Assassination Attempt!

/in , , , , /by

As reported by Mike Adams of Natural News and Alex Jones of INFOWARS (both heavily attacked and censored), the unexpected urgent trip to Walter Reed for President Trump turned out to be another assassination attempt. Soon as I heard of this visit to Walter Reed I questioned this immediately. Why? Because there have been several assassination plots and attempts as reported in the past by Q and from another closely held source of mine. I have talked about this in the talks I give across the state of Florida the past two years.

We Are At War

AG Barr stated on November 13, 2019 that the IGII FISA report release is imminent.  The current coup was DOA and serves as yet another distraction while attempting to injure Trump’s ability for re-election. The Deep State and the Dems are panicking and may be exercising their last resorts of sorts, assassination!

Pelosi has stated she will have Trump removed by December 2019. QANON has indicated the deep state and the  Dems will try a coup style vote as was done in 1913 which delivered us the Federal Reserve System. We all know that the deep state will do whatever is necessary to remove President Trump from office. I for one, reported on this nearly three years ago  in February 2017 which can be found on my blogged archives as laid out in the Soros / Brock report which I reported on.

What To Do?

This should serve as a wake up call to the Country Club Republicans, your Democrat neighbors (I’m not talking about the lunatic left) and for all those Evangelicals that practice purists views versus pragmatic views at such a time as this.

We must awaken others. We lose Trump we lose everything, I mean everything. We must have our own plan B in place. Mine is and has been since December 2011. We must surround ourselves with like minded people who understand the times in which we live and expand these circles. We must have faith, courage and stand strong and stand with Trump. And above all, those of us of faith, pray for our President and for his family. No Trump no hope.

Miracle Presidents

As General George Washington took bullets and shrapnel along side the dead horse at a battle during the French and Indian war, yet there was no blood shed as witnessed by Indian Chiefs and many others on the battle field. Know this, miracles are just that. We had our miracle then; the formation of America. We have our miracle now, the Resurrection of America.

EXCLUSIVE – President Trump makes unscheduled stop at military hospital to undergo battery of tests for possible deliberate poisoning of food with “time delayed” chemical agent; food tester gravely ill – White House connected source

Source: Trump Was Tested for Deliberate Food Poisoning at Walter Reed Military Hospital – WarRoomShow

Clarion Call

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

© All rights reserved.

WATCH: The Swamp is 0-3 on its Impeachment TV drama

/in , , , , , /by

https://twitter.com/i/status/1195531896433848320

Last week was supposed to be House Democrats’ big moment. It was supposed to be the week they finally, after striking out with the Russia collusion hoax, put their impeachment crusade on the map for the majority of Americans they need to persuade.

Of course, it didn’t work out that way.

Rather than make his case credible, Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) first three “star witnesses” left most Americans wondering why they were even invited to testify in the first place. After Democrats asked their guests questions such as how President Donald J. Trump made them feel, House Republicans got to the heart of the matter.

Here are the only answers that matter if a political party wants to impeach the duly elected President of the United States: Last week’s witnesses testified that they had no knowledge of any impeachable offenses, no firsthand account of President Trump’s phone call with Ukraine, and zero contact with the President at any point this year.

In fact, two of them have never even met President Trump!

House Democrats are hoping to rebound this week, introducing a whole new lineup of witnesses for Schiff’s Impeachment TV circus. They shouldn’t get their hopes up. Just like last week, each of these witnesses share something important in common: They have no actual evidence of any impeachable offense committed by the President.

The reason is simple: There was no such offense. Just like with Democrats’ 2-year, $32 million taxpayer-funded Russia collusion obsession, this “investigation” serves one real goal: keeping the far-left base happy while obstructing any meaningful bipartisan work on Capitol Hill so long as Donald Trump is President.

In other words, we have a new hoax on our hands, but it’s still the same old swamp.

“Here’s a witness Schiff doesn’t dare call in impeachment hearings.”

Memo to Dems: The President, not diplomats, sets ‘official foreign policy’

 

They can’t hide your healthcare prices any longer

While Democrats in Congress are busy doing anything they can not to help working Americans under this President, the Trump Administration unveiled a pair of new rules on Friday that will make healthcare prices simpler and clearer than ever before.

“We’re requiring price transparency in healthcare, forcing companies to compete for your business,” President Trump said from the White House. “Our goal was to give patients the knowledge they need about the real price of healthcare services.”

What does that mean for patients? “They’ll be able to check them, compare them, go to different locations—so they can shop for the highest-quality care at the lowest cost.”

The first rule compels hospitals to finally publish their prices online for all to see. For years, these prices were often all but impossible to find, leaving Americans with nasty surprise bills after a medical visit. Now, families will be able to see and compare all of these costs beforehand with the new, easy-to-read formats that will soon be available.

The next rule, newly proposed, will require health insurance providers and group health plans to give cost estimates to enrollees before care is delivered. Like it’s doing with hospitals, the Trump Administration wants to push these companies to make lists of all their pricing information available to the public.

Together, these actions represent the most aggressive steps taken by any President to put healthcare price information in the hands of patients. That’s important not just for honesty and fairness; transparent prices also lead to lower healthcare costs overall.

Powerful interest groups spent years trying to keep these rules from happening. By making the true price and quality of care a closely guarded secret, the industry giants controlled the markets—and your healthcare dollars. When President Trump came to Washington, he promised to do things differently than Beltway career insiders have done for years. “We’re taking on the bureaucrats in more ways than one,” he said Friday.

“Trump’s team delivers a big win for patients by making health costs clearer.”

MORE: Trump Administration makes health care in rural areas a priority

© All rights reserved.

Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg And The UN Climate Conference

/in , , /by

  • More than 200 media outlets and journalists partnered together with activists to coordinate and hype climate change news before the 2019 U.N. climate summit.
  • Two of the largest media outlets — BuzzFeed News and HuffPo — did not disclose their role in the project to their readers, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
  • The project raises questions about whether journalists should work side-by-side with activists to hype climate change. 
Over 250 news outlets and journalists partnered with Columbia University School of Journalism’s flagship magazine to shape control of “climate crisis” coverage in the lead up to the United Nations climate conference. The coverage-coordination initiative included directing how much time, space and prominence should be devoted to the coverage, and asking that climate “news” be added to seemingly unrelated stories.

Some of the biggest media outlets in the country, such as CBS and Bloomberg, joined the effort. But others, such as The Washington Post and The New York  Times, declined to participate in a project they reportedly feared appeared activist in nature. More troubling, a number of the major outlets that joined did not disclose participation to their readers.

In addition to CBS and Bloomberg, the effort, called Covering Climate Now, involved BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, the Center for Public Integrity, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair and The Weather Channel, among many others. BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post were among the major outlets that did not disclose the coordination. When asked by the Daily Caller News Foundation, the lack of disclosure was criticized by the Society of Professional Journalists.

The coordination effort was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), a nonprofit that represents professional journalists and was traditionally focused primarily on journalism ethics. Covering Climate Now’s founders hope to continue elevating climate news even after the project ends. The effort’s target was the lead-up to, and coverage of, the U.N. “Climate Action Summit,” held Sept. 15-23.

BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.

Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September. The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.

WaPo and others did not contribute because they believe Covering Climate Now has the “aroma” of advocacy, he complained in September.

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR posted May 22. Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

Covering Climate Now has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.

Thunberg’s activism and Covering Climate Now’s media blitz seemed to fall flat with the crowd of United Nations diplomats: No major promises were made to tackle climate change at the summit. The European Union, for instance, didn’t go along with environmentalists’ wishes and set a goal to be carbon neutral by mid-century out of fear that such ambitions would tank its member state’s struggling economies.

“Large parts of the mainstream media have stopped pretending to strive for objectivity in their reporting,” Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic and director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “On the climate issue, many outlets and reporters are now publicly boasting about the fact that they are promoting their own prejudices on the grounds that increasing global energy poverty is a noble cause.”

Ebell was not the only energy advocate to criticise the program. “This is nothing more than what used to be known as ‘civic journalism’ … or propaganda for the left dressed up as news reporting,” Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com publisher, told the DCNF. He also suggested the media are being hypocritical. They would thrash the fossil fuel industry if it attempted to recruit reporters in a quest to support natural gas, Milloy said.

Much Of The Content Was Not Disclosed

BuzzFeed News and HuffPost did not divulge their participation in Covering Climate Now in any of the articles they published on climate change during that week, according to a DCNF review of the project. They never mention the words “Covering Climate Now” in any of their posts during the week-long coverage leading up to the climate summit.

HuffPost did not respond to numerous requests for comment while BuzzFeed News said the partnership did not affect the outlet’s coverage. “Our coverage of climate change is year-round and unaffected by outside partnerships,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed, told the DCNF.

Covering Climate Now published a list of articles on its website throughout September that promoted climate coverage.

Nearly 40 of the articles on the list of 128 failed to mention the project. The list included pieces from CBS News, Bloomberg News and The Nation, all of whom produced pieces that failed to mention their participation in an outside project designed to direct their editorial bent. Many of the articles on the list bore labels containing the words “Covering Climate Now” but do not otherwise explain what the project entails or which groups are involved.

CBS News, which has not returned requests for comment, produced a Sept. 21 feature on clear cutting in Oregon that did not include a disclosure. The title of that feature was “Who should be in charge of America’s ancient forests: industry or environmentalists?” which discussed the impact clearing U.S.’ forests has on the environment and if private companies should be allowed to use forests.

CBS News included disclosures on articles throughout September that discuss how Americans feel about climate change. The channel also mentioned its participation in a Sept. 17 feature highlighting how U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is considering a summit to discuss ways of re-invigorating the Paris Climate agreement, which he says needs to be re-booted.

Bloomberg News, for its part, published a statement on Sept. 16 announcing its role in the project, but the outlet still produced content that did not contain disclosures. The outlet published a Sept. 22 article titled “Big Oil Prepares to Defend Big Gas as Climate Week Begins,” which discusses how the oil industry is defending the use of natural gas as a clean alternative to coal. The article did not mention the outlet’s participation in Covering Climate Now.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg founded Bloomberg News. Bloomberg, who flirted with the idea of running for president in 2020 and filed in the paperwork to participate in Alabama’s Democratic primary, has devoted much of his philanthropic work to funding various anti-coal projects. Bloomberg News has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The Nation, Covering Climate Now’s co-founder, published a 2,400-word article on Sept. 18 with an alarmist headline suggesting that Americans are “fueling the next global extinction.” The piece did not contain a disclosure but notes that it was originally published by Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch.com, though the DCNF was unable to locate the article on Engelhardt’s website.

The Nation, which announced the project in a July post, also published a journalistic piece on Sept. 19 by Nation associate editor Zoe Carpenter that fails to mention Covering Climate Now. Nobody from the outlet has responded to requests for comment.

Wealthy Climate Activists Also Participated

Covering Climate Now was aided by wealthy advocacy groups, some of which help journalists edit and craft stories discussing climate change from an alarmist perspective. One nonprofit group associated with the project is Climate Central, which provides extensive guidance to reporters.

“We contribute data and charts plus a science reporter and an editor,” the group’s website notes. “For a text story, we help craft a feature in a way that puts climate change in appropriate and accurate context. For broadcast media, we provide story and interview suggestions and help develop and review scripts.”

Climate Central has not responded to the DCNF’s request for detailed information about how it contributes to journalists’ content. The group is funded in part by the Energy Foundation, a charity providing grants to various groups with the hope of transitioning the U.S. away from fossil fuels.

Is This Ethical?

Reuters did not participate in the project, yet its editors did not object when Yereth Rosen, a freelancer for the wire service, contributed. Reuters, which opposes advocacy journalism, dismissed any suggestion that Rosen’s contributions are inappropriate.

“We do not see this cause in conflict with the Trust Principles. All stories, under the Trust Principles, are required to be accurate, fair and free from bias. Ms. Rosen’s work for Reuters has been exemplary in this regard,” Brian Ross, Reuters’s ethics and standards representative, wrote in an Aug. 15 email reviewed by the DCNF.

Ross was responding to an Aug. 13 email complaint from a former reporter who was concerned about Rosen’s role in Covering Climate Now. The person made the complaint through the outlet’s online support option. Reuters was more circumspect in later emails to the DCNF on the subject.

“While we do not comment on individuals in our newsroom, all Reuters journalists, including freelancers, are bound by our Trust Principles of ‘integrity, independence and freedom from bias,’” Heather Carpenter, a spokeswoman for Reuters, told the DCNF.

“Our journalists are to remain free from personal conflicts on the subjects they are assigned to cover,” she added. Reuters has not made Rosen available for comment nor did it address whether it is appropriate to allow an external group to dictate what content its reporters publish.

The Society of Professional Journalists, however, criticized the lack of transparency.

“We encourage journalists to be transparent,” Lynn Walsh, a national board member and former president of the Society of Professional Journalists, one of the oldest groups representing journalists, told the DCNF. “If they did not include any disclosure there is nothing we can do though. SPC is not a regulatory body.” She went on to say that any group involved must explain exactly what the project entails.

Why Didn’t WaPo And The NYT Contribute?

Most legacy media are unwilling to break away from the idea that journalism should not advocate for a position, according to Hertsgaard, who co-founded Covering Climate Now in part to impress upon journalists the importance of covering climate without feeling compelled to provide a platform to climate skeptics.

“The New York Times is not on there, The Wall Street Journal is not on there, The Washington Post is not on there,” Hertsgaard said in a September podcast with Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of CJR. Hertsgaard was referring to the major outlets that did not contribute content to Covering Climate Now.

“This has an aroma — in their minds — of activism,” Hertsgaard continued, explaining why the big three legacy outlets preferred not to join. He and Pope noted Covering Climate Now intends on breaking up that perception by wrapping climate coverage in the blanket of science rather than politics.

The Post refused to comment for this story. The NYT, WSJ and Hertsgaard have not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing, according to David Blackmon, an independent consultant and analyst who has nearly 40 years experience in the energy industry.

“I don’t think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda,” he told the DCNF. “There’s no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces. They are backed up with factual information, but it usually tells just half the story. It’s become the norm.”

Blackmon, a Forbes contributor, noted that much of the reporting is one-sided and focuses exclusively on one narrative: Climate change must be stopped at any cost. Such reporting rarely gives coverage to the economic consequences of climate activists’ preferred policies, he noted.

“We are at a point where we were at the turn of the 21st century,” Blackmon told the DCNF. “You had partisan affiliated outlets and almost no objective journalism at all. We’ve gone to that place after a period of time.

RELATED ARTICLE: UN’s New Report Shows There’s ‘Little Basis’ For A Favorite Claim Of Climate Activists

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Brennan and Clapper’s Secret Surveillance System

/in , , , , , , /by

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” –  Julian Assange

“Every person remembers some moment in their life where they witnessed some injustice, big or small, and looked away because the consequences of intervening seemed too intimidating. But there’s a limit to the amount of incivility and inequality and inhumanity that each individual can tolerate. I crossed that line. And I’m no longer alone.” – Edward Snowden

When injustice becomes law, resistance become duty.  Thomas Jefferson

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” – Elie Wiesel

NOTE: The following information has been garnered from countless articles by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones of theAmericanreport.org.  Their reports should be read by every American, including our nation’s politicians.

Dennis Montgomery is a software designer and former CIA/NSA/DoD/DHS contractor. Montgomery built a surveillance system known as “The Hammer.” He blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s allegedly illegal use of that system to wiretap Donald Trump. (Rand Paul claims Brennan, Clapper, Comey sent spies into the Trump campaign.)

Montgomery also developed technology for analyzing surveillance video from U.S. Air Force predator drones remotely piloted from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.  Nellis Air Force Base is also the home of a charter school run by imam Fethullah Gulen. Clinton’s hand-picked CIA handlers, Graham Fuller and Mark Grossman, were selected to manage and direct Gulen’s cells in the U.S. and abroad.  Link

Reminiscent of the theft of Bill Hamilton’s Inslaw Promis software allegedly by the Reagan administration’s Ed Meese, this is much the same thing. The government seems to steal from private enterprises what they want for their own.

Montgomery asserts that intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper ran “The Hammer” surveillance system. According to CIA Vault 7 documents released by WikiLeaks on March 7, 2017, The Hammer (HAMR) is a browser exploit throwing framework that infects targeted devices and systems.  The Hammer allowed spying on Supreme Court Justices, 159 Article III judges, elected officials, and 20 million other Americans.

Mainstream Media Cover-up

CNN’s reporting indicates that CNN and The Washington Post were engaging in a multi-prong strategy to cover up the Obama administration’s illegal surveillance of Trump, including the participation of John Brennan, James Clapper, and Carl Bernstein. CNN and the Washington Post continue to ignore the fact that Montgomery turned over evidence to the FBI.

Testimony from former FBI General Counsel James Baker asserts the FBI took possession of evidence that proves that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump.  They ignored Montgomery’s claim.  James Baker asserted that, “An individual named Dennis Montgomery, who I believe, to the best of my recollection, said that he had been a U.S. Government contractor and, in the course of that work, had come across evidence of unlawful surveillance by the government, of Americans including government officials and wanted to give that information to the Bureau, which eventually did take place.”

Remember Bernstein told everything on Nixon, but he was silent on the illegal wiretapping of Donald Trump.  Obama’s surveillance hammer on Trump is far worse than Watergate.  Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret.), formerly the number three Air Force official at the Pentagon, also said “The Hammer” surveillance system is far worse than Watergate.

Only two days before he died, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.), who served as commander of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, appeared less concerned about dying than about countering the coup against President Trump. Admiral Lyons was convinced that the coup was put in motion to cover up “The Hammer” and the actions of the men behind it.  Admiral Lyons was a great patriot, and spot on in his reporting. Link

The D.C. Conspiracy

There is a conspiracy underway deep within the Washington D.C. intelligence and law enforcement establishments. The cabal should have much to fear, but as of yet, not one DOJ criminal has been indicted.  U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly very interested in interviewing President Obama’s former intelligence chiefs, ex-CIA Director John Brennan and one-time Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.  I would hope that happens, but as of yet, those two men are still walking free.

In 2015, contractor-turned whistleblower Dennis Montgomery provided the FBI with 47 computer hard drives of illicitly-harvested domestic surveillance data and classified testimony that, according to Montgomery, proves Brennan and Clapper illegally commandeered the foreign surveillance tool known as “The Hammer.”

Montgomery contends Brennan and Clapper used “The Hammer” to conduct unlawful domestic surveillance on President Obama’s political enemies for the purpose of “blackmail” and “leverage.”

Soviet Style Surveillance

Brennan and Clapper built a Soviet style total surveillance state modeled after the Stasi of East Germany.  They did it by commandeering “The Hammer” for domestic surveillance, with greater tech capability for total control of the people.  They must long to turn America into Soviet Russia.

According to Montgomery, Brennan and Clapper used “The Hammer” to illegally wiretap Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.) and Donald Trump.  Oh yes, the leaders of the coup, Obama, Brennan, and Comey all have professed their allegiance to Marxism and communism at various points in their lives. See The Red Thread by Diana West.

AG Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham recently traveled to Rome, Italy, where Durham reportedly retrieved two BlackBerry smartphones that were previously used by Joseph Mifsud.  The public really didn’t understand the significance of the retrieval.  Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation portrayed Mifsud as a Russian agent. Mifsud is actually an FBI asset.  According to Dennis Montgomery, when the BlackBerry phones are used on “The Hammer” platform they are a closed secret network that is encrypted and secure and cannot be penetrated.

It is of interest that Mifsud, Hillary, Comey, President Obama and others were using BlackBerry phones.  How many others inside the Crossfire Hurricane covert FBI operation against Trump were plotting the coup d’état while also using non-government issued BlackBerry phones?  Two of Hillary’s BlackBerrys were destroyed by Clinton Foundation advisor, Justin Cooper.

Despite the fact there was no criminal reason, the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

The Fusion Center

Brennan concocted the Trump-Russia intelligence “Fusion Center” narrative as a cover story because Brennan and Clapper had illegally commandeered “The Hammer” for illegal domestic surveillance and for wiretapping Trump, in violation of the CIA’s Charter.  Fusion Center is a collaborative effort between two or more agencies.

Back in August of 2018, Brennan told Rachel Maddow, “We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected.”  He never mentioned that each of these intel agencies have separate charters and for good reason.

Whistleblower Montgomery says that on February 3, 2009, Brennan and Clapper got together to commandeer The Hammer for illicit purposes.  Montgomery designed and built the supercomputer, just as Inslaw owner Bill Hamilton designed Promis software.  The supercomputer system had served as a foreign surveillance tool and was transferred from Blxware in Washington state to a CIA facility in Ft. Washington, Maryland.  There, Brennan and Clapper transformed The Hammer into a surveillance tool to target Obama’s political enemies.

According to Military sources, the supercomputer has multiple safeguards to prevent intel personnel from using the system for unlawful domestic surveillance, but Brennan and Clapper bypassed those safeguards.  They set up a more powerful system and illegally re-purposed the computer.

Targeting Trump

Brennan and Clapper allegedly spied on Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Scalia, onetime head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) Judge Reggie Walton, 156 Article III Judges, members of Congress, Rudy Giuliani, General Michael Flynn (Ret.), and Donald Trump.

General Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell says several former officials who were involved in the CIA /FBI Crossfire Hurricane operation are in ongoing talks with Justice Department officials.

The Whistleblower tapes released by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, revealed that President Obama’s intelligence officials, Brennan and Clapper, for whom Montgomery was working, used the spyware for unlawful domestic surveillance and to illegally wiretap Donald Trump “a zillion times.”

President Trump’s allegation that the Obama Administration was wiretapping him is not only supported by Montgomery’s whistleblower revelations about Brennan’s and Clapper’s computer system, The Hammer, but also by statements made in March 2017 by whistleblower William Binney, a former NSA Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, by former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson, and by Montgomery’s attorney Larry Klayman.

FBI Director Mueller

Montgomery says it was Robert Mueller’s FBI who provided the computers for The Hammer, and who also ordered an illegal FBI raid of Montgomery’s home and storage facility. Mueller’s FBI agents tied Montgomery to a tree, according to court documents.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke excoriated the FBI for using falsified affidavits to obtain search warrants and forced the return of Montgomery’s property.  Obviously, the FBI hasn’t changed its stripes since they continue to operate in a rogue and illicit fashion, even under AG William Barr and Deep State FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Mueller became, by appointment of Rod Rosenstein, and because of his close friend, James Comey, the Special Counsel investigator of the Russia collusion hoax.  Montgomery claimed that Robert Mueller had been collecting information on Donald Trump for over ten years and he was the last person anyone should appoint to investigate the President and the phony Russian Collusion hoax.

The day before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel, he had interviewed with Donald Trump to once again become the Director of the FBI and was obviously rejected, and for good reason.

FBI Director Mueller wanted to use The Hammer to find out “who knew what” about the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.  Mueller was in charge of the FBI’s investigation of the 9/11 attacks.  John Milkovich’s book, Robert Mueller: Errand Boy for the New World Order, tells of Mueller’s several cover-ups regarding the 9/11 terror attacks.  Interestingly, Mr. Trump, as a builder of skyscrapers, took a special interest in the collapse of the twin towers.

Dennis Montgomery

Dennis Montgomery became a target of the government and the media who worked to destroy his reputation.  Ultimately, he suffered a stroke.  He had filed 18 whistleblower complaints.  In D.C., Montgomery testified to DOJ’s Deborah Curtis regarding the 47 hard drives of The Hammer that contained illicitly collected domestic surveillance data, evidence that Comey buried after being turned in to Comey’s FBI.

Mary Fanning and Alan Jones write, “Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis offered Dennis Montgomery limited immunity in exchange for 47 hard drives of illegally harvested surveillance data that Montgomery claims contains proof that Brennan and Clapper wiretapped General Flynn and Donald Trump.  (This immunity was in coordination with FBI General Counsel James Baker.) Then Curtis joined Special Counsel Mueller’s team and became the lead prosecutor on General Flynn’s case before abruptly leaving the Flynn prosecution and the DOJ.”

James Baker is suspected of leaking the discredited Steele dossier to Mother Jones reporter David Corn.  Baker was also part of the group that plotted the take-down of General Flynn and President Trump.

Montgomery asserts the hard drives have information that not only proves Brennan and Clapper wiretapped General Flynn but also provides proof that the DOJ conducted illegal prosecutions of President Obama’s political enemies.

Baker later joined the Brookings Institution and its affiliate Lawfare, which acts as the political arm of the FBI and the intelligence community.  Link

Conclusion

Invented lies and corrupt actions of high officials who have abused the power of their positions for political gain must be exposed and punished.  They have sought to subvert our rules of law and undermine the Republic.  They have damaged and are still damaging the institutions of American government, all the while squandering the nation’s trust.

© All rights reserved.

California: Ringleaders in Massive International Fencing Ring were Afghan Special Refugees

/in , , , , , /by

You know those “brave boys” who worked for the US military in Afghanistan I’ve been telling you about; the ones who supposedly would have been killed if we left them in their home country; the ones we have been admitting as refugees to the US by the thousands—56,000 so far!  See here.

I’ll bet if you live in any state other than California, this is news to you.  Gotta hand it to local NBC for their great reporting and the Freemont, CA police for their undercover work!

And, many thanks to reader Michael who spotted the information (buried several paragraphs into the story) that those busted ringleaders include three who were welcomed to America by the US military!  So much for robust screening!

Upon their arrival you (your tax dollars) set them up with apartments, medical care and an assortment of social services.

I think we need to find out who in the military vouched for three of the Afghan creeps!

From NBC Bay Area earlier this month:

From an undercover car in a nondescript Hayward strip mall, detectives snapped photos as Isaiah Langley and D’anthony Larks walk into a cellphone store called Torspin Wireless with a bag police believed was stuffed with brand new iPhones.

A few minutes later, photos and video shot by detectives captured the men strolling casually out of the shop towards a black Audi SUV. The bag appeared empty, and they were openly carrying large bricks of cash. It was June 7, three days before Langley would sign a professional football contract with the Oakland Raiders.

Investigators from at least eight different Northern California law enforcement agencies were zeroing in on a crew police say were tied to more than 60 strong-arm robberies and grand thefts – from the Bay Area to Sacramento – targeting delivery drivers carrying shipments of brand new cellphones. Police tracked the crew for three more months, arresting Langley, Larks, and 10 others in August.

But as the Oakland Police Department and Alameda County District Attorney’s Office led the investigation into the suspected robbery crew, detectives from the Fremont Police Department took an interest in Torspin Wireless, the Hayward store police believed was just a front for a major fencing operation trafficking in stolen electronics.

[….]

Detectives began a months-long surveillance operation on the shop – watching time-after-time as customers walked into Torspin carrying boxes or bags and walking out with cash. Detectives would come to believe they’d found the Bay Area’s largest fencing operation for stolen electronics – and the starting point of an international pipeline of stolen phones spanning at least four continents.

[….]

Zemlok [ Fremont Police Detective Rick Zemlok] said the man calling the shots for the operation was one of the store’s three owners, Muhibullah Nuristani. The store’s other owners – Mohammad Mustafa and Abdul Janah – also took part in the suspected fencing ring, as well as Mujibullah Nuristani, a relative of Muhibullah, according to Zemlok. All but Mustafa had been granted citizenship in the United States after serving as translators for the U.S. Army during the war in Afghanistan, according to police and attorneys for the men.

Stolen phones were sold….

all over the globe, in Mexico, China, Russia, Vietnam, Singapore, Dubai, and Australia, among other countries.

There is much more here, see how the police stung the perps.

You paid for their flight to America, set them up with social services and now guess what….

….if found guilty you pay for their incarcerations!

RELATED ARTICLE: Seattle: Vietnamese Legal Immigrant Murdered by Mexican Illegal with Long Criminal Record

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Left progressive antisemitism must be a US electoral ‘wedge’ issue

/in , , , , , , , /by

As the Democratic primaries approach, leading candidates seem to be reinforcing their anti-Israel credentials to appease their progressive base. Antisemitism already is a ‘wedge’ issue – although Democrats are urging voters to ignore it.

The left’s anti-Israel agenda has been energized recently by radical politicians using their Congressional visibility to slander the Jewish State and its supporters with classical slurs and stereotypes.  Simultaneously, there has been an increase in antisemitic agitation among progressives invoking blood libel imagery and repugnant myths of disproportionate Jewish wealth, influence, and disloyalty.

Such is the backdrop against which Democrats are urging Jewish voters not to treat Israel as a “wedge issue” during the 2020 election season, though what they are really asking is for Jews to ignore the pro-BDS, anti-Israel, and antisemitic vitriol being spewed by reactionaries who influence party doctrine and to overlook party leadership’s appeasement of the left and disregard of hateful prejudice.

By lamenting the use of Israel as a “wedge issue,” Democrats are acknowledging that it already is and that their base’s hostility towards the Jewish State is motivated not by policy concerns, but by antisemitism.  And just as they did in 2016, they are enlisting Jewish party loyalists to promote the fiction that conservatives pose a more serious threat to fellow Jews, despite public opinion research indicating that antisemitic sentiment is prevalent among radicals, progressives and left-wing Democrats.  The same surveys suggest conservative Republicans are more likely to support Israel and condemn Jew-hatred.

The antisemitic Squad

These trends help explain some recent disturbing Democratic behaviors, including the failure to censure Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for their inflammatory rhetoric and for validating antisemitic public figures like Louis Farrakhan.  Examples of moral disingenuity abound, as when Democrats criticized the Netanyahu government for blocking Tlaib and Omar from a planned trip to Israel that was to be sponsored by an anti-Israel organization. Supporters of the congresswomen were unconcerned that their proposed visit was neither planned as part of an official Congressional delegation nor intended to serve any legitimate governmental purpose.

The Israeli government had initially agreed to allow Tlaib and Omar entry into the country, but withdrew its approval after determining they would not be part of the scheduled Congressional delegation and that their itinerary was intended to disparage Israel and promote boycotts.  The purpose of the trip was no surprise considering it was to be partially sponsored and coordinated by Miftah, the anti-Israel organization founded by Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO Executive Committee member and outspoken Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate, who was barred by the State Department from entering the United States last May.

It seems incongruous that Democrats who express concern about Jewish voters could defend Tlaib or Omar in light of their aspersions against Israel and sponsorship of House Resolution 496, a bill essentially supporting the antisemitic BDS movement.  Though that bill was defeated in a rare display of bipartisanship, its limited support came mainly from progressive Democrats, including Tlaib, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez. Liberal support for such politicians – or for any who express contempt for Israel, condone violence against Israelis, or spread loathsome stereotypes – suggests that party loyalty and disdain for President Trump often outweigh any sense of Jewish fealty or recognition of antisemitism on the left.

Despite progressive hostility regarding Jewish national rights and affinity for traditional conspiracy theories, Democrats argue their support for Israel and opposition to prejudice are unshakable; and when mentioning leftist antisemitism at all, they chalk it up to aberration or misunderstanding.

Anti-Jewish bigotry is not limited to the “hard left,” however, but rather has infected the party’s mainstream:

  • Congressman Ted Lieu of California, for example, evoked the ancient canard of Jewish disloyalty with a tweet questioning the allegiance (and demanding the resignation) of David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel;
  • Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris, implicitly impugned Israel’s integrity when they snubbed last year’s AIPAC conference.
  • Not a single Democrat vying for the party’s nomination criticized Bernie Sanders (who has falsely accused Israel of killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza) for using Linda Sarsour as a campaign shill
  • None have defended Israel against apartheid claims that are facially absurd.

According to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute of 2002, apartheid is a humanitarian crime “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”  Considering the freedoms that characterize Israeli society – where Arabs are professionals, judges, and legislators and have a higher standard of living than anywhere in the Arab-Muslim world – it is unconscionable when Democrat politicians refuse to defend Israel against spurious charges of racist oppression.

As the Democratic primaries approach, leading candidates instead seem to be reinforcing their anti-Israel credentials to appease their progressive base.

  • The Warren campaign, for example, brought aboard Max Berger, founder of the liberal group IfNotNow, whose members have attempted to infiltrate Taglit Birthright and Jewish summer camp programs to indoctrinate youth against Israel.
  • And Pete Buttigieg stated his intention to cut aid to Israel (though as a foreign policy neophyte he articulated no credible reason for singling out Israel)
  • Warren, Sanders and other prominent Democrats made similar statements at this year’s J Street conference.

It is important to note that:

  • Whereas most potential nominees did support an anti-BDS resolution in the Senate, they have uniformly failed to sanction antisemites within their party, who have instead been rewarded with prestigious appointments to influential committees.
  • Furthermore, the refusal of House Democrats to pass a resolution specifically condemning antisemitism or sanctioning Omar’s outrageous remarks indicates an odious tolerance for bigotry, as long as it targets Israel and comes from the left.

Discomfort regarding Israel is systemic because most Democrats continue to cling to the two-state paradigm, though it is based on revisionist Palestinian mythology that denies Jewish history and is rejected by most Israelis.

Sadly, Jewish liberals are often willing to ignore progressive antisemitism and instead direct their outrage at Mr. Trump (who despite his foibles is the most pro-Israel president ever to occupy the White House), while criticizing Israel for supposedly occupying “Palestinian” lands and oppressing Palestinian-Arabs.  However, “occupation” exists only in the minds of revisionist zealots and propagandists, who must ignore historical and geopolitical reality to justify their position.

Falsified history and ignorance

Progressives’ knowledge of Israeli history is typically sketchy and exhibits little understanding of (or respect for) the Jews’ unbroken connection to their homeland, which is supported by the historical, archeological, and scriptural records.  Moreover, their anti-Israel criticisms are characterized by a refusal to acknowledge Jewish history or the pedigree of lands comprising the modern Jewish State and territories. Instead, liberal angst focuses on the rights of Palestinian-Arabs, whose history is a contemporary political invention of questionable foundation.  The two-state fantasy seeks to restore Palestinian-Arabs to a country that never existed in a land where they never established cultural institutions, exercised political sovereignty, or exhibited any indicia of nationality or statehood.

This historical awareness is crucial for countering the revisionism embraced by progressives who impute ancient stereotypes to the Jewish State – including modern reworkings of the Blood Libel, classical global conspiracy theories, and the myths of disproportionate Jewish influence, power and perfidy.  It is also necessary for dispelling ridiculous and apocryphal claims that Palestinians are descended from ancient Phoenicians or Canaanites – assertions that are intended to imply aboriginal validity but which crumble under the weight of objective scrutiny.

The role of Jewish progressives

For generations, Americans have been rejecting normative Jewish values in favor of progressive ideals that contravene traditional Judaism.  Though most liberal Jews profess support for Israel, their true feelings should be judged not by self-serving affirmations, but by their political priorities and alliances.  Their proclamations of fidelity to Israel are contradicted by the endorsement of candidates who delegitimize the Jewish State, staff campaigns with anti-Israel activists, or snub Jewish organizations like AIPAC.  Moreover, they cannot claim fairness to Israel if they tolerate BDS, support organizations like J Street, or provide forums in their synagogues for Israel-hating artists, activists, and politicos. Or, if they believe hatred of Jews and Israel is merely a partisan “wedge issue.”  Such thinking betrays the elevation of temporal politics over authentic Judaism and concern for cultural survival.

What would Jewish liberals say if Democratic leaders were to ask African-Americans, feminists, or gay activists to disregard racism, misogyny, or homophobia as “wedge issues”?  Certainly, they would denounce such pleas as offensive and lambaste those with the temerity to make them. And liberal rabbis would be shouting from the rooftops about cultural insensitivity and beseeching their congregants to hit the streets in protest.

So how can they accept Democratic condescension that exhorts them to ignore antisemitism within their party and excuse party leadership for trivializing the problem and protecting the perpetrators?

Whether their obsessive political loyalties arise from ignorance, delusion, or self-rejection, the end result is always the same – the abandonment of Jewish kith and kin, the denial of history and heritage, and the devaluation of the Jewish spirit.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Big Government Hurts Women

/in , , , , , /by

Government-mandated employee perks might sound like a good way to help out working women, but, in reality, these programs do more harm than good. European women are already paying the price, and American women might be next. Carrie Lukas, President of Independent Women’s Forum, explains how keeping the government out of the workplace goes a long way toward keeping women in it.

For more information on Independent Women’s Forum visit IWF.org

TRANSCRIPT

The bigger the government, the better for women.

Is that statement true or false? Well, if party affiliation is any indicator, most women under the age of 40 would say “true.”

Young women, especially single women, are among the left’s most loyal supporters. This isn’t surprising given that programs like government-subsidized childcare and government-mandated paid family leave sound like things that make life better for women. But do they really?

Most European governments provide subsidies that allow women to stay home for months—even years—following the birth of a child. And some European countries require employers to offer female employees part-time and flexible work arrangements.

So have European women benefited from these programs? The answer is no—unless you think lower wages, fewer jobs, and fewer management opportunities benefit women.

Why is this the case? Because these supposedly women-friendly government mandates change the way businesses evaluate female employees. It encourages companies to assume that women will not only cost them more, but they’ll be less productive than men.

Spain is a good example. In 1999, that country passed a law giving women with young children the right to work reduced hours. But a study by economists at the IE Business School in Madrid and at Queens College of the City University of New York found that women paid a big price in lost opportunities: Companies were less likely to hire women of childbearing age, less likely to promote them, and more likely to dismiss them compared with men.

When Chile tried similar policies, similar outcomes resulted. In the words of Maria Prada, an economist for the Inter-American Development Bank: “[The purpose of the law was] to help [women] participate in the labor force and achieve more work-family balance, and it’s doing the opposite.”

A study of 22 countries by two Cornell economists showed that in countries with the most extensive benefits for women, women are more likely to be in dead-end jobs, and less likely to become managers or top executives. This is because once the government mandates additional benefits for women, employers place them on the “mommy track,” meaning they assume women will want to work fewer hours whether that’s true or not.

This might explain why in the United States, where these benefits are not mandated, women account for more than 40 percent of senior managers while in more “progressive” Europe, that number is a little over 30 percent.

But Big Government doesn’t throw obstacles only at women trying to get ahead. It throws obstacles at women struggling to get by. Here, we don’t have to go to Europe to find examples; there are plenty in the United States.

Take the issue of occupational licenses—government regulations requiring a license to pursue particular professions. Sure, people operating dangerous and complex equipment should have to get special training, take tests, and be licensed. But why are occupational licenses required for hair shampooers and braiders?

In some states, licenses are even required for interior designers and florists. Getting licenses can require hundreds of hours of schooling and entail major fees. That’s not about protecting consumers or public safety. That’s a source of revenue for city and state governments, and a way for some politically powerful lobby groups to keep out competition. And since more women obtain occupational licenses than men, women are disproportionately hurt.

So what’s the solution? Less government, not more.

Since 2017, a combination of tax cuts and deregulation (meaning less government) have been a boon for women. Women’s weekly median earnings have gone up by almost 5 percent. The unemployment rate for women has fallen to 3.4 percent—a historic low. And more women are starting businesses than ever before.

Between 2017 and 2018, women started almost two thousand businesses a day! Right now, there are an estimated 12.3 million women-owned businesses—a 6% increase since 2016. And here’s the topper: Since 2017, more and more businesses have voluntarily offered family benefits to employees. Why? Because the more companies have to compete for workers, the more benefits workers receive. That’s how the free market works—and the opposite of how big government works.

The free market, it turns out, does a much better job at creating opportunities for women than big government does. This not only means better jobs and better pay for women, but also the chance to craft the lives they actually want. After all, not every woman needs or values a generous childcare package.

But when the government mandates benefits, they become, in effect, taxes that every woman—and man—has to pay.

The bigger the government, the better for women? You might want to rethink that one.

I’m Carrie Lukas, president of Independent Women’s Forum, for Prager University.

EDITORS NOTE: This PragerU video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Another Coup Bites the Dust [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

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

Watch This Clip at 8:45

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

Whats Next?

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

Clarion Call

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

© All rights reserved.

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

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Boehner called him a “legislative terrorist.”

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

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

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

3. He was a collegiate championship wrestler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

Aaron Credeur

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

7 Big Moments From Day 3 of the Public Impeachment Hearings

What You Need to Know About Impeachment

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

What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Came?

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

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

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

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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

VIDEO: Another hijab hate hoax. This time in Denver

/in , , , , , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

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

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

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

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

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

 JOSHUA WINSTON

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

Germany: Muslim migrants harass and strike women at bachelorette party

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

The film ‘JoJo’ Rabbit’ and the Brainwashing of Children Today

/in , , , , /by

“For that reason we must insist that all organs of education which may be useful for the instruction and training of the people have to fulfill their duty towards the community. Such organs or organizations are: Education of the Youth, Young Peoples Organization, Hitler Youth, Labor Front, Party and Army–all these are institutions for the education and higher training of our people.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937.

“The book press and the newspaper press, lectures and art, the theatre and the cinema, they are all organs of popular education.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937.

Today in America children are being brainwashed to “fulfill their duty towards the community [collective]” from kindergarten to the 12th grade. From the Community College to the Colleges and Universities education has become an “organ” of the state. If you don’t believe me then just ask any student what they know about Fascism, Socialism, Communism, or Marxism. Then ask them what they know about America and her role in stopping each of these ideologies.

To understand how a brainwashed 10-year old boy can create his own fantasy world go see the satirical film JoJo Rabbit by Fox – Searchlight. Watch the trailer:

JoJo Rabbit is about the life of a 10-year old boy named JoJo who lives in a small town in Nazi Germany during WWII. The little boys and girls in the film are brainwashed to believe that they must do what the state wants them to do. For the little girls their purpose is to bear children for the Motherland. For the boys it is to die for Der Fuehrer.

The film begins with JoJo and his fellow Hitler Youth attending a training camp where they learn how to think, fight and be faithful to the Fuehrer. This leads, in the end, to these children being used as Nazi soldiers to fight and die as the onslaught of the American and Russian forces entering their town, a stark symbol of the collapse of Nazi Germany.

JoJo Rabbit shows the dark side of socialism, its ultimate brutality and bloody end.

JoJo and his mother, who apparently is part of the underground, walk past people who have been hanged in the town square as a warning to others. There are tense moments like when the Gestapo enters JoJo’s home in search of enemies of the Nazi state. There is a tragic moment when JoJo is walking through the town square and finds his mother hanged by the Nazis.

JoJo has been indoctrinated to believe that all Jews are evil. He even has a notebook with graphic drawings showing his contempt for all Jews.

Then the film throws JoJo a curve ball. JoJo accidentally learns that his mother has been sheltering a Jewish girl, who is hiding from the Gestapo, in a secret room in their home.

This reminded me of people today who are persecuted because of their beliefs. The Jews continue to be persecuted, as are Christians.

Certain ideas and beliefs are forbidden by the intelligentsia.

Today the the intelligentsia promote: homosexuality, are the followers of Mohammed, promote the myth that blacks are still in slavery, and are most likely Communists, Socialists, or Democratic Socialists. The Democrat Party has become the new Fascists. These protected classes have infiltrated our school system to further their agendas. For example: if you are white you are labeled a racist, if you are straight you are homophobic, and if you support the U.S. Constitution you are an imperialist. Get the picture?

In a January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag Adolf Hitler stated,

It is nonsensical to think that obedience and discipline are necessary only for soldiers, but have little useful meaning in the rest of the peoples’ lives. On the contrary, the disciplined and obediently popular community is capable of mobilizing forces that facilitate an easier assertion of the peoples’ existence and thus serve the successful representation of the interests of all. However, such a community is primarily not created by the compulsion of violence, but only by the compelling power of an idea and thus by the efforts of a continuous education.

Conclusion

Our children are being indoctrinated to be obedient and submissive to the state. Our children have become, via a continuous indoctrination process, the new socialists who hate America because they haven’t been taught about America. America has always been great. Understanding America’s greatness requires understanding American history.

Today America is filled with “disciplined and obedient” children of the state.

Obedience to the state is the primary lesson being taught in our schools, colleges and universities. Safe spaces, microaggressions, and any thought not considered proper (the First Amendment be dammed) trigger immediate and devastating responses from students, faculty and administrators in our schools.

Our children are being taught what to think, not how to think.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Leftist Activism Is A Requirement Of New Elementary School Curriculum

Media Bias Is Corporate Bias

/in , , , , /by

Liberal activists often claim that the media has a “corporate” bias. In their belief system, the fact that corporate-owned media outlets often report favorably about the wildly successful free market system, slowing the growth of government spending, and keeping taxes low are “corporate” biases instead of common sense.

In fact, the media’s real corporate bias is in taking slanted positions which are more activist than journalist. For example, the Media Research Center recently discovered that ABC, CBS, and NBC used language and angles in favor of the House liberals’ impeachment probe 96% of the time that they were evaluating the ongoing political circus.

That’s right. The alleged stalwarts of the “fourth estate” have decided that neutrality is so last century. Liberal condemnation of “big money” in politics goes silent when corporate leaders have their hands in the media pot at outlets like The New York Times. The Times raises billions more annually than conservative candidates across the country between 2015 and 2018, in part thanks to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim’s bail-out of the outlet in 2009.

We bet that the Times had no problem with “big money” or “foreign money” then. The company ended up using its money to support left-wing race-baiting.

Whether we call it “big money” or “corporate bias,” the facts are the same. Liberal outlets say they want corporations to have limited power even as they use their money and influence to sway voters throughout the country.

From guns to abortion to religious liberty and marriage, corporate-owned media has a bias the size of Texas. Liberals slam Fox News, but it’s the only major outlet providing the other side of the coin. In the meantime, House liberals continue to play politics as your rights are whittled away.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Company Contrast – Victoria’s Secret

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance, 11/15/19

Lies, Lies and More Lies: Trump and His Critics

The Fake News Media Celebrates the Fall of the Berlin Wall—But Also Celebrates Stalinist Cuba

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Origins of the Thought Police—and Why They Scare Us

/in , , , , , /by

In a sense, “1984” is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith’s varicose ulcer, apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something), which always seems to be “throbbing.” Gross.

None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it’s not the worst thing in 1984. To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn’t keep Big Brother out of your head.

Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren’t that interested in controlling behavior or speech. They do, of course, but it’s only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.

“When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will,” O’Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith near the end of the book.

We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

Big Brother’s tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved thoughts. We see how this works when Winston’s neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.

“It was my little daughter,” Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?”

We don’t know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.

What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of Oceania—the fictional land of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa—who use surveillance and informants to monitor the thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.

Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don’t want to kill nonconformists so much as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture. (Funny sidebar: the name Room 101 apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)

Orwell didn’t create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.

Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when everything seemed to be going well for his side.

The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing … It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle, he wrote in Homage to Catalonia. [E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle … every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.

That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him. Factions and leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon Trotsky, were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and “uncontrollables” were disappeared.

Orwell never forgot the purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist opponents also used propaganda and lies.) Stalin’s NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police—the NKVD showed less patience with its victims—but they certainly helped inspire Orwell’s secret police.

The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell’s ideas on truth. During his time in Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943.

…I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

In short, Orwell’s brush with totalitarianism left him worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, “This kind of thing is frightening to me.”

Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe,” Rudyard Kipling once observed.

The struggle to remain true to one’s self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about “the smelly little orthodoxies” that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a “power of facing unpleasant facts”—something of a rarity in humans—even though it often hurt him in British society.

In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell’s book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. Modern history shows he was onto something.

When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what’s frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn’t just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around.

Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it’s still happening today. The New York Times recently ran a report featuring one Peng Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of “student information officers” China uses to root out professors who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found in 1984, East Germany, and China; but the rise of “cancel culture” shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly or not) remains strong.

The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984, but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.

That’s a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say “2+2=5” just to escape punishment. That’s exactly what Winston Smith does at the end of 1984, after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.

“Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad,” Orwell wrote. “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn’t mean you have to be.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and Fox News.

RELATED ARTICLE: 10 Terrifying Facts about the East German Secret Police

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Here Are the Backgrounds of 4 Lawyers for Impeachment Witnesses

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

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

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