Monthly Archives: October 2019

This Obviously Did Not Go As Planned

Posted on by

Theoretically a lawyer interrogating a witness is never supposed to ask a question that he doesn’t already know the answer to. Asking a question you don’t know the answer to can lead to all sorts of bad things. Adam Schiff is a lawyer–he should know that. Well, evidently he had a moment when he forgot that principle.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about the testimony before the basement committee being run by Adam Schiff. Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s Senior Director for European Affairs, was testifying. Mr. Morrison was in on the call, so he is not a hearsay witness.

This is the quote from the testimony from CBS News:

I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation (“MemCont’) of the July 25 phone call that was released by the White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the NSC Legal Advisor’s Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.

It is interesting that Mr. Morrison understood that the contents of the call would be twisted and used for political purposes. He was right. At this point I would also like to note that it is very likely that Joe Biden’s son was not the only relative of an American politician tied up in Ukrainian oil corruption. I suspect that as more information comes out about Ukrainian corruption we will see other names we recognize.

 

What Is Going On Behind The Curtain

Posted on by

The circus in Washington just gets worse. Today the House of Representatives voted to conduct an investigation without allowing the defendant his constitutional rights. However, a closer look at what is going on provides some clues to a larger scheme.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article the provides some insight into what is actually happening.

The article reports:

The House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry resolution would officially authorize probes into U.S. President Donald Trump that are unrelated to the Ukraine-linked allegations that triggered the investigation to impeach him, including efforts to obtain the commander in chief’s tax returns.

Unveiled on Tuesday, the text of the resolution states that the measure orders “certain committees” to continue investigating whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach Trump and “for other purposes,” without explaining what those purposes are.

In other words, the resolution, expected to be voted on this week, would authorize any ongoing Trump investigations under the sun. The measure is expansive, breathing new life into a wide range of non-Ukraine probes, including an ongoing investigation by the House Judiciary Committee into whether Trump paid money to silence sexual affairs accusations.

In other words, they are redoing the Mueller investigation with Adam Schiff in charge. As Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police, once said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” That is exactly opposite from the way the American justice system is supposed to work, but unfortunately the House of Representatives has decided to ignore the principles behind the American justice system.

I can easily predict what is going to happen. The Democrats are going to demand that President Trump release his tax returns for the past 10 years or so. The President is going to refuse. This will then go to court. It will be tied up in court until after the 2020 election. In the meantime, the Democrats will accuse the President of obstructing justice. How many of the tax returns have we seen of Congressmen who entered Congress with an average net worth and are now millionaires? The vote on impeachment is garbage, and those voting for the investigation need to be investigated.

The Charade Continues

Posted on by

Byron York posted an article at The Washington Examiner today titled, “The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.” So what is he talking about? The bill before the House of Representatives today takes the impeachment inquiry out of the hands of the Judicial Committee (where it has traditionally been) and places it in the hands of the Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff.

The article reports:

The resolution gives Rep. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, far-reaching power over the Trump impeachment proceedings. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the ultimate authority, of course, but, like a chairman of the board choosing a chief executive officer, she has picked Schiff to run the show. And in the resolution, Democrats will give him near-total control.

The first thing the resolution will do is give the impeachment investigation to the Intelligence Committee. Until now, three committees — Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs — have been conducting impeachment interviews. Going forward, Oversight and Foreign Affairs will be out of the interview picture in favor of Intelligence.

Among other things, that would mean that some Republicans who have been persistent critics of the process but who have been allowed into depositions by virtue of their membership in other participating committees — two examples are Oversight Committee members Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows — will no longer be allowed in the interview room.

“It’s totally one-sided,” Meadows told me Wednesday evening. “They can continue to do secret depositions. They have noticed depositions for John Bolton and others next week in anticipation of a positive vote Thursday. All it does is limit the committees that will be involved in the depositions.”

Any Congressman who votes for this travesty needs to be voted out of office in 2020.

The article continues:

The resolution would also give Schiff the authority to call and conduct public hearings on impeachment. Schiff will control the witnesses. Although there has been some discussion about whether Republicans will have the right to call witnesses, the resolution only gives the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Community, Rep. Devin Nunes, the right to ask Schiff to call a witness.

“To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation,” the resolution says. “Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witnesses to the investigation.” Republicans will get nothing that Schiff does not approve.

“There’s no guarantee we can call any witnesses,” said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup, a member of the Intelligence Committee, in an interview Wednesday.

“The rules the Democrats rammed through simply confirm the absolute control Schiff has been exercising this entire time,” Nunes said. “He shouldn’t be involved in impeachment at all since none of this has any intelligence component, but Pelosi obviously thinks Nadler is incompetent.”

This process totally ignores the rights of a defendant guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. It is really sad that the political hotheads in the Democrat party have brought us to this place.

A Very Interesting Group Of Connections

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about some interesting connections that Colonel Alexander Vindman, Adam Schiff’s recent impeachment witness has.

The article notes:

Then last night, Obama’s former Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul jumped in with Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney on anyone who called Vindman out for spying on President Trump in the White House. NBC reported –

Michael McFaul, a former ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration, praised Vindman in a tweet Monday night and called the attacks on the witness “shameful.”

“I served with Lt. Colonel Vindman in Moscow,” McFaul wrote. “Vindman is a patriot, who has served his country with honor and distinction, both on and off the battlefield. He was an absolutely first-rate military attache at the embassy, one of the best on the team.”

The fact that Vindman is connected to McFaul is alarming.  McFaul was one of the first to attack President Trump’s attorney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for investigating Ukrainian corruption involved in the Russia collusion scam.  During his work, Rudy identified the crimes committed by the Bidens in their pay-for-play scam in the Ukraine.

…Perhaps the most shocking observation of McFaul is related to his invitation in front of Congress at a Foreign Affairs Committee. Pictures of the event are telling, not necessarily because of McFaul, but rather because of the individual he has sitting directly behind him, Natalia Veselnitskaya.

McFaul’s Congressional hearing occurred eight days after the now famous Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump Jr. This meeting resulted in Donald Jr. being interrogated for hours by Congress over his meeting with Veselnitskaya.

Veselnitskaya, who attended a Women’s March in Chicago, the day after President Trump was inaugurated, has denied any connections with the Kremlin. She is now famous for the following –

Veselnitskaya met with Donald Jr. during the 2016 presidential election campaign after a promise to deliver damaging opposition research that would prove Hillary Clinton’s collusion with the Russian government.

Donald Jr. has admitted no such research was obtained and that the meeting was essentially fruitless.

What is more shocking is that Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, before and after her meeting with Donald Jr. Fusion is the firm behind the phony Trump-Russia dossier that was never confirmed and very possibly all made up but nevertheless was used by Obama’s Deep State to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on President Trump.

Vindman is also connected to Glenn Simpson.  Vindman was in Eurasia, specializing in Russian affairs, at the same region as Glenn Simpson, who was also specializing in Russian affairs was there, as well as Christopher Steele, who was also specializing in Russian affairs at the time. 

Wow. The connections between those attempting to change the election results of 2016 are simply amazing.

This Really Isn’t News To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

The New York Post posted an article today about some recent comments by forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, New York City’s former chief medical examiner, about the death of Jeffrey Epstein.

The article reports:

“I think that the evidence points toward homicide rather than suicide,” Baden insisted on Fox News Wednesday.

“The brother (Mark Epstein) is concerned that if [Epstein] was murdered, then other people who have information might be at risk,” Baden insisted, suggesting powerful players may have been involved in the death.

“If they think he has information, his life could be in jeopardy.”

Baden said there were signs of “unusual” activity “from day one” of the autopsy, saying the wounds were “more consistent with ligature homicidal strangulation.”

The article also notes some rather strange circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein:

Baden noted two fractures on either side of Epstein’s larynx, and one on the hyoid bone, above the moneyman’s Adam’s apple.

“Hanging does not cause these broken bones and homicide does,” he insisted on Fox. “A huge amount of pressure was applied.”

Baden also called for federal prosecutors to release the findings from DNA samples.

 “They took fingernail clippings to see if there’s anybody else’s DNA on it and that hasn’t been released, neither has information about whose DNA is on the ligature out of torn strips of orange sheets,” he said.

“Whoever made it has to have a lot of DNA on it and the brother has been asking for that from day one.”

He also questioned the supposed “total breakdown in security,” with the “extremely unlikely” coincidences of two guards falling asleep while video cameras in Epstein’s cell and hallway were also not working.

I suspect this is not the last we will hear about this. Hopefully the truth will be revealed eventually.

The Impact Of Common Core On Education

Posted on by

By 2014, 45 states and the District of Columbia were using the Common Core standards as the basis for the public education of their children. So what has been the impact of Common Core?

U.S. News & World Report posted an article today with the headline, “Across the Board, Scores Drop in Math and Reading for U.S. Students.” So what is going on in our schools?

On October 26th, the website Lady Liberty 1885 posted an article that might give us a clue as to what has gone wrong.

The article included a form to allow teachers to make a “social, emotional and behavioral assessment” of each student.

This is the form:

No wonder to test scores are sinking–the teachers are too busy evaluating the emotional condition of students and filling out forms. Look at some of the items on this form–they are very subjective. If something about a student makes a teacher uneasy or vice versa, will the form be filled out objectively? Who gets to see this form? Does the form follow the student all the way through school? If a student has a bad year, does it follow him into the next year?

The article at Lady Liberty 1885 sums up the situation as follows:

Let’s Recap

So, for those keeping score:

    • A letter about the assessment dated Oct. 18 to parents went out to some students but not all at our schools. The letter did not name the assessment.
    • I got a copy of the letter from another parent at our school on Oct. 23 but had not received one for our child yet.
    • On Oct. 24, the day after I received the copy of the letter and started asking questions, a copy of the Oct. 18 letter magically was given out to my son’s class.
    • Only when I received the opt-out form did I learn the name of the assessment, which is the BIMAS-2.
    • So far, I am being denied my rights as a parent to inspect this tool.
    • No one at my child’s school can show me the tool because no one has access to this behavioral screening tool, not even the principal. This begs the question: how is this second period teacher even rating the kids?
    • According to the principal at my son’s school, only the district communications director, Tim Simmons, can discuss this tool with parents. I have emailed Mr. Simmons directly and have not received a reply yet.

None of what I just enumerated is remotely OK.

WCPSS’ tactic of using district-wide dragnet to pull all students into this experiment is not OK either.

If the district wants to make this tool available to families who may have an at-risk student, great, go ahead and do that, but make it OPT-IN.

This district, and in particular the WCPSS School Board, has a proven track record of running right over the top of parents and it has to stop. Parents have been an afterthought if we are even considered at all. We should be the first thought.

Children belong to their parents and what starts with parents changes everything.

The article at U.S. News & World Report notes:

Most concerning, she (Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics) said, was that compared to 2017, the scores of lower performing students declined in three of the four grade-subject combinations and those drops are what accounted for the overall drop in average scores.

“The distributions are pulling apart, with the bottom dropping faster,” Carr said. “It’s not clear what’s happening here, but it is clear and it’s consistent.”

“The fact that students who need to make the most academic progress are instead making no progress or are falling further behind is extremely troubling,” Tonya Matthews, vice chairwoman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP, said in a statement. “We need to see all students make progress.”

Carr said the score drops cannot be traced to any one specific student subgroup, as almost all of them logged declines. For example, black, Hispanic, Native American and white students in fourth and eighth grades scored lower in reading in 2019 compared to 2017.

“They are generally all declining,” she said. “So we can’t say it’s due to changes and shifts in the populations.”

Carr said that she’d love to be able to more fully analyze all the subgroup data they collect, but her team is strapped for resources. She encouraged other researchers to dig deeper.

How about we go back to the teaching methods that worked in the past? We can get our  curriculum from Minnesota and Massachusetts who have traditionally ranked high in both mathematics and language. Common Core has been a failed experiment that has cheated our children out of the education they need. It has also been a way to force social programs on our children that are an invasion into the privacy of parents and have a detrimental impact on the family unit. It is time to go back to basics. It wasn’t broken–you shouldn’t have tried to fix it!

So That’s What They Were Up To!

Posted on by

I wondered what was going on when I heard that Nancy Pelosi was going to take a vote in the House on impeachment. That doesn’t make sense–it forces Representatives in swing districts to go on the record on an issue their constituents do not support. It would also allow the President to call witnesses and to cross examine witnesses. Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article explaining what is going on. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article–it is complicated and includes a lot of lawyer concepts.

The article notes:

On Thursday of this week Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an “Official House Inquiry”.  Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a “House resolution on impeachment”. 

Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”.  The resolution is currently being written by Lawfare. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.

This is a House vote to show support for Pelosi’s previous unilateral decree.   Right now the rules committee is adding language to the resolution that will provide additional one-sided support for a completely partisan process: “and for other purposes”.

Note in this video, Pelosi is careful to say “this is not an impeachment resolution”:

…It is not an “impeachment resolution”, it is a resolution to support the already existing “impeachment inquiry”. Pelosi and the Lawfare crew are playing games.

Additionally, notice that like Pelosi, Chairman Schiff is careful not to use the words “impeachment investigation”, but rather says “impeachment inquiry”.

This is the money quote:

The rules for an “impeachment investigation” would provide rights for the minority and also rights for the Executive branch.

So instead of having a House vote to authorize an impeachment investigation, with subsequent rights for the minority; they are having a House vote to affirm the “impeachment inquiry” with an entirely different set of House rules that do not include rights for the minority.

It’s all smoke and  mirrors, folks.

Holding The Media Responsible

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart reported that a federal judge has reversed his previous ruling and allowed Covington Catholic pro-life student Nick Sandmann to proceed with his defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post.

The article reports:

Judge William O. Bertelsman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, a Jimmy Carter appointee, partially reversed his previous ruling in which he dismissed Sandmann’s $275 million lawsuit. The reversal will permit the Covington student’s lawsuit to proceed, reported LifeSiteNews.

Following the March for Life in Washington, DC, in January, many media outlets alleged a video depicted Sandmann, wearing a red “Make American Great Again” cap, and fellow students from Covington Catholic High School, as intimidating Native American activist Nathan Phillips near the Lincoln Memorial.

As Breitbart News reported, Sandmann “became the focus of the anti-Trump media” as an extended video and additional in-person reports of the confrontation showed it was Phillips who had intimidated Sandmann while the teen and his fellow classmates were simply performing school cheers as a group of Black Hebrew Israelites shouted racist insults.

The article concludes:

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said in a statement to Breitbart News that, each day, her organization “defends the free speech rights of students to stand for life in public in what is supposed to be a free society.”

She continued:

The mistreatment of students as they attended the March for Life should offend all Americans who believe that each of us is protected when we act on our own consciences. It’s a good thing when a judge decides to respect students’ rights to be heard and to be seen with respect.

“As someone who works every day to defend the rights and needs of mothers and their preborn children, I know that the media often ignores and mischaracterizes pro-life Americans,” Hawkins added. “But our system of justice should protect the rights and freedoms of Americans who stand for the weakest among us, those whose life exists in the womb and who don’t have a voice or a vote.”

Hopefully the courts will hold the media for their total mischaracterization of the Covington High School students.

Telling The Story Behind The Story

Posted on by

There is a new book that is going to be released today. The book is titled, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History.” The book is written by Lee Smith, an investigative reporter.

There is an article posted at The Federalist which details some of the information in the book.

The article notes:

AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed. It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.

Hillary Clinton’s communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.

Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump’s inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two weeks before.

The email is posted in the article.

The article also notes:

Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump’s illicit relationship with the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped “that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia.”

The outgoing president was in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss everything from NATO to Vladimir Putin. Obama said that he’d “delivered a clear and forceful message” to the Russian president about “meddling with elections . . . and we will respond appropriately if and when we see this happening.”

After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out.

The book credits Devin Nunes with figuring out what was going on and beginning to look into the scandal. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. It is an amazing timeline detailing what was actually going on in the waning days of the Obama administration and the beginning of the Trump administration.

This Could Be Very Good News For The Rule Of Law

Posted on by

Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line Blog yesterday about a new development in the court case involving General Flynn.

The article reports:

Judge Emmet Sullivan reportedly has cancelled a November hearing he had scheduled in the case of Gen. Michael Flynn. Judge Sullivan said he is cancelling the hearing “in view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material.” In other words, he has all the argumentation he needs to rule on this motion.

In this post, John discussed and embedded Flynn’s reply brief in support of that motion, filed by Sidney Powell. He described the evidence presented by Powell on Flynn’s behalf as “bombshells.” I think that’s a fair characterization.

The cancellation of oral argument tells us that Judge Sullivan is ready to rule, but not what his ruling will be. I understand, though, that Gen. Flynn’s legal team considers today’s order by Sullivan good news. Its comprehensive discussion of prosecutorial abuse in this matter stands unrebutted.

Sidney Powell has done an amazing job for General Flynn. She has uncovered evidence that indicates prosecutorial abuse and other unusual happenings in the charges brought against him. Hopefully the charges against him will be dropped, and those responsible will be forced to pay restitution. It is a sad day in America when an innocent man who has devoted his life to serving his country loses his house in his battle to prove his innocence. Restitution should be required–not by the taxpayers, but by the members of the Mueller team who violated General Flynn’s civil rights.

Success Often Breeds Success

Posted on by

When President Trump campaigned for President, he said he wanted to redo America’s trade deals and bring manufacturing back to America. He has renegotiated the trade deals. Congress has yet to approve the deal with Mexico and Canada, but a lot of manufacturing has returned to America. The Washington Times posted an article today about public opinion of President Trump’s trade policies.

The article reports:

“Bipartisan consensus has emerged that foreign trade is good,” wrote Gallup senior analyst Lydia Saad. “Americans’ broad view of trade is the most positive it has been in more than a quarter-century.

…“Both Republicans and Democrats have become more positive about trade over this period of improving economic conditions,” she noted. “However, support for trade among both groups jumped sharply after Trump took office in 2017.”

The 2019 poll numbers now reveal:

• 70% of Americans say trade with other nations has a positive effect on “innovation and development of new products.”

• 67% say international trade has a positive effect on U.S. economic growth.

• 63% say trade has a positive effect on American businesses,

• 58% say trade has a positive effect of the quality of products.

• 51% say trade has a positive effect on jobs for U.S. workers.

I wonder if the positive results of President Trump’s policies will be reflected in the 2020 election.

 

 

 

I Guess This Is One Way To Deal With The Problem Of Farting Cows

Posted on by

The environmentalist seem very concerned about the problem of farting cows. Somehow they fail to mention that the cow population has actually decreased since 2014 (article here). However, they are sincerely interested in taking away our steak dinners.

Breitbart posted an article yesterday about the latest plan to deal with farting cows.

The article reports:

Ermias Kebreab, an zoology professor at the University of California–Davis, led a team in producing a bovine meal regimen containing varying levels of Asparagopsis armata, a strain of red seaweed, and fed it to 12 dairy cows over a two-month period. In a mix containing just 1 percent seaweed, the cows’ methane emissions went down by a stunning 60 percent.

“In all the years that I’ve worked in this area, I’ve never seen anything that reduced it that much,” Kebreab said.

A 2012 United Nations report revealed that the earth’s cattle population produces more carbon dioxide than automobiles, planes, and all other forms of transport combined. Moreover, the cow pies they drop and the wind they break produce a third of the world’s methane emissions, which traps 84 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.

In the summer of 2016, EcoWatch published an article confirming that greenhouse gas emissions from livestock actually account for a higher percentage of total global emissions than the world’s 1.2 billion automobiles.

Kebreab’s cow experiment sought to replicate results from researchers at Australia’s James Cook University, who mixed bacteria from cows’ digestive systems with red seaweed and discovered a significant decrease in methane production. Their experiment suggested that tweaking a cow’s diet to include 2 percent seaweed could reduce its methane emissions by as much as 99 percent.

The article concludes:

According to Dobbins, seaweed farming may be a “triple win.” It furnishes a way to grow nutritious food for both cows and people, provides coastal jobs, and improves the marine environment.

“Everything you do in food production has pluses and minuses relative to the environment,” he has claimed. “Seaweed farming, if done correctly, actually comes out more on the plus side.”

While flatulence is an issue, studies have suggested that cow belching is a much bigger problem because of the methane produced in cows’ stomachs.

“Despite misconceptions, most cow methane comes from burps (90%) rather than farts (10%),” Michael Battaglia wrote in October, 2016, in the Conversation.

So now we have to start worrying about burping cows?

Something To Consider As The Process Continues

Posted on by

On Friday, The Daily Signal posted an article noting that even before Ukraine uproar, 10 of 13 Democrats on the intelligence panel backed Trump impeachment probe. We need to remind Americans that impeachment is not supposed to be a political vehicle to overturn an election you don’t like.

The article reports:

In July, Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, voted for the then-most recent resolution calling for the ouster of President Donald Trump from office. 

“I think it represents a larger, more important conversation that we need to have about … what we’re willing to tolerate as a citizenry from our commander in chief,” Politico quoted the Indiana Democrat as saying, “What responsibility the commander in chief has to the electorate in terms of not fanning the flames of Islamophobia, xenophobia, and outright hatred.”

The intelligence committee has taken the lead role in the impeachment investigation of Trump, focused on Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the two leaders discussed former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and a Democratic computer server. 

But 10 of the 13 Democrats on the committee discussed an impeachment inquiry, actual impeachment, and the removal of, or resignation by, Trump well before news broke of the controversial phone call.

The article goes on to cite multiple examples of Democrats claiming that the Mueller Report was their cue to begin impeachment despite the fact that it showed no evidence of a crime. The statement that the Mueller did not exonerate the President is somewhat misleading–investigators are to look for evidence of lawbreaking and report on whether or not they found any. They do not find people innocent–they simply find evidence of guilt. The Mueller Report found no evidence of guilt.

This Might Explain A Lot

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today that stated that more than one-fifth of of all U.S. newsroom employees live in the liberal strongholds of New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. New York has 12 percent and Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. each have 5 percent. The article notes that 13 percent of Americans live in these three cities–7 percent in New York, 4 percent in Los Angeles, and 2 percent in Washington, D.C.

The article notes:

All three cities are known for their strongly progressive bent. A Republican has not won New York City in a presidential election since 1924, or won Los Angeles County since 1984. No Republican has ever won Washington, D.C., in a presidential election.

According to Pew, only New York and Washington are home to a greater share of newsroom workers than workers overall. Given their significance in media and politics, those two cities are the broadcasting sites for every major show on cable and national network news.

Pew also found that 41 percent of newsroom employees who work in internet publishing live in the northeast, while just 18 percent of all workers live in the region overall. Thirty-seven percent of all workers live in the south, but it’s home to just 21 percent of newsroom employees who work in internet publishing.

Think about how where you live affects your worldview. Do you see poverty everyday? Do you see dirty streets and high crime? Do you see friendly people or stressed people? Is driving to work a grinding task or a reasonable chore? What are the views of the people you spend your time with? What are the values of the people around you?

I’m not a deplorable from flyover country where people cling to their God and their guns–I’m a deplorable living in a conservative stronghold in the southeast. But I wonder if the people in the newsrooms of the major media spent some time with the deplorables in various places, would their attitude and focus change? The bottom line here is whether or not the people charged with reporting the news to Americans can get past the their group biases against anything not liberal. If not, their industry will soon die from lack of relevance and from the consequences of biased reporting.

More Absurdity From The Media

Posted on by

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the way the media has reported the death of ISIS terrorist chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Below is a screenshot of The Washington Post headline. I am told that the headline was later edited, but this is where they started:

The article at The Conservative Treehouse notes:

In an era where the ideology of U.S. media has become increasingly disconnected from the majority of Americans, it is becoming less surprising to see radical leftist positions in mainstream organizations.  However, that said, for any U.S. media to position themselves as sympathetic to one of the most brutal terrorists in the last half-century, is a level of disconnect far beyond comprehension.

Unfortunately, this position by U.S. Media is not as shocking as it should be.

As a contextual reminder for the teachings of the “austere religious scholar” represented by al-Baghdadi, his ISIS terrorists: beheaded international journalists, buried journalists in the ground and ran them over with tanks, brutally raped captives, drowned and burned Syrian civilians in cages, burned a Jordanian pilot alive in a cage and murdered dozens of Coptic Christians on the beaches of Libya….

The article includes some pictures of what ISIS and other Islamic groups have done to Christians. There is no way this man deserves a sympathetic obituary.

The Glass Isn’t Even Half Full–It’s Broken

Posted on by

We all have that one friend that we care about but is just hard to be around. If someone handed them a handful of hundred dollar bills, they would complain that they weren’t new bills. If they won the lottery, they would complain about the taxes they would have to pay. You get the picture. This morning President Trump announced that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been killed by American Special Forces soldiers. Unfortunately we have become so divided as a nation that the Democrats and their media allies could not share in rejoicing at the death of a very evil man.

Townhall posted an article today that illustrates that point.

Before President Donald Trump’s press conference on Sunday confirming the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” to discuss what he was hoping to hear the president say.

One of the biggest things Clapper was interested in was seeing “the contributions the intelligence community made” that led to al-Baghdadi’s death. 

He admitted “taking down” al-Baghdadi has “huge symbolic meaning,” especially because he has been a target for quite some time. 

But Clapper warned the move could “galvanize” the Islamic State.

“What is going to be interesting is to the extent to which this negatively affects ISIS or does it galvanize ISIS, the remnants of ISIS, which still survives as an ideology and has franchises in other places besides Syria,” he explained. 

Good grief. There was a time when we assassinated the leaders of Al Qaeda as soon as they became leaders. After a while, no one wanted to lead the organization. We may have to do the same thing again, but in the meantime, a horrible man is no longer a threat to anyone. Thank God we were not this divided during World War II–we would all be speaking German now if we had been.

Hasn’t He Read The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday about some recent remarks by presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke.

The article reports:

Beto O’Rourke said he would use the criminal code to back up his proposal to confiscate AR-15s and other “weapons of war” from Americans.

“If we’re able to pass mandatory buybacks and I’m able to sign that into law, then I fully expect our fellow Americans to turn in their AR-15s and their AK-47s,” the former Texas congressman said in a Thursday CBS News interview when asked if his policy was “too retroactive.”

O’Rourke continued his answer by saying there would be criminal consequences if people were to “persist” in holding onto their weapons.

“For anyone who does not and is caught in possession or seen in possession of one of these weapons of war — one of these instruments of terror, that weapon will be taken from them, and they will be fined. And if they should persist in continuing to use and to buy these weapons, then there will be other consequences in the criminal code.”

The Democratic presidential contender said earlier this month that under his administration, police would “visit” AR-15 owners who did not cooperate in turning their guns in voluntarily.

“I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot potentially be used against somebody else,” O’Rourke said about the possibility that gun owners might not submit to voluntary buybacks.

It’s interesting that the candidates seem to be focused on AR-15’s. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon that fires one bullet at a time. The AR stands for ArmaLite, the original manufacturer of the weapon. It is a scary looking gun, but even if you support taking guns away from Americans, there is no reason to focus on that particular gun. It is legal to own an AK-47 as long as it was manufactured before 1986. There are also paperwork requirements involved with owning this particular gun.

However, all of the above is simply irrelevant. The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was to protect the people from a tyrannical government–like one that wanted to forcefully take away their guns. What Beto O’Roarke is proposing is exactly what the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

Time For A Flip

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article about the criminal investigation into Spygate.

The article notes:

When Barr appointed John Durham to handle the investigation, later in May, the finger-pointing among those involved in investigating Trump started, leading to the the pressing question was Who’s going to cut a deal first in Spygate?

The drama between Brennan and Comey is just the surface. The Durham investigation could reach out of the FBI-CIA up through the Obama administration, including then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the White House itself.

There is the potential for a lot of finger pointing, as Karie Pavlich tweeted:

The Comey vs Brennan vs Clapper vs Lynch vs Obama show is going to be awesome

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1128438654781808641

Since the NY Times reported that the Durham investigation is a criminal investigation, that is the question again.

The stakes are so much higher for those involved. Whoever cuts a deal first could be spared prosecution or prison. So someone is likely to sing, and that someone likely is a mid-level person in the FBI who was disgusted with what happened but close enough to it that the person is at risk.

The question in the article is, “Who is going to be the first to flip?”

An article posted in The American Thinker today may provide a clue. The title of the article is, “Andrew McCabe withdraws his lawsuit against the Department of Justice.”

The article at The American Thinker notes:

Here’s the interesting question: Did he dismiss it because concluded it’s a loser, especially in light of anticipated indictment — or did he(his attorneys) conclude his suit waived his 5th Amendment rights?  By dismissal with consent, without prejudice, does that waiver go away? If so, it might mean he expects to be indicted.

Mark Levin last night said he’d been offered plea deal — and turned it down.  So makes sense to dismiss suit to preserve waiver, which I suspect dismissal in this fashion likely does[.]

I realize we have wandered into the weeds here, but the big picture is simple–there are some people who are not willing to go to jail simply for following orders. Those people will make a plea deal to save their own skins and thus implicate the people giving the orders. I suspect there are more than a few high ranking people in the intelligence community who are not sleeping well right now. Their dream of having Hillary Clinton elected and all of their misdeeds buried for good has obviously not come true.

Interesting Question

Posted on by

CNS News posted an article today that includes a very interesting question.

The article reports:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff says his impeachment inquiry hearing is not classified, so why won’t he allow the media to see what’s going on in it, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) asked reporters after he attempted to enter Schiff’s secretive, closed-door proceeding on Wednesday.

Both they and members of Congress should be allowed into the hearing, Scalise told reporters:

“As soon as we went into the room, Adam Schiff hadn’t even started the hearing – which, by the way, Schiff pointed out himself was not a classified hearing.

“So, again, it begs the question: why aren’t members of Congress allowed to come into an unclassified hearing dealing with impeachment of the president?

“Why aren’t you, as the press, allowed to go into an unclassified hearing to find out what’s really going on?”

Representative Scalise stated:

“Every member of Congress should be allowed in that room. The press ought to be allowed in that room.

“And, when we got there – and we were there peacefully, we were there to hear what was going on – we actually wanted to hear the witness. And, instead, he left – he threatened us. Adam Schiff threatened us.

“We’re not going to bow down to his threats. We’re going to represent the voices of the millions of Americans that our districts represent. The vast majority of members of Congress, by the way, who are not allowed to be in that room, ought to be in.

“Everybody ought to be able to see what’s going on in this inquiry – including members of Congress and the press – so our constituents can see what’s going on.”

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Sunlight is exactly what the Democrats are avoiding.

Where Some Of The Money Would Come From

Posted on by

Gregg Jarrett posted an article today which explains how Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would pay for healthcare for people who are in America illegally.

The article reports:

Senator Warren and Senator Sanders have both publicly supported the dismantling of the United States healthcare system and want to rebuild it as a socialized government-run system. In this new system, illegal aliens would also be entitled to taxpayer-funded healthcare. Senator Sanders has admitted that to accomplish this, taxes on the middle class would need to increase. Senator Warren has refused to say how she plans to pay for such an expensive and expansive healthcare system.

The Washington Post interviewed a few “external economic policy advisers” to see what ideas they might be pitching to Senator Warren’s campaign. One advisor by the name of Robert Pollin suggested taking away money from the Department of Veterans Affairs and diverting it to a single-payer system.

“Robert Pollin, a left-leaning economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who has worked with the Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) teams, said he believes two-thirds of the single-payer fund can be raised by redirecting existing public health-care spending from Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pollin refused to discuss any details related to his conversations with Warren’s campaign.” – The Washington Post

So money will be taken away from the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay for healthcare for people who are in America illegally.

The article concludes:

Not only is Mr. Pollin suggesting that funds intended for the healthcare of America’s bravest be diverted to this new system, but also Medicaid and Medicare funds. This means that the government entities that are meant for the underprivileged, handicap, and elderly will lose funding. Even with redirecting all of these funds Mr. Pollin admits that they would need to raise an additional 600 billion dollars.

“Pollin suggests that the remaining third be raised by a $600 billion annual ‘gross-receipts’ tax on businesses.”

This means that in effect, taxes will go up on all citizens. If stealing money from the health plans of American veterans is their best solution, the American people will reject their radical ideas and reelect President Trump.

I hope so.

Does America Have Equal Justice Under The Law?

Posted on by

We are about to find out if the same rules apply to everyone. One America News Network is reporting today that Attorney General William Barr’s probe into the origins of the Russia investigation is turning into a criminal case. For those listening to the mainstream media spin that this is just retribution for impeachment, have you considered the Constitutional protections that were violated when there was massive surveillance on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, and even the Trump presidency? Have you looked at the changes made in the handling of classified information that took place in the final days of the Obama administration that made leaking information much easier?

The article notes:

The change reportedly allows U.S. attorney John Durham, who was chosen by Barr to lead the probe, to subpoena documents as well as witness testimonies and to file criminal charges if necessary. This comes after reports last week said Barr was expanding the investigation after Durham found something “significant.:” However, it’s still not clear what exactly prompted the switch.

The probe was first launched in May as an administrative review into the origins of the Russia hoax. President Trump has repeatedly denounced former special council Robert Mueller’s Russia probe by calling it a “witch hunt” and a “hoax.” When asked whether he prompted the attorney general to open the investigation, however, the president said he hadn’t, but also said he appreciates Barr’s work.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, Durham has reportedly expressed interest in investigating former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, who were in charge while the since-debunked Steele dossier was released. This led to the secret surveillance of Trump campaign officials in 2016.

It was recently reported that multiple CIA officials have pursued legal council because of Durham’s legal review. Horowitz has said his report will be released in the near future.

Spying on Americans by the CIA is illegal. However, if the CIA used overseas resources to accomplish what was illegal, they need to be held accountable. One of the things that the Obama administration was known for was the politicization of government agencies–the IRA targeted conservative groups by slow walking their 501(c)(3) applications, the administration dismissed charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation when there was video evidence, the administration eavesdropped on James Rosen and his parents because they didn’t like his reporting, etc. It would not really be a surprise if they had used the government to further their political agenda. It will be interesting to see if anyone is held accountable for the violations of the civil rights of American citizens that occurred during the Obama administration.

The Delusional Candidate

Posted on by

Yesterday One America News posted an article detailing some recent statements by presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The article reports:

Joe Biden is campaigning to roll back President Trump’s tax cuts. The former vice president made his case Wednesday in his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Biden touted his middle class background and announced his intent to hike the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. He claimed the repeal would help the middle class by hitting the wealthy and corporations.

“The wealthy didn’t need [tax cuts] in the first place,” said Biden. “Corporations have spent them on stock buybacks.”

Then Joe Biden claimed that former President Obama is responsible for the current economic success in America:

“Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack and me,” stated the former vice president. “Things were beginning to really move — just like everything else he’s inherited, he’s in the midst of squandering it.”

The article then notes the actual economic facts:

Recent data from the Census Bureau revealed the middle class has experienced an economic boom since President Trump took office. The average family income rose over $5,000 since 2017. Under the Obama administration, household incomes only grew by about $1,000 by the end of eight years.

The main things that increased in the Obama economy were unemployment and the number of people on food stamps. Admittedly, President Obama became President at a difficult economic time, but his policies resulted in the slowest and leanest economic recovery in American history. President Trump’s economic policies have resulted in economic growth in all segments of the economy. The middle class and all minorities are enjoying higher wages and more jobs. A return to the economic policies of President Obama would be a step backward–not a step forward.