Democrat Al Green says that impeachment began when Trump was running for office

On TV Green said:

"Well, the genesis of impeachment, to be very candid with you, was when the president was running for office and he had members of his own party to talk about his unfitness to hold office," 

What's interesting is that not only is Green admitting that impeachment has nothing to do with Ukraine but that he's saying that things said about Trump by his political opponents should be treated as facts.

Like the entire impeachment process Green is saying that there doesn't need to be any evidence of anything all we need is people who hate Trump saying that he's a bad guy in order to impeach Trump.

Now that's fascism and a clear statement by Green that he feels that Democrats have a veto power on who we the people chose to be President.

Nancy Pelosi's quid pro quo on impeachment

It turns out that Nancy Pelosi used a quid pro quo, or bribe, to get Democrats who realized that the impeachment process was joke to vote for it.

She simply told those Democrats that if they didn't vote for impeachment they wouldn't get financial support from the Democrat party come reelection time.

That the vast majority of sane Democrats sold out their country for more money to help them get elected tells us that even the "conservatives" in the Democrat party have one and only one objective; getting more power.

They cared more for getting money than they did for doing the right thing by the Constitution and the American people.

Remember that when you see a Democrat whose pretending to be a moderate to be reelected.

What Democrats want you to pay to buy votes for them

The core technique that Democrats use to get elected is to tax hard working Americans and then use that money to provide free stuff to people who will vote for them.

This election cycle the Democrats are in an all out bidding war against each other which means that they're going to make you pay a huge amount so that they can bribe their way into the White House.

When Hillary ran in 2016 her plan cost only $1.45 trillion over 10 years.  Given that the total federal budget is around $4.5 trillion that meant that she wanted to increase spending by about 3%.

That's a lot to spend just to get a Democrat elected but it makes her appear fiscally responsible in comparison to the Democrat candidates for 2020.

According to the Washington Post, a lapdog for the Democrats, the plans being proposed will cost between $4 and 50 trillion over the next 10 years.  That means that the Democrat candidates are going to increase government spending by between 9 and 111% just to buy votes.

None of these programs actually help anyone other than Democrat voters so essentially the Democrats are demanding that you and your children and your grandchildren make a huge donation to the Democrat party.

Does Joe Biden want his son, Hunter, in prison?

In a rant about how not living in dark caves will result in the destruction of the world Joe Biden said:

“We have to set sort of guide rails down now, so between the years 2021 and 2030, it’s irreversible – the path we set ourselves on. And one of which is doing away with any substance for fossil fuels – number one,” Biden said.

“Number two, holding them liable for what they have done,” he said of fossil fuel executives, “particularly in those cases where your underserved neighborhoods and – you know the deal, okay. And by the way, when they don’t want to deliver, put them in jail. I’m not joking about this.”

Given that now even Joe Biden admits that he knows that his son Hunter worked for Ukraine energy giant Burisma is Joe calling for Hunter to be sent to jail?

To be fair it's not obvious what Joe is saying energy executives should be imprisoned for but then he's often fairly incoherent so we can't be sure.

But it's safe to say that if Trump did what Joe just did the media would be asking if Trump Jr. belonged in jail.

Hollywood and the left's view on gun violence is based on fiction

If you watch a lot of police shows on TV or police movies you'll know that in general the bad guy is a supposedly respectable businessman, a church going stay at home mom, a secretly corrupt and racist police officer, or any evangelical.

Rarely do the prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, thugs, illegal immigrants, gang members, or burglars who the protagonists come across during the story arc turn out to be the really bad guy.

The reason for that is simple; if the obvious character was the killer the story wouldn't be interesting.

The problem is that the left seems to have confused the fake "reality" constructed by murder mystery writers with reality.

That's why leftists think that it's equally likely that a church goer will suddenly pull their legally obtained hand gun and start shooting fellow parishioners as a mentally ill person with a history of violence and impulse control issues will walk into a church and start shooting people.

If pretty much everyone is equally likely to be a killer, except of course criminals and the insane who are never going to be violent in the left's "reality", then the best way to stop killing is to disarm everyone.

The real reality however is that the vast majority of Americans are amazingly honest and unlikely to misuse a gun if they happened to have one.

Leftists are whining about over incarceration in America.  America has 716 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens. That's 0.7%.  Which means in every church with say 100 people attending service odds are there will never be a shooter.

Of course that 0.7% number is way too high since not all criminals are violent. In fact only about 8% of people in prison are incarcerated for violent crimes.  Now that's an under estimate because many violent people, gun toting drug dealers for example, were arrested for non-violent crimes, like drug dealing.

But if we use that 8% number then about 0.06% of Americans are violent criminals which means that the odds of a violent person being in any public group of people is very low.

Clearly the government should be encouraging people to carry guns so that in any public setting there would likely be several honest armed people if a shooter appeared.

But in leftist la la land the solution is to disarm only the people who wouldn't misuse their guns which of course leaves the criminals and lunatics free to murder bunches of people until the police show up.

While the police are generally brave as the saying goes "when you need help in seconds the police are   just minutes away".  There simply aren't enough police for them to always be within seconds of every place a crime could occur despite their best efforts.

As with most leftist positions denying reality is critical to the left's approach to "gun violence"; a term that they invented to try and switch the blame from evil and/or insane people to inanimate objects.

We can't let people who think that TV is reality run our country which is why voting for Democrats is almost always a horrible thing.

Joe Biden wants church goers to die(a slight exaggeration)

The recent shooting in a church in Texas ended within seconds because at least 4 parishioners had guns.

If Joe Biden had his way the only person in the church with a gun would have been the shooter. When  Texas passed a law that allowed licensed gun owners to carry their weapons in churches Biden said:

"With all due respect to the governor of Texas," Biden began, "it is irrational what they're doing. On the very day you see a mass shooting ... and we're talking about loosening access to have guns, to be able to take them into places of worship ... I mean it's just absolutely irrational. It's totally irrational."
As we've seen from previous mass shootings if the killer hadn't been shot dead within seconds a lot more people would have died or been seriously injured.  Thanks to at least 4 people who were armed and who responded only 2 people, other than the shooter, were killed.

But if Joe Biden had had his way the people in that church would have been defenseless unless they hired armed security guards, a rather high cost for a small church.

But that's how Democrats think. It's the church goers who are the risk not the nuts and criminals who bring guns into the church illegally.

It's part of Democrats magic thoughts that someone saying that guns aren't allowed here or there means that insane people or people who have no problem murdering others will voluntarily obey those restrictions.

But the reality is that even insane people aren't stupid. The shooter who killed 22 people in an El Paso Walmart store in August 2019 wrote:

Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.

Even the scum who expect to die or even want to die want to kill a bunch of innocent people first so they're interested in picking targets where it's unlikely they will be killed quickly.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center 94% of mass public shootings--which excludes drug or gang violence as well as shootings on private property--occurred in gun free zones. Bloomberg's lap dogs at Everytown for Gun Safety have disputed details of some incidents but irrespective of the precise number the reality is that gun free zones only prohibit people who follow the law from having a gun; criminals and lunatics intent on mass murder won't be dissuaded by a gun free zone sign.

Clearly Joe Biden doesn't want people to be killed.  But his policies would result in people dying.

This isn't Joe's first problem on this issue. When a hero with an AR-15--which is not an assault rifle no matter how much leftists lie about it--ended another church shooting Biden said that the hero shouldn't have been allowed to have an AR-15.

To be fair pretty much every Democrat politician in America agrees with Joe on these issues which is why they should never ever have power over we the people.

The Left is now calling for the abolition of the police

One of the crucial realities that we have to face in America today is that the left is actually insane.

They deny science they don't like, that human life begins at conception and that men can't become women, and in doing so they deny reality itself; which is a good definition of insanity.

Since the source of the left's policies is often academia those policies are produced in an environment that has nothing to do with reality.

For example influential members of the left are calling for the abolition, not reform, of police departments.

That's right they're saying that America would be better off without police.

On a university campus the use of force to enforce the law, what police do, is rarely if ever required. But in inner city Chicago, in Boston, and in most of America without the police to deter and stop violent crime life would be horrible.

And of course Blacks and the poor would suffer the most since the rich could hire private guards and the middle class could create de facto police departments composed of hired guards by pooling their funds.

Also the middle class and the rich could afford expensive home security systems and the guns needed in a police free world to deal with intruders while the poor, who are disproportionately minorities, couldn't.

No sane person could possibly think that in the absence of police the fraction of the population who views what is ours as theirs would behave in a non-violent and non-aggressive way.

Without the fear of the police the rapist population would explode. After all with no police to arrest them rapists, and all other criminals, would face no down side for committing the most heinous of crimes.

While none of the Democrat Presidential candidates have espoused this particular policy the ones that they do support spring from the same reality disjoint group of leftist "intellectuals".

Modern monetary policy says that the government can print as much money as it wants and nothing bad will happen.  Democrats love that idea but anyone who is on a fixed income or who has savings knows that the result will be massive inflation and the destruction of everyone's savings.

Similarly Democrats believe that biological men should be allowed to compete in women's sports. Thereby denying the simple biology that men are intrinsically more athletic than women.  Apparently the fact that this effectively crushes women's dreams and denies them scholarships doesn't bother the reality challenged leftists.

Tell your friends the truth; modern leftist, read Democrat, policies are literally insane and hence Democrats can't be trusted with any power whatsoever.

What did Adam Schiff leave on the cutting room floor?

We now know that the whole purpose of Adam Schiff's illegal secret impeachment hearings was to audition witnesses.

Those who told a good antiTrump story were called back to testify at the public hearings and those who told the truth that defended Trump weren't.

Given that Schiff wouldn't allow Republicans to call witnesses he didn't like this process allowed Schiff to stack the deck and ensure that no testimony that helped Trump would ever show up on live TV.

Given that it's truly amazing that Schiff didn't produce a single witness who testified to first hand knowledge of any criminal activity by Trump.

However we've just learned that Schiff has still kept secret, in violation of House Rules, some of the testimony given in his secret Star Chamber hearings.

Rep. Michael Burgess said:

"They still haven’t made all of the transcripts available to members of Congress. And according to House rules, any committee hearing, the transcript is supposed to be available to other House members. But they have not done so, and no one has asserted that these are classified briefings. They were just simply secret hearings because it behooved the speaker to have secret hearings. That doesn’t pass muster. That’s not a constitutional part of the process."

What better way to rig a trial than to prescreen the witnesses and make sure the jury never hears from any witnesses who would help the defense?

Head of ACLU's Disability Rights Project supports aborting babies with Downs

You know the left is truly insane when the head of the American Civil Liberties Union's Disability Rights Project, that fights for the rights of the disabled, says it's fine to kill unborn babies because they might have Downs syndrome, or other disabilities.

First thing to note is that prenatal tests aren't 100% accurate.  Given that the same people who argue for abortion tend to oppose capital punishment because sometimes innocent people are executed it seems odd that they'd support executing the unborn unless it was 100% certain that they might be disabled.

Second thing is how can people are supposedly fighting for the rights of differently abled people say that killing a differently abled person before they're born is ok?

If you ask a differently abled person who has been born and grown up if they would like to be killed in a very late term abortion they will say no; they view their life as worth living.

The whole purpose of Disability Rights movements is to stand against the Nazi view that only fully abled people have value. But if a person says it's ok to kill a differently abled person before birth they clearly are buying into the Nazi view not the view that they're purportedly supporting.

This is just one more example of the eugenic foundation of modern leftism.  Just like the Nazis the modern left believes that the value of people is defined by who they are not just by the fact that they're human.

After all the whole idea of legalized abortion depends on the belief that despite the fact that science says that human life begins at conception society has the right to define certain human beings to not have human rights.  Hence it's not a leap for leftists to say that society can deny human rights to those who are differently abled.

Christians are being purged in the Middle East except in Israel

The story of how Muslims treat Christians better than Israel does is not supported by the facts.

The only country in the Middle East where the Christian population is growing is Israel.

Since the Palestinians assumed control of Bethlehem in 1995 the Christian population has decreased by 64%.

Meanwhile in Israel in 2018 the Christian population grew by 1.5%.

A study done by the UK showed the pervasive persecution of Christians:

"Pervasive persecution of Christians, sometimes amounting to genocide, is ongoing in parts of the Middle East, and has prompted an exodus in the past two decades, according to a report commissioned by the British foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

Millions of Christians in the region have been uprooted from their homes, and many have been killed, kidnapped, imprisoned and discriminated against, the report finds. It also highlights discrimination across south-east Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and in east Asia – often driven by state authoritarianism.

“The inconvenient truth,” the report finds, is “that the overwhelming majority (80%) of persecuted religious believers are Christians”."

That the Democrats in America don't seem to care about this isn't surprising in that Democrats view Christians as the enemy since Christianity doesn't support the Democrats social agenda.

If Pelosi really believes that Trump is a security risk why is she stalling impeachment?

Jerry Nadler said that Trump "will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution" if the 2016 election isn't nullified and we the people retain the right to decide who we have as President.

Pelosi hasn't said that she thinks Nadler is wrong but she's suddenly slow rolling the whole impeachment effort.

Clearly none of the Democrats who told us why they had to rush the impeachment process believed what they were saying.

But that's nothing new.

The entire impeachment process has been Democrats switching from one baseless claim to another hoping to find something, anything, that would convince voters that Trump is a bad man.

First it was Russia; which Mueller shot down.
Then it was quid pro quo; which no one cared about
Then their polling said they should go with bribery; but they couldn't produce any evidence

Finally they were forced to, for the first time in history, impeach a President without being able to show he'd committed any crime.

In doing so they ignored the Constitution which is clear; to impeach there must be a crime.

But of course Democrats ignore the Constitution all the time so this is nothing new.

Some pictures for Christmas

Merry Christmas!

I wish each and every one of you a healthy, happy, Holy Christmas!

Jesus so loves you that He came into the world suffered hunger, poverty, bug bites and eventually died on the Cross for each one of us.

He loves us more than we love ourselves.

May you and He become better friends over the next year.

Christians support religious liberty in the public square: Space Station edition

Happy Hanukkah to all those who celebrate it on Earth! #HappyHanukkah pic.twitter.com/FKC2M5iXni

— Jessica Meir (@Astro_Jessica) December 23, 2019

While angry atheists do their best to prevent people from saying "Merry Christmas" in public Christians have absolutely no problem with a Jewish astronaut publicly celebrating Hanukkah on the very public Space Station.

That's because unlike intolerant atheists, as opposed to atheists who respect people of faith's rights, Christians are cool with everyone being able to live their faith even in public settings.

What Christians oppose, and what the 1st Amendment prohibits, is the Federal government declaring one faith based belief system to have more rights than any other.

Which is what intolerant atheists are pushing for.

Atheism is a faith based belief system just like Judaism or Christianity though it does lack the evidentiary support those religions have.

For example according to Prof. Hawking if there is no God, if we're just meat machines, we can't have free will. That is we make absolutely no choices whatsoever from what cereal to eat to what faith we adhere to.

That's because if we lack souls then all our thoughts are brain chemistry and brain chemistry is controlled by the laws of physics not us.

But when we listen to what we're thinking we know that we do in fact have free will; we choose to do good or evil. Which means that to "lack a belief" in God atheists must have faith that all that goes on in our heads is nothing more than an illusion.  They have no way to show that's so so their belief is based on faith.

But even though atheism is a faith based belief system, functionally a religion, atheists believe that it's ok to expound atheist beliefs in public schools but that it's wrong to express Christian or Jewish beliefs in the same setting.

A public school teacher who talks about Christ faces punishment while one who extolls atheists like Nietzsche can proselytize with impunity.

It's time to end this attack on the First Amendment and allow all faith based traditions to be presented, but not endorsed, in public settings.

Democrats prove that there are hardly any white nationalists in America

If you listen to the #FakeNews media and the Democrats you must think that America is teaming with people who are racists.

Yet Antifa, which many Democrats and members of the #FakeNews media commend, commits far more violence than any racist groups.

The paucity of real white racists in America is proven by the fact that the Democrats and the #FakeNews media are constantly pretending that things that have nothing to do with white nationalism are in fact proof of it.

Take the now infamous hand gestures at the Army Navy football game.  They were part of a silly game and the gesture itself has been used by lots of non white supremacists.

If in fact there were lots of newsworthy actions by real white supremacists, as there are by Antifa, there would be no need to manufacture fake controversies.  When racist Democrats ran the South there was no need to make up stories of Blacks being treated cruelly by Democrat politicians for example.

Hence the fact that Democrats have to keep making up things proves that white supremacists are a tiny group lacking the will and the ability to do anything.

That's not surprising since Republicans condemn racism and Democrats say they condemn racism, while they ignore the fact that Black women are 3 times more likely to abort their babies than white women and the never ending mass shootings of Blacks in Democrat cities.  So there is no public support for white supremacy.

On the other hand Democrats encourage left wing violence ranging from driving Republicans out of restaurants and gas stations to violent riots by Antifa designed to suppress speech Democrats don't like.  Clearly the Democrats are cool with violence that helps get them get more power which is why there is so much of it.

Governor Cuomo declares that he hates democracy

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed a bill that would have allowed all judges to officiate at weddings because some judges have been appointed by Trump.

We the people elected Trump and gave him the power to select candidates for the Federal Judiciary.

We the people gave Republicans control of the Senate which has the power to confirm or deny the Presidents judicial selections when we voted.

But now Cuomo is saying that we don't actually have any rights as voters.  No matter who we elect they can't exercise their authority unless he approves.

This is a great example of how modern Democrat politicians hate you and hate democracy.

Not only are they refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election but they're actively doing everything they can to deny the person we the people selected to be President from using hte authority we the people gave him.

The modern Democrat party is the party of tyranny; they support rule by the "elites" just as they fought a war to keep slavery legal in the past.

Democrats weaponize impeachment for political gain

The Democrats couldn't find any evidence that Trump had actually committed any sort of crime, which is the Constitutional requirement for impeachment, but they impeached him anyway.

Now they're saying that they will continue the impeachment process indefinitely trying to manufacture more evidence.

That's also why they're not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.  Once the Senate rules the Democrats show is over.

Clearly Pelosi's plan is to make impeachment an ongoing thing right up to the 2020 election, and beyond if Trump wins, so that the #FakeNews media has an unending stream of lies to shill to we the people.

Pelosi has said that impeachment has been going on for 2 and a half years.  If the Democrats haven't found any evidence in that time it's time to stop pretending that they're actually interested in the law.

That Democrats cheered when they impeached Trump because they don't like him not because he was shown to have done anything wrong proves that the whole impeachment process is nothing less than Pelosi declaring that the Democrats have veto power over who we the people elect to be President.

In discussing the impeachment part of the Constitution the Framers rejected the ability of whatever party controls Congress to impeach a President just because they don't like him or his politics but that's precisely what dishonest Democrats are doing today.

Democrats want to rule over us not represent us.  Not only are they trying to tell us that we aren't allowed to pick Trump as our President they're now demanding that they control how the Senate deals with impeachment even though we the people have given control of the Senate to the Republicans.

Apparently Pelosi and her minions think that they have the right to run the government even when we the people give, through our votes, Republicans that power.

Did Pete Buttigieg say he's for sale?

A key Buttigieg fundraiser sent out the following email to some prospective donors:

"What they’re saying: “If you want to get on the campaign’s radar now before he is flooded with donations after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, you can use the link below for donations,” the fundraiser, H.K. Park, wrote in an email to the donor, which was reviewed by Axios.

• The Buttigieg campaign lists Park on its website as one of its top fundraisers — those who have raised at least $25,000 for the campaign."

At least one of the recipients thought that getting on Buttigieg's radar was indicative of Buttigieg being for sale; contribute early and he'll listen to you when he's President. That donor was bothered enough to make the email public.

The Buttigieg campaign said that Mayor Pete didn't write those words and that of course he's not for sale.  But then we know that Mayor Pete has been changing his positions based on the polls which means he's either dishonest, he'll change his positions if elected, or he has no moral compass, he'll do and say whatever it takes to get elected since he doesn't actually support anything other than getting more power for himself.

China cuts tariff's and lies about why

For the last 2 years China has been cutting tariffs on goods supposedly to improve the supply of consumer goods and increasing competition.

However the fact that these cuts just happen to coincide with Trump fighting back against China's high tariffs means that the reality is probably that at least part of the motivation is dealing with Trump.

What people don't know because the #FakeNews media doesn't talk about it is that Chinese tariff's on American goods entering China were 4 times higher than US tariffs on Chinese goods entering America.  China has been waging a trade war against the US for decades.

Trump didn't start a trade war, which is what the lying #FakeNews media keeps telling you, he just was the first American president to fight back to defend American jobs.

Democrat Pete Buttigieg is for whatever will get him votes

Starting out as a radical leftists endorsing insane concepts Mayor Pete has surged in the polls by moving towards policies that are only stupid not insane.

He's spending 3 times as much on polling as the other Democrat candidates.

This tells us one simple thing; he has no principles he'll say he's for whatever will get him the most votes.

That in turn tells us that he is unlikely to actually implement these new "moderate" policy positions once he's elected since if he'll tell us whatever his polling data thinks we want to hear he's not going to actually keep his promises to us.

While Buttigieg isn't the Democrats leading candidate at the moment it's important to remember that he's like the rest; he wants power so he can run your life not so he can make your life better.

IG report shows that the government had spies in the Trump campaign

Democrats and the #FakeNews media are trying to tell us that serious violations of FBI rules, including manufacturing evidence, all of which hurt Trump doesn't show any bias in the FBI.

That's ludicrous.  We all know that if Bush's FBI had spied on Obama's campaign as a result of 17 violations of procedure and illegal evidence tampering the same folks would be howling; and rightfully so.

Similarly the Democrats and the #FakeNews media are telling you that the government didn't really spy on the Trump campaign.

The problem is that the IG admits that the FBI had spies, Confidential Human Sources(CHS), in the Trump campaign:

“We also identified several individuals who had either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign, and were also FBI CHSs, but who were not tasked as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

“One such CHS did provide the Crossfire Hurricane team with general information about Crossfire Hurricane subjects Page and Manafort, but we found that this CHS had no further involvement in the investigation.”

What the IG report, the same one that didn't conclude that deliberately lying to the FISA court showed any political bias, says that there were FBI informants in the Trump campaign but that they didn't really help the FBIs investigation.

Of course the same FBI sources that the IG report relies on also said that there was no political bias involved.

It's like the way the press treats the allegations of Biden's corruption.

• Joe Biden was put in charge of US Ukraine policy
• Hunter Biden was hired, according to him, by Burisma because he's Joe's son
• Burisma pays Hunter $3.1M even though he never goes to Ukraine and he knows nothing about Burisma's business area
• Ukraine starts an investigation of Burisma
• Joe Biden bribes Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma
• Burisma investigation shut down

Yet the #FakeNews media says that there is no corruption because Joe Biden said there wasn't.

That is the #FakeNews media just assumed that Biden would never lie.

In the case of spies in the Trump campaign the IG report asks us to believe that the same FBI which deliberately lied to the FISA court and falsified evidence in order to get Trump didn't even ask their spies in the Trump campaign for information.

Now that's incredible.

Odds are those spies not only fed information to the FBI but that the FBI lied to the IG about it.

But even if that's not the case what in the heck kind of country do we have where the FBI has multiple spies in the oppositions political campaign by accident?  Just how many spies does the FBI have in America?

Hillary, Steele, Trump, Biden: Democrat's love foreign intervention in elections

Democrats are howling with rage over the idea that Trump might ask the Ukraine to investigate obvious corruption by the Biden cartel.

Some pretend that they would be ok if Trump had asked the FBI to investigate but that's a lie. When Trump has tweeted things that the left didn't like they've accused him of obstructing justice if he were to tell the FBI or even ask the FBI to look into Biden's obvious corruption the left would go insane.

Hence it's clear that Democrats believe that it's a crime to investigate Democrat corruption.

The whole foreign intervention thing is a joke.

We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton paid Fusion GPS which hired former spy and foreigner Steele to pay Russians for rumors about Trump.

We know that the FBI has determined that the contents of the Steele dossier are mostly made up; they did so by talking to Steele's principle source as was revealed by the IG report.

We know that Hillary thought that that looked really bad which is why she and her supporters in the #FakeNews media and the Deep State worked hard to keep her role hidden.  If Devine Nunes hadn't been so tenacious we the people would still think that Steele had nothing to do with Hillary.

To summarize we know for a fact that Hillary Clinton bribed Russians for alleged dirt on Trump and that she tried to use that during the campaign.

Which sounds amazingly similar to what Democrats accuse Trump of doing except for the fact that Trump asked Ukraine to honestly investigate Biden's obvious corruption and didn't bribe them to do so, remember the Ukrainians never opened and investigation but they got their aid and the meeting they wanted, while Hillary did bribe the Russians and did so when she had no evidence of Trump having done anything wrong.

To be completely analogous Trump would have had to ask Ukraine to look around for any random dirt they had on Biden, not just the well known issue that even the Atlantic magazine had discussed namely Biden's son working for a company in the country his dad was in charge of US policy for, and paid them to do so.

What the Democrats are saying is that it's fine for Hillary to seek out foreign support against her political opponents but it's literally a crime for a sitting US President to ask foreigners to investigate a Democrat even when there is a lot of evidence indicating that that Democrat is corrupt.

Once again Democrats are showing us that they view themselves as rulers who aren't bound by the law and that they view we the people, and any Republican politician, as subject to the will of Democrats no matter what the law actually says.

Pelosi's Rush to Judgement has ended: threatening to not send impeachment to the Senate

Pelosi and her fellow dishonest Democrats have been telling us that they had to rush impeachment because it had to be done RIGHT NOW.

But suddenly she's saying she might not let the Senate do its job on impeachment because she's concerned that the Senate might actually do the right thing.

Clearly there is no real rush.

The Democrats avoided going to the Courts to compel witnesses to testify because they knew they'd lose not because there was a rush.  And of course if they'd lost in the courts they couldn't accuse Trump of the non-crime of "obstructing Congress".

Pelosi is saying there won't be a "fair" trial in the Senate after having ensured there wasn't one in the House:

• Trump wasn't allowed to call witnesses
• Trump wasn't allowed to have legal representation
• Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses
• Democrats held secret Star Chamber hearings
• Democrats refused to call witnesses who wouldn't support their conspiracy theories in the public hearings
• Democrats called three radical legal scholars and one moderate legal scholar who didn't vote for Trump
• Democrats called a lawyer who worked for them as a witness despite his having given a lot of money to Democrat politicians
• The vote for impeachment was purely Democrats after Pelosi and Nadler both said that impeachment has to be bipartisan

What Pelosi is really saying is that unless the Senate has an unfair kangaroo court hearing she won't let them vote on her impeachment lie.

Trump's impeachment is purely political: Left was calling for impeachment before Trump did anything

April 17 2016: Politico headline "Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?"  Apparently law scholars, the ones that Nadler called to testify?, and political junkies--glad to see that the left identifies with drug addicts-- were talking about it.

January 20 2017: Washington Post headline "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun" So the WaPo, voice of the Democrats, admitted that the Democrats were looking to impeach Trump for what must be purely political reasons since Trump hadn't done anything when this was published.

December 25 2018: CNBC headline "A potential Trump impeachment is a 'huge risk' for 2019, expert says. So on Christmas day before Trump long before the Ukraine call occurred the left was pushing impeachment.

Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment has been going on for two and a half years; which proves that impeachment is purely political since nothing the Democrats charged Trump with had happened yet back then.

The simple reality is that the Democrats have refused to accept that we the people get to pick who is President. They "know" in their hearts that we're too stupid to have that sort of power which means that they are authorized to do anything in order to undo our "mistake".

Impeachment is supposed to be about a President who commits crimes, like Bill Clinton lying under oath to avoid losing a #MeToo lawsuit because he sexually harassed women who worked for him, not just because the party that is in charge of the House doesn't like the President.

This is the first impeachment in the history of America where the charges didn't include any crimes.

This is the first impeachment that was supported only by one party with those who were opposed containing members of both parties.

This impeachment is the Democrat party coming out for fascism and against democracy; in their minds elections only count if they win.

The Left supports child abuse: Transgender edition

Anyone who thinks they're the wrong sex is mentally ill.  Our sex is defined by our DNA and just like people who think that they shouldn't have an arm and want doctors to cut it off people who think they're a different sex are insane.

Now that doesn't make them bad people, insanity is an illness, but it does mean that if you love them you don't enable their insanity.

If your best friend dropped by and said he was Napoleon you wouldn't go along with it. Rather you'd explain to him that he is wonderful just as he is and he doesn't need to pretend to be something he's not; and you'd make sure he started seeing a shrink.

But today's leftists say that we should enable these people's insanity even though their attempted suicide rate is 40%.

Oddly those same leftists condemn injecting cows with hormones and athletes taking steroids but they're all enthused about giving young kids, under 10 years old, hormones so that they can pretend to change their gender.

It's amazing that supposedly caring adults would support giving little kids very powerful drugs for no good reason.

The left advocates doping up kids just so that the left can advance its insane beliefs that being mentally ill is something we should rejoice about not try and cure.

Leftist's love to attack kids who don't support them

It's been awhile but remember this kid?

He's Nicholas Sandmann and the crime for which the entire #FakeNews media viciously attacked him for was standing and smiling when an adult hit a drum inches from his face and for not responding when a group of Black Hebrew Israelites, the same group that killed a bunch of Jews the other day, howled obscenities.

Yet now when Greta Thunberg wanders the world pontificating and whining the same #FakeNews media tell us that it's a sin to point out where she's wrong.

Thats just another example of leftists hypocrisy.

Sandmann does nothing wrong and doesn't try to be in the public eye but he can be viciously attacked because he wore a MAGA hat while Thunberg spends her every waking moment being a political activist and she can't be criticized in every way.

Leftist dishonesty and racism: Notorious RBG edition

The left holds up Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a paradigm of what a perfect Supreme Court justice should be.

Which says a lot about leftists.

At an awards ceremony she said:

“The text I interpret most often is the U.S. constitution; it is, indeed, a living constitution. Who would want to be governed by a dead one?”

That comment is actually an admission that she's betraying America and not holding to her oath of office. 

To see why that's let's start by asking what it means to be living?  In this context it means to grow and change.  But the Constitution does not in fact grow and change unless it's amended as defined in the Constitution itself.

But dishonest judges like RBG say that the Constitution changes and grows without we the people amending it.  Essentially what she and other dishonest judges are saying is that the Constitution can be interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean.

America is built as a society on the Rock of the Constitution; the compact between past, present, and future and between the governed and the governors about what is and isn't allowed. But RBG and other judges have made that rock into a mound of clay which they, and only they, can mould into whatever they think it should really be without any concern about what we the people want.

When she took her office she swore the following Oath:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

She swore to defend the Constitution as written yet she's now saying that she can simply change it if she and 4 of her colleagues think that's what best for America.

Changing the law as they see fit is hardly defending the Constitution.

But leftists say that RBG and the other leftists justices are just improving the Constitution because they're such wonderful people.

Interestingly RBG told the New York Times in 2009:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,”

Just what population of Americans is there that RBG thinks we shouldn't have more of? Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, the poor, immigrants? Whichever groups she was thinking of it reflects a rather racist and/or elitist worldview.

Hardly what you'd want to hear from a person who is capable of altering the Constitution without the consent of we the people.

That she's not a person who supports the Constitution can also be seen in her belief that Catholic nuns should be compelled by the government to help provide abortions.  The First Amendment is clear that people can exercise their faith which means live what they believe.  Apparently RBG is one of those leftists who wants the Constitution to only protect the right of people of faith to go to church on Sunday not actually live their faith.

It's time to end the tyrannical rule of the Supreme Court and force the Court to simply interpret laws in light of the intent of those who passed the laws.  Every component of the radical Democrat social agenda--abortion, gay marriage, coddling criminals, legalizing porn, etc-- has been imposed on we the people by the Supreme Court not passed by Congress.

Lets return power to the people and end RBG's reign of terror!

Pelosi wants to impose dishonesty on the Senate

The way impeachments work is that the House makes the case that the President has done something criminal and then the Senate reviews the case and votes on it.

Essentially the House is the prosecutor and the Senate is the jury.

Yet now Democrats are saying that unless they can call witnesses that weren't called during the trial during what is essentially the prosecutions closing arguments, something that never happens, the Senate isn't being "fair".

What makes this really absurd is that the House's hearings, overseen by Pelosi, are a textbook example of a kangaroo court and were completely unfair:

• Adam Schiff held secret hearings from which he barred Representatives who he didn't like in a direct violation of House rules
• Adam Schiff selectively leaked portions of the secret testimony taken out of context to directly invert what the witnesses actually said
• Adam Schiff withheld transcripts from we the people until after he'd concluded his hearings
• Adam Schiff used the secret hearings to audition witnesses. Those who said things Schiff liked were called in the public hearings while those who spoke the truth were not.
• Adam Schiff prevented Republicans from calling witnesses he didn't like.
• Adam Schiff denied Trump the right to confront his accuser, a core principle in American law, by insisting that the infamous "whistleblower"not be called to testify
• Adam Schiff denied Trump the right to be represented at the hearings and the right to call witnesses in his defense; things that Bill Clinton was allowed to do
• Adam Schiff talked about quid pro quo until focus groups showed that bribery resonated better with voters but ended up not producing a single witness who could testify to first hand knowledge of Trump having done anything wrong
• Al Green said that Democrats had to impeach Trump otherwise Trump would be reelected; that's of course something that the Framers condemned in their discussion of grounds for impeachment
• Jerry Nadler called 4 legal scholars three of whom are radicals who have openly expressed their hatred of Trump and one liberal who didn't like Trump to justify the Democrats impeachment hoax
• Jerry Nadler gave Trump 2 days to get ready to defend himself where as Clinton had two and a half weeks
• Jerry Nadler refused to call any fact witnesses so that the Democrats denied Trump the right to confront his accusers or defend himself at any point in the impeachment process
• Jerry Nadler's final acts of impeachment mention no crime
• Jerry Nadler admitted that Trump was being impeached not for what he'd done but for what he would do. That's the same as putting a Black man in prison because he would sell dope in the future. It's a fascist tactic that goes against everything America stands for.
• The Constitution says that impeachment can only be for crimes yet neither article of impeachment mentions any crimes. The Framers when discussing impeachment specifically condemned the idea that impeachment was a tool that the party that controlled Congress could use to veto who we the people choose to be President.
• Not a single Republican voted for impeachment and 3 Democrats voted against it. Yet back when Bill Clinton was being impeached, and impeached bipartisanly, Democrats said that a purely partisan impeachment was wrong; that's Jerry Nadler talking by the way.\

Effectively the Democrats have run a one sided lynching where the defendant, Trump, wasn't allowed to defend himself and unreliable witnesses could only talk about rumors and hearsay not facts.  Given that historically Democrats are the ones who lynched Blacks Pelosi's behavior is consistent with Democrat tradition; the law be damned we need to hang anyone who we don't like.

It's not cheapening the horror of what Pelosi's predecessors did to Blacks to point out that she used the same dishonest tactics to try and nullify your vote in 2016 because effectively trying to dishonestly overthrow an election is a crime with less personal punishment, Trump isn't being killed like the poor Blacks that Democrats slaughtered, but with much more significant punishments for we the people, essentially Pelosi is saying we can only vote for people she approves of.

For Pelosi to say she won't send her sham results to the Senate because the Senate won't be fair is an amazing display of dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Imagine for a moment if a prosecutor who has totally failed to make a case against a Black man for murder declaring that the jury shouldn't be allowed to vote because he knows that they will find the Black man to be innocent.  Everyone would condemn that prosecutor. But that's precisely what Pelosi is doing.

She tried to get rid of Trump dishonestly but all she showed is that Democrats will support anything, will tell any lie if it gives them more power over we the people.

Republicans have proven that they will vote against a Republican President if he does something wrong; that's why Nixon resigned, he was told that the Republicans in the Senate would vote against him.

Democrats have proven that they will never vote against a Democrat President no matter what he does.  Democrats agreed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury, lied under oath, in order to cover up his sexual harassment of government employees yet they refused to vote to convict him.

The biggest takeaway from the Democrats attempted coup is that modern Democrat politicians are all dishonest fascists who will do anything to get power over we the people and as such that they can't be trusted to have any power over us.

Democrats cheer at impeachment; it's all about power

The Democrats lost the 2016 election and since then they've clearly and unambiguously shown that they won't accept the results of elections they don't win.

While Pelosi has been trying to portray the Democrats as sadly having to impeach Trump for crimes the fact that the Democrats in the House were cheering, whooping, hollering, and taking selfies when they voted to impeach Trump shows that this whole exercise is nothing more than Democrats trying to keep we the people from picking a President Democrats don't approve of.

When the Framers were debating what the Constitution should say about impeachment they were clear that impeachment wasn't supposed to be an act of political power.  That is which ever political party controlled Congress wasn't supposed to be able to have a veto over who was President.

Yet that's precisely what Democrats are doing. Their two articles of impeachment list no crimes and the second article has already been declared to be invalid by the Supreme Court.

During their sham impeachment Democrats trampled the Constitution by holding secret hearings and denying Trump his Constitutional right for self defense.  Impeachment is just one more example of Democrats doing anything to get themselves more power.

They've admitted that they're impeaching Trump because otherwise we the people might reelect him which is a direct rejection of the democratic process and the idea that power flows from we the people.

Democrats have staked out as their core belief that they are better than us and that they should rule over us not represent us which is why they believe that they have veto power over who we elect to the Presidency.

Democrats admit that they don't have evidence Trump did anything wrong

While the Democrats gleefully impeached Trump for the "crimes" of not being Hillary and daring to exercise his Constitutional rights they're words and actions show that they know that they have no evidence of him doing anything actually wrong.

• Adam Schiff made up a conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky and only admitted it was fiction when forced to do so.  If in fact the transcript showed Trump saying something criminal Schiff wouldn't have had to make something up
• Two Democrat Representatives misquoted Trump as saying that he wanted Ukraine to do him a favor when in fact the transcript shows that Trump was asking the Ukraine to do the US a favor.  If in fact Democrats had evidence of crimes by Trump they wouldn't have to make up things.
• A Democrat representative said that hearsay was better evidence than first hand knowledge. Given that Democrats love to coddle criminals and would scream bloody murder, as would conservatives, if a Black man was convicted of a crime based solely on rumors this is an admission that the Democrats have no actual evidence that Trump did anything wrong
• Democrat Chuck Schumer is demanding that new witnesses be called in the Senate which is an admission that the Democrats in the House failed to produce evidence of any actual crimes by Trump
• After talking about bribery and collusion the articles of impeachment mention no actual crimes. Clearly if the Democrats thought they had evidence of Trump actually doing something impeachable they'd have put that in the articles of impeachment. Instead they created article that are so broad as to have been applicable to every US President.
• Democrats prevented Trump from defending himself, held secret hearings, refused to allow witnesses who disagreed with their narrative to be called, and couldn't find a single witness who had first hand knowledge of any quid pro quo.  All of which wouldn't have occurred if Democrats thought they had an actual case against Trump
• Pelosi said impeachment has been going on for two and a half years. Which means she is either admitting that impeachment is nothing more than an attempt to undo the 2016 election or she's saying that impeachment is about Russian collusion, since the Ukraine call occurred this year. But Mueller completely discredited that and the Democrats have no evidence that Mueller is wrong. Hence Pelosi is effectively admitting that there is no evidence that Trump did anything wrong.

The reality is that the Democrats decided in 2016 that they would reject the democratic process and refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election.  Since then they've been trying over and over to fake some charge against Trump.

Finally when Schiff's plot to conspire with a dishonest CIA agent to frame Trump failed because Trump released the transcript of the phone call they simply abandoned any attempt to actually show that Trump had done anything impeachable and called on three radical law professors who declared that Trump could be impeached for not being Hillary.

Abortionists hate women: Untrained medical people edition

A former Planned Parenthood worker has stated that the people who draw women's blood at some clinics were't trained phlebotomists.

I witnessed that often…. There were not many qualified people. I thought that the phlebotomists were trained phlebotomists but they weren’t – they were just “Planned Parenthood trained”. Which means, they just trained them – how Planned Parenthood just guesses and says good, go ahead, you can stick that needle in that person.

Untrained workers are also responsible for sterilizing surgical tools, operating sonogram machines during surgery, preparing specimens, and explaining after care instructions to women at some abortion mills.

Another abortion worker said that despite the fact she had no medical training she was put in charge of dealing with women's post abortion complications.

I’m not a medical doctor, I’m not trained to evaluate a woman’s problems, postoperative hemorrhaging, etc. I have no skills to enable me to make that diagnosis and to prescribe the method of treatment, but that was required of me and I did it for three years. When they called me after hours and said, “I’m hemorrhaging, what can I do?” It was my problem, not the doctors. I was the person on call, I was one who called in all the drugs, I was the person who prescribed the medication.

One of the workers testified to the fact that abortionists are motivated by money, not by concern for their female patients:

He[the abortionist] wasn’t making enough money, so the first thing to go was the anesthetist, because they made a lot of money. Through just the few months of watching them put patients to sleep, we started putting patients to sleep ourselves and we had no idea what we were doing. We just knew what we had seen them do, so we started doing it.

Then our registered nurses that worked in our recovery room were the next people to go. Then our lab technician and on and on.

The situation got so bad that the worker, with no medical training, was performing abortions as well as hiring people who didn't know what they were doing:

I started interviewing people that had no medical background at all, bringing them in to do the job of anesthetist, lab technicians, nurses and even physicians. … I brought in people off the street with no medical background and trained them….

I never spent the first day in medical school. I was just an ultrasound technician. I really knew nothing about medicine, other than what I had seen other doctors do, but I started doing abortions. I started actually performing surgery on women. I did Norplants, cryosurgery, pap smears, pelvic exams — anything he did, I did.

A woman died under this workers care due to a botched abortion. The abortionist knew the woman was having a serious problem but left to catch a plane leaving the worker, with no relevant medical training, to deal with the problem. The worker failed to stop the bleeding and by the time an ambulance was called the woman's fate was sealed and she died.

Yet prochoice people constantly fight against holding abortion mills to the same medical standards as any other facility that performs surgery.  They consider it horrible that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital even though that can be critical in saving women whose abortions are botched.

Abortionists are the worst of doctors. Most doctors become doctors to help people.  But if they're not very good they often discover that killing the unborn is highly lucrative and their incompetence is easier to conceal when they're killing rather than saving lives.

Why aren't the Democrats in the House calling the witnesses Schumer wants called?

Democrat Chuck Schumer is saying that unless the Democrats get a do over in the Senate and can call new witnesses the process is unfair.

But if Schumer knows of witnesses that would actually make a case that Trump did something criminal why hasn't he told Jerry Nadler about them? Why haven't the Democrats paused their impeachment train wreck to call those witnesses?

The answer is that the entire impeachment process is nothing more than a political ploy to try and smear Trump before the 2020 election and the longer the Democrats dwell on it the worse the opinion  of we the people about the process is.

Effectively Schiff's impeachment hoax was deep sixed when Trump released the transcript of the phone call and the Democrats have been improvising since.

Since we the people aren't stupid the longer the House Democrats are on stage denying the President his Constitutional rights, saying the Supreme Court doesn't understand the law, and denying Republicans the right to call witnesses, all while saying that Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine aren't worth looking at the more we realize that the Democrats are attempting to overturn the 2016 election.

Schumer admits that Trump is right; Trump did nothing wrong

Democrat Chuck Schumer is admitting that Trump is right when he says that the Democrats haven't shown that he, Trump, is guilty of any crime.

Schumer is doing so by his demand that the Democrats get a second chance to try Trump in the Senate; something that isn't in the Constitution.

As McConnell has pointed out if the Democrats had shown that Trump was guilty of anything they wouldn't be calling for new witnesses and effectively a new impeachment hearing in the Senate.

We know from history that Republicans will vote against their President if there is evidence of real criminal activity.  When Nixon was being impeached the reason he resigned was that the Republicans in the Senate were going to vote against him.

We also know from history that like all good organized crime families Democrats will never ever vote against their President.  It was an agreed to fact, even by Democrats, that Bill Clinton had committed perjury, lied under oath, in order to protect himself from a #MeToo lawsuit that arose from Clinton exposing himself and demanding sex from an Arkansas government employee.  But the Democrats still voted against convicting Clinton.

Perhaps Schumer is projecting; as a Democrat he knows that he would never follow his oath and would vote to clear any Democrat no matter how egregiously that Democrat had acted so Schumer is thinking that Republicans will do the same.

More likely he realizes that there is no evidence against Trump but by pretending the Republicans in the Senate are being dishonest he is trying to taint the 2020 election and set the grounds for another impeachment attempt should the Democrats manage to retain control of the House.

FISA court whines about being lied to

Normally if a court is lied to by the prosecution the prosecution faces significant penalties.

But while the FISA court has finally come out and said that it was bad that the FBI lied to them they only asked the FBI to explain how they'll be better in the future.

The IG report revealed that an FBI lawyer deliberately doctored evidence that was supplied to the Court in a way that completely changed the meaning of the evidence; concealing the fact that Carter Page had recently worked with the CIA to help throw Russian spies into prison.

That's like a prosecutor changing evidence that showed a defendant had an alibi into "evidence" that said the defendant didn't have an alibi.  That's a crime not an oops my bad.

But as usual the Swamp sticks together. Apparently the court's anger at being lied to isn't as powerful as its desire to keep from having to punish a fellow Deep State actor.

This is an example of one of the great challenges we face; there are two sets of laws in America today, one for Democrats and one for everyone else.

Joe Biden can bribe Ukraine to stop investigating the company that paid his family $3.1 million but Trump wanting to investigate that is a crime

Hillary Clinton can put a huge amount of highly classified data on an insecure email server and walk while a Navy sailor who took a few photos in a restricted zone is sent to jail.

Antifa uses violence and riots to shut down free speech and is essentially given a free ride while Republicans are blamed for the less severe violence of white nationalists who Republicans condemn.

If the Bush FBI had done this to Obama the very same people who are opposing draconian punishment of the culprits now would be screaming for them all to be perp walked out of the FBI.

Journalists that the IG report show we can't trust: Jane Mayer edition

For years and up to just before the IG report came out Jane Mayer has been telling us that Steele and Fusion GPS were wonderful and that the Steele dossier was the gold standard.

But now we know that the FBI knew that it was a hoax. When the FBI talked to Steele's principal sub source that source said it was all bogus.

Before that the FBI knew that the dossier included errors like the fact contrary to a key story in the dossier there is no Russian Consulate in Miami.  Similarly the FBI knew that it couldn't verify any of the claims in the dossier.

Mayer ignored the fact that Steele, a British citizen, hated Trump and didn't want him to be elected and the fact that Fusion GPS, the company that hired Steele, also worked for a Russian oligarch.

Mayer's willingness to shill for lies or her abject inability to see the truth led her to write just last month:

"Despite the fact that the fabled pee tape has never surfaced and Trump immediately denied its existence, Simpson and Fritsch write that Steele remains confident that his reports are neither a fabrication nor the “hoax” of Trump’s denunciations. Trump’s defenders have claimed that Steele fell prey to Russian disinformation, and, therefore, it is he, not Trump, who has been a useful idiot for the Russians. But Steele tells the authors, “These people simply have no idea what they’re talking about.” He emphasizes that his network of sources “is tried and tested” and has “been proven up in many other matters.” He adds, “I’ve spent my entire adult life working with Russian disinformation. It’s an incredibly complex subject that is at the very core of my training and my professional mission.”

Clearly either she's a willing mouthpiece for antiTrump lies or she's an incompetent journalist who doesn't bother to research what's she's writing.

PowerLine Blog has a series on the details of Mayer's errors if you're interested.

Just one more example of why you should never ever trust what the #FakeNews media writes; they hate you and are willing to lie to you so that their candidates get elected.

Chuck Schumer says that the House Democrats didn't do their job

Because impeachment in the minds of Democrats is precisely what the Founder said it shouldn't be, an act of political power, they've rushed it and not waited for the Courts to rule if certain people can be compelled to testify.

Now the head Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and Democrats are whining that it won't be fair unless they get to call more witnesses in the Senate.

Essentially what they're saying is that in a trial the defense lawyer should be able to call new witnesses in his closing arguments to the jury; something that is never done.

He's also admitting that despite impeachment having gone on for two and a half years, according to Nancy Pelosi, that Democrats have failed to make any case against Trump.

We all know that's true since neither of the two acts of impeachment include a crime of any sort, after talking about bribery for most of the impeachment process the word never appears in the articles of impeachment, and the Supreme Court has effectively declared that the second act of impeachment, obstructing Congress, has no basis in the law as it's currently defined.

But that Schumer is effectively admitting it, though the #FakeNews media will never point that out, shows just how dishonest the whole impeachment effort is.

After railroading Trump in the House by denying him the right to defend himself, by holding secret hearings, by denying Republican's requests to call witnesses, and by voting for impeachment on strict party lines the Democrats have the audacity to say that if the Senate doesn't do what they want the process is somehow tainted.

Senate leader McConnell is simply stating the truth even though the #FakeNews media and the Democrats are vilifying him when he says that it was the job of the House to make the case against Trump and that the Constitution doesn't give them the opportunity for a do over in the Senate.

#FakeNews media acts as a mouthpiece for Chinese tyrants

It turns out that the China Daily, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist dictators, has been putting ads that look like news articles into leading American publications for a very long time.

That the newspapers like the the New York Times, The Washington Post, and even the Wall Street Journal were willing to run Chinese propaganda that framed Chinese atrocities like the persecution of the people of Hong Kong in a good light is a sign of just how unAmerican these outlets can be.

They're willing to aid the Chinese tyrants attempt to lie to we the people for a few bucks.  That's not what Americans do to their fellow Americans.

Even worse it turns out that while the law allows this it imposes reporting requirements on the China Daily which the Daily hasn't been following.  By not reporting many of it's activities it was presumably trying to avoid any government scrutiny into its attempt to convince Americans that sending people to concentration camps just because they're Muslim is a good thing.

The WaPo is the leading collaborator having run nearly 400 pages with China Daily "ads" over the last 8 years.  Not surprising then that the WaPo hates Trump fighting back against China's attacks on free trade.  Remember that the average tariff on American goods entering China before Trump started fighting back was 4 times higher than the average tariff on Chinese goods entering America.

Clearly no organization with anything remotely resembling a conscience would run ads designed to look like articles that defended the mass incarceration of Muslim ethnic minorities in China for the crime of not being ethnically Chinese.

This doesn't prove that every word these outlets publish is a lie but it does show that the people who decide what they publish have a very different view of the world than the average American.

Democrats have no standards for their candidates: Alcee Hasting's edition

Democrat Representative Alcee Hasting is on the House rules committee setting the rules for the coup...er impeachment.

What's interesting is that Hasting was impeached as a Federal Judge by a Democrat controlled House and convicted by the Senate for taking bribes.

A few years later he was elected by Democrats to the Congress.

He's clearly failed to reform because we the people paid out $220,000 to settle a case of sexual harassment against him by a government worker.

Back in the previous century two Representatives were accused of having sex with pages.  Both were found guilty by the House.

The Republican apologized and Republican voters booted him out of office in the next election.

The Democrat, who is gay and who used wine and drugs to ply the male page, turned his back on the House and said he did nothing wrong.  Democrat voters continued to reelect him for years.

Clearly the only requirement to be a Democrat candidate is to pledge one's self to working tirelessly for more power for Democrats.

Leftists are the real misogynists who hate women: Michael Bloomberg edition

Abortion is a tool men use to ensure that they can use women as objects not love them as people.

Abortion ensures that men don't have to worry about child support when they hook up with a woman and then toss her aside like yesterday's news paper.

So it's not surprising that when you scratch the surface Democrats don't really respect women.

Michael Bloomberg is running for President and apparently he's a billionaire that Democrats can like.

But back in the 1990s his employees put together a short book of his sayings.  Many are too obscene to repeat but here are a couple of gems that show how he really thinks about women:

“If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they’d go to the library instead of to Bloomingdales.”

“I know for a fact that any self-respecting woman who walks past a construction site doesn’t get a whistle will turn around and walk past again and again until she does get one.”

This makes Bloombergs jihad to disarm American women so that they can't defend themselves from rapists make sense.

But of course just as Bill Clinton's sexual harassment and rape was labeled as ok by the same Democrats who condemn Trump for consensual relationships, which were immoral, so too will Bloomberg's clearly sexist views for to Democrats the only sin is standing between them and power.

The BBC lies to you about Trump: Armenian genocide edtion

The Moslem Turks committed genocide against the Christian Armenians.

The Congress has passed resolutions calling what the Turks did genocide.

The BBC headline says "Trump says Armenia massacres were not genocide, directly contradicting Congress"

That's an out and out lie.

The only statement from Trump that the article cites was made back in April where he called what the Turks had done "one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century"; ie Trump put it on par with the Holocaust and the mass murder of 100,000,000 people by various communist regimes.

Trump did not say that what the Turks did wasn't genocide which means that the headline is a lie.  We can be sure that if Trump ever actually said what the Turks did to the Armenians wasn't genocide that the BBC would have published it.  Hence we know that they knew that they were wrong and hence it's not a misstatement but an out and out deliberate lie.

The Holocaust was an atrocity precisely because it was genocide. No one would think that calling the Holocaust an atrocity would mean that one thought that it wasn't genocide.  Clearly the BBC was attempting to interfere in the upcoming election by lying about Trump.  It's unlikely that Adam Schiff will mind though.

The complete dishonesty of the BBC can be seen when one reads the last sentence in the article:

"Mr Trump predecessor, Barack Obama, promised as a presidential candidate to recognise the massacres of Armenians as genocide but after his election did not use the word."

What the article didn't mention is that Obama referred to the Turks action as a "mass atrocity" and in his eight years as President he never referred to it as genocide.

So the BBC is lying about what Trump said and covering for Obama.

That's why we can't trust the #FakeNews media.

Democrats weaponize a wedding

A group of Trump supporting women, Women for America First, held a three day event in DC which included a dinner at the Willard Hotel.

Unfortunately the ballroom next to the one being used by the spunky ladies was hosting the wedding of a "high profile Democrat".  It's unclear if the person is high profile because they've been indicted or because they're politically powerful.

The wedding guests decided to spend the evening verbally and physically attacking the Trump supporter culminating with 4 to 6 men, including the best man from the wedding, attacking a former Navy SEAL and FBI agent who was escorting women out of the event. Fortunately the best man was arrested.

The escort was needed because the best man at the wedding blocked access to the elevator saying “you’re only allowed in if you respect your ovaries”.

What's more patriarchal and misogynistic than a man telling women what they are to think?

But of course he thinks of himself as someone who supports women.

This is just one more example of how Democrats are the party of violence.

We're told that the "whistleblower" shouldn't have to testify because he has been threatened but the people who are telling us that wouldn't let someone testifying against a mob boss off the hook.

The reality is that while Democrats endorse Antifa's violence, while Democrats call for driving conservatives out of restaurants and gas stations they declare that it's Republicans who are violent because of some white nationalists who Republicans universally condemn.

Democrats are liars and they are fully supportive of violence if it gets them more power.

California wages war on workers

The Democrats who run California passed a bill, AB 5, which was purportedly designed to prevent companies from exploiting workers.

However it's so vague and draconian that all sorts of companies are firing contract workers left and right. It's just easier to stop contracting with people than to figure out if keeping them on is legal.

For example Vox Media is consolidating hundreds of free lance sports reporting jobs into a few paid full time or part time positions.

Essentially this is a war on people's right to decide if they're being acceptably compensated.  Democrats hate the idea that Uber and Lyft drivers think that they're making enough money for what they do when they're making a lot less than a professional cab driver.

But for some people the flexibility of a contracting job is a key benefit which is more important to them than a higher pay rate. The ability to work or not work without having it cleared by a boss is critical to people who care for others, like mothers and caregivers, but who aren't in desperate need of more money.

Democrats believe that they are all wise and that they should decide for us what we're willing to work for.  This is just one more example of how they're wrong; that in a country of 330,000,000 people one cookie cutter solution doesn't fit all people's needs.

Illegal Immigrants are behind a murder epidemic

ICE  tried to detain illegal immigrants who are charged with 2,500 murders last year.

To put that in perspective according to the FBI a total of roughly 10,000 people were arrested for murder last year in the US.

Now to be clear it's not really fair to say that we know that 25% of US murders are by illegal immigrants because we don't know what fraction of murderers the police try to arrest; in many cases there isn't enough evidence to arrest anyone.

But if we assume that arrest warrants are issued for the same fraction of illegal immigrant murderers as for US citizen murders then these numbers are telling us that illegal immigrants are much more likely to commit murder than US citizens.

The highest estimate of the number of illegal immigrants in the US is around 22,000,000 and the US population is around 330,000,000 so that puts illegal immigrants at about 7% of the US population.  Hence if illegals murdered at the same rate as citizens and were charged with murder at the same rate as US citizens we'd expect that of the 10,000 people arrested for murder in the US that about 666 of them would be illegal immigrants.

Hence keeping in mind the assumptions that are being made illegal immigrants are wanted by the police for murder at roughly 3.7 times the rate US citizens are.

Given that every illegal immigrant has demonstrated a willingness to break the law for personal gain by entering the country illegally it's probably not surprising that a higher fraction of them are criminals.

Remember that today there are around 1,300,000 honest Mexicans, and hundreds of thousands of honest residents of other Central American countries, who are patiently waiting to enter the US legally.  Which also means that illegal immigrants are more likely to be criminals than the average person from the country they come from is.

Yet Democrats want to give all illegal immigrants citizenship, free medical care--at your expense of course--, and the right to vote.

Even worse Democrats want to make sure that illegal immigrants get to stay in the US no matter what crimes they commit. That's what sanctuary cities are about. The only sanctuary that sanctuary cities and states provide is for illegal immigrants who have been arrested.  "Honest" illegal immigrants who don't commit further crimes in the US aren't arrested and hence sanctuary policies that keep ICE from deporting illegals who have been arrested don't help them. But those policies do help illegal immigrants who are preying on Americans and other illegal immigrants.

Adam Schiff lies about his lies

Two years ago Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes had the exact same information about what the government did to get a FISA warrant ostensibly to spy on Carter Page but really to spy on Trump.

Yet Nunes memo on the subject has been proven to be 100% correct by the IG report and Schiff's has been proven to be one big lie.

Schiff is now saying that he didn't know about the problems but that's clearly a lie since as ranking member on Nunes committee he had the same information that Nunes did.

But unlike Nunes Schiff chose to lie to we the people knowing that the #FakeNews media would support him.  Just as they're going to support him now when he says that he wasn't lying before.

Keep this in mind when you hear the #FakeNews media breathlessly reporting on something Schiff says; he's lied to your face in the past and he clearly believes that anything that gets Dems more power is good.