(FOX NEWS) “Mitch McConnell shouldn’t be subjecting himself to the extortion of Nancy Pelosi,” Jarrett said to guest host Tammy Bruce. “He can, beginning in January, simply alter the rule or eliminate it entirely and set a date for an impeachment trial.”
[….]
“Simply change the rule, hold a trial, do it. Do it on your own terms,” Jarrett advised McConnell.
(DAILY CALLER) Fox & Friends guest Mark Steyn criticized the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) Thursday after it omitted President Donald Trump’s scene from the movie “Home Alone 2” during December airings.
Conservative commentator Mark Steyn spoke on Fox & Friends about the omission, accusing the broadcast corporation of being “terrified” about reminding people “just how deranged his [Trump’s] opponents are.”
EVERY TRUMP cameo:
Every Trump Cameo (Part 1) pic.twitter.com/SHM40nm1Ld
— Posonaut 118 ? (@posonaut) December 26, 2019
Does the Democratic Party represent the interests of black Americans? Larry Elder gives 10 reasons why blacks might consider leaving the Democratic Party.
10. School Choice
9. Social Security
8. Race-Based Preferences for Diversity
7. War on Poverty (Welfare State)
6. Illegal Immigration
5. Hostility Towards Police
4. Job Killing Regulations
3. The Great Recession (Housing Crisis)
2. Playing the Race Card for Votes
1. Pro-Abortion
I’ve watched this movie a million times and can’t believe I never noticed this??♀️??? pic.twitter.com/54eWUiZOZu
— Killary Klinton (@mrsclausKAG2020) December 24, 2019
Denver council member believes in “community ownership” and is excited to usher communism in, “by any means necessary.” Pat Gray, Keith Malinak, and Jeff Fisher discuss on Friday’s episode of “Pat Gray Unleashed.” Watch Candi CdeBaca give us a taste of what the future will bring:
GATEAWAY PUNDIT has this about Candi… I just want to say she is very cute… death ushered in by the likes of her and AOC. Communism with a smile from a pretty face:
Denver City Council candidate Candi CdeBaca is not shy about her love for communism. No matter how many times it has failed in violence, poverty and mass murder, she’s still a fan. In April Candi promised to push communism “by any means necessary.”
On June 5th Candi won a seat on the Denver City Council.
In an earlier debate Candi promised to push communism — by any means necessary.
The DAILY WIRE continues on to explain some more:
Encyclopedia Britannica defines communism as a “political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.”
CdeBaca, who is a democratic socialist, also drew intense criticism for saying that she will “usher” in communism “by any means necessary.”
While it’s not exactly clear what CdeBaca meant when she said “by any means necessary,” PBS notes that Malcolm X used the phrase and it meant “up to and including the use of violence.”
The American Mirror added that “by any means necessary” also happens to be a radical far-left organization. Influence Watch reports on By Any Means Necessary (BAMN):
BAMN employs aggressive “militant” direct action and litigation to support its cause. BAMN protests of official government bodies have resulted in flipping tables and other disruptive outbursts. BAMN demonstrators have been arrested for inciting riots, throwing rocks at police, and destruction of property.
PAT GRAY and the gang over at BLAZE discuss this a bit:
Hugh Hewitt sets up, and then reads his column from the Washington Post about the Christianity Today article. I have previously posted on this issue (RPT: “Christianity Today Hates Religious Freedom“). Which includes a previous upload by Hugh HERE:
After more than a quarter-century of occasionally attempting to help direct traffic at the intersection of faith and politics – on radio, on PBS and in books – I am bewildered by Christianity Today editor Mark Galli’s column on Thursday, which has attracted so much love from the secular left. In condemning President Donald Trump from the pages of the magazine Billy Graham founded, Galli has blindsided more than half of the evangelical Christians in the United States.
The entire enterprise – the magazine plus online platform – will suffer even as Galli heads out to retirement in January. But Trump will not.
What is remarkable is the selfishness of Galli’s act and, whether he has the applause of his editors, chief executive or financial backers, his legacy at the magazine will be to have done exactly what precedes every schism in every congregation, this time within the “CT” readership, whatever its number: Take an absolutist stand on a radically divisive issue. But Galli is no Martin Luther.
“Christianity Today is a nonprofit, global media ministry centered on Beautiful Orthodoxy – strengthening the church by richly communicating the breadth of the true, good, and beautiful gospel,” proclaims the magazine’s mission statement. “Reaching over five million people monthly with various digital and print resources, the ministry equips Christians to renew their minds, serve the church, and create culture to the glory of God.”
Perhaps this is what it did before. It has now become just another content provider on politics, and of the left-wing sort. The real cost here is borne by readers who will simply shrug off appeals to resubscribe or give the platform a try. Americans are drenched in political conflict, and hundreds, even thousands, of outlets offer political commentary. Why in the world would anyone seek an absolutist political opinion from a website about evangelical faith? The answer is obvious: Most people won’t, and they will steer clear of another politicized platform. Has Galli’s column changed a single mind in America, except about the magazine he was supposed to steward?
I don’t know Galli. But Christianity Today has suffered the same long, slow decline that has crippled “mainstream denominations,” and perhaps the idea of putting on a show-stopping exit was just too tempting to pass up. But Galli should have done just that. That he knew this is given away in his perfunctory introductory apologia: “The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic,” Galli begins. “It requires comment.”
But, of course, it isn’t such an event. It isn’t even clear now that the articles of impeachment will be delivered to the Senate, though if they are, the outcome is predetermined. Indeed, it seems likely to me that Trump will be re-elected, and it is laughable to say that there is a clear, one-sided “Christian” appraisal of the case for or against the president. In a democratic republic, the people decide, and they will end up giving the presidency back to Trump or to his opponent for reasons wholly unrelated to Christianity Today’s view on the question. Christians by the millions will be on both sides of that election. They did not need, or ask for, this intervention in their deliberation.
“The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible,” Galli continued, just before he implicitly condemned every Christian who supports Trump. There are tens of millions who already condemn Trump, and tens of millions who don’t. But whether Trump is good or bad for the republic isn’t a theological question. It is a political one.
By injecting Christianity into that debate, Galli inevitably suggests (especially to the left, for whom it is convenient) that people of the Christian faith are, in fact, obliged to condemn Trump and support his impeachment. This is risible. It is irresponsible. It also proved irresistible.
The only interesting question about this: Why did Galli feel compelled to sacrifice the best interests of the platform he was supposed to nurture? I don’t know the answer, but I can calculate the cost. It is immense. The only redeeming aspect of this is the condemnation now flowing down from previous supporters of the once-traditional fortress of evangelicalism. Perhaps that will save other congregations of believers, whether virtual or still organized around pews or causes, from the same intemperate outbursts from their leadership.
We asked the people of London what they thought about abortion, then we showed them the reality. Watch their responses, then see the video that challenged their thinking: https://www.abortionreality.com
They see the below video of a 12-week abortion and a fifteen week abortion. I couldn’t go any further.
THE BELOW IS GRAPHIC
CAUTION
Van Drew also says that he was troubled by the leftward lunge of the Democrats: “I’m a proud capitalist”
LEGAL INSURRECTION has some Tweets about the issue:
“The party is moving further and further to the left, where there is discussion of it being a socialist party. And I am a proud capitalist. I believe in hard work. I believe that we can give people opportunity, but that they also, when they get that opportunity, have to work hard to achieve success. You can’t give them success.”
He then says that the final straw for him was being told to vote for impeachment . . . or else.
“But the final sign for me was oddly enough actually in my home county when one of the county chairmen came to me and said, ‘I have to speak with you.’ I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘I just want to let you know that you have to vote for impeachment … If you don’t, you’re not going to be able to run in my county.’”
This didn’t sit well with Van Drew who feels the impeachment articles are “thin” and “weak.”
“This impeachment is a weak, thin impeachment that just doesn’t really mean anything much to most of the American people. It has been a long, dark, shadow on our country.” –@CongressmanJVD pic.twitter.com/cH0EN20D3A
— GOP (@GOP) December 22, 2019
LIBERTARIAN HUB notes this recent rumination from Baker and then the FLASHBACK video:
…In an interview on CNN, Baker went further in his critique of the bureau than did FBI Director James Comey, who said Sunday that he believed the FBI was “sloppy” in its efforts to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page.
“Sloppiness is completely unacceptable. That is not the way you operate in front of a federal court. I don’t know what word you want to use, it’s terrible, it’s unacceptable, it shouldn’t happen. That is not the way we should be filing matters in front of a federal court,” Baker told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
“I was distressed about it. I was completely distressed about it,” Baker said of his response to the inspector general’s (IG) findings.
Baker has testified that he personally reviewed the FISA applications against Page, given their political sensitivity….
Watch James Baker lie. Now that the truth is out, these older interviews are hilarious!
Trusted, Reliable Foreign Partner! ???? pic.twitter.com/L1YrZvS14z
— OK BOOMER⚙️DRAIN THE SWAMP[4K] (@BOOMER4K) December 22, 2019
THE BLAZE catalogs the debate between Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe via NEWSMAX. The best book written on the subject is the one pictured here… it delves into the debates over this PROCESS well.
I here reproduce the arguments I think the Founders clearly noted in their deliberations about the impeachment clause:
“It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people,” he added.
[….]
“President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment,” Dershowitz said. “It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial.”
[….]
Dershowitz concluded that to deny Trump the “fundamental right” of a speedy trial “might serve the temporary interests of the Democratic Party, and academics who support it, but would do violence to the rule of constitutional law that is supposed to serve all Americans, regardless of party or ideology.”
This echoes leftist Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who testified on behalf of Democrats in front of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, essentially saying President Trump isn’t actually impeached until the Pelosi sends the articles to the other side of Capitol Hill. Feldman argues this point in a new piece for Bloomberg titled, “Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate.”
INSIDE SOURCES has a great article regarding the possible bounce in the black community towards their home team, the GOP:
…The new Emerson poll puts Trump at 35 percent with black voters and 38 percent with Hispanics. “If you add in Asian voters at 28 percent approval,” notes Emerson’s director of polling Spencer Kimball, “our number is very close to the new Marist poll,” which finds Trump’s approval at 33 percent among non-white voters. A recent RasmussenReports poll has Trump support among black voters at 34 percent, and even the new CNN poll has Trump’s approval among non-white voters at 26 percent.
[….]
…There was a considerable buzz when the Rasmussen poll showed 34 percent support for President Trump amid black ‘likely voters’…. but the political media dismissed it. Then came a more recent Emerson University poll showing 34.5% support from black voters. With two polls showing a very similar result it was less likely to be an outlier…. But again, the political media dismissed them both.
However, a third poll, this time from NPR/PBS and Marist, confirms the prior two almost identically. The latest Marist Poll shows 33% non-white support for President Trump…
[….]
“Trump clearly thinks he should be improving on the 8 percent vote among blacks he received three years ago,” writes Gallup’s senior scientist Frank Newport. “Based on what we see so far in terms of black ratings of the job Trump is doing as president, currently at 10 percent, I don’t see a high probability of that happening.”
And it may not. But the non-traditional nature of the Trump presidency combined with his overt efforts to engage black voters means Democrats may have to change their math. From Kanye West’s Oval Office photo op to the campaign’s “Black Voices for Trump” coalition to a focus on historically black colleges and universities, Donald Trump is reaching out to African-American voters more aggressively than any Republican president in recent years.
Meanwhile, some black activists are stepping up, too. African-American conservatives Autry Pruitt and James Golden — better known as Rush Limbaugh’s senior producer ‘Bo Snerdly’ — just launched a new website, MAGA.BLACK, with the self-declared mission to “Make Black Americans Republican Again.”
Golden, aka ‘Snerdley,’ told InsideSources that Democrats aren’t having a conversation that’s connecting with black voters. “My mother is a die-hard Democrat, and even she is sick of the Democrats’ impeachment efforts. She’s not paying any attention to it. She recently told me her party should stop picking on Trump and let the man do his job.”
Democrats may be right about talk of 30 percent of black voters backing Trump being unrealistic. But if Trump gets half that support, his re-election would be all but assured. According to research reported by the Washington Post, Trump’s 2016 win was aided in part by a national drop in black turnout of just 4.7 points from 2012. In the swing states, black turnout fell a modest 5.3 percent.
Are black voters who stayed home rather than back Hillary Clinton really going to turn out for a Pete Buttigieg or Liz Warren? If low unemployment and investment in education convince just 5 percent of black voters to cast their first GOP ballot, or (more likely) stay home, how do Democrats make up for those lost votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, Charlotte and Jacksonville?
Critics at CNN can mock Trump’s high-profile black supporters like Kanye, but Golden believes that’s a mistake. “Kanye isn’t alone. There are more African Americans speaking out now than at any other time I remember.”
Maybe just enough to re-elect Donald Trump….
DIAMOND and SILK do discuss the ZOGBY “cold water” on the above when they quote the following:
In all cases, while black support for Trump dropped when an alternative was offered, it was higher than the 8% he received in 2016 and maybe enough to push him across the finish line first in 2020.
Against Joe Biden, Trump receives 12% of the black vote. Against Sen. Bernie Sanders, it was 14%. And against Sen. Elizabeth Warren, it was 17%.
Those levels are the best for a GOP president or presidential candidate since 1968.
While he had a 5% margin of error, Zogby said the trend is clear. “If Trump is able to up his numbers over 10% or near 15%, and with a lower turnout among African Americans because they are not excited by the field of candidates or turned off by D.C., Trump could really benefit from this scenario in the 2020 general election,” he told us.
Them: take off your MAGA hat!
Me: okay pic.twitter.com/kNBQ53T42F
— Bryson Gray (@SuriusVsVodka) December 22, 2019
What this brings to mind however, if the total lack of business sense the Democrats exhibit. To wit, “The Sage” is still on the money!
Here is some more COMMON SENSE news regarding the black community and their bottom line:
According to the website Black Enterprise which has a readership of African-American business people and entrepreneurs:
The Black Voices for Trump coalition launch is kicking off Nov. 8 with a 3 p.m. rally at the Georgia World Congress Center. During the rally, Trump is expected to address the black unemployment rate and highlight a program in the Republicans’ 2017 tax-cut legislation that encourages investors to put money into underserved communities.
“Black Americans have never had a better champion than President Trump,” Katrina Pierson, senior advisor at Donald J. Trump for President Inc., wrote in a statement emailed to Newsweek. “The Black Voices for Trump coalition will be a national effort to mobilize and empower Black Americans who support President Trump to help get the message of ‘Promises Made, Promises Kept’ into communities across America.”
She added, “Under President Trump, unemployment for African Americans has reached historic lows and nearly 1.4 million new jobs have been added for African Americans. Black Americans’ strong support for President Trump will ensure a second term for the President.”
Some conversation arose from the following post on my Facebook — which is a short excerpt and then link to this article:
If you’re like me and getting into conversations with people about the Trump impeachment, then you need a short, simple summary of the facts.
Quote:
Essentially the Democrats are accusing Trump of shaking down Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding aid and demanding announcement of investigations, including one involving Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts. First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied. Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions. Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed. And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations. Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one.
Here are some conversations via the above with JIM G. First up, the proclivity of people to offer psychoanalyses about other peoples position based on the interpreter’s (JIM G.) dislike of a person:
JIM G.
Of course Zelensky says their was no pressure. He knows Trump will make him pay dearly if he says anything else. Ukraine desperately needs our support and Trump has already revealed his willingness to withhold that support.
SEAN G.
Trump didn’t reveal anything of the sort. Zelenski got javelins before and after the phone call. I guess the real question is is why did Democrats not help the Ukraine?
JIM G.
first of all, it’s “Ukraine,” not “the Ukraine” just like it is “Canada,” not “the Canada.”
As for why Democrats did not help, I don’t know. But that does not excuse Trump’s attempted shakedown.
[….]
Jordan’s analysis of the so called “transcript” is absurd. It’s like he holds up a black piece of paper and says, “Look, it’s white!”
SEAN G.
if the paper being held up is “black” as you say. Why didn’t the Democrats include an impeachment article saying it was black?
Let me explain this a bit. I have already shared this with JIM, but I want to remind my audience as well with an excerpt from a previous convo also on Facebook:
This is what I am referring to.
JIM G.
Yes, Ukraine was aware that the aid was delayed.
Aid only flowed after Trump knew he was caught.
SEAN G.
[quote]
One of the few facts in all of this where there is some debate is when exactly Ukraine became aware that the military aid had been delayed. But all versions place it very late in the timeline of events, certainly long after the July 25 phone call with Zelensky. That’s like trying to blackmail someone with scandalous photos of them without letting them know you have any scandalous photos of them. It’s impossible.
The delay of the aid was part of a wider set of concerns regarding how much Ukraine could be trusted with the money. Throughout the late summer and fall, through a set of meetings and phone calls with American officials Zelensky proved to Trump that he could be trusted. That is what Trump wanted to know and why he released the aid without any announcement of investigations.
And that final fact, that the aid was released without the announcements Democrats claim were the condition to release them, really puts the period on the sentence. Democrats claim the aid was only released on September 11 because the White House became aware of the whistleblower report. But this ignores the fact the aid had to release by September 30, and doing so is a two-week process.
So essentially, aid was released on or about the deadline set to release it. That is a much more plausible explanation for the timing than some whistleblower report spooking Trump. Is it possible Trump was angry at yet again being undermined by people in the federal government for exercising his legitimate powers? Sure. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was ever planning to ultimately kill the aid.
(again, THE FEDERALIST)
[un-quote]
The aid was set to be released at a certain time, and it was… Not because “Trump thought he was caught.” Dumb.
I then posted this as a reminder that there is no quid-pro-quo in the call. No bribery, or anything like it:
Hugh Hewitt and Generalissimo Duane read the phone call Trump had with the Ukrainian President. One debunked position people attribute to the call was that President Trump used military aid as a barganing chip to get what he wanted from Ukraine. However, the far Left magazine, THE NATION, notes this about the issue:
Here is where I have had a response in my quiver for two-months that in the following convo I FINALLY got to use (and yes, like a true nerd I was excited when I saw JIM’S response):
JIM G.
It’s a summary edited by the White House. It’s not a transcript.
I will add to the conversation below so the reader here has a fuller picture of the issue to help them respond to family/friends/co-workers/etc:
SEAN G.
It is [a transcript]. In fact, TIN BOY Vindman said a single word was missing [from the transcript that he tried to have reinserted], and it didn’t change the meaning of the transcript.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing that the omission of the word “Burisma” — the Ukrainian natural gas firm that hired Hunter Biden to serve in a lucrative role on the board — in the transcript of President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not “significant,” despite some prior controversy over the missing references.
(video linked in original conversation directly below)
It is worse than that though. GATEWAY PUNDIT notes the total lack of conspiracy theories proffered by the Left and #NeverTrumpers.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council aide, was one of three people on the infamous July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats allege that Trump demanded Zelensky investigate the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, with Ukrainian power company Burisma, then omitted the word from a transcript of the call, which they say White House then hid in a secure server.
Not so, Vindman said.
Vindman testified under oath in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing before the House Intelligence Committee that the omission of the word “Burisma” was not “significant.”
He attributed the omission “to the fact that this transcript being produced may have not caught the word Burisma.”
“It was in the transcript that was released as ‘the company,’ which is accurate,” Vindman testified. “It’s not a significant omission,” he said, later adding: “I didn’t see that as nefarious.” Vindman added that it was “informed speculation that the folks that produce these transcripts do the best they can, and they just didn’t catch the word.”
He also shot down conspiracy theories that the White House moved the call transcript to a secure server to keep it from Democrats.
Again, not so, Vindman said.
Vindman testified Tuesday that storing the transcript in a secure server was not unusual.
“Why would it be put on a separate secure system?” Vindman was asked.
“This is definitely not unprecedented,” he said. “At times, if you want to limit access to a smaller group of folks you put it on the secure system to insure that a smaller group of people with access to the secure system have it.”
BaBoom! Every key witness shot down major MSM and Democrat conspiracy stories.
…CONTINUING WITH OUR EXCHANGE…
JIM G.
the call was approximately 30 minutes. The “transcript” covers roughly 10 minutes.
Here it is… the Pièce De Résistance
SEAN G.
almost 15-minutes. The translators had to translate… [which] essentially doubles the time
Those were the best parts from that convo.