wnd--2020-01-28--Why are so many young people unhappy? Part 2

I began part one of `` Why are so many young people unhappy ? ''
with data showing the apparently unprecedentedly high rate of unhappiness among young people in America ( and elsewhere , but I am focusing on America ) .
The rates of suicide , self-injury , depression , mass shootings and loneliness ( at all ages ) are higher than ever recorded .
It seems that Americans may have been happier , and certainly less lonely , during the Great Depression and World War II than today , even with today 's unprecedentedly high levels of health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is , of course , no single explanation , and I listed a number of possible explanations : `` Increased use of illicit drugs and prescription drug abuse , and less human interaction because of constant cellphone use are two widely offered , valid explanations .
Less valid explanations include competition , grades anxiety , capitalism and income inequality .
And then there are young people 's fears that because of global warming , they have a bleak , and perhaps no , future . ''
But I do believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two greatest sources of unhappiness .
Among the values lost are those of communal associations .
As the great foreign observer of early American life Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1831 , Americans ' unique strength derived largely from their participation in innumerable nongovernmental associations – professional , social , civil , political , artistic , philanthropic and , of course , religious .
But these have all dwindled as government has become ever larger .
Whereas Americans got together and formed bonds of friendship through nongovernmental associations , through what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a video presentation at its 2012 national convention , the Democratic Party offered its answer : `` Government 's the only thing that we all belong to , '' the narrator said .
TRENDING : Melania Trump dons strikingly beautiful outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their spouses and press Then there are traditional middle-class values , like getting married first and then having children .
Today , a greater percentage of Americans are born to unwed mothers than ever before , and fewer people are marrying than ever before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in our history , more single Americans than married Americans .
While it is certainly possible to feel lonely in a marriage , people are far more likely to feel lonely without a spouse , and increasingly without children , than with a spouse and children .
And now we come to the biggest problem of all : the lack of meaning .
Aside from food , the greatest human need is meaning .
I owe this insight to Viktor Frankl and his classic work `` Man 's Search for Meaning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school and which influenced me more than any book other than the Bible .
Karl Marx saw man as primarily motivated by economics ; Sigmund Freud saw man as primarily driven by the sexual drive ; Charles Darwin , or at least his followers , sees us as primarily driven by biology .
But Frankl was right .
As regards economics , poor people who have meaning can be happy , but wealthy people who lack meaning can not be .
As regards sex , people who do not have a sexual life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vow of chastity ; many widowed and divorced older people ; and others ) but have meaning can be happy .
Sexually active people who do not have meaning can not be .
As regards biology , there is no evolutionary explanation for the need for meaning .
Every creature except the human being does fine without meaning .
And nothing has given Americans – or any other people , for that matter – as much meaning as religion .
But since World War II , God and religion have been relegated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third of Americans born after 1980 affiliate with no religion .
This is unprecedented in American history ; until this generation , the vast majority of Americans have been religious .
Maybe , just maybe , the death of religion – the greatest provider of meaning , while certainly not the only – is the single biggest factor in the increasing sadness and loneliness among Americans ( and so many others ) .
A 2016 study published in the American Medical Association JAMA Psychiatry journal found that American women who attended a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were five times less likely to commit suicide .
Common sense suggests the same is true of men .
The bottom line : The reason so many young people are depressed , unhappy and angry is the left has told them that God and Judeo-Christian religions are nonsense ; their country is largely evil ; their past is deplorable ; and their future is hopeless .
That seems to be a major reason , if not the reason , for so much unhappiness : not capitalism , not inequality , not patriarchy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather having no religion , no God , no spouse , no community , no country to believe in and , ultimately , no meaning .
That explains much of the unprecedented unhappiness .
And it explains the widespread adoption of that secular substitute for traditional religion : leftism .
But unlike Judaism and Christianity , leftism does not bring its adherents happiness .

I began part one of "Why are so many young people unhappy?" with data showing the apparently unprecedentedly high rate of unhappiness among young people in America (and elsewhere, but I am focusing on America). The rates of suicide, self-injury, depression, mass shootings and loneliness (at all ages) are higher than ever recorded. It seems that Americans may have been happier, and certainly less lonely, during the Great Depression and World War II than today, even with today's unprecedentedly high levels of health, longevity, education and material well-being.
There is, of course, no single explanation, and I listed a number of possible explanations: "Increased use of illicit drugs and prescription drug abuse, and less human interaction because of constant cellphone use are two widely offered, valid explanations. Less valid explanations include competition, grades anxiety, capitalism and income inequality. And then there are young people's fears that because of global warming, they have a bleak, and perhaps no, future."
But I do believe that a loss of values and meaning are the two greatest sources of unhappiness.
Among the values lost are those of communal associations. As the great foreign observer of early American life Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1831, Americans' unique strength derived largely from their participation in innumerable nongovernmental associations – professional, social, civil, political, artistic, philanthropic and, of course, religious.
But these have all dwindled as government has become ever larger. Whereas Americans got together and formed bonds of friendship through nongovernmental associations, through what organizations will Americans form friendships today? In a video presentation at its 2012 national convention, the Democratic Party offered its answer: "Government's the only thing that we all belong to," the narrator said.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Then there are traditional middle-class values, like getting married first and then having children. Today, a greater percentage of Americans are born to unwed mothers than ever before, and fewer people are marrying than ever before. There are, for the first time in our history, more single Americans than married Americans. While it is certainly possible to feel lonely in a marriage, people are far more likely to feel lonely without a spouse, and increasingly without children, than with a spouse and children.
And now we come to the biggest problem of all: the lack of meaning.
Aside from food, the greatest human need is meaning. I owe this insight to Viktor Frankl and his classic work "Man's Search for Meaning," which I first read in high school and which influenced me more than any book other than the Bible. Karl Marx saw man as primarily motivated by economics; Sigmund Freud saw man as primarily driven by the sexual drive; Charles Darwin, or at least his followers, sees us as primarily driven by biology.
But Frankl was right.
As regards economics, poor people who have meaning can be happy, but wealthy people who lack meaning cannot be.
As regards sex, people who do not have a sexual life (such as priests who keep their vow of chastity; many widowed and divorced older people; and others) but have meaning can be happy. Sexually active people who do not have meaning cannot be.
As regards biology, there is no evolutionary explanation for the need for meaning. Every creature except the human being does fine without meaning.
And nothing has given Americans – or any other people, for that matter – as much meaning as religion. But since World War II, God and religion have been relegated to the dustbin of history.
The result?
More than a third of Americans born after 1980 affiliate with no religion. This is unprecedented in American history; until this generation, the vast majority of Americans have been religious.
Maybe, just maybe, the death of religion – the greatest provider of meaning, while certainly not the only – is the single biggest factor in the increasing sadness and loneliness among Americans (and so many others). A 2016 study published in the American Medical Association JAMA Psychiatry journal found that American women who attended a religious service at least once a week were five times less likely to commit suicide. Common sense suggests the same is true of men.
The bottom line: The reason so many young people are depressed, unhappy and angry is the left has told them that God and Judeo-Christian religions are nonsense; their country is largely evil; their past is deplorable; and their future is hopeless.
That seems to be a major reason, if not the reason, for so much unhappiness: not capitalism, not inequality, not patriarchy, sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia but rather having no religion, no God, no spouse, no community, no country to believe in and, ultimately, no meaning. That explains much of the unprecedented unhappiness.
And it explains the widespread adoption of that secular substitute for traditional religion: leftism. But unlike Judaism and Christianity, leftism does not bring its adherents happiness.


wnd--2020-01-28--Franklin Graham event canceled because he views gay marriage a 'sin'

( CBN ) -- The Rev .
Franklin Graham , an evangelist and the son of the late preacher Billy @ @ @ @ @ speak this summer at a venue in Liverpool .
That stop , though , will @ @ @ @ @ Graham ’ s event , to be held at ACC Liverpool , was part of @ @ @ @ @ United Kingdom .
Officials at the venue , however , announced Friday the event would @ @ @ @ @ because Graham ’ s views — particularly his biblical interpretation of marriage as a union @ @ @ @ @ woman — are “ incompatible with our values.
” The decision to cancel Graham ’ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t surprising .
Protesters have been rebuking the leaders of the venue for allowing @ @ @ @ @ in the space .

(CBN) -- The Rev. Franklin Graham, an evangelist and the son of the late preacher Billy Graham, was slated to speak this summer at a venue in Liverpool. That stop, though, will no longer take place.
Graham’s event, to be held at ACC Liverpool, was part of a larger tour through the United Kingdom. Officials at the venue, however, announced Friday the event would be scrubbed from the schedule because Graham’s views — particularly his biblical interpretation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman — are “incompatible with our values.”
The decision to cancel Graham’s stop in Liverpool isn’t surprising. Protesters have been rebuking the leaders of the venue for allowing Graham to share the Gospel in the space.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-01-28--Trump's reason for firing Bolton at heart of impeachment

House Republicans argued during the impeachment investigation that the testimony against President Trump of Democratic-called witnesses amounted to a clash over foreign policy rather than any substantive claims of wrongdoing .
That already has become one of the White House 's arguments in the Senate trial as it fends off the Democrats ' effort to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton as a witness .
Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz argued in the Senate trial Monday night that `` quid pro quos '' are common in foreign policy .
He concluded that even if true , the purported Bolton `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy rather than an impeachable offense .
The push for witnesses was bolstered Sunday by a New York Times report citing an unpublished Bolton manuscript saying that Trump told him he wanted to condition security aid to Ukraine on investigations into Democrats , including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter Biden .
The report has not been verified , and Trump and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney dispute the claim .
TRENDING : Melania Trump dons strikingly beautiful outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that Trump fired Bolton after repeated policy feuds .
`` His services are no longer needed at the White House , '' the president tweeted Sept. 10 .
`` I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions , as did others in the Administration . ''
In fact , Bolton 's hiring in 2018 was a surprise as he had been associated with the `` neo-conservatives '' of the George W. Bush administration who orchestrated the 2003 Iraq war and the `` nation-building '' effort that Trump has called `` a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul , who has touted Trump 's stated policy of avoiding `` endless war , '' once described Bolton in an op-ed as `` hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last 15 years . ''
Shortly before he was appointed by Trump , Bolton wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal making the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea .
After his appointment , however , he revised his view , saying , `` You have to know in advance the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' In January 2019 , Bolton outlined conditions for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria that appeared to contradict Trump 's announcement of victory over ISIS and a hasty withdrawal from Syria .
Bolton said the withdrawal from Syria would not be immediate but contingent upon the achievement of certain objectives , including assured protection for the Kurds and total defeat of ISIS .
In early 2019 , Bush accused Bolton of trying to drag the U.S. into a war with Venezuela .
Bolton , according to the House testimony of former National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said her boss Bolton instructed her to tell lawyers she was not part of the `` drug deal '' EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were `` cooking up '' to pressure Ukraine .
The whistleblower complaint that triggered the impeachment investigation alleged Trump used the threat of withholding lethal aid to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival .
The White House argues the delayed aid was delivered before the deadline and there was no investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden .
Ukraine President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't feel any pressure , and the State Department itself was concerned that Hunter Biden 's profiting from a corrupt Ukraine natural gas company while his father was in charge of Ukraine policy was an apparent conflict of interest .
Significantly , Dershowitz on Monday night , as a member of Trump 's team , argued that `` quid pro quo '' in itself is not an abuse of power .
It 's rather a regular method of conducting foreign policy , he said , acknowledging that he may disagree with particular quid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country , that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power , '' he said .
`` Nothing in the Bolton revelations , even if true , would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense , '' he said .
`` That is clear from the history , that is clear from the language of the Constitution .
You can not turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro quo and personal benefit . ''
A policy difference , he emphasized , is not criteria for impeachment .
`` That 's a criteria for deciding who you 're going to vote for , '' Dershowitz told the Senate .
`` Do n't allow your subjective judgments to determine what is and what is not an impeachable offense . ''
Former Bolton chief of staff : Withdraw the book A Bolton ally , Fred Fleitz , who served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advising Bolton to withdraw his upcoming tell-all book on his time as Trump 's national security adviser .
In an op-ed for Fox News , Fleitz emphasized the `` importance of protecting a president ’ s confidential discussions with his senior advisers . ''
Fleitz , now president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington , noted he 's known Bolton for 30 years and served as his chief of staff twice .
Describing him as an `` exceptional national security expert and a man of great integrity , '' he expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security adviser left the White House after the relationship broke down . ''
He said Bolton `` played an important role in some of President Trump 's most successful foreign policy decisions , including withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran , moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the 2018 Counterterrorism Strategy . ''
But he argued a president `` must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ security adviser ahead of a president ’ s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters , '' he said .
Fleitz said he has n't seen the manuscript , and he takes Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times .
`` But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton ’ s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020 , '' he said .
`` It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process .
Under such circumstances , a leak of the manuscript was all but certain . ''
Fleitz concluded that if a manuscript of this sensitivity were to be published , it should happen after the election .
`` I do n't understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served , especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country , '' he said .
`` There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election . ''
Trump : I never told him that President Trump on Monday denied Bolton 's claim that the president told him he wanted to condition aid to Ukraine on an investigation of the Bidens .
`` I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president said via Twitter .
`` In fact , he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination .
If John Bolton said this , it was only to sell a book .
`` With that being said , the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed , in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems . ''
In addition , Trump said , he met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats denied that fact .
Trump further argued he `` released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations -- and far ahead of schedule . ''
`` I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles .
My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration , '' he said .

House Republicans argued during the impeachment investigation that the testimony against President Trump of Democratic-called witnesses amounted to a clash over foreign policy rather than any substantive claims of wrongdoing.
That already has become one of the White House's arguments in the Senate trial as it fends off the Democrats' effort to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton as a witness. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz argued in the Senate trial Monday night that "quid pro quos" are common in foreign policy. He concluded that even if true, the purported Bolton "bombshell" Sunday constitutes a dispute over foreign policy rather than an impeachable offense.
The push for witnesses was bolstered Sunday by a New York Times report citing an unpublished Bolton manuscript saying that Trump told him he wanted to condition security aid to Ukraine on investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
The report has not been verified, and Trump and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney dispute the claim.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Regardless, it was clear that Trump fired Bolton after repeated policy feuds.
"His services are no longer needed at the White House," the president tweeted Sept. 10. "I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration."
In fact, Bolton's hiring in 2018 was a surprise as he had been associated with the "neo-conservatives" of the George W. Bush administration who orchestrated the 2003 Iraq war and the "nation-building" effort that Trump has called "a big mistake."
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who has touted Trump's stated policy of avoiding "endless war," once described Bolton in an op-ed as "hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last 15 years."
Shortly before he was appointed by Trump, Bolton wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal making the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
After his appointment, however, he revised his view, saying, "You have to know in advance the president's views are not always yours."
In January 2019, Bolton outlined conditions for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria that appeared to contradict Trump's announcement of victory over ISIS and a hasty withdrawal from Syria. Bolton said the withdrawal from Syria would not be immediate but contingent upon the achievement of certain objectives, including assured protection for the Kurds and total defeat of ISIS.
In early 2019, Bush accused Bolton of trying to drag the U.S. into a war with Venezuela.
'Drug deal'
Bolton, according to the House testimony of former National Security Council Russia expert Fiona Hill, said her boss Bolton instructed her to tell lawyers she was not part of the "drug deal" EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were "cooking up" to pressure Ukraine.
The whistleblower complaint that triggered the impeachment investigation alleged Trump used the threat of withholding lethal aid to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival.
The White House argues the delayed aid was delivered before the deadline and there was no investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has said he he didn't feel any pressure, and the State Department itself was concerned that Hunter Biden's profiting from a corrupt Ukraine natural gas company while his father was in charge of Ukraine policy was an apparent conflict of interest.
Significantly, Dershowitz on Monday night, as a member of Trump's team, argued that "quid pro quo" in itself is not an abuse of power.
It's rather a regular method of conducting foreign policy, he said, acknowledging that he may disagree with particular quid pro quos.
"Even if a president were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power," he said.
Dershowitz then directly addressed the Bolton leak.
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," he said.
"That is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit."
A policy difference, he emphasized, is not criteria for impeachment.
"That's a criteria for deciding who you're going to vote for," Dershowitz told the Senate.
"Don't allow your subjective judgments to determine what is and what is not an impeachable offense."
Former Bolton chief of staff: Withdraw the book
A Bolton ally, Fred Fleitz, who served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council, is advising Bolton to withdraw his upcoming tell-all book on his time as Trump's national security adviser.
In an op-ed for Fox News, Fleitz emphasized the "importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers."
Fleitz, now president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, noted he's known Bolton for 30 years and served as his chief of staff twice.
Describing him as an "exceptional national security expert and a man of great integrity," he expressed sorrow that "the courageous and visionary national security adviser left the White House after the relationship broke down."
He said Bolton "played an important role in some of President Trump's most successful foreign policy decisions, including withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the 2018 Counterterrorism Strategy."
But he argued a president "must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them."
"A book by a former national security adviser ahead of a president’s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters," he said.
Fleitz said he hasn't seen the manuscript, and he takes Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times.
"But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton’s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review in December 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020," he said.
"It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process. Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain."
Fleitz concluded that if a manuscript of this sensitivity were to be published, it should happen after the election.
"I don't understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country," he said.
"There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election."
Trump: I never told him that
President Trump on Monday denied Bolton's claim that the president told him he wanted to condition aid to Ukraine on an investigation of the Bidens.
"I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens," the president said via Twitter. "In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.
"With that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems."
In addition, Trump said, he met with Zelensky at the United Nations, although the Democrats denied that fact.
Trump further argued he "released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations -- and far ahead of schedule."
"I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration," he said.


wnd--2020-01-28--Trump to unveil 'Deal of Century' after meeting with Netanyahu

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday , President Trump is set to release his peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians , which will include a map outlining the borders of a proposed Palestinian state .
No American president has proposed such a detailed map to resolve the seemingly intractable conflict , the Jerusalem Post reported .
Netanyahu will join Trump on Tuesday in the East Room of the White House for the presentation of the plan .
On Monday , Trump also met with Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz , who is challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump said he believes he will `` ultimately have the support of the Palestinians , '' but Palestinian Authority leaders have opposed the plan , without having seen it .
TRENDING : Melania Trump dons strikingly beautiful outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their spouses and press '' It 's something they should want , '' Trump said .
`` They probably wo n't want it initially .
I think in the end they will .
I think in the end they 're going to want it .
It 's very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian factions on Sunday called for a `` day of rage '' in response to the peace plan , calling it a `` deal of shame , '' the Jerusalem Post reported .
`` Days of rage '' previously have been marked by initiating clashes with Israel Defense Forces soldiers in the West Bank and Israeli policemen in east Jerusalem .
The Post said Palestinian Authority officials have hinted that the Palestinian leadership may renounce all signed agreements with Israel and halt security coordination between the Palestinians and Israel in the West Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House Monday : Trump said Monday after Netanyahu arrived at the White House that the deal is `` an opportunity for peace . ''
`` We 'll show a plan that has been worked on by everyone .
We 'll see if it catches hold .
If it does , that 'd be great .
If it does n't , it 's OK. '' Netanyahu told Trump he is `` looking forward to making history '' on Tuesday , calling the plan `` a vision of peace , which is historic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial , Netanyahu has been indicted on corruption charges , which he is fighting , contending the accusations are politically motivated .
The Israeli parliament likely will reject his request for immunity , and a criminal trial looms .
The peace plan , according to sources , would include the annexation of all West Bank Jewish settlements to Israel , along with most of the Jordan Valley .
The objective is to create maximum territory with minimum non-Israeli residents so that the Palestinians could live in their own , demilitarized state .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Negev and near the Gaza-Egypt border as compensation for the territory .
Longtime Israel analyst Caroline Glick said leaks about the details of the peace plan are contradictory .
But based on past experience , she writes that it 's `` clear that Trump does not accept the premise that formed the foundation of the Oslo peace process with the Palestine Liberation Organization . ''
She pointed out that Oslo and every peace plan that followed were based on the premise that the PLO `` gets a veto over Israel 's right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria . ''
Gantz and his center-left Blue and White Party , which is competing with Netanyahu 's Likud for national leadership , adheres to the veto premise unequivocally , Glick emphasized .
`` Trump 's sudden decision to summon Netanyahu to the White House for a meeting next Tuesday and his acceptance of Netanyahu 's request that Gantz also be invited , puts Gantz in a bind , '' she said .
`` For Gantz to accept Trump ’ s peace plan , he will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the post-Zionist Left , held by the majority of his party members .
Doing so would help him win the election .
But it will also unravel his party , '' Glick explained .
She said it 's hard to know how Gantz will respond .
`` What we know for sure is that Trump ’ s abrupt invitation changed the face of the election . ''

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, President Trump is set to release his peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians, which will include a map outlining the borders of a proposed Palestinian state.
No American president has proposed such a detailed map to resolve the seemingly intractable conflict, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Netanyahu will join Trump on Tuesday in the East Room of the White House for the presentation of the plan. On Monday, Trump also met with Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz, who is challenging Netanyahu in the March 2 election.
Trump said he believes he will "ultimately have the support of the Palestinians," but Palestinian Authority leaders have opposed the plan, without having seen it.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"It's something they should want," Trump said. "They probably won't want it initially. I think in the end they will. I think in the end they're going to want it. It's very good for them."
Meanwhile, Palestinian factions on Sunday called for a "day of rage" in response to the peace plan, calling it a "deal of shame," the Jerusalem Post reported.
"Days of rage" previously have been marked by initiating clashes with Israel Defense Forces soldiers in the West Bank and Israeli policemen in east Jerusalem.
The Post said Palestinian Authority officials have hinted that the Palestinian leadership may renounce all signed agreements with Israel and halt security coordination between the Palestinians and Israel in the West Bank.
See the Trump-Netanyahu meeting at the White House Monday:
Trump said Monday after Netanyahu arrived at the White House that the deal is "an opportunity for peace."
"We'll show a plan that has been worked on by everyone. We'll see if it catches hold. If it does, that'd be great. If it doesn't, it's OK."
Netanyahu told Trump he is "looking forward to making history" on Tuesday, calling the plan "a vision of peace, which is historic."
While Trump faces a Senate impeachment trial, Netanyahu has been indicted on corruption charges, which he is fighting, contending the accusations are politically motivated. The Israeli parliament likely will reject his request for immunity, and a criminal trial looms.
The peace plan, according to sources, would include the annexation of all West Bank Jewish settlements to Israel, along with most of the Jordan Valley. The objective is to create maximum territory with minimum non-Israeli residents so that the Palestinians could live in their own, demilitarized state. The Palestinians would be given uninhabited land in the Negev and near the Gaza-Egypt border as compensation for the territory.
Abandoning the Oslo concession
Longtime Israel analyst Caroline Glick said leaks about the details of the peace plan are contradictory. But based on past experience, she writes that it's "clear that Trump does not accept the premise that formed the foundation of the Oslo peace process with the Palestine Liberation Organization."
She pointed out that Oslo and every peace plan that followed were based on the premise that the PLO "gets a veto over Israel's right to secure its interests and assert its sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria."
Gantz and his center-left Blue and White Party, which is competing with Netanyahu's Likud for national leadership, adheres to the veto premise unequivocally, Glick emphasized.
"Trump's sudden decision to summon Netanyahu to the White House for a meeting next Tuesday and his acceptance of Netanyahu's request that Gantz also be invited, puts Gantz in a bind," she said.
"For Gantz to accept Trump’s peace plan, he will have to break away from the anti-Israeli narrative of the post-Zionist Left, held by the majority of his party members. Doing so would help him win the election. But it will also unravel his party," Glick explained.
She said it's hard to know how Gantz will respond.
"What we know for sure is that Trump’s abrupt invitation changed the face of the election."


wnd--2020-01-28--Mark Levin masterfully breaks down Bolton's 'bombshell' point-by-point

For Mark Levin , it ’ s not about bombshells .
It 's about the bottom line .
That ’ s one truth regular listeners to the conservative radio host are well aware of , and it ’ s one that comes to mind immediately on reading a Twitter thread posted by Levin on Monday morning .
Liberals were still celebrating a conveniently timed story posted by The New York Times on Sunday night , just as the second day of President Donald Trump ’ s defense in his Senate impeachment trial was due to begin .
But in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion to one of his own well-reasoned radio lectures , Levin asked one bottom-line question .
“ If every word of this New York Times story is true , which I doubt as it ’ s another politically timed leak , how does this change anything ?
” Levin wrote .
And he was just getting started .
TRENDING : Melania Trump dons strikingly beautiful outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their spouses and press “ As a matter of FACT , there was no quid pro quo .
And there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrary.
” There ’ s no denying those points .
To call The Times story a “ politically timed leak ” is understating the case considerably .
Liberals in the media , Democrats in the Senate and Bolton ’ s publishers could not have asked for better timing .
And as Levin noted , the Bolton story says nothing about the kind of `` quid pro quo '' Democrats harped on for so long .
Levin then dealt with the story from the standpoint few Americans share : An author of political works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's the kind of point-by-point breakdown that carries special weight coming from someone intimately involved in the writing and publishing process .
But for anyone who ’ s followed the impeachment story closely , it ’ s an analysis that makes sense .
While Bolton , a former national security advisor , was often mentioned as a potential subject of a subpoena from the House , Democrats bent on railroading through an impeachment vote couldn ’ t be bothered to take the time to fight the court battle that would have ensued over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branch to that extent .
So when Bolton announced through his attorney in early January that he would be willing to testify in the Senate if served a subpoena , it was like the first shoe dropping .
The second one was waiting -- for the appropriate time , apparently .
And on Sunday night it came , just when it was becoming clear to all just how badly the Democratic impeachment farce had gone over with the American public .
Suddenly , Bolton was back in the news .
And suddenly -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- Senate Democrats were celebrating a surprise development of dubious distinction .
In a separate thread , he got away from analyzing the aspects of political book publishing and got to the politics of the moment : “ The NY Times piece is aimed at the usual 4-6 Republicans who are constantly trying to make nice with the media & some of whom face tough re-election races , ” he wrote .
“ But none of it had anything to do with impeachable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
Democrats and the media spent Monday enjoying the Bolton “ bombshell ” so much that it was hard to find any news outlet that ’ s avoided the word , whether Politico , The Daily Beast , or The Washington Post .
Looking at Levin ’ s analysis of the timing of the book ’ s writing , Bolton ’ s initial reticence about testifying then his sudden willingness to do so , and considering that the “ politically timed leak ” came at the moment of maximum impact , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development as anything but a continuation of the brutal , slimy tactics Democrats used during the Kavanaugh fight .
In the final analysis , none of it has to do with “ impeachable offenses , ” as Levin wrote .
And bombshells or no bombshells , that ’ s , in fact , the bottom line .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

For Mark Levin, it’s not about bombshells. It's about the bottom line.
That’s one truth regular listeners to the conservative radio host are well aware of, and it’s one that comes to mind immediately on reading a Twitter thread posted by Levin on Monday morning.
Liberals were still celebrating a conveniently timed story posted by The New York Times on Sunday night, just as the second day of President Donald Trump’s defense in his Senate impeachment trial was due to begin.
But in a point-blank Twitter post that sounded like a conclusion to one of his own well-reasoned radio lectures, Levin asked one bottom-line question.
“If every word of this New York Times story is true, which I doubt as it’s another politically timed leak, how does this change anything?” Levin wrote. And he was just getting started.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
“As a matter of FACT, there was no quid pro quo. And there’s still no evidence to the contrary.”
If every word of this New York Times story is true, which I doubt as it’s another politically timed leak, how does this change anything? As a matter of FACT, there was no quid pro quo. And there’s still no evidence to the contrary. https://t.co/ivpSXilnIM — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
There’s no denying those points. To call The Times story a “politically timed leak” is understating the case considerably. Liberals in the media, Democrats in the Senate and Bolton’s publishers could not have asked for better timing.
(In fact, it almost seems like it all could have been planned ahead of time for the express purpose of maximizing the damage of perception to the president -- and maximizing publicity for Bolton’s book.)
And as Levin noted, the Bolton story says nothing about the kind of "quid pro quo" Democrats harped on for so long.
Levin then dealt with the story from the standpoint few Americans share: An author of political works written for a mainstream market.
1. Bolton’s book was obviously timed for maximum impact & sales. Having written 8 books, I can tell you that it’s extraordinary that an author could complete a book in about 2 months and the published release it in 3-4 months. — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
2. In approximately 6 months since departing the White House, Bolton’s book will be in bookstores.
And now the litigation strategy makes sense. First, he went to court to seek a judge’s opinion on whether he could testify in the House. — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
3.Then, he does an about face, announcing through counsel that he’s available to testify should the Senate ask him. Therefore, he sought to delay any testimony while still writing his book, but after he completed it - submitted it for NSC review, he became available for the trial — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
4. And he became available because he knew he’d be criticized for holding back his allegations until the book’s release. Moreover, the strategy also maximizes publicity for the book. The cover of the book is presently highlighted on Drudge and through the media. — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
It's the kind of point-by-point breakdown that carries special weight coming from someone intimately involved in the writing and publishing process. But for anyone who’s followed the impeachment story closely, it’s an analysis that makes sense.
While Bolton, a former national security advisor, was often mentioned as a potential subject of a subpoena from the House, Democrats bent on railroading through an impeachment vote couldn’t be bothered to take the time to fight the court battle that would have ensued over Congress attempting to infringe on the executive branch to that extent.
So when Bolton announced through his attorney in early January that he would be willing to testify in the Senate if served a subpoena, it was like the first shoe dropping. The second one was waiting -- for the appropriate time, apparently.
And on Sunday night it came, just when it was becoming clear to all just how badly the Democratic impeachment farce had gone over with the American public.
Suddenly, Bolton was back in the news. And suddenly -- as in the disgraceful case of the battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- Senate Democrats were celebrating a surprise development of dubious distinction.
But Levin wasn’t buying it.
In a separate thread, he got away from analyzing the aspects of political book publishing and got to the politics of the moment:
“The NY Times piece is aimed at the usual 4-6 Republicans who are constantly trying to make nice with the media & some of whom face tough re-election races,” he wrote. “But none of it had anything to do with impeachable offenses.”
And that is the final question.
Democrats and the media spent Monday enjoying the Bolton “bombshell” so much that it was hard to find any news outlet that’s avoided the word, whether Politico, The Daily Beast, or The Washington Post.
But Levin’s analysis brought a moment of calm.
Looking at Levin’s analysis of the timing of the book’s writing, Bolton’s initial reticence about testifying then his sudden willingness to do so, and considering that the “politically timed leak” came at the moment of maximum impact, it’s hard to see this latest development as anything but a continuation of the brutal, slimy tactics Democrats used during the Kavanaugh fight.
In the final analysis, none of it has to do with “impeachable offenses,” as Levin wrote.
And bombshells or no bombshells, that’s, in fact, the bottom line.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-28--Mike Huckabee: In 2020, Holocaust Remembrance Day is as important as ever

This year , we observe the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp .
This is always a very solemn occasion , but even more so now in the shadow of rising anti-Semitism -- some of it even coming from national political figures in Congress -- and deadly assaults on Jews on American soil .
Furthermore , a disturbing recent survey shows that 41 percent of Americans do n't know what Auschwitz was , including a shocking two-thirds of millennials .
Another new survey finds that 69 percent of millennials and Gen Xers in France , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t know that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust .
TRENDING : Melania Trump dons strikingly beautiful outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their spouses and press Worse , 25 percent of millennials said they had never heard of ( or were unsure if they had heard of ) the Holocaust and 20 percent said they believe it ’ s “ acceptable ” to hold anti-Semitic views .
There is a very good reason why the credo of those who observe Holocaust Remembrance Day is “ Never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple times .
It is impossible to stand in that cursed place and not feel the weight of the sadness , loss , terror and evil in the very air around you .
Anyone who ’ s ever been to Auschwitz will never again toss around ignorant comparisons of various U.S. policies to “ Nazis ” and “ concentration camps.
” And I guarantee that once you ’ ve been there , you 'll never forget .
Unfortunately , too many people haven ’ t been there and haven ’ t been taught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps .
I like to believe that no human being who really understands what this was about could possibly feel anything but revulsion at the very idea of anti-Semitism .
And yet , it ’ s on the rise , which tells us we need to redouble our efforts to teach our children this history .
We all know that those who can not remember the past are doomed to repeat it .
This is a chapter of history we must never allow to be repeated .
David Clossen has more on International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events in this must-read article at The Daily Signal .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
This year, we observe the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.
This is always a very solemn occasion, but even more so now in the shadow of rising anti-Semitism -- some of it even coming from national political figures in Congress -- and deadly assaults on Jews on American soil.
Furthermore, a disturbing recent survey shows that 41 percent of Americans don't know what Auschwitz was, including a shocking two-thirds of millennials.
Another new survey finds that 69 percent of millennials and Gen Xers in France, a nation once occupied by the Nazis, didn’t know that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Worse, 25 percent of millennials said they had never heard of (or were unsure if they had heard of) the Holocaust and 20 percent said they believe it’s “acceptable” to hold anti-Semitic views.
There is a very good reason why the credo of those who observe Holocaust Remembrance Day is “Never again.”
I have been to Auschwitz multiple times. It is impossible to stand in that cursed place and not feel the weight of the sadness, loss, terror and evil in the very air around you.
75 yrs ago, Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated. I've been there several times-closest thing to hell that exists on earth. But today, we celebrate that Jews are free in their God-given land & will never again be placed in Nazi death camps. @IDF protects Israel. https://t.co/PQvt68RrQL — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) January 27, 2020
Anyone who’s ever been to Auschwitz will never again toss around ignorant comparisons of various U.S. policies to “Nazis” and “concentration camps.”
And I guarantee that once you’ve been there, you'll never forget.
Unfortunately, too many people haven’t been there and haven’t been taught what happened there and in other such camps.
I like to believe that no human being who really understands what this was about could possibly feel anything but revulsion at the very idea of anti-Semitism.
And yet, it’s on the rise, which tells us we need to redouble our efforts to teach our children this history.
We all know that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
This is a chapter of history we must never allow to be repeated.
David Clossen has more on International Holocaust Remembrance Day in light of current events in this must-read article at The Daily Signal.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-28--Kobe Bryant's faith helped him through his toughest times

NBA legend Kobe Bryant said his Catholic faith sustained him through some of the most challenging times in his life , including in 2003 when he faced the possibility of spending years behind bars .
Bryant , along with his 13-year-old daughter , Gianna , and seven others , died in a helicopter crash north of Los Angeles on Sunday morning .
The 41-year-old leaves behind his wife , Vanessa , and three other daughters — Natalia , 17 , Bianka , 3 , and Capri , seven months , the Los Angeles Times reported .
`` Born in Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic household and even spent some of his youth in Italy .
Drafted into the NBA at the age of 17 , he eventually married Vanessa Laine at St. Edward Roman Catholic Church in Dana Point , California , '' the Catholic news site Aleteia reported .
TRENDING : Melania Trump dons strikingly beautiful outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their spouses and press During his 20-year career with the Los Angeles Lakers , Bryant amassed five NBA championships and 18 All-Star game appearances and was the third-highest scorer in league @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April 2016 .
The Lakers ' Lebron James just surpassed Bryant in career scoring Saturday night in a game against the 76ers in Bryant 's hometown of Philadelphia .
Bryant 's last tweet was to congratulate James .
The basketball great credited his Catholic faith with helping him navigate one of the most challenging times in his life .
In 2003 , a 19-year-old woman accused Bryant of raping her in a Colorado hotel room .
The married NBA star , then 24 , denied the charge , saying the sexual encounter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 he was terrified as he faced the possibility of going to jail for many years .
`` The one thing that really helped me during that process -- I ’ m Catholic , I grew up Catholic , my kids are Catholic -- was talking to a priest , '' the NBA legend said .
`` It was actually kind of funny : He looks at me and says , 'Did you do it ? '
And I say , 'Of course not . '
`` Then he asks , 'Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m like , 'Uh , yeah , he ’ s phenomenal . '
So then he just said , 'Let it go .
Move on .
God ’ s not going to give you anything you can ’ t handle , and it ’ s in his hands now .
This is something you can ’ t control .
So let it go . '
And that was the turning point . ''
A year after he was accused , a judge dismissed the charges against Bryant .
Bryant later apologized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a civil lawsuit brought by her .
“ Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual , I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did .
After months of reviewing discovery , listening to her attorney , and even her testimony in person , I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter , ” he said in a statement Sept. 1 , 2004 .
After news broke of Bryant 's tragic death , Instagram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I want to tell a story about the time I met Kobe Bryant .
“ I was sitting in the very back of Holy Family Cathedral in Orange , CA , on a WEEKDAY mass .
At the time I was very into wearing veils and on this particular day I had a scarf I used as veil , '' she continued .
`` Right as mass begins I see a huge shadow in my right peripheral vision and hear a decently loud creak from probably a big man .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ KOBE BRYANT IN THE SAME PEW AS ME ON THE OTHER END ! ''
Ballestero further related , “ As we went up to communion , he waited for me to go .
If you grew up in the Catholic Church , you understand this is a respectful thing men do in church as a sign of respect to women .
... '' It was such a cool experience to receive Jesus right before him , and also , to walk up to receive Jesus together .
It was also cool to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' She also shared how she appreciated Bryant turning to his faith in God and receiving `` God 's mercy and be a better man after his regretful decision '' in Colorado .
Bryant reconciled with Vanessa following the incident and again when she filed for divorce in 2011 but withdrew the petition two years later , according to the Catholic News Agency .
The couple founded the Kobe and Vanessa Bryant Family Foundation , which is `` dedicated to improving the lives of youth and families in need , both domestically and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay active through sports , '' as well as aiding the homeless .
Bryant told the Times in 2012 that homelessness “ is one that kind of gets pushed on the back burner because it ’ s easy to point the blame at those who are homeless and say , ‘ Well , you made that bad decision .
This is where you are .
It ’ s your fault . '
`` In life , we all make mistakes and to stand back and allow someone to live that way and kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not right . ''
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

NBA legend Kobe Bryant said his Catholic faith sustained him through some of the most challenging times in his life, including in 2003 when he faced the possibility of spending years behind bars.
Bryant, along with his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, and seven others, died in a helicopter crash north of Los Angeles on Sunday morning.
The 41-year-old leaves behind his wife, Vanessa, and three other daughters — Natalia, 17, Bianka, 3, and Capri, seven months, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Bryant was a lifelong Catholic.
"Born in Philadelphia, Kobe Bryant was raised in a Catholic household and even spent some of his youth in Italy. Drafted into the NBA at the age of 17, he eventually married Vanessa Laine at St. Edward Roman Catholic Church in Dana Point, California," the Catholic news site Aleteia reported.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
During his 20-year career with the Los Angeles Lakers, Bryant amassed five NBA championships and 18 All-Star game appearances and was the third-highest scorer in league history at the time of his retirement in April 2016.
The Lakers' Lebron James just surpassed Bryant in career scoring Saturday night in a game against the 76ers in Bryant's hometown of Philadelphia.
Bryant's last tweet was to congratulate James.
Continuing to move the game forward @KingJames. Much respect my brother 💪🏾 #33644 — Kobe Bryant (@kobebryant) January 26, 2020
The basketball great credited his Catholic faith with helping him navigate one of the most challenging times in his life.
In 2003, a 19-year-old woman accused Bryant of raping her in a Colorado hotel room.
The married NBA star, then 24, denied the charge, saying the sexual encounter was consensual.
Bryant told GQ in 2015 he was terrified as he faced the possibility of going to jail for many years.
"The one thing that really helped me during that process -- I’m Catholic, I grew up Catholic, my kids are Catholic -- was talking to a priest," the NBA legend said. "It was actually kind of funny: He looks at me and says, 'Did you do it?' And I say, 'Of course not.'
"Then he asks, 'Do you have a good lawyer?' And I’m like, 'Uh, yeah, he’s phenomenal.' So then he just said, 'Let it go. Move on. God’s not going to give you anything you can’t handle, and it’s in his hands now. This is something you can’t control. So let it go.' And that was the turning point."
A year after he was accused, a judge dismissed the charges against Bryant.
Bryant later apologized to the woman after reaching a settlement in a civil lawsuit brought by her.
“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter,” he said in a statement Sept. 1, 2004.
After news broke of Bryant's tragic death, Instagram user Cristina Ballestero wrote in a post, “I want to tell a story about the time I met Kobe Bryant.
“I was sitting in the very back of Holy Family Cathedral in Orange, CA, on a WEEKDAY mass. At the time I was very into wearing veils and on this particular day I had a scarf I used as veil," she continued.
"Right as mass begins I see a huge shadow in my right peripheral vision and hear a decently loud creak from probably a big man. I double took to see... it was KOBE BRYANT IN THE SAME PEW AS ME ON THE OTHER END!"
Ballestero further related, “As we went up to communion, he waited for me to go. If you grew up in the Catholic Church, you understand this is a respectful thing men do in church as a sign of respect to women. ...
"It was such a cool experience to receive Jesus right before him, and also, to walk up to receive Jesus together. It was also cool to see him come for a weekday mass."
She also shared how she appreciated Bryant turning to his faith in God and receiving "God's mercy and be a better man after his regretful decision" in Colorado.
Bryant reconciled with Vanessa following the incident and again when she filed for divorce in 2011 but withdrew the petition two years later, according to the Catholic News Agency.
The couple founded the Kobe and Vanessa Bryant Family Foundation, which is "dedicated to improving the lives of youth and families in need, both domestically and globally, and encouraging young people to stay active through sports," as well as aiding the homeless.
Bryant told the Times in 2012 that homelessness “is one that kind of gets pushed on the back burner because it’s easy to point the blame at those who are homeless and say, ‘Well, you made that bad decision. This is where you are. It’s your fault.'
"In life, we all make mistakes and to stand back and allow someone to live that way and kind of wash your hands of it … that’s not right."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-28--Martha McSally: Impeachment trial like 'major dental surgery without anesthesia'

Several Arizona Republican leaders , including Sen. Martha McSally , addressed the 2020 State Committee of the Republican Party of Arizona meeting Saturday morning and used the opportunity to express their abhorrence toward the ongoing impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
McSally was originally slated to appear in person , but she was unable to leave Washington because of the ongoing trial .
Instead , she sent a video message in which she criticized a trio of Democrats at the forefront of the impeachment effort : House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California , Senate Minority Leader Chuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi of California .
`` They want to overturn the results of the 2016 election and keep President Trump off the ballot in 2020 , '' she said .
`` [ Schiff ] has such disdain for the American voters and our values that this is what they 're presenting . ''
McSally also said watching the impeachment trial was `` more painful than having major dental surgery without anesthesia . ''
Another Arizona GOP leader , Rep. Debbie Lesko , also had strong words about the Democrats ' impeachment effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outfits at G7 , wows world leaders , their spouses and press Lesko was named to the president 's defense team on Jan. 20 , along with seven other members of Congress , in order `` to combat this hyper-partisan and baseless impeachment , '' according to a news release from the White House .
On Saturday , she addressed over 600 state committee members in Phoenix and explained how the impeachment trial highlights the hypocrisy of the Democratic leaders .
`` I heard hours and hours of the Democrats talking about all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all this 'great stuff ' they had , '' Lesko said .
`` It 's a total sham and full of BS .
...
I could n't even ask questions of witnesses -- fact witnesses !
They were so unfair , so corrupt in the House -- the Democrats were .
`` And then they have the gall , the audacity , to come over to the Senate and say , 'Oh , the Senate is unfair .
We demand more witnesses ! '
The same witnesses they could 've asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose not to ?
... '' Give me a break .
...
This whole thing is about grabbing power . ''
Rep. David Schweikert told The Western Journal that his constituents have already `` tuned out '' the partisan tug-of-war happening in Washington .
`` When the impeachment was beginning a couple of months ago , our phones in our office exploded , '' Schweikert said .
`` This last week ?
Silence .
Almost no calls . ''
He concluded that Arizonans have already reached their own conclusions about the trial -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the public is way ahead of those of us in the elected office -- even the media -- having sort of dissected what 's really going on and moved on with their lives , '' Schweikert said .
The Arizona GOP chairwoman , Dr. Kelli Ward , told The Western Journal during a news conference after the event that the state GOP `` stands firmly with our president and the legitimate election of 2016 . ''
`` The do-nothing-Democrats have put this sham impeachment , witch hunt on for way too long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Ward said .
`` We need to move the business of the country forward and stop the madness . ''
Another leading Republican in the state also condemned the impeachment effort : Mark Brnovich , Arizona 's attorney general , sent a letter to McSally and Arizona 's other senator , Democrat Kyrsten Sinema , on Friday afternoon urging them to vote to acquit the president in order to stop the partisan `` weaponization '' of the impeachment process and the devaluation of the people 's power to vote .
`` The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reshape our government , '' he wrote .
`` It would make any president subject to removal by impeachment when a sufficient majority of the legislative branch disagrees with the rationale for an exercise of executive authority . ''
Instead , Brnovich argued that disputes with the president 's actions should be dealt with as the Founders intended -- `` namely , in the public square and at the ballot box in November . ''
Brnovich Letter by The Western Journal on Scribd The Western Journal 's Morgan Brantley also contributed to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Western Journal .

Several Arizona Republican leaders, including Sen. Martha McSally, addressed the 2020 State Committee of the Republican Party of Arizona meeting Saturday morning and used the opportunity to express their abhorrence toward the ongoing impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
McSally was originally slated to appear in person, but she was unable to leave Washington because of the ongoing trial. Instead, she sent a video message in which she criticized a trio of Democrats at the forefront of the impeachment effort: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
"They want to overturn the results of the 2016 election and keep President Trump off the ballot in 2020," she said. "[Schiff] has such disdain for the American voters and our values that this is what they're presenting."
McSally also said watching the impeachment trial was "more painful than having major dental surgery without anesthesia."
Another Arizona GOP leader, Rep. Debbie Lesko, also had strong words about the Democrats' impeachment effort.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Lesko was named to the president's defense team on Jan. 20, along with seven other members of Congress, in order "to combat this hyper-partisan and baseless impeachment," according to a news release from the White House.
On Saturday, she addressed over 600 state committee members in Phoenix and explained how the impeachment trial highlights the hypocrisy of the Democratic leaders.
"I heard hours and hours of the Democrats talking about all of this 'great evidence' they had, all this 'great stuff' they had," Lesko said. "It's a total sham and full of BS. ... I couldn't even ask questions of witnesses -- fact witnesses! They were so unfair, so corrupt in the House -- the Democrats were.
"And then they have the gall, the audacity, to come over to the Senate and say, 'Oh, the Senate is unfair. We demand more witnesses!' The same witnesses they could've asked for in the House of Representatives and they chose not to? ...
"Give me a break. ... This whole thing is about grabbing power."
Rep. David Schweikert told The Western Journal that his constituents have already "tuned out" the partisan tug-of-war happening in Washington.
"When the impeachment was beginning a couple of months ago, our phones in our office exploded," Schweikert said. "This last week? Silence. Almost no calls."
He concluded that Arizonans have already reached their own conclusions about the trial -- one way or another.
"I think the public is way ahead of those of us in the elected office -- even the media -- having sort of dissected what's really going on and moved on with their lives," Schweikert said.
The Arizona GOP chairwoman, Dr. Kelli Ward, told The Western Journal during a news conference after the event that the state GOP "stands firmly with our president and the legitimate election of 2016."
"The do-nothing-Democrats have put this sham impeachment, witch hunt on for way too long. It's causing them damage," Ward said. "We need to move the business of the country forward and stop the madness."
Another leading Republican in the state also condemned the impeachment effort: Mark Brnovich, Arizona's attorney general, sent a letter to McSally and Arizona's other senator, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, on Friday afternoon urging them to vote to acquit the president in order to stop the partisan "weaponization" of the impeachment process and the devaluation of the people's power to vote.
"The Senate's acceptance of this theory would reshape our government," he wrote. "It would make any president subject to removal by impeachment when a sufficient majority of the legislative branch disagrees with the rationale for an exercise of executive authority."
Instead, Brnovich argued that disputes with the president's actions should be dealt with as the Founders intended -- "namely, in the public square and at the ballot box in November."
Brnovich Letter by The Western Journal on Scribd
The Western Journal's Morgan Brantley also contributed to this report.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-29--We Deplorables may not be Ivy Leaguers, but we can mark 'X' on a ballot

CNN 's Don Lemon giggled like a schoolgirl as panelists Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali mocked President Trump 's supporters as a bunch of illiterate hillbillies .
Lemon , who is the defendant in a scandalous sexual assault case , was dishing about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 's dustup with a NPR reporter who reportedly could not find Ukraine on a map .
`` [ Pompeo ] also knows deep within his heart that Donald Trump could n't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He knows that this is , you know , an administration defined by ignorance of the world .
And so that 's partly him playing to the base and playing to their audience .
You know , the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump . ''
That `` credulous boomer rube demo '' would be the gun-toting , Bible-clinging , Deplorables who sent Donald J. Trump to Washington , D.C. , to irrigate the Deep State Swamp .
I wrote an entire book about this .
Click here to get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart one – any y'all elitists are dumb ! '
'' Wilson said with a fake Southern accent .
TRENDING : CBS gives Warren another chance to address angry dad , she digs an even deeper hole '' 'You elitists with your geography and your maps – and your spelling ! '
'' Ali added .
`` 'Your math and your reading ! '
'' Wilson said .
`` 'All those lines on the map ! '
'' Lemon doubled over on the anchor desk with tears in his eyes , laughing like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He had the look of someone who had just peed himself on national television .
President Trump , clearly disgusted by the blistering attack , responded on Twitter .
`` Don Lemon , the dumbest man on television ( with terrible ratings ! )
, '' the president wrote .
Trump speaks the truth – not even Brian Stelter or Oliver Darcy watch Lemon 's show .
Lemon and Ali are textbook examples of socially acceptable racists .
The bosses turn a blind eye to the hate spewing nightly from Lemon 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a white news anchor giggled uncontrollably as his guests mocked black people .
They would 've been run out of the country .
As for Wilson – well , he 's the biblical definition of a jackass .
`` Arrogant , elitist snobs w/ noses so high in the air a good rain would drown them , '' Gov .
Mike Huckabee wrote on Twitter .
`` Keep up your contempt of us deplorable 'hillbillies . '
Laugh at us loud now .
Election night when @ realDonaldTrump wins in landslide reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look so smug . ''
It 's not the first time the soy milk and Mexican man shoes crowd has smeared the president 's base .
We 've been called worse .
President Obama infamously accused folks in the Rust Belt of clinging to their guns and their religion .
He called them bitter .
Hillary Clinton called us a basket of deplorables .
And former Vice President Joe Biden said we were the dregs of society .
Honestly , folks , I 'd rather be a gun-toting , Bible-clinging , illiterate hillbilly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snowflake .
So good luck with that lawsuit , Mr .
Lemon .
And to show there are no hard feelings , here 's a word of advice from all of us hillbilly rubes : It ai n't nice to put yer hands on another feller 's private parts .
Allegedly .

CNN's Don Lemon giggled like a schoolgirl as panelists Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali mocked President Trump's supporters as a bunch of illiterate hillbillies.
Lemon, who is the defendant in a scandalous sexual assault case, was dishing about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's dustup with a NPR reporter who reportedly could not find Ukraine on a map.
"[Pompeo] also knows deep within his heart that Donald Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it," Wilson said. "He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world. And so that's partly him playing to the base and playing to their audience. You know, the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump."
That "credulous boomer rube demo" would be the gun-toting, Bible-clinging, Deplorables who sent Donald J. Trump to Washington, D.C., to irrigate the Deep State Swamp. I wrote an entire book about this. Click here to get a copy.
"'Donald Trump's the smart one – any y'all elitists are dumb!'" Wilson said with a fake Southern accent.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"'You elitists with your geography and your maps – and your spelling!'" Ali added.
"'Your math and your reading!'" Wilson said. "'All those lines on the map!'"
Lemon doubled over on the anchor desk with tears in his eyes, laughing like Anderson Cooper on New Year's Eve. He had the look of someone who had just peed himself on national television.
President Trump, clearly disgusted by the blistering attack, responded on Twitter.
"Don Lemon, the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!)," the president wrote.
Trump speaks the truth – not even Brian Stelter or Oliver Darcy watch Lemon's show.
Lemon and Ali are textbook examples of socially acceptable racists. The bosses turn a blind eye to the hate spewing nightly from Lemon's mouth.
Imagine what would have happened had a white news anchor giggled uncontrollably as his guests mocked black people. They would've been run out of the country.
As for Wilson – well, he's the biblical definition of a jackass.
"Arrogant, elitist snobs w/ noses so high in the air a good rain would drown them," Gov. Mike Huckabee wrote on Twitter. "Keep up your contempt of us deplorable 'hillbillies.' Laugh at us loud now. Election night when @realDonaldTrump wins in landslide reelection, I'm sure you won't look so smug."
It's not the first time the soy milk and Mexican man shoes crowd has smeared the president's base. We've been called worse.
President Obama infamously accused folks in the Rust Belt of clinging to their guns and their religion. He called them bitter. Hillary Clinton called us a basket of deplorables. And former Vice President Joe Biden said we were the dregs of society.
Honestly, folks, I'd rather be a gun-toting, Bible-clinging, illiterate hillbilly than a perpetually offended, pajama boy snowflake.
So good luck with that lawsuit, Mr. Lemon. And to show there are no hard feelings, here's a word of advice from all of us hillbilly rubes: It ain't nice to put yer hands on another feller's private parts. Allegedly.


wnd--2020-01-29--'No billionaires!' – Iowa feels the Bern

How is it that a communist , for all practical purposes , is winning in the Iowa caucuses at present ?
If there is anything that history shows repeatedly , it is that socialism , including its more violent form , communism , is an utter failure by every criterion imaginable .
And yet , as of this writing , Bernie Sanders , Democratic presidential candidate and an out-of-the-closet socialist , is leading in Iowa .
As The New York Times ( Jan. 26 ) notes : `` Senator Bernie Sanders has opened up a lead in Iowa just over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consolidating support from liberals and benefiting from divisions among more moderate presidential candidates who are clustered behind him , according to a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely caucusgoers . ''
Bernie Sanders is what you could call a limousine liberal or a sofa socialist .
One writer uses the phrase , `` champagne socialist . ''
That writer is Dr. Paul Kengor , a professor of history and political science at Grove City College and a bestselling author .
Many of his books focus on communism .
After the Soviet Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation 's formerly classified documents were eventually released .
TRENDING : CBS gives Warren another chance to address angry dad , she digs an even deeper hole Kengor took the time to study those documents and has produced books from those studies .
One of those books , `` Dupes , '' shows how liberals in the West , including America , fell for the Communists ' lies .
Recently , I interviewed Kengor ( again ) on my radio show to discuss an article he wrote in the American Spectator , called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes that Fidel Castro was one of Sanders ' models .
Bernie Sanders famously spent his honeymoon in Russia – during the heyday of the Soviet Union .
He claims that we have no need for billionaires , saying , `` Billionaires should not exist . ''
Kengor told me that if you see a bumper sticker declaring `` No Billionaires , '' it comes from the Bernie Sanders for President campaign .
In his article on Sanders and billionaires , Kengor wrote of one of Bernie 's heroes , `` [ Fidel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was much more than a millionaire .
In 2006 , Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $ 900 million and rising .
… And yet , all Cuban workers – from doctors to teachers , baseball players , dentists , farmers , janitors – subsisted at a mandated 'living wage ' of $ 1,200 per year , while the Castro brothers and a close-knit band of apparatchiks literally owned the island . ''
Kengor adds , `` Yes , American progressives and Occupy Wall Street maniacs , if you want to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an income gap that would make you cry into your Starbucks cup , go to a Marxist country .
There , 99 percent of the masses make the same poverty wage , while 1 percent confiscate wealth and property .
But hey , at least the serfs have 'free ' education and health care !
That 's the ridiculous retort of the American Left , including Bernie Sanders . ''
Kengor notes that Sanders is no pauper – owning at least $ 2 million dollars ' worth of real estate in a Vermont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Kengor calls `` Bernie 's dacha on the Black Sea '' ) , a colonial home in Burlington , Vermont , and a half-million dollar row house in D.C. : `` Stumping for socialism seems a pretty lucrative deal . ''
And yet , many in our society like his type of message ( and that of Elizabeth Warren ) .
A Harris Poll last year found that among young people born after 1980 : • 73 % believe that government should provide universal health care ; • 67 % believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some people argue the Bible teaches socialism .
It does not .
It teaches charity , which is voluntary ( not coercive ) .
Socialism is a form of theft – theft by the government .
Socialism stokes the flames of envy and covetousness .
Socialism violates at least two of the Ten Commandments : Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet .
Gary Bauer , the head of American Values , told me in an interview for Christian television that it gets back to our education system : '' The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialism is a good thing , have not been educated in any way shape or form about what socialism is ; and the reverse of that coin is they do n't know what free markets and free enterprise are , they think that it 's exploitative , that it causes poverty .
When , in fact , all over the world and throughout history , if young people were just being taught reality , they would know that socialism never works . ''
Historians Eugene Genovese and his wife , Elizabeth Fox-Genovese , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but then became disillusioned by communism .
They told the National Review ( Feb. 24 , 1997 ) after the Soviet Union went kaput : `` When it all collapsed , the question was , after 70 years , what do we have to show for it ?
… tens of millions of corpses . ''
I hope more Americans will learn from history and not fall for the pied pipers of socialism .

How is it that a communist, for all practical purposes, is winning in the Iowa caucuses at present? If there is anything that history shows repeatedly, it is that socialism, including its more violent form, communism, is an utter failure by every criterion imaginable.
And yet, as of this writing, Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential candidate and an out-of-the-closet socialist, is leading in Iowa.
As The New York Times (Jan. 26) notes: "Senator Bernie Sanders has opened up a lead in Iowa just over a week before the Democratic caucuses, consolidating support from liberals and benefiting from divisions among more moderate presidential candidates who are clustered behind him, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely caucusgoers."
Bernie Sanders is what you could call a limousine liberal or a sofa socialist. One writer uses the phrase, "champagne socialist."
That writer is Dr. Paul Kengor, a professor of history and political science at Grove City College and a bestselling author. Many of his books focus on communism. After the Soviet Union imploded in the early 1990s, the nation's formerly classified documents were eventually released.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Kengor took the time to study those documents and has produced books from those studies. One of those books, "Dupes," shows how liberals in the West, including America, fell for the Communists' lies.
Recently, I interviewed Kengor (again) on my radio show to discuss an article he wrote in the American Spectator, called "Bernie's Billionaires." He notes that Fidel Castro was one of Sanders' models.
Bernie Sanders famously spent his honeymoon in Russia – during the heyday of the Soviet Union. He claims that we have no need for billionaires, saying, "Billionaires should not exist."
Kengor told me that if you see a bumper sticker declaring "No Billionaires," it comes from the Bernie Sanders for President campaign.
In his article on Sanders and billionaires, Kengor wrote of one of Bernie's heroes, "[Fidel] Castro, for the record, was much more than a millionaire. In 2006, Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $900 million and rising. … And yet, all Cuban workers – from doctors to teachers, baseball players, dentists, farmers, janitors – subsisted at a mandated 'living wage' of $1,200 per year, while the Castro brothers and a close-knit band of apparatchiks literally owned the island."
Kengor adds, "Yes, American progressives and Occupy Wall Street maniacs, if you want to see a society of true 1-percenters, with an income gap that would make you cry into your Starbucks cup, go to a Marxist country. There, 99 percent of the masses make the same poverty wage, while 1 percent confiscate wealth and property. But hey, at least the serfs have 'free' education and health care! That's the ridiculous retort of the American Left, including Bernie Sanders."
Kengor notes that Sanders is no pauper – owning at least $2 million dollars' worth of real estate in a Vermont beachfront home on the Champlain Islands (which Kengor calls "Bernie's dacha on the Black Sea"), a colonial home in Burlington, Vermont, and a half-million dollar row house in D.C.: "Stumping for socialism seems a pretty lucrative deal."
And yet, many in our society like his type of message (and that of Elizabeth Warren). A Harris Poll last year found that among young people born after 1980:
73% believe that government should provide universal health care;
67% believe that government should provide tuition-free college; and
49% prefer living in a socialist country.
Yipes.
Some people argue the Bible teaches socialism. It does not. It teaches charity, which is voluntary (not coercive). Socialism is a form of theft – theft by the government. Socialism stokes the flames of envy and covetousness. Socialism violates at least two of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet.
Gary Bauer, the head of American Values, told me in an interview for Christian television that it gets back to our education system:
"The majority of students that are saying that socialism is a good thing, have not been educated in any way shape or form about what socialism is; and the reverse of that coin is they don't know what free markets and free enterprise are, they think that it's exploitative, that it causes poverty. When, in fact, all over the world and throughout history, if young people were just being taught reality, they would know that socialism never works."
Historians Eugene Genovese and his wife, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, once published the Marxist Perspectives magazine, but then became disillusioned by communism. They told the National Review (Feb. 24, 1997) after the Soviet Union went kaput: "When it all collapsed, the question was, after 70 years, what do we have to show for it? … tens of millions of corpses."
I hope more Americans will learn from history and not fall for the pied pipers of socialism.


wnd--2020-01-29--Impeachment witnesses? Just says NO

Impeachment witnesses? Just says NO

Are you watching the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate ?
If not , then you are like 95 % of Americans .
Only 5 % of Americans are watching any of it at all – let alone all of it .
Americans do n't think Trump will be removed .
They do n't care about the trial .
While the blue states want Trump removed , the swing states and red states do not .
More than 31 states say no ( 62 senators ) while 19 say yes ( 38 senators ) .
This is not a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York dominate the polls .
This is a state by state issue .
Removal requires 67 senators ; it 's not a national vote .
If you watched the rebuttals to the Democrats ' accusations by the Trump lawyers , then you understand that the arguments against removing him from office are very plain and easy to understand ; and none of them requires any additional witnesses or documents : 1 .
Democrats have been looking for reasons to impeach Trump since he was elected .
They are trying once again to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American voters , as they tried with Reagan ( Iran/Contra ) and W. Bush ( the Gore recount ) .
Legal manipulation is just part of the DNA of Democrats .
Since none of the other accusations by Democrats against Trump were valid ( i.e.
, collusion/conspiracy with Russians , bribery , treason , emolument violations , travel ban , obstruction of `` justice '' ) , Democrats settled on 1 ) obstruction of `` Congress '' ( which does not exist as a crime ) ; and 2 ) abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to remove Trump .
TRENDING : CBS gives Warren another chance to address angry dad , she digs an even deeper hole 2 .
`` Obstruction of Congress '' does not exist .
The U.S. government is different than the U.K. where the prime minister is accountable to the party in charge of Parliament .
Our Founding Fathers rejected the British model .
The United States Constitution established the president and Congress as equal branches .
Neither is directly accountable to the other ; both are accountable to the voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask the Supreme Court to rule on what the president had to provide to Congress , there is no such thing as obstruction of Congress .
Just declaring it does not make it so .
3 .
`` Abuse of power '' is subjective .
It is not a defined crime ; therefore , it does not qualify as treason , bribery , high crimes , or misdemeanors as defined in the Constitution as the reasons for impeachment .
4 .
Did Trump have adequate justification to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States , representing America , or for his personal political gain ?
The videotape evidence of the Bidens is clear .
The comments by Trump on the July 25 transcript are clear .
If you did not watch this portion of the rebuttal , then you missed the heart of the trial .
Trump had more than adequate justification .
Trump asked for help for the `` country , '' for `` us '' as the USA , and not for himself , despite anything he discussed with his staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are the only real evidence .
Everything else is speculation or hearsay .
5 .
Did the president of Ukraine sense there was extortion , bribery , or any pressure from Trump ?
No .
On multiple videos of multiple interviews , he stated `` no . ''
So if there is no victim , then what is the crime ?
He asked Trump to join him for a meeting other than at the White House , so the accusation of a White House visit as part of a quid pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear .
Those 53 Republican senators and 9 Democratic senators from states that voted for Trump have plenty of justification now to vote `` no '' on removing Trump .
It is all but done .
Over .
And it will carry into the November elections .
Now the Democrats are attempting a hail Mary pass to save themselves .
They are demanding witnesses and more documents .
But why did n't they get those additional witnesses and documents during the House hearings ?
Democrats claim now that they did not take their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SCOTUS during the House hearings because that would have delayed their impeachment process , and they claimed that Trump needed to be stopped immediately without delays by the high court , since Trump posed an immediate threat to the nation .
Democrats made that claim about SCOTUS with Chief Judge Roberts sitting right there .
Did you see the look on Roberts ' face ?
Democrats did n't even try to take it to the Supreme Court .
As pointed out by Trump attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr , the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress asked for rulings concerning disputes between itself and the president .
They had a dozen examples .
They also pointed out that Speaker Pelosi sat on the articles of impeachment for a month , so how could Democrats now claim that an immediate threat needed immediate action ?
The Democrats lied .
Democrats violated due process in dozens of ways .
Dershowitz and Starr exposed the truth – and the senators got it .
Will there be more witnesses and documents ?
For what reason ?
How do any additional witnesses or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers ?
If senators agree that the arguments of the Trump lawyers are valid , then how will any additional witnesses or documents change that ?
But there is one witness I would welcome : The whistleblower .
Why ?
How much crap from Adam Schiff would be found to be false about the whistleblower ?
Just as with Schiff 's claim for three years to have the evidence of collusion/conspiracy between Trump and Russians and evidence of obstruction of `` justice , '' how many other lies did Schiff tell ?
Especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fascinating to find out .

Are you watching the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate?
If not, then you are like 95% of Americans. Only 5% of Americans are watching any of it at all – let alone all of it.
Americans don't think Trump will be removed. They don't care about the trial. While the blue states want Trump removed, the swing states and red states do not. More than 31 states say no (62 senators) while 19 say yes (38 senators). This is not a total U.S. population issue where California and New York dominate the polls. This is a state by state issue. Removal requires 67 senators; it's not a national vote.
If you watched the rebuttals to the Democrats' accusations by the Trump lawyers, then you understand that the arguments against removing him from office are very plain and easy to understand; and none of them requires any additional witnesses or documents:
1. Democrats have been looking for reasons to impeach Trump since he was elected. They are trying once again to use the legal process to undo the will of the American voters, as they tried with Reagan (Iran/Contra) and W. Bush (the Gore recount). Legal manipulation is just part of the DNA of Democrats. Since none of the other accusations by Democrats against Trump were valid (i.e., collusion/conspiracy with Russians, bribery, treason, emolument violations, travel ban, obstruction of "justice"), Democrats settled on 1) obstruction of "Congress" (which does not exist as a crime); and 2) abuse of power (which is subjective) to try to remove Trump.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
2. "Obstruction of Congress" does not exist. The U.S. government is different than the U.K. where the prime minister is accountable to the party in charge of Parliament. Our Founding Fathers rejected the British model. The United States Constitution established the president and Congress as equal branches. Neither is directly accountable to the other; both are accountable to the voters. Therefore, since the House did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on what the president had to provide to Congress, there is no such thing as obstruction of Congress. Just declaring it does not make it so.
3. "Abuse of power" is subjective. It is not a defined crime; therefore, it does not qualify as treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors as defined in the Constitution as the reasons for impeachment.
4. Did Trump have adequate justification to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens? Did Trump do it as president of the United States, representing America, or for his personal political gain? The videotape evidence of the Bidens is clear. The comments by Trump on the July 25 transcript are clear. If you did not watch this portion of the rebuttal, then you missed the heart of the trial. Trump had more than adequate justification. Trump asked for help for the "country," for "us" as the USA, and not for himself, despite anything he discussed with his staff. The videotapes and transcript are clear. They are the only real evidence. Everything else is speculation or hearsay.
5. Did the president of Ukraine sense there was extortion, bribery, or any pressure from Trump? No. On multiple videos of multiple interviews, he stated "no." So if there is no victim, then what is the crime? He asked Trump to join him for a meeting other than at the White House, so the accusation of a White House visit as part of a quid pro quo is bogus. The videos are clear.
Those 53 Republican senators and 9 Democratic senators from states that voted for Trump have plenty of justification now to vote "no" on removing Trump. It is all but done. Over. And it will carry into the November elections.
Now the Democrats are attempting a hail Mary pass to save themselves. They are demanding witnesses and more documents. But why didn't they get those additional witnesses and documents during the House hearings?
Democrats claim now that they did not take their requests for additional documents and witnesses to SCOTUS during the House hearings because that would have delayed their impeachment process, and they claimed that Trump needed to be stopped immediately without delays by the high court, since Trump posed an immediate threat to the nation.
Democrats made that claim about SCOTUS with Chief Judge Roberts sitting right there. Did you see the look on Roberts' face? Democrats didn't even try to take it to the Supreme Court. As pointed out by Trump attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, the Supreme Court responded immediately in the past every time Congress asked for rulings concerning disputes between itself and the president. They had a dozen examples. They also pointed out that Speaker Pelosi sat on the articles of impeachment for a month, so how could Democrats now claim that an immediate threat needed immediate action? The Democrats lied. Democrats violated due process in dozens of ways. Dershowitz and Starr exposed the truth – and the senators got it.
Will there be more witnesses and documents? For what reason? How do any additional witnesses or documents change the arguments by the Trump lawyers? If senators agree that the arguments of the Trump lawyers are valid, then how will any additional witnesses or documents change that?
But there is one witness I would welcome: The whistleblower. Why? How much crap from Adam Schiff would be found to be false about the whistleblower? Just as with Schiff's claim for three years to have the evidence of collusion/conspiracy between Trump and Russians and evidence of obstruction of "justice," how many other lies did Schiff tell? Especially about the whistleblower? That would be fascinating to find out.