

Today, Rho’s trial before a jury of his peers continues in the courtroom of Judge Gregory Lasak, but no information about the proceedings is available outside appearance notices on the Court’s web page. The trial is expected to run through Friday, April 13, 2018.

“The trial delay resulted in the loss of what scant media attention there was in this case. We continue to follow it the best we can, but without being in the courtroom, it is impossible to know any details of the testimony and evidence, due to the media blackout,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “When a woman dies from a negligent abortion, it simply doesn’t fit the mainstream media’s pro-abortion agenda. It’s better for them to ignore it and act like it never happened. In a way, the media bears some responsibility for cases like this because they refuse to report on the true dangers of abortion.”

Operation Rescue has reported on this case since Rho’s arrest in October 2016, and will report on the outcome of the trial when it is known.

source-Operation Rescue— Cheryl Sullenger-

 

Advertisements

‘Pay gap’ myth ignores women’s intentional job choices–

–8kh.,b75

Rachel Greszler / April 09, 2018

Tuesday is supposedly “Equal Pay Day,” but what does that mean?

Well, according to outdated, flawed, and incomplete statistics that say women make only 82 cents on the dollar, compared with men, Equal Pay Day signifies how long into the new year women have to work just to catch up to the earnings of their male counterparts from the previous year.

Equal-pay activists have declared April 10 as the approximate Equal Pay Day for 2018, but based on the 82-cent figure, the date should have been March 21.

Regardless of the actual “celebrated” date, if women actually had to work that much longer than men to make the same amount of money, women might as well pack their briefcases and go home. After all, who would really work an extra three months to earn the same pay for the same job as their male counterparts? The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

That level of pervasive pay gap simply doesn’t exist.

Statistics matter, and they can help households, businesses, and governments make informed decisions. But statistics—particularly selective and incomplete ones—can also be misleading, and even detrimental.

The pay gap is the perfect example of statistics gone awry.

For starters, the data cited in the gender pay gap looks only at the median earnings of full-time wage and salaried workers. It doesn’t differentiate really important factors, such as education, occupation, experience, and hours, which account for nearly all of the differential in earnings between men and women.

It turns out that accounting for all these factors eliminates all but an estimated 3 to 5 cents of the gender pay gap.

Data is also subject to human error. Comparisons between survey data and administrative records reveal substantially underreporting of income within some of the most widely used survey data.

Consequently, the data disregards substantial changes, such as large gains in women’s retirement incomes.

And finally, data isn’t the supreme indicator, because not everything comes with a price tag or pay stub. What is the value of a flexible work schedule; a job with huge upward-mobility potential; particular benefits packages; the ability to tap into flexible, sharing-economy labor platforms, such as Uber and Airbnb; or to access new business platforms, such as Etsy for additional income?

Workers who seek these job characteristics often do so despite lower pay. But those intentional choices don’t show up in the statistics.

If a woman has the exact same job title as a man, but works 30 hours a week instead of 40, and sets her own hours and telecommutes, her paycheck likely won’t match that of the man’s—nor should it.

One of the job qualities that women—particularly mothers—value most is flexibility. Flexibility is a difficult job feature to measure, but that’s exactly what a group of economists recently did using data from the Uber ride-hailing company.

After analyzing data from more than 1 million registered Uber drivers, the authors tagged the average value of being able to set one’s own work schedule on an hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute basis at $150 per week. That’s the equivalent of $7,800 per year, or almost 20 percent of the median earnings of women in the U.S.

In essence, this is the value of choice. It’s not the same value for everyone, but it shows that many workers are willing to sacrifice a lot in terms of pay for more flexibility and choice.

On the opposite side, some employers are willing to pay a high price for flexibility from their employees—to log long hours and to work day or night.

Economist Claudia Goldin has found evidence of “part-time penalties” in certain very high-income fields. This happens when certain companies—those in finance and law, for example—pay employees who work 80 hours a week more than twice as much as they pay those who work 40 hours per week.

This likely has to do with certain employers’ need for employees to respond at all hours or to log double or triple time when needed, coupled with employees’ demand for higher pay when sacrificing so much of their own time and flexibility.

Anecdotal evidence and the choices women and men make suggest that women value job choices more than men and that their preference for greater flexibility accounts for some—if not all—of the remaining pay gap between men and women.

But choice is what legislation such as the Paycheck Fairness Act would squelch. Equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land. Imposing further-reaching policies in an attempt to eliminate pay differences that have little or nothing to do with discrimination could actually backfire.

Pay regimes based on factors such as job titles or “equivalent work” would take away businesses’ freedom to determine the value of their work and undo decades of women’s progress by imposing one-size-fits-all jobs that take away women’s—and all workers’—freedom to negotiate pay in exchange for personal priorities.

source- the daily signal-Rachel Greszler – Economist Claudia Goldin

5 big takeaways from Comey’s big ABC news interview-

-8gh.,b60-

On Sunday evening, former FBI director James Comey sat down for a two-hour interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to talk about his new book, A Higher Loyalty. The interview was chock-filled with quotable moments; already, the media are going haywire over it. President Trump has signaled his own displeasure on Twitter.

So, here’s what was important.

  1. Comey’s A Political Actor. Over and over again, Comey suggested that he allowed political considerations to impact his legal work. He says he decided to announce Hillary’s non-indictment in order to avoid allowing the FBI to look like a tool of the Department of Justice after Loretta Lynch’s tarmac meeting with President Clinton. He said that he took the polls into consideration when determining whether or not to inform the public about the re-opening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
  2. Comey Hates Trump. Either he hated Trump before the election or learned to hate him afterward. But he didn’t quit — he was fired. Despite all of his nasty words about Trump, at no point did he walk away from his job in protest, and simply say everything on his mind. Instead, he waited to be fired after refusing to say publicly what he was telling Trump privately: that Trump wasn’t under investigation. Nonetheless, Comey spent the interview ripping Trump as a crime boss, tore into Trump’s physical appearance, called Trump a “forest fire,” and suggested that Trump not be impeached but be thrown out by voters. He even said that Trump never laughs in public or private.
  3. Comey Loves Obama And Company. Comey described how much he loved Obama, Loretta Lynch, and Jeh Johnson, among others; Trump, he says, was unfit for a hug: “And so I’m not an unusually strong person but I work out and so I tighten my abs and my core and I’m thinking, this– ‘Unless he’s a lot stronger than he looks, he’s not getting a hug.’ And so he pulls and he doesn’t get the hug.”
  4. Comey Loves Him Some Comey. Comey talked about how he was like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, not one but two times; he talked about drinking on his way back from Los Angeles after being fired; he talked about his own history of wonder going all the way back to Martha Stewart. At one point, he seemed to stop and assess his own ego problem, then went right back into pumping his book: ““I have to be careful not to fall in love with my own view of things. And so that battle with ego and my sense that memoirs are an exercise in ego convinced me I was never going to write a book.” Spoiler alert: he wrote a book.
  5. Comey’s Grandstanding. Comey admits he had no good reason for not telling Trump that the Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but he also had no problem telling Stephanopoulos that Trump was morally unfit to be president, and that Trump might be subject to Russian blackmail. He even said that the Trump pee tape story could be true, although he provided no evidence to that effect. He also suggested Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice. Comey knows how to make a headline, and he’s stretching to make one here.
  6. Comey Was Upset He Cost Hillary The Election. Comey said over and over that he was “sick to my stomach” over the FBI’s interference in the election, and asked that Hillary Clinton read specific chapters of his book to see that he had good intentions — and he even said he announced the re-opened investigation because he thought she was leading in the polls. He admitted as well that his daughters were big Hillary fans.

Comey didn’t do himself any favors with this interview, although he certainly sold some books. He didn’t come off as non-partisan and dispassionate, which would have been devastating to Trump. He didn’t come off as apolitical, either. He came off as a glory-seeking character in yet another ugly Washington production. And that won’t hurt Trump.

source- the daily wire–Ben Shapiro

 

-did Trump’s syrian airstrikes actually accomplish anything?-

-58jh.,b58-

Over the weekend, the United States, along with France and the United Kingdom, launched a series of airstrikes on particular, specific targets inside Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons by Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. President Trump tweeted, “Mission Accomplished!” and heads of the various nations involved celebrated their action.

The question is whether it accomplished anything.

That’s a controversial proposition. The Guardian (UK) explained:

The cruise missiles fired by the US B1-B Lancer heavy bombers, French Rafales and UK Tornados GR4s – as well as from frigates in the Mediterranean – were among the world’s most modern. They had ranges of hundreds of kilometres, designed to be fired from a distance to avoid the risk of aircraft being targeted by Syria’s largely Soviet-era anti-aircraft missile systems. … As a demonstration of military firepower, it appears to have been as staged (with ample prior warning to Russia and, in that case Syria as well, as France admitted) as it was extremely limited in its scope, leaving most of the Syrian military’s key assets untouched.

Now, it’s true that the United States warned Russia in order to avoid escalating the conflict. But it’s also true that giving that warning undercut any notion that the United States has a long-term strategy to counter Russian or Iranian ambitions in Syria. And there’s no question that Assad must be pleased today: he lost relatively little, he’s still in power, and the combined forces showed that their willingness to take heavy measures is in serious doubt. Furthermore, Assad’s chemical weapons strike worked: Assad successfully cleared Douma, with rebels agreeing “to a deal with the government to hand the area over and be bused to another outside government control in the country’s north. Thousands of fighters and tens of thousands of their relatives are expected to leave soon.”

This means that Assad now has an easy calculation to make every time he considers chemical weapons use: is it useful, or is it not? This time, it was obviously useful.

Which puts the onus on the United States to create a policy. We didn’t have one under President Obama, and we don’t have one under President Trump, and firing off a few missiles obviously isn’t achieving its desired effect (see April 2017). With that in mind, here are a few questions we need to actually answer.

  1. Do We Care About International Norms Surrounding Chemical Weapons? One of the arguments for intervention in Syria is that if we do nothing to reimpose the Obama red line in Syria, chemical weapons use will become more common. That’s probably true. But it’s also true that if someone attacked Americans with chemical weapons, we would end them. Furthermore, not all chemical weapons are the same: some are indeed weapons of mass destruction, but others are not as dangerous in scope as cluster bombs. Do the 500,000 dead in Syria’s civil war care whether they were killed by Russian cluster bombs or sarin gas?
  2. Do We Care About Checking Russia? Russia has regional ambitions it seeks to forward with the Iranians. The United States could ensure that Russian and Iranian ambitions are checked by strengthening the anti-Assad regime in northern Syria, as well as providing diplomatic and political cover for the Israeli air force to strike targets in Syria that facilitate ties with Iran. Furthermore, the United States could announce a policy that they will be striking any airbase used in a chemical weapons attack, and will offer no prior warning, thus putting the Russians on notice. But are we willing to risk the blowback from such action?
  3. Do We Care At All? This is a serious question. What is America’s interest in Syria? Beyond the first two questions, the answer would seem to be: no. But every time we see ugly pictures from places around the world, the public clamor for action is deafening. Americans can’t have it both ways: either we’re the world’s police, which comes with cost, or we’re not, so we shouldn’t complain about ugliness happening elsewhere. We’re going to have to pick.

Americans have a love-hate relationship with foreign policy. We have a moral compass that directs us toward interventionism, but we then turn on intervention at the first available opportunity. We must decide where we stand. That’s the purpose of the Constitution’s declaration of war clause, allowing a fulsome debate in Congress rather than knee-jerk response from the executive. But the public aren’t the only ones split on Syria: so is Trump, who is apparently split between fully pulling out of Syria (which would be disastrous) and intervening whenever news pops up on his radar. One thing is clear: in the confusion, Assad gains, as do Russia and Iran.

source- the daily wire-Ben Shapiro

 

5 questions emerging from the FBI raid on Trump lawyer

April 10, 2018-58j.,b58

The FBI raid on the office and home of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, raises constitutional concerns and issues about the future of key Justice Department officials, including the attorney general and the special counsel.

Here are five big questions:

  1. What was the FBI looking for?

FBI agents were reportedly seeking records from Cohen regarding payments he made to pornographic movie star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Search warrants were issued Monday for documents related to a $150,000 payment to McDougal and a $130,000 payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

“There apparently is nothing to the Russia investigation, so now [special counsel] Robert Mueller has to go after this tawdry matter with Stormy Daniels that is way beyond his mandate,” Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group, told The Daily Signal.

The payment to Daniels could be construed as an illegal in-kind campaign contribution, some legal observers say, coming as it did shortly before the 2016 election.

“The attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself,” @RealDonaldTrump says.

But a campaign finance violation would be an unusual reason for such a raid, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former member of the Federal Election Commission, said.

“If it’s a federal election violation, it should be referred to the FEC,” von Spakovsky, also a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Daily Signal, adding:

It’s outrageous to raid the office of the attorney of the president. It’s rare that you go after a lawyer unless he is being recalcitrant and/or there is a fear he is destroying documents. There is no evidence that Mr. Cohen was doing that.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, approved the referral from Mueller to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the special counsel’s probe of Russian meddling in the election because of his advisory role in the Trump campaign.

  1. What does this mean for Mueller?

Rosenstein named Mueller, after Sessions recused himself, to investigate the Russia matter, possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

“This has nothing to do with Russia collusion,” von Spakovsky said. “It looks like a sign that Mueller wants an independent Justice Department.”

Mueller referred information to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. But the special counsel still instigated the matter and likely will work in cooperation with the New York federal prosecutors, Flaherty said.

“The investigation is out of control,” Flaherty said. “This is beyond political appearances. This is a constitutional crisis challenging the executive authority of the president. The president should do his duty and fire Mueller.”

This is a poor example for arguing overreach by the special counsel, contends Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent critic of the Mueller probe.

“I don’t see what Mueller has done wrong here. He actually has limited himself in this case,” McCarthy told The Daily Signal.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Tuesday that the Daniels-McDougal matter and Mueller’s Russia probe are distinct.

“I think certainly that they are separate investigations, but I think that publicly they have been conflated quite a bit,” Sanders said.

The White House press secretary later said of the raid: “This doesn’t have anything to do with the president, and I would refer you to Michael Cohen and his attorney. When it comes to matters of the special counsel and dealings with the president, we’ve been fully cooperative.”

When asked, Sanders said the president “certainly believes he has the power to” fire Mueller.

  1. What about attorney-client privilege?

Trump tweeted Tuesday, “Attorney-client privilege is dead.”

Communications between an attorney and a client have broad protection, but it’s not absolute.

“The privilege applies to a lawyer and a client, no matter what,” von Spakovsky said. “If police are investigating a lawyer, it’s not a kick-down-the-door investigation to see what you can find.”

If, for example, a lawyer and client plotted payments that would violate campaign finance laws, that would be a crime for both parties, McCarthy said.

“A judge issued a warrant [in this case] because, on the basis of probable cause, a crime was committed,” he said.

But the law would prevent a fishing expedition. Documents are divided into communications related to the potential crime outlined in the warrant and “other.” Documents that aren’t related to the warrant would have to be returned, McCarthy said.

  1. What does this mean for Jeff Sessions’ future?

Trump was again critical of the attorney general Monday evening for recusing himself from the matter in the first place.

“The attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself,” Trump said of Sessions at the White House before meeting with military leaders. “Or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a—put a different attorney general in. So, he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country.”

McCarthy initially opposed Sessions’ recusal primarily for its timing, asserting that at the time the Russia probe was a counterintelligence matter.

But, McCarthy said, a recusal would have been appropriate when matters close to the Trump campaign emerged, since Sessions was part of the campaign.

“As I said, recusal at that time was a mistake, but for the president to say Sessions should never recuse himself is ridiculous,” McCarthy said. “I’m not a critic of Sessions on this.”

McCarthy said he believes that if the investigation into the payments made by Cohen is related to the campaign, then Sessions’ recusal from this matter might also be relevant.

However, von Spakovsky said he thinks the probe of the Daniels-McDougal payments potentially could be separate from the recusal.

“He has obviously decided to keep himself out entirely,” von Spakovsky said of Sessions. “The responsibility for expanding this investigation should be with Rod Rosenstein.”

Sessions, a former Republican senator from Alabama, was at the White House on Tuesday as the president honored the NCAA football champions, the University of Alabama Crimson Tide.

But the attorney general declined to answer reporters’ questions about whether he spoke to Trump.

  1. How long for this interim U.S. attorney?

Sessions isn’t the only one recusing himself.

Geoffrey Berman, the interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, recused himself from the decision on the FBI raid. Trump reportedly has planned to formally nominate Berman to the position.

Sessions appointed Berman and 16 other U.S. attorneys on an interim basis in January.

The Daily Signal asked Sanders on Tuesday whether the president still intends to nominate Berman to the U.S. attorney position beyond an interim basis. She responded that she had no personnel announcements.

source- the daily signal- LawNews–Fred Lucas-  Hans von Spakovsky- Andrew McCarthy- Geoffrey Berman

Lynch is lieing?

Allen West–47jh.,b43–

Loretta Lynch was interviewed recently where she talked about the infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton while the Hillary email and server issues were being investigated. Until now Ms. Lynch has pretty much stayed with the storyline that all that was discussed in the coincidental meeting were grandkids and stuff like that. That story just got revised. She just stated that they also discussed current events. Let this article explain to you just what that meant.

When we learned of the interview that Lester Holt had with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, our own Mr. Morrissey raised a few pertinent questions regarding just how much truth was being revealed. You’ll recall that Lynch’s original story was that she and President Bill Clinton only talked about “golf and grandchildren” during their infamous meeting on the Tarmac in 2016. But when talking to Holt, she expanded on that a bit, saying they also discussed, “issues of the day” such as Brexit.

Here was Ed’s rather polite analysis of that claim.

Until now, we’ve mainly heard that the conversation stuck to stories about grandchildren and personal topics. Bear in mind that the issues of the day in June 2016 mainly concerned the election season that was underway. We know by now that the FBI and DoJ had grown concerned over potential Russian interference in the process and had begun a probe into that as well. The news of the DNC hack broke on June 14th; the tarmac meeting took place around two weeks later. Wouldn’t any of that been among the “issues of the day” on the minds of the Clintons? And wouldn’t that have been of much more interest than Brexit?

All due respect to Ed for the restraint he was exhibiting, but I’m not sure such restraint is actually called for here. The Washington Times….

Lynch Throws James Comey Under The Bus

April 10, 2018

Former Director of the FBI, James Comey gets hit by all the bus wheels driven by his former boss, Loretta Lynch. Ms. Lynch seems to question his Congressional testimony about her directing his description of the Hillary Clinton “matter” not “investigation.” She does seem to have the same recollections that Comey does. Does this mean that Comey lied to Congress?

As Written and Reported By Christian Datoc for the Daily Caller:

Loretta Lynch cast aspersions on James Comey’s Congressional testimony, in which he suggested the former attorney general had told the former FBI director to refer to the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter, not an investigation.”

“He said, it made him feel strange,” NBC’s Lester Holt asked Lynch in an interview first previewed Monday. “He noted it. What did you mean when you said matter instead and not an investigation?”

“I heard about that testimony,” Lynch responded. “I didn’t watch it at the time, but it was brought to my attention later and people were raising it with me.”

“My first response was, ‘what, where is the issue here?’ I remember specifically talking with him – as we talked about sensitive things on a number of occasions,” she continued. “We often would have to discuss sensitive matters, sensitive issues, terrorism and the like, law enforcement policy and the like.”

“This was a very sensitive investigation as everyone knew,” she claimed. “And the issue when he and I sat down at that time, which I think was early in the fall of 2015, was whether or not we were ready as a department to confirm an investigation going on when we typically do not confirm or deny investigations into ……

“I can tell you that it was a meeting like any other that we had had, where we talked about the issues,” Lynch added when Holt asked if Comey questioned her “credibility” with regard to the Clinton investigation. “We had a full and open discussion about it.”

“Concerns were not raised.”

sources-allen west- holt, lester, nbc-morrissey-wasg tines-datoc, christian-daily caller-

 

 

 

 

 

what deep state means-

–87gH.,b69

The articles describe multiple deep state issues and types.  In my opinion and experience the Federal Bureaucracy is one huge deep state.  Having worked for the US Treasury Department as an Assistant and National Bank Examiner, including 90 days in DC in 1976, the deep state  Bureaucracy certainly existed in that department at that time and that department goes back to 1863.  The head of the department, the Comptroller of the Currency, is subject to appointment by the President every five years.  The rest of the thousands of employees are career employees for the most part and each of them have their own set of biased political opinions which they can use in their work.  As I was often told in DC “we will be here when the then current President and future Presidents come and go”.  Their are similar appointments with the Fed, FDIC, FSLIC, NASB, FBI, CIA, IRS, Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor, Justice, etc. and all of these departments influence what goes on in this country.  The recent disclosure at FBI, IRS and Justice bring to light the built in political bias of many career government employees,  Unfortunately those that work long term in the National offices of these various government agencies in DC soon take the attitude that they know what is best for the country, that they basically cannot be fired for malfeasance, that they are in control of the laws that get put on the books, interpretation of those laws and the President and Congress be damned unless they agree with their particular political views.  While our government was set up with a system of checks and balances, in todays world the Courts have increasingly ignored Congress and made interpretations of our laws that were never intended.  As the lower courts hand down decisions the final determination of the outcome of those decisions takes years in most cases and often involves multiple administrations so they get away with legislating from the bench while Congress has become a joke for the most part.  Unless the President takes on the deep state big time when they disagree with the President, nothing really changes.   Obama admitted DACA was not something he could do legally but he did it, it was supported by the high level bureaucracy and it has yet to be dealt with by the Supreme Court.  Had the deep state opposed DACA it would have never been implemented during the term of Obama.  The reason the deep state is so upset and doing all they can to undermine Trump is because the holdovers employed during the Clinton terms and the Obama terms are adamant liberals who want to see this country turned into a socialist country or worse including subjected to the One World Order international control scenario I believe.

 

I could go on for hours on this topic and it is indeed in place and a major danger to all of us.  Not only is it in place in this country but it is the New World Order group that is an even bigger concern to me.  The Rothschild banking family along with the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Mellon’s, Kennedys, Soros and other centers of individual wealth have been cited as being in control of the worldwide economy and proponents of the One World Order for at least the last 150 years.  In my opinion Obama was elected with the goal of furthering their mission to install the One World Order with the naïve idea that he would be their chosen leader of the World.  Obama was and is a pawn of the Soros types of individuals and he is still trying to get himself into that position by his day to day international and US activities.

 

Hope this helps a little in your quest to better understand the deep state in the US and the World.  Google Deep State and One World Order and you will find endless articles and books on this topic I believe that you will find interesting and informative.

 

Don’t know if I fully understand this????

In the United States the term “deep state” is used within political science to describe influential decision making bodies within government that are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations. The term is often used in a critical sense vis-à-vis the general electorate to refer to the lack of influence popular democracy has on these institutions and the decisions they make.[1][2] The term was originally coined in a somewhat pejorative sense to refer to similar relatively invisible state apparatus in Turkey and post-Soviet Russia.[3] With respect to the United States, the concept has been discussed in numerous published works by Marc Ambinder, David W. Brown, Peter Dale Scott, Mike Lofgren, Kevin Shipp and Michael Wolff.

While definitions vary, the term gained popularity among various groups, primarily supporters of Donald Trump and conspiracy theorists, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in opposition to establishment Republican and Democratic candidates. Since Trump’s inauguration, the term has been used by conspiracy theorists who argue that a ‘deep state’, involving the FBI, CIA, NSA, former President Barack Obama, and/or Hillary Clinton, is aiming to delegitimize the Trump presidency and thwart its policy goals.[4]

Definition

The term ‘deep state’ was defined in 2014 by Mike Lofgren, a former Republican U.S. congressional aide, as “a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.”[5][6]

In The Concealment of the State, Professor Jason Royce Lindsey argues that even without a conspiratorial agenda, the term deep state is useful for understanding aspects of the national security establishment in developed countries, with emphasis on the United States. Lindsey writes that the deep state draws power from the national security and intelligence communities, a realm where secrecy is a source of power.[7] Alfred W. McCoy states that the increase in the power of the U.S. intelligence community since the September 11 attacks “has built a fourth branch of the U.S. government” that is “in many ways autonomous from the executive, and increasingly so.”[8]

According to whistleblower Edward Snowden, “the deep state is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go…they influence policy, they influence presidents.”[13]

US politics

The term “deep state” has been associated with the “military–industrial complex” by several of the authors on the subject. Potential risks from the military-industrial complex were raised in President Dwight D. Eisenhower‘s 1961 farewell address: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”[14] Mike Lofgren has claimed the military-industrial complex is the private part of the deep state.[15] However, Marc Ambinder has suggested that a myth about the “deep state” is that it functions as one entity; rather, that parts of the “deep state” are “often at odds with one another.”[16]

President Barack Obama‘s alleged lack of success of his campaign promises relating to the Afghanistan war and civil liberties has been attributed by Tufts University professor Michael J. Glennon to what he calls the “double government”; the defense and national security network.[17][18] Mike Lofgren felt Obama was pushed into the Afghanistan “surge” in 2009.[19] Another major campaign promise Obama made was the closure of Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp, which he was unable to accomplish. This has been attributed indirectly to the influence of a deep state. [2]

Donald Trump supporters use the term to refer to their allegations that intelligence officers and executive branch officials guide policy through leaking or other internal means.[20][4] According to a July 2017 report by the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, “the Trump administration was being hit by national security leaks ‘on a nearly daily basis’ and at a far higher rate than its predecessors encountered”.[21]

Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, his former chief strategist, have both made allegations about a deep state which they believe is interfering with the president’s agenda.[23][24][25] In 2018, describing the deep state as an “entrenched bureaucracy,” Trump accused the United States Department of Justice “of being part of the ‘deep state'” in a statement advocating the prosecution of Huma Abedin.[26] Some Trump allies and right-wing media outlets have alleged that former President Barack Obama is coordinating a deep state resistance to Trump.[23][27] While the belief in a deep state is popular among Trump supporters, critics maintain that it has no basis in reality[28], arguing that the sources of the leaks frustrating the Trump administration lack the organizational depth of deep states in other countries, and that use of the term in the U.S. could undermine confidence in vital institutions and be used to justify suppressing dissent.[29][23]

According to a poll of Americans in April 2017, about half (48%) thought there was a “deep state”, “meaning military, intelligence and government officials who try to secretly manipulate government.” Of those who thought that, more than half (58%) said it was a major problem (net of 28% surveyed).[30][31] A March 2018 poll found most respondents (63%) were unfamiliar with the term “deep state”, but a majority believe that a deep state likely exists in the United States when described as “a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy”. Three-fourths (74%) of the respondents say that they believe this type of group definitely or probably exists in the federal government.[32][33][34]

 

source-wikipedia-lindsey, prof jason royce-foreign affairs-michaels, jon d-breitbart-nyt-tufts univ-glennon, michael-elliot, c august-DAVE