Saturday, November 2, 2019

Where Are the..

Newsmax


Where Are the 
High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

speaker of the us house nancy pelosi democrat of california
The Constitution is quite clear: The president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Democrats are speeding toward the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump with this standard barely a pebble in their path. The Constitution does not permit impeachment because the House of Representatives finds the president loud, dislikes his policies, or simply regards him with uncontrollable, pathological, stammer-inducing hatred.

Nonetheless, Democrats despise President Trump and are determined to impeach him, no matter what.

Still, the question remains: How, exactly, is Trump even accused of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

Treason? No one has claimed that Trump provided aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. At worst, he delayed aid to a friendly nation with which America is at peace.

That is not treason.

Bribery? At worst, Trump postponed some $391 million in assistance to Kiev, presumably in exchange for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. The aid was delivered, and no such dirt was received. None of this money ever got near Trump’s pocket or that of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

So, where is the bribery?

"High crimes and misdemeanors?" While this criterion is more nebulous, it also seems far out of reach.

Democrats accuse Trump of extorting Zelenskiy to investigate for corruption any of the eyebrow-raising connections between Kiev and Joe and Hunter Biden, the former veep’s son. Democrats claim that such a probe was what Zelenskiy had to launch before receiving the aforementioned military aid.

This is the notorious quid pro quo.

But Zelenskiy has said repeatedly that he never felt extorted in his July 25 phone call with Trump. Zelenskiy told journalists on September 25, "nobody pushed me."

During extensive discussions with some 300 journalists in Kiev, Zelenskiy said on Oct. 10: "There was no pressure or blackmail from the U.S."

The available evidence, from the supposed victim of Trump’s vise, is: What vise?

Similarly, for Trump’s alleged quid pro quo to work, Team Zelenskiy needed to know that their military aid was being blocked, until they put the Bidens under magnifying glasses. Absent such awareness, Trump’s "threat" would have been as pointless as trying to rob a bank with a concealed handgun.

"I had no idea the military aid was held up," at the time of the call with Trump, Zelenskiy said on Oct. 10. Well after that July 25 conversation, the Ukrainians learned that the aid had been delayed, in part to see if Kiev would live up to its promises to fight corruption. Zelenskiy and Vice President Mike Pence discussed this in Warsaw on Sept. 1.

The assistance was released 10 days later.

"And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million," Zelenskiy said. "That’s why there was no blackmail."

Democrats and their bodyguards in the Old Guard media also seem deeply hurt that Trump fired former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

How dare he? What a bully!

Yovanovitch, like every other U.S. ambassador, serves at the president’s pleasure. As the chief architect of foreign policy during his administration, Trump had every right to sack Yovanovitch, for slow-walking his initiatives, because he wanted a new American face in Kiev, or perhaps he didn’t like her shoes.

There’s no high crime or misdemeanor here.

Democrats are irked that Trump has deployed his personal attorney, former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, as his emissary, thus circumventing career diplomats.

As Eric Felten of RealClearInvestigations recalled,this is nothing new.

Democratic presidents have dispatched the Rev. Jesse Jackson and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on informal missions. Jimmy Carter used Coca-Cola chief J. Paul Austin as a back-channel envoy to Cuba. Even George Washington relied on Gouverneur Morris as his "private agent" in Europe.

Poor Democrats.

If the Constitution included a "We can’t stand the guy!" impeachment rationale, their divisive recklessness would be legit.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor, a contributing editor with National Review Online, and a senior fellow with the London Center for Policy Research.Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online. He has been a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. Read more opinions from Deroy Murdock — Click Here Now.

Exclusive: Joe Biden’s 2020 Nomination Acceptance Speech




MILWAUKEE (July 16, 2020)—Here is the text of 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention, as prepared for delivery:

To all my fellow African-Americans, it is with profound gravity and great humidity, I accept your nomination for the vice presidency . . . er . . . I mean, the presidency of the United States.

Folks, let me first oppress my thanks to the hysterical slate of candidates who wanted the job as much as I did, and especially the one who traveled the farthest—a champion for pregnant working Native Americans—Elizabeth Warren. Liz, you are a credit to your race, because you embody what true Native American spirit is.

And special thanks go to the next vice president of the United States, Alexander Ocasia-Corpus—no, er . . . I mean, Alexandra Cortez . . . I mean, Ocasio-Ortiz—you’re just awesome and really smart, and your hair smells nice, too! Not like some of those working-class women, whose hair I had a chance to sniff over the years . . .

What I am trying to say, folks, is that I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest bartenders of our time, a woman at ease with serving both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages to every American.

I also want to thank my husband . . . er . . . I mean, my wife, Jill, whom I helped through that difficult time when she was 23 and going through a dry spell, and I talked her into marrying me because I explained to her—no joke!—that she had no better options. Jill, I love you so much, and so much more than all those other women I rubbed and fondled . . . er . . . I mean . . . cuddled with . . . er . . . I comforted those women. I mean, they needed comforting because of the MeToo thing. It was all consensual, because I would never . . .
Never mind. Right.

And, finally, I want to thank Bertie Sanders for not kicking the bucket back in October of last year, when he had that heart attack. The fact of the matter is, without Binny and his geriatric socialism to siphon off voters from Liz, I wouldn’t be here. So thank you, Bunny. I mean, Bernie.

Folks, all of us share a belief that in America, anyone can achieve whatever he puts his mind to, even if his mind isn’t firing on all cylinders . . . er . . . what I mean, folks, is that disabled people also have a chance . . . what I am trying to say is . . . that age-related mental disabilities are the next frontier of human evolution.

This is serious!



For 232 years, our country has been . . . no, I mean, for 249 years . . . yeah, OK . . . 2020 minus 1776 is . . . what again? Right. For many, many years since the founding of our country, and if you email J-O-E-3-3-0-3-3 on your phone, you can donate to my campaign, because at each moment all we have is each other. No joke!

This is a battle for the soul food of America, and it is at this defining moment that you have chosen me as your champion. The road to here has been long and winding. It all started when I faced a tough, ruthless, vicious gangster named Corn Pop at the community pool back in 1935.  He was 250 pounds of solid African-American muscle and gold teeth, and I was about 130 pounds, soaking wet.

What I mean is, he was big and he was black, but that’s not really who he was inside, because even at a 7-11 you see nothing but Indian-Americans working the cash register, but not the Native Indians . . . er . . . I mean, not those kinds of Native Americans—they are Indians, yes, but not like our kind of Indians. I mean, their Indians don’t wear feathers on their heads, they wear that other thing that they wrap around their heads. Right. But Corn Pop was not Indian, I mean, we don’t call them black now, we call them colored people . . . er, persons of color . . . so, yeah, Corn Pop had himself a big razor blade, and all I had was my attitude, but I showed him!

And that’s the God’s honest truth!

Tonight, more African-Americans are out of work than are working, because Trump says that unemployment among blacks is the lowest in history, but what we really need is jobs for the working people, and for the women, too. And the women who used to be men, they need jobs too, because—I am being serious here!—they are just like men, only they are women, because . . . er . . . well . . . Americans of all three genders need jobs. And that’s no joke!

Yes, seriously, folks, women-Americans need jobs. Having been close enough to many women-Americans to take note of their personal hygiene, I can honestly tell you that they are working harder for less. Because, folks, less can be more, but not when we do everything right, then more is less, especially if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong.

And I usually get it wrong, but I am definitely not going nuts. I know for a fact I am not going nuts.

Here, in Minneapolis, in the beautiful state of Wyoming, we face a great many challenges. Many people in our Rainbow Coalition have cars they can’t afford to drive, because gas is too expensive. And thanks to my Climate Exchange plan, a gallon of gas will cost $250, but we will then give you a refund, because, folks, that’s how government works. Politics in Washington is broken—I should know, I spent 50 years in Washington breaking it, and finally didbreak it, so it’s a good thing that I am almost 78 years old now!

So I make a promise to you all, folks—I am being serious here!—that I will cure cancer because Climate Change and cancer go together. And I know how to cure cancer because I ran the Biden Cancer Initiative, which . . . well, I wasgoing to cure cancer, but then I decided that being president is more important. Because I’ve known eight presidents, and I’ve been intimate with three of them—four if you count Barack—so I know what I am talking about here.

So tonight, I say to all the African-American people—I went to a historically black college just like you! I was the first Biden in a thousand generations of Welsh coal miners, all named Biden, to have gone to a historically black college!

Let there be no doubt—I know what I am talking about when I talk about education—and that’s no joke! It’s not even close, because I am completely serious here—if an African-American family can’t afford college for their children, they should buy a record player, for their kids to listen to recordings and stuff.

The truth is, on issue after issue—on health care and foreign policy and the economy—I have been wrong. No, that’s not right . . . What I mean is, Trump has been wrong. Right. No, I mean, wrong. I’ve been right, and he’s been wrong, and that is why I deserve to be president now.

Unlike Trump, I support repatriations for every American. Every person of color—regardless of the color of their skin—deserves repatriations. Even if some person doesn’t have a color at all, we should not discriminate, because, you know, America is not about discrimination, it is about seclusion. I mean, inclusion. And even though I opposed repatriations when I was Bill Clinton’s vice president, I am flexible enough to see now that we need more repatriations, not less.

This is our moment, folks. I remember like it was yesterday, when the stock market crashed in 1929, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about, you know, the princes of greed. He said, “Look, here’s what happened.” So what did happen? I don’t know, but I promise to find out when I’m president. Hold on, let me just pop those dentures back in place, where they belong. Good.

So what do we tell the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant that closed because nobody could afford to buy cars anymore with my Climate Exchange Plan, and they had to go on welfare? We tell them—tough luck! No more cars, except for people who really need them! Like me and my future vice president, Alexandra Ortiz! Climate Change is the existen . . . extan . . . exis . . . existence . . . threat that the world faces today. So if you are out of a job, and your wife left you for another man, or maybe another woman, you can always get another gig at a Dunkin’ Donuts, especially if you are Indian. These are the Americans that I know—proud to be working selling donuts instead of building gas guzzlers.

No joke, folks!

The fact of the matter is, this speech is half-over, and I need to make a point here. And my point is this: In case you didn’t know it, I was Barack America’s vice president.
Barack America was the first mainstream African-American who was articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. All the other African-Americans before him were more like Corn Pop, or even more like T-Bone, Senator Booker’s imaginary friend, but Barack could really give one hell of a speech! So my point is, I will carry on his legacy, because I will be the second African-American who is articulate and bright and clean. When I say “his legacy,” I am talking about Barack’s, not Corn Pop’s or T-Bone’s. And by the way, did I mention that I was Barack’s vice president?

When the call from Barack came, back in 1998, for me to be Barack’s vice president in the Obama-Biden Administration, I stepped up to the plate, because I knew in my heart that what Barack needed was a non-threatening old white dude as his numero dos. And I want each and every one of you to have that same opportunity, because, folks, this is what America is all about—giving old white dudes like me opportunities to reach higher and higher.

And that is why it is time for us to own up to our own failures. The fact of the matter is, it is time for us to change America, so that every American has a chance to fail. Under Barack, our economy grew amazingly, just amazingly, at the rate of 1 percent a year. Trump gave us nothing but misery, with his measly 3 percent growth. Come on, man! Every American knows that Barack’s 1 percent was better than Trump’s 3 percent!

And let me talk about health care. When Barack and I passed Obamacare, that was the proudest moment of my life, except for that moment when I was dodging sniper fire in Afghanistan while pinning a medal on a Navy SEAL back in 1976. Barack and I made a promise to all Americans—if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! If you like your plan, you can keep your plan! And so here, today, I make that promise to you again—you got nothing to worry about because your premiums will go down by $2,500 a month! I give you my word as a Biden on that!

And speaking of healthcare, I believe that healthcare is a basic right of every American—legal and illegal, present and future, here today and gone tomorrow. This is why so many immigrants want to come here—for the free health care that my health plan will offer to every illegal immigrant. We cannot—we must not disappoint them—for the promise of America is a promise to every American that we will make a promise to them, promising to take care of them, even when they shouldn’t be here in the first place.

And folks, let me just respond to those vicious Republican attacks on me and my son. My son did absolutely nothing wrong in Ukraine. Or in Romania. Or in China. I trust my son’s judgment—because he has demonstrated, time and again, that he has absolutely top-notch judgment.

So when he says that he did nothing wrong—I believe him, and so should you. And that is why I make a pledge to you: should I ever be elected president, my son Hunter will never do again what he did in Ukraine, China, and Romania, even though there was no criminal wrongdoing there that anyone has been able to prove so far. I give you my word as a Biden on that!

The fact of the matter is, I am finally getting to my point.

Here is my point: America, we must turn back to the time of Barack. We have much work to do, and you must be the ones doing it, while I tell you what to do. We cannot walk alone—but at the same time, we cannot walk not alone either. What I mean is, folks, we have to walk together even if we are walking in opposite directions. But we must pledge once again to march into the future by walking forward into the past. So let us march on, straight into that past, because we are stronger together!

Folks, thank you, and God bless the United States of Mexico!

Where Ridicule is a crime

Connecticut: 

Where Ridicule is a Crime

Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were Connecticut's absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians, professors and other students. (Image source: iStock)

Two students at the University of Connecticut have been charged with the crime of ridiculing African Americans by shouting the N-word as part of a childishly inappropriate game. A video of the incident went viral and generated protests on and off the campus.

Outrageous as shouting this racist epithet is, the First Amendment protects it from criminal prosecution or other governmental sanctions. The Connecticut General Statute under which the students were charged is just about as unconstitutional as any statute can be. It is not even a close case. Here is what the statute criminalizes:
Section 53-37 - Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race.
Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

"Ridicules or holds up to contempt"! Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were this absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians, professors and other students.

Consider, for example, ridiculing people based on nationality. Sacha Baron Cohen, based on his films, would be guilty on multiple accounts. So would Mel Brooks. African American comedians often ridicule "whitey." Feminist stand-up comedians mock men mercilessly.

Or consider "holds up to contempt" — half the faculty of many universities, including some at University of Connecticut — would be guilty for holding up Israel to contempt. Or students who attack other students for "white privilege" or "male privilege" would be committing a crime. Or pro-choice students or faculty who mock Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion or gay rights. Where would it stop?

And what about "creed"? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed that cannot be ridiculed?

Of course, none of these politically correct ridiculers would ever be prosecuted under this statute. And therein lies its greatest danger: selective prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the kind of unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect would be most at risk. Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-conservative views are freely expressed not only outside of classes but in some classes as well. Such hateful expressions are not only tolerated, they are often praised as "progressive" by some of the same students and faculty members who would censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First Amendment, such selective censorship is intolerable.

Because the University of Connecticut is a public institution for adults, it is fully bound by the First Amendment. Its students are free to express racist ridicule and contempt outside of the classroom (the rules governing classroom speech are more complex).

The proper response to the expression of such obnoxious views is to counter them with better views in the marketplace of ideas, not to censor them and not to call the police.

So let there be rallies demanding mandatory diversity classes. Let the university president "bravely" stand in solidarity with the understandably offended students. Let the perpetrators be condemned and ostracized. These actions too are protected by the first amendment. But do not censor or prosecute protected obnoxious speech. All who care about civil liberties, regardless of race, should now join with the racist students in opposing their criminal prosecution and demanding that the Connecticut statute be struck down as unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness and at a time when the hard left is demanding "free speech for me but not for thee." But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced, especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.

So, do not count on others to defend the First Amendment rights of troublemakers who express racial ridicule or condemnation. The defense must come from grass roots civil libertarians who understand the need to protect speech we hate even more that speech we love. Where is Voltaire — to whom the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is often attributed — when we most need him?

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019.

Responses To Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare For All Plan



As I reported this morning, Elizabeth Warren has released her plan to pay for “Medicare for All” and it’s a cluster of terrible assumptions and veiled tax hikes on the working class. The idea that payroll tax hikes, repealing the Trump tax cuts, unregulated immigration, and slamming businesses with new taxes wouldn’t hugely damage the middle class is laughable on its face.

Because Warren is the chosen one though, the media rushed to hang on her every word and proclaim that she had silenced her critics.

Take this stupidity for example.



So much journalism going on.

Other outlets kept it a bit more professional but the repeated line all day was that Warren had figured out how pay for her plan without hurting the middle class. This was repeated over and over with no critical analysis at all. You can see my previous piece on the subject to discover why that’s an outright lie. But the media are gonna media all over the place.


Meanwhile, Republican Ben Sasse released a statement that pretty much sums up my feelings toward this insanity.


Gotta admire the honesty there. If there’s one thing Trump has done to improve our political environment, it’s ripping away the insufferable decorum surrounding garbage like this. If someone is suggesting we turn the healthcare system into a communist dumpster fire, just calling it that works much better than the lofty fluff we used to endure.

As a reminder, the federal budget is a little over $3.5 trillion a year. Warren wants to spend $52T over ten years on her plan, which means she wants to well more than double the yearly federal budget for a single program. And she says she’s going to do this by not taxing the middle class.

Sasse is right. It’s make-believe math to think that could work. She might as well be saying she’s going to pay for it with unicorn farts and dancing gnomes. Yet, somehow our intrepid, fact-loving media don’t seem curious at all to pry apart the discrepancies within her new white paper. Think back to 2017 when Republicans were trying to pass the tax cuts and there was a new article in The Washington Post every two hours telling you how it couldn’t work. They were wrong of course, but the point is that they sure found time to dig deep in that instance.

With Warren though, they’ll lay off. They don’t want Biden and Warren makes them feel like Obama made them feel, just in a much more white bread way. 

President Trump Impromptu Remarks Departing White House [VIDEO]

Chopper pressers are the best pressers.  Yesterday evening President Trump stopped to deliver remarks and answer questions from the press pool as he departed the White House for Mississippi.



Mark Levin Torches the Democrats in Scathing Monologue Following House Vote

 Article by Elizabeth Vaughn in "RedState":

Radio and television host (and attorney) Mark Levin lit the Democrats on fire on Halloween night. I absolutely love this man! He is, as Sean Hannity says, the Great One.

Levin begins by demanding to know what crime has the President committed, a question that no Democrat can actually answer. They’ll point to their duty to uphold the constitution and lament our lawless President. They have no choice, they’ll quickly add. They are certainly not happy having to perform this solemn duty, you understand, but it is their duty.

They know they’re lying and everyone listening knows they’re lying, yet they don’t get called out on it because they are supported by a complicit media.

Levin clearly lays out the facts in his inimitable style, not as an apologist for President Trump, but as a lawyer.

The whistleblower’s complaint has put the spotlight on the staff of the National Security Council which seems to be filled with Obama holdovers. Levin calls it a rat’s nest. I call it a minefield.

Everywhere Trump turns, it seems, unexpected enemies lurk. The vast number of people involved in what truly has been a soft coup against the President is what’s made it so difficult to prosecute. They all have a vested interest in covering for each other.

As I see it, there are two forces that can stop it. The first would be indictments of those responsible for orchestrating this farce. We know that Durham’s investigation has turned criminal. That doesn’t just happen out of the blue. Durham’s team has clearly found evidence of a crime. But, as much faith as I have in the Durham team, weary Republicans (like me) need to see something concrete right about now.
Trump keeps getting knocked down by the Democrats. And it’s gone on for so long. He needs a win. We need a win.

The other force would be the American electorate. Trump has retained most of his support. But are there enough independents, or even moderate Democrats, who see this farce for what it is and who oppose the changes the Democrats are trying to thrust upon the country? One would think so, but until something definitive happens, until someone is actually held responsible for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in history, we can’t be too sure.

Here is a (nearly complete) transcript of Levin’s remarks. But I recommend spending five minutes to watch the video below!

1. What exactly is the impeachable issue here? The Ukrainian President said no pressure, no quid pro quo. He didn’t even know military aid was temporarily withheld. The President has every right to temporarily withhold military aid for any damn reason he wants to and it’s been done before by other presidents. We have the phone call itself. The President declassified it. You can’t find a single tie between military aid and requests for the 2016 investigation. And even if you do, it’s perfectly legal. But there isn’t. There isn’t.

Now, you can’t ask the Ukrainian government to assist you in the 2016 criminal investigation that’s being led by your Attorney General and U.S. Attorney Durham? Of course you can – even though it might get to the bottom of the Hillary campaign and the DNC that worked with Ukraine in the Obama Administration. First, the United States is free to do that and if he did do that, good for him.

You can’t mention the Bidens? Why? Because Joe Biden is running for office for the 412th time?

Well, Mueller got assistance from 13 governments in his special counsel investigation and I don’t remember hearing a single complaint from anybody. Just because he’s running for office doesn’t mean he’s immune from investigation and the President of the United States said it as passively as possible. Meanwhile, Ukraine got the military aid and the Bidens are still running free. Now you want to talk about interfering with an election. Biden is interfering with an election. He supports impeaching the President. Doesn’t that help his election? The Democrats are interfering with an election. That’s the whole purpose of what they’re doing. They’re trying to reverse the 2016 election and influence the 2020 election. How do I know? This is the first time in American history a process like this, so bastardizing the impeachment clause, has ever been used against a president, a federal judge or any official of the United States government.

So, there’s no issue of impeachment, high crimes, misdemeanors, treason, bribery, no issue of criminality when it comes to the President, so what’s the issue?

2. We have found the rat’s nest. It’s in the National Security Council. The whistleblower, according to a number of reports as you’ve been seeing, comes from the National Security Council, an Obama holdover, a Democrat, somebody who worked with Biden, somebody who worked with Brennan. An Obama holdover who didn’t like Trump. who met with one of the active figures in the Ukraine effort to undermine the President of the U.S. in 2016. We have two others who now were hired by Schiff, Obama holdovers, who were in the National Security Council. Now they work for Schiff and how much do you want to bet one of them was the one he colluded with. And, of course, Schiff doesn’t want to know anything about it. You want to know why the President of the United States has had trouble bringing his own people into the National Security Council and getting clearances? Now you know why. Because it was a rat’s nest.

By the way, I think U.S. Attorney Durham and the Attorney General of the United States ought to have an investigation of these three National Security Council former staffers. What role, if any, did they have in the Ukraine 2016 matter interfering with the election? What role did they have pushing the Russian collusion matter? Were they leakers? I think the criminal investigation, the hell with Schiff, they ought to get into these three and find out exactly what they did and there may be more of them…

3. Adam Schiff, you are a key fact material witness. You hired those two Obama staffers. Your staffers, or one of them, met with the former National Security staffer to the President of the United States. You’re trying to protect your staffers. You’re trying to protect this phony whistleblower and you’re trying to protect the Democrats from 2016 and what they tried to do to candidate Trump. It’s all in Politico, it’s all in the New York Times even though they don’t want to admit it.

Now Donald Trump’s been investigated by the SDNY, the special counsel, multiple Congressional committees, etc…But, Joe Biden, whoa! You can’t interfere with the election. Joe Biden’s running for office again…You’re not allowed to look at Joe Biden. That’s interfering with a foreign election.

And by the way, you can’t ask foreign governments for help? Well, how do you get help in investigating somebody when the events occurred overseas. The FBI does this all the time. We investigate people for drugs, embezzlement, money laundering with the assistance of foreign governments all the time.

4. Why do the Democrats keep lying? Here’s what they passed today. 7 1/2 pages of BS.
Here’s what they did in 1998. A long discussion of the President’s rights. The President has a right to counsel, to cross examine, to have his own witnesses.

You know what they said today. The Chair of the Committee on Rules including such procedures has to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel. How do they get to participate? We don’t know. This is the biggest, disgusting scandal and it’s all on the Democratic party that has hijacked the impeachment process and our tax dollars to push the 2020 election. That’s what’s going on.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/01/mark-levin-torches-democrats-scathing-monologue-following-house-vote/

 Image result for picture of mark levin"

Liz Warren’s Magical Money Tree

Elizabeth Warren’s “Medicare for All” plan is the stuff of make-believe.



After weeks of pressure, Liz Warren finally released her Fabulous, Super Easy to Afford Medicare for All Plan.  And it’s about as insane as you’d think.  Apparently Warren believes in the existence of a magical Money Tree.
Because despite a price tag of $52 TRILLION, Liz pinky swears it will not be necessary to raise taxes on the Middle Class.


There is no way in the world that a so-called “plan” that costs more than double our current national debt would not end up screwing every single taxpayer in the country.
Especially when you consider that Liz wants to “cover” illegal aliens.
Claiming you can raise taxes by twenty TRILLION dollars that won’t include taxing the crap out of the Middle Class is wish-casting.
There is no Magical Money Tree on which that twenty TRILLION dollars is growing.
(Read Pradheep’s entire thread HERE. It’s worth reading the whole thing.)


Keep in mind, Liz also wants to do the Green New Deal. So on top of $52 Trillion for her fantasy “healthcare” plan, you have to toss in another $30 Trillion for that.
Not to mention paying off student loan debt AND making college “free.”
That magical money tree of hers better get to work bearing a whole hell of a lot of fruit because otherwise she’s screwed.
Who am I kidding?
We’ll all be screwed.
As Jim Geraghty put it over at National Review, “her plan runs on rainbows and unicorns.”
And it relies on the existence of a magical money tree.


As Jesse Kelly always says, “All Democrats have to do is not be insane.  But they just can’t do it.”
It was just ten years ago that Americans were promised that Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” would “fix” our “broken” healthcare system.
And they lied.
All the wish-casting disguised as a “healthcare plan” was utter bullshit.
Do they really believe that Americans will fall for another BS healthcare overhaul on the promise that it’ll cost us “not one penny?”
You’d have to be a complete brainless idiot to believe for even a nano-second that Magical Money Tree Warren’s “plan” would work.



But just like in 2009, the idiots in the news media will gush all over Liz’s unworkable plan.  They’ll lie for her, and repeat her fantastical “no middle class tax increase” claim as fact.  Because they really don’t give a crap if the American people and our economy get screwed so long as they believe Liz Warren can help them get Trump out of the White House. 









Rugby World Cup final: Heartbreak for England as South Africa win 32-12

England have failed to beat South Africa in the Rugby World Cup final, with the Springboks winning 32-12.
The game started off with England giving away two penalties in the first 10 minutes and Kyle Sinckler being replaced after less than three minutes due to concussion.

In England's biggest game since their last World Cup final in 2007 - where they also lost to the Springboks - everything was at stake for both teams at the International Stadium Yokohama.
Thousands of England fans arrived in Japan to watch the game after their team beat New Zealand in the semi-finals but after a game of penalties and the score at 6-12 at half-time, the Springboks were too strong.

Former South African hooker Hanyani Shimange on BBC Radio 5 Live: "We were in tears for the last moments of that game. So happy, so proud. We spoke about how much it would mean for Siya and the team to win that trophy. I’ll never forget this, I don’t think South Africa will ever forget this. I’m really proud to be a South African today.
"This game won’t change the whole of South Africa but it’s about giving people hope, it’s about uniting people. People will be loving this and we’ll be celebrating for a while. Siya is not just a hero for black South Africans, but for the whole of South Africa.
"We were told we won’t win, England were overwhelming favourites, that’s when we’re at our best historically. It’s the South African psychology, when we’re written off we’re at our most dangerous. We'll be telling stories about this for a long time."
https://news.sky.com/story/rugby-world-cup-england-take-on-south-africa-in-nail-biting-final-11851730

NY Times: Airing National Anthem on TV Can Trigger People Because of ‘Political Overtones’

 Article by Nick Arama in "RedState":

Once upon a time, television stations didn’t run 24 hours a day.

When they signed off for the night, they would generally close with station announcements, the national anthem and then go to static or a test pattern.
 

Now most channels pretty much all run 24 hours and fill the time with things like infomercials or other inexpensive programming.

But some stations are apparently trying to revive the old tradition of closing with the flag and the national anthem.

About 350 stations including Gray Television, CBS and Nexstar Media Group have all gone back to the tradition.
But that has triggered the New York Times.

According to culture reporter Julia Jacobs, reviving this practice might offend some people because the national anthem is “politically charged” and the song could be a “dividing line” for some Americans.

Citing the Kaepernick kneeling controversy, the Times said the revived tradition came “at a time when overt allegiance to ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America.”

Seriously? If you’re triggered by the national anthem on TV, you have issues. And guess what, you can turn it off. But is she actually claiming/admitting “blue America” doesn’t like America?

I thought that Colin Kaepernick and his cohort were claiming that this was about police brutality, not attacking America or the national anthem? So why should the flag and playing the Star Spangled Banner be “political?” Of course, when he first started his protest, he was much more honest about it being an attack on America saying he refused “to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people.”

The kneeling angered folks on the right and made Kaepernick a hero of the far left.

But the Times had to admit that they really hadn’t heard any complaints about the revival of the sign-off.

From Fox News:
“Television executives were explicit in saying that playing the national anthem regularly had nothing to do with the kneeling controversy,” the Times reporter wrote before adding that some feel support of the “politically charged song” has become a “loyalty test.”
“It is somewhat provocative to bring the anthem to the fore in a new way at a moment of tension in this country,” University of Michigan professor Mark Clague told the paper.
That was about the best they could do.

Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center noted how their story really said more about the New York Times and the left than about other Americans.
“It’s inspiring that local news is returning our National Anthem to an important place in our culture. It’s astonishing that The Times would see that as a bad thing,” Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. “But if you pay close attention to the story, the paper admits that the left, including journalists, doesn’t like the national anthem. That shows exactly who and what they really are.”
Humorist and author Tim Young echoed that thought.
“Should it shock anyone at this point that the New York Times is trying to get people to be outraged at the airing of the national anthem? Their piece is written as if viewers should be skeptical of every element of the song and accompanying video,” Young said. “They don’t like America and its anthem and they want you to dislike it as well.”
Young added that people “have the option to move to Canada, where they alter their anthem in line with their social justice wokeness” if the “The Star-Spangled Banner” is so offensive.
“It’s only a short drive from The Times’ New York City headquarters,” Young said. “In the span of a week, the Washington Post calls a terrorist psychopath a ‘religious scholar’ and the Times is upset about the national anthem being played. These are supposed to be America’s top two news publications, and they seemingly hate America.”

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/01/ny-times-airing-national-anthem-on-tv-can-trigger-people-because-of-political-overtones/

Constitution Breathes Sigh Of Relief As Beto Drops Out Of Race



WASHINGTON, D.C.—Reports from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. indicate that the U.S. Constitution was breathing a sigh of relief this evening as Beto O'Rourke announced he was leaving the presidential race.

"There are still several candidates to go before we're totally in the clear," said Page 2. "But Beto being gone is a huge relief. The guy threatened basically every page, every word, every signature, and even said the white paper we were written on was racist."

All ten Amendments making up the Bill of Rights said they were still on their guard but were glad to have a night off. "We're gonna throw a party, pick up some finger foods and beverages. Nothing that will stain though. One time, Trump brought in a meatball sub and it was almost a disaster."

The Constitution said it won't really be able to sleep at night until all members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branch resign, however.

A partisan impeachment vote is exactly what the framers feared

 Article by Alan Dershowitz in "The Hill":

The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

It is almost as if this founding father were looking down at the House vote from heaven and describing what transpired this week. Impeachment is an extraordinary tool to be used only when the constitutional criteria are met. These criteria are limited and include only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Hamilton described these as being “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

His use of the term “political” has been widely misunderstood in history. It does not mean that the process of impeachment and removal should be political in the partisan sense. Hamilton distinctly distinguished between the nature of the constitutional crimes, denoting them as political, while insisting that the process for impeachment and removal must remain scrupulously neutral and nonpartisan among members of Congress.

Thus, no impeachment should ever move forward without bipartisan support. That is a tall order in our age of hyperpartisan politics in which party loyalty leaves little room for neutrality. Proponents of the House vote argue it is only about procedures and not about innocence or guilt, and that further investigation may well persuade some Republicans to place principle over party and to vote for impeachment, or some Democrats to vote against impeachment. While that is entirely possible, the House vote would seem to make such nonpartisan neutrality extremely unlikely.

It is far more likely that, no matter how extensive the investigation is and regardless of what it uncovers, nearly all House Democrats will vote for impeachment and nearly all House Republicans will vote against it. Such a partisan vote would deny constitutional legitimacy to impeachment. It was because of this fear of partisanship in the House that the framers left the ultimate decision to remove an official to the Senate. The framers intended the Senate, which was not popularly elected at the time the Constitution was written, to be less partisan and act more like judges.

The Supreme Court chief justice presides over the Senate removal trial of a sitting president, and adding that key judicial element would seem to demonstrate a desire by the framers to have a presiding officer whose very job description is to do justice without regard to party or person. In both of the previous removal trials of President Johnson and President Clinton, however, the chief justice played a traditionally symbolic role.

If President Trump is impeached, it is certainly possible that his lawyers would ask Chief Justice John Roberts to play a more substantive role. If the grounds for impeachment designated by the House include criteria such as maladministration or corruption, his lawyers could plausibly demand the chief justice to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional.

After all, the framers explicitly rejected maladministration as a ground for impeachment and removal. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, argued that such open criteria would give Congress far too much power to remove a duly elected president. It would, he feared, turn our republic into a democracy in which the chief executive served at the pleasure of the parliament and could be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. 

How many times have we heard from Democrats that “no one is above the law” in reference to President Trump? That is true, but neither is Congress above the law. It cannot substitute its own criteria for those mandated by the Constitution. The House vote may have been necessary to establish procedures. But the partisanship strongly suggests that what Hamilton regarded as the greatest danger may be on the horizon, namely a vote to impeach a duly elected president based not on “real demonstrations of innocence or guilt” but rather on “comparative strength of parties.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468483-a-partisan-impeachment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared 

 Image result for cartoon images of the founding fathers"

Twitter User Claiming Allegiance to Antifa Says He Poisoned Children Dressed as ‘Trump’ For Halloween With Fentanyl-Laced Candy

A Twitter user who goes by the user name “Jenkins” and who claims to have an allegiance to the Democrat terror group Antifa made a disturbing post, claiming any children he saw on Halloween dressed as “Trump” or wearing MAGA gear would get a “special Fentanyl laced candy.”
The Twitter user wrote, “If I see any children dressed up in some #MAGA type of costume like this little worm, I’m going to be giving them my special #Fentanyl laced candy. #ANTIFA action!”


He followed up his original tweet with another sick and mocking tweet today, writing, “The date is November 1st. All the children are dead of fentanyl poisoning. The post is still up. The FBI and Secret Service were too late, all the patriots pleas for action went unanswered.”
Did this sicko actually follow through with his threats? Who knows. These deranged liberals are so unhinged I wouldn’t put anything past them. The threat alone is sick enough and should warrant an investigation by the FBI.
Another disturbing part of this story is that as of this publishing, the man’s posts are still up and his account is still active.
This is a screenshot of his account.