Dershowitz: I Have Proof Obama Ordered FBI Investigation At Request Of George Soros

demoncraps have been trying to claim that President Donald Trump is improperly inserting himself in DOJ cases, like the one on Roger Stone.

Cue the last meme about hypocrisy.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz revealed in an interview on Sunday that he has proof that former Democrat President Barack Obama ordered the FBI to investigate someone after far-left billionaire George Soros asked for the investigation.

Dershowitz’s remarks come after critics have attacked President Donald Trump for tweeting about matters related to the Department of Justice, which led to Attorney General William Barr publicly asking the president to stop last week.

“There was a lot of White House control of the Justice Department during the Kennedy administration and I don’t think we saw very many liberal professors arguing against that,” Dershowitz told Breitbart News. “I have some information as well about the Obama administration – which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point, but I’m not prepared to disclose it now – about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his.”

“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”

Source: Democrat Senator Held Secret Meeting In Munich With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and other Democratic senators had a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference last week, according to a source briefed by the French delegation to the conference. Murphy’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment by press time.

Such a meeting would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia.

“Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – even during a transition period – may be illegal and must be taken seriously,” Murphy said in 2017 after anonymous leaks of Flynn’s phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kisylak were published. He also strongly criticized the open letter some Republican senators sent Iranian leaders during the Obama administration’s campaign for a nuclear agreement.

However, Murphy has previously defended rogue meetings if they’re done by Democrats such as former Secretary of State John Kerry.

“Unless it was authorized by the president or secretary of state, conducting independent foreign policy sends mixed signals to our adversaries,” said Christian Whiton, former State Department senior advisor in the Trump and George W. Bush administrations. “It seems very unpalatable. If we want to talk to Iranians, they know how to reach us and they don’t need to go through an intermediary.”

A State Department official who spoke on background said that the State Department was not aware of any side meetings with Iranian officials that Murphy was engaged in.

The Munich Security Conference, an annual forum on international security policy, welcomes hundreds of world leaders each February. This year’s conference featured robust debate on the United States’ maximum pressure policy against Iran, China’s handling of the coronavirus and technology concerns, and the European alliance with the United States. Other Democrat senators at the conference included Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Former Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also attended.

Both Murphy and Zarif spoke publicly during a two-hour session on Middle East policy, with Murphy and Zarif both fiercely criticizing U.S. policy.

President Donald Trump has reoriented American policy in the Middle East away from President Barack Obama’s friendly posture toward Iran. He departed from Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear arrangement with the Republic of Iran that was not ratified by the United States Senate.

Trump has exerted instead a “maximum pressure” campaign against the regime, with 12 demands on Iran before a new deal is reached. Those demands include a full account of its nuclear program, ending its proliferation of ballistic missiles, releasing all U.S. citizens held on spurious charges, ending support to terrorist groups, withdrawal of forces in Syria, and cessation of its threatening behavior against its neighbors.

The “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions has devastated the Iranian economy, which is in recession and faces rising inflation. It has made it difficult for Iran to pay foreign fighters engaged in supported terror operations. Iranians have taken to the streets in protest.

Iran recently killed an American contractor in Iraq and the United States killed Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian leader who was responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of U.S. soldiers. Iran’s retaliatory strike for that killing resulted in no U.S. deaths, but the country did shoot down a Ukrainian passenger plane then lied about it for days.

At the conference, Zarif said official retaliation for the killing of Suleimani had ended, although he suggested independent attacks from others in the country might follow.

Murphy is a frequent speaker at the National Iranian American Council, a lobbying group with alleged links to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Republican Sens. Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and Ted Cruz of Texas recently asked the Department of Justice for potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

They wrote that the influential lobbying group “purports to improve understanding between American and Iranian people but in reality seems to spread propaganda and lobby on behalf of the Iranian government.” Evidence indicates that evidence Zarif himself was involved in founding the group.

Flip-Flop: Amy Klobuchar Says English Should Not Be Official Language of U.S.

Demoncrap hypocrites, but I repeat myself.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said at a recent campaign stop that English should not be the official language of the United States, even though she voted for a pro-English language bill during her time in the Senate.

Klobuchar said at the campaign event in Las Vegas on Friday that she has “taken a strong position against” the English-language amendment, which she voted in support of in 2007, the Associated Press reported……

Her policy shift comes a week before the caucuses are set to take place in a state with a large Latino population and an area where Klobuchar has about 10 percent support.

Klobuchar has flip-flopped on immigration policies, once supporting projects like a wall and E-Verify to ban employers from hiring illegal aliens back in 2006.

The Minnesota senator has also been open about supporting amnesty but has hidden her support for exporting college graduate-level jobs overseas.

Will Somebody Please Hate My Enemies For Me?

Mr French is being sarcastic as he’s one of the big Never-Trumpers

“So my problem with David French’s claim that Christians shouldn’t vote for Trump is that if you take it seriously, Christians shouldn’t vote for anyone because no president in my lifetime was Christ-like enough to meet French’s standard. (No, not even Jimmy Carter, whose public piety is merely cover for a poisonous personality). Now if you want to argue for monastic exclusion from politics, that’s fine (though to my mind stupid). But if you want to argue for it only when Trump is president, then I question your sincerity, and French’s rather pharasaical tone doesn’t help.

But despite his argument, I think even a serious pro-life Christian might conclude that, given a choice between an un-Christ-like politician who is loudly and vigorously in favor of abortion (i.e. any Democrat these days), and an un-Christ-like politician who is without doubt the most pro-life president we’ve ever had, it’s okay to support the latter. French attempts to engage this argument but to my mind he is not successful. I doubt many will find the piece all that persuasive but I think that French’s main intended audience was David French, whose faith in neverTrumpism may need bolstering at this point. And I’m not sure it’s impossible to love your enemies while still trying to kick their ass.

On a broader note, so long as we’re talking about sin, I’ll note that pride and envy seem to play a major role in the NeverTrump movement in general: Pride in (self-proclaimed) moral superiority, and envy of Trump’s accomplishments, which make him by any reasonable measure the most conservative president of my lifetime. I’d suggest some self-reflection on this point'”–Dr Glenn Reynolds

Hate has no place in pro-life America. None. And embracing or defending hate—even hatred of the movement’s most vigorous opponents—for the sake of life contradicts the spirit of the movement and stands to do more harm than good to the political cause that so many Christians value the most.

American Evangelicals represent one of the most powerful religious movements in the world. They exercise veto power over the political success of any presidential candidate from one of America’s two great parties. Yet they don’t wield that power to veto the selection of a man who completely rejects—and even scorns—many of their core moral values.

I fully recognize what I’m saying. I fully recognize that refusing to hire a hater and refusing to hire a liar carries costs. If we see politics through worldly eyes, it makes no sense at all. Why would you adopt moral standards that put you at a disadvantage in an existential political struggle? If we don’t stand by Trump we will lose, and losing is unacceptable.


What he seems to be saying is that the demoncraps should stop with removing their masks and showing that they’re actually commies.
Their problem with Bernie Sanders is that he’s so open with it.

Cast your mind back to 2009, when Democrats, coming off Barack Obama’s convincing victory in the 2008 election, had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a more than ample majority in the House. Happy days are here again! Here comes pro-union card check, higher income taxes, amnesty and open borders, sweeping climate change legislation, and universal health care! It was around this time that James Carville, the impresario behind Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign, confidently declared that Democrats were now set to rule for the next 40 years! He even published a book—40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation

Carville had drunk the Kool Aid of the liberal-Hegelian conceit that demographics and “the side of history” had delivered Democrats into the Promised Land, from whose commanding heights it was Progress as far as the mind’s-eye could imagine. Well, that glorious 40 years quickly became a fast one-way trip to the wilderness, as it didn’t even last 40 months. All liberals got out of that heavily Democratic Congress was . . . Obamacare? And oh what a success that was. No card check for labor unions, no amnesty for illegal immigrants, only a slight increase in income taxes for the very rich, while climate change legislation went down in fossil-fueled flames, as U.S. oil and natural gas production soared. Obama resorted to trying to get some of these things through executive action, but much of that was stymied in the courts or reversed by President Trump, who came to office and said, “Hey look—I found Obama’s pen!” In the 2010 election, the Democrats got creamed, with Republicans achieving their strongest position on all levels in 70 years.

All this came back to mind watching the Democrats’ debate in New Hampshire last night, which occurred conveniently during cocktail hour out here on the Left Coast, so in fact I literally ate popcorn along with adult beverages while I watched the Democratic field show once again that it is running to be president of Twitter more than President of the United States.

And this brings me to the angst of James Carville, who gave an extraordinary interview to MSNBC that has been transcribed by Vox: “We’re Losing Our Damn Minds.” Read the whole thing if your schadenfreude medication is at full strength. Here are a few excerpts:

Sean Illing: Why are you “scared to death” about the 2020 election?

James Carville: Look, the turnout in the Iowa caucus was below what we expected, what we wanted. Trump’s approval rating is probably as high as it’s been. This is very bad. And now it appears the party can’t even count votes. What the hell am I supposed to think? . . . And now it’s like we’re losing our damn minds. Someone’s got to step their game up here.

Sean Illing: Give me an example of what you mean by distractions.

James Carville: We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party. . .

Sean Illing: So your complaint is basically that the party has tacked too far to the left?

James Carville: They’ve tacked off the damn radar screen. And look, I don’t consider myself a moderate or a centrist. I’m a liberal. But not everything has to be on the left-right continuum. . .

Here’s another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this shit. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message.

The real argument here is that some people think there’s a real yearning for a left-wing revolution in this country, and if we just appeal to the people who feel that, we’ll grow and excite them and we’ll win. But there’s a word a lot of people hate that I love: politics. It means building coalitions to win elections. It means sometimes having to sit back and listen to what people think and framing your message accordingly. . .

James Carville: I want to give you an example of the problem here. A few weeks ago, Binyamin Appelbaum, an economics writer for the New York Times, posted a snarky tweet about how LSU canceled classes for the National Championship game. And then he said, do the “Warren/Sanders free public college proposals include LSU, or would it only apply to actual schools?”

You know how ****** patronizing that is to people in the South or in the middle of the country? First, LSU has an unusually high graduation rate, but that’s not the point. It’s the goddamn smugness. This is from a guy who lives in New York and serves on the Times editorial board and there’s not a single person he knows that doesn’t pat him on the back for that kind of tweet. He’s so fucking smart.

Appelbaum doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party, but he does represent the urbanist mindset. We can’t win the Senate by looking down at people. The Democratic Party has to drive a narrative that doesn’t give off vapors that we’re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.

But looking down on people is now a core value for the left, but I’ll need to write a separate post about the serious basis of this. (For academic readers, go back and find John Wettergreen’s dense but profound 1977 essay in the Western Political Quarterly, “Is Snobbery a Formal Value?” Short answer: Yes, yes it is.)

But finally, this:

Sean Illing: Buttigieg seems to model the sort of candidate you think can win.

James Carville: Mayor Pete has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter.

So he’s not happy. Democrats won’t like Carville when he’s not happy. I wonder if Carville was watching last night, and if so whether there are any un-smashed TV screens left in his house this morning.

Mueller ‘pitbull’ Weissmann appears to let slip they were trying to oust Trump by setting a perjury trap

Weissmann is the one who also did the work to get General Flynn indicted for perjury. Seems to be his usual tactic is to use a perjury charge because doing real investigative work is just too hard for him.
Just the kind of “Law Enforcement Officer” that you need when you want a tyrannical police state.

Andrew Weissmann, one of the most prominent members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia, let slip on Thursday that they were “trying to get rid of” President Trump, in part by laying a perjury trap to get him on record under oath.

Known as Mueller’s “pitbull,” Weissmann was heavily involved in the criminal case against Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. He stepped down before Mueller released his final report and struck a deal with a publisher for a book about his experiences on the special counsel.

He would also sign with NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst, and appeared Thursday afternoon on MSNBC to comment on President Trump’s remarks earlier in the day on his acquittal by the U.S. Senate, where the president denounced the effort by political enemies to take him out.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman shared a video clip of the segment on Twitter, saying that “Weissmann just admitted what we always knew.”

Taking a shot at Trump for “mouthing off” earlier in the day, Weissmann said, “He never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath — it’s true, the same happened in the Mueller case.”

“Why do you think that is?” MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace asked.

“There’s a classic reason,” Weissman replied. “There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate — so if you notice, the president is happy to talk today about ‘oh, this is evil and these people are corrupt,’ but when it came time for him to put up or shut up, which is are you willing to actually say this under oath or even in an interview, he’s completely silent.”

This being, of course, Trump’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president said the Russian collusion probe was “all bullshit,” insisting that he was “treated unbelievably unfairly.”

Trump called former FBI director James Comey a “sleazebag,” and slammed the “top scum” at the bureau, to include disgraced former bureau agent Peter Strzok.

“We’ve been going through this now for three years. It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops, it was leakers. It was a disgrace. Had I not fired James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it’s possible I wouldn’t even be standing here right now,” he said. “We caught him in the act. Dirty cops. Bad people.”

“These are the crookedest, most dishonest, dirtiest people I’ve ever seen,” he added.

Weissmann was the epitome of the “13 angry Democrats” Trump often referred to when speaking of the special counsel……

As for bias, while there are many signs, the fact Weissmann attended Clinton’s 2016 election night party in New York City, according to The Wall Street Journal, may say all that needs to be said.

VA Dems Make It Clear: It’s About Guns, Not Crime

HB1617, authored by Republican Del. Jason Miyares, a former prosecutor, would have provided grant money to cities in order to implement two programs; Project Ceasefire and Project Exile.

The two programs work in conjunction with each other, both targeting the cities most violent and prolific offenders. Those individuals are given a choice. They can stop shooting, in which case they can work with the Ceasefire folks to help put their life on the right path, whether it’s through a GED program, job training, an apprenticeship, and the like. Or, if they keep shooting, they’ll be dealing with the men and women in Project Exile, and their cases are going to be referred to federal court where they’ll be facing long prison sentences without the possibility of early release.

“You’re going to stop shooting. We’ll help you if you let us, but we’ll make you if we have to.” That’s the message and the strategy behind these programs and it works, as has been detailed by researchers like David Kennedy, who has helped implement the strategy in many cities over the past twenty years. It works because it targets the people who are actually committing violent crimes. In many cases, these most likely to offend are also the most likely to be victimized. They’re responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and tragedy in the communities they live and prey upon. But many of them are not beyond redemption, and lives have not only been saved but changed by these efforts.

This is the bill that Democrats killed, while passing bills to ration handgun purchases, limit firearms training, establish red flag laws, and even allow localities to pass their own gun control laws. They want cities across the state to be able to put useless, ineffective, and unconstitutional laws on the books, while preventing them from putting proven and effective programs in place that don’t require any new legislation beyond establishing a funding mechanism.

This is shameful. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that I believe this bill, had it been enacted into law, would have saved more lives than all of Gov. Northam’s gun bills put together, and Democrats killed it in committee. This is not common sense. In fact, it makes no sense, given the fact that the Project Ceasefire model has support from a lot of liberal politicians.

No, I believe the reason Democrats killed this bill are simply because it was authored by a Republican and it didn’t do anything to restrict the rights of legal gun owners. Those two things made it unsupportable for the majority of the General Laws committee, and Virginians in high-crime neighborhoods are going to pay the price for the Democrats’ partisanship.

Climate Hypocrite: Bernie Leads 2020 Field in Private Jet Spending

The Bernie Sanders campaign spent just under $1.2 million on private jet travel last quarter, outpacing the entire 2020 Democratic presidential primary field.

The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service.”

The campaign spent an additional $23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team.

The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden, whose campaign spent $1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter.

Students demanded divestment from fossil fuels, a professor offered to turn off the gas heating.

When consequences become personal, clotheads usually start backing up.
This is a primary principle of asymmetrical, 4th generation warfare.
A word to the wise should be sufficient for political and other purposes.

Professor Andrew Parker of St John’s College at Oxford University is my new favorite person. The Times of London reports that a group of students wrote to Professor Parker to discuss demands being made by student protesters about fossil fuel divestment. His response wasn’t what they were expecting:

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

One of the students wrote back and said he would present the proposal but he didn’t think Parker was being appropriately serious. Professor Parker responded to that note saying, “You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).” The best part of the story is the response from the organizer of the protest:

Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.”

Yes, it would be rash and “borderline dangerous” to do something like that.

Now step back and take notice how closely this small debate at one college is a microcosm of the larger debate taking place around the globe. The teenage face of the anti-fossil fuel movement, Greta Thunberg, recently demanded “real zero” emissions starting right now. Following her advice would be the equivalent of cutting off the gas that heats the campus in the middle of winter. It wouldn’t just be “borderline dangerous” it would almost certainly be catastrophic for millions of people. Despite this, I bet protest organizer Fergus Green thinks she’s part of a “mature discussion.” In any case, a lot of people like him seem to think so.

Professor Parker’s response focuses the mind on the fact that this isn’t a game. There are significant costs to real people associated with eliminating fossil fuels. Natural gas, for instance, isn’t something we can simply cease using overnight or even in ten years. If we’re not careful about how we proceed, a lot of people could get hurt. So a fair response to people demanding an end to the use of fossil fuels is the one the professor put to these protesters: You first.

Lying Billionaires and Gun Control

U.S.A. –-( I listened to Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s remarks after the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas. I paraphrase, but you can check the video of his remarks for yourself.

‘It is the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You don’t want average citizens to have guns in public. That is the job of the police.’

This was a prepared speech so we have to assume Mayor Bloomberg meant what he said. One mistake is an accident, two mistakes are carelessness, and three or more falsehoods are propaganda. I had hope for Mayor Bloomberg, but, sadly, this qualifies as propaganda. To his credit, Mayor Bloomberg is probably telling us what he knows, but you know things that the Mayor doesn’t.

You know how to defend yourself and your family. I’ve taught beginners to handle firearms. My students have been properly intimidated by the moral weight of the gun. My student’s questions change with time in a consistent pattern.

They often evolve through this chain of thought:

  • How do I shoot?
    •  When can I shoot?
      • When must I defend myself and those I love?

The law says you have may use lethal force when you face a certain level of threat under certain circumstances. With time, most people who carry concealed fall back to the situation where they must shoot. They are beautifully reluctant to harm others. They plan to use a gun to prevent a greater harm, and to do so only when they have no other choice. I’ve seen those decisions fall into place. That is my experience, but we know far more.

Contrary to what Mayor Bloomberg implied, people with a concealed carry permit are more law abiding and less violent than the police. That makes sense when you consider their very different situations. Police and civilians are figuratively headed in opposite directions. Police have to close with a criminal and make an arrest. The ordinary citizen wants to get away from the bad guy. I think police have a much tougher job, but more citizens have contact with criminals every day than do the police. In fact, thousands of honest citizens defend themselves from criminal attack by using a firearm in self-defense every day. Mayor Bloomberg chose to ignore those facts.

You know something else that Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t know. You know how you live. You know who belongs in your home and at work. You know your neighbors, your co-workers, and your customers. You know many of the people you meet routinely on the street. That knowledge gives you an incredible advantage when things go wrong. Because of what you know and who you know, you know the good guys from the bad guys. That helps explain why armed civilians are so much less likely than the police to shoot the wrong person. You saw the problem unfold while the police arrive later and have to figure it out in a hurry.

Again, Mayor Bloomberg chose to ignore those facts.

Time is critical when you defend yourself from a violent attack. When we look at the attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ, the defenders had only a few seconds to respond. (The video of the attack is here.) We have an advantage that the police don’t have. We are there when the problem unfolds. The police arrive some 11.1 minutes later, on average. In mass murder attacks, that delay costs about a dozen lives. Mayor Bloomberg chose to ignore the lives we save.

Perhaps I’m being too hard on the Mayor. You have the knowledge and experience that the Mayor doesn’t have. Tens of millions of us bear arms every day. In contrast, it has been years, if not decades, since Mayor Bloomberg lived without a paid security detail. Maybe he is telling the truth as he knows it since most of his security detail are former law enforcement officers. In that sense, the former Mayor still lives with police protection. The rest of us can’t afford that, so we do it ourselves.

Mayor Bloomberg hired New York cops to defend him, so of course, he wants you disarmed.

I understand that politicians want to give us simple answers, but the world is a complex place. We’ve seen gun prohibition fail time after time. Can we afford a political leader who gets something as simple as self-defense so consistently wrong? I won’t trust Mayor Bloomberg with the safety of my family.


Democrats on House Impeachment Team Voted Against the Aid Package for Ukraine They Want to Impeach Trump Over (Video)

Standard operational demoncrap hypocrisy.

The Democrat Party and their colleagues in the liberal mainstream media want to impeach President Trump for not sending lethal aid to the Ukraine quick enough.

President Trump waited 55 days before releasing taxpayer-funded US aid to the Ukrainian government in 2019.
Democrats want you to believe this was a “crime or misdemeanor”.

Those same Democrats on the House Impeachment Team VOTED AGAINST the aid package to the Ukraine last year!

Three of the House Impeachment Managers voted AGAINST Aid to Ukraine.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) all voted against the bill that included the aid to Ukraine.

And Jerrold Nadler voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that included aid to Ukraine.

Sen. Whitehouse on impeachment trial: Repetition is key to building a case
Jan. 24, 2020 – 1:50 – Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pushed back Friday against defenders of President Trump who have argued that Democrats are making a repetitive impeachment case.

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”—-Joseph Goebbels

Need I say more?

Virginia Gov. Northam Smears Gun Control Opponents to Frighten His Base
If politicians are going to paint their opponents as illegitimate, they should be prepared to receive the same treatment in return.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is misusing a regularly scheduled political rally to frighten his base and gin up support for his troubled administration. Flinging scare-mongering language, the Democratic governor has portrayed a grassroots lobbying effort against gun restrictions as a potential source of “violent extremism” and declared a state of emergency.

It’s a cheap attempt to build support by delegitimizing opposition to his policies. On the way to declaring a state of emergency, Northam breathlessly warned:

Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia’s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20, 2020. Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection.

The “events culminating on January 20, 2020” consist of the Virginia Civil Defense League’s (VCDL) annual lobby day, in which it gathers at Capitol Square, like many other organizations (the Virginia Nurses Association has four lobby days planned for the end of January and beginning of February) do. In the case, the organization is advocating for self-defense rights and against restrictions on the same.

Images of the VCDL’s peaceful 2017 rally are on display at the organization’s website. This is a normal, regularly scheduled gathering intended to influence public policy.

But the governor warns that this year’s event features “white nationalist rhetoric and plans by out-of-state militia groups to attend.” He links the gathering to “events that occurred in Charlottesville,” as if a gathering by opponents of his policies must inevitably descend into violence launched by fringe-dwellers.

Will fringe racists and right-wing radicals attend today’s rally? Almost certainly. Back when anti-war protests were a thing (remember them?) an even more predictable feature than Susan Sarandon on the stage were clusters of far-left types wandering through the crowd trying to convince attendees that a desire for peace implies a workers’ revolution and liquidating the bourgeoisie. Radicals frequently court recruits by piggybacking their causes on mainstream ones. In and of itself, that doesn’t reflect on the mainstream cause.

In fact, one of the groups joining the rally is Antifascists of the Seven Hills, an anti-capitalist group which opposes gun restrictions because “gun control serves to weaken our defense positions.” They don’t want to leave any racist presence at the rally unopposed by other pro-gun voices.

“In considering how to deter their recruitment and nullify their ability to harm folks lobbying or otherwise going about their business, we recognized that the VCDL was drawing lines in the sand on optics, and trying to distance themselves from other issues and symbols like the Confederate battle flag,” the group notes on its Facebook page.

Whatever your opinion of antifa (I’ve been a critic), it’s clear that this isn’t the unalloyed white nationalist gathering that Northam describes.

No, whether you agree or disagree with it, the rally’s message is certainly mainstream. Even as VCDL warns that “proposed bills will turn many semi-automatic firearm owners into felons,” 86 of Virginia’s 95 counties had passed measures declaring themselves sanctuaries for self-defense rights, as of the end of December.

“They suggest that the counties might not enforce new state laws limiting gun rights,” the Wall Street Journal reports of the sanctuary jurisdictions.

To a large extent, that’s a reflection of the state’s version of the national urban-rural divide, which has too many politicians favoring one side while vilifying and punishing the other. In Virginia, support for Northam and the Democratic legislative majority is concentrated in the state’s urban crescent, while the sanctuary counties are in rural and exurban areas that even a Democratic county chairman accused his party of treating with “malevolent neglect.”

With an immediate post-election victory push for gun restrictions, state Democrats play to the prejudices of their urban-to-suburban base with legislation that sticks it to the rural areas where such laws are largely unpopular.

Playing the same game a year after news reports that, years ago, he dressed in blackface, Northam seeks revived credibility among urban, progressive voters by pushing his party’s gun control proposals. And then he doubles down by smearing his opponents as bent on “violence, rioting, and insurrection.”

But what about that “credible intelligence” Northam claims was gathered by law enforcement agencies? Maybe it exists, but governments have a long history of feeding the public’s fears to delegitimize opponents and justify extraordinary actions.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” H. L. Mencken mused decades ago.

Liberal elites’ secret weapon is conservative family values.

“If the elite had conspired to destroy the middle class, it seems they would have:
1, desired to corrupt middle class morals
2, convince middle class women to have fewer children or have a career instead of a family
3, convince middle class women they don’t need men but can do it all
4, take the middle class’s money by both promoting the need for a college education while driving the price of said education through the roof by subsidizing the education of the poor
5, send housing costs soaring by restricting supply
6, create a situation where good paying middle class jobs get outsourced while cheap labor is imported to keep wages down
7, promote a diet that tends to make anyone who follows it fat and sickly compared to those who eat roughly what people ate a century ago.
People in 1950 might have called the above a dystopian horror fiction.
The elites in 2020 call it good public policy.”..Cyrus in New York


A new study by Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang at the Institute for Family Studies lays out the real picture.

“When it comes to their own families,” the authors discovered, “California elites with kids overwhelmingly ‘live right’ in private, giving their children the benefit of growing up in a two-parent family.”

Wilcox and Wang reveal granular data showing “that some of the most elite neighborhoods in the state — including several in Hollywood and San Francisco — have virtually no single parents.”

This is a far bigger story than Hollywood’s message vs. Hollywood’s lifestyle, of course. Across the country, Americans in the upper class are much more likely to profess liberalized teachings on family and marriage while personally practicing conservative family values. Wilcox and Wang just happened to get the data for California.

Among Californians aged 18-50, the college-educated were far more likely than those with no college degree (85% to 69%) to agree that we should celebrate the diversity of family structures, including single parenthood, unmarried parents, and other alternative family structures. The college-educated were specifically far more cheerful toward single motherhood.

That’s how they feel about others. How do the elites feel about their own lives? “It’s very important for me, personally to be married before having children,” 68% of the college-educated sample agreed. That number was only 59% for those who never went to college.

So the elites are more “tolerant” than the working class ideologically, but they are much more conservative about how they plan to live.

Michael Bloomberg Discovers America is Bigger Than New York

It’s Wednesday and Michael Bloomberg is on a farm in Minnesota. Nobody, including him, knows why.

Minnesota in the winter is a long way from Bloomberg’s Bermuda estate where he spent much of his time as mayor of New York City, and, if he were to win in 2020, would spend his presidential term. While fighting a war on coal, the billionaire environmentalist crusader liked to jet over on Fridays to his waterfront estate in Bermuda to escape the New York City winters and then jet back again on Sundays.

“We should understand how big America is,” Michael Bloomberg told a reporter. “I’m here to learn about another part of the country.”

Any part of the country that isn’t New York City is a whole other world to the big city titan. That might be why he stumbled into Martin County which Trump had won by 67.5%. Even by primary standards, there aren’t many Democrats here. Hillary only got 2,733 votes. Campaigning for Somali votes in Hennepin County would have made more sense. But as far as Bloomberg is concerned, any place outside Manhattan is farm country. And that goes double for Minnesota.

So here he was riding a tractor on a farm in the greatest presidential campaign vehicular moment since a tank ended the Dukakis dream.

“We eat and live based on what you do,” he told a soybean farm family. “And I think it’s easy for us living in big cities to forget about the rest of the world.”

Bloomberg didn’t need to travel all the way to Minnesota to meet farmers. There are plenty of them in upstate New York. But the billionaire, having just recently discovered the existence of both Minnesota and farmers, was eager to impress the media with his common touch. And be photographed in the general vicinity of farm equipment while remaining completely clueless about farm country.

Later in Akron, he would tell an audience, “I just came from a farm, a soybean farm, in the coldest place — you have no idea how cold it is out there.” It was 9 degrees. In other words, winter.

His pitch to farm country was more unions, a $15 minimum wage, and community college. It’s the same as his New York City pitch. And he’s already spent almost $2 million on ads selling himself to Minnesotans. That’s been followed by awkward campaign stops in which he tries to relate to people who don’t work for him. It’s a skill that Bloomberg, who is better at buying elections than winning them, has yet to master.The politicians who endorse him walk behind him, deferentially trailing the billionaire munchkin as he strides toward the photographers or his private jets, like the hired help that they are.

And the private jets are there waiting to take him away from the scary world outside New York.

His mid Western campaign stops begin and end in New York City. Bloomberg may occasionally jet to the “rest of the world”, but then he gets back into his private jet and returns home to New York for bedtime.

The planet, according to him, may be on the verge of an environmental catastrophe, but the end of all life on earth is no reason to have to spend a night on a lumpy mattress in a Minnesota Marriot. 

The “Get It Done Express” bus with the Bloomberg 2020 logo is misleading. The only thing that bus is getting done is diverting attention from how many polar bears each Bloomberg plane trip kills.

The death of the planet is a small price to pay for being able to sleep in his Gilded Age townhouse on 79th Street. Coal miners may be driven out of work and into the streets, but Bloomberg must be able to recline on his $1 million Georgian Chippendale couch, play with his antique snooker table, and enjoy his foyer paved with rare Egyptian marble even if the oceans rise, the seas sink, and all the polar bears perish.

“Too much wealth is in too few hands, and it’s concentrated in too few places,” Bloomberg told farm country, seemingly deaf to the fact that some $58 billion of it is concentrated in his hands.

The billionaire says things like this because someone told him it was a good idea. Just like somebody told him that he should ride a tractor. Or get Judge Judy to campaign for him. Or visit Akron.

In Akron, he told an audience of a few hundred people that they needed more immigrants.

“We want to build on things. We want to build on things that already exist,” he said robotically, like a space alien trying to communicate with earthmen.

Then he vowed to take away everyone’s guns.

Bloomberg’s nationwide campaign is built on blowing a fortune on ads accompanied by inept pandering. A black marching band introduced him in Atlanta. He had dinner with Katy Perry at a Beverly Hills restaurant. In Illinois, he brought in disgraced Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to tout job training for all the people who would be put out of work by his radical environmentalist agenda.

Bringing in an Obama hack widely despised on both sides of the political aisle, whose most recent political activism consisted of urging parents to keep kids out of school until gun control laws are passed, was another brilliant move by a campaign that was thrown together on a billionaire’s last-minute whim.

Bloomberg showed up in Texas vowing to bring in more immigrants and refugees. “America is not New York, I understand that,” he told Texans. And then laid out a plan for making Texas into New York.

Just to make himself feel more at home, he brought along grating New York City television personality, Judge Judy. The reality television star has six homes from which she has been known to commute by private jet, but none of them are in Texas.Why Judge Judy? All the other celebrities were already taken.

Behind the awkward photo ops in places he’s never been to before, like farms, diners, and the state of Minnesota, is the same old campaign he ran in New York City with the same old nanny state tics.

“You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place,” he told Alabamans.

It doesn’t occur to him that people in Alabama might be less likely to agree with that than New Yorkers.

Bloomberg is ready to blow $1 billion on a nationwide campaign in places he’s never been to and making a play for the hearts and minds of voters that he’s unable to understand or relate to. While his campaign spends a fortune on ads and staff, its message is the same one that he ran on in New York City. It’s a sales pitch of free stuff, more unions, a war on coal, gun bans, and nanny state politics.

And for voters who like that sort of thing, there are better 2020 candidates serving it up.

Riding a tractor and spending a billion won’t change that.

Even Bloomberg doesn’t seem especially convinced by his own candidacy despite all the cash he’s spending to finance it.

In Chicago, a woman told him, “We need somebody like you.”

“If you say so,” he answered.

Somebody needs to look into his relations with the Iranians since 2016.

VA Committee Approves Gun Bills On Party Line Vote

After a chaotic morning at the state capitol in Richmond, and despite huge turnout from thousands of gun owners, Virginia Democrats approved a number of gun control bills in a key committee hearing Monday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was supposed to begin at 8 a.m., but was delayed more than an hour thanks to the long lines to get in the doors of the capitol. New rules banning the lawful carrying of firearms in the capitol and office buildings led to new security measures, which in turn led to lengthy delays and annoyed staffers and citizens. Meanwhile, some Democrat staffers were apparently able to bypass the required security.

After folks cleared the long security line, they were then told that Democrats were requiring an equal number of supporters and opponents of the gun bills to be seated in the committee room, despite the fact that those opposed to the bills far outnumbered gun control supporters…………

Meanwhile SB 16, Sen. Dick Saslaw’s sweeping gun, magazine, and suppressor ban, was struck from the record, which means there will be no further action on the bill. Instead, Democrats will focus their efforts on HB 961, a slightly modified version of Saslaw’s legislation that “allows” gun owners to maintain possession of their banned firearms if they register them with the Virginia State Police. The ban on magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds, as well as lawfully purchased suppressors, remains in the House version of the so-called “assault firearms” bill.