Democrats and the #FakeNews media get excited about rumors again.

Acting  US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor has set Democrats atwitter because of a rumor.

In Taylors testimony he said:

"During this same phone call had with Mr Morrison , he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."

Note that this is a rumor and not something that would be usable in court. Taylor has no first hand knowledge of the event.

Further it's well known that Burisma is a corrupt company with ties to Russia so that any investigation might have not been about Hunter Biden.

But even if it was how can Joe Biden using a $1B quid pro quo in return for Ukraine dropping the investigation into his son be ok but Trump sending aid to Ukraine while asking for an investigation into Joe Biden's corruption be criminal?

Taylor goes on to admit that he was never told that the infamous Ukraine phone call was preconditioned on Ukraine agreeing to investigate Burisma but that is just what Taylor thinks was the case:

“By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma,”

This is even worse than a rumor.

We know that other more reliable and first hand sources have said that Trump delayed aid but eventually delivered it long before the "whistleblower" said anything not due to a quid pro quo but because he was concerned that the taxpayers money would end up in the pockets of corrupt Ukraine officials and because he was concerned that Europe wasn't, as usual, doing enough to protect themselves by aiding Ukraine.

Once again we have to wonder why Taylors testimony was done in secret. What are the Democrats hiding from we the people?

The Big Lynching Lie: Democrat hypocrisy edition

So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2019

Democrats and their lapdog #FakeNews media friends are in a tizzy over this tweet.  They're saying that Trump's use of the term lynching is an insult to Blacks.

This is bizarre on so many levels.

First the KKK--the last millennia version of Antifa--was a Democrat organization that terrorized Blacks, with lynching being one of their techniques, to keep Democrats in power.  Hence to have Democrats whose ancestors lynched Blacks say that Trump using the word is offensive to Blacks is simply amazing.

Second a lynching is not the unjust hanging of someone who's Black; it's the extra legal execution of anyone. The definition of lynching is:

• from The Century Dictionary.

  • noun The act of executing lynch-law upon a person; the killing of a person by a mob under pretense of summary justice.

  from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

  • noun Execution of a person by mob action without due process of law, especially hanging
  • noun Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person.
  • verb Present participle of lynch.

  from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

  • noun putting a person to death by mob action without due process of law

  
  

While there can be a racial component, the KKK's lynching of Blacks was certainly driven by racism, a lynching occurs whenever a mob kills someone without due process.

In fact the largest mass lynching in American history was of Italian in New Orleans in 1891 as Rush pointed out today.

Third Democrats have used the term lynching to refer to political actions by others that they thought were unjustified. Joe Biden himself used the term in the context of the Clinton impeachment. Breitbart has a whole article listing the results of a quick search into Democrats using the word lynching in a context similar to Trump's.  Among the examples are:

• Democrat Representative Patrick J Kennedy described the Clinton impeachment as "a political lynching" according to the New York Times.
• Hillary Clinton in 2016 said: "“When you are inciting mob violence, which is what Trump is doing,” Clinton said, “there’s a lot of memories that people have. They’re in the DNA. People remember mob violence that lead to lynching,..."
• The Washington post declared that Republicans were a "lynch mob" because they called for Hillary to be imprisoned.
• Ohio Democratic chairmen David J. Leland is quoted in the New York Times in 1998 saying that people recognized the Clinton impeachment as "a political lynching".

The simple reality is that we all know that a lynching doesn't have to have anything to do with Blacks just as a genocide doesn't have to involve Jews.

Democrats and the #FakeNews media are just changing the rules in order to attack Trump and to deflect we the people from recognizing that a closed door secret impeachment process where Trump can't defend himself and we the people can't see what's going on is a lynch mob dressed up as elected officials.

Rats apparently flock together: Orkin edition

According to Orkin the top 5 cities in terms of how often Orkin is called out to deal with rats are:

1) Chicago
2) Los Angeles
3) New York
4) DC
5) San Francisco

All of these cities are run by Democrats and most of them have been run only by Democrats for decades.

This indicates that doing their job of making life better for the citizens of their cities isn't a priority for Democrats just as the fact that it's Democrat run cities where thousands of Blacks are shot each year does.

Democrats are about getting power and being able to control our lives not about making our lives better.

A test of Democrats honesty: Katie Hill edition

Normally the sexual problems of any politician shouldn't be news but given the constant attacks on Trump's consensual affairs and the fact that Democrat congresswoman Katie Hill appears to have broken the rules of the House the latest charges are fair game.

We don't need to discuss the salacious details but the key point is that she apparently had an affair with at least one person on her official office staff which is a violation of House rules; not to mention probably a clear case of sexual harassment.  Bosses who have power over subordinates are not supposed to have even consensual sexual relationships with them because of the obvious risk of the subordinate's "consent" being involuntary on some level.

If the Democrats who run the House, ie Pelosi, let Hill walk on this we will know that not only aren't they honest but that they really don't care about bosses sexually harassing subordinates and that the whole #MeToo movement isn't really supported by Democrats.

UPDATE: The House Ethics committee has started an investigation. It'll be interesting to see how it ends since the facts appear to be pretty clear.

#FakeNews media condemns Trump for not wanting US Aid to fuel corruption

It's been stated clearly and unambiguously that Trump hesitated on aid to the Ukraine not because he was demanding a quid pro quo but because he was concerned about corruption and the lack of support from European countries.

Yet the #FakeNews media acts as though there is no corruption problem in the Ukraine.  That of course directly contradicts the praise that the #FakeNews media is heaping on Joe Biden for fighting corruption in Ukraine--of course Joe was actually enabling corruption by setting an example by letting his son, Hunter, get rich in a corrupt scheme.  It's obvious that Biden didn't end all corruption in Ukraine so Trump's concern is clearly valid.

By the way a State Department official in 2015 pointed out that Hunter Biden's deal with a corrupt Ukraine company undercut attempts by the US to end corruption in Ukraine. If the son of the American VP can get huge payments for essentially no useful work why shouldn't relatives of corrupt Ukraine politicians do the same?

Ever since WWI the US taxpayer and American soldiers have been propping up Europe. With the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has become a European problem not an American one.  The Soviet Union called for a global communist revolution and the overthrow of American democracy.

All Russia wants is to be a local imperialist power in Europe.  If Russia takes over the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia it won't hurt the US but it is bad for Europe.  While the US should stand for freedom everywhere it should be Euros not Dollars that flow into Ukraine to resist Russian imperialism.

While leftists tend to be infatuated with Europe, probably because European countries have insanely powerful governments and no 1st or 2nd Amendments, most Americans don't want to continue to subsidize the amazingly wealthy Europeans anymore. While Europeans enjoy weeks long paid vacations each summer Americans shouldn't be subsidizing their security.

The simple reality is that if Obama had done what Trump is alleged to have done the #FakeNews media would be praising him.  But since leftists want you to subsidize Europe and they want to pretend that Joe Biden's son wasn't an example of corruption for Ukraine leaders they will attack Trump for keeping the American taxpayer's interests first and foremost.

Democrat double standard; finger waving edition

When dishonest Nancy Pelosi wagged her finger at Trump in a meeting the #FakeNews media said it was heroic and the fact that Trump responded was condemned.

But back when a strong Republican woman wagged her finger at Obama it was labeled "rude" and "racist".

The news media hails @SpeakerPelosi as a hero for pointing her finger at @POTUS @realDonaldTrump but when I stood up to @BarackObama I was vilified as rude and racist. Such Hypocrites! pic.twitter.com/banxxQp7F1

— Jan Brewer (@GovBrewer) October 17, 2019

Once again Democrats not only demand the right to live by completely different standards they demand the right to vilify their opponents to their faces and not have the people they're attacking respond.

Democrats harass Republicans in public places and the #FakeNews media and Democrat politicians say that's great.  But should any Republican go against the moral principles of conservatives and be boorish in return the Democrats would condemn them unmercifully.

While having lunch with @RandPaul in California, we got verbally assaulted by these aggressive libs complaining about incivility. Check out the vid! #unhinged pic.twitter.com/IdOTdc3pOC

— Sergio Gor (@SergioGor) October 18, 2019

Make the point to your Democrat friends that it's simply unAmerican for Democrat politicians to so strongly reject the idea of civility and tolerance.  

It's fine if Pelosi wants to play hardball with Trump but she can't then whine when he plays hardball back.

At most 6.4% of the Kurds in the Middle East are going to be impacted by Trump not getting us into a war with Turkey

While the #FakeNews media acts as though Trump not getting the US into a war with Turkey is going to lead to genocide against the Kurds the reality is far different.

There are about 31 million Kurds in the Middle east.  18 million are in Turkey already and the region that the Turks are going to occupy as a "buffer" zone contains fewer than 2 million Kurds.

The Turkish "buffer" zone contains significantly less than half of the area that the Kurds occupy in Syria and the Kurdish regions in Iraq and Iran aren't being touched.

The question then is is it worth getting the US into a major war with a NATO country, a war in which Europe might side with Turkey, in order to protect a tiny fraction of the Kurds in the Middle East.

The first thing to note is that while the Turks treat Kurds in Turkey very poorly there is no indication that the Turks are going to commit genocide against the Kurds the way the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians over 100 years ago. The fact that the Kurds are Muslims while the Armenians tend to be Christian makes it far less likely that the Turks would try and eradicate the Kurds.

Hence the result of the Turkish "buffer" zone would be to put some number of Kurds into the same situation that 58% of Kurds in the Middle East already are experiencing. That's not good but it's not the end of the world.

Secondly the US appears to be continuing to supply weapons and intelligence support to the Kurds as well as applying economic pressure to Turkey.  The Kurds are great fighters and there's a good chance that they can hold off Turkey just as the Afghanis held off the Soviet Union.

At some point the economic pain caused by Trump could also convince Turkey to back off.

Third given that Turkey is hell bent on creating this "buffer" zone the only other option Trump had was a war. Does anyone outside of the beltway think that the American people are interested in going to war with Turkey to protect the Kurds?

Fourth the Kurds helped us out of self interest. ISIS wanted to exterminate the Kurds and the US helped save them.  Similarly without the US liberation of Iraq Kurds in Iraq would still be being slaughtered by Saddam.  The US has already done wonderful things for the Kurds; we don't owe them anything.

Fifth we know that the same Democrats who are condemning Trump for "abandoning" the Kurds had no problem with Obama precipitously withdrawing US forces from Iraq which was the proximate cause for the rise of ISIS.  Nor did Democrats find anything to be bothered about when Obama overthrew the government of Libya and then left which put the citizens of Libya at the mercy of warlords and terrorists.  Clearly if Obama had done what Trump just did the Democrats would be praising it as a wonderful decision.

It would be nice if we could protect this small group of Kurds. It would be nice if we could get China to release the over 1 million minorities that China is holding in concentration camps too but no one is suggesting we get into a war to do that.

Just because we have a volunteer army doesn't mean the President should be using Americans to solve all the worlds problems.