Yesterday, I stood alongside Governor DeSantis and State Representative Cord Byrd in The Villages as the Governor called on the legislature to pass e-Verify during our approaching legislative session.
Having successfully passed and watched my Sanctuary City Ban legislation be signed into law earlier this year, I am fired up to help pass another importance piece of legislation combating illegal immigration in Florida.
Please read the article below and consider sharing it on social media. The more citizens that demand the passage of e-Verify, the better our chances are to enact it.
Gov. Ron DeSantis asked the Legislature Monday to send him a bill this coming Session to require employers make E-Verify checks, saying it would make Florida communities safer.
Republicans Sen. Joe Gruters and Rep. Cord Byrd joined DeSantis in The Villages for the announcement. Gruters, chair of the Florida GOP, is co-sponsoring Sen. Tom Lee’s E-Verify requirement bill (SB 664) while Byrd intends to file a House counterpart.
“The reason this is so timely is twofold — It’s about fairness for lawful immigrants and native-born workers, and it’s about public safety,” DeSantis said.
Many of those running for public office in the Florida House, Senate and for Governor have promised to implement E-Verify statewide. It appears that the E-Verify requirement bill (SB 664) is the best chance yet that it will become law statewide.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2019-11-26 09:59:392019-11-26 10:13:17VIDEO: State Senator Joe Gruters — ‘Time to Enact e-Verify in Florida!’
Editor’s note: House Democrats’ drive to impeach President Donald Trump sparks some strong sentiments from The Daily Signal’s audience. Here’s a sampling.—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: I just read Katrina Trinko’s podcast interview with Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky on House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, and found it to be very enlightening (“Impeachment Evidence Not Even Close to Bribery, Heritage Legal Expert Says”). This Trump impeachment process is being handled exactly as von Spakovsky pointed out.
The problem I see is that the people of this country don’t know the legal powers of the president to do the kinds of things he is being accused of. I talked about this very thing with von Spakovsky at Heritage Action for America’s Regional Sentinel Summit a few weeks ago in Atlanta.
I always have depended on the vision and insight of our Founding Fathers to address any issue or problems this country has faced in the past and faces today. I have found that they already anticipated what the future would bring, but in the case of the impeachment process I think they made a mistake.
Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>
Our judicial system has someone in place who is supposed to be impartial, to make sure the laws are followed and that everyone gets a fair trial by judge and/or jury. In this case, however, we have the leader of the prosecution in charge of initiating a (fair) hearing and the defense being denied due process.
Hans von Spakovsky is right about what the Democrats are doing and right about what the president is doing. I just hope people recognize that these Democrats, while saying we must stand by our Constitution and support the principles our Founding Fathers established, are doing everything in their power to overturn our Constitution and replace it with a form of democratic socialism.
As president, Barack Obama pushed us toward socialism as no other president has, and the socialist Democrats would have really advanced if Hillary Clinton had been elected.—James V. Burnette, Murfreesboro, Tenn.
Dear Daily Signal: I want to thank Fred Lucas for his daily summary report in The Daily Signal on the House impeachment hearings. I can’t force myself to suffer through this third-rate circus.
I also think Lucas deserves a long vacation once this is over. Call it PTSD prevention. Sitting and listening to this all day is like being forced to ride It’s a Small World at Disney World continuously all day long.—Stephen Regan, M.D., Lancaster, N.H.
***
As a practicing attorney for over 50 years, I have been deeply concerned about due process in reading and watching about the House’s impeachment proceedings.
Dear Daily Signal: President Trump’s following on Twitter reached 66.6 million early this month. Given the apocryphal interpretation of this number, it might not hurt to ground its significance in some basic facts.
A few months ago, the size of Trump’s Twitter following broke his popular vote total in the 2016 election. Ever since, that number has been growing at a rate of over 34,000 a day.
Like clockwork, the number ticks up by 100,000 new followers every three days. Or a million a month. This has been happening regardless of the news of the day.
No matter what the latest impeachment accusation, charges of foreign policy incompetence, or cries of unpresidential behavior, Trump’s Twitter followers keep coming.
They show no signs of stopping, so if this trend continues, he will have over 78 million followers by Election Day 2020.
I am a retired software engineer, a former entrepreneur, and a writer of novels for middle-graders and young adults.
Not all of the president’s Twitter followers will be voters, or even Trump supporters, but the bulk of them probably are. Which means that every day, tens of thousands of voters are joining Trump’s coalition and are interested in hearing what he has to say.
No matter how they spin it, this is not good news for Democrats. Trump already has more Twitter followers than voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Those numbers did no good for Hillary, since evidently no one bothered to tell her about the Electoral College.
But it’s a good bet that Trump’s supporters are representative of the overall population, rather than the main population centers where Hillary focused her campaign.
Aside from sheer numbers, this trend highlights another fact. People like to read Trump’s tweets. They must, or they would not be subscribing to his Twitter feed at this staggering rate.
Maybe it is because Trump is giving them the real news. Every day. Without spin. Without hedging. Without lying. Without scripting.
He’s the first president in history to do this. Now we sometimes get the news before The New York Times or The Washington Post.
You know what? This is real freedom of speech. And we love it.—Rudy Vener, North Haven, Conn.
Dear Daily Signal: Nancy Pelosi is the queen of impeachment. The Trump impeachment process is often compared to the Nixon or Clinton impeachments. It is, however, more similar to the Bush impeachment effort.
Pelosi has been the House speaker or the Democratic leader for three years with President Donald Trump, and for every one of those years her caucus has tried to impeach the president. She may seem to be a reluctant impeacher, but prayers and exhibitions of inner turmoil aside, she is a politician who has determined that impeachment is a legitimate political tool.
It is not the first time she has used this tool. She used impeachment against President George W. Bush, and is now using it against Trump. That constitutes a pattern.
Pelosi’s first voted impeachment effort came when she was House speaker and Bush was in the White House. That vote, referring articles of impeachment (House Resolution 1258) to the House Judiciary Committee, occurred June 11, 2008.
The referral of articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee has yet to occur in the Trump impeachment effort.
Pelosi had been House speaker since January 2007, when the impeachment of Bush was already in high demand.
In 2005, Rep. John Conyers introduced House Resolution 635 to investigate wartime issues to determine whether impeachment was warranted. It failed, and further efforts were not supported by Pelosi, then the minority leader.
Democrats continued efforts to impeach Bush until Pelosi approved the vote on HR 1258 vote. The pattern of reluctance before approval was at work then and is at work now.
The Constitution’s provision for impeachment has been interpreted by Democrats and Republicans as appropriate for high crimes and misdemeanors, but not for political goals. The Bush impeachment effort speaks to a different interpretation.
The 35 articles of impeachment for Bush included articles on 9/11, the Iraq War, Medicare, global warming, use of signing statements, wiretapping, war with Iran, obstruction of justice (Valerie Plame), imprisoning children, and others.
It was a laundry list of points of disagreement that Democrats had with President Bush, not high crimes and misdemeanors. Pelosi presided over this vote, once again reluctant and once again moving forward despite her reluctance.
It seems she is not so reluctant to use impeachment after all.—James Smith, Virginia
Dear Daily Signal: What a scam. We have the best president we’ve ever had, who follows his heart, listens to the people, has done what he promised or is attempting to with all the distractions and hatred toward him by those in our government who want to rule the people, not lead the people.
To destroy our nation with lies, deceit, injustices, all the things that “We the People” have had to endure with nearly every other president in our history.
If President Trump were allowed to actually do his job instead of fighting the indignities of these people who are distracting our nation from realities, he could do some incredible things to make our country look great again, instead of being the laughingstock of the world.—Kacee Hayden
***
Dear Daily Signal: As chief point man for President Barack Obama in U.S. energy policy, Vice President Joe Biden used taxpayers’ money in the form of a $1.2 billion loan guarantee as leverage to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign nation, Ukraine.
We saw the forced firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who apparently was investigating Biden’s son, Hunter, and his relationship with a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch’s energy company, Burisma.
Biden’s act of extorting influence from Ukrainian officials is on tape. His mandate: Either fire the prosecutor or no loan guarantee.
Yet both the mainstream media and many Democrats continue their collective state of denial of this pressurized wrongdoing in spite of a treaty between the United States and Ukraine to investigate corrupt practices.
This entire Ukraine mess fails to even begin to pass the smell test.
And all President Trump wanted in that July 25 call to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was a favor: that Zelenskyy “look into” this corruption thing. Looking into something is not tantamount to digging up dirt. When does a favor become a threat?
Before releasing almost $400 million of taxpayers’ money to a Ukrainian government reputed for corruption, Trump wanted due diligence. There was no quid pro quo, as the transcript of the call manifests.
House Democrats’ entire impeachment process can only be characterized as one of the most colossal examples of legislative malfeasance perpetrated upon the American people in the history of the republic.
The clowns on Capitol Hill have yet to legislate fiscal year 2020 spending levels for agencies, departments, and programs of the federal government. These should have been in place and signed into law by the president by no later than Oct. 1.
A week before Thanksgiving, these politicians had yet to do anything toward completing the authorization and appropriations process, including funding for the armed forces.
As the House played its ongoing impeachment games, the Senate considered sending a stopgap spending bill back to the House for a vote to avoid another moronic government shutdown as the money runs out.—Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.
Dear Daily Signal: No one seems to notice that the Drudge Report has been moving to the left on President Trump for a couple of months—the viewpoints/links lead to stories that favor the “resistance.”
One example is Drudge links on Nov. 17. There was no story that says that, so far, there is no evidence of impeachable offenses. Drudge was reporting anti-Trump stories, but seemed to be spiking viewpoints that counter the left’s bashing.
Either Matt Drudge has been letting someone else edit his page, or he has moved left in an effort to be more objective. Which is it? If the latter, he’s gone too far, by spiking conservative voters’ viewpoints.—Lanelle Bracher Samms
***
The Democrats have decided they will prevail in taking over the government through a constant barrage of accusations and proceedings.
The American people are not interested. However, the average person on the street parrots the BS he or she has been fed. Very few ask important questions such as “Why doesn’t this add up?”
The long-term goal is to sacrifice a few Democrats in vulnerable places and take over the government by solidifying the stupidity everywhere else. Keep the focus on how bad President Trump is, and communism will prevail.
Barack Obama had a childhood mentor with a KBG handler, and remained chummy with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hillary Clinton has close ties to those in the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the cry against Trump is “Russian collusion.”—Arthur Solvang, Willow, Alaska
***
As we heard in EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony Wednesday in the House impeachment inquiry, he clearly stated that President Trump told him he wanted “no quid pro quo” from Ukraine.
So why did The Wall Street Journal indicate the opposite in its lead story the next day? The sub-head states: “Sondland cites ‘quid pro quo’ between Ukraine probes and a meeting with the president.”
Why the biased coverage?—Kay Carson, Florida
***
Why can’t we impeach Nancy Pelosi? Surely real reasons can be found, including incompetence, obstruction of government functions, mental and moral insufficiency, and constitutional ignorance.
This tiresome and vicious interference with the smooth running of our country requires more than a timid pushback. A strong offensive is required, not martyrdom.—Elizabeth Ward Nottrodt, Baltimore
(1) Christians cannot stand by their convictions and succeed in the marketplace. (2) LGBT agitators can win if they just bully and harass us for long enough.
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Daniel Davis’ outstanding commentary article with regard to Fortune 500 companies “driving” the culture war, and trying to out-virtue signal each other (“Chick-Fil-A, Your Compromise is Demoralizing”).
That’s exactly what’s happening, and its poisoning our culture and making it unfit for children. Davis’s analysis is accurate and his use of words to describe it excellent. Maybe it will convince Chick-fil-A to reconsider.—Randy Malcom, Limon, Colo.
***
I expect The New York Times or CNN or MSNBC to put words in the mouths of others, but the news article about Chick-fil-A [from The Daily Caller News Foundation] is not up to the normal standards of The Heritage Foundation (“Chick-Fil-A to Stop Donating to Charities Criticized by LGBT Activists”). I believe I will reconsider my giving patterns.
I am disappointed in the headline; the article was better, but the headline is eerily similar to all elements of the mainstream media.. Sad.
How about a headline like “Chick-Fil-A Reevaluates Charitable Giving” or “Chick-Fil-A Foundation Announces New Charitable Giving Plans”? Or many other options.
My point, in part, is that The Heritage Foundation normally avoids such; it shares clear facts without mixing emotional content or making editorial comments.
In this case, in my opinion, the word choice was not totally accurate, as the refocus of Chick-fil-A’s giving priorities may include educational entities that hold to values aligned with those of, say, the Salvation Army. Think: Will all entities supported at some point by Chick-fil-A’s giving never be opposed by the LGBT activists?—John Bole
***
Regarding Chick-fil-A’s decision, I’m contacting you to say that the Salvation Army supports homosexuals too. I am not opposed to feeding the hungry, including homosexuals. However, when it comes to giving them special rights, I am against it.
You have to draw the line. If you are a true Christian organization, you should not go beyond the giving of food as well as the giving of biblical direction.
If an organization such as the Salvation Army allows special rights to homosexuals, and doesn’t stand their ground, then they have truly caved in to the homosexual agenda.
If homosexuals are given special rights and privileges, with no one to speak out against their wickedness, then this allows for the continuation of their perverted ways. And because of the Salvation Army’s nondiscrimination policy and their desire not to speak out against homosexuality, that makes them hypocritical and they are in opposition to God’s holy word.
We as Christians are fighting against those who oppose God. We should not be funding those who oppose him.—Lisa Jenkins
***
Thank you for Daniel Davis’ commentary, “Chick-Fil-A, Your Compromise is Demoralizing.” The compromise Chick-fil-A made because of pressure brought by LGBT activists saddened me greatly.
I immediately recalled Genesis 19:4-11, the account of homosexual men coming to Lot’s house for the two men (angels) who were in the house. The homosexual men pressed hard against Lot to have the two men brought out to them so they could “know” them.
One of the angels pulled Lot back into the house and caused blindness to strike the men, making them weary of trying to find the door to Lot’s house.
I think that Scripture accurately depicts LGBT activists’ push against Chick-fil-A. However, neither the president or chief financial officer know Ezekiel 3:8-9, in which God states that he will make their face strong against the faces of their adversaries, and their foreheads strong as adamant stone against the flint faces of their adversaries.
As Davis pointed out in his article, Chick-fil-A has chosen to serve mammon rather than God. Unfortunately, mammon will not serve the company well. It is a huge mistake to run to the world for help. God is the only source of help we need. He never fails to provide for all of our needs in accordance with his riches in glory through Christ Jesus.
Therefore, God can meet the growth goals Chick-fil-A desires if management will seek him. God can put the company’s outlets in places that appear to be impossible to go and make them successful there.—Homer Crothers
How Are We Doing?
Dear Daily Signal: I read your work on a regular basis. It is clear, precise, informative, and enjoyable to read. I do enjoy reading.
I especially appreciate your journalists, unlike the rest of the organizations that receive scripts that are written for them by their editors. (No investigation needed.)
You investigate, you hold yourselves accountable. You write clearly in the English language.—Rexford Ames
***
The term “conservative judges” is a misnomer. President Trump more accurately refers to appointees as judges who will interpret the Constitution as written.
“Conservative” implies the introduction of a bias in interpretation.—R.S. Overstreet
***
I’ve been getting your daily emails for about several months now. It’s great to get the “right” news every day. Keep it coming. We have to save our country before the leftists take it over.—Rob Kaiser, Victorville, Calif.
***
Kudos. I really appreciate your concise, accurate news and commentary in the Morning Bell email.
I’m able to get daily highlights and click for more information on subjects that I need to delve deeper into. Keep up the great work.—Elizabeth C. Ferrari, Buffalo, Texas
***
Thank you for your researched and rational examination of today’s issues. Your site is indispensable to understanding what is happening in our country today.—Mary Ritzmann
Great job. A+++. Keep it up.—Neal McKinley
I sincerely appreciate your help in sorting out the details of our political issues in such a concise fashion.—Damian Neeld
You beat around the bush too much, get to the point. I don’t have time for your long, drawn-out stories.—Danny Owen
***
We truly appreciate being made aware of issues and news that the rest of the media won’t cover.—Craig Cuddy
The headlines and articles Nov. 19 lacked encouragement.—Robert Sherrill
Great articles. Keep up the good work. Right is right, left is left, I’m on the right.—Scott Hendrickson
Top website. Very impressed. Keep up the good work.—Jack Olson
Ken McIntyre, a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation’s Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies. Send an email to Ken. Twitter: @KenMac55.
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!
Tone-deaf would be an accurate way to describe the Washington political class in general, and it certainly applies to Democrats’ latest impeachment attempt.
For the past two weeks, they’ve rolled out witness after witness for hours of nationally televised hearings. Each testimony had a few things in common, including that all substituted pure speculation in lieu of any actual evidence. But today’s “finale” had something extra: The witnesses weren’t even indirectly involved in the July 25 phone call with Ukraine. They learned about it the same way you did—from the news.
In fact, one of the two “witnesses” had already left her position when the call occurred. She confirmed her last day at the National Security Council was July 19.
That’s how little respect House Democrats have for the impeachment process—and for the American public. Their witnesses didn’t witness anything. Yet Democrat leaders are so convinced of their ability to shape the media narrative that they bet it wouldn’t matter. They assumed a 40-hour TV circus would be enough to tip public support their way.
Here’s their problem: Viewers quickly figured out there was nothing to see.
The ratings prove it. Simply put, they’re stunning. Despite wall-to-wall media coverage and attention, the first televised impeachment hearing last week drew an estimated 13.8 million viewers—nearly 6 million fewer than when former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate two years ago. And this is for impeachment.
Even more telling is what’s happened to viewership as the hearings pressed on. Once it became clear that no real evidence was forthcoming—only more opinions about President Trump from the Swamp—Americans tuned out. Tuesday’s morning session this week averaged 11.4 million viewers. By noon Wednesday, “the local ABC affiliate had ditched impeachment coverage and was airing its regular newscast instead. The Fox station had a daytime talk show,” The Washington Times reported.
Or think of it this way: “There are about 330 million Americans. According to the ratings, nearly 320 million of them aren’t watching the House impeachment proceedings.”
So did we learn anything from today’s witnesses, despite their lack of firsthand knowledge about President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine? Actually, yes:
Fiona Hill previously testified that President Trump’s concerns about corruption in Ukraine were well-known and shared by everyone. “He’s not alone, because everyone has expressed great concerns about corruption in Ukraine,” she said.
She also warned about the “perceptions of conflicts of interest and ethics” associated with Hunter Biden’s position on the Burisma board.
David Holmes acknowledged that Democrats’ political efforts in foreign countries have been inappropriate. After not disputing a question that “Democrats and the Clinton campaign were the source of funds that funded the Steele Dossier,” Holmes was asked whether it is appropriate for political parties to run operatives in foreign countries to dig up dirt on their opponents. “No,” he said.
Meanwhile, the only real thing Democrats have accomplished this month is effectively shutting down Congress. Just today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi shrugged off her party’s chances of approving USMCA, President Trump’s recent trade deal to improve NAFTA for American workers, any time in the foreseeable future.
Why is that? As Politico writes, “she doubts Congress has enough time left to pass the USMCA this year.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2019-11-22 04:30:152019-11-22 04:30:24It’s official: Americans are tuning out the Swamp—and the ratings prove it
“They are searching for every haystack they can possibly find in hopes that there’s a needle somewhere that they can bring forward and say, ‘A-ha, we have something to impeach him,’” says Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga. “And the American people are seeing it for what it is.” Read the lightly edited transcript of the interview, posted below, or listen on this bonus episode of the podcast:
Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Congressman Jody Hice, who represents Georgia’s 10th Congressional District. Congressman Hice, thank you so much for being with us today.
Rep. Jody Hice: Always great to be with you. It’s an honor. Appreciate you having me.
Del Guidice: Well, we love having you. So, last week, House Democrats finished holding their first impeachment hearings on impeaching the president. We heard from Bill Taylor, he’s the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs; and Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>
So, looking at last week’s hearing, what all did you see from those hearings, and has any kind of information or answers been gleaned? What are your takeaways?
Hice: Yeah, I mean, [there’s] two things really that stand out to me from last week. No. 1, again, it’s all hearsay. No one had direct communication with the president. And that’s really what this whole thing is being built on.
It’s a trial in search of a crime, and there’s no evidence to substantiate any of it at this point. And that’s totally what we had last week. And I thought one of the highlights from last week was when [Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas] specifically asked the witnesses, “Why are we here? What is the impeachable offense?” And none of them had an answer.
There’s absolute stunned silence. And that just reiterated the reality that the majority, the Democrats, are moving the goal post on even what the impeachable offense is. And of course, now it’s gone from “quid pro quo” to extortion to bribery.
And I mean, they’re bouncing all over the place themselves, trying to convince the American people of a crime that didn’t happen. And so they’re trying to fabricate a crime. And that was really what came out from last week to me.
Del Guidice: So, you’ve criticized this impeachment process as a sham. Can you talk a little bit about that and why you see it as a sham?
Hice: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, something as important as an impeachment inquiry impacts our entire nation. It’s something that, if we’re going to go down this path, then it needs to be done honestly. It needs to be done openly. It needs to be done with transparency, and with an authentic desire to find the truth.
That has not been the case in this sham. And that’s exactly what it is. For two months, we were in the basement of the Capitol with no transparency. No even attempt seriously to find the the truth.
[House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.] only allowed individuals to come testify who he thought would have damaging testimony toward the president. The president was not able to defend himself.
We were not able to call forth any of our witnesses as the minority party. It was all a one-sided show. We were limited. Members of Congress were not permitted to participate unless you were on certain committees, and even then it was very difficult to get transcripts, and yet none of it was classified information.
What it ended up being is, really, two months of an audition for Schiff to determine who he thought would be the best witnesses to go public. Which is what he’s now trying to do. But again, it is an unfair process of not genuinely seeking the truth.
It’s all the left Democrats, who hate the president, who want to turn the 2016 election around, and they are trying to do everything they can to discredit and disenfranchise the voters of 2016.
Del Guidice: So, on Tuesday, House Democrats started the second week of open impeachment hearings. And so far we’ve heard from Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman. He’s the top Ukraine specialist at the National Security Council. He testified, as well as Jennifer Williams, who’s a foreign service aide in Vice President [Mike] Pence’s office who listened to a call between Trump and the Ukraine’s president.
What did you think of both of their testimonies, of Vindman’s testimony and Williams’ testimony?
Hice: Still, it’s nothing new. It’s more of the same old, same old. … Look, in this whole thing, there’s only one person who matters, and that is the president of the United States.
What did he say? And we have that transcript, that transcript is readily available for anyone and everyone to read. And it says what it says. And the president of Ukraine, President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, took it just the way the president, President Trump, said it was.
There was no quid pro quo, there was no conditions to the aid. Ukraine was not even aware that any aid was being withheld. And so how do you formulate an impeachable offense that didn’t happen?
And so what we have are individuals giving testimony of their opinion. We have people giving testimony who don’t like the foreign policy of the president. What is the president’s job, to submit foreign policy? And if they don’t like it, that’s their prerogative. But it certainly is not an impeachable offense if they don’t like the president’s foreign policy.
So it’s more of the same old argument that the Democrats continue to bring forth, … charges with absolutely zero evidence to substantiate the charge.
Del Guidice: So, you mentioned the fact of zero evidence. … Looking ahead to hearings later this week, we’re hearing a lot of the same old, same old, as you mentioned, and nothing impeachable has been raised so far. So what do you foresee as happening if none of that evidence actually surfaces?
Hice: Well, this thing is collapsing day by day, literally moment by moment, as they continue to proceed forward with it, because there is no evidence there. And the American people, as this is becoming public, as people are watching it, they’re getting fatigued, quite frankly, from a hearing that has nothing to support the so-called impeachable offenses, which even the Democrats themselves can’t even define what that offense might be. And so, the American people are seeing firsthand that this is a hoax.
It is a continuation of a witch hunt that began three years ago, when the president was inaugurated. Within days after his inauguration, there were [some] saying already that they were going to impeach him. And he hadn’t even had time to get in the office and get started. Yet, this has been an undertaking of the Democratic Party for three years.
They are searching for every haystack they can possibly find in hopes that there’s a needle somewhere that they can bring forward and say, “Aha, we have something to impeach him.” And the American people are seeing it for what it is.
Del Guidice: So, you sit on the [House Oversight and Reform Committee], and you attended several of the closed-door depositions that happened. I’m curious if there’s anything you can share from what you observed. And as a second point to that, have Democrats even been following proper procedure when it comes to the impeachment process?
Hice: They’ve been making the rules up and the procedure up as they go. And that’s one of the frustrating things with us. The goal post has been moving all along the way. And so, I cannot get into specifics, because we are strictly forbidden from speaking about what happened in those depositions.
But I can say from a general perspective that it has been the most unfair treatment that I’ve ever seen.
I’m shocked that this type of trial, which is really what it is, is taking place in the United States, where we have only one side permitted to speak, only one side permitted to call forth witnesses, and the other side … during those depositions was not able to do anything.
The president unable to defend himself, and we [being] unable to bring forth witnesses from our side of the equation, has been the most unfair thing I’ve ever seen in my life. And I just hope that as this becomes more public, that the American people will recognize that and will reject this attempt by the Democrats to destroy and harm the president.
Del Guidice: So, looking ahead to the rest of the hearings this week, I believe Fiona Hill is scheduled to testify, she was the top Russia specialist at the National Security Council, as well as David Holmes, who’s a State Department official. Do you have any forecasts of what you expect to see, or just more of the same?
Hice: Yeah, expect more of the same. It would be kind of foolish for me to try to speculate what any of them are going to say or testify. So I won’t try to go down that hypothetical route, but, again, would say that the only conversation that matters is the conversation that President Trump had with President Zelenskyy. And that conversation we have. And in that conversation is absolutely nothing impeachable.
There was nothing of demands. There were no preconditions put upon the funding. In fact, this president has funded the Ukraine with lethal weapons to defend themselves against Russia. Something that President [Barack] Obama never did.
And … just a couple of months ago, the Democrats were accusing President Trump of colluding with Russia. And yet President Trump is the one who is providing aid, lethal aid, to Ukraine to defend themselves against Russia.
And so, that is the conversation that matters. The one that the president had with President Zelenskyy, and everything else is just opinion and presumption, made-up opinions, as to what the president really meant. When what he said is right there in clear view. And what he said is exactly the way President Zelenskyy interpreted it.
Del Guidice: President Trump has also said he’s open to contributing his own testimony to Democrats’ impeachment hearings. Do you think he should testify? What is your perspective on that?
Hice: Well, my perspective is he already has. He was not forced to provide the transcript and he did. He voluntarily put it out there. This past week, [he] came out with the second conversation he had with President Zelenskyy. Again, he was not compelled to do so. He is being transparent and open with the conversation that he had. And you know, what he decides to do beyond that is a decision I’m sure that he and other advisers around him will make.
But in my opinion, the president has already exhibited tremendous transparency and a willingness to cooperate. And providing the transcript itself is evidence enough of that.
Del Guidice: One of your colleagues in the House, Congressman Jim Jordan, he had tweeted something early this week that I feel like laid out the situation really well. And he had said that “in the 55 days that aid to Ukraine was delayed, President Zelenskyy had five calls and meetings with high-ranking American officials. And in every one of those meetings, there was never a discussion of linking aid to investigating the Bidens.”
If this is true, and we’ve seen the transcripts, you’ve been talking about that, why isn’t this being discussed in these hearings?
Hice: You know, you’d have to ask the Democrats that. I think the Republican side has done a great job bringing up those facts in this whole thing. Not only were there no preconditions in the phone call, but as you just mentioned, in the five meetings that took place afterward, there was no mention of any conditions in order for aid to come forward.
And so again, this is all nothing but individuals’ opinions, basically saying what we know, the funds went, but what the president really meant was to hold up those funds until we had the investigation on the Bidens or until we had whatever that they claim.
But the fact is, none of that holds up to what actually happened in those meetings that took place following the phone call. Again, our factual evidence that there was no intent for preconditions in the funds that were going to Ukraine.
Del Guidice: So, impeachment definitely has overtaken all of Washington right now and especially Congress in the House as they’re holding these hearings. Is there anything Congress should be doing other than holding these impeachment hearings?
Hice: Well, the first thing we should do is close the door on these impeachment hearings. It’s an absolute hoax in every way.
But yeah, I mean, the Democrats have been so focused on destroying the president and proceeding with this impeachment inquiry that they have accomplished absolutely nothing since they have been the majority here in the House. And there are multiple issues that need to be addressed.
I mean, we haven’t even funded the government, and now that is hanging over our head. We haven’t funded the military. We have drug pricing that needs to be addressed. We have trade deals, the USMCA, that needs to be addressed.
There are multiple issues that are extremely important to the well-being of our country and to every one of our constituents, be it Republican or Democrat. But they have been so focused on one single item, and that is to impeach the president, that they have shown their absolute inability to legislate and do what the American people sent us here to do.
Del Guidice: Final question: What do your constituents in Georgia think about all these impeachment hearings?
Hice: You know, we’ve got 750,000, 800,000, and there are different individuals, different parties that are represented, but overwhelmingly, the people in the 10th District of Georgia are fed up with this impeachment inquiry. They see it for what it is. They want it to come to a stop.
They see the actions of this president and the policies of this president are working in our economy. They’re working in reestablishing the strength of our military. They’re working across the board, impacting individual lives.
They appreciate this president stands for life. He stands for religious liberties. And they want us to continue supporting this president, and they want this impeachment inquiry to come to an end.
I believe, at the end of the day, this is going to prove to be an absolute disaster for the Democrats, and in my opinion, well, it should be.
Del Guidice: Congressman Hice, thank you so much for joining us today on The Daily Signal Podcast.
Hice: Always an honor to be with you. Thank you so much.
Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.
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!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-11-21 06:27:432019-11-21 07:23:31PODCAST: Impeachment Inquiry Is ‘a Trial in Search of a Crime,’ Rep. Jody Hice Says
The Washington Swamp often likes to think they alone run our country, with input from voters serving, at most, as a pesky inconvenience. That’s why House Democrats and their “star witnesses” keep claiming, day after day, that President Donald J. Trump is somehow at odds with America’s “stated foreign policy.” By America’s, they mean their own.
Let’s be clear: The President, duly elected by the American people, is the one who sets the foreign policy of the United States. Career bureaucrats and political appointees, while entitled to their own opinions, do not. That’s how constitutional democracies work.
Yet during hours and hours of hearings that have effectively shut down Congress this month, Americans are being treated to just that: opinions. Every single time House Republicans ask the witnesses for any actual evidence of crimes or impeachable offenses committed by the President, none is offered. That’s because those crimes don’t exist.
Today’s hearing followed the same script. Alexander Vindman—who testified for hours on national TV—has never met the President, said that he has no way of knowing what the President was thinking on Ukraine, and admitted that his testimony was based on nothing more than his own personal opinions and feelings.
America learned nothing new. A few witnesses, Vindman included, actually confirmed the accuracy of the White House call transcript between President Trump and President Zelensky. Vindman even acknowledged the corruption surrounding Burisma and that Hunter Biden didn’t appear qualified to serve on the company’s board, leaving the door open for a potential conflict of interest.
Most important for Americans outside the Beltway Swamp, it’s been more than 1,000 days of Democrats’ nonstop impeachment and investigations. Every hour wasted staging TV infomercials for the left is another hour that Congress isn’t passing a budget, isn’t approving USMCA to fix NAFTA for American workers, isn’t addressing our broken immigration system, isn’t working to lower medicine prices, and isn’t working for you.
With that in mind, here are 3 moments that tell you everything you need to know:
Since the day President @realDonaldTrump took office, House Democrats have ignored working Americans to focus on their only real agenda item: impeachment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2019-11-20 06:22:402019-11-21 06:09:273 must-see moments from Impeachment, Day 1,033
“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” – Julian Assange
“Every person remembers some moment in their life where they witnessed some injustice, big or small, and looked away because the consequences of intervening seemed too intimidating. But there’s a limit to the amount of incivility and inequality and inhumanity that each individual can tolerate. I crossed that line. And I’m no longer alone.” – Edward Snowden
When injustice becomes law, resistance become duty. Thomas Jefferson
“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” – Elie Wiesel
NOTE: The following information has been garnered from countless articles by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones of theAmericanreport.org. Their reports should be read by every American, including our nation’s politicians.
Dennis Montgomery is a software designer and former CIA/NSA/DoD/DHS contractor. Montgomery built a surveillance system known as “The Hammer.” He blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s allegedly illegal use of that system to wiretap Donald Trump. (Rand Paul claims Brennan, Clapper, Comey sent spies into the Trump campaign.)
Montgomery also developed technology for analyzing surveillance video from U.S. Air Force predator drones remotely piloted from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. Nellis Air Force Base is also the home of a charter school run by imam Fethullah Gulen. Clinton’s hand-picked CIA handlers, Graham Fuller and Mark Grossman, were selected to manage and direct Gulen’s cells in the U.S. and abroad. Link
Reminiscent of the theft of Bill Hamilton’s Inslaw Promis software allegedly by the Reagan administration’s Ed Meese, this is much the same thing. The government seems to steal from private enterprises what they want for their own.
Montgomery asserts that intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper ran “The Hammer” surveillance system. According to CIA Vault 7 documents released by WikiLeaks on March 7, 2017, The Hammer (HAMR) is a browser exploit throwing framework that infects targeted devices and systems. The Hammer allowed spying on Supreme Court Justices, 159 Article III judges, elected officials, and 20 million other Americans.
Mainstream Media Cover-up
CNN’s reporting indicates that CNN and The Washington Post were engaging in a multi-prong strategy to cover up the Obama administration’s illegal surveillance of Trump, including the participation of John Brennan, James Clapper, and Carl Bernstein. CNN and the Washington Post continue to ignore the fact that Montgomery turned over evidence to the FBI.
Testimony from former FBI General Counsel James Baker asserts the FBI took possession of evidence that proves that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump. They ignored Montgomery’s claim. James Baker asserted that, “An individual named Dennis Montgomery, who I believe, to the best of my recollection, said that he had been a U.S. Government contractor and, in the course of that work, had come across evidence of unlawful surveillance by the government, of Americans including government officials and wanted to give that information to the Bureau, which eventually did take place.”
Remember Bernstein told everything on Nixon, but he was silent on the illegal wiretapping of Donald Trump. Obama’s surveillance hammer on Trump is far worse than Watergate. Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret.), formerly the number three Air Force official at the Pentagon, also said “The Hammer” surveillance system is far worse than Watergate.
Only two days before he died, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.), who served as commander of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, appeared less concerned about dying than about countering the coup against President Trump. Admiral Lyons was convinced that the coup was put in motion to cover up “The Hammer” and the actions of the men behind it. Admiral Lyons was a great patriot, and spot on in his reporting. Link
The D.C. Conspiracy
There is a conspiracy underway deep within the Washington D.C. intelligence and law enforcement establishments. The cabal should have much to fear, but as of yet, not one DOJ criminal has been indicted. U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly very interested in interviewing President Obama’s former intelligence chiefs, ex-CIA Director John Brennan and one-time Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. I would hope that happens, but as of yet, those two men are still walking free.
In 2015, contractor-turned whistleblower Dennis Montgomery provided the FBI with 47 computer hard drives of illicitly-harvested domestic surveillance data and classified testimony that, according to Montgomery, proves Brennan and Clapper illegally commandeered the foreign surveillance tool known as “The Hammer.”
Montgomery contends Brennan and Clapper used “The Hammer” to conduct unlawful domestic surveillance on President Obama’s political enemies for the purpose of “blackmail” and “leverage.”
Soviet Style Surveillance
Brennan and Clapper built a Soviet style total surveillance state modeled after the Stasi of East Germany. They did it by commandeering “The Hammer” for domestic surveillance, with greater tech capability for total control of the people. They must long to turn America into Soviet Russia.
According to Montgomery, Brennan and Clapper used “The Hammer” to illegally wiretap Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.) and Donald Trump. Oh yes, the leaders of the coup, Obama, Brennan, and Comey all have professed their allegiance to Marxism and communism at various points in their lives. See The Red Thread by Diana West.
AG Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham recently traveled to Rome, Italy, where Durham reportedly retrieved two BlackBerry smartphones that were previously used by Joseph Mifsud. The public really didn’t understand the significance of the retrieval. Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation portrayed Mifsud as a Russian agent. Mifsud is actually an FBI asset. According to Dennis Montgomery, when the BlackBerry phones are used on “The Hammer” platform they are a closed secret network that is encrypted and secure and cannot be penetrated.
It is of interest that Mifsud, Hillary, Comey, President Obama and others were using BlackBerry phones. How many others inside the Crossfire Hurricane covert FBI operation against Trump were plotting the coup d’état while also using non-government issued BlackBerry phones? Two of Hillary’s BlackBerrys were destroyed by Clinton Foundation advisor, Justin Cooper.
Despite the fact there was no criminal reason, the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.
The Fusion Center
Brennan concocted the Trump-Russia intelligence “Fusion Center” narrative as a cover story because Brennan and Clapper had illegally commandeered “The Hammer” for illegal domestic surveillance and for wiretapping Trump, in violation of the CIA’s Charter. Fusion Center is a collaborative effort between two or more agencies.
Back in August of 2018, Brennan told Rachel Maddow, “We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected.” He never mentioned that each of these intel agencies have separate charters and for good reason.
Whistleblower Montgomery says that on February 3, 2009, Brennan and Clapper got together to commandeer The Hammer for illicit purposes. Montgomery designed and built the supercomputer, just as Inslaw owner Bill Hamilton designed Promis software. The supercomputer system had served as a foreign surveillance tool and was transferred from Blxware in Washington state to a CIA facility in Ft. Washington, Maryland. There, Brennan and Clapper transformed The Hammer into a surveillance tool to target Obama’s political enemies.
According to Military sources, the supercomputer has multiple safeguards to prevent intel personnel from using the system for unlawful domestic surveillance, but Brennan and Clapper bypassed those safeguards. They set up a more powerful system and illegally re-purposed the computer.
Targeting Trump
Brennan and Clapper allegedly spied on Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Scalia, onetime head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) Judge Reggie Walton, 156 Article III Judges, members of Congress, Rudy Giuliani, General Michael Flynn (Ret.), and Donald Trump.
General Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell says several former officials who were involved in the CIA /FBI Crossfire Hurricane operation are in ongoing talks with Justice Department officials.
The Whistleblower tapes released by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, revealed that President Obama’s intelligence officials, Brennan and Clapper, for whom Montgomery was working, used the spyware for unlawful domestic surveillance and to illegally wiretap Donald Trump “a zillion times.”
President Trump’s allegation that the Obama Administration was wiretapping him is not only supported by Montgomery’s whistleblower revelations about Brennan’s and Clapper’s computer system, The Hammer, but also by statements made in March 2017 by whistleblower William Binney, a former NSA Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, by former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson, and by Montgomery’s attorney Larry Klayman.
FBI Director Mueller
Montgomery says it was Robert Mueller’s FBI who provided the computers for The Hammer, and who also ordered an illegal FBI raid of Montgomery’s home and storage facility. Mueller’s FBI agents tied Montgomery to a tree, according to court documents.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke excoriated the FBI for using falsified affidavits to obtain search warrants and forced the return of Montgomery’s property. Obviously, the FBI hasn’t changed its stripes since they continue to operate in a rogue and illicit fashion, even under AG William Barr and Deep State FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Mueller became, by appointment of Rod Rosenstein, and because of his close friend, James Comey, the Special Counsel investigator of the Russia collusion hoax. Montgomery claimed that Robert Mueller had been collecting information on Donald Trump for over ten years and he was the last person anyone should appoint to investigate the President and the phony Russian Collusion hoax.
The day before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel, he had interviewed with Donald Trump to once again become the Director of the FBI and was obviously rejected, and for good reason.
FBI Director Mueller wanted to use The Hammer to find out “who knew what” about the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. Mueller was in charge of the FBI’s investigation of the 9/11 attacks. John Milkovich’s book, Robert Mueller: Errand Boy for the New World Order, tells of Mueller’s several cover-ups regarding the 9/11 terror attacks. Interestingly, Mr. Trump, as a builder of skyscrapers, took a special interest in the collapse of the twin towers.
Dennis Montgomery
Dennis Montgomery became a target of the government and the media who worked to destroy his reputation. Ultimately, he suffered a stroke. He had filed 18 whistleblower complaints. In D.C., Montgomery testified to DOJ’s Deborah Curtis regarding the 47 hard drives of The Hammer that contained illicitly collected domestic surveillance data, evidence that Comey buried after being turned in to Comey’s FBI.
Mary Fanning and Alan Jones write, “Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis offered Dennis Montgomery limited immunity in exchange for 47 hard drives of illegally harvested surveillance data that Montgomery claims contains proof that Brennan and Clapper wiretapped General Flynn and Donald Trump. (This immunity was in coordination with FBI General Counsel James Baker.) Then Curtis joined Special Counsel Mueller’s team and became the lead prosecutor on General Flynn’s case before abruptly leaving the Flynn prosecution and the DOJ.”
James Baker is suspected of leaking the discredited Steele dossier to Mother Jones reporter David Corn. Baker was also part of the group that plotted the take-down of General Flynn and President Trump.
Montgomery asserts the hard drives have information that not only proves Brennan and Clapper wiretapped General Flynn but also provides proof that the DOJ conducted illegal prosecutions of President Obama’s political enemies.
Baker later joined the Brookings Institution and its affiliate Lawfare, which acts as the political arm of the FBI and the intelligence community. Link
Conclusion
Invented lies and corrupt actions of high officials who have abused the power of their positions for political gain must be exposed and punished. They have sought to subvert our rules of law and undermine the Republic. They have damaged and are still damaging the institutions of American government, all the while squandering the nation’s trust.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Kelleigh Nelsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKelleigh Nelson2019-11-19 07:38:462019-11-19 07:43:25Brennan and Clapper’s Secret Surveillance System
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 LimaOhio.com.
“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.
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.
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!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-11-18 07:04:082019-11-20 05:53:517 Things to Know About Rep. Jim Jordan as He Leads GOP’s Defense of Trump
Liberal activists often claim that the media has a “corporate” bias. In their belief system, the fact that corporate-owned media outlets often report favorably about the wildly successful free market system, slowing the growth of government spending, and keeping taxes low are “corporate” biases instead of common sense.
In fact, the media’s real corporate bias is in taking slanted positions which are more activist than journalist. For example, the Media Research Center recently discovered that ABC, CBS, and NBC used language and angles in favor of the House liberals’ impeachment probe 96% of the time that they were evaluating the ongoing political circus.
That’s right. The alleged stalwarts of the “fourth estate” have decided that neutrality is so last century. Liberal condemnation of “big money” in politics goes silent when corporate leaders have their hands in the media pot at outlets like The New York Times. The Times raises billions more annually than conservative candidates across the country between 2015 and 2018, in part thanks to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim’s bail-out of the outlet in 2009.
We bet that the Times had no problem with “big money” or “foreign money” then. The company ended up using its money to support left-wing race-baiting.
Whether we call it “big money” or “corporate bias,” the facts are the same. Liberal outlets say they want corporations to have limited power even as they use their money and influence to sway voters throughout the country.
From guns to abortion to religious liberty and marriage, corporate-owned media has a bias the size of Texas. Liberals slam Fox News, but it’s the only major outlet providing the other side of the coin. In the meantime, House liberals continue to play politics as your rights are whittled away.
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.
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: @HvonSpakovsky.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-11-16 06:31:042019-11-17 07:31:11Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far
Nineteen minutes after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as America’s 45th President, The Washington Post published this headline on its website: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” For once, anyway, the media was telling it like it is.
Democrats in Congress have been selling their far-left base on impeachment since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race. After nearly 3 years of coming up empty—including $32 million of taxpayer money spent on the Russia collusion hoax—Democrat leaders knew they needed to do something to appease their party’s left fringe.
That’s why Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment “inquiry” in a hastily organized press conference—before the full House voted, and before any of the relevant evidence could even come to light. This time, Democrats knew they couldn’t risk letting the facts derail their momentum, as had happened with the Mueller Report flop.
House Democrats are effectively shutting down Congress—yet again—over their impeachment sham. Nothing substantive can get done while the left remains fixated on undoing the 2016 election. They have repeatedly ignored opportunities to work with President Trump and take action on issues that will help the very people they represent.
The President continues to push forward on trade deals, healthcare, our booming economy, immigration, and other areas where Americans want real solutions. Democrat leaders, unable to control their far-left fringe, can only stage TV hearings. Meanwhile:
Speaker Pelosi still refuses to hold a vote on USMCA to replace NAFTA—despite growing pressure from manufacturers, labor unions, farmers, and workers.
Democrats have failed to come up with any areas where they’ll work with President Trump to lower medicine prices for our families and seniors.
House Democrats have failed to do anything to help rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure.
They continue to ignore loopholes in our immigration laws that drive the border crisis, fuel human smuggling, and hurt both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.
Americans have every right to be angry. It’s remarkable to think about where our country could be if Democrats in Congress put country before party. Under President Trump, the U.S. economy has hit its lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Illegal immigration is finally starting to come under control after decades of neglect.
If House Democrats were as committed to helping Americans succeed under President Trump as they are to tearing him down, imagine where we could be now.
Instead, bring in the cameras. The one bright spot from today’s embarrassing spectacle is that American families finally got front-row seats to how Congress wastes its time—and spends millions of their taxpayer dollars—on partisan stunts. No wonder Americans don’t trust Washington. Who can blame them?
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png001600 Daily - The White Househttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png1600 Daily - The White House2019-11-14 07:02:352019-11-15 12:09:13Everything you need to know about today’s partisan impeachment stunt
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently held its 25th Annual Gala in Washington, D.C, in which CAIR’s executive director announced a goal of pushing more Islamists into Congress.
As the Investigative Project on Terrorismreports, CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad shares the “formula” he believes will secure Islamists greater political power:
“A strong CAIR equals a strong community. A strong community will produce a strong and confident and successful Muslim … “So I’m telling you tonight we are going to work in the next years, inshallah (God willing], to elect at least 30 Muslims in the Congress. This number is equivalent to our size and our potential as American Muslims. Including at least two [U.S.] senator Muslims.”
In addition, Awad envisions Muslim judges, including a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, along with an Islamist extension of Hollywood.
No matter that Awad got his numbers wrong, this has been the Islamist agenda since at least the 2000s, when I heard the same professional targets outlined at national conventions. But as Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes wrote in 2003, it goes further.
Pipes documents how, in 1998, CAIR’s Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of Muslims in California:
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.”
In 2008, I heard this message echoed at a southern California mosque by Imam Siraj Wahhaj at an event sponsored by the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), where Wahhaj said:
“There is no America. There is only Islam.”
None of these views have been clandestine. Over the years the message has been consistent. What has changed is that the Islamist candidates they produce are more vocal about exactly which interests they represent.
Within this discussion of CAIR’s vision of Muslim in Congress — that is, Islamists in Congress — and those seeking other avenues of political power, it’s important to underscore that not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Muslims are race and religious supremacists who believe that the politicization of faith is the way to go. Many Muslims stand opposed to the politicization of faith; many stand opposed to Islamists.
Veteran military serviceman and former California congressional candidate Omar Qudrat is an example of the type of Muslims who deserve to be elected —Muslims who put duty to constitution and country ahead of any religious agendas.
Dalia Al-Aqidi is another — a veteran Iraqi American journalist poised to challenge Ilhan Omar in Minnesota in the 2020 race for Omar’s congressional seat in district 5.
Both candidates are steadfast opponents of Islamists, their agenda and ideology. Both are allied with Muslim reformers.
Neither CAIR nor their allies represent the Muslim community. The American Muslim diaspora is so diverse that it would be dishonest to say that any one person or organization represents them. There is no central representation and there shouldn’t be. All our voices deserve to be heard, but what you keep seeing be pushed by mainstream media is this fabricated monolith fantasy of a Muslim — in short, an Islamist.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2019-11-13 14:00:342019-11-13 14:01:06CAIR’s Goal: 30 Islamists into Congress
By Lisa*Editor’s Note: This is Part 1 of a 6-Part Series. The author of this true account, a wife and mother of three, wishes to remain anonymous. All names in this account have been changed.The Abandonment of Reality and the Embrace of the “True Self”Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman.
His wife, in turn, announced that she not only plans to stay married, but that she is “more proud of him” than she’s ever been. Actually, she said she is “more proud of her than she’s ever been.” That’s because my brother Josh changed his name to Melissa and now requires everyone to use “she/her” pronouns when referring to him. If the grandparents refuse to do this, they have been threatened with limited access to their grandchildren.
My brother and sister-in-law claim that through several years of therapy, they came to realize the truth: that Melissa was Josh’s “true self” all along.
Thus, my tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his “social transition” he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to the name Josh now—the only name anyone’s known him as for almost four decades. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic “burial ceremony” to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn’t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole.
Basically, the best way to describe what happens when a loved one decides to swap genders is this: It’s as though someone murders your loved one and then the murderer gets extremely angry if you won’t let them take the victim’s place in your family.
My family and I are now called “transphobic” for not embracing Melissa with open arms.
When I told my brother, “I’m sorry…I love Josh, but I cannot move forward with this new Melissa girl,” he simply texted me: “So long then.” So long to almost 40 years of relating as siblings. So long to weekly dinners at my parents’ home. So long to our kids growing up with their cousins. But I do not fault him or his wife for this. They are victims. They have been brainwashed by the trans cult. It all began with a therapist’s advice and ended with lifelong payments to the trans medical machine. There’s lots of money to be made in telling people to become the opposite gender. Lots. (More on that later.)
Oddly, even in this #MeToo era, American culture now tells me that my brother—who’s spent 37 years as a Caucasian male—now deserves the same rights and respects that I, an actual woman, deserve. I’m a woman who’s been sexually harassed hundreds of times in my 40 years of life. My brother was a star high school athlete who had his pick of girls to date. While I was fending off unwanted stares and groping hands of males in my 20s, he was enjoying all the perks of being just such a male in the 21st century. While I was giving birth to three babies who will grow up to be women in my 30s, he was joining the fight to get legal access to their public restrooms.
See, if my brother was claiming to be an alien or a time traveler instead of a woman, our culture would never support it. But since it’s 2019 and the denial of reality when it comes to biological sex is en vogue—countless people are blindly embracing Melissa as my brother’s “True Self.” Even though reality clearly proves my brother is male, people unabashedly deny reality out of fear of being called “intolerant.” They’re terrified of being lumped in with all the “Trump-supporting, LGBTQ haters.” They say things like, “If Josh tells us that this Melissa is actually his ‘true self,’ who are we to argue?”
The “True Self” has become the final measure of all things. Every book we open, every show we watch, every internet meme we read suggests we can all attain greater levels of health and peace through a deeper understanding and expression of our “True Self.”
It sounds so right. How can it be wrong?
In his book The Road to Character, David Brooks explains that back in the day, there was something called moral realism—a worldview that put an emphasis on human sin and human weakness. Biblical figures like David and Moses were seen as great leaders who were also deeply flawed. Augustine and the early church fathers talked constantly about the depravity of sin and the need for grace. Then around the 18th century, moral realism found a rival in moral romanticism. Romantics like Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized the inherent goodness of man and rejected the concept of sin.
Fast forward to the 20th century when books like Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s New York Times best seller Peace of Mind (published in 1946)urged people toward a new morality based on the idea that you should never repress any part of yourself as sinful. Instead, you should “love yourself” and not be afraid of your hidden impulses. Humanist psychologists ran with this idea. They began arguing that the primary problem for humans was no longer sin, but rather the fact that we weren’t fully accepting of ourselves exactly as God made us. This line of thinking led to the advent of the self-esteem movement in 1969, and the core of that movement morphed into what Charles Taylor calls “The Culture of Authenticity.” That’s the culture we’re contending with today.
The central belief of the culture of authenticity goes something like this:
At the center of every one of us is a Golden Figure known as “the True Self.” The True Self can always be trusted. You know that what you’re doing is right when you feel an inner peace inside your True Self. You know that what you’re doing is wrong when you do not feel inner peace inside your True Self.
Because the True Self is inherently good, there is no sin to be found in it. Thus, sin is now found only in the external structures of society that seek to repress the True Self or stop it from fully emerging.
Previous generations believed the development of character and the road to salvation came by strugglingagainstthe desires of the True Self. This is why traits like selflessness and self-sacrifice were considered most admirable. But not anymore. Our culture now has a new “salvation”—with the True Self playing the role of redeemer.
The steps to this “new salvation” are as follows:
Relinquish any previous struggle you had against your True Self.
Allow your ego/shadow self to fall away so your True Self can fully emerge without any guilt or shame (both of which are constructs of old, outdated religious systems).
Adopt a new lexicon in which words like “sin” and “evil” now refer to the external constructs of society that caused you to doubt your True Self was good and perfect in the first place. (Thus, the only real sin a man is now capable of engaging in is the sin of intolerance.)
Yet many influential thinkers of the past, including John Stuart Mill, believed the point of life was to struggle every day to sacrifice the True Self on the altar of care and concern for others. This is done by achieving a series of small, inner victories against your own desires because you know that acting upon those desires could result in dire consequences for others.
Because we are all bound together through our good and bad choices, the smallest decisions we make today can negatively impact everyone in our sphere of influence, even reaching forward into generations to come. Thus, we build character by a thousand selfless acts of restraint every day that no one ever sees or applauds.
Our society once believed this sort of self-restraint was the best way to live. Men and women were encouraged to exercise self-restraint in building a life of integrity. But the ideals of selflessness and self-restraint are now seen as hopelessly outdated and must be discarded in favor of the True Self.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-11-13 04:46:032019-11-15 12:08:29The Cult of Transgenderism: My Brother’s Crisis of Identity in an America Gone Mad
“Socialism is when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When a person gets hungry, that’s socialism too. Some might say that it’s when the workers own the means of production, but this is all really an elaborate plot for us wealthy folks to keep bread for ourselves.” – Karl Marx
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill
“The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country.” – Lyn Nofziger (American journalist, conservative Republican political consultant and author)
Why, when socialists endorse the same collectivist ideas that have always led to tyranny, should we listen? And why is the Republican party so weak in retaliating against it? As I’ve stated time and again, the majority of Republicans are part of the same cabal as the Democrats.
Long ago old right conservative Republicans cherished both the U.S. Constitution and traditional morality, but those times have changed. Most conservatives were led astray more than half a century ago. They were deceived, not by overt liberalism/socialism, but by counterfeit conservatism which promoted liberal causes. Many of them now support abortion, drugs, homosexuality, pornography, policing the world’s nations, the flagrant spending of tax dollars that has exponentially increased our debt, open borders and more. They are part of the same globalist establishment as their counterparts in the Democratic Party.
As such, many republican officials at the highest levels of our federal government and Department of Justice breached the trust of the people in an attempt to undermine Trump’s presidency and remove him from office.
“Resistance” Began Early
The “destroy Trump coup” developed in the first 24 hours after the 2016 election following weeks of sometimes violent protests. The anti-Trump movement realized that simply shouting and causing public nuisance and property damage wasn’t getting them what they wanted. It didn’t take long for the members of the left to find impeachment was the best vehicle for their coup to drive the president from office.
Roughly five weeks before the presidential inauguration, Vanity Fair published an article by Emily Jane Fox headlined “Democrats are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.” They focused on the family business, the D.C. Trump hotel and possible personal financial improprieties which now includes his tax records for years before his presidency.
By the day of the inauguration, January 20, 2017, the impeachment hunger was great enough that the Washington Post headlined Matea Gold’s article “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.” All of this disappeared after a few weeks when the fraudulent “Russian collusion” began, but now it’s back in full evil glory.
Schiff and Impeachment
The Democratic Party, now headed by House Intelligence Committee member, Adam Schiff, is running the “impeach Trump show” regarding the President’s legitimate and constitutional phone call to a foreign nation’s leader. Can there be a more despicable two-faced liar than Adam Schiff, whether publicly reciting a transcript that he falsifies or even his cynical exploitation of his Congressional District’s large population of 70,000 Armenian-American voters whom he manipulates annually?
Schiff purposefully lied to the public about what President Trump said in the released transcript of his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Schiff read an entirely different Trump conversation to the American public in which he created a false narrative about what was said and later claimed his “pretend conversation by Trump with Zelensky” was just a parody. This was no parody, and his false statements were purveyed to the American public by the right arm of the Democratic Socialists, the mainstream media and their flunkies.
The CIA traitorous whistleblower, who never listened to the President’s conversation is being sheltered and hidden by the Democratic Socialists.
Senator Rand Paul told Bret Baier that according to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the sixth amendment guarantees anyone accused of a crime gets to face their accuser in court. And the Fraternal Order of Police claim Congress is violating “one of the most basic rights afforded to American citizens” as they attempt a coup by using impeachment to remove President Trump. Link
Republicans Rise Up
Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) was the first to call out the attacks against our President by introducing a resolution to condemn and censor Rep. Adam Schiff.
Every House Republican signed onto Congressman Biggs’ resolution. I was thrilled, and spoke with friends who all felt that Trump supporters wanted the Republicans to storm the secret meetings by Schiff being held in the basement and they did just that! They all walked down to the basement and stormed an illegal and unconstitutional action by Schiff and his comrades who are still angry that their socialist candidate Hillary Clinton lost the election to outsider and populist American, Donald J. Trump.
Senator Rand Paul made us proud when he spoke at President Trump’s rally in Kentucky for pro-life Governor Matt Bevin. Here’s what Senator Paul said,
President Trump has great courage, he faces down the fake media every day. But Congress needs to step up and have equal courage to defend the president.
Hunter Biden made $50K a month. That’s the definition of corruption, and we know he got it only because of his family connections.
We also now know the name of the whistleblower. The whistleblower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked with Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name!
And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower!
And I say to my colleagues, if shifty Schiff will not let Hunter Biden come, and if he will not bring the whistleblower forward, every republican in congress should take a walk and say, “This is a farce.”
Trump supporters were pleased to see such actions, but more is needed to save the Republic from ultimate constitutional disaster and the continuous corruption by the Democratic Party.
Republican efforts are noted, but the recent elections spell trouble for 2020 as the Democrats are working overtime to make sure the country turns blue.
Kentucky Governor Bevin
Democratic money and dirty tricks were behind the recent election losses. Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin was the only republican to lose in that state’s election. Republicans won every other statewide race by a considerable margin. Democrat Andy Beshear won the gubernatorial spot by a narrow margin of 4,000 votes.
Unfortunately, Governor Bevin was not only sabotaged by Libertarians, who won over 20,000 votes for candidate John Hicks, but by a failure of Republicans to vote for Bevin despite their straight line votes for every other Republican in the election. Governor Bevin was a strong pro-lifer, but it has been alleged that he was unpopular for a number of reasons. People thought of him as a carpetbagger from Colorado and that he wasn’t really in tune with the culture of Kentucky.
Nevertheless, a look at the county-by-county map in Kentucky compared to an Electoral College map of the United States, looks like Bevin would have won Kentucky handily. The blue liberal enclaves in the cities are where the democratic voter turnout was high and cost the Governor his second term.
Virginia Goes Blue
Former Attorney General Eric Holder has had his first electoral success for the democrats to dominate state legislatures. They won both chambers of the legislature adding to the governor’s control. After next year’s census, Virginia’s legislative district lines will be redrawn. That redistricting will likely cement Democratic dominance for the next ten years.
Holder launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee which is committed to the domination of electoral map-making through the courts and legislatures. They’ve won with litigation changing maps they didn’t like. They plan on doing the same in another 11 states next year. Previously Republicans had done the same thing after Obama was elected in 2008.
Holder’s campaign is “sue to blue” and has yielded major gains for Democrats. Judges appointed by Democrats actually helped by striking down previous Republican maps.
In Virginia, Democrats spent at least $54 million, outspending Republicans by $12 million. Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros and their organizations spent more than all outside Republican contributors combined.
Republicans must get involved in the state elections. The Democrats are keeping them occupied with their unconstitutional impeachment inquiry against the President. Holder and his gang intend to flip one chamber in each state, deadlocking Republicans and Democrats and throwing questions to the courts. Republicans need to get state judges elected who refrain from meddling in the redistricting function which the U.S. Constitution assigns to the state legislatures.
Holder will face a harder task in Florida, Georgia and Texas, as Virginia was already trending blue, but the threat to the GOP is real. If the Republicans don’t take up that challenge soon, they’re going to lose for another decade. We certainly can’t afford that.
Here is Open Secrets list of the individuals who have dipped deepest into their own pockets for campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees. Only contributions to Democrats and Republicans or liberal and conservative outside groups are included in calculating the percentages the donor has given to either party.
Demonic Hatred
Yes, that’s what this is, demonic hatred not only of President Trump, and the fact that he was elected over the chosen corrupt Democratic candidate, but hatred of his supporters. The attacks on this President have been endless, and here are just a few.
First was the spying by Obama’s henchmen and the creation of the phony dossier by Christopher Steele, paid for by the DNC and Hillary, then the immediate call for impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated. In short order, the attack on General Michael Flynn by the partisan FBI agents successfully removed Trump’s perfect choice for National Security Advisor.
Ron Johnson, chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee made a study of Mr. Trump’s first 18 weeks in office. He found the administration had faced 125 leaked stories, one leak each day containing information that is potentially damaging to national security. Former FBI Director James Comey made sure before he was fired to leak confidential information and see to it that the Russia collusion hoax was started.
Rosenstein appointed Comey’s good friend, Robert Mueller to spend millions of tax dollars and over two years investigating our President knowing it was a criminal deception by the left. Now we’re into the impeachment for a legal phone call to another head of state by President Trump. Congressman Schiff is in charge of the impeachment inquiry circus to destroy President Trump’s chances of reelection in 2020.
Left and Right Join to Destroy Trump
Today we learned that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, is claiming two former cabinet members tried to recruit her to help undermine the president. In a recent interview, Haley said former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly confronted her in a closed-door meeting to enlist her in opposing President Trump. She told them to speak directly to the President.
Haley will detail the alleged meeting in her soon to be released memoir, “With All Due Respect.”
The group, comprising four psychiatrists, a clinical neuropsychologist, a neurologist, and an internist, are planning to announce their availability next week to members of Congress and the media. They’ll also be available to consult privately with members of Congress, with 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, or with members of Trump’s cabinet.
Conclusion
Can we win? I don’t know, but we surely need strong conservative Republican warriors and as I see it, there are only a handful…
A hail of bullets rained down from the skies overhead, hitting the ground in front of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The rapid-fire artillery sounds filled my ears as I stood still underneath the small embassy awning.
Naively, I didn’t know that bullets fired into the air could travel up to a mile high. Then, depending on the angle they were fired at and their aerodynamics, anyone hit in the embassy courtyard would be dead.
Standing in front of the embassy, I could feel the tightness in my quadriceps from the fear.
“Teacher,” one of my Afghan workshop participants shouted to me, “don’t stand in front of the embassy! Get to the bomb shelter! We’re being attacked!”
The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>
It was lunchtime on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend in 2006. I was in Kabul for the third time, and it was my final day of the professional leadership development training I conducted before the holiday weekend.
Twenty-four Afghans successfully completed my two-week workshops. They were to receive a certificate of completion during a ceremony with an embassy official present.
To celebrate, we planned to have local cuisine together in an Army “hooch” (a temporary shelter), where the cuisine was served, have some cake, and play some Afghan music.
The successes of my previous two visits for training prompted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul to ask me to come back again to provide another series of workshops for the locally engaged staff, formerly referred to as “Foreign Service nationals.”
The workshops included basic and advanced communications skills training, conflict resolution, and negotiation skills. I also offered professional one-on-one or small group coaching for Afghans who needed extra help with how to understand—and to get along with—their American diplomat bosses.
My days at the embassy compound started with a 7 a.m. breakfast. I went early to see our U.S. troops coming in to eat after staying out all night in the mountains fighting the Taliban.
The men, most of them no more than 19 to 21 years of age, were dusty-looking, with tired faces. After eating and a few hours of shut-eye, the troops went back to fighting.
Sometimes, we engaged in small talk about what was happening back in the U.S. With total respect, “Ma’am” seemed to be every other word spoken to me, as often as the words “please” and “thank you.”
These men made up the majority of the International Security Assistance Force of a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, established by the U.N. Security Council in December 2001 in response to the attacks on 9/11.
Afghan Allies With a Price on Their Heads
The Afghan men and women of the embassy and the U.S. Agency for International Development were considered traitors by the Taliban.
Each of my Afghan class participants who worked for the U.S. Embassy and USAID had bounties on their heads. Although they were the higher-paid Afghans working for our government, they exited the gates of the embassy’s sovereign U.S. soil at great risk that they could be killed.
To make matters worse, their families were added to the Taliban’s hit list as well. These men and women took a great chance believing in our country, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Afghanistan’s freedom and security.
Amid a pause in the gunfire, I quickly scurried across the courtyard to the tunnel that connected the U.S. Embassy to USAID and the living quarters. From a security perspective, it was built to sustain a significant mortar hit or a bomb blast. The tunnel was deep and wide enough to hold embassy and staff personnel.
When I entered, there was a young man in his early 20s barking out orders for a number of us to be quiet and listen.
He gave us commands on what we needed to do to, which included leaving the tunnel, which I originally entered for safety. In my mind, I exclaimed, “I don’t want to go back out into the line of fire again!”
However, since my life and the lives of embassy personnel and other contractors were at stake and completely dependent on our U.S. troops, we shook our heads in agreement and obeyed.
At that point, you could hear more activity going on until another lull in the gunfire. The young man, now accompanied by other fully armed troops, quickly led us out of the tunnel and into the embassy to safety.
Gurkha warriors from Nepal were our partners and helped to guard our embassy. They were short, stout, serious men who were extremely loyal to the United States.
The young commander told one of the Gurkhas that if he saw unknown activity on embassy property to shoot to kill—no questions asked. In response, the Gurkha saluted in agreement.
Inside the embassy, we were split up, according to security clearance. Then-Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, appointed by then-President George W. Bush, spoke fluent Dari to the Afghan staff who were also protected inside the embassy.
For four hours, there was fighting. Fifteen Afghans who attacked the embassy were killed.
Before the cellphone lines became jammed, I was able to get one quick call out to my parents to tell them we were being attacked. (I think the shock of the information I shared with them didn’t register until much later.)
At the end of the fighting, I had a headache, felt lightheaded, and my body was limp, realizing what had just happened. I went to my hooch and fell asleep.
The next day was Saturday. I went to every service member I saw and felt compelled to thank them for saving us. I cried uncontrollably and could not keep a straight face. I also thanked the Gurkhas, who guarded the embassy doors, and cried again.
It was trauma I was experiencing, but it was also a gratefulness I couldn’t explain.
I was overcome realizing the sacrifice these troops make because they zealously believe in what it is to be an American, to protect and serve, and to risk (and possibly give) their lives for our freedom and to fight against evil terrorists.
My Small Show of Thanks
There are nearly 19 million military veterans alive today. They fought and served honorably. These true heroes and heroines must always be deeply appreciated for their service and the lives they were prepared to risk, all for the ideal of American freedom and democracy.
Last month, I ran in the Army Ten-Miler road race for the second time, beginning at the Pentagon. Just prior to the start of the race, and after the national anthem, Black Hawk helicopters flew overhead. They stayed with all 35,0000 of us runners along the route. We all knew we were in the safest place on the planet.
I come from a family of military heroes, and I still get choked up remembering my experience in Kabul and how those of us who were there would not be here today were it not for them.
Taking part in the Army Ten-Milers is my small way of thanking the troops I will never meet for what they do for our country, our world, and what they did for me personally.
Yvonne Renee Davis is a foreign policy contributor for The Daily Signal. During the George W. Bush administration, she served as a contractor for the State Department and a speaker for the Speaker’s Bureau. Twitter: @Teleos1.
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!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2019-11-11 05:18:182019-11-11 06:20:11The Day U.S. Troops Saved Me and My Friends From Terror
“A friend who stands with you in times of pressure is more valuable than a hundred friends who will stand with you in times of pleasure.” – Anonymous
“A false friend and a shadow attend only while the sun shines.” – Benjamin Franklin
“Americans cannot comprehend how their fellow countrymen could not love their country. But the left’s anti-Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.” – Ann Coulter
President Trump’s supporters are wondering why seemingly out of nowhere Matt Drudge has taken a sharp anti-Trump stance on his website, the Drudge Report. They no longer trust him or anything he says.
Drudge used to break stories before the mainstream media or Fox News even knew about them; they went to Drudge to find out the latest. Josh Bernstein recently exposed what has happened to Drudge. He says we should boycott Drudge and I agree with him.
Drudge Sells Out to Establishment
In a surprising turn, Drudge Report removed ads between the end of May and mid-July of this year according to Danny Rogers, a cofounder of the Global Disinformation Index, a project that’s analyzing domains to generate “risk ratings of the world’s media websites.” After noticing an absence of ads on Drudge around May 31, Rogers told BuzzFeed they didn’t see any ads on Drudge until about July 12.
During that period, Drudge cast off his advertising representative of close to 20 years, Intermarkets, in favor of a new and unknown company, Granite Cubed. It has no record in the digital ad industry, was only registered as a company in March of this year, and lists no staff or owners on its websites. Yet it just landed one of the biggest websites in the US.
Corporate records show that Granite Cubed is owned by Margaret Otto. According to Pathmatics, a marketing and advertising platform owned by Margaret Otto, she and her husband, Adrian, have close ties to both Matt Drudge and his father, Bob Drudge. The Ottos have known the Drudges since 1999. Pathmatics, a marketing intelligence platform, estimates that over the past 12 months the site generated more than $30 million in ad revenue. Another estimate from the Global Disinformation Index, to be published in a report next month, pegs revenue at $9 million per year.
The Otto’s also acquired another company in 2017 founded by Bob Drudge called Refdesk. Adrian Otto joined Google Cloud in 2017 and is their technical director. Matt Drudge is now in bed with Google and Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google.
Alphabet Inc., Google subsidiaries, and YouTube all detest President Trump and everything on the Drudge Report has switched from supporting conservative sites and our president to leftwing media who despises President Donald Trump and his supporters. Drudge’s links now go to mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC. Conservative media is rarely seen anymore.
Drudge gave up his relationship with his conservative advertising company of 20 years and joined with the enemies of freedom because they are family vested via Matt’s father, Bob Drudge.
It all makes for a startling shift for a publisher best known for a strategy rooted in changing nothing about his site’s operation. It’s also causing the ad industry to look closely at the mysterious new firm and its high-profile customer.
So, who is Whatfinger? Their tagline reads, “The Relentless Pursuit of Creating the Greatest Aggregate Link News Site on Earth.” And according to their about page, “Whatfinger News was founded by military people and we are 100% unapologetic for being patriotic. That doesn’t mean we don’t show opposing views, sites and papers. We do, and label them on the homepage in sections as right wing or left wing.” It was originally started as a blog shortly before Trump’s election. For privacy reasons, Whatfinger News has kept their owners anonymous. This is smart in today’s doxing society.
Their conservative factual reporting comes from sites such as Breitbart and the Daily Wire. They also frequently source from the Geller Report and the Gateway Pundit. While they do occasionally source from Reuters, this is rare as the majority are right leaning. In general, all aggregated news favors the right.
Whatfinger News shows left-wing and right-wing news but calls out the fake news. They will put the same links other aggregates show, in their “Fake News Quarantine Area.” This is news that is based on anonymous sources and almost always put out by major so-called mainstream news to hurt Trump or Republicans.
They have been under DDos attacks daily mostly from Islamic countries. They had to put up a first-rate Firewall to stop the site from being taken down…which is common for today’s conservative websites who tell the truth.
They have been shadow-banned by Facebook, Reddit, and other sites for daring to post actual news and truth on Islam as well as President Trump. Whatfinger says that, “If you are not attacking Trump and promoting Islam or insane issues like transgender insanity, the media attacks and bans you.” Link
Conclusion
Drudge is lost, but an even better website has arisen…use them, they’re great and they’re on our side. Word of mouth has them growing by leaps and bounds.
P.S. Speaking of websites growing by leaps and bounds, advertising doesn’t completely fund NewsWithViews, we count on your donations every month. As I’ve said time and again, no one is paid to write for this website, and funding it is not cheap. Please help us with monthly donations, and make sure you tell yours friends to sign up to daily receive the truth of what is happening in our country. You can donate here.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Kelleigh Nelsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKelleigh Nelson2019-11-09 09:07:462019-11-11 06:19:33Drudge Sells out Trump, helps Democrats. Check out Whatfinger News, founded by ex-Military
By Lisa*Editor’s Note: This is Part 1 of a 6-Part Series. The author of this true account, a wife and mother of three, wishes to remain anonymous. All names in this account have been changed.The Abandonment of Reality and the Embrace of the “True Self”Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman.
