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.

Federal 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.”

Just 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 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.

Hunter Biden's response to questions about potentially improper foreign business dealings while his father was VP,… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

—
Marc Lotter (@marc_lotter) October 13, 2019

“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.

James 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.

President 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.

Democratic 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.”

"Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status i… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

—
Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) October 11, 2019

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.

President 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.

REPORT: FBI Implicated In Destroying Evidence To Help Hillary Clinton... MEDIA SILENT... RT IF YOUR READY FOR BO… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

—
Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) October 16, 2019

Schiff just got hit with 2 ethics complaints over that 2017 prank call from Russian comedians waynedupree.com/adam-schiff-et…

—
Wayne Dupree 🎙🎥 (@WayneDupreeShow) October 16, 2019

…

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.)

During 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.

House 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.

THREAD: INVESTIGATE Schiff! TL: Aug 12 - W/Blower submits complaint (Schiff Should NOT have known) Aug 24 - Sch… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

—
☤𝓢𝒌𝓪𝓲☤ (@Ravagiing) October 17, 2019

…

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Fox News)

Sunlight disinfects. Get this out for all to see.

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

…

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

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

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

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

Steve Radack

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

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

Lina Hidalgo, Adrian Garcia, and Rodney Ellis

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

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

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

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

We still have heroes in the conservative movement

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

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

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

…

Harris County Tax Increase Averted After Commissioners Skip Meeting

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

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

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

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

Jack Cagle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at The Texan)

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

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

…

Stories you probably did not hear about impeachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at National Public Radio)

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

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

…

Democrats make arguments against impeachment

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

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

I will agree with all of these Democrats on these statements

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

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

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

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

…

Women for Trump have organized a march

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

I would encourage all who can to attend this march

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at One America News Network)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

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

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

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

Why did you mostly hear about impeachment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

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

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

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

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

…

Democrats in the Press and Congress twist the rules

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the One America News Network)

This seems to be the norm for most main stream media

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

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

…

Democrats subpoena Giuliani for documents related to impeachment inquiry

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

From The Greg Jarrett, we find:

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

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

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

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

(Read more at The Greg Jarrett)

How many layers of lies can Schiff press into this investigation

Consider that Schiff lied:

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

Telephonic phishing scams

The Social Security phishing scam

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

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

The text of this most recent scam follows:

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

For the audio, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, we get scam calls like the following:

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

For the audio, click here.

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

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

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

The Biden problem

 

Vanity Fair calls the Biden nepotism as a 2020 scandal

Vanity Fair recognizes the political-dynasty-wrecking potential of the Biden problem.

Hunter Biden at V.P. Joe Biden’s lectern

In a move sure to trigger 2016 P.T.S.D., The New York Times has published a nearly 3,000-word tale of intrigue involving the Biden family’s various entanglements in Ukraine. In short, the story is this: in the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor”—Viktor Shokin—“who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.” The pressure campaign also just so happened to benefit Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who was then getting paid as much as $50,000 to sit on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was in Shokin’s sights. The question the Times raises, but does not answer, is: were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine coincidental, or corrupt?

The Bidens say Joe acted “without any regard” for the impact on his son, and that Hunter never discussed private business with his father. But of course, that seems unlikely to put this story to rest. The current Ukrainian prosecutor general recently decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma, which could unearth new details about Hunter’s work. No surprise, the story is also being heavily promoted by Donald Trump and his allies, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to the Times, Giuliani has met repeatedly with both the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor and the new prosecutor, and has discussed his findings with Trump—who then suggested he would like Attorney General William Barr to look into the matter. (Perhaps that is why Barr was at a loss for words on Wednesday, when Senator Kamala Harris asked whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”)

Times reporter Ken Vogel, presumably seeking to pre-empt accusations of water-carrying, explained on Twitter that the paper’s interest in the subject predates Trump. “TO BE CLEAR: Independent of @RudyGiuliani’s efforts, the intersection of @JoeBiden & HUNTER BIDEN in Ukraine warrants scrutiny,” he said, noting that the Times had begun reporting on the Burisma story in 2015. Some within the Obama State Department, too, were concerned with the appearance of impropriety, or the possibility that Hunter’s business could complicate his father’s diplomatic efforts. (“I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers,” Hunter Biden told the Times in a statement. “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.”)

Nevertheless, the Times report dovetails with Trumpworld efforts to get the Biden-Ukraine story in the news. The Hill reported in April on Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare. More recently, the right-wing American Greatness and conservative-leaning Fox News both highlighted stories about the Biden family’s entanglements in Ukraine. MAGA-friendly outlets Breitbart and The Daily Wire made hay of the story on Thursday, leveraging the journalistic credibility of the Times.

The Burisma affair—whether coincidence or scandal—may be just the first volley in what is likely to become a broader war over Joe Biden’s conduct and record. Past speculation about Biden family drama has centered on Hunter’s documented struggle with drug use and his recently ended relationship with his late brother’s widow. But the bigger threat might actually be Hunter’s past business enterprises. Already, there’s another attack line looming on the horizon: in his latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer describes how a private-equity firm managed by Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, negotiated a $1.5 billion investment deal with the state-owned Bank of China at the same time that his father, then the vice president, was conducting high-level diplomacy with Beijing. (On one of his trips, Hunter allegedly made use of Air Force Two.) Whether or not the Chinese hoped to curry favor with Hunter’s father, Trump allies are sure to make note of the issue, especially given Joe Biden’s controversial remark this week downplaying China as an economic competitor. (A spokesman for Hunter Biden disputed Schweizer’s claims to the Journal.)

(Watch the normally-liberal media rip Biden a new one at Vanity Fair)

The central part of the Biden problem is Joe Biden

Much as Joe Biden did much to deep-six race relations by fighting for segregation in the 1970’s and by stumbling verbally around his 2008 running mate (when he called Obama “the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy“), Joe Biden has worked as his own worst enemy. Whether we consider the corruption centering on Crowdstrike (the Democrats’ private online investigators) or just his stumbling comments on the campaign trail, Joe Biden continually does more to destroy his campaign than his opponents could ever hope to do.

…

Giuliani Promises To Release Incriminating Evidence On Biden

A 23 September 2019 article in the Daily Caller describes some of the steps former Mayor Giuliani has promised to take in dealing with the Biden problem.

Former NYC Mayor Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Monday that he has “a lot more evidence” on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine, adding in that Biden’s son Hunter is “drug challenged.”

After telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday that he asked Ukraine to look into Biden, Trump’s personal lawyer went after Biden for multiple alleged offenses related to Ukraine. He tweeted Monday that Ukraine paid Hunter $3 million in laundered money while his father and Obama looked the other way.

Giuliani told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on Monday that he would continue to unearth evidence against the Bidens.

“There’s a lot more evidence I’m going to put out,” Giuliani said on “Mornings with Maria.” “I put one out today — money-laundering. I’ve got a bigger one for tomorrow, a bigger one for the day after.”

Trump’s personal attorney added that the situation is a positive for Trump because it puts the spotlight on Biden.

“It’s the only way you can get this out,” Giuliani said. “The only way that they [the media] would cover this story is by punching the president in the face, and then the president deflects the punch — which he’s done — the story’s come way down from where it was, and then he hits ’em with a right hand that’s more powerful.”

During the conversation about Biden’s alleged conversations with Ukraine, Giuliani took a hit at Hunter, saying he is “drug challenged,” adding in that Joe Biden “fails at everything.” Hunter has struggled with drug and alcohol addiction throughout his life, according to an interview published in The New Yorker in July.

As the criminals who beleaguered New York would know, Giuliani does not make idle threats

Although I cannot tell you what the surprise might be, if Giuliani tells us that Biden has a surprise coming, then you can make book on that surprise appearing.

…

This is What A 'Quid Pro Quo' with #Ukraine looks like: Please retweet this video so everyone of your friends ca… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

—
Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) September 25, 2019

Biden’s Nepotism and Hypocrisy in Ukraine

Canada Free Press provided an op-ed comment by James A. Lyons, Jr. Admiral, USN (ret.) on the problem of nepotism created by Joe Biden.

With no oilfield experience, Hunter Biden got a job at a Ukrainian oil company paying $50K/month for years

U.S. relations with Ukraine have dramatically flourished under President Trump, in contrast to the poor state of the Washington-Kiev strategic alliance under former President Obama. While the Trump national security team approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missile systems and sniper rifles to Ukraine, the Obama administration vetoed similar sales of lethal weapons, leaving Ukraine to face Russia alone. An equally important aspect of U.S. support for Ukraine has been in reforms and the fight against corruption, which the Obama administration also undermined by nepotism and hypocrisy.

Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously wrote in his memoir that Joe Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Now that the former vice president is considering yet another presidential run, voters should always remember some of Amtrak Joe’s golden oldies, including: dismissing North Korea as a “paper tiger”, stating that the Taliban is not America’s enemy, and embracing China’s one-child policy. But, it would be hard to name another sitting vice president whose reckless nepotism impacted another country, as Biden did with Ukraine.

Vice President Biden routinely complained about “backsliding” over Ukraine’s fight against corruption, while at the same time, his son, Hunter, with no background in the gas industry, earned a huge salary as a consultant to gas mogul Mykola Zlochevsky’s Burisma Holdings, which is mired in allegations of corruption. This example of nepotism is, as reported in The Washington Post, a problem for U.S. soft power as Hunter Biden’s appointment “looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer said the lack of due diligence in the Vice President’s office was surprising as Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma “undercut that message of anti-corruption.”

Prior to Burisma, Hunter Biden teamed up with his Yale roommate, Devon Archer to create Rosemont Capital and Rosemont Seneca*. Their first forays were in China, including in a nuclear company under FBI investigation. But the good times did not last, as Archer was charged in May 2016 with “conspiracy to commit securities fraud” against Native Americans.

(Read more about he mafia-like Burisma at the Canada Free Press)

Everybody knows that governments do not hire drugged-out, inexperienced sons for no reason

If it looks like nepotism and smells like nepotism and tastes like nepotism and feels like nepotism, it is probably nepotism.

…

Joe Biden bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated his son fired

The Hill reported in a 1 April 2019 article that Joe Biden really stuck his foot in his mouth by bragging on the way he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. To magnify the situation, he did it in front of the world’s power players (all surrounded by cameras and recorders).

Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

(Read more at The Hill)

When you hear the Vice President say this, what else needs be heard?

With this bragging on tape, what other proof do we need?

…

Trump to release whistleblower complaint to Congress: report

According to a 24 September 2019 article at The Hill detailed how President Trump planned to release the whistleblower report to Congress.

The White House is expected to give Congress the whistleblower complaint at the heart of a brewing scandal that has led to a formal House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, a source confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

Politico first reported that both the whistleblower complaint and Inspector General report will be released to Congress by the end of the week. The decision marks a reversal for the White House, which had previously declined to provide the documents to lawmakers, even as Trump decried the impeachment inquiry sparked by the controversy as a “witch hunt.”

The official emphasized to Politico that the decision and timing could change, but that the president has agreed to the move.

The White House declined to comment on the record about the matter.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday announced the House would launch an official impeachment inquiry amid concerns that the president sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July talk to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter by threatening to withhold military aid.

Trump admitted this week that he mentioned Biden during the call and that he cut off aid to Ukraine days before the conversation. However, he has maintained that there was no quid pro quo discussed during their conversation.

Trump and Republican allies have claimed Biden abused his power during his time as vice president when he pressed Kiev to dismiss a prosecutor who was investigating a natural gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, whose board members included Biden’s son. No evidence has emerged that Biden was acting to protect his son.

The president has already promised to release the official transcript of his phone call with Zelensky, saying it will reveal a “very friendly and totally appropriate call.” However, congressional Democrats say the transcript is insufficient and that the whistleblower complaint, which first expressed alarm over the phone call, is needed to fully flesh out the details of the discussion.

(Read more at The Hill)

Another Democrat scheme bites the dust

The President has placed the information out where it can be seen, has been open to answering questions, and has gone to the public with the President of Ukraine. How will the Democrats deny this in light of the many things they have done (via Biden, as mentioned above, and via a set of senators, mentioned below).

…

Democrats Wrote to Ukraine in May 2018, Demanding It Investigate Trump

Breitbart points out in a 24 September 2019 article how three Democrats demanded that the Ukrainian government investigate Trump. (Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show)

Democrats wrote to the Ukrainian government in May 2018 urging it to continue investigations into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign — collusion later found not to exist.

The demand, which came from U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), resurfaced Wednesday in an opinion piece written by conservative Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

Ironically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared Tuesday that the mere possibility that President Trump had asked Ukraine to continue an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden — even without a quid pro quo — was enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. (Biden boasted in 2018 that he had forced Ukraine to remove its prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid; he did not tell his audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that the prosecutor was looking into a firm on whose board his son, Hunter Biden, was serving.)

Thiessen observed (original links):

It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

The Democrats’ letter is available online here. In it, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy demanded that the Ukrainian government answer their questions about the Mueller probe, and issued an implied threat: “This reported refusal to cooperate with the Mueller probe also sends a worrying signal — to the Ukrainian people as well as the international community — about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

If demanding investigation from Ukraine of political opposition is impeachable, these senators must be impeached

Senators Leahy, Durbin, and Menendez must be impeached if, as the accusers of President Trump are correct. If using the United States governmental power to compel a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is impeachable — then impeach them.

If it is not an impeachable offense, please bug off.

…

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

Democrats: the party of “Do as I say, not as I do”

Democrats show how not to promote a free press

The Democrat press accuses Trump of suppressing the Freedom of the Press

I cannot count the times the press has accused President Trump of oppressing the members of the American press. However, finding an example of the whining required reference to an 8 January 2019 commentary at The Federalist that detailed the scaremongering by the American press on freedom of the press.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a group alleging to promote press freedom and the rights of journalists, awarded President Donald Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” in its “Press Oppressors” awards this week. The story was giddily retweeted across the liberal Twitterverse, because, one imagines, people actually believe it.

From there, the author (David Harsanyi) goes on to characterize the battle between the American press and President Trump as a “slap fight (between) a couple of sloshed Real Housewives.” Sadly, until President Trump moved his press gatherings out to the edge of Marine One, I would have to agree with Mr. Harsanyi and say that the press got too much press out of the White House. Nonetheless, the move to the edge of Marine One happily put an end to much of the grandstanding by the press.

Additionally, I would suggest that any freedom-loving conservative read this article by Mr. Harsanyi so as to glean:

While Trump’s efforts to stop Michael Wolff’s fabulist “Fire and Fury” from being published are silly and counterproductive and sure to fail (update: as is his new lawsuit against Buzzfeed), he is merely accessing the legal rights that all Americans enjoy. In the meantime, Democrats, right now, support new laws that would allow the state to ban political books and documentaries. The Obama years made overturning the First Amendment via the Citizens United a tenent of its party platform. Obama, in perfect syntax, engaged in an act of norm-breaking, called out the Supreme Court publicly for upholding First Amendment. That was rhetoric, too. Few defenders of the press seemed bothered by any of it.

(Read more at The Federalist)

Although sometimes embarrassed by Trump’s foibles, I still support a President who punches back

Admittedly, there are times that I wince at the words tweeted by the President; however, I appreciate this President who fights (unlike some seemingly spineless Republicans).

This is particularly accentuated since I have seen that this President has taken into consideration many of the topics that have been heavy on my heart. He has held the hope presented by the pro-life position. Moreover, he took in mind the effect the misdirected courts have had on our lives by appointing constitutionally-minded jurists. Furthermore, he removed the chains placed by previous administrations on our economy through unnecessary regulation. More to the point, he removed the mandate that we be required to kowtow to governmental meddling between me and my doctor.

And while I will not make this portion of this post into a listing of the major accomplishment of the administration, I do find it necessary to reiterate the mistrust I have in the press due to their 90% negative reporting on this President.

…

Democrats show how not to allow journalism

O’Rourke ejects a conservative journalist

We find by reading Breitbart that Presidential hopeful Robert Francis O’Rourke tossed a conservative journalist (Joel Pollack) out of a public meeting.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) has styled himself as a champion of press freedom, tweeting last October: “The press is not the enemy of the people but the best defense against tyranny.”

It is now August, and with his poll numbers falling in the Democratic presidential primary, O’Rourke has decided that he is entitled to abuse members of the press who cannot be relied upon to provide favorable coverage.

O’Rourke’s campaign ejected this Breitbart News reporter from a speech at Benedict College, a historically black college, on Tuesday afternoon.

This reporter was standing along the side of a lecture hall in the basement of the Henry Pinder Fine Arts Humanities Center, waiting for the event to start, together with roughly 200 students and college staff members. Other news outlets had set up cameras in the back of the room.

Several minutes after the 3:00 p.m. event had been scheduled to begin, a staff member in a Beto O’Rourke t-shirt approached this reporter and asked what outlet I represented. Upon reading the press credential on my chest, he put a hand on my shoulder and said, cheerfully, “Oh, hey. All right.”

A few minutes later, before the event began, a campus police officer approached this reporter and motioned for me to accompany him to the back of the room, adding that I should bring any property I had with me. In the hallway outside, he informed me that I was to leave.

A different member of the O’Rourke campaign staff, who said his name was “Steven” and would not give a last name, said that I was being ejected because I had been “disruptive” at past events.

This reporter has covered two O’Rourke events. The first was at a protest outside a shelter for migrant teens in Homestead, Florida, in June; the second was at the College of Charleston “Bully Pulpit” lecture in Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday evening. At no point was there any disruption whatsoever.

This reporter asked a question during a press gaggle on Monday evening; that was the only interaction of any kind with the candidate.

The question asked the Democratic presidential hopeful whether misquoting Trump’s comments on riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was consistent with O’Rourke’s pledge to “heal” and not “inflame” divisions in this country.

Considering how the Left howled when Jimmy Acosta was barred from White House briefings, this should have made front-page news

However, unlike the spats between the White House and Jimmy Acosta, Kaitlan Collins, and others, they might have forgotten about Obama’s blacklisting of Fox?

Or, more to the point, did they think that we did not notice how they encircled Acosta after he was called out for blocking a female White House staffer from taking the microphone he had repeatedly been told to relinquish? News to the Nightly News: you cannot successfully champion both the #MeToo movement and a bully of females.

…

Bodyguards for April Ryan rough up an invited guest photojournalist

The New York Post lets the cat out of the bag by reporting on the attack that one bodyguard of April Ryan perpetuated on a photojournalist who was trying to ply his trade.

CNN political analyst April Ryan — who has repeatedly blasted President Trump for attacking and vilifying the press — got her bodyguard to forcibly remove a journalist from an event she was speaking at in New Jersey, leading cops to charge him Monday with assault.

“This was more than just an assault on me,” tweeted New Brunswick Today editor Charlie Kratovil. “This was an assault on freedom of the press.”

Kratovil claims he was violently tossed from the New Jersey Parent Summit on Aug. 3 by Ryan’s goon after spending two hours inside filming other guests and speakers without any problems.

Kratovil had been invited to The Heldrich Hotel, where the event was held, by a public relations firm and asked to cover it. Video posted online shows him sitting in the audience as Ryan takes the stage and starts speaking.

Moments later, her bodyguard — Joel Morris, 30, of Illinois — comes into view and is told something by Ryan. He promptly walks over to Kratovil and allegedly attempts to take his video camera.

“Put that down,” Kratovil yells. “Don’t you dare — put that down, sir! That’s my camera!”

A tussle allegedly ensues and Morris winds up walking Kratovil out of the venue — with his arm twisted around his back, the journalist says.

“This is a personal event,” Morris can be heard telling him. “You’re not allowed back in.”

A woman can be heard screaming at Kratovil at one point, saying: “How dare you come in here and interrupt this event like this!”

“I didn’t interrupt,” he fired back.

Kratovil posted a video on his Twitter page Monday, explaining how cops found “probable cause” to charge Morris with harassment, assault and theft.

“I was there to cover April Ryan’s speech,” Kratovil explained. “Joel Morris stole [my] camera, high-tailed it out of the room. One thing led to another, I ended up being assaulted after retrieving the camera. But now Mr. Morris is going to have to show up on Sept. 12…in Superior Court.”

Kratovil added, “It’s a shame that we even have to be at this point.”

He read a statement from the NJ Society of Professional Journalists, saying: “It is never under any circumstances permissible for a person aggrieved at being photographed or videotaped to lay hands on the journalist, or attempt to take away the journalist’s equipment.”

“It is sad we have to say this, and remind people of this — and it’s super sad that we have to remind another journalist of this,” Kratovil said. “We are still waiting for [Ryan] to comment on this unfortunate incident…Maybe now that there’s criminal charges we might hear something from her. I hope sincerely that she does comment and I hope she does condemn this. This is unacceptable…Not in our country, we have freedom of the press here.”

(Read more at New York Post)

Although this started in full view of April Ryan and the bodyguard was in her employ, she denied involvement

Somehow, a person who made a name for herself by reporting on other people has surrounded herself with bodyguards and will not allow herself to be the subject of reporting.

…

Another phase of the killing of the Freedom of the Press: Liberals stand against the free flow of ideas

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy

Due to the slanted reporting by NBC News in their 22 August 2019 article on the Epoch Times, it becomes evident that maybe this outlet (that liberals want to close down) merits our support.

To quote NBC (and, thence, read beyond the liberal bias to see the possible truth):

Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign, from any future advertising on the platform.

The decision follows an NBC News report that The Epoch Times had shifted its spending on Facebook in the last month, seemingly in an effort to obfuscate its connection to some $2 million worth of ads that promoted the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies.

“Over the past year we removed accounts associated with the Epoch Times for violating our ad policies, including trying to get around our review systems,” a Facebook spokesperson said. “We acted on additional accounts today and they are no longer able to advertise with us.”

Facebook’s decision came as a result of a review prompted by questions from NBC News. The spokesperson explained that ads must include disclaimers that accurately represent the name of the ad’s sponsors.

The Epoch Times’ new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which appeared under page names such as “Honest Paper” and “Pure American Journalism,” allowed the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook’s political advertising transparency rules. Facebook’s ban will affect only The Epoch Times’ ability to buy ads; the sock-puppet pages created to host the new policy-violating ads were still live at the time of publication.

Nicholas Fouriezos, a reporter for the website OZY, tweeted about the move Thursday. It was first spotted last week by Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast.

A recent NBC News investigation revealed how The Epoch Times had evolved from a nonprofit newspaper that carried a Chinese-American religious movement’s anti-communism message into a conservative online news behemoth that embraced President Donald Trump and conspiracy content.

(Read more tripe at NBC News)

Facebook as one of the gatekeepers for the Democrat party

Nobody can deny the numerous times Facebook has acted to suppress points of view that counter the Democrat orthodoxy. When at a gathering of liberals, Mark Zuckerberg bragged that Facebook had banned pro-life ads to the platform just prior to the Irish referendum on abortion (something that at least one Spanish article corroborates).

So, how can we consider Facebook (or Google or Twitter) a unbiased platform for the digital exchange of information? Considering that it took Facebook years of anti-Semitic offenses by Louis Farrakhan to get him banned, but only months of right-wing reporting or commentary by Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer to get them banned, there is no way to trust Facebook in such a manner.

…

NYTwits: You’re not the resistance

NYT Staffer Pleads With Newsroom: ‘We’re Not F**king Part Of The Resistance’

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we are told of an instance where a member of the press resisted “The Reistance.”

The New York Times takes a lot of heat from the right for just existing.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

That they even needed a reminder on this matter speaks volumes.

The meeting came after Manhattan’s paper of record caught hell when editors ran — and then changed — a headline that put President Trump in a favorable light. The headline changed after the Twitterverse descended on the NYT like an angry swarm of bees.

“Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism,” last Monday’s headline read after Trump delivered a speech denouncing white supremacy after the recent spate of mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso killed 30 people.

Lefty Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor and longtime editor at The Nation, dramatically dropped her subscription. If you lose Joan Walsh you know you’re in trouble (eye roll)

In the next edition, the NYT changed the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”

CNN media writer Oliver Darcy wrote about a newsroom town hall that happened at the behest of Executive Editor Dean Baquet last Friday.

Stating the obvious, one staffer said, “There are a lot of people that think The Times is too liberal, and when you start throwing words like that around, people will accuse us of editorializing.”

Baquet didn’t need his arm twisted. “It was a fucking mess,” he told reporters and editors of the headline choice.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

A headline to state the obvious: the New York Times is only objective as a mouthpiece for Democrats

Nobody can gloss over it. All pretense that there might be true objectivity at the New York Times has evaporated.

…

Muslim-American Journalist Says Twitter Shadow-Banned Her After Asking Ilhan Omar For An Interview

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we hear the story of Dalia Al-Aqidi, a Muslim, female journalist and refugee, who was shadow-banned from Twitter after pressing Ilhan Omar for an interview.

A Muslim-American female journalist and refugee was shadow-banned from Twitter after criticizing Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Dalia Al-Aqidi said Omar has largely refused to grant sit-down interviews to U.S. media outlets, while doing so with Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar.

Al-Aqidi is a longtime journalist who has covered the White House and the Iraq war for Alhurra TV, a U.S.-based Arabic network, where the Chicago Tribune lauded her as the “most-watched TV reporter no one in America has seen.” She has also contributed stories to the U.S. government-run Voice of America and the Saudi-government-run Alarabiya in the past. She previously fled Hussein’s Iraq.

“I dared her to give me a 30 minute 1-on-1 interview. I believe we have things in common we can discuss — we’re both immigrants, women, and Muslims. And from what I’ve seen from her she only gives interviews to Al Jazeera,” Al-Aqidi told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Two hours later, CAIR started following me” on Twitter, she said, referring to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “So I pointed out CAIR’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Soon after, it was as if Al-Aqidi didn’t exist on Twitter. From her side, everything looked normal. She never received communications from Twitter notifying her of violating its terms of service, and she could log in and send tweets.

But no one could see them. When a user searches her name on Twitter, it never comes up in the autocomplete. If you type in her screen name “@dalia30,” it does not come up, with Twitter instead suggesting @dalia30900915. When you search for key words that she has tweeted, her own missives are missing from the search results.

Known as a “shadow-ban,” the practice of Twitter secretly preventing others from seeing someone’s tweets, while misleading the user that this is not happening, is so common that a website, shadowban.eu, tests for it. It confirms that Al-Aqidi is shadow-banned.

(Read more at 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller)

This goes to prove that insider politics has killed journalism

Just as Dalia Al-Aqidi got shadow banned for asking questions of the untouchable Ilhan Omar, Laura Loomer got banned from Facebook shortly after reporting on Nancy Pelosi and Sharyl Attkisson left from CBS with her persistence in investigating the Obama excesses.

And Democrats present themselves as tolerant.

…

Democrats on race relations: Ilhan Omar demonizes all White men

Ilhan Omar suggests people should be ‘more fearful of white men’ than jihadists in 2018 interview

The New York Post reveals through a 25 July 2018 article how Rep. Ilhan Omar demonized all White men.

Rep. Ilhan Omar said Americans should be “more fearful of white men” when discussing the threat of “jihadist terrorism.”

The Minnesota progressive was asked in a resurfaced interview with Al Jazeera from August 2018 about the rise of Islamophobia, citing the attacks that killed eight people on a Manhattan bike path in 2017 and the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14.

“I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Omar answered.

“And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men,” she continued.

Omar, a Somalia-born Democrat, along with other first-year Democratic congresswomen — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — have been feuding with President Trump after he tweeted earlier this month that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

(Read more at the New York Post)

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account …

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account for this statement (or her accusations that represenatives friendly to Israel held dual allegances or her “Some people did something” comment about 9/11 or her many anti-Semitic statements), then it might again start to set unfortunate trends.

I say “again” because the last time the Democrat press dismissed the words of a prominent Democrat, riots erupted. On another instance with that same Democrat, towns burned in support of lawlessness.

…

Ilhan Omar must not have believed her own advice on White men (quoted above), since she had an affair with a married White man

In yet another article, the New York Post explains how Rep. Omar has been accused of having an affair with her white, male campaign worker.

A Washington, DC, mom says her political-consultant husband left her for Rep. Ilhan Omar, according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The Post.

Dr. Beth Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative — and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing, submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday.

The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband — who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison — have a 13-year-old son together.

“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.

“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.

“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.

“It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation,’’ according to the filing.

The Mynetts lived together for six years before marrying in 2012, the filing said.

Omar — a member of “the Squad,” a group of far left-leaning female freshman House members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two others — recently separated from her husband, according to reports.

The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.

Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Mynett at a California restaurant in March.

(Read more at New York Post)

If Ilhan Omar were anything but a hypocrite

If Ilhan Omar were a true, principled politician, she might consider taking acts that would be best for her constituents.

If she were true to Islam, there would be no room in her life for infidelity or racism.

If she were a dedicated racist, she never would have had an affair with a White man.

With all of this said, all I can say is that she definitely is a hypocrite.

…

Democrat hypocrisy on personal protection

In response to the Odessa shooting, Democrats call for ineffective gun control

On Saturday, 31 August 2019, an insane man went on a shooting spree after he was fired and then pulled over for failing to signal a turn. Previously described by neighbors as “scary” and “violent,” this nut called the FBI and began “incoherently rambling” after his firing. Although he had both a criminal record and had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and, therefore, failed his background check, this madman purchased a rifle by way of a private sale. By the end of his rampage, the man who won’t be named here had killed seven and wounded 22 as he drove around shooting randomly before he was stopped by a policeman’s bullet near a movie theater.

During the same weekend in Chicago (where gun laws are in effect), eight were killed and 26 injured during a respite from violence (this is the lowest murder rate since 2011).

…

Over the years, articles demonstrate that Democrats want gun protection for them, not you

Democratic Congressman: Yeah, You Don’t Need Guns, But ‘We Deserve’ Armed Guards

The Daily Wire reports in a 23 June 2016 article on the hypocrisy of Charlie Rangel.

Democratic New York Representative Charlie Rangel, no stranger to hypocrisy, told The Daily Caller in an interview that while members of Congress “need” and “deserve” to be protected by guns, law-abiding citizens should not own guns.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

These are the Democrats who carved special payments out that cover their Obamacare expenses

If anyone finds any bit of surprise in the fact that Congress expects armed protection even as they devise methods of disarming the people, then remember these similar situations. Remember that they exempted themselves from Obamacare. Remember that insider trading laws that apply to you do not keep Congress members from using their Congressionally-acquired information to profit.

…

7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

Townhall comments on the liberal hypocrisy that surrounds the topic of gun control.

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened — so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.

But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an “upper class” that deserves to be protected with guns while it’s okay if the “peons” get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child’s life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he’s threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they’re so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the “riff-raff,” that they should have a right to be protected even if you don’t.

(Read the list of seven people and organizations who use guns but campaign for gun laws at Townhall)

Beyond knowing who to ignore and boycott

By knowing to avoid the print of the Journal-News and the bloviating of politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein or that of celebrities like Mark Kelly, Shania Twain, Rosie O’Donnell, or Michael Moore — we can be happier when we ignore it all.

…

Democrats accuse the NRA of profiting from bloodshed

Ridiculous Hypocrite Celebrities Launch Dumb New Attack on NRA

Red State rightfully points out one instance of where celebrities started a hypocritical attack on the NRA.

Even as it becomes apparent that Tinseltown’s celebrity set is an increasingly inconsequential political faction, they continue to hector and lecture the rest of as if they are still socially relevant and influential.

Undeterred by the fact that their overwhelming support of and assistance for Hillary Clinton in 2016 not only didn’t push her over the finish, but actually contributed to her defeat, the luminary Illuminati continue to offer up their unnecessary and unwanted opinions.

Since the election the famous have led the #Resistance — resulting in zero change. They have loudly backed the Women’s March, and their donning of vagina hats has provoked far more laughter than change. Celebrities have openly funded and supported the latest surge of gun control fervor following the Parkland school shooting, and the result has been an increase gun sales and a huge spike in new memberships for the NRA.

So not merely inconsequential to success for their liberal causes, but actively detrimental to it, and yet totally unaware of it.

This lack of awareness has led to a particular crowd of celebrities who, unable to ascertain the reason for rising NRA memberships and gun ownership, to concoct a plan to counteract it. Remarkable.

The formation of The NoRA Initiative is meant to be a direct salvo against the NRA. By way of introduction, this outfit crafted an open letter (PDF) to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and it is a marvel of ignorance and misinformation, all delivered in a demeaning, condescending, angry tone. Just as you’d expect from these geniuses.

This letter — signed by a lengthy list of actors, performers, and dozens of other deeply important people — wastes no time in being an easily disregarded missive of mirth. It begins by addressing the Columbine High School shooting, and our celebrities fall on their collective faces by sentence Two. “Three of the four guns used in the shooting were legally in the possession of the shooters.”

Uh, no. Sorry, Hollywood gun experts, but the two killers at Columbine — Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold — were below the age to “legally” own their firearms. The guns were purchased by another individual, and despite the claim by NoRA, the straw purchase for underage individuals was illegal.

The letter then mentions the NRA held its convention in Denver weeks later. This is another wild inaccuracy. Rather than marching in behind the tragedy, the convention had long been planned for Denver and following the shooting then President Charlton Heston canceled most of the event activities, save for his legally mandated annual speech. This was done out of respect of the victims. Then NoRA engages in more sophistry.

(Read more at Red State)

Not terrorists, but founded by pastors seeking to protect former slaves from the KKK

As I previously blogged in 2016, there are a number of Blacks who support Second Amendment rights. Still, when you compare the support that should exist for the protection of Black families against the stated support for senseless Democrat policies, there really can be no comparison.

Additionally, considering that the NRA was established by former abolitionist pastors who wanted Blacks to be able to protect their own families against the KKK (the Southern Democrat’s violent tool of oppression), there should not be a debate within poor America as to whether only the rich deserve the protection of sidearms via bodyguards (refer to April Ryan above).

As evidenced by the words of the Black conservatives in the 2013 conference documented in the below two videos (both long and short versions), we have ample evidence to support the good intentions of the founders, leaders, and members of the National Rifle Association.

…

The O’Rourke campaign shows no control in promoting itself after the Odessa shooting

Beto O’Rourke campaign selling ‘this is f—ed up’ T-shirts to help gun control activists

In a 1 September 2019 USA Today article, the sickness of one Democrat campaign comes out.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not mince words when describing the deadly shooting in Midland-Odessa, Texas, that left at least seven people dead and 22 wounded.

“This is f—ed up,” he said on Twitter Saturday evening and in a television interview on Sunday morning.

Later Sunday, his presidential campaign announced that the “f—ed up” quote had become a T-shirt being sold for $30 on the campaign website.

“100% of the proceeds from the sale of this item will be shared equally between Mom’s Demand Action and March for Our Lives,” the campaign wrote on the O’Rourke campaign website, referring to two prominent gun violence prevention groups.

According to the campaign, the shirt was printed by a union and made in the United States.

The campaign has defended O’Rourke’s profanity on Twitter.

“if you’re angrier about a swear word than a baby being shot in the face, consider your choices,” the campaign wrote, referring to a 17-month-old girl who had been shot in the Texas shooting.

(Read more at USA Today)

News for “Beto”

What I am angry about stems from the continual attack by “Beto” on my Second Amendment rights any time he can make an emotional plea based on the acts of someone else.

Unlike “Beto,” I believe that murderers should be executed (rather then babies). Unlike “Beto,” I believe that the guilty should be punished, not those law-abiding citizens who have done nothing and who want to protect themselves.

…

Lead Democrats hypocrisy on “Climate Change”

Obama commits America to higher taxes with the Paris Climate Accord

According to a 1 June 2017 Business Insider article, Obama brought the USA into the Paris Climate Accord in order to supposedly slow the progress of global warming.

In December 2015, nearly every country, including all of the world’s biggest polluters, came together in Paris and agreed to limit carbon emissions.

The Paris Agreement was designed to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

It was a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Now President Donald Trump is withdrawing the US from the accord.

Here’s a quick primer on the Paris Agreement.

What did the US agree to?

The Paris Agreement laid out a framework for countries to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Each country submitted a climate-action plan laying out how it would achieve these goals.

The US’s plan, which the Obama administration submitted in March 2015, set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. The baseline level this reduction is measured against is 2005, when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

(Read more at the Business Insider)

After claiming the seas would rise due to global warming, Obama buys multi-million dollar beachfront property

As discussed at PJ Media, Obama has purchased a mulit-million dollar beachfront property which would easily be wiped out by global warming, if it existed.

After the news broke that former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama are buying a $15M waterfront estate in Martha’s Vineyard, some took to social media to accuse the Obamas of hypocrisy on climate change.

“If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t buy a $15 million mansion on…Martha’s Vineyard. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously,” wrote Twitter user @RantyAmyCurtis.

If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t by a $15 million mansion on...Ma… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

—
Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) August 23, 2019

Others made a similar point in reaction to the news of the Obamas purchase, which has reportedly not been finalized yet.

“If climate change is as bad as Obama said it was, why is he buying property on or near the beach?” wrote Twitter user @Huffman_Hippy.

“How about Obama pushing climate change legislation then buying a coastal mansion at Martha’s vineyard?” wrote Twitter user @Mikel1618.

Twitter user @Chris_Roy wrote that the Obamas $15 million investment in a waterfront property “seems odd for a climate change alarmist believing in sea level rise and the destruction of coastal regions.Hmmm 🤔. Obviously not thinking of what he will leave his children.”

(Read more at PJ Media)

This was not the first high-profile Democrat to become a climate hypocrite

Al Gore, who hit his peak during his years in the as the Vice President under Bill Clinton, told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” Additionally, he told American households to conserve by keeping the air conditioning and heating at uncomfortable levels (while he maintained a sprawling mansion that included an Olympic-sized, heated pool). Likewise, he encouraged America to abstain from burning gasoline while he uses a fleet of jets and gas-guzzling sedans.

More recently, AOC has been called out for jet-setting and using SUV’s while advocating her drastic “Green New Deal.”

…

Democrats on terrorism

Democrats want to both coddle and demonize terrorists

When The Atlantic pointed out the incoherence within liberal (hence, Democrat) thought on terrorists.

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. “My god,” he wrote. “@POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat.” The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. “Terrorism is a real threat,” he acknowledged, “but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists.” Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trump’s approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

Maybe Murphy didn’t do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects “attack” neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such acts—that fear is what the terrorists want—does not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. It’s designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.

In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that they’ll be kept safe, not to be told that they’re overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the country’s many “dark realities”—the government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the “grim problem of existence,” and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely “material things,” and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.

Murphy’s reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters’ questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the president’s overseas trip:

Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. That’s when the president’s advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.” Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.

Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.

Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obama’s ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays “radical Islamic terrorism” as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.

Obama’s stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didn’t scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bush’s war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to “spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.” Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.

(Read more at The Atlantic)

From these and other instances, Democrats seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too

In the event that one might review the above article (or consider how radical Islam was never mentioned during a Senate hearing on the 9/11 attacks or think about how Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have never been punished for their many anti-Semitic attacks, just remember.

…

San Francisco City government declares the NRA to be a terrorist organization

By reading between the lines of the New York Times, we discover the degree of disrespect doled out by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors toward the National Rifle Association.

Unsettled by recent mass shootings across the nation, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution this week declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Catherine Stefani on July 30, two days after a shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif., in which three people were killed and more than a dozen others injured.

Before the resolution was put to a vote on Tuesday, Ms. Stefani spoke about the “carnage across this country,” also citing mass shootings last month in El Paso; Dayton, Ohio; and near Odessa, Tex.

Ms. Stefani said the N.R.A. conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed at local, state and federal levels.

“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”

While the resolution has no practical effect, Ms. Stefani said in an interview on Wednesday, “I firmly believe that words matter, and I think this is a step in fighting the negative impact of the N.R.A.”

(Read more at the New York Times)

Consider the results of the Board of Supervisors on San Francisco

To those who might consider the words of Ms. Stefani, walk the streets of San Francisco and decide whether the NRA or the Board of Supervisors has done the most to terrorize San Francisco.

…

AOC and Pressley raise bail funds for Antifa members who attacked police in Boston

According to the New York Post, AOC and Pressley raised bail for Antifa.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a fellow member of “the Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, vowed Saturday to contribute to a fund that is raising bail money for the 36 counterprotesters arrested at the “Straight Pride Parade” in Boston.

Nine of the counterprotesters arrested have been charged with assaulting police officers, the Boston Herald reported. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pressley (D-Mass.) both tweeted out a link to a crowdsourcing page called The Solidarity Against Hate Legal Defense Fund, which has raised nearly $25,000 to pay bail and other legal fees of those arrested while protesting the march.

“One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston’s white supremacist parade?” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, sharing a link to the fund. “Contribute to the Bail Fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.”

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Pressley’s initial tweet about the fund. Pressley slammed the “Straight Pride” event as an “#LGBT hate march” and asked followers to join her in making a contribution to the fund.

(Read more at the New York Post)

An answer that aligns with our founding

We can stop mass shootings without restricting Second Amendment liberties

Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation argues that America need not give up its guns in response to the recent violence.

It is often said by people of all political persuasions, and certainly by my fellow conservatives, that the primary duty of the federal government is to keep us safe.

The problem is, that’s not true. The founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the Federalist Papers, make it clear that the primary duty of the federal government is the preservation of liberty, not safety. The Founders had very clear ideas about the trade-offs between safety and liberty, and they willingly gave up their own security in order to take a desperate shot at more political liberty.

The Founders were primarily concerned about preventing tyranny, and they correctly understood that a free people could keep themselves safe, but a safe people might not be able to keep themselves free. You could live safely in a police state or a military dictatorship, or remain subjects of King George, but you wouldn’t be free.

That’s why Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Americans in the tradition of the Founders don’t trade liberty for safety.

But liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. The Founders believed that a free people could, through self-organization, create the means and the institutions necessary to maintain public safety. Liberty logically precedes safety, but it doesn’t preclude it.

Confronted with the horror of repeated mass shootings, proposed solutions have rushed toward restricting Second Amendment rights. But an American solution for reducing mass shootings should not focus on erosions of liberty.

On the other hand, when defenders of Second Amendment rights offer no practical solutions, they leave open the implication that liberty requires us to tolerate the occasional (or not-so-occasional) mass shooting. Not only is that a losing argument with the public in the long run, it’s also not true. Americans are entitled to both liberty and safety.

And let’s not get distracted by discussions about root causes. That might strike you as peculiar, but root causes are notoriously difficult to address, and government is particularly ill-equipped to do so. So what can we organize to do now to increase safety without eroding liberty?

Travel almost anywhere else in the world and you will commonly encounter armed security in public places. Somehow, uniquely in America, we see this as a bad thing. That needs to change.

In the church my family attends, we adapted after a threat. There is now armed security scattered throughout the congregation, in the sanctuary, in the lobby, and even on the platform. Air transportation obviously adapted after 9/11, with added airport security and air marshals on flights.

It’s time to adapt to the era of mass shootings. Every school, every church, every large retailer and every government facility should have armed, obvious guards at all entrances. We don’t need to force teachers to take up arms, we simply need ever-present, trained, armed security in schools. This is now the cost of protecting our children and of protecting the public.

(Read more at the Institute for Policy Innovation)

Consider these Bible verses