Democrats of all stripes focus on impeachment (despite all the facts)

Featured

NYT and New York district investigate Rudy rather than real corruption

NYT: Rudy Giuliani Under Investigation Over Ukraine Work. He Denies Wrongdoing

In a 12 October 2019 Daily Caller article, we see how the New York Times and federal investigators have gone after Rudy Giuliani.

GiulianiFederal prosecutors are reportedly investigating Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s dealings in Ukraine, including whether he acted as an unregistered foreign agent, an allegation he denied.

Prosecutors in Manhattan are looking into whether Giuliani worked with Ukrainians to oust Marie Yovanovitch as ambassador to Ukraine, two anonymous sources told The New York Times.

Giuliani told the Times he is not aware of any investigation against him. He also said he was investigating issues involving Ukraine on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump, and not Ukrainian officials.

Trump responded to news of the investigation Saturday by defending his lawyer.

Two Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were indicted Thursday on charges that they made illegal campaign contributions, including to a lawmaker who pushed for Yovanovitch’s firing in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2018.

Yovanovitch testified to Congress on Friday, and accused Giuliani and his Ukrainian partners of taking part in a “concerted effort” to force her removal.

Prosecutors said Parnas and Fruman, who operated businesses in Florida, were involved “in causing the U.S. government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.”

(Read more at Daily Caller)

Why not investigate the dark ties between Ukraine and Biden/Obama

On the off chance that stories saying Biden was behind the scenes in Ukraine selling the presidency, don’t you think that the New York Times and other liberal outlets might want to look into it? If Biden took part in saving the company who ended up with $1.8 billion in missing aid, don’t you think that more than bloggers and FOIA crusaders would look into it?

If there are credible sources telling us that Clinton, Obama, Biden, and the International Monetary Fund pillaged Ukraine, why shouldn’t that be part of the campaign trail discussion?

Could it be due to the media bias favoring Democrats?

This “Resistance” goes to emotion-only mode (no facts)

Nolte: Snopes announces it will now fight Trump using ‘feelings’ and ‘emotion’

Breitbart‘s John Nolte points out how left-leaning “fact checker Snopes has adopted a mission of fighting Trump with “feelings” and “emotions.”

snopes-coverJust like he did with far-left CNN, President Trump has just forced the phony, left-wing fact check site Snopes to throw out every standard of professional journalism.

In a stunning admission (of what we already knew), Snopes reprinted an essay Thursday arguing that Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are such unique threats to the world that “experts must find new ways to reach people.” Which means that — get this — Trump and Johnson must be “countered by the shared stories, experiences and emotions of real people and how they are affected by the big global issues.”

The blog post by professors David Knights and Torkild Thanem was first published at The Conversation but re-run by Snopes in full. “Public austerity measures, for example, are not simply about financial facts,” they mewl. “Indeed, when presented merely as economic data, many people can neither identify with nor understand them. Instead, austerity poses problems that compel us to examine how they affect people and families in their daily lives. The experiences of those individuals must be shared.”

The professors promise to get just as ridiculous with other left-wing causes, specifically when it comes to stopping Brexit and furthering the Global Warming Hoax:

Whether examining Brexit, public austerity measures or the effects of climate change, one limitation is that facts and data generated through quantitative social research are presented as if detached from the people they concern as well as those involved in their production. Far removed from people’s lived experiences, they risk displacing any sense of what it is to be human. As such, they are, perhaps, too easy to dismiss.

This is actually good news. The mask is now removed forever.

What’s more, posting this article — without any caveat that it does not reflect the site’s editorial position — is a surrender on the part of Snopes, an admission that people are not falling for the selective facts and hand-picked experts that these fake fact-check sites use to avoid inconvenient truths, such as the fact that their so-called climate experts are 0-41 with their doomsday predictions.

(Read more at Breitbart)

The real problem with this headline is that this is Snopes‘ normal operating mode

If you are in the habit of going two or three levels into the links provided by an article (and then not accepting the tales if the “proofs” are circular or non-existent), then you will know that many “fact checkers” (and especially the Snopes site) provide nothing but left-leaning and biased input. Therefore, with such exposure, surely you would also know that a prime tool at Snopes involves the use of emotional pleas.

So what else is new?

Hunter Biden To Step Down From Board Of Chinese Firm

After all of the problems start to surface, we get a report from the Daily Caller pointing out that the experience-free billionaire has resigned from the Chinese board (but did not divest himself of the profits or funds given him when he went to China on Air Force 2).

hunter-bidenHunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, announced he will resign from the board of a Chinese private equity firm that has been a target of President Donald Trump’s criticism in a Sunday statement from his lawyer.

Joe Biden had no part in his son’s foreign business dealings, and Hunter Biden has also vowed not to take part in any such business if his father is elected as president in 2020, according to the statement published by attorney George Mesires to Medium.

“To date, Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR’s board of directors. He has not received any return on his investment; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest. Moreover, Hunter played no role in directing or making BHR’s investments. Hunter intends to resign from the BHR board of directors on or by October 31, 2019,” the statement reads.

“When Hunter engaged in his business pursuits, he believed that he was acting appropriately and in good faith. He never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the president of the United States,” the statement continues in reference to criticism from Trump regarding the younger Biden’s ties to China.

The statement continues with a promise that Hunter Biden would not partake in any foreign business dealings “under a Biden administration.”

“Hunter makes the following commitment: Under a Biden Administration, Hunter will readily comply with any and all guidelines or standards a President Biden may issue to address purported conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, including any restrictions related to overseas business interests. In any event, Hunter will agree not to serve on boards of, or work on behalf of, foreign-owned companies,” the statement concludes.

(Read more at Daily Caller)

He did not divest himself of the ill-gotten profits earned while his dad was in office

Even though Hunter Biden could only have gotten the Ukrainian board job paying $83,000 per month (for years) because his dad was the American Vice President and was overseeing an attempt sweep out corruption — he accepted the money.

Even though Hunter Biden was a drug addict who was drummed out of the military, he managed to get a ride on Air Force 2 into China (where he got another high-paying job at a Chinese securities company). When the Vice President should have stood against the air space taken over by China and the islands built by China in shipping lanes, America did nothing and Hunter Biden got another high-paying job.

Even though Hunter Biden has blathered out responses to ABC’s softball questions, the only response I believe from him is that he did exhibit “poor judgement.”

13 months of impeachment hopes from Comey

NYTwits declare: Comey would like to help with impeachment

In a stereotypical puff-piece on someone it considers a “hero” of the resistance, the NYTwits explain how Comey would like to take part in the impeachment.

ComeyJames Comey slumps strategically in restaurants — all 6-foot-8 of him, drooping faux-furtively with his back to the room — and daydreams about deleting the civic-minded Twitter feed where a bipartisan coalition pronounces him a national disgrace.

He sleeps soundly — nine hours a night, he ballparks — and organizes the self-described “unemployed celebrity” chapter of his life around a series of workaday goals. “One of my goals has been to get to 10 consecutive pull-ups,” Mr. Comey said in an interview, legs crossed on the back porch of his stately Virginia home. “I’m at nine now. So, I’ve been doing a lot of pull-ups.”

He writes and thinks and reads and worries from a tidy downstairs office surrounded by the trinkets of his past: the White House place card from the night President Trump asked for his “loyalty” as F.B.I. director; a book by Nate Silver, the political data whiz who believes Mr. Comey’s explosively ambiguous letter in October 2016 about the Hillary Clinton email investigation probably handed Mr. Trump the election; a page from a quote-of-the-day calendar, saved for its resonance: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

“It reminds me so much of the F.B.I.,” Mr. Comey said.

But then, a lot of things have lately. Another Trump-branded election interference scandal is upon us. Institutions are wobbling. And Mr. Comey, as ever, cannot fight a nagging conviction about it all: James Comey can help. He must help.

(Read more at the New York Times)

As long as NYTwits like this are on the left, we should remain motivated

If you need another reason (other than Robbie Francis O’Rourke and his gun-grabbing and religion-suppressing ways can muster), then you need to work on motivation.

Maybe this is how Schiff avoided talking directly with the leakers

Reminder: Schiff Reportedly Hired Two Of Trump’s NSC Staffers

In addition to his lie that he later called “parody,” his lie about not being in contact with the “whistleblower,” and even his multiple claims that he had proof that Trump conspired with Russians, Schiff also seems to have hired two of Trump’s NSC staffers, as reported by the Daily Caller.

IdiotSchiffPresident Donald Trump accused Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff in February of “stealing” away people who had worked in the White House at its National Security Council by hiring them.

Schiff’s committee hired two people who worked at the NSC in the Obama and Trump administrations: Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018 and was hired in February with a stop in between at a think-tank founded by Obama officials, and Sean Misko, who departed the NSC in 2017 and joined Schiff’s staff in August, the Washington Examiner reported.

Also in August, the “whistleblower” who had worked at the NSC reportedly made contact with an unnamed aide to Schiff — the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — who provided guidance about his next steps to blow the whistle about a July phone call, leading him to retain an attorney and approach an inspector general.

That interaction took on added intrigue because Schiff said “we have not spoken directly” with the whistleblower, when in fact his aide had. A Washington Post fact-checker wrote his statement was “flat-out false.” Schiff knew details about the whistleblower’s complaint before it was filed, according to the Examiner.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations at Judicial Watch, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Schiff wasn’t so much stealing Trump’s people, but rather there were people in the Trump administration who never agreed with his policies.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Lies, lies, and more lies — the face of Democrats

Beside farcically being the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, there can be no reason to associate Adam Schiff with intelligence (given the number of times that he has been caught in lies). On the other hand, there are ample reasons to associate his name with lies.

Just to prove there are some news agencies reporting on American political news other than the Trump impeachment

Sen. Sasse Blasts Beto for ‘Extreme Intolerance’ for Trying to Force Churches to Support Gay Marriage

Just to prove that they can report on things that the NYT and WSJ ignore, the Christian Broadcasting Network reports on the First-Amendment threat from O’Rourke.

Beto O'RourkeDemocratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke shocked even some fellow liberal politicians like Pete Buttigieg last week when he said churches should lose their tax-exempt status if they don’t support gay marriage. Now he’s trying to backpedal those comments.

At a CNN Democratic town hall debate Thursday night,  O’Rourke was asked, “Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, and charities should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” the former Texas 16th district congressman replied. “So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

O’Rourke’s comments immediately drew backlash from conservatives. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) released a statement Friday condemning O’Rourke for “extreme intolerance.”

“This bigoted nonsense would target a lot of sincere Christians, Jews, and Muslims,” wrote Sasse. “Leaders from both parties have a duty to flatly condemn this attack on very basic American freedoms.”

“This extreme intolerance is un-American,” Sasse went on. “The whole point of the First Amendment is that…everyone is created with dignity and we don’t use government power to decide which religious beliefs are legitimate and which aren’t.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

At least O’Rourke has defined Democrats as the anti-religious party

What else have any other Democrats done? Have they passed any bills funding construction of bridges, highways, or other infrastructure? Have they successfully proven that President Trump ever obstructed justice?

Have they encouraged businesses to start up by lowering the regulatory hurdle?

Although they recently complained that we pulled out too quickly from Syria (and I might agree that we could support the Kurds to a degree), what have they done to fund and support our military?

Rudy Giuliani Explains Why He Took Matters Into His Own Hands When Trying To Expose Alleged Biden Corruption

The Daily Caller recounts Rudy Giuliani’s explanation of why he took matters into his own hands to expose the Biden corruption.

rudyPresident Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who is at the center of the Ukraine scandal, sat down with the Daily Caller’s Stephanie Hamill for an exclusive one-hour interview.

Giuliani explained in detail why he took matters into his own hands trying to expose the Biden’s alleged corrupt business deals in Ukraine.

“It broke my heart that I couldn’t go to the FBI,” said Giuliani.

He told the Caller that he lacked faith in the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2018, and claimed that the alleged witnesses actually attempted to get information to the government agency and the Department of Justice, but says they were ignored.

“They concluded that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were still running the FBI, and that it was as crooked as it was under Clinton. I made a promise that I would investigate it myself, develop the corroboration so then no one could tear it apart afterwards,” Giuliani explained.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

I support every effort to expose the corruption of the Democrats

Were these corruptions within the Republican party, I would support exposing them. Therefore, since these corruptions fall within the party that wants to strip me of my religious rights, wants to fund the killing of babies with my tax dollars, and wants to ignore my daily sacrifice and still strip more tax dollars from my pay checks — I say that the investigators should go get them.

As for myself, I want to know how the Clinton Foundation can accept funds from foreign governments while Hillary served in the State Department and ran for president. I want to know how Hunter Biden can ride on daddy’s coattails to Ukraine and China to land lucrative jobs while daddy negotiates with the government. I want to know how the FBI and Department of Justice destroyed evidence concerning Hillary without any repercussions.

What’s more, those are only at the beginning of my desire for justice.


To the Do-Nothing Democrats — In your dreams, Chuckie

From the Do-Nothing Democrats — Schumer: We’ll Force Votes on Health Care, Taxes, and Climate

Breitbart seems to be the only one telling us how Schumer wants to force votes on the Democrat agenda. (Bolding is mine for emphasis.)

chuckieDuring Friday’s Democratic Weekly Address, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that when Congress returns to session, Senate Democrats will force votes on health care, taxes, and climate.

Transcript as Follows:

“My fellow Americans…

Over the past month, evidence has emerged that the President of the United States pressured a foreign leader to investigate one of his leading political rivals.

It is an offense serious enough to warrant a full investigation by Congress, and that is exactly what the House of Representatives has decided to do by beginning a formal impeachment inquiry.

We have a responsibility now to see that all the facts get out, and to consider those facts with the best interests of our country, nothing else, in mind.

When I studied our constitution in high school and college, when we learned that one of the greatest threats our Founding Fathers feared was foreign interference in our elections – I said at the time, ‘Why did they care about this? This hasn’t happened in any real sense.’

But of course, once again, we have learned how the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is relevant to this very day.

If a foreign country can actually affect our elections, Americans will lose faith in our democracy – this grand and wonderful democracy.

So we must guard against that, but at the same time we have to do two things at once. We can protect our constitution and do things average working families need at the same time. And Democrats are intent on pushing for working families.

From the very beginning, Senate Democrats have been committed to doing the people’s business.

The price of health care is too high, incomes are too low.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, gun violence is an epidemic.

Too many Americans have trouble voting, and our elections remain vulnerable to foreign interference.

Climate change is an existential threat to the planet that demands bold and far-reaching action.

Over the course of his presidency – long before the House investigation – President Trump has failed to offer serious proposals to address any of these issues.

In many cases, his policies have made things worse.

And while the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has passed hundreds of bills dealing with health care, infrastructure, gun violence and much, much more, the Republican Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has turned our chamber, the Senate, into a legislative graveyard.

Not one of those bills has even received a vote in the Senate: no vote to save protections for people with pre-existing conditions, no vote on bipartisan background checks, no vote on bipartisan election security legislation, no vote on the Violence Against Women Act.

So as Congress comes back into session next week, Senate Democrats have a plan to jolt the Senate into action on several important issues.

Over the next few weeks, we will force our Republican colleagues to vote on whether to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions or not; to protect middle-class families from a tax hike or not, to protect our climate or not.

And we will also demand that our Republican colleagues take up legislation to protect hard-earned pensions for millions of workers, and they are in danger of losing it right now.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Look out or you may get what you wish for (as with the Nuclear Option, Impeachment of the next Democrat, and other Democrat gifts to Republicans)

Recently, you complained that Republicans should not follow the bad example of Democrats by imposing the Nuclear Option on the nomination of judges. Oddly, you said absolutely nothing when Dick Durban used the same tactic to push through Obama’s judicial nominees.

Right now, Republicans are complaining the way Nancy Pelosi has broken with the procedures called out for the impeachment process by not calling for a vote for an impeachment inquiry. By doing so, she has prevented anyone from sending out real subpoenas (never mind what the “press” calls the Democrat letters of demand — they are not subpoenas). That is, by not calling a vote, she is blocking Republicans from mounting a defense of the President. Will you complain in the future if Republicans treat you just as unfairly?

I hope you do, Chuckie.

Also at this time, Republicans with a backbone are complaining about how Democrats locking them out of the hearings on impeachment. When that happens during the next impeachment of a Democrat president, will you whine?

I hope that I will be able to write an extended blog about that whining.

You see, as long as Republicans have played by the rules and Democrats have bent the rules — the system has not really worked. However, that ended with Trump. When people say “you can’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” they know what they are talking about.

Now that the Democrats have gotten one taste of the blade they dealt, they are fighting harder and dirtier than ever. That is, rather than following the rules and stepping out of the hole they have dug themselves into, Democrats have decided to double down and dig themselves deeper into the dump they have created. So they are being unfair with the continual investigations, being unfair with the continual Antifa attacks, being unfair with the improper impeachment inquiry, and being unfair by their kangaroo court impeachment “closed hearings.”

Therefore, I hope that Republicans give Democrats a full taste mouthful of the mush you have spooned out.

Schiff Admits There Was No Quid Pro Quo But Still Believes In Impeachment

Townhall reports on the morally vacuous leadership of the impeachment movement.

StephanopoulosShiffHouse Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) told George Stephanopoulos that his Committee plans to hold President Donald Trump accountable for his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the unclassified, unredacted transcript showed that no quid pro quo took place, Schiff believes impeachment is still necessary. He believes Trump failed to protect America’s elections.

“I intend to hold the president accountable and I intend to do it with our own investigation. And what we have seen already is damning because what we have seen in that call record is a president of the United States using the full weight of his office, with a country behold to America for its defense, even as Russian troops occupy part of its land, and the president used that opportunity to try to coerce that leader to manufacture dirt on his opponent and interfere in our election,” he said.

“It’s hard to imagine a series of facts more damning than that. So yes, we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

“Let me stop you right there because we’re already hearing some of the president’s defenders, even those who sometimes say the call was not appropriate, say yes, that in the absence of an explicit quid pro quo, some kind of statement from the president or a document that says, ‘We are withholding the aid until you do that investigation.’ That is what is necessary to pursue impeachment,” Stephanopoulos said.

(Read more at Townhall)

Nothing goes together like lies and Schiff

From the beginning of each of the investigations, one way to tell whether there were fabrications involved seemed to be to look and see if Schiff had become involved. Almost every story line he became involved with became corrupted.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing

Fox News reports how Democrats blocked Repbulican Matt Gaetz from attending an impeachment inquiry hearing.

matt-gaetzRep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., an ardent supporter of President Trump, got the boot on Monday when he tried to sit in on the testimony of a former top National Security Council expert on Russia who was appearing on Capitol Hill as part of the House impeachment inquiry into the president.

Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

A frustrated Gaetz aired his disappointment to reporters after being told he was not allowed to sit in on the hearing, venting his anger over what he says are “selective leaks” by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and questioning why he was not allowed to be present during Hill’s testimony. Gaetz added that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was involved in the impeachment inquiry.

“It’s not like I’m on agriculture,” Gaetz said. “What are the Democrats so afraid of?”

Gaetz followed up his comments with a tweet calling the impeachment inquiry a kangaroo court and using one of Trump’s favorite nicknames for the intelligence committee chairman, “Shifty Schiff.”

“Judiciary Chairman [Jerry Nadler] claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago,” Gaetz tweeted. “Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it. And yes – my constituents want me actively involved in stopping the #KangarooCourtCoup run by Shifty Schiff.”

Other Republicans closely aligned with Trump continued on Monday to complain about Schiff and his handling of the impeachment inquiry – with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also lambasting the California Democrat for excluding some congressional Republicans from the testimonies and for leaking “cherry-picked” information from the closed-door hearings to the press.

(Read more at Fox News)

Sunlight disinfects. Get this out for all to see.

Closed-door investigations only act as breeding grounds for corruption. We need this to come out into the open, where the American people can see the expressions of the people being questioned, where we can hear the questions posed and the answers offered, and where we can make up our own minds.

Radack & Cagle block quorum, preventing an almost 12% tax hike

Featured

Steve Radack and Cactus Jack Cagle provide an example of tax resistance that other Republicans might emulate

As told in an 8 October 2019 Houston Chronicle article, we had a good example of heroic resistance shown in a recent Harris County Commissioners Court meeting. Two Republicans decided to stand against a tax hike (called for by newly-elected Democrats even though an excess of funds existed).

Two Harris County Commissioners Court members skipped Tuesday’s meeting, preventing the Democratic majority from voting on a property tax hike that would increase county revenue by 8 percent.

SteveRadack
Steve Radack

The no-shows by Republican commissioners Steve Radack and Jack Cagle mean the county will revert to the effective tax rate for the upcoming fiscal year, which will result in $195 million less than the rate Democrats had proposed, according to county budget analysts.

Texas law requires a quorum of four members, rather than the usual three, to decide tax rates. That exception provided rare power to Radack and Cagle, who repeatedly have lost close votes to their three Democratic colleagues this year.

HidalgoGarciaEllis
Lina Hidalgo, Adrian Garcia, and Rodney Ellis

Tuesday’s no-vote was the culmination of four weeks of sparring over the tax rate since the three Democrats — County Judge Lina Hidalgo and commissioners Rodney Ellis and Adrian Garcia — proposed the hike Sept. 10. The trio dismissed the quorum break as a childish stunt. The Republicans, in absentia, claimed a win for taxpayers.

“The residents of Precinct 4 elected me to represent them. They did not elect me to lord over them or to repress them,” Cagle said in a statement issued after the meeting began. “This is the taxpayers’ money, not the government’s.”

The proposal would have increased the county’s overall property tax rate to 65.3 cents per $100 of assessed value, up 2.26 cents from the current rate. The measure would have added 1.1 cents to the flood control district’s tax rate, 0.8 cents to the hospital district and added 1.7 cents to create a “financial stability” or rainy day fund. Some of those increases would have been partially offset by reductions in the tax rates for the debt service of the county, the flood control district, the hospital district and the Port of Houston.

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

We still have heroes in the conservative movement

Thanks to both Commissioners Cagle and Radack for using the tactic employed by Rodney Ellis while he was in the state legislature.

The odd part of the story is how it gets reported. Of course, Democrats in the press applauded the tactic when it meant a tax cut was defeated for middle-income Texans and cried foul (refer to the left-leaning Houston Chronicle [or is that Houston Comical] article above) when it prevented tax hike for middle-income Texan families.

You would almost think that Democrats in the press are campaigning to become the enemy of middle-income Texans. In other news, print circulation of newspapers takes another plunge.

Harris County Tax Increase Averted After Commissioners Skip Meeting

More to the point, The Texan also reported on the tax revolt.

When Judge Lina Hidalgo (D) called to order this week’s meeting of the Harris County Commissioners Court, the two Republican members of the court were conspicuously absent.

The court had been scheduled to vote on Hidalgo’s proposal to raise property taxes by the maximum 8 percent allowable without voter approval.  After January 1, 2020 a new state tax relief law will lower the maximum to 3.5 percent for cities and counties.

But according to state statute, four of the five elected members of the court must be present to establish a quorum for a tax levy vote.

Cagle
Jack Cagle

In skipping the meeting, Commissioners Steve Radack (R-Precinct 3) and Jack Cagle (R-Precinct 4) succeeded in blocking a tax rate increase that Cagle called “unwise, unjust, and unfair.”

“The residents of Precinct 4 elected me to represent them. They did not elect me to lord over them or to repress them,” Cagle said in a prepared statement.  “This is the taxpayers’ money, not the government’s.”

At a September 10 meeting, Cagle had proposed increasing the rate for only the Harris County Flood Control District but was overruled by Hidalgo. Democrat Commissioners Rodney Ellis (Precinct 1) and Adrian Garcia (Precinct 2) joined Hidalgo in a 3-2 party-line vote to increase taxes in all four county tax categories.

Under the proposed increase, rates would have increased from 0.62998 to 0.6520 per $100 of valuation. According to the county budget office, the average increase for homeowners would total $38 per year.

Texas State Senator Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) argued that the estimated $38 increase did not consider property value growth. Instead, he said the average homeowner, with a taxable value of $177,690, would likely see an increase of $118 per year, and that some residents would experience rate increases of nearly 12 percent.

Without the quorum needed to approve Hidalgo’s proposed rate, Harris County will revert to the “effective rate.”  While the rate itself will fall to 0.61170, many property owners will still pay a higher tax bill next year due to rising values, and the county will still collect an estimated $37 million more in revenue.

During public hearings, Commissioner Garcia frequently reminded the public that appraisal processes were also responsible for higher property tax bills.

“The reality is that the majority of the problem is… not what we’re proposing, but it’s the fact that you’ve got a runaway appraisal district. That appraisal district has been raising your assessed value 10 percent every year.”

At a previous hearing, Commissioner Cagle had produced a stack of 423 emails printed on red paper opposing the increase and two emails supporting the increase printed on blue paper.

(Read more at The Texan)

Thanks to the guys who keep reminding me to brag on these heroes

I have to be honest and start this with a hat-tip to Chris X of KSEV and Chris Salcedo of KSEV, WBAP, and NewsMax TV. If I had to depend on the Houston Chronicle for stories like this (which surely appeared under the fold on page C23 in their print version), I would not have heard of it.

Transsexual stories not in the news

Featured

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex

If we jump across the Atlantic to Sky News, we can read of the many children who want to return to their original sex after transsexual treatment.

Hundreds of young transgender people are seeking help to return to their original sex, a woman who is setting up a charity has told Sky News.

CharlieEvans

Charlie Evans, 28, was born female but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.

The number of young people seeking gender transition is at an all-time high but we hear very little, if anything, about those who may come to regret their decision.

There is currently no data to reflect the number who may be unhappy in their new gender or who may opt to detransition to their biological sex.

Charlie detransitioned and went public with her story last year – and said she was stunned by the number of people she discovered in a similar position.

“I’m in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn’t, and their dysphoria hasn’t been relieved, they don’t feel better for it,” she says.

“They don’t know what their options are now.”

(Read more at Sky News)

Although this article says “there is no data …” on how many are unhappy with their new gender, there are a number of studies that say otherwise

Consider the following data:

  • At least 12 studies indicate that slightly over 90% of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of the condition by puberty and more by adulthood
  • Most children experiencing gender dysphoria also have other psychological issues
  • A survey conducted in 2010 by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – neither of them members of the vast rightwing conspiracy – revealed that 41 percent of transgendered Americans have attempted suicide. This is a rate more than 25 times higher than the population at large.
  • Even secular media sources are talking more about the lies behind this industry. However, mass media news and reality shows still paint it as somewhat glamorous.
  • Surgery won’t reassign sex, because our sex is determined when we were in the womb. Sex is binary, either male or female. Identities are in our thoughts or feelings.
  • Surgery only masculinizes or feminizes someone’s outward appearance. People aren’t born in the wrong body. It is biologically impossible to change one’s sex.
  • There are at least 6500 genes which are expressed differently in men and women which will continue to function as the sex someone is born as.
  • The facts of biology won’t be changed by your feelings or even the fact that you can get a surgery which they call “reassignment.”
  • Up to 20% have regret, even after the operations, according to over 100 international medical studies. The reality of the expected results does not meet the mind’s expectations, which caused a 44-year-old woman in Belgium to request euthanasia after the surgery because she was psychologically distraught. “I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself,” said Nancy Verheist (birth name) who wanted to be known as Nathan. They granted the euthanasia.
  • A study from 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid indicated there were no meaningful improvements to the quality of life for those who had transitioned.
  • Suicidal thoughts don’t reduce if the person had them before. Or they become a new reality.
  • Body-identity Integrity Disorder (BIID) is when people want to cut off healthy body parts. For instance, someone who identifies as an amputee but has all his/her body parts would not be allowed surgery to remove body parts to become an amputee. Their feelings are ignored while those wanting to “change” their sex are not. Therefore, the medical doctors willing to do these reassignments ignore the facts above to make money off gender dysphoria or BIID, and therefore are probably violating the Hippocratic Oath of “Do no harm.” Remember this in case you need to sue the doctor later if you have regrets. But they’ll make you sign paperwork to prevent that because they know.
  • There is an institute in Belgrade who does gender re-re-assignment for those who regret previous surgeries and want to return to their biological sex.
  • Harvard professor Jerome Kagan, with 40 years of studying children, says parents who are particularly affirming of their children’s cross-sex identification ultimately have outcomes in health and well-being which are worst.
  • Another lie is once you change you’ll be happy. The stories of those formerly in the LGBTQ choice proves otherwise.

(Hat tip to the podcasts of Bryan Fischer, Abraham Hamilton, and Bishop E. W. Jackson)

Puberty Blockers Linked to Thousands of Deaths – Liberty Counsel

According to Liberty Counsel and the Food & Drug Administration, thousands of deaths in the United States can be linked to puberty blockers.

Drugs that are being used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused youth have been linked to tens of thousands of serious reactions and thousands of deaths, as well as other serious medical issues, according to Food & Drug Administration (FDA) data.

lupron

The FDA has now documented over 41,000 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate, known as Lupron, which is used as a hormone blocker. There have been 25,645 reactions considered “serious,” including 6,379 deaths.

Lupron is traditionally used for treatment of prostate cancer as it inhibits the flow of testosterone over the prostate. The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal processes at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age. However, it is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose and the absence of any peer-reviewed studies done on the drug’s long-term effects.

Lupron and synthetic hormones have been documented to contribute to physical problems such as blood clots and other cardiovascular complications, brittle bones and faulty joints, altered psyches, and permanent sterilization. Yet many of the long-term repercussions will not be felt for years.

Despite these serious issues, sales of Lupron were approximately $669 million in 2017 in the United States alone.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a California-based pediatric endocrinologist, stated that he knows of no other psychological condition that is treated by administering hormones out of alignment from their normal levels. When injected into a physically healthy body, the drug interrupts a normally-functioning endocrine system and causes a condition where the male testes or the female ovaries produce little or no sex hormones.

Currently doctors are giving testosterone to gender-confused girls as young as eight years old and teen girls as young as 13 are having their breasts removed via mastectomy procedures. Boys the age of 17 can have penises the developmental age of a nine-year-old’s or lose sexual sensation all together due to hormone blockers.

Dr. Laidlaw said, “Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should, therefore, be treated with proper psychological care. But it becomes an endocrine condition once you start using puberty blockers and giving cross-sex hormones to kids. There have been few physicians willing to stand up and say, ‘We need to question this, there is something wrong here. Why are we using cancer drugs on kids without cancer and stopping normal puberty?” Laidlaw said.

(Read more at Liberty Counsel)

Because of the physical harm and death being dealt on children, this seems to be a mass case of Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy

Be certain that children between 3 and 15 are too young to make decisions that will:

  • Cut their life expectancy dramatically,
  • Prevent them from ever having children,
  • Increase their chances of contracting cancer, becoming clinically depressed, and otherwise being burdened, and
  • Will leave physical and mental scars.

Therefore, I would suggest that the above article provides evidence that liberals in the US have begun experiencing Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy. That is, these parents — to the detriment of their children — have sought attention by forcing their children to take the position of a gender dysphoric.

If that is not the case, then they have — en masse — taken on the advise of greedy, soulless, and un-Hippocratic doctors.

Court will decide who writes law: SCOTUS or Congress

Does SCOTUS get to rewrite Title VII in its own image?

Although the Washington Post wants to make the recent Supreme Court inductees the center of the story, the real topic centers on whether the jurists on the Supreme Court adhere to originalism or believe the Constitution has become a living document. Still, the Washington Post says:

SCOTUSdecidesOnLGBTQ

The Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday about whether federal discrimination laws protect gay and transgender workers, and President Trump’s appointments to the court could play the pivotal roles in deciding the outcome.

The issue, one of the most significant facing the court this term, concerns the reach of ­Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, besides protecting against workplace discrimination because of race, religion and other characteristics, also prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” The court has since interpreted that definition to include discriminating on the basis of sex stereotypes.

The arguments touched on some of the most controversial issues of the day — whether it would mean the end of single-sex bathrooms, whether men should be able to compete on female athletic teams, whether dress codes for men and women would become a thing of the past.

The word “transgender” made its first appearance in a Supreme Court argument, as did “cisgender” — the term for a person whose gender identity matches how they were identified at birth — and the gender-ambiguous character “Pat” from “Saturday Night Live” skits that aired during the 1990s. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose questions in court gave no signal about his views on the case, was careful with pronouns, at one point using the neutral “they” to refer to an individual.

Lawyers for the gay and transgender individuals challenging their firings seemed to pitch their arguments to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative who advocates a close textual reading of statutes. During the sexual orientation arguments, he pushed lawyers for the government and the employers to acknowledge that sex seemed to be at least a “contributing cause” to the terminations.

The Post is right to say “transgender” made its first appearance, because the concept does not appear in the original law

Title VII was written to deal with discrimination between males and females. Those who wrote that law did not have any concept of transsexualism in their minds as they framed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, if the current Supreme Court stretches the definition of “sex” to include transsexuals (much as the 1973 Supreme Court invented the right to abort babies from a stretching of the Fourteenth and Ninth Amendments), then we will have experienced another writing of law via judicial fiat.

Oddly, since the constitution states that Congress has the sole authority creating law, how can this be? One answer might be that Senators and Representatives are lazy and do not want to take on the tough subjects that the appointed-for-life justices seem willing to burden us with.

When John Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act by effectively rewriting it from the bench, Democrats breathed a sigh of relief because their failing healthcare law had a little more life. Republicans wiped the sweat from their brow because they did not have to risk being called racist for standing against the first African-American president.

When Henry Blackmun wrote the majority decision for Roe, he not only enabled the American holocaust (which, unlike Germany’s holocaust, was carried out against our own children), but also absolved the sexual revolution of its responsibility and enabled Margaret Sanger’s racism.

Stories you probably did not hear about impeachment

Featured

NPR Regrets Interviewing Republican Who Called Out Schiff and Democrats on ‘Political Impeachment’

Breitbart reports on the National Public Radio interview that varied from their selected topic.

IdiotSchiffNational Public Radio (NPR) regrets a live radio interview with a Republican lawmaker who called out Democrats and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing investigations against President Donald Trump, for what he called a “political impeachment.”

NPR sent out its public editor, Elizabeth Jensen, to defend the taxpayer-funded left-wing media outlet for it “journalistically strong” coverage of the impeachment effort after its supporters criticized an interview with Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN):

Unlike some of the critics, I think that overall the coverage has the handling of misinformation in an interview on Wednesday’s All Things Considered with Rep. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, raised journalistic concerns that I don’t think are explained away as purely partisan posturing (although there has also been plenty of partisan pushback from both sides about the interview). And once again, the journalistic challenge resulted from a format choice: the decision to interview a politician on live radio.

Live interviews have increased greatly on NPR’s newsmagazines in recent years. As readers of this column well know, listeners (and I) have raised many concerns about their execution.

When they work, live interviews are a valuable way to hear the point of view of a newsmaker in their own words. An interview runs into problems, however, when the guest says something that is provably inaccurate or seriously misleading. At that point the host is obligated to push back to correct it, which to some listeners sounds partisan (and it can be unpleasant and unproductive when an interview turns argumentative).

(Read more at National Public Radio)

If only NPR would come clean, it would be much more simple

All that they would have to do would be to change their banner. Once it read “NPR provides all news that supports the current narrative of liberals and Democrats.” Of course, for anyone who has listened to 10 minutes of PAll Things Considered, Morning Edition, or Here and Now would know that a liberal slant predominates just about everything that comes across their airwaves.

Democrats make arguments against impeachment

If you listen to the Democrats in the following video, you will hear them make strong arguments against impeachment.

Speaker Testimony
Biden: It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds.
Pelosi: I think it has dramatic impact on the confidence the American people have in government.
Nadler: The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election.
Schumer: Their hatred of the President exceeds their caring about this country and its people.
Biden: It would trample on the choice made by the people through the electoral process and do great harm.
Nadler: The people elected the President. They still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgement of the American people.
Sanders: But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is — let’s get on with the business of the American people.
Nadler: Impeachment of a president is an undoing of a national election …
Biden: … it violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice.
Nadler: They are ripping asunder our votes. They are telling us our votes don’t count and that the election must be set aside.
Waters: Send a message through the ballot box. That’s what we do in this democracy.
Green: I’m concerned that, if we don’t impeach this President, he will get re-elected.

I will agree with all of these Democrats on these statements

However, unlike the times that we endured while Bill Clinton philandered and lied about the philandering, we do not have a media that wants to cover for the President.

So, it is completely up to the reasonable people of America to look at how things are being twisted and to vote accordingly.

Going into the next election, we need to remember that:

  1. Pelosi has not put out a level field for impeachment like the Republicans of the Clinton era did. She has not yet put the impeachment inquiry up to a vote, which would:
    • Allow both sides to issue subpoenas.
    • Allow the defenders of Trump to mount a defense.
    • Take the anonymous accusers out of the shadows (since, in the American judicial system, we have the right to face our accusers).
  2. Adam Schiff lied into the Congressional record with his opening statements to the House Intelligence Committee (later calling it a “parody”).
  3. In conflict with most Americans’ sense of fairness, Democrats have not allowed Republicans to ask questions or participate in the impeachment hearings so far.

Women for Trump have organized a march

With a hat-tip to the Chris Salcedo Show, I have found that Women for America First has organized at least one march for 17 October 2019.

I would encourage all who can to attend this march

The more support we can provide, the less cocky the Democrats will be. Therefore, send money, attend marches, and attend rallies.

State Department testifies US diplomats gave Ukrainians a do-not-prosecute list

The One America News Network points out how US diplomats gave Ukrainian officials a do-not-prosecute list of Americans.

Trump ImpeachmentTop U.S. diplomats will testify this week on Capitol Hill, including former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Deputy Secretary of State George Kent. Yovanovitch was removed from her post after she allegedly gave Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko a “do not prosecute” list of American allies she felt were above the law.

Also scheduled to testify is U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who made headlines when private text messages between him and top Ukrainian officials were released. In the messages he confirmed there was never a request for a “quid pro quo of any kind” from the president. The texts follow the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Trump congratulated Zelensky on his landslide victory.

“I actually spoke with President Trump just a few minutes before he placed the call and not only did the president call to congratulate president Zelensky, but also to begin the collaboration of charting the pathway forward with the U.S. support of Ukraine and a White House visit that’s upcoming for President Zelensky,” stated Sondland.

The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker made frequent visits to Ukraine in the hopes of improving U.S. relations. Volker has been interviewed in regards to the matter and although Democrats attempted to pry him for information they could use in their impeachment inquiry, he maintained the president’s innocence.

(Read more at One America News Network)

Add to this, Volker has come out attacking Democrats for their bias in using his report

Now it seems that the Democrats want to ignore Ambassador Volker because he has discredited their little lie about Trump and Ukraine.

Biden berates reporter for question on Ukraine ‘conflicts of interest’

The Daily Mail reports that Biden berated a reporter for asking him questions about Ukraine.

Joe Biden has lashed out at a reporter in response to a question about his family’s potential conflicts of interest in the Ukraine, insisting that press should focus on allegations against President Donald Trump.

BidenSnapsAt a Service Employees International Union forum in Los Angeles on Friday, Biden was asked about his work overseeing foreign policy for Ukraine as vice president while his son Hunter served on the board of a major Ukrainian company.

‘It’s not a conflict of interest. There’s been no indication of any conflict of interest, in Ukraine or anywhere else. Period,’ Biden snapped.

Asked how his son’s cushy $50,000-a-month gig didn’t at least create the appearance of a conflict of interest, Biden rejoined: ‘I’m not going to respond to that. Focus on this man. What he’s doing that no president has ever done. No president.’

Biden has previously demanded that reporters ‘ask the right questions’ and accused Trump of trying to ‘hijack’ the campaign with unfounded assertions that Biden and his son had corrupt dealings in Ukrainian business and politics.

In late September in Iowa, the former VP scolded a Fox News reporter who asked about his family’s ties to Ukraine. ‘You should be asking him the question: why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader?’ he said.

‘This appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power. To get on the phone with a foreign leader who is looking for help from the United States and ask about me and imply things … this is outrageous. You have never seen anything like this from any president.’

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

Considering the number of days the press spent on covering Trump’s blow-up …

When you think back a few days to Trump;’s verbal bout with the press, it seemed that the talking heads would not let it go.

On the other hand, now that Joe Biden is the one on the catbird seat, the press does not want to mention the dust up.

Why did you mostly hear about impeachment?

The Democrats want to distract us from 2019 having the most illegal crossings in 12 years

The Washington Examiner reports that illegal crossings rose in 2019 while San Fran Nan blocked all debate on the border wall.

Border Patrol agents working along the United States-Mexico border took into custody approximately 851,000 people in the U.S. government’s fiscal 2019, marking the highest number of arrests since 2007, according to federal data exclusively obtained by the Washington Examiner.

borderwallBut the 40,000 people taken into custody in September is less than one-third of the 132,000 arrests made in May at the height of a surge of illegal immigrants.

Roughly 40,000 people were apprehended after crossing into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California during the month of September. That number was added to the previous 11 months to bring fiscal 2019, which ran Oct. 1, 2018, through Sept. 30, to slightly more than 851,000 arrests. Those arrested for illegally crossing into the U.S. from Mexico may have claimed asylum once in custody, but that figure is not released by the government each month.

The 851,000 arrested at the southern border does not include the number of people who approached ports of entry, or border crossings, to claim asylum or pass through but were turned away. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security agency that oversees these figures, is expected to release this and related data in a few weeks.

As of Aug. 31, another 263,000 people were encountered at ports by the Office of Field Operations, a component of CBP. Border Patrol agents are stationed on the land between ports of entry while field operations officers stay at ports. These people are not arrested but are simply denied entry.

These numbers do not include additional arrests and denied port crossers at the U.S.-Canada border and along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, nor does it include the September figure for those encountered at the ports.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Due to the fact that the Democrats have a complicit press and we are too easily distracted, this bait-and-switch might work

Unless the grassroots of the conservative movement gets out and points out how the press and Democrats are covering this and other failings, they will get away with it. Unless we continually post and talk about the murders at the hands of illegal aliens, the Democrats will win here.

Should we fail to point out that the Democrats’ sanctuary cities have become cesspools of crime, drug use, and disease, the Democrats will win here.

Should we not point out that Democrats have failed to deliver on the infrastructure, Medicare, or anything else.

Democrats in the Press and Congress twist the rules

Fox’s Ed Henry blasted for twisting question to exonerate Biden

As recounted by the One America News Network, Fox’s Ed Henry has been blasted for twisting a question to blame President Trump and exonerate former Vice President Biden (who confessed to doing what our president is accused of doing).

EdHenryConservative commentator Mark Levin blasted Fox News host Ed Henry for pushing a “dishonest” narrative regarding the president’s Ukraine call. Levin appeared as a guest during a Sunday interview on the network, where he talked about the president’s discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski.

Early in the interview, they discussed Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. Soon enough, however, things got heated when Henry pressed Levin on whether or not he was “okay” with President Trump asking for “dirt” on Biden. Levin hit back by calling the question misleading and dishonest. He then pointed out that nowhere in the transcript of the call did the president ask for any kind of information on Biden or anyone for that matter.

Henry was appearing to reference House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s infamous dramatization of President Trump’s phone call with Zelenski. The shutdown quickly attracted the attention of the president, who retweeted over 20 reactions to the exchange.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

This seems to be the norm for most main stream media

Lie, accept the lies of Democrats as gospel, and cry when you get caught.

Then blame Trump. Just because you’re a Democrat.

Democrats subpoena Giuliani for documents related to impeachment inquiry

Even though a vote has not been held (and, therefore, this is not a legal impeachment inquiry that would include real subpoenas), in contradiction to the concept of executive privilege, and despite lawyer-client confidentiality (already thoroughly undermined by the Mueller’s/Democrats’ raid on President Trump’s lawyer, Cohen), the Daily Caller points out how Democrats have insisted on receiving documents from President Trump’s lawyer.

Democratic lawmakers subpoenaed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani Monday for documents related to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

fullofschiff-liarcummings-natanengelHouse Democrats’ inquiry “includes an investigation of credible allegations that [Giuliani] acted as an agent of the President in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the Office of the President,” Reps. Elijah Cummings, Adam Schiff, and Eliot Engel wrote in a letter to Giuliani Monday.

They asked Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to produce documents related to their request by Oct. 15. The move comes one day after Giuliani told ABC Sunday that he would not cooperate with Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Cummings, Schiff, and Engel are investigating whether Trump attempted push Ukraine into probing former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his dad was in the White House.

Giuliani alleges that Biden worked to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company Hunter was affiliated with.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This should not surprise anyone, because Democrats have sunken lower during the last three years

We should expect that Democrats would have no respect for the lawyer-client relationship. They had no respect for it when Mueller combed through the files and computers of the President’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

For all of the things Democrats “passed” with great fanfare (with no Republican or presidential support — so it went nowhere), none of it was in support of the regular American who works to keep this nation together.

The problem with this inaction becomes magnified when you also consider the ways that attacks made through their maniacal search for impeachable offenses. For example, although General Flynn had once been determined to have told the truth, he was later convicted on the process crime of lying to the FBI.

Also consider the way CNN recorded and the FBI staged the early-morning raid on the home of Roger Stone, who was so little of a flight risk and threat that he was able to bond out during the morning of the same day. For nothing but the hope of finding some impeachable offense, this man was routed from his home at gunpoint at the command of a party that wants to disarm us all.

Coincidentally, now that it has come out that Mueller may have lied to Congress and the testimony against him seems every bit as convincing as the evidence held against Flynn, do you think that Mueller see years in prison?

Schiff ‘helped write’ whistleblower complaint, after House panel admits advance knowledge

According to The Greg Jarrett and Lifezette, Adam Schiff had prior knowledge of the whistleblower complaint (and helped write it).

From The Greg Jarrett, we find:

A spokesperson for Congressman Adam Schiff confirmed Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct by President Trump had contacted the legislator before officially filing his complaint.

Schiff&RedStain“A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s panel before filing a complaint — prompting President Trump, in an extraordinary afternoon press conference at the White House, to directly accuse Schiff of helping write the document,” reports Fox News.

“It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” said the President during a press conference at the White House. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”

“Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community,” Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News. “This is a regular occurrence, given the Committee’s unique oversight role and responsibilities. Consistent with the Committee’s longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel.”

(Read more at The Greg Jarrett)

How many layers of lies can Schiff press into this investigation

Consider that Schiff lied:

  1. By creating his imagined dialogue between Trump and Zelensky (which he, naturally, called “parody” once he got called on it)
  2. By remaining in the investigation even though he was involved in reviewing (if not creating) the whistleblower story
  3. By likely setting up all of the whistleblower scenarios.

Trump supporters greet Pelosi in South Carolina: ‘Impeach Pelosi’

Breitbart reports in a 5 October article how San Fran Nan was greeted with a banner saying “Impeach Pelosi” when she went to speak at an event.

Donald Trump supporters in South Carolina sent a clear message to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Friday evening, flocking to her event’s venue and holding up signs to express their support of the president.

Pelosi-in-South-CarolinaPelosi was featured as the keynote speaker at a South Carolina Democratic Party fundraising event at the Hyatt Regency in Greenville, South Carolina, on Friday. Trump supporters gathered outside of the event’s venue to express their support for the president. Videos show supporters shouting “Trump” and holding American flags, Trump-Pence 2020 banners, and homemade signs reading, “Impeach Pelosi”

Pelosi-in-South-Carolina1Pelosi-in-South-Carolina2Pelosi-in-South-Carolina3

(Read the bullshit response from Pelosi and other Democrat idiots at Breitbart)

Make a real difference. Follow in the steps of these Resistance Resistance.

If Hillary and Pelosi with their compatriots in Antifa can constitute the resistance, then we can make a new group. We can resist the resistance. We can be the Resistance Resistance.

At every Maxine Waters fundraiser, Pelosi speech, and even their trips to their limos — we can stand up. While nobody who claims salvation can advocate the things that Mad Max called for her followers to do, we can surely defend the defenseless.

The ‘Never Trump’ Coalition that decided Eh, Nevermind, He’s Fine

According to even the biased writers at the New York Times, we find independents, conservatives, and Republicans have come to support the President of the United States.

BrentBozellThey signed open letters, dedicated a special magazine issue to criticism of him and swore he would tear at the fabric of this nation. Now they have become the president’s strongest defenders.

In 2016, Erick Erickson could not have been clearer. Donald Trump was “a racist” and “a fascist.” It was no wonder, Mr. Erickson wrote, that “so many people with swastikas in their Twitter profile pics” supported him. “I will not vote for Donald Trump. Ever,” he insisted, adding his voice to the chorus of Never Trump Republicans.

This past week, Mr. Erickson, a well-known conservative blogger, titled one of his pieces “I Support the President.” In three years, he had come completely around, a transformation that is a testament to President Trump’s remarkable consolidation of support inside the Republican Party. The effort to impeach the president, Mr. Erickson wrote, was a desperate move by people “who have never come to terms with him.”

“Never Trump” no more, conservatives have largely resigned themselves to a more accommodating state of mind: “Never mind Trump.” And their change in attitude helps to mute the much smaller group of conservative voices who remain highly critical of the president and have questioned his conduct.

Glenn Beck, the radio host who once called Mr. Trump “an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” now says that his defeat in 2020 would mark “the end of the country as we know it.” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who so bitterly feuded with the president during the 2016 primaries that Mr. Trump gave out Mr. Graham’s cellphone number on national television, declared last week that impeachment was nothing but “a political setup.”

It can be difficult to remember that indignation and contempt for Mr. Trump once simmered in every corner of the conservative world. In August 2016, dozens of the most senior Republican national security officials signed a letter warning he would “put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Female leaders of the anti-abortion movement joined together before the Iowa caucuses in 2016 and issued a joint statement declaring themselves “disgusted” at his behavior, saying he had “impugned the dignity of women.” National Review published an “Against Trump” issue that featured essays from 22 prominent conservatives who all made a case for why he should not be the Republican nominee.

At least half of those writers are now on the record making supportive comments about the president. Some, including Mr. Erickson and Mr. Beck, now fiercely defend Mr. Trump, joining many former foes who are speaking out loudly against the impeachment inquiry. Others who contributed to the issue, like Ed Meese, the attorney general under Ronald Reagan, have helped Mr. Trump plan his transition and build his administration.

(Read more, but expect a liberal slant from the New York Times)

A number of current supporters of Trump came from the ranks of other groups

As for myself, I supported Senator Cruz until candidate Trump eclipsed the Senator. I do admit that, like all Republicans (and most independents and conservatives), I think for myself. Therefore, when the administration steps away from my values, I speak up (maybe not in this blog, depending on how busy I am, but often here).

So, when Trump initially announced pulling out and abandoning the Kurds, I called. When the administration voiced support for the LGBT community, I pointed out how their agenda stands antithetical to God’s best in our lives. Still, in this age of grace and in this current political climate, God may be allowing us time to seek Him (however, our enemies here are putting up every obstacle to their possible loss of power).

Still, whether it is because of his support of religious rights or his appointment of conservative justices or his removal of inane bureaucratic regulations or his implementation of capitalism in place of Obama’s dream, I support my President.

Telephonic phishing scams

Featured

The Social Security phishing scam

After a blog post on Social Security phishing at the Arlin Report, I determined that I should blog about those pesky scammers who try to sneak your social security number and name from you. Problem is that, after trying and failing to get the Houston Police Department to investigate either of the last two scammers who had left messages for me, I threw the recordings away.

Malware phishing data conceptHowever, having felt a challenge from the Arlin Report post, I determined that I would start on a post as soon as I got another message from a scammer. True to form, I got one that very day (2 October 2019).

The text of this most recent scam follows:

As we have received against your social security number by the federal crime and investigation department. We need to talk to you as soon as possible. Again, this call is from Social Security Administration. Number to reach department is 516-530-7087. I repeat, it’s 516-530-7087. Thank you.

For the audio, click here.

Things noted and maybe erroneously extrapolated from this and other scam calls

There are several things that I noted in the above message (or at least assume that I noted):

  1. One change that I observed happening after my first scam call (which obviously cannot be demonstrated here, due to my having deleted files) was the transition from a real voice to an artificial voice. I guess someone got caught via their voice print.
  2. Still,one of the hallmarks of criminality flourishes in this message: errors.  Errors abound in the message. Try looking up a “federal crime and investigation department.” (It doesn’t exist.) Ask anyone if the Social Security Administration (SSA) will communicate via any method other than mail. (The SSA will not call you or send you emails. The SSA will only communicate by letter.)
  3. To reiterate the central error: the SSA does not have to contact you to get your Social Security number (SSN). They have it. However, even if they did need to contact you, they would do it by mail.
  4. Sometimes, the scammers are not just after your SSN, name, and address.  At these times, they bank on your curiosity and other emotions to just gather other information.

Therefore, calling these scammers would be a bad idea, since these calls may be blindly blasted out and calling them provides them your phone number (especially your cell phone number). Additionally, many times, the number called can be a pay-by-the-minute phone number that will charge to your phone number.

Because we are emotional creatures, there is the “call-back” scam

phishing-scamsAs suggested above, some criminals either use a one-ring tactic or some sort of emotional ploy to get the mark (you and me) to call them back. Sometimes, they pretend to be stranded relatives. Sometimes they pretend that our credit cards are going to be charged for some reason.

Hence, we get scam calls like the following:

That we have renewed your antivirus security for the upcoming one year and we have charged you $399 and within 24 hours, you will see a charge from VTech solution. If you want to cancel the subscription and want a refund then please call on this. Number one, 239-932-2091 cancellation should be done within the 48 Hours upon receiving this confirmation call. Thank you. This is David Williams customer relationship manager.

For the audio, click here.

If you like the scams made available thanks to Social Security and emotional manipulation, just wait for greater federal involvement in healthcare

If you think that it is bad enough with the current crop of social security and the emotion-related scams, just wait until the U.S. government starts expanding Obamacare. That will provide another fertile field for the scammers to plow (since the ACA was sold to us with the promise that it would save each family $2500, but ended quadrupling most of our rates), many of us will be fearful of possible glitches in the system.

Thanks, Obama. Future thanks to Warren, Sanders, and Pelosi.

We have a choice

Featured

We have a choice of who we will focus our attention upon and, therefore, reward

Brandt Jean offers forgiveness to the woman who shot his brother, Botham Jean

BrandtJeanAs published in RedState, Breitbart, and other outlets, 18-year-old Brandt Jean (brother of murdered Botham Jean) offered forgiveness to the woman who shot his brother. In a perfect illustration of Christian love and forgiveness, Brandt offered the following words and acts of love from his heart:

If you truly are sorry, I forgive you.

I know if you go to God and ask him, he will forgive you.

I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you.

I’m not going to hope you rot and die, just like my brother did. I personally want the best for you. I wasn’t going to say this in front of my family or anyone, but I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you because I know that’s exactly what Botham would want for you. And the best would be for you to give your life to Christ.

I don’t know if it is possible, but can I give her a hug, please? Please?(Judge: Yes.)

(Hardly audible, he seems to pray for her.)

Through this offering of a sacrifice of forgiveness (and it was a sacrifice), we find a young leader that provides peace to a people not ready to receive it. In a very corporal way, Brandt embodied these verses:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:43-45 NASB)

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. (Luke 6:27-35 NASB)

Considering that the world that Brandt entered the courtroom through was filled with calls for retribution and calls of hate, he could have been swayed by those calls. I would not have blamed him, because this temptation has a root in our common humanity. However, instead, he called on his faith, on the faith that his brother once demonstrated, and on the faith that his home church displayed. By doing this, he demonstrated the importance of one other key verse:

and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking the assembling our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, (Hebrews 10:24-25 NASB)

We can focus on calls for the need for institutional reform that seems militant

allison-jeanIn the early morning report that I first heard of the sentencing of Ms. Guyger, the focus fell on institutional failings within the Dallas Police Department. However, the way the focus was presented by the news organization seemed to suggest that the Jeans were not forgiving Ms. Guyger. The problem with this perceptions was that it showed itself to be obviously not true when to anyone who reviews a longer interview of the Jeans.

To be specific, the early-morning report that I saw focused on a portion of a statement by Allison Jean, where she said, “If Amber Guyger was trained not to shoot in the heart, my son would be here today.”

While this point is true and pointed, the media uses it to ignore the several points of other institutional failings within the police investigation of this case AND the forgiveness offered by Allison Jean toward Ms. Guyger.

Furthermore, because forgiveness was offered, let me point out that there is no conflict in concepts when we forgive, but also allow the consequences of an action play out. Therefore, while we may forgive acts done against us, there may be penalties to pay that fall inside of the realm of justice. And never let it be said that Christians support injustice.

In fact, to allow this man to be shot in his own home (even if by mistake due to long hours worked and a confusing building design at that apartment complex) without punishment — that is not justice. As noted before, let it be said that Christians support injustice.

Learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NASB)

 

As the following video shows, there is a precedent of Christians forgiving those who have killed. Whether you point back to those of Iraq, rural Pennsylvania, or Charleston, we are called to forgive.

So, with all of this in mind, what in the media will we focus upon?

“Climate change,” gun confiscation, Ukraine, & other reasons to not trust the media

Featured

Skewed Climate Change reporting made right

Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions

In s 20 September 2019 Breitbart article, Nick Nolte lists 41 doomsday predictions that climate experts got wrong. Here are the first few.

ChildrenMarch

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

  1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
  2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
  3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
  4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
  5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030

(Read more at Breitbart)

If they had the truth on their side, why wouldn’t they predict correctly

Rather, if they had the truth on their side and just knew that they could not predict, why not just withhold a prediction? Of course, the reason would be that the climate alarm activists want to gin up fear of impending doom that is just far enough away as to be actionable.

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

Breitbart reported in a 24 September 2019 article how 500 scientists have signed a letter stating that no climate emergency exists.

NoClimateEmergency

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”

“If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world,” they state.

Although Obama claimed the matter was settled, these 500 scientists dissent

When I worked at NASA as a technical writer/editor, I worked alongside subject matter experts that disagreed with the concept of global warming. At that time, I was also aware of a subject matter expert who supported the concept. Would you like to guess who the local media interviewed any time that the topic of “global warming” came to the forefront?

You would be correct if you wagered that the local media went to the subject matter expert who supported global warming.

Gun confiscation

“Beto: People can’t fight a Tyrannical Government nor do they have the right to”

A 26 September 2019 video posted by Colion Noir shows Evan MacDonald as he observes how the Second Amendment was constructed to allow the citizenry to stand against a tyranical and overreaching government. In response, Democrat presidential wanna-be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke maintains that citizens cannot fight a tyranical government and do not have the right to fight that overreaching government.

On this count, O’Rourke is right that we cannot afford to buy the type of weapons the US Army carries. However, …

If we use the logic that Democrats most recently used to support their suggestion that American government (aka, taxpayers) must pay for healthcare for all, then you would be handing all sorts of high-powered, military-grade weapons and ammunition to the populace.

Many liberals might rightfully complain that some of these weapons might be used by criminals and the mentally ill. Truth of the matter is that they have and will. However, through the balancing power of good people with weapons, we would be able to fend off more criminals than if we were all disarmed.

Woman Who Confronted Beto O’Rourke Speaks Out, And She’s Got A Message For President Trump

In a 21 September 2019 Daily Caller article the forthrightness of Lauren Boebert comes to the fore.

LaurenBoebertLauren Boebert, the Colorado restaurant owner who confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke about his gun control proposals during a Thursday town hall, discussed the issue on Saturday morning’s “Fox & Friends.”

“I am here to say hell no, you’re not,” Boebert, who owns a pro-Second Amendment restaurant called Shooters Grill, told O’Rourke on Thursday. “I have four children. I’m 5 foot zero, 100 pounds, cannot defend myself with a fist. I want to know how you’re going to legislate that, because a criminal by defense breaks the law. So all you’re going to do is restrict law-abiding citizens like myself.”

In addition to discussing what led her to confront the presidential candidate, Boebert also had a few more words for O’Rourke along with a message for President Donald Trump.

“Well, I heard that Beto was coming to my state of Colorado to talk about gun control or maybe gun legislation, and I heard what he had to say about taking away our Second Amendment rights and our firearms,” Boebert said, responding to a question about why she decided to confront O’Rourke. “And I really wanted to go down there and just reverse his statement, and tell him absolutely not. Because I’m sure that that is every gun owning American’s immediate response to his ‘hell yes’ was an immediate, firm ‘hell no.’”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

For more democracy, get involved

Ms. Boebert demonstrates a central idea within our democracy: to be heard, speak up early, speak up loudly, speak long enough to be heard, and (though not demonstrated in this article) keep speaking until you have spoken at the ballot box.

Then rinse and repeat.

Beto O’Rourke Widely Criticized Over His Gun Confiscation Answer During Reddit Q&A

The Daily Caller reports in a 20 September 2019 article on the boomerang-effect experienced by Democrat presidential wanna-be Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke.

Beto-ORourke-Hell-Yes-We-Wil-Take-Your-GunsDemocratic 2020 hopeful Beto O’Rourke participated in an “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) on the popular link-sharing site Reddit Thursday, and his answer on gun confiscation was widely criticized.

In an AMA thread, users are encouraged to ask whatever questions they want in the comment section, and the creator of the thread can then choose what to answer. Reddit users can either up-vote or down-vote comment based on how well they contribute to the discussion.

TAGAO’Rourke’s AMA thread had over 26,000 comments as of Friday afternoon. Though Reddit’s users found some of O’Rourke’s answers satisfactory, he was strongly down-voted for his other answers.

“How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s?” one user asked. The candidate has previously said that he plans to enact a mandatory gun confiscation program for AR-15s and AK-47s.

O’Rourke responded:

“Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war. Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in their schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts… everywhere. I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s fun to shoot but would give it up. Because they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.”

That answer received over 12,000 down-votes, and Reddit users deconstructed all the things wrong with his answer. One user gave a detailed response to O’Rourke’s question, asking him how he would find so many unregistered guns and how he would pay for the “buyback” program.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

With both gun confiscation and impeachment, we need to show all Democrats how much we disagree

As with abortion, this does not work as a “meet our friends from the other side half-way” sort of situation. This is a “stand your ground” sort of situation. In fact, to the believer, I would quote (possibly not in full reference to the impeachment situation, but more to our charge to witness and protect):

Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:13 NASB)

The issue of the Ukraine

Congressional Democrats have no credibility on impeachment

The Federalist explains in a 27 September 2019 opinion piece how the problems with the most recent impeachment push will likely backfire on Democrats.

The problem with the Democrats’ impeachment gambit—aside from the fact that it appears to rest largely on a complaint riddled with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and hearsay—is that the American people don’t trust Congress and will likely have little confidence in any impeachment process undertaken by Democratic congressional leaders.

And no wonder. Ever since President Trump won the presidency in 2016, Democrats have been grasping for some pretext to invalidate the results of that election.

First, it was the outlandish claim that if Trump didn’t liquidate his global business interests upon taking office, he would be in violation of the emoluments clause. Then it was more than two years of the Russian collusion hoax that fizzled with the release of the Mueller report this spring. Along the way, there were repeated attempts to pin obstruction of justice on Trump for his firing of FBI director James Comey, as well as accusations about payments to Stormy Daniels, questions about Trump’s tax returns, and allegations of sexual assault.

None of this, in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, ever approached a justification for impeachment. A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found that just 37 percent support impeachment. A Monmouth poll last month showed just 35 percent support. For years, polls on impeachment have stayed in this range.

Democrats are therefore very far out of step with the American people on the question of impeachment, and it’s hard to see how the transcript of Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, much less the “whistleblower” complaint released Wednesday evening, will change that. The complaint, with its allegation that Trump solicited interference in our elections from a foreign country, is in effect a continuation of the Russian collusion narrative Democrats spent two years pushing, to no avail.

In short, congressional Democrats don’t seem to appreciate how tenuous their position is now, or how a blatantly partisan impeachment inquiry could demolish all remaining confidence in our democratic institutions and set the country up for a crisis in the 2020 elections.

(Read more at The Federalist)

If the Democrats had the truth on their side, why would this be a parade of lies?

If Adam Schiff had the truth on his side, why did he lie into the Congressional record and then call it “parody” when other representatives call him out for making up testimony?

If the bureaucrats of the “deep state” had truth on their side, why change the forms associated with a whistleblower complaint so that second-hand information can be submitted? If they had truth on their side, why not allow the time-tested American justice system to play out and allow President Trump to face his accuser?

If Nancy Pelosi has the truth on her side, why does it seem that she had prior knowledge of a top-secret document within the White House? Is there a possibility that this “confidential informant” situation is a Democrat-devised scheme to remove President Trump from office?

If Schiff really believed that politicians who collaborated with other governments should be removed from office, why hasn’t he resigned after being caught on tape trying to get dirt on Trump from those who he thought were Ukrainian operatives?

Gutfeld on the media’s manipulation of the Ukraine story

In a video posted on 25 September 2019, Greg Gutfeld outlines the media’s manipulation of the Ukraine story.

Right now, the media’s face is pressed up against the window of the candy store and they’re salivating. The glass is fogging up. They are hoping against hope, staring into a field of dreams. Believing that, if they build an impeachment, a crime will follow.

So let’s step back and see this for what it is: another example of the media and the Democrats fashioning the worst of things out of the best of times all to avenge an emotional loss.

Do you want some examples?

  1. As America leads the way in climate with cleaner energy, Democrats tell our kids they have a decade to live.
  2. As race relations improve from the mass demonstrations of five years ago, the media sees racism in every nook.
  3. As men and women reach equality in all facets, the media questions whether gender is just a fantasy.
  4. As women and minorities gain more employment than ever, the man running the show is called a bigoted sexist.

A guy called Trump. A guy who wakes up every morning in that candy store called America wondering what we can get out of the world (and not the reverse).

Whistleblower Rules Secretly Changed Right Before Report Filed Against Trump

The Federalist Papers reports in a 28 September 2019 article that the Whistleblower law was secretly changed to allow second-hand information in a report against President Trump.

The Whistleblower Protection Act rules were changed in the months prior to a whistleblower coming forward against President Donald Trump.

The rules used to state that a whistleblower had to have direct, first hand knowledge of what they were reporting on.

But in the time between May 2018 and August 2019 that rule was changed, which has many wondering what involvement the intelligence community had in the complaint, The Federalist reported.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

The internal properties of the newly revised “Disclosure of Urgent Concern” form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.

(Read more at The Federalist Papers)

Thank God for those who work as watchmen on the wall

Thank God for the watchful eye of those at The Federalist and other true journalistic endeavors.

Good news not reported

Trump Shines Spotlight on Christians Being Killed, 1st President to Host UN Religious Freedom Meeting

The Christian Broadcast Network reports in a 24 September 2019 article how President Trump was the first American President to host a religious freedom meeting at the UN.

Donald Trump has become the first US President to ever host a meeting at the United Nations on religious freedom.

“As President, protecting religious freedom is one of my highest priorities,” Trump told the nations of the world on Monday.

In his keynote address to the UN, President Trump pointed to alarming statistics showing 80% of the world’s population lives in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.

“When I heard that number I said, ‘Please go back and check it because it can’t possibly be correct.’ And sadly it was 80%,” Trump said.

And followers of Christ are among the most heavily persecuted around the world. In fact, it’s estimated that 11 Christians die each day for their faith.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

By shining light, many regimes will scramble

However, the light must be persistent.

Considering the cover provided by the American press, President Trump’s speech may have only transitory effects unless we support him with action and prayer.

Success of the Trump Economy Is Bad News for Democrats

Real Clear Politics addresses the big problem the great economy provides for the Democrats.

Presidential elections are won on the shoulders of a strong economy, which is why the voters are certain to reject the Democrat Party’s ongoing effort to promote radical economic change.

Out of all the Democrats running for president in 2020, none are acknowledging the significance of President Trump’s accomplishments on the daily lives of American families. Their push for dramatic changes to key pocketbook issues, including health care, taxes, and regulations, ignore a simple yet crucial political reality: American taxpayers are winning again.

The U.S. unemployment rate, for instance, is currently hovering near a 50-year low, after dropping by an entire percentage point since the president’s inauguration. More importantly, the ongoing economic resurgence is making the American Dream more accessible than ever before.

The U.S. economy has already added more than 6 million new jobs in just 2 ½ years, and employee compensation and savings are skyrocketing — clear indications that working Americans are experiencing the benefits of this booming economy.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the American people are well aware of the tremendous economic progress this country has made under President Trump’s leadership, and they expect the good times to keep on rolling.

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that a whopping 71% of Americans “expect their personal finances to improve” over the course of the next year, while only 15% expect their finances to get worse. The lopsided result reveals a remarkable degree of confidence that this president’s pro-growth policies and “America First” trade agenda are responsible for our ongoing economic success, and that’s devastating news for the Democrats.

In order to have any chance at all against Donald Trump in the next presidential election, the Democrats will have to convince millions of voters that the ongoing economic renaissance isn’t real, which is only possible by brazenly lying to voters.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

That is, a good economy is bad news for the Democrats until …

The good economy is bad news for Democrats until conservatives and Republicans get complacent and leave it up to others to go to the polls. Moreover, when we do not push the middle-of-the-road people to vote, then we lose and the Democrats win.

Do you want the Democrats to win?

(Social) media giants exposed in their support of the left

Facebook Admits It’s a Publisher in Court Filings

A 10 September 2019 article at Breitbart shows how Facebook came to admit its role as a publisher (and the implications).

Facebook, in court filings defending itself from a lawsuit filed by activist and congressional candidate Laura Loomer, has cited its first amendment rights as a “publisher,” contradicting public claims by the company that its social media service is a platform.

LoomeredThe distinction between publisher and platform is central to the legal protections enjoyed by big tech companies, and is frequently cited by Republican lawmakers in their criticism of Silicon Valley’s political bias.

Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech platforms have immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to to host) user-generated content. Unlike publishers, which are liable if their writers defame someone, a tech platform is not held liable for content created by its users.

Yet Facebook appears to be jettisoning this categorization in its court filings, saying it has a First Amendment right as a publisher not to carry Loomer’s content.

Via Facebook’s legal filings (p2):

Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message.

This contradicts public statements made in a Senate hearing last year by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who insisted that Facebook is a platform and not a publisher.

(Read more at a href=”https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/09/18/facebook-admits-its-a-publisher-in-court-filings/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>Breitbart)

Since too many get their news from Google and Facebook, this is a threat

Both Facebook and Google must be broken up and brought to adhere to the laws applied to other publishers (that is, until they truly begin to provide an unbiased platform for all ideas). Admittedly, this will cause an opportunity for unsavory parts of the publishing community and it will require the watchfulness of parents and other protectors of the weak. However, to have the free speech right of all restored, it will be worth it.

Facebook incites violent war on ICE

OneNewsNow shows how Facebook incited people to attack ICE.

On Thursday, Sept. 19, Abolish ICE Denver and the Denver Communists are organizing a protest outside the house of Johnny Choate, the warden of the immigrant detention facility in Aurora, Colorado.

Abolish-ICEAbolish ICE thugs in Colorado want to see the homes and families of immigration enforcement officials set aflame.

Denver communists want alien detention facility employees dead, swinging from nooses with broken necks.

Both groups are brazenly using Facebook to spread their inflammatory and violent messages. So, where is Silicon Valley — whose top companies partner with the Southern Poverty Law Center smear machine to de-platform conservatives, pro-lifers and Donald Trump supporters — to stop the open borders left’s escalating hate?

On Thursday, Sept. 19, Abolish ICE Denver and the Denver Communists are organizing a protest outside the house of Johnny Choate, the warden of the immigrant detention facility in Aurora, Colorado. Choate works for GEO Group, which operates the center. Instead of laying blame at the feet of global profiteers who induce illegal immigrants to risk their families’ lives to trespass our borders, anti-ICE agitators are targeting homeland security employees and contractors who simply enforce federal immigration and detention laws passed by Congress.

The Denver Communists group shared a poster on Facebook with Choate’s face superimposed over a generic neighborhood map with private residential homes. “CONFRONT LA MIGRA WHERE THEY LIVE,” the radicals urged members. The graphic describes Choate as “warden of Aurora’s notorious ICE concentration camp.” That’s the same inflammatory and defamatory language popularized by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and used by antifa militant Willem Van Spronsen, who attempted to firebomb the Tacoma ICE facility, also run by GEO Group, in July.

The protest announcement also includes the phrase, “Chinga La Migra!” It’s the slogan of Mijente, a Latino activist group leading the Abolish ICE movement. Translation: “[Expletive] the Border Patrol.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Facebook allows this type of incitement to stand. There should be consequences.

Just as we all have free speech, we also will face consequences if we choose to shout “Fire” at a crowded theater. In similar ways, there should be consequences for the Antifa thugs who called for action against our border agents and for Facebook, who provided a means of communicating.