Nine stories on petty dictators, liberal policies, and witch hunts

Featured

Petty dictators use the coronavirus to push political narratives

  1. California released seven sex offenders during the coronavirus scare

Townhall comments on the seven sex offenders released by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Seven sex offenders, considered “high risk” by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, were recently released despite minimum required sentences for sex offenders who violate their parole.

Todd SpitzerOrange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer is warning residents about high-risk sex offenders being released by appointed Court Commissioner Joseph Dane. In the name of “safety,” inmates are being released in order to promote social distancing. But it’s also important to maintain social distancing between criminals and potential victims.

Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes told the Orange County Board of Supervisors that the population in the county jail system has been reduced nearly 45 percent since Mar. 7, and there are currently no issues with overcrowding.

“These kinds of high-risk sex offenders are the most dangerous kind of criminal and the most likely to re-offend,” said District Attorney Spitzer. “They are doing everything they can to avoid detection by the parole officers assigned to monitor them so they can potentially commit additional sex offenses. These are not the kind of people who should be getting a break.”

The released offenders were convicted of sex crimes and violated their parole by removing or disabling their GPS monitors.

(Read more at Townhall)

That is, to paraphrase a conference call by Jim Clyburn …

Representative Clyburn has been reported to have said, “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.” Now it seems that we could safely say that there is no depth Democrats will not dip to while pushing their jackbooted heels into our necks.

  1. Felon released three times due to California coronavirus zero bail policy

The International Business Times reports that a felon was released three times in a day due to the California coronavirus zero bail policy.

Police in Glendora, CA arrested then released a suspect three times in just one day because of California’s zero-bail put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.

dijon-landrum
Dijon Landrum

According to police, a 24-year-old man named Dijon Landrum, was caught by police thrice for stealing a variety of items, including the two times he stole a car to escape, but was released after only a citation each time.

California currently has a zero-bail policy in place as the state continues to battle the spread of COVID-19 in its prisons, just as other prisons around the country battle outbreaks.

In a statement, Glendora Police Department said Landrum was first arrested when they responded to a call at 8:28 AM of Wednesday (April 29). He was attempting to escape the scene in a vehicle stolen out of East Los Angeles and was caught with stolen property and drugs.

Due to the zero-bail policy, Glendora PD issued him a citation and released him.

Landrum was arrested again after police responded to another call at 2:20 PM about a man carrying a box and walking through the front yards of several houses. He was caught carrying items he did not own.

(Read more at International Business Times)

So you reported and testified against the deviant who raped the little girl — what do you do now?

Other than protecting yourself from attack, there is little the individual citizen can do. Still, if you have ceded your protection to the state, you have nothing you can do and nobody you can blame other than yourself.

  1. Don’t book em, Dano: HCSO releases burglars on coronavirus fears

The Michael Berry Show on iHeart points out how the Harris County Sheriff’s Office has gone to releasing suspected burglars because they had no record.

Three men were arrested burglarizing vehicles in a West University neighborhood.

Police caught the three suspects, but they were all immediately freed because the Harris County Sheriff’s Office would not accept them because they had “no prior arrests”.

From the West University Police Department: (our emphasis added)

WestU“On Tuesday April 28, officers, after receiving a call from a vigilant citizen, apprehended three suspects that had been burglarizing vehicles in the area of the 4200 block of Tennyson. The District Attorney’s Office was contacted and two counts of Burglary of Motor Vehicles (BMV) were accepted on all three suspects. The Harris County Sheriff’s Office Joint Processing Center was also contacted and West U officers were advised that the Sheriff’s Office would not accept the suspects due to the suspects having no prior arrests for BMV. As a result of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office refusal to accept the suspects, West U Officers had no choice but to release the suspects from the scene.”

(Read more at the Michael Berry Show)

Harris County citizens, are you protecting yourselves and your property?

If you are, then good. If not, then do not expect the Harris County Sheriff’s Office to protect you (especially as long as Democrat Adrian Garcia works harder to back up Judge Lina Hildago than to protect the citizens).

  1. Liberal Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg’s family violence fiasco of more than 3,350 abusers

Investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino uncovers a fiasco of family abuse and murder (all blamed by District Attorney Ogg on the coronavirus panic).

District Attorney Ogg
District Attorney Kim Ogg

More than 3,350 domestic abusers have avoided jail time since Kim Ogg became the chief law enforcement officer in Harris County, including hundreds of serial abusers with multiple convictions.

The investigation by Dolcefino Consulting appears to fly in the face of Ogg’s repeated campaign promises to protect the victims of domestic abuse. Just this month, Ogg sent out another campaign mailer on the subject – after women’s groups reported a 40% increase in domestic violence calls during the COVID-19 shutdown.

One of the horror stories uncovered involves Ashley Durrett, a Laporte mother, who was systematically beaten while she was pregnant, jeopardizing the life of her unborn daughter. Durrett documented the bruising all over her body in letters to Ogg’s office and wanted her attacker to get a 10-year prison term. Instead, Ogg’s office gave her assailant, Gene Ysidron, a four-year deferred adjudication term despite the fact that the conviction was his second conviction for family violence. Durrett says she got the news that Ysidron was not going to prison when the District Attorney’s Office called her on the phone.

“I was in the middle of Walmart crying and I asked them why didn’t they let me testify,” Durrett told Dolcefino Consulting in an interview. “For them to tell me he was getting away with a slap on the wrist I was terrified. She is not protecting anybody. Like at all.”

“Kim Ogg swept into office capitalizing on the mistreatment of a rape victim,” says Wayne Dolcefino, President of Dolcefino Consulting. “Ashley Durrett’s story may now haunt Ogg in her campaign for reelection. Talk is cheap. The facts about Ogg’s record are undeniable,” says Dolcefino.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of homicides in Harris County.

Nearly 23, 000 criminal defendants have been granted deferred adjudication since Ogg took office in January of 2017. Of the 3,364 domestic abusers given deferred, 591 of them were convicted of aggravated assault of a family member and 124 were convicted of continuous family violence. Based on the Dolcefino Consulting review of thousands of criminal case files, 561 domestic abusers in Harris County avoided jail under Kim Ogg despite a previous conviction for domestic violence.

(Read more at Dolcefino)

I guess this pretty well kills the tagline “We’re in this together” from the coronavirus scare team

Mind you, coronavirus is a real disease that can kill; however, so can influenza, pneumonia, and a number of other diseases. But when it comes to anything that can be weaponized (as COVID-19 has when it comes as a tool for completing Democrat objectives like 1the release of sex offenders, 2the release of murderers, 3the release of abusers,4the harassment of a duly-elected Republican President, and 5anything else on their list), there is no “we” or “us” — there is only the Democrat way.

  1. All types of crime have risen with stay-at-home orders

Townhall points out how crime has risen with the various stay-at-home orders around the nation.

Most types of crime seem to be falling as jurisdictions across the country order residents to stay at home. But auto thefts and burglaries are reportedly on the rise in some areas of the country as criminals take advantage of isolated people and closed businesses all doing their part to stop the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus.

crimeNew York City has experienced a drop in most types of crime since the city’s residents were ordered to stay at home. The New York Police Department’s seven major crimes fell 36 percent overall in the week of March 23-29 when compared to the same period the previous year, according to the city’s CompStat figures. The two exceptions were burglary and grand larceny auto. Burglaries in New York City were up around 22 percent in March compared to the same month the previous year.

Vehicle thefts are up 47 percent in St. Louis, Missouri, according to University of Missouri-St. Louis Criminologist Rick Rosenfeld, while most other types of crime have fallen.

Restaurants around the country are reportedly experiencing break-ins while contending with mandatory shutdowns.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports an uptick of burglaries in the city, following Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s stay-at-home executive order. In the seven day period ending March 24, there were 320 property crimes reported. During the same period the previous two years, there were an average of 285 cases. The Tribune reports the increase is due primarily to an increase in the number of auto thefts. Burglaries of businesses are also making up a larger share of reported crimes, as businesses deemed nonessential have been ordered to close. Robberies in Minneapolis are up as well.

In an interview with Breitbart Texas, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo says burglaries in the city are up 20 percent since stay-at-home orders were issued in Harris County. Chief Acevedo is concerned about habitual criminals now being released by the county following an order from County Judge Lina Hidalgo.

Burglaries are also on the rise in West Palm Beach County, Florida, according to State Attorney Dave Aronberg. Elsewhere in Florida, Collier County sheriff deputies are reporting a surge in the number of car burglaries.

“We have seen an uptick in the number of burglaries because, unfortunately, some people are trying to take advantage of others during this time of crisis,” Aronberg told WPTV 5’s Merris Badcock.

(Read more at Townhall)

When will the press see a connection between the lockdown and various ill effects?

Before Lina Hildago was overruled in her wear-a-mask order, the President of the Harris County Deputies Organization said (but the emphasis is mine):

I have not met one person in law enforcement who is going to enforce that order.

We are stretched thin. Murders are up 63% and we are concerned about having a citation issued to citizens if they are not wearing a mask?

I have heard more recent, credible sources that have said murders are up 150% and suicides have skyrocketed.

  1. From charges of Russian Collusion to Ukrainian Collusion to Impeachment: Now the Democrats want to investigate Trump on Coronavirus

Breitbart points out how the Democrats want to waste more time and money with a fourth attempt at Trump in the House of Representatives.

impeach-trump-adam-schiff-3President Donald Trump ripped House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday for creating a new select investigative committee to look into his handling of the coronavirus.

“This is not the time for politics. Endless, partisan investigations, here we go again,” Trump said at the White House press briefing.

Democrats announced Thursday that they would create a new select committee to investigate President Trump’s response efforts and his $2 trillion economic relief package.

“Where there’s money, there’s also frequently mischief,” Pelosi said while announcing the creation of the committee.

The president expressed disgust that Pelosi launched another “witch hunt” investigation during a crisis in the country.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Once was enough. Twice was an outrage. Three times is down-right stupid of the Democrats. Now Nancy preps for round four.

Could it be that the media’s continual, sickening focus on “coronavirus, coronavirus, coronavirus” due to an attempt to hide this idiocy on the part of San Fran Nan? Is the media trying to prevent the slow-motion suicide of the Democrat party by continually covering this pandemic?

  1. Democrats more likely than Republicans to report neighbors during pandemic

With a hat tip to Jimmy Barrett on KTRH and Bunkerville (who both beat me to this story), it seems that Just the News reports that Democrats are more likely to snitch on neighbors than Independents and Republicans.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they’d report neighbors for holding a social gathering in violation of coronavirus stay-at-home orders, according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen.

“There is a huge partisan difference,” Rasmussen said. “By a 44% to 31% margin, a plurality of Democrats would turn in their neighbors. By a 60% to 25% margin, Republicans would not. Independents are evenly divided. Other data I’ve released shows that a plurality of Republicans now believe the worst of the pandemic is behind us. Democrats strongly disagree.”

05.01 JTN POLL would you report neighborsJust 36% of voters overall say they would report their neighbors to police for having a social gathering of 15 to 20 people, in violation of stay-at-home rules. Forty-three percent (43%) would not.

(Read more at Just the News)

This article goes a long way to explaining why there were 450 snitches turning in businesses in Houston

Considering that the overall population of the Houston area is 6.33 million, it’s not surprising that there might be 450 die-hard Democrats spread across Houston.

  1. Virginia admits to padding coronavirus testing numbers in a way that can easily fool the public

Biz Pac Review reports that Virginia’s coronavirus response team admitted to padding the numbers of those purportedly tested.

At a time when Americans are clamoring for accurate information about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, some officials in certain states are doing their best to make the task more difficult.

Like Virginia.

coronavirus response team
Virginia’s coronavirus response team

Last week, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s ‘coronavirus response team’ essentially admitted to padding the state’s testing numbers after announcing a sudden 15 percent spike.

“You need to know the exact number of tests not the number of people who had tests,” Dr. Daniel Carey, Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources, told reporters.

As such, the Virginia Department of Health announced that it will begin counting the number of positive tests, not the number of people who test positive. So, if the same person is tested more than once and all of those tests come back positive, they will be added to the overall ‘positive’ test count, which makes for a major inaccuracy.

“We realized for Virginia that that change in methodology made a clear sense because we want to make sure that other number that we’re reporting since so many folks are focusing on that as we move into the phases so as one of the important indicators,” Carey said, in what seems like babble.

This system of counting multiple positive tests on the same person is something only a bureaucrat or a functionary would love.

Most Americans don’t care how many tests are being done, they want to know how many people have been tested, and more importantly how many are positive, so they can feel more comfortable knowing how the disease is either progressing or receding before venturing out in public again or going back to work.

The number of positive tests, however, will artificially boost the ‘positives’ and that will be all most people will hear; they will see that ‘X number of positive tests’ and believe that it represents an equivalent number of people, which, of course, won’t be true.

Worse, Virginia isn’t the only state engaged in this chicanery. WWBT reports that “other states” including North Carolina is also counting the number of positive tests, not the number of people testing positive.

What’s more, this development comes as Democrats, especially, have been calling for ‘more testing’ in order to argue against states that are opening their economies, albeit more slowly than many Americans would like.

Without ‘more testing,’ they say, it’s ‘too dangerous’ to reopen. Well, padding testing numbers would seem to add to the justification of reopening economies.

But isn’t Virginia a bluish-purple state? Yes, it is. So why would the state’s Democrat governor be in favor of padding testing numbers? Perhaps because he is beginning to understand how economically devastating it has been to keep his state on coronavirus lockdown.

(Read more at Biz Pac Review)

  1. Salon A La Mode Owner, Shelley Luther arrested: ‘Feeding my kids isn’t selfish. I’m not closing the salon.’

Dallas CBS affiliate CBSDFW reports that the salon owner who opened in order to feed her family and keep her employees fed has remained defiant of the overreaching Dallas government.

Salon À la Mode owner Shelley Luther was sentenced to seven days in jail for criminal and civil contempt and a $7,000 fine today for defying Governor Greg Abbott’s stay-at-home rules.

Dallas Judge Eric Moye found Luther continued to operate her hair salon in violation of the governor’s order and in violation of a restraining order from the court.

She and her business are also each being fined $500 for every day… seven in all so far… that it was open in violation of the governor’s order. Judge Moye said the salon would continue to rack up a $500 fine for every day it remains open between now and Friday – when Abbott has said all salons can open.

Last week, Luther received a cease-and-desist letter from Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins ordering her to close the salon — and she publicly ripped it up. In defying the order, Luther has gained many supporters, among them the Open Texas movement.

Several of her supporters waited outside the courtroom and were visibly displeased by her arrest.

“If you would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live,” Judge Moye said, offering her a chance to avoid jail time. He said he would consider only giving her a fine, if she apologized, acknowledged she was wrong, and agreed to keep her business closed until Friday, when the governor has announced all salons may open.

“I have much respect for this court and laws. I have never been in this position before and it’s not someplace that I want to be,” Luther responded. “But I have to disagree with you sir, when you say that I’m selfish because feeding my kids — is not selfish. I have hair stylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with you decision but I am not going to shut the salon.”

(Read more at CBSDFW)

Remember, this decision came from the same county court where 1,000 felons were released

Recently, Dallas Sheriff Marian Brown released 1,000 felons based on her fears of a coronavirus outbreak. With that in mind, consider now that a social justice judge has assessed a $7,000 fine and thrown this woman in jail for little more than her desire to work.

Four signs Democrats might feel the heat


Squad member Omar screams “Stop it!” when Tlaib’s profane comments are repeated on House floor

The Political Insider provides insight to “The Squad” as Representative Omar screams “Stop it” to recitation of Representative Tlaib’s obscene election night promise.

IlhanOmarYellingIlhan Omar couldn’t handle hearing her Rashida Tlaib’s profane impeachment comments read on the House Floor during statements prior to Wednesday’s vote, repeatedly screaming “Stop it!”

Video shows House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy recalling how Tlaib, on day one in Congress and in front of her son, told a group of supporters “we’re going to impeach the motherf*****.”

Fox News reports several journalists were able to identify Omar (D-MN) as the one heard repeatedly shouting to McCarthy to “stop it.”

“Those are not my words,” McCarthy responded to the outburst.

(Read more at The Political Insider)

Maybe the truth of their bad polling numbers has started have an affect

The poll numbers have been falling for members of “The Squad” for quite some time now. Maybe they have abandoned the books of their death cult and have come to read the writing on the wall.

Mene. Mene. Tekel. Upharsin.

You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment

Breitbart reported that several sources point out that Democrats have no control over Senate acts.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.

That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

That is all.

The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This all seems to be good news to me.

The only question now might be whether there are Democrats in hiding in the Senate — you know, the ones everyone heretofore had thought were Republicans.

But, if there are, that will just set my resolve to supporting the Republicans I know and undermining the Democrats like Romney, Collins, Murkowski, McCarthy, et al.

Since Biden’s claims sound like obstruction of Congress, Biden changes his tune

Biden clarifies remark that he will not comply with Senate subpoena

In a 28 December 2019 article at Fox News, Adam Shaw points out how Joe Biden sought to “clarify” his comments regarding appearing before the Senate.

JoeBidenYellingFormer Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday sought to “clarify” his prior remarks that he will not comply with a potential subpoena to testify in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump.

The 2020 presidential hopeful on Friday had told the Des Moines Register that any testimony would draw attention away from Trump’s alleged wrongdoing and let him off the hook.

“What are you going to cover?” Biden said in response to a question about the possibility of his participation in the trial. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away.”

But on Saturday, he appeared to partially walk that answer back.

“I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests,” he tweeted.

“But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine,” he said.

Later on Saturday, during a town hall in Iowa, Biden said he “would obey any subpoena sent to me.”

(Read more at Fox News)

Biden needs to sit in front of a panel

In the least, Biden needs to stand before the nation and testify before the Senate regarding the crimes perpetrated in Ukraine.

Better yet, should there be evidence available to the investigators of Attorney General Barr, then Biden should stand trial for his wrongdoings.

The Democrat focus on impeachment shot another red flare warning into Michigan (another battleground state)

Just as Hillary shot herself in the foot by ignoring the battleground states (spending all of her time in the coastal strongholds), a 29 December 2019 article in Townhall points out how San Fran Nan shot the current crop of hopefuls in the foot by messing with another battleground state.

Often, politicians put too much faith in polls. Since 2012, their accuracy has degraded. In 2016, they were insanely off, which led to the greatest political upset in modern American history. It’s also shakier when the Trump coalition isn’t “loyal” for a lack of a better word. These voters had voted for Democrats in the past, with millions being Obama voters. A great many were two-time Obama voters. In fact, a good chunk voted for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, though two-thirds now say they’re backing Trump this year. And it doesn’t matter who the Democratic rival is; that should cause some pause with Democrats heading into 2020. Oh, and these are all battleground state voters.

Democrats didn’t care. They couldn’t. The 2018 promise was that they’ll impeach Trump. Support for President Trump’s impeachment is now underwater nationally, and it was never popular in the swing states, especially in Wisconsin and Michigan. These are states that Democrats need to win in 2020. And these voters could’ve maybe have been persuaded to vote Democratic if they had an agenda that spoke to working class Americans. They don’t. And now, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her crew getting the article of impeachment through the House and now holding onto them because they face certain death in the Republican Senate, these voters are just Trump Republicans now. Maybe the window was never there, but even if there was—this Democratic Party’s far-left extremism wouldn’t have sold. For starters, the health care plan that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want will destroy 150+ million private health care plans. That’s the only way Medicare for All works—and those on the casualty list include union households. Talk about an election killer. And now with this impeachment theater; these voters are “sick” of it (via Axios):

The two-plus hour conversation revealed major warning signs for the Democratic Party in a crucial swing county that will be a pivotal area to win in 2020.

This was the biggest takeaway from our Engagious/FPG focus group last week, which included 10 voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.

While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, these responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about the 2020 election in crucial counties.

[…]

The big picture:

These voters hate the fact that House Democrats are moving toward impeaching the president. They call it a distraction from the issues that would actually improve their lives, like preserving Social Security, cracking down on illegal immigration, and keeping jobs in the U.S.

“I think she’s wasting a lot of [taxpayer] money on a ghost chase,” said Chad Y., a 43-year-old Obama/Trump voter, of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The money she’s spending on that could go to help the homeless or go towards health care.”

Another participant, 73-year-0ld Michael G., said Democrats’ focus is in the wrong direction. “Instead of working on policies and things that will help the people, they are just working to basically preserve their own position … [T]hey don’t really care about you and [me], I don’t think.”

Oh, and remember the Armageddon tax bill Trump pushed through Congress? Well, these voters think it made health care more affordable. As Axios noted, “they said…his [Trump] GOP tax law, which some said has saved them more in taxes so they can now reallocate that money to pay for prescription drugs.”

(Read more at Townhall)

Do-nothing Democrats now have to answer for their inaction

Since 2018, Democrat members of the House have focused on far-left causes and ignored just about all bridge-building efforts. Now it seems that they might reap a crop for their efforts.

Four reasons to make certain the press feel the heat


  1. “Christian” magazine calls for Trump’s removal

Christianity Today took another step toward main stream media when it quoted only from the Democrat side of the impeachment scandal and parroted the Democrat call for the President’s removal.

n our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

(Read more at Christianity Today, even though that would profoundly waste time)

This magazine’s un-Christian act follows a tradition of pro-media, anti-Christian comments

This “Christian” magazine made this assertion just as Christianity Today previously tried to convince Christians of the rightness of:

  • Accepting the world’s view of welfare over promoting charity within the church and
  • Not standing against the deviancy of transgenderism (although the magazine does not mention the high suicide rate of transgenderism).

Christianity Today has decided to try to convince Christians to stand against the continued presidency of Donald Trump. However, there are these problems with their argument:

  1. They did not consider the testimony of Representative Doug Collins in the last day of debate where he said:

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

  2. If talking to world leaders and making quid-pro-quo deals is their problem, one must ask why they did not apply the same standard to Obama (who was whittling away our missile defenses) when he was caught on a live microphone talking to Russian President Medvedev:

    Tell Vlad, after the election, I’ll be more flexible.

  3. If corruption is an issue for the Christianity Today, one has to ask why they did not hold Senator Menendez to their high standard (and, notably, he still serves as a Democrat). For we all know that the Daily Mail reported:

    Senator Bob Menendez only ‘likes the youngest and newest girls’ says Dominican prostitute who ‘attended alleged sex parties with him’

  4. For all of their articles on forgiving the ways of the world and deviance like transgenderism &mdash this article included — I do not remember that many articles telling us to forgive Donald Trump.

For an alternate view from their Democrat-parroting, anti-Biblical view, consider the quotes and tweets cited by the Daily Caller. Chief among the tweets cited are the following:



  1. NYT Editorial Board: ‘Impeach’ Trump, But ‘Resist The Pull Of Partisanship’

The Daily Caller points out how the New York Times wants to seem unbiased while being biased.

The New York Times editorial board suggested Saturday that Congress needs to impeach President Donald Trump.

“In the end, the story told by the two articles of impeachment approved on Friday morning by the House Judiciary Committee is short, simple and damning,” The Times wrote.

“President Donald Trump abused the power of his office by strong-arming Ukraine, a vulnerable ally, holding up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid until it agreed to help him influence the 2020 election by digging up dirt on a political rival,” the board argued in what is a recapitulation of what House Democrats have been saying since start of the impeachment inquiry drama.

The Times suggested the president was “caught in the act” and then proceeded to show “unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance” even after being issued multiple subpoenas. Because Trump “made it impossible for Congress to carry out fully its constitutionally mandated oversight role,” the editors accuse the president of trespassing “the separation of powers, a safeguard of the American republic.”

The Times noted that impeachment will move to the full House of Representatives on Wednesday.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

For reasons like those shown in the above article, we need to resist the NYTwits

We need to avoid the NYTwit app. We need not pick up a paper copy of that vile rag. And, unless it is needed to prove a point with some idiot lib who still accepts them as a “paper of record,” there is no reason to reference the online version (as I have for the reason of trying to convince those who see it as a “paper of record.”)

Mind you, here, I did not actually refer first to the NYTwits.

  1. Unfit To Print Episode 34: IG Report Debunks Media’s Biggest Lies

The Daily Caller took the IG report and debunked the media’s biggest lies.

The IG report on FISA abuse finally dropped this week, and the media is still reeling from all of the lies it uncovered.

In this special episode of “Unfit to Print,” host Amber Athey is running through the craziest things the media said about Rep. Devin Nunes, the Steele dossier, Carter Page, and more.

Namely, the IG report found that the Steele dossier was “internet rumor” yet was used by the FBI to launch illegal surveillance against the Trump campaign’s Carter Page, who was falsely accused of being a Russian agent.

The media is going to be very embarrassed this week as they run through all of the silly things they said about Crossfire Hurricane — CNN has already issued a correction admitting the campaign was spied on by “confidential human informants.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Of course, Carter Page should be able to sue the socks off of multiple entities

Without listening to this review, I can tell you that the IG report revealed 17 instances where the law was broken. While the IG says that there was no biases evident within the FBI, that may only mean that nobody confessed.

  1. Local media admits a border wall in Laredo will happen, like it or not

The Laredo Morning Times reports in a 16 December 2019 article something that the main stream media wants to ignore or deny. The border wall will be built in Laredo.

With or without Congress’ blessing, the Trump administration is moving money around to fund the construction of a wall in Laredo — and they’re acting quickly.

In his meeting with Laredo officials this week, Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was upfront about the “different pockets of money” they have to fund wall construction in Laredo, according to Mayor Pete Saenz.

“He was clear. ‘We’ve got the money, we’re moving forward, whether you cooperate or not,’” Saenz recalled of their conversation. “… I thought we had more leverage going in, but apparently not.”

President Donald Trump is demanding that 450 miles of border wall be constructed in 2020, which would mark the fulfillment of his campaign promise in time for the November election.

And Webb and Zapata counties are wall-free and ripe for the taking as far as the Department of Homeland Security is concerned. This stretch of riverfront is their first priority for new wall construction.

Even as Trump’s ability to use budgeted military funding for wall construction has been shot down by two federal district judges, officials are planning to use more of this money plus counternarcotics funding to get the wall built in and around Laredo, according to Rep. Henry Cuellar.

Plus, Congress is lined up to appropriate another $1.4 billion for the border wall next week in order to avoid another government shutdown.

But if the city were to cooperate with the Trump administration, they could receive a little reward — a mile of more aesthetically pleasing, levee-style wall from the railroad bridge to bridge 2, leaving an unimpeded view of Mexico from the Outlet Shoppes, La Posada Hotel and Tres Laredos Park.

This is called a bulkhead. It would create a kind of sharp cliff above the river, and serve as a promenade and sloping park above.

The price will be City Council’s signature on right of entry documents for the feds to conduct surveys on the rest of their 10 miles of riverfront property, from Laredo College to Slaughter Park.

This is the Trump administration’s key to what they need most: speed.

(Read more at the Laredo Morning Times)

If a local paper can figure it out, why can’t the main stream media?

Of course, they probably have. They just want to keep you in the dark.

Eight non-impeachment stories that could jump up and bite one or more Democrats


  1. Unfit To Print Episode 32: Media Scrambles To Retract Obama’s Immigration Record

The Daily Caller points out how the media scrambled to retract Obama’s immigration record when they discovered that they had incriminated Obama rather than Trump.

Media outlets discovered they received misleading data from the UN this week, but instead of correcting their stories, they erased them entirely.

On this week’s episode of Unfit to Print, Amber Athey explains why AFP and Reuters retracted articles claiming the U.S. has 100,000 children in migrant detention centers after they found out that statistic is from 2015, when President Barack Obama was in office.

The story apparently wasn’t as important when it couldn’t be used to attack President Donald Trump!

(Read the rest at the Daily Caller)

Odd that there were no retractions, no corrections

Since they could not continue their 95%+ negative reporting on Trump and would have to point out that the reporting would have to bring down their demi-god Obama, they tried to just sweep it under the rug.

Since we regularly see the main stream media (the ones that are rarely quoted here because they do not report on issues critical of Democrats) relentlessly attack conservatives and then lob softballs at Democrats, there can be no wonder why few trust journalists.

  1. Elizabeth Warren Denied Sending Her Kids To Private School, Despite Sending Son To Elite Private School

Daily Caller points out another bald-faced lie by Lie-a-watha, Liz Warren when she told a woman that she (Warren) only sent her kids to public school.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren denied sending her children to private schools, despite the fact that she sent her son to an elite private school.

When school choice activists confronted her after a campaign rally Thursday, Warren said her children didn’t go to private schools.

“We are going to have the same choice that you had for your kids, because I read that your children went to private schools,” one activist told Warren. “No, my children went to public schools,” the Massachusetts senator replied.

But publicly available records show Warren, who has pledged to crack down on school choice if elected, chose to send her son Alexander to Kirby Hall, an elite private school in the Austin area, as the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported. Kirby Hall’s 1987 yearbook lists Alexander Warren among the school’s fifth-graders.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

If Ms. Warren wants to reach minority communities, she might want to consider supporting charter schools

Charter schools have enjoyed a strong support among a number of minority communities (possibly since they provide a way out of the failed inner-city schools). Therefore, if Ms. Warren has more kinship with the poor than with the education bureaucracy, she might want to reconsider her blind support of the Department of Education as the Democrats have imagined it.

  1. Former Harry Reid Staffer Jabs Buttigieg: ‘Sneaky Pete’ Only Got 8,500 Votes in His Last Election

Breitbart went to a Harry Reid staffer who observed that Buttigieg only got 8,500 votes in his last election. This could be a problem during an election where Democrats have hemorrhaged voters.

Democrats continue ripping Mayor Pete Buttigieg for only earning 8,500 votes in his last campaign for re-election as the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana — which has a population of roughly 100,000 people.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff to Sen. Harry Reid Adam Jentleson mocked Buttigieg on Friday after the mayor released a new ad against giving tuition-free college education for children of wealthy parents.

“A guy who received a total of 8,500 votes in his last election now wants to be POTUS because he believes in his own ambition above all else,” he wrote on Twitter.


Jentleson called Buttigieg “Sneaky Pete” for throwing ideas embraced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders “under the bus” for a position that was more “consultant-tested.”

The attack against Buttigieg’s weak voter draw was also deployed by Democratic strategic Alexis Grenell in April as proof that sexism was “alive and well in 2020.”

Buttigieg frequently cites his election in a midwestern city within the red state of Indiana as proof he can appeal to all voters.

But South Bend is overwhelmingly Democrat, thus explaining the low voting numbers. The last time the city elected a Republican mayor was in 1964.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Buttigieg not only cannot connect with current Black Democrats and lost his share of voters in successive elections, he was (as shown from the above article) elected by a small group

As opposed to the theme that Buttigieg has promoted where he was repeatedly elected as a popular Democrat mayor, it seems that Buttigieg slipped into the office because of voter apathy.

  1. College students Fainting From Starvation in Venezuela’s Failing College System

Socialism’s reality does not work well

The Union Journal notes how Venezuelan college students have been fainting from hunger as they study in the college system.

Tons of of kids filed into their college courtyard to listen to a neighborhood Catholic bishop lead prayers for his or her schooling.

“We pray for the youths who’re on the streets and may’t come to highschool,” mentioned Bishop Jorge Quintero, addressing the Augusto D’Aubeterre Lyceum college within the seaside city of Boca de Uchire on a steamy morning in October. “There are a number of them.”

By the tip of the 15-minute ceremony, 5 youngsters had fainted and two of them have been whisked away in an ambulance.

The faintings on the major college have turn into a daily prevalence as a result of so many college students come to class with out consuming breakfast, or dinner the evening earlier than. In different faculties, youngsters wish to know if there’s any meals earlier than they resolve whether or not to go in any respect.

“You possibly can’t educate skeletal and hungry folks,” mentioned Maira Marín, a trainer and union chief in Boca de Uchire.

Venezuela’s devastating six-year financial disaster is hollowing out the varsity system — as soon as the satisfaction of the oil-rich nation and, for many years, an engine that made the nation one of the upwardly cell within the area. These faculties prior to now supplied youngsters even in distant areas with a strong shot on the nation’s greatest universities, which in flip opened doorways to high American faculties and a spot amongst Venezuela’s elite.

Starvation is simply one of many many issues chipping away at them now. Thousands and thousands of Venezuelans have fled the nation in recent times, depleting the ranks of scholars and academics alike. Most of the educators who stay have been pushed from the career, their wages made practically nugatory by years of relentless hyperinflation. In some locations, barely 100 college students present up at faculties that after taught 1000’s.

The collapse of the schooling system in Venezuela is just not solely condemning a whole technology to poverty, however dangers setting the nation’s improvement again many years and severely stunting its development potential, specialists and academics say.

“A complete technology is being left behind,” mentioned Luis Bravo, an schooling researcher on the Central College of Venezuela in Caracas. “In the present day’s schooling system doesn’t permit youngsters to turn into significant members of society.”

The federal government stopped publishing schooling statistics in 2014. However visits to greater than a dozen faculties in 5 Venezuelan states and interviews with dozens of academics and oldsters point out that attendance has plummeted this yr.

(Read more at The Union Journal)

Since AOC has spent all of her tenure in Congress trying to make socialism sexy, this starvation stuff throws a wrench in those works

Of course, there have been numerous, changing stories from AOC. First, she told us that socialism was the way to go. Then she told us we would all die if we did not get a handle on climate change. Next, she mocked those who had believed her climate change lies by saying that she had been joking. Following that, her chief-of-staff revealed that the Green New Deal was nothing but a pathway to socialism.

  1. Illegal Alien Returns to U.S. After Killing Four American Kids in 2008

Breitbart relates the account of an illegal alien who killed four American children, was deported, and has now returned.

An illegal alien woman returned to the United States soon after being deported for killing four American children in a 2008 school bus crash in Cottonwood, Minnesota.

Olga Marina Franco del Cid, a 35-year-old illegal alien from Guatemala, was found guilty for 24 charges including four counts of criminal vehicular homicide after she ran a stop sign on February 18, 2008 and killed 13-year-old Jesse Javens, 12-year-old Reed Stevens, nine-year-old Emilee Olson, and nine-year-old Hunter Javens.

The four children Franco del Cid killed were among 28 students on a school bus at the time, 14 others of which were injured in the crash.

In October 2008, Franco del Cid was sentenced to just 12 and a half years for the children’s deaths. By April 2016, she had served only eight years in Minnesota and was set free. Immediately on release she was turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and deported from the U.S. in May 2016.

Sometime between late 2016 and 2019, ICE officials said Franco del Cid returned to the U.S. and was living less than three hours away from where she had left those four children dead in 2008.

This week, Franco del Cid was arrested by ICE in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. The illegal alien may face between 10 to 20 years in prison for illegally re-entering the U.S.

(Read the entire article at Breitbart)

After reading this, remember that Pelosi called them her “spark of divinity”

Even though Nancy Pelosi has never seen a problem she did not want to exploit, she has built an oddly-hypocritical stance on illegal aliens. First, she denies any crisis exists at the border (even though thousands of illegals massed on the border). Then (as if to deflect criticism centering on the killing of a pro-life bill), she labels people who enter the country illegally as “sparks of divinity” who are worthy of protection.

  1. Elizabeth Warren Announces Three Major Freshman Democrats as Co-Campaign Chairs

Breitbart reported in a 23 November 2019 article how Liz Warren has sought out the inexperienced, socialist representatives as support.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) added three significant freshman Democrats — Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Katie Porter (D-CA), and Deb Haaland (D-NM) — as co-chairs of her campaign, she announced on Friday.

While the majority of the ultra-leftist “Squad” endorsed Warren’s fellow contender and ideological similar Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Warren landed an endorsement from Pressley, who hails from her home state, and secured the backing of freshman Democrats Porter and Haaland.

“It’s my honor to have @Deb4CongressNM, @KatiePorterOC, and @AyannaPressley as my Campaign Co-Chairs. Big structural change can’t wait, and we’ll fight for it—together.” Warren announced on Twitter:

Haaland, one of two Native American women in Congress, faced backlash for endorsing Warren, given the presidential hopeful’s past of falsely claiming Native American heritage.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Follow the money from rich Chinese to Democrats to see how this bill came to be

House Passes Bill Opening Backdoor Immigration Route for Wealthy Chinese

Breitbart reports in a 6 December 2019 article on a follow-the-money issue for Democrats.

The House quietly passed a bill on December 3 to crack open a backdoor route for wealthy Chinese to buy their way into U.S. citizenship by lending money to the U.S. real estate industry.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) portrayed the bill as a boost to trade between the United States and Portugal. But the bill allows wealthy Chinese to get into the United States after first buying Portuguese citizenship.

“Congress is getting duped. … [The bill is] creating a new path for Chinese people,” said one Capitol Hill source.

Wealthy Chinese can buy “golden visa” citizenship from Portugal’s government in as little as 35 days. If House bill H.R. 565 is approved by the Senate and becomes law, then the new Chinese citizens of Portugal will be able to move into the U.S. by getting E-1 Treaty Trader or E-2 Treaty Investor renewable visas.

Cicilline’s office declined to comment to Breitbart News.

The bill may have a lot of hidden support in the Senate because it could provide a band-aid fix for the backlogged EB-5 program.

The EB-5 program allows wealthy foreigners to buy green cards by lending money to U.S. businesses, mostly to real estate investors. But the money inflow has shrunk because immigration law seeks to promote diversity among immigrants by capping the annual share of EB-5 green cards that can be bought by people from each country, such as China or India. This “country cap” rule means that new Chinese EB-5 buyers must wait more than ten years to get delivery of their backlogged green cards.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Illegal Immigrants Taking Jobs; Democrats Taxing Americans

Lifezette outlines a primary reason Americans oppose illegal immigration.

  1. Unfit To Print Episode 32: Media Scrambles To Retract Obama’s Immigration Record

The Daily Caller points out how the media scrambled to retract Obama’s immigration record when they discovered that they had incriminated Obama rather than Trump.

Media outlets discovered they received misleading data from the UN this week, but instead of correcting their stories, they erased them entirely.

On this week’s episode of Unfit to Print, Amber Athey explains why AFP and Reuters retracted articles claiming the U.S. has 100,000 children in migrant detention centers after they found out that statistic is from 2015, when President Barack Obama was in office.

The story apparently wasn’t as important when it couldn’t be used to attack President Donald Trump!

(Read the rest at the Daily Caller)

Odd that there were no retractions, no corrections

Since they could not continue their 95%+ negative reporting on Trump and would have to point out that the reporting would have to bring down their demi-god Obama, they tried to just sweep it under the rug.

Since we regularly see the main stream media (the ones that are rarely quoted here because they do not report on issues critical of Democrats) relentlessly attack conservatives and then lob softballs at Democrats, there can be no wonder why few trust journalists.

  1. Elizabeth Warren Denied Sending Her Kids To Private School, Despite Sending Son To Elite Private School

Daily Caller points out another bald-faced lie by Lie-a-watha, Liz Warren when she told a woman that she (Warren) only sent her kids to public school.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren denied sending her children to private schools, despite the fact that she sent her son to an elite private school.

When school choice activists confronted her after a campaign rally Thursday, Warren said her children didn’t go to private schools.

“We are going to have the same choice that you had for your kids, because I read that your children went to private schools,” one activist told Warren. “No, my children went to public schools,” the Massachusetts senator replied.

But publicly available records show Warren, who has pledged to crack down on school choice if elected, chose to send her son Alexander to Kirby Hall, an elite private school in the Austin area, as the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported. Kirby Hall’s 1987 yearbook lists Alexander Warren among the school’s fifth-graders.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

If Ms. Warren wants to reach minority communities, she might want to consider supporting charter schools

Charter schools have enjoyed a strong support among a number of minority communities (possibly since they provide a way out of the failed inner-city schools). Therefore, if Ms. Warren has more kinship with the poor than with the education bureaucracy, she might want to reconsider her blind support of the Department of Education as the Democrats have imagined it.

  1. Former Harry Reid Staffer Jabs Buttigieg: ‘Sneaky Pete’ Only Got 8,500 Votes in His Last Election

Breitbart went to a Harry Reid staffer who observed that Buttigieg only got 8,500 votes in his last election. This could be a problem during an election where Democrats have hemorrhaged voters.

Democrats continue ripping Mayor Pete Buttigieg for only earning 8,500 votes in his last campaign for re-election as the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana — which has a population of roughly 100,000 people.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff to Sen. Harry Reid Adam Jentleson mocked Buttigieg on Friday after the mayor released a new ad against giving tuition-free college education for children of wealthy parents.

“A guy who received a total of 8,500 votes in his last election now wants to be POTUS because he believes in his own ambition above all else,” he wrote on Twitter.


Jentleson called Buttigieg “Sneaky Pete” for throwing ideas embraced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders “under the bus” for a position that was more “consultant-tested.”

The attack against Buttigieg’s weak voter draw was also deployed by Democratic strategic Alexis Grenell in April as proof that sexism was “alive and well in 2020.”

Buttigieg frequently cites his election in a midwestern city within the red state of Indiana as proof he can appeal to all voters.

But South Bend is overwhelmingly Democrat, thus explaining the low voting numbers. The last time the city elected a Republican mayor was in 1964.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Buttigieg not only cannot connect with current Black Democrats and lost his share of voters in successive elections, he was (as shown from the above article) elected by a small group

As opposed to the theme that Buttigieg has promoted where he was repeatedly elected as a popular Democrat mayor, it seems that Buttigieg slipped into the office because of voter apathy.

  1. College students Fainting From Starvation in Venezuela’s Failing College System

Socialism’s reality does not work well

The Union Journal notes how Venezuelan college students have been fainting from hunger as they study in the college system.

Tons of of kids filed into their college courtyard to listen to a neighborhood Catholic bishop lead prayers for his or her schooling.

“We pray for the youths who’re on the streets and may’t come to highschool,” mentioned Bishop Jorge Quintero, addressing the Augusto D’Aubeterre Lyceum college within the seaside city of Boca de Uchire on a steamy morning in October. “There are a number of them.”

By the tip of the 15-minute ceremony, 5 youngsters had fainted and two of them have been whisked away in an ambulance.

The faintings on the major college have turn into a daily prevalence as a result of so many college students come to class with out consuming breakfast, or dinner the evening earlier than. In different faculties, youngsters wish to know if there’s any meals earlier than they resolve whether or not to go in any respect.

“You possibly can’t educate skeletal and hungry folks,” mentioned Maira Marín, a trainer and union chief in Boca de Uchire.

Venezuela’s devastating six-year financial disaster is hollowing out the varsity system — as soon as the satisfaction of the oil-rich nation and, for many years, an engine that made the nation one of the upwardly cell within the area. These faculties prior to now supplied youngsters even in distant areas with a strong shot on the nation’s greatest universities, which in flip opened doorways to high American faculties and a spot amongst Venezuela’s elite.

Starvation is simply one of many many issues chipping away at them now. Thousands and thousands of Venezuelans have fled the nation in recent times, depleting the ranks of scholars and academics alike. Most of the educators who stay have been pushed from the career, their wages made practically nugatory by years of relentless hyperinflation. In some locations, barely 100 college students present up at faculties that after taught 1000’s.

The collapse of the schooling system in Venezuela is just not solely condemning a whole technology to poverty, however dangers setting the nation’s improvement again many years and severely stunting its development potential, specialists and academics say.

“A complete technology is being left behind,” mentioned Luis Bravo, an schooling researcher on the Central College of Venezuela in Caracas. “In the present day’s schooling system doesn’t permit youngsters to turn into significant members of society.”

The federal government stopped publishing schooling statistics in 2014. However visits to greater than a dozen faculties in 5 Venezuelan states and interviews with dozens of academics and oldsters point out that attendance has plummeted this yr.

(Read more at The Union Journal)

Since AOC has spent all of her tenure in Congress trying to make socialism sexy, this starvation stuff throws a wrench in those works

Of course, there have been numerous, changing stories from AOC. First, she told us that socialism was the way to go. Then she told us we would all die if we did not get a handle on climate change. Next, she mocked those who had believed her climate change lies by saying that she had been joking. Following that, her chief-of-staff revealed that the Green New Deal was nothing but a pathway to socialism.

  1. Illegal Alien Returns to U.S. After Killing Four American Kids in 2008

Breitbart relates the account of an illegal alien who killed four American children, was deported, and has now returned.

An illegal alien woman returned to the United States soon after being deported for killing four American children in a 2008 school bus crash in Cottonwood, Minnesota.

Olga Marina Franco del Cid, a 35-year-old illegal alien from Guatemala, was found guilty for 24 charges including four counts of criminal vehicular homicide after she ran a stop sign on February 18, 2008 and killed 13-year-old Jesse Javens, 12-year-old Reed Stevens, nine-year-old Emilee Olson, and nine-year-old Hunter Javens.

The four children Franco del Cid killed were among 28 students on a school bus at the time, 14 others of which were injured in the crash.

In October 2008, Franco del Cid was sentenced to just 12 and a half years for the children’s deaths. By April 2016, she had served only eight years in Minnesota and was set free. Immediately on release she was turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency and deported from the U.S. in May 2016.

Sometime between late 2016 and 2019, ICE officials said Franco del Cid returned to the U.S. and was living less than three hours away from where she had left those four children dead in 2008.

This week, Franco del Cid was arrested by ICE in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. The illegal alien may face between 10 to 20 years in prison for illegally re-entering the U.S.

(Read the entire article at Breitbart)

After reading this, remember that Pelosi called them her “spark of divinity”

Even though Nancy Pelosi has never seen a problem she did not want to exploit, she has built an oddly-hypocritical stance on illegal aliens. First, she denies any crisis exists at the border (even though thousands of illegals massed on the border). Then (as if to deflect criticism centering on the killing of a pro-life bill), she labels people who enter the country illegally as “sparks of divinity” who are worthy of protection.

  1. Elizabeth Warren Announces Three Major Freshman Democrats as Co-Campaign Chairs

Breitbart reported in a 23 November 2019 article how Liz Warren has sought out the inexperienced, socialist representatives as support.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) added three significant freshman Democrats — Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Katie Porter (D-CA), and Deb Haaland (D-NM) — as co-chairs of her campaign, she announced on Friday.

While the majority of the ultra-leftist “Squad” endorsed Warren’s fellow contender and ideological similar Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Warren landed an endorsement from Pressley, who hails from her home state, and secured the backing of freshman Democrats Porter and Haaland.

“It’s my honor to have @Deb4CongressNM, @KatiePorterOC, and @AyannaPressley as my Campaign Co-Chairs. Big structural change can’t wait, and we’ll fight for it—together.” Warren announced on Twitter:

Haaland, one of two Native American women in Congress, faced backlash for endorsing Warren, given the presidential hopeful’s past of falsely claiming Native American heritage.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Follow the money from rich Chinese to Democrats to see how this bill came to be

House Passes Bill Opening Backdoor Immigration Route for Wealthy Chinese

Breitbart reports in a 6 December 2019 article on a follow-the-money issue for Democrats.

The House quietly passed a bill on December 3 to crack open a backdoor route for wealthy Chinese to buy their way into U.S. citizenship by lending money to the U.S. real estate industry.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) portrayed the bill as a boost to trade between the United States and Portugal. But the bill allows wealthy Chinese to get into the United States after first buying Portuguese citizenship.

“Congress is getting duped. … [The bill is] creating a new path for Chinese people,” said one Capitol Hill source.

Wealthy Chinese can buy “golden visa” citizenship from Portugal’s government in as little as 35 days. If House bill H.R. 565 is approved by the Senate and becomes law, then the new Chinese citizens of Portugal will be able to move into the U.S. by getting E-1 Treaty Trader or E-2 Treaty Investor renewable visas.

Cicilline’s office declined to comment to Breitbart News.

The bill may have a lot of hidden support in the Senate because it could provide a band-aid fix for the backlogged EB-5 program.

The EB-5 program allows wealthy foreigners to buy green cards by lending money to U.S. businesses, mostly to real estate investors. But the money inflow has shrunk because immigration law seeks to promote diversity among immigrants by capping the annual share of EB-5 green cards that can be bought by people from each country, such as China or India. This “country cap” rule means that new Chinese EB-5 buyers must wait more than ten years to get delivery of their backlogged green cards.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Illegal Immigrants Taking Jobs; Democrats Taxing Americans

Lifezette outlines a primary reason Americans oppose illegal immigration.

Fifteen “Small” Problems for Democrats in their impeachment drive


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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Stamford Advocate)

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

A debate on the merits of Democrat ideals comes up lacking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

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

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

Garbage in, garbage out.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



(Read the original at the Daily Caller)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

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

Biz Pac Review lists the issues identified by Professor Turley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Biz Pac Review)

To quote Professor Turley, we are setting a dangerous precedent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a total waste of time and taxpayer money.

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

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

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

You can watch the video below:

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

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

Noah Feldman’s own words contradict his testimony.

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

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

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

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

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

[Cernovich.com]

(Read more at Wayne Dupree)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. House GOP escalate feud over Nunes phone records

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at One America News Network)

  1. Nadler did not swear in witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Roll Call)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fourth Amendment commands:

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

  1. Doug Collins speaks out during the impeachment debacle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..

  1. Kevin McCarthy points out the glaring truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberals shoot themselves in the impeachment foot


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

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

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

zaid 1

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

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




(Read more at ZeroHedge)

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

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

Alleged Whistleblower’s Name Appears In Transcript Released By Schiff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

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

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

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

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

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

On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner explained:

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

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

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

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

{Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

Impeachment twists


The fact that Brit Hume could ask this proves that we trust too much in “experts”

Vindman claimed to be ‘deeply troubled’ by Trump’s effort to ‘subvert’ US foreign policy; however, then Brit Hume pointed out this ‘huge fallacy’

Brit Hume of Fox points out how the American public has become conditioned to unquestioningly accept the arguments of “experts” that the left-leaning press trots out — like the supposed “whistleblower” (as detailed in a 2 November 2019 Daily Caller article).

alexander-vindmanLt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reportedly “deeply troubled” by what he saw as President Donald Trump’s efforts to “subvert U.S. foreign policy,” but Fox News commentator Brit Hume pointed out a “huge fallacy” in that line of thinking.

“[Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen,” The Washington Post reported Friday, referring to the NSC official’s Tuesday impeachment inquiry testimony.

Hume, however, used Twitter to point out the fact that there is a “huge fallacy” in Vindman’s reasoning.

“Anyone know what it is?” Hume asked in the Saturday tweet.


The answer, as nearly every respondent to Hume’s tweet pointed out, is that it is the president himself who is tasked to set United States foreign policy.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Just because someone with scrambled eggs on his cap and ribbons on his chest voices opposition to a President, it doesn’t mean we don’t have to examine the situation

trump-allies-charge-VindmanVindman may have served honorably in the armed force. However, if he is trying to tamper with evidence (revise the transcripts to something that none of the transcriptionists heard), then we do not have to accept his word.

In the case of Vindman, in contradiction to what all transcriptionists heard, Vindman argued unsuccessfully to have the transcripts changed.

Three crippling facts about the lies promoted by the Democrats focused on impeachment

The Western Journal outlines how the call for impeachment came from one National Security staff employee and, based on that fact, exposes three crippling issues with the testimony.

On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s super-secret committee heard testimony from the Democrats’ latest star witness — Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

But if Vindman’s opening statement is any indication, the impeachment narrative pushed by Schiff, the Democratic Party and the establishment media took another brutal shellacking.

Vindman, a career Army officer, Purple Heart recipient, and the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, appeared before Schiff’s kangaroo court — which included lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees as well — to discuss his “concerns” regarding President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

NYTwitsWithout a hint of irony, The New York Times reported Monday, ahead of his testimony, that Vindman “will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call.”

It should strike anyone as bizarre that it has taken over a month since the entire Trump-Ukraine “scandal” began for Schiff and company to finally get someone in the room who was actually on the call.

The intelligence community whistleblower who sparked the entire controversy wasn’t on the call. He just heard grousing from people who were.

Also, what the whistleblower reported was incorrect — and he or she submitted it around the time that the intelligence community whistleblower form was reportedly updated to — wait for it — allow submissions like theirs.

The whistleblower’s earliest memo regarding the call also relayed at least seven lies or pieces of misinformation (We compared that memo to the call transcript and counted ourselves) that did not at all correspond with the call transcript Trump shrewdly released.

Then, there were assorted other witnesses, including former, and now acting, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

Taylor imploded on the stand in Schiff’s super-secret SCIF by confirming he could only offer hearsay and that Zelensky’s people didn’t even know of the much-ballyhooed suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine until after the much-ballyhooed July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.

Now we come to Vindman, whose testimony anti-Trumpers everywhere were certain would prove Trump tried to execute a quid pro quo scenario with Zelensky.

Vindman, however, not only bombed in terms of helpfulness to the Democrats, but he also revealed four pieces of information — one of them extremely important — and effectively pulled a Tonya Harding on the quid pro quo narrative’s knees.

First, Vindman appears to have at least attempted to mislead the committee, claiming on page five of his pre-written opening statement that he “did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.”

The only problem with that comment is that it’s predicated on a complete lie.

Trump didn’t demand anything during the call. Remember, it was Zelensky who urged Trump to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, and it was Zelensky who offered to investigate.

“We are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine,” Zelensky said during the call, adding, “I guarantee as the president of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.”

Whether Vindman was actually trying to mislead (which seems foolish given the transcript) or genuinely doesn’t recall the conversation he heard (which obviously presents other credibility problems), the net effect was not good for Democrats.

Second, Vindman took note of an earlier Trump-Zelensky call he sat on that took place on April 21, 2019.

During that call, Vindman claimed that “Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.”

That testimony undermines the idea that Zelensky’s invitation to the White House was predicated on him launching investigations into the Bidens, Burisma Holdings (where Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board) and Crowdstrike.

Taylor helped undermine that Democratic chestnut when he confirmed the Ukrainians — and the general public — didn’t know about the aid freeze until August, after the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.

Now, Vindman’s testimony makes the quid pro quo premise that much more unlikely by moving the date that the White House invitation was extended back to April 21.

If Trump invited Zelensky to the White House back in April with no strings attached, how could the White House visit been part of the alleged quid pro quo?

Third, …

(Read more at the Western Journal)

To restate the third point, we need to elevate US national security above Democrat partisanship

To restate the third point made by the Western Journal commentator Josh Manning, we need to put national security above protecting politicians who take bribes on the side. National security needs to be ranked over the current liberal pet project of the day.

However, on the same note, the NSC should not be involved in an apparent attempt to frame the President in a set-up conversation.

Fishing: House Democrats impeachment lawyer suggests probe May Extend Beyond Ukraine

Breitbart reports in an 18 October 2019 article that House Democrats seem to be fishing for reasons to impeach the President.

Fishing_Hook_Illustration_featHouse Democrats may extend the impeachment inquiry beyond U.S. President Donald Trump’s Ukraine-related activities, the general counsel behind the investigation recently indicated.

Democrats can impeach Trump even if his Ukraine-related actions are not criminal, Douglas Letter, the lawyer, argued before a federal judge last week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) handpicked Letter in January to serve as the general counsel for the Democrat-led House of Representatives.

Since then, he has been at the center of strategizing the House Democrats’ impeachment fight against the president, CNN reported Thursday.

Letter does not talk to the press. CNN, however, quoted him as telling a federal judge last week that the impeachment probe may extend beyond Ukraine.

“I can’t emphasize enough: It’s not just Ukraine. If it’s criminal, but even if it’s not — President Trump can clearly be impeached if he was obstructing justice,” the lawyer reportedly said.

CNN added:

Letter also said that even simply lying to the American public could prompt impeachment. In the court proceeding, Letter was fighting on behalf of House Democrats to obtain the FBI memos from interviews with key White House witnesses that Robert Mueller conducted as part of his two-year probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether anyone from President Donald Trump’s campaign was involved.

The lawyer, who reportedly spent four decades at the U.S. Department of Justice, is reportedly working on behalf of House Democrats with a team of nine attorneys.

The impeachment probe is supposed to focus on determining whether Trump abused his power as president by withholding aid to Ukraine in a bid to get dirt on Joe Biden.

A “whistleblower’s” allegation that Trump made a quid pro quo offer to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a call on July 25 triggered the impeachment probe. The “whistleblower” claimed Trump demanded Zelensky’s cooperation in investigating Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for aid.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the leader of the probe, has also said, however, that there does not need to be a Ukraine-linked quid pro quo to impeach Trump.

House Democrats have accused President Trump of obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate with their impeachment probe, particularly for not relinquishing documents.

Former President Barack Obama refused to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking information on his administration’s fatal gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. Nevertheless, neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to impeach him for it.

Under Fast and Furious, the Obama administration allowed criminals in Mexico to buy hundreds of guns. Some of the weapons were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. They were also used to kill or wound an estimated 300 Mexicans.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Just as this blog has pointed out, certain Democrat members of Congress want to use any measure possible to remove their opposition

Maxine Waters has trumpeted her desire to impeach the President from November 2016. Al Green famously said as recently as May 2019:

I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don’t impeach him, he will say he’s been vindicated. He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and didn’t take up impeachment. He will say we had a constitutional duty to do and we didn’t. He will say he’s been vindicated.

I think we should do everything we can to make certain that every point Al Green made comes true. Otherwise, they might see it as an endorsement of their socialistic, baby-killing agenda.

The “whistleblower” is identified as a Democrat who worked with John Brennan and Joe Biden

Lifezette reported in a 31 October 2019 article on the previously-unknown “whistleblower” in the Democrat’s impeachment scheme.

The identity of the whistleblower behind the Ukraine hoax has reportedly been revealed as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations identified the man suspected of initiating allegations against the president — allegations that resulted in today’s impeachment proceedings.

Attorneys for the whistleblower have, naturally, declined to confirm their client’s name.

“But,” Sperry wrote on Wednesday, “the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings.”

He indicated that Ciaramella’s identity was raised as well “in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.”

Democrats all along have been very clearly shielding the whistleblower’s identity, claiming they were doing so because of concerns about his or her safety.

The media, who have no obligation to keep the name under wraps, have been obediently following the Democrat Party’s lead, in our view — to nobody’s surprise.

That very identity, however, seems to indicate the individual was being protected for more nefarious reasons.

Who he is and what he stands for undermines the resistance party’s efforts to portray the impeachment proceedings as anything other than a charade.

Ciaramella isn’t just a politically neutral and concerned citizen.

“Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan,” Sperry reported on Wednesday.

He added that the ardent Democrat is “a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

In other words — the man bears a striking resemblance to every single Democrat lawmaker pushing for impeachment right now.

Ciaramella is their golden boy and everything they are — as determined to undo the results of a presidential election as they were.

And that is why they tried hiding him from the public, as we see it.

As Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pointed out, the outing of Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower calls into question the entire genesis of the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.

His motivations are well known to the intelligence community, if not the public.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” a former NSC official told RealClearInvestigations.

Ciaramella reportedly huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

“Guidance” is a suspect word — the true description should be “coaching.”


(Read more at Lifezette)

Odd that all of these socialists and their supporting cast have such close ties to Biden

Additionally, it is certainly odd how communists like Comey, Brennan, and Ciaramella all got together to work against Donald Trump.

Just like the Democrat’s Nuclear Option, House approves Democrat’s impeachment rules

The left-leaning Associated Press reports in a 21 October 2019 article how the Democrats again slit their own throats. Just as Democrats previously approved and then condemned the use of the “nuclear option,” the Democrats need to regret this subversion of due process.

Nonetheless, the Associated Press reported it as follows:

Democrats swept a rules package for their impeachment probe of President Donald Trump through a divided House, as the chamber’s first vote on the investigation highlighted the partisan breach the issue has only deepened.

By 232-196, lawmakers on Thursday approved the procedures they’ll follow as weeks of closed-door interviews with witnesses evolve into public committee hearings and — almost certainly — votes on whether the House should recommend Trump’s removal.

All voting Republicans opposed the package. Every voting Democrat but two supported it.

Underscoring the pressure Trump has heaped on his party’s lawmakers, he tweeted, “Now is the time for Republicans to stand together and defend the leader of their party against these smears.”

Yet the roll call also accentuated how Democrats have rallied behind the impeachment inquiry after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent months urging caution until evidence and public support had grown.

She and other Democratic leaders had feared a premature vote would wound the reelection prospects of dozens of their members, including freshmen and lawmakers from Trump-won districts or seats held previously by Republicans. But recent polls have shown voters’ growing receptivity to the investigation and, to a lesser degree, ousting Trump.

That and evidence that House investigators have amassed have helped unify Democrats, including those from GOP areas. Rep. Cindy Axne, D-Iowa, said she was supporting a pathway to giving “the American people the facts they deserve,” while Rep. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said voters warrant “the uninhibited truth.”

Yet Republicans were also buoyed by polling, which has shown that GOP voters stand unflinchingly behind Trump.

“The impeachment-obsessed Democrats just flushed their majority down the toilet,” said Michael McAdams, a spokesman for House Republicans’ campaign arm.

Elsewhere at the Capitol on Thursday, three House panels led by the Intelligence Committee questioned their latest witness into the allegations that led to the impeachment inquiry: that Trump pressured Ukraine to produce dirt on his Democratic political rivals by withholding military aid and an Oval Office meeting craved by the country’s new president.

Tim Morrison, who stepped down from the National Security Council the day before his appearance, testified — still behind closed doors — that he saw nothing illegal in Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president that is at the center of the Democrat-led investigation.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Add to these rules, Adam Schiff blocks Republicans from being legally exposed

As reported at The Last Refuge and as shown in the below table. Alexander Vindman was available to attend and listen in to the conversation between the Presidents of the United States and the Ukraine.

alexander-vindman-2-faraSimilarly, as reported by Sundance of The Last Refuge, it seems that Vindman did not exclusively wear his military uniform while executing his (Democrat, conniving) duties at the White House. (Yes, that is Vindman in the red oval below.)

alexander-vindman-3-energy-v1

I guess that the lawyers in Schiff’s office figure that a military uniform provides a certain level of respect that a gapping suit doesn’t.

Trump impeachment hearings must include Obama, Bidens

Tom Del Beccaro from Fox News argues that Republicans should start doing their jobs by calling witnesses close to the issue central to the impeachment narrative. Therefore, Republicans must call Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and other witnesses before Congress.

It’s official now. Democrats are careening toward the impeachment of a president and dragging the American people along with them. In today’s mass media age, it will consume this nation like few other events ever have.

I outlined a broader strategy for the GOP in my recent article for Fox News Opinion: “Republicans must win the impeachment trial – and they can by following these five steps.”

At this point, the formal House vote deprives the Republicans the right to subpoena witnesses without the permission of Adam Schiff – the man who has repeatedly lied to the American people. That is a stark departure from the procedure that was afforded the minority party under Nixon and Clinton.

If the Republicans are serious about winning this truly political fight, here are three witnesses they should demand be subpoenaed:

  • Hunter Biden
  • Joe Biden
  • Barack Obama

Before we talk about them, you might ask the question: What is an impeachable offense?

The Constitution explicitly states: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  That is the easy part when it comes to presidents.  Treason and bribery are easily defined but “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are not.

Did those words refer to a president challenging a suspect law passed by a Congress seeking to determine who could serve in a president’s cabinet? In 1868, a Republican-dominated House of Representatives impeached Democratic President Andrew Johnson, with an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, for just that. The Senate, however, never convicted Johnson.

Johnson’s acts related to his exercise of official presidential powers.  The Nixon impeachment proceedings started based on the ill-famed Watergate break-in and a subsequent cover-up.  Nixon’s acts were a combination of private acts and executive power.

Bill Clinton you ask?  Well, that was based on his perjurous statement to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice in a private lawsuit against him – largely private actions thought far too unfit for a president by the Republican House. The Senate did not convict Clinton either.

(Read more at Fox News)

Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show

Joe Biden on the stand would be a Republican advertisement writer’s dream

Considering Joe’s propensity for gaffing, having him on the stand would be heaven on Earth for Trump’s advertisement team.

Republican PACs are already attacking vulnerable Democrats who voted for impeachment resolution

It seems that Fox News has observed some Republicans growing a spine as certain Republican political action committees have started attacking vulnerable Democrats who voted for impeachment.

House Democrats in red districts who voted for the House resolution setting rules for the Trump impeachment inquiry are already under attack after a political action committee dedicated to boosting Republicans launched a digital ad campaign Thursday.

The Congressional Leadership Fund said in a statement that it had targeted 29 vulnerable Democrats with ads that will appear when constituents search for impeachment-related terms online. Those ads will redirect to a website with a petition titled: “Tell your member of Congress: Stop Impeachment Now!”

“The Democrats are so blinded by their personal hatred of President Trump that they’re willing to sacrifice all work on the issues voters care about, just to have one last shot at removing him from office to avenge their 2016 loss,” said CLF President Dan Conston. “Now that they’ve cast their votes in favor of marching headfirst into impeachment, vulnerable Democrats have shown voters there is zero difference whatsoever between them and the radical leftists fighting tooth and nail to impeach this president.”

The House of Representatives passed a resolution Thursday setting rules for the public phase of the impeachment inquiry Democrats have been pursuing into President Trump. A complaint from an anonymous whistleblower and testimony from other administration officials has indicated that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to open investigations that would be politically beneficial to his 2020 reelection campaign — notably into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter — while withholding nearly $400 billion in military aid.

Democrats and others have accused Trump of trying to use the aid as leverage to get Ukraine to deliver the investigations. Trump and his defenders have said there was no quid-pro-quo — aid for investigations — with Trump describing a July 25 phone call in which he discussed the investigations, but not the aid, with Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky as “perfect.”

Conor Lamb, D-Pa., who won his seat in a competitive 2018 special election, is one of the higher-profile Democrats targeted by the campaign. On Thursday, he said his vote for the impeachment rules resolution was simply to establish rules for the investigation and that he had not yet made up his mind if he would vote to impeach Trump.

“This resolution sets the rules for the upcoming hearings. I believe everyone benefits from clear rules, so I voted yes.  I have not made any decision about impeachment, nor will I until all the evidence is in,” he said in a statement. “I do believe that Russia is a major threat to the United States in Ukraine and around the world, and our oath requires us to put our country first, always.”

The CLF provided an example of what one of the ads would look like with a screenshot of one ad aimed at Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y. It appears as a search result with a hyperlink that reads, “Anthony Brindisi | Just Voted For Impeachment | He’s with Radical Dems Not Us.”

(Read more at Fox News)

There are many more new and old Democrats who need to be voted out

In the Houston area, there is lying Lizzie Fletcher, who promised she would work for the business community and said that she would not be Nancy Pelosi’s rubber stamp (even though her campaign was financed by Pelosi). Lizzie needs to answer for her inaction and for her lies.

Clinton-Obama emails sought by Sen. Ron Johnson amid Democrats’ impeachment inquiry

Now we find that Fox News has observed that Ron Johnson has begun seeking certain certain Clinton-Obama emails amid the impeachment inquisition.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson on Thursday formally sought “all email communications” between Hillary Clinton and former President Obama, saying the Justice Department was blocking their release — even though they could shed light on whether the former secretary of state discussed sensitive matters on her unsecured personal email system while she was overseas.

Johnson’s letter came as House Democrats approved procedures for their impeachment inquiry against President Trump, warning he may have endangered U.S. national security by allegedly withholding aid to Ukraine for political reasons. Earlier this month, a State Department report into Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business found dozens of people at fault and hundreds of security violations.

In a letter to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Johnson, R-Wis., said summer 2016 communications from FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok to FBI Director James Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki hinted at the existence of the Clinton-Obama messages that were relevant to the issues raised by her private server.

Johnson noted that on June 28, 2016, a week before Comey’s public statement declaring that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Clinton, Strzok wrote, “Jim – I have the POTUS – HRC emails [Director Comey] requested at end of briefing yesterday. I hesitate to leave them, please let me know a convenient time to drop them off.”

“I write to request email communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama,” Johnson wrote, setting a deadline of Nov. 14, 2019. “In January 2018, I requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce emails Secretary Clinton sent to President Obama while she was located in the ‘territory of a sophisticated adversary.'”

He added: “Given that DOJ acknowledged that they ‘are not in a position’ to produce emails to the committee that contain ‘equities of other executive branch entities,’ I ask that, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, you please provide all email communications between Secretary Clinton and President Obama.”

May 2016 email from Strzok, obtained by Fox News last year, said “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers. However, last year, the DOJ watchdog slammed Comey for speculating publicly that Clinton’s emails had been hacked by foreign actors.

Interviews with intelligence community officials released this past August indicated that senior FBI leaders “seemed indifferent to evidence of a possible intrusion by a foreign adversary” into Clinton’s non-government email server, and that State Department officials allegedly sought to “downgrade classified material found on the server,” according to Senate investigators probing the matter.

(Read more at Fox News)

The more about Democrat corruption that comes out, the better

We can only hope that this drags out until the months before the election.

Bolton will not voluntarily testify, says his lawyer

The Hill reports in a 31 October 2019 article that former Obama-era ambassador John Bolton will not testify unless he receives a subpoena.

Former national security adviser John Bolton will not appear voluntarily to testify in connection with the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper told The Hill in an email late Wednesday that Bolton would not appear voluntarily and would need to be subpoenaed.

House Democrats have issued subpoenas to several witnesses in order to compel their testimony amid efforts by the White House to prevent their appearance. The White House has refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, describing it as illegitimate and an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

House investigators on Wednesday invited Bolton, who was dramatically ousted as Trump’s third national security adviser in September, to testify at a deposition on Nov. 7, next week.

It is not clear whether a subpoena will be enough to compel his appearance. Charles Kupperman, former deputy national security adviser, filed a lawsuit on Friday asking a federal court to weigh in on whether he should obey a subpoena to testify or instructions from the White House against cooperating, describing himself as caught between two competing branches of government.

 

I’m not sure whether Bolton is playing Brier Rabbit or he has done something

Either which way, we should give this guy the treatment that those who would undermine our government would deserve.