VIDEO: Trump Super Bowl Ad — ‘Stronger, Safer, More Prosperous’

/in , , , , , /by

Donald J Trump posted the below comments and Super Bowl political ad titled Stronger, Safer, More Prosperous on YouTube:

With President Trump in office he is improving the lives of ALL Americans. Under President Trump, the economy is booming, historic tax cuts were passed, trade deals have been rengotiated, and African-American, Asian American, and Hispanic American unemployment are all at RECORD LOWS!

Text TRUMP to 88022 for the latest news from the campaign

© All rights reserved.

First Thoughts On the Trump Plan and How Mahmoud Abbas Will Save the Day by Hugh Fitzgerald

/in , , , , , /by

“The Deal of the Century” turned out to be remarkably generous to the “Palestinians,” giving them far more than they had any right to expect. It promises them a state – the state of Palestine. It doubles the size of the territory under Palestinian control. The Palestinians will under the plan possess nearly 80% of the West Bank. They will also have their capital in East Jerusalem. The plan includes Palestinian use and management of facilities in Haifa and Ashdod ports, Palestinian development of a resort area in the north shore of the Dead Sea, and continued Palestinian agricultural activity in the Jordan Valley. Ultimately, the plan envisions “modern and efficient transportation links” through the future Palestinian state, including Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza will be linked through a tunnel.

Under the Trump plan, the Palestinians will be obligated to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad, must stop their Pay-For-Slay plan, must stop inciting terrorism, must end the rampant corruption in the PA, must respect human rights, and must guarantee a free press and religious freedom. We shall see if the PA is able to meet these conditions precedent to achieving a state. The PA’s record to date is not encouraging.

The plan also requires Israel to observe a four-year moratorium on any new settlements in the West Bank while negotiations with the Palestinians are going on, but says nothing about whether the moratorium would continue if, after four years, negotiations are still continuing. It makes provision for $50 billion in aid to be given to the Palestinians, as had previously been announced at the “Peace Through Prosperity” workshop in Manama last June. That is a huge sum, but who would pay it? One hopes that it will not be the Western Infidels paying for the Palestinians. The $50 billion ought by rights to come from fellow Muslim Arabs, those who live in the oil-rich states of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar.

The most important concession of all, according to Trump’s peace initiative, would be the recognition of a new state, the State of Palestine. This State of Palestine would have to agree to be disarmed, but how that disarmament would be enforced, and exactly what arms it would include, remains unclear.

Israel also gets certain concessions. Existing Israeli settlements (that is, towns and cities) in the West Bank would be recognized as sovereign Israeli territory. The Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees, or “refugees” (the quotation marks indicate that these are the descendants of refugees, not true refugees themselves) would be integrated into the countries where they now live. There would be no right of return.

Netanyahu and Gantz have both declared themselves pleased with Trump’s peace plan. But can they truly be pleased with the recognition of a State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem? Perhaps they are pleased because the plan is better than any of the previous plans presented by Trump’s predecessors, and because they know that Abbas will never accept it, so they needn’t worry. They can afford to be pleased. There is no other state in the world that has been successfully disarmed. How likely is it that a State of Palestine, full of Jihadis, could be permanently disarmed, and not become a source of terrorism against Israelis, whether living in the West Bank or elsewhere in Israel?

The plan is generally good, but I confess that I expected even better. I did not think this administration would recognize a State of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem. I envisioned instead an arrangement whereby the local Arabs (to be carefully referred to as “Palestinian Arabs”) in the West Bank would be given as much autonomy as was consonant with Israeli security, but not a state. The safer the Israelis, the greater the degree of local autonomy. I see that I was wrong.

However, there is one thing about this plan that makes it most welcome. And that is the assurance that neither Mahmoud Abbas, nor any of his successors in the Palestinian Authority, nor anyone in Hamas, will be willing to negotiate over this plan in good faith. The Palestinians rejected Trump’s plan before they knew what was in it; they reject it again now that they know what is in it. Much of the world will be able to see that even when the Palestinians are offered a state of their own, even when they are promised that that state’s capital will be in East Jerusalem, even when they are further promised $50 billion in aid, far more than any of the more than 100 developing countries have ever received In aid, that is not enough to satisfy them. They are the spoiled brats of the international community.

Other Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, will urge the Palestinians to take the deal — “You get a state, you have your capital in Jerusalem, the Israelis have to stop building settlements, you’ll have 80% of the West Bank” – “or else.” “Or else” would mean only this: “We are tired of your whining, tired of the whole Palestinian problem; tired of your refusal to accept $50 billion in aid. We have so many bigger problems to think about, starting but not ending with Iran. Get with the program. Or count us out.” The refusal of the Palestinians to take the deal will only widen the gap between them and the other Arabs.

In agreeing to the Trump plan, Israel will have committed itself to not building new settlements in the West Bank for four years, while negotiations are going on. It’s a big concession. But if there are no negotiations, because the Palestinians continue to refuse enter into them, then the Trump administration has made clear that Israel is no longer required to refrain from settlement building. The Trump administration has noted that, in that case, it will support Israel should it decide to unilaterally incorporate other areas of the West Bank, beyond what it will already have annexed. And the offer of a State of Palestine will not be revived. And very few, at that point, will care.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas top dog writes to all Islamic heads of state, urging them to reject Trump peace plan

A General’s View of Why US Should Stay in Afghanistan

Trump: “It’s time for the Muslim world to fix the mistake of 1948 and recognize Israel”

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

Palestinian Authority paid $150,000,000 to jihad terrorists as salaries in 2019

/in , , , , , , /by

“PMW exclusive: PA gave 517.4 million shekels to terrorists as salaries in 2019,” by Maurice Hirsch, Palestinian Media Watch, January 30, 2020:

According to recently published Palestinian Authority financial reports, Palestinian Media Watch can expose that the PA has admitted to spending no less than 517.4 million shekels ($149.7 million/€136 million) paying salaries to terrorist prisoners and released prisoners in 2019.

The PA expenditure on allowances to wounded terrorists and the families of dead terrorists was at least 151.6 million shekels in 2019. Accordingly, the total minimum PA expenditure in 2019 on its payments to terrorists and families of dead terrorists – its Pay-for-Slay policy- was 669 million shekels ($193.6 million/€175.8 million).

In accordance with the Israeli law, Defense Minister Naftali Bennet should present the National Security Cabinet with a report showing that the PA expenditure on its Pay-for-Slay policy was no less than 669 million shekels.

Israeli law demands that this figure be deducted from the monthly tax transfers Israel makes to the PA.

Background 
Since created in 1994, the PA has implemented a “Pay-for-Slay” policy according to which it pays millions of shekels/dollars/euro every year in monthly salaries to reward Palestinian terrorist prisoners and released prisoners and monthly allowances to reward wounded terrorists and the families of dead terrorists (so-called “Martyrs”).

The PA codified the policy in the Law of Prisoners and Released Prisoners in 2004. Since then, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, has twice approved substantial hikes in the monthly salaries paid by the PA to the terrorists (2006, 2010).

According to sworn testimony given by a senior official on behalf of the PA, the PA payments to the wounded terrorists and families of dead terrorists are not codified in PA law, but rather only stipulated in undisclosed internal documents.

While the PA policy has been widely condemned, with four countries (Canada, the US, Australia, and Holland) cutting off all direct aid to the PA until the policy is abolished, and while the PA continues to request (and receive) considerable amounts of foreign aid, the PA itself carries on squandering hundreds of millions of shekels/dollars/euro on terrorist salaries every year, incentivizing and rewarding Palestinian terrorists.

In 2018, Israel passed a law to combat the PA policy. According to the law, at the end of each year, the Israeli Minister of Defense must submit a report to the National Security Cabinet detailing the PA expenditure on terrorist salaries and allowances in the passing year. Once the Cabinet approves the report, the PA expenditure in the passing year is deducted in twelve equal parts from the taxes that Israel collects and transfers to the PA in the coming year.

The new Israeli law was first implemented in February 2019, after PMW exposed that the PA had admitted to spending no less than 502 million shekels to pay the monthly salaries to the terrorist prisoners and released prisoners in 2018.

In response to the Israeli decision, Abbas positively decided to plunge the PA into a self-inflicted financial crisis by refusing to accept all the tax revenues from Israel, if Israel deducted any sum. Since the tax revenues account for almost half of the PA budget, rejecting their receipt had a substantial impact on the PA economy.

To overcome the crisis, the PA decided to temporarily cut salaries to the law abiding PA employees by 50% and to suspend referrals of Palestinians for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals. The PA also attempted to hide its financial reports, until PMW highlighted these actions. However, at the same time, the PA doubled down on its commitment to pay the terrorist prisoners, continuing to pay them 100% of their salaries.

After 7 months, the PA finally capitulated and agreed to receive the taxes that remained after the deduction.

Following an additional PMW report on the subject of the PA payments to the wounded and the families of the dead terrorists, in late December 2019 the Israeli National Security Cabinet decided to deduct an additional sum of 150 million shekels. Since the number of wounded Palestinian terrorists and the number of Palestinian terrorists killed grew in 2019, it is reasonable to assume that the PA expenditure for these terrorists grew.

According to statistics published by the PA and Israeli NGO B’tselem, no fewer than 110 Palestinian terrorists were killed in 2019. Taking into account the different PA payments, the additional expense incurred by the PA was no less than 1.6 million shekels.

During the presentation of his new Middle East peace plan, – the deal of the century – US President Donald Trump stressed the need for the PA to abolish its policy of rewarding terrorists and murderers:

“To ensure a successful Palestinian state, we are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful co-existence.  This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights; protecting against financial and political corruption; stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace; ending the incitement of hatred against Israel — so important; and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists.”

[www.whitehouse.gov, Jan. 28, 2020]

Whether the PA will suddenly listen to US President Trump – for whom the PA has only shown contempt – only time will tell, but until then, Israel – if it wants to abide by its own laws – should deduct no less than 669 million shekels ($193.6 million/€175.8 million) from its tax transfers to the PA in 2020.

In the meantime, while most of the world agrees that the PA practice of paying financial rewards to terrorists is despicable, the PA continues to waste ever-growing amounts of fungible donor aid to fund this policy. To help put an end to the PA’s “Pay-for-Slay” policy, the EU and more countries should make their aid conditional on the permanent abolishment of the policy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan a Much-Needed Dose of Reality

Palestinians Miss Opportunity by Rejecting Trump Peace Plan

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

Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan a Much-Needed Dose of Reality

/in , , , , , , /by

It’s unlikely that President Donald Trump’s new Israeli-Palestinian peace plan will succeed. Yet, it’s the best of any recent offerings because it dispels poisonous fictions that have held back negotiations for decades.

The reality is that there will never be a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel, since such a policy would destroy the Jewish character of the state.

Palestinians are not getting their great-granddads’ houses in Jaffa back any more than the hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who were expelled from Muslim lands after Israel’s 1948 war of independence are reclaiming their property.

The difference is that one of these groups accepted reality long ago.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Nor will Palestinians ever take control of Jerusalem proper. Any Israeli politician who broaches the notion of handing over the fulcrum of Jewish cultural, religious, and political identity to Fatah is engaging in an act of political suicide.

Palestinians have never administered Jerusalem, and they have no legitimate claim over Jerusalem. The current state of affairs is the status quo, whether Palestinians decide they want a state or not.

Likewise, Israelis will never pull back to pre-1967 lines, giving up its claims to the West Bank, because no sane nation would reinstitute unsecure borders next to an unreliable potential terror state.

The vast majority of Israelis who now reside in towns (“settlements”) built in historically Jewish areas aren’t going to be displaced because the United Nations or Ben Rhodes has declared Judea and Samaria a no-Jew zone. Those towns are part of a de facto border whether Palestinians agree to a deal or not.

Finally, there is no way that Israel, a liberal democracy responsible for the security of its citizens, can hand over the Jordan Valley—an area with immense strategic importance irrespective of the Palestinian situation—to a newly created state that allies itself with unsavory nations and entertains the idea of entering into a unity government with Hamas, the theocratic terror group. Perhaps, after peaceful coexistence for a few decades, this could change.

The Trump deal would simply codify these realities while allowing Palestinians finally to have a startup state. Trump’s plan is the first to offer a map laying out what the final borders of the Palestinian nation might look like.

In it, Israel cedes around 70% of the disputed territory in the West Bank to Palestinians but doubles its existing territory overall. “The sovereign capital of the State of Palestine,” the plan states, would be the city of “East Jerusalem.”

In return, Palestinians would recognize the existence of Israel, agree to solve their refugee problem through integration in their new state and in host Arab counties, and renounce terrorism. In other words, Palestinians would be asked to conduct themselves as does any normal, functioning state. The U.S. would also infuse $50 billion into the new Palestinian state.

Stateless peoples yearning for self-determination around the world—ethnic groups that Western elites don’t care a whit about—would, no doubt, be ecstatic for such an opportunity. Palestinians, however, happen to have chosen the right enemies.

They just have the wrong leaders. President Mahmoud Abbas hasn’t faced an electorate in 15 years and counting. His title of “president” falsely suggests that Abbas is the duly elected leader of a nation. Neither is true.

And although that is his own fault, Abbas and his deputies will no doubt sit in their U.N.-funded mansions while the Palestinian people suffer, waiting out Trump for more advantageous terms from a friendlier president such as Joe Biden—or Bernie Sanders, who could put Linda Sarsour in his administration.

But they won’t be able to wait out Israel. A nation with an open and vibrant economy has no reason to enter into a deal that upends its security. Most Israelis—I hate to break this to everyone—aren’t obsessed with the Palestinians.

Hamas is largely contained. Fatah is contained. Israel’s existence isn’t contingent on the creation of a Palestinian state, only on security.

Israel, in fact, probably feels less external pressure than ever to enter into a deal. Anyone who’s followed this issue understands the historic significance of Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Oman sending envoys to the White House unveiling of Trump’s peace deal.

Arab nations are coming to terms with the reality of the Jewish state in ways that Americans progressives have not.

Nor is there more internal political pressure to enter into a bad deal. Benny Gantz, the Kahol Lavan leader and chief rival to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “hailed” the Trump plan because, despite the effort of the American left to cast Netanyahu as the sole impediment to peace, no major Israeli party on either the right or the left is going to agree to a right of return, a return to pre-1967 lines, or a surrender of Jerusalem.

In the past, Palestinian negotiators sat back and rejected one concession after the next. They offered ever-growing lists of grievances while American leaders tried to pacify them.

It’s about time someone injected a dose of this reality into this situation. Trump’s plan allows Palestinians to have a state in the world that exists. Or not.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Palestinians’ bluff has been called

The Differences between the New U.S. Peace Plan and Its Predecessors Show Why Israel Should Embrace It

Hamas top dog writes to all Islamic heads of state, urging them to reject Trump peace plan

A General’s View of Why US Should Stay in Afghanistan

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

4 Big Moments Before the Senate’s Vote Against New Impeachment Witnesses

/in , , , , , , /by

In the lead-up to the Senate vote not to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, another John Bolton bombshell dropped, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rendered the debate moot, and the Senate chaplain almost stole the show.

About 5:40 p.m. Friday, the Senate voted 51-49 against calling witnesses, meaning the inevitable vote to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment will come soon. How soon is uncertain, but the final vote likely will be Wednesday.

Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined all Democrats and two Independents in voting for new witnesses as Democrats sought to convict and remove Trump from office nine months before the presidential election.

The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and accusing Trump of tying military assistance to Ukraine to its agreement to investigate interference by the former Soviet republic in the 2016 U.S. election and the dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

After the vote against calling new witnesses, senators went on to confer about finishing the Senate trial by Wednesday, which would be after Trump delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted the House had numerous witnesses and 28,000-plus pages of documents already in evidence, which he said is enough for a Senate trial.

“There is no need for the Senate to reopen the investigation, which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the [House impeachment] managers themselves continue to describe as ‘overwhelming’ and ‘beyond any doubt,’” McConnell said in a formal statement.

“Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation,” McConnell said. “We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue.”

Here are highlights from the day on which the Senate heard arguments over calling witnesses.

1. Murkowski Decides

Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was among four Republicans considering voting to call witnesses, particularly after The New York Times reported Sunday that a forthcoming book by Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, says Trump told Bolton that he sought to have the Ukraine government get information on Democrats.

To call new witnesses in addition to the 17 who testified in the House impeachment proceedings, it would have taken four Republicans to join the 47 senators in the Democrats’ caucus.

Romney announced that he would vote to hear new witnesses, after Collins already had done so.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., had announced late Thursday that he would vote against calling witnesses, saying: “The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”

Alexander’s announcement signaled that Democrats would not be able to gain a majority for witnesses.

However, House Democrat managers argued that Chief Justice John Roberts could break a tie, based on precedent from the 1868 Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson.

Just before 2 p.m., ending speculation about a tie, Murkowski announced on Twitter and in a formal statement that she would not vote for witnesses. She explained her reasons in a thread of five tweets in which she concluded that “the Congress has failed.”

2. Flap Over Chaplain’s Prayer

The Senate chaplain, Barry Black, who has opened each day of the trial with a prayer, made news with a prayer Friday that spurred media and social media speculation that Black was pushing senators for witnesses or a specific outcome.

“Remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct,” Black said in the prayer. “Lord, help them to remember that they can’t ignore you and get away with it. For we always reap what we sow.”

Black, a retired Navy rear admiral, became the 62nd Senate chaplain in 2003.

The Baltimore native was commissioned as a Navy chaplain in 1976. His first duty station was the Fleet Religious Support Activity in Norfolk, Virginia.

 3. New Bolton Revelations

Before the Senate debate on witnesses, The New York Times dropped another big story about Bolton, who Democrats wanted to call as a witness. Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador who resigned last year as Trump’s national security adviser, has a book coming out in March.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., leader of the seven House impeachment managers, read parts of the Times article on the Senate floor. Later, excerpts were shown on a large screen.

“Today,” Schiff said, “we were greeted to yet another development in the case when The New York Times reported with a headline that says,  ‘Trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure campaign, book says.’”

“According to The New York Times, more than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.,” Schiff said, reading from the Times.

The Times reported that the meeting included Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone.

Cipollone leads the president’s defense team at the Senate trial.

“You will recall Mr. Cipollone suggesting that the House managers were concealing facts from this body. He said all the facts should come out,” Schiff said. “Well, there is a new fact, which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was among those in the loop. Yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses.”

House manager Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., warned senators about the judgment of history, since all the facts will come out sooner or later.

“The truth continues to come out, again in an article today, more information,” Crow said. “The truth will come out—and it’s continuing to. The question here, before this body, is what do you want your place in history to be? Do you want your place in history to be let’s hear the truth, or that we don’t want to hear it?”

4. Trump Should ‘Prove’ Innocence

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, argued that if Trump really is innocent, he would want witnesses:

If the president is telling the truth, and he did nothing wrong, and the evidence would prove that, then we all know he would be an enthusiastic supporter for subpoenas. He would be here probably himself if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information proving he was totally not in the wrong. If he is innocent, he should have nothing to hide.

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow later countered that the House prosecution team seems to suggest the president must prove his innocence, which is not how the system works.

“You’re not going to have a witness wand here, where we say, OK, you’ve got a week to do this and get it done,” Sekulow said. “There is no way that would be proper under due process.”

Sekulow noted that the House had 17 witnesses, 13 of whom testified in public. Further, he said, 192 video clips were shown from that public witness testimony during the course of the Senate trial.

Only the House took testimony. Sekulow said that for a fair trial, the president’s legal team would have the right to cross-examine each witness:

Due process is supposed to be for the person accused and they are turning it on its head. They brought the articles [of impeachment] before you. They are the ones who rushed the case up and then held it before you could actually start the proceedings. They are the ones who passed the articles before Christmas.

Sekulow added that the House Intelligence Committee, which Schiff chairs, opted not to subpoena Bolton, fearing it would delay a House impeachment vote into the new year.

Sekulow appealed to the Senate, saying it wasn’t their job to clean up after the House’s lack of a thorough investigation.

“How many constitutional challenges will we have in this body because they placed a burden on you that they wouldn’t take themselves in putting their case forward?” Sekulow said.

“We look at our constitutional framework and our constitutional structure. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work,” he said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:

7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial

6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial

‘Danger, Danger, Danger’: 4 Highlights From Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial

Under Bolton Shadow, 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial

5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial

7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump

7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial

5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments

What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stomp Them Out: Senate Republicans Block Democratic Push For New Trump Impeachment Witnesses

Amid Impeachment, Pompeo Visit to Ukraine Underscores US Support

RELATED VIDEO: Pro-Impeachment Protesters Have a Meltdown After They Find Out Senate Votes Against Witnesses

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

VIDEO: Geert Wilders blasts the Justice Minister for corruption in the Dutch Parliament

/in , , , , , , /by

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Democrats Don’t Care About American Lives

/in , , , , , , /by

My article about Pop Kern, an 89 year old kind white gentleman and how Democrats seek to punish him for his bogus unfair and racist “white privilege” received a tremendous amount of positive response. A young relative of Pop Kern wrote informing me that Pop Kern is a loyal Democrat. This is not surprising. My black dad who passed away at age 90 was also a lifelong Democrat. Dad drilled into my head that Democrats are for the working man and Republicans are for the rich.

Respectfully, I tried to gently convince an elderly family member that her Democratic Party has dramatically changed. It is now the party of all things amoral, anti-Christianity, anti-freedom and anti-American. Looking me firmly in the eye, she stubbornly spouted, “I’m votin’ for Biden!”

I watched the movie, “Schindler’s List” for the first time. The Nazi’s total disregard for the lives of Jews was breathtakingly evil, while they cruelly deceived the Jews. In shockingly similar fashion, the Democratic Party deceives Americans into believing it is their best friend, while having zero regard for American lives.

The singular intention of the Democratic Party is to obtain power to control every aspect of our lives. Obamacare gave them godlike power to decide who lives and who dies. If you refuse to give up your second amendment right to own a gun, no healthcare for you. If you hold firm to your biblical convictions, no healthcare for you.

Fake news media allowed Obama to lie to the American people 29 times that Obamacare would allow them to keep health care plans that they liked. This huge lie won Obama the Politifact “Lie of the Year” award. Obamacare became law against the will of the American people and cancer patients lost their lifesaving doctors. Obamacare was a major step in Democrats’ mission to transform America into a totally government controlled nation. The lives of cancer patients did not matter.

The same way Jewish lives did not matter to the Nazis, Democrats’ behavior says American lives do not matter in regards to the invasion of illegal aliens. In defiance of federal law, Democrats host sanctuary cities which protect illegal alien rapists, murders, drug dealers and career criminals. Outrageously, illegals are gifted driver’s licenses, healthcare, attorneys, allowed to vote and numerous handouts unavailable to U.S. citizens.

Democrats deem coddling illegals more important than American lives. Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien while strolling with her dad on a lazy Sunday afternoon in San Francisco. Kate’s murderer had been deported numerous times, repeatedly welcomed back to the sanctuary city. Democrats acquitted Kate’s murderer and even voted down a law to punish deported illegals who keep coming back.

Democrats’ vision for the perfect America includes transforming her into a wild, wild west of sex, a society in which every perversion is legalized and citizens are forced to celebrate. A memo exposed Obama’s DOJ plan to legalize 12 perversions including pedophilia and bestiality. Colleges are laying the ground work by scolding us about our bigoted intolerance of pedophiles.

Democrats are sexualizing children beginning in pre-k with a mandatory LGBTQ curriculum. “I Am Jazz”, a book about a boy whose parents began his so-called sex change at age 3 is required reading.

Once you realize that Democrats only care about furthering their agenda and American lives do-not- matter, you understand their behavior. U.S. students are sick with strange diseases due to untested illegal alien children being sent to public schools.

Transsexuals who regret having sex change surgery are blocked from media.

Pediatricians whose research confirm that transgender ideology is child abuse are persecuted, fired and blocked from media. Women who regret aborting their baby are blocked from media. Women and little girls assaulted by men posing as women in transgender friendly restrooms are hidden from the public. Feminists who fight transgenders destroying women sports are blocked from media. Every truth that undercuts Democrats’ lies and evil agenda is blocked by fake news media.

President Donald J. Trump is our only protection against Democrats and fake news media implementing their vision of a new America, removed from her position as leader of the free world. This is why they are repulsed by Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

Their only hope is to separate Trump from his supporters via a thousand cuts; lying about him 24/7; spinning everything good he does into a negative; a reason to impeach him.

By reducing tons of Obama’s over-reaching regulations, Trump has our economy at its strongest in 50 years. Black unemployment is at its lowest in U.S. history. Democrats hate that blacks are doing so well under Trump. Clearly, black lives matter to Trump, but not to their so-called advocates in the Democratic Party and fake news media.

Iranian terrorist Soleimani murdered and severely wounded hundreds of U.S troops using roadside bombs. Soleimani planned attacks on U.S. Embassies to murder thousands more Americans. Trump killed Soleimani. Remarkably, Democrats sought to spin Trump acting to save American lives into a crime, a reason to impeach him. The Democratic Party has become the home of pure hate and evil, obsessed with gaining power.

Elderly lifelong Democrats are unaware that their “working man” party has become an anti-American and anti-Christian mob of hate-filled activists at war with everyday Americans.

Straight white men like elderly Pop Kern are number one on Democrats’ hit list, targeted for destruction.

I ran into Pop Kern at the post office. With his great smile, he said, “I want to thank you for what you wrote on that internet.” I asked, “Did you read it?” He replied, “No, but I heard about it from Florida to Pittsburgh. Thanks for what you wrote. I really appreciate it.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Stories of Pain and Misery’ Moved Lawmaker to Take Action on Childhood Gender Transition

VIDEO: California Nightmare is Spreading Nationally

/in , , , , , /by

I recently returned home to West Virginia from filming my Trump Train 2020 song music video in California. It was exciting and fun; a sound stage, green screen, lights, cameras and the director yelling, “Action!”

With the mixed bag of enthusiastic locals we used as extras, the atmosphere in the studio felt like a Trump rally. They love Trump and eagerly want to do their part to help him “Keep America Great”. The Trump Train 2020 song official music video will be released early February.

Folks, it is pretty crazy out there in California. We were not in San Francisco where they give tourists maps to avoid piles of human excrement. We rode past a private home with a rainbow sign stating that all gender identities were welcomed. The restrooms at the San Diego airport car rental center had signs assuring transgenders that they are welcome into women restrooms.

The average gasoline price was around $4.60 per gallon. We pay around $2.40 in West Virginia.

While in California, Robert Kirk, the director of the music video, gave me a sneak-peek of his comedy short film, “Nightmare in Paradise”. Robert’s hilarious movie is about a transgender who shows up for a job interview. The interviewer must handle the transgender with kid-gloves and extreme caution to avoid breaking laws. Robert is a former prosecutor. The scary thing about his brilliant script is that it is based on existing California laws. Here is a link to watch Robert Kirk’s, “Nightmare in Paradise.”

While turning down a pro-life Super Bowl ad featuring abortion survivors, Fox proudly announced its plan to feature the first drag queen Super Bowl ad. Drag queens are a minuscule percentage of the population. Pro-lifers are a huge segment of the population. Why are so many major corporations giving mainstream America their middle finger while bending over backwards to please an extreme tiny minority of counter-culturlists?

Even Democrat presidential candidates say, “Screw you mainstream America, we’re pandering to transgenders.”

Joe Biden tweeted, “transfobia is the paramount civil rights issue of the current era.” As a proud American who happens to be black, it offends the heck out of me that a behavior is absurdly deemed the same as the racial discrimination fought by my late dad and his fellow black civil rights pioneers.

If elected, Elizabeth Warren pledges to reverse Trump’s ban on transgenders in the military. Warren also vows that transgenders with be well-represented in her administration.

Bernie Sanders tweeted, “Transgender rights are human rights. We are going to fight to end all forms of discrimination and violence against our trans family.” Sanders hung a transgender pride flag outside his office. Leading in the Democrat presidential polls, Sanders promises protections for illegals and transgenders, insuring that they be addressed by their preferred pronouns.

Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, who really gets-off by kissing his male sex partner on national TV, promises nearly two dozen new initiatives to further the LGBTQ agenda. Keep in mind that only 3% of the population identify as LGBTQ.

Transgenders are destroying women sports, winning every competition hands-down. Hillary had to back peddle from her statement that cisgender (real women) have a right to be concerned. Hillary’s cowardly retraction of her commonsense statement tells us she will surrender to the transgender agenda if elected president.

Democrat presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg epitomizes my statement that Democrats crave power to control every aspect of our lives because they are our intellectual and moral superiors. In typical Democrat, we’re-smarted-than-everyday-Americans fashion, NY mayor Bloomberg tried to ban large sugary beverages.

Bloomberg promises to federally fund transgender sex-change surgery.

Democrats have forced us to sponsor the murder of 60 million babies against the moral convictions of a majority of Americans. Bloomberg will force us to fund transgender ideology which is documented to be a mental illness and child abuse.

Bloomberg raves about California, promising to spread its intellectually superior policies across America.

California is a state which seeks to remove all parental rights and ban homeschooling, forcing parents to surrender their children for LGBTQ, socialist/progressive and anti-American indoctrination. This is a state which coddles illegal aliens, showering them will freebies unavailable to legal residents, while legal residents struggle to survive. This is a state which has ushered in the resurgence of medieval diseases because vagrants are allowed to set up tent cities and defecate on the streets. Criminals who steal under a thousand dollars worth of product are not charged.

If Bloomberg or any of his fellow wacko Democrats are elected president, America will immediately fall backwards, resuming the economic, cultural and world-leadership decline of the Obama years. An endless list of new perversions will be forced upon us; all who oppose will be shamed, destroyed and thrown into jail.

Trump must be reelected in 2020.

Meanwhile, laugh a bit. Please enjoy Robert Kirk’s “Nightmare in Paradise.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Stories of Pain and Misery’ Moved Lawmaker to Take Action on Childhood Gender Transition

How the Economy Impacts Your Daily Life

/in , , , , , /by

Whether you pay close attention to financial matters or you go through your life without concern for the value of the dollar, it is hard to deny the impact that the economy can have on a person’s life. What’s interesting is that most people don’t realize exactly how this fluctuating system of value holds sway over everyday tasks. By giving yourself the opportunity to learn more about how the economy changes the way you live, you stand to become more educated on important matters. Look over these points to see exactly how the economy influences your existence.

Luxury Purchases

Times of economic prosperity are defined by certain factors. For one, a nation doing well financially is likely to be in a period of job creation. This means that more people have money that can be put into other businesses, providing other individuals with extra income through the success of their companies. When a person has more money at his or her disposal, the quality of purchases made also tends to change. You are far more likely to invest in a luxury product or service when you have some additional funds to spend.

Of course, the opposite is also true. During an economic downturn, luxury and niche services are typically the first to go under. This is why it is always wise to keep luxury purchases under control so that you can save funds to cover your expenses during difficult economic times.

New Businesses

The economy also plays a vital part in the decisions you make when starting your own business. While it is obvious that you shouldn’t open a business in an oversaturated marketplace during a tumultuous economic period, there are even more interesting ways the economy dictates your decisions. When you are first creating a business, for example, the economy will determine whether you choose an LLC vs S Corp structure. Reviewing the details of each option can help illustrate your exact financial responsibilities and allow you to make the most sensible selection for the business you wish to build.

Financing Fluctuations

Another area impacted heavily by the economy is financing. The government and larger financial institutions like banks are  deeply connected to the ups and downs of the economy. What’s more, these organizations set interest rates on loans to individuals and businesses alike. When the economy is in bad shape, it is more likely that you will see high rates and strict terms on the money you are borrowing. In fact, most lenders are more likely to outright deny an application it would otherwise have accepted during a more prosperous period.

While you can’t always control the financing terms you’re offered during an economic downturn, there are definitely methods for improving the odds. An exceptional credit score will work to your advantage no matter what state the economy is in. The less debt you have attached to your name, the easier it becomes to secure a loan when lenders are skeptical. If you’ve paid your debts, a bank will view you as responsible enough to handle a loan in any circumstances.

Tax Troubles

Finally, the taxes you pay will change depending on how the economy is faring. When the government is concerned about the state of financial matters, it is more likely to increase taxes. Conversely, tax rates will typically drop a bit when an economy is in a healthy condition. This is true of everything from property to retail taxes. When this happens at the state level, it can cause more problems for local communities. Nearby regions with lower taxes will drive consumers to making purchases across state lines, preventing the economy from recovering at an expedited pace.

The economy plays a big part in what you are able to accomplish in your daily life. When finances are tight, it is less likely you will be able to invest in a home or open your own business without exhibiting exceptional financial responsibility. Educate yourself and do your best to stay out of debt in order to best handle whatever life has in store.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Our Military Should Be Cultivating Masculinity, Not Denigrating It

/in , , , , , , /by

A recent review of U.S. special operations forces pointed to a leadership crisis in our military, concluding that leadership, discipline and accountability must be strengthened at all levels. West Point Military Academy, which is supposed to be the Army’s preeminent leader development institution, hasn’t been immune to this breakdown in leadership. Earlier this month, West Point cadets attended “Honorably Living Day,” a mandatory event dedicated to promoting diversity and feminist thought where facilitators discouraged what they called “toxic masculinity.”

The curriculum featured the documentary Miss Representation, which was produced by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, first lady of California and wife of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.). The documentary included commentary from left-wing commentators such as Katie Couric, Rosie O’Donnell, and Jane Fonda. What does any of this have to do with fighting and winning wars? That was the question Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin asked when he joined Washington Watch yesterday to discuss this new initiative. “In no way does this help enhance the readiness of our military,” he told me. “It is a reflection of what was forced on our military in the Obama administration. The disappointing thing is that it’s still there…”

Instead of developing leaders, West Point is taking time to attack masculinity. The program even questions the phrase “be a man.” Yet, by attacking masculinity, mandatory trainings such as Honorably Living Day undermines the very characteristics our military desperately needs. General Boykin quoted George Orwell, who fought in the Spanish Civil War and observed the hardships of battle first-hand: “Orwell said, ‘We rest well in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence against those who would threaten us.'”

General Boykin argues that the campaign against masculinity inflicts a great deal of damage on society beyond the military. “This whole idea of ‘hypermasculinity,’ which is one of the phrases that they’ve coined now… is absolute nonsense, has nothing to do with reality. It is about destroying men because they are the foundations of the family… The men are so important, and the men are walking out of their families today all over America. And this is a reflection of exactly what the crisis in masculinity is all about.” Indeed, a lack of male leadership has certainly taken its toll on American families. All the more, this highlights the importance of preserving strong and moral male leadership in the military, despite the Left’s effort to destroy it.

For centuries, men have largely been the ones fighting wars, protecting their countries, and defending their people. Instead of disparaging a perceived “toxic masculinity,” the U.S. military should be building the character of men and fostering their natural instinct to protect and defend. The strength of our military and the security of our nation depends on it.

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

South Dakota House Members Show They Care for Children and Families

SCOTUS Reviews Faith-hostile Blaine Amendments

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC Action column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Has The Hollywood Political Iceberg Started to Thaw?

/in , , , , /by

Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globe Comments Have Given Rise and Momentum to the Campaign of California Congressional Independent Candidate, Larry Thompson.

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 30, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Hollywood has been stunned and abuzz by recent Golden Globe Host, Ricky Gervais’ scathing, and humorist attack on their long-running, hypocritical, pontificating and liberal bias.

“If ISIS started a streaming service, you would call your agent, wouldn’t you?” he joked. “So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech, right? You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.”

Tom Hanks looked up quizzically. The room, in disbelief, was trying to discern exactly what Gervais was saying.  He added, “So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f…k off, OK?” That was pretty clear.

Now that the evening is over, the Globes have been taken home, and the limos are being washed and made ready for the next Awards Ceremony, something seems to have changed.  Gervais’ caustic humor has caused many Hollywood elites to dare question their tribal, liberal religion. Their political consensus has been shaken. Even Megan McArdle in her January 7, The Washington Post article observed this seminal moment, “… it was refreshing to see someone stand up at a Hollywood awards ceremony and actually speak truth to power…”

The real winners of this Tinsel Town earthquake are not only the “Best this” and “Best that,” but also the not-so-traditional Hollywood thinkers who, in the wings, have been trembling with fear and afraid for so long to express their thoughts and beliefs. They need a winner to follow.

Perhaps the biggest winner of the 2020 Golden Globes is California’s Independent Congressional Candidate, Larry Thompson, who is leading the wave of this political revolution in the making.  www.LarryThompsonForCongress.com

No stranger to Hollywood, Thompson, himself, is an acclaimed Hollywood film producer, talent  manager, lawyer, book packager, author, Broadway Producer, and motivational speaker. He is founder and President of the Larry A. Thompson Organization, where he has managed the careers of over 200 Stars and produced 20 Movies for Television, 5 Motion Pictures, 2 Television Series, and 12 Television Specials.

Tired of throwing pillows at his television set each night when the news was on, slapping his forehead with the palm of his hand at everything the two political parties were arguing about, Thompson finally threw his hat in the political ring as an Independent knowing that California and his 37th District are democratic stronghold.

“I had to stop complaining and start running,” says Thompson. “California needs an Independent Voice to bring to Washington some Common Sense with Common Civility to find Common Ground on our Common Issues.”

Hollywood Insiders, who initially thought Thompson’s candidacy was a Don Quixote fool’s errand, have quietly since the Golden Globe Awards started to sense a thaw in his Hollywood receptivity and the reasonability of his positions. Do we have another “Rocky” in the making?

“Keeping his stars “hot” and producing “pop culture” movies for over 40 years has kept Larry on the immediate pulse of the times,” says Emmy-Nominated, comedy producer, Michael Wilson, whose father, David Wilson, directed the pilot and first 25 years of “Saturday Night Live.” Just like comedy, it’s all about timing, and Larry truly has his finger on the political moment.”

With his lawn signs everywhere in Century City (which houses the new Disney/Fox) and Culver City  (home of Sony Studios), Thompson is encouraged by Hollywood’s evolving political attitudes and his internal polling that shows him advancing quickly with awareness and likability.

“Thompson doesn’t have a chance,” says an anonymous disbeliever, “And once we impeach Trump and get him out of office, we’re gonna impeach Gervais.”

“Larry Thompson has so much of his platform figured out,” says Michael Douglas Carlin, editor of the Century City News.  “Using his common sense approach he could emerge as an important national voice to break the gridlock in Congress.”

About Larry Thompson

Thompson has received the Industry’s prestigious Vision Award and his productions have won 2 Accolade Awards, 2 Imagen Awards, The Epiphany Prize, The Wilbur Award, The Christopher Award, and have received Nominations for 10 Emmys, 6 Imagen Awards, 2 Prism Awards, the Humanitas Prize, and a Golden Globe.

He serves on the Advisory Boards of The Delta Blues Museum, Paulist Productions, and Good News Communications. He is a Founding Member Enthusiast of the Museum of The Bible in Washington, D.C. and a Charter Member of the United States Capitol Historical Society. He is perennially listed in Who’s Who In America and Who’s Who In The World, and on August 1, 2018, Thompson was awarded the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award by Marquis Who’s Who.

The National Conference of Personal Managers inducted Thompson into the Personal Managers Hall of Fame on May 12, 2016. Thompson was also honored on September 19, 2013, by the Talent Managers Association with the prestigious Seymour Heller Award for Lifetime Achievement in Talent Management.  These two entertainment industry awards are the highest honors a personal manager can receive for representing talent.

Thompson was Knighted in Rome, Italy on May 20, 2017. Grand Prior, Prince Lorenzo de‘ Medici, sponsored Thompson, an American of Italian Heritage, into the prestigious Order of Saint Martin of Mount of the Beatitudes as a Patron of the Arts and Protector of the Most Needy.

Thompson was born, raised, and educated in Mississippi.  After finishing law school at the University of Mississippi in 1968, he drove three days to the corner of Hollywood and Vine to start his dream career in show business. Also from 1968 to 1974, Thompson served in the United States Army Reserve’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps mostly in Torrance, California.

Thompson lives in the 37th District with his wife, Kelly, and their daughter, Taylor (17), and son, Trevor (15).

About the 37th District

California’s 37th Congressional District is based in Los Angeles County. It includes many neighborhoods West and Southwest of Downtown Los Angeles.

The District includes: Culver City, Inglewood, the City of Los Angeles neighborhoods of Mid City, West Los Angeles, Westwood, Century City, Rancho Park, Palms, Mar Vista, Sawtelle, Beverlywood, View Park-Windsor Hills, Cheviot Hills, Pico-Robertson, Miracle Mile, Exposition Park, University Park, Vermont Knolls, West Adams, South Los Angeles, Leimert Park, Jefferson Park, Vermont Square, Ladera Heights, Hyde Park, Crenshaw, and Baldwin Hills.

The District is highly diverse ethnically. Approximately 40% of the district’s residents are Latino, while 25% are African American, 25% are Caucasian, and 8% Asian.

The District has over 738,00 residents, 2 film studios (the new Fox/Disney in Century City and Sony Pictures in Culver City), the University of Southern California, many places of worship, museums such as The Museum of Tolerance, the Petersen Automotive Museum, and the California African American Museum, plus many points of cultural interest including some of Thompson’s favorites, The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, the Space Shuttle Endeavour at the California Science Center, The Apple Pan on W. Pico and Hansen’s Bakery on Fairfax.

About the Election

The Primary Election will be on March 3, 2020. The two candidates that receive the most votes in the Primary Election will advance to the General Election, which will be on November 3, 2020. California Elections have the Top-Two Candidates Open Election System, which means all registered voters, regardless of political affiliation, may vote for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation.

© All rights reserved.

When ‘Never Again’ Means Nothing

/in , , , , , /by

This week, the world marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Allied forces during World War II. Politicians of all stripes dutifully tweeted, “#NeverAgain.”

Meanwhile, many of those same politicians continued to forward the worst sort of anti-Semitism, blithely ignoring the fact that anti-Semitism isn’t a relic of the past but a thriving part of the present.

Take, for example, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. Omar has, in the past two years alone, sponsored an anti-Semitic resolution that likened boycotts of Israel to boycotts of Nazi Germany; rejected a Democratic-sponsored resolution backing a two-state solution in order to chide the Trump administration and Israel, because the solution wasn’t radical enough; and repeatedly suggested that Jewish money manipulates American foreign policy on Israel.

Her anti-Semitism was so palpable that the Democrats were forced to debate and then water down a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Still, Omar tweeted, “Today and every day, we must redouble our efforts to confront anti-Semitism and all forms of religious discrimination and say #NeverAgain.”

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Or how about Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.? She tweeted a story about a Holocaust survivor visiting Auschwitz and added, “May we honor them by sharing stories like these, #NeverAgain allowing hate to flourish, and committing to speaking out against anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate.”

Just two days before that tweet, Tlaib put out a now-deleted retweet of anti-Semitic blood libel that accused “a Herd of violent #Israeli settlers” of kidnapping a 7-year-old boy and drowning him in a well. In reality, the boy was 8 years old and apparently had drowned after slipping into a pool of rainwater in the Beit Hanina neighborhood.

Tlaib, of course, is no stranger to Jew hatred: In the past two years, she has accused congressional lawmakers opposed to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement of dual loyalty and hobnobbed with open terror supporters, and she is the bedrock congressional supporter of BDS itself.

Both Tlaib and Omar have provided moral support for Hamas, the terror group in charge of the Gaza Strip.

Then there’s Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party leader who so disgraced his own party with his coddling of anti-Semites that he was rejected by many members of his upper echelon.

Corbyn glibly tweeted, “This is a time for us all to reflect on the horrors of the past, the evils of Nazism, genocide and antisemitism, and indeed all forms of racism, which we must always be determined to root out, wherever they appear.”

The truth is that #NeverAgain has become a virtue signal for many on the modern left, who are more than willing to greenlight the genocidal anti-Semitism of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, and the Iranian regime, among others. Islamic anti-Semitism, in their view, is not true anti-Semitism; it’s just religious conflict, or territorial disagreement, or anti-Zionism.

When such ideological disagreements result in open calls for the murder of Jews … well, that’s going a bit too far, but it’s understandable. After all, modern Jews—particularly Zionists, who insist on a Jewish state to ensure the survival of their people—are rather bothersome in real life, unlike those dead Jews from World War II, who aren’t any more real than their old black-and-white photos, and whose survival is no longer at issue.

It’s easy for radical leftists and their Islamic allies to spout #NeverAgain while proclaiming that today’s Jews aren’t like yesterday’s Jews. All of which is why Israel’s continued existence provides both a thorn in the side of modern anti-Semites and why Israel’s continued existence is so necessary.

Vague expressions of upset over an event that took place 75 years ago are no substitute for the hard-nosed defense of Jewish survival that Israel represents. And Jews should remember that when they decide to blind themselves to the real and present anti-Semitism of the Omars, Tlaibs, and Corbyns.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Palestinians Miss Opportunity by Rejecting Trump Peace Plan

Turkey: Demonstrators protest Trump peace plan, hold signs saying “Jerusalem belongs to Islam”

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

Palestinians Miss Opportunity by Rejecting Trump Peace Plan

/in , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan on Tuesday at a White House ceremony attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump declared that the plan “presents a ‘win-win’ opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security.”

Netanyahu enthusiastically embraced Trump’s vision, proclaiming, “It’s a great plan for Israel. It’s a great plan for peace.” He then lauded Trump as “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.”

Indeed, Trump’s vision for peace is the most pro-Israeli peace initiative ever promoted by the United States. It accords a high priority to Israeli security needs, recognizes Israel’s vital interest in retaining control of the border with Jordan, and clears the way for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over many settlements and Jewish holy sites in the disputed territory of the West Bank.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Trump’s vision also includes important benefits for Palestinians, who were offered the opportunity to build a state of their own, supported by a $50 billion regional development plan for the Palestinian territories and nearby Arab states.

More than half of the $50 billion would be invested in infrastructure and business projects in the Palestinian territories in the first 10 years, with the remainder invested in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.

This economic program, which has been compared to the Marshall Plan through which the U.S. helped stabilize western Europe after World War II, would boost prosperity among Palestinians, free them from dependence on foreign handouts, and give their children hope for a much brighter future.

Despite the economic benefits and the diplomatic pathway to a Palestinian state offered by the initiative, Palestinian leaders immediately rejected the plan.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denounced Trump’s “deal of the century” as the “slap of the century.”

Trump’s vision fell far short of the Palestinian Authority’s maximal demands for a sovereign state controlling all the territory in the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem, and recognition of the “right of return” for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

But those demands were always unrealistic and posed unacceptable risks to Israeli security.

The Trump peace initiative envisions a smaller Palestinian state composed of Gaza, approximately 70% of the West Bank, and specified land swaps of Israeli territory along its borders with Egypt and the northern West Bank.

To mitigate the security risks to Israel of such a state, the Palestinians would be required to renounce terrorism, disarm Hamas and other terrorist groups, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and halt payments to the families of Palestinians imprisoned or killed due to their participation in terrorist attacks.

Missed Opportunities for Peace

The “land for peace” paradigm enshrined in the 1993 Oslo Accords failed in large part because the Palestinian Authority failed to halt terrorism against Israel, particularly by Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas rejects peace negotiations with Israel and remains committed to Israel’s destruction.

After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas staged a bloody coup against the Palestinian Authority, seized control of Gaza, and turned into a base for attacking Israel with rockets, tunnel infiltrations, and incendiary balloons.

Israelis have strong reasons to suspect that a total Israeli pullout from the West Bank also could result in a Hamas overthrow of the weak Palestinian Authority and the establishment of another terrorist front against Israel.

Palestinians made a bad situation worse by rejecting a series of peace plans proposed by the Carter administration in 1978, the Reagan administration in 1982, and the Clinton administration in 2000.

Since 2014, the Palestinians have rejected negotiations with Israel unless it froze its settlement program, a condition that was not included in the Oslo peace negotiations.

The Palestinian Authority broke off diplomatic contacts with Washington in December 2017 after the Trump administration recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The Palestinians’ “all or nothing” negotiating stance has left them with nothing that gives hope for a better future. Now they are turning their backs on Trump’s vision, despite the potential economic benefits it offers.

Trump’s ‘Outside-In’ Strategy

Although the Palestinians swiftly rejected Trump’s peace initiative, other Arab states have supported the plan and told the Palestinians “not so fast.”

Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates sent their ambassadors to the White House rollout event and joined Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia in appealing to the Palestinians to consider the initiative as a framework for negotiations.

Getting the buy-in of these key Arab states is important for the Trump administration’s “outside-in” strategy, which seeks to enlist support from Arab states that already have made peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan) as well as Arab Gulf oil states that fear Iran more than Israel (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait).

It is not clear how hard Arab leaders will pressure Palestinian leaders to accept the plan. Realistically, the plan is unlikely to advance peace talks unless the Palestinians engage on it, and that is not likely. It takes two to tango, but Palestinian leaders have refused multiple American invitations to attend the dance.

The Trump peace plan is therefore unlikely to jumpstart the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

But even if it produces no immediate results, Trump’s initiative will serve as a marker that could encourage Palestinian leaders to take a more realistic approach to negotiations in the future and improve the long-term prospects for peace.

COMMENTARY BY

James Phillips

James Phillips is the senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He has written extensively on Middle Eastern issues and international terrorism since 1978. Read his research.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Differences between the New U.S. Peace Plan and Its Predecessors Show Why Israel Should Embrace It

Palestinians to Bring Resolution Condemning Peace Plan to U.N. Security Council

The Palestinians’ Bluff Has Been Called. Over to you, World

Turkey: Demonstrators protest Trump peace plan, hold signs saying “Jerusalem belongs to Islam”

RELATED VIDEO: Powerful speech by Swedish woman on Muslim migration.

https://twitter.com/EM_KA_17/status/1222208946460594176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1222208946460594176&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvladtepesblog.com%2F2020%2F01%2F31%2Fswedish-woman-lays-on-an-illegal-dose-of-truth%2F

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial

/in , , , , , , /by

Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a sensitive question from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in the Senate impeachment trial Thursday, as other senators asked about the withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine and about Joe Biden and his son’s employment by a Ukrainian energy company.

The ninth day of the impeachment trial was the second straight day in which President Donald Trump’s defense team and House prosecutors took turns answering questions from senators.

Senators submitted 93 questions Wednesday and were on track to ask about as many Thursday.

The Senate is set to vote Friday on whether to call witnesses for the impeachment trial, which Democrats want.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Most reports of head counts say not enough Republican votes will be there to continue the trial with witnesses. That outcome would make this the shortest presidential impeachment trial in history, following an abbreviated House impeachment inquiry that lasted about 70 days.

Trump’s acquittal is a near certainty, as it takes 67 senators, or a two-thirds majority, to remove a president.

Here are seven key highlights of the proceedings Thursday, the ninth day of the Senate trial.

1. Roberts v. Paul

Reports surfaced Wednesday that Roberts, presiding over the Senate impeachment trial as chief justice, would not expose the anonymous whistleblower who first complained about a phone conversation July 25 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump withheld $391 million in aid.

In opening the session Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, without being asked: “We’ve been respectful of the chief justice’s unique position in reading our questions, and I want to be able to continue to assure him that that level of consideration for him will continue.”

Early in the day, Roberts called on Paul.

“The senator from Kentucky,” the chief justice said.

“I have a question to present to the desk for House manager [Adam] Schiff and for the president’s counsel,” Paul said.

Schiff, D-Calif., is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which led the impeachment inquiry targeting Trump. He is the leader of the seven House managers, or prosecutors, making the case for the Senate to remove Trump.

When the card with Paul’s question was brought to Roberts, he looked at it for 11 seconds, then said: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”

Paul reportedly was upset and at one point left the chamber and, talking to reporters, criticized Roberts for censoring questions.

The Kentucky Republican, an ally and former rival of Trump’s, sent out several tweets repeating the name of the person widely reported—without confirmation—to be the whistleblower. This first tweet, however, did not:

“My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings,” Paul tweeted, before naming someone widely reported to be the whistleblower.

Paul later tweeted:

My question is not about a ‘whistleblower’ as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC [White House National Security Council] and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.

2. Schiff Won’t Answer About Coordinating With Whistleblower

Paul rephrased his question about Schiff later in the hearing, and Roberts was willing to read it this time:

Recent reporting described two NSC [National Security Council] staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration, and talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the president.’

On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Shawn Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindmand and the individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Shawn Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelenskyy, and what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?

Vindmand, an Army officer, testified about his concerns with the Trump-Zelenskyy call during the House impeachment hearings.

Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which led the impeachment inquiry, took the microphone on the Senate floor to respond, looking and sounding indignant.

“First of all, there have been a lot of attacks on my staff. As I said when this issue came up earlier, I’m appalled at some of the smearing of some of the professional people that work for the Intelligence Committee,” Schiff said, adding:

Now, this question refers to allegations in a newspaper article, which are circulating smears on my staff and asks me to respond to those smears. I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever.

Nor will I share any information that I believe could or could not lead to the identification of the whistleblower.

3. Conflicting Stories From Bidens on Burisma

House Democrats voted Dec. 18, without a single Republican vote, to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The House based its two articles of impeachment on Trump’s July 25 phone call to Zelenskyy and the president’s refusal to allow certain executive branch witnesses or provide certain documents for House hearings.

According to a White House transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call, released by the president, the two leaders briefly talked about Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden’s dealings there and the role of his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.

Trump also asked Zelenskyy to look into whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

Zelenskyy did not know at the time that Trump had put a hold on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to help it counter a Russian invasion. Trump would release the funds in September.

House Democrats allege that Trump withheld the military aid to pressure Zelenskyy into initiating politically motivated investigations.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, submitted a question on behalf of himself, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

Roberts, saying the question was for both sides, read:

USA Today reported that when asked about it [his son’s employment by the Ukrainian company], Biden said quote, ‘He hadn’t spoken to his son about his overseas business.’ That account was contradicted by Hunter Biden, who told The New Yorker that he told his father about Burisma and ‘Dad said I hope you know what you’re doing, and I said I do.’ Why do Joe and Hunter Biden’s stories conflict? Did the House ask either one that question?

Trump lawyer Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida who days earlier had laid out the Biden-Burisma timeline, took the podium on the Senate floor to answer.

“It is very interesting he said he never spoke to his son about overseas dealings; his son said different things,” Bondi said. “Joe Biden was the [Obama administration’s] point man for Ukraine. At the time, Ukrainians were investigating a corrupt company, Burisma.”

In 2016, Biden has said publicly, he pressured the government of Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, where Biden’s son had been on the board since 2014.

During on-camera remarks in 2018, Biden said he threatened Ukraine’s leaders that the country would not get $1 billion in U.S. assistance unless the government fired Shokin within hours.

Bondi noted that Burisma reportedly paid Biden $83,000 per month, although he had no qualifications in the energy sector. She said Burisma’s owner, oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, was known for being part of corruption in Ukraine.

“The entire time Joe Biden knows that this oligarch is corrupt. Everyone knows that. There are news reports everywhere. No one will dispute that,” Bondi said. “In fact, it raised eyebrows worldwide that the vice president, by his account, never once asked his son to leave the [Burisma] board. Instead, he started investigating the prosecutor who was going after Burisma and this corrupt oligarch, who they say was corrupt even by corrupt oligarch standards.”

“Then we hear the video of Joe Biden bragging about firing the prosecutor, linking it to aid,” Bondi added.

Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., one of the seven House impeachment managers, or prosecutors, steered away from a direct answer.

“I know you have asked about a conversation between a father and his son,” Demings said. “And what I can tell you is, probably like just about everyone in this chamber, there are probably some conversations that I can’t repeat about my conversations with my son. So I don’t know the answer to your question.”

She then said the Senate needed to hear from “fact witnesses,” and sought to pivot to familiar talking points of the prosecution team.

“We have no evidence to point to the fact that either Biden has anything at all to tell us about the president shaking down a foreign power to help him cheat in the next election, the precious election, trying to steal each individual’s vote,” Demings said.

4. Who Pays Rudy?

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., submitted a question that read: “It has been reported that President Trump has not paid Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, for his services. Can you explain who has paid for Rudy Giuliani’s legal fees, international travel, and other expenses in his capacity as President Trump’s attorney and representative?”

Schiff, D-Calif., the leader of the House prosecution team, stood  to answer the question.

“I don’t know who is paying Rudy Giuliani’s fees,” Schiff said, adding:

If he is not being paid by the president to conduct this domestic political errand, for which he has devoted so much time, if other clients are paying and subsidizing his work in that respect, it raises profound questions, questions we can’t answer at this point.

There are some answers that we do know. As [Giuliani] has acknowledged, he’s not there doing foreign policy. So, when counsel for the president says this is a policy dispute, [that] you can’t impeach a president over policy, what Rudy Giuliani was engaged in has nothing to do with policy.

Schiff gave a hypothetical:  What if Giuliani, a former New York mayor and federal prosecutor, brokered a quid pro quo with the Chinese? He argued that the president’s defense team would claim that would be OK.

“So, who is paying the freight for it?” Schiff asked. “I don’t know who is directly paying the freight for it, but I can tell you the whole country is paying the freight for it because there are leaders around the world who are watching this and saying the American presidency is open for business.”

With that comment, Schiff walked right into a rebuttal from Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow.

“What came out of the manager’s mouth: open for business,” Sekulow said, adding:

I’ll tell you who was open for business. You want to know who was open for business? When the vice president of the United States was charged by the then-president of the United States with developing policies to avoid and assist in removing corruption from Ukraine, and his son was on the board of a company that was under investigation … And you are concerned about what Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was doing when he was over trying to determine what was going on in Ukraine?

Sekulow, however, did not say who was paying Giuliani.

5. White House Counsel: ‘Pelosi Was Right’

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., submitted a question on behalf of himself and several other Senate Republicans about something House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.

Roberts read the question, which was directed only to the president’s counsel:

On March 6, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: ‘Impeachment is so divisive that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.’

Alexander Hamilton also warned in Federalist 65 against the ‘persecution of an intemperate or designing majority of the House of Representatives with respect to impeachment.’

In evaluating the case against the president, should the Senate take into account the partisan nature of the impeachment proceedings in the House?

White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who is leading Trump’s defense, responded: “Absolutely, you should take that into account.”

“Speaker Pelosi was right when she said that. Unfortunately, she didn’t follow her own advice,” Cipollone said. “We’ve never been in a situation where we have the impeachment of a president in an election year, with the goal of removing the president from the ballot. As I’ve said before, that is the most massive election interference we’ve ever witnessed. It’s domestic election interference. It’s political election interference. And it’s wrong.”

During a morning press conference, before the Senate convened, Pelosi suggested she would not accept the Senate’s verdict on the president if no witnesses are called.

“He will not be acquitted,” Pelosi said. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so.”

6. Obama and Bush Comparisons

Roberts read a question about abuse of power from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that brought up Trump’s two immediate predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

“Under the standard embraced by the House managers, would President Obama have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of the Benghazi attack, the Bergdahl swap, or DACA?” Roberts read. “Would President Bush have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of NSA surveillance, detention of combatants, or use of waterboarding?”

Cipollone, the White House counsel, answered the question, saying that the House managers are making an argument with “no standard.”

“Presidents would be subject to impeachment for exercising long-standing constitutional rights even when the House chose not to enforce their subpoenas,” Cipollone said, adding: “You might want to get a lock on that door, because they are going to be back a lot if that’s the standard.”

The White House counsel continued:

I try to seek areas of agreement. I think we all agree they don’t allege a crime. That’s why they spend all their time saying you don’t need one. … No crime is necessary.

That’s not what impeachment is all about. This is dangerous. It’s more dangerous because it’s an election year. So, yes, under the standardless impeachment, any president could be impeached for anything and that’s wrong.

By the way, they [the House prosecutors] should be held to their own articles of impeachment. A lot of what they are trying to sell here, their own House colleagues weren’t buying. They didn’t make it into the articles of impeachment.

7. Campaign Finance Violation

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., submitted a question citing two Federal Election Commission opinions that anything of value given by a foreign country to a political campaign would be an illegal campaign contribution.

“How valuable would a public announcement [by Ukraine] of an investigation into the Bidens be for President Trump’s reelection campaign?” she asked.

Stabenow directed her question to both sides.

“The idea that these investigations were something of value was specifically examined by the Department of Justice, as I explained the other day,” Cipollone said. “… They announced back in September that there was no election law violation, because it did not qualify as a thing of value.”

The White House counsel added: “There would be tremendous First Amendment implications if someone attempted to enforce the laws that way.”

Schiff strongly challenged this view.

“How valuable would it be for the president to get Ukraine to announce his investigations? The answer is immensely valuable,” Schiff said, adding:

If it wasn’t going to be immensely valuable, why would the president go to such lengths to make it happen? Why would he be willing to violate the law, the Impoundment Control Act? Why would he willing to ignore the advice of all his national security professionals? Why would he be willing to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from an ally at war if he didn’t think it was going to really benefit his campaign? You have only to look at the president’s actions to determine just how valuable he believed it would be to him.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH. Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:

6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial

5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial

7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump

7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial

5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments

What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

PODCAST: Lacking Faith in Political Polling

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

As we enter another major electoral cycle, we begin to hear more from political polling organizations, most of which I do not trust. They were dead wrong in the 2016 presidential election. So much so, their credibility has yet to recover. I think it comes down to the methodology they use to conduct a poll. Some use general registered voters, some do not, some are strictly aimed at a particular political party, and others will take whoever has a pulse, be it a citizen or not.

All of the polls are aligned somehow with the news media and a political party. As such, they are there to make money to support their operations. They do not make money for predictable results, but rather by the unexpected, just like the sensational press. Consequently, they exist to create intrigue and controversy. This is helpful for their cause, but unfortunately it confuses voters who begin to question their favorite candidate’s viability as a contender. This is precisely what they want. In other words, it is not in the polling institution’s best interests to make accurate predictions, but to create voter anxiety in an attempt to create an addictive dependency on their service. This is why I no longer take political polling seriously as I have witnessed this drill so many times over the years.

Let’s be clear, like the main stream media, most support the Democrat agenda. However, even the Republican leaning polls are trying to cast doubt among the voters in order to improve ratings. It is all about money.

Even ardent Republicans have doubts about the president’s chances for re-election. It is one of those situations where if you tell people something enough times, they will eventually believe it (see “Political Branding”). Cooler heads know the president will easily win.

Over the years, I have studied the polls closely and reported on the progress of candidates. Personally, I rarely found the polls of the main stream media to be accurate. This includes those of: ABC/Washington Post, CBS, CNN, FOX, New York Times, Politico, and the Wall Street Journal/NBC. I cannot remember the last time a Fox poll ever got it right, nor NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. In 2016, night after night the news media quoted the polls to tell the public Donald Trump didn’t have a chance to win the nomination or the election. Remarkably, he won in spite of their predictions.

The remaining polls tend to be more independent but most still have some form of political connection. For example:

GALLUP

Founded in 1935 and headquartered in Washington, DC and Omaha, NE, Gallup is one of the oldest and most trusted polls. The CEO is Jim Clifton who is thought to lean Republican. Since its founder, George Gallup, passed away in 1984, the company was sold to Selection Research, Incorporated (SRI). Clifton may be a Republican (in name only), but his writings suggests he leans to the left.

PEW RESEARCH

Founded in 2004 and also headquartered in Washington, DC, Pew is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization and a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The company was founded by the Times Mirror Company which was acquired by the Tribune Company in 2000. The Tribune Company owns the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, (Central Florida) Sun-Sentinel, The Baltimore Sun, (Allentown, Pennsylvania) The Morning Call, Hartford Courant, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, as well as many radio and TV stations, including superstation WGN. The President is Michael Dimock whose roots are from academia.

PUBLIC POLICY POLLING (PPP)

Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Raleigh, NC, PPP’s CEO is Dean Debnam, an admitted Democrat.

RASMUSSEN REPORTS

Founded in 2003 and headquartered in Asbury Park, NJ, the company was founded by Scott Rasmussen who is believed to lean Republican. However, he left the company in 2013 to pursue other interests. The company is now owned by Noson Lawen Partners (the majority investor), and there is no sign of the political inclinations of the company.

The three universities commonly quoted in polling are:

MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY

Their polling division was established in 2005, and is located in West Long Branch, NJ. The Director is Patrick Murray.

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY

Their polling division was established in 1988, and located in Hamden, CT. The Director is Douglas Schwartz, PhD.

SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY

Their polling division was established in 2002, and is located in Boston, MA. The Director is David Paleologos.

Interestingly, all of the directors are careful about not disclosing their political inclinations. Aside from residing in the New England area, which tends to lean to the Democrats, there appears to be nothing in writing suggesting their political bias.

Other polls worth noting are:

  • Investors Business Daily/TIPP – has been very accurate in their predictions.
  • ISideWith.com – I have found this little known site to be very accurate in the primaries. Although it is intended to be a political matchmaking site that gives insight into how voters think, it is updated daily and provides surprisingly accurate data.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

The “Big Kahuna” of political polling is RealClearPolitics, the source most quoted by the news media. Surprisingly, most people are unaware of how it works and naively accept their findings as gospel. Basically, the company doesn’t conduct polls itself, but analyzes the polling data of others. It lists any poll and calculates an average.

For example:

Clinton Trump
Poll-A 46% 43%
Poll-B 49% 45%
Poll-C 49% 46%
AVG 48% 44.6%

Here is the rub though; what if the polls are biased, such as those mentioned earlier by the main stream media? Mixing tainted data with legitimate polls is mixing apples with oranges and will inevitably produce erroneous results, something you definitely do not want to bet the ranch on.

So, is the system rigged? If the main stream media is either quoting their own poll, or the averages from RealClearPolitics, then Yes, their credibility is highly questionable. However, knowing the news media’s agenda, they will keep quoting these polling results over and over again until the public buys it.

Something to remember from the 2016 election; going into voting day, the polls said Mrs. Clinton had already clinched the election. Her supporters become too confident and failed to show up on election day, and we know the rest of the story. A similar phenomenon will likely occur again in the 2020 race where the polls and news media will claim a victory for the Democrats. What they fail to mention is how the Republicans distrust the media. Also, the impeachment hoax has energized the president’s base and will encourage more people to vote. In all likelihood, the 2020 election will be the largest voter turnout in our history, and I didn’t need a poll to figure this out.

So, is the system rigged? You betcha!

Keep the Faith!

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

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.