Monthly Archives: November 2019

Contempt

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the plain, palpable contempt the Progressive-Democrats have for Republicans and for us average Americans.  This excerpt is from the transcript of LtCol Alexander Vindman’s “testimony” during House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) closed door…hearing (excuse the differing image sizes):Aside from blocking legitimate questioning, this lawyer for Schiff’s witness (while Republican witnesses are routinely denied the presence of their or of State or White House counsel) openly called the Republican Congressman a liar.  Without objection or correction by Schiff.

And we average Americans are supposed to be stupid enough not to understand either the naked stonewalling or the slur.

Remember this next November.

Stonewalling

Posted on by
Reply

We’re seeing it already in the witnesses that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) will permit the minority Republicans on his committee to call during the public hearings the Progressive-Democrats are holding, beginning tomorrow, pursuant to their partisan effort to impeach President Donald Trump.

The Republican list—required to be submitted before Schiff identified the scope and subject matter of his hearings in sufficient detail to allow a proper list to be assembled—is this:

  • Devon Archer—knowledge of Burisma’s alleged role in Ukrainian corruption in general, central to Trump’s desire to be sure of the degree to which the new Ukrainian government is getting corruption under control
  • Hunter Biden—knowledge of Burisma’s alleged role in that corruption: “Mr Biden’s firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine’s pervasive corruption….”
  • Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer—alleged to have worked with Ukrainian embassy to the US to “gather political dirt” on Trump’s then-campaign for office. Also admitting to providing such dirt to the DNC and to Hillary Clinton’s then-campaign for the same office. “…Ms Chalupa is a prime fact witness…understanding facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.”
  • David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs—”firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador Yovanovitch’s recall from Ukraine…[and] Hale’s communications with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukrainian matters….”
  • Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the NSC—three House Progressive-Democrat-run committees have questioned Morrison; those transcripts are not yet released. Morrison was present on the telecon in question and worked with the NSC immediately afterward. If LtCol [Alexander] Vindman is called to testify, Morrison must be as well.
  • Nellie Ohr, former contractor for Fusion GPS—she “is a prime fact witness…understanding facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.”
  • Ambassador Kurt Volker, former US Representative for Ukraine Negotiations—”primary interlocutor and trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government” and firsthand knowledge of discussions, including those with Rudy Giuliani, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor
  • The anonymous whistleblower
  • All witnesses used by the whistleblower “in drafting his or her second hand complaint”

This is a much too short list, driven by Schiff’s withholding the scope of his “inquisition.”  I would have liked to have heard directly from Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, and Vindman, also, all of whom seem to have lied to one degree or another during Schiff’s secretive Star Chamber questionings.

Withal, though, Schiff already has barred Biden, the whistleblower, and presumably by extension the whistleblower’s “sources.”  It’s plain that the Progressive-Democrats only want those “facts” convenient to their predetermined outcome to be heard by us average Americans.  All the facts seem to be anathema to the Inquisitors.

Veteran’s Day

Posted on by
Reply

I first posted this in 2011; I’ve added to it in 2014.

Thank you for all who have, and are, serving.  And because I couldn’t have said it better, I’ll let Mike Royko, late of the Chicago Tribune, via BlackFive, say it from his 1993 column.

I just phoned six friends and asked them what they will be doing on Monday.

They all said the same thing: working.

Me, too.

There is something else we share. We are all military veterans.

And there is a third thing we have in common. We are not employees of the federal government, state government, county government, municipal government, the Postal Service, the courts, banks, or S & Ls, and we don’t teach school.

If we did, we would be among the many millions of people who will spend Monday goofing off.

Which is why it is about time Congress revised the ridiculous terms of Veterans Day as a national holiday.

The purpose of Veterans Day is to honor all veterans.

So how does this country honor them?…

…By letting the veterans, the majority of whom work in the private sector, spend the day at their jobs so they can pay taxes that permit millions of non-veterans to get paid for doing nothing.

As my friend Harry put it:

“First I went through basic training. Then infantry school. Then I got on a crowded, stinking troop ship that took 23 days to get from San Francisco to Japan. We went through a storm that had 90 percent of the guys on the ship throwing up for a week.

“Then I rode a beat-up transport plane from Japan to Korea, and it almost went down in the drink. I think the pilot was drunk.

“When I got to Korea, I was lucky. The war ended seven months after I got there, and I didn’t kill anybody and nobody killed me.

“But it was still a miserable experience. Then when my tour was over, I got on another troop ship and it took 21 stinking days to cross the Pacific.

“When I got home on leave, one of the older guys at the neighborhood bar — he was a World War II vet — told me I was a —-head because we didn’t win, we only got a tie.

“So now on Veterans Day I get up in the morning and go down to the office and work.

“You know what my nephew does? He sleeps in. That’s because he works for the state.

“And do you know what he did during the Vietnam War? He ducked the draft by getting a job teaching at an inner-city school.

“Now, is that a raw deal or what?”

Of course that’s a raw deal. So I propose that the members of Congress revise Veterans Day to provide the following:

– All veterans — and only veterans — should have the day off from work. It doesn’t matter if they were combat heroes or stateside clerk-typists.

Anybody who went through basic training and was awakened before dawn by a red-neck drill sergeant who bellowed: “Drop your whatsis and grab your socks and fall out on the road,” is entitled.

– Those veterans who wish to march in parades, make speeches or listen to speeches can do so. But for those who don’t, all local gambling laws should be suspended for the day to permit vets to gather in taverns, pull a couple of tables together and spend the day playing poker, blackjack, craps, drinking and telling lewd lies about lewd experiences with lewd women. All bar prices should be rolled back to enlisted men’s club prices, Officers can pay the going rate, the stiffs.

– All anti-smoking laws will be suspended for Veterans Day. The same hold for all misdemeanor laws pertaining to disorderly conduct, non-felonious brawling, leering, gawking and any other gross and disgusting public behavior that does not harm another individual.

– It will be a treasonable offense for any spouse or live-in girlfriend (or boyfriend, if it applies) to utter the dreaded words: “What time will you be home tonight?”

– Anyone caught posing as a veteran will be required to eat a triple portion of chipped beef on toast, with Spam on the side, and spend the day watching a chaplain present a color-slide presentation on the horrors of VD.

– Regardless of how high his office, no politician who had the opportunity to serve in the military, but didn’t, will be allowed to make a patriotic speech, appear on TV, or poke his nose out of his office for the entire day.

Any politician who defies this ban will be required to spend 12 hours wearing headphones and listening to tapes of President Clinton explaining his deferments.

Now, deal the cards and pass the tequila.

– Mike Royko

Next, because this is a day of remembrance and of honoring our surviving veterans, take another moment to visit here and take in Mark Toomey’s piece.

And follow his advice at the end.

Who’s He Attacking?

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyer for the anonymous whistleblower behind the Trump Impeachment business, Andrew Bakaj, is upset with President Donald Trump.  You remember the lawyer: he’s the one who called for a coup, rebellion, and impeachment so early on in Trump’s administration.

A lawyer for the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint with the Inspector General over President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president sent a cease and desist lawyer to the White House Thursday, demanding Trump stop attacking his client….

Attacking whom, exactly? The whistleblower is an anonymous person….

How precious.

Free Speech vs No Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party vs the Republican Party.

Progressive-Democratic Party icon—and proud progressive—Hillary Clinton wants to ban free speech, and the first step is Twitter’s Jack Dorsey’s ban on the free speech of political advertising, done with her wholehearted and full throated support.

Twitter made the right decision to say, “Look, we don’t want to get into the judging game.” I think that should be the decision that Facebook makes as well.

Never mind that banning political ads—a form of the speech explicitly protected under the 1st Amendment—is a most fundamental bit of judging speech.  Note that Clinton desire to extend the ban to Facebook:

If you were to say to your expert engineers, our algorithms really favor the explosive, the inflammatory, the blatantly false, and we love to hook people into them and they seek more of it and then they get absolutely barraged by all of this information, we need to tweak the algorithms[.]

Never mind whose judgment—not that of us average Americans, whose judgment plainly is inadequate, we being merely a gang of deplorables—would be used to make those definitions of falseness; never mind whose judgment—certainly not our own—would be used to determine the badness of “inflammatory” or “explosive.” This is a move to protect the established, the elite, the Know Betters.

On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) objected to such limits on free speech.  He objected, as paraphrased by Fox News,

the new Twitter policy as an effort to undermine the First Amendment right to free speech.

He went on: the ban on political advertising—on a form of political speech—would

just amplify the already privileged speakers who already possess multimillion-dollar platforms. It would just help clear the field for those elites by denying the same tools to fledgling speakers who are not already famous.
[It does] not bolster our democracy. It would degrade democracy. It would amplify the advantage of media companies, celebrities, and certain other established elites while denying an important tool to the Americans who disagree with them[.]

There’s that judgment bit again, and how it would work were the Progressive-Democrats’ attack on our speech successful.  Of course Dorsey, Clinton, and Party leadership know this full well—they’re just after protecting their narrative and their positions atop the political pantheon.

And, with Dorsey’s established practice of censoring Conservative speech in general, a more insidiously subtle effort to expand that censorship.

Remember this next fall.