Obama disapproves of something he did

Featured

First, Obama did it

Obama pardons James Cartwright, a general who lied to the F.B.I. in a leak case

With a hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show, we see the New York Times reported in a 27 January 2017 article how President Obama pardoned General Cartwright, who lied to the FBI.

GeneralCartwrightPresident Obama on Tuesday pardoned James E. Cartwright, a retired Marine Corps general and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his discussions with reporters about Iran’s nuclear program, saving him from a possible prison sentence.

General Cartwright, who was a key member of Mr. Obama’s national security team in his first term and earned a reputation as the president’s favorite general, pleaded guilty late last year to misleading investigators looking into the leaking of classified information about cyberattacks against Iran.

He was due to be sentenced this month. His defense team had asked for a year of probation and 600 hours of community service, but prosecutors had asked the judge overseeing his case to send him to prison for two years.

Now, the retired general will be spared such punishment.

Both General Cartwright and his lawyer, Gregory Craig, a former White House counsel to Mr. Obama, thanked the president in statements. “The president’s decision is wise and just, and it achieves the right result,” Mr. Craig said. “It allows General Cartwright to continue his life’s work — to serve, protect and defend the nation he loves. It allows the nation to continue to benefit from his vast experience and knowledge.”

General Cartwright left government in 2011. The leak investigation that ensnared him began in June 2012, when David E. Sanger, a reporter for The New York Times, published a book, “Confront and Conceal,” and an article in The Times that described Operation Olympic Games, an American-Israeli covert effort to sabotage Iranian nuclear centrifuges with a computer virus. F.B.I. agents came to believe that General Cartwright had also been a source for a February 2012 Newsweek article that discussed cyberattacks against Iran.

But when F.B.I. agents interviewed the retired general about the book and articles, he initially lied about his discussions with the journalists, according to a government sentencing memo.

The memo said the agents showed the general emails that contradicted his account, and he passed out and was hospitalized. Several days later, when the interview resumed, he changed his account of the discussions.

General Cartwright’s defense team has argued that he spoke with the reporters in order to shape stories they had already reported and to try to prevent publication of more damaging information. Prosecutors had cast doubt on that theory, arguing that he did not articulate this approach when they interviewed him.

But in a background briefing with reporters, a senior White House official said Mr. Obama had made his decision in part because of General Cartwright’s description of his motive, as well as because of a letter by Mr. Sanger saying that he had already learned about the program before speaking to the general and that the conversation with the general informed his thinking about which information to withhold.

In a statement, Mr. Sanger said he was “happy to see that President Obama has taken this step,” reiterating that he had had “many sources, from around the world” and that General Cartwright had “showed concern that information damaging to U.S. interests not be made public.”

Mr. Sanger added: “The Times has frequently said that stories like this one are critical to helping Americans understand how decisions on vital national security matters are made. Leak investigations have the effect of making people less willing to talk, and the result is often a loss for our democracy.”

In November, General Cartwright agreed to a plea deal to bring an end to the four-year investigation in which he pleaded guilty to misleading the F.B.I., but not to the unauthorized disclosure of information. At his plea hearing, he said that it was “wrong” to have misled the F.B.I. and that he accepted full responsibility.

(Read more at the New York Times)

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and Obama’s goose is cooked

The best two summaries of the situation can be found in Tim Poole’s Timcast (refer to the video below), the commentary by Jonathan Turley, and the article by the Wall Street Journal.

Then the former President complained about about General Flynn being let off of the charge of lying to the FBI

Obama blasts DOJ’s decision to drop Flynn case

MSN reports in a 10 May 2020 article how the former President complained after General Flynn had the charges dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Former President Obama in a private call with former members of his administration lambasted the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision this week to drop the charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed – about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said in an audio clip that was obtained and released by Yahoo News.

“And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic – not just institutional norms – but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk,” the former president said. “And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

Several people confirmed the comments made on the call obtained by Yahoo News to The New York Times, with one person telling the paper that Obama was in “quite the mood.”

Obama mislabeled Flynn’s charges; he wasn’t charged with perjury but rather with lying to the FBI. Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to federal agents about conversations he’d had with a Russian diplomat during the presidential transition.

But on Thursday, the DOJ moved to drop the charges against Flynn.

“I’m doing the law’s bidding. I’m doing my duty under the law, as I see it,” Attorney General William Barr told CBS News in an interview Thursday. Barr dismissed the notion that he dropped the case at President Trump’s behest, though Trump called the attorney general “a man of unbelievable credibility and courage” following the decision.

Obama’s comments are some of the harshest he’s levied against the Trump administration, as the former president has for the most part remained tight-lipped about most of the administration’s decisions.

On the private call, Obama also went after the White House’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

“It would have been bad even with the best of governments,” Obama said, referring to the pandemic that has killed 75,000 people in the U.S.

“It has been an absolute chaotic disaster when that mindset of ‘what’s in it for me’ and ‘to heck with everybody else’ … is operationalized in our government,” he added.

(Read more at the MSN)

These seem like the rants of a guilty person

For especially the reasons laid out by Professor Turley, these statements by Obama seem to be nothing less than an excuse for acts done in the dark.

Obama audio on General Flynn looks incriminating

The One America News Network reports on an audio tape purportedly revealing a conversation where Obama attacks the Trump presidency.

President Trump has sounded the alarm on what he’s referred to as “Obamagate.” The matter unraveled Sunday in a string of tweets re-posted by the president, which accuse former President Barack Obama of speaking against him.

The allegations stem from leaked audio files circulated online, which allegedly capture Obama during a private phone call with former White House staffers.

In the audio you can hear what’s believed to be Obama criticizing the Trump administration and then vowing to rally behind Joe Biden.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

Obamagate will be the thing that ties Russia, Ukraine, Obama, and Biden

Breitbart outlines some of the problems that come up with Obamagate.

President Donald Trump on Sunday repeatedly challenged former President Barack Obama for investigating him and his winning campaign before leaving office.

The president shared several messages on Twitter that criticized the ex-president.

“He got caught, OBAMAGATE!” Trump wrote.



Trump was triumphant after the Justice Department decided to drop the prosecution of his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. But the president was also angered at his predecessor.

Other anti-Obama memes the president shared noted “Watergate will look like a parking ticket!”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Jonathan Turley points out the problems with Obama’s arguments in the leaked recording

With a hat tip to the NWO Report and the Chris Salcedo Show, Jonathan Turley pointed out the logical and legal fallacies hidden in Obama’s reasoning.

The Obama statement is curious on various levels. First, the exhaustive search may have been hampered by the fact that Flynn was never charged with perjury. He was charged with a single count of false statements to a federal investigator under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I previously wrote that the Justice Department should move to dismiss the case due to recently disclosed evidence and thus I was supportive of the decision of Attorney General Bill Barr.

Second, there is ample precedent for this motion even though, as I noted in the column calling for this action, such dismissals are rare. There is a specific rule created for this purpose. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) states the government may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint “with leave of the court.” Moreover, such dismissals are tied to other rules mandating such action when there is evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or fundamental questions about the underlying case from the view of the prosecutors. I wrote recently about the serious concerns over the violation of Brady and standing court orders in the production and statements of the prosecutors in the case.

Third, there is also case law. In Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) which addressed precedent under Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960) dealing with the dangers of multiple prosecutions. There are also related cases in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121 (1959), and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187 (1959). The Rinaldi decision involved a petitioner convicted of state offenses arising out of a robbery, who believed that the government should have moved to dismiss a federal offense arising out of the same robbery under the Department’s Petite policy. The Court laid out the standard for such motions. The thrust of that controversy concerned double jeopardy and dual jurisdictions. However, the point was that the rule is key in protecting such constitutional principles and that courts should be deferential in such moves by the Department: “In light of the parallel purposes of the Government’s Petite policy and the fundamental constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, the federal courts should be receptive, not circumspect, when the Government seeks leave to implement that policy.”

There are also lower court decisions on this inherent authority. For example, in the D.C. Circuit (where the Flynn case was brought), the ruling in United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., No. 15-3016 (D.C. Cir. 2016) reaffirms the deference to prosecutors on such questions.

(Read more at Jonathan Turley)

If there is anyone who I would trust (outside of my own circle), it would be Jonathan Turley

The legal opinions of Professor Turley seem not to be affected for his preference for left-leaning candidates like Hillary Clinton; rather, they display only the affects of history and logic.

Tim Poole outlines the case for Obamagate in Timcast

The Wall Street Journal points to the mistakes in Obama’s references to Flynn

The Wall Street Journal points out how Obama made several mistakes in his reference to the Flynn case.

Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn. Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.

“There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association. The comments were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by Mr. Obama’s spokeswoman to the Washington Post and other outlets. Mr. Obama added: “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

Even discounting for Mr. Obama’s partisan audience, this gets the case willfully wrong. Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath in a legal proceeding. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.

As for “scot-free,” that better applies to former President Bill Clinton who lied under oath in a civil case and was impeached for perjury but was acquitted by the Senate. We understand why Mr. Obama wouldn’t bring that up.

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

This will not be the last of this, no matter how the press tries to cover it up

As much as the press will work to cover this up (and, considering how Chuck Todd deceptively edited the video of Bill Barr to make him sound like he was not applying the rule of law against Flynn, they will try to obfuscate and lie about the truth of Obama and his sedition.

Thirteen stories on Democrats doing what Democrats do best


Hating

  1. Texas Democrat doubles down on wishing Barack Obama had cancer

The Daily Caller points out one hypocritical Texas Democrat who seems to wish harm on the former president.

This comes with a hat tip to The Chris Salcedo Show.

Justin-LeceaDemocratic Texas congressional candidate Justin Lecea said he hopes former President Barack Obama gets cancer in a series of tweets posted Sunday night.

Lecea attempted to justify his ill-wishes towards the 44th president by calling Obama a war criminal, and citing his administration’s record on deportations and immigration enforcement.

“Y’all are defending a war criminal who was in authority during the deportation of over 3 million immigrants,” Lecea said in one of his tweets.

Lecea also attacked the former president’s record on climate change and health care.

“People are criticizing me for wishing cancer on Obama. I say that having lost a parent to brain cancer after 12 years of fighting, and getting to see just how terrible our Healthcare system is, and I still think he deserves it or worse,” Lecea said.
JustinLeceaTweet

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

I will admit that I did not support the policies of Barack Hussein Obama

I will admit that I opposed the policies of Barack Hussein Obama. I resented his intrusion into my health care costs where he promised to lower them and then increased them by multiples. Additionally, while I supported getting the US out of Iraq, I did not support the power vacuum he created (facilitating the creation of ISIS). Also, I stood against him on a number of other stances (such as the abandonment of Christians in the area of ISIS). Still, I did pray for the president.

In contrast, it seems that this Democrat wants to ingratiate himself to those who are hurting from the effects of the ACA and other Obama administration policies by wishing ill on the former president rather than suggesting ways to cure these ills. It seems that this puts him in the swampier part of both the Democrat and Republican parties.

  1. Driver in Florida plows van into GOP voter registration tent, nearly hitting 6 volunteers

Miami Fox affiliate WSVN reports on the man who drove into a GOP voter registration tent in Jacksonville, Florida. A video from Jacksonville independent station WJXT also covers the event.

A man in Florida is under arrest after he deliberately drove a van into a tent where voters were being registered by local Republicans, authorities in Jacksonville said Sunday.

William Loel TimmThe Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said via social media that 27-year-old Gregory William Loel Timm has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a person 65 years old or older, one count of criminal mischief and driving with a suspended license. The Republican party of Duval County said it had set up the tent on Saturday in order to register voters.

The county GOP said via Twitter that six volunteers for President Donald Trump’s campaign “were intentionally targeted while registering voters.”

Local media said there were no injuries.

“Kind of out of the blue, a man approached us in a van, was waving at us, kind of a friendly demeanor, thought he was coming up to talk to us, instead he accelerated his vehicle and plowed right into our tent, our tables,” volunteer Mark Alfieri told television station WJAX.

(Read more at WSVN)

Trying to run over 6 people due to their political persuasion might seem like a hate crime

Making a video (though he accidentally stopped making the video before the “good part”), stopping the van, making another video of the damage, and then speeding off certainly seems like a premeditated hate crime. An admission of “someone had to do it” and claiming allegiance to Antifa seems like relevant information. Why hasn’t the main stream media reported on any of this?

  1. Don’t let the media make you forget a Democrat just tried to run over Republicans in Jacksonville

The Red State also reports on the 27-year-old who drove into a Florida GOP voter registration tent.

Maybe you hadn’t heard or maybe you’ve already forgotten. You can’t be blamed for either.

On Saturday, 27-year-old Gregory Timm drove his car into a Republican voter registration tent in Jacksonville because “he did not like Donald Trump.” He was subsequently arrested at his home for his actions and luckily, no one was hurt.

Timm was open about what he was trying to do and why he did it. Even going so far as to show police officers a video he made just before he committed the crime, and even bragging to police that the “good part” was when it drove into the tent. The video actually cut out before that happened and Timm expressed disappointment.

For some reason, the police redacted the part of the report where Timm admits that he is a part of an organization, but many have guessed that the group he’s a part of is Antifa, as this kind of violence and destruction fits with their patterns.

It is currently unclear if he intended to hurt the volunteers at the tent or just run the tent down.

I tell you all this not to report on the crime, but to show you the lack of reporting on it. At this time, there hasn’t really been much media activity on it at all since Saturday. I don’t think I need to explain to you why, but I will anyway.

This was an attack by a leftist on right-leaning people who clearly supported Donald Trump. Despite the fact that people could have died or been seriously injured during the attack, the media has no interest in covering something so mundane as a bunch of Republicans in danger from a Democrat.

We all know that if the role was reversed, then this story would be plastered all over every working television screen you walked by. The media wouldn’t be able to stop talking about it. They would hold rallies and marches. They would put the people who worked the tent that got run over on television and radio as often as humanly possible. The narrative that would be cooked up would be that this is Trump’s America and that this kind of hatred and violence is only around because Orange Man fosters it.

The state of our media isn’t one where information is king, but agenda and narrative. There is a clear bias that prevents certain facts about the world around us from getting in. In fact, as a man who works in media myself, I can tell you that I see a lot of the mainstream media leaving stuff out more than it is putting stuff in.

This is one of those moments. At this time I’m watching as conservative outlets like RedState and the Washington Free Beacon report about it, but nothing from the mainstream media. At least as of this writing.

(Read more at the Red State)

JackPosobiecTweet
Josie80360617tweet

When did the police become the agency that redacted information about Antifa?

Why has the Jacksonville police department become the protectors of the violent faction of the Democrat party?

  1. Milwaukee teacher placed on leave for tweet about Limbaugh’s cancer

The Milwaukee Star Tribune reports in a 6 February 2020 article how a teacher has been placed on leave for applauding the cancer diagnosis of Rush Limbaugh.

This comes with a hat tip to The Chris Salcedo Show.

Travis Sarandos_tweet

A Milwaukee Public Schools teacher has been placed on leave after tweeting that it was “awesome” that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has cancer.

Travis SarandosThe district said English teacher Travis Sarandos was placed on leave Wednesday pending an investigation.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports Sarandos tweeted “limbaugh absolutely should have to suffer from cancer. it’s awesome that he’s dying, and hopefully it is as quick as it is painful.”

Sarandos has since deleted his Twitter account.

(Read more at the Milwaukee Star Tribune)

Although I am certain that Rush has thick skin and this poorly-thought-out comment may fall under free speech, this “man” should think about others

Since this comment was certainly not borne out of love, this “man” must certainly not have thought about the possible other audiences he might be addressing. Therefore, if he is allowed to continue his future in education, he might consider the following: he might consider the feelings of the suffering and of those who support the suffering. While he may have had his focus on someone who obviously affected this petty person, he did not consider the outside world.

Avoiding the truth

  1. Nancy Pelosi’s staff demands takedown of video of her SOTU tantrum

Breitbart reports in a 10 February 2020 article how Nancy Pelosi’e staff has called for the removal of the video that shows the people mentioned during the State of the Union speech which she destroyed.

A video shared by President Trump showing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tearing apart the State of the Union address has amassed over 18 million views on social media despite her allies’ efforts to convince platforms to remove it.

The video, posted by the president last week, shows Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union address and highlights memorable moments of the speech, such as Trump honoring 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman Gen. Charles McGee. It has now surpassed 11 million views on Twitter, 3.1 million views on Facebook, and 4.1 million views on Instagram:

The video, titled “Powerful American Stories Ripped To Shreds By Nancy Pelosi,” has drawn criticism from Democrats, who claim it is misleading:

“Researchers say the Pelosi video is an example of a ‘cheapfake’ video, one that has been altered but not with sophisticated AI like in a deepfake,” the Associated Press reported.

Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill asserted that the video was “deliberately designed to mislead and lie to the American people” and blasted social media platforms for failing to remove it.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This video does faithfully show a number of people honored in the State of the Union speech.

Because campaign commercials have used video compilations to illustrate the wide range of components within any particular subject, the idea that Freedom Fights cannot use images of each of the central honorees of the State of the Union speech while protesting San Fran Nan’s desecration of the historic copy of the speech flies in the face of reason.

Still, like the nuclear option and the concept of an impeachment without a crime, this obviously gives the next Republican Speaker of the House serving under a disagreeable Democrat president some new options.

  1. FACT CHECK: Do 2,900 Children Die From Gun Violence Every Year?

Fact checking group Check Your Fact countered a claim in a recent Michael Bloomberg advertisement that claimed that 2,900 children die annually from gun violence.

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg aired a Super Bowl ad that at one point said, “2,900 children die from gun violence every year.”

WATCH:

Verdict: False

The statistic includes the deaths of 18- and 19-year-olds who are legally considered adults in most U.S. states. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2013 to 2017, the time period used by the Bloomberg campaign, show there was an average of 1,499 gun deaths per year among children between the ages of 0 and 17.

Fact Check:

Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City, has so far spent more than $140 million on TV and digital advertising for his presidential bid, according to The Wall Street Journal. His campaign reportedly paid $10 million to air a 60-second advertisement during the Feb. 2 Super Bowl match-up between the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Francisco 49ers.

The ad features Calandrian Kemp discussing the death of her son, George Kemp Jr., who was shot and killed outside of Houston in 2013 at age 20. She praises Bloomberg for his efforts to implement more stringent gun control laws.

At one point, the ad shows a graphic saying, “2,900 children die from gun violence every year.” That figure, however, is misleading.

The statistic appears to come from a 2019 report by Everytown for Gun Safety, a Bloomberg-affiliated gun control nonprofit. It uses CDC data between the years of 2013 and 2017. But as the report clearly states in a June 2019 fact sheet, the figure includes 18- and 19-year-olds legally considered adults in most states, not just those considered children under the law.

When looking at the same CDC data for children ages zero through 17, the number of deaths by firearm (intentional and unintentional) drops to 1,499 per year. That figure is roughly 48% lower than the 2,900 deaths in Bloomberg’s ad.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Gifford’s Law Center, both nonprofits that advocate for gun control, reported roughly 1,500 children killed by gun violence per year for the same time period.

It’s important to note that both the CDC and Bloomberg campaign’s numbers include suicides, police shootings, accidental shootings and shootings that have an undetermined intent. These instances may or may not be counted depending upon which definition of gun violence is used.

(Read more at Check Your Fact)

 Then again, when have facts mattered to a Democrat when lies can be used to whip up hysteria?

As the Kavanaugh  and House impeachment hearings both illustrated, Democrats have shown a propensity to rest their cases on unfaithful witnesses. Rather than invest the time in vetting witnesses, Democrats recently have leaned on the tactic of building the pathos (emotion) of their argument while ignoring the logos (logic), ethos (ethics), and kronos (timing) of that argument. In this case, it seems that the ad-maker took the most compelling numbers on gun violence with children and then bumped it. In the case of the Kavanaugh hearings, Democrats took the word of Christine Blasey-Ford without checking to see if her testimony would stand cross-examination with her named witnesses [it didn’t]). In the case of the various permutations of the impeachment trial, the lack of credible witness testimony was best demonstrated when Representative Steve Scalise asked the panel of witness professors to identify any impeachable offenses or crimes committed by President Donald Trump and none did.

  1. CNN’s false fact check on Comey’s apparent leaking gets modified

The Daily Caller calls out a false fact check that was recently revised by CNN as a result of recent events.

ComeyAtPolConCNN issued a false fact check Thursday that said former FBI Director James Comey had never admitted to leaking sensitive information.

A couple of hours later, fact checker Daniel Dale revised the fact check to clarify that Trump had falsely claimed that Comey admitted to leaking in a May 2017 committee exchange with Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. The CNN Twitter post now reads: “Fact check: Trump falsely claims Comey admitted to leaking to Grassley (Clarification: the headline of this post has been updated to make clear that it is about what Comey said to Grassley.)”

The “fact check” came as a result of Trump’s post-impeachment acquittal speech to supporters and media Thursday in the East Room of the White House. Trump incorrectly recalled that Comey had first admitted to leaking information under cross-examination from Grassley during a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In fact, Comey had admitted during testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2017 to coordinating a leak of a memorandum that recorded his private conversation with President Donald Trump.

“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey said. “I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons.” The friend was later revealed to be Columbia law professor Daniel Richman.

But CNN’s initial fact check suggested Trump was lying in stating that Comey had ever admitted to leaking.

The network’s subsequent fact check clarified that Comey did not admit to leaking to Grassley. That is accurate, but the senator, who was then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was aware of Comey’s activities. Grassley wrote in a letter to then-deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, “If it’s true that Professor Richman had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

CNN, why not act like a reputable journalistic endeavor and print a retraction instead?

Rather than doing the dishonest thing of changing the record and pretending nothing happened, why not do what most main stream media outlets do? Why not print a retraction in only the print version of your publication, put it in agate print on the last page of your Want Ads section, and be done with it? That way, when you get caught, you can “honestly” say that there was a retraction.

Criminalizing those who deserve praise and protecting criminals

  1. NYC cops ‘declaring war’ on Mayor de Blasio, union says, following ‘assassination attempts’ on officers

Fox News reports in a 8 February 2020 article that New York City cops have decided to fight back against the anti-cop mayor.

police union says the men and women of New York City’s finest are now “declaring war” on Mayor Bill de Blasio following a pair of shootings targeting officers in the Bronx over the weekend.

The fiery rhetoric directed at the Big Apple’s Democrat leader — who has implemented several measures critics say are hostile to police – comes as the NYPD filed charges against suspect Robert Williams in both attacks.

“Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you!” the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote in a tweet. “We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you.

“NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you,” the tweet added. “This isn’t over, Game on!”

Police say Williams first ambushed two officers from the 41st Precinct on Saturday night, who had been sitting in a marked patrol van. One officer was wounded as a result of that attack when a bullet grazed his chin and neck.

Williams then walked into the precinct’s station house the next morning and opened fire with a 9mm handgun, injuring a lieutenant, police added. Only after running out of bullets did the 45-year-old Bronx native lay down on the ground and surrender.

The two officers wounded in the attacks have been treated and released from New York City hospitals.

Williams, meanwhile, has been charged with attempted murder, criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest.

De Blasio’s office ripped Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins on Monday, telling Fox News that his “comments are absolutely reprehensible.

(Read more at Fox News)

Take note of who really displays reprehensible behavior (that is, Bloomberg’s protege)

The person who has really exhibited reprehensible behavior would be the person who enjoys taxpayer-funded, continuous armed protection while:

  • Lobbying with Bloomberg’s group against our second amendment rights and
  • Telling his son not to trust the officers who provide this mayor with his protection.

  1. NYC police attacks are encouraged by de Blasio’s anti-police rhetoric

According to Fox News host Dean Cain, the attacks against police have been spurred on by the anti-police rhetoric of mayor De Blasio.

Actor and former reserve police officer Dean Cain said on Monday that the assassination attempts against New York City police officers over the weekend are due in part to anti-police rhetoric by Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Gov. Chris Cuomo.

“De Blasio and Cuomo are part of that problem,” Cain told “Outnumbered Overtime.”

“The rhetoric and the words coming out of [De Blasio’s] mouth have done nothing except for encouraging these sorts of attacks on police officers and it’s an absolute nightmare.”

Cain added that the mayor has no support among the NYPD’s rank-and-file.

“I spoke to officers this morning and the morale is horrible and the feeling is terrible,” Cain said.

Police say a man, identified as Robert Williams, carried out two attacks on officers in the Bronx fewer than 12 hours apart. Williams was taken into custody on Sunday morning after unloading his 9mm handgun on officers at the 41st precinct, wounding a lieutenant in his upper left arm.

The weekend attacks come amid rising tensions between the city’s 34,000-member force and the de Blasio administration, which has implemented several measures that critics say are hostile to police.

De Blasio oversaw the end of the stop and frisk policy, which gave beat cops wide latitude to detain and search people for weapons, made the Big Apple a sanctuary city and has slated the Rikers Island jail for closure. In addition, new criminal justice reforms passed by state lawmakers have effectively ended cash bail for a wide variety of criminal suspects.

(Read more at Fox News)

  1. Mike Bloomberg’s gun-control group just vastly outspent the NRA to help Democrats win in Virginia

CNBC reports in a 6 November 2019 article that Bloomberg’s gun control group has become the powerhouse behind the gun control effort in Virginia.

A gun-control lobbying group funded largely by billionaire Michael Bloomberg just helped Democrats take over the state government in Virginia – right in the National Rifle Association’s backyard.

In Tuesday’s elections, the Democrats tipped the Virginia House and Senate in their favor, giving them full control of the state government for the first time since 1994. The election had stronger-than-usual turnout in the suburbs, according to media reports.

While the results could be a good omen for Democrats’ chances in 2020, it may also be a tipping point in the money battle over gun rights. Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control advocacy group that the former New York mayor helps fund, spent $2.5 million this year to influence voters in Virginia versus approximately $300,000 by the NRA, which has its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.

“In the past, the NRA has had its way with lawmakers because it was considered powerful and wealthy, and that has dynamic changed drastically — even within the last year,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, which is part of Everytown.

The NRA, in a statement, said “Virginians are about to experience life under a distant tycoon’s thumb,” referring to Bloomberg.

“Candidates who proudly accepted Bloomberg’s cash — and every voter they misled — will soon realize the cost of being beholden to a Manhattan billionaire who despises Virginians’ right to self-defense,” the organization said.

Other issues, such as minimum wage and health care, were also a focus for voters in the election. But gun control was in the spotlight. Three in 4 voters rated gun policy, including mandatory background checks, a “very important” issue, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll. A mass shooting in Virginia Beach left a dozen dead earlier this year, while massacres in Ohio, Texas and California also emboldened groups calling for tougher gun laws.

Bloomberg helped found Everytown for Gun Safety in 2014 to “end gun violence and counter the Washington gun lobby.” The group put its focus beyond Congress, to bring attention to state elections and corporate boards, “fields of play formerly occupied almost solely by the gun lobby.” Bloomberg has pledged to spend at least $50 million to support the cause. The group now has 350,000 financial backers, though Bloomberg remains a major contributor.

(Read more at CNBC)

This seems to go against the wishes of most Virginians I know

Admittedly, my acquaintances tend toward the conservative side (go figure, since there is likely a large amount of confirmation bias between the tweets we share). Still, it does not seem that a Democrat who preaches against the electoral college would take the disproportionate representation afforded him by his investment in Everytown for Gun Safety.
ShannonRWattsTweet
DacheslowTweet

Then again, Buttigieg has always pushed for the elimination of the electoral college. However, when the system in Iowa gave him more delegates, he accepted them.

Being Racist

  1. Bloomberg heard in 2015 audio clip defending “stop and frisk” and telling cops to throw “minority kids against wall”

A 11 February 2020 Fox News article reports on the Bloomberg tape that recorded him defending the “stop and frisk” policy where he says he will send all his cops to minority neighborhoods and other racist gems.

A newly surfaced recording from a 2015 speech by Michael Bloomberg, in which the former three-term mayor of New York City gives a full-throated defense of the controversial policing procedure known as “stop and frisk,” is threatening to undermine the 2020 presidential candidate’s subsequent apologies for backing the policy and hurt his status with minority voters.

President Trump blasted his fellow New Yorker as the audio emerged, saying in a Tuesday morning tweet as the New Hampshire primary was getting underway: ‘”WOW, BLOOMBERG IS A TOTAL RACIST!” The tweet was later taken down, without explanation — but his campaign manager Brad Parscale soon afterward tweeted “#BloombergIsARacist,” next to a separate clip of Bloomberg complaining in a 2013 radio interview that police stop white people “too much” and minorities “too little.”

Parscale added in reference to the 2015 comments, “All the money in the world can’t undo this.”

In an audio clip of the 2015 speech Bloomberg gave to the Aspen Institute, the billionaire acknowledged that “stop and frisk” targeted minority “kids” whom cops must throw “up against the wall” to disarm. The Aspen Times reported at the time that Bloomberg representatives asked the Institute not to distribute footage of his appearance.

“Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” he said. “They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”

Bloomberg also said urban crime-fighting required cities to “spend the money” and “put a lot of cops in the streets,” particularly in “minority neighborhoods,” where he said the crime is. He also acknowledged the “unintended consequences” of the policy.

“So one of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods,” Bloomberg is heard saying on the recording. “Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them… And then they start… ‘Oh I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.”

(Read more at Fox News)

Sending police to high-crime areas must be supported; however, using race as probable cause cannot be supported

For a mayor to introduce a policy that calls for minority-community men and boys to be searched without probable cause shows how that mayor (Bloomberg) might display dictatorial tendencies. However, that may not come as a surprise to those who experienced Bloomberg’s  soft drink bans, high taxes on cigarettes, and other nanny-state programs. Additionally, like the Democrats who have taken part in the debates, Bloomberg has expressed an interest in funding health care for illegal aliens by heaping more taxes on those who work.

Shady dealings

  1. Iowa Democrat party chair calls for probe into caucus

One America News Network reports that the Iowa Democrat party has called for a probe into the caucus that took 3 days longer than usual.

The chair of the Iowa Democrat Party is calling for an independent investigation into what went wrong with the caucus this week. On Friday, Troy Price said while 100 percent of reporting has been achieved, delays and inconsistencies have hindered the final result.

Price added the review will take as long as needed.

“We will be undergoing an independent forensic review of the challenges that we saw on Monday night,” he said. “What went right, what went wrong, from start to finish, and what we can do better in the future.”

The Iowa Democrat Party will also give 2020 campaigns the chance to submit evidence of inconsistencies and file a request for a recanvass. Candidates will have until noon on Monday to submit discrepancy claims from the caucus results.

“This morning, we informed campaigns of two new steps over the coming days to ensure that the numbers we reported match the records from caucus night,” stated Price. “First, we are providing presidential campaigns the opportunity to submit evidence of data entry inaccuracies, and we will work to make necessary corrections.”

The chairman went on to say “the IDP will compare the reported numbers with the results from caucus night to ensure the integrity of their reporting.”

According to reports, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates and Sen. Bernie Sanders took 12 from the flawed Iowa caucus. Additionally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren walked away with eight delegates, former Vice President Joe Biden got six and Sen. Amy Klobuchar received one. The Iowa Democratic Party has yet to finalize those numbers.

The Associated Press calculated how the 40 delegates would be distributed, revealing an extra delegate yet to be claimed. Many believe it could be withheld due to the chaos surrounding the precincts’ reporting.

However, this may give Buttigieg and Sanders an opportunity to tie for the top spot. This would make quite the déjà vu for Sanders, who virtually tied with Hillary Clinton in Iowa in 2016.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

You know that the corruption is rife when Democrats ask to be investigated

When a Democrat asks to be investigated (as opposed to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz when Democrat computers were involved), you know that things are bad.

  1. Iowa Democrat Party: ‘Inconsistencies’ Found in Reporting of Caucus Results

Breitbart reports on the failure of the Iowa caucus.

The Iowa Democrat Party announced late Monday evening that it discovered “inconsistencies” in the reporting of three sets of caucus results as delays continue to plague the first-in-the-nation primary contest.

<“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report,” Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Mandy McClure said in a statement. “This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”

The development comes after officials announced they are doing “quality control” on the results prior to releasing them out of “an abundance of caution.”

As of 11:30 P.M. EST, final caucus results have not yet been confirmed. Previous races have been called between 8 P.M. EST and 10 P.M. EST.

The Biden campaign sent a letter to the Iowa Democrat Party regarding the delay, raising concerns about the “considerable flaws” in the reporting system.

“I write on behalf of the Biden for President Campaign regarding the considerable flaws in tonight’s Iowa Caucus reporting system. The app that was intended to relay Caucus results to the Party failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system likewise has failed,” wrote Biden campaign general counsel Dana Remus.”Now, we understand that Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically to the Party. These acute failures are occurring statewide.”

“We appreciate that you plan to brief the campaigns momentarily on these issues, and we plan to participate. However, we believe that the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released,” Remus added.

Iowa Democrats went to their precinct caucuses Monday to vote for their choice for the 2020 presidential race among a historically large field of candidates and no clear front-runner.

The caucuses officially begin the 2020 primary season, which will ultimately lead to party presidential nominations this summer.

Under Iowa’s Democrat Party caucus system, members gathered at 1,678 neighborhood locations across the state, or at one of 87 “satellite caucus” locations around the world, to cast a ballot for their choice for the Democratic nominee among 11 candidates.

(Read more at Breitbart)

23 stories that summarize the Democrat impeachment effort


  1. Jerry Nadler: If You Don’t Remove Trump, He Will Be a ‘Dictator’

Breitbart shows us that Jerry Nadler now believes that doing what Obama did has turned President Trump to dictatorial tendencies.

NadsHouse Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told the Senate during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on Friday that if it failed to remove Trump from office, he would become a “dictator.”

Nadler did not argue, as he did on the first day of the trial — before being rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts — that Senators would be voting “against the United States” if they voted not to remove the president.

He did, however, say that a vote to acquit Trump would remove all constraints on his power.

Other members of the team of House impeachment managers similarly argued that voting to acquit Trump would give all future presidents “veto power” over Congress.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Does a dictator do things not allowed by our constitution?

If Nadler’s definition of a dictator would be someone who ignores the constraints of our constitution, why didn’t he complain when Barack Obama 22 times said that he could not change immigration law by fiat and then wrote a memo establishing DACA?

  1. Pelosi gleefully reminds Trump he’s ‘impeached forever’ during appearance on Bill Maher show

As Fox News reported in a 19 January 2020 article, Pelosi gleefully reminded Trump he’s ‘impeached forever’ during appearance on Bill Maher show.

Not much seemed solemn or prayerful about Nancy Pelosi‘s appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday night.

In Maher’s return from a holiday hiatus, the House speaker spoke gleefully about her colleagues impeaching President Trump and doubled down on her Russian-charged attacks against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

After Maher pointed out that Pelosi was initially “rather reluctant” to move forward with impeachment and waited until “it was inevitable,” the California Democrat responded that Trump simply gave his critics in the House “no choice” in the matter.

(Read more at Fox News)

Yes, due to a partisan House, Trump has been impeached

Without a crime (since “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are not crimes), the Democrats voted to impeach Donald John Trump.

Likewise, since Bill Clinton lied in court and attempted to cover up his lies, but most Democrats circled the wagons around this president (calling it “personal sexual misconduct” rather than lying to court about the multiple indiscretions).

DoNothing

  1. Pelosi, Democrat congresswomen wear dark colors amid ‘somber’ impeachment vote

Fox News reported in an 18 December 2019 article how Pelosi suggested impeachment was a “somber” duty.

SanFranNanSomberHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic female lawmakers wore black and other dark colors on the day that House Democrats planned on exercising what the speaker described as Congress’ “solemn” impeachment power against President Trump.

Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., confirmed to Fox News that some members wore dark colors to mark the tone of impeachment.

“It was informal,” Dingell told Fox News of the coordination. “It’s a somber day.”

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., wore a dark navy pants suit with pinstripes. “I actually was curious whether there was going to be a dress code, but not that I’m aware of,” she told Fox News. She said she chose a dark suit for the significant occasion. “It was not a day for partisan colors or celebration. So I think a lot of us felt like it was a day for sober attire,” she said.

One of Pelosi’s colleagues also told CNN that several female Democrats intentionally wore all black in order to gesture that the day of the impeachment vote was a somber one.

Pelosi, along with Democrat Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, Donna Shalala from Florida, Robin Kelly from Illinois and Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon were all seen Wednesday wearing dark outfits. On top of Pelosi’s black dress was a golden pin of the Mace of the Republic — a symbol of the House of Representatives’ authority.

(Read more at Fox News)

PelosiHypocrisy

  1. One problem for Democrats: John Bolton praised Trump’s Ukraine call before getting fired

In a 29 January 2020 Breitbart article, we find that John Bolton praised Trump’s Ukraine call before he was fired.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton changed his tune on how he felt about the commander-in-chief’s July 25 call with his Ukrainian counterpart after he was fired from his White House post.

While Bolton claims he resigned in early September 2019, Trump said he fired him.

On August 27, 2019, Bolton described Trump’s July 25 phone conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) as “very warm and cordial calls” and acknowledged that corruption poses a significant problem for Ukraine.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Thankfully, John Bolton was not called by the House or Senate for testimony

In fact, Schiff did not submit a subpoena for Bolton’s testimony while the impeachment still ran in the House. Therefore, if Schiff really wanted the testimony, he should have fought for it while the impeachment was in the House.

  1. Adam Schiff Refuses Whistleblower, IG Transcript — After Demanding Witnesses, Documents

Breitbart reports in a 29 January 2020 article that Adam Schiff has refused a witness and a document after demanding witnesses and documents.

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) demanded that the Senate subpoena additional witnesses and documents Wednesday — after declaring that he would not reveal the “whistleblower.”

Schiff later said that he would not release the transcript of an interview with the Intelligence Committee Inspector General (ICIG) about the way in which the so-called “whistleblower’s” initial complaint was handled.

Schiff’s contradictory responses came in response to questions from Republican Senators in the question-and-answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial.

Schiff was first pinned down by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in a question about the standard or “abuse of power.” They asked a hypothetical about President Barack Obama asking for an investigation about one of then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s sons in 2012.

He used a familiar tactic of misquoting the Ukraine call transcript, saying, “Do me a favor.”

Schiff then declared that a president should never ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate a political rival.

White House lawyer Jay Sekulow pointed out later that was exactly what President Barack Obama’s DOJ did to then-candidate Donald Trump in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee with Schiff, noted the contradiction:

(Read more at Breitbart)

When it comes to Democrat accountability, there is none in this case.

Misquote (aka, lie), hide proofs (by not releasing the transcript concerning the creation of the “whistleblower” account), and contradict yourself — this seems to be the Democrat playbook.

  1. How Hunter Biden got his job at Burisma – “Who’s your daddy?”

daddy

  1. Going back to things that seemed to work

Senate-trial

  1. Democrats show their fixation on removing Trump with their 8th scheme

DemocratClearOffense

  1. When you have a case, you whisper and pound the facts. When you have no case, you shout and pound the table.

schiff_show-impeachment

  1. Having squandered the fact-finding portion of the Impeachment, Democrats demand the Senate abandon its jury role and take on the role of prosecutors

lev-rat

  1. Pelosi cartoonishly attempts to seem relevant by ripping the State of the Union address

As reported in The Hill, Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the State of the Union speech.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday ripped up her copy of President Trump‘s prepared remarks at the conclusion of his State of the Union address.

As Trump finished speaking and most lawmakers stood to applaud, Pelosi stood, took the printed copy of Trump’s speech and tore it in half. She placed the shredded copy in a stack on the dais as Trump made his way to greet members of Congress.

(Read more at The Hill)

To me, the blame does not spread

It seems that (like The Hill above) MSN wants to cover for her by blaming both sides (with a hat-tip to KommonSenseJane).

While MSN says that the president refused to shake her hand; however, from the view afforded by C-Span, it seemed that he only handed her a copy of the speech and may not have seen if she offered her hand. You might remember that last year, Pelosi did not introduce President Trump. Likewise, she also delayed the SOTU during that year. In 2018, Pelosi directed a snit fit display during the SOTU.

Hence, trying to paint both sides with the same brush comes up a little short with me

  1. Democrat leaders signal they won’t accept Trump acquittal as legitimate

Fox News reports the expected: Democrats will not accept President Trump as legitimate after he is acquitted.

Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump‘s impeachment proceedings that they’ll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his “sham” trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.

Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.

“The president’s acquittal will be meaningless,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, “because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. said Republicans may get what they want — a speedy end to the trial — but it won’t have any value.

“There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial,” Harris, a former White House hopeful, said Friday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who for weeks held onto the two articles of impeachment to try to force the Senate to commit to witnesses, said she won’t accept a not guilty verdict in the Senate as vindication.

“He will not be acquitted,” Pelosi said Thursday. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial, and you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and that.”

Pelosi has already been gloating that her House of Representatives gave Trump a black mark in the history books that can never be erased.

“You’re impeached forever,” Pelosi said with a big grin in an interview with HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.”

Democrats have hammered that without witnesses testifying, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, the Senate trial amounts to a cover-up.

(Read more at Fox News)

__

__

  1. Democrats’ 10 biggest lies in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial

Fox News provides a handy-dandy list of 10 fables (obviously greatly truncated) that the Democrats committed during their impeachment escapade.

Americans know the Democrats’ plan to impeach President Trump did not begin in September 2019. Rather, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitted herself, it has been going on for over two and a half years.

Unable to wrap their head around the idea that 60 million Americans disagreed with the socialist agenda propagated by the Democratic Party, Rep Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and many others began their plan to impeach President Trump the moment he was elected.

This entire impeachment sham has been a predetermined narrative full of lies and false accusations designed to divide America and harm President Trump.

It’s time to correct the record on Congressional Democrats’ ten most egregious impeachment lies.

Lie: This impeachment process began after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint through the proper channels within the Office of the Inspector General.

Fact: An article published on Oct 2, 2019, by the New York Times proved Schiff received an early account of the whistleblower’s complaint despite his persistent denial. This gave Democrats time to come up with an impeachment plan before any information was released to the public.

Lie: Democrats began the impeachment hearings out of concern for the country and the Constitution.

Fact: Time and time again Democrats have gone on the record proving their motivations for impeachment to be political.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas: “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this President, he will get reelected.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D-N.Y.: “[Impeaching Trump] is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome [in 2020].”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box.”

(Read the other 8 lies and proofs of those lies at Fox News)

  1. House Democrats: Steele Dossier was OK because we ‘purchased’ it

Breitbart reported how the party of genius (of the likes of AOC, Queen Sheila, and Hank Johnson) has expanded to include Hakeem Jeffries.

House impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told the Senate on Thursday that the so-called “Steele dossier” paid for by Democrats against then-candidate Donald Trump was not improper foreign interference in the 2016 election because they “purchased” it.

Jeffries was responding to a question from Republicans about Democrats’ argument that the president had invited improper foreign interference in U.S. elections by seeking, or being willing to accept, information from abroad on a potential political opponent.

The question asked: “Under the House managers’ standard, would the Steele dossier be considered as foreign interference in a U.S. election, a violation of the law, and/or an impeachable offense?”

Jeffries replied: “The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because, first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.”

He also referred to allegations about the dossier as a “conspiracy theory.”

The “dossier” was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, using a variety of foreign sources, including sources allegedly close to the Russian government.

A recent Department of Justice Inspector General report noted the FBI had found that the “Steele dossier” was false — but kept referring to it as legitimate in applications for renewals of surveillance warrants.

Steele had been working for the opposition firm Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS was initially paid by a Republican source who wanted to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination, but the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee later paid the firm, funneling money through the Perkins Coie law firm.

Earlier in the day, the second of two full days of questions and answers with House managers and White House lawyers, Jeffries had falsely accused White House lawyers of condoning foreign interference in U.S. elections, misquoting an answer from Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin from the night before.

All Philbin had done was quote the law, which is that accepting mere information is not a violation of campaign finance law.

White House lawyer Jay Sekulow pounced: “So — I guess you could buy? — this is what it sounds like — you can buy a foreign interference, if you purchase their opposition research, I guess it’s OK.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

From other sources, I understand that buying a false report from a foreign entity makes the deal illegal

From what I hear, the purchase by a presidential campaign (Hillary Clinton’s campaign) of a “dirty tricks” report from a foreign entity (Mr. Steele) constitutes an illegal act.

  1. ‘Profiles in Corruption’ Shows Democrats Are in No Position to Talk About ‘Abuse of Power’

Breitbart outlines the points in Profiles in Corruption that show how Democrats have abused power.

Revelations in the new book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite show that Democrats lack credibility in accusing President Donald Trump of “abuse of power,” the book’s author Peter Schweizer said in an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour.

Schweizer, the president of the Government Accountability Institute and a Breitbart News senior contributor, noted that one of the articles of impeachment in the current impeachment trial accuses President Trump of committing “abuse of power.”

“It’s funny, because the impeachment charges [include] abuse of power, which really is kind of a widely used term,” Schweizer stated. “That is also in the subtitle of the book, and we picked the subtitle eight months ago, before the trial even began, so it’s this happy strange coincidence. If you want to look for public officials who are making decisions and distorting the rules of government for the benefit of themselves — which is what they’re claiming Donald Trump did in this case — you are going to find multiple examples of the nine, I would argue, top progressives in the country doing exactly that.”

Schweizer began by sharing some findings related to former Vice President Joe Biden’s family’s business dealings.

“People are familiar with Biden stories as they relate to Hunter [Biden],” said Schweizer.  “The deals in China, the deals in Ukraine, but there are actually five members [of the Biden family] that have engaged in corrupt behavior — that cashed in — while [Joe Biden] was vice president of the United States, and self-enriched.”

Schweizer continued, “I’ve exposed a lot of Republicans, a lot of Democrats, liberals, conservatives, and the most I’ve ever seen before is three family members involved in an enterprise, so the Bidens have busted through that ceiling.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Schiff’s reaction when Trump’s legal team shredded his case

Townhall comments on the response of Adam Schiff to the counter-arguments on the impeachment case.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump’s defense team had the opportunity to poke holes in the House Democrats’ impeachment case. One of the topics the defense team instantly ran with was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) totally bogus narrative of what took place in Trump’s July 25th call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

According to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), when the defense team played the video of Schiff “reading” his version of the call transcript, “the blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face.”

“Today we heard a presentation that was strong and that was clear and it completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff,” Barrasso said following the hearing. “The most effective thing that happened was when they first read – this was when the president’s counsel first read the transcript of the phone call with the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine and then played the video of Adam Schiff with his fictionalized, made-up script.”

“From where I was sitting, and I know the press couldn’t see his face, but the blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face as they played that video and his made-up words,” Barrasso said.

(Read more at Townhall)

  1. Fact Check: Democrats Falsely Claim Philbin Said ‘Foreign Interference’ Is OK

Breitbart provides a fact check to the Democrat claim that Philbin said “foreign interference” was ok.

CLAIM: The White House believes that it’s OK to take information from a foreign country in an election.

VERDICT: FALSE. The White House merely argued that it was not illegal or a campaign finance violation.

Democrats — and journalists — have been misstating Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin’s reply to a question on Wednesday, the first day of questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, as if he said that it was all right, and legal, for foreign countries to interfere in our elections.

Philbin had been asked specifically if foreign information would violate campaign finance law. (Note that if mere foreign information were illegal, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee would have violated the law for paying vast sums of money for a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, to compile “information” (later found to be false) from his foreign sources, including official sources in Russia.)

The Deputy White House counsel then noted that Congress had made some kind of foreign involvement in elections illegal, but not all.

(He could have added: how many non-U.S. citizens work on Democrats’ campaigns? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a senior campaign staffer who is not even here legally.)

Philbin added: “there’s nothing wrong with listening.” He noted that the president had, in interviews, suggested that he might also approach the FBI after hearing the information, hypothetically, from abroad.

House manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) then claimed that the president’s counsel were saying it is “okay” to “seek or welcome foreign interference in our elections.”

Philbin was not asked about “foreign interference” in general, nor even about information from a foreign government. He was asked specifically about foreign information.

Nor did Philbin say say that it was “okay,” or that it wasn’t morally wrong. He was asked whether it was legal, and he said — correctly — that it was.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Sen. Joni Ernst Says White House Impeachment Counsel ‘Entirely Shredded The Case’ Against Trump

The Daily Caller reports on the comments by Senator Ernst after the impeachment councel first presented its case.

Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Saturday reacted to the White House counsel’s defense against impeaching President Donald Trump, saying they “shredded” the House managers’ case in just two hours.

“Within two hours I thought that the White House Counsel and their team entirely shredded the case that has been presented by the house managers,” Ernst said to reporters on Capitol Hill after listening to Trump’s lawyers.

The White House’s defense team had its first opportunity to deliver their opening arguments in the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate. The team has 24 hours over three days to make its arguments, but they might not use all 24 hours of their time.

Pat Cipollone, Michael Purpura, Patrick Philbin, and Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow all were in charge of laying out their defense during Saturday’s impeachment trial.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

  1. The Supreme Court justice who saved Obamacare by redefining it as a tax now blocks questions by Senator Rand Paul

Townhall reports on the question posed by Senator Paul.

During President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday night, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul submitted a question for Democrat impeachment managers. More specifically, for Congressman Adam Schiff. Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read it. From The Hill:

A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.

The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.

Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.

“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.

This morning Paul sent the question again, which Roberts again refused to read.

This prompted Senator Paul to post the question he planned to ask on his twitter page.

(Read more at Townhall)

  1. Rand Paul reads out his question naming alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella

The Washington Examiner details the question that Supreme Court Justice Roberts rejected to be posed in the Senate several times.

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an attempt by Sen. Rand Paul to name alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella in a written question during President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican, minutes later Thursday spoke to reporters and read the question Roberts refused to read aloud. “I can tell you that my question made no reference to any whistleblower or any kind of person or a complaint from a whistleblower. I will read you the question so it can be made part of the public record,” said Paul, 57.

“Manager Schiff and counselors for the president. Are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together?” Paul said. “Are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”

Paul justified his question, saying that it made no reference to the whistleblower.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

If we cannot face our accusers or even talk about them, do we still have an American justice system?

I don’t see what part Justice Roberts has in limiting the free speech of a senator. I don’t see how the rights of a whistleblower in this case require that the President cannot face his accuser (unlike when Johnny Franzese, Jr. testified against his mobster father, Sonny Franzese, he had to do it in open court).

  1. Rand Paul educates reporter on whistleblower protection

Townhall outlines how Senator Rand Paul educated a reporter on whistleblower protection.

On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to ask a question about two partisan Democrats who reportedly conspired to impeach the president before formal impeachment proceedings even began in the House. During a phase in the impeachment trial designed to allow senators to ask questions, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Rand’s question because it contained the name of the partisan Democrat who has reportedly been identified as the whistleblower responsible for this entire impeachment sham. Robert’s refusal to read Rand’s question over concern of outing the alleged whistleblower only bolsters evidence that the partisan Democrat named in Rand’s question is indeed the actual whistleblower.

People who don’t know anything about the Whistleblower Protection Act immediately began calling for Senator Rand Paul to be arrested. Even members of the media act as if a person conspiring to bring down a duly elected president by plotting with the president’s political enemies, and reportedly lying about it under oath, is entitled to complete anonymity and must answer no more than zero follow-up questions about their cockamamie scheme. Sen. Paul was forced to educate such a reporter after she falsely claimed that it was illegal for anyone ever to out a whistleblower.

“Actually,” the senator began, “you got that wrong, too. You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you are really interested in the news, is the whistleblower is actually a material witness completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden … at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month, so the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time. Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There’s a lot of questions the whistleblower needs to answer.”

(Read more at Townhall)

Thanks to Senator Paul for defining the details of the Whistleblower Protection Act

Sadly for the Democrats, except when we are standing before the House of Representatives, we have the right to face our accuser. Furthermore, outside of the House, when there are answers that must be answered regarding an accusation, we need to hear from the accuser (or we need to abandon the accusations).

  1. Adam Schiff: Trump could sell Alaska to Russia in exchange for election help if ‘abuse of power is not impeachable’

The Washington Examiner reported the words of Adam Schiff in his last-ditch attempt to derail justice.

Rep. Adam Schiff insinuated that President Trump could sell Alaska to the Russians in exchange for electoral support if acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial for abuse of power.

While delivering his concluding remarks in the trial on Monday, Schiff, 59, lambasted the president’s legal team for asserting that abuse of power does not fall under “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Schiff argued that if such a defense holds, then Trump could commit a variety of corrupt acts without consequence.

“If abuse of power is not impeachable … Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war,” the California Democrat said on the Senate floor.

“Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached for such abuses of power. Of course, this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous,” he affirmed.

Alan Derschowitz, a Harvard law professor on Trump’s impeachment defense team, argued that the articles of impeachment levied against the president do not fall under the Constitution’s criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors. Derschowitz claimed that the House’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles are so broad that they would have led to the impeachment of many presidents, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Oddly, Mr. Schiff did not bring this up when Obama was caught on a live microphone

When Obama told Russian president Medvedev, “I’ll be more flexible after the election.” In that action, Obama pulled back the missile protection from Poland and left them vulnerable to Russia. Schiff never called Obama on that.

  1. Schiff alienates the Senate

Townhall provided a commentary through a 24 Janary 2020 article describing how Adam Schiff guaranteed the failure of the impeachment effort.

Despite a warning from the Senate sergeant-at-arms for senators to remain silent as the Democratic impeachment managers laid out their case against the president, a so-called quote read by lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) elicited several responses from Republican senators Friday evening.

Rep. Schiff was referencing a CBS news report claiming a Trump ally had warned GOP senators, “vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” But many senators responded to Rep. Schiff, saying aloud, “That’s not true.”


The lead impeachment manager seems to have alienated some of the very senators the Democrats were hoping to peel away from the Republican majority on important votes like calling forward new witnesses and subpoenaing documents.

(Read more at Townhall)

So does this make Schiff an effective impeachment derailer or an idiot?

Does this make Schiff an genius in his efforts to derail the impeachment or an idiot in his bumbling attempts to advance an impeachment he in fact sabotageed?

Five stories on the March for Life


  1. Trump becomes first President to attend March For Life: ‘Every person is worth protecting’

The Daily Caller reported in a 24 January 2020 article on the historic speech by President Trump.

Trump-speaks-at-march-for-life-President Donald Trump became the first U.S. president to attend the annual March For Life on Friday, telling the crowd that he believes “every person is worth protecting.”

Hundreds of thousands of people gather every year in Washington, DC for the march in opposition to abortion. Vice President Mike Pence has attended the march in the past and Trump has addressed the rally goers in video messages, but this is the first year that the president attended in person.

“It is my profound honor to be the first president in history to attend the March for Life!” Trump told the crowd. “We’re here for a very simple reason — to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential.”

“Every life brings love into this world,” Trump said. “Every person is worth protecting.”

Trump knocked several Democrats during his speech for their pro-abortion comments, particularly Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who suggested that mothers and doctors should be allowed to kill children shortly after they are born.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said during an interview last year.

Trump has implemented several pro-life policies since taking office, including declaring that taxpayer funds can no longer be used for abortion referrals under Title X. Planned Parenthood opted out of Title X program funding rather than stop referring women for abortions.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Better than the common defense “you may be aborting the person to cure cancer”

Better than the worthless-until-proven posit, President Trump’s suggestion that all people (even those born with disabilities or those who stutter — like San Fran Nan) have the image of God upon them (for those who were schooled under the tutelage of nuns, that would be the imago dei).

  1. Lifezette also reports on Trump’s historic speech

In a 24 January 2020 article, Livezette reported on the speech by President Trump at the March for Life.

Fox News reports that from laymen to leaders, conservative and pro-life Christians are showing up at Friday’s DC pro-life March for Life in droves.

Many of them are no doubt encouraged and thrilled at the scheduled appearance of President Donald Trump.

Trump is the first U.S. president to ever address the rally in person.

Heather Childers
Heather Childers

Appearing on “Fox & Friends: First” with host Heather Childers, March for Life president Jeanne Mancini said that President Trump has “absolutely put his money where his mouth is” on pro-life issues.

Their own words speak volumes as to their commitment to this cause.

“Inviting wonderful Evangelical leaders like … Pastor David Platt from McLean Bible Church, Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family, to participate is one small way we do this. We want to do everything possible to welcome pro-life people of all faiths to the March for Life,” said march organizer Jeanne Mancini.

The march began in 1974 as mainly a Roman Catholic event. It has expanded to include all faiths.

(Read more at Livezette)

A first ignored by the main stream media

While the main stream media focuses on the third impeachment of a president (mind you, the first to be impeached without being charged with a crime), they ignore the first time a sitting president speaks to the March for Life.

  1. Exclusive: Mike Pence’s daughter, Charlotte Pence explains why being Pro-Life is Pro-Woman

The Daily Caller reported in a 24 January 2020 article on the words of Charlotte Pense.

Charlotte Pence Bond
Charlotte Pence Bond

Charlotte Pence Bond, author and the daughter of Vice President Mike Pence sat down with the Daily Caller’s Stephanie Hamill for a wide-ranging interview on her views of the pro-life movement.

Bond explained to the Caller why she’s a supporter of the pro-life movement and why she believes being pro-life is actually pro-woman.

“The pro-choice movement isn’t pro-women, I think it’s ultimately sending a message of defeat, I think it’s giving women a choice, but really they’re not given a choice, they’re told what to do,” said Bond.

She also gave reaction to President Donald Trump speaking at the March For Life rally in Washington D.C. on Friday.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

It’s a good thing that the press never idolizes the children of politicians

In this case, the press barely gave Mrs. Bond the time of day. It’s a good thing that people like Chelsea Clinton or Meghan McCain don’t get a special consideration by the press (and especially not for any far-left positions held).

  1. Thousands of college students will travel up to 24 hours on a bus for this DC protest

The Daily Caller also reported in a 21 January 2020 article on the thousands of college students who traveled up to 24 hours on bus to attend the march.

prolifestudents51College students throughout the United States will take bus trips up to 24 hours long as they head to the nation’s capital to “bring awareness to the horrors of abortion and the beauty of life.”

Many college students who are preparing to go to the March for Life on Friday face at least a full day of traveling on a packed bus for a short trip — but they said they could not be more excited.

The Daily Caller News Foundation spoke with students and leaders at Christian colleges and universities across the country who described how students are willing to make sacrifices and take initiative to make sure they get to the 47th annual March for Life.

(Read cases from four colleges at the Daily Caller)

The last time I heard “college” it seems I also heard “liberal”

The last time I heard about a college, I remember hearing the words “socialist,” “liberal,” and other such words. However, this report (like the report posted in early January) provides significant hope. Thank God (and I do mean it)!

  1. Flashback: March For Life Defeats Obama Administration In Court

In a flashback to 2015, the Daily Caller points out how the Obama administration lost to the March for Life.

Obama-vs-SupremeA federal court prohibited the Obama administration from forcing a pro-life nonprofit to insure “abortion-inducing” contraceptives Monday, in what is the first exemption from the mandate granted to a secular organization.

March for Life, which holds a pro-life rally every January in Washington, D.C., filed suit against three federal agencies last year, demanding an exemption from the mandate. It requires employers to provide insurance coverage for 20 FDA-approved contraceptives at no extra cost to the employee — including birth control pills March for Life and other pro-lifers believe are a form of abortion.

A D.C. District Court sided with March for Life Monday, signaling organizations that are not overtly religious can be exempted from the mandate, in addition to those which fall under a religious exemption put in place.

“If the purpose of the religious employer exemption is, as HHS states, to respect the anti-abortifacient tenets of an employment relationship, then it makes no rational sense-indeed, no sense whatsoever to deny March for Life that same respect,” the decision states.

The Obama administration formulated the religious exemption after a decisive defeat last year in a case against Hobby Lobby. Religious employers can exempted if they notify the Department of Health and Human Services or their insurance providers that they have religious objections to birth control coverage.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Least any of you forget the strong dictatorial tendencies of the last socialist-leaning administration

Christians must forgive; however, for us to learn from history, we must also not forget the past while we forgive the people. Remember the letter to the Ephesians:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12 NASB)

Six stories on Biden idiocy


  1. Joe Biden Links President Donald Trump to KKK in Sermon to Black Church

Breitbart reports in a 19 January 2020 article that, when speaking at a Black church, Joe Biden associated Donald Trump to the KKK.

BidenLiesToChurchFormer Vice President Joe Biden linked President Donald Trump to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in a sermon on Sunday in a black church in South Carolina on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

“We can defeat this moment of hate. … This president and his — the Ku Klux Klans and the rest of them, they think they’ve beaten us again. But they have no idea — we’re just coming back. God love you all,” Biden told the Bethlehem Baptist Church in Columbia, South Carolina.

In a halting speech, Biden also repeated the false claim that President Donald Trump had referred to white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville as “very fine people” in August 2017.

“They asked the president what he thought, and he said, ‘There are very fine people on both sides’,” Biden claimed.

In fact, Trump specifically condemned those groups, as the transcript of his remarks reveals.

Trump had praised non-violent protesters on either side of the removal of a Confederate statue as “very fine people,” contrasting them with violent rioters, and saying neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be “condemned totally.”

BidensMisquoteOfTrump

(Read more at Breitbart)

This causes me to ask two questions. Biden, why smear President Trump with lies? Christians, why applaud pandering?

Why should a former Vice President stoop to lying about his competition? Unless his accomplishments are so dubious, why lie and smear?

Additionally, to the Christians in the audience at that church, why did you clap? Didn’t you realize that Joe Biden was lying to you?

  1. Biden Campaign Video Features Ukrainian Activist Who Said Hunter ‘Did A Very Bad Thing’

The Daily Caller fills us in on the Biden campaign video that shows a Ukrainian activist who implicated Hunter Biden.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign released a video Tuesday that quoted a Ukrainian anti-corruption activist who said in 2019 that Hunter Biden “did a very bad thing” by working for Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings.

The campaign released the video, narrated by rapid response director Andrew Bates, in order to push back on Trump allies’ allegations that Biden pressured the Ukrainian government in 2016 to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin in order to shut down an investigation of Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a director.

The video quoted Daria Kaleniuk, an activist with the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, criticizing Shokin as maintaining a “Soviet system of prosecution which intimidates people.”

But the Biden campaign appears to have overlooked another target of Kaleniuk’s scrutiny.

“I think Hunter Biden did a very bad thing and he was very wrong. He allowed his name to be abused,” she told ABC News in an interview that aired June 20, 2019.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Maybe this constitutes an attempt to get in front of the Burisma accusations

If Joe Biden has decided to use this as his means of answering the Burisma problem, he has some additional problems coming. As you will see by reading the articles on Frank Biden, James Biden, and others — greed ran rife in Biden circles (but, experience, not so much).

  1. Joe Biden Says ICE Shouldn’t Deport Drunk-Driving Illegal Aliens

The Daily Caller details how Uncle Joe wants to coddle drunk illegals rather than hold them to the law non-politicians must obey.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Monday that he would not allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to deport illegal aliens who get caught drunk driving.

Biden said during a 2020 election forum with Vice News that if he wins the presidency he will issue an executive order that only allows ICE agents to deport individuals who have committed felonies — “and I don’t consider drunk driving a felony,” Biden clarified.

“I would hold ICE agents accountable if in fact they stepped over my executive orders, which is no arrest of any kind outside of the schools,” Biden said. “You know, look at the — one of the things that’s happening is, particularly for the latino and hispanic kids, is the incredible pressure on them in terms of their sense of security.”

“You change the culture by saying, ‘you’re gonna get fired.’ ‘You’re fired,’ if in fact you do that,” the Democratic presidential candidate explained. “You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that’s committed, and I don’t consider drunk driving as a felony.”

10,497 people died in drunk driving related car accidents in 2016, according to the Center for Disease Control, which accounts for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the U.S. States issue a variety of different penalties for drunk driving, ranging from fines to jail time to license suspension.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This should not come as a surprise. Democrats support criminals, not American victims

Considering that angel parents have never been able to get an audience with Democrats, this desire of Joe to decriminalize drunk driving should come as no surprise. Additionally, considering the fact that Trump (not Obama) created the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office, nobody should expect Democrats to start supporting Americans over criminals.

As previously blogged at this site, Pelosi and other Democrat representatives have refused to see angel moms and angel dads who came to first Ms. Pelosi’s office and then to other offices. Since the Democrats have laser-focused their gaze on impeachment, they will not consider concepts that could be considered Republican (even through they are really just topics of common concern).

Joe Biden spreads money to Frank Biden, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and others

  1. NY Post: ‘Profiles in Corruption’ Reveals How the ‘Biden Five’ Made Millions Off Joe Biden Connections

Breitbart summarizes a report by the New York Post where we find that the “Biden Five” made millions from the connections created by Joe Biden’s political position.

BidenProfilesInCorruptionFive family members of former Vice President Joe Biden have scored “sweetheart deals” and “favorable access” thanks to their connection to the 2020 Democrat White House candidate, reveals the forthcoming investigative book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite by five-time New York Times bestselling author and Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer.

The New York Post reports:

The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment involves no less than five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie.

When this subject came up in 2019, Biden declared, “I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”

As we will see, this is far from the case…

Joe Biden’s younger brother, James, has been an integral part of the family political machine from the earliest days when he served as finance chair of Joe’s 1972 Senate campaign, and the two have remained quite close. After Joe joined the U.S. Senate, he would bring his brother James along on congressional delegation trips to places like Ireland, Rome and Africa.

When Joe became vice president, James was a welcomed guest at the White House, securing invitations to such important functions as a state dinner in 2011 and the visit of Pope Francis in 2015. Sometimes, James’ White House visits dovetailed with his overseas business dealings, and his commercial opportunities flourished during his brother’s tenure as vice president.

(Read more at Breitbart)

When I first heard that Hunter Biden earned millions per year without experience, I wondered what percent went to his dad

The first time that I heard of the millions Hunter made without experience, I wondered what percentage of the money was going from the drug-addled son to the power-hungry dad. When I heard of the threats Joe made against the Ukrainian government, I was sure of the money flow.

How much better it is to get wisdom than gold

Solomon reminds us of the central importance of a knowledge of God when he worked as the conduit for God’s Word and the book of Proverbs.

How much better it is to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen above silver. (Proverbs 16:16 NASB)

  1. Joe Biden’s brother Frank linked to projects receiving $54,000,000 in taxpayer loans from the Obama administration—despite no experience

Breitbart reports in a 20 January 2020 article that Frank Biden received $54 million in loans from the Obama administration (despite a total lack of experience.

Frank-Biden
Frank Biden

Frank Biden, the youngest brother of former Vice President Joe Biden, saw his business interests benefit from millions of dollars in taxpayer loans to Caribbean nations during the Obama years.

The extensive overlap in Frank Biden’s dealings and Obama-Biden foreign policy in Central America is exposed in Peter Schweizer’s new book—Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite.

Frank Biden first set his sights on the region in 2009, as the Obama administration began to repair the U.S. relationship with Costa Rica. Tensions between the two countries flared under President George W. Bush, most notably on how to deal with drug trafficking.

When President Barack Obama entered the White House, he set out to mend fences in the region in hopes of inaugurating a new era of global cooperation. Leading the charge on that front was Joe Biden, who had long standing ties to the region from his tenure leading the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Shortly after the new administration took office, Frank Biden began scouting real estate opportunities in Costa Rica. A lawyer by training, Frank was undeterred by his lack of background in international development and decades old legal troubles at home.

As Schweizer notes, despite the professional and personal handicaps, business opportunities were plentiful for Frank, especially after his brother paid a visit to the country.

“Just months after Vice President [Joe] Biden’s visit, in August, Costa Rica News announced a new multilateral partnership “to reform Real Estate in Latin America” between Frank Biden, a developer named Craig Williamson, and the Guanacaste Country Club, a newly planned resort,” Schweizer writes in his book, a copy of which was exclusively obtained by Breitbart News.

The venture—officially sold to investors and the public as an opportunity to protect Costa Rica’s “breathtaking beauty”—amounted to little more than decimating the country’s natural wilderness to build a luxurious resort for wealthy foreigners.

(Read more at Breitbart)

In the second out of the series of five, there are many commonalities with the Hunter/Burisma case

Just as with Hunter’s case, Frank Biden got this high-paying position because Joe Biden was the Vice President of the United States. Never mind that Frank had no experience in development. Never mind that Costa Rica was pushing to get on the good side of the United States government.

So, based on nothing but the Biden name (and Joe’s link to the Obama administration), Frank was able rake in $54 million in U.S. taxpayer-financed loans.

  1. James Biden’s Firm Got $1.5 Billion in Government Contracts Despite Zero Experience

Breitbart reports in a 20 January 2020 article on how James Biden got $1.5 million in government contracts without any experience.

JamesBiden
James Biden

A firm employing James Biden, the younger brother of former Vice President Joe Biden, received more than $1.5 billion in government-backed contracts during the Obama administration.

The dovetailing of James Biden’s professional life with his brother’s political influence is extensively detailed in Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elitea new book by Peter Schweizer, senior contributor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI).

In 2010, shortly after a disastrous attempt at running a hedge fund with his nephew Hunter, James Biden entered the construction and international development industry. Even though he lacked background in either, James secured a position as executive vice president at the newly formed HillStone International, LLC. The firm, which was a subsidiary of the long struggling Hill International, was unique for a multitude of reasons.

“The president of HillStone International was Kevin Justice, who grew up in Delaware and was a longtime Biden family friend,” Schweizer writes in his book. “He was friends with lots of Bidens, especially Joe’s sons Hunter and Beau.”

Under Justice’s leadership, the company was setting out to pursue technology and construction projects in the Middle East. Of particular interest to the company were the millions being given to government contractors for the rebuilding of war-torn Iraq—an endeavor Joe Biden was tasked to oversee by President Barack Obama.

It was likely with such projects in mind that Justice headed to the White House in November 2010. During the visit, the HillStone executive met with Michele Smith, a top aide to then-Vice President Joe Biden. Smith, a fellow Delaware native, was serving as the vice president’s liaison to “global government officials and business executives.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

The broken record skips to the same old few tracks again – Biden, no experience, money

In geometry, we only need two points to draw a line. These three points (out of a claimed five) point toward corruption in the Biden family.

If Hunter, Frank, and James Biden all benefited financially when Joe Biden came into a high governmental job, then we might have good reason to think that Joe Biden and the rest have become corrupted.

Three stories on how Soros made inroads to groups who are mostly conservative


  1. Soros-Linked group gets six GOP governors to resettle more refugees

Breitbart reports in a 11 January 2020 article that Soros has found a way to bend some GOP members.

GeorgeSoros
G. Soros

A pro-mass immigration organization with links to billionaire George Soros has successfully lobbied six Republican governors to resettle more refugees in their states.

For Fiscal Year 2020, President Donald Trump will continue cutting refugee admissions by reducing former President Barack Obama’s refugee inflow by at least 80 percent. This reduction would mean a maximum of 18,000 refugees can be resettled in the U.S. between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020. This is merely a numerical limit and not a goal federal officials are supposed to reach.

Coupled with the refugee reduction, Trump signed an executive order that gives localities, counties, and states veto power over whether they want to resettle refugees in their communities.

JennyYang
Jenny Yang, World Relief

Executives at World Relief and the Evangelical Immigration Table — an organization with links to the Soros-funded National Immigration Forum — have been lobbying governors across the country to bring more refugees to their states. So far, six Republican governors have signed off to resettle refugees in their states, including North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey.

The New York Times notes:

Jenny Yang, vice president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical agency whose work includes resettlement, has been steering an effort to lobby governors to keep their states open to refugees. [Emphasis added]

She said about 16 governors have submitted written consent, six of them Republicans. Gov. Doug Ducey, Republican of Arizona, agreed after receiving a letter supporting resettlement signed by 250 evangelical leaders. Gov. Greg Abbott, Republican of Texas, who leads the state that received the most refugees last year, has not yet offered his view, despite a plea from the mayor of Fort Worth to continue accepting refugees. [Emphasis added]

Refugee contractors, like the Lutheran Social Services organization, have deployed a campaign to get mayors, local officials, and governors to admit more refugees to their states. Those contractors’ budgets every year are reliant on ensuring that as many refugees are resettled across the U.S. as possible.

It remains unclear which six Republican governors, aside from Burgum and Ducey, have been successfully lobbied by the Soros-linked group.

This week, the Evangelical Immigration Table sent letters to the governors of California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin to ask them to bring refugees to their states.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Regarding the quote from the NYT, Governor Abbott has declined refugees

Texas side-step: First to decline refugees, utilize Trump order

I am glad to reference a OneNewsNow to show how Texas Governor Abbott took President Trump’s invitation to refuse the importation of additional refugees.

Texas has become the first state to opt out of resettling refugees via a new order signed by President Donald Trump –giving states the freedom to accept or decline new refugees.

GovernorAbbott
Governor Abbott

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) notified the Trump administration of his choice for his state to forgo participating in the federal government’s refugee resettlement program for the 2020 fiscal year because Texas already has enough issues to contend with.

“Texas cannot consent to initial refugee resettlement,” Abbot wrote Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a letter TheBlaze obtained on Friday.

He said United States citizens in need – along with existing immigrants in Texas – should take precedence over new arrivals from abroad.

“In addition to accepting refugees all these years, Texas has been left by Congress to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system,” Abbot added. “[T]he state and nonprofit organizations have a responsibility to dedicate available resources to those who are already here, including refugees, migrants and the homeless – indeed, all Texans.”

He then stressed how his choice to opt out does not preclude any refugees from entering the U.S. – nor does it keep them from moving to the Lone Star State in the future after settling in a different state.

States know best

Last year, Trump issued an executive order that requires states to confirm in writing their desire to opt in to the refugee resettlement program administered by the federal government.

“In resettling refugees into American communities, it is the policy of the United States to cooperate and consult with State and local governments, to take into account the preferences of State governments, and to provide a pathway for refugees to become self-sufficient,” the White House announced in its order in September.” These policies support each other. Close cooperation with State and local governments ensures that refugees are resettled in communities that are eager and equipped to support their successful integration into American society and the labor force.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

God bless Governor Abbott

You cannot know how much I thank God for his leadership.

When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan. (Proverbs 29:2 NASB)

  1. Article by Pulpit and Pen shows link between Soros and two Southern Baptist Convention organizations

Pulpit and Pen reported in a 30 September 2019 article how two organizations headed by Russell Moore and Jim Wallis seem to have links to George Soros.

RussellMoore
Russell Moore

As many might already know, Russell Moore and Jim Wallis run the Evangelical Immigration Table for George Soros, who founded and funded their open borders ministry organization. Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the SBC. What you might not know is that the recent “whistleblower report” against Donald Trump was provoked by the evangelical Left’s best friend, George Soros.

According to One News Now

An investigative journalism group funded by leftist billionaire George Soros is reportedly responsible for sections of the whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump that allege he put pressure on Ukraine’s president to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s son for political gain.

In fact, Breitbart first tied the whistleblower report to Soros. According to Aaron Klein of Breitbart, “Even though the statement was written in first person – ‘multiple U.S. officials told me’ – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).”

The OCCRP, according to World Net Daily, had Soros’ Open Societies Foundation as its second-largest donor (in some years OSF has been its largest donor). In other words, it has the same financial backing as the SBC’s and ERLC’s Evangelical Immigration Table.

World Net Daily has pointed out that the “OCCRP is cited in a key section of the complaint that claims Ukrainian officials followed up on Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate allegations of corruption by then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who was receiving $50,000 monthly from a natural gas company despite having no experience in the industry.”

The SBC has been weaponized against Donald Trump for the upcoming 2020 election. Lifeway recently released a poll sponsored by the ERLC that alleged (laughably) that evangelical voters care more about “racial justice” than abortion and that they want their politicians to be nicer (an obvious “dig” on the POTUS). ERLC research fellows like Thomas Kidd are daily attacking Trump in social media. The SBC president, JD Greear, recently commended Christians who vote Democrat. Many SBC leaders have been begging evangelicals to stop being loyal to the Republican Party.

(Read more at Pulpit and Pen)

There are those who deny the reports offered by Breitbart

If you read Baptiat Press or SBC Voices, you will see strong denunciations of these reports and the reporters. However, what you will not see is anything to counter the arguments put forward by Breitbart or OneNewsNow.

Additionally, if you expand your review of the information at hand to include input from an 18 April 2018 post at Janet Mefferd Today, you will find more proofs of the cooperation between the government, Russell Moore’s groups, and rich atheists.

Sadly, the more the same message comes from unrelated groups, the more that message becomes corroborated. Although I celebrate the truth, I mourn the fact that some who purport to stand for Christ would stand in a lie.

  1. Jim Wallis, progressive ‘cleric,’ tortures the Bible to promote intolerant Islam

Breitbart points out through a 13 September 2015 article how Wallis bent the Bible to try to convince Christians to support Islam.

JimWallis
Jim Wallis

Jim Wallis, the far-left founder of Sojourner Magazine and beneficiary of George Soros donations who has built a career out of subverting constitutional liberty in America by quoting the Bible out of context, is at it again.

In his latest effort in transparent left-wing propaganda, Wallis extends his love for open borders from the huge populations of Middle East and Africa to the United States to all of Europe.

At The Huffington Post, the self-proclaimed “Christian leader for social change,” preaches to both sides of the Atlantic. “In Europe and in the U.S. — we must welcome the stranger,” he writes.

In the United States, that means, Wallis—acting in his capacity as a self proclaimed divine prophet on earth—commands us to open our borders to illegal aliens from every country on earth.

His command to European countries is clear: They “must welcome … between 360,000 and 500,000 [Syrian] refugees.”

But several evangelical leaders are calling Wallis out for his distortions of the Bible that promote a left-wing “pseudo-Christian” theocracy.

“It is curious to me that these refugees are almost entirely Islamic even though Christians are the ones in most mortal danger by Islamists,” Kelly Monroe Kullberg, founder of the Veritas Forum and author of Finding God at Harvard, tells Breitbart News. “The ‘refugees’ are not mostly sweet children, but adult Muslim males who are unscreened,” she said, adding  Islamizing America [and Europe] is cultural injustice and suicide, not stewardship, beauty and progress.”

“Hijrah (pronounced: Hish-ra) is the Muslim doctrine of migration to spread Islam throughout the world,” Kullberg says. “By the Hijrah,” Kullberg explains, “ Europe and America are to be conquered demographically as well as politically. This strategy appears in the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Memorandum” on “civilization jihad” of 1991 and elsewhere.”

“At this point, it should not be a secret unknown to us. The vast majority of sensible human beings do not want to leave Sharia law to their grandchildren. We do not want the USA to become the ISA, their goal of an Islamic States of America,” Kullberg, who founded the ad hoc group Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, says.

Wallis reverts to form by citing a Bible verse out of context to justify his recommendation that European countries sacrifice their sovereignty to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, many of them likely supports of Sharia and the Islamization of Europe.

“Matthew 25 teaches us that how we welcome the stranger into our midst is literally how we treat Christ himself. So the response by Christians here and in Europe must become more in line with the welcoming tone of hospitality called for by Pope Francis,” Wallis writes at the Huffington Post.

Mark Tooley, President of the Institute of Religion and Democracy, has seen Wallis try this trick before. “As usual, Jim Wallis asserts that public policy can be decided by a few out of context Bible verses that affirm politics of the Left,” Tooley tells Breitbart News.

“So immigration policy is all about Matthew 25 and Christian hospitality, with skeptics of open borders motivated only by bigotry and greed,” Tooley says of Wallis’s argument. “This view is simplistic and sanctimonious,” Tooley says.

“The Bible doesn’t articulate details of modern immigration law. And Christians can extend love and generosity for refugees without obligation to open national borders to whomever,” Tooley notes.

Kullberg also criticizes Wallis for presenting false theology as political propaganda.

“In the actual Bible, we find teachings about kindness to the well-meaning foreigner who comes lawfully as a blessing and convert, such as Ruth or Rahab. Jesus himself highlights the good Samaritan, to be honored,” she says.

“We also find in Scripture the book of Nehemiah (the Left is silent about this book), about a Godly leader leading Israel in the project of rebuilding the walls around Jerusalem to cultivate the good and protect the people from harmful foreigners. God does not call us to cultural suicide, but only to wise welcome. Breaking down boundaries for foreign faiths and customs was not a commandment, but a curse,” Kullberg notes.

Wallis goes beyond citing Matthew 25 out of context in his latest Huffington Post article. This time, he resorts to flim-flammery that would make that fictional religious con man Elmer Gantry blush.

“Yesterday, in that spirit and in recognition of the pope’s impending visit, a broad coalition of allies representing both secular and religious organizations released a Unity Statement, rededicating ourselves to the fight to pass comprehensive immigration reform. We are calling for a national day of prayer for immigrant families, Congress, and for our nation to take place on Sept. 24, in conjunction with the pope’s visit,” he writes.

Wallis disingenuously fails to inform readers that the press conference held by this “broad coalition of allies representing both secular and religious organizations” was organized by a highly partisan left-wing group, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, that is founded, led, and funded by LaRaza and the SEIU.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Odd that a secular Breitbart would be more Biblical than “spiritual” Sojourner

The fact that a secular Breitbart would correctly report on the Biblical texts when a “spiritual” Sojourner founder would twist those texts speaks to the high levels of journalistic integrity at Breitbart.

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.

Nancy Pelosi calls President Trump “a coward” & then invokes God


Nancy Pelosi calls President Trump a coward & then invokes God

As reported by Yahoo News on 6 December 2019, Nancy Pelosi reacted violently to a question from James Rosen of Sinclair News. Possibly in response to the observed Trump Derangement Syndrome observed by the reporter, that reporter asked, “Do you hate President Trump?” In response, the following came:

SanFranNanI think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence.

I think he is cruel when he doesn’t deal with helping our “Dreamers.” I think he’s in denial about the climate crisis. However, that is about the election. Take it up in the election. This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office.

As a Catholic, I resent you using the word “hate” in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.

So she says that she does not hate; however, what do her actions say?

First, take the actions within this presser

Even if we limit our attention to this presser, we see that she called the President a “coward” for not accepting gun control measures. In truth, no gun control law has made people more safe (otherwise, Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the nation — rather than one of the leading murder capitals). Therefore, her calling the President a “coward” was nothing but an empty insult.

Regarding empty insults, Jesus said (but the emphasis is mine):

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘ You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matthew 5:22 NASB)

In addition to endangering herself of fiery hell by assigning an empty insult to the President, Ms. Pelosi went on to mix in several lies. First, she accused him of cruelty regarding “our Dreamers.” The problem is that the last President originally repeatedly said that he could not change immigration law. Then he changed it by executive fiat (also known as abuse of power). No laws were passed to accommodate this new class of non-citizens (although Trump offered a deal that the Democrats and Pelosi rejected). Hence, she cannot honestly claim that Trump alone has acted cruelly toward the Dreamers.

Regarding the third accusation by Pelosi (on how Trump has been denying climate change), since AOC’s Chief of Staff admitted that their climate change initiative was only introduced as a means to introduce socialism, we can all afford to deny “climate change” or “global smarming” or whatever junk science name Democrats decide to assign to their smoke and mirrors.

Consider her actions for and against the powerless

By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I primarily speak of the unborn. Her side calls them “fetuses” and uses other euphemisms. However, more to the point, her party has recently promoted full-term abortion. And though we cannot blame her for the over 45 million babies killed in the US between 1973 and 2015, Democrats cannot be held blameless. Therefore, for Pelosi to claim her Catholic faith while not renouncing her commitment to abortion means denying the core of the following Biblical mandates:

You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; (Exodus 22:22‭-‬23 NASB)

You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan. (Psalms 10:14 NASB)

A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His holy habitation. God makes a home for the lonely; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity, Only the rebellious dwell in a parched land. (Psalms 68:5‭-‬6 NASB)

The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked. (Psalms 146:9 NASB)

Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. (Proverbs 31:8‭-‬9 NASB)

Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NASB)

Honor widows who are widows indeed; (1 Timothy 5:3 NASB)

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27 NASB)

but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NASB)

By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I also could be talking about her lack of action in support of the poor of America. That is, the people who the Democrats have forgotten in their headlong rush to accommodate illegal aliens. Admittedly, while we will always have poor in America, opportunities for the poor have reduced with the Democrat’s drive to aid the illegal aliens through sanctuary cities, Democrat policies, and other initiatives.

In the current context of her presser, I might also refer to the President the United States of America. As soon as the Democrats voted for the impeachment procedures, we knew that:

Consider her position as a Democrat

The Democrats — the party who booed God and removed reference to Him from their party platform — this is the party that Nancy Pelosi leads. Therefore, this is the party that might have some Christian influence were she as much of a Christian as she claims. In her position in the “party of the “nones” and the party whose most recent President sued religious organizations to force them to violate their consciences — she could make a difference.

That is, she could make a difference if she were a true follower of the Church.

Give the devil his due, she does make one right references

Pelosi does correctly note that Christians should pray for their leaders, for we are told:

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1‭-‬2 NASB)

However, as we know of Satan when he came to tempt Jesus, he came misquoting and then ignoring the central points to scripture (Mark 4:1-11).

PelosiOnAbortionAdditionally, while we know that Christians are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), we also know that faith without works is worthless (James 2:18-26). Therefore, Nancy Pelosi’s proclamation of Christian love, prayer, and faith without any proof of it within her professional life seems pretty useless.

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.

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


NYT and New York district investigate Rudy rather than real corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Daily Caller)

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

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

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

Could it be due to the media bias favoring Democrats?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

So what else is new?

Hunter Biden To Step Down From Board Of Chinese Firm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Daily Caller)

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

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

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

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

13 months of impeachment hopes from Comey

NYTwits declare: Comey would like to help with impeachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the New York Times)

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

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

Maybe this is how Schiff avoided talking directly with the leakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

I support every effort to expose the corruption of the Democrats

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Transcript as Follows:

“My fellow Americans…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our infrastructure is crumbling, gun violence is an epidemic.

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

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

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

In many cases, his policies have made things worse.

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Breitbart)

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

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

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

I hope you do, Chuckie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Townhall)

Nothing goes together like lies and Schiff

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

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read more at Fox News)

Sunlight disinfects. Get this out for all to see.

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