Donald Trump

Hillary Wants Open Borders |WikiLeaks|

Published by Papa Giorgio

First part originally posted October of 2016

Via NEWSBUSTERS:

More via GATEWAY PUNDIT:

Lifezette reported:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admitted she takes two positions on policy issues.

One in private — ostensibly, the “real” position and one for the public, according to a damaging email leak of released on Friday by Wikileaks that included clips of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street banks and other organizations.

Wikileaks released emails reportedly from John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, on Friday, around 6 p.m.

Podesta received comments made in past Hillary Clinton speeches flagged as potential liabilities.

“You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, ‘balance’ — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today,” Clinton said in a speech for the National Multi-Housing Council on April 23, 2013. “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

To be fair, Hillary explains the quote:

BONUS POST ADDED: 

Differences

(Originally posted April 2021)

DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT

‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host says the left is obsessed with ‘demographic replacement.’

What a difference an administration makes when it comes to immigration. Let’s remember at one time (and not very long ago), Democrats sounded just like former President Trump on the issue of illegal immigration. They even used the term ‘illegal alien.’ And why do they always throw around the number of immigrants in the United States is 11 million? And for the record, ‘illegal alien’ is not the same thing as an undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant. An illegal alien is an illegal alien. (Elder plays Eliseo Medina’s speech – who is noted in the video below that!)

Eliseo Medina PLAYBOOK

This is a montage of democrats revealing their true goals for illegal immigrants and other minorities – they want their votes. This is a clip from Trevor Loudon’s film, the “Enemies Within.” Watch the entire film @AMAZON: 

Eliseo Medina PLAYBOOK

It’s About Power!

See more at:

Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support “open borders.” So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.

Via SOOPERMEXICAN! (h/t to LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN – now defunct):

The popular Mexican-born comedian Paul Rodriguez shocked the CNN panel on illegal immigration when he advocated for deportation for illegal immigrants. Shamelessly, Don Lemon accosted him by insinuating that legal immigrants like Rodriguez can’t be against illegal immigration. Yeah, that’s pretty pathetic.

What about the leftist hero who was recently lionized by Obama? Mark Levine takes you on a short tour-de-forces of how Democrats try and re-write history:

BREITBART notes a recent visit by Mark Levin to the Sean Hannity Show:

…Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants.

As Breitbart News has reported, “Chavez was so opposed to amnesty that even the film’s producers, who have a history of making politicized movies, decided, out of respect, to steer clear of the subject”:

As the New York Times noted, Participant Media, which produced the film, has a “fondness for films about social issues.” The company made Lincoln as a statement about bipartisanship, The Help to “highlight the plight of domestic workers,” and Promised Land as a “call for environmental action” against fracking.

But the producers avoided immigration reform in the movie because Chavez “fought for better wages and conditions for workers but held complex and evolving views on the status of unauthorized immigrants, some of which would be at odds with the changes many Hispanics and others are seeking today.”

Breitbart News has also detailed how much Cesar Chavez opposed amnesty:

Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a supporter of comprehensive immigration who has “studied and written about Chavez and the United Farm Workers … for more than 20 years,” wrote in a 2010 essay that “the historical record shows that Chavez was a fierce opponent of illegal immigration.” He added that “it’s unlikely that he’d have looked favorably on a plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.”

Chavez also wanted stiffer sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, and Navarrette emphasized that it was “absurd for anyone to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to pass immigration reform.” He stressed, “As I said, were he alive today, it’s a safe bet that Chavez would be an opponent of any legislation that gave illegal immigrants even a chance at legal status.”

Navarrette wrote that, according to numerous historical accounts, “Chavez ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegal immigrants who were working in the fields so that they could be deported.”  

He noted that while Chavez was with the UFW, “UFW officials were also known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants,” and the UFW even “set up what union officials called a ‘wet line’ to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States. Under the supervision of Chavez’s cousin, Manuel, UFW members tried at first to convince immigrants not to cross the border”:

When that didn’t work, they physically attacked the immigrants. Covering the incident at the time, the Village Voice said that the UFW was engaged in a “campaign of random terror against anyone hapless enough to fall into its net.” A couple of decades later, in their book The Fight in the Fields, Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval recalled the border violence and wrote that the issue of how to handle illegal immigration was “particularly vexing” for Chavez.

Chavez was also against ethnic groups like La Raza. In fact, he saw the dangers of such organizations from the beginning. 

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”…

BORDER TOWN DEMOCRATS

Democrat Congressman Vicente Gonzalez noted that Joe Biden’s border policies will be “catastrophic for our party, for our country,” when he appeared on CNN on 3/1/2021.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents a district on the U.S.-Mexico border, says he has a lot of tough questions for the Biden administration on immigration policy.

LA TIMES: Even the Democratic mayor, Bruno “Ralphy” Lozano, backed the Republican governor, attacking President Biden on Twitter, saying he’s failed to address the border crisis.

Also, “Democrat Texas Judge On Border Crisis: ‘Biden Fomented This And Now He’s Alienated Us,’ ‘At Our Wits End’”

Webb County (TX) Democratic Judge Tano Tijerina unloaded on the Biden administration during a Fox News interview on Thursday, saying that President Biden caused the crisis on the border and that he has alienated people in the region.

“What has he done?” Tijerina asked as the southern border has been flooded with over ten thousand illegal aliens in recent days. “I invited President Biden to come down to the border, speaking to my other colleagues, the other county judges.”

Tijerina said that “the Haitians are causing great havoc” and that “they’re not incredibly the best,” adding that they are difficult to work with because “they’ve been a little bit pushy, like compared to everybody else.”

“Biden fomented this and now he’s alienated us,” Tijerina said, later slamming the administration for the costs imposed on local communities because of the Biden administration’s crisis.

“I don’t know what’s going on with America today, but I can tell you that it’s not, it’s not right,” Tijerina continued.

Tijerina said that he called “BS” on the administration’s claims that their highest priority is people’s health “because in all reality, what’s going with our southern borders is wide open” as the pandemic continues.

Tijerina slammed the media for latching onto “one picture,” a reference to a recent incident involving a U.S. Border Patrol agent, “and they go off on it.”

“But there’s a thousand pictures of everything else that’s going on, that’s basically falling through the cracks,” Tijerina continued. “And yet nothing’s been mentioned.”

“You know, our county judges, I’ve spoken to almost all of them; we’re at our wits’ end, our mayors, we’re at our wits’ end,” he said. “We don’t know what to do anymore.”………..

Friedman is WRONG. Donald Trump did lay compromise on the table — the Dems rejected it. ALSO, the “hard-liners” Friedman mentions (Stephen Miler) are saying NOTHING DIFFERENT that Democrats a decade ago. Nothing. But at least the HARD-LEFT is admitting Trump is right. To Wit:

(DAILY CALLER) New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained on Wednesday on CNN how he thinks the U.S. government can solve the situation at the border, following his trip there.

Friedman’s appearance on the network corresponded with his op-ed from the day before, in which he described the port of entry at San Diego a “troubling scene.”….

BIDEN’S MESS

A friend posted the following on Facebook:

One of this friend’s – friend’s responded:

  • PRESIDENT Biden is just trying to clear up the mess the former occupant of the White House left…

I respond:

He cleaned up the former Prez’s issue by ripping up agreements….

    • The Biden administration said on Saturday [Feb 7th] it was immediately suspending Trump-era asylum agreements with El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
    • As well as ending the “remain in Mexico” policy. Which is maybe why they will “reimplement” Trump’s policy’s to combat Trump’s policies??

LOL: Biden Accidentally Admits He Will Re-Establish TRUMP Border Policy as Crisis Spirals Out Of Control (TRENDING POLITICS)

The above bullet pointed story is one of many in the description of my upload….

I coble together some reminders that this crisis is all Biden’s doing.

Here are the linked stories:

  • Biden Called for the Border Surge, and Now He Owns It (TOWNHALL)
  • Mexican President Blames Biden For Border Crisis, Says He Created ‘Expectations’ (DAILY CALLER)
  • Biden Adviser Appears to Admit Biden Caused Border Crisis, Tells Spanish Speakers ‘Border NOT Closed’ By Accident (DAILY WIRE)
  • Biden Admin Says Migrant Surge A Response To ‘Hope’ (FOX)
  • All Democrats at Main Debate Agree Illegal Immigrants Should Get Health Care Coverage (REAL CLEAR POLITICS)
  • Tom Homan: Biden Created Border Crisis with Rush To ‘Undo Everything’ Trump Did on Border Security (FOX)
  • Migrant Surge At US-Mexico Border Is Worst In 20 Years, DHS Boss Says (NY POST)
  • LOL: Biden Accidentally Admits He Will Re-Establish TRUMP Border Policy as Crisis Spirals Out Of Control (TRENDING POLITICS)
  • After Border Patrol Release, Asylum-Seekers Test Positive for Covid In Brownsville, Texas (NBC)
  • 108 Illegal Immigrants Released by Border Patrol in Texas Test Positive For Coronavirus, Officials Say (FOX)
  • Biden’s Immigration Policy Putting Children at Risk (RPT’s LARRY O’CONNOR Excerpt)
  • Not 11-Million Million Illegals Living in America, closer to 30-Million (TUCKER CARLSON)
  • Biden Wants To Legalize 11 Million Illegals, Who Says There Are Only 11 Million? | LARRY ELDER
  • While Biden Beckons Illegal Immigrants, Democrats Are Working to Let Them Vote In US Elections (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Study Finds More Immigrants Equals More Democrats — And More Losses for GOP (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
  • Democrats Want Illegals to Vote Because They Vote Democrat (IBD)
  • Study Shows That Most Immigrants by Far Vote For Democrats; GOP’s Future Bleak Without Substantial New Limits (NATIONAL SENTENIAL)
  • Democrat Caught on Video Teaching Illegals How to Vote (THE LID)
  • Eliseo Medina: Revolution Through Illegal Immigration (EPOCH TIMES)
  • Remember When Democrats Cared About Illegal Immigration and Border Security? | LARRY ELDER (ends with Eliseo Medina – video above)

A Wall… With Cars?

First of all, as you look at the wall of Texas State Troopers vehicles lined up to make a wall — note, Texas is going to build a wall. BUT, the irony should not be lost on my Democrat friends, which is this: walls work. It just so happens that the Border Wall Trump envisioned has a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline fed movable walls.

[wonderplugin_slider id=3]

Democrats Finished “Wall”

RIGHT SCOOP hat-tip to Rep Crenshaw:

Here is a portion of the border “secured” by the 2006 SECURE BORDER FENCE ACT... as you can see in the video (and the picture) just how effective this was:

…Representative Peter King (R-NY) introduced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was subsequently passed with bi-partisan support and signed into law by then President George W. Bush. The goal of this law was to reduce illegal entry into the United States by adding fences and vehicle barriers along 700 miles of the southern border, plus provides funds for surveillance, checkpoints, additional lighting, and drones to support the border security. The overall program was funded with over $1 billion dollars, but in hindsight did little to stop the illegal invasion as the fences were easily scaled and the surveillance minimal if any along most of the fence. In 2008 the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act was introduced in Congress intended to add an additional 700 miles of two layer 14’ high fence, but the bill died in committee and never even came up for a vote. In 2010 a Finish the Fence bill was again unsuccessful and deemed too expensive and underfunded….

>> Building a Border Wall to stop Illegal Immigration

We recently posted this video of an immigration official saying building a border fence “isn’t possible” even though $1.2 billion was given in 2006 for a fence (100% FED UP):

Biden’s Policies Hurt
Women & Children

 Larry O’Connor reads a bit from this article at THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

The Biden administration is weighing a new name for the facilities it is setting up to manage the influx of migrant children and families at the southern border, hoping to limit the criticism and emphasize that the buildings will hold people only temporarily.

Biden officials are considering naming the facilities “reception centers,” according to three people familiar with the discussions, on the logic that the name sounds less harsh.

The name would distinguish the facilities, one of which has been set up in Carrizo Springs, Texas, from existing structures maintained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Refugee Resettlement. Images of one such Border Patrol facility led to criticism that President Donald Trump held children in “cages.” Often, other such buildings are called “detention centers” or “holding facilities.”

In particular, one official said, the new name would mark the Biden administration’s intention to use the “reception centers” not for holding people in custody, but for serving as sending-off points for releasing migrants into the United States….

More about Hurting Women/Children with an Open Border:

  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott is releasing some horrifying numbers from the first month of Operation Lone Star, an operation he launched to combat #smuggling and other crimes at the southern #border. He explains how smugglers and cartels get drugs and criminals across the border by abusing young children.

Here is horrible footage of kids drugged for smuggling purposes:

Disturbing footage has been found showing Mexican smugglers carting drugged and sedated children across the southern border.

Human smugglers have been using children to fraudulently claim that they are migrants with their babies so that U.S. officials will allow them into the country. Border officials know that these coyotes often transport children from ages two to five over and over again to be used by illegal aliens to use as fait to get into the country.

But this disturbing video seems to show that the coyotes are drugging the tiny tots to make them easier to deal with.

(FLAG and CROSS)

Is Mexico Sending Rapists?

When I ask people to offer me an example of Trump’s “racism,” I get a reference to this example most often:

  • “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems…. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…. They’re sending people that have lots of problems…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” ~ Donald J. Trump

Before I add information that I doubt a millennial has heard because either they or their friends are quick to label Trump as being bigoted or racist for saying this, and moving on without further reflection, I want to note that all Republican politicians said to round up illegals in America would be an impossible task. Trump has evolved on his statement that many understood as rounding up 11-million (actually, there are 30-million). ALSO, every Republican politician noted that the Constitution would not allow for the banning of all Muslims coming to our country. Again, our Constitution forbids this. It allows for banning all persons from a country, but not a religious or sectarian belief. He [Trump] has backed away from this as well, as all of us knew he would. In fact, this was removed from his site. Trump is not a politician, but his team is counseling him well.

…Continuing.

Okay. What of Trump’s statement? It surely sounds bigoted at best.

I will shock the reader.

I think that is the most pro-woman statement in a long time by a politician regarding real — violent — crime against women.

Let me explain.

This is from the HUFFINGTON POST:

As the number of Central American women and girls crossing into the U.S. continues to spike, so is the staggering amount of sexual violence waged against these migrants who are in search of a better life.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report…

[….]

Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.

But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey to freedom…

For clarity in the sources for the HUFFPO article, for those that are of the impatient and research non-oriented generation:

✦ 60% Amnesty International Report (PDF)
✦ 80% Is rape the price to pay for migrant women chasing the American Dream? (FUSION)

(UPDATED EDITORIAL BY RPT) To be clear, these rapes are happening by residents who live in towns and districts these migrants are passing through. Other rapes are happening by Coyotajes, as well as many by the men making the trip as well. We know that many Honduren gang-members make the trek, and so, a high percentage of these men (criminals) do in fact cross our border into our nation. Where American women of all ethnic background are subjected to assault. Since we know illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born… rape is also part of these increased stats.

NEW STORY

80% of C. American Illegals Raped on Trip to US, Still Dems Encourage Them to Come

…“According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report,” the well-known news outlet continued….

So, many of the men they travel with are rapping them. Many of the Coyotajes as well take advantage of them. There are what are now being called “rape trees,” which you can learn more about on a previous post of mine, here. Here is how a conversation using this understanding went in the real world:

  • The above exchange was discussed a bit wrong, like Trump, the main idea is lost in the presentation. Gavin McInness made it sound as if the rapes were happening at the border when in actuality they are happening during the entire trip. And the girl thought he meant Coyotes, the real animal. Not Coyotajes. (That was very funny BTW, and why I ended the video like I did.)

What would be the most compassionate step to take? I would say, to control our border. That would help the migrant woman AS WELL AS our own mothers, daughters, and wives. Many from these countries that are experiencing these horrible circumstances are experiencing it because of their government models they have chosen. But this is neither here-nor-there.

The bottom line is that Trump, while not explaining this well at all, was actually making a statement about policy that in the end will protect women. There is this as well dealing with drugs and violence aspect of the comment:

A fresh wave of crime from the infamously violent MS-13 gang in the District of Columbia is being driven by the heavy recruitment of young illegal immigrants.

A surge of minors crossing the U.S. southern border is helping the notorious gang boost their ranks and instigate a new string of violent attacks in the city, reported The Washington Times. Over the past few years a wave of illegal migrant children crossed the U.S. border, and MS-13 appears to be targeting them for recruitment.

“They are certainly susceptible,” Ed Ryan, gang prevention coordinator in Fairfax County, Virginia, told The Washington Times. “They are new, they have very little family, they don’t know the language very well. They are looking for someone who looks like them, talks like them.”

Experts say violence from MS-13, which originally started in California, historically occurs in waves. Currently MS-13, on orders from El Salvador, is ramping up efforts in cities across the U.S. to reestablish their dominance on the streets, reports The Washington Times….

This is just a very short clip of a longer audio (here: ) of John and Ken discussing Mollie Tibbetts and her murderer, Christian Bahena-Rivera. According to the DAILY CALLER, he was employed by a Republican small business owner…

  • “He worked on Yarrabee Farms, which is owned by the family of GOP official Craig Lang, who was a former 2018 Republican candidate for state secretary of agriculture, according to reports by the Des Moines Register.”

…who may have illegally had him in their employ? However, he was an example of the DACA young… so did he have his temporary papers? I have no idea. Nor would I know if he immigrated legally if he would have passed all the checks/balances.

As an side…

Is this man a racist or bigot? He was the co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, and spoke out against the racist organization, La Raza, as well as calling workers who crossed the border “illegal immigrants” and “wetbacks.”

“In the mid 1970s, he conducted the ‘Illegals Campaign’ to identify and report illegal workers, ‘an effort he deemed second in importance only to the boycott’ (of produce from non-unionized farms), according to Pawel. She quotes a memo from Chavez that said, “If we can get the illegals out of California, we will win the strike overnight.”

…“Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration,” Levin said during a Wednesday appearance on Fox News’ Hannity. 

After saying that the premise that “compassion is an open border” is a “new idea” that has been pushed in recent times, Levin said that “a nation has a right to secure its border” and its citizens have a right to know who is coming into their country. 

Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants….

(NATIONAL REVIEW, BREITBART and the HUFFINGTON POST)

Biden Nixed Trump Era Evacuation Plans for Afghanistan (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

ASSOCIATED PRESS update via SAN DIEGO TRIBUNE and WESTERN JOURNAL (and 17-ABC [WTVO]/FOX 39/EYEWITNESS NEWS) — will emphasize:

  • But here’s the deal: You know — I wish you’d one day say these things — you know as well as I do that the former President made a deal with the Taliban that he would get all American forces out of Afghanistan by May 1.

But according to the Associated Press:

… Biden can go only so far in claiming the agreement boxed him in. IT HAD AN ESCAPE CLAUSE: The U.S. could have withdrawn from the accord if Afghan peace talks failed. They did, but Biden chose to stay in it, although he delayed the complete pullout from May to September.

Chris Miller, acting defense secretary in the final months of the Trump administration, chafed at the idea that Biden was handcuffed by the agreement.

“If he thought the deal was bad, he could have renegotiated. He had plenty of opportunity to do that if he so desired,” Miller, a top Pentagon counterterrorism official at the time the Doha deal was signed, said in an interview.

The piece goes on to acknowledge that that course of action may have led to difficulties of its own, but Biden should have been able to rely on the decades of foreign-policy experience he has boasted as having to craft a better deal…..

(LIBERTY UNYEILDING)

AGAIN, for the hard of reading, via ABC:

…IT HAD AN ESCAPE CLAUSE: The U.S. could have withdrawn from the accord if Afghan peace talks failed. They did…

So according to the “deal itself” and the Biden Admin ignoring that and getting rid of the Contingency and Crisis Response Bureau (CCR) — as the original post details below — Afghanistan is 100% Biden’s issue. Period!

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…..

SEE ALSO:

  • The Fatal Failure Of Gen. Mark A. Milley Over Closing Bagram Air Base (NY POST)

(Video hat-tip to POST MILLENNIAL)

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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: here, here, 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)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(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

Court Cases – Election 2020

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the skinny, well laid out by RED STATE:

…..The Left’s message to the public is that there were no consequential 2020 Presidential election malfeasance, irregularities or illegalities — supposedly because the courts objectively and thoroughly investigated those claims, and ruled them to be unfounded.

Neither element of that assertion is even remotely true.

To counter the later part of that false narrative, a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a List of Lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election. In it we identified the issues at stake, how each case was treated by the courts, what evidence was objectively analyzed, who won and lost, etc.

We tried to walk a narrow line of not only having a comprehensive list, but also information easy enough for the public to understand. (For example, since none of us are attorneys, we consciously tried to avoid unnecessary legal jargon.)

To further assist in the understanding of this important list, we simplified 20+ pages of filings and decisions on each case into a one or two sentence summary. (If we didn’t do justice to any of these, please let me know and I’ll issue an update.)

Another idea we implemented was to color-code the decisions — to make it easy for the reader to segregate the various outcomes.

Lastly, we passed this list by over a dozen lawyers involved with election-related lawsuits. The typical response we received was “Excellent!”.

So what are the takeaways?

To begin with our list shows that there have been seventy-five (75) lawsuits filed that are relevant to the 2020 Presidential election. (Note 1: we are counting an original filing, plus additional appeals as one single case. Note 2: other lawsuits are possibly undiscovered.)

The results to date are:

a) Eight cases have been withdrawn or consolidated. (These are not wins or losses to either side.)

b) Twenty-five cases have been stopped from proceeding (dismissed) due to legal technicalities (standing, timing, jurisdiction, etc.). These have nothing to do with the merits of the case and should also not be considered wins or losses for either side. That more than a third of the lawsuits were not allowed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing is more of an indictment that many judges appear to be afraid of opening this pandora’s box. Considering the importance of election integrity to our country, it’s a shame for them to hide behind subjective legal technicalities. How is that in the interest of the citizens in our country?

In any case, this leaves us with forty-two (42) lawsuits relevant to the 2020 Presidential election where a judge has ruled (or hopefully will rule) on the merits. The results so far are:

c) Nineteen cases are completed (adjudicated). These are where the court heard arguments, considered evidence (where applicable), and then formally ruled on statutory issues (e.g. the legality of a state’s election process), etc. Of these:

i) Eleven cases were WON by Trump, et al, and

ii) Eight cases were lost by Trump, et al.

d) Twenty-three cases are still active and have not yet been decided — so the ultimate winner and loser of these cases has not been determined.

So, Trump (et al) have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits! Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?…..

 

 

 

 

Incitement Narrative Collapses (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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)

 

Impeachment #2 (RPT’s “notes”)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • 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)