Democrat Gavin Newsom lies to Californians again

Democrats increased the gas tax in California with the promise that the money would be use to improve roads.

But now Governor Newsom has issued an executive order that takes $5 billion of transportation funding and moved it to the "Climate Change Scoping Plan" which is trying to convince Californians to give up their cars.

Essentially not only is Newsom breaking the Democrats promise which makes their promise a lie he's using the money to convince Californians, who need cars because they can't afford to live near work, to lower their standard of living by jettisoning their cars.

Of course the #FakeNews media won't cover this so that the California voters won't know that the next time Democrats increase taxes for some worthy cause odds are the money won't end up supporting the worthy cause.

Democrats fight hard to deny poor people jobs

Democrats have been working hard to drive up the minimum wage to $15/hour.  They never explain why $15 vs say $100.

One of the reasons is that they don't understand economics.  If a company has to pay someone more than they're worth, ie more than the revenue that person's labor generates, then the company will go out of business because unlike the government, which is the only thing most Democrats are familiar with, companies can't print money.

Well it turns out that in NYC a survey of 324 restaurants showed that 76.5% cut hours and 36.3% cut jobs as a result of the new $15/hour minimum wage.

The reality is that the government can't mandate magic money for low skill workers. What happens when they try is people lose their jobs if they lack the skills to produce $15/hour of revenue.

But as usual Democrats don't care about who they hurt only how many voters they can buy.

Democrats war on truth

Because what Democrats really want is power over we the people not to improve the lives of Americans they can't ever really tell the truth if they want to get elected.

But recently Democrats have dialed their hatred of truth up to 12 as these examples show:

1) Joe Biden's campaign has demanded that Rudy Giuliani not be allowed to appear on any TV shows because Rudy is a "proven liar".  One of the "lies" that Rudy has told is that Joe Biden got a Ukraine prosecutor fired who just happened to be the only prosecutor in the world who was investigating Joe's  son.

2) In California an undercover journalist is on trial for pretending to be someone he wasn't in order to record Planned Parenthood executives talk about selling aborted baby parts.  If he is convicted pretty much everyone on the 60 Minutes show and probably 1/2 of all journalists should end up in jail; after all undercover investigations by journalists to expose corruption have been the bread and butter of American journalism since the 1960s.  Of course this is just a targeted attack by Democrats who will do anything to protect PP.

3) Democrats are supporting Elizebeth Warren's pretending to be a Native American in order to get high paying jobs.

4) Democrat Adam Schiff deliberately made up things and pretended that Trump said them in the call with the Ukraine president at the beginning of the House hearings into the matter.  Apparently Schiff couldn't find anything in the actual transcript that was bad so he had to make it up.


These are just a few of the recent examples.

The Bible says "The Truth Shall Set You Free" which is why Democrats hate the truth; they don't want you to be free, they want to rule over you.

New York Times says that Cops not Crooks are the problem

In an op-ed "The Police Can't Solve the Problem. They Are the Problem," written by two attorneys, who else, declare that police fill prisons so that the only way to avoid mass incarceration is to have fewer police.

The obvious but unstated assumption is that police and prosecutors are framing people for crimes they don't commit. Otherwise the article would be saying that it's good to allow criminals to remain on the street preying on innocent people.

Bizarrely they credit pre-school and jobs programs for the 26% drop in crime from 1993 to 2000.  In their minds more cops and more people in prison didn't cause crime to drop.  Of course if most of the people in prison are really innocent--an idea that only makes sense to attorneys--then more people in prison wouldn't reduce crime.  However the logic is clear; the fact that as more people were put in prison there was less crime shows that we have been incarcerating criminals not innocent people.

The insane people who wrote this article actually say:

"The police do not help vulnerable populations — they make populations vulnerable. Excessive force is the No. 1 investigated complaint against police officers, and sexual violence is the second. People with mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by the police,"

Note that they don't mention how often police are convicted of using excessive force. They can't because it's an amazingly tiny fraction of the times that the police interact with criminals.

That the authors find it odd that police, rather than random passers by, are likely to kill the insane demonstrates either an amazing level of dishonesty or pure evil.  Who confronts knife wielding lunatics other than the police?  Who do the insane turn to to perform suicide by cop other than cops?  The reality is that in nearly every confrontation with violent insane people the police are present and sometimes they need to protect themselves.

To see the true evil, or insanity, of this NYT piece all one has to do is realize that the logical conclusion of their claim that police are the problem is that a society without police would be great.  We know that's not true since when police stopped policing in certain areas of Baltimore crime shot up.

Of course the fact that the victims of crimes are disproportionally Black probably plays a role in the authors position. Thousands of Blacks are shot in Democrat run Chicago every year and the authors are saying that that is due to the police.  The reality is that if thousands of whites were being shot each year, if the criminals who are released preyed on white people not mostly Black people it's unlikely that the authors would be declaring that the police are the enemy.

The mass incarceration mantra is always coming from people who live in very safe, if not gated, neighborhoods who won't be impacted by more criminals walking the streets. Neither of the authors have to live in high crime neighborhoods. Hence they don't care about the suffering that is caused by releasing criminals into the general public.

It's truly vile that the NYT should attack the police who put their lives on the line every day to protect us from criminals while defending the criminal who disproportionately prey on Black Americans.

Joe Biden demands people who disagree with him be censored

The Biden campaign sent a message to all the major media outlets saying that they should no longer have Rudy Giuliani on their shows.

Can you imagine if Trump did the same for say someone who is working for Elizabeth Warren?  The media would be declaring Trump to be the enemy of the free press.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar outcry over Biden's attempt to neutralize freedom of speech.

According to Biden Giuliani lies when he says that Biden had a Ukraine prosecutor fired because that prosecutor was investigating a company that was paying Biden's son, Hunter.

The facts are the following:

1) Many people wanted the prosecutor fired for corruption
2) The only major corruption investigation that was stopped by the firing was the one into the company that was giving Hunter Biden lots of money
3)  The only corrupt foriegn prosecutor that Joe Biden ever got rid of was the one who just happened to be investigating Hunter Biden.

But according to Joe Biden and the left every thing was on the up and up.

Similarly Hunter flew on Air Force 2 with his dad Joe to China and left with $1B worth of business, which later expanded to $1.5B.  But of course that too is perfectly honest.

Ask yourself if you believe if anyone in the media would be agreeing that this stuff is ok if it were Trump Jr and Trump involved not Hunter Biden and Joe Biden?

Of course not.

The reality is that Joe knows he's in deep trouble.  This "whistleblower" saga is bringing out old news that he could normally trust the #FakeNews media to bury or lie about.

Like all modern Democrats who can't win an argument based on reason and facts Joe is instead doing everything he can to silence any voice who doesn't agree with him.  This shows that Joe is just a much a tyrant at heart as Warren and Sanders.

Obama pushed Ukraine to investigate Trump associate in 2016

In January 2016 the Obama administration had meetings which involved NSC, FBI, State Department, DOJ and Ukraine's top corruption prosecutors and investigators.

While the meetings were supposedly about training the Ukrainians quickly realized that the Obama officials were concerned with two highly political investigations; one involving VP Biden's family and one involving a lobbying firm connected to then candidate Trump.

It was clear that the US wanted the Ukrainians to reopen an investigation into GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort.

That led to deliberate Ukraine meddling in the US election.  While the Ukrainians had evidence that was damaging to Manafort for 2 years they only released it 10 days after Manafort was made Trump's campaign chairman.  The release was ruled by a Ukraine court to be a direct attempt to influence the US election.

Interestingly there was also evidence of payments to Americans other than Manafort including former  Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig but the Ukrainians said the US officials, all of whom were at the time working for Obama, weren't interested.

In parallel US officials told the Ukrainians that they wanted Ukraine to drop the investigation into a corrupt Ukrainian company, Burisma, which was paying Joe Biden's son as much as $83,000 a month to be on their board, and let the FBI take over. Since the corruption involved Ukrainians Ukraine naturally refused.

Shortly thereafter Joe Biden told the Ukrainians that unless they fired the man investigating the company his son paid he, Biden, would cut off  $1B in aid.  The prosecutor was fired and the investigation was transferred to the same Ukraine organization, National Anti-Corruption Bureau(NABU), that eventually released the information against Manafort.  NABU dropped the investigation into Hunter Biden.

Essentially in 2016 the Obama administration pressured Ukraine to investigate Paul Manafort who was involved with Trump's campaign while simultaneously pressuring the Ukraine to end an investigation that would be damaging to Joe Biden.

Now that's corruption.

M21 M8 M20 panorama

I like taking pictures of the night sky.  This is a combination of images centered on M8, M20, and M21

The color comes from Ha, G, and B bands. The red regions are hydrogen gas.  Exposures were 3 300s  for L band and 1 300s for Ha, G, and B bands.

The "whistleblower" was helped by the Intelligence Community

Historically a whistleblower has been someone in an organization with knowledge of illegal and/or corrupt activities.

That was the standard in the US Intelligence Community(IC) too until some time between May 2018 and August 2019.

At least until May 2018 the whistleblower form stated the following:

“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,”

That means that only if the person filing the form had direct first hand access to the information could the ICIG take action. This makes sense since rumor and hearsay aren't admissible in a court of law.

But in the form submitted by the recent politically biased "whistleblower" lacks the above requirement and instead has two check boxes; one for having personal knowledge and one for having heard rumors and hearsay--though they don't phrase it that way.

It seems convenient that during a time when the Obama appointed former head of the CIA is calling on government employees to report anything that Trump is doing that they don't like suddenly the IC changes its policy and declares that rumors are just as good as first hand knowledge.

This may be one of the reasons that the IC was hesitant about sending the complaint to Congress; the acting DNI may have wondered who in the heck said that random IC workers could file complaints based on rumors they heard.

Clearly if any government employee can become a "whistleblower" based on what they say they heard then it'll be a lot easier for politically biased members to wage war on Trump.

Think about it.  In this most recent "whistleblower" report there is no first hand knowledge and the sources of the rumors that the "whistleblower" heard are anonymous.

In fact there's a good chance that, like Adam Schiff's opening remarks, most of it is made up.

For example the "whistleblower" speaks as though when Trump was talking about a Ukraine prosecutor who had been fired he was talking about the current Ukraine prosector which wasn't the case according to the transcript.

Similarly the "whistleblower" incorrectly stated that Ulrich Brechbuhl was in on the call.

If those facts are wrong how can we trust anything else the "whistleblower" has claimed to have heard from anonymous sources.

This is clearly the Steele Dossier 2.0.  In both cases all the information was either unverifiable or shown to be incorrect and all of the sources were anonymous ones.

The real crime that needs to be investigated is why the IC decided to allow whistleblower complaints based on rumors and hearsay.

Given the amazingly political nature of the former IC heads under Obama it's not unreasonable to ask if the IC leadership below the top posts is more loyal to the Democrat party than they are to the Constitution.

Odds are the "whistleblower" was part of a plot just like Steele was

Fred Fleit-- a veteran of the CIA, DIA, State Department, and House Intelligence Committee staff--has said that he's never seen anything like the "whistleblowers" complaint.  Real whistleblower complaints look nothing like this one for example:

"I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.

My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff."

He also points out that there is a trail of breadcrumbs indicating that radical Democrat Adam Schiff may be behind the "whistleblower" story:

"Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint."

How likely is it that Schiff just happened to make those remarks with no knowledge of the "whistleblower's" complaint?  The more likely scenario is that Schiff was in communication with the "whistleblower" and was working to help turn what would normally be a short message into a legal brief.

What others are ignoring but Fleit is pointing out is that an Intelligence community that is willing to do anything to get rid of a duly elected President is not good.

He says:

"I’m more worried, however, that this latest instance of blatant politicization of intelligence by Trump haters will do long term damage to the relationship between the intelligence community and US presidents for many years to come."

If the President doesn't trust the Intelligence Community it could lead to serious foreign policy disasters.

But the even more worrying problem is that the idea of the CIA et al using their power and the knowledge that they are entrusted with to attack a duly elected president that they don't personally like is nothing short of fascism and tyranny. We expect the KGB to play king maker in the Soviet Union we don't expect the CIA to have veto power over who we elect in the US.

Elizabeth Warren says she's not sure if she's against corruption

Some media person didn't get the memo and asked Democrat Elizabeth Warren a hard question about whether or not it would be ethical for her vice president's son served on the board of a foreign company:

FLAG: Senator Elizabeth Warren appears uncharacteristically flustered when asked if her ethics plan would allow her Vice President's son to serve on the board of a foreign company: "No," she said. "I don't know. I mean I’d have to go back and look at the details." #nhpolitics pic.twitter.com/EksLlMEsew

— Nicole Sganga (@NicoleSganga) September 25, 2019

Clearly Warren was unwilling to agree that Joe Biden's son, Hunter, did anything wrong by receiving as much as $83K a month from a corrupt Ukrainian company on a subject area he knew nothing about starting shortly after Obama had appointed Biden as his point man on Ukraine.

Given that this question was asked because Warren has pledged to end corruption it shows once again how to Democrats there are two sets of laws and moral standards; one for them and one for everyone else.

Obviously when Warren says she's going to clean up corruption she means she's going to declare that things she doesn't like are corruption not that she actually wants to end corruption.

If you read her plan it's all about basically eliminating the 1st Amendment rights of anyone who has worked in government.

She also wants to prevent the government having to listen to input from Americans who are impacted by bureaucratic rules. How that's corruption is unclear but it would sure make it easier for extremist policies to be enforced on we the people.

While she's unsure if Biden's son raking in huge piles of cash due to his dad's position is corruption she does know that force arbitration is corrupt.

Clearly her latest tacit admission shows that she doesn't really know what the word corruption means as well as the fact that if corruption favors Democrats she's all for it.

Democrats are saying that keeping the Presidents calls with foreign leaders confidential is a crime

One of the key new arguments by the #FakeNews media, Democrats, and the "whistleblower" is that keeping the transcripts of private calls between the President and foreign leaders secret is a crime.

Clearly when building a rapport with foreign leaders or addressing problems Presidents need to be able to say things that aren't made public.  For example Trump talking with Merkel about why it's important to not let Germany depend on Russian natural gas will probably contain Trump listing the many sins of Putin.  But since Trump wants to maintain as good relations as possible with Russia, which still has 7000 nuclear weapons, he doesn't want that showing up in the headlines of the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Similarly classified information about various programs aimed at fighting Russia and terrorism are mentioned in such calls.

No President, Democrat or Republican, has published the contents of their private communications with foreign leaders.  But now the #FakeNews media and the Democrats are saying that doing so is a high crime or misdemeanor which justifies impeaching Trump.

What this boils down to is that the Democrats care about one thing and one thing only; power.  They know that Trump hasn't committed any crime, unlike Bill Clinton who lied under oath to protect himself from a #MeToo lawsuit, but they want him out.

Essentially what Democrats are saying is that they don't support democracy.  To them elections are nothing more than shams to cover up their tyranny.  How else can we explain why they are trying to overturn Trump's election?  Clearly Democrats only support elections if they win.

If you doubt that look at how Democrats are saying that Stacey Abrams really won even though there is no evidence of voter fraud for her opponent and the ballot count shows she lost by thousands of votes?

Democrats view themselves as our rulers not our representatives and they will do and say anything if it brings them more power.

Democrat governor Cuomo says that the radical left has taken control of the House

Cuomo said that impeachment was not a good thing to do:

"I think we now go to a very long and unproductive road,"

He went on to say:

“Speaker Pelosi was dealing with pressure from her caucus and...there is a heightened leftist component to the Democratic Party that she was feeling pressure for,” Cuomo said. “She is a deliberate, responsible person. She is not a knee-jerk person and I think she even resisted the pressure in her caucus admirably for a long period of time.”

This is interesting for a number of reasons.  

First it shows that Trump was right when he said that Pelosi is no longer speaker of the House.  Leftists said this was a sign of Trump's stupidity because they pretended he was speaking literally.  Of course what Trump was saying is that since Pelosi called for something that she feels would hurt the Democrats but which the radicals like Tlaib want it's clear that it's not Pelosi who is charge anymore. Cuomo is backing Trump up here because Cuomo is also saying that Pelosi was forced into doing something she knows is bad for Democrats.

Second if a rabid leftist like Cuomo who supports abortion up through birth and who says that conservatives don't belong in New York is  saying that impeachment won't work he's likely saying that he doesn't see grounds for it.  After all Republicans were willing to impeach Nixon because there was evidence of crimes so either Cuomo thinks that modern Republicans are more corrupt or he doesn't believe that the evidence is there to prove Trump did anything wrong.

When you hear your leftist friends or co-workers say that it's balderdash that insane radicals like Ocasio-Cortez--who wants to kill all the cows and ensure that people who could work but who don't want to work have a nice lifestyle at taxpayers expense--run the Democrat party you can tell them that Governor Cuomo says they're wrong.

Bill Maher calls out Rachel Maddow's hypocrisy

While Bill Maher is wrong 99% of the time he does occasionally show a bit of honesty.

His latest valid point is that if the Ukraine situation involved Trump's son not Biden's leftists like Rachel Maddow would be covering it 24/7.

Imagine if it came out that Trump threatened to not provide aid to the Ukraine unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor who was looking into corruption at a company that was paying Trump's kid, Don Jr, as much as $83k a month to consult on a topic that he had no expertise in.

It doesn't take much because Democrats are saying that Trump asking Ukraine to reopen the investigation into Biden's kid that was shut down by Biden threatening to hold back aid from Ukraine is grounds for impeachment even though Trump didn't threaten to hold back US aid.

Clearly the #FakeNews media and the Democrats would be howling bloody murder.

Instead they're ignoring the obviously corrupt actions of Joe Biden and making up illegal actions by Trump.

This shows, once again, that all that matters to Democrats is power over we the people.  No crime no, act of corruption, nothing that could reduce the power of Democrats can be mentioned and any lie about Republicans that could increase the power of Democrats has to be told.

When Romney was running against Obama the Democrat Senate leader, Harry Reid, lied and said that Romney hadn't paid taxes. When questioned after the election Reid said sure it was a lie but Romney lost didn't he?  Given that Reid is far less radical than Democrats like Tlaib, Omar, and AOC   it's clear that we can't trust anything any Democrat politician says these days.

You'll be hearing the #FakeNews media telling lots of lies about Trump etc just as you did for the last 2 years.  Remember if they say it; odds are it's not true.

The "whistleblower" wants to criminalize justice

We now have the document filed by the "whistleblower". The first thing to note is that there is not one substantiated fact in the entire complaint.  The person writing the complaint witnessed nothing and they don't provide the names of the people who supposedly did.

We know that government employees are eager to lie in order to get Trump into trouble.  Remember when the NYT reported over and over that when FBI director Comey testified to Congress he'd say that Trump had lied when Trump said that Comey said that Trump wasn't under investigation?  We were told that sources in the know were saying this. But when Comey actually testified he said that he had in fact told Trump that.

Hence there is no reason to believe the whistleblower isn't also lying to hurt a President we know they don't like given that they admit to no direct knowledge of any of the information they are claiming to be true.

Of course now that we have the transcript the people who were there have spoken and they've said that the whistleblower is wrong; Trump didn't push Ukraine to start a new investigation or demand that they do so, unlike the three Democrat Senators who did demand the Ukraine restart investigations into people who had worked with Trump.

But even if the whistleblower isn't lying the DOJ has investigated and determined that no laws were broken.

Which makes sense.  When one reads the transcript it's obvious that there is no quid pro quo for reopening the Biden investigation. Further it's the President's duty to undo illegal damage done by corrupt politicians to America's foreign policy.

By coercing Ukraine to abandon an investigation just because his son was involved Joe Biden damaged our relationship with Ukraine. The investigation he ended let powerful and corrupt Ukrainians as well as Hunter Biden off the hook.

The whistleblower doesn't seem bothered by this.

But they do seem bothered by the idea that anyone would investigate Joe Biden's gross misuse of his power to corrupt the Ukraine legal system or why Hunter Biden was getting paid as much as $83k a month even though he had no relevant experience.  The whistleblower seems to think that finding out why Hunter Biden made so much money after his father was appointed the Obama administrations point person for Ukraine is unimportant.

What's really odd is that the whistleblower lists Trump's interest in determining who actually hacked into the DNC computer as somehow bad.  The computers in question were never examined by the FBI and were apparently transported to Ukraine.  What may be piquing Trump's interest is the fact that the company that the US Intel community trusted and which the DNC hired is owned by Ukrainians.  Given that Ukraine and Russia were, and are, at war that would give Ukrainian nationals good reason to try and pin the hack on Russia.

But of course if the computers were examined and the conclusion of the Ukraine company, Crowdstrike, were confirmed it would bolster Hillary's claims which would be a good thing for Hillary not Trump. Yet the whistleblower acts as though he knows that any investigation would be bad for Hillary.

One amusing aspect of the whistleblowers complaint is that supposedly Trump tried to limit access to the contents of the call. With dishonest people like the whistleblower around that would make perfect sense.

After all we now know that nothing bad happened according to Trump, the president of the Ukraine, the transcript, and the DOJ so the world would have a better place if this whistleblower hadn't made up a story.

What the transcript tells us

If you read the transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy objectively it's obvious that Trump did nothing even remotely unethical. In fact it wasn't Trump who raised the issue of corruption.

The first mention of corruption is by the Ukraine president.

It was Zelenskyy who brought up the issue of corruption not Trump.

Next Zelensky went on to talk about how Europe isn't supporting Ukraine as much as the US is--one more example of how Trump is taking a tougher line against Russia than Obama did-- and how he'd like to buy more weapons from the US.



First thing to note before going on to Trump's response is that Zelenskyy isn't talking about the US giving Ukraine anything but about the US allowing Ukraine to buy weapons--Javelins are guided antitank missiles. Keep in mind that Obama refused to sell offensive weapons to Ukraine; another example of how Trump is much tougher on Russia than Obama was.

Trump responded by saying:



The first absolutely critical thing to note is that what Trump is asking about is for the Ukraine to help establish just who did hack the DNC emails. Crowdstrike is the private security company that the DNC hired to look into that event. The FBI never actually examined the computers themselves.

What's interesting is that Crowdstrike is owned by Ukrainians; people who could easily have a reason for trying to make Russia the bad guy since it's Russia that's invading the Ukraine.

What Trump is asking for is for Ukraine to help determine if the Russians did the hack by examining the computer which is now apparently in Ukraine. This could be great news for Hillary because if in fact it can be proven, by an unbiased source, that the Russians did hack the DNC servers it would shoot down those who've been saying it was an inside job and increase the credibility her claim that Russia tried to get her to lose.

While Democrats will declare that Trump is saying that in order to get the weapons the Ukraine must investigate the hack into the DNC emails that's not the case. How likely is it that the President knew off the top of his head what Javilens are or what the position of those in the know is about selling them to Ukraine?

Rather than say yes or no since he wasn't familiar with the details Trump simply moved on to what he was interested in; namely seeing if Russia had in fact hacked the DNC emails.

Hence even if Trump was proposing a quid pro quo, which the text doesn't support, it was for Ukraine to get at the truth which might have helped Hillary. Hardly something a sane Democrat would say is impeachment worthy unless of course they know they're lying about Russia being behind the hack.

But if the US Intel community is lying about the hack that's a much bigger issue than anything Trump is accused of.

Later Trump addresses the Ukraine prosecutor who was fired because of pressure from the US.






While it's possible that Trump was misinformed about the honesty of the prosecutor it's clear that he's not pressuring Zelenskyy or talking about any sort of retaliation if Zelenskyy doesn't do this.

Further if in fact Biden used his power as Vice President to support corruption in the Ukraine legal system by shutting down an investigation for personal reasons it would be the moral responsibility of Trump to clean up the mess so that foreign governments won't think that prosecuting anyone related to a major American politician would result in their country being punished. You'd think that Democrats would like this because it would make it easier for them to go after Trump's kids if they did something wrong overseas.

Only later does Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, come up.



This is the first time that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, is mentioned. Trump is raising a valid point; if Biden did stop the investigation of his son that's a big deal and the American people, as well as the Ukraine people, deserve to know the truth.

After all what are the odds that the one and only corrupt foreign prosecutor that Joe Biden personally took out just happened to be investigating his son?

Given that Democrats have just spent 2 years investigating Trump for colluding with Russia it seems odd that they're upset that Trump wants to investigate if Biden colluded with Ukraine.

The entire Russian collusion story was launched based on a dossier paid for by Hillary but produced by a British citizen and the entire content of the dossier was from anonymous second and third hand sources in Russia. Hence the whole Mueller probe was based on the cooperation of foreign sources the precise thing that Trump is asking for. Anyone who says that Trump "betrayed" the US in this call has to, in order to be logically consistent, say that the FBI "betrayed" America by trusting unverified Russian sources that condemned Trump.

On the other hand Biden himself admits to coercing Ukraine to firing the prosecutor who was looking into his son which is clearly a misuse of power; that is unless we believe that it was just a coincidence that the one prosecutor that Biden targeted in 8 years was prosecuting his son we have clear evidence that Biden colluded with Ukraine.

Trump's request isn't based on hearsay and rumors but on the public statements of Joe Biden himself.

Imagine if "President" Hillary had asked Russia to look into charges that Trump had colluded with Russia. The same people who are attacking Trump over this would be applauding her for looking into potential corruption. Or how about 3 Democratic Senators demanding that Ukraine reopen investigations into people associated with Trump? That happened and no Democrats or #FakeNews operatives thought it was bothersome in the slightest.

Then President Zelenskyy thanked Trump for bringing up the Biden issue because Zelenskyy wants to end corruption in Ukraine.

What Zelenskyy is pointing out is that if Ukraine dropped an investigation that was targeting not just Hunter Biden but corrupt Ukrainians due to pressure from Joe Biden that was corrupt and he wants to stop that sort of thing.

This is one of the key things that the Democrats ignore; Joe Biden's actions corrupted the rule of law in Ukraine and the Ukrainians have a vested interest in repairing that.

Then Zelenskyy asks Trump for information on the former Ukrainian ambassador to the US who was apparently serving the previous president rather than Zelenskyy.

More evidence that both leaders were trying to clean up past actions by corrupt and dishonest actors.

A key takeaway is that the only possible quid pro quo mentioned was selling offensive weaponry to Ukraine but that was in relation to Ukraine helping find out the truth about who hacked Hillary's emails something that could benefit Hillary. Assuming the Democrats aren't lying about who hacked her such an investigation is something they would welcome. Trump didn't suggest any quid pro quo for the investigation into how Joe Biden corrupted Ukraine's legal system.

Further what Trump was doing wasn't asking Ukraine to help him get reelected but to see if Joe Biden had misused his power as Vice President to corrupt the legal process in Ukraine. If so Trump was basically saying that the US wants the Ukraine to return to the rule of law and not be afraid of investigating Americans, even if their fathers are important American politicians.

Can you imagine if the Democrats thought that Trump had interceded to protect his son against a Ukraine investigation that they would say that it would be wrong for a later Democrat President to ask the Ukraine to help investigate? Of course not. This is just one more example of the two-track legal system that Democrats want.

Democrats and the #FakeNews media are saying that Joe Biden can misuse the power of the US to protect his son from being investigated but Trump is committing a crime by asking the Ukraine to restore honesty to its legal system.

Democrats want to impeach Kavanaugh because of a sexual assault where the "victim" says she was never assaulted.

They also want to impeach Trump for doing what they themselves have done; Biden's interference in Ukraine to protect his son and the Democrat Senators demanding that Ukraine reopen investigations into associates of Trump.

This is nothing more than a grab for power by the Democrats; a way for them to overturn the results of an election that they didn't win.

It's proof that for many Democrats elections aren't valid unless they win.

Talk about voter suppression California Democrats don't want to allow Trump on the ballot

Can you imagine what the media would have said if Texas passed a law saying that no candidate who won't release his college transcripts can appear on the ballot back in 2008?

Or if Florida passed a law in 2018 saying that anyone who didn't release their full birth certificate couldn't show up on the ballot?

Both of these laws would have kept Obama off the ballot in 2008.

Everyone, right and left, would have been incensed. The Constitution defines the requirements needed to run for President and States can't effectively disenfranchise their citizens by keeping a candidate who meets the criteria off the ballot.

But now the Democrats who run California have passed a law that any presidential candidate who doesn't release their tax records can't be on the California ballot.

This is nothing less than the massive voter suppression.

With Democrats saying that asking everyone to have ID in order to vote is racist and is designed to suppress the Black vote--which is itself racist since it means that Blacks are less competent than whites-- it's surprising that they're not upset about California essentially suppressing the Republican vote.

Kidding. Democrats are constantly working to let the dead vote for Democrats and keep the living from voting for Republicans.  Back in the contentious 2000 election Democrats in Florida did everything they could to keep the votes of members of the armed services who were stationed overseas from being counted.  Similarly Democrats in Chicago use the gangs--you know the ones that are shooting thousands of Blacks each year-- to bring out the vote for Democrats; or else.

By keeping Trump off the ballot not only are Republicans disenfranchised but they're less likely to vote at all which will help Democrats win local and statewide elections.

Democrats keep telling us that when they take over the US the US will become like California.  Apparently what they mean by that is that it will be a one party state with Republicans not allowed to be on the ballot.

What would also happen is that poverty and homelessness would skyrocket. California has 3 times as many people in poverty per capita and 4 times as many homeless per capita as the rest of America.

It's time to just say no to Democrat voting fraud.

In 2012 Obama admitted to asking Putin to help him win reelection

In March 2012 when the election campaign for 2012 was already going on Obama said the following to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev:

“On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space,"

Obama told Medvedev to pass that on to Putin who would take over as the new Russian president in 2 months.

Clearly Obama was asking Putin to help him get reelected by not making Obama look weak on foreign affairs.  You may remember how Obama mocked his opponent Mitt Romney's concern about Russia as a foreign threat by saying:

"Gov. Romney, I'm glad you recognize al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida," Obama said. "You said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years."

If Putin had been acting up and not giving Obama "space" that line would have come across as insanely stupid. But with Putin lying low Obama got away with it.

Why would Putin help Obama?  Well maybe because Obama told Medvedev this:

"“This is my last election,” he continued. “After my election I have more flexibility.” "

In other words Obama asked Putin for help getting reelected and in return Obama promised to be more favorable to Russia than Obama was telling we the people he'd be to Russia.  Now that's a quid pro quo.

What's interesting is that the inspector general of the US intelligence community didn't forward Obama's action to the DOJ for investigation as a possible campaign contribution but the inspector general did forward to the DOJ for investigation the fact that Trump asked the Ukraine to return to the rule of law and restart an investigation that Joe Biden had used his power as Vice President to stop; an action that Joe Biden says had nothing to do with his son being on the board of the company that was being investigated.

The Swamp is crooked.  The leaker is a Democrat fan. And this is just one more big lie by Democrats to destroy democracy in America.

Democrats tried to pressure Ukraine to investigate Trump in 2018

On the 4th of May 2018 three Democrat Senators wrote a letter to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine saying that they were concerned that investigations into Trump had been dropped because thought that continuing them would irritate Trump.  The Democrats said they wanted the investigations restarted.

Democrats are calling for Trump to be impeached because he asked the Ukraine to restart investigations that the Ukraine had stopped due to threats from Vice President Joe Biden.

When will Nancy Pelosi call for Senators Robert Menendez, Richard Durbin, and Patrick Leahy to be impeached?

Of course she won't be able to lead the charge since she controls the House but it would seem only fair that if Democrats can impeach Trump for asking the Ukraine to restart an investigation that was stopped due to political pressure from the US that the Democrat Senators who applied pressure to the Ukraine to restart investigations which hadn't been stopped due to pressure the US should also be impeached.

Interestingly the letter was based on a New York Times story not actual statements by anyone who was involved in either the Ukraine or the US while Trump's comments to the Ukraine president were based on Joe Biden's own public admissions.

Also the Senators say that any stopping of investigations wasn't due to Trump talking to Ukraine but because the Ukrainians on their own spontaneously decided to be worried.

Of course we now know that the whole concept of Trump colluding with Russia was bogus thanks to Mueller--whom these Democrat Senators endorse in their letter so it's obvious that in their minds his conclusion must be correct.

While the letter doesn't contain any explicit mention of quid pro quo the tone of it is clear; the neighborhood "insurance" company expects you to pay your premium or you'll regret it.

This is just another example of the double standard that the #FakeNews media and the Democrats use.

When they thought Ukraine investigating associates of Trump would help them get rid of Trump they demanded that the Ukraine reopen investigations which the Ukraine had allegedly ended.

When Trump wanted to correct Joe Biden's forcing Ukraine to end investigations into Joe's son, Hunter, Democrats demand that he be impeached.

It's clear modern Democrat politicians are fascists who think that they're above the law.

This whole story should be about how Joe Biden used his office to shield his son from being investigated.  Instead of asking if Trump did something wrong people should be asking why was Hunter Biden, who had no experience in the energy sector, getting paid $83K a month to be on the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company?

Could that be related to the fact that Obama appointed Hunter's dad, vice president Joe Biden, to be his administrations point man on Ukraine?

It's time to end this charade and publicly condemn Democrats for their rejection of the rule of law.

The #FakeNews media hates good people: Beer guy edition

Carson King held up a sign at a football game asking people to send him money so he could buy beer.

He raked in thousands. But instead of keeping it he went on to raise more than $1.14 million and give it all to a charity.

But a left wing #FakeNews "reporter", Aaron Calvin of the Des Moines Register, discovered that when Carson was a sophomore in high school he made a few tweets that were intended to be funny but which could be construed as racist.

Carson apologized but in recognition of the fact that he is the only person in America who said something offensive when they were in high school Anheuser-Busch who had been matching the contributions to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics stopped associating with Carson.

What sort of monster would dig up this sort of thing and then use it to attack someone who'd just given more than a million dollars to help the poor get good medical care?

Given that studies have shown that leftists are less likely to give either their own money or their own time to help the poor perhaps Aaron was just trying to drag down someone who is better than he is.

Whatever the reason it's clear that Aaron and his editors are sick people whose first thought is to destroy innocent people who are doing good rather than to praise people for the good they do.

What's interesting is that the #FakeNews media went into a tizzy when people complained that Obama used illegal drugs as a kid because that was in the past. Similarly the #FakeNews media defends "reformed" terrorists like Obama's mentor Bill Ayers.

But let an honest charitable American make one slip and the #FakeNews media will never say it's in the past.

Too bad Carson's high school mistake wasn't belonging to Antifa and beating some conservative with a baseball bat; that's something that the #FakeNews media would gladly ignore.

Hillary projects again; she's the one who used foreigners to impact an election

The president of the United States has betrayed our country.

That’s not a political statement—it’s a harsh reality, and we must act.

He is a clear and present danger to the things that keep us strong and free.

I support impeachment.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 25, 2019

Hillary used a dossier compiled by a British spy and full of unverified and proven to be false rumors from anonymous sources in Russia.

She used that during the 2016 campaign and afterwards she used it to try and nullify our votes in 2016.

Now that's being a traitor;  using foreign lies to try and overturn the democratic process.

But the #FakeNews media will lap it up because for them Joe Biden corrupting the Ukraine legal system to protect his son and Hillary trying to overthrow an election with Russian lies are good while Trump trying to find the truth about who hacked the DNC emails and trying to restore honesty to the Ukraine legal system are evil.

More proof for the Swamp: Ukraine edition

The inspector general of the intelligence community wrote to the director of national intelligence that Trump asking Ukraine to look into whether or not Joe Biden misused his power and corrupted the Ukrainian legal system was a campaign finance violation because it could have been a campaign contribution.

Wow.

Essentially what the entrenched swamp creature who supposedly makes sure the US intelligence community doesn't do anything wrong is saying is that a US president trying to find out if a former US vice president had corrupted the Ukraine legal system by abusing his power is a campaign contribution.

Can you imagine for a moment if a Democrat President asked the Ukraine to see if President Trump had intervened, using his power as President, to help his son avoid prosecution that the same dishonest swamp denizen would have said that that Democrat President was asking for a campaign contribution?

Of course not they'd be hailing that Democrat for trying to undo Trump's corruption.

This is one more example of how the Swamp is working hard to undermine the 2016 election.

Members of the Swamp get paid more than we do, they get better benefits than we do, and they have job security--when's the last time there as a massive layoff of government workers?-- and they think that they should rule us which means that any candidate who's elected who doesn't support them is, in their minds, illegitimate.

Understanding impeachment

The first thing to understand is that the Democrats who are seeking to impeach Trump today for basically not having let Hillary win the 2016 election stood shoulder to shoulder and told the American people that Bill Clinton lying under oath in order to avoid losing a sexual harassment lawsuit was fine.

Here are the things that the Democrats think Trump has done to deserve being impeached:

• Beat Hillary in 2016
• Colluding with Russia even though Mueller said it didn't happen
• Obstructing justice by not admitting he colluded with Russia
• Maybe asking the Ukraine to reopen an investigation that Joe Biden forced them to shut down
• Beat Hillary in 2016

Clearly except for the first and last items nothing that the Democrats are talking about are crimes much less grounds for impeachment.

After spending a fortune and working for years Mueller, who every Democrat is on record saying is the most honest and intelligent man in the history of humanity, declared that there was absolutely no evidence that Trump or anyone working for Trump or with Trump colluded with Russia.

Yet Democrats are acting as if this is still an open case. There reasoning is the following:

• We know that Trump colluded with Russia otherwise Hillary couldn't have lost
• Mueller said he didn't prove that Trump didn't collude with Russia
• Hence it's possible that in fact Trump did collude with Russia

Essentially Democrats are saying that Trump is guilty until proven innocent. By that criteria we can declare that Elizabeth Warren is guilty of killing native Americans and eating them.

The Democrats are using the fascists idea of justice in order to try and nullify the 2016 election.  They're saying that their political enemy is guilty even though there is no evidence of Trump did anything wrong; guilty until proven innocent, the fascist way.

The obvious question to ask about the obstruction charge is is it even logically possible for an innocent man to obstruct an investigation into a crime he didn't commit?  After all obstructing something means keeping it from going where it's supposed to go and the destination of every investigation is justice.  Hence if Trump had ended an investigation into a crime he knew didn't happen he wouldn't be obstructing anything he'd be speeding it up.

But even without that issue Mueller who was desperate to indict Trump--and who has stated publicly that the lack of an indictment had nothing to do with his supposed inability to indict a sitting president--couldn't find any ground for obstruction.

Instead his team made up some rather bizarre ideas including the idea that an innocent person saying they were innocent was obstruction and asked the world what it thought about them.  Remember that no one on that team was willing to actually go to a Grand Jury and try to get an indictment.

Finally the lie de jure; Trump asking the Ukraine to reopen an investigation that Joe Biden hand forced them to shut down is wrong.

The facts are straight forward:

• The one and only corrupt prosecutor that Joe Biden used the full power of his office of Vice President to shut down just happened to be investigating a company that had Joe's son, Hunter, on its board.
• Totally coincidentally the replacement for that corrupt prosecutor dropped the investigation into the company that was paying Biden's son.
• Someone who admits to not having actually heard the conversation or read a transcript of it says that Trump tried to convince the incoming President of Ukraine to reopen that investigation.
• That someone agrees that Trump didn't do what Biden did; namely offer a quid pro quo if the Ukrainians did what he wanted.
• Trump denies having pressured the Ukrainian President elect.
• The Ukraine Foreign Minister says that Trump is right.

But the Democrats say that while it's fine to investigate a sitting president for two years with absolutely no factual basis other than a report paid for by the presidents opponent, produced by an British ex spy, the content of which is all unverified second and third hand hearsay from Russian sources--no chance of disinformation there-- they also say that it's a crime for a US president to tell Ukraine that it no longer has to fear the US punishing them if they investigate a company which happens to have Hunter Biden on its board.

Yep it's clear Trump is guilty of the ultimate crime; daring to say that Democrats and their children are not above the law.

College Democrats try and shut down free speech

At Georgetown college Republicans tried to have a discussion about the reality of climate change.  Leftwing students invaded the meeting and disrupted it in order to silence voices they don't like.

This is the left today; saying we should listen to 16 year old girls about highly technical scientific issues and doing everything possible to silence any voice that disagrees with them.

The reality is that none of the left's positions are supported by science or facts--men can't become women and the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception for example--so their only chance of convincing voters is to keep voters ignorant of the truth.

Climate Alarmists lie: Greenland ice edition

We're told that Greenland is losing it's ice so we should panic.  It's true that Greenland is losing ice; at the rate of 0.007% per year.

"Satellite records of the area covered by ice in the Arctic, for instance, stretch back only to 1979, and it was not until 2002 that researchers were able, courtesy of some new satellites, to estimate how the thickness of that ice varies over time and from place to place. Applied to land-covering ice sheets as well as the floating ice of the Arctic Ocean, this revealed that Greenland was losing more than 200 cubic kilometres of ice (though only 0.007% of its total volume) a year—three times previous estimates. (Emphasis added.)"

That means that it will take thousands of years to lose 1/2 of its ice volume.  Hardly reason to panic given that just a few hundred years ago Greenland had no ice and was in fact green.

The Democrats who want to disarm you know nothing about guns

“I held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I hadn’t. It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving. And the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.” - Rep. @JacksonLeeTX18 pic.twitter.com/U71ir6BHZH

— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) September 23, 2019

An AR-15 weighs 8 lbs so either Jackson Lee is used to very small moving boxes or she's lying.

Also the AR-15 fires .223 caliber ammo like many other civilian weapons.   A 50 caliber round is 1/2 of an inch in diameter and weighs 1.7 ounces.  A .223 round is .223 inches in diameter and weighs 0.4 ounces.

Here's a picture that shows you the huge size difference between a .223 round and a 50 caliber round:

This is all part of the Democrats big lie that a civilian hunting rifle, the AR-15, is a weapon of war.  No soldier would go into combat with a semi automatic rifle like the AR-15.  But since the AR-15 looks like the M-16, which is a military weapon that fires fully automatically, Democrats are trying to demonize it.

Their objective is simple; they want to disarm we the people so that if we object to the Democrats totalitarian plans we, like the people of Hong Kong, won't be able to defend ourselves.

More proof that the climate alarmists don't really believe what they say

If the climate alarmists really believed what they say they'd be going after the countries that are producing the majority of human produced CO2.  But they're not.

Currently China is producing 30% of the CO2 produced by humanity every year; more than the US and the EU combined.

Yet we never hear people like Greta Thunberg attacking China or India.  In fact climate alarmists are fine with China and India dramatically increasing their CO2 emissions. We know that because the Paris accords, which climate alarmists love, allows China and India to dramatically increase their CO2 production.

Just as Obama buying a beach front house tells us he isn't really worried about sea level rise this tells us that climate alarmists aren't really worried about a existential climate threat.

Was illegal spying on Trump campaign more extensive than has been reported?

We know that Carter Page was spied on illegally since the FISA warrant was obtained using data which contrary to what the FBI said hadn't been verified.

But there may also be at least 3 other people who were also spied on according to Democrat Jackson Lee.  In questioning Loretta Lynch Lee said:

“I want to talk about the spring, summer, and autumn of 2016,” she said. “Carter Page, at the time, was suspected of being a Russian asset; George Papadopoulos had told the Australian ambassador that Russians had Hillary Clinton emails; Paul Manafort had been named Trump campaign manager; Michael Flynn was Trump’s chief national security adviser and foreign policy adviser. One thing that all of these persons had in common was that each was the subject of a FISA court investigation.”

Lynch didn't correct Lee and a senior DOJ lawyer said that Lynch shouldn't answer the question because it might relate to classified information.  That's revealing because the existence of a FISA warrant is classified.

What makes this very troubling is that under a FISA warrant the FBI can get the communications not only of the target but of everyone who the target talks to and everyone anyone who the target talks to talks to.  So for example if General Flynn talked to Trump, which was likely, then the FBI could collect all of Trumps communications.  Even worse due to the two hop rule they could collect all the communications of anyone who Trump communicated with.

That means that the FBI would have access to all of the internal planning of the Trump campaign and be able to feed that information to Hillary's campaign.

That's how the coup worked. Democrats weaponized the entire US intelligence community to help Hillary win the presidency.

California Democrats bad environmental policies mean that thousands of houses are without electricity

Like most environmental radicals Democrats in California don't want controlled forest fires that prevent massive out of control blazes.

Further they drove PG&E, the power company in California, into bankruptcy because the PG&E power lines started a fire even though the intensity of the fire was due to the Democrats bad forest management approach.

So now in order to avoid more lawsuits when the conditions are right PG&E just shuts off power to thousands of houses in order to avoid risking a fire.  Today over 24,000 California residents are without power for example.

As usual Democrats don't are about the people who are hurt by the bad policies the Democrats implement.

Democrat run California has 1/2 of all the homeless in America

We've known for a long time that the Democrats have made California into the poverty capital of America; CA has 34% of the poor in America but only 12% of the population.  On average then 3 times as many people per capita are poor in California as in the rest of America.

Now it turns out that the Democrats have also made CA the homeless capital of America.  Every day more than 1/2 a million people are homeless; 47% of the unsheltered homeless--those who can't spend the night in a shelter-- are in California.  On average there are 4 times as many unsheltered homeless people per capita in California than in the rest of America.

Keep that in mind in the upcoming election.  Democrats are constantly telling us that they want to make the rest of American like California; they just never mention that means massive poverty and homelessness.

Democrat politicians say that truth doesn't matter

Democrat politicians have effectively declared that truth is irrelevant when it comes to they're gaining power.

Elizabeth Warren lies about not having to increase middle class taxes in order to fund Medicare for all.

Democrat politicians demand that Justice Kavanaugh be impeached because he supposedly sexual harassed a woman who says he didn't harass her.

Democrat Justin Fairfax has been accused of rape by two women and Democrats and the #FakeNews media don't seem to care.

Democrats are saying they're going to impeach Trump based on the hearsay statements of some swamp creature that Trump asked the Ukraine to reopen an investigation into Hunter Biden which Joe Biden had used his power as VP to shut down.

Democrat Ilhan Omar wants to see Israel destroyed and Democrats are fine with that.

Anything negative about Trump is assumed to be true and anything negative about a Democrat is ignored.  Welcome to 1984.

The war between gays and the transgendered

Andrew Sullivan is a gay activist and he's pointing out that the transgender mania sweeping the left is a war on gays.

By saying that if a boy is girlish he must be a girl rather than a gay the transgendered movement is, according to Sullivan, pushing the lie that a girly man isn't a man.

He says that if he had been raised in todays environment where parents are putting their children on dangerous drugs because they don't conform to standard gender roles he might not have had a chance to grow up as he should have; as a gay man.

Now of course growing up gay isn't good since same sex attraction is a problem not a blessing.  But that doesn't negate the importance of the point Sullivan is making.

This is one more example of the latest leftists trend crushing the people the left supposedly championed before. For example we're told how much leftists love Blacks, even as leftists ignore the mass shootings of Blacks in Democrat run cities and refuse to let Black children get a decent education, but now leftists want more Hispanic illegal immigrants even though the mass influx of cheap low skill labor is hurting Blacks by stealing their jobs and driving down their wages.

The first shots of the gay transgendered war were fired before Sullivan; lesbians objected to biological men marching in parades that were for women.

If you think about it the transgendered movement is a direct attack on the idea of being gay as Sullivan points out.  If men who are girly are in fact women then they can't be gay.

Taking the transgendered ideology to its natural conclusion all lesbians should live as men and all gays should live as women. Hardly something that either gays or lesbians would support.

The question is will the left completely degenerate into feuding factions before or after the 2020 elections?  That it will collapse is inevitable since the entire modern left is constructed of tiny groups who declare that they are oppressed.  So long as the only oppressor is white people the coalition can survive but once the left has taught every little group--gay native Americans--that they are oppressed and society is their enemy they're not about to give an inch to anyone; including other groups of "oppressed" people.

How many corrupt prosecutors did Biden get removed?

The #FakeNews media is coming to the defense of Joe Biden saying that everyone wanted the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor removed. They say that the fact that the replacement prosecutor dropped the investigation into the company that had Joe Biden's son on its board was nothing more than a coincidence.

That's an obviously laughable argument but here's one way to shoot it down if someone raises it with you.

Ask them how many other corrupt prosecutors Joe Biden personally saw to were removed during his 8 years as vice president.

The world is full of corrupt prosecutors and if the Vice President of the US had conducted a vendetta to make the world better by eliminating corrupt prosecutors it would seem likely we'd have heard about it.

Yet as far as I know Joe only set his sights on the one corrupt prosector in the world who happened to be investigating his son.

Remember these are the same people who said that it would be monstrous if Trump fired Mueller and replaced him with someone else even if the investigation--which we now know found nothing--was continued by an honest prosecutor.

Clearly the odds of Biden just happening to pick the one corrupt prosecutor in the world to target who happened to be investigating Biden's son are pretty high.

Climate change lies: Sea level rising edition

Climate alarmists admit that the oceans have been rising since long before the industrial revolution but they say that since CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to human activity the rate of increase has increased.

But that's not what the data shows.  Here's a plot from a NASA paper written by famous climate alarmist Dr. Hansen

What's interesting is the red line. That's what NASA published in 2019 using the same data that Hansen used in 1982.

Somehow mysteriously in 1982 sea level rise had been near to zero between 1955 and 1980 suddenly became large; although consistent with the rate from 1880 to 1955 or so.

When you see something like this you should immediately distrust the results.  Getting significantly different results without new measurements means that either the scientists were wrong the first time or they're wrong now.

Given that back in 1982 scientists wouldn't get a pile of money if they proclaimed that the earth is doomed unless we turn over our money and freedom to the government whereas in 2019 they do we have more reason to distrust the 2019 analysis than the 1982 analysis.

Further here's a plot of sea level over thousands of years.  Clearly any human impact is tiny compared to what nature has done in the past.

It's clear that any man made impact is small and hence it would be very hard to prove that any of the modern sea level increase is due to human activity. This is especially true when one looks at long term data taken by sea based sensors.

This plot shows the average sea level vs time for a site in Florida.

Here's one for New York City:

Climate alarmists agree that humanity didn't have any significant impact on global CO2 back before the 1940s so these plots clearly show that there is no indication of a significant increase in the rate at which the ocean is rising after we supposedly destroyed the environment.

Why are climate alarmists lying? Because it's not about climate but about power and money. Here's what Ottmar Edenhofer, an official in the IPCC group that issues periodic climate scare reports, said in an interview :

NZZ: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal[A predecessor to the Green New Deal which AOCs chief of staff said was about remaking the economy not dealing with the climate]is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.[The purpose isn't to reduce emissions but to send lots of American money to other countries]

NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet—and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400—there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.[Once again it's about, as Ilhan Omar would say, the Benjamins]

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.[So he admits that the objective is redistributing wealth, with UN officials like him getting a taste, not about avoiding global catastrophe]

That's why they will lie or spin the truth; us falling for the climate catastrophe scam would mean untold wealth--our money--for the scientists and politicians.

Also note how the climate scam is being used to justify Democrat politicians telling us how we can and should live. Democrat politicians say that we should kill all the cows, give up our cars, and stop flying because if we don't the world will end.

All the more reason to spin the data so as to ensure that people are afraid.

The "whistleblower" #FakeNews attack on Trump

Between now and the election be prepared for the media to tell any lie and believe anything if they think it will help keep Trump from being reelected.

The latest story is that a "whistleblower" heard Trump say something that the "whistleblower" felt was bad in a conversation with a foreign leader.

Ignoring the fact that low level government employees aren't supposed to leak politically damaging material just because they don't like the President the whole story is one big lie.

It turns out the the story is that someone found out outside of work that Trump had tried to convince the incoming president of Ukraine to investigate Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

Now that might sound bad if you're not familiar with the following facts:

• Vice President Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars in US aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fired their head prosecutor who Biden said was corrupt.
• That prosecutor was investigating a company who had Biden's son, Hunter, on its board.
• The prosecutor was fired.
• The prosecutors replacement stopped investigating the company that Hunter was on the board of.

Now Biden wants us to believe that his actions had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his son was in serious potential legal trouble.

The only problem with that is that Hunter also went to China with his dad on Air Force 2 one time and left China with a $1 billion dollar deal essentially with the Chinese government.

There's a basic pattern of corruption here. Even the Atlantic, hardly a Trump loving rag, had a long article about the problems that Joe Biden would face because of these scandals.

Trump and the Ukraine foreign minister have both said that there was no coercion.  In an a feature oddly reminiscent of the bizarre NYT lie about Kavanaugh having assaulted a women where the woman said that she wasn't assaulted the "whistleblower" admits that not only didn't he hear the conversation but that there was on indication that Trump actually did what Biden had, threaten Ukraine with losing aid if they didn't do what he wanted.

Even better according to the "whistleblower" who didn't hear the conversation Trump didn't invoke any bribes or quid pro quo; all Trump did was try and get Ukraine to reopen the case that they had closed due to illegal and unethical behavior by Joe Biden.

Given the facts the "story" boils down to Trump tried to convince Ukraine to reopen the investigation that was shut down by Joe Biden's corrupt use of the office of Vice President.

But just as the left and the #FakeNews media are still acting as though the NYT story about Kavanaugh was basis for impeachment they're acting as though Trump trying to undo the damage caused by Joe Biden's unethical and illegal actions is the problem.

To the left the problem isn't that Joe Biden misused his power and damaged our relations with a foreign country in order to protect his son it's that Trump dared to ask the Ukraine to realize that Biden can't hurt them anymore and restart the investigation that Biden and forced to close.

It's as though Trump had shut down Mueller and some Democrat tried to get Mueller to start up again and the #FakeNews media attacked the Democrat.

Unless you see a photo of Trump shooting a baby on national TV your best option is to assume that any "dirt" the media produces on Trump is a big fat nothing burger lie.

Joe Biden plan would result in female prisoners being raped

I didn't believe this but since Vox says it's true it must be so; they'd never say a lie about a Democrat.

Joe Biden said:

“In prison, the determination should be that your sexual identity is defined by what you say it is, not what in fact the prison says it is,”

Vox isn't bothered by the fact that Biden wants biological men who say they're women to be housed in women's prison. Vox's big complaint is that Biden said "sexual identity" rather than "gender identity".

We've already had at least one case of men who identify women being in women's prisons and raping real women.

But let's think about this for a minute. American prisons are full of young men who won't see much less be able to have sex with a woman for years, sometimes decades, and Joe Biden tells them that if they self identify as a woman--no need to get a Dr. to go along with it--they can get put into a women's prison.

Contrary to the opinion of leftists most criminals aren't complete idiots.  In their minds they have to weigh the hassle of having a Beetles haircut--enough to pass for a woman-- vs having unlimited access to women.

Any guesses on how that's going to work out?

Now women, contrary to Hollywood fools, are smaller and weaker than men.  So when some 5' 1" tall 100lb woman in prison for counterfeiting gets a 6' 2" tall 230 lb weight lifter for a roommate how long do you think before she's raped?

Even if every male prisoner isn't willing to self identify as a woman how many rapes will Biden view as acceptable to retain the LGBTQ vote?

To be fair I seriously doubt Biden has thought about the consequences of his statement. That's a safe thing for me to say because it's an amazing rarity that any Democrat ever thinks about the consequences of what they propose.

But do we really want a President who is so unaware of the consequences of what he's proposing that he's ignoring that among the consequences would be the mass rape of women in prison?

UPDATE: I changed the title to be less clickbaity.  I don't believe the Biden wants women to be raped so I shouldn't have put that in the title.

Democrats want to seize your guns but not gang members guns

Red Flag laws are all the rage these days. Those laws would allow the government to seize the guns of people who the government decides are a risk.

The examples used are some of the mass shooters whose parents/friends/the police knew were deranged and a serious threat.

The problem is that the laws being proposed depend on the honesty and unbiased nature of the American judiciary.

For Red Flag laws to work we need to trust the same judges who declare that anything Trump does that they don't like is unconstitutional.

Does anyone seriously doubt that in left wing places like Portland conservatives will have their guns seized because they have a Trump sign in their front lawn which demonstrates their dangerous nature?

But the intrinsic dishonesty of the Red Flag movement was revealed when the Democrat House shot down an amendment which would have placed gang membership on the list of possible justifications for seizing someones guns.

The vast majority of shootings and murders in America are due to gang members; in a typical weekend in Chicago more people are shot than in multiple mass shooting events.

Hence saying that people who show up in police department databases as gang members should be potentially subject to Red Flag laws makes sense if the intent is to stop shootings.

But by rejecting that option, remember it wouldn't mandate that gang members would have their guns seized it would only say that would be a situation that the judge could consider,  Democrats are making it clear that their support is more about disarming honest Americans than actually addressing the mass shootings of Blacks in Democrat run cities like Chicago.

The fact that that the victims of gang shootings are almost all Black or Hispanic may be the reason that Democrats don't care.  Clearly Democrat politicians are racists since they work hard to ignore the mass shootings of Blacks in cities they run.  Can you imagine the Democrats who run Chicago doing what they're doing now if nearly 3000 white people were shot each year?  Of course not.