Tag Archives: President Trump

If This Doesn’t Scare You, You Are Not Paying Attention!

Posted on by

Yesterday The New York Post reported that Rudy Giuliani’s law license has been temporarily suspended by a panel of New York judges. The judges suspended his law license because ‘he made false and misleading statements’ related to voter fraud in the 2020 election.’ I wonder what happens if the voter fraud in the 2020 election turns out to be true.

The article reports:

The ruling from the appeals court said there was “uncontroverted evidence” Giuliani made false statements while he was acting as legal counsel for former President Donald Trump.

“These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client,” the ruling states.

“We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee,” they added.

Giuliani compared the suspension to Soviet Communism.

“It’s a complete invasion of my First Amendment rights and my rights as an attorney, I’m allowed to have a client,” Giuliani told The Post.

“President Trump is not allowed to have a lawyer, of course it’s a partisan hit. I didn’t do anything wrong. There’s nothing I said that a witness didn’t tell me. We’re getting to be like East Germany,” he added.

It has become more than obvious that the Justice Department has placed a target on President Trump and anyone who has supported him. The job of the Justice Department is not to prosecute political opponents of the party in the White House, but that is exactly what they are doing. I have no idea what the solution to this is other than to vote the bums out of office, but unless we have an honest election, I am not sure we can do that. We need some patriotic Americans in Washington to stand against this–regardless of what party they belong to. Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

John Bolton On The Revived Iran Deal

Posted on by

Yesterday NewsMax posted an article about the Biden administration’s plan to revive the nuclear deal with Iran.

The article reports:

The Biden administration is seeking to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – Obama’s Iran nuclear deal – but the connected administrations have “no idea how flawed the deal is,” according to former National Security Adviser John Bolton on Newsmax.

“It’s based on near-religious fixation that they want to get back to what Obama did,” Bolton told Monday’s “John Bachman Now.” “The Obama team views the Iran nuclear deal as their second term equivalent to Obamacare in the first term.

“Although they don’t like to say it publicly, it rests on the assumption that if they could just calm the Ayatollahs down and convince them that they don’t need to worry about the United States and Israel, they can solve the nuclear program, Iran will behave like a normal nation, and sweetness and light will break out in the Middle East.

“It really is a fantasy, and it’s a dangerous fantasy.”

It is very obvious that the Biden administration is planning on doing the reverse of anything the Trump administration did. That is unfortunate because a lot of what the Trump administration did made the lives of Americans better and the world safer. However, in the Biden administration, the polices of the Obama administration rule and need to be brought back. Never mind that those policies caused slow economic growth and slow wage growth for Americans and made the world less safe–the Biden administration is going to bring them back!

The article notes:

President Joe Biden’s pushing to resume JCPOA talks – after former President Donald Trump decertified it – is an “extraordinarily dangerous” way to stem nuclear proliferation, Bolton added to host John Bachman.

“They think it was working, and they’re just completely wrong on that,” Bolton said. “They have no idea how flawed the deal is, and they see it as something that can be a model really for their nonproliferation efforts around the world, and it’s extraordinarily dangerous.

“Israel sees it. The gulf Arab states see it. They do not.”

Trump rejected the JCPOA because it merely slowed and did not stop Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

“They’re determined to get nuclear weapons, and any idea that the Biden administration has to get back into this deal really is surrendering to an idea about Iran’s conduct that sadly is not going to come true,” Bolton said.

“It’s going to leave the United States, it’s going to leave our friends in the Middle East, and really around the world at risk of this very dangerous regime.”

Changing a policy that worked simply because it was put in place by a different political party is not a good way to run a country. The Iran deal was one of the few things President Trump and John Bolton agreed on. President Biden needs to learn from President Trump’s successes.

Losing Our Justice System One City At A Time

Posted on by

While no one is paying attention, charges are being dropped against those ‘protestors’ who looted and burned down cities last summer and those who entered the Capitol Building on January 6th are being kept in solitary confinement with questionable legal representation. Seems a little uneven. Meanwhile, The U.K. Daily Mail reported yesterday that out of the 603 were arrested in Manhattan and the Bronx during the most intense days of looting last June, 295 of the cases have been dropped completely.

The article reports:

Now Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr and Bronx DA Darcel D. Clark are facing tough questions about why hundreds walked free after the looting rampage caused an estimated tens of millions in damages.

Business owner Jessica Betancourt, whose Bronx eyeglasses shop was destroyed last summer, vented her outrage at the situation.

‘Those numbers, to be honest with you, is disgusting,’ she told the NBC affiliate. ‘They could do it again because they know they won’t get the right punishment.’

In Manhattan, the NYPD data shows there were 485 arrests connected to last summer’s riots, which saw mobs smashing stores and holding a ‘looting dance party’ in SoHo.

Of those cases, 222 were later dropped and 73 saw convictions for lesser counts like trespassing, which carries no jail time. Another 40 cases involved juveniles and were sent to family court, and 128 cases remain open. 

In the Bronx, 118 arrests were made as mobs smashed shops along the borough’s commercial corridors.

Since then, the NYPD says District Attorney Clark’s office and the courts have dismissed 73 of those cases, well over half the total. 

Eighteen Bronx cases remain open and there have been 19 convictions for mostly lesser counts which carry no jail time.

One of the excuses given is that there is not enough evidence to prosecute the looters. That’s an interesting statement considering a lot of the looting is recorded on the security cameras of the businesses involved (and the news cameras of local television stations).

Some of us (and many New Yorkers) believe that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is so focused on finding President Trump guilty of something that they are ignoring their regular duties. Hopefully many of the people in that office will find themselves out of a job after the next election.

Doing The Right Thing (Even If It Is Years Late)

Posted on by

Yesterday The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about California’s plan to deal with forest fires.

The article reports:

California is adopting former Donald Trump‘s plan to thin out the state’s 33 million acres of forests with controlled burns and raking the woodland floor – after state officials essentially laughed off the former president’s idea a few years ago.

Trump had suggested in 2018 that the Golden State start sweeping its forest floors of debris that often aids in the spread of wildfires. 

But by Aug. 2020, at the peak of the state’s wildfire season, his suggestion became an ultimatum when he withheld wildfire financial aid on the basis of California’s failure to clear its forests of dead trees, branches and leaves, Politico reported at the time.

The frustrating part of this is that if the plan had been adopted in 2018 when it was suggested or even a year later, how many acres of forest (and homes) would have been spared? Instead, because President Trump suggested it while he was President, it wasn’t done until after he left office (so he couldn’t be given credit for it).

The article notes:

During the 2020 California wildfires, 31 people died and another 37 suffered non-fatal injuries due to 9,639 fires spread across the Golden State, according to the website Cal Fire, which tracks wildfires throughout the state.

Then-President Trump continuously blamed the Democrat-dominated state for not doing enough to prevent the widespread wildfires in 2018 and 2019 during his presidency, while threatening to withhold relief funds as environmentally-conscious Californians balked at his ideas.

‘I’ve been telling them this now for three years, but they don’t want to listen,’ Trump said at the August rally. ‘The environment, the environment,’ but they have massive fires again.’

At some point we have to learn to do the right thing regardless of who gets the credit!

There are, however, still some naysayers:

However, conservation director for Los Padres ForestWatch Bryant Baker warns that these kinds of controlled burns threaten the native plant areas of Southern California’s national forests.

‘There are issues with just assuming this is some sort silver bullet in changing overall fires in the state,’ Baker said. ‘Prescribed fire is not going to be the thing that stops very large wind-driven fires that are occurring.’ 

Gov. Newsom is already asking the state’s legislature to give him $2 billion more in an effort to accelerate the forest thinning process in the fiscal year starting July 1, according to Bloomberg. 

‘Wildfires don’t stop at jurisdictional boundaries. As we respond to wildfires in real-time this summer, improving coordination between the major stewards of California’s forested land will help us protect communities and restore forest health across California,’ Newsom said in a statement obtained by Politico. 

I’m sorry that the controlled burns threaten the native plant areas, but somehow I don’t think the native plant areas have done too well in the recent wild fires.

Bad News For Everyone

Posted on by

The Conservative Treehouse is reporting today that President Joe Biden is freezing formerly approved military assistance for Ukraine.

The article reports:

Fast forward a little more than a year, Joe Biden meets with Putin, gets eviscerated and embarrassed by the diplomatic smack-down from the Russian President, and suddenly Joe Biden is freezing formerly approved military assistance for Ukraine.

Politico is reporting today:

The Biden White House has temporarily halted a military aid package to Ukraine that would include lethal weapons, a plan originally made in response to aggressive Russian troop movements along Ukraine’s border this spring.

The aid package would be worth up to $100 million, according to four people familiar with internal deliberations.

The National Security Council directed officials to put the package together, as Washington grew increasingly concerned over a massive Russian military buildup near the border with Ukraine and in the Crimean Peninsula, according to three of the people, who like the others asked not to be named in order to speak candidly about internal discussions. Officials at the State Department and Pentagon worked to assemble the proposal.

But officials on the National Security Council ended up putting the proposal on hold after Russia announced it would draw down troops stationed near Ukraine and in the lead-up to President Joe Biden’s high-stakes summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

President Trump was impeached because he was falsely accused of withholding military assistance from Ukraine because of a ‘special’ relationship with President Putin. It seems to me that it is time to take a closer look at some of the Biden family’s relationship with President Putin.

If You Believe The Media

Posted on by

The media’s worst nightmare is to have President Trump hold rallies again. President Trump is still very popular with Americans who understand that his administration had a positive impact on the economic situation of average Americans. As average Americans watch the economic destruction caused by the Biden administration, they appreciate President Trump even more. The media hates that and is trying to change the narrative.

Yesterday MSN posted an article that is aimed at  establishing the media narrative on President Trump.

The article reports:

President Biden on Monday claimed the Republican party is “vastly diminished in numbers” after the January 6 Capitol riot and expressed disappointment in GOP senators who “know better” than to vote against an investigation into the riot but are “worried about being primaried.”

Biden’s remarks came in response to a question about whether NATO allies are shaken by the Capitol riot and the actions of former President Trump.

During a press conference after the NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium, Biden said that while other leaders may have seen things that “shock them and surprise them” they believe that the American people “are not going to sustain that kind of behavior.”

Notice how the media narrative keeps coming back to January 6th in an effort to associate President Trump with the illegal entry into the Capitol. Somehow President Biden (and the media) choose to overlook the behavior of burning down American cities last summer. Was that acceptable?

The article continues:

“I think it’s appropriate to say that the Republican party is vastly diminished in numbers,” he said. “The leadership of the Republican party is fractured and the Trump wing of the party is the bulk of the party but it makes up a significant minority of the American people.”

He added, however, that the “consequence of President Trump’s phony populism” has been a “shock and surprise.”

“It is disappointing that so many of my Republican colleagues in the Senate — who I know know better — have been reluctant to take on, for example, an investigation because they’re worried about being primaried,” he said.

I think 2022 is going to be very interesting if election fraud is dealt with. Meanwhile, you can expect the above narrative to continue for the next three years.

Things The Media Got Wrong During The Trump Administration

Posted on by

Anyone can make a mistake. However, when all of the mistakes go the same way, you begin to wonder. Somehow during the past five years, when the mainstream media made a mistake, the mistake always portrayed President Trump is a bad light. On Saturday, Trending Politics posted an article detailing some of the erroneous reporting in recent years. No one expects an apology, but it would be nice if some of the falsehoods were corrected.

The list of misreported stories includes:

Trump ordered his administration to forcibly clear Lafayette Park for a ‘photo op’ at St. John’s Church.

COVID-19 lab-leak was just a wild Trump conspiracy.

Trump didn’t do anything about ‘Russian bounties’ on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Trump told Georgia election officials to ‘find evidence of fraud.’

Trump never said there were “fine people” on both sides at a deadly protest in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 in involving Antifa types and white supremacists/neo-Nazis;

He never called illegal immigrants “animals”;

He didn’t “flat-out lie” when he said Obama ‘wiretapped’ his 2016 campaign — Obama did do that or, at least, his administration did;

One of the very first media lies — Trump ‘removed a bust of Martin Luther King’ from the Oval Office — was, at least, quickly debunked.

Please follow the link to the article to read the details. The media worked very hard to paint a totally false picture of our 45th President. Unfortunately, many Americans failed to do their own research and believed that picture was accurate.

When Media Lies Are Exposed

Posted on by

Yesterday Red State posted an article about the media’s reaction to the Inspector General’s report which vindicated President Trump and former Attorney General Barr in the clearing of Lafayette Park.

The article reports:

To quickly recap, per the report, “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31. Further, the evidence showed that the USPP (U.S. Park Police)did not know about the President’s potential movement until mid- to late afternoon on June 1—hours after it had begun developing its operational plan and the fencing contractor had arrived in the park.”

Among the reporters most heartbroken by the news were NBC News’ anchor Chuck Todd and network correspondent Ken Dilanian (known in some circles as “Fusion Ken” for reasons explained here), both of who appeared to be shell-shocked at the news and at times confused by the findings.

The article includes a few videos showing the disappointment of the newscasters that President Trump was not guilty of clearing the park for a ‘photo op,’ as they so enthusiastically reported. Please follow the link above to see the videos. They are enlightening.

This is a glaring example of the media trying to tell a story that is false. I wonder how many people believed the story, formed an opinion of President Trump based on the story, and then voted against President Trump i n 2020. An independent media would have had at least a few reporters telling a different story or questioning the story being told.

Can You Walk Back Up A Slippery Slope?

Posted on by

According to Oxford Eagle:

Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast.

Unfortunately we are watching a version of that statement play out in America right now.

On May 18, The New York Post reported:

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ investigation of the Trump Organization is criminal in nature, her office revealed Tuesday.

James’ office had been conducting a civil investigation of former President Donald Trump’s company.

“We have informed the Trump Organization that our investigation into the organization is no longer purely civil in nature,” a spokesperson for the attorney general said in a statement.

…James has been investigating the Trump Organization since 2019 after Trump’s onetime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified to Congress that Trump exaggerated the value of his financial assets in order to help score more favorable terms on loans and insurance policies. Cohen is serving the remainder of a three-year prison sentence under federal house arrest after pleading guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance violations.

The thing to keep in mind here is that Attorney General James campaigned on a platform of promising to destroy President Trump. She was elected.

During the past five or six years, we have seen our justice system turned on its head.  There has been unlawful surveillance of American citizens–a violation of their civil rights, ridiculous jail terms for people who hold conservative values, early morning raids on people who posed no flight risk (complete with advance notice to CNN), etc. The people who want to spend their time looking for a crime to attribute to President Trump need to remember that the justice system that will look for a crime to fit a person could ultimately be turned on them.

The swamp in Washington is deep and wide and extends out into many blue states. If we don’t get it drained soon, I fear that the American most of us grew up in with equal justice under the law will be gone forever.

Questionable Priorities

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart reported that the Biden administration is using money designated for healthcare initiatives toward the cost of caring for unaccompanied illegal migrant children.

The article reports:

“The Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] has diverted more than $2 billion meant for other health initiatives toward covering the cost of caring for unaccompanied immigrant children,” Politico reported May 15. The article continued:

The redirected funds include $850 million that Congress originally allocated to rebuild the nation’s Strategic National Stockpile, the emergency medical reserve strained by the Covid-19 response. Another $850 million is being taken from a pot intended to help expand coronavirus testing, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

…

In addition to transferring money from the Strategic National Stockpile and Covid-19 testing, HHS also has pulled roughly $436 million from a range of existing health initiatives across the department.

The article concludes:

Biden’s policy is being implemented by Alejandro Mayorkas, a Cuban-born child refugee who runs the Department of Homeland Security. Mayorkas frequently claims the United States is a “Nation of Immigrants,” not of Americans. He frequently argues the nation’s values require Americans to accept many migrants, poor or rich, old or young, as if there is no economic or civic cost to Americans from the inflow of foreign migrants.

The federal delivery of children to their illegal migrant parents, after their handoff at the border by cartel-controlled coyotes, has been an open secret in Washington, DC, for at least six years.

The secret federal cooperation with the coyotes and the cartels stopped when President Donald Trump used his emergency authority in 2020 to send the migrants home when they arrived at the border.  The cooperation has been accelerated by President Biden as his deputies seek to extract more wage-cutting workers, taxpayer-supported consumers, and high-occupancy renters from Central American into the United States.

“We’re complicit as a nation in human trafficking,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at a March 26 press conference in Texas with 17 other GOP senators.

It truly is time America stopped cooperating with the coyotes and the cartels.

Not Surprising

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that President Biden has received less negative press coverage than any president in the past thirty years. Obviously he has gotten some negative coverage from conservative news sources, but the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the crisis at the southern border, the increasingly frequent senior moments, and the outright lies in the stories told and the credit claimed for the coronavirus vaccine and its rollout.

The article reports:

The study found that about 19% of the coverage of Biden’s fir 60 days days has been negative over the first 60 days of his administration, which ranked best among presidents of the last three decades. Former Presidents Bill Clinton (28%), George W. Bush (28%), Barack Obama (20%), and Donald Trump (62%) all saw more negative coverage than Biden.

“While the media landscape has changed dramatically since Clinton’s presidential inauguration, the Center has been able to conduct a long-term comparison for each of the recent administrations across a smaller subset of outlets and variables,” Pew Research Center wrote of its findings.

The difference in coverage between the early days of Trump’s presidency compared to Biden’s was particularly stark, with negative stories about Trump outnumbering positive ones by a “four-to-one” ratio.

The article notes an interesting difference in how President Trump and President Biden were covered by the media:

“Another stark difference in the early coverage of the Biden and Trump administrations was in how stories were framed,” Pew wrote. “About two-thirds of Biden stories (65%) were framed around ideology and agenda, while about one-third (35%) focused on leadership and character. With Trump, the numbers were roughly reversed, with 74% framed around leadership and character and 26% around policy and ideology.”

Unfortunately Americans will be reaping the results of the Biden agenda in the near future. I don’t think it will be fun.

Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Figure

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill posted an article headlined, “Biden hits 59 percent approval rating in Pew poll.” Considering the crisis at the border, the diplomatic flubs, the end of energy independence, etc., that strikes me as amazing. This is the link to the methodology used in the poll.

This is a screenshot of the group polled:

That’s almost 2 to 1 Democrats polled. Isn’t it interesting that President Biden’s approval rating in the poll was roughly 2 to 1. Frankly, I think that all this poll shows is a nation divided on party lines.

The article at The Hill, of course, has a bit of a spin:

A majority of Americans — 59 percent — approve of President Biden‘s handling of his job as he approaches 100 days in office, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Friday.

The poll found Biden’s job approval is up 5 percentage points from 54 percent in March, while 39 percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of his work thus far.

Biden’s 59 percent approval rating is 20 percentage points higher than that of former President Trump‘s in a Pew poll from April 2017 and is similar to the approval ratings of former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush in April of their first terms.

The article concludes:

The Pew poll surveyed 5,109 adults from April 5 to 11, which was days before the Biden administration recommended pausing the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The poll has a margin of error of 2.1 percentage points.

Public polling in Biden’s first months in office has generally shown the public gives him high marks on his handling of the pandemic and his overall approval rating.

I wonder what President Trump’s approval ratings would have been had the media covered him fairly.

I Think Most Of Us Suspected This

Posted on by

Just the News posted an article today about the news story that was circulating during the 2020 Presidential campaign that the Russians had put a bounty on American soldiers and were paying the Afghani soldiers to kill Americans. The media questioned the fact that President Trump had not placed sanctions on Russia for those actions and declared that the President was soft on Russia because he was Putin’s puppet. Well, the truth eventually does come out.

The article at Just the News reports:

On Thursday, the leaders of President Biden’s intelligence agencies declared they held little confidence in a New York Times’ story from last June that claimed Russia put bounties on American troops in Afghanistan.

It was the latest setback for the famous newspaper, which has seen its reporting on the now-debunked Russia collusion scandal be eviscerated by the FBI and its hit podcast series Caliphate retracted. 

Ashley Rindsberg, author of “The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Fabrications and Distortions Radically Alter History,” said Thursday’s setback follows a decades-long pattern of journalism failures. He questioned what the Times will do next with the Afghanistan fallout.

The article notes that there is a history of this sort of creating a false narrative and being slow to change the narrative once the truth is discovered:

“That’s what’s happened time and again: the big story break, and there’s a lot of hoopla, and there’s a lot of coverage, and the narrative gets cemented. And when the story turns out to be false, or mistaken, or what have you, there’s either a very small correction that’s printed at the bottom of the article that very few people will pay attention to, or nothing at all,” he said. “So I think in this case, we’ll see what happens, and hopefully the Times will do the right thing.”

I can pretty much guarantee that if you are still depending on the mainstream media as your primary news source you are either misinformed or uninformed or both.

The Impact Of President Biden’s Executive Orders Is Already Being Felt

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the rapid increase in inflation in the past month.

The article reports:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics highlights some alarming inflation numbers today [Link Here] that are unfortunately, not unexpected…. unless you are a liberally trained economist (most of them) and so the results are surprisingly “unexpected”.    But the actual JoeBama-nomic policy is even worse because wages increased less than inflation increased, so real wages (actual purchasing power) decreased.  That spells trouble, Trouble.

First, it is important to know that BLS price survey data lags actual prices as felt today.  The prices you are seeing today/tommorrow at the store and gas pump will not show up in the rolled-up data for over a month….  So the data released today is unfortunately far behind what you are witnessing in real time.

Gas prices rose last month by 9.1%.  The year-over-year inflation number is an alarming 2.6 percent last month.  Keep in mind that retail grocery prices are not in the inflation number, and they generally follow the same price index as fuel; so it is safe to say monthly grocery store price increases are in the 8 to 10 percent range.

Part of the reason gas and food track together is fuel and energy prices are the #2 cost within the food sector.  With packaging prices increasing; with fuel prices and distribution costs increasing; with energy prices increasing; all costs associated with food production, processing, delivery, warehousing and distribution, all end up in the final price at the grocery store.

This problem with inflation is only going to get worse as the FED gets more involved (that’s coming), because interest rates are already disconnected from the economic costs associated with business investment. [Note: the Fed said last year that it would hold its benchmark interest rate near zero, for some time, even if inflation were to rise above its preferred rate.]  JoeBama is returning us to a “service driven economy”, and that is a problem for inflation.

President Trump’s MAGAnomic (USA First) increased wages and lowered prices (deflation) {Go Deep} but hurt Wall Street.  JoeBama’s globalist policies lower U.S. wages and increase prices (inflation) but increase Wall Street (via multinationals).

Economic policies have consequences. Shutting down pipelines has consequences. Runaway spending has consequences. Unfortunately we are stuck with those actions and their consequences for the next three years. We had four reasonably good years economically because we had a President who understood business and free markets. We currently have President who is moving us toward tough economic times, government overreach, and eventually socialism. Hang on to your wallet.

 

Important Information, Despite The Spin

Posted on by

Yesterday Bloomberg posted an article citing how some major corporations are dealing with the issue of whether or not to require the coronavirus vaccine.

The article reports:

Covid-19 vaccination requirements are fast becoming facts of life in the U.S., spreading business by business even as politicians and privacy advocates rail against them.

Brown, Notre Dame and Rutgers are among universities warning students and staff they’ll need shots in order to return to campus this fall. Some sports teams are demanding proof of vaccination or a negative test from fans as arenas reopen. Want to see your favorite band play indoors in California? At bigger venues, the same rules apply. A Houston hospital chain recently ordered its 26,000 employees to get vaccinated.

Yet it’s another matter how people prove they’ve had their shots or are Covid-free. Republican politicians and privacy advocates are bristling over so-called vaccination passports, with some states moving to restrict their use.

At this point you have to wonder why the article cites only Republicans and privacy advocates as being against vaccination passports. If you read this carefully, you realize that we are being set up to believe that anyone who opposes a vaccine passport is somehow out of the mainstream of American politics.

The article reports:

Public-health measures became a partisan issue as soon as former President Donald Trump began downplaying the pandemic, and fierce debate arose over its severity, the wearing of masks and government-enforced lockdowns. Vaccine requirements and passports have become the latest flash points.

“Idahoans should be given the choice to receive the vaccine. We should not violate Idahoans’ personal freedoms by requiring them to receive it,” said Idaho’s Republican Governor Brad Little on Wednesday, after signing an executive order banning the vaccination requirement for people seeking public services. The governors of Florida and Texas have issued similar orders.

“Vaccine passports create different classes of citizens,” Little said.

And yet, New York state has unveiled its “Excelsior Pass” smartphone app to quickly prove vaccination or a clean test. The widely used Clear airport check-in system will soon offer its own version.

Again, watch the spin. Remember the outcry when President Trump stopped airline flights from China from coming to America? To me, that seemed to be an example of someone taking the virus seriously. Someone who did not take the virus seriously would not have mobilized the medical research community to find a vaccine in record time.  Actually, I don’t think it was President Trump who politicized the vaccine.

The article concludes:

For some, their approach is dictated by the states in which they operate. The Mets and the Yankees, for example, didn’t decide that their fans would need proof of vaccination or a negative test to attend a Major League Baseball game -– New York state did. It’s the same with California concert venues that are finally being allowed to reopen.

On Friday, the San Francisco Giants played their home opener under similar restrictions, requiring proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test within 72 hours of the game. The team’s chief executive officer, Larry Baer, told local television station KTVU that the restrictions would help fans feel comfortable as they return to Oracle Park. “We will have the safest spot on Planet Earth,” he said. “When you’re coming to a game, you know you’re going to be safe — you’ll feel good.”

As I have previously stated, my husband and I have had the coronavirus. We do not necessarily see the need to take the vaccine. Yesterday we had our antibodies tested and discovered that we have the coronavirus antibodies. I wonder where proof of antibodies fits in with the scenario of proof of vaccine.

Something To Watch Closely

Posted on by

Yesterday Politico posted an article about President Biden’s executive order forming a commission to look into reforming the federal court system.

Please read the following excerpt from the article carefully and note the wording:

President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Friday empaneling a commission to examine possible reforms to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary, making good on a campaign trail promise sparked by his predecessor’s tilting of the federal bench.

Biden first floated the idea of such a commission last fall on the campaign trail following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — whose seat on the high court was quickly filled by Amy Coney Barrett, installing a 6-3 majority of justices nominated by Republican presidents.

Note the expression ’tilting of the federal branch.’ That statement is an example of media bias. Note that President Obama was never accused of tilting the federal bench despite the fact that his appointed justices were well outside the mainstream of the views of most Americans.

The article concludes:

The commission is likely to raise hackles among conservatives as a veiled attempt to reshape the court after Trump and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell prioritized installing federal judges over the past four years.

Its formation comes as Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court’s eldest justice, faces pressure from liberal legal activists to step down during Biden’s term so that his successor would be appointed and confirmed while Democrats hold the White House and Senate.

Earlier this week, Breyer issued a warning to advocates of overhauling the Supreme Court that doing so risks eroding the trust in the institution and that they should think “long and hard” about the ramifications in a speech given virtually to Harvard Law School students.

The White House said the commission will complete its work within 180 days of its first public meeting, which it is required to do under federal law.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Most Americans do not want to see more justices added to the Supreme Court–particularly to make it politically biased. Franklin Roosevelt attempted to do this during his term as President and was rebuffed by his own party. However, the current Democrat party does not necessarily have the scruples that the Democrat party of Roosevelt had.

A Misleading Documentary From The Public Broadcasting Corporation

Posted on by

A watchdog group that sends out alerts about false reporting on the Middle East sent me the following:

A documentary scheduled to air on PBS on Monday, March 29 distorts facts about and caricatures American Christian supporters of Israel – and includes a doctored quote.
 
The documentary, titled ‘Til Kingdom Come, was produced and directed by Israeli filmmaker Maya Zinshtein. It portrays American Evangelicals and Jews living in the West Bank as nefariously working together to convince the White House to hand the entire West Bank over to Israel.
 
To promote the false narrative, filmmakers spliced words President Trump said in the latter parts of a January 28, 2020 press conference announcing his Israeli-Palestinian peace plan into a statement made at the beginning of the same press conference.

This is the quote:

The doctored quote appears 68 minutes into the 76-minute movie. The film’s audio quotes the president as saying: “The United States will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the territory that my vision provides to be part of the State of Israel, including the West Bank described so vividly in the Bible.”
 
The president did not say this.
 
A publicly available YouTube video of the press conference in question, from the Washington Post, shows that he said this instead:
 
“The United States will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the territory that my vision provides to be part of the State of Israel.” (He said this soon after the 14-minute mark of the YouTube video.)
 
In the actual statement, there is nothing whatsoever about handing “the West Bank described so vividly in the Bible” over to Israel, although he did say some of these words  later in the press conference in a different context when he declared:

“There are many Muslims who never visited Al Aqsa [Mosque] and many Christians and Jews who never visited the holy sites in the West Bank described so vividly in the Bible. My vision will change that. Our majestic biblical heritage will be able to live breathe and flourish in modern times. All humanity should be able to enjoy the glories of the Holy Land.”
 
In neither one of these phrases did the former president use the word “including.” This word likely came from another section of the press conference (at about 12 minutes and 53 seconds into the YouTube video) where he did use this word.
 
That is, the quote heard in Zinshtein’s film includes snippets from three different parts of the press conference that are spliced together.
 
To obscure the alteration, the film shows the president saying the first part of the quote, then inserts a shot of the audience during the middle of his statement, and then returns to show Trump speaking the last section of the fabricated quote.

The alert concludes:

Altering a presidential statement to misrepresent the content of a key policy address is obviously a blatant violation of journalistic ethics. It appears the filmmakers felt the measured language of the actual quote was insufficient to reinforce their storyline, so they spliced together separate and different passages to create a more extreme – and false – message.
 
This is an egregious distortion of the historical record and must be corrected before it is aired on PBS.

How many people trust the Public Broadcasting Corporation as an accurate source of news? Obviously they shouldn’t.

 

How The Mistake Was Made

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported the following today:

An official in the Georgia secretary of state’s office was the only source for at least one story that falsely claimed former President Donald Trump told an investigator with the office to “find the fraud.”

Jordan Fuchs, deputy secretary of state, relayed details of the conversation to The Washington Post, an official with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger confirmed to The Epoch Times.

Fuchs was not on the call herself. She was told about the conversation by Frances Watson, the investigator.

A recording of the call recently emerged from a records request, showing that the Post and a slew of other outlets had falsely reported Trump uttering several phrases.

The office of Raffensperger, a Republican, says Fuchs did not present details of the conversation as verbatim.

“The Secretary of State’s Office’s first reports of its investigator’s phone conversation with President Trump relied on the investigator’s recollection. Information about the content of the call was never presented as a word-for-word transcript,” a spokesperson with the office told The Epoch Times via email.

That story was not only widely reported, it was used a part of the second impeachment trial of President Trump.

The article reports on the quiet corrections being made:

The Post said that it “misquoted” Trump, “based on information provided by a source.” It also outed Fuchs as its source, after previously describing her as an individual familiar with the call.

The Associated Press in its correction used similar wording in explaining that it “erroneously reported” that Trump pressured Watson to “find the fraud,” and that if she did, she would be a national hero.

CNN offered an editor’s note in stating that its initial version “presented paraphrasing of the President’s comments to the Georgia elections investigator as direct quotes.”

As author Jonathan Swift wrote, “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” Often quoted as “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” The news media’s coverage of President Trump’s conversation with a Georgia investigator illustrates that statement.

Why Were The Troops Refused?

Posted on by

Yesterday The National Pulse reported the following:

Speaking Steve Hilton on “The Revolution,” the former president outlined how he knew in advance of the crowd size:

“Everyone said we’ll be at the rally. It was, I think, the largest crowd that I have ever spoken to before. I have spoken to big crowds, hundreds of thousands of people, more than that, but hundreds of thousands of people.”

In response, Trump said he “gave the number” to the Department of Defense, insisting that 10,000 members of the National Guard would be needed.

“They took that number, from what I understand, they gave it to people at the Capitol, that is controlled by Pelosi, and I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good,” added Trump in the interview after his Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speech.

The article notes that this was confirmed in a Vanity Fair article:

On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”

I would like to note here that it wasn’t a white supremacist mob, but you will be hearing it described in that way in the future by those who want to limit your freedom. This has nothing to do with white supremacy–it has to do with creating an image of domestic terrorism that will allow the government to spy on anyone who does not support the current political agenda.

After Four Years Without Starting A War…

Posted on by

Yesterday Red State posted an article about the Biden administration’s recent military attack on Syria. If you remember, during the Trump administration, President Trump used economic leverage to encourage hostile regimes to behave. Unfortunately the Biden administration is not that subtle. The Washington swamp creatures who profit in war are back in control of our government.

There is some irony in this situation–the article at Red State shares a past Tweet from Jen Psaki:

This is what President Biden Tweeted when President Trump took out Qasem Soleimani in 2019:

Never put your double standard in writing–it will come back and bite you someday.

The article at Red State concludes:

Of course, there’s a more serious question here, which is whether Psaki was actually right back in 2017. Let’s put aside the fact that Trump and Biden have both launched strikes. Should they have? I think as retaliatory strikes, the single operations are defensible. At the same time, our broader encroachment into Syria, which Trump tried his hardest to shut down but Biden has rejuvenated, is simply not.

As I’ve said in my recent critiques of Liz Cheney, it’s long past time for the uniparty that is our foreign policy complex to answer for many of the mistakes that have been made the last two decades. Rand Paul is correct when he says it’s time to force new authorization for any new military actions in the Middle East. This thing where every new president just does whatever they want is no how things are supposed to work, never mind the moral issues at play.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who profit in war. We need to make sure they have very little influence in our government.

 

 

This Is Troubling, But Not Surprising

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media posted the following headline, “REPORT: Former Obama Staff Colluded With Iran to Undermine Trump.” This is not really a surprise. There were a lot of Democrats and Republican who sought to undermine Trump. We heard a lot of talk about a ‘peaceful transition of power’ when Joe Biden was elected, but we need to understand that there was no ‘peaceful transition of power’ when President Trump was elected. President Obama remained in Washington, D.C., and from his command center threw every obstacle he could into the path of President Trump with full compliance from the media. The antics of the Democrats, some swamp-dwelling Republicans, and the media from 2015 until 2020 are a disgrace to our republic.

The article reports:

Former Obama administration officials, including former Secretary of State John Kerry, went behind President Donald Trump’s back in backchannels with Iran, sources told The Washington Times. Some of the architects of the Iran nuclear deal met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after Trump withdrew from the deal.

A slew of former Obama officials, including Kerry, Obama’s Middle East advisor Robert Malley, and Obama-era Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, met with Zarif during the Trump years. Kerry, Malley, and Moniz led negotiations in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in which the U.S. provided sanctions relief and access to tens of billions of dollars in frozen bank accounts in exchange for Iran’s promises to limit nuclear enrichment.

Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018, citing the need for a tougher agreement that also addressed Iran’s support for terrorist groups and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East. Yet a former senior U.S. official told The Washington Times that Zarif met with Democrats like Kerry multiple times in 2017, 2018, and 2019, before the Trump administration halted his visa in 2020.

The former official told the Times that Zarif’s meetings aimed “to devise a political strategy to undermine the Trump administration” and to build support for a new version of the Iran deal in case a Democrat returned to the White House in 2021.

Kerry acknowledged meeting with Zarif at least twice in the early years of the Trump administration. He told radio host Hugh Hewitt that there was nothing secret about his meetings with the Iranian minister. Kerry said he intended to find out “what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better.”

Kerry was a private citizen at that time; he had no authority to represent America in any way or to meet with foreign leaders in any capacity.

The article concludes:

“Former administration officials can play a very helpful role in close coordination with a sitting administration to open and support sensitive diplomatic channels,” Mark Dubowitz, chief executive at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Times. “But it is not good practice for senior officials who served at the highest levels of a former administration, Democratic or Republican, to be trying to undermine the policy of a sitting administration by engaging actively with a known enemy of the United States.”

Indeed, Malley was reportedly engaging in this “shadow diplomacy” while Iran-backed militias targeted U.S. troops in Iraq, leading up to the assassination of Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.

Sources also told The Washington Times that Zarif wields tremendous influence over the Iran lobby in the U.S. They described a “web” of activity linked to think tanks across the U.S. as well as lobbying efforts that reached into the Obama White House.

Many members of Congress, including Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), have hired current or former staffers with the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), an organization with links to Iran’s regime and which Iran state media has described as “Iran’s lobby” in the U.S.

Did the Obama administration architects of the Iran deal carry out a “shadow diplomacy” with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism in order to undermine President Trump, hoping that a Democrat would win in 2020 and return them to power? Did they work with the Iran lobby behind the scenes? This explosive report suggests the answers to those questions are “yes,” but the details are yet to be forthcoming.

Where is the Logan Act when you actually need it?

Pettiness On Parade

Posted on by

The cancel culture’s attack on President Trump has soared to new heights since he left office. We have reached the point where in some circles it is probably a crime to mention his name in any positive way. This is not only ridiculous, it is not helpful in building unity in America. Half of the country (at least) voted for President Trump. Those in the media might do well to remember that.

Hot Air posted an article today that illustrates how ridiculous things have gotten.

The article reports:

We learned last month that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was cooking up a plan to cancel all of the Trump organization’s contracts with the city. Those contracts involve the operation of a golf course, the carousel in Central Park and two skating rinks. The contracts were set to expire in April anyway, but apparently, the city’s showboating mayor couldn’t wait that long. It was just announced that de Blasio wants the Trump-owned operations shut down and moved out by February 26. (In one week.) That means that operations will end tomorrow to give them time to pack everything up. So any children showing up to go skating this week will find the rinks closed for business.

First we keep the children out of school, then we deny them outdoor recreation, and then we wonder why they might be depressed.

The article continues:

This pathetic move by de Blasio is being done for partisan political reasons and he’s not even trying to hide it. One of his spokespeople said three weeks ago that “Trump has been impeached from operating the ice rink.”

Like a bad dart player who always misses the bullseye, Bill de Blasio has misfired yet again and hit the wrong target. He’s not doing all that much “punishing” of the Trump organization because they were going to be out in less than ten weeks anyway. But in his haste to generate another headline as a hero of the #RESISTANCE, the Mayor shut down the skating operations without having anyone lined up to take over and run them. So the rest of the skating season in Central Park has been “canceled” rather than Donald Trump.

As we discussed here when Bill’s plan was originally announced, Hizzoner has probably set the city up for some legal and financial problems while simultaneously icing out anyone who enjoys skating. Eric Trump had already made it clear that he would be going to court if de Blasio made good on his threat and terminated the contract early.

The Mayor claims that the contracts contain a provision allowing for early cancellation if the contractor is found to be engaged in “illegal activity.” The entire basis for his claim of illegal activity is the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill. But Donald Trump hasn’t been convicted of any crime related to that, nor even charged in a court of law. (Impeachment doesn’t count and he wasn’t convicted in that “court” either.) On top of that, Trump doesn’t personally operate the division of the company that runs the skating rinks. His son does.

The article notes that if Eric Trump sues the city and wins, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the damages. New York City has paid a high price for electing Mayor de Blasio, and it appears that the price is about to go higher.

 

Is This Part Of The Search For Unity?

Posted on by

The following bill was recently introduced into the House of Representatives:

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 484

 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the commemoration of certain 
               former Presidents, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2021

Ms. Sanchez (for herself, Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Danny K. 
Davis of Illinois, Mr. Carson, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. 
 Blumenauer, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. 
Williams of Georgia, and Ms. Chu) introduced the following bill; which 
was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and in addition 
    to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural 
 Resources, Armed Services, and Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the commemoration of certain 
               former Presidents, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Glory for Hate Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL FUNDS RESTRICTION ON COMMEMORATING CERTAIN FORMER 
              PRESIDENTS.

    Notwithstanding section 3102 of title 40, United States Code, no 
Federal funds may be used to--
            (1) create or display any symbol, monument, or statue 
        commemorating any former President that has been twice 
        impeached by the House of Representatives on or before the date 
        of enactment of this Act or has been convicted of a State or 
        Federal crime relating to actions taken in an official capacity 
        as President of the United States on Federal public land, 
        including any highway, park, subway, Federal building, military 
        installation, street, or other Federal property; or
            (2) name, designate, or redesignate a Federal building or 
        Federal land after, or in commemoration of, any former 
        President that has been twice impeached by the House of 
        Representatives on or before the date of enactment of this Act 
        or has been convicted of a State or Federal crime relating to 
        actions taken in an official capacity as President of the 
        United States.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PROPERTY BEARING THE NAME OF 
              CERTAIN FORMER PRESIDENTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds or 
other Federal financial assistance may be provided to a State, 
political subdivision thereof, or entity if any such funds or financial 
assistance will be used for the benefit of any building, land, 
structure, installation, or any other property that bears the name, or 
is named or designated in commemoration of, any former President that 
has been twice impeached by the House of Representatives on or before 
the date of enactment of this Act or has been convicted of a State or 
Federal crime relating to actions taken in an official capacity as 
President of the United States.

SEC. 4. FORMER PRESIDENTS ACT RESTRICTION.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
provide retirement, clerical assistants, and free mailing privileges to 
former Presidents of the United States, and for other purposes'', 
approved August 25, 1958 (3 U.S.C. 102 note; commonly known as the 
``Former Presidents Act of 1958''), any former President that has been 
twice impeached by the House of Representatives on or before the date 
of enactment of this Act or has been convicted of a State or Federal 
crime relating to actions taken in an official capacity as President of 
the United States is not entitled to receive any benefit, other than 
Secret Service protection, under such Act.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF BURIAL OF CERTAIN FORMER PRESIDENTS.

    Section 7722(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) In carrying out paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary of 
Defense shall not approve a determination of eligibility for interment 
or inurnment in Arlington National Cemetery made by the Secretary of 
the Army that permits the interment or inurnment in Arlington National 
Cemetery of any former President that has been twice impeached by the 
House of Representatives on or before the date of enactment of this Act 
or has been convicted of a State or Federal crime relating to actions 
taken in an official capacity as President of the United States.''.
                                 <all>

 

Will the pettiness every stop? This is just spiteful and stupid.

Vendetta

Posted on by

According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, a vendetta is 1. a blood feud or 2. an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts. I sincerely believe that what we are currently seeing in American politics is a vendetta against President Trump. So what did he do to trigger this vendetta? Let’s take a look back for a minute.

President Trump came into politics as an outsider. The mainstream media treated him as if he were a joke. He had the audacity to win. What happened when he won? First of all he discovered that a lot of Washington insiders took joy in stabbing him in the back. Secondly, he discovered that the intelligence apparatus in America was being used as a political weapon. (That has never been dealt with and probably continues under the Biden administration.) Third, he exposed the Washington swamp and was able to accomplish some noteworthy things in spite of it–energy independence, wage increases at the lower end of the economic spectrum, bringing manufacturing back to America, creating jobs, lowering gas prices, peace treaties in the Middle East, developing the coronavirus vaccine in record time, etc. Because he was successful as an outsider the Washington swamp hates him. They impeached him twice, and his poll numbers are still high. But they are not done yet.

There are two recent headlines those of us who believe the attack on President Trump has been over the top need to pay attention to. An article in Red State posted yesterday reports that the Attorney General in Fulton County, Georgia, is planning the charge President Trump with a crime in relation to a phone call to the Governor of the state. The  headline in yesterday’s Washington Times reports, “Trump properties in New York under investigation: Report.”

The Washington Times article states:

Former President Trump is facing scrutiny from prosecutors in Manhattan over millions of dollars in loans he took out for several properties in New York, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

Citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is “investigating financial dealings” involving the Trump properties.

Specifically, the people said prosecutors are looking at loans that were made to Mr. Trump by subsidiaries of the same real-estate investment trust, Ladder Capital Corp., the Journal reported.

On May 9, 2018, The Oxford Eagle posted an article that noted the following:

Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.

Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).

Regardless of how you feel about President Trump, do you want to see the Constitution shredded because the deep state has a vendetta?