Hilarious. She [Democrat House Manager and Representative from Florida’s 10th congressional district, Val Demings] argues the U.S. abandoned Ukraine during Obama Admin! “Demings suggested that Ukrainians died in their war with Russia but those soldiers died during the Obama years” (GATEWAY PUNDIT):
….Ernst made it clear she was irritated with what she portrayed as hypocrisy by the Democrats.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), she said, voted against the most recent National Defense Authorization Act, “which included lethal aid to Ukraine.” Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffreys (D-NY), and Nadler (D-NY) voted against the last one, which also included such spending.
“This president has done more than they have, and he has done more than the previous administration did,” she said.
Ernst noted that Russia had invaded Crimea in 2014, and President Obama did nothing but send blankets and non-leah military aid. “Blankets don’t throw lead down-range,” said Ernst, a U.S. Army veteran.
In contrast, she noted, President Trump had armed Ukraine with actual weapons, giving it the opportunity to mount a defense against Russia.
“House Democrats, these House managers, did nothing of the sort to provide that assistance to Ukraine, and yet now they are on their high horse about President Trump not doing enough for Ukraine.
“This administration has done more than the previous administration did when Crimea was being invaded. I have very strong feelings about that.”
Ernst later added that the president’s temporary hold on security assistance had not affected current spending for Ukraine.
Of course the VERY AWESOME Elise Stefanik made this point a while back!
Day 3 of Adam Schiff’s flimsy case for impeachment. This is the weakest case for impeachment of a President in our nation’s history.
…The Iowa Republican also said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who is an impeachment manager, along with House Democratic Reps. Zoe Lofgren of California, Sylvia Garcia of Texas and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, all who either opposed or didn’t vote for national defense bills that included lethal aid to Ukraine.
“Four of the House managers have voted against lethal aid to Ukraine and they can sit there and lecture about this President not doing enough for Ukraine,” Ms. Ernst said. “This president has done more than they have and he has done more than the previous administration did.”…
POWERLINE notes of the original video (which you can watch the linked story at said website):
This is the kind of thing that insures President Trump will be re-elected in November–or would, if anyone watched CNN. It is hard to imagine a less attractive 80 seconds of television. What is it about liberals (and formerly conservative never-Trumpers like Rick Wilson) that makes them so smug and self-satisfied? Especially given that, as in this case, they are generally people of so little accomplishment.
I posted previously on Rick Wilson… who is supposedly a Republican… definitely in name only: “Rick “Darker Than a Latte” Wilson” — at any rate, the RNC capitalized on this narrative that all us Trump supporters are idiots:
…Personally, I hope all of the Democratic candidates, as well as their flying monkeys in the MSM, keep on labeling all Trump supporters as stupid racists. These too-smart-for-the-room Dems and Never Trumpers (redundant, I know) are completely clueless about the fact that their behavior is minting new Trump voters every day.
There were probably more than a few of the new voters at the president’s rally in New Jersey Tuesday night:
If you want your children to inherit the blessings that generations of Americans have fought and died to secure—then we must devote everything we have toward victory in 2020. Only this way, can we save the America we love – and drain the Washington Swamp once and for all! pic.twitter.com/5NeC0mFWfU
…With 175,000 tickets requested, the mayor is preparing for thousands of visitors. Also, he’s added additional security since there will be Leftists protesting the president.
But the people in the area are excited.
“It’s just history in the making for the generation ahead of me,” said Selena Wollk, of Northeast Philadelphia. “And it’s just a once in a lifetime event.”
“New Jersey has been a blue state for a long time,”‘ said Ed Talmo, of Vernon. “I think just by the turnout hours and days before the event, it just shows his presence is really wanted in New Jersey.”
Ticket numbers came courtesy of the president’s daughter-in-law, Lara. She reported on a radio show that over 175,000 tickets were requested–a record even for President Trump.
While many people won’t get inside the venue, they will still play a part in history. And there will be a giant television monitor set up for overflow, so people can see the president in the likely event they can’t get inside.
“This is like being in Disneyland for Trump supporters,” said Justin Mack, of Guttenberg. “This is like being Christmas, 5 years old. This is the best day of my life.”
While Duke Lea was the first arrival, aerial video from sister station WPVI-TV showed people still gathering, some with tents and others with lawn chairs, as early as 6 a.m. Monday….
In early 2010 I posted this audio from Dennis Prager regarding how the Left views Republicans…
The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”
Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.
One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.
This is easy to demonstrate….
….Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:
Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant
And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:
Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment
These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.
First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.
Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.
Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.
Examples could fill a book.
Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as “racist.”
Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as “sexist.”
A third example is the use of the term “racist” to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.
“Phobic” is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are “homophobic” — and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are “Islamophobic” — and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America’s unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, “xenophobic” and “Latinophobic,” the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.
There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas — the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.
But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring “War is not the answer” powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of “liberal thought” into an oxymoron.
Liberal Professor Says Insulating Liberal Students To Opposing Views Hurts Them
A liberal professor interviewed in INDOCTRINATE U explains that insulating students by teaching from one ideological viewpoint harms students who are liberal and retards their ability to properly defend and coherently explain their views in the real world — i.e., outside the classroom. This excerpt is taken from two parts… Part 1 is HERE, and Part 2 is HERE.
The New York Times has issued an absurdly written correction to a story about President Trump and Russian meddling.
White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in her report that 17 intelligence agencies all agreed Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, reiterating a thoroughly debunked liberal talking point.
[….]
Haberman’s story repeated a claim liberals began circulating following a declassified report from the Director of National Intelligence in October on the Russian influence campaign. Since the DNI heads up 17 agencies, it was easy to frame the declassified report as a consensus built on 17 separate assessments. In fact only the three agencies who reviewed the matter signed off on that consensus.
The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The assessment was a “coordinated” product from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, he said, working under the “aegis” of the DNI. It was not signed off on by 17 agencies. That makes sense, as some of the agencies — Coast Guard intel perhaps most obviously — would have little to do with election hacking.
The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview in May where she again repeated the phrase. Certainly, none of the other agencies disagreed on the record, but that’s to be expected if they didn’t conduct a separate analysis…..
More on the second claim regarding the Steele Dossier being Russian propaganda — even though it was touted for over 2-years in the pages of the NYT:
Who knew? …On Saturday, the New York Times published a story about how the “Mueller Report [was] likely to renew scrutiny of the Steele Dossier.” The Times reports that the dossier’s contents could even have been a Russian disinformation operation aimed at then-candidate Trump. Which comes as no surprise to conservatives who have been following the story.
Remember, the Steele dossier came about because the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm, which then hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then paid a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who leaned on contacts close to the Kremlin to get information that was used in the preparation of the dossier.
Is it any wonder that those Russians, who wanted to sow discord in the United States, would jump at the opportunity to provide misinformation, knowing that the media would eat it up?…
As it turns out, back in January 2018, New York Times reporter Scott Shane, the lead reporter on this story, was a member of a panel that somewhat resembled the Star Wars cantina scene at the International Spy Museum titled “Unpacking the Russia Story with the Experts Who Have Covered It.” The video is cued up to the appropriate cut for your convenience:
And regarding the New York Times correction to a story about Trump’s tax plan:
The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.
The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.
Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman mocked the Times piece before the Old Gray Lady issued the correction.
“Even perennial tax-increase advocate Warren Buffett is now acknowledging the economic benefit of the Trump tax cuts, but The New York Times newsroom still won’t concede the point,” Freeman wrote on Feb. 27. “Will criticism from a liberal law professor persuade The Times to reconsider?”
Well, The Times did reconsider — but it may still not be 100 percent accurate…..
The New York Times had to issue an embarrassing correction to its story about another decades-old accusation of sexual misconduct against US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — because it failed to tell readers that the alleged victim doesn’t even remember the incident.
As The Post reported in its front-page story Monday, the Times piece omitted that crucial fact.
The Times article had been adapted from a book on Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. The newspaper claimed that Max Stier, a former classmate of the justice years ago at Yale University, had allegedly seen Kavanaugh pull his pants down at a party, and his friends then pushed his penis into the hands of a female student….
The New York Times was forced to issue four corrections to a failed hit piece against Foundation for Defense of Democracies founder Mark Dubowitz.
Last week, the Times published a piece aimed at portraying Dubowitz as corrupt, unethical, and incompetent because he opposed former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and applauded President Donald Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the horrendous pact.
The embarrassing article falsely claimed that a GOP donor with financial ties to the United Arab Emirates gave FDD $2.7 million to fund an anti-Qatar conference; that Dubowitz “paid himself” twice as much as others who head think tanks; that Dubowitz created his own salary to far exceed his peers in the industry; and that the FDD is connected to Israel’s Likud Party.
Every single one of those claims is completely false, and the Times was forced to issue a lengthy correction admitting that its error-ridden piece had to be updated.
As noted by the correction, here’s the truth: Dubowitz’s compensation is determined by a board of directors, meaning he doesn’t arbitrarily create his own salary; his annual salary is almost identical with other think tank leaders; the FDD is not directly tied to the Likud Party in any way; and GOP donor Elliott Broidy gave $360,000 for the FDD conference, not $2.7 million….
These weren’t minor errors where someone’s name was misspelled or the date of an event was wrong. This was intended to be a disgusting, salacious, hit piece against Dubowitz because he gave credit to Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal.
The piece is uniquely embarrassing because of the volume of the embarrassing errors and how easy it should have been for editors to catch the erroneous claims.
What follows are some strong arguments (I think) against the Democrats case against Donald J. Trump’s impeachment. However, FIRST and FOREMOST, here is the Trump Legal Team’s first day in the Senate defending Trump and responding to the House Managers for impeachment of a sitting President:
PJ-MEDIA has a must read for those interested, they explain each one succinctly… which I merely:
10.Ambassador Volker testified there was no effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens 9.Ambassador Taylor testified there was ‘no linkage’ between military aid and investigations 8.Ambassador Taylor testified Ukraine was unaware the lethal aid was being withheld 7.Ambassador Sondland testified Trump didn’t want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo 6.Ambassador Sondland testified he had no evidence of a quid pro quo other than his ‘own presumption’ 5.Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to be on Burisma’s board 4.Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams both agreed Hunter’s position at Burisma had the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest 3.Ambassador Taylor basically admitted Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma ‘raises questions’ 2.Marie Yovanovitch confirmed that there was concern in the Obama State Department about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest at Burisma 1.George Kent said there were legit concerns about Hunter Biden, and Burisma should be investigated
ARI MELBER
RIGHT SCOOP sets this clip with the followin: “This is pretty great. Ari Melber actually told the MSNBC panel and their audience that the Democrats did not prove their case that Trump committed obstruction of Congress, and everyone flipped out.” By “flipped out,” they mean Lefties responses to this commentary, which you should see on RS’s site:
JOHN BARRASSO
This, however, was great… via GATEWAY PUNDIT who said “Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings. Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday. And there Schiff was lying his face off for the whole world to see….”
LEGAL INSURRECTION discusses the first day of the Trump teams response to the House managers. In this first day they challenged the credibility of Schiff, which the above commentary shows as well. LI says this: “It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking. Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions. Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable…”
JONATHAN TURLEY
Professor Jonathan Turley notes WELL a major misstep by the House Managers accusing the Senate (among others) of a cover-up… bombastic presentations in the House may be the norm. But not in the Senate:
And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:
Video Description:
Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:
President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)
(Click To Enlarge)
(Text with Links)
President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565
This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!
(UPDATE: I had to edit out the name of Eric Ciaramella in the description in order for YouTube to publish this audio. The monolithic thought is amazing to me, and the 1984 beginnings are unmistakable. Obviously no Federal or State law says a person’s name cannot be used… and, in fact, the “whistleblower” statute merely protects the person from on the job harassment by superiors. Not to nix his name from the public. Weird.)
Real Clear Investigations and Red State (linked below respectively) have great stories on these two colleagues (comrades?) discussing how to remove Trump from office 2-weeks after he was inaugurated — insurance policy 2.0 two-weeks after Trump was inaugurated (!):
……Source 1 said, “Just days after he [Trump] was sworn in, they [Ciaramella and Misko] were already talking about trying to get rid of him. They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda. They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”
Sources told Sperry that Misko had been the Schiff staff member whom Ciaramella had “reached out to” for “guidance” before submitting his complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson.
The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of the “patriotism” of an “apolitical civil servant.”
Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration. These co-workers said the president’s controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.
[….]
Source 1 said, “They were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump from office. No joke.”
[….]
He had also heard Ciaramella tell Misko, “‘We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.’“
Source 2 said he reported what he’d overheard to his superiors. “It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
The co-workers, [sources 1 and 2] didn’t think much more about the incident…..
In the run-up to Christmas, you may have seen coverage of an editorial in Christianity Today by the magazine’s outgoing Editor-in-Chief Mark Galli, calling for the impeachment of President Trump.
The editorial set off a whirlwind.
Galli called the president’s actions with regard to Ukraine, “profoundly immoral.”
“None of the president’s positives,” Galli said, “can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.”
Many looking at this have said that what is evident is a split between an evangelical elite against President Trump and populist evangelicals for the president.
I’d argue that there’s a third category—that is American evangelicals who understand fully the moral issues at stake, but who also understand the political context and have made a decision to support President Trump, not out of mere political expediency and certainly not out of naivete, but out of their own analysis of what is at stake.
That analysis, rather than CT’s editorial, is likely to have real impact.
Here is a prediction and continuing convo regarding 2020… enjoy (it will evolve). Here is my main prediction… and keep in mind the convo is from bottom to top.
So, the “over 40%” comment was based on this story:
Brad Parscale, the manager of the Trump campaign, is very data-driven and, following most rallies, he reports statistics about the attendees. I have posted about this after previous rallies. On average, 23% of rally goers identify as Democrats. For Toledo, OH, this number was 21.9%.
The really stunning stat from this rally, which Parscale has never reported on before, is that 20.9% of attendees identified as Independents.
This means that 42.8% of the 22,927 voters were either a Democrat or an Independent. And that is excellent news for President Trump…..
“It’s her duty to turn it over. It’s not some mechanism she can control,” – House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Like a previous post[s], the Democrats try to control Nature (by legislating Climate Control) and Nature (by saying gender does not exist through legislation). They also wish to control the Constitutional process the Founders clearly laid before us. And in doing so, they (the Democrats) are blowing previous agreed upon rules and their own conduct out of the water — thus proving — Senator McConnell’s understanding (not disproving) that this is a political process:
In the 1999 video clip, Schumer told Larry King: “We have a pre-opinion [before the trial starts]. This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.”
King replied: “So therefore, anybody…can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box.”
Schumer replied that the Senate impeachment trial is “not like a jury box [because] people will call us and lobby us. It’s quite different than a jury. We’re also the judge.”
In other words, Schumer admits that Senators like him can be lobbied and harangued to vote a certain way on impeachment — regardless of whether the burden of proof is met. Why? Because impeachment is a political (not a legal) process.
“With unemployment reaching a 50 year low of 3.5% in September” – Click here.
“Donald Trump was an environmental vandal” – Click here.
“carbon dioxide emissions have fallen under Trump” – Click here.
“the Environmental Protection Agency cleaned up more toxic waste sites in 2018 than it had for 13 years” – Click here.
“2.2 million adult Americans are in jail” – Click here.
“Donald Trump has tried to fix this with the first step act which prevents reoffending by providing rehabilitation programs for inmates and helping ex-prisoners re-enter employment and the community” – Click here.
“I was told Donald Trump was a dictator who would suppress Freedom” – Click here.
“I wasn’t told about his executive order that makes colleges uphold freedom of speech” – Click here.
This is an interview from July 2, 2019 (an Ultimate Issues Hour), and is merely an excerpt surrounding getting what you see with Trump. Stephen Strang had Dennis on his show as well (YOUTUBE). A lot of what Strang does can be found HERE — A recent article that caused me to upload this is this article:
I didn’t vote for someone who promised to live a Christian lifestyle.
I voted for someone who promised to defend my right to live that way. Why, then, when we support President Donald Trump, do we feel the need to give a disclaimer that we don’t necessarily agree with all his tweets, but we admire his policies and what he has accomplished?
Maybe because we don’t see the bigger principles at work.
Ralph Reed, a respected political activist who was the first executive director of the Christian Coalition in the 1990s, was in Jerusalem when the U.S. Embassy was moved there from Tel Aviv. While attending the events celebrating the opening of the embassy, he heard Danny Ayalon, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., make the point that Jews believe only flawed men make great leaders.
The rabbis teach, in fact, that you should never put someone in leadership who doesn’t have a flaw in life.
“If someone is self-righteous and convinced of their own goodness, they won’t feel the need to redeem their past by bearing good fruit and doing great deeds. But if they have experienced real failure or a major setback in their lives, they are more likely to approach leadership or service redemptively,” Reed told me.
He said that this explains why Trump is such a great leader who is so committed to keeping his promises. Despite his past mistakes and failures — or perhaps because of them — he wants to do the right thing…..
SOME “SHORTS”
“We prayed and God raised up a man that we didn’t expect and that we didn’t even like. But he has become our champion”: Author Stephen Strang explains why some Evangelicals are standing by President Trump https://t.co/9di3qrIrURpic.twitter.com/gizAlmrkjD
