Fifteen “Small” Problems for Democrats in their impeachment drive


  1. The Democratic presidential campaign has produced confusion rather than clarity

The Stamford Advocate provides an op-ed commentary on the Democrat field as of 30 November 2019.

The Democratic presidential candidates have been on the campaign trail for nearly a year. Confusion rather than clarity continues to be the story of their contest for the 2020 nomination.

Early in the year, the party’s liberal wing seemed to be ascendant, defined by the candidacies of Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and the embrace of a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health-care program. Sanders and Warren were calling for other dramatic changes to the system – economic and political – and their voices stood out. Some other candidates offered echoes of their ideas.

That proved to be a misleading indicator of where the Democratic electorate was on some of the issues, particularly health care, in part because there were fewer moderate voices being heard. Former Vice President Joe Biden didn’t join the race until April. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg wasn’t being taken very seriously. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wasn’t breaking through.

The candidate debates provided the setting for the arguments to play out before a larger audience. Warren and Sanders came under attack from moderate Democrats at the first debate in June in Miami, with former Maryland congressman John Delaney the most vocal. But Warren and Sanders more than held their own. It appeared as though the progressive wing was on solid ground.

(Read more at the Stamford Advocate)

Since the modus operandi of Democrats means taking the worst qualities of the speaker and assigning them to the opponent, …

A debate on the merits of Democrat ideals comes up lacking

The only two questions at most of the Democrat debates has been:

  1. Who can sling the most insults against President
  2. Who can be the most socialist without tipping their hand to the Millennials that young, working-class people will be the ones who pay for the socialist programs

  1. Schiff re-inacts Nixon: Schiff pulls the phone records of Republican Nunes

Breitbart reports in a 3 December 2019 article that Democrat Schiff obtained the phone records of ranking Republican Nunes for the Democrat impeachment inquiry.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) investigated Ranking Member Devin Nunes (D-CA) as part of his impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, the committee report revealed on Tuesday.

The revelation that Schiff had obtained telephone records related to Nunes was the only new revelation in the report, which otherwise re-hashed Democrats’ arguments in favor of impeaching Trump for allegedly asking Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.

In a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Schiff declined to say when the committee had obtained the records, but given the Democrats’ repeated questions during the inquiry about administration officials who had worked with Nunes, such as former Intelligence Committee staffer (now National Security Council official) Kash Patel, it is likely the Democrats sought those records before or during the hearings.

The report cites media reports that Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who has ben indicted on campaign finance charges, claimed that Nunes tried to meet with Ukrainians to “dig up dirt” on former Vice President Joe Biden. (Nunes had threatened to sue those media outlets, and did so on Tuesday, suing CNN for defamation; he does not appear to have been given an opportunity to answer the allegations in the report.)

Shifts report also cites “phone records” showing apparent conversations between Giuliani and Nunes, as well as Parnas and Nunes, in April 2019, around the time that then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was criticized in the media. The report also cites records of phone calls between Giuliani and Nunes staffer Derek Harvey, as well as between Giuliani and Patel. The phone records were apparently obtained from AT&T, according to a footnote in the report.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Truth of the matter is that Schiff submitted subpeonas for numerous Republicans (but made incorrect assumptions based on those documents)

Making assumptions with limited intelligence (id est, little coordinating information on what the subject was doing — although other definitions of “intelligence” might also apply here) never works well. As Adam Mill points out in The Federalist:

House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff has released a 300-page Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry report. It’s what you would expect of a rushed report after two weeks of hearsay and opinion testimony: full of unsupported conclusions based upon faulty assumptions.

Garbage assumptions lead to garbage conclusions. Below is a list of several key assumptions Schiff totally failed to support in the report.

Garbage in, garbage out.

  1. Flashback: Jerry Nadler Warns ‘There Must Never Be’ a Partisan Impeachment Effort

Breitbart quotes Jerry Nadler during his efforts to support Bill Clinton.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) warned of the dangers of partisan impeachment efforts during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, cautioning that it would “produce decisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.”

Nadler adamantly opposed a partisan impeachment effort during Clinton’s scandal, emphatically warning his colleagues that they should not impeach a president without the “overwhelming consensus” of the American people and stressing that “an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other” will lead to bitterness and divisiveness and cause people to question “the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”

“And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other,” Nadler said in a throwback clip, which Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS) reintroduced on the morning of the House Judiciary Committee’s first public impeachment hearing:


“Such an impeachment will produce decisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,” he warned.

Nadler made, precisely, the same arguments Republicans have made against the Democrats’ partisan impeachment efforts in recent weeks.

(Read more at Breitbart)

We need to make Nadler remember his words now that he has taken part in the impechment

We need to be a thorn in the side of this man and help him grow into a more mature politician. Just as Maxine Waters has encouraged her followers to confront people, we need to (but doing so legally and with the love of Christ for people).

  1. Pamela Karlan presumes to read President Trump’s mind during impeachment hearing

The Daily Caller noted how liberal professor Pamela Karlan assumed that she knew the motivation for Trump’s naming of his youngest son and other actions.

Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford Law School, dragged President Donald Trump’s 13-year-old son Barron into the impeachment drama Wednesday.

Karlan made the comments while explaining the difference between a president and a monarch.

“I’ll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is, the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son ‘Barron,’ he can’t make him a baron,” Karlan said.

Karlan was one of four law professors to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about impeachment Wednesday, with three of them arguing in favor of impeachment.

Karlan’s decision to mention the president’s son during the hearing elicited strong reactions from conservatives on Twitter who took offense to Karlan’s comments.



(Read the original at the Daily Caller)

Ms. Karlan may consult familiars, march in degenerate marches, and publish her desire to impeach the President months before claiming she was impartial, but she cannot read minds

However, had Ms. Karlan wanted to project herself as an unbiased expert worthy of belief during the House impeachment hearings, she might have avoided mentioning how she crosses the road to avoid walking in front of Trump tower. That does not project an image of impartiality.

  1. Jonathan Turley: No bribery, no obstruction in Trump’s actions

Breitbart quotes constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley as he points out that this impeachment sets a precedent.

President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine do not constitute “bribery” and resisting Congressional request is not “obstruction” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told the House judiciary committee Wednesday.

Turley took aim at what he called a “boundless” definition of bribery employed by the Democrats in their impeachment report. He also criticized the Democrats for attempting to construe Trump’s challenging House subpoenas or refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry as “obstruction of justice.”

“You can’t accuse a president of bribery and then when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say, ‘Well, it’s just impeachment. We really don’t have to prove the elements,’” Turley said. “If you are going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick because you are trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.”

Turley said that proponents of impeachment, including Rep. Adam Schiff and the legal experts called by Democrats to the Wednesday panel, were wrong when they said that Trump’s alleged actions would fit the definition of bribery at the time the constitution was adopted even if it did not fit the statutory definitions of the current era.

“The bribery theory being put forward is as flawed in the 18th century as it is in this century,” Turley said.

Bribery was not an “over-arching concept” in the 18th century, Turley said. Instead, it constituted such a narrow crime that some of the attendees of the constitutional convention worried that restricting impeach to “Treason and Bribery” was too limited. An originalist interpretation of bribery would limit it to the actual acceptance of money from someone seeking favorable treatment or policy from a public official.

In his prepared remarks, Turley quoted from a legal treatise that explained: “The core of the concept of a bribe is an inducement improperly influencing the performance of a public function meant to be gratuitously exercised.”

“Bribery, as used here, did not indicate some broad definition, but a classic payment of money,” Turley explained in his written remarks.

Turley argued that the narrow definition does not fit Trump’s alleged actions in the current controversy. Even if Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to open investigations by withholding military aid or offering a White House visit, this would not constitute bribery under common law definitions.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Turley To House Democrats: If You Make Going To The Courts An Abuse Of Power, It Is “Your Abuse Of Power”

Real Clear Politics quotes Jonathan Turley as he makes one of several cases against the Democrat argument for impeachment.

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told House Democrats that charging President Trump with a count of obstruction of justice for going to the courts over the subpoena of witnesses is itself an abuse of power.

“If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power,” Turley said during the first day of impeachment inquiry hearings in the House Judiciary committee on Monday.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

  1. Professor Turley, though not a fan of Trump, takes on three Democrat witnesses and the entire impeachment coup

Biz Pac Review lists the issues identified by Professor Turley.

While “witnesses” who have thus far testified to the House in the impeachment inquiry have been in support of the removal of the president without providing any solid evidence of wrongdoing, a Wednesday witness before the House Judiciary Committee tore apart the legal case presented against Trump and called the inquiry “dangerous.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School who also testified in the Bill Clinton impeachment case, called the case presented thus far against Trump “woefully inadequate.”

“President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come,” Turley said during his opening testimony. “I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”

Turley said the current standard for this potential impeachment “fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments.” He also said the lack of solid evidence presented in the case sets a “dangerous precedent for future impeachments.”

While leftists will likely write Turley off as a blind supporter of the president, the law professor confirmed on Wednesday that he is not a “supporter” of Trump, but rather someone who is concerned that the “integrity” of the impeachment process is quickly being eroded with the current hearings.

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” he said.

Further proving he’s not a supporter of the president, Turley said Trump’s reference to Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine and Burisma, the company his son worked for, in his phone call with the Ukraine president over the summer should have never happened and is worth criticism. However, he argued, the reference in the phone call — which never led to the imaginary quid pro quo Democrats have accused Trump of — does not equate to “bribery,” which is what Trump is currently being accused of in the impeachment inquiry.

“The reference to the Hunter Biden deal with Burisma should never have occurred and is worthy of the criticism of President Trump that it has unleashed. However, it is not a case of bribery,” Turley said.

While one can argue the comment was not “correct,” Turley said there is nothing “corrupt” in the mentioning of the dealings to the Ukraine president.

“In my view, there is no case law that would support a claim of corrupt intent in such comments to support a bribery charge,” he said.

Turley also argued there was no malicious motivation on Trump’s part as the president “honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt, notwithstanding its inappropriateness.”

The trouble, Turley argued, is that an investigation into Biden — which never actually happened — would have helped Trump politically.

Turley eventually made a call to action, asking those in support of impeachment to put the current process in the context of history and to see beyond their “rage.”

“If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion,” he said.

If impeachment were to actually happen, Turley predicted it would be a black mark on American political history.

“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” he said.

(Read more at Biz Pac Review)

To quote Professor Turley, we are setting a dangerous precedent

On page 12 of the printed version of his testimony before Congress, Jonathan Turley pointed out the low standard the Democrats are setting for impeachment.

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.

  1. All Presidents of the past would have been impeached under the current standard

At Jonathan Turley’s blog, the professor points out how all presidents fall when put up to the standards exacted by the current Democrats.

“This is beyond anything Nixon did.” Those words declared by Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff capture the vast constitutional challenge for the House Judiciary Committee as it heads toward its announced hearing on the impeachment of President Trump. There is still disagreement, to use a Clintonian twist, of what “this” is.

Yet whatever “this” is, it is not Nixonian, at least not yet. Schiff seems to struggle to reduce the harsh allegations against Richard Nixon in order to elevate those against Donald Trump. Schiff explained that Watergate was merely “a third-rate burglary of the Democratic headquarters” while “what we are talking about here is the withholding of recognition in that White House meeting” of the Ukrainian president and of “the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. This is beyond anything Nixon did.”

The Nixon impeachment began with a felony crime with the Watergate burglary and then swept to encompass an array of other crimes involving political slush funds, payments of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, directing tax audits of critics, witness intimidation, multiple instances of perjury and even an alleged kidnapping. In the end, there were nearly 70 officials charged and four dozen found guilty. Nixon was also named as an unindicted conspirator by a grand jury.

However, according to Schiff and Katyal, all those federal crimes appear to pale in comparison to the Ukraine controversy. Katyal said on air that Trump has denied Congress the testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton and “a whole bunch of other people.” This on its face, Katyal claimed, constitutes “unprecedented obstruction, in many ways even worse than President Nixon during Watergate. They have gagged every single executive branch employee from going and testifying.”

But that is not exactly unprecedented. Take the Obama administration position, for instance, on the investigation of “Fast and Furious,” which was a moronic gunwalking operation in which the government arranged for the illegal sale of powerful weapons to drug cartels in order to track their movement. One such weapon was used to murder Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and Congress began a justified oversight investigation. Some members called for impeachment proceedings. But Obama invoked executive privilege and barred essential testimony and documents. The Obama administration then ran out the clock in the judiciary, despite a legal rejection of its untenable and extreme claim by a federal court.

During its litigation, the Obama administration argued that the courts had no authority over its denial of such witnesses and evidence to Congress. Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has tried Trump associate Roger Stone, ruled that “endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.” Katyal is likely familiar with this precedent. He was acting solicitor general of the Justice Department at the start of “Fast and Furious” at the start of the controversy.

Presidents have often gone to court to litigate conflicts over Congress calling top White House officials whose conversations are ordinarily protected by executive privilege. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all barred evidence on that ground, and presidents are entitled to receive judicial review in conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. In the Obama litigation over the blocking of evidence, Jackson reaffirmed that such judicial review is part of the constitutional system of allowing courts to “determine whether another branch has exceeded its power.” Citing two Supreme Court rulings, Jackson added that it would “elevate and fortify” one branch to dictate the results in such conflicts.

It is difficult to see the “devastating” aspect of such an incomplete record against Trump as it exists today, let alone the claim that Trump has “out-Nixoned” Nixon. That is why, whatever “this” is, in the words of Schiff, it is not Watergate. That does not mean it is not impeachable, but the House will have to build its case to that level, not lower historical impeachments to “this” level.

(Read the full blog post at Jonathan Turley’s blog)

  1. One of Nadler’s ‘Star’ Impeachment Witnesses Misrepresented Himself During Sworn Testimony

Lifezette’s Wayne Dupree points out that one of Jerry Nadler’s star witnesses told a little lie during sworn testimony. Of course, the main stream press will not bring this out.

Jerry Nadler’s impeachment hearing was a bust. It actually made Adam Schiff’s circus look legitimate – and that’s saying a lot since Schiff’s hearings were a total joke and embarrassment.

Nadler trotted out three elitist anti-Trump college professors to share their “feelings” and “opinions” on why they think Trump should be impeached.

What a total waste of time and taxpayer money.

Much like Schiff’s impeachment charade, Nadler’s was just a bunch of Trump-haters complaining. There was no first-hand knowledge of anything, no evidence. Just a #Resistance rally for people who hate President Trump with an abnormal amount of passion.

While Schiff’s witnesses were insufferable windbags, Nadler’s were insufferable and downright mean, not to mention liars.

Nadler’s star witness Noah Freeman said under oath that he was an “impeachment skeptic” until July 2019.

You can watch the video below:

However, investigative journalist Mike Cernovich says “not so fast.”

Will anything be done about it? Don’t hold your breath.

Noah Feldman’s own words contradict his testimony.

In a May 17, 2017 story in Vice about the Comey firing, Professor Feldman said:

What the president did is an outrage. It’s impeachable, and obstruction of justice in the sense of being a “high crime and misdemeanor.” But it’s almost certainly not a crime of obstruction of justice.

When pressed to provide more nuance about impeachment, Professor Feldman said:

So just to clarify, this looks like obstruction of justice in the high crimes and misdemeanors sense but not in the Jeff Sessions–led Justice Department will do anything about it sense? Correct. And frankly, breaking the norm of politicizing law enforcement—it’s a great basis for impeachment. It’s not a crime, and in fact it’s in the president’s constitutional authority, but it’s still impeachable. That’s the whole point—the president can do things within his legal constitutional authority where the only sanction available under our system is impeachment.

Feldman doesn’t qualify his statement. He doesn’t express skepticism or doubt. He is clear with his words: “What the president did is an outrage. It’s impeachable.”

[Cernovich.com]

(Read more at Wayne Dupree)

  1. Blue State Blues: Adam Schiff Abused His Power to Dig up Dirt on Opponents

Breitbart reports in a 6 December 2019 article how Schiff abused is power to dig up dirt on opponents.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has done almost exactly what he and fellow Democrats accuse President Donald Trump (falsely) of doing: he abused his power to ask an outside entity to investigate political opponents.

Schiff subpoenaed phone records from AT&T that he then used to claim his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Rep. Devin Nunes (D-CA), was part of a plot to smear a U.S. ambassador.

What Schiff did is arguably worse than what he claims Trump did in his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. AT&T is an American company, not a foreign government.

But Schiff didn’t simply ask AT&T for dirt on his opponents. He forced it to hand over the records. And he did so without giving Nunes any warning, or any opportunity to respond to the claims he would later sneak into his 300-page impeachment report.

Schiff’s strategy was not to go for Nunes’s phone number directly, but to subpoena the records of numbers of people who might have called him. So when he showed Nunes his unilateral subpoena — which he is required to do — Nunes had no idea what Schiff was doing. Nor did Schiff explain it to the public: the footnotes in his report simply refer to “AT&T Document Production” with no further explanation.

Schiff’s phone records also targeted Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and investigative journalist John Solomon. He risked violating attorney-client privilege, as well as the freedom of the press. And those are just the records that have been identified: other Americans, including journalists, are likely to have been swept up in the search.

Schiff also apparently mis-identified one of the phone numbers as coming from the Office of Management and Budget, basing key accusations on that sloppy mistake.

Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal notes: “Mr. Schiff claims the ignominious distinction of being the first congressman to use his official powers to spy on a fellow member and publish the details.” She adds, quoting former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, that Schiff’s subpoena may have broken the law. Phone carriers cannot divulge call records without an individual’s consent, except for a legitimate law enforcement purpose: this was not.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. House GOP escalate feud over Nunes phone records

One America News Network reports in a 6 December 2019 article how some Republicans in the House have started matching force with force.

House Republicans are accusing House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff of carrying out a smear campaign against his GOP counterpart. House Democrats have refused to explain how some phone records of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) were obtained and published in the Intelligence panel’s recent report.

They have cited the records to accuse Nunes of working with the Trump administration to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations into the president’s opponents. Call logs show Nunes was in contact earlier this year with Rudy Giuliani and other individuals swept up in the inquiry.

Republicans have warned the move by Democrats is unprecedented and are now demanding answers.

“So two questions are hanging out that everybody’s looking for an answer for, including me: who ordered it? …why was it decided for nothing but smears purposes to be included in the the Schiff report?” asked Rep. Doug Collin (R-Ga.).

Schiff has argued it is standard procedure to seek phone records, while denying they were obtained through subpoenas. Meanwhile, Republicans say they are concerned with names of individuals being revealed who are not under criminal investigation.

(Read more at One America News Network)

  1. Nadler did not swear in witnesses

As pointed out in a 9 December 2019 edition of Roll Call, we know that Jerold Nadler did not swear in the witnesses for the impeachment hearing.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s gavel got a workout when Republicans raised a number of objections, unanimous consent requests and parliamentary inquiries in the committee’s impeachment hearing on Monday.

“The steamroll continues!” ranking member Doug Collins said as Nadler called upon Barry Berke, counsel for House Democrats. Republicans were shouting over each other and Nadler’s gavel as they attempted to submit their dissatisfaction with the proceedings.

Collins called Democrats’ investigation inquiry into President Donald Trump a “focus group impeachment” in its opening statement as the committee began its hearing on investigators’ report.

“Presumption has now become the standard instead of proof,” Collins said in his opening statement.

Republicans also reasserted their allegations that the impeachment process is an effort by Democrats to negate Trump’s election.

“Is this when we just hear staff ask questions of other staff and the members get dealt out of this hearing for the next four hours?” asked Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz. “Are you are going to overturn the results of an election of the elected people?”

(Read more at Roll Call)

  1. Court Criticizes Obama Admin for Illegal Spying on U.S. Citizens

Breitbart pointed out how a court criticized the Obama administration for spying on the Trump campaign.

Intelligence agencies violated the constitutional rights of American citizens through illegal surveillance during the Obama administration, recently declassified documents from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) show.

The secretive court also notes a change for the better under President Trump’s team.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes two courts to provide judicial review for U.S. intelligence agencies when their activities require them to monitor people on U.S. soil. One is FISC, and the other is the court that hears appeals from FISC decisions, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR). The benches of FISC are comprised of federal judges from regular federal trial courts throughout the nation, and three appellate judges from around the nation comprise the bench of FISCR.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) recently declassified an April 26, 2017, ruling from FISC, detailing violations of Fourth Amendment rights during the final year of the Obama administration.

The problems dealt specifically with Section 702 of FISA. This provision of federal law, found at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, contains “minimization” procedures for U.S. citizens whose information is scooped up by the intelligence community while those agencies are conducting FISA surveillance. These safeguards minimize the burden on civil rights caused by the intrusion of the federal government into citizens’ lives.

The Fourth Amendment commands:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Writing the 99-page opinion for FISC, Judge Rosemary Collyer castigated the Obama administration for failing to follow the Section 702 procedures designed to ensure that the government does not violate Americans’ civil rights as it is performing work that is vitally important to national security. Collyer declared that the previous administration’s cavalier violations of Section 702’s requirements created “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is a day late and a dollar short for a judge who should have responded to Rep. Nunes

Over a year ago, Representatives Nunes and Goodlatte wrote a letter to this judge (warning of the issues brought up in the IG report and more). She should have started investigations and leveled charges then, had she wanted to maintain the honor of her court.

  1. Doug Collins speaks out during the impeachment debacle

In the following video, Representative Doug Collins speaks in the “impeachment” debates (put in quotes because the Democrats limited the terms of debate throughout the process). In this speech, he points out how Democrats have rushed headlong into this “impeachment” from the moment President Trump was elected. Facts and votes have been damned by the Democrats.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And we are here today to enter into a debate, this should surprise no one.

This is not — this has not been a surprise and it’s not even something that we would not have thought about. From the very moment that the majority party in this House won the inevitability that we would be here today was only a matter of what date they would schedule it. Nothing else.

In fact, how it even began to look even further was on September 24, the Speaker announced an impeachment inquiry before even seeing the call transcript that we’re going to hear so much about today. You know, it’s not about what this body can do, in its constitutional oath. And there’s been a lot of “constitutional” and “founders” thrown around and will be all day today. But there’s one thing that I will mention all along and that is also the founders were very concerned about a partisan impeachment in which politics or the majority who have their strength can do what they want to do regardless of any facts.

In fact, I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. I do not believe, no matter what was said today and what has been said, this is not a solemn occasion. When you go looking for something for three years, and especially this year since January, you ought to be excited when you found it. But they can’t. Because I know what has now happened.

It took me last night, but I was thinking about it. Why do we keep calling this a solemn occasion when you’ve been wanting to do this ever since the gentleman was elected? Mr. President came forward and did what he saw fit for the American people, but yet they wanted to impeach him. Now I know. The reason they wanted to is now they realize, when I told them and have been telling them for the last few weeks that the clock and the calendar are terrible masters. The clock and the calendar are terrible masters. They do not care about anything except getting the time done and the calendar fixed. They do not care about facts. They do not care about time. And one day the clock and the calendar will hang along this body in a very detrimental way.

How do I know this? Because one of our members said on the night she was sworn in, we’re going to impeach. Well, you know the rest.

In May of 2019, Al Green said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” That’s probably the most prescient thing said by the majority in the last year. They said, we can’t beat him if we don’t impeach him. There’s a reason behind this impeachment. Even Speaker Pelosi said it would be dangerous to leave it to voters to determine whether President Trump stays in office.

Really? After we just said the pledge of allegiance, we go back to the Speaker’s own words and said it would be dangerous to leave it to the voters? I will tell you right now, Madam Speaker, we on the Republican side have no problem taking our case to the majority and to the people of this country, because they elected Donald Trump and it is a matter — matter for the voters, not this House, not in — voters, not this House, not in this way and not in the way this is being done. It has trampled everything this House believes in.

I said it yesterday and I believe it to be this true today. I will fight this on process which has been deplorable, to use a word of the majority. It has been awful. The calendar and the clock make it impress have we actually do it quickly — impressive that we actually do it quickly. We don’t care about rules and minority days, we don’t care about giving opportunity for witnesses to call, because the chairman gets to determine what is relevant. Wow, that’s pretty good. Let the accuser determine what is relevant to the one being accused.

The people of America see through this. The people of America understand due process and they understand when it is being trampled in the people’s House.

You see, it’s also not a matter of process which will be discussed today, it’s a matter of actual facts.

I will fight the facts all day long. Because what we found here today is a fact — is a President who did not do as being charged. They had to go to abuse of power, this amorphous term that you’re going to hear many arguments about how that abuse of power — except for one thing, the call itself, the two parties say no pressure. Nothing was ever done to get the money. In fact, they didn’t even know the money was held. But there is something that very much bothers me about the facts. There were five meetings, we’ll hear about those today. In which it was never a linkage — there was never a linkage made.

There was one witness that is depended on over 600 times in the majority’s report. That in the end, after questions, had to say, that was not presumption of what was happening. You see, this is an impeachment based on presumption. This is an impeachment basically a poll-tested impeachment on what sells to the American people.

Today’s going to be a lot of things. What it is not is fair. What it is not is about the truth. What is true today, and I just heard it just a moment ago in the articles themselves where it said, and the Speaker I believe talked about this, is, well, if the president weakened a foreign leader. You know what the truth of the matter is, madam Speaker?

The most interesting and deplorable thing that I’ve heard over the last few weeks? Is the actual attack by the majority on President Zelensky. Because they realize the whole crux of their case is if he was not pressured, their House of cards falls and by the way it’s already fell.

But if we can’t pressure, show pressure, then we either have to call him a liar, a world leader, or we have to make up names to call him. And that’s exactly what happened in judiciary committee when a member of the majority actually said, he’s acting (or they compared him to) a battered wife. That’s below the dignity of this body. To take a world leader and when he doesn’t make the case for you, to belittle him. As will be often said by the majority, that they’re in the middle of a hot war with Russia.

You see, President Trump actually did give them offensive weapons. President Trump did nothing wrong. We’re going to talk about that all day long today. We went on process and we went on facts. Why? Because the American people will see through this.

Before I close this first part, I will have to recognize that even the senate, the minority leader in the senate, recognizes that the House did not do their job.

Because he can’t make the case to his own members, so he’s having to ask for witnesses.

Ask for more time. You see, even yesterday, it was sort of funny, I found it hilarious that the minority leader in the senate went out and did a press conference and said, they did not — my witnesses, they denied my witnesses, they denied my process. Welcome to the club. That’s what’s happened here for the last three months.

We’re going to talk a lot about impeachment and the president and two articles of impeachment today. Abuse of power, because they can’t actually pin anything of factual basis on him. The president did nothing wrong in this issue. And then they’re going to talk about obstruction of congress.

You know, obstruction of congress, as I’ve before, is like pet lent children saying, we didn’t get our way when we didn’t ask the right way and we didn’t try to go after and make a case. You know why, Madam Speaker, the clock and the calendar are terrible masters and the majority will own that problem today. Because to the clock and the calendar, facts don’t matter. The promises to the base matter. And today is a promise kept for the majority. Not a surprise.

..

  1. Kevin McCarthy points out the glaring truth

In this next video, Representative Kevin McCarthy recounts the words and acts of the Democrats when they lied to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I must warn you, I’m about to say something my democratic colleagues hate to hear.

Donald J. Trump is president of the United States. He is President today. He’ll be President tomorrow. And he will be President when this impeachment is over.

Madam Speaker, when they accept that, maybe this House can get back to work for the American people.

Tonight I rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment, or as the elected representative from the central valley of California. I rise as Kevin McCarthy, citizen. No better, no worse than the 435 representatives that are in this chamber. Or the 330 million Americans watching this institution make what I believe is to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, whether you’re liberal or conservative, whether you’re the first generation or the 10th, at our core we are all Americans. All of us.

We choose our future. We choose what kind of nation we want to be. Here’s our choice tonight. Will we let impeachment become an exercise of raw political power, regardless if it damages our country? Or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future?

For months democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalize the impeachment process that would remove a duly elected president from office. After three years of breathless and baseless outrage, this is their last attempt to stop the trump presidency.

Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi even recently admitted that democrats have been working on this impeachment for 2 1/2 years. Those were her words, they were not mine. Because they lost to him in 2016, they’ll do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020.

That’s not America. That’s not how democratic republics behave. Elections matter. Voters matter. And in 11 months, the people’s voice will be heard again.

Impeachment is the most consequential decision congress can make other than sending our men and women into war. Yet 85 days ago, Speaker Pelosi chose to impeach the president of the United States. She wrote the script and created an artificial timeline to make the details fit.

Why else are we doing this just hours before Christmas? If that’s all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven. But before the Speaker saw one word or one shred of evidence, she moved to impeach.

In the path, in this body, such a step demanded a vote from all of us from the start. But not only did she move to impeach before she gave this House and the hundreds of millions of people we represent no say in whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this house gave president Nixon and Clinton. That is why I immediately sent Speaker Pelosi a letter, asking her to follow the rules of history, of tradition, and follow those standards that have served America well.

What did she say? She rejected it. She rejected it because democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. A fair process would have exposed to the American public what many already knew. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. And nothing was going to get in their way, certainly not the truth.

Madam Speaker, chairman Schiff said he had evidence, more than certain, of collusion. That was false. In January, where we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised our hands, we swore that we’d uphold the constitution — and a few mere hours after that, congresswoman Tlaib said she was going to impeach the mother-f ‘er. Those are not my words.

A year before taking the majority chairman Nadler campaigned to the Democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee where impeachment is. “New York Times” writes, Madam Speaker, because he is the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. And Congressman Raskin, a leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, one that the Democrats had represent in the rules committee, for these articles just yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach President Trump two days before he was ever sworn into office.

What we’ve seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of America. That is this legacy. Any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge and the jury. Madam Speaker, Democrats haven’t just failed on process, they’ve also failed — failed on evidence.

I heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but I haven’t heard one member of this body dispute this simple fact — President Trump provided lethal aid to Ukraine. It came before the call, it came after the call, and it continues to this day. President trump provided Ukraine tank-busting bombs, the previous administration, they gave blankets. This is the truth. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ case is based on secondhand opinions and hearsay. Simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment.

As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley (and I would challenge to say he’s probably the most respected — and we all know it — a Democrat who did not vote for the President) said under oath, “There was no bribery. There was no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power.” Based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of evidence, Turley called it “the fastest, thinnest, and weakest impeachment in the U.S. history.” Such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this.

But Speaker Pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment. Without evidence of facts or truth or public support. The Speaker says it is out of allegiance to our founders. On this I agree. I agree with the Speaker, we should listen to the founders. And if one does, it’s very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper.

In the federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, there will always — there would always be the greatest danger, that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. That impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. James Madison, another author of the federalist papers, wrote, the danger of legislative abuse must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive abuse. The founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or partisan battles.

If my colleagues do not want to follow the constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps you could have followed Speaker Pelosi’s standard, at least the one she promised to follow back in March.

It was a very sensible standard. She says impeachment is so divisive that the evidence must be overwhelming, compelling and bipartisan. Not one of those criteria have been met today. Based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the truth, this impeachment even fails that Pelosi test. Those now who say removing president trump would protect the integrity of our democracy have it backwards. By removing a duly elected president on empty articles of impeachment, Congress will erode the public trust in our system of government.

I understand you dislike the president. His beliefs, the way he governs, and even the people who voted for him. How do I know this? Because you say so day in and day out. In 2016 they even dismissed his supporters. Remember calling us “Deplorables?” Now they are trying to disqualify our voice before the 2020 election. They want to undo the results of the last election, to influence the next one. As I’ve said, President Trump will still be President when this is all over. But Congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayer dollars on impeachment rather than doing what the American people want us to do.

It didn’t have to be this way. Is this why we came here to serve? To trample on due process rights? To issue more subpoenas than laws? To appease the new democrat socialist base? That is not leadership. That is raw political politics and you know it. By refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts, by substituting partisan animosity for real demonstration of innocence or guilt, and by continuing a three-year effort to undermine the President, this impeachment has divided this nation without any concern for the repercussions.

Moreover, politicizing this process has discredited the united states house of representatives. And could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. To again quote Professor Turley, it is the democrats’ rush to impeachment on these grounds with unfair procedures that is an abuse of power. History will write that.

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we face a choice. Do you trust the wisdom of the people? Or do you deny them a say in their government? Fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and render their verdict in 11 months, to my fellow Americans.

To my fellow Americans, if you prove of the — approve of the way this House has conducted its business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward into endless investigations, support this impeachment. — to endless investigations, support this impeachment.

But if you want to restore a working Congress like the previous congress that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy in this country — this country has ever seen and one that once again will work with the president to get things done for you and your family, then join with us in rejecting this baseless impeachment.

That’s what’s wonderful about this system of ours. We are a government of, by, and for the people. Always remember, we work for you, not the other way around. Now I will say this stronger and with more conviction than I have ever said it before. In this time of great trial and tribulation, may God bless America. I yield back.

Stories that should encourage Christians


Texas Boy Whose Mother Wanted to Transition Him into a Girl, Now Attending School as a Boy

The Christian Broadcasting Network reported in a 7 November 2019 article that James has started attending school as a boy and no longer wants to be referred to as “Luna.”

savejamesfbimageThe Texas boy caught in the middle of a bitter custody battle that made national headlines when it was revealed his mother wanted to transition him into a girl, is now attending school as a boy.

The “Save James” Facebook page posted photos of seven-year-old James Younger and his brother Jude before they headed off for school. The page also posted a photo of Jeff Younger standing with his two sons.

“Jeff emailed the principal today and James and Jude’s teachers had reported that there was zero stress or disruptions in the classroom today. Just another day in school Prayers answered,” friends of the Younger family wrote on the page.

Earlier, they had written, “Going to school. This is what it looks like when JAMES gets to choose! * Affirm this! * Also, a photo taken yesterday, just before church. James and Jude proud to be men! Save James, save thousands of children!”


As CBN News reported in October, Jeff Younger went to court to stop his ex-wife Dr. Anne Georgulas from transitioning their son James into a girl named “Luna.” Court documents revealed the boy even dressed as a girl and answered to that name when he was with his mother.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

When I first heard of this on American Family Radio, all I could do is pray

When I first heard of the case of James Younger, a jury had ruled against his father in his attempt to stop the chemical castration of this 7-year-old boy. So, after praying for the protection of this child, it occurred to me that — as a citizen of a democratic republic — I have a voice in my government through my representatives. Therefore, I got on Facebook and Twitter and contacted my senators and my governor.

Soon thereafter, Governor Abbott ordered an investigation of the James Younger custody case in Dallas. With the state’s eyes on her, Judge Kim Cooks ruled that the parents would share joint conservatorship of the child. So, with the tide turning against the pediatrician “mother” (who did not donate the eggs toward the twin boys) has petitioned for the judge to recuse herself from the case.

So, we need to continue our prayers.

“Thank God” is one of many reactions to the apparent conversion of Kanye West

Kanye West Gospel Album Inspires Group to Give Away 1,000 Bibles to His Fans

A 2 November 2019 Breitbart article details how the American Bible Society came to donate 1,000 Bibles to Kayne West fans.

kanyeserviceSome fans of rap megastar Kanye West are showing an increased interest in the Holy Bible following his conversion to Christianity and his hit gospel-rap album Jesus is King. And now one organization is handing out hundreds free Bibles to those who wish to learn more.

Google searches for “Jesus” and the query, “What do Christians believe?” spiked significantly following the release of West’s album last week, which includes a plethora of biblical references.

Amid renewed interest, the American Bible Society (ABS) plans to use the opportunity to hand out free Bibles to those interested in Christianity. The organization has launched an initiative called “Bibles for Kanye Fans,” which will see them hand out up to 1,000 copies of the Good News Translation for free.

“When we saw an influential cultural figure like Kanye inspiring young people to curiously seek out answers to their faith questions, we saw that as an opportunity to do what we do best as an organization: to provide God’s word and point people to it as a source to their questions about faith,” Dr. John Farquhar Plake, the organizations’s director of ministry intelligence, told Fox News.

“Kanye’s album just points to this cultural curiosity and we’re happy to stand in the gap and say if you’re curious about the Bible, we want to provide one to you,” he continued.

The Grammy-winning rapper recently opened up about a Born Again Christian, defending religious conservative values while critiquing those pushing political correctness and “cancel culture” as the same people who wish to destroy Christianity altogether.

“I’ve been canceled before. That was canceled culture. Who told you that my career would be over? The same people that are telling you that you can’t have a right to say who you will vote for,” Kanye West said. “Those people will be soon to take Jesus out of school. Those people will be soon to remove Jesus, period, from America, which is the Bible Belt. Those people will be so mad. Come on man.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

From what I have heard of Kanye West’s church meetings, they seem to be nothing but uplifting to God

The reports that I have seen, including several YouTube videos, seem to indicate a true conversion by Mr. West.

However, if you are a Christian, I would challenge you to not follow in the steps of Peter in asking about the situation of another believer (John 21:21). Rather, we should follow Christ’s suggestion by looking to our own spiritual condition (John 21:22).

That is, so what if Kanye West formerly had issues? He has reformed his ways. So what if he has a new way of delivering the good news? Every generation has changed that delivery and — as shown by the spike in searches on “What do Christians believe?” — we can thank God for that.

FAITH-FILLED WEEKEND: That Time Tebow’s John 3:16 Verse Went Viral, Then God Did Something Even Wilder

An 8 November 2019 Christian Broadcasting Network commentary on the effects of an action taken on 8 January 2009 by football player Tim Tebow.

timtebowjohn316It may not be news at this point, but if you haven’t heard this story yet, be prepared to be blown away. More than nine million people have now seen a viral video of Tim Tebow recalling a powerful story from his football days that can’t be explained by human understanding.

It goes like this.

Tebow was a HUGE success in his college football years. The year was 2009 and he was weeks away from competing in the highly televised national championship football game.

Tebow said God led him at that point to change his regular Bible verse – the one he painted under his eyes – from Philippians 4:13 to John 3:16 for all the world to see while he played.

He points out John 3:16 contains the essence of the Bible’s salvation message, so he felt God was calling him to share it on this big platform he was being given.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” – John 3:16

After the game, Tebow found out his new message had a huge impact. “During that game 94 million people Googled John 3:16,” he recalls learning.

He says it taught him a lesson about how big God really is, and that God really wants to do big things through us because He can use one act of obedience in one moment in time to reach 94 million people with the gospel.

Fast-forward three years – exactly three years in fact – from January 8, 2009, when Tebow first wore John 3:16 – to January 8, 2012. Tebow was now playing for the Denver Broncos in the NFL.

Tebow recalls, “We just happened to be playing the Pittsburgh Steelers in the first round of the playoffs… I didn’t think of John 3:16 one time, so I can’t take credit, I had nothing to do with it.”

Then something truly wild happened. You might even call it supernatural.

After Tebow led the Broncos to beat the Steelers in that game, his PR guy came up to him and said, “Timmy did you realize what happened? This is exactly 3 years from the time you put John 3:16 under your eyes… you don’t realize, during the game you threw for 316 yards. Your yards per rush were 3.16. Your yards per completion were 31.6. The time of possession was 31.06. And the ratings for the night were 31.6. And during the game, 90 million people Googled John 3:16, and it’s the number one thing on all social media right now.”

“And I was just standing in the hallway thinking, ‘God I didn’t know that you were doing anything. I thought that was like three years ago. But it’s amazing how big the God is that we serve,” he says.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

This is a good example of a servant who was faithful in small things and, thereby, was given authority over great things

In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus relates a story of servants who were entrusted with various sums of money. One was given much and used it to bring great benefit to his master. One was given little and still used it to benefit his master. However, a third, knowing that this master was known for reaping gains where he had not sowed, went and hid the money do that he would not experience loss. Because he did not at least put the asserts in the bank where they could gather some interest, this servant was punished.

Usually, when preachers and Sunday School teachers focus on this parable, they center their message on the third, lazy servant.

However, in the case of Tim Tebow, I think it does us well to focus on the second servant. Like Tebow, the second servant took small resources and turned them into a great return.

Therefore, the next time a little task for God comes to you, consider the great returns that might result.

‘This Is What We Pray For’: Christian Influencers Rejoice Over Kanye’s Radical Transformation

Another Christian Broadcasting Network article provides commentary on the apparent conversion of Kayne West.

Kanye West’s gospel album “Jesus is King” is hitting number one across the major music genres, with each song landing in Billboard’s Hot 100.  Kanye has rocked the entertainment world by openly sharing his radical faith transformation and helping to lead thousands to Christ in the process.

“Kanye West works for God,” the superstar recently told CBS’ Late Late Show host James Corden.

The star rapper says it was Christians in his life who never stopped praying that made all the difference.

“There’s a lot of people that were praying for me,” says Kanye. “When I was all the way gone, when I was at the awards show with a Hennessey bottle running on stage, when I was doing creative direction for certain awards shows, it was people in my family that were praying for me.”

Kanye admits to dealing with addictions like sex and pornography and believes sharing these life struggles makes him more relatable to non-believers exploring faith.

“God always had a plan for me and he always wanted to use me but I think he wanted me to suffer more and wanted people to see my suffering and my pain and put stigmas on me and have me go through all the experiences, human experiences, so now when I talk about how Jesus saved me, more people can relate to that experience,” Kanye continued.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

Again, I would point toward the working of God within a common man

While this common man may be an uncommonly talented rapper, still he recognizes his subservience to Christ.

Liberals shoot themselves in the impeachment foot


‘Coup has started’: Whistleblower’s attorney vowed to ‘get rid of Trump’ in 2017

ZeroHedge revealed that the lawyer for the “whistleblower” tweeted that “coup has started” in 2017. Now, that lawyer has been attempting to convince us that the tweet was prophetic and not proof of a conspiracy in its infancy.

The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to “get rid of Trump”, and said that the “#coup has started” in 2017 tweets.

zaid 1

Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump nonprofit ‘Whistleblower Aid’ in 2017, tweeted “It’s very scary. We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.

He also tweeted “#coup has started” after former AG Sally Yates was fired for “refusing to enforce a legal order” from Trump.




(Read more at ZeroHedge)

If the Democrats want an action (like removal of a President), they need to bring the witness to the open court

In America, we have the right to face our accusers (even when we are a maligned President). Therefore, if the Democrats want to do anything more than grandstand — if Democrats want to bring charges in Congress, then they need to follow the laws that protect the accused bring this “whistleblower” into the public hearing at Congress.

Alleged Whistleblower’s Name Appears In Transcript Released By Schiff

The Daily Wire pointed out that Schiff-for-brains was the one who accidentally exposed the name of the whistleblower.

schiff-for-brainsControversy over whether or not to reveal the name of the man widely believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint prompted the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry ratcheted up even further on Wednesday after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out an article and quote including the whistleblower’s alleged name. While Democrats and the left-leaning media expressed outrage about Trump’s social media post, an impeachment inquiry transcript released by the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff includes the very name Trump tweeted out.

As reported by RedState, Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee who is heading up the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, appears to have accidentally allowed the name widely identified as the whistleblower to appear in the transcript of the committee’s interview with top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

In the transcript, the interviewer asks Taylor if the name of the man who has been widely reported as the whistleblower “ring[s] a bell?” Taylor responds, “It doesn’t.”

“So, to your knowledge, you never had any communications with somebody by that name?” Taylor is asked, to which he replies, “Correct.”

The failure to redact the name means one of two things, suggests Turning Point USA’s Benny Johnson, either he’s not the whistleblower or the Democrats made a massive error.

The alleged identity of the whistleblower was first reported by RealClearInvestigations’ Paul Sperry, who describes his identity as “an open secret inside the Beltway.”

Sperry reported last week that the whistleblower is allegedly a 33-year-old “registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.” The whistleblower reportedly “left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media” and “has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia,” Sperry reports, citing federal documents.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Since this numb nuck Schiff has exposed the identity of the “whistleblower” as Eric Ciaramella, let’s just go with open hearings

Since we know that Schiff met with and coached the “whistleblower” prior to his emergence and we now know the name of the “whistleblower” when Adam Schiff published it in his transcripts, why don’t we just get Mr. Ciaramella sworn in before Congress and get all of the other associated material witnesses under oath?

Before Schiff’s blunder, the whistleblower’s lawyers cite the ‘deep throat’ model for keeping their client’s identity secret

Breitbart reports in a 7 November 2019 article how the lawyers for the “whistleblower” were citing the Nixon-era “deep throat” for keeping this now-exposed Democrat’s name from being exposed.

whistleblower-silouette-anonymousThe lawyers representing the so-called “whistleblower” who sparked the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump reportedly argued this week that their client’s identity could remain secret for decades, citing the years-long “Deep Throat” mystery as a model.

On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner explained:

The secret of “Deep Throat” was kept from the early ’70s until 2005, when former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt came forward at 91 years old. He died two years later.

Whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, an aficionado of Watergate history, said leaving his client’s identity unresolved indefinitely would encourage future whistleblowers.

Felt was a prime suspect from the beginning. … Without firsthand sources, the accusation didn’t stick. … It later became known to a prosecutor, but news outlets were left to speculate.

Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, who received information from Felt, his colleague Carl Bernstein, and their editor Ben Bradlee, knew the “whistleblower’s” name. Allegedly, some left-wing mainstream news outlets also know the impeachment “whistleblower’s” name, but refuse to report it.

{Read more at Breitbart)

If everything was sunshine and rainbows, then we wouldn’t be having this conflict.

As much as the Democrats would like to have their cake and eat it, too — they have to live in the real world. They have to open up and be fair to both sides. If they don’t, there will be a reckoning.

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


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.

If the Presidential election were today, who has earned your vote


They said they just wanted a place at the table …


Liberals said they just wanted a place at the political table, but now they want to exclude anyone with whom they disagree

The latest Google blacklist includes the Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, The Christian Post, and so many more

OneNewsNow points out through a 15 August 2019 article how liberals at Google have directed Internet traffic away from conservative sites like Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Caller, and The Christian Post.

File_appears_to_show_ranking_classifier_to_define_channel

Silicon Valley is known as a mecca for left-wing progressives but evidence keeps growing that Big Tech really despises conservatives.

A crisis of conscience prompted Zach Vorhies, a Google senior software engineer, to go to James O’Keefe at Project Veritas – first anonymously, but now publicly – with hundreds of documents that prove the anti-conservative bias at the search engine behemoth.

Vorhies told O’Keefe that conservative news sites have become the latest target.

“This is a blacklist,” he said of the targeted sites, “one of many blacklists that are at Google.”

Google’s influence on the Internet is staggering — it averages a couple hundred million searches per hour — but the rogue Google engineer advised that blacklisting blocks websites such as The Christian Post and The Daily Caller beneath the Google search bar.

Among other organizations targeted are The Gateway Pundit and LifeNews, and conservative talk hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Google is also playing god with the Left, too, restricting access to liberal groups such as Media Matters on the basis that it promotes only “mainstream” news organizations via its Google News service.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

If any liberalism survives, we need to return to classic liberalism that stood on the liberal exchange of ideas

For America to survive, we must conserve our once liberal thought: a freedom of sharing information and advancement of civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

Google obviously does not believe enough in the persuasive power of its own side’s ideas enough to promote those ideas. Rather, Google chose to blacklist political commentators, bloggers, and news organizations who seek the truth rather than cover for Democrats. Luckily, there is a whistleblower at Google and several honest news outlets available through Project Veritas and Christianity Today, who provided the blacklist.

Once you have seen the list, you might consider how Google’s side includes gaffe machine Joe Biden, wild-haired Bernie, and Lie-a-watha — then you might start to understand why Google chose to undercut the competition rather than try to argue for their own side.

Although I will always forcefully advocate for Christianity, I will also fight for everyone else’s freedom to err. I am following my God and my God is a gentleman who does not force Himself on the unbelieving. Unlike Google and advocates of Sharia law, I will follow God’s model.

Radical Muslims said they just wanted a place at the American table, but now they want to eliminate Jews and those who do not believe in Islam

Report: Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib display more anti-Semitism

Breitbart discusses in a 17 August 2019 article an anti-Semitic cartoon shared by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar

Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) both reportedly shared an antisemitic cartoon by an artist who participated in Iran’s Holocaust denial contest on their respective Instagram accounts on Friday, according to Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon.

Ungar-Sargon noticed that Omar and Tlaib had each shared the image on their Instagram “stories.” Both were barred from entering Israel Thursday because of their support for the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement. Tlaib then applied for a humanitarian visa so she could visit her grandmother in a Palestinian village, promising not to promote boycotts of Israel while traveling there. Her request was granted, but she then turned down the offer Friday, claiming that Israel was trying to silence her.

The cartoon Omar and Tlaib reportedly shared shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his hand over Tlaib’s mouth, and U.S. President Donald Trump with his hand over Omar’s mouth. Both leaders are shushing the congresswomen. A Star of David — the symbol of the Jewish faith — appears in the center of the image, implying that Jews are responsible for the act of silencing.

The image is antisemitic on its face. The theme of Jews controlling world leaders, who in turn do their bidding, especially in suppressing criticism, has been a common theme in antisemitic propaganda since Nazi Germany, and remains a frequent feature of antisemitic cartoons in the Arab and Muslim world. The New York Times faced criticism for a similar antisemitic cartoon it published in its international edition in April.

Making matters worse, as Ungar-Sargon pointed out, is the fact that this particular cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, won second place at a contest held by Iran in 2006 at which contestants drew caricatures denying the Holocaust. The contest was held in response to a Danish newspaper’s contest to draw images of Mohammed, which is prohibited by Islamic law, to challenge the self-censorship of Western media. Iran has promoted Holocaust denial as official policy; its president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was notorious for his habit of denying the Holocaust.

(Read more at Breitbart)

These women speak as if we don’t know their history or that of Miftah

When these women complain, they seem to forget that the rest of the world has access to their own hateful comments and the history of the groups they choose to join.

Therefore, Rashida Talib, don’t think that we have forgotten your call for the one-state solution (elimination of Israel). Don’t think that we’ve forgotten your tweet accusing US representatives of dual loyalty due to their support of Israel. Despite the millions of Arab, Muslim Israelis, you claim that Israel discriminates against “darker skinned” peoples. We also remember how you get a “calming feeling” when you think of the Holocaust. Likewise, we remember your false claim that Palestinians gave Jews a “safe haven” from the Holocaust.

If bad company corrupts good morals, what will the bad company of Hamas supporters and Miftah (who proudly praised female suicide bombers and pushed the medieval blood libel). Why haven’t we heard of the pride of Miftah, one of whom killed 13 Israeli children on a bus or another who killed multiple children in an Israeli pizza parlor? Since this is the group that would have led both you (Tlaib) and your friend (Omar) on your tour, why haven’t we heard of this group?

When it comes to Ilhan Omar (if you want to call her that, rather than the true name that she lied about when escaping her past), then don’t forget her now-deleted tweet:

Also don’t forget how she refused to back down from her first tweet and added in a response to a detractor:

Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.

In February, she tweeted (but subsequently deleted) “It’s all about the Benjamin’s, baby” in reference to her false claim that a pro-Israel group was bribing Congress. Later, she tweeted a complaint that she should not have to “pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” (To this, I would remind the woman that it is in the interest of this republic to support the only democracy in the Middle East. Additionally, we benefit from ongoing friendliness toward us — as opposed to the antagonism of Syria, Iran, and other Islamic states — and their prosperity.)

Miftah, a terrorist-supporting group, would have sponsored Tlaib & Omar to Israel

In a 19 August 2019 OneNewsNow article, we find a few details about the group that would have sponsored the radical Muslim Congresswomen.

One fact reportedly “whitewashed” by the mainstream media in all its coverage about the trip Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) planned to Israel is that it was sponsored by an Islamic terrorism-supporting group.

The two Muslim congresswomen did not plan their trip via the conventional bipartisan route.

“The most important element of the story is the fact that two American congresswomen shunned a bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel to go on an independent trip to Israel sponsored by vicious anti-Semites,” National Review reported. “Another important element of the story is that – as of [Friday] – the mainstream media have whitewashed Omar and Tlaib’s vile associations.”

The Washington Examiner reported that only one of seven Associated Press reports on the Omar-Tlaib Israel visit mentioned Miftah, with the six others merely calling it a Palestinian advocacy group – similar to reports by the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post both referred to Miftah as “a nonprofit organization headed by Palestinian lawmaker” with the latter associating it to “longtime peace negotiator Hanan Ashrawi.” Reuters, ABC News and Yahoo did not mention Miftah’s anti-Semitic nature and Bloomberg News omitted its mention entirely.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Miftah glorifies these terrorists

In a 16 August 2019 National Review article, we find some of the particulars about Miftah:

The group celebrates terrorists, including an evil woman who helped murder 13 Israeli children. In an article titled “Let Us Honor Our Own,” a Miftah contributor describes Dalal Al Mughrabi as “a Palestinian fighter who was killed during a military operation against Israel in 1978” and as one of the Palestinian people’s “national heroes.”

The so-called “military operation” is more widely known as the “Coastal Road Massacre,” a bus hijacking that resulted in the deaths of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

Al Mughrabi is hardly the only terrorist Miftah celebrates. It described female suicide bomber Wafa Idrees as the “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” It singles out for recognition Hanadi Jaradat, a woman who blew herself up in a restaurant, killing 21 people (including four children).

The founder of Miftah herself, Ms. Ashrawi, excused jihadist violence by telling an interviewer that “you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist.”

And of course Miftah published an article asking whether Israel was a proper homeland for the Jewish people:

(Read more at the National Review)

Murder must never be glorified

We can never allow murder to be glorified, no matter what the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say regarding killing of unbelievers — Christians must never abandon grace when dealing with offenses against ourselves. Although I believe that we have a duty to protect the defenseless (as shown in Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 24:11-12 and 31:8-9; and Matthew 7:12 and 18:14 [and many other verses]) and are given liberty to protect ourselves (as shown in Luke 22:36), we must primarily be ministers of grace.

The gay community once said that they just wanted to have an equal seat at the table, but now they require everyone to agree with them

Teacher’s rejection of student’s gender identity prompts training

According to a 19 August 2019 article at Houston Fox affiliate KRIV, a Florida school district will require re-education of a teacher for unapproved opinions.

TransTripe

Teachers and staff in a Florida school district will be given additional diversity training after a high school math instructor refused to call a transgender student by her chosen gender identity.

First Coast News in Jacksonville reports that teacher Thomas Caggiano wrote in an email to the student “I will NOT refer to you with female pronouns … If this is not acceptable for you, change classes.”

Caggiano wouldn’t comment to the television station.

Sandalwood High School Principal Dr. Saryn Hatcher promised to “handle” it and wrote to the student that her wishes would be honored.

Duval County Public Schools spokeswoman Laureen Ricks says the teacher’s behavior is inconsistent with the district’s policy and expectations. She calls it a teachable moment and says staff will undergo additional diversity training.

(Read the original at Fox26)

We have to admit that we saw this coming

As early as 2006, the Huguenins of Elaine Photography were sued for not providing wedding photography to a gay couple. Soon thereafter, Baronelle Stutzman, Melissa Klein, and many other bakers found themselves in the crosshairs of the radical gay agenda for refusing to participate in gay weddings.

The ink on the Obergefell versus Hodges decision in the Supreme Court had hardly dried and so, therefore, the “right” of gays to marry had only recently been recognized when Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Never mind that there were numerous counties across Kentucky where marriage licenses were being handed out.

So, it comes as no surprise that teachers are being sent to re-education for not toeing the gay line.

Antifa never wanted to negotiate — they just wanted to put their opponents under the table. Now Oregon police arrest Prayer leaders

Joey Gibson, Patriot Prayer leader, turns self in to jail

Oregon Live reports in a 17 August 2019 article how Joey Gibson, a leader at Patriot Prayer, turned himself in to jail because he has been linked to a fight outside of a Portland bar.

Joey-Gibson-leader-of-Vancouver-based-right-wing-group-Patriot Prayer

Joey Gibson, leader of Vancouver-based right-wing group Patriot Prayer, turned himself in to the downtown Portland jail Friday in connection with charges linked to a May Day melee outside a Portland bar.

Before entering the Multnomah County Detention Center, Gibson held a news conference outside the jail drawing about two dozen people. Wearing a hat with a label that read “what goes around comes around” and a t-shirt with Bible verse “John 3:16”, Gibson told spectators that he believed he was being unfairly targeted and he was innocent of engaging in or inciting any violence on May 1 outside of Cider Riot.

“I stood on a sidewalk and was assaulted numerous times,” Gibson, 35, said. “This is without a doubt an attack on the First Amendment.”

He also urged people to attend Saturday demonstrations in downtown Portland, to not engage in violence, and if they’re arrested, to do so while in the midst of peaceful protest.

Gibson said he was on the fence on whether to attend before learning of his riot charge Thursday. He was being held in jail on $5,000 bail and released after posting bail at 3:50 p.m., jail staff said.

He is scheduled to be arraigned in court Monday.

“Patriot Prayer and their affiliates showed up, and started pepper-spraying people on our property,” said Cider Riot owner Abram Goldman-Armstrong.

(Read more at Oregon Live)

A differing message from Patriot Prayer and Steven Crowder

When we go to the Patriot Prayer Facebook page, they say:

As Joey Gibson (Freedom & God activist) was walking the streets of Portland trying to get to his ride, antifa spots him. Within minutes an entire mob surrounds him. Some are polite, some are not.

Joey Gibson is being politically charged with a felony for exercising his right to stand on a public sidewalk and record people at the Antifa bar called “Cider Riot!”. Cider Riot fundraises, recruits, and hosts events for Rose City Antifa and other organizations that advocate for violence against Christians and conservatives. He stood there and recorded while the bar employees and customers pepper sprayed Gibson. None of them were arrested.

See Gibson turn himself in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENCpVmh4ZfU&t=3s

See the video from that day here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmunmUuVw0Q&t=12s

Donate to legal fund here: https://gogetfunding.com/legal-fees-for-joey-gibsonpatriot…/

Footage from Stumptown matters:

From the Steven Crowder, we get the following videographic compilation of evidence:

Things that should give us pause regarding China, Hong Kong, gun control, and the Second Amendment


Chinese “paramilitary” at Hong Kong border

Reuters reports in a 14 August 2019 article that “paramilitary” forces have moved to the border of Hong Kong (in stark violation of the agreement made with Britain when Hong Kong was surrendered as a British colony).

Hong Kong braced for more mass protests over the weekend, even as China warned it could use its power to quell demonstrations and U.S. President Donald Trump urged his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to meet with the protesters to defuse weeks of tensions.

Hundreds of China’s People’s Armed Police (PAP) on Thursday conducted exercises at a sports stadium in Shenzhen that borders Hong Kong a day after the U.S. State Department said it was “deeply concerned” about the movements, which have prompted worries that the troops could be used to break up protests.

ShenzhenSportsCenterParamilitaryParking

Trump told reporters on Thursday he did not want to see a resort to violence to quell the protests in Hong Kong and reiterated that he wanted to see China “humanely solve the problem.”

“I am concerned. I wouldn’t want to see a violent crackdown,” Trump said, speaking in Morristown, New Jersey. “If he (Xi) sat down with the protesters – a group of representative protesters – I’d bet he’d work it out in 15 minutes. … I know it’s not the kind of thing he does, but I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea.”

(Read more at Reuters)

Patriots, think about these things regarding the mainstream media and how they frame this conflict

In the United States of America, “paramilitary” brings up images of overweight guys in worn-out fatigues bought at the Army Surplus store. These guys likely spend some part of their weekends shooting holes in cans or putting meat on the table by hunting small game.

Truthfully, although I have never belonged to any paramilitary group, I support the overall goals of such groups. I support the freedom afforded by the Second Amendment. I support those who put in the time needed to be prepared to defend against threats against their families. Additionally, I support the patriotism and other elements of preparedness often associated with these groups.

However, the “paramilitary” that the American “news” agencies refers to seems to come equipped with hundreds of vehicles with turrets and what seem to be guns.

ShenzhenSportsCenterVehiclesWithTurrets

This should be a reason for pause.

Even though this might just be a threat against the Hong Kong protesters, these “paramilitary” forces might be deployed against people who have no guns and no body armor. These Hong Kong citizens definitely do not have military-grade rifles or side arms.

Therefore, with the power of words, the American press has equated six-wheeled tanks and armored personnel carriers with non-professional weekend warriors. Reuters wants the headline readers to believe that little threat is offered against the brave people standing up for what little rights they have left.

Think about this the next time a Democrat calls for the American people to be disarmed and the press paints a sad picture in support of the Democrat.

Trump ties China trade deal to Hong Kong protest

In a 15 August 2019 article by Fortune, Trump’s tweet brings the Hong Kong protests into the China trade deal.

HongKongMillions.png

President Donald Trump late Wednesday seemed to conflate the protests in Hong Kong with the U.S.’s trade war with China. “Of course China wants to make a deal. Let them work humanely with Hong Kong first!” he tweeted. If Trump thought wielding the Hong Kong protests as leverage in the ongoing U.S.-China trade war would prompt concessions from Beijing, he seemed to have miscalculated—by a large margin.

Trump turned his Twitter attention to the growing unrest in Hong Kong on Wednesday, when he urged those involved to “be calm and safe” amid reports that the Chinese government was amassing troops on the border with Hong Kong. He later picked up the thread, looping the ongoing trade war into the matter.

“I know President Xi of China very well,” Trump tweeted. “He is a great leader who very much has the respect of his people. He is also a good man in a ‘tough business.’ I have ZERO doubt that if President Xi wants to quickly and humanely solve the Hong Kong problem, he can do it. Personal meeting?”

Trump’s decision to link the protests in Hong Kong with the trade war negotiations may have been a misstep, as it plays into China’s narrative of what the demonstrations are all about. Over the past two months, Beijing has repeatedly accused the U.S. of stirring up unrest in Hong Kong in order to serve the White House’s trade agenda. State media now runs news stories alleging that white foreigners attending the Hong Kong protests are actually CIA operatives instigating turmoil. The protesters themselves, meanwhile, cite demands for greater democratic freedoms as the reason for taking to the streets.

(Read more at Fortune)

Think about how President Trump introduced this narrative

Although the press seems to want to downplay this narrative, President Trump bypassed them by putting the information out in a tweet (below).

However, had the President gone to CNN or CBS to spread his message, he would have been nearly silenced.

China Is Waging a Disinformation War Against Hong Kong Protesters

Even the New York Times recognizes in a 15 August 2019 article the measures taken by China against the Hong Kong protesters.

china-propaganda

When a projectile struck a Hong Kong woman in the eye this week as protesters clashed with the police, China responded quickly: Its state television network reported that the woman had been injured not by one of the police’s bean bag rounds, but by a protester.

The network’s website went further: It posted what it said was a photo of the woman counting out cash on a Hong Kong sidewalk — insinuating, as Chinese reports have claimed before, that the protesters are merely paid provocateurs.

The assertion was more than just spin or fake news. The Communist Party exerts overwhelming control over media content inside China’s so-called Great Firewall, and it is now using it as a cudgel in an information war over the protests that have convulsed Hong Kong for months.

In recent days, China has more aggressively stirred up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment using state and social media, and it has manipulated the context of images and videos to undermine the protesters. Chinese officials have begun branding the demonstrations as a prelude to terrorism.

(Read more at New York Times)

Only a few observations regarding the review of the expected at the New York Times

First, for the most part, the violent images of the Hong Kong protests have been excised from our media because they don’t want to reflect badly on another socialist society (remember, Venezuela shot and killed its own unarmed citizens).

Second, this comes from the outfit (the NYTwits) that still accuses the Trump administration of treasonous acts performed in conjunction with the Russians despite the findings in the Mueller report.

Just as China has made westernization a boogeyman here, many of the New York Times articles depend on demonizing a person or groups. One prime example might be summarized as “Orange man bad.” Another might be the habit at the New York Times of associating Christians with Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

Fourth, Google has worked with the Chinese government to suppress Internet searches within China, has blocked their Google Maps application to searches in China, and works with the Chinese military. Considering the left-leaning tendencies of Google, how might they use their findings to change elections across the globe (including in the US)?

Philadelphia shooting: Mayor calls for gun control

In a 15 August 2019 article by the BBC, several of the most common Democrat talking points on gun confiscation came out.

MayorKenney
Mayor Kenney calls for gun laws when multiple gun laws were already violated.

The mayor of Philadelphia has joined growing calls for gun control after a shootout in his city left six officers injured as they served a drug warrant.

“Our officers need help,” said Mayor Jim Kenney. “They need help with keeping these weapons out of these people’s hands.”

A gun battle broke out between police and a gunman on Wednesday, leading to a seven-hour stand-off.

The suspect reportedly carried a semi-automatic rifle and several handguns.

Mr Kenney called out politicians for their failure to address the gun crisis and confront the National Rifle Association’s powerful gun rights lobby.

“It’s aggravating, it’s saddening,” Mr Kenney said. “If the state and federal government don’t want to stand up to the NRA and some other folks, then let us police ourselves.”

He added: “Our officers deserve to be protected and they don’t deserve to be shot at by a guy for hours with an unlimited supply of weapons and an unlimited supply of bullets.”

US President Donald Trump also weighed in on the shooting, tweeting Thursday morning that the Philadelphia shooting suspect “should never have been allowed on the streets”.

“Long sentence – must get much tougher on street crime!” he wrote.

(Read more at the BBC)

Pointing out the lies and fallacies

This article focuses on the following:

  1. Our sympathy and respect for the Philadelphia police who were fired upon
  2. Our assumed respect for those who are in positions of power (such as this mayor)
  3. The desire of many to be within a perceived majority (that is, we would also like to be with those who “joined growing calls”)
  4. Our assumed fear of scary-sounding weapons (“semi-automatic rifle and several handguns”)

Additionally, it gives primacy to the Democrat talking points by mentioning them first and more fully. The first six paragraphs (160 words) support the Democrat line of “reasoning.” Only after that is there any discussion of President Trump’s suggestion of more jail time for this repeat offender (two paragraphs encompassing 37 words).

Nonetheless, the BBC does not consider the following issues with their line of reasoning:

  1. The shooter was a drug dealer with previous drug and gun-related convictions. It was already illegal for him to own the guns. Adding more gun laws would not have stopped this criminal from committing this crime.
  2. It is illegal to try to kill or attempt to kill an officer of the law. This criminal had already determined to disobey this law when he pulled together his arsenal and began firing on the police.
  3. Both murder and attempted murder is illegal.
  4. Pennsylvania and Philadelphia have gun laws that were violated by this criminal. Adding another gun law would not prevent anything.
  5. Gun laws have little effect on murder rates. Look at Chicago, New York, and London.
  6. As jihadists have taught us, planes, bombs, cars, trucks, and knives can be used when guns are not available.