Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senate’

Fauci To Testify Before Senate, Trump Stonewalls ‘Haters’ in House


Reported By Erin Coates | Published May 5, 2020 at 12:44pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fauci-testify-senate-trump-stonewalls-haters-house/

“The House is a setup. The House is a bunch of Trump haters. They put every Trump hater on the committee. The same old stuff,” Trump told reporters outside the White House.

“They, frankly, want our situation to be unsuccessful, which means death. Which means death. And our situation’s going to be very successful.”

He added that Fauci, the director of the Nationals Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, will testify before the Senate, “and he looks forward to doing that.” The president went on to say that Democrats in the House “should be ashamed of themselves.” “They want us to fail so they can win an election, which they’re not going to win,” he said.

Fauci will join Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in testifying before a Senate committee on May 12, NPR reported.

Trump’s comments about the House confirmed reports that the White House had blocked Fauci from appearing before the House Appropriations Committee as part of its investigation into the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey of New York, the chairwoman of the committee, and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut condemned the White House’s decision to allow Fauci to testify before the Senate and not the House panel in a Saturday news release.

“The White House’s decision to allow Dr. Fauci to testify in the Republican-controlled Senate but not before the House Appropriations Committee is letting politics overtake public health. There is no distinction between our two co-equal legislative bodies,” they said in a statement.

“The COVID-19 pandemic should not and cannot become a partisan issue — there are too many lives at risk,” the lawmakers said. “We are all Americans first. But the White House’s partisan politics are clearly at play in this decision during our nation’s most challenging public health and economic crisis, and that is both alarming and offensive to the work the American people have elected us to do.”

White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said that allowing Fauci to appear before the committee would be “counter-productive.”

“While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings,” Deere said in a statement last week, according to The Hill.

“We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time,” he said.

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said Democratic lawmakers should not conduct their “usual fishing expedition” if they hear testimony from Fauci.

“I just hope that the people who are asking the questions are asking intelligent, rational questions that are actually relevant to the American health because we’ve seen what they do before,” Conway told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Tuesday.

“For example, they say stupid things like, ‘This is a job interview — this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment’ about Brett Kavanaugh. ‘Let’s believe all women’ — or at least those three women, most of whom then retracted or didn’t have corroborating evidence,” she said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Senators Who Fought Kavanaugh Found Stumping for Biden Morning After Allegation Evidence Discovered


Commentary By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published April 26, 2020 at 6:41am

It was a shocking news-break Friday as reports indicated evidence had emerged supporting former Senate aide Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential primary nominee Joe Biden. Potentially more shocking, however, were Saturday morning developments that seemed to suggest that — just like that — the American left’s zero-tolerance, “Believe All Women” approach to sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the D.C. political establishment had been put to rest.

According to The Intercept, video was found this week in the archives of CNN’s “Larry King Live” revealing an on-air phone call in 1993 in which a female caller complained that her daughter had had nowhere to turn for help with unspecified “problems” while working for a “prominent senator.” The caller is believed to have been Reade’s now-deceased mother.

Receiving incredibly little attention from the establishment media, Reade came forward in March with allegations Biden had, while she was a staffer in his office in 1993, forced himself upon her in private in a hallway in the Capitol complex, kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers.

Confirmation the “Larry King Live” caller was, in fact, Reade’s mother would support Reade’s claims that she had confided in others and considered coming forward shortly after the alleged assault would have taken place.

Still, the news about the phone call wasn’t enough to stop Democratic senators, and former bitter primary opponents, from expressing support for Biden just 24 hours later on social media. Likely still vying for a vice presidential nod, the senators were eager Saturday morning to kiss the boots of their good friend Biden, joining him in promoting a campaign event titled S.O.U.L. of the Nation Saturday.

Coming on the one-year anniversary of Biden’s campaign announcement, “SOUL Saturday” — for service, outreach, unity and leadership — is described as a day dedicated to celebrating American “communities’ heroes” in a time of crisis.

Coincidentally, the event also plays on Biden’s running narrative regarding his candidacy — which he describes as an attempt to “reclaim” the soul of America from the hands of mean, old President Donald Trump.

And wouldn’t you know it, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker had no problem slapping on fake smiles, painting their former opponent with rehearsed compliments and quoting his campaign slogans.

“I’m so grateful to be teaming up with [Joe Biden] to recognize all of the heroes fighting for us on the front lines,” Booker wrote in a Twitter post alongside a promotional video. “The biggest thing you can do today is a small act of kindness for someone else — so please, join us in this day of service.”

“Today I’m joining my friend [Joe Biden] and people across our nation who are coming together to take part in #SOULSaturday,” wrote Harris, whose most notable moment of campaign popularity came from insinuating Biden was an old racist.

“Let’s use this moment to show our appreciation for those on the front lines and connect with our friends and neighbors. We’re all in this together.”

Of course, no such pleasantries were made regarding then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh by any of the aforementioned senators at the time of his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. In fact, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar were all clearly using their positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Kavanaugh proceedings as a springboard for their eventual failed White House bids.

This is not to say sexual assault allegations should be taken lightly or ignored. To the contrary, they should be heard and investigated with the utmost seriousness and empathy. But presumption of innocence and all manner of due process were flung to the wind when Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., came forward with consistently uncorroborated claims Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party in high school. One allegation led to more and more still, each one less credible than the last.

Stories of a high school-aged Kavanaugh taking part in methodically planned date-rape rings and thrusting his genitals upon an unsuspecting woman at a Yale University party were all welcomed by Democrats and the media as though they were equally valid — because, once again, you had to “Believe All Women.” That is why Gillibrand repeatedly told the media and the nation that Ford had “no reason to lie,” according to CNN. That is why Klobuchar used her time questioning the judge as an opportunity to grandstand, assassinating his character with implications that his collegiate drinking habits somehow made him a sex criminal as well.

But I guess it’s too much to ask the same level of scrutiny be applied to Biden, even hours after the allegations against him seem to have taken on teeth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt


Posted By

URL of the original posting site: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

Rice challenged Bolton’s decision to remain silent throughout the process despite not ever being subpoenaed by the House or Senate in the proceedings.

“It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.”

Bolton argued that the House botched the process and condemned House Democrats for having committed “impeachment malpractice.”

“The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan,” Bolton claimed.

Bolton’s new book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is slated to be released next month is expected to reveal what Bolton might have said had he been forced to testify before lawmakers in the impeachment proceedings. Republicans in the Senate defeated Democrats’ efforts to bring Bolton before the upper chamber before the final vote with only Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine voting in favor of the measure.

In the final days of the trial however, sections of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the New York Times, featuring Bolton accusing Trump of tying the nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine with politically motivated investigations as Democrats alleged. The leak happened to come on the same day the book became available for online pre-order revealing the move as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

On Monday, Bolton accused the White House of trying to suppress details in the book in his first public remarks since the president’s exoneration at Duke University.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – By the Book

Democrats will likely try to use the same dirty tricks as they did with the Russia collusion investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings.
Schiff Senate Trial StrategyPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

Court Docs: Democrats Still Hope to Impeach Trump over Russia


Filed by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/court-docs-democrats-still-hope-to-impeach-trump-over-russia/

Komrade Trumpov impeachment rally balloon (Joel Pollak / Breitbart News / 

House Democrats are still hoping to impeach President Donald Trump over allegations resulting from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report earlier this year into “Russia collusion,” though Mueller found none existed.

The House Judiciary Committee reportedly told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday that it still wanted former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify even though Trump has already been impeached, because his impeachment could reveal that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.

Democrats voted last Wednesday to impeach the president for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” in claims related to his dealings with Ukraine. But the text of the articles of impeachment cited Trump’s alleged “previous invitations of foreign interference,” referring to debunked allegations that he sought to collude with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats pursued McGahn’s testimony at the time the Mueller Report was released because they were determined to find any evidence that Trump obstructed justice, even though he had made every witness and document available to investigators and declined to exercise executive privilege. Mueller did not refer Trump for prosecution, nor did he  “exonerate” the president, but both Attorney General William Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Nevertheless, Democrats continued to look for evidence of obstruction, even trying to obtain the grand jury materials that Mueller had used, which Barr was prohibited, by law, from providing to Congress (which found him in contempt anyway).

The White House, which had previously cooperated with Mueller, balked at allowing the president’s counsel to testify before Congress after the Mueller inquiry ended, citing legal privileges and constitutional boundaries.

But Democrats persisted.

In the Judiciary Committee’s report accompanying the articles of impeachment, which it cited in its court filing Monday, Democrats hinted that they included Trump’s so-called “obstruction of justice” in the Russia investigation in their “obstruction of Congress” article of impeachment, though they did not specifically charge him with obstructing justice (footnotes removed):

The Second Article of Impeachment impeaches President Trump for obstructing Congress with respect to the House impeachment inquiry relating to Ukraine. Yet, as noted in that Article, President Trump’s obstruction of that investigation is “consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.” An understanding of those previous efforts, and the pattern of misconduct they represent, sheds light on the particular conduct set forth in that Article as sufficient grounds for the impeachment of President Trump.

These previous efforts include, but are not limited to, President Trump’s endeavor to impede the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 United States Presidential election, as well as President Trump’s sustained efforts to obstruct the Special Counsel after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice.

However, a footnote at the end of the first paragraph above suggested that the committee would seek to interview McGahn to obtain evidence for use in a Senate trial on existing articles of impeachment, not new ones:

This Committee has undertaken an investigation relating to the Special Counsel’s report. That includes inquiring into President Trump’s obstruction of the Special Counsel, as well as a review of other aspects of the Special Counsel’s underlying work that the President obstructed. As part of this investigation, the Committee has sought to compel testimony by former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, and to review certain grand jury materials relating to the Special Counsel’s report. Should the Committee obtain the information, it would be utilized, among other purposes, in a Senate trial on these articles of impeachment, if any. The Committee, moreover, has continued and will continue those investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes.

The DC Circuit is scheduled to hear the case on January 3. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has refused to turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she says she is awaiting a guarantee of a “fair trial” — though the Constitution suggests that the Senate could hold a trial anyway.

She may, however, also be awaiting the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the McGahn case, which would almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by either side.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses


Posted by 

URL of the original posting site: https://steadfastandloyal.com/politics/doj-inspector-general-horowitz-to-publicly-testify-before-senate-judiciary-committee-on-december-11-about-his-investigation-into-fisa-abuses/

We have been waiting so long for the IG report on FISA abuse and we have been teased many times about the release, but now we know the report has to be released by early December because Horowitz has agreed to testify on his report to the Senate on December 11th, That will be televised nationally and he will have no new ground to cover since it will be all over the conservative media. But, he will be able to rebut whatever smears the Democrats make after the post is released.  The Democrats will do whatever necessary to distract from this if they can.

The fun part will be when they talk about criminal referrals. He will not be able to get into specifics but he will be able to name the ones who face prosecution. There is something else we need to consider. Allegedly, the report was being held up because John Durham was convening a grand jury. If that was true, then we may already see indictments by time Horowitz testifies because it would mean the grand jury has done it’s job and was released

From The Gateway Pundit

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is set to publicly testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 about his investigation into FISA abuse.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced on Monday that Horowitz will discuss the findings of his investigation into DOJ and FBI’s conduct

“I appreciate all the hard work by Mr. Horowitz and his team regarding the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign,” Graham said.

“Mr. Horowitz will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, where he will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better,” Graham added. “I look forward to hearing from him. He is a good man that has served our nation well.”

Horowitz is expected to release his much-anticipated FISA abuse report before Thanksgiving and it is expected to contain several criminal referrals, reported investigative journalist Sara Carter.

Horowitz has been working on a report documenting the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] abuses by Obama’s corrupt DOJ and FBI during the 2016 election targeting Donald Trump.

“It’s as thick as a telephone book,” Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo recently said. “More than just FISA abuse.”

NYT Tries To Fact Check Trump’s Tweet on Abortion, Immediately Ends Up Backfiring on Twitter


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 1, 2019 at 1:21am

In light of the recent fierce discussion over late-term and even post-birth abortions, Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors and medical personnel to make all efforts to save the life of a baby that survived an attempted abortion, rather than kill it or stand idly by while it died naturally.

Incredibly, that bill failed to achieve the necessary votes for passage on Monday, according to The Daily Wire, after only three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote in favor of saving an abortion survivor’s life, while 44 other Senate Democrats heartlessly voted against the measure.

In response to that grotesque and disheartening outcome, President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats in a pair of fiery tweets Monday evening, calling the left “extreme” for being in favor of “executing babies” after they had been born.

Trump tweeted, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

He added, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

As if on cue, The New York Times set about the next day with an attempt to “fact check” the president’s outraged tweets, but that effort failed in rather stunning fashion — at least on social media.

Just scroll down through the overwhelmingly negative comments on the tweet from The Times.

The article from The Times glossed over what the bill would actually do — “require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion” — while highlighting criticism from opponents who falsely claimed the measure was “aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions.”

The article also argued that the bill was redundant due to a 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, though they failed to mention that prior law had no teeth for enforcement.

The Times article then quoted a couple doctors who insisted that babies surviving attempted abortions “hardly ever happens,” and provided various facts and figures about the age of infant viability to support the notion that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare — around 1 percent of all abortions — without mentioning that the 1 percent is still in the ballpark of around 10,000 such deadly procedures per year.

Yet, the Times admitted near the end of the article that aborted babies sometimes are born alive, and that doctors and patients will allow the baby to die naturally, all while being kept comfortable” — echoing what Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in early February.

The article also admitted in the eighth paragraph, “The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.”

The tweet-trackers at Twitchy compiled a couple dozen of the brutal responses they received from Twitter users to highlight just how enormously the “fact check” of Trump’s tweets had backfired on The Times.

Countless users wondered why Democrats would vote against the bill if the issue the bill addressed was truly so “rare” and uncommon, as if that were indeed the case, a vote in favor of it really wouldn’t matter.

One user referenced Gov. Northam’s despicable commentary, and tweeted, “How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news.”

Still another user hinted at Northam’s remarks and noted, “‘rarely born alive’ I guess that’s okay then! As long as they’re just rarely murdered after they’re already born and alive! Hopefully they’re kept comfortable!”

There isn’t near enough room here to include all of the saddened or snarky replies to The Times, but suffice it to say, the effort to “fact check” the president’s righteous and justified anger while defending Democrats voting against saving the life of newborn infants did not go over well, at all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

It’s Official: This Senate Vote Proves Dems Are Now ‘The Infanticide Party’


Written by Wes Walker on February 26, 2019

This will definitely become one of the defining issues of 2020. It should have been a non-controversial law, and it would have been had not the Democrats gone all-in and become the Party of Kermit Gosnell.

The entire argument about abortion until now hinged upon ‘my body my choice’. This vote proves that has been a lie all along. It has REALLY been about the right to kill the baby and avoid the parental responsibilities that go with it. How do we know this? Because this bill had nothing to do with the mother’s body. It had everything to do with a living, breathing infant that is born — despite the best efforts of an abortionist to kill it — being treated like one.

The logic of it should be uncontroversial: Not in her body. No longer her choice.

We can thank Virginia’s Governor Northam and his $3 Million in political donations from Planned Parenthood for bringing this issue to light. His infanticide statements are all-but-forgotten after the blackface/KKK yearbook photo and the Smollett Hoax, but they still have a legacy.

The GOP-led Senate only mustered 53 votes — seven shy of the 60 needed to overcome the Democratic filibuster. Three Democrats crossed the aisle to back the bill, while three Republicans missed the vote.

Backers said they were driven to act by recent state laws and bills they said would allow abortions up to the point of birth — and, in at least the case of one failed piece of legislation in Virginia, would have allowed a child born despite an attempted abortion to be left to die.

“It isn’t about new restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby. Period,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. He said it made him “uneasy” that such legislation was even considered controversial.
Source: Washington Times

In the lead-up to the vote, parties made their respective cases:

The Senate is currently debating the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on the floor and will vote on the legislation later this evening. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) requires that doctors provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell opened the session, saying of the bill, “It isn’t about restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period.”

“Can the extreme far-left politics surrounding abortion really have come this far?” McConnell added. “Are we really supposed to think that it’s normal that there are now two sides debating whether a newborn, whether newborn living babies deserve medical attention?”
Source: National Review

The answer, clearly, is ‘yes’.

Schumer stood up and lied to the public:

Shortly after McConnell’s remarks, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor that the born-alive bill “is carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers.” He also claimed the bill “would impose requirements on what type of care doctors must provide in certain circumstances, even if that care is ineffective, contradictory to medical evidence, and against the family’s wishes.”

In fact, the bill doesn’t mandate any particular type of care for infants, and the medical specifics are left up to the judgment of the physician in each case. Instead, it enacts a requirement that newborns delivered in the context of abortion be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.
Source: National Review

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does NOT extend to only SOME Americans. It extends to even the smallest among us. Our politicians are looking less and less like AMERICANS and increasing like ancient Romans and Greeks that would leave unwanted children in the wild to be devoured by beasts. Not long ago, Abortion activists would have denied wanting abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth — and now, to exercise their ‘choice’ to infanticide even after the baby is born.

Police Report Is Game-Changer in Case of Gay, Black Actor Attacked by ‘Trump Supporters’


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | January 30, 2019 at 9:29am

When gay black actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by white men who yelled some stuff about “MAGA,” it didn’t take long for the liberal rage machine to mobilize.

“The star of the tv show ‘Empire,’ Jussie Smollett, was attacked by two assailants early Monday morning in Downtown Chicago according to Chicago Police Department Spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi,” CNN reported.

“Smollett, 36, was walking on the 300 block of E. North Lower Water Street when two men approached him and ‘gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,’ Guglielmi says in a statement.

“Two unknown offenders — it is unknown if they were male or female — then attacked Smollett, hitting him in the face and then poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

“At some point during the scuffle, one of the offenders wrapped a rope around the victim’s neck and then both offenders fled the scene, the statement reads.”

Smollett took himself to Northwestern Hospital, where the incident was reported to police, according to CBS Chicago.

There was plenty of condemnation to go around, particularly after TMZ reported that the attackers had shouted “this is MAGA country.” Two of the outraged included black Democratic senators, who just by chance, happen to either be running for president or widely expected to be running for president.

There was one problem with this “modern-day lynching” narrative: None of that “MAGA country” stuff was originally mentioned to police and they’re having trouble corroborating the fact that the attack even happened.

“According to the victim, the offenders’ faces were concealed,” a police spokesman said, according to Reason. “We have no record indicating that (they shouted ‘MAGA’), we only have record of them shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him.”

A statement from Chicago Police confirmed that, Reason reported.

“We have no record of the ‘MAGA Country’ comment,” the statement said, according to Reason. “We have racial and homophobic comments documented.”

CNN reported that when police heard about the accusation and called the actor, he “relayed it to detectives in a supplemental interview.”

But then again, there’s some doubt as to whether the attack even happened.

In an area that has a “very high density” of surveillance cameras, according to the police spokesman’s statement, there is not a single image of an attack like the one Smollett described.

“A Chicago police spokesperson tells CNN that investigators canvassed the neighborhood where the reported attack occurred on actor Jussie Smollett and have found no still images or video from security cameras of the incident,” CNN reported.

“The only image of Smollett police obtained from security cameras was inside Subway Sandwich shop near the location of the reported crime, the actor was standing alone.”

For all I know, Smollett really was attacked by bigots who shouted the phrase “MAGA country,” and ambitious, Democratic politicians who are calling this a “a modern-day lynching” are absolutely justified. But here’s the thing — I’m going to wait to see whether or not that’s the case, as everyone else should have.

It hasn’t even been a fortnight since the Covington Catholic incident, and the lesson we were should have taken away from that “teachable moment” — be careful dealing with stories that confirm your cultural narrative — has been lost.

No fewer than two senators with eyes on the 2020 Democratic nomination have taken this accusation as gospel because they can use it as an illustration of supposed Trump-fueled hate coursing through the country, even though no arrests have been made and the evidence is scanty. If this turns out to be a hoax, Sens. Booker and Harris own this, as do the legion of liberals who tweeted this out without waiting for a fuller investigation.

Even if this turns out to be true, what they did was supremely irresponsible. That these two individuals are in the Senate is bad enough. Just imagine one of them in the White House, backed by a legion of people who think Donald Trump supporters are irresponsible bigots, but are willing to blame white Donald Trump supporters for a hate crime without any charges or even direct physical evidence. It will make the Obama years look like pure reason.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

 

GOP Congressional Members Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Enact Term Limits


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | January 5, 2019 at 2:13pm

A new bill from two top Republicans would limit most people to 18 years in Congress via a constitutional amendment — something that’s bound to have career bureaucrats infuriated.

The amendment, according to CNN, is being introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively.

“For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people,” Cruz said.

Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.”

Cruz had introduced a similar bill in 2017, but failed to gain traction.

The plan would limit House members to three terms of two years each and senators to two terms of six years each. This means that most people would be limited to 18 years in office, and only if they are elected to one office and then the other.

The language makes it technically possible to serve up to slightly less than 22 years if they’re appointed or elected to fill less than a half-term.

This, according to Rooney, is closer to what the nation’s founders envisioned.

“The founders never envisioned a professional political class,” Rooney said during an interview on Fox News Saturday.

“This is a much better way than having these entrenched politicians who are too aligned with special interests over a period of years. I would say 18 years is plenty of time to serve your country in.”

Neither Cruz nor Rooney would really be benefiting from the arrangement, should any politician be seen as having benefited personally from term limits. Rooney, 65, was first elected in 2016 and would be eligible to serve in the House until 2022. Cruz, who just won his second term, would be out of Congress in 2024.

It’s worth noting, however, that Rooney could possibly take over for Sen. Marco Rubio, who would be term-limited out if he won the Republican nomination. (Lest you think Rubio would be upset about it, consider that he’s a co-sponsor of the bill — along with Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia.)

And Cruz, who came to the Senate from a position as Texas’ solicitor general, could also technically run for the House if he so chose.

Incidentally, if you think that the bill can’t win bipartisan support, consider there was another major Democratic voice calling for term limits this election cycle: Beto O’Rourke, Cruz’s opponent.

“People in Texas and across the country recognize that members of Congress often focus on re-election at the expense of addressing the challenges our country faces,” O’Rourke said in a piece posted to Medium.

“We see that the longer you serve in Congress, the less connected, the less responsive, the less accountable you can become to the people you represent. And we recognize that imposing term limits on members of Congress — along with getting PAC money out of our politics and putting an end to gerrymandering — will help breathe new life and new ideas into our democracy.”

If even Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke can come together on something, maybe Congress can, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Ted Cruz Fires Epic Counterpunch After Jim Carrey’s Latest Haunting Cartoon Hits His Desk


Reported By Ben Marquis | November 6, 2018 at 12:13pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ted-cruz-fires-epic-counter-punch-jim-carreys-latest-haunting-cartoon-hits-desk/

Ted Cruz pictured speaking in a file photo from 2014.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is pictured in a file photo from April 2014. Cruz used his well-honed wit to slam a cartoon created by liberal actor Jim Carrey. (Andrew Cline / Shutterstock)

Liberal Hollywood actor Jim Carrey was once beloved by audiences across America for his amazing acting ability in roles that ranged from rather serious to absurdly stupid — but incredibly hilarious — in his many popular movies over the years.

Sadly, Carrey succumbed to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in 2016 and simply hasn’t been the same, trading in his spot in front of a camera for one in front of a canvas as he works out his inner demons through the process of painting what could be described by some as “artwork,” typically of the anti-Trump, anti-Republican variety.

The Daily Caller reported on the latest piece of “art” showcased by Carrey on social media, but it was the response he received from the featured subject of his piece — Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is being challenged in the election by Democrat Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke — that truly garnered the attention.

Carrey tweeted, “Go Beto! Go Democrats! Vote like there’s no tomorrow. Let’s make this Tuesday like the end of every great vampire movie. Pull back the curtains and let the sunshine turn all those bloodsuckers to dust.”

Naturally, Carrey’s painting portrayed Cruz as a vampire that was shrinking away and shrieking in pain as he burst into flames and disintegrated while O’Rourke pulled back a curtain to bathe his opponent in sunlight.

The likening of Cruz to a vampire was possibly inspired by the admittedly funny comparisons of Cruz with the vampiric Grandpa Munster from the 1960s sitcom “The Munsters,” not to mention the leftist belief that Republicans are blood-sucking monsters who hate the living, especially women and children, or something.

For all of the criticisms that Cruz has received — both fairly and unfairly — few could say with a straight face that he doesn’t have a great sense of self-deprecating humor or that he is incapable of suffering and replying to harsh insults exceedingly well.

Cruz linked to Carrey’s tweet mocking him as a vampire, and wrote, “Hollywood liberals all in for Beto. But (self-described socialist) Jim Carrey made a mistake here: Vampires are dead, and everyone knows the dead vote Democrat….”

And then utter hilarity ensued and was enjoyed by all in the comment section of that tweet, as everyone understood the joke about Democrats using the fraudulent votes of dead people to win close elections. Just kidding … Cruz was ruthlessly mocked and excoriated by humorless liberals who failed to see the point or get the joke of his post.

Unfortunately for Carrey and his Cruz-hating fellow liberals, it is highly unlikely that Cruz will burst into flames and disintegrate when the curtains of the voting booths are opened after Election Day and the ultimate outcome of his race against O’Rourke is revealed.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls in the Texas Senate race show that Cruz holds a fairly comfortable 6-point lead over his challenger, with the four most recent polls in October giving Cruz a lead that ranged from as little as 3 points to as much as 10 points.

In all likelihood, given the manner in which pollsters have historically and routinely oversampled Democrats and independents and undersampled Republicans, Cruz could very well hold a more significant lead over O’Rourke than has been announced by the pollsters.

However, every conservative and Republican and right-leaning independent needs to get out and vote for Cruz on Tuesday to help drive a stake through the heart of the monstrous undead Marxist philosophy that continues to drive the Democratic Party increasingly leftward these days, lest they be allowed to suck out the lifeblood of our nation and economy by gaining control of Congress.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writer and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.

In Tight Race, Tenn. Dem’s Own Staff Says He’s Lying To Get Votes


Reported By Karista Baldwin | October 11, 2018 at 11:33am

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas’ undercover reporting just exposed the double-dealing tactics that Tennessee Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen is using in his 2018 election campaign for the U.S Senate. The group released damning undercover video footage of staffers from Bredesen’s campaign revealing that Bredesen is not above lying to voters to get elected. And his staff has no problem helping him get away with it.

On Friday, Bredesen voiced support for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and said that he wanted him on the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post. This, according to Bredesen’s own staffers, is a total lie.

On the Project Veritas video, a man identified as Will Stewart, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, was asked if Bredesen “would actually vote yes” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation if he were in the Senate. Stewart quickly set things straight.

“Oh, he wouldn’t,” Stewart said. “But he’s saying he would.” (“It’s politics,” another campaign staffer added.)

“Which, I don’t know if it makes it worse or better,” Stewart continued. “No, it makes it better.”

“I don’t understand what’s to gain by saying yes,” the undercover Project Veritas journalist prodded.

“Moderates,” Stewart said.

“Moderate Republicans,” another staffer agreed.

The duplicitous strategy seems to be common knowledge among Bredesen’s staff.

A woman identified as Maria Amalla, another field organizer, responded to why Bredesen would lie about supporting Kavanaugh, saying, “Yeah, because it’s a political move and he’s trying to make up those points.”

“I guess we won’t know until November 6th whether or not this was worth it,” she said.

Apparently, lying was the only way Bredesen could see himself beating Marsha Blackburn.

“We’re down eight points and it also said that … 74 percent of Tennesseans wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed. Logically, based on those numbers and what I’ve seen, is that he had already known that the gap between him and her has grown more,” Amalla said, referring to Blackburn.

“And so he thought that by coming out in support that it would get more Republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts … He thinks that by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate Republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us,” Amalla continued.

Bredesen doesn’t hold much respect for the people he wants to represent, with Stewart agreeing that Bredesen can get away with his tactics because Tennesseans are “ignorant.”

The Project Veritas journalist also talked to a man identified as James Miller of “voter protection” on Bredesen’s staff. “I think it’s important to just remind yourself that it’s just a political move, right?” the journalist asked him.

“Yeah.  But isn’t that gross?” Miller said, lowering his voice. “That’s the way it has to go.”

“I just hate that he has to like … lie to get that vote,” the journalist said.

“I know. I know. Tell me about it.  Unfortunately, that’s reality,” Miller agreed.

Another field organizer, identified as Delaney Brown, said she hoped that all the deception at least pays off in the election.

“I know I’m going to be p—ed if this doesn’t pay off,” she said in the video.  “If we lose, I’m going to be so mad.  Because not only did he forfeit a lot of moral high ground … if it’d still lose, if it’s by a small margin, that’s the base.”

But campaign staffers assured the reporter that Bredesen’s just pulling a bait and switch. Fear not! His staff says that once Bredesen gets in office, he won’t feel any obligation to follow through with his campaign promises, since he doesn’t plan on running for re-election again anyway. Phew.

“He’s not going to be running for re-election. He can get in there and do the right thing,” Stewart said. “Between you and me, once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Right … once Bredesen’s elected he’ll “do the right thing.” No reason to jump the gun and act ethically while he’s campaigning.

“Once you’re in, six years, you’re going to do the right thing,” Miller also said. He agreed that Bredesen would be a good Democrat, saying, “100 percent. Always has been.”

Stewart also said that despite orders not to act as if Democrats are simply running against Trump, that’s actually pretty much the point.

“We don’t say that out of these walls. But here, of course, we talk about that,” Stewart said. “Cause it’s so funny. The messaging is like, ‘don’t talk about the blue wave. We’re not running against Trump.’ All this sort of stuff. Even though that’s all why we’re all here.  We can’t put it out there.”

Stewart then added that Bredesen “hates Trump.”

But if Democrats want to beat Republicans, they could learn a thing or two from them. Stop looking down on the people you need to vote you and show them respect instead, starting with not blatantly lying to them to try to con them into supporting you.

Also, if you do need to con people to get them to vote for you, maybe re-evaluate some of what you actually stand for.

I’m with Bredesen’s staff on this one in one respect — it’s just plain gross.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Karista Baldwin has studied constitutional law, politics and criminal justice at the University of Dallas and the University of Texas at Dallas.

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Ford Ex-Boyfriend Devastates Her Testimony. Alleges Fraud, Polygraph Coaching


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 3, 2018 at

7:36am

Tables have certainly turned on the left.

If the Democrats’ strategy was to manufacture a past that comes back to haunt opponents, their game plan to derail the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should have included accusers and witnesses who had untainted histories of their own.

Unfortunately for chief accuser Christine Blasey Ford, a man from her own past has gone public to allege some major holes in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those digging deep into Kavanaugh’s personal history to unearth any kind of scandal may have just been thwarted by a page from their own playbook.

Fox News reported late Tuesday that a man has come forward to contradict many of the statements Ford made in her testimony last week.

The man, an ex-boyfriend of Ford, said she never told him of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in all of the six years that they dated.

Further, in the sworn statement, the man contradicts Ford’s testimony that she never helped anyone prepare for polygraph examinations or had a fear of flying or tight spaces and limited exits.

“In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination,” Fox News reported.

“The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her ‘life-long best friend’ prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

“He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a ‘very small,’ 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door — apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh’s alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.”

All of those statements contradict, or cast serious question on, Ford’s testimony to the committee deciding Kavanaugh’s fate.

In particular, during her testimony, Ford was questioned about her experience with polygraphs several times by the prosecutor hired by committee Republicans. She denied ever helping anyone prepare to take a polygraph.

According to Fox, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorneys demanding they release: “therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday’s dramatic Senate hearing.”

This isn’t the first time differing statements have come from friends of Ford who knew her back in the day.

On Sept. 22, as Mairead McArdle noted at National Review, longtime Ford friend Leland Ingham Keyser denied statements that she attended the party in which Ford alleges the assault by Kavanaugh took place.

Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser said in a written statement: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Perjury is a serious crime, and at this point I would wonder if Ford isn’t getting a little nervous as figures from her past emerge to shoot down her testimony and paint a picture of a very non-credible individual.

As speculation surrounds the coming conclusion of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavenaugh, I wonder if there will be any consequence toward those who came forward with such questionable accusations against the judge.

It shouldn’t be so easy to lie under oath. And the left shouldn’t assume that their obstruction tactics will go unchallenged anymore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

After Noticing Aide’s Behavior Behind Feinstein, Body Language Expert Says They Betrayed Ford


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 2, 2018 at

7:09am

There is an entirely different narrative to be understood about what someone is saying to you, and it goes far beyond listening to their words. It’s what people do when they speak, how they behave, what movements they make, that tells the story.

Body language is sometimes far more telling than the actual words that come from someone’s lips.

Mandy O’Brien studies body language. She’s become an internet go-to expert on reading the truth on many D.C. inhabitants.

And she’s got some pretty interesting things to say about Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding the leak of Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when both were in high school.

In this video, O’Brien dissects every movement from Feinstein and those around her to come up with some fascinating conclusions regarding Feinstein’s statements in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings as she answers questions about the letter she received from Ford.

Personally, I never believed Feinstein was telling the truth when she said she did not leak Ford’s letter, but O’Brien’s observations offer another interesting perspective.

Feinstein says: “Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story. She asked me to hold it confidential.”

To that O’Brein responds: “OK, Feinstein has said two statements and neither one of them match. The other part of this, she’s written it down. I don’t know if she wrote it down during this hearing. It wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s suspicious to write it down.

“What did she say? ‘I did not hide it,’ and ‘I did not leak it.’ So if you didn’t hide it, it means others knew, which kind of contradicts ‘I didn’t leak it.’ It’s a very ambiguous statement, especially since she went so far as to actually write it down so she stayed on point, just like lawyer-speak.”

Interestingly, not only does O’Brien find Feinstein’s statements not credible and suspicious, but the rest of the chamber is completely detached and unenthusiastic about her remarks. Bored.

At the 1:26 mark of the video, the camera gives us a wide angle shot of the room and the inattentiveness by the body is overwhelming. The body language by the rest of the committee is an enormous statement in itself.

O’Brien also notes Feinstein speaks to the body of the chamber, but does not make eye contact, a very tell-tale sign of disingenuous behavior.

“She’s not even actually looking up towards anyone of any status, at least in her mind,” O’Brien adds.

It’s possible Feinstein believes she isn’t lying if she can dance around the truth on a technicality.

“Now, there’s quite a few ways, especially since we’re dealing with lawyers, and they’re getting smarter, that you could approach this,” O’Brien says. ‘I did not leak,’ could mean she did not give anyone that letter because that part as she says it seems to be true. Her body sings with her.

“Everything is peaches and cream, and alas you’ve followed your little law. But, you know, whispered bullet points, whispered names, that’s not leaking, at least in their mind,” O’Brien says.

The next question is, if Feinstein didn’t leak, who did? A staff member possibly? Even if it wasn’t Feinstein herself, it was a betrayal nonetheless. And O’Brien gives a detailed description of a woman on Feinstein’s staff sitting behind her, and draws a conclusion that it is possible her staff could have been the culprit.

“But confronted on if your staff leaked it. See how her head goes back almost like a defiance and then she watches Feinstein to see her reaction. ‘Are you going to stand up for us?’ It makes me suspicious if the staff was the ones that were leaking it, whether they actually leaked the documents or, as I said before, leaked those bullet points,” O’Brien says.

Body language is a fascinating science. I can think of no better place to study it than inside the Beltway. There’s enough body language going on there to keep people watchers busy for a very long time.

Hopefully, the Kavanaugh hearings won’t go on much longer and we can watch an excited Justice Brett Kavanaugh take his oath as he proceeds to his seat on the Supreme Court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Ford’s Friend Who Was Allegedly at Party Issues Statement on FBI Investigation


Reported By Savannah Pointer | September 29, 2018 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fords-friend-issues-statement/

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Melina Mara / AFP / Getty Images)

Ford claimed that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and attempted to rape her at a party 36 years ago. That accusation put Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote on hold until the FBI can further investigate her claims.

Thus far, the only evidence that Ford has brought in the case is her own testimony. All of the individuals who she claimed attended the party with her and Kavanaugh deny any knowledge of the event taking place.

One of those people is Ford’s close friend Leland Keyser. Last week, Keyser said in a statement from her attorney, on penalty of a felony, that she didn’t attend such a party and didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” attorney Howard Walsh III said.

Walsh spoke out again Saturday, saying that Keyser doesn’t have any helpful information.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said, “Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

Walsh went on to stipulate that “as my client as already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Keyser does, however, believe Ford, she said.

“Notably Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Walsh said.

Her belief in her friend didn’t keep Keyser from conveying that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

The president’s stamp of approval on the controversial supplemental investigation came with some limitations.

“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file,” Trump said in a statement.

“As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

During Thursday’s questioning, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called out his colleagues for what he called the “charade” and for victimizing both Ford and Kavanaugh.

An earlier version of this article accidentally referred to Ms. Leland Keyser as “he” and, in one instance from her lawyer’s transcribed statement, as “Mr. Keyser.” We corrected these mistakes within a few minutes of their being pointed out by a reader, but failed to issue a correction in accordance with our own Ethics and Editorial Standards. We apologize to Ms. Keyser and our readers for these errors.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Savannah Pointer is a constitutional originalist whose main goal is to keep the wool from being pulled over your eyes. She believes that the liberal agenda will always depend on Americans being uneducated and easy to manipulate. Her mission is to present the news in a straightforward yet engaging manner.

Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at

5:25am

For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here.  The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Classmate Comes Forward, IDs Frat Brother as Guilty Party, Not Kavanaugh: Report


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at 7:52am

A New York Post writer claims that a former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s has identified a fraternity brother of his as the person who likely exposed himself to Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez during a dormitory party in the early 1980s.

Ramirez, who was Kavanaugh’s second accuser, went public in a New Yorker piece published Sept. 23.

“She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” The New Yorker reported.

“After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

Ramirez was to be interviewed by the FBI as part of the bureau’s one-week re-investigation of the background of the Supreme Court nominee. However, a new wrinkle may have presented itself in the form of a report about an alleged letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Paul Sperry is best known nowadays as a writer for the New York Post, although he’s appeared in a number of different publications over the years. On Sunday afternoon, he tweeted about the existence of a letter from “(a) classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale has sent a tip into the Senate Judiciary Committee identifying a fraternity brother known for exposing himself as the likely boy who exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez.”

So, what does this mean? As for the existence of the letter, while Sperry has made it clear both on his Twitter account and his writings for the New York Post that he doesn’t believe the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, he’s also usually not blatantly wrong on these sorts of things. The likelihood is better than not that such a letter has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by someone.

As for the truth of the letter? Well, that’s the problem with almost every piece of testimony in the Kavanaugh case: It’s sketchy at best, usually uncorroborated and could likely be contradicted by other testimony the committee’s already received.

Take the case of Dabney Friedrich, a former girlfriend of Kavanaugh’s. In an anonymous letter to Colorado GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, a woman claimed her daughter witnessed a low-level assault against Friedrich by Kavanaugh in the late-1990s.

“Her friend was dating him, and they left the bar under the influence of alcohol. They were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually,” the letter read.

“There were at least four witnesses, including my daughter.”

And that letter was almost immediately contradicted by the former girlfriend in question. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Friedrich — now a judge — said “(t)o the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend [who] was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd.

“At no time did Brett ever shove me against a wall, including in an ‘aggressive and sexual’ manner. When we dated, Brett always treated me with the utmost respect, and we remain friends to this day. I have never observed (nor am I aware of) Brett acting in a physically inappropriate or aggressive manner toward anyone.”

And then we have a Rhode Island man who is now under investigation for making false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault he initially said Kavanaugh perpetrated in the mid-1980s. He has since repudiated the story.

So, this new letter — should it exist — could be materially false. It could be the result of memories corrupted over the process of 35 years. It could be politically motivated. It could be some combination thereof; those aren’t mutually exclusive categories, after all.

But that’s the problem with the entire case against Kavanaugh: At no point have we received concrete corroboration of anything. Christine Blasey Ford can’t remember where the house was where Kavanaugh assaulted her or how she got home.

None of her witnesses can corroborate her story. The same questions linger over the Ramirez case. That makes this letter pretty much the equal of anything that’s been brought against Kavanaugh. Why should we believe one over the other?

This is the problem of throwing these unverifiable cases against a public career that has been unmarred by personal or professional misconduct. We’ve been asked to treat the former as a condition that negates the latter when it ought to be the other way around.

If these are the standards we’re holding ourselves to in 2018, God help us all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 28, 2018 at

11:49am

If you had the stout constitution to sit through every moment of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings Thursday, I’m both envious and curious. The envy stems from the fact that you could watch a room of craven politicians preen for the camera and donor-email clips and not lose interest. The curiosity stems from the fact that I get paid to do it, while most of our readership does not.

If you waited until the end, however, you got to glimpse the guiding spirit of the whole affair — or what a certain anonymous Op-Ed writer might have called the “lodestar” that directed the proceedings — in a line from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After being accused of leaking the letter that set this whole thing rolling, the California senator denied either she or her staff released it. Instead, she blamed the leak on a woman who was now utterly disposable to her — Christine Blasey Ford.

The exchange began after Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz questioned the leaking of the letter, which had been passed on to Sen. Feinstein.

“We also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process,” Cruz said.

“The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for sixty days, that was sixty days ago, the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation.

“This committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford’s privacy,” Cruz continued.

“Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter, were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress.

“And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people who could have released the letter were either the ranking member (Sen. Feinstein) and her staff, or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

“That is not a fair process,” Cruz said.

There were two options for Sen. Feinstein in this situation: a) apologize or b) deny. If she chose option b), however, there wasn’t the obligation to take path c): throw Christine Blasey Ford under an entire Greyhound station of buses.

That’s what she decided to do, however.

“Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story, she asked me to keep it confidential and I kept if confidential as she asked,” Feinstein said in response.

“She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear was realized,”Feinstein continued.

“She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home.”

After blaming the Republicans for their investigation, which she called “a partisan practice,” she continued to talk up the possible imperilment Ford was in.

“I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential, and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward,” Feinstein said.

She was then asked if her staff had leaked the letter by Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican.

“I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe — the answer is no,” Feinstein responded. “The staff, they did not.”

“Well, somebody leaked it if wasn’t you,” Cornyn said.

“I did not, I was asked to keep it confidential, and I’m criticized for that too!” she said.

“It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public, and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked, and she had been asked by press.

“But it did not leak from us,” Feinstein concluded. “I assure you of that.”

Yes, the letter leaked because this woman, who thought she was in grave jeopardy, leaked the whole thing to the press by telling her friends, who were willing to put her in that grave jeopardy by passing it on.

It had nothing — nothing — to do with the Democrats who would have benefited most from this and would have had the motivation to pass it on.

Right.

Every single problem with this entire process can be, in some way, traced back to Dianne Feinstein. She’s the one who sat on the letter, refusing to bring it up when it should have been addressed. She’s the one whose cryptic statements helped stoke the embers of curiosity. She’s the one who would call for an FBI investigation even though the FBI added the letter to Kavanaugh’s background file and moved on. She’s the one who helped oversee the circus we witnessed Thursday.

And, once Christine Blasey Ford was finally disposable to her, she was tossed to the tigers as an encore.

Ford Polygraph Results Released. Did They Just Blow a Huge Hole in Her Story?



Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 26, 2018 at

3:37pm

The narrative that liberals have hung their hopes on to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. There are now so many holes in the story, it’s incredible Democrats are still running with it.

Christine Blasey Ford is the woman who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly groping her at a party way back when he was 17 years old, but she has been largely unable to produce solid evidence or witnesses to back up her serious claims.

One of the only points in her favor was that she took a “lie detector” polygraph test, which was widely reported by the media as supporting her story by showing that she wasn’t lying.

That is, until now. On Wednesday, the actual details from that polygraph were released to the public — and they make her already-flimsy story seem downright unbelievable.

The biggest problem with the so-called “lie detector” results are that the examiner never actually asked questions about Kavanaugh during the polygraph test.

Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

Those two questions were: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either.

And, to make matters worse, the statement from Ford that she was then asked about by the polygraph examiner directly contradicts different versions of the alleged event that the accuser has also given.

“Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein,” pointed out Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of The National Review.

“Polygraph letter says ‘4 boys and a couple of girls’ were at party. Letter to Feinstein says ‘me and four others,’” he continued. “No way to reconcile the two — irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

It’s important to remember that fundamental facts such as how many people witnessed the alleged incident and what their genders were have been up in the air already. Even journalists from the left-leaning Washington Post are seemingly unable to keep the details straight.

“July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people. August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls. September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl,” The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted to Twitter, summarizing the inconsistencies.

Here’s another huge point: The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Contrary to how it’s shown in the movies, a polygraph can’t actually determine if a person is lying or not. All it can do is indicate how calm or stressed somebody is compared to a baseline. It can be used to indicate deception, but a completely delusional person can also “pass” a polygraph.

In other words, Ford may believe that something happened at a party four decades ago, and she may be confident that some version of her story is true, but the vagueness and unscientific nature of this process proves absolutely nothing. The problems with this accuser’s story don’t stop there. Buried in the release of the weak polygraph results was the fact that Ford was in Maryland — on the other side of the country from her home in California — to take that test.

But the supposed reason she couldn’t appear to testify in front of the Senate and answer questions about her accusations was that she’s afraid of confined spaces, which means she won’t travel by plane.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” reported Politico just five days ago. “Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”

Yet the letter from Ford to Senator Feinstein made no mention of this difficulty, and casually mentioned that she planned to be back in California from the East Coast in less than three day’s time. It takes at least 42 hours of nonstop driving to go from Maryland, where the polygraph was administered, to Palo Alto, California, where Ford lives and teaches at a university.

This borders on being humanly impossible: Anybody who has done long road trips knows that a realistic daily limit is about ten hours of driving a day before exhaustion sets in. USA Today has recommended that people set aside between four and six days to do this arduous drive.

When none of the details add up or pass even the most basic sniff test, something is wrong.

This entire ordeal looks increasingly like a slimy and desperate effort to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at any cost. But the truth always has a way of coming out, and it doesn’t even need a polygraph.

HERE IS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.


Grassley Borrows Trick from Dems, Unveils Game-Changer Hours Before Ford Appears


Reported By Joe Saunders | September 27, 2018 at

6:59am

Timing is everything.

On the eve of pivotal testimony scheduled to take place Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that could determine whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh rises to the high court, committee Republicans released word of a development that throws a new twist on the already tortured proceedings.

And Democrats are screaming that their own trick has been pulled against them.

According to Fox News, Judiciary Committee Republicans released a statement late Wednesday revealing that they had spoken with two men who have said it was possible that they were actually responsible for an alleged sexual assault in the early 1980s that Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford is blaming on Kavanaugh.

According to Fox, the statement revealed that the GOP had been in contact with one of the men since Monday. The Republicans, led by committee Chairman Charles Grassley, obviously opted not to share the information with Democratic colleagues.

In a statement to NBC News, an unnamed Democratic congressional aide was outraged.

“Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her,” the aide stated. “Democrats were never informed of these assertions or interviews, in violation of Senate rules.”

Seriously? This is the same party that kept quiet about a letter received by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein in July but didn’t see fit to reveal its existence to the country until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended.

Sen Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, pointed out the hypocrisy in a Twitter post.

“Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces,” he wrote.

The bombshell news from Wednesday night was the latest development in a tumultuous week that started when The New Yorker published an account of a second accuser against Kavanaugh in a barely believable piece that was essentially built on a hazy memory, rumor — and Democratic probes.

Then, publicity-hungry attorney Michael Avenatti went public on Wednesday with a tale of a client with a bizarre story that Kavanaugh was part of a gang rape ring in the early 1980s (Avenatti has publicly mused about mounting a 2020 presidential campaign, so Democrat politics are clearly a factor).

Both accusations — like Ford’s — were sprung out of the blue.

Now, Judiciary Committee Republicans have officially released word that there are yet more stories out there that could put the whole thing to rest.

As the New York Post reported:

“On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing ‘a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.’

“The ‘encounter’ refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

“They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

“Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.”

No credible conservative has denied it was possible that Ford actually went through some kind of ordeal in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh himself said as much during an interview with Fox News on Monday.

“I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place,” he said, according to a transcript from USA Today. “But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life.”

Obviously, it’s too soon to tell where Wednesday’s developments will lead, but it’s possible that they could eventually show Ford’s story was correct to the extent that she actually did go through an ordeal at the hands of a male. It’s also possible they will show, even to Democrats and rabid liberals, that Kavanaugh is innocent of Ford’s accusations.

But considering how they came out, and the Democrats’ hypocritical reaction to them, they prove one thing for sure:

Timing is everything.

Huge: Letter Shows Ford Wanted To Stop Sex Crime Prosecutor from Investigating


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 25, 2018 at

6:12am

A letter from one of Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys indicates that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wanted to dissuade the Senate Judiciary Committee from using an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, according to a tweet from NBC’s Frank Thorp V.

The letter from attorney Michael Bromwich, as Thorp notes, seems to indicate Ford’s testimony at the hearing “does not appear to be a done deal.”

It addresses several issues, including the fact that Kavanaugh’s background check from the White House won’t be provided and comments made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Ford’s account was part of a “smear campaign.”

However, perhaps the most puzzling detail was the fact that Ford’s team objected to an experienced sex crimes prosecutor being brought on in the case.

“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as (Senate Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for Nominations Michael) Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” Bromwich’s letter read.

“It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning.”

“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Bromwich said.

This is a curious development indeed. A prosecutor experienced in sex crimes would be utilized questioning not just Ford but Kavanaugh as well. Having a figure like that investigating through questioning at the scheduled hearing could be key. It would be someone who would know how to get down to the truth of the matter.

Yet, Bromwich contends that the hearing “is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Except that his client is accusing a Supreme Court nominee of a sex crime. That’s kind of a pertinent detail here.

Getting to the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations — if it can indeed be done — is vital, as it’s vital in the case of any sexual assault. The Kavanaugh case has a different dimension, however, in that it could literally decide whether or not a federal judge is morally fit to receive a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest bench.

If Brett Kavanaugh did what Ford is alleging, he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. That’s not debatable. However, she hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence or a single witness who’s able to back up her claims. That’s problematic, to say the least.

Even more problematic is the fact that Bromwich doesn’t feel that this should be treated anything like “a criminal trial” where the accused in the United States gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence. One assumes that his client shares his view on this. This means, essentially, she wants the hearing to be as uncritical as possible.

The import of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee — the mere fact that a Supreme Court nomination and the reputation of a public figure hangs in the balance — apparently doesn’t register with either Ford or her team.

If you’re alleging a brutal rape attempt involving a man who’s poised to be one of the most powerful individuals in America, why would you not want an experienced sex crimes prosecutor investigating? One can think of several reasons, none of which are particularly complimentary to Christine Blasey Ford.

There is nothing in bringing in a prosecutor that gets in the way of the “fair and credible process” Bromwich seems so concerned about in the letter. On the contrary, it’s the only way we can ensure what happens before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be either fair or credible.

The fact that the Ford team is fighting this should be seen as a highly telling move.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Reports: Kavanaugh Has Found 1982 Calendar, Detailed Entries Help Clear His Name


Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 23, 2018 at

5:26pm

The last-minute attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as the next Supreme Court justice has just hit a serious snag. Facing damaging but almost completely unsubstantiated claims that he acted improperly with a girl back when he was a teenager, the conservative nominee has dug into his personal archives to defend himself.

Up until now, the vague accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford had only resulted in a “he said, she said” stalemate. Liberals insisted that Blasey Ford’s story of a bad encounter at a drunken party be believed, while conservatives have pointed out that the nearly 40-year-old claim is impossible to verify.

Finally, Kavanaugh has presented tangible evidence that the accusation doesn’t hold up.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the judge has found old calendars from the period when the unproven groping allegedly took place — and they appear to support his claim that the incident didn’t happen.

“Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford,” explained The Times.

“The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents,” the newspaper continued.

“When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.”

Here is perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin for Blasey Ford’s already-flimsy story: The calendar contains entries for parties, but none of the names included in those entries match the names Blasey Ford listed.

That any names were included in his calendar entries for parties shows Kavanaugh was remarkably thorough about recording his social schedule.

That fact is yet another point in favor of Kavanaugh and against his accuser. The woman behind the claim has admitted that she can recall almost nothing specific about the incident, including its location, time, or other people involved.

The few names brought up by Blasey Ford have refuted her story and indicated that they don’t remember a party with both her and Kavanaugh.

“Mr. (Mike) Judge has told the Judiciary Committee that he remembered no such incident and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in such a way,” explained The Times, referring to one alleged witness of the drunken party.

“The only other two people identified as being in the house at the time, but not the bedroom, have also said in recent days that they did not recall the incident. Patrick J. Smyth said he did not remember such a party or see any improper conduct by Judge Kavanaugh.”

“Leland Keyser, a former classmate of Dr. Blasey’s at Holton-Arms, said she did not know Judge Kavanugh or remember being at a party with him,” stated the newspaper.

Accusations of this type are of course serious, and conducting due diligence is part of the vetting process for anyone nominated for a powerful position. There comes a point, however, when weak and impossible to prove allegations need to be put to rest. Blasey Ford may genuinely believe that something like the incident she described did happen; she may be telling the truth about a teenage trauma affecting her for decades, too.

The problem is that there is zero evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh who did what she claims, and no way short of a time machine to prove her accusations.

By all accounts, Kavanaugh has been a responsible and thoughtful family man and legal scholar for the entirety of his adult life — and that record needs to stand far above one person’s increasingly shaky claim.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed that Judge Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendar does not contain any names identified in Christine Blasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh. The calendar does reference Mike Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh and, according to Blasey Ford, a witness to the alleged assault. Judge’s name, however, is not mentioned in reference to any parties, while other names are — none of which have been identified by Blasey Ford. We apologize for the mistake.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Breaking: Arizona Governor Announces Replacement for John McCain



Reported By Randy DeSoto | September 4, 2018 at

11:19am

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey named former Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl as the late Sen. John McCain’s replacement on Tuesday. Kyl served with McCain in the Senate from 1995 to Jan. 2013 before his retirement. Sen. Jeff Flake succeeded him. Kyl, 76, was the GOP minority whip before leaving office, which is the second-highest position in the Republican conference, the Arizona Republic reported.

Ducey made the announcement at a press conference from the Arizona capitol in Phoenix.

“There is no one in Arizona with the stature of Sen. Jon Kyl,” the governor said.

“There is no one in Arizona more prepared to represent our state in the U.S. Senate than Jon Kyl,” Ducey added. “He understands how the Senate functions and will make an immediate and positive impact benefiting all Arizonans.”

Ducey also tweeted, “I am deeply grateful to Sen. Kyl for agreeing to succeed his friend and colleague of so many years. Every single day that Jon Kyl represents #Arizona in the U.S. Senate is a day our state is well-served.”

Kyl has agreed to serve out the remainder of the current session of Congress, which will conclude in December.

Ducey expressed the hope that Kyl will stay on through the special election to fill McCain’s seat, which will take place in 2020. That election will be to fulfill the last two years of McCain’s term, which ends in 2022.

McCain’s wife, Cindy, offered support for Ducey’s choice tweeting, “Jon Kyl is a dear friend of mine and John’s. It’s a great tribute to John that he is prepared to go back into public service to help the state of Arizona.”

Kyl spoke at a ceremony at the Arizona capitol honoring McCain last week.

Most recently, Kyl has been serving in the role of “sherpa,” guiding Trump’s Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh through the confirmation process in the Senate.

Kyl will fly back to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday and could take up his seat in the Senate as early as Tuesday night.

Among the first high-profile votes he will be called upon to make is for the confirmation of Kavanaugh, which is expected later this month and likely to be close, given the current 51-49 Republican majority.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Donald Trump Speaks at March for Life: ‘Life Is the Greatest Miracle of All’


Reported by Charlie Spiering | 19 Jan 2018

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/19/trump-speaks-march-life-life-greatest-miracle/

President Donald Trump spoke live via satellite at the March for Life in Washington, DC, on Friday, thanking pro-life activists for marching against abortion.

“The March for Life is a movement born out of love,” Trump said. “You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God. We know that life is the greatest miracle of all.”

The president spoke from the Rose Garden surrounded by pro-life activists and even a few parents holding their babies. His remarks were streamed live via satellite to screens on the National Mall.

Trump condemned the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision for increasing abortions in the United States.

“It is wrong. It has to change,” he said.

At one point, Trump was supposed to criticize that “the laws allow a baby to be *torn* from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month” – but, instead, he mistakenly said, “born.”

“Americans are more and more pro-life,” he continued. “You see that all the time. In fact, only 12 percent of Americans support abortion on demand at any time. Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.

Trump also endorsed the federal 20-week abortion ban and called for the Senate to pass it.

I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing,” he said.

Ann Coulter Blows the Lid Off the ‘Surprising’ Number of Problems with Accusations Against Roy Moore


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 7, 2017 at 12:22pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/ann-coulter-blows-lid-off-surprising-number-problems-accusations-roy-moore/?

In an op-ed published Wednesday, conservative commentator Ann Coulter sought to counter the prolific misrepresentations by media outlets in their reporting about Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

“It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore,” Coulter — a lawyer and former federal court of appeals judicial clerk — wrote in a piece for Breitbart.

“Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t ‘multiple accusers.’ There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying,” Coulter highlighted.

As reported by The Western Journal, accuser Beverly Young Nelson’s attorney Gloria Allred has refused to turn over a yearbook she claims was inscribed by Moore in 1977 to a neutral party in order for the handwriting and the date of the ink to be analyzed. The yearbook was presented as proof by Allred at a news conference that Moore and Young knew each other.

Regarding Moore’s other accuser, Leigh Corfman (featured in the Nov. 9 Washington Post story alleging Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14), Coulter contended her account has problems too.

“The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after),” Coulter wrote.

Further, “There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS,” she added.

“They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it,” Coulter said.

As for the other “accusers” who claimed they dated Moore when they were between 16 and 19 and Moore was in his early 30s, Coulter pointed out that comedian Jerry Seinfeld dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein in the 1990s, when he was 39. Therefore, Moore was closer in age than Seinfeld to those he allegedly dated.

Coulter circled back to one of her main concerns with the allegations.

“It was 40 years ago!” she wrote. “But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.”

The conservative commentator recounted other late-in-the race grenades lobbed against Republican candidates in the past, including an indictment of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger four days before the 1992 presidential election by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, which seemed to implicate George H.W. Bush in a lie regarding the 1987 Iran-Contra Scandal.

In 2004, CBS’s Dan Rather employed documents easily discovered to be forged to report George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

Coulter also contrasted the reporting Moore is receiving for alleged sexual contact in the 1970s versus that given to former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds, who admitted to having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old congressional page in the 1980s. Studds defended his actions, saying it was a “consensual relationship with a young adult,” according to The Associated Press.

“Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the ‘witch hunt’ against Studds, saying his critics wanted ‘to torch the congressman for his private life,’” Coulter wrote.

The House censured him, but he was not removed from office, and successfully ran for re-election six more times.

Studds was lionized when he died in 2006 by The Washington Post (“Gay Pioneer“), The New York Times (“First Openly Gay Congressman“), NPR (“Congressional Pioneer“) among other mainstream media outlets.

Coulter, who endorsed Rep. Mo Brooks over Moore in the Alabama Republican primary this summer, concluded her piece by writing, “The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.”

As reported by The Western Journal, Brooks, who announced last week he had already voted for Moore by absentee ballot, offered a similar rebuttal to the allegations against Moore as Coulter.

“What you have is the mainstream left-wing socialist Democrat news media trying to distort the evidence to cause people to reach the conclusion that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct with a minor and my analysis of the evidence is that is not the case,” Brooks said last week on “The Dale Jackson Show,” a program on Alabama radio station WVNN-AF.

“Most importantly, the media likes to say ‘well, there are nine complainers.’ Seven of them aren’t complainers. In fact, I would be calling seven of those ladies as witnesses on behalf of Roy Moore on the issue of whether he is engaged in any kind of unlawful conduct,” the former prosecutor added.

Brooks continued, “There are only two that have asserted that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct. One of those is clearly a liar because that one forged the ‘love, Roy Moore’ part of a yearbook in order to try to for whatever reason get at Roy Moore and win this seat for the Democrats and there’s a lot more to it as to why I believe that the evidence is almost incontrovertible about whether the yearbook was forged.”

The congressman went on to note that just left one accuser. “Well, that one witness’ testimony is in direct and stark contrast with that of the other seven ladies, who said that he acted like an officer and a gentleman.”

The House Has Passed More Bills In 10 Months Of Trump Than Obama, Bush or Clinton


Reported By Jack Davis | November 14, 2017 at 8:10am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/house-passed-bills-10-months-trump-obama-bush-clinton/?

Productivity came to Washington along with President Donald Trump, according to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. In a Monday Facebook post, McCarthy noted that in Trump’s first few months in office, more bills have passed the House than under any of the previous four presidents.

“Over 400 bills have passed the House during Donald J. Trump’s first 10 months. That’s more than under Obama, Bush, or Clinton,” he posted.

McCarthy displayed a graph that showed the average numbers of bills passed in the first 10 months of a presidency going back to President George H.W. Bush was 306. Under the Trump administration, the House has passed 407, 33 percent above the average.

According to McCarthy, the number of bills passed in the first 10 months under past administrations were:

President Barack Obama, 353;

President George W. Bush, 215;

President Bill Clinton, 263; and

President George H.W. Bush, 292.

Earlier this fall, McCarthy said the House needs help from the Senate to translate their achievements into achievements for the American people.

“Think what we’ve been able to achieve, the number of bills,” he said in September, according to Newsmax. “More so than any modern Congress you had in the first year of a new presidency: 16 human trafficking bills, 16 congressional review acts, 14 signed into law. In the history of America, only one other Congress has ever done one of those.”

“The last time a Republican majority did that, the iPhone wasn’t invented,” he said. “We need a little help on the other chamber.”

While McCarthy appeared pleased by the output of the current administration, his excitement grew when referencing the GOP tax plan.

The bill is expected to pass the House this week.

“It brings the lowest rate for small business, the lowest it has been in 80 years,” said McCarthy, who believes the bill will help all Americans. “That is what creates new jobs. That is what we have to continue to work on.”

McCarthy criticized Democrat opposition to the bill, citing America’s grew sluggish under the Obama administration.

“You know the last eight years under Barack Obama, if you take his very best growth year, that is actually lower than the worst year under Bill Clinton. We have got to get America moving again.”

“Get America moving again” seems to be the theme, as Trump wraps up his tour of Asia, and returns to the U.S.

He is expected to meet with House Republicans on Thursday in an effort to ensure passage of the legislation, which is one of Trump’s top priorities.

Convenient: Mueller Nails Manafort Right After Hillary – Uranium One Scandal Explodes


Reported By Martin Walsh | October 30, 2017 at 4:48pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/mueller-nails-manafort-hillary-scandal/?

Shortly after several reports have linked both former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State/failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the Uranium One scandal, Democrats are trying to shift everyone’s attention.

As reported by the Daily Mail, Trump’s former campaign manager from the 2016 presidential election, Paul Manafort, and his partner, Rick Gates, surrendered on Monday morning following an indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia probe.

The news comes just days after the Justice Department announcement Thursday that it would lift a gag order on a secret FBI informant who has firsthand knowledge of the Uranium One deal involving the Clintons.

According to Townhall, the informant’s identity will remain anonymous, but they will be speaking with the Senate Judiciary Committee on how the Clintons benefited from selling U.S. uranium to a company connected to Russia.

Mueller’s indictments of former Trump officials come just days after an explosive report from The Hill, which detailed how Clinton approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear company Rosatom, giving Russia 20 percent of the United States’ uranium.

Both The New York Times and New York Daily News reported that officials associated with the sale donated a reported $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was given $500,000 from a bank with ties to the Kremlin for giving a single speech in Moscow.

As detailed by a report from The Hill, the FBI had collected a plethora of documents showing that Russia officials involved with the Uranium One deal were engaged in extortion, bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering prior to the Obama administration — with Clinton’s help at the State Department — approving the deal in 2010.

The FBI agents also supplanted a U.S. witness to work closely with the Russian nuclear industry to gain inside access to financial records, collect emails, and make secret recordings on how Moscow violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

And yet, the Obama administration approved the sale and agreed to do business with the corrupt Russia company to sell 20 percent of the U.S.’ uranium.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said last week he wanted the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Uranium One sale and the Obama administration’s involvement with the deal.

In light of the bombshell report exposing Obama and Clinton for carrying out a shady deal with Russia, Mueller conveniently decided to announce indictments that would move the spotlight back to someone else.

Grassley’s call for a special prosecutor into the Clinton Foundation allowing foreign governments to influence American policy while the Clintons gained personally is a bombshell story the must be investigated, but the mainstream media conveniently distracted everyone from this corruption with Mueller’s recent announcement.

H/T Townhall

Here Are The 20 House Republicans Who Voted Against The GOP Budget


Reported by Photo of Robert Donachie Robert Donachie | Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter | 12:38 PM 10/26/2017

Twenty Republican House members voted against the Senate budget proposal adopted Thursday morning and sent to President Donald Trump’s desk for approval.

House members voted to adopt the budget in a 216-212 vote, pushing the Republican tax reform plan past a key hurdle. The $4 trillion budget includes Senate budget reconciliation rules, which allow leadership to pass legislation with a simple majority, bypassing filibusters from Democrats altogether.

Here are the Republican representatives who voted “no.”

  • Justin Amash of Michigan
  • Ken Buck of Colorado
  • Dan Donovan of New York
  • John Duncan of Tennessee
  • John Faso of New York
  • Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
  • Matt Gaetz of Florida
  • Lynn Jenkins of Kansas
  • Walter B. Jones of North Carolina
  • John Katko of New York
  • Pete King of New York
  • Leonard Lance of New Jersey
  • Frank Lobiondo of New Jersey
  • Tom MacArthur of New Jersey
  • Thomas Massie of Kentucky
  • Mark Sanford of South Carolina
  • Chris Smith of New Jersey
  • Elise Stefanik of New York
  • Claudia Tenney of New York
  • Lee Zeldin of New York

Under the new budget, Republicans now only need 50 yes votes to shepherd tax reform through the Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence acting as the tiebreaker. The party holds a slim 52-48 majority in the Senate.

The proposed budget would also allow Senate Republicans’ tax reform bill to add to the federal deficit over the next decade, as long as it does not exceed $1.5 trillion.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday October 26, 2107


Mitch McConnell Gets Bad News… Asked To Step Down


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/conservatives-demand-mcconnel-step-down-as-senate-leader/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been hit with a heavy vote of no confidence from conservative groups around the country. On Wednesday, leaders from several conservative organizations called on McConnell to abdicate his position, citing a list of broken promises he made to Republican voters.

They are calling on not only McConnell, but also members of his leadership team, to step down.

“You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration,” states their letter to McConnell, according to Fox News. “You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing. You promised to repeal Obamacare, ‘root and branch.’ You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.”

Disgruntled conservatives held a news conference in Washington, D.C. to address their concerns and desire to see the leadership team dissolved.

“We call on all five members of the GOP Senate leadership to step down, or for their caucus to remove them as soon as possible,” Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said at the conference.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded in 2008 by former Senator Jim DeMint, has worked for years to elect more conservative GOP candidates to the upper chamber in Congress. The group has regularly clashed with the more moderate wing of GOP leadership. The SCF wasn’t the only group calling for McConnell to vacate his position.

Members from FreedomWorks, For America and the Tea Party Patriots also joined the chorus in demanding GOP Senate leaders step aside after failing to enact conservative legislation, despite voters giving the Republican Party full control of Washington, D.C. on Election Day.

This is not the first time conservatives have called on McConnell to step down as majority leader, but the ferocity of Wednesday’s press conference certainly puts an added weight on Republican lawmakers to get things done this legislative session.

The letter and press conference come as congressional Republicans are currently working to enact tax reform. GOP leaders so far have not succeeded in repealing Obamacare, failing several times to push through their own GOP health care bills. Republicans are hoping tax reform will be an issue the entire party can rally behind.

“If this was a football team, and you’d lost this many times, you’d start seriously considering firing the coaches,” said For America President David Bozell.

Despite all agreeing that they’d wish to see McConnell go, many conservative leaders are not certain who they would like to see as a replacement.

“If I had to pick someone, I’d love to draft like Pat Toomey maybe,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, referring to the GOP Pennsylvania senator. “There’s a lot of different people out there who I think could unite this caucus and actually lead on some issues.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, said she could see herself supporting Georgia GOP Senator David Perdue. “I’m from Georgia, so I’m not opposed to him,” Martin explained, touting the junior senator’s extensive business background as a former CEO.

Conservative candidates are taking notice as well. As the 2018 election cycle begins to heat up, many pro-Trump candidates are hoping to gain traction by displaying stronger support for the president.

“With rare exception, GOP senators blocking Trump’s agenda are impediments we can not afford. Double that for Senate leaders,” Ron Wallace, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said in a statement to Western Journalism.

Wallace is an insurgent candidate hoping to win the GOP primary and take on incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Kaine. Wallace is running on a pro-Trump platform and believes it’s imperative the GOP majority pass what they promised to do.

“The American People voted for Tax Cuts, Border Walls, Rapid Growth, Excellent Law Enforcement, and Better Education. I expect strong proactive policies to make those outcomes possible and deliver cost-effective solutions, by whatever means may be necessary,” he said.

Rush Limbaugh Says 1 Person Is Taking Over The GOP


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/rush-limbaugh-says-1-person-is-taking-over-the-gop/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh made a bold statement on his program about Steve Bannon and the current state of the Republican Part y.

Limbaugh believes Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, is taking over the roles and responsibilities meant for GOP leadership by enforcing conservatism onto Republican candidates up for re-election.

“I think what Bannon is doing is slowly but surely taking over the role of the Republican Party,” Limbaugh said Wednesday. “The Republican Party is obviously not with Trump on balance — you have some in the House who are — but the Republican Party on balance is not with Trump.”

Steve Bannon played a major role in then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential victory upset last year and led the formulation of White House policy in the months that followed. He was Trump’s campaign chairman during the 2016 election and later served as a White House chief strategist — leading the nationalist wing of the administration.

After abruptly leaving the administration in mid-August, Bannon returned to his prior position as executive chairman of Breitbart News. Since leaving the White House, he made it clear he would use his position as a media executive to support insurgent conservative candidates running primaries against establishment GOP lawmakers.

Advertisement – story continues below

Bannon already appears good for his word.

In the special election in Alabama to fill the Senate seat once held by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Bannon went against the Trump administration with his endorsement of Roy Moore. Bannon supported the successful candidacy of Moore, a controversial former judge, in a move that was at odds with Trump, who campaigned vehemently for Moore’s opponent, Sen. Luther Strange. By election day, it wasn’t even close. Moore bested Strange in the GOP primary by almost double digits. Moore now heads into the Alabama general election, where he will likely win in a state that leans red.

The primary results demonstrated the power of Bannon’s support.

The leader of Breitbart is not stopping with the Alabama special election. Bannon has recently announced he is expanding his GOP targets, adding Republican Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah to his hit list.

> In Wyoming, Bannon is pushing Erik Prince, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and founder of major security contractor Blackwater, to challenge Barrasso, CNN reported. 

> In Utah, Hatch may very well retire on his own. If he does, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is reportedly eyeing a run in the Mormon-majority state. If that happens, Bannon is ready to run a candidate against him.

According to a source close to Bannon, this is just a “partial” list of elections he is looking to influence.

Bannon is already working to knock off Republican Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and his beleaguered campaign for re-election. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker are also on Bannon’s radar.

“Some people make an argument that there really isn’t a Republican Party left. I mean, there are people who call themselves that and they go out and raise money and they raise a lot. But whereas the party used to be known for one, two, or three very serious things, they’re not anymore,” Limbaugh added on his radio show.

The conservative talk radio host believes Bannon and others are trying to keep the identity of the Republican Party alive by enforcing such standards onto them by way of primary challenges.

Insurance Industry Opposes Republican Health Bill


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/insurance-industry/ | September 23, 2017   

Fortune seemed surprised that insurers oppose last ditch Republican efforts to replace and repeal ObamaCare. As usual, the industry’s concern is for consumers.

Insurance Industry Explains Why

Industry spokesmen displayed their concern in an article titled “Even the Insurance Industry is Against the Latest GOP Health Care Plan”:

Despite the general view that health insurance companies would benefit from a free and open market, two of the biggest trade groups for insurers — Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans — announced their first opposition to the Republicans’ latest plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Both the Blue Cross and the AHIP came out against the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill Wednesday, arguing that the legislation would lead to an unstable market that would harm both insurers and patients. 

“The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions,’’ the Blue Cross association said in a statement. “The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans.”

The AHIP doubled down on those sentiments, writing that the bill “would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market” and could “potentially allowing government-controlled, single payer health care to grow,” in a letter to Senate majority and minority leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The insurance trade associations’ resistance joins a number of health care groups already speaking out against the proposed bill, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Association of Retired Persons.

The Graham-Cassidy bill, named after two of its drafters, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), has a voting deadline of Sept. 30. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation next week after several previously unsuccessful attempts earlier this year.

President Donald Trump talked up the bill Wednesday, saying that it has “a very good chance” of passing in the Senate.

McCain Health Care Bill Kills


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/mccain-health-care-bill-kills/ | September 23, 2017

McCain

Senator McCain sided with Jimmy Kimmel in shooting down best bud Lindsey Graham on Friday. He announced he would vote “no” on the Graham Cassidy health care reform.

Two McCain Bill Kills

Those in the know think that pretty much kills the bill. And that would make two health bill kills for McCain.

Damn, should have drawn that on the fuselage.

Pence To Limbaugh: ‘Disaster Of Obamacare’ Cannot Continue


Reported

Vice President Mike Pence appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program Monday to address the status of the Republican health care bill in Congress, declaring that, “We simply cannot allow the disaster of Obamacare to continue.”

Limbaugh asked Pence about the challenge of passing legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“How in the world can it be this hard when it seemed easy when Obama was in the White House?” Limbaugh asked.

Pence contended that “it has to get done,” adding that Obamacare is “putting a tremendous burden on working families, on small businesses, on the American economy.”

“Every single promise that President Obama made to get Obamacare passed has been broken,” Pence said, later adding, “We’ve seen the cost of health insurance rise in every state across the country, in some cases 200 percent and more.”

Limbaugh challenged Pence to detail the obstacles preventing the passage of healthcare reform, noting that, “We’ve got 52 votes plus yours if necessary, if it comes down to that.”

Pence said that the challenges have to do with “the complexity of this disastrous policy launch,” referring to Obamacare. He claimed that the Republicans’ current heath care legislation “doesn’t do everything that we ultimately want to do. … The president’s committed to ultimately allowing Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, the way they buy life insurance, the way they buy car insurance.”

“Nobody’s talking about that. That’s a great point because nobody is talking about it,” Limbaugh said in response.

Still, the budget rules that the Republicans need follow to pass their legislation with just 51 votes do not allow them to make such a “substantive change in the law,” Pence said.

Despite that shortcoming, Pence said that “in this legislation … we accomplished enormous things,” citing the removal of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty to the government.

“The mandate goes away,” Pence said. “The tax increases go away. Medicaid goes back to the states for the purposes of reform. Health savings accounts are greatly expanded so that people can become consumers in their own health care choices.”

According to Pence, another obstacle impeding the passage of the legislation is the varied opinions of lawmakers.

“Every member of Congress has their own opinion, and this administration — as we did with the House of Representatives — is determined to work with each member to address their needs. But we are very close. If I had one message for your tens of millions of listeners around America, it is: ‘This is the moment; now is the time.’”

Limbaugh and Pence also discussed the possibility of a single-payer health care system.

“Obamacare was designed to implode, in part, so as to further the public’s acclimation for single payer.”

The vice president then referred to former congressman Barney Frank’s answer to a reporter’s question about single-payer health care in 2009.

“They said, ‘How come you’re not supporting single payer?’ He said, Obamacare is the quickest way to get to single payer.’”

Pence also referenced to the “heartbreaking story of 11-month-old Charlie Guard in England — whose single-payer system will not allow his parents to choose potentially life-saving treatment for him — as an example of what could occur in the United States.

When asked by Limbaugh if he would support a clean repeal of Obamacare with nothing to replace it, Pence replied, “We can’t … We simply cannot allow the disaster of Obamacare to continue. It is hurting families.”

“I believe that — with the strong support of the American people — with this president in the Oval Office, we’re going to get it done. We’re going repeal and replace Obamacare. But the time is now,” Pence said.

Pelosi: ‘Hundreds Of Thousands’ Will Die If GOP Health Care Bill Passes


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/pelosi-hundreds-of-thousands-will-die-if-gop-health-care-bill-passes/

The California congresswoman went on to contend that Republicans should join with Democrats to fix Obamacare, not scrap it, and she argued that Republicans are currently sabotaging the law. According to Pelosi, the GOP House and Senate bills are “systemically, structurally, they are very, very harmful to the American people. They will raise costs, with fewer benefits. …They will undermine Medicare.” The minority leader likely meant to refer to “Medicaid,” because neither GOP bill seeks to change Medicare.

As reported by Western Journalism, Obamacare has failed to live up to many of the promises made by former President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Perhaps the most infamous promise broken was Obama’s claim, both before and after the bill’s passage, that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Politifact named this promise the “Lie of the Year” in 2013, as over four million cancellation letters went out to policy holders that year, and such letters continued in the years thereafter.

Despite the insurance mandates contained in Obamacare, the former president promised that premiums would go down an average of $2,500 a year per family of four, thereby living up to the name “Affordable Care Act.” However, the opposite proved to be true, and Politifact listed Obama’s assurance as a “Promise Broken.”

The average nationwide premium cost has increased by 99 percent for individuals and 140 percent for families from 2013 through February 2017, according to an eHealth report.

Moreover, the Heritage Foundation determined that 70 percent of U.S. counties have only one or two insurers offering coverage through the Obamacare exchange. Some areas of the country could face having no insurers on the exchange at all in 2018, according to Bloomberg.

Despite the law’s major failings, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined with Pelosi in arguing that the only solution is to fix Obamacare.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Durbin pointed to the Republican plan to provide Medicaid funds to the states in block grants as something he could not support. He added that the Republican plan would result in 23 million less people obtaining health insurance, which is what the Congressional Budget Office projected would be the result over 10 years.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., responded, “The amount of dollars going into Medicaid continues to go up year after year. So if Senator Durbin refers to a cut, only in Washington is giving more each year, something you can conceive as a cut, if it doesn’t go up as fast as he would like it to go up.”

Under Obamacare, the Medicaid rolls grew by approximately 12 million people, thanks to new eligibility guidelines. Over 70 million are now enrolled in the program, or about one in every five Americans.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies with the Cato Institute, told Western Journalism that even the so-called cuts designed to slow the growth of Medicaid should be viewed with skepticism.

Cannon explained that proposed legislation does not call for true block grants, but rather matching grants based on the number of Medicaid enrollees in each state. States can increase the grant cap simply by increasing the number of enrollees.

Further, Cannon noted, in both the Senate and the House plans, the restraints in the increase in Medicaid spending are not due to take effect until the 2020s, after multiple intervening federal elections. Therefore, he believes the chances of them being repealed is high, particularly since many Republican governors support Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

“This is a Medicaid expansion repeal that was designed never to take effect,” he said.

Today’s TOWNHALL.COM Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Bombshell: May 3rd Calendar Entry Will Clear Trump… Media in Panic Mode


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/bombshell-may-3rd-calendar/

The Washington Post may very well have led the American public seriously astray via its recent attacks on President Donald Trump. The Post claimed that FBI Director James Comey wrote a memo in which he said that Trump had asked him to drop the investigation on former administration member Michael Flynn, despite a clear claim to the contrary by Comey’s successor, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

What’s more frustrating than that is the fact that The Post claimed anonymous sources backed up its statements, but provided no real substance.

Just look for a second at this verbiage. This is an actual, serious line from The Washington Post that they just expect the good people of America to believe:

“‘I hope you can let this go, Trump said, according to the Comey notes, which were described by the associates. Comey’s written account of the meeting is two pages long and highly detailed, the associates said.”

And although Comey has not come out and said specifically that Trump never asked him to stop investing Flynn, he certainly seemed to imply it in May 3 testimony he gave the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When asked whether senior DOJ officials could ask the FBI to drop an investigation, Comey said flat-out, “It’s not happened in my experience,” according to a transcript, provided by, once again, The Washington Post.

Although that’s not a denial of Trump himself having asked Comey to drop the investigation, there does seem to be that implication at the very least. You’d think if Trump had said something, Comey would also have said something.

In fact, The Post’s statement doesn’t mean much at all when you consider the actual on-the-record-in-front-of-witnesses claims made by acting FBI director Andrew McCabe that fly right in the face of these unsubstantiated accusations.

When Sen. Marco Rubio asked McCabe before the Senate Intelligence Committee whether or not the firing of former FBI Director James Comey “in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” McCabe’s response was even more definitive than the question given to him dictated.

“As you know, senator,” McCabe said, “the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions, so there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.”

Huh. No effort at all to impede our investigation to date. Interesting.

The Washington Post’s editors tried to cover themselves by saying, “It’s unclear from the questioning if McCabe was talking solely about the consequences of Comey’s abrupt firing, or referring to a specific investigation on Trump’s associates for possible connections to Russian officials.”

Yeah, right. That’s not the only thing unclear here.

Entire Senate to Go to White House for North Korea Briefing


Reported by NEWSMAX.COM | Monday, 24 Apr 2017 02:33 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Senate-White-House-North-Korea/2017/04/24/id/786085/

Image: Entire Senate to Go to White House for North Korea Briefing / Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (Reuters)

Top Trump administration officials will hold a rare briefing Wednesday at the White House for the entire U.S. Senate on the situation in North Korea, senior Senate aides said Monday.

All 100 senators have been asked to the White House for the briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the aides said.

While top administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy and national security matters, it is unusual for the entire 100-member Senate to go to such an event at the White House, and for those four top officials to be involved.

U.S. officials have expressed mounting concern over North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, and its threats to attack the United States and its Asian allies.

President Donald Trump criticized North Korea’s “continued belligerence” and said its actions were destabilizing during a telephone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday, the White House said. 

The briefing will take place at 3 p.m. ET.

House aides said they were working with the White House to set a similar briefing for members of the House of Representatives. 

© 2017 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Senate Shoots Down Obama Coal Regulation


waving flagAuthored by Brendan Kirby | Updated 03 Feb 2017 at 7:33 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/senate-shoots-down-obama-coal-regulation/

The Senate voted Thursday to kill an 11th-hour regulation of the previous administration, stopping new rules restricting coal mining. The 54-45 vote, following House approval Wednesday, sends the resolution to President Donald Trump. Assuming the president signs it, it would be only the second time that lawmakers canceled a regulation under the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that gives legislators 60 legislative days to block new regulations from the executive branch.

A veto threat from then-President Obama kept Congress from acting during the past eight years. But there are many regulations adopted in the waning days of the Obama administration that Republicans have in the crosshairs.

“On its way out the door, the Obama administration forced nearly 40 — 40 — major and very costly regulations on the American people,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “Fortunately, we now have the opportunity to work with the new president to begin bringing relief from those burdensome regulations.”

Trump has made regulatory reform a top priority. Earlier this week, he signed an executive order requiring the repeal of two existing regulations in order to adopt a new one.

/* */

After the vote on the coal cleanup regulation, senators began debating a resolution to kill a regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission to energy companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments for natural resources. The Senate will vote on that Friday morning.

The regulation voted down Thursday, known as the Stream Protection Rule, included more than 400 regulatory changes under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The Interior Department finalized the changes in December. Supporters argued the rules would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 miles of forest by prohibiting mining companies from dumping debris into nearby waters. It narrowed exceptions for a pre-existing 100-foot buffer on coal mining near water.

McConnell called it a “blatant attack on coal miners” and pointed to one study indicating that it would put up to a third of coal-related jobs at risk. He said the Kentucky Coal Association called it a “regulation in search of a problem.”

Killing Obama Energy Rules Will Help the Most VulnerableWhite House, Hill GOP move to overturn regulations that would hike home energy prices

Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, was the only Republican to join 44 Democrats in voting “no.” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) argued that the regulation was necessary to protect the environment.

“Regardless of whether you voted for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, nobody wants to live in a dirty environment where we don’t have clean water, clean rivers, clean streams or clean air,” she said. “Once again, we’re being told to choose between a clean environment and creating jobs.”Bull

Coal-state Democrats, though, broke with their party.

“There’s no one in West Virginia that wants dirty water or dirty air,” said that state’s Democratic senator, Joe Manchin.

The senator said he urged Obama administration officials to consult with affected states. “They did nothing. They would not reach out to us, whatsoever,” he said.

Manchin said the regulation was “excessive and duplicative,” and that it would cripple his state’s businesses and families.

“Tell me, what four hours of the day do you want your electricity to work? What four hours of the day do you want your refrigerator to stay cold?” he said. “What four hours of the day do you want to heat your home? Tell me what four hours of the day that you take for granted that you want that everything and anything you want works 24 hours a day?”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said regulators devised the rules for the Appalachian Mountains region.

“Yet, the former administration made this rule applicable to the entire nation,” she said.

Schumer: Dems Will Work With Trump Only ‘If He Moves Completely In Our Direction’ [VIDEO]


waving flagAuthored by Derek Hunter / Contributor / 01/04/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/04/schumer-dems-will-work-with-trump-only-if-he-moves-completely-in-our-direction-video/

when-tolerance-becomes-a-one-way-street

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would work with President-elect Donald Trump only if he “moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues.”

“The only way we’re going to work with him is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues,” Schumer told CNN Tuesday. “90-95 percent of the time we’ll be holding his feet to the fire and holding him accountable.”

Schumer added, “But we’re Democrats. We’re not just going to oppose things to oppose them.”more-words

His statement stands in contrast to his Senate floor speech when he said Democrats would work with Trump “if the president-elect proposes legislation on issues like infrastructure and trade and closing the carried interest loophole, for instance, we’ll work in good faith to perfect and potentially enact it.”

From My Email INBox


waving flagThis came from a democrat much to my surprise!  I read it and it certainly hits the nail where it would hurt. Google has the letter posted on their web site. This is well written and should be read by everyone in these United States! It will be well worth the three minutes it requires to read this.

You can be Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independent or Libertarian and I bet this will hit a nerve.  Our country is in real trouble. This gentleman is obviously quite smarter than the two senators he sent it to. I say amen to everything said.  

 

Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, DC , 20510

Dear Senators:
I have tried to live by the rules my entire life.  My father was a Command Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related stresses shortly after his retirement.  It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important – honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments.  I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.

Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government.  I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold.  I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year!  Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers.  So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.

Last year, the president spent an estimated $1.4 billion on himself and his family.  The vice president spends $ millions on hotels.  They have had 8 vacations so far this year!  And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America’s answer to the Saudi royal family.  You have become the “perfumed princes and princesses” of our country.

In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare,” a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.

You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the “one percenters,” consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).

You understand very well the only two rules you need to know – (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected.  And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote) who are looking for a handout rather than a job.  Your so-called “safety net” has become a hammock for the lazy.  And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps – pretty much all Democrat voters – and the program is absolutely rife with fraud and absolutely no congressional oversight?

I would offer that you are not entirely to blame.  What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves.  It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role.  To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.

As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 – 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.   Great men are almost always bad men.”   I’m only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well.  Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?

While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy.  Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day.

As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me “You’ll just have to take a pill,” while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.

The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares.  This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the chance to read one person’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.

I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $19 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours, ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.

My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy the country that I deeply love.  You have put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power.

For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people.  And that, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress.  The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits.  This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs.  And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.

Sincerely,

Bill Schoonover
3096 Angela Lane
Oak Harbor, WA

This seems to be a true letter: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/schoonover.asp

 

From My Email INBOX


waving flagThis is a letter from a Democrat to his two Democrat Senators.  My belief is that it applies to virtually all Senators of both parties and probably the House also.  Caution this is political but also bipartisan.

This is really a great letter.  I am most impressed by the fact the gentleman that wrote it signed his name and address to it. Snopes.Com confirmed this letter to be true.

This came from a democrat much to my surprise! I read it and it certainly hits the nail where it would hurt. Google has the letter posted on their web site.

This is well written and should be read by everyone in these United States! It will be well worth the three minutes it requires to read this. It is quite impressive.

You can be Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independent or Libertarian and I bet this will hit a nerve.  Our country is in real trouble.

This gentleman is obviously quite smarter than the two senators he sent it to. All I can say is amen to everything he said. A very articulate letter sent to the two U.S. Senators from Washington State.

_______________________________________

Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, DC , 20510

Dear Senators:

I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a Command Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related shortly after his retirement.  It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important – honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments.  I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.

Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government.  I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold.  I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year!  Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers.  So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.

Last year, the president spent an estimated $1.4 billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $ millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year!  And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America’s answer to the Saudi royal family.  You have become the “perfumed princes and princesses” of our country.

In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare,” a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.

You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the “one percenters,” consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).

You understand very well the only two rules you need to know – (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a handout rather than a job.  Your so-called “safety net” has become a hammock for the lazy.  And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps – pretty much all Democrat voters – and the program is absolutely rife with fraud and absolutely no congressional oversight?

I would offer that you are not entirely to blame.  What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves.  It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role.  To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a unremarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.

As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 – 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Great men are almost always bad men.” I’m only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well.  Tell me; is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?

While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day.

As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me “You’ll just have to take a pill,” while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.  The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares.  This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the chance to read one person’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.

I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $19 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours, ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.

My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy the country that I deeply love.  You have put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power.

For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. That, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress.  The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits.  This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs.  And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.
Sincerely,

Bill Schoonover
3096 Angela Lane
Oak Harbor, WA

Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

WV Senate Overrides Governor’s Veto – Constitutional Carry is Law!


waving flagWritten by

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/wv-senate-overrides-governors-veto-constitutional-carry-is-law

Constitutional Carry has been passed into law via an override of Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s veto by the West Virginia Senate.

WSAZ reports:

The W.Va. Senate has voted to override Governor Tomblin’s veto on the conceal carry bill. In a 23-11 vote Saturday morning, the Senate voted to override the veto.

This comes just a day after the house voted to override the bill. The bill now becomes law in 90 days.

The bill will do away with the state’s current permit and training program to carry a concealed weapon in West Virginia for anyone ages 21 and older. Permits will be required for those between 18-21.

The fight over this bill has been intense.  Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg got into the fight in January to advance lies about guns and the bill.  At the end of January, however, the bill passed out of the House Judiciary committee and was advanced to the floor of the House.  By mid-February, the bill had passed the House and was later passed by the Senate.

However, though Tomblin vetoed the bill, in less than 24 hours, the House decided to override that veto by a vote of 64-33.

Tomblin claims that his veto was due to concerns of police officer safety.  Apparently, he cares more for the safety of police than he does of the citizens he serves.

The governor issued the following statement regarding his veto:

“West Virginia’s law enforcement officers have dedicated their lives to keeping us safe and helping us in times of need, and it’s disheartening that the members of the Legislature have chosen not to stand with these brave men and women – putting their safety and the safety of West Virginians at risk. It’s unfortunate that the concerns of officers from every law enforcement branch in the state, including the West Virginia State Police and university campus police officers, have been ignored by today’s action.”

What about the brave men and women who arm themselves when there are no police officers around and stop crime without the aid of police?  Do you not care for their safety Governor Tomblin? burke

The diligence of the people has paid off and they now enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms that is protected under the Second Amendment!

About Tim Brown

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He co-hosts NorthWest Liberty News radio each week day from 4-5pm EST with Jim White and occasionally hosts Bradlee Dean’s Sons of Liberty Radio show from 2-3CST. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Commentary by Rush Limbaugh: “What You Talkin’ ‘Bout, Tillis? Republicans Begin to Fold on Scalia’s Replacement After Just Two Days!”


 February 17, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/17/what_you_talkin_bout_tillis_republicans_begin_to_fold_on_scalia_s_replacement_after_just_two_days

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the situation Obama out there blasting the Republicans for threatening to block his Supreme Court nominee? He says it goes against the Constitution.  I can’t go through a day without just blowing up and at the same time laughing at it. You talk about hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of Obama, Chuck Schumer, all these guys on Supreme Court nominees? It’s blatant, in your face.  They know it’s not gonna come back and bite them.
They know the hypocrisy charge, even if it sticks, is never gonna harm them.  But with Obama saying opposing his nominee goes against the Constitution — which, of course, it doesn’t. But the real question is: Why should Obama be so concerned about what the Constitution says about appointing someone to the Supreme Court when he doesn’t want whoever he appoints to follow the Constitution anyway?

He’s gonna find somebody who’s gonna rewrite the Constitution.  That’s his criteria.  He’s gonna find somebody who will make law from the bench, like John Roberts has been doing, not somebody who’s gonna interpret the Constitution.  So what does he care what the Constitution says?  As far as that is concerned, he doesn’t care what the Constitution says anyway when it comes to things that he wants.  Ever heard of executive orders? Executive actions?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I remember. It was shortly after we learned of the death of Justice Scalia, it didn’t take but minutes for the politics of his replacement discussion to get going. And Mitch McConnell put out this statement, said that the president should not make an appointment and should not have the right, opportunity, whatever, in a lame duck year like this. And I had a lot of people on Saturday, “See what Mitch did, man, that was great, Mitch came out there, Mitch really hammered them.” On the golf course Sunday, a friend, “Did you see what Mitch did, Mitch really hammered them.” I said, “Wait a minute, Mitch didn’t hammer anybody. Mitch said ‘should.’ He didn’t say ‘would not’; he said ‘should not.’ There’s wiggle room there.”

“No, no, Rush, you’re –” both my friends on Saturday and Sunday on the golf course, “You’re misinterpreting this. I’m not reading it the way you are, Rush.” You see, folks, in my world I’m never right. In my personal world I am never right. It’s a badge of honor to show me to be wrong. My life is a perpetual never ending competition. My personal life. I’m telling these guys, “You are replacing your intelligence with hope. You hope that Mitch is gonna hammer ’em. You hope the Republicans are gonna hang in there. But what is the experience we’ve got over the last seven years?” Well, it didn’t take long.

We now have Chuck Grassley (paraphrased), “Whoa, I’m rethinking this. Maybe we will conduct hearings.” And then Mel Tillis… (Nope, I take it back. That’s the country singer.) Thom Tillis, North Carolina. (paraphrased) “Oh, I think we don’t want to look like obstructionists.” And there it is, folks! There it is! (paraphrased) “We don’t want to look like obstructionists.” That’s translated: “We have to cross the aisle on this. We have to show the people we can help make Washington work.

“It will harm us if we are the agents of gridlock, and the government is not working.” So when Tillis said, “We can’t appear to be obstructionist,” that means this firm, “There’s no way” lasted about a day. And now we’re to the possibility of hearings. And now it’s all, “If Obama nominates a moderate…” Even Obama said he’s not gonna nominate a moderate! Somebody in the Drive-Bys went and asked Obama, “The Republicans say they might be willing to work with you if you no time a moderate.”

“Moderate?” He laughed. “I don’t know what that means! I’m gonna nominate somebody qualified.” Translation: “I’m gonna find the nearest socialist I can and I’m gonna ram it down their throats. Get your popcorn ready. Moderate? Are you kidding me? I don’t do moderate!” But here are the Republicans. So I just… I tried to warn everybody not to confuse your hope with what you think you heard. I even got into an argument with Snerdley! He thinks that Mitch McConnell…

large“He was dead serious! This is different, Rush. It’s the Supreme Court.”

“Different? What’s different about it?” I asked him the question: “What does Mitch McConnell want more than anything in the world?”

And Snerdley got it. “He wants to stay majority leader.” That’s true, and whatever has to happen to make that happen, bank on it. I can run through a scenario where they conduct hearings and an Obama nominee gets confirmed before the election. I can run through the scenario. You want me to run through the scenario before the program ends? I can go… (interruption) Yeah, part of you wants me to do it; the other part of you doesn’t want to hear it, right? (interruption) All right. ‘Cause you’re… (interruption) All right. So we’ve got that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Die stupid Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Glenn Foden Cartoon: Obama’s Division of Power


waving flagCommentary By Glenn Foden / / January 15, 2016

Glenn Foden is an editorial cartoonist for The Daily Signal.

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/15/cartoon-obamas-division-of-power

(Photo: Glen Foden)

(Photo: Glenn Foden)

Genevieve Wood wrote earlier this week on President Obama’s executive actions:

kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204Many of President Obama’s executive actions—whether the most recent ones calling for more gun control or past ones extending amnesty to millions here illegally—are already being or will one day be challenged in the courts.

This is why it’s encouraging to see reports this week that lawmakers may finally make a real effort to checkmate the president’s proclivity to go around them and create laws on his own. It’s a strategy grassroots activists should demand.

Though Congress has given up much of its power when it comes to using its “power of the purse” to stop executive overreach, there is one power it still holds, and there is absolutely no reason not to use it. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, popularly known as Advise and Consent,” requires the Senate to approve all presidential appointments of cabinet officials, ambassadors, and federal judges.

The day of the Senate “consenting” and following a go-along get-along strategy on such matters should be over. I don’t care which Republican senator is being pressured to get one of his buddies or constituents seated on a court or appointed to a high-ranking government position.

As my colleague at Heritage Action, CEO Mike Needhamsaid this week, “given the administration’s disregard for Congress’ role in our constitutional system of government, the Senate should refuse to confirm any more of the president’s judicial nominees.”

Amen.

Be prepared to hear from the left that this will cause a judicial crisis and from some weak-kneed Republicans that it’s not nice. Both arguments fall flat.

For one, as Heritage legal expert Elizabeth Slattery told me, “President Obama himself hasn’t really made judicial appointments a priority. He is ahead of President George W. Bush in terms of overall appointments at this point in their presidencies but slightly behind presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.”

I guess when you view yourself as the creator and interpreter in chief of our country’s laws, who needs Congress, and who needs the courts?

Additionally, this past year had one of the lowest average vacancy rates in the past 25 years. A total of 91 percent of district and circuit courts are filled. There is no judicial crisis.

As to members of the GOP who find it hard to stand up to the president, it would be nice for a change if they would do that instead of going back on promises to their constituents to stop the president from doing end runs around the Constitution.no more rinos

Checks and balances are what ensures that one person or one party or one branch of government can’t act as dictator. Yes, there are still ways Congress could use its power of the purse to “check” the president.

There are limits on how appropriated funds can be spent, but good luck getting the Obama administration to live within those.  

Congress could pass a rescission bill (basically taking back the money it originally approved spending, and thereby try to prevent the president from using it to enforce his executive action on guns or amnesty), but Obama would veto it.

And while Congress could say it will not fund X or Y activity after the latest funding bill it just passed expires on September 30, that still gives Obama eight months between now and then to continue his imperial mischief.Tyrant Obama

Refusing to confirm any more of the president’s judicial nominees is something Senate Republicans can do immediately. No filibuster by Minority Leader Harry Reid or veto by Obama can stop them.

Republicans have no excuse not to use their power to prevent the president’s unlawful executive actions from becoming long-term assaults on the Constitution and the rights of American citizens.

AMEN In God We Trust freedom combo 2

‘It’s Unbelievable’: O’Reilly Grills Dems For Blocking ‘Kate’s Law’ In Senate [VIDEO]


waving flagPosted by Photo of Christian Datoc Christian Datoc, Reporter, 10/21/2015

Bill O’Reilly tore into Democrats for blocking Kate’s Law from advancing in the Senate on Tuesday.

The O’Reilly Factor” host called the decision “unbelievable” before adding “unbelievable is too gentle a word.”

O’REILLY: There comes a point where the American people are going to have to take back their government. When a 32-year-old woman can be gunned down by and illegal felon who had been deported five times, and you can’t get a strict law punishing illegal alien felons passed. When that happens, you don’t have a functioning government. It is hard to believe, but far left in America is actively opposing Kate’s Law. It’s unbelievable — unbelievable is too gentle a word.

(RELATED: Cruz: If Dems Block Sanctuary Cities Bill, They’ll Have Blood Of Innocent Children On Their Hands)

WATCH:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4569243877001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>&#8221; href=”http://http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4569243877001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>”&gt;http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4569243877001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript&gt; aligncenter wp-image-20313″ src=”https://mrb562.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bill1.jpg&#8221; alt=”bill” width=”786″ height=”446″ />
In God We Trust waving flag

Defund Planned Parenthood Bill Defeated in Senate


waving flagAuthored by Cortney O'Brien Cortney O’Brien | Aug 03, 2015

Despite the grisly revelations of the past few weeks, which caught Planned Parenthood employees negotiating the sale of fetal body parts as if they were goods and services, the Senate today voted to keep Planned Parenthood funding “intact” (here’s some context behind that word.)

tw01The Democrats who voted against the measure are of course recycling an old argument:

tw02

Yet, as Katie explained this morning, the defund bill would not just halt funding for Planned Parenthood – it would redirect the money to other community clinics that offer important health services and don’t provide abortions.

Today’s outcome was expected. Sixty votes is a challenging threshold, especially with only 54 Republican senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) received justified criticism from the pro-life movement when he rejected the opportunity to include the legislation on last week’s highway funding bill as an amendment, which had a better chance of passing.

Despite the failed bill, there’s no doubt that the outrage against Planned Parenthood is growing and the vote was an important symbol in the fight to expose the abortion giant’s agenda. Americans are becoming increasingly aware that Planned Parenthood is not exactly the “women’s health” organization it claims to be and their representatives’ strange and unconvincing defenses are only further damaging their reputation. how many body parts

Update: As least one brave Democrat voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

Update II: The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List has released a statement following the vote, noting the positive pro-life trend in the Senate, despite the legislation’s abrupt halt.

“When the Senate last voted to defund Planned Parenthood, only 42 voted for it. Since that 2011 effort, things have only gotten worse for the nation’s largest abortion provider. The Center for Medical Progress has released less than half of its damning evidence of brutality and callousness at Planned Parenthood and, as more videos are made public, outrage will surely grow,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

Update III: The final tally was 53-46.burke

Updated IV: Make that two brave Democrats. Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana also voted pro-life.freedom combo 2

Senate Will Vote Soon on Bill to Immediately De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz


waving flagSteven Ertelt   Jul 24, 2015   |  Washington, DC

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/24/senate-will-vote-soon-on-bill-to-immediately-de-fund-planned-parenthood-abortion-biz

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started a fast-track process Friday on legislation to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding in the wake of two controversial videos showing officials discussing delivery of fetal parts. 

The Republican leader began “Rule 14,” which will let the legislation skip the committee process and be placed on the Senate calendar so it can be brought up for a floor vote.

McConnell has been asked by pro-life senators to allow a vote on an amendment to an unrelated highway funding bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, but the pro-life Senate Republican leader appears to want to avoid a debate about putting forward an unrelated amendment so lawmakers don’t vote against it on that basis alone.

PP MonsterSpecifically, the Senate bill, Defund Planned Parenthood Act, would set a one-year moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding from the government, unless the organization ceases performing abortions, his office informed LifeNews.com. This would allow more federal dollars to go toward organizations like community health centers, which serve low-income populations and provide direct health care to women across the country without also killing unborn children in abortions.

“The recent videos uncovering Planned Parenthood’s inhumane abortion practices have hit a nerve with many Americans,” said Lankford. “While the government investigates Planned Parenthood to determine if their practice of adapting their abortion procedures to harvest the organs of children violates federal law, they should not continue to receive taxpayer money. Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million in taxpayer money every year.”

“This is a sensitive topic for many and I am aware our nation is divided on the issue of abortion, but it is common sense that we shouldn’t force taxpayers to assist the harvesting of human organs,” he said. “Although abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities, serving about 10 percent of its clients, they perform over 300,000 abortions a year.”

Last Thursday, Lankford delivered a passionate speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate about Planned Parenthood. Lankford also wrote an op-ed calling for Congress to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and take up the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S.1553) to ban abortions after five months.

Which kills more blacks

Meanwhile, more than 80 members of the House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would immediately de-fund Planned Parenthood. Representative Diane Black (R-TN) and 80 original cosponsors introduced H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, which would immediately halt all sources of Federal funding to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for a one year period.

Black, a Tennessee Republican and a nurse for more than 40 years, told LifeNews that the shocking video provides yet another reason to ensure the Planned Parenthood abortion company does not receive taxpayer dollars.

Since 2013, Congressman Black has sponsored H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would combat one of Planned Parenthood’s major government revenue streams by withholding Title X grants from any health care provider that performs abortions or gives funds to organizations that do. However, a nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) study released earlier this year found that Planned Parenthood also received $1.2 billion from Medicaid over a three year window – making it clear that legislation is needed to combat any possible source of federal funding for the scandal-ridden abortion mill.

House Republicans previously approved bills to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business but the Senate has not recently voted for the bill because Democrats have prevented its passage.

In 2011, House members voted 241-185 for a resolution that would prohibit the Planned Parenthood abortion business from qualifying for family planning funds. The vote saw almost all Republicans supporting de-funding while Democrats generally opposed it. That was the second vote taken to de-fund the abortion giant. An earlier vote in 2011 saw the House de-funded Planned Parenthood on a 240-185 margin.

Last year, Planned Parenthood Federation of America rleased its 2013-2014 Annual Report.The report indicates Planned Parenthood did 327,653 abortions in 2013, an increase over the 327,166 abortions it did in 2012.Abortion monster

While it remains America’s biggest abortion corporation, the “nonprofit” continued to make money — bringing in $305.4 million last year and $305.3 million this year. Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money, as it took in $540 million in 2012 and $528 million in 2013.

PP MonsterBlack told LifeNews in a statement: While Planned Parenthood and its counterparts like to repeat the company line that federal dollars do not directly fund abortions, commonsense tells us differently. According to Planned Parenthood’s own annual report, the organization performed 327, 653 abortions in 2013 alone – all the while receiving more than $528 million in funding from Uncle Sam. The sad truth is they are not alone. Similar organizations continue to threaten the lives of the unborn while cashing in on our tax dollars. My legislation will stop this shameful practice in its tracks.”

Some other takeaways from Planned Parenthood’s own figures:

  • In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.
  • For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.
  • While abortions rose, Planned Parenthood adoption referrals dropped 14% in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4%.
  • Planned Parenthood’s cancer prevention services are down 17% over one year, and contraceptive services dropped by 4%.
  • During fiscal year 2013-2014, Planned Parenthood received more than $528 million in taxpayer funding, or more than $1.4 million per day, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements.
  • Taxpayer funding accounts for 41% of Planned Parenthood’s overall revenue.
  • Planned Parenthood reported more than $127 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.4 billion in net assets.

Almighty dollar idol freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: