When I drive to the airport, I take a route where a highway has been widened and on each side, for many miles, is an extensive new wall for noise abatement. Yet, Democrats cannot do the same to prevent illegal immigration abatement. Is it because it would mean a victory for Trump or is it because they oppose common sense or is it because they constantly engage in hypocrisy? You Decide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quiet will be met with quiet. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it past time to care about Cair's goal? Cair is not benign. It is a threat to our Republic and our freedoms. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I mentioned, in a previous memo, Lynn recently bought me two books and I read Grisham's: "The Guardians" first. I have been reading Grishman for years and the problem with many of his books was the ending. He just left you sort of hanging abruptly. He has gotten better of late.
Now I am reading Don Jr's: "Triggered" and am only on chapter 5 but it is excellent. His phrasing and choice of words, his fluid style are unmistakable and wonderful. Hell, he writes far better than I do.
My liberal friends begged me to read Thomas Friedman' and Woodward's latest books when they came out several years ago and I told them I seldom read anything they write because I thought they were seldom right since they come from the left.
I would now like to return the favor/suggestion and urge my liberal friends to read "Triggered."
It would be a look in the mirror for them.
It is a book that should be assigned to all students who can read and comprehend.
And:
Nunes opens up with guns blazing and Schiff's rationale. Since Mueller failed, let's try another tack (See 3 and 3a below.)
And:
What it all boils down to in the end is will Trump get enough black votes to offset the supposed decline in white soccer mom's who are turned off by his vulgarity?
I understand their dislike of "foul mouth" but as the comedian said: 'what he does is far better than what he says.' (See 3b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whistle blower poster boy for Salvation Army?
It's Wednesday and news on Capital Hill is starting to heat up. Despite wanting to remain anonymous and refusing to give President Trump an opportunity to face his accuser, a new bombshell report reveals that the whistleblower has been accepting secret donations through a GoFundMe page. Fox News also revealed that this might have broken federal laws, but I'm sure that won't bother the Democrats at all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
|
1) A test for deterrence
Hamas is hardly lamenting the "loss" of senior Islamic Jihad terrorist Baha Abu al-Ata, but it may be compelled to join the Islamic Jihad's attack on Israel to ensure its status in Gaza remains strong.
Islamic Jihad terrorist Baha Abu al-Ata was not meant to be long for this world. Al-Ata has been a major thorn in Israel's side for a very long time and as such he was on the IDF's most-wanted list.
Former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Shin Bet security agency Director Nadav Argaman had both urged his elimination last year, but those plans had to be shelved over the more pressing issue of the Iranian threat in the northern sector. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi also supported the notion that al-Ata had to be eliminated before his nefarious actions triggered a regional conflagration.
The notoriety al-Ata received in Israel and the Gaza Strip went to his head very quickly. He went rogue, pursuing independent, aggressive offensives, more often than not without any cause or provocation. Hamas, Qatar, and the regional EU and UN envoys all tried to talks some sense into him, but to no avail.
Moreover, he saw these efforts as a sign of weakness, just as he saw Israel's policy of restraint where he was concerned as tacit consent that he could go about his belligerent business.
Trying to deal with this archterrorist while preventing an escalation, Israel opted for deterrence first. Third-party mediators relayed messages to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Ata himself, all saying he was literally playing with fire and Israel's patience was wearing thin.
But al-Ata, in his hubris, decided to ignore the warnings.
As expected, his elimination triggered a hysterical backlash from Islamic Jihad, which fired over 200 rockets at central and southern Israel.
The IDF saw this coming and as soon as the plan to target al-Ata was approved it bolstered the deployment of Iron Dome batteries in key areas. This has mitigated much of Islamic Jihad's unbridled response, as the trusty defense system intercepted over half of the projectiles aimed at residential areas. According to the IDF, much of the remainder hit open areas, causing little-to-no damage.
Israel's response to the barrage has been measured, both making the point that it will not tolerate rocket fire on civilians and avoiding deteriorating the situation further vis-à-vis Hamas.
So far, Gaza's rulers have refrained from joining the fray – and not only because no one there is lamenting al-Ata's "loss": Hamas is heavily invested in the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire talks and its efforts to resolve the dire economic crisis in Gaza. Its leaders know that provoking another war with Israel will spell utter ruin for the Strip – and maybe even topple its rule.
Israel, too, seeks to distinguish Hamas from Islamic Jihad, so as not to paint it into a corner. If Hamas remains on the sidelines and if it manages to rein in jihad activists seeking to avenge al-Ata, then the calm, such as it is, on the Israel-Gaza could be restored. If not, escalation is in the cards.
Israel obviously prefers restoring the calm and its top officials, including Kochavi and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have made it clear it has no interest in escalation, reiterating the familiar mantra of "quiet will be met with quiet."
This is especially important given the tensions in the northern sector. The IDF also attempted to eliminate senior Islamic Jihad official Akram Ajuri in Damascus on Tuesday, and while Islamic Jihad's abilities in Syria are limited, it's Iranian patron could help it exact painful revenge on Israel.
The real value of al-Ata's elimination lies with the deterrence it creates. If Hamas does not join the fighting and Islamic Jihad be rendered damaged over the loss of its leader, then the mission was accomplished – to an extent, of course. This is, after all, Gaza Strip we're talking about.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pushing the Ilhan Omar agenda
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently held its 25th Annual Gala in Washington, D.C, in which CAIR’s executive director announced a goal of pushing more Islamists into Congress.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently held its 25th Annual Gala in Washington, D.C, in which CAIR’s executive director announced a goal of pushing more Islamists into Congress.
As the Investigative Project on Terrorism reports, CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad shares the “formula” he believes will secure Islamists greater political power:
“A strong CAIR equals a strong community. A strong community will produce a strong and confident and successful Muslim … “So I’m telling you tonight we are going to work in the next years, inshallah (God willing], to elect at least 30 Muslims in the Congress. This number is equivalent to our size and our potential as American Muslims. Including at least two [U.S.] senator Muslims.”
In addition, Awad envisions Muslim judges, including a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, along with an Islamist extension of Hollywood.
No matter that Awad got his numbers wrong, this has been the Islamist agenda since at least the 2000s, when I heard the same professional targets outlined at national conventions. But as Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes wrote in 2003, it goes further.
Pipes documents how, in 1998, CAIR’s Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of Muslims in California: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.”
In 2008, I heard this message echoed at a southern California mosque by Imam Siraj Wahhaj at an event sponsored by the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), where Wahhaj said:
“There is no America. There is only Islam.”
None of these views have been clandestine. Over the years the message has been consistent. What has changed is that the Islamist candidates they produce are more vocal about exactly which interests they represent.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s support of the Hamas terror group and the anti-Semitic BDS movement against Israel is the most recent demonstration of that.
Within this discussion of CAIR’s vision of Muslim in Congress — that is, Islamists in Congress — and those seeking other avenues of political power, it’s important to underscore that not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Muslims are race and religious supremacists who believe that the politicization of faith is the way to go. Many Muslims stand opposed to the politicization of faith; many stand opposed to Islamists.
Veteran military serviceman and former California congressional candidate Omar Qudrat is an example of the type of Muslims who deserve to be elected —Muslims who put duty to constitution and country ahead of any religious agendas.
Dalia Al-Aqidi is another — a veteran Iraqi American journalist poised to challenge Ilhan Omar in Minnesota in the 2020 race for Omar’s congressional seat in district 5.
Both candidates are steadfast opponents of Islamists, their agenda and ideology. Both are allied with Muslim reformers.
Neither CAIR nor their allies represent the Muslim community. The American Muslim diaspora is so diverse that it would be dishonest to say that any one person or organization represents them. There is no central representation and there shouldn’t be. All our voices deserve to be heard, but what you keep seeing be pushed by mainstream media is this fabricated monolith fantasy of a Muslim — in short, an Islamist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Devin Nunes ‘loaded for bear’ in opening statement
In a July open hearing of this committee following publication of the Mueller report, the Democrats engaged in a last-ditch effort to convince the American people that President Trump is a Russian agent. That hearing was the pitiful finale of a three-year-long operation by the Democrats, the corrupt media, and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.
After the spectacular implosion of their Russia hoax on July 24, in which they spent years denouncing any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian, on July 25 they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is Republicans’ dealings with Ukraine.
In the blink of an eye, we’re asked to simply:
- forget about Democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion between President Trump and the Russians;
- forget about them reading fabrications of Trump-Russia collusion from the Steele dossier into the congressional record;
- forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials;
- forget about them leaking a false story to CNN, while he was testifying to our committee, claiming Donald Trump Jr. had colluded with Wikileaks;
- and forget about countless other deceptions, large and small, that make them the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political opponents.
- After vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, Democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single House Republican.
- The witnesses deemed suitable for television by the Democrats were put through a closed-door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol, where the Democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner.
- Violating their own guidelines, the Democrats repeatedly redacted from the transcripts the name of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee who worked with Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign, which she provided to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
- The Democrats rejected most of the Republicans’ witness requests, resulting in a horrifically one-sided process where crucial witnesses are denied a platform if their testimony doesn’t support the Democrats’ absurd accusations. Notably, they are trying to impeach the President for inquiring about Hunter Biden’s activities, yet they refused our request to hear from Biden himself.
- The whistleblower was acknowledged to have a bias against President Trump, and his attorney touted a “coup” against the President and called for his impeachment just weeks after his election.
- At a prior hearing, Democrats on this committee read out a purely fictitious rendition of the President’s phone call with President Zelensky. They clearly found the real conversation to be insufficient for their impeachment narrative, so they just made up a new one.
- For years they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia when they themselves were colluding with Russia by funding and spreading the Steele dossier, which relied on Russian sources.
- And now they accuse President Trump of malfeasance in Ukraine when they themselves are culpable. The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling, and they defend Hunter Biden’s securing of a lavishly paid position with a corrupt Ukrainian company, all while his father served as vice president.
- First, what is the full extent of the Democrats’ prior coordination with the Whistleblower and who else did the Whistleblower coordinate this effort with?
- Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine’s election meddling against the Trump campaign?
- And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any U.S. government actions under the Obama administration?
- After expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about foreign corruption on the campaign trail, President Trump outraged the bureaucracy by acting skeptically about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption.
- Officials’ alarm at the President’s actions was typically based on second-hand, third-hand, and even fourth-hand rumors and innuendo.
- They believed it was an outrage for President Trump to fire an ambassador, even though the President has full authority to retain or remove diplomats for any reason at any time.
- Officials showed a surprising lack of interest in the indications of Ukrainian election meddling that deeply concerned the President at whose pleasure they serve.
- Despite all their dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine policy, the President approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine, unlike the previous administration, which provided blankets as defense against invading Russians.
And yet now we’re supposed to take these people at face value when they trot out a new batch of allegations. But anyone familiar with the Democrats’ scorched-earth war against President Trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is just a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign. For example:
And most egregiously, the staff of Democrats on this committee had direct discussions with the whistleblower before his or her complaint was submitted to the Inspector General, and Republicans cannot get a full account of these contacts because the Democrats broke their promise to have the whistleblower testify to this committee. Democrat members hid these contacts from Republicans and lied about them to the American people on national television.
I’ve noted before that the Democrats have a long habit of accusing Republicans of offences they themselves are committing. Recall that:
Despite this hypocrisy, the Democrats are advancing their impeachment sham. But we should not hold any hearings at all until we get answers to three crucial questions the Democrats are determined to avoid asking:
These questions will remain outstanding because Republicans were denied the right to call witnesses who know the answers.
What we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the Democrats. Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent—I’d like to welcome you here, and congratulate you for passing the Democrats’ Star Chamber auditions held for the last six weeks in the basement of the Capitol. It seems you agreed, wittingly or unwittingly, to participate in a drama. But the main performance—the Russia hoax—has ended, and you’ve been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.
I’ll conclude by noting the immense damage the politicized bureaucracy has done to Americans’ faith in government. Though executive branch employees are charged with implementing the policy set by our President, who is elected by and responsible to the American people, elements of the civil service have decided that they, not the President, are really in charge.
Thus, as we’ll learn in these hearings:
By undermining the President who they are supposed to be serving, elements of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and now the State Department, have lost the confidence of millions of Americans who believe that their vote should count for something. It will take years, if not decades, to restore faith in these institutions.
This spectacle is doing great damage to our country. It’s nothing more than an impeachment process in search of a crime.
3a)Schiff Says Impeachment Inquiry Worth It Even If Trump Is Not Removed From Office
By Jim Hayek
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is in charge of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, said the inquiry is worth it even if the House impeaches Trump but the Senate doesn’t convict him.
“I’ve always thought that the strongest argument for impeachment was also the strongest argument against it, which is if you don’t impeach a president who commits conduct of this kind, what does that say to the next president about what they can do, and to the next Congress? At the same time, if you do impeach but the president is acquitted, what does that say to the next president, to the next Congress? There’s no good or simple answer to that conundrum,” Schiff told NPR late Nov. 12, a day before the public impeachment hearings started.
“But what compelled me to go down this road is the fact that no sooner had one investigation come to a close, no sooner had Bob Mueller testified about the president’s first effort to solicit foreign help, but the president was at it again. And impeachment is not only a remedy to remove a president, it’s also the most powerful sanction the House has,” Schiff continued.
“And if that deters further presidential misconduct, then it may provide some remedy even in the absence of a conviction in the Senate. But again, I have to hope that my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle will keep an open mind, will do their constitutional duty, will set aside the party of the president. Because otherwise, why are they even there, and what does their oath of office really mean?”
Asked what the House plans to charge Trump with, Schiff said, “On the basis of what the witnesses have had to say so far, there are any number of potentially impeachable offenses including bribery, including high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Trump’s contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been the focus of House Democrats, who insist his request to Zelensky to “look into” allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, amount to interference in the 2020 election.
Joe Biden last year said that in 2016, he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko over $1 billion in aid unless Poroshenko ousted Viktor Shokin, a top prosecutor who was probing the Burisma energy company.
Hunter Biden worked for Burisma from 2014 to 2019.
Because Joe Biden is running for president, Democrats say Trump was effectively asking Zelensky to interfere in the 2020 election.
The Bidens have denied wrongdoing, as has Trump. Just hours before the first public hearings on Wednesday, the president urged people to “read the transcript” of his phone call with Zelensky.
The president also said that he will release a transcript of the first phone call he had with Zelensky soon.
3b)The Patriot Post(r) * The Blexodus
By Willie Richardson * Nov. 13, 2019 *https://patriotpost.us/article
This past weekend in Atlanta, I got the opportunity to experience my first
BLEXIT event. In case you have been under a rock, BLEXIT is a movement of
political renaissance as millions of Americans, primarily black, are exiting
the Democrat Party. Candace Owens, founder of BLEXIT, is the modern-day
version of Harriet Tubman as she brazenly has become the trailblazer for
freedom. Freedom of thought. Freedom of voice. Freedom of vote. Freedom of
common sense.
For so many years within the black community, the only political voice you
could have without any "blacklash" was liberal. Our parents, grandparents,
uncles, and aunts have made the Democrat Party a matter of birthright. It's
so deep that it's an unspoken or unwritten rule. It's just as engrained as
the melanin within our skin. It's like a Thanksgiving holiday tradition that
only certain people make the macaroni and cheese, turkey and dressing, or
the lemon, pecan, and sweet potato pies. You don't have to say it, it's just
understood. This "vote or die" liberal mentality has been passed down from
generation to generation like grandma's recipes.
For many black Americans, you grow up, go to church, graduate high school,
go to college, vote Democrat, get married, and have some grandchildren to
start the whole process over again. Did I mention vote Democrat?
Said differently, a black family person has a better chance of being
accepted as a homosexual by his family, church, and community than of being
a Republican believing in Christian conservative ideas. Yes, it's that
serious. The saddest part is nobody can tell you why. It's all emotionalism.
At BLEXIT, however, something was different. I felt comfortable being in my
own skin. Not because of the color of my skin, but because I was not being
judged intellectually or politically based on my skin. I declared my
political independence before the entire world.
Standing in a long line waiting to enter the Buckhead Theatre, I didn't have
to explain myself to anyone. We all had like minds and it was refreshing. It
was good to see two teenage black males being able to articulate why they
believe what they believe, instead of getting emotional and calling others
names. It was amazing to hear their 55-year-old mentor say, "People think
these young guys don't have a clue. I just stand back and fold my arms and
watch them handle interview questions from the media. They know their
stuff!" He was smiling from ear to ear. It was good to meet an older white
couple in line that overheard me say I was from Chattanooga, Tennessee. The
man said, "Hey, I'm from Rossville, Georgia, right next door to you."
The speakers included Brandon Tatum, an ex-cop and political activist;
Terrance K. Williams, a comedian and political activist; Bishop E.W.
Jackson, a pastor and president of STAND America; David J. Harris Jr.,
author and conservative activist; KingFace, a street conservative; and Maj
Toure, founder of "Black Guns Matter." Topics ranged from personal
responsibility, family values, Jesus Christ, Liberty, and Second Amendment
rights. I took it all in. I never know when I'll have that opportunity
again. But I'm grateful that there are an increasing number of free-thinkers
who are leaving the Democrat Party behind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment