Thursday, January 30, 2020

PATEL: Our Coming Debt Crisis

National Debt Clock - U.S. Economy - Fiscal Challenges
Article written by Neil Patel in "The Daily Caller":

Ten to 20 years from now, we will not be talking about impeachment, and believe it or not, we won’t still be talking about Donald Trump either. We will be talking about our debt crisis. For all the good that came from this era, the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations will all be remembered as the ones that caused the crisis that will hammer our children and grandchildren. To understand where we are, it’s helpful to review the past few years of this issue’s development.

At the Bush White House, where I worked for eight years, we knew we had a long-term entitlement program spending problem coming down the track, but we thought of it as far off in the future. Unfortunately, the Bush administration was horrible about spending. For an administration that campaigned on limited government, we increased nondefense discretionary spending 8% a year during our first term. We also added even bigger increases to the defense side. We introduced a new entitlement for prescription drugs for all Americans instead of targeting it for the needy.

By the second term, the budget hawks were trying to put on the brakes, but with war spending and then Hurricane Katrina, we never really got discretionary spending under control. Finally, with the financial crisis, we stopped even trying. Throw in the booming entitlements, and we left a really bad legacy. To George Bush’s credit, he did expend a lot of political capital on Social Security reform. He jumped on this issue before the country was ready — and nothing got done.

In 2008, federal government spending neared an inflation-adjusted record of $28,388 per American household — the highest level since World War II — up from $21,891 per household in 2001. Sixty percent of all that new spending was in areas unrelated to defense and homeland security.

During the Obama years, with all the talk of stimulus, the spending just got worse. President Barack Obama ran historically massive trillion-dollar-plus deficits his first few years when he had a Democratic congressional majority. Republicans in Congress tried to fight this massive spending with limited success. Some Republicans also tried to raise the entitlement issue — again with no real success. The Obama years were notable as a time when most Republican voters and politicians seemed to really care about our spending and debt problem.

After screaming about spending for eight years of Obama, Republicans have been pretty silent about it during the Trump years. There has been no Republican discussion of entitlement reform, which makes things look more than a little partisan after all the shutdown fights over spending under Obama. Trump has taken the entitlement issue off the table completely, which makes sense politically since voters are not open to it, but from a policy perspective, we are getting closer and closer to the tipping point of a debt crisis.

The presumption in Washington has always been that as we get closer to an entitlement-driven budget crisis, both parties would finally be motivated to tackle the problem. But we are now close. We are over 100% on our debt-to-GDP ratio, which is widely viewed as problem territory. This is when we always expected to make a deal. Do you see a deal on the horizon? The two parties can’t even get the most simple bills passed. Do you see any chance of fundamental entitlement and spending reform passing in the environment we have?

This year, we have strong economic growth, low unemployment and low interest rates — and we are still going to run a $1 trillion deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will add over $12 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years. This is all presuming a good economy. A recession would push it all up — maybe by a lot. So would a war. We are already at $15 trillion to $20 trillion of total federal debt, depending on whether we count intergovernmental debt. This comes out to $67,000 just in federal debt per person in America.
 
We are on pace for persistent trillion-dollar deficits going forward. If interest rates keep going up as widely as expected, our interest payments alone will balloon and displace other parts of our spending, or, more likely, just add to the deficit. That can result in a potential debt spiral as we have to pay higher rates to attract bondholders. 

Most Democrats want to pretend our debt problem doesn’t exist or is easily fixable with minor entitlement program tweaks. None of that is true. Many Republican voters are equally uninterested in our debt, and they don’t want their benefits cut any more than Democrats do. Republican politicians have lost all credibility on spending discipline after spending like crazy under Bush and Trump and then screaming about spending under Obama. This means that when the debt crisis comes in 10 to 20 years, there will be plenty of blame to go around. This period from Bush to Trump will not be remembered for the Iraq War or impeachment — it will be remembered as the period where we sold our kids and grandkids down the river.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/30/patel-our-coming-debt-crisis/

BOOM: Carter Page Sues DNC Over Bogus Steele Dossier: 'This Is Only the First Salvo'

 Image result for pictures of carter page
 Article by Matt Margolis in "PJMedia":

Fox News reported Thursday morning that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the law firm Perkins Coie for their role in funding the unverified Steele dossier that was used to justify surveillance against him.

Page's attorneys described the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois’ Eastern Division on Thursday, as the “first of multiple actions in the wake of historic” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse.

“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” Page's attorney John Pierce told Fox News. “Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state.”

Pierce added, “This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high."

Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that the FBI’s FISA applications to surveil Page relied on the dossier. He also verified that an FBI lawyer altered evidence to make Carter Page appear to be a Russian agent instead of a CIA source. It wouldn't be surprising in the least if Page files a suit against Obama administration officials and others in the FBI as well.

According to the lawsuit, the DNC, Perkins Coie and partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussman “used false information, misrepresentations and other misconduct to direct the power of the international intelligence apparatus and the media industry against” Page “to further their political agenda.”

Last week, it was revealed that two FISA warrants against Page were deemed "not valid" because they lacked probable cause.

Man buys Super Bowl ad to thank vets who saved his dog from cancer

Last year, David MacNeil's golden retriever, Scout, was given a month to live. The 7-year-old dog had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. But MacNeil refused to give up and now he's purchased a $6 million Super Bowl commercial to thank the veterinarians who saved Scout's life.
MacNeil, the founder and CEO of WeatherTech, purchased the ad to highlight Scout's cancer treatment journey and raise money for the University of Wisconsin's veterinary program. The 30-second ad, titled "Lucky Dog," will air Sunday during the second quarter of Super Bowl LIV.
Scout was also featured last year in a Super Bowl ad for WeatherTech, which manufactures automotive accessories and home and pet care products. The company calls him its official "spokescanine."
 According to UW-Madison, MacNeil previously lost three dogs to cancer, the number one cause of illness and death in aging dogs. Scout was diagnosed with hemangiosarcoma, an aggressive cancer of blood vessel walls, after collapsing at home last summer and given a 1% chance of survival.
"Scout's illness devastated us," MacNeil told the school. "We wanted this year's Super Bowl effort to not only raise awareness, but also financial support for the incredible research and innovative treatments happening at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, where Scout is still a patient."
Scout began chemotherapy at UW Veterinary Care last summer, followed by radiation therapy for the tumor found on his heart and immunotherapy to stimulate his immune system. The tumor decreased in size over several months and today, it has all but disappeared, the school said.
His cancer also spread to his lungs, but doctors caught it early, according to Scout's Instagram. Tuesday marked his first day of ten rounds of radiation therapy.
"We wanted to use the biggest stage possible to highlight Scout's story and these incredible breakthroughs, which are not just limited to helping dogs and pets," MacNeil said. "This research will help advance cancer treatments for humans as well, so there's the potential to save millions of lives of all species."
All the funds raised from the Super Bowl commercial will be used to support research at the veterinary school and to buy specialized equipment. The goals are to better diagnose, treat and prevent cancer and identify new drugs and treatments using the funding.
"Pets make a difference in your life," the ad concludes. "You can make a difference in theirs."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-bowl-2020-man-buys-ad-thank-veterinarians-saved-dog-deadly-cancer/

Hillary Clinton Is Refusing to Accept a Lawsuit

 Hillary Clinton Is Refusing to Accept a Lawsuit
 Article by Nick Arama in "RedState":

Hillary Clinton has problems dealing with reality and responsibility.

As we saw after she lost the 2016 election, she couldn’t seem to accept the loss, blaming everyone else for it from Russians to misogynistic voters, as opposed to her failure to find Wisconsin or actually have any concrete plans to offer the American people.

Well, it sounds like she’s not able to accept responsibility for her attacks on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) either.
Gabbard sued her for $50 million for defamation for implying that Tulsi is a “Russian asset.”

But according to the New York Post, it turns out that Clinton is using the taxpayer paid Secret Service to run blocker for her to refuse service of process, according to Gabbard’s attorney.

According to Brian Dunne, the Secret Service blocked a process server from serving Clinton at her home in Chappaqua on Tuesday. The Secret Service advised the server to serve Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, with the firm of Williams and Connelly.

But then they refused the service as well, according to Dunne.

“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” Dunne told the Post. “But I guess here we are.”

Dunne said that they were considering their next steps.

This is just childish to refuse the service. Because whether or not you accept it, there are options to get around that, such as by leaving it with someone or where you are likely to see it with certified mail. So you can’t avoid the suit by not accepting service.

But it’s symptomatic of Clinton in general. She could have avoided this by an apology or presented her evidence to support her claim. But she chose to do neither.

From Washington Examiner:
Clinton’s remarks about Gabbard angered many who felt she crossed a line by claiming the Kremlin was “grooming” Gabbard to run a third-party bid that could sink Democrats and lead to reelection for President Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders called Clinton’s comments “outrageous.” Facing backlash, Clinton claimed she meant the GOP was “grooming Tulsi, not Russia.”
Gabbard, who is running to be the Democratic nominee for president, jabbed Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign in the text of the lawsuit, which read, “Tulsi Gabbard is running for president of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain.”

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/01/30/hillary-clinton-is-refusing-to-accept-a-lawsuit/

Coronavirus declared global health emergency by WHO

Coronavirus has been declared a global emergency by the World Health Organization, as the outbreak continues to spread outside China.
"The main reason is not what is happening in China but what is happening in other countries," said WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, making the announcement at a press conference in Geneva.
The concern is that it could spread to countries with weaker health systems.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51318246

Wailing Commences as a Democrat Senator Now Says Hunter Biden Is a Relevant Witness



If Democrats thought they were going to bully their way into dominating the impeachment Senate process, they’ve apparently miscalculated. The anonymously sourced claims dealing with a passage in John Bolton’s coming book were supposed to give Schumer and company the leverage to enact their plan, and for a while, it seemed to be working. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins both signaled they would vote for witnesses.

But things have shifted this afternoon. Republican Sen. Cory Gardner announced that he’ll oppose efforts to call Bolton (see Chuck Schumer Just Lost a Key GOP Swing Vote On Witnesses). Worse for Schumer, some of his own members are now coming out in support of compromise plans that involve the testimony of Hunter Biden.
Here’s Sen. Joe Manchin on the matter this morning.



Schumer has sought to blow up any such deal, saying a witness swap is not on the table, but it’s painted him into a corner.

With every Republican, and now a Democrat as well, saying that Hunter Biden will be called if Bolton testifies, it means Democrats have to choose between not hearing Bolton testify or letting Republicans grill Hunter Biden. There’s no scenario where the latter goes well for them but if Bolton testifies, it’s going to happen.

In response, Adam Schiff and Company are wailing to every network camera they can find that Hunter Biden’s testimony is irrelevant. That’s nonsense. He’s at the very center of any question dealing with the legitimacy of Trump’s investigative requests. If the younger Biden testifies, it risks helping the President by showing there was clearly reasonable suspicion in his actions. Schiff wants no part of that and had hoped to avoid it.

Things are extremely fluid right now, but the Democrat strategy appears to be collapsing.

The Establishment Doesn’t Fear Trump....

The Establishment Doesn't Fear Trump, 

And It Doesn't Fear Bernie... It Fears You


During the George W Bush administration it was popular in conspiracy circles to speculate that events might be orchestrated which would allow the Bush family to complete a coup against the US Constitution and hold on to power indefinitely.

Such paranoia and suspicion of government power in the wake of the extraordinary post-9/11 advancements in Orwellian surveillance programs and unprecedented military expansionism were perfectly understandable, but predictions that the younger Bush would not cede power at the end of his second term proved incorrect. In today’s hysterical Trump-centric political environment we now see mainstream voices in mainstream outlets openly advancing the same conspiratorial speculations about the current administration, and those will prove incorrect as well.

What these paranoid presidential prognostications get wrong is not their extreme suspicion of government, but their assumption that America’s real power structures require a certain president to be in place in order to advance depraved totalitarian agendas. As anyone paying attention knows, intense suspicion of the US government is the only sane position that anyone can possibly have; the error is in assuming that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the same agendas carry forward from one presidential administration to the next.

In a sense, the conspiracy theories about a Bush coup were actually correct: the Bush administration didn’t truly end. All of its imperialist, power-serving agendas remained in place and were expanded under the apparent oversight of the following administration. The same thing happened after the Obama administration, and the same thing — whether in 2021 or 2025 — will happen after the Trump administration. The disturbing fact of the matter is that if you ignore election dates and just look at the numbers and raw data of US government behavior over the years, you can’t really tell who is president or which political party is in power at any given point in time.

The mechanism which ensures the perpetuation of the same policies from administration to administration used to be referred to by analysts as the “deep state”, back before Trump and his supporters hijacked that term and began using it to essentially mean something like “Democrats and anyone who doesn’t like Trump”. Originally the term deep state referred not to one political party, nor to some shadowy cabal of Illuminati or Satanists or reptilians, but to the simple and undeniable fact that unelected power structures exist and tend to influence America’s official elected government.It wasn’t a conspiracy theory, it was a concept used in political analysis to describe how US government agencies and plutocrats form loose alliances with each other and with official Washington to influence government policy and behavior.

It is inevitable that such a permanent second government would exist in the current iteration of the United States, if you think about it. It’s impossible to have a globe-spanning empire of the sort America now has without long-term plans spanning years or decades for securing control of world resources, undermining rivals, securing more compliant allies, and ensuring military and economic hegemony. If the US were a normal nation which simply minded its own affairs, a permanent government wouldn’t be necessary. But because it isn’t, one is.

I very seldom use the term deep state anymore, because its meaning in mainstream discourse has been completely corrupted. Now when I want to point to America’s permanent unelected power structures I usually use the word “oligarchy” or “empire”, or simply “establishment”This is why I haven’t been especially focused on the US presidential race, despite the Democratic primaries hitting fever pitch intensity. While I believe the race can be a useful tool for forcing establishment propagandists to expose themselves (virulent “never Trump” neocon Bret Stephens just came out in support of Trump if the Democratic nominee is anyone to the left of Pete Buttigeig, for example), the result of the 2020 election isn’t going to change a whole hell of a lot.

This might be a bit offensive to both Trump supporters and Sanders supporters, but it’s true.

Whenever I point out that the current administration has been advancing many longstanding agendas of the CIA and neoconservative war pigs — agendas like military expansionism, imprisoning Assange, regime change interventionism in Iran and Venezuela, and reigniting the Cold War — his supporters always come in saying “If he’s working for the establishment how come the establishment is working so hard to get rid of him, huh?”

Well, for starters, they’re not. Nobody who can count Senate seats believes Trump will be removed from office in the current impeachment sideshow, and everyone who understood Russiagate knew it was going to dead-end at nothing. If they really wanted Trump gone they wouldn’t be pussyfooting around with a bunch of kayfabe combat that they know will never hurt him. Obviously he wasn’t the preferred 2016 choice of certain factions within the establishment, but there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the empire can tick right along with a less-than-ideal president in the White House.

This will also hold true if Sanders miraculously makes his way through another rigged primary, and then through whatever sabotage gets thrown his way in the general election. Sure he might be able to sign a few somewhat beneficial executive orders and we probably wouldn’t see him flirting with an Iran war, but US imperialism will march on more or less unimpeded and his popular progressive domestic policies would require congress to successfully implement. At best he’d be a mild reformer who uses the bully pulpit to help spread awareness while being narrative managed on all sides by the billionaire media, and any changes he manages to squeak through which inconvenience the establishment at all will be reversed by a subsequent administration.

Obviously the establishment would rather have someone in the White House who doesn’t constantly put an ugly face on the empire by accidentally exposing its mechanics all the time as Trump does, and obviously it would rather have an incompetent oaf like Trump in office than someone who actively points out the evils of oligarchy and imperialism like Sanders. But the establishment which runs the US-centralized empire is not afraid of Trump, and it is not afraid of Sanders. It’s afraid of you.

The unelected power establishment has ways of ensuring its dominance amid the comings and goings of America’s official elected government; they are perfectly capable of dealing with one man being a less than ideal steward of the empire. What they absolutely cannot deal with, at all, is the prospect of ordinary people finally rising up and using the power of their numbers to force real change. That is what they are really fighting against when they try to sabotage populist candidates: not the candidates themselves, but populism itself.

You wouldn’t know it from reading the billionaire media, but the Yellow Vests protests in France are still going on and have remained widespread for more than a year now. This lack of coverage is partially due to the fact that establishment narrative managers are responsible for conveying the idea that the only governments whose citizens dislike them are those which haven’t been absorbed into the imperial blob like China and Iran. But it’s also because the propagandists don’t want us getting any ideas.

The reason the propagandists work so hard to manufacture the consent of the governed is because they absolutely do require that consent. If enough people decide that the status quo isn’t working for them and begin rising up to force it to change, there’s not really anything the establishment can do to stop them. Right now the only thing keeping people from rising up in this way is the fact that they’ve been successfully propagandized not to, and the propagandists intend to keep it that way.

But eyes are beginning to open. If real change is coming, it will come from there. Not from electing anyone president, but from a large-scale awakening to the reality of our situation. The only thing standing in the way is a thin layer of narrative fluff.
*  *  *



Flynn Case Update – Flynn Files Motion to Dismiss, Declaration of Plea Reversal – DOJ Files Revised Sentence Recommendation for Probation Only



Lawyers representing Lt. General Michael Flynn have filed a motion to dismiss [pdf here] citing “government misconduct”.  Additionally Mr. Flynn has filed a declaration [pdf here] requesting to remove his prior guilty plea and take the case to trial.  Hours later the DOJ revised their sentencing memo, dropped their request for jail time and offered probation.
Within the motion to dismiss (full pdf embed below) Flynn’s legal team point out several issues with the prosecution of Mr. Flynn and highlight the recent findings, admissions and briefs amid the IG report, DOJ notifications to the FISA Court, and FISC orders therein.
NOTE: FBI Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Pientka III, the FBI agent with his finger in the majority of the corrupt FBI activity, has an ongoing protective court order upon his personage requiring the redaction and/or removal of his name from any government or case document.   No-one has publicly stated the reason for the protective order.

Here is the Motion for Dismissal:


Additionally, for the first time, in a declaration to the court, we get to hear from Lt. General Michael Flynn himself about the situation and legal status.  Mr. Flynn explains the reason why he accepted a guilty plea on December 1st, 2017.

Here’s the full Flynn Declaration:





Here’s How the Senate Should Handle Impeachment Witnesses



Before we tear up executive privilege, Adam Schiff should first be required to prove that the original Ukrainian prosecutor was “corrupt” and that the inquiry into Joe Biden’s involvement in the prosecutor’s removal was “baseless.”

Imagine for a moment a man peeking through the slats of his blinds to watch a neighbor returning to her house with a cup full of a white powdery substance. The nosy man calls the police to report the presence of drugs in his neighborhood. Law enforcement officers crash through the neighbor lady’s door. In a matter of hours, they leave behind slashed furniture cushions, pulled-up floorboards, and torn out drywall until one observant officer spies the suspicious cup (now empty) with a white powdery residue still coating the inside. Law enforcement officers carefully bag and label the cup, a vanilla pound cake, and the adjacent recipe book (also bearing the residue).

In a few days, the lab reports the results: the cup tests positive for sugar.

In America, at least before the “get-Trump” movement, we would not have tolerated this kind of invasion of privacy based upon the neighbor’s suspicion that the powder was drugs. An experienced judge would have refused to sign the warrant until law enforcement demonstrated good reason to believe the white powder the nosy neighbor reported was the fruit of a drug deal, and not—as it later proved to be—a cup of sugar borrowed from a neighbor to finish a cake recipe. Sure, it might have been cocaine. But the Fourth Amendment does not allow the destruction of a sacred constitutional right based upon a flimsy hunch.

Neither should the U.S. Senate allow the destruction of the sacred confidentiality between a president and his close advisors based upon U.S. Representative Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) flimsy hunch that the president was up to no good when he briefly suspended U.S. aid to Ukraine. The ability of the president to have confidential conversations with his advisors is essential to our form of government. We should not let Schiff root around in those conversations unless he can show a good faith basis for believing the cup of powdery substance could not have been sugar.

There are two possible interpretations of the pause in Ukraine’s aid. In the “cocaine” scenario, as charged by the articles of impeachment, President Trump “corruptly” solicited “the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,” for “corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.” Under the “cocaine” scenario, investigating the Bidens has no public purpose.

Under the “sugar” scenario, the investigations of the Bidens did have a public purpose. As Trump said in his July 25 phone call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, “I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.”

So before we figuratively slash open the furniture cushions and break down the drywall by invading the confidential communications of the president, it’s worth asking whether we can use less-invasive means to evaluate whether we’re looking at cocaine or sugar.

House manager Schiff issued a 300-page report stating his impeachment case against the president. He argues that the president acted on corrupt motives when he asked about Biden getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because the firing was justified for other reasons.

“President Trump then asked President Zelensky ‘to look into’ former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging Ukraine to remove a prosecutor widely viewed by the United States and numerous European partners to be corrupt,” Schiff wrote. “In so doing, President Trump gave currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time.”

To prove Trump’s corrupt motive then, Schiff must establish that Biden wanted to remove the prosecutor because the prosecutor was “corrupt,” and that the alternate view that Biden wanted to protect his son’s company was “baseless.”

We do not need to hear from any of Trump’s inner circle to probe whether the cup may have contained sugar—i.e. that the prosecutor was investigating Burisma and that Biden was interested in protecting his son. Trump actually doesn’t even need to prove he was right. He just needs to show that a reasonable person could believe that what Joe Biden did was worthy of a closer look based upon a legitimate concern over Biden abusing his office for his son’s financial benefit.

For that, we can (yes) ask Biden directly whether his interest in the prosecutor had anything to do with Burisma. As John Solomon points out, the timeline of events is damning.

On January 18, 2015, Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office declared Burisma Holdings founder Mykola Ziochevsky a fugitive and “wanted in Ukraine.” On December 8, 2015, the New York Times published an article questioning whether Hunter Biden’s participation on the Burisma board might be undercutting Biden’s “anti-corruption” agenda. On February 4, 2016, the Ukrainian prosecutor announced the seizure of Ziochevsky’s assets.

Biden reportedly demanded the prosecutor’s termination during a March 22, 2016 phone call with the president of Ukraine at the time, Petro Poroshenko. Biden has since boasted that he directly conditioned U.S. aid upon getting the prosecutor fired. The prosecutor was fired a few days later. Within a year, all charges against Burisma were dropped or settled under the supervision of the new Biden-approved prosecutor.

There’s pressure to add “witnesses” to the already too-long trial in the Senate. Should the Senate approve witnesses from his inner circle of advisors, the president will rightly assert executive privilege to protect confidential communications. The House already should have fought these protracted court battles before dumping the matter on the Senate. These fights will further delay a return to normal in both the Senate and in the 2020 election process.

Remember, Schiff is holding at least three Democratic candidates hostage in the run-up to next week’s critical Iowa primary. And because we can discern between the “cocaine” and “sugar” scenarios without ripping up the executive privilege floorboards, the president will likely prevail in court on his executive privilege claims—that is, provided turncoat advisors don’t dishonor their sacred constitutional duty to keep confidential their conversations with the president. (I’m looking at you, John Bolton.)

But that’s putting the cart before the horse. Before we tear up executive privilege, Schiff should first be required to prove that the original prosecutor was “corrupt” and that the inquiry into Biden’s involvement in his removal was “baseless.” If he can’t produce evidence that unambiguously proves both of those contentions, he shouldn’t be allowed to shred executive privilege. Just as in the cup of sugar example, the Constitution places the burden on the accuser to justify trampling the rights of the accused to privacy.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has demonstrated exemplary leadership. He has so clearly appraised the House impeachment effort for the political dirty trick that it is. There’s reason to hope that “Cocaine Mitch” will promptly restore order as he easily differentiates between the cocaine and sugar scenarios.

President Trump is gearing up to hold a “Keep America Great’ rally in Des Moines, Iowa

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:25 AM PT — Thursday, January 30, 2020
President Trump is gearing up to hold a ‘Keep America Great’ campaign rally in Iowa. He will travel to Des Moines Thursday, where he is scheduled to deliver remarks to a crowd of supporters at the Knapp Center at Drake University.
The visit comes as he is looking to bolster support for his 2020 reelection campaign and he will also likely discuss the Senate’s ongoing impeachment trial. The president’s defense team sparred with House leaders Wednesday over the validity of the articles of impeachment.
The rally marks the president’s fourth campaign event this month and comes before the Democrat caucuses are set to kick-off in Iowa on Monday, February 3, 2020.
Vice President Mike Pence is slated to join President Trump in Des Moines after speaking at an ‘Evangelicals for Trump’ event in Sioux City. The vice president has continued to tout the administration’s accomplishments and has maintained that the real verdict will come this fall when the America people cast their votes.
One America News will cover the president’s ‘Keep America Great’ rally live and without interruption starting at 8 p.m. EST / 5 p.m. PST
https://www.oann.com/president-trump-is-gearing-up-to-hold-a-keep-america-great-rally-in-des-moines-iowa/

No, The Government Can’t Buy You...


No, 
The Government Can’t Buy You 
Happiness 
With Other People’s Money

Jill Filipovic says the words ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence mean that ‘government must facilitate the ability of the individual to seek happiness,’ which to her means redistributing people’s labor.

If you think most contemporary feminism is silly and shallow, and promises what it can not possibly deliver, I’m with you. Don’t miss the adorable article by Jill Filipovic in which the celebrated feminist writer explains that happiness is a “political act.” The subhead says, “Insisting on pleasure for all Americans is not batty or frivolous; it is a matter of life-or-death,” which is a bit batty, because who would think of conflating happiness, pleasure, and matters “of life and death.”

Filipovic begins her argument by asserting the words “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence mean that “[t]he idea that government must facilitate the ability of the individual to seek happiness is in our national DNA.” She goes on to explain that Americans have been doing it all wrong since 1776. First of all, we are too isolated in our pursuits: “We’ve so far approached happiness as an individual mandate, achieved via ‘self-care,’ meditation apps, yoga retreats and gratitude journals. And that’s great[…]”

If Filipovic only meets people who seek happiness in meditation apps, she needs to get out more. Like many other Americans, I find meaning in family and communal life, and have several hobbies. I look for fulfillment in personal, social, and political spheres. This is a normal American way of life.

The most important component of Filipovic’s happiness program is, per feminist custom, political. She runs down the welfare state wishlist that’s been around for decades, adding the recent invention of new baby leaves for dads. The writer believes her article provides the philosophical foundation for a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. I’m afraid she’s right.

Government Doesn’t Make You Happy. You Do

What Filipovic doesn’t know, but our Founding Fathers did, is that a government can accumulate the power to make people very, very unhappy. For instance, there are many unhappy Uyghurs in Chinese concentration camps today, and many unhappy women in Iran slaughtered and imprisoned for the simple act of removing their head covers.

That’s why our freedoms are negative. Our founding documents outline what the government is not allowed to do—for instance, infringe on freedom of expression and gun ownership. That’s because government far more often infringes on happiness than facilitates it.

Likewise, “pursuit of happiness” means the exact opposite of what Filipovic seems to believe. It doesn’t stipulate that the state “must facilitate,” but that government needs to get out of the way of individuals’ pursuits. Of course it’s possible the author knows that — I mean Civics 101, right? — but she also believes in a “living breathing” Declaration of Independence, which can mean anything she wants it to mean. She must forgive me for considering deliberate misreadings that turn an idea on its head dishonest.

Happiness Is a Subjective State of Mind

Happiness is not an act but a state of mind, and as such it’s highly subjective. For instance, some journalists in California would be happy to write more than 35 articles a year for a single publication, but the new law caps their submissions. The childless author is fond of the idea that both mom and dad should be offered identical parental leaves after the birth of a child. Back in the real world, most women prefer to stay with the baby, and most men, as my husband once put it, would like to go out and kill an elk.

Despite being inaugurated a feminist thought leader, Filipovic entirely lacks the lived experience of events that most strongly influence a woman’s outlook on life, and for that reason can only guess what choices would lead to happiness. She also fails to consider that happiness means different things for different people.

Different Things Make Different People Happy

Filipovic asks: “A happiness politic would force us to ask: What do we want from our government? What do we want from our society?”

The idea to ask constituents what they want is not new, but is this a royal we? In a free society, one would expect a range of contradictory answers. People don’t generally agree on what would make them happy.

If Americans disagree on policy it could be because we simply have different ideas about how to pursue happiness. For instance, some of us might have done some thinking, and concluded that federal government is incapable of providing quality health care, and it makes us unhappy to contemplate or live with a government-provided system when we know we could have better if government would just get out of the way..

What do we make of the discord? To quote Larry Elder, “Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” I don’t know if all conservatives work this way, or all liberals do, but Filipovic certainly seems to believe that her political opponents are incapable of rational pursuit of self-interest.

What makes her cartoonish ideas about conservatives possible is an uncomplicated view of human nature.

No, Happiness Doesn’t Necessarily Make Great Art

To give her argument some sort of gravitas, Filipovic mentions Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the idea that certain conditions have to be met before an individual can move up to a higher level of personal development and societal functioning. Maslow’s hierarchy is highly simplistic, and has long been criticized as such. People are perfectly capable of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice, and many can flourish amidst squalor.

So Filipovic’s assertion that single payer plus greater government spending on arts will lead to more and better arts and, therefore, happiness is Maslow-inspired shallowness.

Much of the world’s greatest works of art were created from a place of a profound sadness and discomfort, and often by people who either didn’t want to experience, or were constitutionally incapable of experiencing, happiness. That is not to say that wealth can’t buy art, but that Maslow and universal health-care don’t belong in this discussion. She might want to observe that the United States, with all its wealth, already has some dynamic art scenes.

Maybe Filipovic should read a little Dostoevsky. Regardless, because her outlook is so uncomplicated, it allows the writer to be enviably confident: of course paternity leaves are just and desirable because they redistribute housework between mothers and fathers who are by nature interchangeable! It’s just too obvious to her.

And if some people don’t see it the same way, that’s because there is something wrong with them. It’s not even that they might be mistaken, but that they are evil and stupid.

Most things that make us happy—like romantic love, creative pursuits, and having faith in something greater than ourselves—cannot be quantified, and are outside of what any government can provide. Yet mainstream feminist and socialists are ready to open their bedroom doors to let ideology in, thinking that correct politics will lead to happiness or pleasure.

No pro-lifer has an agenda nearly that intrusive. The challenge conservatives face is to explain the diversity of human experience, value of privacy, and shortsightedness of the socialist-feminist approach.

Katya Rapoport Sedgwick is a writer from San Francisco Bay Area.
She has published at The Daily Caller and Legal Insurrection.




John Bolton Confessed He Would ‘Absolutely’ Lie About National Security Matters



In a 2010 interview with Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business Channel, former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton stated that he would have no problem lying to the public if he thought it was necessary to protect national security. 

Bolton, who has written a book for Simon & Shuster based on his time working on national security policy for President Donald Trump that is scheduled to be released in March of 2020, also said during the 2010 interview that government secrecy and protection of classified material was necessary to protect the public.

Bolton become a central character in Senate impeachment proceedings against Trump after information about his forthcoming book was leaked to the New York Times just days after Bolton’s lawyer was informed by the National Security Council that his book contained top secret classified information. That book coincidentally was made available for pre-sale on Amazon the same day the New York Times wrote about its leaked contents.

“A diplomat is a statesman sent out to lie for his country,” the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said before touting his own ability to “spin” information without technically lying.


Bolton was specifically invited on to discuss sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables and documents that had been obtained and released at the time by Wikileaks, an act which Bolton characterized as “an attack on the United States.”

“Is it an attack on the United States for us to know that our ally, Saudi Arabia, is actually financing Al Qaeda?” Napolitano asked. “Isn’t that something we would want to know?” 

“I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs and possibly for deception where it’s appropriate,” Bolton responded. He then approvingly quoted Winston Churchill’s assertion that “truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”

“Do you really believe that?” Napolitano responded. “You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”

“Absolutely,” Bolton said. “If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it.”

“Why do people in the government think that the rules of civil society or the laws don’t apply to them?” Napolitano countered.

“Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution,” Bolton said. “They are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply.”

“But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain fairness,” Napolitano countered. “You’re willing to do away with that in order to achieve a temporary military goal?”

“The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” Bolton responded, quoting former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.

In his forthcoming book, Bolton allegedly makes several claims about private conversations with Trump and the president’s top national security officials regarding Rudy Giuliani, according to the New York Times. Attorney General William Barr and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, both of whom were reportedly singled out by Bolton as parties to these conversations, deny Bolton’s alleged claims.

“John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the President,” an attorney for Mulvaney said. “Nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the President or anyone else indicating that Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 election.”

“There was no discussion of ‘personal favors’ or ‘undue influence’ on investigations, nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President’s conversations with foreign leaders was improper,” Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said. “If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own current views–views with which Attorney General Barr does not agree.”

Trump and Bolton, who was fired by the president last September, famously clashed on foreign policy and national security matters, as Bolton has a reputation for recommending military intervention across the globe.

“[F]rankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Schiff's very own show


 
 Article by  Stu Tarlowe in "The American Thinker":

Watching Adam Schiff interminably and indefatigably flapping his yap on TV over the past week or so, I couldn't help but compare him to Citizens Band (C.B.) preachers.  I think he's driven by the same desperate need for attention.  Although Schiff would never admit it, in his heart of hearts, he probably idolizes Rush Limbaugh for Rush's ability to hold an audience for hours every day with just his voice and his sheer force of personality.

Although the popularity of C.B. Radio has been steadily declining for years, in almost every city or town, there are still C.B. users, usually operating from home (a "base station," with a bigger antenna and a stronger signal than a "mobile unit"), who monopolize a channel and use it to preach.  Where I live now, there's a character who seems be on the radio all the time, interminably and indefatigably quoting Scripture and conducting his own little "Bible class."  What's particularly annoying is that he chooses to do it on Channel 19, one of the two main C.B. channels (the other is Channel 17) used by those who need immediate information about road, traffic, and weather conditions and hazards.  There are 37 other channels he could use (Channel 9 is reserved for emergencies, and, thankfully, it remains inviolate), but he chooses to "ratchet-jaw" and "flap his yap" on a channel that is needed by folks on their way to work or driving for a living.

I've often thought that what drives these C.B. preacher-types is that they are guys who really want to be the star of their own radio (or TV) show.  They'd like to be the next Garner Ted Armstrong, Jimmy Swaggart, or Creflo Dollar, but the best they can manage is to sermonize to a semi-captive audience of folks just trying to get on down the road.  They are compulsive attention-seekers, in love with the sound of their own voices and desperately driven to perform for an audience, whether that audience is enthusiastic or not.

I'm sure Jerrold Nadler has the same affliction.  And Charles Schumer seems to be carrying on a lifelong love affair with the sound of his own voice, while neither he nor Nadler has any great regard for the truth.  But Schiff is by far the worst of a bad lot.

I also couldn't help but notice, while watching him, what a nice suit Adam Schiff was wearing, how well tailored and perfectly fitted it looked.  (I was in the men's clothing business years ago.  I still have a keen eye for a well tailored suit.)  I imagined him speaking to his tailor: "This suit has to be perfect!  I'm gonna be wearing it on TV, y'know!  I'm gonna be the star of my very own TV show!"

Now that his "show," with deservedly abysmal ratings, has been "canceled" (and with scant chance of being "renewed"), one can only hope a suit will show up on the rack at the Goodwill Store.  And perhaps Adam Schiff will show up again as the star of his own little show, this time preaching over the C.B. radio to anyone who can't help but listen while going down the interstate.