Biden Nixed Trump Era Evacuation Plans for Afghanistan (Updated)

The UPDATED VIDEO can be found at the bottom of the post. (Originally posted Aug 18th)

Here is an excerpt, you should read the whole article!

Joe Biden’s State Department moved to cancel a critical State Department program aimed at providing swift and safe evacuations of Americans out of crisis zones just months prior to the fall of Kabul, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.

[….]

The document is dated June 11, 2021, though The National Pulse understands the decision to pause the program may have come as early as February, both undermining the original Trump-era date for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and certainly giving the Taliban time to threaten American assets and lives on the run up to Joe Biden’s September 11th date of withdrawal.

The subject line reads: “(SBU) Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau,” and the body of the document recommends: 

“That you direct the discontinuation of the establishment, and termination of, the Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau (CCR), and direct a further review of certain associated Department requirements and capabilities.”

It goes on: 

“That you direct the discontinuation of the establishment, and termination of, CCR, consistent with the applicable legal requirements, necessary stakeholder engagement, and any applicable changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual and other requirements.”

The document reveals the recommendations were approved on June 11th 2021. 

Speaking exclusively to The National Pulse, former President Donald J. Trump blasted Biden’s irresponsible move:

“My Administration prioritized keeping Americans safe, Biden leaves them behind. Canceling this successful Trump Administration program before the withdrawal that would have helped tens of thousands Americans reach home is beyond disgraceful. Our withdrawal was conditions-based and perfect, it would have been flawlessly executed and nobody would have even known we left. The Biden execution and withdrawal is perhaps the greatest embarrassment to our Country in History, both as a military and humanitarian operation.”

In a lengthy article in Vanity Fair from May 2021, the Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau (CCR) – also referred to in overlap with a predecessor/partner bureau called “OpMed” is described as a “little-known team of medics and miracle workers—hidden deep within the U.S. Department of State.”

“Even before COVID reared its head, OpMed was finding ways to do all sorts of things, serving as the hidden hand behind daring and often dangerous operations to rescue Americans from peril abroad,” the article states, before going on to quote Secretary of State Tony Blinken on the importance of the program’s goals.

“The Bureau of Medical Services’ Directorate of Operation—or ‘OpMed,’ as we call it—is a lifeline for the Department of State and the American people… Though perhaps lesser known outside of the Department, it’s vital to our operations. That’s because OpMed provides the platform and personnel to save American lives around the world, especially in times of crisis. During the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, OpMed was integral to our evacuation and repatriation of 100,000 Americans to the United States as countries began locking down their borders.”

But The National Pulse understands that career officials inside the State Department objected to the Trump-era aim of creating a Contingency and Crisis Response bureau with the express purpose of avoiding a future Benghazi-style situation for Americans overseas.

Instead, Biden’s team revoked the funding and the approval for the plan, even as the COVID-19 crisis reasserted itself, and and Afghanistan withdrawal loomed………

NEWSBUSTERS has this updated CNN clip where Darrell Issa schools Jim Acosta

There’s a reason why you don’t see conservatives on CNN very often. 

Hack journalist Jim Acosta couldn’t keep up as his Republican guest, Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA], schooled him on his own show, Sunday, over President Biden’s Afghanistan debacle. Acosta repeatedly tried to blame President Trump for the Taliban takeover, but Issa exposed the journalist’s pathetic hypocrisy…..

Excerpt from John Tierney’s article “The Panic Pandemic”

Before the excerpt from John Tierney‘s article in THE CITY JOURNAL titled:

  • The Panic Pandemic: Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus.

I wanted to add some thoughts from THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM’S recent “Swedish/Covid” post (hat-tip AMERICAN THINKER):

….One country not making much news is Sweden.

Sweden, of course, was maligned in 2020 for foregoing a strict lockdown. The Guardian called its approach “a catastrophe” in the making, while CBS News said Sweden had become “an example of how not to handle COVID-19.”

Despite these criticisms, Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic continues today. In contrast to its European neighbors, Sweden is welcoming tourists. Businesses and schools are open with almost no restrictions. And as far as masks are concerned, not only is there no mandate in place, Swedish health officials are not even recommending them.

What are the results of Sweden’s much-derided laissez-faire policy? Data show the 7-day rolling average for COVID deaths yesterday was zero (see below). As in nada. And it’s been at zero for about a week now.

Even a year ago, it was clear the hyperbolic claims about “the Swedish catastrophe” were false; just ask Elon Musk (also see: herehere, and here). But a year later the evidence is overwhelming that Sweden got the pandemic mostly right. Sweden’s overall mortality rate in 2020 was lower than most of Europe and its economy suffered far less. Meanwhile, today Sweden is freer and healthier than virtually any other country in Europe.

As much of the world remains gripped in fear and nations devise new restrictions to curtail basic freedoms, Sweden remains a vital and shining reminder that there is a better way.

I can already foresee the response from the skeptics… however, “Data show that the policies of Finland and Norway have been even less restrictive than Sweden’s for most of the pandemic.”

Here is the CITY JOURNAL’s article:


….If the treatment group in a clinical trial were dying off faster than the control group, an ethical researcher would halt the experiment. But the lockdown proponents were undeterred by the numbers in Florida, or by similar results elsewhere, including a comparable natural experiment involving European countries with the least restrictive policies. Sweden, Finland, and Norway rejected mask mandates and extended lockdowns, and they have each suffered significantly less excess mortality than most other European countries during the pandemic.

A nationwide analysis in Sweden showed that keeping schools open throughout the pandemic, without masks or social distancing, had little effect on the spread of Covid, but school closures and mask mandates for students continued elsewhere. Another Swedish researcher, Jonas Ludvigsson, reported that not a single schoolchild in the country died from Covid in Sweden and that their teachers’ risk of serious illness was lower than for the rest of the workforce—but these findings provoked so many online attacks and threats that Ludvigsson decided to stop researching or discussing Covid.

Social-media platforms continued censoring scientists and journalists who questioned lockdowns and mask mandates. YouTube removed a video discussion between DeSantis and the Great Barrington scientists, on the grounds that it “contradicts the consensus” on the efficacy of masks, and also took down the Hoover Institution’s interview with Atlas. Twitter locked out Atlas and Kulldorff for scientifically accurate challenges to mask orthodoxy. A peer-reviewed German study reporting harms to children from mask-wearing was suppressed on Facebook (which labeled my City Journal article “Partly False” because it cited the study) and also at ResearchGate, one of the most widely used websites for scientists to post their papers. ResearchGate refused to explain the censorship to the German scientists, telling them only that the paper was removed from the website in response to “reports from the community about the subject-matter.”

The social-media censors and scientific establishment, aided by the Chinese government, succeeded for a year in suppressing the lab-leak theory, depriving vaccine developers of potentially valuable insights into the virus’s evolution. It’s understandable, if deplorable, that the researchers and officials involved in supporting the Wuhan lab research would cover up the possibility that they’d unleashed a Frankenstein on the world. What’s harder to explain is why journalists and the rest of the scientific community so eagerly bought that story, along with the rest of the Covid narrative.

Why the elite panic? Why did so many go so wrong for so long? When journalists and scientists finally faced up to their mistake in ruling out the lab-leak theory, they blamed their favorite villain: Donald Trump. He had espoused the theory, so they assumed it must be wrong. And since he disagreed at times with Fauci about the danger of the virus and the need for lockdowns, then Fauci must be right, and this was such a deadly plague that the norms of journalism and science must be suspended. Millions would die unless Fauci was obeyed and dissenters were silenced.

But neither the plague nor Trump explains the panic. Yes, the virus was deadly, and Trump’s erratic pronouncements contributed to the confusion and partisanship, but the panic was due to two preexisting pathologies that afflicted other countries, too. The first is what I have called the Crisis Crisis, the incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians. It’s a longstanding problem—humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the “population crisis” and the “energy crisis”—that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets. To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.

Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Early in the 1980s AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying possibility that the virus could spread to children through “routine close contact”—quoting from a study by Anthony Fauci. Life magazine wildly exaggerated the number of infections in a cover story, headlined “Now No One Is Safe from AIDS.” It cited a study by Robert Redfield, the future leader of the CDC during the Covid pandemic, predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn’t harm their careers or their credibility.

Journalists and politicians extend professional courtesy to fellow crisis-mongers by ignoring their mistakes, such as the previous predictions by Neil Ferguson. His team at Imperial College projected up to 65,000 deaths in the United Kingdom from swine flu and 200 million deaths worldwide from bird flu. The death toll each time was in the hundreds, but never mind: when Ferguson’s team projected millions of American deaths from Covid, that was considered reason enough to follow its recommendation for extended lockdowns. And when the modelers’ assumption about the fatality rate proved too high, that mistake was ignored, too.

Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded. For Americans under 70, the probability of surviving a Covid infection was about 99.9 percent, but fear of the virus was higher among the young than among the elderly, and polls showed that people of all ages vastly overestimated the risk of being hospitalized or dying.

The second pathology underlying the elite’s Covid panic is the politicization of research—what I have termed the Left’s war on science, another long-standing problem that has gotten much worse. Just as the progressives a century ago yearned for a nation directed by “expert social engineers”—scientific high priests unconstrained by voters and public opinion—today’s progressives want sweeping new powers for politicians and bureaucrats who “believe in science,” meaning that they use the Left’s version of science to justify their edicts. Now that so many elite institutions are political monocultures, progressives have more power than ever to enforce groupthink and suppress debate. Well before the pandemic, they had mastered the tactics for demonizing and silencing scientists whose findings challenged progressive orthodoxy on issues such as IQ, sex differences, race, family structure, transgenderism, and climate change.

And then along came Covid—“God’s gift to the Left,” in Jane Fonda’s words. Exaggerating the danger and deflecting blame from China to Trump offered not only short-term political benefits, damaging his reelection prospects, but also an extraordinary opportunity to empower social engineers in Washington and state capitals. Early in the pandemic, Fauci expressed doubt that it was politically possible to lock down American cities, but he underestimated the effectiveness of the crisis industry’s scaremongering. Americans were so frightened that they surrendered their freedoms to work, study, worship, dine, play, socialize, or even leave their homes. Progressives celebrated this “paradigm shift,” calling it a “blueprint” for dealing with climate change.

This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow “the science” to know what they’re talking about. Science is a process of discovery and debate, not a faith to profess or a dogma to live by. It provides a description of the world, not a prescription for public policy, and specialists in one discipline do not have the knowledge or perspective to guide society. They’re biased by their own narrow focus and self-interest. Fauci and Deborah Birx, the physician who allied with him against Atlas on the White House task force, had to answer for the daily Covid death toll—that ever-present chyron at the bottom of the television screen—so they focused on one disease instead of the collateral damage of their panic-driven policies.

“The Fauci-Birx lockdowns were a sinful, unconscionable, heinous mistake, and they will never admit they were wrong,” Atlas says. Neither will the journalists and politicians who panicked along with them. They’re still portraying lockdowns as not just a success but also a precedent—proof that Americans can sacrifice for the common good when directed by wise scientists and benevolent autocrats. But the sacrifice did far more harm than good, and the burden was not shared equally. The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world. Students from disadvantaged families suffered the most from school closures, and children everywhere spent a year wearing masks solely to assuage the neurotic fears of adults. The less educated lost jobs so that professionals at minimal risk could feel safer as they kept working at home on their laptops. Silicon Valley (and its censors) prospered from lockdowns that bankrupted local businesses.

Luminaries united on Zoom and YouTube to assure the public that “we’re all in this together.” But we weren’t. When the panic infected the nation’s elite—the modern gentry who profess such concern for the downtrodden—it turned out that they weren’t so different from aristocrats of the past. They were in it for themselves.

MSM Telegraphs It’s Bias (Larry Elder vs. The World)

Larry Elder’s Show from Wednesday the 26th (2021) was good. The upload is mainly from the first hour, however, I add a lot of video to compliment his excellent points. Very long but worth the watch and listen.

Democrat’s Crackpot Theories (Montage – Illegitimate President)

(UPDATED TODAY) The Democrats take to the streets based upon no evidence. Now we have broad evidence of voter fraud and they’re mad that Republicans have the audacity to verify the election results?

LARRY ELDER .COM

Right-Wing Conspiracy ‘Insane’ — Left-Wing Conspiracy Theories, Not So Much

….Seventy-eight percent of Democrats, according to an August 2018 Gallup poll, believed not only that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election but also that this interference put Trump in office. Our intelligence community reached no such conclusion.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., falsely blames President Ronald Reagan’s CIA for playing a major role in the urban crack-cocaine epidemic. Waters even wrote a foreword for a book called “Dark Alliance,” that made this sensational claim. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, despite their contempt for Reagan, all disputed Waters’ assertion. The San Jose Mercury News, the newspaper that published the CIA-crack cocaine allegation, issued a retraction of the most serious claims. The reporter resigned, and later, at age 49, committed suicide.

Prominent Black entertainers accused the American government scientists of inventing HIV/AIDS. Comedian/activist Dick Gregory said the virus “was not passed from chimpanzees to mankind, but was probably knowingly developed by doctors and scientists working for the U.S. government.” Bill Cosby said AIDS “was started by human beings to get after certain people they don’t like.” Will Smith claimed, “AIDS was created as a result of biological-warfare testing.” Director Spike Lee said, “I’m convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease.”

Lee also speculated that the U.S. government, under President George W. Bush, blew up levees during Hurricane Katrina to force Blacks out of New Orleans. “It’s not far-fetched,” Lee said, “and also I would like to say it’s not necessarily blow it up. But, the residents of that ward, they believe it, there was a Hurricane Betsy in ’65, the same that happened where a choice had to be made, one neighborhood got to save another neighborhood and flood another ‘hood, flood another neighborhood.”

So, spare us the concern about irresponsible “conspiracy theories” given the left’s embrace of several, including the damnable lie that the police engage in “systemic” racism against Blacks. For four years, Democrats like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Rep. John Lewis called Trump “illegitimate.” Democrats and the media do not want a Biden presidency similarly handicapped.

Just a flashback of Hillary saying Trump was not legitimately elected (basically for 4-years). See more at:

  • Hillary Clinton Labels Trump an ‘Illegitimate President’ (National Review)
  • Democrats Have Been Denying Trump The Presidency Ever Since His First Victory (The Federalist)

LARRY ELDER via RPT’S YOUTUBE

10,000 Troops Offered Prior To January 6th Is Incitement – Apparently

Mark Levin discusses Mark Meadows revelation from February 7th (TRUMP WAR ROOM). I do not listen to Mark all that much, but this is the maddest I have heard him (at the end: 6:03 to 6:15 mark).

Meadows told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” host Maria Bartiromo that even though Trump was vocal about offering Capitol Police and National Guard presence at the Capitol on multiple occasions prior to January 6, his offers were rejected “every time.”

“We also know that in January, but also throughout the summer, that the president was very vocal in making sure that we had plenty of National Guard, plenty of additional support because he supports our rule of law and supports our law enforcement and offered additional help,” Meadows told Bartiromo.

“Even in January, that was a given, as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense,” Meadows said. “That was a direct order from President Trump and yet here is what we see all kinds of blame going around but yet not a whole lot of accountability.”

(DJHJ MEDIA)

What is not known by the typical cable news watcher, probably, is that both the Capital Police and the mayor of D.C. turned down offers to help secure the government areas before and as the mob of crazed Lefties and Righties descended on the Capital:

    • Three days before the riot, the Pentagon offered National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. Capitol Police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter. Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, police planned only for a free speech demonstration. (WASHINGTON TIMES)
    • Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown. “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. According to Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Sevice were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday. (THE FEDERALIST)

Incitement Narrative Collapses (UPDATED)

Newsmax host Rob Schmitt opened his show on Tuesday discussing the upcoming impeachment of private citizen Donald Trump. Schmitt also took time to mention the many irregularities, rule changes and fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Schmitt may be the only honest reporter left in America today.

QUOTE via FBI MEMOS:

Pipe bombs found near Capitol on Jan. 6 are believed to have been placed the night before. [RPT Note: planted at Democrats AND Republican offices]

[….]

One of the comments cited in the FBI memo declared Trump supporters should go to Washington and get “violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die.” Some had been preparing for conflict for weeks.

[….]

In the week leading up to the rally and riot, Watkins and Caldwell were in regular contact as they talked about various groups of people meeting up on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, according to an indictment filed this past week against them.

This was planned weeks ahead of time, the violent crowd had already entered the Capitol even before Trump was half-way through his speech:

  • Based on Chief Sund’s timeline, the riot at the Capitol began more than thirty minutes before Trump finished his speech, and long before he made the only comment that Democrats pointed to in order to back up their baseless claim that the president “encouraged” insurrection. (LIFESITE)

Again, the pipe-bombs were placed at both Republican and Democrat sites, the DAY BEFORE:

Just to be clear, While I am posting a portion by RIGHT SCOOP, this is them sending people to the fuller article, to quote:

Here is RS’s post:

The bombs were placed the night before. The plans were made weeks in advance. The riot mob and Trump’s rally audience were different groups.

The incitement narrative is “falling apart before our very eyes,” says Kyle Becker in an outstanding new column at his substack.

On January 6th, amid a large gathering at the nation’s capitol to protest what millions of Americans perceived to be illegitimately held elections in key swing states, the former president gave a speech. The timing of the speech was the convening of the Joint Session of Congress to validate the slates of electors from the Electoral College.

It has been argued that Donald Trump’s language at the speech, including using the words “fight” was deliberately incendiary. But let’s take a look at the actual language of the speech. Trump deliberately says “fight” in the commonplace political context:

For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible.

It should be noted further that allegations of election “fraud” are not incitement. Indeed, the same mainstream media accusing Trump of ‘inciting’ the crowd with fraud allegations accused Donald Trump himself of perpetrating fraud in the 2016 election.

Becker walks through several of the deceptive headlines that have poured out since January 6th (which is in fact its own form of incitement) and gets into the heart of it.

“For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI,” the report states.

It is quite obvious that the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and head of some of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world, would not incite an “insurrection” or a “coup” from a mob of common political supporters and amateurish rabble like these fellows, who are suspiciously emblematic of the media’s warped reading of who is likely to be a Trump supporter:

After the U.S. Capitol riot, Democrats suddenly discovered law and order, and they no longer want to defund the police. But back during the Black Lives Matter riots throughout the summer of 2020, not so much. In this episode, Larry looks back at the comments made from the Democrats and the mainstream media, and how they served as cheerleaders for the rioters burning and looting in cities across America. Can you say… double standard?

A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage. I have another montage of Democrats calling for violence here (RUMBLE)

 

Trump, Tougher On Putin Than Obama (CNN/NPR Admits)

NPR ADMITS IT:

“There’s never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there’s actually some basis for the president’s boast.

“When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era,” said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council….

(NPR | see more at real clear politics: Meet the Heretics: Not Every Liberal Has Trump Derangement Syndrome)

CNN ADMITS IT… FINALLY:

(RED STATE) For five years, CNN has fed us a non-stop string of stories claiming, without — and contrary to — evidence, that President Trump was a tool of Vladimir Putin and that just about every foreign policy move by the US, from confronting North Korea to disarticulating the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Quds Force to slaughtering Russian mercenaries in Syria, was actually designed to give Russia some huge but unspecified advantage over the United States.

Now that President Trump seems destined to leave the White House later this month, CNN has openly violated their own editorial policy and decided to take a stab at telling the truth. This is CNN foreign policy wonk and noted plagiarist (yes, plagiarists can still find employment on CNN if nowhere else) Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s New Day on January 1:

(I added a Facebook conversational response by myself at the bottom — JUMP)

Sebastian Gorka goes through a few items that is evidence against the idea that Trump is a Russian asset.

If you think Russia spent money to get Trump in office, that was the biggest waste of money in history.  Alternatively, if you think Putin has something on Trump, it has failed to dissuade Trump to act in Putin’s favor at all… Putin, then, would be the worse con-artist in history then.


Bullet Points


  • This admin reversed the policy of the Obama administration, which stood silently when Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine. The Trump admin has sold the Ukrainians lethal defensive weaponry, including anti-tank missiles designed to destroy Putin’s Russian tanks in the hands of separatist rebels. (THE HILL)
  • The Trump administration has expelled 60 Russians, labeling them “spies” pretending to be diplomats. (DAILY WIRE)
  • About 300 men working for a Kremlin-linked Russian private military firm (many were Russian special operatives) were either killed (about 200) or injured in Syria on orders from the Trump administration (WASHINGTON TIMES)
  • Now, President Donald Trump approved sanctions on 38 different Russian companies and entities in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, its presence in Ukraine, and support for the Assad regime in Syria. These entities include 7 Russian oligarchs, 12 companies they own and control, 17 Russian senior government officials, and a state owned Russian weapons trading company…. even sanctioning a member of Putin’s family. (DAILY CALLER)
  • President Trump is pressuring Germany to stop paying Russia BILLIONS of dollars a year via the gas-pipeline deal (YOUTUBE).
  • Donald Trump employed jawboning to persuade, arm-twist, and threaten NATO member-states if they didn’t raise the level of their spending on defense…. “by the end of next year, NATO allies will add hundred – 100 billion extra U.S. dollars toward defense.” (FOX)
  • The Obama Administration worked unsuccessfully to persuade the Kremlin to stand down the program through diplomatic talks. The Trump Administration, in contrast, directly confronted the violation by funding development of its own missile. The research is allowed under the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), and only breaches the deal if that missile is ever tested or deployed (TIME). “We’ll have to develop those weapons, unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say let’s really get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it, and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable,” Trump told reporters (DAILYWIRE).
  • After Sergei Skripal’s poisoning, US exports to Russia that could have military uses — so-called dual use technologies, are cut off completely (CNN)
  • President Trump signed an executive order to improve America’s critical infrastructure against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks. (EPOCH TIMES)
  • President Donald Trump called on Russia to pull its troops out of Venezuela on March 27, following reports that two Russian military planes touched down in Caracas over the weekend with about 100 soldiers aboard. “Russia has to get out,”…. President Donald Trump’s national security adviser warned Russia on Friday about its military presence in Venezuela, saying any move to establish or expand operations there would be considered a “direct threat” to international peace.(EPOCH TIMES | REUTERS)
  • when oil prices rise above $60-$65 a barrel… fracking increases supply, serving as an effective cap on energy prices. (Broadly speaking, the same principle is true of natural gas prices.) Putin’s government revenue and foreign policy are dependent on high crude prices and foreign nations buying their crude from Russia. Lower prices due to U.S. or other nations’ competition cost him a lot of money, and put the Russian economy and his public support at risk. Even more importantly, it deprives him of the tool of energy blackmail, which he has used to extort other countries into adopting Kremlin-friendly foreign policy choices. This is why Russian intelligence services have been so active in supporting western environmental groups and other interests opposed to fracking. (WASHINGTON EXAMINERin other words, our energy policy, under Trump, is anti-Putin. By contrast, ALL of the Democratic 2020 candidates energy policies will enrich Putin.)
    • …the truth remains: Democrats are Russian President Vladimir Putin’s best allies. The anti-fossil fuel energy policy promoted by Democrats aligns perfectly with Russia’s economic needs. Russia is highly dependent on fossil fuel exports for revenue, and competition from the U.S.’s vast energy natural resources poses a direct threat to Putin. Restrictions on the development and use of coal, oil, and natural gas resources through heavy-handed federal regulations are the ideal U.S. policy for Putin. Limits on fossil fuel development and regulation were the foundation of Obama’s energy policy, and Clinton did not deviate far from her prior boss’ platform. As with Obama, climate change was the cornerstone of Clinton’s proposed energy policy, and she supported Obama’s war on coal and also sought to replace fossil fuels with so-called “clean energy.” To the dismay of Democrats and Putin, President Trump wants the U.S. to be an energy superpower, and his policies are unleashing our energy natural resources by reducing regulations and opening up areas for development. When President Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the United Nations’ Paris climate accord, he was blasted by a choir of left-wing politicians, environmental activists, and the agenda driven liberal media. [….] Climate change, blocking pipeline construction, and stopping development of natural gas through fracking were the top priorities of the social media effort under accounts created by the Internet Research Agency in Russia, the same company special counsel Robert Mueller indicted for interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Previously, news reports discussed the possibility that environmental activist groups are being funneled Russian funds to promote government adoption of anti-fossil fuel policies. Clinton and Obama are by far not the only Democrats acting as Putin’s energy useful idiots. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in the state, and his Department of Environmental Conservation has so far blocked the construction of the Constitution Pipeline by denying a water permit to allow the project to move forward. The Constitution Pipeline would transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to upstate New York. New England is running an extreme anti-fossil fuel energy policy that is starving the region of cheap and reliable energy. During last winter’s cold snap, New England’s inadequate natural gas pipeline infrastructure reached its limit, and the region’s power was supplemented by liquefied natural gas from Russia. The pro-fossil fuel energy policy advanced by President Trump is being used to challenge Russia. President Trump is confronting Russia’s energy dominance in eastern Europe by exporting liquefied natural gas to Poland and the Baltic states. In addition, the U.S. is actively trying to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany. When it comes to energy policy, Putin and Democrats are on the same team…. (NEWSMAX)
    • …The strategic implications if the Russian lock on those markets is broken are lost on no one, least of all Putin. His economy is dependent on gas and oil exports, and 76 percent of the gas he pipes out of Russia goes to Germany, Turkey, Italy, France, Britain and other European countries. Already, the fracking revolution in the United States threatens Russian dominance on several fronts. In the last six years, the Americans have become the world’s biggest producer of natural gas, which costs in the United States a small fraction of what it costs in Europe or Asia. The result has been a massive conversion of electrical power generation from coal to gas in the United States; strong economic incentives for manufacturers to bring their factories back onshore; and newly revived American power in the international energy marketplace. Facilities that, ten years ago, were being built to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the United States are now being converted to export it. Moscow tried hard to downplay the challenge. Just a year ago, Alexei Miller, chairman of the Russian energy behemoth Gazprom, said he thought the American shale gas production was “unprofitable” and the boom in the United States would prove to be a “bubble.” But others in his company admitted that after Gazprom had spent hundreds of billions of dollars to develop fields in the Arctic around the Barents Sea, with the idea the gas there would be sold to North America, that market just dried up: the Americans didn’t need the Russian supply anymore…. (THE DAILY BEAST)
    • …The fact that Kremlin opposition to European fracking has nothing to do with environmental concerns should be clear even to the dullest among us, because Russia has massive fracking projects of its own underway in Siberia. The real goal is to keep Europe dependent upon Russia for its fuel supply. Natural-gas prices in Europe are quadruple those prevailing in the United States, and by maintaining a near-monopoly on overpriced European natural-gas imports, the Putin regime assures itself of a vast source of revenue. This allows it to rule and rearm Russia without permitting the freedom necessary to develop the country’s human potential. Furthermore, so long as Europe is kept critically dependent upon Russia for fuel, Moscow can paralyze and render ineffective any Western response to its plans for conquest, whose initial steps are currently being demonstrated in Ukraine. More, and much worse, is certain to follow so long as Europe remains helpless. In a recent four-hour television appearance in Moscow, Putin explicitly embraced Kremlin fascist ideologue Alexander Dugin’s grand design of creating a united totalitarian Eurasia, “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” If he can maintain control of Europe’s critical fuel supplies, he just might be able to pull it off. So it should come as no surprise that the Putin regime is pulling out all the stops in fomenting the global anti-fracking movement, with Europe as its central target. Leading the propaganda campaign has been RT News, Russia’s state-owned television network, which broadcasts around the world in English and other languages…. (NATIONAL REVIEW)
  • The United States is flexing its military muscles as a powerful warning to Russia. CNN’s Frederik Pleitgen got exclusive access as US warships started their own show of force in the Mediterranean Sea (YOUTUBE).
  • The Trump administration is taking dramatic steps to revamp the nation’s arsenal and prepare for a theoretical nuclear war with Russia in Eastern Europe…. The Pentagon last week took a major step forward by fielding its first new nuclear warhead in decades…. Analysts say that is just the first move in a grand long-term nuclear strategy to counter Russia and contend with an ambitious China(WASHINGTON TIMES)

  • The End


    Here is HUGH HEWITT noting some of the above and more:

    Hell of a MOLE” who gets sequester rolled back so DOD can rebuild,  demands NATO increase defense spending, provides lethal weapons to Ukraine, has American military wipe out a Russian force of irregulars in Syria, and urges Russia pipeline to Germany be cancelled (Hewitt: TWITTER) | The @realDonaldTrump-as-Russian-mole theory also must include that he has successfully fooled fmr SecDef Mattis, @SecPompeo @AmbJohnBolton.  Helluva spy.

    If Putin paid for Trump, Trump is a smart mother-effer, because he first used Russian interests to get the White House, and then immediately turned on Russia’s interests.

    Putin, then, is an idiot, and Trump? The smart-as-hell-tactician.

    THE ENTIRE 3-HOURS is magnificent. I wish all Republicans pushed back like this. The truth is on our side!

    THE FEDERALIST updated this post:

    “Just Like Obama, Trump’s Russia Policy Speaks Louder Than His Words”

    ….The Helsinki summit did not change my view of the Russian president. As I have reiterated many times, Putin is pure evil. There is no doubt in my mind that U.S. intelligence agencies arrived at the correct conclusion: Russia did meddle in the U.S. 2016 election, and Putin himself directed the operation. Again, I speak from personal experience on this topic: In 2012, Russian intelligence services interfered in the Georgian parliamentary elections, boosting the Kremlin’s preferred candidate through disinformation operations.

    Thus, my opinion of President Trump’s policy vis-à-vis Russia is perhaps more positive than one might assume from my background. My reasoning is two-fold: After a lifetime of firsthand experience with Russian aggression, I must evaluate Trump’s actions against the proper historical context. In doing so, I have found that Trump’s actions speak for themselves.

    The Outrage Seems Selective

    On the first point, I consider it unfair that Trump’s performance in Helsinki has garnered harsher criticism than other incidents in recent memory. In 2012, for example, a hot microphone at a global nuclear security summit picked up then-President Barack Obama assuring Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate with Putin after the presidential election.

    During a debate with GOP opponent Mitt Romney the same year, Obama casually dismissed the Russian threat, quipping: “The 1980s called; they want their foreign policy back.” Although Trump could certainly have been more forceful by condemning Putin’s crimes, his statements at the Helsinki press conference were nowhere near as concerning as his predecessor’s remarks about Russia.

    This brings me to my second point: Trump’s actions toward Russia speak louder than words—and so did his predecessor’s. Indeed, the Obama administration’s foreign policy undermined America’s credibility in my region, which Putin considers Russia’s “backyard.” There are many opinions about Trump’s rhetoric on Crimea, but it is a fact that the Russian land grab in Ukraine happened on Obama’s watch.

    How, exactly, did this happen? During and after Ukraine’s revolution of 2014, which ousted a Kremlin-backed dictator, on a daily basis the United States cautioned Ukraine not to escalate in response to Russian aggression. Thus, Putin saw an opportunity to annex Crimea without risking a direct confrontation with the West—and he seized it. Putin is a bully, but not a fool.

    What a Difference Two Years Makes

    Rather than changing his course after Moscow redrew the borders of Europe by force, Obama doubled down. Despite bipartisan consensus in favor of selling lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, and vocal support from his own administration officials (including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton), Obama repeatedly refused to authorize the sales.

    Instead of anti-tank weapons, the Ukrainians defending their territory from Russian invasion received hot blankets and canned goods from the Obama administration. At the same time, Obama asserted that the Ukraine conflict had “no military solution.” With these words—and more importantly, these actions—he was perceived by some on the Russian side as accepting the Kremlin’s sphere of influence in Ukraine.

    Despite my warnings, the Obama administration also essentially turned a blind eye to Russian meddling in Georgia’s 2012 elections. The result was devastating not only for Georgia, but for American interests: A Kremlin-backed oligarch (who has substantial interests in Russian energy firm Gazprom) ascended to power in a strategic U.S. ally. Moreover, Russia’s meddling in Georgia’s elections functioned as a proving ground for information operations later used in the United States. To his credit, Obama accepted this reality in 2016, when he expelled dozens of Russian diplomats, but this response was too little, too late.

    By contrast, Trump authorized the sale of lethal defensive weapons to both Ukraine and Georgia in 2017. The Trump administration went beyond the congressional mandate in sanctioning Russian authorities involved in the annexation of Crimea. Earlier this year, the United States imposed the harshest sanctions yet, targeting Russian oligarchs as well as government officials.

    Trump’s rhetoric on energy at the Helsinki summit, which has been largely overlooked, is also a reason for optimism. The backbone of the Russian economy is energy, and Russia’s dependence on fossil fuels is Putin’s Achilles heel. At Monday’s press conference, Trump stated that U.S. liquefied natural gas exports would “compete” with Russian gas in Europe. This reflects Trump’s comments at the NATO summit, where he criticized Germany for supporting the Nord Stream II pipeline. Trump was correct to call attention to this project, which will enrich the Kremlin at the expense of struggling pro-Western allies like Ukraine…..


    Stuff That Didn’t Age Well


    If there was one thing I have learned over the years of attacks against Bush over eight years, and now Trump… the rule of thumb is to wait about a week (or more) for the truth of the situation to come out. This is a prime example. Many who have a visceral hatred for Trump immediately jump on the band wagon [just like BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome — there is TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome]… and… the below meme is a prime example.

    During conversation with a Facebook friend about a meme posted regarding the Dianne Feinstein with Attorney General Bill Barr, I linked the FULL exchange to the exchange. After some talk, the below meme was posted:

    Not a day after he posted the above, a writer I check in with daily had this post, entitled: “NBC NEWS MAKES CORRECTION TO TRUMP-PUTIN STORY.” In it she notes:

    After incorrectly reporting that President Trump had discussed former White House counsel Don McGhan’s potential testimony in the House with Russian President Vladimir Putin, NBC News was forced to issue a correction:

    CORRECTION (May 3,2019, 1:51 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article incorrectly included one topic that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Presidents Trump and Putin discussed on Friday. They did not discuss the possibility of former White House counsel Don McGahn appearing before Congress. Sanders was answering a question from reporters about whether McGahn would testify before Congress.

    HILARIOUS. I bet “unnamed sources” are at the center of this story. You can add this to the TRUMP IS CHUMMY WITH PUTIN conspiracy the Left and NeverTrumpers have:

    Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the U.S. has a full range of options available to help oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and didn’t rule out “ultimately” using military action on top of diplomatic, political and other pressure points.

    “We’re preparing those for him so that when the situation arises, we’re not flat-footed,’’ Pompeo said on ABC’s “This Week,” one of three scheduled appearances on Sunday morning political shows.

    [….]

    Trump on Friday said Russian President Vladimir Putin assured him he isn’t seeking to “get involved” in the crisis, although Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton both said earlier in the week that the Kremlin talked Maduro out of leaving Venezuela after U.S.-backed Guaido attempted to end his regime by calling for a military uprising.

    “The president has made clear, we want everyone out, and that includes the Russians,” Pompeo said.

    FACEBOOK RESPONSE

    Impeachment #2 (RPT’s “notes”)

    JUMP TO

    (This post is a sister-post to this one.)

    Firstly, much like with words like Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Aunt, Uncle , He or She – and the like, or words like rape, unarmed

    • “The idea that instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person coming at ‘em with a knife or something, shoot ‘em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing. There’s a lot of different things that can change” — Joe Biden

    …or that making burritos is racist… the Left changes the meaning of them for political gains or the racializes them to malign their opponents. If not that, they make up entirely new words from whole cloth or damage the grammar of the Romantic Languages or English itself.

    Now…. “peaceful and Patriotic” is inciteful. That now means to pillage and destroy.

    (YouTube Channel’s description) As a viewer from across the pond in the UK, I was amazed by the scenes at Capitol Hill and the media coverage. What confused me was why are none of the media organisations not showing this clip, but showing edited clips with the words PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY omitted… How are the words “PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY” an “INCITEMENT TO INSURRECTION”?

    [ANSWER to my compatriot across the pond: Democrats]

    Here I wish to reproduce in it’s entirety a letter to the editor of a small Indianola (Iowa) paper. I am doing so just in case it is removed to keep the paper’s server’s free of space.

    The House of Representatives has, for a second time, engaged in a lawless and irrational impeachment of President Trump. This snap impeachment, after only two hours of debate, without any investigations, hearings or any due process, where the President’s counsel would be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, is as lawless as the invasion of the Capitol, albeit less violent.

    It is based on the lie that President Trump incited the criminal invasion of the Capitol.

    The Washington Post reported that the FBI was aware of plans to invade the Capitol before January 6th. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said the rioters, “came with riot helmets, gas masks, shields, pepper spray, fireworks, climbing gear — climbing gear! — explosives, metal pipes, baseball bats.”

    Obviously, they planned an attack long before Trump spoke.

    The rioters could not have been “incited” by the President because they probably heard little or none of his speech. The President’s speech lasted from 12:00 p.m. to 1:11 p.m. According to Chief Sund, the assault on Capitol police started at 12:40 p.m. According to Bing, under normal conditions, it takes 32 minutes to walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol. This means the rioters had to leave no later than 12:08 p.m. On January 6th, however, due to crowds, it took 45 minutes to make that walk. This means the rioters had to leave the Ellipse, if they were ever there, by 11:55 p.m, before the President’s speech started.

    Even if they had heard the speech, President Trump never called for force, violence, or overthrow of government. He made only the following comments on the Capitol:

    “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

    “We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    To impeach a President based on his asking his supporters for a peaceful march to the Capitol in order to “make your voices heard,” violates the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.

    The President’s critics have ignored his call for peaceful demonstration. They have quoted, out of context, his statement made not two minutes before the end of his speech, when no rioters could have been there to hear them, that, “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country.”

    In fact, just as Obama stated that Democrats should bring a gun to a knife fight, the President repeatedly used “fight” to refer to “fighting” in the legislatures, courts, elections and in the media. He referred to Jim Jordan fighting in Congress. Did he mean that Jordan was punching his colleagues? Did Obama mean that Democrats should engage in knife fights with Republicans but use a gun to win?

    As for the President controlling the rioters, the Washington Post reported that, “’4:30: Outside the east side of the Capitol, a man with a megaphone announced to a crowd of hundreds: ‘Hey, everyone, Donald Trump says he wants everyone to go home.’ In response, some in the crowd booed loudly.

    One man shouted back: ‘Shut the f— up! We’re not going to bend a knee, motherf—–!’”

    The impeachment is a lawless and irrational abuse of power.

    DONALD BOHLKEN

    Which brings me to a REASON.ORG article that I read that was helpful…

    ….Citing unnamed “officials,” the Times reports that Trump “was initially pleased” when some of his supporters “stormed into the Capitol” and that he “disregarded aides pleading with him to intercede.” But about 20 minutes after the demonstration turned violent, Trump urged his supporters to “stay peaceful.” Half an hour later, he reiterated that message: “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” Later that day, he recorded a message urging the protesters to “go home now,” saying “we have to have peace,” even while continuing to insist that “we had an election that was stolen from us.”

    Trump did not advocate violence, even in general terms. If his remarks qualify as incitement to riot, so would similarly fiery rhetoric at other protests that are marked by violence.

    In 2016, a Baton Rouge police officer who was injured during a Black Lives Matter demonstration sued one of the movement’s leaders, DeRay Mckesson, saying he “incited the violence.” A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that Mckesson “solely engaged in protected speech” at the protest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later revived the lawsuit, but its decision focused on the allegation that Mckesson “directed the demonstrators to engage in [a] criminal act” by blocking a highway, which “quite consequentially provoked a confrontation between the Baton Rouge police and the protesters.”

    Trump, by contrast, did not commit a crime or urge others to do so, even if the violence that followed his speech was predictable. His opponents may regret establishing a precedent that speakers who neither commit nor advocate violence can be prosecuted for the criminal conduct of people inspired by their words.

    Yep.

    Which leads me to have a heart of hope with the caliber of some of our Representatives in Congress, and some of their speeches I heard while driving yesterday:


    SPEECHES


    Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., argued against moving forward with a second impeachment against the president during House debate Jan. 13. Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting electoral votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety.

    SUPPORT: FIERY SPEECHES

    Rep. Louie Gohmert Uses Pelosi’s Own Words Against Her

    TWITTER GOES NUTS! (Proving Gohmert’s Point)

    THE FEDEERALIST and JUST THE NEWS notes the progressive Left and some media outlets thinking these are violent words. Correct:

    Corporate media journalists and left-wing activists took to social media on Wednesday to spread claims that Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas is in favor of inciting insurrection.

    “Here’s a quote. ‘I just don’t even know why there aren’t more uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be,’” Gohmert said on the House floor during the impeachment debate. 

    While Gohmert specified that what he was saying was a quote, taken directly from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s previous statements encouraging uprisings, journalists and activists quickly twisted his words, publicly speculating and claiming he was calling for increased political violence around the nation.

    [….]

    Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting Electoral Votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Democrats are pursuing an impeachment because they want to “cancel” him. He said Republicans condemn all violence, and that Democrats hold Republicans to a double standard. Jordan said “cancel culture” is attacking the First Amendment, and warned if it doesn’t stop, “it will come for us all.” He touted Trump’s accomplishments but did not address the president’s rhetoric in his speech before the Capitol riot. He added that a second impeachment will further divide the nation.

    SUPPORT: HEADLINES MENTIONED

    Nancy Pelosi said in 2019 they have been trying to impeach Trump for 2-and-a-half-years.

    She said it three separate times and so I take her at her word (RPT). Here are some of the article Rep. Jordan was making reference to:

    • There was this racy headline, from Vanity Fair on Nov. 14, 2016: “Will Trump Be Impeached?”
    • Then this, yet another Vanity Fair piece, on Dec. 15, 2016: “Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.”
    • There was this, from The New York Times, in an opinion headline from Nov. 3, 2016: “Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat.”
    • Remember: Trump wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20, 2017. He wasn’t even elected president until Nov. 8, 2016.

    [Even a GOPer FOR impeachment makes some critically important points]

    Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said that President Donald Trump deserves “universal condemnation” for perpetuating the false claim that there was widespread fraud in the Nov. 6 election, and for pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his Constitutional duty to count Electoral College votes. While Roy said Trump’s efforts to interfere with the election results amount to what he believes are an impeachable offense, he called the articles drafted by House Democrats “flawed and unsupportable,” and expressed concern they would lead to the stifling of free expression by focusing on incitement and insurrection. “Let us condemn that which must be condemned, and let us do so loudly,” Roy said. “But let us do it the right way, with deliberation, and without disastrous side effects.”


    MARK LEVIN


    I added a couple videos (President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris) to enhance Levin’s audio. I think this is a must hear first hour of radio!

    Former DC Prosecutor: Trump Did Not Incite (Larry Elder)

    To meet the legal definition of incitement, you need statements like the above not to be in the incitement. Also, the legal incitement charge needs to show as well the continued incitement, and not calling for peace, after the understanding of violence. Even with the admission that Trump has made to Kevin McCarthy that he feels somewhat responsible for Wednesday’s event, he did not incite the crowd. In other words, both things can be true… Trump not realizing the “quality” of the crowd and the mixed intentions of it… for instance, this man and his family:

    Which is my segue into an excellent post by RIGHT SCOOP quoting a Wall Street Journal article.

    An interesting opinion piece ran in the Wall Street Journal yesterday by a former prosecutor who has a history of convicting protesters in Washington DC. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro wrote that while it is a crime to incite a riot in the nation’s capital, President Trump is not guilty of doing it:

    The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

    Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

    “To peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”

    The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.

    The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.

    Someone send this to Pelosi, because I’m sure it’ll change her mind!

    Lol, in case you didn’t catch it, that last sentence I included was sarcasm. That being said, I think the Democrats and the Left saying “all white people are racist” in one of the most “inciteful” thing someone could say! (Examples here, here, here, and here — I could give hundreds of examples, but that should suffice).

    However, I wanted to include some examples via Larry Elder of the hypocrisy of the Left:

    This video is from Larry’s YouTube Channel (here). At the end of his small montage I add video of a larger call to violence by [hypocritical] Democrats.

     

    Duly Elected Should Have Been Biden’s Answer

    Larry Elder plays a question to Biden on the campaign trail and then the Sage responds how Democrats expect others to think regarding Biden’s Presidency. For more on Trump being tough on Russia, see here: Trump, Tougher On Putin Than Obama

    Larry Elder Covers The Capitol Incident

    This is from yesterdays show (1/7/2021), and is a large sample of why The Sage is great at what he does. I add some video which radio only allows audio to play, as well as adding some of the video from  @The Larry Elder Show — HERE:  Enjoy, it is a stitching of large sections from all three hours.

    Last segment of the above is a great shorter listen. This is the last portion of a larger audio, HERE. Larry Elder discusses new studies – but included one from the 1970s… this is the first time I have heard this particular study

    If Trump Is A Racist… He Needs To Go Back To Racism School

    • 49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist — July 2019
    • 83% of Democrats think Trump is racist — June 2020

    After becoming the leader of the Democratic party in the Senate in 2017, Schumer spent the last four long years accusing time and time again President Trump is a racist. Flashback to 1974: Sen. Schumer came to power as an Assemblyman by an overtly racist scheme he created to force out Black people from a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. Much to his dismay, the plan failed, and the residents remained in the neighborhood with nicer digs. To this day, the saint of anti-racism somehow still has a no-fly zone over him.

    Trump is the worst RAAACIST EVA!

    • Historic black unemployment;
    • First Step Act;
    • Music Modernization  Act;
    • School Choice;
    • Illegal Immigration;
    • Pardons;
    • ETC.

    If Trump Is A Racist… He Needs To Go Back To Racism School.


    President Trump is still constantly called racist by many people, but his policies towards black Americans prove quite the opposite. Larry takes a deep dive into the various policies and positions the President has taken that have benefited black Americans across the nation.

    In the midst of The Democratic Party and the media labeling President Trump’s remarks about Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley as racist, Larry decides to do some digging. What did the president actually say? How long has the Democratic Party been labeling Republicans as racist? Have race relations actually worsened under Trump? Larry answers all these questions and more in this week’s episode.


    ….78% of Democrats, according to an August 2018 Gallup poll, believe that “Russians interfered in the 2016 campaign and that it changed the outcome of the election.” Never mind that Jeh Johnson, President Barack Obama’s secretary of Homeland Security, in his 2017 prepared testimony before Congress, said: “On Election Day, DHS assembled a crisis-response team to rapidly address any reported cyber intrusions into the election process. To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyber intrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results.”

    Whatever Russia, China or Iran did to meddle with our elections pales in comparison to the impact of our biased, bigoted, Republican-hating, class-warfare waging, secular, “health care is a right,” “there’s no such thing as illegal people, only ‘undocumented,'” Donald Trump-hating media. Let’s compare the impact of Russian, Chinese or Iranian election interference with the election interference of the American media.

    In his book “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” Professor Tim Groseclose, economics and political science professor, attempts to quantify the impact of our left-wing media. How do our overwhelmingly liberal media affect how Americans think and vote? Groseclose wrote in 2011:

    “For the past several years, I have researched this question, trying to solve the following thought experiment: What if media bias were suddenly to disappear? In such a world, how would America look and act politically?

    “The answer is, approximately like Texas.” (Note: This year, President Trump handily won that state.)

    “More specifically, if media bias were to disappear, according to the analysis, then America would think and vote like any region that voted around 56-43 percent for Republican John McCain in the last presidential election. Besides Texas, such regions include Kansas, North Dakota, Kentucky, Salt Lake County, Utah, and Orange County, Calif.”

    Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, once admitted, “The left, as a rule, does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement.” Given this mentality, liberals, Democrats and the media find Trump absolutely, positively insufferable. This raises a question. Mr. Biden, which side needs to heal?

    (LARRY ELDER)

    (See also THE FEDERALIST)