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.

Virginia’s Model for Both Sides of Gun Debate
As Democrats advance anti-Second Amendment measures, Patriots fight back.

Like all would-be tyrants, as soon as Virginia Democrats took power following the last election, they began an all-out assault on the right to keep and bear arms, unleashing a package of gun-control measures intended to strip Virginians of their right to defend themselves.

The newest proposed measures include a ban on “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles, magazines holding more than 12 rounds, and sound suppressors (“silencers”). That bill passed the House of Delegates yesterday.

As a means of reducing mass shootings, such measures are worthless. According to the FBI, in 2018, just 297 of the 6,603 gun-related murders (4%) nationwide involved a rifle of any kind. In fact, knives (1,604) and fists/kicking (656) were used to kill far more often.

The “progressive” obsession with the AR-15 is rooted in abject ignorance of all things gun related. Though they refer to AR-15s as “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” they are neither.

“AR” stands for “ArmaLite Rifle,” after the company that designed it. Furthermore, the Department of Defense defines an assault rifle as a “selective fire” rifle that can alternate between semi- (one shot fired per trigger pull) and full-auto (continuous fire). The AR-15 is semiautomatic, firing a .223 (or 5.56) round, which is smaller and less powerful than many hunting rifles. If we ban AR-15s, why not all hunting rifles and handguns? They are functionally equivalent.

Gun grabbers claim the AR-15 is especially “dangerous and unusual,” attempting to get around the Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller, which found the Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” But the AR-15 is the very definition of “common use” — more than 15 million AR-style rifles are currently in the hands of American citizens, and more than a million more are sold each year. In fact, one in five new firearms sold in the U.S. is an AR-style rifle.

Yet far from America turning into the Wild West, as anti-gun hysterics claim, America has become more peaceful with the proliferation of firearms. Gun crimes fell to historic lows after the expiration of the 1994 ban on “assault weapons.”

In reality, full-auto weapons have been effectively banned for civilian use since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and there have been only two deaths by full-auto weapons in the last 40 years.

But in the grand scheme of things, this is all just semantics and details. The Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, period, regardless of arguments and statistics.

Yet Socialist Democrats reject the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” For decades, Democrats have sought to erode or eliminate this most fundamental of human and American rights. They couch their assaults in terms like “public safety” and “commonsense gun control,” insisting that no one needs certain types of weapons for hunting and sport shooting. Untrue, but irrelevant. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with providing a firm check against the rise of tyrannical government.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson warned of the dangers of conspiring men and asked, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Is it any surprise the state seal for Virginia is an image of a robed Virtus (Virtue) standing, spear in hand, over the body of Tyranny? The state motto is “sic semper tyrannis,” meaning “thus always to tyrants.”

Jefferson was a native of Virginia, and it seems many of his fellow Virginians still have the fire of Liberty, and resistance to tyranny, burning in their breasts, judging by the 22,000 gun owners protesting at the state capitol recently. Or the fact that 141 counties and cities have declared themselves “gun sanctuaries.”

After the announcement of the proposed gun-control laws, Virginia gun sales nearly doubled, with nearly 70,000 gun background checks in a single month. Gun owners continue to show up at rallies, chanting “We will not comply!”

Gun owners are by nature peaceful and law-abiding. They seek peace, but are prepared to defend themselves and their families, whether from armed intruders or a tyrannical government. That is a fact that Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam and the Democrats in the state legislature would do well to remember.

Maryland ‘Assault Weapon’ Registration Bill Would Charge Gun Owners Up to $1000 Per Firearm

When you think of heavily gun controlled states, names like New York, California and New Jersey immediately come to mind. But don’t sleep on Maryland. The Eat Crab or Die State has long been at the forefront of Second Amendment rights abrogation and a new bill entered in the state’s House would move the Old Line State way up on the #gunsense hit parade.

HB 1261, authored by House Speaker Adrienne Jones along with Reps. Vanessa Atterbeary and Eric Luedke, was introduced Friday and would ban a range of firearms after October 1. It would also require those already owning assaulty-looking guns to register them.

Registering with the Department of State Police before January 1, 2021 costs Marylanders nothing. But then complying with the law would require emptying your wallet.

Here’s the bill’s escalating penalty fee schedule:

1. ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2021, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $290 PER FIREARM;

2. ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2022, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $580 PER FIREARM; AND

3. ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 2022, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 PER FIREARM.

What happens if you fail to register your gun at all before May 1, 2023? Prosecution, of course!

A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, ONLY AFTER BEING DISCOVERED IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES IN § 4–306 OF THIS SUBTITLE.

A PERSON DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 1 YEAR FOR EACH INCIDENT IN WHICH THE PERSON IS DISCOVERED WITH UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

“Assault long guns” has already been defined in Maryland law here. HB 1261 lists a range of “assault pistols” that would be banned, guns like the TEC-9, the Czech Skorpion, Uzis and the like.

Oh, and “copycat weapons” under the bill means any gun that has one of those really disturbing features like thumbhole stocks, forward grips, barrel shrouds, yadda, yadda, and:

THE ABILITY TO DISCHARGE THROUGH FIRING ACTION ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ROUNDS:

A. .450 BUSHMASTER;

B. 5.56 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 5.56X45 11 MILLIMETER NATO AND .223 REMINGTON);

C. 7.62 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 7.62X39 13 MILLIMETER, .308 WINCHESTER, 7.62 NATO, 7.62X51 MILLIMETER NATO, .30 14 CARBINE, 7.62X33 MILLIMETER, OR 300 AAC BLACKOUT);

D. .50 BMG;

E. 5.7X28 MILLIMETER OR

F. ANY OTHER ROUND DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE TO BE CAPABLE OF PENETRATING THE STANDARD BODY ARMOR WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEN FIRED BY THE PISTOL;

No ambiguity there, huh?

There’s much more that’s equally egregious, but you get the idea. Again, you can read the bill here.

Will Maryland’s Governor Larry Hogan sign such a bill if it gets to his desk? Don’t bet against it.

 

“WE’RE LOSING OUR **** MINDS”

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.

Number of Professors Allegedly in Cahoots With Communist China Quickly Mounts

In recent months, U.S. authorities have discovered Chinese operatives scheming to compromise American interests through the university system, including plots to steal missile technology and cancer research.

Ye Yanqing used to be a student at Boston University until she chose to flee the country last month. The reason for her departure: an FBI investigation regarding her position as a Lieutenant in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), according to the Washington Times.

According to investigators, Ye was taking orders to gather intelligence from “senior leaders of the PLA while conducting research at Boston University,” according to the Washington Times. In addition to committing espionage, she also failed to disclose her position as an active-duty PLA officer, earning her charges of visa fraud in addition to charges of acting as a foreign government agent, making false statements to investigators, and conspiracy.

This sort of collusion isn’t limited to Chinese-born student-spies. Charles Lieber, the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department was taken into custody and charged Jan. 28 for making false statements to investigators about his financial ties to China.

Is anyone still thinking that Bloomberg isn’t the most tone deaf, narcissistic elitist,  moron yet seen in U.S. politics?
Granted, to want to be President takes a pretty narcissistic personalty, but this jerk takes the cake.
Believing yourself to be God’s gift to the polity, is the height of a lack of self awareness especially when you’ve given a perfect prior example from being Mayor of Noo Yawk.

Virginia’s Unconstitutional Attack on Gun Owners
Simply because a small number of psychopaths happen to like the aesthetics of a popular gun doesn’t magically transform that firearm something distinctively menacing to American society.

And not just the U.S., but also the Virginia Constitution

Today Virginia Democrats continue their multi-front offensive against the Second Amendment, taking up Governor Ralph Northam’s “assault weapons” ban, magazine limits, and suppressor-confiscation bills in the state house’s Public Safety Committee. That makes it as good time as any to remind people again that “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional. The quicker an “assault weapon” ban case can be put in front of the Supreme Court — which, granted, has been reluctant to take on new gun cases — the better.

District of Columbia v. Heller found that the Second Amendment protected weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” AR-15-style weapons, the most popular rifle in America, with over a million sold every year, clearly meet this criterion. Everything about the gun, from its mechanisms to its purpose, is common. Notwithstanding the rhetoric you hear from Virginia lawmakers, some appellate-court judges, and gun-control lobby mouthpieces, the AR-15 is not, nor has it ever been, a “weapon of war.” To say so is historically and functionally incorrect. Eugene Stoner, chief engineer of ArmaLite and its parent company, Colt, designed and marketed the AR specifically for civilians in the early 1960s, years before any military version was adopted. The AR-15 is less a “weapon of war” than a 1911 handgun, which the U.S. military adopted from that year to 1986.

Not that we should have any problems with weapons of war being in civilian hands per se. Muskets and flintlock rifles, the predominant guns of the revolutionary era, were also weapons of war. The Founders wanted civilians to own lethal weapons. Sorry, John Kerry, but the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or recreation, or even predominately about personal home protection. So, yes, ARs are indeed dangerous. That’s the point. But the concerted effort to depict ARs as especially “dangerous and unusual” is only meant to place them outside the protections of Heller.

Indeed, there is no evidence that AR-15s pose a unique threat. Simply because a small number of psychopaths happen to like the aesthetics of a popular gun doesn’t magically transform that firearm something distinctively menacing to American society. Even if one conceded for the sake of argument that the presence of criminality was a sound rationale for restricting constitutional rights — an increasingly popular argument for ignoring the First Amendment, as well — the argument to ban AR-15s would become weaker.

Gun crimes fell precipitously, hitting historic lows, after the federal assault-weapon ban instituted in 1994 expired. In 2018, the last year of FBI data, there were 6,603 Americans murdered by handguns, 297 by rifles (most of them not AR-15s), and 236 by shotguns. (Gun types used in crimes aren’t reported by all police departments, but the trend is almost surely the same.) To put it in perspective, there were 1,604 knife homicides during that same span, and 656 people killed by fists and kicking. ARs are rarely used in crimes.

More important, if the state can ban one type of semi-automatic weapon simply because it looks a certain way or because one type of criminal favors it, what principle would constrain it from banning every semi-automatic weapon? The worst mass shooter in Virginia history did not use an AR but .22-caliber and 9mm handguns. If Northam can ban ARs, what stops him from banning a 9mm? Surely the cheering crowd at a CNN “townhall,” or the average Democratic presidential candidate, would answer, nothing.

Virginia lawmakers are also debating legislation that would make it a felony to possess a magazine that holds more than twelve rounds after January 1st, 2021, which, as Cam Edwards points out, would turn most Virginia gun owners into felons. Another bill would make it illegal to own a silencer. Right now, Americans own over a million silencers for all kinds of reasons — to avoid damaging their hearing or bothering their neighbors — but almost none of them own a silencer for criminal reasons. The ATF reports that there are around 44 silencer-related crimes per year over the past decade — or as Stephen Gutowski noted, something like .003 percent of silencers are used in crimes each year.

For now, most of the bills seem likely to fail. A more draconian state-senate bill that would have authorized the confiscation of assault-style weapons was already discarded. “This is a compromise that takes into account folks’ concerns and is still a good bill that will help reduce mass murders in the commonwealth,” Delegate Mark Levine, the Democrat sponsoring the legislation, told the Associated Press. There’s no evidence that any of these initiatives would make Virginians any safer, nor, as a matter of principle, is preemptively banning Americans from owning a firearm objectively different from confiscating the one they already own. Both are means to stop citizens from owning the gun. Both should be discarded as unconstitutional.

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.

John Kerry’s Ignorant Gun-Control Rhetoric Is More Dangerous Than Guns

Ignorance is a feature with demoncraps. Facts are fungible, thus changeable

Former Secretary of State John Kerry is back in the headlines, this time for denying reports that he was overheard talking about jumping into the 2020 presidential race. But he’s also stumping for Joe Biden, and during gun-related remarks in Iowa before the caucuses, Kerry passed gun misinformation off to voters who deserve better.

“There’s not a veteran here who would take an AR-16 with a long clip to go out and shoot a deer or shoot anything,” he told voters.

He’s right, and the first reason is the rifle he’s trying to demonize doesn’t exist. He also reminded everyone of how he cloaks himself in the veil of military service to push for gun control. Unlike Kerry, I know gun owners. Veteran gun owners are my friends. Kerry is not a veteran gun owner nor a hunter. He is a caricature though, a veteran version of Elmer Fudd.

John Kerry Doesn’t Understand Guns
Kerry was obviously referring to the AR-15, again conflating the semiautomatic rifle with the military’s M16 and M4 rifles, which are automatic. He also clearly confused magazines with clips.

All the while, though, Kerry confirmed the long-held beliefs that the only thing he and the candidates he supports want to do with firearms are banning, outlawing, restricting, and denying the ability of law-abiding gun owners to buy the firearms they choose. He warned if voters don’t turn out for Biden, those “AR-16s” and “clips” could make a comeback.

“Now we have a crowd who’s willing to bring them back,” he added.

Kerry should be more aware when his anti-gun bias is showing. The ban he’s scaremongering about expired in 2004, and today, the modern sporting rifle is the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America. More than 17.7 million of them are in circulation today. They’re popular for hunting, recreational shooting, and self-defense. They come in a wide array of calibers, firing not just the popular 223-caliber, but an array of bullets that are often better suited to hunt big game.

Both hunters and veterans are able to ferret out a certain kind of authenticity rather quickly. Just as quickly, Kerry ably fails to convince either group he’s authentic. This isn’t a screed to bash his service. Kerry did, in fact, serve in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. His service is respected.

His service, though, like mine, should have been instructive on the rifle he carried into combat. The M16 rifle has a selector switch. It allows the rifle to be put on safe, which doesn’t permit it to fire, “semi,” which is short for semiautomatic, meaning one round fired for each squeeze of the trigger, and finally, “auto” or automatic. When I served, this was changed to “burst,” for a three-round automatic burst of fire for one squeeze of the trigger.

The AR-15 doesn’t do that. It’s only capable of safe and semiautomatic, just like the shotgun Kerry toted into the marshes in Ohio for his 2004 presidential “goose hunt.” About the same time, he had a few hunting tales of his own, which were rather revealing.

‘That Dog Won’t Hunt’

“I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach,” he said in 2004. “I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That’s hunting.”

Hunters have a familiar saying that applies here: That dog won’t hunt.

NSSF’s Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane noted as much in a news report at the time. “The only thing Senator Kerry is hunting today is the all-important sportsmen’s vote,” Keane said, according to a UPI report. He added Kerry’s supporters were hardly pro-hunting. “The senator’s rhetoric and play-acting aren’t fooling anyone. Kerry the ‘hunter’ is endorsed by radical anti-hunting organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Fund for Animals.”

Kerry emerged from his goose hunt with a bloodied hand but no goose in tow, saying it was sent forward with his aides. No one was convinced.

“His new camouflage jacket is an October surprise, an effort he’s making to hide the fact that he votes against gun-owners,” said Vice President Dick Cheney at the time. “The cover-up isn’t going to work.”

You can’t blame hunters or veterans for being skeptical about Kerry’s views on guns and hunting.

Kerry Supports Biden, Who Is Also Ignorant About Guns

Kerry’s understanding has been to ban, limit, and control. He supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban mandatory trigger locks and voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. As secretary of state, Kerry signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which would have exposed the firearms and ammunition industry to a confusing web of international regulations that would not have contributed to curbing illegal arms trafficking, protecting human rights, or guaranteeing the rights of U.S. citizens.

The treaty was never ratified, and President Donald Trump withdrew from the treaty in 2019, saying, “We’re taking our signature back.”

The tragic thing is that the once-defeated presidential candidate is backing Biden, who said from the debate stage the firearms industry was “the enemy.” Kerry’s throwing his support behind the guy who would ban modern sporting rifles, and who proposes taxpayer-funded buybacks to gather them up, thinks a federal gun rationing plan is appropriate, and wants to mandate technically impossible DNA-matched “smart guns.”

All of this, and Kerry’s AR-16 proclamation, make about as much sense as Biden infamously advising a woman during an online forum to “get a double-barrel shotgun” and like he told his wife just to “fire two blasts” of a shotgun if she felt threatened.

Think of how dangerous these anti-gun politicians would be if they actually knew what they were talking about. Likely, more knowledge would force the fallacy of their indefensible political talking points.

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.

American Communists Call for a Violent Takeover.. and the American People are Ready for Them

It is uncomfortable to face violent threats. We endure that discomfort because it is better to face them than run from them. Communists in the US have flocked to Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and the things they want to do are horrible. Fortunately, we’ve faced threats like this before and we’re prepared to face them again. The US model of limited government and an empowered people is up to the dangerous task of defending liberty. We are made for this.

I’m not going to put words in the mouth of American Communists. Project Veritas recorded many Sanders’ staffers in candid conversations. These are their words, not mine. Please see my sources and listen to the Communists in their own words. It is worth your time to read what they said-

“Well, the Gulags were founded as Re-Education Camps…What will help is when we send all the Republicans to the Re-Education Camps.”

I’m ready to start tearing bricks up and start fighting.. I’ll straight up get armed.. I’m ready for the ****** revolution, bro.. Guillotine the rich.”

The Soviet Union was not horrible…I mean, for women’s rights the Soviet Union – I think – the most progressive place to date in the world.”

So, do we just cease – do we just dissolve the Senate, House of Representatives, the Judicial Branch, and have something Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people, make all decisions for the climate? I mean, I’m serious.”

“..I think the goal is just to build a..coalition… Their politics fall outside of the American norm, so their politics are Marxist/Leninist.. they have more of a mind for ‘direct action’ for engaging in politics outside of the electoral system.”

“…Once we break up Google, YouTube, Facebook, nationalize these things, then that would be a huge thing forward so far as education stuff goes.”

“We would need a federal government and labor union movement that is working together to strip power away from capitalists and preferably directing violence toward property.”

“..it’s gonna take militancy…like a militant labor movement that’s willing to…strike, and if necessary, you know, just destroy property and things like that.”

“A militant labor movement is kind of.. our last real chance before we try other means.” 

After we abolish landlords, we don’t have to kill them, that’s my feeling I think it’s damaging to the soul, but um, there were plenty of excesses in 1917 (Russian Revolution) I would hope to avoid.”

“We don’t want to scare people off, you first have to feel it out before you get into the crazy stuff…You know we were talking about more extreme organizations like Antifa, you were talking about, Yellow Vests, all that but we’re kinda keeping that on the back-burner for now.”

“It’s unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action but like I said, they’re not going to give it to us even if Bernie is elected.”

Communists in the Sanders campaign said they would take power by force once elected, or burn cities if the convention, or the voters, rejected their candidate. Politicians who still call themselves Democrats also want ordinary citizens disarmed. That strange coincidence is no coincidence at all.

Bernie’s campaign workers are not alone in their ideas. Their fellow communists, the Ruling Council in China, said Americans should be disarmed. Remember that the Chinese government killed over 10 thousand unarmed students who were protesting in Tiananmen Square. The Bernie Bros want to bring that level of terror here. I’ll remind you that 10 thousand dead students at is a mere dust mote when compared to the 45 million people the Chinese government killed during Mao’s “Great Leap”. The Bernie Bros think a few million corpses here in the United States will bend us to their will.

Communists Utopia is always a few million corpses away.

Facing Up To the Revolution.
Our ultimate objective, unlike that of our enemies, is “peace among ourselves and with all nations.” But what kind of peace we may get depends on the extent to which we may compel our enemies to leave us in peace. And for that, we must do unto them more and before they do unto us.

Some conservatives, rejoicing that impeachment turned into yet another of #TheResistance’s political train wrecks and that President Trump is likely to be reelected by a bigger margin than in 2016, expect that a chastened ruling class will return to respecting the rest of us. They are mistaken.

Trump’s reelection, by itself, cannot protect us. The ruling class’s intolerance of the 2016 election’s results was intolerance of us.

Nor was their intolerance so much a choice as it was the expression of its growing sense of its own separate identity, of power and of entitlement to power. The halfhearted defenses with which the offensives of the ruling class have been met already advertise the fact that it need not and will not accept the outcome of any presidential election it does not win. Trump notwithstanding, this class will rule henceforth as it has in the past three years. So long as its hold on American institutions continues to grow, and they retain millions of clients, elections won’t really matter.

Our country is in a state of revolution, irreversibly, because society’s most influential people have retreated into moral autarchy, have seceded from America’s constitutional order, and because they browbeat their socio-political adversaries instead of trying to persuade them. Theirs is not a choice that can be reversed. It is a change in the character of millions of people.

The sooner conservatives realize that the Republic established between 1776 and 1789—the America we knew and loved—cannot return, the more fruitfully we will be able to manage the revolution’s clear and present challenges to ourselves. How are we to deal with a ruling class that insists on ruling—elections and generally applicable rules notwithstanding—because it regards us as lesser beings?

The resistance that reached its public peaks in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the impeachment imbroglio should have left no doubt about the socio-political arbitrariness that flows from the ruling class’s moral autarchy, about the socio-political power of the ruling class we’re forced to confront, or of its immediate threat to our freedom of speech.

Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the Senate’s impeachment trial, was as clear an example as any of that moral autarchy and its grip on institutions.

Pursuant to Senate rules, Senator Rand Paul sent a written question through Roberts to House Manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) regarding the extent of collaboration between Schiff’s staffer Sean Misko and his longtime fellow partisan, CIA officer Eric Ciaramella in starting the charges that led to impeachment. Roberts, having read the question to himself, declared: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”

The chief justice of the United States, freedom of speech’s guardian-in-chief, gave no reason for declining to read Paul’s question. The question was relevant to the proceedings. It violated no laws, no regulations. The names of the two persons were known to every member of the House and Senate, as well as to everyone around the globe who had followed news reports over the previous months. But the Democratic Party had been campaigning to drive from public discussion that this impeachment stemmed from the partisan collaboration between a CIA officer and a Democratic staffer.

Accordingly, the mainstream media had informally but totally banned discussion of this fact, supremely relevant but supremely embarrassing to Schiff in particular and to Democrats in general. Now, Paul was asking Schiff officially to comment on the relationship. Schiff could have explained it, or refused to explain it. But Roberts saved him the embarrassment and trouble—and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spared senators the problem of voting on a challenge to Roberts’ ruling. The curtain of official concealment, what the Mafia calls the omertà, remained intact. Why no reason?

Just as no dog wags his tail without a reason, neither did Roberts wag his without reason. Neither the laws of the United States nor the rules of the Senate told the presiding officer to suppress the senator’s question. Why was Roberts pleased to please those he pleased and to displease those he displeased? In short, why did this impartial presiding officer act as a man partial to one side against the other?

This professional judge could hardly have been impressed by the ruling class’s chosen instrument, Adam Schiff, or by Schiff’s superior regard for legal procedure. Since Schiff’s prosecution featured hiding the identity of the original accuser—after promising to feature his testimony—and since it featured secret depositions, blocked any cross-examination of its own witnesses, and prevented the defense from calling any of their own, it would have been strange if Chief Justice Roberts’ bias was a professional one.

Is it possible that Roberts favored the substance of the ruling class claim that neither President Trump nor any of his defenders have any right to focus public attention on the Biden family’s use of public office to obtain money in exchange for influence? That, after all, is what Washington is largely about. Could Roberts also love corruption so much as to help conceal it? No.

Roberts’ professional and ethical instincts incline him the other way. Nevertheless, he sustained the ruling class’s arbitrariness. Whose side did he take? His dinner companions’ side? The media’s? His wife’s? Roberts’ behavior—contrary as it was to his profession, to his morals, and to his political provenance—shows how great is the ruling class’s centripetal force.

The sad but inescapable consequence of this force is that conservatives have no choice but to follow the partisan logic of revolution—fully conscious of the danger that partisanship can make us as ridiculously dishonest as Adam Schiff or CNN’s talking heads, into rank-pullers like John Roberts, and into profiteers as much as any member of the Biden family.

And yet, revolution is war, the proximate objective of which is to hurt the other side until it loses the capacity and the will to do us harm. That means treating institutions and people from the standpoint of our own adversarial interest: controlling what we can either for our own use or for bargaining purposes, discrediting and abandoning what we cannot take from our enemies…

Letter Shows Sandpoint Mayor Values Money/Power Over Self-Defense!

 

A letter recently obtained by the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance shows that Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad is trying to recruit other Idaho mayor’s to support his ‘gun-free’ zone agenda.

The letter asks mayors to fill out a survey detailing what venues might benefit from a ‘gun-free’ zone.

Mayor Rognstad makes it clear that the economic interests of his city are more important than the natural right of self-defense.

He uses the typical “I believe in the 2nd Amendment but…” argument to try and justify his efforts.

ISAA President Greg Pruett slammed the letter, saying, “The Mayor should be ashamed of himself for putting money above the rights of his citizens. Mayors in Idaho should tell Mayor Rognstad that the 2nd Amendment means a lot more to them than money.”

At the heart of Mayor Rognstad’s concern is musicians who require concert-goers to be disarmed at their events.

He fears that these artists won’t come to Sandpoint if the city can’t disarm citizens on public property.

Idaho’s current firearm preemption law prohibits cities from enacting ordinances that deal with the possession of firearms on public property.

Mayor Rognstad is proposing that cities and counties have control over events where large groups of people are gathering. Mayor Rognstad’s proposal would be yet another law that criminals would ignore, and he would endanger the lives of Idahoans who wouldn’t be able to defend themself.

His proposal would likely impact an Idahoan’s ability to carry their firearm at a county fair or other popular events.

Rognstad also claims that we must disarm Idahoans at these events for “public safety.”

Idahoans have a long history of carrying firearms for self-defense. They don’t need or want the government’s permission to do so on public property.

However, Mayor Rognstad believes that he deserves the power to control whether you can defend yourself at a concert or other public venue where criminals love to target.
He is trying to convince other mayors and the legislature to go along with his proposal.

Idaho’s gun owners aren’t buying it.

The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance has launched a campaign to stop Mayor Rognstad and his ‘gun-free’ zone proposal.

You can send legislators in Idaho an email telling them to oppose Mayor Rognstad’s efforts using the ISAA’s legislative tool here:
https://action.idahosaa.org/action/tell-your-legislators-to-oppose-sandpoint-mayors-gun-free-zone-proposal/

The ISAA is proposing legislation this year that would strengthen the firearm preemption statute.

It will be interesting to see what side, if any, comes out on top of this fight.

You can see the letter and survey questions sent to the mayors in Idaho below.

Municipal Survey:  Public leased Property

1.       What jurisdiction do you represent?

2.        Does your city, county or other public entity within your jurisdiction lease any public property to a private entity for a private event which bans guns from the event?

3.       If yes, what is the venue, are there multiple events annually, are they recurring?

4.       What is/are the name of the event and estimated total number of attendees?

5.       What is the estimated total financial impact to the city and/or county for said events or events?

Pelosi rips up Trump speech at conclusion of State of the Union

Just another show of demoncrap utter disrespect.
“All they have to do is not act crazy” and they can’t even do that.
I would expect to see that idiotic stunt in several of Trump’s campaign ads this fall.

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad”
—Prometheus in The Masque of Pandora

Why the Left Really Wants to Kill America

The century-long attempt to kill capitalism in America gained a dramatic head of steam in the 1960s with the rapid ascendency of progressivism, a Marxist movement that would quietly seize control of the Democratic Party over the last half-century.

Which was something different. For most of America’s 244-year history, the dominant political parties that evolved had a common goal constantly working to improve the country they both loved.  In the 1860s, a Republican president went to war to end slavery.  A century later, a Democratic president launched another well-intentioned war, a war on poverty.  Democrats and Republicans alike largely saw their country as a force for good, both at home and abroad.  Beginning in the 1960s, that widely- shared view began to show cracks as the progressive movement began tightening its grip on the modern Democratic Party.  Democrat icons of the 1960s — Adlai Stevenson, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Sam Nunn, Hubert Humphrey and JFK, to name a few — were genuine patriots who loved their country, a sentiment that was shared by a large majority of that era’s rank and file Democrats.  Such is no longer the case. Here are four ways Democrats are looking to end the idea of America altogether:

Killing America by replacing patriotism with socialism

In October 2018, The New York Times reported that 69% of progressive Democrats  are ashamed of being American.  Increasingly influenced by the progressive wing of their party, Democrats as a whole have moved sharply away from that love of country, and veered toward socialism that sounded like communism: In February 2019, Public Opinion Strategies found that an astounding 77% of Democrats who plan to vote in 2020 self-identify as socialists.  Aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream media, the modern Democratic Party has been remarkably successful at driving down patriotism: Gallup found that less than a third of Democrats are extremely proud of their country.  That’s less than a third, and trending sharply downward.

Killing America by making citizenship meaningless

Why has the modern Democratic Party worked so diligently to erode patriotism? Because love of country is a major impediment to convincing voters to support what they really want, which is yielding their nation’s sovereignty to an international governing body, ultimately the United Nations. With patriotism marginalized, a society’s populace can more easily be led to no longer see themselves as citizens of their country, but as “citizens of the world.”  (In his July 2008 speech in Berlin, progressive presidential candidate Barack Obama told an adoring crowd of 200,000 cheering Europeans, “I come to you as a Citizen of the World.”)

In Europe, the long-standing national identity of every progressive-run nation is already being intentionally erased, and it stands as a sort of bellwether of things to come over here.

Government-encouraged mass migration is its instrument, and the same thing is being attempted in America by the modern Democratic Party. This particular phenomenon is particularly associated with billionaire globalist George Soros.  The Hungarian-born “stateless statesman” is the most prolific financier of the progressive push for a world without borders.

In his anti-capitalist best-seller, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Soros sets out the progressive strategy.  Complaining bitterly about “the sway of sovereign nations,” Soros has advocated for, and since spent immense sums each year fostering “open society alliances” among sovereign nations.  The goal of these alliances is to indoctrinate citizens of western nations to accept the high-mindedness of doing away with national identities in favor of a collectivist world identity.  With national identities erased, people no longer see themselves as patriotic citizens of their countries, but as united citizens of an enlightened global society.  People who oppose the unfettered influx of migrants and refugees are shouted down as racists and xenophobes.  Once open-border alliances have been solidified, the last obstacle is cleared for a borderless world governed by the UN.  For global governance to become a reality, the sovereignty of every western nation, including America, must be eliminated, Soros believes.

When the election of Donald Trump dealt a calamitous setback to the near-term realization of fundamentally transforming America, Soros penned an angry rant comparing Trump to Hitler, and calling him a racist and a xenophobe.  Known as “the puppet master” because of the enormous influence he exerts on Democratic Party hierarchy, Soros’s foremost target in taking down sovereign western democracies is the crown jewel of them all: the United States of America.  In working toward the culmination of that takedown, the billionaire globalist mastermind has powerful allies at the highest levels of the modern Democratic Party.

Killing America through identity politics

To overthrow a capitalist society, The Communist Manifesto calls for fomenting a titanic struggle by pitting an alleged victim class against an alleged oppressor class.  In the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks rose to power by pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

Over the last half-century, the Democratic Party has taken the concept of Marxist/Leninist dialectical struggle to new heights through its use of identity politics. The term refers to politically subdividing the electorate into multiple factions (voting blocks), whose members are told they are singled out for persecution by a bigoted and unjust society.  To wit: People of color are persecuted by racists & white supremacists, women by sexists & misogynists, refugees & illegal immigrants by nativists & xenophobes, Muslims by Islamophobes, gays & lesbians by homophobes & religious bigots, the 99% by the 1%, and so on.  The goal of identity politics is to turn a majority of the American electorate against their country.

The self-serving narrative of identity politics is that caring, inclusive and tolerant Democrats will righteously defend the members (voters) of each identity group from the constant onslaught of outrages inflicted on them by an oppressive society.  Identity politics is used as a political bludgeon to deceive Americans into believing their country is an incurably unjust place where things can be set straight only by killing off its existing economic and governing systems.

That is the observed pattern and it’s important. It tells us why the 2020 elections will determine whether our free market Republic survives, or falls from within to single-party socialist rule.

 

Here’s the Transcript of the first 5 minutes – the final 90 seconds is a repetition.

During the proceedings, I asked a question that was disallowed, and I’m going to ask that question again this morning. Because the Constitution does protect debate, and it does protect the asking of questions.

I think they made a big mistake now allowing my question. My question did not talk anybody who is a whistleblower; my question did not accuse anybody of being a whistleblower; it did not make a statement believing someone was a whistleblower. I simply named two peoples’ names, because I think it’s very important to know what happened.

We are now finding out that the FISA investigation was predicated upon 17 lies by the FBI, by people at high levels who were biased against the President, and it turns out it was an illegitimate investigation. Everything they did to investigate the President was untrue, and it involved people using the government to do things that should have never been done in the first place.

So I asked this question, and this is my question: Are you aware that the House Committee staffer, Sean Misko, had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while they were at the National Security Council together? How would you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?

Why did I ask this question? Because there are news reports saying these two people, one of whom works for Adam Schiff, and one of them who worked with this person at the NSC, that they knew each other and had been overheard talking about impeaching the President in the first month of his office. In January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment.

And you say, well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserve anonymity. The law does not preserve anonymity.

His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he’s not supposed to be fired – I’m for that. But when you get into the details of talking about whistleblowers, there’s a variety of opinions around here.

The greatest whistleblower in American history in all likelihood was Edward Snowden. What do people here want to do with him? Half the people here want to put him to death; the other half want to put him in jail forever. So, it depends on what you blow the whistle on, whether or not they’re for the whistleblower statute.

I’m not for retributions on the whistleblower. I don’t want him to go to jail, I don’t want him to lose his job. But if six people who all worked together at the NSC knew each other and gamed the system, knowing that they would get these protections, they gamed the system in order to try to bring down the President, we should know about that.

If they had extreme bias going into the impeachment, we should know about that.

So, I think the question is an important one, and I think we should still get to the bottom of it.

Were people plotting to bring down the President? They were plotting in advance of the election – were they plotting within the halls of government to bring down the President?

Look, these people also knew the Vindman brothers, who are still in government. So, you’ve got two Vindman brothers over there who know Eric Ciaramella, who also know Sean Misko, who also knew two other people now working on Adam Schiff’s staff.

And Adam Schiff throws his hands up and says, ‘I don’t know who the whistleblower is, I’ve never met him. I have no idea who he is.’

So, if he doesn’t know who he is, the President’s counsel doesn’t know who he is, how does the Chief Justice of the United States know who the whistleblower is? I have no independent confirmation from anyone in the government as to who the whistleblower is.

So, how am I prevented from asking a question, when nobody seems to know who this person is?

My point is, that by having such protections, such overzealous protection, we don’t get to the root of the matter how this started. Because this could happen again.

When the institution of the bureaucracy, the intelligence community with all the power to listen into every phone conversation you have, has political bias and can game the system to go after you, that’s a real worry.

It’s a real worry that they spied on the President, but what if you’re just an average American? What if you’re just a supporter of President Trump, or you’re a Republican or you’re a conservative? Are we not concerned that secret courts could allow for warrants to listen to your phone calls, to tap into your emails, to read your text messages? I’m very concerned about that.

So, we’re going to have this discussion go on. It really isn’t about the whistleblower so much, it’s about reforming government. It’s about limiting the power of what they can do as secret courts.