Tuesday, November 26, 2019

88-year-old veteran rescues girl from pit bull attack using lawn ornament

ABC News

An 88-year-old Korean War veteran saved a 10-year-old girl’s life after he used a 2-foot tall Christmas nutcracker lawn ornament to beat an attacking pit bull off of her.

Leonard Miller was sitting in his kitchen on Sunday afternoon in Perry Township near Canton, Ohio, when somebody started banging on his front door. It was his panicked 13-year-old neighbor.

"She says the dog has got a hold of my sister and won’t let go, my little sister," Miller told ABC Cleveland affiliate WEWS-TV.

He immediately ran over to the house with the girl and managed to grab the plastic Christmas lawn ornament that was in the neighbor's yard before entering the home.

"That’s the only thing I could think of to grab when I went in," Miller explained.

Upon entering the home, he found a horrific scene -- a 10-year-old girl screaming on the ground with the family pit bull clamped onto her upper arm and shaking her violently.

An 88-year-old veteran rescues a girl from pit bull attack using lawn ornament.

"That dog had that little girl down on the floor and just growling and just shaking her," he recounted. "It was just shaking her, just like a dog would grab a wild animal."

Miller ran toward the dog with the ornament and began striking the animal on the head as hard as he could. But the dog would not let go.

"So then I hit him on the back, like this, just kept hitting him like this. That is when he let loose the little girl," Miller explained as he demonstrated how he was able to get the dog off of the child to WEWS-TV.

Both girls ran out of the home leaving Miller inside locked in a stare down with the violent dog and fearing he would be attacked himself. So he did the first thing that came to his mind -- he yelled at it.

"And I said ‘no!’ real loud about 3 or 4 times," Miller said, adding that he managed to escape through a back door and call 911.

He rushed back to his home where he was able to take care of the seriously wounded young victim before paramedics arrived.

"The medics and everything was here and they said you saved that girl's life," Miller described.

The little girl ended up suffering serious arm injuries that required surgery which she had on Monday, Miller told the station.

The family surrendered the dog voluntarily after the Stark County Dog Warden deemed it to be a vicious animal and, on Monday afternoon, it was euthanized.

After all that happened, however, the Korean war veteran doesn’t consider himself a hero.
"I couldn’t sleep last night so I am just glad I was there to help her," Miller said.

Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Socialism


Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Common Ownership for Private Property


The first few years of Plymouth colony were fraught with hardship and hunger. Economics had a lot to do with it.


Next year at this time, Americans will mark the 400th anniversary of the landing of the Mayflower in 1620 and the subsequent founding of the Plymouth colony by English Puritans we know as the Pilgrims. They, of course, became the mothers and fathers of the first Thanksgiving.

The Common Property Approach

The first few years of the settlement were fraught with hardship and hunger. Four centuries later, they also provide us with one of history’s most decisive verdicts on the critical importance of private property. We should never forget that the Plymouth colony was headed straight for oblivion under a communal, socialist plan but saved itself when it embraced something very different.

In the diary of the colony’s first governor, William Bradford, we can read about the settlers' initial arrangement: Land was held in common. Crops were brought to a common storehouse and distributed equally. For two years, every person had to work for everybody else (the community), not for themselves as individuals or families. Did they live happily ever after in this socialist utopia?

Im going to give a prayerful thanks for private property and the profit motive that has made abundance possible.
Hardly. The “common property” approach killed off about half the settlers. Governor Bradford recorded in his diary that everybody was happy to claim their equal share of production, but production only shrank. Slackers showed up late for work in the fields, and the hard workers resented it. It’s called “human nature.”

The disincentives of the socialist scheme bred impoverishment and conflict until, facing starvation and extinction, Bradford altered the system. He divided common property into private plots, and the new owners could produce what they wanted and then keep or trade it freely.

Communal socialist failure was transformed into private property/capitalist success, something that’s happened so often historically it’s almost monotonous. The “people over profits” mentality produced fewer people until profit—earned as a result of one’s care for his own property and his desire for improvement—saved the people.

Socialism Destroys

Over the centuries, socialism has crash-landed into lamentable bits and pieces too many times to keep count—no matter what shade of it you pick: central planning, welfare statism, or government ownership of the means of production. Then some measure of free markets and private property turned the wreckage into progress. I know of no instance in history when the reverse was true—that is, when free markets and private property produced a disaster that was cured by socialism. None.

A few of the many examples that echo the Pilgrims’ experience include Germany after World War II, Hong Kong after Japanese occupation, New Zealand in the 1980s, Scandinavia in recent decades, and even Lenin’s New Economic Policy of the 1920s.

Socialism flops even when it’s the “pretend” or “voluntary” variety. Imagine the odds against it succeeding when it’s compulsory!
Two hundred years after the Pilgrims, the Scottish cotton magnate Robert Owen thought he’d give socialism another spin, this time in New Harmony, Indiana. There he established a community he hoped would transcend such “evils” as individualism and self-interest. Everybody would be economically equal in an altruistic, fairy-tale society. It collapsed utterly within just two years, just like all the other “Owenite” communes it briefly inspired. Fortunately, because Owen didn’t have guns and armies to glue it together, people just walked away from New Harmony in disgust. They learned from socialism, even if today’s socialists don’t. You can read all about it in this splendid 1976 article by Melvin D. Barger, “Robert Owen: The Wooly Minded Cotton Spinner.”

Socialism flops even when it’s the “pretend” or “voluntary” variety. Imagine the odds against it succeeding when it’s compulsory! The use of force prolongs the agony but doesn’t breed any less bitterness, resentment, or decline. It magnifies the calamity, in fact.

Be Thankful for the Profit Motive

Consider this as you feast at the Thanksgiving table this week: The people who raised the turkey didn’t do so because they wanted to help you out. The others who grew the cranberries and the yams didn’t go to the trouble and expense out of some altruistic impulse or because of some nebulous “sharing” fantasy.

Sacrificial rituals, even if they make you feel good, rarely bake a bigger pie. Charity is laudable, and I engage in it, too, but it’s not an engine of production or prosperity. For that, you need profit, incentive, and private property.

When God instilled a measure of peaceful, productive self-interest into the human mind, he knew what he was doing.
In North Korea and Venezuela, socialist regimes work to see that almost nobody makes a profit or owns a private business. There won’t be anything like widespread Thanksgiving dinners in either country this week, and that’s no coincidence. I wonder if that lesson is still taught in schools these days; polls that suggest young people are attracted to socialism suggest maybe it isn’t.

I’ll be offering gratitude for more than just good food on Thanksgiving Day. I’m going to give a prayerful thanks for private property and the profit motive that has made abundance possible. When God instilled a measure of peaceful, productive self-interest into the human mind, he knew what he was doing.

A ‘Farm Kid’ Thwarts the Coup



“That’s why the establishment, the press, the permanent bureaucracy, the tech oligarchs, the urban aristocrats, the Deep State and all the rest of the ugly beautiful people, will never forgive Devin Nunes,” Lee Smith writes in his dynamite new book. “It belittled them that he didn’t care he wasn’t their sort but was proud to be a farm kid.”

If a full and fair analysis of the Trump-Russian collusion hoax ever is conducted, it will reveal the collateral damage suffered by innocent people ensnared by the wicked, multi-faceted operation launched by Barack Obama’s White House in the spring of 2016.

There are plenty of infuriating passages in The Plot Against the President, a must-read book by journalist Lee Smith. But the description of how the hoax plotters targeted the family of Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) evokes particular outrage.

As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes released a memo in February 2018 describing how Barack Obama’s Justice Department misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain permission to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Democrats did not want that memo out. In the days and weeks leading up its distribution, Smith describes how the crusade against Nunes “took an even more dangerous turn.”

An orchestrated assault against Nunes’ family, including his wife and three young daughters, posed such a threat that law enforcement agents were assigned to the grade school where Nunes’ wife works. Hackers imitated Nunes’ cell phone numbers; calls were made to up to two dozen relatives, including his 98-year-old grandmother and mother-in-law, so they would answer.

“Then they made it sound like I was kidnapped and that I’d better back off or something bad’s going to happen to me,” Nunes told Smith. “So clearly they had a whole plan where they called to threaten all of those people.”

The Nunes family is just one of the many victims savaged by the Trump-hating mob—an effort funded by wealthy partisans and carried out by their accomplices hunkered down in the national news media, on Capitol Hill, and in federal government agencies—attempting to take down Donald Trump. Every American, regardless of political affiliation, should know what they did, how they did it, who they hurt, and how they have corrupted our country’s most trusted institutions, perhaps permanently.

In that regard, The Plot Against the President is essential reading, especially as multiple investigations into what went down in the Obama Justice Department are coming to a head. (It was an Amazon #1 best-seller before its release late last month. It remains on several best-selling lists at the site.)

Smith’s book is the most comprehensive account yet of how these nefarious interests began conspiring in late 2015 and remain at work today. “The dirty tricks operation turned into an attempted coup after Trump’s election,” Smith writes. “Since Trump was elected without the consensus of the ruling party representing the coastal elite, Barack Obama’s intelligence chiefs…believed that his election was illegitimate. It was permissible, they believed, to remove him from office.”

These self-important, some might say sociopathic, officials include former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. “He’s a liar and a con man,” Nunes says of Comey—a generous description of the worst person ever put in charge of the world’s most powerful law enforcement agency.

Comey “has an ego that can’t fit on the planet earth,” Kash Patel, a former national security prosecutor who was one of Nunes’ top deputies, says bluntly. (In the book, Patel recalls his doctor asking in the summer of 2016 why his blood pressure was so high. “I told him it was Comey’s speech,” referring to the FBI director’s infamous July 5, 2016 press conference when he exonerated Hillary Clinton for her illicit email server and mishandling of classified material.)

Comey and company’s scheme included opening a counterintelligence probe into four Trump campaign aides, including the head of the organization; deploying spies into Team Trump; felonious leaks of classified government information to dishonest journalists determined to destroy Trump associates; politically motivated and poorly sourced documents presented as official government material with the imprimatur of the country’s most revered agencies—all culminating with the appointment of a special counsel armed with unfettered resources to search every nook and cranny of Trump’s orbit to find impeachable misconduct.

Nunes’ minimal team of fearless investigators, lawyers and communications specialists nicknamed their effort to expose the multi-pronged plot, “Objective Medusa.” Smith calls the group “a small handful of Americans, public servants, who stood up, assumed responsibility, and did the right thing at a crucial time. What they accomplished together speaks for all of them: they uncovered the biggest political scandal in American history.”

That team also has endured coordinated attacks against them; Patel, now a Trump White House advisor, is suing Politico for libel for an erroneous article recently written by Natasha Bertrand, nicknamed “Fusion Natasha” for her reputation as a shameless mouthpiece for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that produced the infamous Steele dossier in 2016.

Bertrand is part of the Beltway echo chamber that plays a critical role in regurgitating whatever disinformation is fed to them by Fusion GPS, Obama and Clinton loyalists both inside and outside the federal government, and Democratic lawmakers such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Nunes’ successor and nemesis on the House Intelligence Committee and one of the leaders of the crusade to impeach Trump. Smith, who provided similar coverage to Obama’s Iran Deal echo chamber, calls out the media’s participants.

Political operatives disguised as reporters working for Democratic propaganda machines disguised as legitimate news outfits like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and others intentionally have misled the American people about imaginary crimes committed by Team Trump. “The reporters’ sources weren’t whistle-blowers shedding light on government corruption,” Smith explains. “Rather, they were senior US officials abusing government resources to prosecute a campaign against the newly elected commander in chief.”

Journalists would then act as their own sources, citing each other’s flawed and, in some cases, fabricated stories as original reporting. The Washington Post between January 2017 and May 2017, the month Robert Mueller was named special counsel, relied heavily on illegally leaked information about intercepted phone calls between then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and the existence of a FISA warrant on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. (The leaks and subsequent media onslaught against Flynn led to his ouster in February 2017.)

The criminal leakers, often cited as “senior government officials” in news articles, have not been caught.

Smith details the involvement of all the relevant players: FBI officials Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page; Justice Department officials Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr; Clinton-supporting prosecutors on the Mueller team, including Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer many suspect will be charged with criminal wrongdoing related to the Page FISA warrant.

Mueller, Smith concludes, is culpable for fostering an above-the-law climate at the FBI. “As the father of post-9/11 FBI, he had been partly responsible for the dominant culture of the FBI’s upper echelon. He was protecting his legacy.”

Smith covers the development and handling of the Steele dossier, including “protodossiers” also produced by Fusion that predated the well-known work by the British intelligence officer-turned paid political operative. As Nunes’ committee zeroed in on Fusion’s bank records in late 2017, a story in the Washington Post finally confirmed that Fusion and Steele had been paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

Sadly, the victims of the cruel campaign against Donald Trump have piled up, and continue to suffer. Carter Page, Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulos are just a few. Smith tells the shocking tale of Svetlana Lokhova, a British academic falsely portrayed as a Russian asset to connect Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn to the Kremlin. (The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland wrote an in-depth article on Lohhova’s dramatic story.)

In an interview last month with Sean Hannity, Trump mentioned the human toll of the collusion hoax. “What happened to people who worked for me, good people . . . they went bust trying to pay for their legal fees,” the president said. “They came to Washington to do a fantastic job, they were bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. And they left and they were dark people. They left dark.”

Nunes, on the other hand, appears energized and on the verge of redemption. Attorney General William Barr promised to excavate the corrupt origins of the Russia collusion hoax, especially the activity of operatives like Comey between Election Day and Inauguration Day. Barr has assigned a U.S. attorney to investigate the matter; at least one key player, John Brennan, admits that he expects to be questioned by a federal grand jury.

A long-awaited internal Justice Department report on how that agency abused the FISA process is finally expected to be issued next month. And the impeachment crusade shepherded Schiff seems destined for failure.

“That’s why the establishment, the press, the permanent bureaucracy, the tech oligarchs, the urban aristocrats, the Deep State and all the rest of the ugly beautiful people, will never forgive Devin Nunes,” Smith explains. “It belittled them that he didn’t care he wasn’t their sort but was proud to be a farm kid.”

It looks like the farm kid, and all Americans who are not invested in this insidious, destructive plot, will prevail.

"It ain't rape...he's my brother (in-law)," Democrat Deval Patrick...presidential candidate 2020

Relax, its not rape...its relapse...




Deval Patrick keeps his rapey Clinton Administration chops current with this  latest pro-rapist gaff. This of course compliments his "pro-rape" actions as governor of Massachusetts. 


Deval Patrick Calls His Sister’s Rape a ‘Relapse’ During NH Campaign Stop

https://www.insidesources.com/deval-patrick-calls-his-sisters-rape-a-relapse-during-nh-campaign-stop/


Deval Patrick Fired State Officials To Protect Rapist Ex-Brother-In-Law From Registering As Sex Offender

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/14/deval-patrick-fired-state-officials-to-protect-rapist-brother-from-registering-as-sex-offender/


Deval Patrick’s intervention over ex-brother-in-law brings renewed criticism

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/11/15/deval-patrick-facing-new-scrutiny-for-handling-family-rape-case/LnduhVc85bHU2Rr84AHn5O/story.html



Comments below...





25 Reasons Today’s Left Has...


25 Reasons Today’s Left Has Become 
A Bunch Of Ideological Extremists


Anyone who denies the existence of an influential, mainstream, radical left in America today doesn't have any idea what the word 'radical' means.

Several weeks ago, progressive writer John Pavlovitz wrote an article objecting to the idea that he is part of the “radical left.” He doesn’t think he’s radical at all. In fact, he prefers to see himself as part of what he calls the “human middle.”

He writes, “I’m pretty sure that most people reside here in this place alongside me: the desire for compassion and diversity and equality and justice; that these things aren’t fringe ideologies or extremist positions — but simply the best way to be human.”

The implication is that those who disagree with him desire cruelty, uniformity, inequality, and injustice. He didn’t imply it for long, however. He concluded with, “I suppose humanity feels radical to inhumane people.” Ouch.

I don’t know Pavlovitz, but I have used the term “radical left” before. Since I agree people often use labels too casually, I think it’s appropriate to define the terms. Speaking only for myself, when I talk about to the “radical left,” this who I’m referring to.

Profile of the Radical Left

They went from “safe, legal, and rare” to anytime, anyplace, and your neighbor has to pay for it.

They went from scientifically and “medically accurate” information to men can have babies, too.

They went from, “Ask not what your country can do for you” to demanding a universal basic income provided by your neighbor.
They went from, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” to “speech is violence.”


They went from adoring Barack Obama despite his public position that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, to passing laws preventing the opening of chicken restaurants because the deceased owner held the same position.

They went from “coexist” bumper stickers to suing grandmothers who preferred not to decorate a same-sex wedding.

They went from defending women’s autonomy to demanding women wax the genitals of men claiming to be women.

They went from nearly unanimous support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act during the Clinton administration to insisting religious freedom is simply a “license to discriminate.”

They sued a convent of nuns to force them to pay for birth control.

They went from e pluribus unum to intersectionality.

They went from encouraging people to be good, to incentivizing people to be victims. Now, some people want to be victims.

They passed new legislation clarifying that if a woman wants to kill her child the day before her due date, she can. If the baby somehow survives the attempted abortion, the adults are permitted to deny treatment to the baby. They can just let it lie there and cry until it’s dead, I guess. Women’s rights and stuff.

They went from working to get drugs out of schools to working to get drag queens and Planned Parenthood into schools.

They went from the Fatherhood Initiative to telling anyone who would listen that dads don’t specifically matter, kids just need adults around who care about them.

Did I mention the nuns they sued?

They went from the War on Poverty to war on anyone who believes someone with a penis is always a man.

They went from fighting for freedom of expression to fighting for safe spaces.

They went from being the biggest defenders of free speech to passing laws that punish people if they use the “wrong” pronoun.

They passed laws claiming it’s always harmful to tell a boy with gender dysphoria he’s a boy, but they say it’s never harmful to give him puberty blockers, sterilize him, and cut off his penis — as long as he says wants to.

They convinced themselves that loving their neighbor gave them the right to another neighbor’s property.

They went from “believe women” to saying any woman who doesn’t want to share a shower with a man who says he’s a woman is a bigot. 

Then they went back to “believe women” when they thought it would help them oust a Supreme Court nominee they didn’t like.

They talk inalienable rights but mock faith in a Supreme Law Giver from whom inalienable rights might come.

They actually booed God.

They said they wanted everyone to love their neighbors, but when their neighbors created faith-based organizations for that purpose, they mocked and ridiculed them, then passed laws preventing them from placing orphans or housing foster kids, and protested those who were feeding the hungry because of their religion.

In some states, they passed laws telling churches they had to pay for abortions. In those same states, they made it illegal for a 13-year-old to go to the tanning bed but legal for her to get an abortion. Her parents don’t even have to know. The law also allows her to surgically remove her healthy breasts after her abortion, but sun beds are just a step too far.

No Room for Disagreement

Somewhere along the way, they also lost the desire to understand those with whom they disagreed. They claimed “the science was settled” and “the debate was over,” so they stopped listening. It seems they decided they had nothing left to learn.

So they started interrupting speeches, town halls, and public meetingsheld by anyone who disagreed with them. Rather than trying to listen and find common ground, they shouted and agitated mercilessly to prevent the expression of ideas they didn’t like.

A few of them even started running around cities with masks and clubs, violently attacking demonstrations they opposed. They lacked the awareness to call themselves anti-fascists. They’re like a steakhouse that claims to be vegan.

It’s crazy out there, and when I talk about the “radical left,” this is what I mean. This isn’t to say the right doesn’t have its own set of challenges, but anyone who denies the existence of an influential, mainstream, radical left in America today simply defines “radical” differently than I do. Does that apply to Pavlovitz? I hope not.

Who Will Terminate the Would-Be Terminators?



In both the impeachment inquiry and the investigation of President Trump’s tax records, House Democrats are using unconstitutional means toward anti-democratic ends.

The Democrats intended impeachment to cripple if not terminate the Trump presidency. But now it appears the appalling “Rise of the Bureaucrats” will exonerate Trump and may, in fact, lead to the termination of the Democrats.

Like vermin, they flee from light or open hearings. And like the cinematic “Terminator,” they are a ruthless enemy: these operatives of the administrative state can take diverse forms to advance their anti-democratic goals: judges, military officers, congressional staffers, consultants, academics, bureaucrats high and low, as well as elected officials.

And, as the Department of Justice investigations will once again bear out, the ties between the various tribes of the administrative state are close and calculated.

The hearings’ bumbling search for a crime (treason, quid pro quo, bribery?) should backfire on the Democrats, despite the best efforts of the private branch of the administrative state and the media to deconstruct unconstitutional behavior. And even then one is puzzled at whether the punishment of impeachment fits the purported crime? The hearings might be dismissed as a comedic Gilbert and Sullivan spectacle if constitutional self-government were not at stake.

Most Republican members brought sanity to the hearings by asking simple questions—e.g., did the president commit a crime?—which elicited a simple answer, “No.”

Unfortunately, this technique may not satisfy citizens who find President Trump appalling for a variety of reasons. They may mistake unconventional behavior for unconstitutional action or vanity for the hubris of contempt for the law. (Trump is certainly not a Bush, which of course is why his supporters love him.)

In the understanding of Trump critics, policy differences may amount to crimes. Yet even unconstitutional behavior does not necessarily merit removal from office. After all, if a president loses a Supreme Court case by a 5-4 or even 9-0 vote, that hardly means he should resign or be removed from his office.

But this level of discussion, as skillfully as the House Republicans handled it (especially given the strictures on the process imposed by the Democratic majority), misses the core of the constitutional debate. By combating the administrative state, Donald Trump is the grand restorer of constitutional government. The separation of powers cannot exist unless the different branches exert their respective powers with vigor and cunning. Americans should fear an unchecked presidency, but they should fear even more malicious and self-important bureaucrats who want to do good—by running over others. All the more so when those “others” are people constitutionally elected by the sovereign people and, therefore, accountable to them. To whom are these bureaucrats accountable?

But that is, perhaps, the core of the Democratic (and some Republican) resentment of Trump: no longer is government a matter of cushy deals, at home or abroad.

We are reminded that an earlier Congress failed to remove Andrew Johnsonwhen, among other constitutional violations, he did
make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications . . . to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States . . . .
Johnson’s presidency, indeed, was a disaster, but this particular article of impeachment contributed nothing to those indictments. Today one can view such “harangues” as virtually a constitutional duty, given Congress’s many successful assaults on the Constitution over the past half-century and more.


Impeachment Powers are Distinct from Legislative Powers

Overlooked during these recent impeachment proceedings was a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case involving congressional subpoenas of Trump’s tax returns decided October 11 and later denied an en banc hearing, with the whole circuit court sitting on November 13. Two judges (both former Clarence Thomas clerks, appointed by Trump) wrote insightful dissents that remind Congress of the constitutional requirements of their legislative powers. The administration will appeal the adverse decision in the D.C. Court of Appeals on Trump v. Mazars USA and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, which validated the subpoena.

I quote from Judge Neomi Rao’s sharp, historical distinction between the House’s legislative powers and its impeachment powers from her October 11 dissent: “Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress’s legislative power . . . . Allowing the Committee to issue this subpoena [of Trump’s tax returns] for legislative purposes would turn Congress into a roving inquisition over a co-equal branch of government.”

Instead, Rao notes, the subpoena might be part of an impeachment inquiry: “The House may not use the legislative power to circumvent the protections and accountability that accompany the impeachment power.” The House may try to “impeach a ham sandwich,” as some have put it, but even that sandwich has rights under the impeachment clauses. (Legislatively, it might be turned into spam by loose use of the “necessary and proper” clause, but even then there are limits, which belong in another discussion.)

All of Congress’s legislative powers are spelled out in Article I, Section 8, which does not mention impeachment. Impeachment and the trial involve the distinctive impeachment power and are treated in other sections of Article I. They spell out the rules for the House regarding impeachment and the rules for the Senate and chief justice of the Supreme Court regarding the trial. In addition, Article II, on the executive power, provides for penalties for conviction in the cases of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Recognizing how impeachment involves Congress assuming judicial as well as executive responsibilities, Rao observes in a recent dissent, “Throughout our history, Congress, the President, and the courts have insisted upon maintaining the separation between the legislative and impeachment powers of the House and recognized the gravity and accountability that follow impeachment.”

When Congress acts as a judicial body, it needs to follow established rules and not its Calvin Ball impeachment behavior of late. And, most troubling, a legislative request for Trump’s tax returns might reflect a constitutionally forbidden Bill of Attainder, a law directing criminal punishment intended for a particular person.


A Congressional Process Completely Out of Bounds

This explains why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s delegation of the impeachment process to the Intelligence Committee was a violation of impeachment protocol. Why not the Agriculture Committee? After all, the so-called whistleblower, who started the case, was working with the Intelligence Committee, which itself should have been an object of investigation in the impeachment proceedings, not the committee running them. This delegation is, of course, how legislation in the administrative state proceeds, keeping matters in the dark. That the Democrats plan to return formal impeachment power to the Judiciary Committee is a mere figleaf.

Under the administrative state, the House produces ham sandwiches or more accurately, promises of ham sandwiches. But once the House decides to investigate criminal allegations against the president, he is entitled to the protections of the impeachment process. Thus, as Rao maintains, the “House may not use the legislative power to circumvent the protections and accountability that accompany the impeachment power.”

As Chief Justice John Marshall once stated, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” It might be added today that the power to examine tax returns involves the power to destroy individual rights.

While the IRS may investigate tax fraud, politicians may not have such an inherently abused power without destroying constitutional government. In both the tax inquiry and the impeachment proceedings, Democrats have converted a grave constitutional obligation into a partisan game, betraying their oaths of office and establishing a foul precedent that further demeans constitutional government. They insist on the right to play “Terminator” with citizen rights, not only President Trump’s powers of office.

Dispatches From the Administrative State


With the arrogance of the unelected and the power of the unaccountable, these witnesses to nothing revel in their veto over foreign policy.

When a member of the military pulls rank on a ranking member of Congress, when he politicizes his service by admonishing a public servant, when he acts as if the ribbons pinned to his jacket are more legitimate than the pin every congressman wears, when he uses his uniform to command attention—and attempts to commandeer authority—he indicts no one but himself.

When the man in question is Alexander Vindman, his opening statement is a closing argument for the opposition.

When the women in question are Fiona Hill and Marie Yovanovitch, their statements are nothing more than dross in a diplomatic pouch. 

All three statements read like dispatches from the administrative state. 

With the arrogance of the unelected and the power of the unaccountable, these witnesses to nothing—neither present at the creation of presidential policy nor privy to the president’s conversations about policy—revel in their veto over foreign policy. They testify to their Americanness by condemning the chief executive of the American people.
To Vindman, Hill, and Yovanovitch the personal is political. 

What matters most to them is their influence over all matters, foreign and domestic.

What matters least to them is what matters most to the friends of freedom: strength through peace. 

A just peace, secured not by the submission of nations, but by the independence of those nations who request and receive assistance from the United States, who help themselves to what they can buy from America, who buy what only America has the wealth to sell them: weapons.

To acknowledge the truth about America is to abandon the lie about President Trump. 

His decision to arm Ukraine refutes the notion that he is a tool of Russia. His decision replaces the rhetoric of hope with the force of realism. His decision restores the balance of power, lifting the defenders of Kyiv so as to compel the allies of Moscow to lay down their guns.

His decision is not an impeachable offense.

Fire The Admirals

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own  and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall

Fire the Admirals to Encourage the Others

Fire the Admirals to Encourage the Others
Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Mark this day on your calendar because here is the moment that I admit that Barack Obama did something right. He fired Army General Stanley McChrystal.

Now, I would have fired him well before for failing to win the Afghanistan War. In World War II, which America incidentally won, we fired lots of generals and admirals for failing to win. It was nothing personal. You aren’t winning, so “Next!” Obama did (gently) fire McChrystal’s predecessor for failing to win; he was a good officer who, by coincidence, was literally onstage talking to my Army War College class the moment Obama’s firing of McChrystal was announced. But that’s about the only big-name general fired for not winning since the not-coincidentally Endless War on Terror™ began.

Anyway, Obama fired McChrystal because McChrystal surrounded himself with a staff that included petulant and childish folks who decided it was a smart idea to run down the commander-in-chief and Veep Joe Biden to a Rolling Stone reporter, who published it.

Look, I am second to none in my love of mocking the proud papa of unproud papa Hoover Biden, noted dope-huffing loser and Ukrainian gas industry expert, but when you are a general, you can’t disrespect the CinC or CinC, Jr. That doesn’t work. Similarly, President Donald Trump needs to relieve the commander of the Naval Special Forces Command. And then he needs to relieve that guy’s boss for failing to relieve his subordinate. Oh, and he also needs to relieve the chief of information, or whatever they call the head public affairs guy for the Navy, for allowing his command to issue passive aggressive statements disrespectful of the President.

And the garbage Secretary of the Navy, who allegedly told “the White House that a tweet is not an official order and if the president is ordering the Navy to end the Trident Review Board of Gallagher, he needs to do so in writing.” Can him.

The Brits know – well, knew – a bit about how to have a winning Navy and about properly orienting their admirals toward victory. After all, the purpose of a Navy is victory; the rum, sodomy and the lash parts are just fringe benefits. 

In 1757, some effete British admiral named John Byng was ordered to hold Minorca and he didn’t. He "failed to do his utmost," so the Admiralty hauled him out onto the deck of a warship and shot him. Voltaire wrote about this uncompromising leadership technique in Candide and commented, “Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres,” which essentially translates as “shoot an admiral every once in a while to encourage the others.”

Time to figuratively shoot some admirals.

Here’s what happened. The president used his constitutional prerogative to pardon or otherwise restore the rank of three accused military personnel, which some of us in the military community had mixed feelings about but which some flag officers vehemently opposed. The most clearly correct action was the restoration of the rank of SEAL Eddie Gallagher. His shameful prosecution had been replete with JAG misconduct, including the mind boggling decision of the prosecutors to electronically spy on defense attorneys. Beyond this outrage – and I note, incredulously, that apparently no one was prosecuted for doing it – these hacks put up on the stand an immunized witness who testified that he killed the alleged ISIS victim. Gallagher was acquitted of everything except some piddling charge of taking a selfie with a terrorist stiff and still had the book thrown at him.

Well, after the acquittal, the JAGs decided to award each other medals. Medals. Not indictments for their eavesdropping antics. Not letters of reprimand for their staggering incompetence. Medals. President Trump got wind of this and had to personally direct that these defective decorations be withdrawn. Fast forward to the restoration of Gallagher’s rank and what happens next? The Naval Special Forces commander, apparently the next day, initiated a proceeding to take Gallagher’s SEAL trident, his status as a special warfare operator.

Are you kidding me?

Let me explain how command works for those who aren’t military. Command is not about “orders.” It is almost entirely about the commander’s intent. You can give a formal order – “Let’s do weekly training at the rifle range.” But you can also express a wish – “It would be nice to have a silver bullet of coffee in here for the overnight shift in the main command post,” and that is also, and equally, an order. But even vaguer expressions of intent are orders – if the commander says, “Our guys are not passing the physical fitness test at a high enough rate and we need to do something about it,” then you would be going against his intent if you decided to cancel your subordinate unit’s physical training to use that time complete gender identities briefings. 

Of course, that’s a bad example because in today’s military, briefings on the need to pretend to care about weird people’s bizarre gender delusions are much more important than physical fitness and no CO would get fired because his troops look like a bunch of thick Vindmans while a complaint from an aggrieved transvestite might cost you your career.

In any case, the president was unequivocal about what he wanted, and this pipsqueak admiral publicly defied and disrespected him. Then Trump tweeted that it was not going to happen. What should have happened is the Chief of Naval Operations should have picked up the phone breathing fire, but he didn’t, and it got worse. Rear Admiral Charlie Brown, Chief of Information, issued a statement reading:

"The Navy follows the lawful orders of the President. We will do so in case of an order to stop the administrative review of SOC Gallagher's professional qualification. We are aware of the President's tweet and we are awaiting further guidance."


This is intolerable.

Fire them all.

The commander-in-chief made clear his intent. Then, when he found out the Navy was defying him, he expressed his intent again, and they still drove on with their defiance. And then the press flacks for the Navy issued their passive aggressive statement and pretended that his expression of intent did not constitute a clear and unequivocal order.

Fire them all.

Then fire their bosses for not having fired them already by the time the president got around to it. And fire their bosses. Fire the whole chain of command and order them all to retire. And the Secretary too. They can all go on CNN and embarrass themselves babbling about “fully semiautomatic weapons” or whatever other nonsense its audience of 12 likes to hear.

As much as the admirals – who really ought to have a bit more humility in light of the Navy’s recent demonstrated inability to perform its basic task of sailing ships without crashing them into other ships – might not approve of Trump, approving of him is not their job. While in the civilian government worker force there appears to be a Trump Exception™ to the powers of the presidency, there cannot be one within the military. This is an unprecedented breach of military discipline that must be swiftly, mercilessly and publicly crushed, here and now. 

If you think some uppity lieutenant would have openly defied me when I was in command and not found his sorry rear out heading up rock repainting operations at the far reaches of the base, you are higher than former sailor Hunter Biden in a rental car

Every commander knows you need to establish discipline. And one way to do it is to plant pikes with the heads of a dozen insubordinate admirals on the steps leading up to the Pentagon. Mr. President, you are the Commander-in-Chief and they disrespected you and your constitutional authority. Time to encourage the others to stop playing politics and start doing their damn jobs. Start encouraging, Mr. President.

UPDATE: After this column was written, the Los Angeles Times reported: “U.S. Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer denied a New York Times report Saturday that he had threatened to resign or be fired if President Trump intervenes to stop an administrative review of a SEAL at the center of a botched war crimes court-martial.” But if he doesn’t put an end to this mini-mutiny pronto, the president should still Schiffcan him.

FURTHER UPDATE: And Trump fired the bum (through the Defense Secretary). Good riddance.