Contempt

Here is the plain, palpable contempt the Progressive-Democrats have for Republicans and for us average AmericansThis 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.

Stonewalling

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

Who’s He Attacking?

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

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:

How Terrible Is That?

Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Party’s MFWIC, has “accused” British PM Boris Johnson of pushing for US-style deregulation of health care.  The horror.

As the UK election campaigns got underway, Corbyn said his rival wanted to “unleash Thatcherism on steroids” once the country was no longer bound by EU trading treaties and regulations.

Channeling our own Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT), Corbyn thinks “capitalism” is a dirty word.

He went further:

Corbyn also said…that Johnson wants to strike a trade deal with US President Donald Trump to sell off parts of the UK’s National Health Service, or make it easier for US pharmaceutical firms and medical companies to sell into the UK healthcare market.

Ambassadorships

Unable to make a case against President Donald Trump for anything else that’s remotely impeachable, House Progressive-Democrats now are going to obsess over our erstwhile Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s removal from her post.

There are some questions that won’t be asked on this matter, though, whether by Congressman Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) Star Chamber inquisitors or by anyone in the NLMSM.

  1. Is an ambassadorship a lifetime sinecure?
  2. Who appoints (subject to Senate confirmation) our ambassadors?
  3. For whom does any ambassador work—what’s his chain of command?

And, given accurate answers to those questions,

They’re Only Uighurs

People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and his government henchmen are sending their representatives to “sleep with” the wives of Uighurs whose husbands have been interred in the PRC’s concentration camps reeducation locations for the crime of being Muslim.

The excuse for this?

Party officials who are called “relatives” (but not actually related) visit Uighur families every two months, stay for up to a week, and in some reported instances, share a bed with the women, [Radio Free Asia] reported.

Because, says a PRC Government Man,

Boeing and Foolish Questions

In a Wall Street Journal article on the tortuous path to criminal prosecution that prosecutors would have in bringing Boeing to criminal trial over its 737 MAX crashes, Andrew Tangel, Jacob Gershman, and Andy Pasztor asked what seems to me to be a very narrow, short-sighted question.

Should prosecutors weigh Boeing’s importance to the economy and national security when deciding how to proceed with a criminal case over the 737 MAX crashes?

Of course prosecutors should—must—not. What’s truly important is the concept of weighing the risks to liberty and to national security of criminals being too big to be punished. We can never allow such a thing to enter even the run-up to criminal prosecutions.

Separating Blue and Red America

A growing number of local television stations across the country are reviving an older practice of broadcasting our national anthem once a day, pairing it with all-American imagery that further celebrates our nation.

Gray and Nexstar executives [two of the companies whose stations have revived broadcasting our anthem] said the reason to bring back the anthem was simple: encouraging national unity at a time of deep division in the country[.]

The stations broadcast our anthem in the wee hours of the morning, reminiscent of how our stations used to sign off for the night around midnight, broadcasting our anthem and showing imagery as part of the sign-off.

Kamala Harris on Racism

Julio Gonzalez makes an excellent point regarding Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidate and Senator (D, CA) Kamala Harris’ attitude about voters.

Kamala Harris says her campaign is failing because people aren’t ready for a woman of color to be president.
The funny part is, this is the primary, not the general election.
So the people she is accusing of racism are Democratic primary voters.

To which I add: Harris is projecting.