And:
Why the impeachment: and an excellent record for accuracy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First, we were told it was the Russians who Trump was in cahoots with. Then we found out it was actually Hillary, the DNC and probably Obama acting through Clapper and Brennan.
When the air went out of that balloon the next trial balloon became the conversation with Ukraine and all the lies and corruption but it actually turned out to be Biden and his sun who were conniving with gutting a Ukrainian investigator fired while Biden's son was being paid large sums to serve on a Ukrainian Energy company. Maybe not illegal but certainly it was inappropriate.
Another balloon burst.
So the witch hunt re-focused on a telephone conversation verified by a whistle blower who was not actually present but did meet with the committee head who lied and mis-characterized, in a parody, actual comments made by the president and revealed on a taped conversation produced by the president.
Another balloon fizzled.
So another whistle blower was produced and that amounted to little so, , a third is now surfacing, I am led to believe, along with testimony by various State Department officials who, allegedly and for various reasons, have it in for Trump.
Schiff face's Gulag effort is conducted in secret. Then everything negative is leaked to the accommodating mass media.. Where is the respect for the rule of law for old fashioned justice? Trump remains trapped under The House' hoof of hate.
Once the "witch hunt" breaks in the open, the Durham report is finally released and the Clorox of the rule of law is allowed to function, as intended, the truth will reveal itself and I suspect the Democrats will rue the day. Why? Because the voters will eventually be revulsed by the underhanded efforts of the Trump haters.
I know Trump stretches the truth. I know Trump is vulgar and often un-presidential. I know Trump does not always listen to sound advice.I know Trump is probably insecure and I know he was duly elected in one of the most amazing political events in American history.
I know Trump is unlike any president we ever elected. I know and know. and know.
Now for you Trump haters, tell me what you like or even find objectionable about Biden, Hillary, Pocahontas, and Bernie or the other assorted lower rung of declared Democrat candidates. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Something nice for a change Inspiring stories
This Is Anthony Borges. He Used His Body To Hold A Classroom Door Shut During The Florida School Shooting, Protecting 20 Other Students Inside As The Gunman Fired Through The Door, Hitting Him Five Times. May He Have A Speedy Recovery
Firefighters In Arizona helping Put Out A Mexican Fire
When You Reach 100 Years Old In Barbados, You Get A Stamp In Your Honor.
A Middle School Started A "Breakfast With Dads" Program. But Many Dads Couldn't Make It. And Several Students Didn't Have Father Figures. The School Posted A Facebook Request For 50 Volunteer Fathers. 600 Fathers From All Backgrounds Showed Up.
Every Morning, My Father Places Bird Food In The Yard For My Mother To Wake Up On This View.
The Bride's Father Died Ten Years Ago And His Heart Was Donated. The Man Who Received The Transplant Walked Her Down The Aisle.
"Life Gave Me The Gift Of You" - Marine's 4 Year Old Son Cries Tears Of Joy After Hearing New Step-Mom's Vows For Him.
This Old Lady Goes To The Supermarket To Read Books All The Time So The Manager Installed A Little Bench For Her.
Pictures and the moments they capture like these, ease the angst created by current news.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Turks gassing Kurds? Seems they are or were. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do voting comments give insight? Does Tulsi and Hillary's confrontation have relevance? (See 2 and 2a below.).)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pompeo willing to use force against Turks? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Kellyann Conway about to become Chief of Staff?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why grandpa carries a gun. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Schiff head and Pelosi hiding everything they can. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Turks Using Chemical Weapons Against Kurdish Civilians
By Clarion Project
Turkey is using chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians, according to numerous reports, including the Kurdish Red Crescent, which sent a report directly to Clarion Project yesterday.
Horrific burns sustained from skin exposure to white phosphorous have been documented in adults and children alike in Syrian-Kurdish hospitals. The bombs containing the suspected substance were dropped in the border town of Ras al-Ayn
The allegations were made before the U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement, which appears to be a sham.
Numerous pictures showing gruesome wounds were on social media and in the media. Newsweek magazine quoted British chemical weapons expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who told the outlet, “This very much looks like it was caused by white phosphorus. In 24 hours, I have been shown more photographs of these kinds of burn than at any recent stage in Syria’s war.
“White phosphorus is a horrific weapon, which can be delivered by aircraft or artillery. It reacts to the moisture in the skin in a way that intensifies its burning, so that water cannot put it out.”
The substance was also documented by Mustafa Bali, head of media relations for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Kurdish-led, combined force opposing the Turks in Syria.
White phosphorus can be used (legally) for flares and smokescreens but is prohibited for use in civilian-populated areas by Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.
Since the reports surfaced, they have yet to be confirmed by U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which claims it is “aware of the situation in northern Syria and is collecting information at OPCW Headquarters.”
Newsweek noted that Turkey recently donated €30,000 to the OPCW for construction of a new facility for the organization, implying that this may be the reason the reason the OPCW is allegedly dragging its feet in the investigation.
For its part, Turkey has denied using the weapons, accusing instead the Kurds – who they considered terrorists – of staging the attack on themselves.
“We received information that terrorist organizations, after using chemical weapons on themselves, will throw the blame onto our armed forces and try to create perception,” Turkish Minister of National Defense Hulusi Akar said.
As reported in the New York Post, “While [Turkish president Tayyip Recep Erdogan] attempted to stylize his military invasion of Rojava [the Kurdish area in Syria on the Turkish border] as a counterterrorism operation, few international observers bought into it. Why? Because there have been no terror attacks against Turkey from Syrian territory since the Syrian Kurds established their self-governing entity in 2012. None.”
RELATED STORIES
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Opening of the American Voter’s Mind
Nearly one-third say their presidential vote will depend on the Democratic nominee.
A voter in Glen Allen, Va., Nov. 6, 2018. Photo: michael reynolds/epa-efe/rex/
In an era of political polarization, most pundits believe persuadable voters are near extinction and base mobilization is the key to victory. The annual Public Religion Research Institute/Brookings Institution American Values survey released on Monday suggests this view is wrong.
Among registered voters, 29% say that they will support Donald Trump no matter who the Democratic candidate turns out to be, and 40% say they will support the Democrat no matter what. But 29% say their vote will depend on which candidate the Democrats select. Among likely voters, the “it depends” group makes up 24% of the electorate, compared with 43% who are committed to the Democratic nominee and 31% who are committed to Mr. Trump.
Because Democrats have more “wasted” votes in solidly blue states than Republicans do in comparable red states, they need more than a plurality of the popular vote to prevail, as they learned in 2016. Barack Obama’s 51% majority and 4-point popular-vote edge gave him a comfortable Electoral College victory in 2012.
The 2020 Democratic nominee will likely need a majority of the popular vote to win. Simple math shows that to reach this majority, the Democrat will need to earn the support of at least 29% of “it depends” voters. Although this might seem to be a low bar, the PRRI/Brookings poll finds that only three contenders now cross it—Joe Biden comfortably, with 36%; Elizabeth Warren, less comfortably, with 32%; and Bernie Sanders just barely, with 29%. No one else even reaches 15%. Because “it depends” voters tend to be less informed, their preferences may change if another candidate attracts their attention by breaking through in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Who are these neglected but crucial voters? Fifty-four percent are independents, and 61% call themselves moderate. Only 25% have college degrees, compared with 45% among those committed to the Democratic nominee. More than half earn less than $50,000 a year, and nearly half identify themselves as working-class or lower-class. Sixty-five percent are under 50, compared with 54% of all Americans, and 23% are Hispanic, vs. 7% for committed Trump supporters.
“It depends” voters are hardly bullish on America’s condition and leadership. Sixty-seven percent think the country has gotten seriously off on the wrong track. Just 27% have a favorable impression of Mr. Trump, and only 33% approve of the job he is doing. Seventy-two percent say Mr. Trump has damaged the dignity of the presidency, and 66% report his personal conduct makes them less likely to support him. (By contrast, 67% have a favorable impression of Mr. Obama, and 70% approve of the job he did as president.)
Nevertheless, these “it depends” voters were split down the middle on whether Mr. Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Among the likely voters in this group, only 42% favored impeachment and removal, while 57% were opposed. Weeks after the news about Ukraine broke and began spilling into public view, many “it depends” voters who disapprove of Mr. Trump as both a person and a president are yet to be persuaded that the facts warrant the most severe congressional response.
Those voters don’t espouse the harshly partisan views characteristic of the rest of the electorate. They believe that Democrats are trying to make capitalism work for average Americans, not turning to socialism, and that Republicans are trying to protect the American way of life against outside threats, not embracing racism.
For the most part, they steer a middle course between partisan extremes. On the one hand, they reject most Republican views on immigration, climate change, relations between the sexes, abortion and discrimination against white Americans. On the other hand, they believe that the Confederate flag symbolizes Southern pride rather than racism and overwhelmingly reject reparations for descendants of slaves. They favor neither sanctuary cities nor government-provided health benefits for immigrants illegally in the country.
Underlying the self-professed moderation of “it depends” voters is a complex blend of attitudes. Compared with most Democrats, they lean toward traditionalism on religious and cultural issues and toward conservatism on security issues. Compared with most Republicans, they lean toward progressivism on bread-and-butter issues such as jobs, health care and higher-education costs.
In short, these voters who may well decide the election don’t fit the profile of either Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters or the Democrats’ most fervent progressives. They are closest to the New Deal liberals who dominated the Democratic Party when it enjoyed a governing majority.
It would be one of the ironies of American history if electoral reality forces the Democratic Party to endorse the brand of liberalism that so many of its members scorn as timid and obsolete. It would be a tragedy for the country and the world if Democrats ignore this reality by embracing cultural views that a majority of Americans cannot accept.
2a) The Hillary-Tulsi Fault Line
Their feud could foretell trouble for Democrats in 2020.
By Ted Rall
Why would Hillary Clinton attack the 11th-place Democratic presidential candidate, currently polling at 1.2%? In an interview last week Mrs. Clinton said the Russians have “their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.”
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii replied on Twitter: “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.” The Clinton-Gabbard spat illuminates the underlying conflict between the grassroots progressive left and the centrists who still dominate the Democratic Party’s leadership and donor class.
Democrats want to avoid a repeat of 2016, when enough progressives didn’t vote for Mrs. Clinton to keep her from winning. Beating Mr. Trump is all that matters, the blue-no-matter-who corporatists insist. Progressives reply by asking how that worked out in 2016.
One nearly invisible Democratic fault line concerns the president. Progressives don’t like Mr. Trump and disagree with most of his policies. But there is important common ground. Like the president, progressives favor economic nationalism—putting American workers first and bringing back high-paid manufacturing jobs. They also want to end the post-9/11 forever wars, close overseas military bases, and avoid new wars of choice.
Whereas centrist Democrats ranted about Russia like Joe McCarthy, many progressives welcomed the prospect of warmer U.S.-Russian relations. They also hoped for the best when Mr. Trump held talks with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Centrists denounced them as appeasement.
Curiously, Mr. Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria brought lockstep condemnation from Democrats. Mr. Biden called this abandonment of the Kurds “the most shameful thing any president has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy.” (What about the Iraq war?) Elizabeth Warren allowed that “I don’t think we should have troops in the Middle East,” but added, “We have to do it the right way, the smart way.”
House Democrats voted unanimously for a resolution opposing the pullout from Syria. Ms. Gabbard was absent, but she too criticized Mr. Trump’s decision as precipitous. She also called the subsequent Turkish attack “yet another negative consequence of the regime-change war we’ve been waging in Syria.”
Opposition to Mr. Trump’s pullout may not be as widespread as the candidates imagine. In a Rasmussen poll, 55% of Democrats (and 69% of Republicans) agreed that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.” The pollster didn’t identify the speaker of those words—Mr. Trump.
Democrats may be setting themselves up for a loss by being so disciplined in opposing the president. When progressive votes are vital for victory, attacking the president for trying to leave a smaller footprint in the Middle East isn’t a smart move.
Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist and author of “Francis: The People’s Pope,” the latest in his series of graphic novel-format biographies. He is an occasional contributor to SputnikNews.com.
Main Street: Hillary Clinton's suggestion that Democratic Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard is a "Russian asset" may have the opposite effect on a candidate who's languishing at the bottom of the polls. Image: AP/Getty Composite: Mark Kelly
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Mike Pompeo: Trump ready to use force
Against Turkey ‘if needed’
By ROSSELLA TERCATIN
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the Trump administration's decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria but added that if needed, they would be prepared to use military force against Turkey, even though "we prefer peace."
In an interview that aired on CNBC on Monday, Pompeo was asked how the recent move by the administration was consistent with his previous criticism of former US President Barack Obama. In the past, the secretary attacked Obama for failing to act over the violation of the red-line the president himself had drawn against Syrian leader Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons.
The interviewer Wilfred Frost also quoted to Pompeo a speech he gave saying that "West Point taught me a basic code of integrity: if we commit American prestige to an action our allies depend on us to follow through."
Pompeo claimed that the case was "fundamentally different."
"Turkey didn't — the country that Turkey invaded, they conducted an incursion into, is Syria, a sovereign nation. We worked with Kurdish friends, the SDF up and down the Euphrates River," he responded.
"We jointly took down the threat of the Caliphate of ISIS," Pompeo added. "It was to the benefit of the SDF, it was to the benefit of the United States of America, and indeed, to the benefit of the world. The commitment that we made to work alongside them we completely fulfilled."
He further stated that the US continues to fulfill its commitment to counter ISIS all over the world.
Turkey launched its cross-border offensive on Oct. 9, saying it aimed to set up a roughly 30 km (20 miles) "safe zone" along 440 km of border, driving back Kurdish-led forces and preparing to settle up to 2 million Syrian refugees it currently hosts.
The Turkish offensive, currently halted for a 120-hour pause which expires late on Tuesday, has focused on two Syrian border towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain, which lie roughly in the middle of the border strip Turkey is targeting.
According to the Kurdish authorities, the operation has killed over 215 civilians, including several children.
Pompeo said that Turkey's incursion happened against Trump's wishes and that the US entered into a conversation with Ankara to "reduce the risk to the very people you suggested we somehow abandoned."
When asked whether the Kurds are not a sovereign nation meant that their land and their lives could be sacrificed, Pompeo said that the work that they did aimed precisely at the opposite result, and that he was "fully convinced that that work saved lives."
"Not only the lives of the [Syrian Democratic Forces] fighters, but the ethnic minorities in the region," Pompeo added.
The secretary did not enter into details of what it would take for Washington to use military force against Turkey, a NATO member. He said that their preference goes to economic and diplomatic powers, but they would nonetheless e ready also to resume to force.
"We prefer peace to war," Pompeo told CNBC. "But in the event that kinetic action or military action is needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action."
Pompeo said that being partners in NATO did not mean to be consistent with what America wishes. He brought the position on Iran and the nuclear deal as an example.
"You have seen NATO partners taking a very different approach to the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. We think it's terrible. Three of our closest friends chose a different path. It doesn't mean that you break off a relationship."
In an interview that aired on CNBC on Monday, Pompeo was asked how the recent move by the administration was consistent with his previous criticism of former US President Barack Obama. In the past, the secretary attacked Obama for failing to act over the violation of the red-line the president himself had drawn against Syrian leader Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons.
The interviewer Wilfred Frost also quoted to Pompeo a speech he gave saying that "West Point taught me a basic code of integrity: if we commit American prestige to an action our allies depend on us to follow through."
Pompeo claimed that the case was "fundamentally different."
"Turkey didn't — the country that Turkey invaded, they conducted an incursion into, is Syria, a sovereign nation. We worked with Kurdish friends, the SDF up and down the Euphrates River," he responded.
"We jointly took down the threat of the Caliphate of ISIS," Pompeo added. "It was to the benefit of the SDF, it was to the benefit of the United States of America, and indeed, to the benefit of the world. The commitment that we made to work alongside them we completely fulfilled."
He further stated that the US continues to fulfill its commitment to counter ISIS all over the world.
Turkey launched its cross-border offensive on Oct. 9, saying it aimed to set up a roughly 30 km (20 miles) "safe zone" along 440 km of border, driving back Kurdish-led forces and preparing to settle up to 2 million Syrian refugees it currently hosts.
The Turkish offensive, currently halted for a 120-hour pause which expires late on Tuesday, has focused on two Syrian border towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain, which lie roughly in the middle of the border strip Turkey is targeting.
According to the Kurdish authorities, the operation has killed over 215 civilians, including several children.
Pompeo said that Turkey's incursion happened against Trump's wishes and that the US entered into a conversation with Ankara to "reduce the risk to the very people you suggested we somehow abandoned."
When asked whether the Kurds are not a sovereign nation meant that their land and their lives could be sacrificed, Pompeo said that the work that they did aimed precisely at the opposite result, and that he was "fully convinced that that work saved lives."
"Not only the lives of the [Syrian Democratic Forces] fighters, but the ethnic minorities in the region," Pompeo added.
The secretary did not enter into details of what it would take for Washington to use military force against Turkey, a NATO member. He said that their preference goes to economic and diplomatic powers, but they would nonetheless e ready also to resume to force.
"We prefer peace to war," Pompeo told CNBC. "But in the event that kinetic action or military action is needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action."
Pompeo said that being partners in NATO did not mean to be consistent with what America wishes. He brought the position on Iran and the nuclear deal as an example.
"You have seen NATO partners taking a very different approach to the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. We think it's terrible. Three of our closest friends chose a different path. It doesn't mean that you break off a relationship."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)WHY GRANDPA ROBBINS CARRIES A GUN...
4)WHY GRANDPA ROBBINS CARRIES A GUN...
A world history lesson...lest we forget.
The quintessential reason why Grandpa Robbins carries a gun. Please take time to read this and pay particular attention to "A Little Gun History" about half way down.
Why Carry a Gun?
My old Grandpa said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take a whipping.
I don't carry a gun to kill people; I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil; I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the World.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government; I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry; I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone; I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man; I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate; I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it; I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police protection is an oxymoron: Free citizens must protect themselves because police do not protect you from crime; they just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in t o clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take a whoopin'!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Why Pelosi & Schiff Are Delaying Trump Impeachment
By PULSE Daily News
Many are starting to ask what’s the real story behind the Democratic effort to impeach President Donald Trump with the intent to remove him from office before the 2020 elections.
From the moment it was announced that Trump won the Electoral College vote, a number of Democrats boldly announced that they would do everything in their power to remove Trump from office. Among them were Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
From the onset of the Robert Mueller special council investigation of Trump and Russia, Schiff regularly announced that he had overwhelming evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia to win the 2016 election. Yet, after nearly 2 years of intensive investigation by Mueller and his hired team of hitmen, Schiff NEVER produced the evidence he claimed to have. It was his perfect opportunity to accomplish his goal of ridding the nation of Trump, but since he never produced said evidence, one can only conclude that he never had any and that he was just blowing hot air and lying as usual, but that’s business as usual for Schiff.
When it became known that Trump contacted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to insist that he launch an investigation into the dealings of Joe and Hunter Biden, Schiff again began making loud declarations and promises. He was one of those instrumental in launching the current impeachment process after reviewing the information he obtained from the whistleblower. Then on at least four occasions, Schiff denied ever seeing the information, something that even Democrat-friendly media outlets had to admit were blatant lies.
Now, many Democrats and the sewagestream media are calling on the Democratic leaders of the House (Pelosi and Schiff) to call for an impeachment vote from the full house membership. One would expect that if Pelosi and Schiff were certain of their damning evidence against Trump that they would rush to call a full floor vote, but instead, they seem to be the very ones stalling such a vote, as reported:
America’s top two Trump-hating newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have now both called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote of the full House of Representatives to make the “impeachment inquiry” truly official — and to set rules like those for the inquiries targeting Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, so that the minority party and the White House weren’t totally sidelined.
So far, though, Pelosi and her impeachment pointman, Rep. Adam Schiff, are moving the opposite way.
President Trump and other Republicans have been complaining about Schiff’s decision to hold most hearings behind closed doors, yet the Intelligence Committee chief opted for even greater secrecy in last Friday’s questioning of Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine — conducting it as a deposition, which makes it a criminal offense for either side to discuss her answers.
That keeps even the rest of the House in the dark about everything except the opening statement Yovanovitch made public.
Schiff is going to even greater lengths when it comes to the whistleblower whose complaint launched this whole … adventure. He might not even have the guy testify — which would remove any chance for anyone to probe his motives and biases.
This, when Schiff has admitted that, contrary to his earlier account, his staff was in touch with the whistleblower before he’d even begun to file his complaint.
Why are Schiff and Pelosi stalling their own impeachment inquiry into their mortal political enemy, Donald Trump? Could it be that the information they have is not sufficient to justify the impeachment proceedings? Could it be that by some weird circumstance that one or both them accidentally read the Constitution and the rights given to the President?
Personally, Schiff is as trustworthy as the stereotyped ‘used car salesman or rip-ff mechanic’ and he’s just blowing steam and telling the same old lies he’s been telling every since Trump was elected.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment