Another Coup Bites the Dust [Video]

I’m not going to invest my time and write an in depth analysis of the latest coup to bite the dust. Watch this clip below. I enter at time marker 8:45. In this interview with a former Obama Ambassador, I called it way back then. There is no whistle blower and there is nothing to whistle blow. Watch my final comments as they had a chuckle on me. I was right and I will be back and make sure they hear me again.

Watch This Clip at 8:45

On impeachment hearing eve, I joined Will Johnson on INFOWARS at Firepower. All of my views about what was to come once the impeachment hearing began are in this discussion. I nailed it. I enter at 1:06:37.

Whats Next?

This will drag on for a bit but another coup will bite the dust. Want to know what’s next? Indictments will be served against the deep state and its operatives more than likely before 2019 plays out. This process will soon begin. Read this important article titled “I Caught The Swamp”.

Clarion Call

This battle will rage on for the rest of our lives. Pray for our President and his family. No Trump-no hope. What we do right here, right now is for posterity. So when your children and grandchildren ask you “What were you doing when the global governance was being thrust down the throat of America and the world, what will your answer be? Freedom, it’s up to U.S.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s democracy — not Trump — that’s on trial on Capitol Hill

FBI Data: Anti-Muslim hate crimes under Trump are below Obama levels in 2014

The media has put out numerous pieces based on bad data and hate crime hoaxes claiming that President Trump was responsible for a rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. Now the FBI data is out and it actually shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes under Trump are below Obama levels in 2014.

Does that mean that Obama was actually responsible for anti-Muslim hate crimes while Trump is a beacon of tolerance? If the media were logically consistent, instead of narratively consistent, then sure. But since the media is narratively consistent, that’s not the conclusion it will draw.

 By the numbers: Of 4,571 reported attacks the bureau tracked, aggravated assaults were up 4%, simple assaults up 15% and intimidation up 13%. The report also shows that assaults targeting Muslims, Arab Americans and African Americans have gone down, while violence against Latinos has risen.

The report says 485 hate crimes were reported against Latinos in 2018, compared to 43 in 2017.

270 hate crimes were reported against Muslims and Arab Americans — the lowest since 2014.

1,943 hate crimes were reported against African Americans — the lowest since 1992.

Guess which one of those numbers the media will play up and blame on President Trump?

Hint: It’s the negative one of the three.


Inside Mosques: Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia

New York Times called Baghdadi a “terrorist,” but scrubs “terror” from article about killing of “Palestinian” jihadi

RELATED VIDEO: Subtitled video of the Koran burn in Norway.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

7 Things to Know About Rep. Jim Jordan as He Leads GOP’s Defense of Trump

As impeachment hearings took the spotlight on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jim Jordan, one of President Donald Trump’s fiercest defenders, is temporarily reassigned to the House committee driving the process, where the Ohio Republican already is questioning witnesses sharply and voicing his party’s frustration with the partisan process.

As recently as a week ago, Jordan was the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, where he took part in closed-door depositions of witnesses before this week’s public hearings.

The change that placed Jordan on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence signals congressional Republicans’ faith in him as a capable communicator tasked with combating the attack strategy of Democratic lawmakers.

That’s exactly what Jordan sought to do during the first public impeachment hearing Wednesday with initial witnesses William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Here are seven things to know about the fiery Ohio lawmaker as he takes a leading role in the Republicans’ defense strategy for Trump in the impeachment inquiry.

1. He was founding chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

As a staunch conservative who often butted heads with Republican Party leadership in Congress, Jordan helped to found the House Freedom Caucus in 2015.

Jordan, together with several other prominent congressional conservatives sympathetic to the tea party movement, started the caucus to consolidate support for strongly conservative policies and pressure then-House Speaker John Boehner, a fellow Ohio Republican, to take up more conservative legislation.

The Freedom Caucus was instrumental in Boehner’s resignation as House speaker when several members withdrew their support, and Boehner found it increasingly difficult to unify the right wing of the party with more moderate lawmakers.

Jordan served as the first chairman of the caucus from 2015 to 2017, and the group now has more than 30 members, all Republicans, in the House.

2. Boehner called him a “legislative terrorist.”

In case it wasn’t already clear, Jordan isn’t shy about undermining Republican leadership.

In an interview with Politico in 2017, Boehner recalled Jordan’s role in resisting his more moderate agenda.

“Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner said. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”

3. He was a collegiate championship wrestler.

Jordan competed as a wrestler while attending the University of Wisconsin at Madison, winning two NCAA Division I championships in 1985 and 1986.

Even though he’s left his athletic career behind, Jordan still has a reputation as a fierce combatant, only this time it’s in the House instead of the gym.

4. He faced criticism surrounding his time as a wrestling coach.

Jordan was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University from 1987 to 1995.

After numerous male athletes accused a team physician, Dr. Richard Strauss, of sexual abuse, Jordan came under fire for doing nothing to protect students at the time. He has said he was unaware of the abuse.

“The idea I’m not going to defend our athletes when I think they’re being harmed is ridiculous,” Jordan said on Monday, when asked about a college wrestling referee who claimed he told Jordan about allegations against Strauss, according to

“This is just, this is someone making a false statement,” he added.

Democrats will likely continue to accuse Jordan of wrongdoing, especially as he takes a more visible role in the impeachment proceedings.

5. He argued for opening a special counsel probe (just not the Russia one).

In 2014, Jordan introduced a resolution calling on then-Attorney General Eric Holder to open a special counsel investigation into revelations that the IRS targeted the tax-exempt status of a number of conservative nonprofits.

Holder ordered an FBI investigation into the issue, and what was then called the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which  Jordan served, found that conservative groups were targeted more often than liberal ones.

But with the appointment of a special counsel into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Jordan gained a new reputation as a fierce opponent of the investigation. He worked to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by questioning their impartiality, defining himself as a staunch defender of Trump in the process.

6. He ran for House speaker after Paul Ryan’s resignation.

Jordan took advantage of his position as one of the president’s closest allies to run for House speaker in 2018, when Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who had succeeded Boehner, retired.

Although House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., ultimately won the GOP conference’s vote, he didn’t become House speaker because Democrats recaptured the majority in the 2018 elections.

Jordan’s attempted push into party leadership in the House, however, secured his name among the upper echelons of Trump-era Republican power brokers.

McCarthy is now House minority leader, and put Jordan on the Intelligence Committee for the impeachment inquiry.

7. He has a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.

Jordan is one of only three current lawmakers with a perfect lifetime score from the American Conservative Union, an organization that ranks members of Congress based on their voting records on conservative issues.

It should come as little surprise that Jordan has a perfect 100 rating. As a leading conservative in the House, he’s driven the conversation about conservative policies for years.

Now that he’s front and center for the impeachment hearings, Jordan is getting the chance to bring his fiery brand of conservatism to bear on witnesses in the inquiry.


Aaron Credeur

Aaron Credeur is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


What You Need to Know About Impeachment

Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Came?

You’ll Be Surprised Who Is Trying to Empower the Deep State at EPA

This Web Designer Shouldn’t Have to Wait to Be Free to Create

New Program Aims to Help Young Adults Grow in Faith, Maturity Before College

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Another hijab hate hoax. This time in Denver

Posted by Eeyore

There’s been an unexpected twist in the story of a metro Denver Muslim mom who says she faced “blatant racial profiling” after being stopped at a Pepsi Center entrance because of her hijab. Argus, the company that handles security for the Pepsi Center, is defending the actions of its employee and has released security footage of the incident.

The woman at the center of the episode is Gazella Bensreiti, who arrived at the Pepsi Center on November 5 with her daughter, whose school was scheduled to sing the national anthem before a Denver Nuggets-Miami Heat game.

On Facebook, Bensreiti wrote that “upon entering, a woman named Dorothea put her hand to my face and told me that I would have to ‘take that thing off’ of my head. I told her that I would not take it off due to religious reasons. I was wearing a turban/cap. I explained to her that it was my hijab and that I would not be taking it off, to which she responded, ‘I don’t care, you can’t come in with it on.’ I then asked if she’d be willing to take me to the side so that I could remove it and show her my entire head in private. Again, she told me no.’” […]

(The article continues with allegations etc. etc. and CAIR joins in of course. The truth of the incident can be seen in the video below)

The Human Tragedy of the Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs by Joshua Winston

Everywhere Muslims settle, rape and grooming gangs spring up. Whether it be a town, city, village or a new land, rape is what many Muslim men become known for in the West. Every race and culture produce rapists, but none so flagrant and voluminous as Muslims (Pakistanis in particular). There is a new documentary released just now called “Why dad killed mum, my family’s secret.” Tasnim Lowe, the daughter of a young girl who was impregnated at a young age by a Muslim man and then killed along with her family in a fire that he deliberately started, is now seeking answers as to why her mother (Lucy Lowe) was killed. She is asking what red flags should have been set off by an adult man impregnating a 14-year-old girl at that time (roughly two decades ago). She is also asking what more her mother’s family could have done to prevent the deaths of her mother, aunt and grandmother at the hands of this violent Muslim man. After all, her mother started dating the 24-year-old man when she was only 13. Why was no one objecting to that? Why weren’t police and children’s services not going after a man who had raped a child in the eyes of the law?

In March, 2018, 18-year-old Tasnim (on Mother’s Day) saw her own dead mother’s face on the front page of a daily newspaper, coupled with an article stating that she had been the victim of a Muslim grooming gang. Her mother’s face is young in the picture, innocent and happy. Hard to believe that she should be involved with a grown man and having sexual relations, harder still to believe that such a young girl could be viewed as being sexually desirable by any man. Even harder to comprehend an adult wanting to terrorise her or manipulate her mind with a view towards raping and controlling her before finally murdering her. The sight of her mother’s face in relation to such a claim was a shock to Tasnim, and the reason was because another Muslim grooming gang in the area were acting in the exact same way as the Muslim man who killed her mother did. They were raping girls and threatening to burn down their victims’ houses with their family inside if they alerted the police or their parents to the fact that they were being raped and trafficked. An investigative journalist had been working for three years on a story that centered around the grooming of white girls at the hands of hundreds of Muslim men. The terrified girls were showing the journalist pictures of Lucy Lowe. Her death was being used as a warning to the girls of what would happen to them if they told anyone about what the Muslim men were currently doing to them.

The grooming, rape, beating, and trafficking of young white girls in the UK coupled with death threats is a pattern that Muslims follow the length of the country from Glasgow to Bristol. If something is a pattern, then it’s not random. Scientists (depending on the project), physicists, and astronomers look for patterns in order to prove their theories and to predict the behaviour of any particular organism, or equation, or planetary body. The rapes committed by Muslim men is a pattern unlike anything the West has ever seen, and the carnage provides the data that lays the blame at the feet of Muslim men. The obsession with virginal underage white girls drives them to commit atrocities that should have been resigned to the Medieval period, or confined in and contained to the barbaric lands of their birth.

The grooming and rapes committed by Muslim men consist of the same story that is sadly all too familiar at this point, and all too soul-numbing to recount: “a horrendous grooming ring that had been going on for decades, with girls raped, beaten, sold and some even killed…Survivors explained how the abuse worked; the groomers were nice to them at first – buying them takeaways or presents – before taking them to…be raped, or to people’s houses and passed around to friends…McKelvie kept hearing about one street where there was a row of seven or eight houses, “where there was pretty much a rapist in every house”. She also heard how underage girls were taken to rooms above takeaways to be assaulted and raped with the perpetrators selling them and making thousands of pounds.”

Tasnim’s Muslim father was called the “house blaze killer” and “the country’s worst ever murderer.” No mention was made that he is a Muslim, and no thought was given as to why he was behaving in that manner. Failings and neglect and incompetence by every safeguarding agency in the UK, from police right through to social workers, has allowed Muslim men to continue raping and grooming non-Muslim girls with impunity. And yet the number of Muslim rapists and groomers continues to swell in the UK, in spite of there being a spotlight now shining on them after a revolt from a very vocal public. Every week and month reveals a new Muslim grooming gang and the exact same horrors inflicted on a new bunch of girls who are already in or who are about to enter their teens. All of the Muslim gang members come from Muslim communities that Muslims have built. All of them are friends and neighbours, and a shockingly high number of them are related, with a granddad participating in the rape of a child tied to a bed at one point with his sons and grandsons. But do allow Muslims and imams and the media to tell you that the rapists’ families and their communities and their mosques had no idea what was going on. Lie down to the untruths that they spin if your brain can’t deal with the horrors. The shocking thing to me is that I find myself weary in the retelling of these tales. How many more times will I or anyone else have to type out the exact same stories with the only thing to have changed in the ensuing years being that of the next victims of Muslim rape gangs? The men’s religion and names won’t have changed. They’ll still be Muslims, and most of them will be called Muhammad (or a variant spelling), with the occasional Ali being thrown into the mix.

Of course it doesn’t help that police and media tend to forever be on the side of the Muslim rapists here in the UK. All of these agencies are prepared to lay sacrifices on the altar of multiculturalism. We think we live in a modern society, but these rapes and killings hearken back to the Aztecs and the blood sacrifices they offered to their Gods. Today the Gods that we offer up our sacrifices to are those Muslim men whose satanic impulses must be met and sated regardless the cost. In all these millennia, we haven’t really travelled that far after all. We still tolerate a bloodlust, and those who swear oaths to protect us are high priests who assist with the procuring and killings. With the Muslim male gangs in our society, the devil truly does walk among us.


Scotland: A Further Slap in the Face for Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs

U of Florida prof: “Islamic State tries to boost its legitimacy by hijacking a historic institution,” the caliphate

France is target of more Islamic jihad attacks than any other EU state, French Leftists denounce “Islamophobia”

Germany: Muslim migrants harass and strike women at bachelorette party

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., hasn’t yet produced most of his witnesses in the public impeachment hearings regarding President Donald Trump. But if the State Department’s George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor are representative of the testimony Democrats are relying on, future historians may label this episode “The Big Impeachment Blowout.”

The House impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. But as I listened to the hearsay and speculation that Kent and Taylor were offering Wednesday at the opening public hearing on impeachment, I couldn’t help thinking of REO Speedwagon’s song “Take It on the Run.”

One line of the song says: “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you been messin’ around.”

Both Kent and Taylor admitted they never talked to Trump and only heard thirdhand what supposedly occurred in the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Democrats seem to have dropped the quid pro quo claim, since there was no evidence of it in the rough transcript the White House released of the call. The claim does not seem to be playing with the American public.

Taylor admitted in the hearing that Zelenskyy had no idea that U.S. aid was being delayed, and Zelenskyy himself has said there was no quid pro quo.

Democrats have now switched to using the terms “bribery” and “extortion,” no doubt because those terms sound more sinister, despite the fact that they’ve produced no evidence—so far—that would come even close to showing a violation of the federal laws defining bribery and extortion.

Both witnesses expressed their opinions disagreeing with the way Trump has conducted diplomatic relations with Ukraine and the handling of U.S. aid to the country.

But the president is not a postman for Congress or the State Department. His job is to faithfully execute the law. As the chief diplomat of the United States, he defines our foreign policy, not George Kent or William Taylor.

Our country doesn’t give money or aid to other countries for no reason. We give it with specific conditions attached.

The president has a duty to make sure that our money is going to countries that will use it as we intend and not divert it into profiteering and personal corruption. State Department bureaucrats have never been good at ensuring that countries prevent such corruption.

The priority of our diplomats is to maintain their access to government officials in the countries in which they are stationed. This too often overrides their duty to guard against corruption. The president has the final responsibility for ensuring U.S. aid is not improperly diverted in other nations.

It was widely known that Ukraine had, and still has, a corruption problem. It would have been irresponsible for Trump not to look into corruption and demand changes before our money went there.

Even Kent admitted in his testimony that Burisma, the Ukrainian company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member, was part of the “pervasive and longstanding corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, we will not hear any facts about that because Schiff has refused to allow the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, which would enable the younger Biden’s possible self-dealing in Ukraine to be investigated.

If everything Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden did was ethical and above board when it came to Ukraine, why wouldn’t Democrats want Hunter Biden to testify?

And why has Schiff’s committee blocked the Republicans from being able to call the so-called whistleblower who started this whole show trial that Democrats call an impeachment inquiry? What are they afraid will come out about this government employee that might damage his credibility and the claims he is making?

Apparently, Schiff doesn’t want any testimony that would support the legitimacy of the president’s corruption concerns about Ukraine or would somehow detract from the impeachment narrative Democrats are trying to weave into the minds of the American public.

We certainly won’t have an objective, bipartisan inquiry into all of the relevant aspects of what happened here—and why it happened. Schiff even interrupted Republican questioning to tell witnesses they should not answer questions based on “facts not in evidence,” a bizarre statement given the nature of a congressional hearing and how it is normally conducted.

Schiff used to be an assistant U.S. attorney—a federal prosecutor. Like all people in that position, he had to follow the U.S. Attorneys’ Justice Manual.

Before taking a case to a grand jury, much less to trial, Schiff had to convince his boss, in writing, that he had evidence establishing a case. He couldn’t just wing it and submit a case, however weak, based entirely on hearsay, to the grand jury on the off-chance it would indict.

Yet that is exactly what Schiff is doing here—throwing witnesses into closed and now open hearings hoping that he can stir the political pot into an impeachment boil.

It would undermine our system of government for a duly elected president to be removed through impeachment for partisan reasons.

Impeachment should only be used when there has been serious, substantial misconduct of such a nature that we can’t wait for the next election. As far as is publicly known at this time, that standard has not been met regarding Trump.

Originally published by Fox News


Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


Adam Schiff, Founding Father: The chief impeacher tries to redefine ‘bribery’ under the law.

Here Are the Backgrounds of 4 Lawyers for Impeachment Witnesses

Everything You Need to Know About What’s Happening in Impeachment Process

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Lt. Col. Allen West Commends President Trump for His Clemency and Restoration of Rank to Three Service Members

DALLASNov. 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Lt. Col. Allen West is elated that President Trump has brought justice to Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, Army Major Matthew Golsteyn, and Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward R. Gallagher.

Since 2013, Allen West has lobbied for the release of First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and has been a committed supporter of both Major Golsteyn and Operator Gallagher.

Lt. Col. West is thrilled that,

“The travesty of injustice for these men is over, especially Texan First Lieutenant Clint Lorance. These men aren’t guilty of war crimes, they simply did what combat leaders are supposed to do, engage and kill the enemy. If our Army could set Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning free, who were guilty of desertion and treason, then no one should raise a contrarian voice in the matter of these pardons. Now, the military JAG officers responsible for withholding exculpatory evidence should be disciplined. God’s blessings to the families and to all who never lost faith and kept speaking up and out. Thanks, President Trump, for doing the right thing and standing up for our combat warriors.”

This is just another clarion example of how Republican and Democrat leadership diverges. Democrats pardon and release traitors, Republicans protect heroes.

Colonel West’s full statement and other releases can be found here.

Iranian Engineer in US Sent Tech Secrets Back to Iran: FBI

An Iranian visiting scholar at the University of Michigan is in FBI custody after being charged with stealing and sending tech secrets back to Iran.

Amin Hasanzadeh, the accused, is an electrical engineer and Iranian military veteran who worked at a company linked to the Iranian government’s Cruise Division of Air & Space Organization. Hasanzadeh is also a permanent resident of the U.S.

He is accused of sending the sensitive information to his brother who worked at a number of companies connected to Iran’s military programs, including one that “contributes to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.”

Hasanzadeh started working as a defense contractor in Florida in 2011 developing power electronics computer designs. He worked in a similar job in Maryland before landing a job in Michigan in January 2015.

The FBI says Hasanzadeh stole the information from the company in Michigan over the period of a year and a half and began sending sensitive information to his brother in Iran just six days into the job.

The information was covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) he had signed.

According to an FBI affidavit, “A senior company official advised that any unauthorized disclosure or theft of partner company documents and information protected under an NDA could be ‘catastrophic.’”

The information he stole and sent to his brother included information about the company’s products, including trade secrets, and a prototype for a part of one of the company’s “important products,” stated the FBI complaint.

“Iran certainly does have as a goal improving its military capabilities and uses espionage as a means at its disposal to acquire information and technology it would have a hard time developing indigenously,” said Eric Brewer, deputy director and fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, speaking to The Jerusalem Post.

Brewer said the theft is part of Iran’s strategy to steal trade secrets from the West to improve their military and defense systems.

Hasanzadeh is charged with interstate transportation of stolen property and fraud (for not disclosing he had been in the Iranian military).

Last week, two Iranians pleaded guilty to acting as illegal agents of the Iranian government in the U.S.

Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, 39, an Iranian with dual U.S. citizenship, and Majid Ghorbani, 60, were caught running surveillance on Jewish facilities and events in the U.S. in support of the Mujahdein-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian resistance group that advocates for the complete overthrow of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Islamist regime.

According to an FBI affidavit, the two Iranian agents were also preparing “target packages” – i.e., attacks — on individuals who posed threats to the Iranian regime on American soil.


Trump Bars Iranian Gov’t Officials & Relatives From US 

Iranian Agents in US Plead Guilty; Saudi Agents Arrested

LOL: Europe ‘Comes Out’ Against Iran for Attack on Saudis

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Watch the Impeachment shoe of Marie Yovanovitch fall.

Following the failure of the two witnesses on Day One of the Schiff Impeachment Star Chamber to land a blow on the US President, the “star” performer on Day Two promises to be the Obama-appointed US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch was an enabler of the DNC’s attempts in Kiev to access Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on candidate Trump prior to the 2016 election. They ended up with zero dirt of Trump but moved to target anyone in Trump’s inner campaign circle.

Yovanovitch also protected George Soros’s meddling in the Ukraine via his faux “anti-corruption” NGO, Anti-Corruption Action Center.  A Soros representative told John Solomon that the anti-corruption group was a Trojan Horse in advance of Soros’s intention to invest a billion dollars in the Ukraine.

George Kent, the bow-tied witness on Day One of the Hearing, actually signed a letter to Yuriy Stolyarchuk, the Ukrainian Deputy Prosecutor General, dated April 4, 2016, in which he spoke about the financial assistance for joint US projects with the Prosecutor General’s office more than hinted for them to lay off their investigation into Soros’s NGO.

“The investigation into the actions of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced.”  Get the hint?

As John Solomon of The Hill exposed. Yovanovitch gave a speech on March 5, 2019, in which she called for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed, and the Ukrainian media went wild that a US official was interfering in their internal affairs. Under Secretary of State, David Hale, got peppered with questions whether her actions and statements violated international code of behavior under the Geneva Convention.

Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, was alerted to Yovanovitch’s anti-Trump statements by a senior Congress member. It was echoed by Republican lawmaker.

In mid-March, 2016, the new Ukraine Chief Prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, told John Solomon, that in his first meeting with Ambassador Yovanovitch, she gave him the names of several Ukrainians she did not want investigated and prosecuted!  This was a very strange request for a foreign ambassador to ask of a host country.

John Solomon received confirmation from a Ukrainian official who confirmed that,

“at least some of the names are those that US Embassy Kiev raised with the General Prosecutor because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”

In other words, the State Department was confirming that its own embassy under Yovanovitch had engaged in pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop certain cases and investigations, as the new prosecutor was admitting.

This ties in with the letter signed by George Kent, the Democrats prime witness, that demanded the Ukrainian prosecutor drop the case against Soros’s NGO.

The bow-tied Kent had also demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor drop investigations into Sergey Leschenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, and Artem Sytnyk, a senior law-enforcement official, who had assisted the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 US elections by divulging information about a former Trump campaign figure, Paul Manafort.

When pressed by the New York Times, Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko stood by his statement that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch did provide him with names of individuals and groups she did not want investigating.

One final point. The writer has been told that Marie Yovanovitch denied a US entry visa to prosecutor Lutsenko to visit with the US Department of Justice to provide them with documents and information on this issue. I am still waiting for verification and confirmation on this point. I hope it will be brought up during her Impeachment cross examination by Republican lawmakers.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Sheriff David Clarke on What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!


Sheriff David Clarke is America’s Sheriff and he now serves as a Senior Advisor and Spokesman for America First Action, dedicated to supporting the Trump/Pence agenda. He recently retired as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County after nearly 40 years in law enforcement. The Sheriff’s latest book is: Cop Under Fire: Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America. We will talk with Sheriff Clarke about draining the swamp (with Drano) and how the resist movement is trying to protect the swamp. TOPIC…What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!!

Tom Del Beccaro is an acclaimed author, commentator and analyst and an opinion writer at Fox News, Fox Business & Epoch Times. Tom is also the former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Tom is author of two excellent books — The Divided Era and The New Conservative Paradigm and is publisher of He also has a new website — where all his work can be found. As a frequent talk radio and television commentator, he has appeared across the Country on TV and Radio Shows, heard by millions each year, including the Conservative Commandoes, Fox & Friends, Fox Business News, and the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. TOPIC…The freak show that is being called the impeachment inquiry!!

The Whistle-Blower Rule is Wrong

The impeachment inquiry of President Trump has taken center stage in the political campaign of 2020, even to the point of overshadowing press coverage of the Democrat presidential candidates. The inquiry focuses on a statement from an alleged whistle-blower who expressed concern regarding a telephone call the President had with the incoming President of the Ukraine. As of this writing, the whistle-blower’s identity remains anonymous. Frankly, we do not know if this is one person or several as the complaint appears to have been written by a team of lawyers. As a result, the President and his representatives cannot ask questions of his accuser.

I have tried to look at this from both sides, Republican and Democrat, and took the position; what if this was President Obama being impeached and not President Trump? Be it Republican or Democrat, I came to the same conclusions.

The protection of the whistle-blower’s anonymity could easily be construed as in conflict with Amendment 6 of the Constitution (Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions; the “Confrontation Clause”); to wit:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

This applies to criminal cases, not civil. I tend to see impeachment as a rather serious situation, after all it is reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is also something we have considered only a handful of times in our republic’s history, yet we have never removed a president from office.

Frankly, we all know it will not happen as the Senate will inevitably come to the president’s defense and dismiss the charges coming from the House. The question remains, is impeachment a criminal case or civil? In all examples over the years, it has been treated as a heinous crime, which leads me to believe it is criminal and the President is being prohibited from facing his accuser(s).

Our history is littered with stories of whistle-blowers, such as in 2013 Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who ignited the U.S. surveillance program scandal. There are also the whistle-blowers involved with the Benghazi scandal and the IRS intimidation program. Whistle-blowers have actually been with us a long time. In my life, it goes back to Daniel Ellsberg who in 1969 released the “Pentagon Papers” to the “New York Times,” detailing the military activity in Viet Nam under LBJ and Nixon. This, of course, ultimately triggered Watergate.

However, let’s go a little further back in time to 1925 when the Army instigated a court-martial against Colonel Billy Mitchell, an episode which has quickly been forgotten in history, but has an important bearing on the whistle-blowers of today.

Although Mitchell is primarily credited for building Air Power in this country, his military career goes as far back as the Spanish-American War where he served as the youngest Army officer (at age 18). Mitchell’s notoriety though began during “The Great War” (WWI) where, as Major, he became the first American officer to come under fire in the trenches of France. During the war, he earned several decorations and citations. More importantly, it was in France where he developed his fascination and passion for the airplane as a military weapon.

Mitchell understood the potential of the airplane. His superiors did not, and saw it as nothing more than a trivial instrument for observing enemy forces. They laughed at him when he claimed airplanes could sink a ship by dropping bombs on it. At the time, battleships were considered invincible. He finally got an opportunity to prove his claim and sank the German battleship “Ostfriesland” which was to be scuttled following the war. Nonetheless, the military was unimpressed. Following the war, in peacetime, there was an emphasis on shrinking the military. Even though Mitchell begged for money for research and development, he was ignored. He even urged the military to form a separate branch dedicated to an air service, but was denied. Consequently, American Air Power diminished almost to obscurity. The English, French, Italians, even the Germans had far superior airships than the Americans, and Mitchell made sure the newspapers knew about it.

Knowing Mitchell’s image was growing larger in the press, the military sent him on remote assignments in order to eliminate his exposure in the press. In 1924 he was sent to study military defenses in the Pacific. During this time, he visited Japan and witnessed firsthand how the Japanese were embracing Air Power and realized America was far behind their counterparts. Following his tour he produced an extensive 323 page report on his assessment of American defenses in the Pacific. It was in this prophetic report that he predicted how Japan would attack Pearl Harbor with remarkable accuracy. Even though the military dismissed his report as ridiculous, Mitchell’s predictions would come true 17 years later. Nonetheless, he was buried again by the military.

One year later, in 1925, the Navy dirigible “Shenandoah” was destroyed in a storm in Ohio, with a loss of thirteen lives. Mitchell was outraged as he knew the ship was archaic and denounced the Navy for its “almost treasonable” attitude towards aviation:

“As a patriotic American citizen, I can stand by no longer and see these disgusting performances…at the expense of the lives of our people and the delusion of the American public. We may all make mistakes but the criminal mistakes made by armies and navies, whenever they have been allowed to handle aeronautics, show their incompetence…This, then, is what I have to say on the subject, and I hope that every American will hear.”(1)

Although Mitchell became a hero to the American people for his bold statements, his superiors felt otherwise and court-martialed him for insubordination. Actually, the court-martial was what Mitchell was hoping for as he figured it was the best way to bring attention to the problem and create change. The case garnered a lot of attention in the press, and many notable proponents of Air Power testified on his behalf. In the end though, Mitchell was suspended from the Army for five years. Instead, Mitchell resigned in 1926 and spent the remainder of his life speaking on behalf of Air Power. He would die in 1936 never knowing how accurate his predictions would become in World War II. In 1942, President Roosevelt, recognized Mitchell’s contributions to Air Power by restoring his status and elevating him to the rank of Major General. In 1946, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, “in recognition of his outstanding pioneer service and foresight in the field of American military aviation”…10 years after his death. Today, this medal bears his likeness on it.

There are some similarities, as well as differences, between Billy Mitchell and today’s impeachment whistle-blower(s). Mitchell was a visionary who used his court-martial to draw public attention to the problems of Air Power. Today’s whistle-blower is not a visionary. He/She/They just stumbled on a problem and reported it. Whereas Mitchell stood and took his medicine as a military officer, thereby garnering the support of the American people, the impeachment whistle-blower(s) hid behind anonymity not wanting to suffer through a career ending court case as Mitchell did.

The big problem with becoming a whistle blower is that it doesn’t pay well. You might earn the admiration of the American people, but you must also face the wrath of the establishment. It takes someone with a lot of character to stand up and report a problem, whether it be in the corporate world or government. The prime difference between Billy Mitchell and today’s whistle-blower(s) is simple: Mitchell stood like a courageous man and took his medicine; the whistle-blower(s) has not. Understand this though, the American Air Power we know today can be directly attributed to the efforts of Billy Mitchell. Had he not spoken up when he did, our air defenses would have been primitive by the start of World War II. Mitchell knew what he was talking about and would not be intimidated by the powers in authority. This leads me to believe today’s impeachment whistle-bower(s) can be intimidated, and perhaps has been threatened by others.

In the end, the president is entitled to face his accuser, whatever his/her/their name is.

1-“The Billy Mitchell Story” by Burke Davis, page 102

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my new books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: “Blasphemy is a right of (those who live in) the Republic of France” [WARNING: Nudity]

The woman in the middle of what appears to be a large crowd of leftists and Muslims starts out with a sign that says:

“Blasphemy is a right of (those who live in) the Republic of France”

It isn’t until people took her sign away that she went for a message that was harder to ignore.

“Do not sell secularism cheaply”.

This event appears to be a major march against “Islamophobia“, that took place in Paris today. This is likely a prelude to a new anti-free speech law in the guise of hate speech. We are seeing this all over the Western world now.

This Impeachment Effort About Ideology, Not Constitution

Two American women of color.

Two diametrically opposed views about America.

This clash of worldviews helps us to understand that what is going on in our nation is not a legitimate impeachment process but an attempt to wipe out a sitting president for personal and ideological reasons.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib was sworn in as a freshman Democratic congresswoman from Michigan on Jan. 3, 2019.

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

At a reception following the event, Tlaib, speaking about the president of the United States, said: “We’re gonna impeach the [expletive].”

It had to be unprecedented that a newly elected representative publicly used that kind of language about the nation’s president and expressed an intent to impeach him, with no support from leadership of her own party.

Were there grounds for impeachment? No.

The alleged basis was the Mueller investigation, which subsequently found that allegations that President Donald Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to interfere with the presidential election were false.

What happened to the sacred principle of innocent until proven guilty?

Tlaib had already convicted Trump. He’s guilty for being Donald Trump and for what he stands for. The law is irrelevant.

Months later, she held a press conference calling Trump a racist and again calling for his impeachment. She noted: “I represent the third-poorest congressional district in this country. … I was elected to fight for them.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued its October jobs report, which The Wall Street Journal called “impressive.”

“The current job market is attracting middle- and working-class workers who have been on the sidelines for years,” reported the Journal.

And, black unemployment ticked down a notch to 5.4%, another new historic low.

But just as legal facts mean nothing to Tlaib, economic facts mean nothing.

Let’s now turn to another American woman of color: Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Haley recently spoke at a dinner at Washington’s American Enterprise Institute.

Haley, who as Republican governor of South Carolina had the Confederate flag removed from the grounds of the state Capitol, said at AEI: “When we retreat into identity and grievance politics, we make the choice for victimhood over citizenship. By constantly blaming others, we reject personal responsibility for ourselves, our families, and our communities.”

Are you listening, Congresswoman Tlaib?

Haley spoke about her parents, who immigrated to the U.S. from India: “We were different. We stood out. And my family felt the pain of being judged by our difference. … But my parents refused to let it define them. They chose citizenship over victimhood.”

Haley quoted Lincoln, who in 1862, when the country was torn apart by civil war, called America “the last best hope of Earth.”

She added:

President Trump is a disruptor. That makes … some people very mad. But if we are a country that lives by the rule of law, we must all accept that we have one president at a time and that president attained his office by the choice of the American people.

Haley hailed the American freedom and exceptionalism enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and noted how, at the U.N., representatives from despotic countries would approach her in private and express admiration for our country.

Tlaib is a poster child for her party. Despite the Russia conspiracy charges discredited by the Mueller report, Democrats have not given up looking for an excuse to impeach a president they hate.

Now we have the ridiculous claims from a tainted whistleblower about a conversation Trump had with the president of Ukraine.

It’s not about Russia or Ukraine. It’s about Haley or Tlaib; loving our free country or hating it; citizenship or victimhood; rule of law or guilty until proven innocent.

I meet so many wonderful Americans in my travels around the country.

I’m optimistic we’ll make the right choice.



Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Police in Sweden speak out

Posted by Eeyore

One wonders what the long term effects of constant personal intimidation by protected groups are to Swedish police. Its likely that (similar to politics) fewer and fewer decent people will sign up. As the culture drills down to politics and then to policing, often skipping legislation altogether, so policing becomes both hopeless and thankless.

It is almost like the plan is to dismantle centuries of jurisprudence and rule of law based on individual rights and property rights and replace all enforcement with compliant ‘A Clockwork Orange’ type Dims, and eventually non-locals who have no allegiance to our history or ways of thinking. Almost like that.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Digging In. And they are going nowhere.


There is nothing on the table that isn’t being weaponized by the Left — and we are talking about the Left inside the Church who, for the record, really aren’t in the Church because they reject Church teaching on a variety of issues. And they are digging in.

Nonetheless, since they continue to portray themselves as “Catholic,” then they get to be treated as “Catholic,” meaning their propaganda should be exposed on a theological level for the garbage that it is.

One of the leading provocateurs in the lefty Catholic camp is Austen Ivereigh, British author who never misses a chance to foster dissent. For example, just before the infamous Sex Summit began in Rome last February, Ivereigh tweeted, “Why do you say our Lord had no homosexual tendencies? By what signs or gestures do you deduce this?”

He was in a Twitter war with Fr. Jacob Straub, who responded, “This is very scandalous and possibly a heresy. You need to remove this tweet and confess your sin. Lord, have mercy.”

And so it goes with the lefty Catholic crowd, so closely associated with the lefty political crowd so as to be indistinguishable.

Ivereigh, who used to write for the notorious leftist Catholic rag The Tablet, located in the U.K., really came onto the radar for publishing a book on Pope Francis, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, back in 2014, jumping on the bandwagon of Team Francis.

Ivereigh is happy to not just support the so-called reforms of Pope Francis, but he never loses an opportunity to slam other Catholic media who question those reforms. Anyone who questions the pope’s moves gets torn to pieces by Ivereigh and the rest of his gang (although many of those same men had no problem openly criticizing Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul).

Ivereigh, you might recall, is the same fellow at one of the first press conferences of the Amazon Synod who tried to portray the Pachamama statues (really idols) as Our Lady and St. Elizabeth — until he got contradicted by panelists, and eventually the pope himself, who called them Pachamama, not representations of Mary and Elizabeth.

But with this crowd, whatever helps push the narrative is all that matters.

A few days back, America Magazine, the flagship publication of the largely dissident Jesuit order, hosted a book launch party for him for his latest tome titled Wounded Shepherd: Pope Francis’ Struggle to Convert the Catholic Church. 

The use of the term “convert” in the title is more than a little telling. Of course, Ivereigh’s book has the full-throated endorsement of homoheretic James Martin, who never met a fellow traveler along the road to overthrowing the Church he hasn’t joined forces with.

Ivereigh and his crowd see this pontificate as a tool, perhaps a willing tool, to talk in generalities about Church teaching and downplay any specificity. So in his book and in his comments at the book launch, he talks about the need to stop talking about dogma or doctrine and start emphasizing personal experience in making moral judgments — meaning, at bottom, whether to commit sin or not.

Problem is Ivereigh and company don’t seem to either know or care anything about the actual concept of sin and its resultant consequence of damnation if a soul were to die in that state. But that doesn’t matter to these guys. They don’t really believe in the Church as She is actually constituted.

It’s much easier for them to think of and present the Church in terms of a giant multinational outfit, whose mission is to create some kind of utopia — Heaven on earth — as opposed to focusing on attaining actual Heaven.

To this end, any moral teaching, especially the ones on sexuality, are free to be passed over because those sins aren’t really sins, their rightness or wrongness being left up to the individual’s “personal experience.” But eat a piece of beef or contribute to so-called man-made climate change — and the fires of Hell await you.

Ivereigh straight up is a liar, who follows the agenda of the Left like the nice, little waterboy he is. For example, the uproar about the Pachamama idols prompted him to say that it grew out of EWTN-fueled panic that never asked indigenous people themselves about the “idols.”

That’s not even in the slightest imagination true. EWTN was not the first to report on the Pachamama. As far as we can tell, Church Militant was the first to identify the statues as symbols of Pachamama and demonstrate their connection to “Mother Earth,” or more specifically, “Earth Mother.”

For the record, it may not have been us, but if it wasn’t, we were certainly among the first, and it was not EWTN.

Secondly, the so-called “indigenous people” didn’t need to be asked specifically when the reports were first issued, because the very telling video moment of them bowing down to them on an earth blanket in the Vatican Gardens said a lot all on its own.

People don’t physically bow down to concepts. They bow down to representations of a concept.

And why didn’t Ivereigh go and ask the “indigenous people” swarming all over Rome, instead of sitting in the Vatican press hall getting shot down by the panel when saying the statues were of Our Lady and St. Elizabeth?

Where did he get his wrong idea? Certainly not from the “indigenous people,” because the statues are a symbol of Mother Earth and fertility and so forth, as they themselves — and the pope and the Vatican — have said.

There are so many ways to dissect the lefty Catholic crowd’s agenda and war on the truth that it’s actually easy. On the sex abuse crisis — proven time and again that its foundational cause is homosexuality, seeing as how four out of every five victims was a teenage boy — Ivereigh simply ignores that truth and says of that assertion: “This leads to terrible diagnoses, best example is their diagnosis of the sex abuse crisis by likes of Viganó and Cdls. Mueller and Burke.”

Of course, Ivereigh is demonstrably wrong, so much so that he seems to require more pity than correction.

In perhaps his most telling quote, demonizing anyone who supports Tradition in the Church (meaning clear doctrine), he says: “Everything is filtered through an ‘ideology of suspicion'” by a party that is trying to undermine him.

“This is a direct attack on his leadership” but “of course they don’t see it that way.” They say it is justified in the name of saving the Church, and in the “name of Tradition.”

Hey, Austen, have you looked around the Church these days? For the past half-century, in fact?

Of course, things have to be viewed in a suspicious manner, just like a fire chief looks at a four-alarm blaze in a suspicious manner, until the objective truth is arrived at. You and your carrying of the water for the Left must also be looked at suspiciously, and eventually denounced — yours and the rest of your elitist-minded “journalist” crowd.

You aren’t journalists. You are little else than mere stenographers for the Left, dutifully repeating their talking points because they excuse any sin you may enjoy. You desire nothing else than to keep the discussion of morality centered on earth as opposed to Heaven.

That is not what the Savior of the world desired. You might recall that loving God is the First Commandment; neighbor comes second. Heaven comes before earth on the priority list.


Scalfari: Pope Francis Denies Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

ABP. VIGANÒ Sheds Light on Emanuela Orlandi Disappearance

The Detroit Disaster

Best of Mic’d Up: Catholic Media Collusion

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.