Friday, September 27, 2019

Unless America Is Liberated From The Corruption of Progressive Liberals We Are A Doomed Nation.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We will soon celebrate the 20th anniversary of Newt's "Contract With America."  The liberals attacked him, and Time Magazine called him "The Grinch Whole Stole Christmas."

Liberals and their mass media twins have been at character assassination a long time and keep perfecting it.  Ask Kavanaugh. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Random conclusions I have gleaned from the Ukraine episode.  Not in any particular order of importance.(See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From a friend and fellow memo reader. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Overview:
The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
The Contract with America was introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election, the first mid-term election of President Bill Clinton's Administration, and was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House and all of the Party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates.

Proponents say the Contract was revolutionary in its commitment to offering specific legislation for a vote, describing in detail the precise plan of the Congressional Representatives, and broadly nationalizing the Congressional election. Furthermore, its provisions represented the view of many conservative Republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and greater entrepreneurial activity, and both tort reform and welfare reform. Critics of the Contract describe it as a political ploy and election tool designed to have broad appeal while masking the Republicans' real agenda and failing to provide real legislation or governance.

The 1994 elections resulted in Republicans gaining 54 House and 9 U.S. Senate seats. When the Republicans gained this majority of seats in the 104th Congress, the Contract was seen as a triumph by party leaders such as Minority Whip Newt GingrichDick Armey, and the American conservative movement
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
 a) O'Rourke is intemperate.
b) Scheer is a sniveling p---- and liar. He had to recast the conversation by putting his own words in Trump's mouth.
c) Trump often talks before he thinks of the ramifications.
d) Trump said America comes first and he acts accordingly.

e) I suspect the whistle blower is a set up just like Kavanaugh's accuser..

f) We know only the corrupt Democrats can investigateTrump.  Any law violations by their gum shoes, Hillary etc. are off the table yet, we also now know Ukraine was the genesis of the entire Russian Collusion game set up by the DNC and Hillary.

g) The Democrats wanted to impeach Trump several days after he won so this is the culmination of previously failed efforts.

h) The Legislative branch is always trying to clip the wings of the President.


i) Democrats are trying to do legislate what they could not accomplish at the ballot box.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
g) I could go on and on with what I and any thoughtful person should have learned from this effort to bring Trump down but I will let it go and end here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ .
g) Democrats are being driven by hatred and will pay dearly at the polls.
h) Democrats are indifferent to the fact that Trump is actively engaged in two serious nuclear and two trade negotiations and seem not to care about the impact of their actions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
"SIX LITTLE STORIES." 

             {1}  Once all villagers decided to  pray for rain     On

  THE day of prayer he came  with an umbrella. That's faith.
    
     {2}     When you throw babies in the air,   they laugh

because they know you will catch them.That's TRUST.
    
    {3}     Every night we go to bed  without any assurance of

being alive the next morning,   but still we set the alarms to

wake  up.That's HOPE.
    
   {4}     We plan big things for tomorrow   in spite of zero

knowledge of the future.That's CONFIDENCE
    
  {5}     We see the world suffering,  but still we get married

have children.That's LOVE.
    
  {6}     On an old man's shirt was written a sentence 'I am not

80 years old;   I am sweet 16 with 64 years of experience.That's

ATTITUDE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm Going To Hell Because I am A Conservative.



Max does not know how to frown.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Jewish New Year Begins Sunday evening (Rosh Hashanah). The theory is God has already decided who will live, who will die and in what manner. You have 10 days to temper your fate. (Yom Kippur .This is the day you are supposed to fast.)

I suspect,because I am a conservative, have nothing but contempt for the likes of the Nadler, Schiff and Schumer types, I am going to hell.  That said, I am going to restrain sending daily memos not because I believe it will change my fate but out of respect to my fellow Jews.

I have always believed my own conduct is a reflection on the community .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PC'ism has already had a serious impact on logic and reason as well as harming/weakening  the American Character If allowed to continue  it could completely destroy us. (See 1 and 1a below - a repeat posting)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Democrats not only want to impeach Trump but also would like to cripple future presidents from conducting foreign, and possibly even domestic, policy.  Obviously, Trump Haters remain in key positions in our vast intelligence apparatus  Listening to president conversations,in order to blow whistles based on some whim or biased opinion, should not be taken likely.

Secondly, presidents should care about how allies spend funding from America. It is their responsibility to make sure there is no corruption on the part of recipient nations.

Third, Trump released the Ukraine conversation so he did not impede it's publication.

Fourth, that Trump wanted information on an opponent who, obviously, allowed his son to become a highly paid director of a major company in a nation when the father was also the vice president of our country does raise serious questions and should be reviewed. Then when the father boasts about getting someone fired who was investigating his son and denies he even discussed the matter, while both were on a flight that took many hours, really takes an idiot to believe the father's denial.

As Kim Strassel pointed out in her Friday Column, the Democrats first tried to  hang Trump with rope from the Mueller Investigation and when that did not work the Ukraine telephone conversation became another gift from God.

Apparently, the whistle blower was assisted in his report by adversary lawyers- AKA Steele Dossier payment by a law firm close to Hillary and the DNC.

Then, of course, we have the constant Democrat drum beat effort to impeach Trump from day one because their candidate blew her chance by insulting coal miners , arrogantly calling potential voters deplorables and finally assuming voters in certain states would automatically vote for her because of who she was.
Democrats not only want to impeach Trump but also would like to cripple future presidents from conducting foreign, and possibly even domestic, policy.  Obviously, Trump Haters remain in key positions in our vast intelligence apparatus  Listening to president conversations,in order to blow whistles based on some whim or biased opinion, should not be taken likely.

Secondly, presidents should care about how allies spend funding from America. It is their responsibility to make sure there is no corruption on the part of recipient nations.

Apparently, Democrats believe  American voters are so gullible, and their brains so fried, they will overlook the hypocrisy and lies by the likes of Schumer, Nadler, Pelosi and Schiff et al.  It would appear the Trump Haters fear Trump might win in 2020 and thus, they do not trust the system and WE THE PEOPLE. These are the same radicals who want to take our guns, keep our borders open, and tag everyone with racial accusations when their insane ideas and programs  are challenged and you know the rest.

Pelosi looks like a female matador who is being gored by the 4 "female bulls" she allowed to take over her party and thus, she fears calling for impeaching Trump but accepts allowing his slower death by a thousand cuts.

The Democrat Party has become the Party of Impeachment, character assassination, lies, hypocrisy, deceit and contempt for our Constitution and capitalistic economic system.  America is not perfect but freedom and our sense of right and wrong has allowed us to correct mistakes we have made. No other nation has done more for more. Ironically, those who hate America refuse to move to the very countries they seek to make America become like. They propose Americans  embrace Venezuelan socialism  yet, seem blind to that nation's collapse. Obviously, they oppose Trump's desire to Make America Great Again but have nothing compelling to offer by way of a rational alternative.

Trump has made his mistakes, he has proved to be a diamond in the rough president but he also has dedicated himself to floating the boat so all Americans benefit from his policies. He has done so against odds unlike any president has faced in my lifetime. He deserves better than the poison the"enemies of America"  have chosen to dish out and if they continue along their current path of hatred  the odds favor his re-election.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Is regulation of anti-Semitism on campus censorship?

Trump’s education department may withhold federal grants to Middle East studies departments that promote anti-Semitism. Why aren’t Jews cheering?
As far as President Donald Trump’s liberal critics are concerned, this is just the latest instance of his administration’s hostility to free speech. The Department of Education announced earlier this month that it had ordered the Middle East studies department run jointly by Duke University and the University of North Carolina to revamp the curriculum it was offering students. If the schools’ consortium that runs the program doesn’t comply, it will lose the federal grant money it gets under Title VI of the 1964 Higher Education Act.
As far as most academics are concerned, the government’s unprecedented intervention in course material is an outrage and infringement on academic freedom. Yet what really riled up the critics are the reasons for the demand. The Department of Education said the course offering of the consortium advanced an agenda that glorified Islam and ignored other faiths in the Mideast. The program also promoted BDS activities, including a conference that was tainted by anti-Semitic rhetoric on the part of speakers.
Yet rather than being portrayed as a necessary action in which the administration sought to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to promote a skewed view of the world and promote hate, the Department of Education’s letter has received scathing coverage from outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, as well as academic publications. Even more bizarrely, a column in the Forward denounced the government effort as not merely Islamophobic, but reminiscent of Nazi regime’s censorship of German scholars.
What can explain this kind of grossly inflammatory language, as well as the massive pushback against this move?
In the current divisive political atmosphere, anything that the Trump administration does—whether good, bad or indifferent—is always going to be shoehorned into a narrative in which its work is denounced as evidence of criminal behavior and/or authoritarianism by its liberal and Democratic critics. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has been a particular target of scorn from the “resistance.” Kenneth Marcus, the head of the department’s civil-rights bureau, has gotten similar treatment. The Times snidely referred to him in an article on the North Carolina controversy as someone “who has made a career of pro-Israel advocacy,” which is an interesting way to refer to someone whose career has been focused on fighting anti-Semitism.
But the real problem is that the government’s action is based on the recognition that Middle East studies in the United States has become a safe space for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic coursework and programming masquerading as scholarship. Within these departments, support for anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic BDS campaigns has become a form of orthodoxy that teachers and students dare not challenge. This was brilliantly exposed by Martin Kramer in his 2001 book Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle East Studies in America, and the situation has only grown worse since then.
Yet is it the government’s business to police this lamentable situation?
Small government conservatives, as well as libertarians and liberals, might be inclined to answer “no.” The last thing anyone should want is for federal bureaucrats vetting or censoring academic offerings. Yet, if there is to be federal department of education dispensing money to schools throughout the country, why shouldn’t it monitor how funds are being spent?
The federal government is quite vigilant about policing the use of grant money when it comes to possible discriminatory conduct or practices. The same is true for a host of other issues relating to federal preferences about a wide array of conduct and agendas. Why then would monitoring anti-Semitism be the one topic on which Washington should stay mum? It is widely understood that anything that smacks of condoning racism or prejudice against other minorities would result in the loss of federal grants. But anti-Semitism operating under the veil of Middle East studies has had impunity.
That has been the way the Department of Education and the federal government have treated instances of anti-Semitism up until 2017. For instance, the Obama administration ignored many anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses during its eight years in office and dismissed calls (from people like Marcus) for it to use the threat of loss of federal funding to force those responsible to act. It was only after DeVos and Marcus were appointed to their posts by Trump that the Department of Education began to take an active interest in the way hatred of Jews has found a home on some campuses and especially within departments focused on the Middle East.
These departments, like the one operated by Duke and UNC, are free to go on teaching the history of the Middle East in a manner that treats the presence of Christians and Jews there as illegitimate, or to promote BDS and other forms of anti-Semitism. They have a choice. If they don’t want federal criticism, all they have to do is to give up the money they get from the federal government or any other entity that seeks to uphold the standards of decency one would not think has to be imposed on such elite institutions. Indeed, there are plenty of Middle East governments, such as that of Qatar, whose Muslim Brotherhood-run foundation is happy to dispense money to American institutions while promoting a very different agenda than that of the administration.
But if they do so, they can’t pretend that they are responsible scholars or anything other than promoters of hate.
What Trump’s Department of Education has done is neither Islamophobic nor an unconscionable interference in academia worthy of an authoritarian regime. It’s merely upholding the values and principles that liberal academics claim to support.
For this, it is denounced by Jewish publications and groups, like the Anti-Defamation League, that claim to defend the community from anti-Semitism and are now silent when they should be speaking up in defense of the administration. Whatever you may think of Trump or DeVos, the Jewish community should be standing with the administration on this issue. The failure to do so is nothing short of a disgrace.

1a)

The death of American citizenship

By Victor Davis Hanson

The American founders institutionalized the best of a long Western tradition of representative government with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. These contracts outlined the rare privileges and responsibilities of new American citizens.
Yet the concept of citizenship is being assaulted on the premodern side by the legal blending of mere residency with citizenship.

Estimates of the number of undocumented American residents range from 11 million to more than 20 million. The undocumented are becoming legally indistinguishable from citizens and enjoy exemption from federal immigration law in some 500 sanctuary jurisdictions. An illegal resident of California will pay substantially less tuition at a California public university than a U.S. citizen of another state.

Multiculturalism has reduced the idea of e pluribus unum to a regressive tribalism. Americans often seem to owe their first allegiance to those who look like they do. Citizens cannot even agree over once-hallowed and shared national holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July.

It is eerie how such current American retribalization resembles the collapse of Rome, as Goths, Huns and Vandals all squabbled among one another for what was left of 1,200 years of Roman citizenship -- eager to destroy what they could neither create nor emulate.
Citizenship has always been protected by the middle classes -- on the idea that they are more independent and self-reliant than the poor, but can stand up to the influence and power of the elite.

Yet until recently, we had seen a decade of stagnant wages and entire regions ossified by outsourcing, offshoring and unfair global trade. Historically, with the demise of the middle class so follows the end of constitutional government.
But citizenship also faces a quite different and even greater postmodern threat.
Many of our coastal elites see nothing much exceptional in America, past and present. They prefer the culture and values of the European Union without worrying that the EU's progressive utopian promises have been wrecked by open borders, economically stultifying regulations, and unapologetic and anti-democratic efforts to curb free expression and local autonomy.
Often, such "citizen of the world" mentalities fuel shame over the origins and traditions of America. Transnational organizations and accords on climate, criminal justice and human rights are seen as superior to their American counterparts.
A new progressive iconoclasm seeks to destroy statues, rename streets and buildings, and wipe away art that does not reflect more global values.

Does voting -- the bedrock right of the democratic citizen -- matter that much anymore? In California, tens of thousands of votes were "harvested" by paid campaign operatives. There was also abuse in state agencies in sending out voter registration forms to those who were not legally entitled to vote.

Lone activist federal judges frequently overturn legislation and referenda they find contrary to their own political take on legal theory -- without worry that the votes of millions are canceled in a nanosecond.

Meanwhile, the proverbial "swamp" of the bureaucratic, administrative and regulatory state is so vast and unaccountable that a few clerks can harass entrepreneurs, issue edicts with the force of legislation that ruins lives, or indict, regulate or audit a targeted individual into legal bankruptcy.

In recent years, we have seen a cake maker, a video maker, and a national security adviser so hounded by federal bureaucrats that they either were nearly bankrupted, ended up in jail or were reduced to penury through legal costs.

We still have a Bill of Rights, but many of our constitutional protections are being rendered impotent. If a rural family cannot find ammunition at the local Walmart or gun store due to organized boycotts and threats to such establishments, then the constitutional right to bear arms is not always exercisable in a practical sense.

Brett Kavanaugh was nominated, audited and confirmed by the Senate as a Supreme Court justice. But if the New York Times and cable news can relentlessly charge without proof that nearly 40 years ago he was a teenage sexual pervert, then a distinguished judge can be rendered impotent without legal impeachment.

If a student cannot safely express opposition to abortion on demand, question the global warming narrative, or object to safe spaces, trigger warnings and race-based theme houses on campuses, does it matter that there is in theory still a First Amendment?

We are unwinding at both ends. Tribalism, the erosion of the middle class and de facto open borders are turning Americans into mere residents of a particular North American region between Mexico and Canada.

Yet even more dangerously, thanks to the fiats of unelected bureaucrats and officials, along with the social media lynch mobs who boycott, harass and shame us, our constitutional rights are now increasingly optional. They mostly hinge on whether we are judged worthy by an unelected, politically correct and morally righteous elite.

In theory, American citizenship remains the same; in reality, it is disappearing fast.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hot Air, Climate Change and Whistle Blowers. Biden and His Son Need To Be Investigated Until They Are Found Guilty. That's Democrat Justice. More.


https://apple.news/AygApK19IRS2PI1RcEd3QRg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Liberals and an assortment of radicals are very concerned about the quality of air in the world.  That said the current hearings about whistle blowers seems to me a lot of hot air and smoke.

Their efforts to hang Trump and attack the integrity of those serving the nation and  the president sitting in the Oval Office continues unabated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Waters is an embarrassment.  Time for black voters who keep re-electing her to re-think. Remember, you are known by the company you keep.  (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kim and Biden. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump nominates a Gay for a judicial position and California's Senators continue to block the appointment. (See 3 below.) (More Democrat hypocrisy?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have absolutely no evidence Biden and his son are guilty of anything but the idea that his son was paid $50,000/month for about 5 years by an Ukraine energy company while his father was V President and involved with Ukraine, does not pass the smell test. Furthermore Biden's son knew nothing about the gas  business.  That makes the matter even smellier.

Furthermore, Biden boasted about having the Ukrainian, who was investigating his son, fired.  The smell test now smells increasingly  gassier

Friday,  Hillary attacked Trump for using his office for personal gain, betraying his office and is a fraudulent president. This from the Sec.of State who sold 1/4th of our uranium to a Russian company and whose husband was paid $500,000 for making a speech at the time of the uranium transaction and money also flowed into their Charitable Foundation.

What I have written is factual.  Therefore, since the mass media are more interested in getting Trump impeached nothing will happen regarding Biden and his son.

Oh yeah.  Biden's son is supposed to have received even more "hooch" from China and, once again, I have no knowledge but I do know how to blow whistles.

One more comment:

Even if I had not had 8 operations including three left knee replacements and a new hip, I still would never  stoop as low as liberals because I have more self-respect, am not interested in destroying the reputation(s) of my fellow man, nor care about power.  Most importantly,  I care about my nation unlike Democrats who are more interested in destruction and chaos. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doug Feith is thoughtful and what he writes makes sense. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
image

Maxine Waters Claims Democrats ‘Absolutely’ Have Enough Evidence to Draft Articles of Impeachment Read More

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Taking Out Joe Biden

The left can impeach Trump and destroy an insufficiently liberal front-runner.


By Kimberley A. Strassel

The Trump years have been rough on Democrats’ sensibilities, and their thinking has become increasingly addled as a result. The party has worked tirelessly to create an issue worthy of impeaching the president—Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, Stormy Daniels, tax returns. This week Democrats jettisoned all that in favor of the only issue that implicates their own front-runner for the nomination. Genius.
The one person who has been as much in the news this week as Donald Trump is former Vice President Joe Biden. It’s a dubious accomplishment. The only way to discuss Mr. Trump’s nonsmoking-gun phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is to acknowledge the subject of the ruckus: Mr. Biden’s glaring conflicts of interest during his vice presidency vis-à-vis his son Hunter’s business interests. Since Democrats insist on making this all about Ukraine, get ready for daily new revelations about the young Mr. Biden’s questionable activities and “Quid Pro Joe’s” involvement.
This is why the former vice president’s promises that this scandal will fade are nonsense. True, the media is doing double-duty on his behalf. Its general line is that Mr. Biden’s conflicts are fine; asking about them is corrupt. We are seeing a lot of stories about how Democrats are determined not to let Republicans “Hillary” Mr. Biden—a historical rewrite that places the blame for Mrs. Clinton’s notorious ethical travails on her rivals. The “fact checkers” are out in force with soothing assurances that there’s no evidence any Biden broke the law.

The problem for Joe Biden is that outright criminality is not necessary for these stories to stink. The appearance of conflict of interest is bad enough, and there is plenty of it. Mr. Biden knew his son worked for Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, and knew the company faced scrutiny. He nonetheless in 2016 had the Ukrainian prosecutor who oversaw that investigation fired. In 2013 the vice president took Hunter on a government plane to China, where Hunter met with business associates, a moment that even a former senior Obama White House aide admitted in a July New Yorker profile “invited questions about whether [Hunter] ‘was leveraging access.’ ”
And the questions keep mounting. We now, for instance, have Joe Biden’s claim that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” Which appears to be in direct conflict with that New Yorker piece, in which Hunter acknowledges he did discuss Burisma with his father. The Ukraine issue is now firmly attached to the Biden campaign, and it isn’t going away.
His problem is that this story line cuts to the heart of his candidacy. Mr. Biden has run relentlessly on the argument that he is the one candidate who can beat Mr. Trump. But he has now become the one who can’t prosecute the issue Democrats are moving on for impeachment. How could Mr. Biden broach Ukraine on a debate stage, knowing Mr. Trump would take that subject and pound away? Every Democratic voter who is passionate about victory in 2020 is already rethinking the Biden candidacy.
This could prove campaign-ending because progressives will work to make it so. While the president might want Mr. Biden’s Ukraine history to be an issue, the left wants it even more. They saw in the broader Ukraine issue a twofer: their much-desired impeachment proceeding and the hobbling of a not-liberal-enough front-runner.

In the week over which the whistle blower drama unfolded, activists dramatically ratcheted up the pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman Democrats to embrace impeachment. It had always been there, but this was intense. The campaign included social-media and grass-roots declarations that “time was up,” as well as implicit warnings that Democrats who didn’t get on the train would face primary challenges from the left.
It worked, leading to the surreal sight of the speaker announcing an “official” impeachment inquiry before anybody in Congress had read the phone-call transcript or the whistle blower complaint. The decision is more ludicrous now that the documents have come out and proved there was no Trump quid pro quo, no “repeated” pressure on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and nothing else worthy of impeachment. The release prompted Charlie Cook of the well-known Cook Political Report to note that given “the build up,” he was “totally underwhelmed by the transcript.” His prediction: “This will not move malleable voters.”
Maybe not when it comes to Mr. Trump. But Mr. Biden? His leftist antagonists are taking care not to pile on publicly, yet. But with Elizabeth Warren on the rise, more debates coming, and reporters eager for Ukraine stories, Mr. Biden will be fielding a lot more questions about his family dealings and a lot more arguments that he is a fatally flawed candidate. A week that started as Democrats’ big push to destroy Mr. Trump, could instead easily come to be known as the week that ended Mr. Biden’s run.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein Fight to Keep Gay Trump Nominee Off 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Washington Blade, an LGBT news outlet, reports that Donald Trump has tried two times "to confirm a gay U.S. prosecutor to a federal appeals court despite objections from Sen. Kamala Harris over his qualifications for a lifetime judicial appointment."
Patrick Bumatay is a gay Filipino serving as a U.S. attorney in Southern California. He was put on a list of six individuals intended for nominations to the federal bench by the Trump administration.

Bumatay has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If confirmed, he would become the highest-ranking gay judge serving a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

Bumatay's nomination has been stymied by objections from both Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). This disagreement led to the president removing Bumatay's nomination for the Ninth Circuit and nominating him for a seat on the U.S. District Court in Southern California instead. However, when U.S. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski left the Ninth Circuit Court because of sexual misconduct allegations that included showing pornography to employees in his chambers, the president nominated Bumatay again.

Once again, the president has put forth a highly flawed nominee to the Ninth Circuit, without the support of California’s senators. I first objected to Mr. Bumatay after his initial nomination to the Ninth Circuit a year ago and again raised concerns about his qualifications and fitness when he was nominated for the district court...A nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench must demonstrate exceptional skill, professionalism and respect for the principle of equal justice under law. Mr. Bumatay does not meet this standard. Mr. Bumatay has a troubling prosecutorial record, lacks the requisite experience, and has drawn criticism from members of California’s legal community, across party lines. It is clear that he lacks the judgment and qualifications to serve on the Ninth Circuit.
The Washington Blade requested specific examples of Bumatay's unfitness for the job from Harris's office. No word on when or if Harris will respond.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) 3 Dem Senators Wrote Ukraine 

Demanding Trump Investigations 

Continue, Arguably Threatened Aid

This is one story CNN probably wishes it had never published.
Democrats on Capitol Hill are fired up with feigned fury these days over a July phone conversation between President Donald Trump and the leader of Ukraine in which Trump asked Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate allegations of corruption involving Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

But as it turns out, it’s not the first time this year that an American elected official had communicated with Ukraine over an investigation with political ramifications in the United States.

In fact, in May, three Democratic senators took what’s arguably much less appropriate — and more direct — action toward a law enforcement officer in the Eastern European country.
And they used some thinly veiled threats while doing it.

As Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen pointed out Tuesday, the anti-Trump network CNN published an article in May 2018 about a letter from Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont expressly asking a Ukraine prosecutor if he were fully cooperating with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged “collusion” between Russia and the Trump 2016 campaign.

The senators’ letter to Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko started with a glowing description of relations between the United States and Ukraine, a country dealing with constant military friction with Russia, its giant neighbor to the east.

“Ours is a relationship built on a foundation of respect for the rule of law and accountable democratic institutions,” the three worthies wrote. “In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building these institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow.”

The letter noted that The New York Times had reported that Lutsenko had stopped cooperating with Mueller’s investigators because he feared doing so could jeopardize financial and military aid to Ukraine.

Well, the senators’ letter made clear, not cooperating with Mueller could jeopardize aid, too.

“Blocking cooperation with the Mueller probe potentially cuts off a significant opportunity for Ukrainian law enforcement into possible crimes committed” during the country’s previous regime, the senators wrote.

“This reported refusal to cooperate also sends a worrying signal — to the Ukrainian people as well as the international community — about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law,” the Democrats said.

Now, it’s true that there was no outright threat to their support for American aid to Ukraine. But considering the context — the linking of the “rule of law” to American relations, as well as the completely unnecessary reminder about “pressure” from Moscow — it wouldn’t take a genius in an embattled country to get the message that he better start toeing the line or risk getting cut off.
To the editors at CNN back in May 2018, reporting on that letter probably looked like a great way to make the Trump administration look bad. Having Democratic senators hectoring foreign officials about the sanctity of law and the Mueller probe was a slam dunk.

But as the world — including the government of Ukraine — knows by now, the Mueller probe turned out to be a bust — a long, expensive indulgence of the Democratic fetish for “collusion.”

What comes across now in the Democrats’ letter is a bullying attempt by three lawmakers to strong arm the top law enforcer in a foreign country to cooperate with a political persecution that was masquerading as a criminal investigation in the United States.

Democrats claim they want to impeach the president for a conversation he had every right to have with the leader of a foreign country. Almost laughably, they’re trying to paint a conversation between two heads of state as some kind of criminal conspiracy on the part of Trump.

But the record shows that in the not-too-distant past, the party had three senators who felt no compunction at all about using their political strength to try to coerce a foreign law enforcement officer into cooperating with their own domestic political attack agenda.

Trump had every right in the world to talk to the president of Ukraine. His critics might be able to argue that it was inappropriate for him to bring up Joe and Hunter Biden, but that’s all it was — an argument over decorum, not an impeachable offense in even the most feverish dreams of Rashida Tlaib.

It’s difficult to imagine an argument, however, for these three senators to take it upon themselves to contact the Ukraine prosecutor general over a story they read in The New York Times and demand that he be more cooperative in their attempt to dislodge a duly elected American president.

Bullying and collusion with foreign officials are some of the charges Democrats have thrown at Trump. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California on Wednesday accused Trump of performing a “mafia boss” 
shakedown of Zelensky, ABC News reported.

But to any honest observer, that’s exactly what these three veteran Democratic senators were trying to do with their May letter.

Couple this with Joe Biden’s open boasting about intimidating Ukraine officials when he was President Barack Obama’s right-hand man, and it looks like bullying behavior is a favorite mode for Democrats.

As always, when Democrats launch an accusation, it’s a given they’re guilty of it first — and they’re going to be found out.

“Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling.” (Proverbs 26:27)

For CNN, it probably seemed like a great story in 2018.

Now, the network probably wishes it had never been published.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Proceed With Caution on a Defense Pact With Israel

A treaty looks attractive to both Washington and Jerusalem, but potential pitfalls remain.

By Douglas J. Feith
A political advertisement shows President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Sept. 16. Photo: ahmad gharabli/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

For all their longstanding defense ties, Israel and the U.S. have no mutual defense treaty. In the weeks before Israel’s Sept. 17 elections President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu both spoke favorably of negotiating one. Whether they were serious or simply wanted to bolster Mr. Netanyahu’s political support is unclear. In any case, a few observations are in order.


The U.S. is party to various kinds of defense treaties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most far-reaching. The treaty states that “an armed attack against one [ally] . . . shall be considered an attack against them all.” Other bilateral U.S. defense treaties create lesser obligations—to consult about threats, to recognize that an attack on one would endanger peace and safety of the other, to meet common dangers in accordance with one’s own constitutional processes.

American and Israeli officials have long refrained from negotiating a mutual defense treaty because it was judged unnecessary and potentially harmful to both countries. Israelis worried mainly about their own freedom of action; they didn’t want to have to ask U.S. permission before taking steps to defend their state. U.S. officials didn’t want to have to grant or deny such permission—or to “own” Israeli military operations.

Sometimes U.S. officials have been pleased when Israel took tough and risky military actions—against Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, against terrorist leaders or operatives during the Second Intifada, and against Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007. The U.S. could disavow any responsibility but, if the actions succeeded, benefit nonetheless.
In a crisis, the help the U.S. would give Israel (or Israel would give the U.S.) wouldn’t likely increase as a result of a mutual defense treaty. Historically, such assistance has been provided out of national interest, not legal obligation.

The U.S. resupplied Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War even though it had no treaty obligation to do so. Israel helped the U.S. in Jordan in 1970 although no treaty required it. Israel and the U.S. gave each other substantial defense-related help after the 9/11 attacks absent a treaty.


Yet there are reasons to favor a treaty if it is properly limited. U.S. law designates Israel a “major non-NATO ally.” The U.S. and Israel have numerous nontreaty agreements on intelligence-sharing, military aid, defense industrial cooperation, trade and other matters. An umbrella agreement—a broad statement of friendship giving a treaty structure to the various executive agreements already in place—could make sense.

A carefully circumscribed agreement of that kind would elevate Israel to the status of treaty ally of the U.S. Although such a treaty would change little in the way of policy, it would signal American-Israeli friendship and cooperation. It might also help preserve bipartisan U.S. support for Israel. There is value in that.

Yet the longstanding reasons not to conclude a NATO-type mutual defense treaty with Jerusalem remain. Neither country would benefit from a treaty that either impedes Israel’s freedom to act or obliges America to endorse every Israeli action. Leaders in both countries should heed the physicians’ oath—first, do no harm.

Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration. This article is adapted from a report by the University of Haifa-Hudson Institute Consortium on the Eastern Mediterranean.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++