wnd--2020-01-29--LGBT crowd celebrates Super Bowl ad exposing nation to drag queens: 'Ready, Cracker?'

A cultural divide between the National Football League and heartland America continues to grow , with a new commercial underscoring how far apart the two have drifted .
The commercial , which will play in front of millions of families across the country during the Super Bowl , features two drag queens who were previously on `` RuPaul ’ s Drag Race , '' a reality show that is centered around drag culture .
Kim Chi and Miz Cracker are the two drag queens who will appear in the commercial , among other personalities .
`` Ready , Cracker ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sabra brand hummus the entire commercial seems to be intended to sell .
`` Chickpeas , I was born ready , '' Cracker responds before attempting to put a football helmet on .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' While the commercial is likely to catch many unaware families off guard , the LGBT crowd is overjoyed about their lifestyle choices being normalized and broadcast to millions .
LGBTQ Nation celebrated the fact that more than `` 100 million people will see drag queens on TV - many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' PinkNews , another LGBT-centric publication , claimed that the cross-dressing duo “ will make herstory . ''
While the quips between the two may entertain the LGBT crowd , the connection to hummus will be largely lost on many Americans who may struggle to understand why drag queens are needed to sell a snack food .
Thankfully , there are some answers .
`` We ’ re bringing a diverse group of personalities to the table and demonstrating just how incredibly versatile , relevant and relatable hummus is today , '' Jason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told AdWeek .
`` We think we ’ ve got something for everyone . ''
Along with the drag queens , the commercial will feature rapper T-Pain and two women from `` The Real Housewives of New Jersey . ''
The ad is set to debut during Super Bowl LIV Sunday .
Watch a 15-second preview of the full commercial below .
While there have been plenty of controversial Super Bowl commercials before this one , the addition of two drag queens to this major sports event will not go unnoticed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal .

A cultural divide between the National Football League and heartland America continues to grow, with a new commercial underscoring how far apart the two have drifted.
The commercial, which will play in front of millions of families across the country during the Super Bowl, features two drag queens who were previously on "RuPaul’s Drag Race," a reality show that is centered around drag culture.
Kim Chi and Miz Cracker are the two drag queens who will appear in the commercial, among other personalities.
"Ready, Cracker?" Chi asks, while eating the Sabra brand hummus the entire commercial seems to be intended to sell.
"Chickpeas, I was born ready," Cracker responds before attempting to put a football helmet on.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
While the commercial is likely to catch many unaware families off guard, the LGBT crowd is overjoyed about their lifestyle choices being normalized and broadcast to millions.
LGBTQ Nation celebrated the fact that more than "100 million people will see drag queens on TV - many of them for the first time."
PinkNews, another LGBT-centric publication, claimed that the cross-dressing duo “will make herstory."
While the quips between the two may entertain the LGBT crowd, the connection to hummus will be largely lost on many Americans who may struggle to understand why drag queens are needed to sell a snack food.
Thankfully, there are some answers.
"We’re bringing a diverse group of personalities to the table and demonstrating just how incredibly versatile, relevant and relatable hummus is today," Jason Levine, chief marketing officer for Sabra, told AdWeek.
"We think we’ve got something for everyone."
Along with the drag queens, the commercial will feature rapper T-Pain and two women from "The Real Housewives of New Jersey."
The ad is set to debut during Super Bowl LIV Sunday. Watch a 15-second preview of the full commercial below.
While there have been plenty of controversial Super Bowl commercials before this one, the addition of two drag queens to this major sports event will not go unnoticed.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-29--Democrat senator admits impeachment 'bereft of evidence'

A Democratic senator sent to the microphones to try to undo the sense President Trump 's lawyers are trying to make of the impeachment process has revealed a stunning tidbit of information .
PJMedia reports that it was Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal , whom it described as `` one of the designated 'spin doctors , ' '' who let it out .
He said , describing the work of the Trump defense team : `` It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence .
We need the witnesses and documents ...
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I hope my colleagues will look themselves in the mirror ... [ W ] hat we want is the truth , not some quid pro quo on the witnesses ... '' TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' The fight is over Democrats ' demands that the Senate re-do what was supposed to have been done in the House impeachment hearings , but was n't .
The Democrats now insist that they have to call witnesses , summon documents and more during the Senate proceedings .
Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handled in the House and now it 's too late .
But at PJMedia was the comment about the `` unintentional truth bomb . ''
`` Blumenthal 's plea for witnesses and documents — 'we need the evidence ' — only underscores how hastily the House put their 'bereft of evidence ' case together .
… His Freudian slip is a pretty funny comment about a deadly serious event , '' the report said .

A Democratic senator sent to the microphones to try to counter the case presented by President Trump's lawyers made a startling confession.
His colleagues in the House had no evidence.
PJMedia reports it was Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal who made the assessment.
"It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence," Blumenthal told reporters. "We need the witnesses and documents. ... They may have the votes at this moment, but I hope my colleagues will look themselves in the mirror ... [W]hat we want is the truth, not some quid pro quo on the witnesses."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Democrats are calling more witnesses and documents during the Senate trial. Republicans argue that should have been done during the House investigation.
PJMedia noted Blumenthal's "unintentional truth bomb."
"Blumenthal's plea for witnesses and documents — 'we need the evidence' — only underscores how hastily the House put their 'bereft of evidence' case together. … His Freudian slip is a pretty funny comment about a deadly serious event."


wnd--2020-01-29--Shocker: San Fran official tasked with keeping streets poop-free is arrested

The man whose job it was to keep San Francisco 's streets neat and orderly has been arrested by the FBI over allegations of corruption .
Mohammed Nuru , San Francisco 's public works director , was taken into custody Monday and charged with felony safekeeping , according to Mercury News .
Nick Bovis , a local bar owner , was arrested on similar charges .
The Northern District of California 's Office of the U.S. Attorney alleges that the duo was part of a wire fraud scheme .
According to the U.S. Attorney 's Office , the two attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with money and other incentives in order to open a restaurant in the San Francisco International Airport .
“ The complaint describes a web of corruption involving bribery , kickbacks , and side deals by one of San Francisco ’ s highest-ranking city employees , ” U.S. Attorney David Anderson said in a news release .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' “ The public is entitled to honest work from public officials , free from manipulation for the official ’ s own personal benefit and profit.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also entitled to functioning streets and sidewalks -- something their tax dollars help pay for .
The condition of San Francisco 's streets seems to hint that Nuru may have been more interested in lining his own pockets than keeping the city he worked for clean and healthy .
Nuru , who goes by MrCleanSF on his active Twitter account , oversees a department that has been largely ineffective in keeping San Francisco 's sidewalks clear of human waste and other unhealthy things .
On top of human fecal matter littering many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a common sight .
The condition of the streets has chased away untold numbers of residents and business opportunities , with even local tech giants starting to take notice of San Francisco 's disgusting problem .
The problem is driven in part by the city 's large homeless population , which leadership has been unable to fix .
San Francisco 's homeless , which includes the mentally unwell , drug addicts , and those that have genuinely fallen on hard times , underscore a stark difference between the bay area 's big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom of the liberal city 's socioeconomic ladder .
Some of the homeless are causing even greater issues than the condition they leave the sidewalks in , with at least one being caught in the act of using a grocery store aisle as a personal toilet .
Hopefully with Nuru 's absence , the people of San Francisco can find someone who is actually able to do their job .
Although Nuru 's fate is still unclear , one thing is for certain : whoever takes over has their work cut out for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Western Journal .

The man whose job it was to keep San Francisco's streets neat and orderly has been arrested by the FBI over allegations of corruption.
Mohammed Nuru, San Francisco's public works director, was taken into custody Monday and charged with felony safekeeping, according to Mercury News. Nick Bovis, a local bar owner, was arrested on similar charges.
The Northern District of California's Office of the U.S. Attorney alleges that the duo was part of a wire fraud scheme.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the two attempted to bribe a San Francisco airport commissioner with money and other incentives in order to open a restaurant in the San Francisco International Airport.
“The complaint describes a web of corruption involving bribery, kickbacks, and side deals by one of San Francisco’s highest-ranking city employees,” U.S. Attorney David Anderson said in a news release.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
“The public is entitled to honest work from public officials, free from manipulation for the official’s own personal benefit and profit.”
To add on that, the public is also entitled to functioning streets and sidewalks -- something their tax dollars help pay for.
The condition of San Francisco's streets seems to hint that Nuru may have been more interested in lining his own pockets than keeping the city he worked for clean and healthy.
Nuru, who goes by MrCleanSF on his active Twitter account, oversees a department that has been largely ineffective in keeping San Francisco's sidewalks clear of human waste and other unhealthy things.
Today we joined Mayor @LondonBreed along Mayors from Oakland and San Jose with Many City leaders to give out turkeys to SF residents for thanksgiving. pic.twitter.com/mS1IYyODPH — Mohammed Nuru (@MrCleanSF) November 26, 2019
On top of human fecal matter littering many areas, drug paraphernalia and needles are also a common sight.
The condition of the streets has chased away untold numbers of residents and business opportunities, with even local tech giants starting to take notice of San Francisco's disgusting problem.
The problem is driven in part by the city's large homeless population, which leadership has been unable to fix.
San Francisco's homeless, which includes the mentally unwell, drug addicts, and those that have genuinely fallen on hard times, underscore a stark difference between the bay area's big tech megawealth and those at the very bottom of the liberal city's socioeconomic ladder.
Some of the homeless are causing even greater issues than the condition they leave the sidewalks in, with at least one being caught in the act of using a grocery store aisle as a personal toilet.
Hopefully with Nuru's absence, the people of San Francisco can find someone who is actually able to do their job.
Although Nuru's fate is still unclear, one thing is for certain: whoever takes over has their work cut out for them.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-30--Who will we vote for in a post-Trump America?

In my column four weeks ago , I admonished the reader to take into account the recent deportment of liberal Democrats and the deteriorating political climate over the last 12 years and then consider what things might look like in a post-Trump America , whether President Donald Trump leaves office in 2021 or 2025 .
It 's very easy to presume that the Senate impeachment trial currently in progress against the president will result in an acquittal and that he will go on to accomplish fabulous things .
While this may indeed be the case , anyone who plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cares for the welfare of their descendants probably ought to be thinking a little further down the line .
For my part , I do n't see how any informed person who is not a firebreathing leftist could consider voting for a Democrat ever again after having witnessed the behavior of liberal Democrats at large and Democrat lawmakers in particular over the last several years .
Given history and the rhetoric of leftists , whether speaking for Congress or antifa , it has become quite clear that their intended destination for this nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 've seen in literature or films .
Regarding the last paragraph , there are two catches : One is that in light of the left having completely co-opted the press and entertainment media , there are a lot of non-ideological voters who are n't very well-informed .
Two is that many conservatives and libertarians are so cowed by leftists ' accusatory rhetoric and invective that they are n't even willing to meet harsh language with harsh language , lest they `` validate '' the left 's characterization of those on the right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively places our side in a position of weakness , because it causes the gravity of our situation to escape millions of our citizens .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' To put this all into perspective – and I realize some of this will be preaching to the choir – all of the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls support some form of the communistic Green New Deal , which would be the equivalent of putting a large caliber revolver to the head of our economy and pulling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no enforcement of our immigration laws , and are all willing to get behind every twisted policy the sexual deviance lobby lobs over the transom .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , has said that he does n't believe Christians are fit to hold public office , but he supports the subversion and anti-Semitism of Islamist lawmakers like Reps. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , and Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich .
I could go on , of course , and these are just representations of those leftists who are directly involved in the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing more than a vehicle for socialist ascendancy , shamelessly parroting the furthest-left talking points 24 hours a day .
Last weekend , CNN 's resident homosexual black hack Don Lemon hosted a panel that mercilessly excoriated the president and his supporters .
It was n't so much that Lemon and his two guests engaged in such action that raised eyebrows , but the fact that they did so in completely classless fashion , cracking tasteless , lowbrow jokes and tittering like little schoolgirls throughout .
This is what has come to represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly heartbreaking .
To address the social engineering side of this phenomenon : Hollywood celebrities have never been more vocal – or venomous – than at this point in time , and I think that Donald Trump 's presence in the White House has only given them an excuse to be more vocal and venomous .
Movies and television have never been more blatantly left-leaning and morally ambivalent .
Pretty much anything that is produced for children , pre-teens and teens is straight-up indoctrination into LGBTQ sensibilities , and in the prime-time TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need of regime change .
The hatred of the left is almost palpable , and anyone who believes that this hatred is reserved for Donald Trump alone is kidding themselves .
While those left-of-center accuse the opposition of being bigots and fascists , the surrogates of a wildly-popular leftist presidential candidate openly advocate for putting members of the opposition into reeducation camps .
And then there are the Republicans .
At the risk of sounding like a broken record ( for those who remember what records are ) , the majority of GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or they 're aligned with them .
We ca n't look at the abominable deportment of Democratic lawmakers during the House impeachment process , who are now scrambling to gain considerations agreeable to them for the Senate trial , and presume they are the only villains .
While there 's nothing currently in the mix that would bring this about , rest assured that inquiries into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 's business dealings would terrify the senator every bit as much as the prospect of bringing Hunter Biden 's business dealings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden .
As the Senate impeachment trial grew closer , we began to see opinion pieces that scrutinized certain GOP senators with a jaded eye .
Why ?
Because a lot of us know they ca n't be trusted .
The efforts of those using the trial to maneuver themselves into positions of greater power on the Hill have been transparent as well as craven and disgusting .
The bottom line is that the power of lawmakers both Republican and Democrat , as well as their future lofty ambitions came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into office .
They hate him because he 's a political outsider , but they fear him because in 2016 he ran on politically disenfranchising them .
Thus , they hate Trump 's supporters because they represent a far bigger threat to them than he does .
So in light of the above , the question becomes not one of how liberty-loving Americans will fend off the next far-left Democrat who has a decent shot at the presidency in a post-Trump America , but whether there will be anyone for them to vote @ @ @ @

In my column four weeks ago, I admonished the reader to take into account the recent deportment of liberal Democrats and the deteriorating political climate over the last 12 years and then consider what things might look like in a post-Trump America, whether President Donald Trump leaves office in 2021 or 2025.
It's very easy to presume that the Senate impeachment trial currently in progress against the president will result in an acquittal and that he will go on to accomplish fabulous things. While this may indeed be the case, anyone who plans to go on living past 2025 or who cares for the welfare of their descendants probably ought to be thinking a little further down the line.
For my part, I don't see how any informed person who is not a firebreathing leftist could consider voting for a Democrat ever again after having witnessed the behavior of liberal Democrats at large and Democrat lawmakers in particular over the last several years. Given history and the rhetoric of leftists, whether speaking for Congress or antifa, it has become quite clear that their intended destination for this nation is a dystopia to rival anything we've seen in literature or films.
Regarding the last paragraph, there are two catches: One is that in light of the left having completely co-opted the press and entertainment media, there are a lot of non-ideological voters who aren't very well-informed. Two is that many conservatives and libertarians are so cowed by leftists' accusatory rhetoric and invective that they aren't even willing to meet harsh language with harsh language, lest they "validate" the left's characterization of those on the right.
This not only projects weakness, but effectively places our side in a position of weakness, because it causes the gravity of our situation to escape millions of our citizens.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
To put this all into perspective – and I realize some of this will be preaching to the choir – all of the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls support some form of the communistic Green New Deal, which would be the equivalent of putting a large caliber revolver to the head of our economy and pulling the trigger. They all support little or no enforcement of our immigration laws, and are all willing to get behind every twisted policy the sexual deviance lobby lobs over the transom.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has said that he doesn't believe Christians are fit to hold public office, but he supports the subversion and anti-Semitism of Islamist lawmakers like Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.
I could go on, of course, and these are just representations of those leftists who are directly involved in the political process. The establishment press has become nothing more than a vehicle for socialist ascendancy, shamelessly parroting the furthest-left talking points 24 hours a day.
Last weekend, CNN's resident homosexual black hack Don Lemon hosted a panel that mercilessly excoriated the president and his supporters. It wasn't so much that Lemon and his two guests engaged in such action that raised eyebrows, but the fact that they did so in completely classless fashion, cracking tasteless, lowbrow jokes and tittering like little schoolgirls throughout.
This is what has come to represent journalism in America, and it is truly heartbreaking.
To address the social engineering side of this phenomenon: Hollywood celebrities have never been more vocal – or venomous – than at this point in time, and I think that Donald Trump's presence in the White House has only given them an excuse to be more vocal and venomous. Movies and television have never been more blatantly left-leaning and morally ambivalent. Pretty much anything that is produced for children, pre-teens and teens is straight-up indoctrination into LGBTQ sensibilities, and in the prime-time TV world, we're clearly in desperate need of regime change.
The hatred of the left is almost palpable, and anyone who believes that this hatred is reserved for Donald Trump alone is kidding themselves. While those left-of-center accuse the opposition of being bigots and fascists, the surrogates of a wildly-popular leftist presidential candidate openly advocate for putting members of the opposition into reeducation camps.
And then there are the Republicans.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (for those who remember what records are), the majority of GOP lawmakers in Washington either are swamp creatures, or they're aligned with them. We can't look at the abominable deportment of Democratic lawmakers during the House impeachment process, who are now scrambling to gain considerations agreeable to them for the Senate trial, and presume they are the only villains. While there's nothing currently in the mix that would bring this about, rest assured that inquiries into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's business dealings would terrify the senator every bit as much as the prospect of bringing Hunter Biden's business dealings to light terrifies his father, former Vice President Joe Biden.
As the Senate impeachment trial grew closer, we began to see opinion pieces that scrutinized certain GOP senators with a jaded eye. Why? Because a lot of us know they can't be trusted. The efforts of those using the trial to maneuver themselves into positions of greater power on the Hill have been transparent as well as craven and disgusting.
The bottom line is that the power of lawmakers both Republican and Democrat, as well as their future lofty ambitions came under direct threat when Donald Trump came into office. They hate him because he's a political outsider, but they fear him because in 2016 he ran on politically disenfranchising them.
Thus, they hate Trump's supporters because they represent a far bigger threat to them than he does.
So in light of the above, the question becomes not one of how liberty-loving Americans will fend off the next far-left Democrat who has a decent shot at the presidency in a post-Trump America, but whether there will be anyone for them to vote for at all.


wnd--2020-01-30--Kobe, Mahomes and 'unwoke' blacks

Kobe, Mahomes and 'unwoke' blacks

As African Americans in the public eye have come to learn the hard way , independence of thought is neither encouraged nor welcomed by the progressive community .
No two athletes of color have been more in the news this past week than the amiable , biracial Kansas Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes and the Los Angeles Lakers basketball great Kobe Bryant , who died in a helicopter crash Sunday .
What the two shared was an independence of spirit that has apparently made leftists uneasy .
In both cases , this spirit manifested itself after the 2013 trial of George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin .
Mahomes caught heat as soon as he punched his ticket for the Super Bowl .
One sports site greeted him last week with the headline , `` Patrick Mahomes Sparks Outrage With George Zimmerman Take . ''
What is perverse about this seeming outrage is that Mahomes 's made his offending tweet in 2013 , when he was 17 years old .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' Said Mahomes at the time , `` This case was an absolute horrible tragedy , however there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zimmerman had just been acquitted .
Anyone paying attention knew he deserved to be acquitted .
Mahomes 's tweet was impressively judicious for anyone , let alone a high-school kid .
Nevertheless , some woke sports reporter dug it up thinking he could score some cheap clicks by embarrassing Mahomes .
Some woke fans obliged with prefabricated outrage .
`` Would I be wrong to stop rooting for Patrick Mahomes after I found out about his old tweets in which they look like he 's defending George Zimmerman ? ''
tweeted one '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We got ta sack him for the culture , '' tweeted another .
Mahomes wisely chose not to respond .
( Bias alert : the writer lives in Kansas City ) .
While alive , Kobe Bryant caught even more heat .
In 2014 , when interviewed by Ben McGrath of the liberal New Yorker , he spoke his mind about the Zimmerman case .
`` There is a bigger issue in terms of being an African American athlete , and the box people try to put you in because of it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's always a struggle to step outside of that . ''
When McGrath brought up LeBron James posting a photo of the Miami Heat players dressed in hoodies in tribute to Trayvon Martin , Bryant did not respond as McGrath expected .
`` I wo n't react to something just because I 'm supposed to , because I 'm an African American , '' he said .
`` That argument does n't make any sense to me . ''
Bryant continued , `` So we want to advance as a society and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if something happens to an African American , we immediately come to his defense ? ''
`` Well , if we 've progressed as a society , '' said Bryant , `` then you do n't jump to somebody 's defense just because they 're African American .
You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation , right ?
So I wo n't assert myself . ''
Football great Jim Brown had no use for Bryant 's thoughtfulness .
`` He is somewhat confused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in another country , '' said Brown .
Bryant grew up in Italy where his father , Joe `` Jelly Bean '' Bryant , finished his basketball career .
Jemele Hill , a totally woke black female sportswriter , also took Bryant to task for his remarks .
The easily triggered Hill was working at ESPN at the time and criticized him on air as being tone deaf among other flaws .
While she was still on air , Bryant direct messaged her on Twitter .
That contact led to a lengthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that he was speaking from the experience of someone who had been on trial for sexual assault and , in his mind , had been wrongfully accused , '' wrote Hill after Bryant 's death .
She observed , `` The criminal case against him had been dismissed ; Bryant reportedly reached a civil settlement with his accuser . ''
Hill took the occasion of Bryant 's death to remind her fans how she schooled the insensitive basketball star on the Zimmerman matter .
From Hill 's perspective , Bryant comments about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his character than the fateful interaction in the hotel room with his accuser .
Although Hill prudently shied from accusing Bryant of rape , she absolutely had no scruples about accusing Zimmerman of `` murder , '' the word she used to describe Trayvon 's death .
Joel Gilbert 's excellent new film and book , `` The Trayvon Hoax , '' has been out since September .
It proves beyond a doubt not only Zimmerman 's innocence , but also the guilt of Team Trayvon in framing Zimmerman for murder .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlantic , Hill has no excuse for remaining so willfully ignorant about a subject so vitally important .

As African Americans in the public eye have come to learn the hard way, independence of thought is neither encouraged nor welcomed by the progressive community.
No two athletes of color have been more in the news this past week than the amiable, biracial Kansas Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes and the Los Angeles Lakers basketball great Kobe Bryant, who died in a helicopter crash Sunday.
What the two shared was an independence of spirit that has apparently made leftists uneasy. In both cases, this spirit manifested itself after the 2013 trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
Mahomes caught heat as soon as he punched his ticket for the Super Bowl. One sports site greeted him last week with the headline, "Patrick Mahomes Sparks Outrage With George Zimmerman Take."
What is perverse about this seeming outrage is that Mahomes's made his offending tweet in 2013, when he was 17 years old.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Said Mahomes at the time, "This case was an absolute horrible tragedy, however there was no criminal activity that occurred."
Zimmerman had just been acquitted. Anyone paying attention knew he deserved to be acquitted. Mahomes's tweet was impressively judicious for anyone, let alone a high-school kid.
Nevertheless, some woke sports reporter dug it up thinking he could score some cheap clicks by embarrassing Mahomes.
Some woke fans obliged with prefabricated outrage. "Would I be wrong to stop rooting for Patrick Mahomes after I found out about his old tweets in which they look like he's defending George Zimmerman?" tweeted one
"Patrick Mahomes our hero defending Zimmerman? We gotta sack him for the culture," tweeted another. Mahomes wisely chose not to respond. (Bias alert: the writer lives in Kansas City).
While alive, Kobe Bryant caught even more heat. In 2014, when interviewed by Ben McGrath of the liberal New Yorker, he spoke his mind about the Zimmerman case.
"There is a bigger issue in terms of being an African American athlete, and the box people try to put you in because of it," he told McGrath. "And it's always a struggle to step outside of that."
When McGrath brought up LeBron James posting a photo of the Miami Heat players dressed in hoodies in tribute to Trayvon Martin, Bryant did not respond as McGrath expected.
"I won't react to something just because I'm supposed to, because I'm an African American," he said. "That argument doesn't make any sense to me."
Bryant continued, "So we want to advance as a society and as a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African American, we immediately come to his defense?"
"Well, if we've progressed as a society," said Bryant, "then you don't jump to somebody's defense just because they're African American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won't assert myself."
Football great Jim Brown had no use for Bryant's thoughtfulness. "He is somewhat confused about culture, because he was brought up in another country," said Brown. Bryant grew up in Italy where his father, Joe "Jelly Bean" Bryant, finished his basketball career.
Jemele Hill, a totally woke black female sportswriter, also took Bryant to task for his remarks. The easily triggered Hill was working at ESPN at the time and criticized him on air as being tone deaf among other flaws.
While she was still on air, Bryant direct messaged her on Twitter. That contact led to a lengthy phone call.
"He explained to me that he was speaking from the experience of someone who had been on trial for sexual assault and, in his mind, had been wrongfully accused," wrote Hill after Bryant's death.
She observed, "The criminal case against him had been dismissed; Bryant reportedly reached a civil settlement with his accuser."
Hill took the occasion of Bryant's death to remind her fans how she schooled the insensitive basketball star on the Zimmerman matter.
From Hill's perspective, Bryant comments about the Zimmerman case seemed more a mark on his character than the fateful interaction in the hotel room with his accuser.
Although Hill prudently shied from accusing Bryant of rape, she absolutely had no scruples about accusing Zimmerman of "murder," the word she used to describe Trayvon's death.
Joel Gilbert's excellent new film and book, "The Trayvon Hoax," has been out since September. It proves beyond a doubt not only Zimmerman's innocence, but also the guilt of Team Trayvon in framing Zimmerman for murder.
As a writer for the once prestigious Atlantic, Hill has no excuse for remaining so willfully ignorant about a subject so vitally important.


wnd--2020-01-30--Conservative Great Britain: BREXIT – finally

This past week , the historic Brexit milestone deal was signed in London by U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson .
What a Churchillian moment for the prime minister , having fought for years for the implementation of the will of the people .
European leaders signed the agreement earlier the same day ; it was then transported by train to London .
The United Kingdom will officially leave the EU on Jan. 31 , 2020 .
And what a victory for the Conservatives who actually chose to respect democracy , as the British people voted in 2016 to leave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU has been that its leaders forgot to defend the interests of the people .
They forgot to defend their own .
The EU leadership has scorned traditional European values , belittled Europe 's historical greatness and its past , forgotten about the European workers and left European culture to die silently .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' Yet , the European Union elites were very happy about the Davos billionaires .
And it is a worldwide tendency for neo-Marxist socialists to team up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For there is no better way to control the people than to have a strong state dictating to all what is best for them , while the wealth quietly is amassed into the hands of even fewer individuals .
Socialism , under the disguise of protecting the worker , provides the best political tool to gain control over a population by its elite .
All across Europe , there is bitterness and growing resentment in the population as regional differences are not respected , but socialist groupthink and uniformity required of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative values , the traditions and ethics that once made Europe such a great civilization , must end .
And the media tend to go hand in hand with the radically socialist EU elites , it seems .
We have been hearing for years how impossible it would be to allow the British people to get their Brexit .
The left-wing U.K. media have frantically described how impossible a Brexit deal with the EU is , deeming Boris Johnson a failure , hopeless , soon to resign .
Instead , he won a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The role of the media has dramatically changed in the West .
Before , the ideal was for journalist to describe reality in a preferably more unbiased way , performing critical journalism and digging for corruption , lack of truth and misuse of power among the elites .
For example , Watergate .
However , ever since the transnational globalist corporations bought U.S. media , now less than six corporations own more than 90 % , according to Business Insider .
The media have come to have a very new role as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our top globalist corporate owners – which President Donald Trump , of course , is very aware of .
The people 's choice of Donald Trump and the people 's choice of Brexit both echo the lack of trust in the current elites .
It also echoes a resurgence of democracy and conservative thought .
Since the globalist change began taking shape in the later years of the 1980s , we have seen wealth amass in fewer and fewer hands .
Oxfam now states that over 50 % of world wealth is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And people notice .
The jobs and industries are gone , which a global elite profits from outsourcing , as wages are indefinitely lower in China .
Wealth is not redistributed , and on top of it all , the West has implemented mass immigration .
And almost none of the global corporations pay taxes to any given nation , as `` the borderless society '' is the goal .
Not only are the jobs outsourced , but the jobs for unskilled labor at home get taken by immigrants .
Both processes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everywhere with the re-enslavement of the working class .
If anyone utters a word , he is instantly deemed a `` racist , misogynist , old-fashioned '' and so on .
Boris Johnson 's Churchillian moment makes him prime minister for so many of us .
He is the one to fight for Great Britain .
The patriotic element is evident .
The majority wants to strengthen Britain , not the elites in Brussels .
For too long , many have watched how the EU does not solve the problems on the continent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a steadily weakened European civilization .
The EU defended everyone else , and Europeans are tired of being told to `` shut up . ''
Boris Johnson did not shut up .
He fought the anti-democratic forces in the U.K. Parliament and won .
Herland Report wrote at the time : The power struggle between the EU globalists and the British people over who will rule Britain comes to an end .
Let the British rule Great Britain !

This past week, the historic Brexit milestone deal was signed in London by U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson. What a Churchillian moment for the prime minister, having fought for years for the implementation of the will of the people.
European leaders signed the agreement earlier the same day; it was then transported by train to London. The United Kingdom will officially leave the EU on Jan. 31, 2020.
And what a victory for the Conservatives who actually chose to respect democracy, as the British people voted in 2016 to leave the European Union.
The main mistake of the EU has been that its leaders forgot to defend the interests of the people. They forgot to defend their own.
The EU leadership has scorned traditional European values, belittled Europe's historical greatness and its past, forgotten about the European workers and left European culture to die silently.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Yet, the European Union elites were very happy about the Davos billionaires. And it is a worldwide tendency for neo-Marxist socialists to team up with the 1% richest capitalists in the world.
For there is no better way to control the people than to have a strong state dictating to all what is best for them, while the wealth quietly is amassed into the hands of even fewer individuals. Socialism, under the disguise of protecting the worker, provides the best political tool to gain control over a population by its elite.
All across Europe, there is bitterness and growing resentment in the population as regional differences are not respected, but socialist groupthink and uniformity required of all. Many feel that the scorn for conservative values, the traditions and ethics that once made Europe such a great civilization, must end.
And the media tend to go hand in hand with the radically socialist EU elites, it seems. We have been hearing for years how impossible it would be to allow the British people to get their Brexit. The left-wing U.K. media have frantically described how impossible a Brexit deal with the EU is, deeming Boris Johnson a failure, hopeless, soon to resign. Instead, he won a landslide victory on Dec. 12, 2019.
The role of the media has dramatically changed in the West. Before, the ideal was for journalist to describe reality in a preferably more unbiased way, performing critical journalism and digging for corruption, lack of truth and misuse of power among the elites. For example, Watergate.
However, ever since the transnational globalist corporations bought U.S. media, now less than six corporations own more than 90%, according to Business Insider. The media have come to have a very new role as the propaganda channel for the will of our top globalist corporate owners – which President Donald Trump, of course, is very aware of.
The people's choice of Donald Trump and the people's choice of Brexit both echo the lack of trust in the current elites. It also echoes a resurgence of democracy and conservative thought.
Since the globalist change began taking shape in the later years of the 1980s, we have seen wealth amass in fewer and fewer hands. Oxfam now states that over 50% of world wealth is in the hands of 62 individuals or less.
And people notice. The jobs and industries are gone, which a global elite profits from outsourcing, as wages are indefinitely lower in China. Wealth is not redistributed, and on top of it all, the West has implemented mass immigration. And almost none of the global corporations pay taxes to any given nation, as "the borderless society" is the goal.
Not only are the jobs outsourced, but the jobs for unskilled labor at home get taken by immigrants. Both processes benefit global owners, as wages drop everywhere with the re-enslavement of the working class. If anyone utters a word, he is instantly deemed a "racist, misogynist, old-fashioned" and so on.
Boris Johnson's Churchillian moment makes him prime minister for so many of us. He is the one to fight for Great Britain.
The patriotic element is evident. The majority wants to strengthen Britain, not the elites in Brussels. For too long, many have watched how the EU does not solve the problems on the continent: Illegal immigration, economic stagnation, a steadily weakened European civilization. The EU defended everyone else, and Europeans are tired of being told to "shut up."
Boris Johnson did not shut up. He fought the anti-democratic forces in the U.K. Parliament and won. Herland Report wrote at the time: The power struggle between the EU globalists and the British people over who will rule Britain comes to an end. Let the British rule Great Britain!


wnd--2020-01-30--A Reaganesque Trump and his 'love letter' to America

President Trump 's electric rally in Wildwood , New Jersey , Tuesday proved one thing for certain : Those Democrats who had hoped that impeachment and a Senate trial for `` abuse of power '' and `` obstruction of Congress '' would leave Trump deflated , and his supporters shell-shocked and crestfallen , have come up empty .
For one thing , Trump 's visceral connection with his Republican base is stronger than ever .
Approximately 175,000 people in deep-blue New Jersey tried to attend Trump 's rally , featuring freshly minted Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7,500 .
Meanwhile , Trump 's approval ratings among Republicans remain at record highs , and his primary opponents in the race for the Republican presidential nomination are running on fumes .
But it is n't just Republicans who are flocking to Trump 's colors .
Trump , in the wake of four years of concentrated , vicious attacks from Democrats and the mainstream media , and in the midst of a bitter battle over impeachment and removal , is notching the highest approval ratings of his presidency .
Democrats and liberals are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have Donald Trump on the ropes , he rights himself and delivers a series of counterpunches , leaving his would-be attackers dazed and confused .
What 's more , the crowd inevitably rallies to Trump 's side .
His legend grows , and his chances of reelection rise .
What 's truly gratifying for Trump supporters , though , and especially for those who have attended his rallies in person , is the fact that , despite all the slings and arrows that Trump and his movement have faced , the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost their optimism and their sense of fun .
Trump rallies are full of smiling , laughing people – people who embody and reflect the same boyish enthusiasm , self-deprecating humor , cheerfulness and tenacity in the face of vilification , and unalloyed patriotism , of Trump himself .
Trump is the happy warrior , the bearer of Reaganesque wit and positivity , and his supporters eat it all up and reflect it back to him .
It 's a beautiful thing to watch , and a testament to the basic goodness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if they hope to win in 2020 , should start by admitting the obvious : Their campaign of personal destruction aimed at Trump , his family , his administration and his supporters has failed miserably .
Four years after their slash-and-burn crusade began , Trump and his movement are indeed stronger than ever .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' Democrats might be forced to try the unthinkable in 2020 : Give up on hate , and attempt to construct a positive vision for the country that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help us ! )
Joe Biden , or Bernie Sanders , or Elizabeth Warren , or Mike Bloomberg .
Good luck to them !
Donald Trump has been writing a tender , lighthearted love letter to America for the last four years .
It wo n't be easy besting a man who enjoys such a natural rapport with the American voter .

President Trump's electric rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, Tuesday proved one thing for certain: Those Democrats who had hoped that impeachment and a Senate trial for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" would leave Trump deflated, and his supporters shell-shocked and crestfallen, have come up empty.
For one thing, Trump's visceral connection with his Republican base is stronger than ever. Approximately 175,000 people in deep-blue New Jersey tried to attend Trump's rally, featuring freshly minted Republican Congressman Jeff Van Drew. It was held in a venue that seats just 7,500. Meanwhile, Trump's approval ratings among Republicans remain at record highs, and his primary opponents in the race for the Republican presidential nomination are running on fumes.
But it isn't just Republicans who are flocking to Trump's colors. Trump, in the wake of four years of concentrated, vicious attacks from Democrats and the mainstream media, and in the midst of a bitter battle over impeachment and removal, is notching the highest approval ratings of his presidency. Democrats and liberals are beside themselves: Every time they think they have Donald Trump on the ropes, he rights himself and delivers a series of counterpunches, leaving his would-be attackers dazed and confused. What's more, the crowd inevitably rallies to Trump's side. His legend grows, and his chances of reelection rise.
What's truly gratifying for Trump supporters, though, and especially for those who have attended his rallies in person, is the fact that, despite all the slings and arrows that Trump and his movement have faced, the people surrounding and cheering the president have never lost their optimism and their sense of fun. Trump rallies are full of smiling, laughing people – people who embody and reflect the same boyish enthusiasm, self-deprecating humor, cheerfulness and tenacity in the face of vilification, and unalloyed patriotism, of Trump himself. Trump is the happy warrior, the bearer of Reaganesque wit and positivity, and his supporters eat it all up and reflect it back to him. It's a beautiful thing to watch, and a testament to the basic goodness and hopefulness of the American spirit.
Democrats, if they hope to win in 2020, should start by admitting the obvious: Their campaign of personal destruction aimed at Trump, his family, his administration and his supporters has failed miserably. Four years after their slash-and-burn crusade began, Trump and his movement are indeed stronger than ever.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Democrats might be forced to try the unthinkable in 2020: Give up on hate, and attempt to construct a positive vision for the country that would justify a vote for (God help us!) Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, or Mike Bloomberg.
Good luck to them! Donald Trump has been writing a tender, lighthearted love letter to America for the last four years. It won't be easy besting a man who enjoys such a natural rapport with the American voter.


wnd--2020-01-30--The U.S. senators who sold out to the mullahs

With tensions flaring in January between the U.S. and Iran after a U.S. strike killed terrorist leader Maj. Gen. Qassam Soleimani , Tehran announced it was fully withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) – the 2015 nuclear deal .
President Donald Trump had already withdrawn from it in May 2018 .
Pro-JCPOA critics argued it represented the last best chance for Iran to toe the line to stop development of its nuclear arsenal .
That argument was flawed for reasons detailed below .
But forgotten is just how President Barack Obama pulled an end run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to approve all U.S. treaties with a two-thirds vote – to pass JCPOA .
And , most disturbingly , is how Iran bought votes in a revelation bordering on treason .
JCPOA was clearly a disaster for the following reasons : 1 ) Obama failed to report JCPOA did not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – it only prevented such development for 10 years .
And , with Tehran 's record for violating international agreements , the mullahs were likely to obtain the capability earlier .
2 ) Obama and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State John Kerry , failed to disclose two secret side deals with Iran .
Had Republicans not discovered them , JCPOA would have been submitted to a Senate vote without the senators knowing they existed .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' While the deals were later explained to senators , questions exist as to how much detail was .
They required Iran `` come clean '' on how far advanced its nuclear arms program was – a necessary requirement to determine whether future violations occurred .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ detonators at its Parchin military site .
While Tehran had since bulldozed the area to cover this up , it agreed international inspectors could test the soil to verify whether weaponization had occurred .
Outrageously , the side deals denied international inspectors access to Parchin to collect the samples ; instead , the Iranians would provide them !
No wonder Kerry sought to keep the deals secret .
3 ) There was no regulation of Iran 's rapidly improving , nuclear-armed , ballistic missile capabilities .
4 ) Despite Iranian/North Korean cooperation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was made to curtail it .
5 ) JCPOA allowed Iran to conduct uranium enrichment , build advanced centrifuges , buy ballistic missiles , fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time for building a nuclear bomb .
Thus , in a nutshell , JCOPA empowered Iran to achieve the very goals after 10 years that we were seeking to permanently deny them .
And , again , that was only if they complied .
Kerry 's negotiations failed to alleviate concerns of JCPOA 's critics .
They had no misconception the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or , for that matter , even temporarily .
The JCPOA parties included Iran and the `` P5+1 '' nations .
`` P5+1 '' referenced the five permanent U.N. Security Council members ( China , Russia , France , the U.K. and the U.S. ) plus the one non-member , Germany .
For all intents and purposes , JCPOA was a treaty and , as such , required U.S. Senate approval by at least a two-thirds majority .
However , Obama and Kerry knew two-thirds Senate approval was impossible .
Accordingly , JCPOA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather , a `` non-binding political commitment . ''
Doing so allowed the Obama-Kerry team to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement , thus only needing a simple majority .
Despite this sweetheart deal for Iran , the mullahs would never sign it , really making it no more than a `` gentleman 's agreement '' either side could terminate .
Additionally , without obtaining congressional approval , Obama secretly shipped cash payments to Iran .
One for $ 400 million was sent on the day JCPOA was implemented , apparently as a down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held captive there ; later , another $ 1.3 billion was shipped .
Obama claimed the money was owed Iran .
However , it was not owed to the mullahs – but owed to the shah 's government tossed out in 1979 .
Every president since then had held back from paying the funds to a terrorist government , until Obama .
Undoubtedly , we would be much further down the road today to a mullah regime collapse had Obama not rejuvenated Tehran with these funds or the release of $ 150 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is this funding that allowed Iran to financially back the Shia militias in Iraq now threatening democracy there .
And , in another `` sweetener '' for the Iranians , Obama mandated American citizens , victimized by Iranian terrorism and owed judgments totaling over $ 53 billion , could not attach the Iranian assets he was releasing .
With the damning JCPOA drawbacks delineated above , the question is how could any senator have voted for it ?
The answer is money .
In an act bordering on treason , several Democratic senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Iranian American Political Action Committee ( IAPAC ) – a lobbying group supporting Tehran .
Once IAPAC maxed out its legal contributions to Sen. Ed Markey , D-Mass.
, he voted for JCPOA .
But he was not alone .
Others accepting money included Sen. Al Franken , D-Minn. , Sen. Jeanne Shaheen , D-N.H. , and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand , D-N.Y .
While America slept , treason took place in the Senate .
Disturbingly , on Jan. 8 , 2020 , a day after Iran fired missiles at U/S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, and Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , along with others , held an hour-long conference call with another pro-Iran lobbying group – the National Iranian American Council .
Disgracefully , both candidates criticized Trump during the call for his `` march to war '' with Iran .
Peter Schweizer 's recent book `` Profiles in Corruption '' reveals a clear conflict of interest for Warren concerning Iran .
Her son-in-law , Sushil Tyagi , from India , oddly had received funding from Tehran for a film he produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency overseen by Iranian propagandists .
Later , Tyagi 's name was quietly removed from the film 's credits .
Iran 's intelligence minister recently boasted Tehran actually runs a lobbying group in Washington to promote the ruling mullahs ' agenda .
Republican senators have called for an investigation .
Contrary to Hillary Clinton 's assertion about Trump supporters , the real `` deplorables '' are the senators who sell their votes to Iran .

With tensions flaring in January between the U.S. and Iran after a U.S. strike killed terrorist leader Maj. Gen. Qassam Soleimani, Tehran announced it was fully withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the 2015 nuclear deal. President Donald Trump had already withdrawn from it in May 2018.
Pro-JCPOA critics argued it represented the last best chance for Iran to toe the line to stop development of its nuclear arsenal. That argument was flawed for reasons detailed below. But forgotten is just how President Barack Obama pulled an end run on the Senate – the body constitutionally required to approve all U.S. treaties with a two-thirds vote – to pass JCPOA. And, most disturbingly, is how Iran bought votes in a revelation bordering on treason.
JCPOA was clearly a disaster for the following reasons:
1) Obama failed to report JCPOA did not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – it only prevented such development for 10 years. And, with Tehran's record for violating international agreements, the mullahs were likely to obtain the capability earlier.
2) Obama and the U.S. JCPOA negotiating team leader, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, failed to disclose two secret side deals with Iran. Had Republicans not discovered them, JCPOA would have been submitted to a Senate vote without the senators knowing they existed.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
While the deals were later explained to senators, questions exist as to how much detail was. They required Iran "come clean" on how far advanced its nuclear arms program was – a necessary requirement to determine whether future violations occurred.
Suspicions were Iran had tested nuclear device detonators at its Parchin military site. While Tehran had since bulldozed the area to cover this up, it agreed international inspectors could test the soil to verify whether weaponization had occurred. Outrageously, the side deals denied international inspectors access to Parchin to collect the samples; instead, the Iranians would provide them! No wonder Kerry sought to keep the deals secret.
3) There was no regulation of Iran's rapidly improving, nuclear-armed, ballistic missile capabilities.
4) Despite Iranian/North Korean cooperation on their nuclear arms programs, no effort was made to curtail it.
5) JCPOA allowed Iran to conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time for building a nuclear bomb.
Thus, in a nutshell, JCOPA empowered Iran to achieve the very goals after 10 years that we were seeking to permanently deny them. And, again, that was only if they complied.
Kerry's negotiations failed to alleviate concerns of JCPOA's critics. They had no misconception the Iranian nuclear threat would melt away permanently or, for that matter, even temporarily.
The JCPOA parties included Iran and the "P5+1" nations. "P5+1" referenced the five permanent U.N. Security Council members (China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S.) plus the one non-member, Germany. For all intents and purposes, JCPOA was a treaty and, as such, required U.S. Senate approval by at least a two-thirds majority.
However, Obama and Kerry knew two-thirds Senate approval was impossible. Accordingly, JCPOA was not called a treaty but, rather, a "non-binding political commitment." Doing so allowed the Obama-Kerry team to circumvent the two-thirds vote requirement, thus only needing a simple majority. Despite this sweetheart deal for Iran, the mullahs would never sign it, really making it no more than a "gentleman's agreement" either side could terminate.
Additionally, without obtaining congressional approval, Obama secretly shipped cash payments to Iran. One for $400 million was sent on the day JCPOA was implemented, apparently as a down payment to ensure the release of Americans held captive there; later, another $1.3 billion was shipped.
Obama claimed the money was owed Iran. However, it was not owed to the mullahs – but owed to the shah's government tossed out in 1979. Every president since then had held back from paying the funds to a terrorist government, until Obama.
Undoubtedly, we would be much further down the road today to a mullah regime collapse had Obama not rejuvenated Tehran with these funds or the release of $150 billion in Iranian assets that followed. It is this funding that allowed Iran to financially back the Shia militias in Iraq now threatening democracy there. And, in another "sweetener" for the Iranians, Obama mandated American citizens, victimized by Iranian terrorism and owed judgments totaling over $53 billion, could not attach the Iranian assets he was releasing.
With the damning JCPOA drawbacks delineated above, the question is how could any senator have voted for it? The answer is money. In an act bordering on treason, several Democratic senators who voted to pass JCPOA accepted contributions from the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) – a lobbying group supporting Tehran.
Once IAPAC maxed out its legal contributions to Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., he voted for JCPOA. But he was not alone. Others accepting money included Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. While America slept, treason took place in the Senate.
Disturbingly, on Jan. 8, 2020, a day after Iran fired missiles at U/S. bases in Iraq, presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., along with others, held an hour-long conference call with another pro-Iran lobbying group – the National Iranian American Council. Disgracefully, both candidates criticized Trump during the call for his "march to war" with Iran.
Peter Schweizer's recent book "Profiles in Corruption" reveals a clear conflict of interest for Warren concerning Iran. Her son-in-law, Sushil Tyagi, from India, oddly had received funding from Tehran for a film he produced. It came from the same government agency overseen by Iranian propagandists. Later, Tyagi's name was quietly removed from the film's credits.
Iran's intelligence minister recently boasted Tehran actually runs a lobbying group in Washington to promote the ruling mullahs' agenda. Republican senators have called for an investigation.
Contrary to Hillary Clinton's assertion about Trump supporters, the real "deplorables" are the senators who sell their votes to Iran.


wnd--2020-01-30--MSM: If we tell the truth, it'll just feed the racists!

The tedium of the impeachment trial has at least allowed me to catch up on my reading .
Apparently , there was a peaceful gun-rights rally in Virginia last week that had the media in a panic .
Today , I will explain how their hysteria about the gun rally is directly related to their hysteria about the Russians throwing the 2016 election with Facebook ads – or , as MSNBC 's Brian Williams put it , using Facebook , Instagram and Twitter `` to turn Americans against one another , psychological and information warfare , that did n't stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moral panic on guns : '' Virginia 's capital braces for gun-rights rally '' – The Associated Press '' New fears tied to a pro-gun rally that 's scheduled in Virginia '' – NBC News TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' '' A gun rights rally in Richmond on MLK Day has people fearing a repeat of Charlottesville '' – Richmond Times Dispatch As we have come to expect , the `` newspaper of record , '' The New York Times , bested them all : '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arrests Suspected Neo-Nazis Before Gun Rally '' Wow – neo-Nazis !
Wait , what did the arrest of `` neo-Nazis '' have to do with the Virginia gun rally ?
Not a thing , it turns out .
The FBI had arrested three white guys with guns in another state the week before the rally .
One of the men was an illegal alien from Canada .
Three of the four charges against the men had to do with his immigration status .
What does the arrest of an illegal alien and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun rally in Virginia ?
As the Times explained , `` Although the charges were not directly linked to the Richmond rally , law enforcement officials said the three men had discussed attending it . ''
Here 's an idea for you , New York Times .
Every time an African American is arrested for some infamous crime , cite that arrest in a headline claiming that people are `` on edge '' about a coming NAACP convention – or maybe a meeting of black scientists .
`` Virginia Capital on Edge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NAACP Convention '' ( Just say Kelly had `` discussed attending it '' ! )
The media are liars , and they know they 're liars .
We 've been having gun-rights rallies forever , and they 've never turned into murderous bacchanals .
How about some flood-the-zone coverage of Big Foot sightings ?
If journalists were serious about alerting the public to events that are likely to result in violence , they should check out the West Indian Carnival parade in New York .
The Wikipedia entry on the parade has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which I have fact-checked and edited for brevity : – In 2003 , a man was fatally shot and another was stabbed in the neck .
– In 2005 , one man was shot and killed along the parade route .
– In 2006 , one man was shot and another was stabbed .
– At the 2007 parade , a man was shot twice in the leg .
– In 2011 , there was one murder , three stabbings and numerous shootings , including of a policeman .
– In 2012 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others were shot .
– In 2013 , several shootings killed two and wounded three .
– In 2015 , at a pre-parade celebration , there was one fatal stabbing and one fatal shooting , when an aide to New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , Carey Gabay , was shot in the head .
He died eight days later .
– In 2016 , during pre-parade celebrations , four people were shot , two fatally , and two more were stabbed .
Under the bloodcurdling headline , '' Playing and Swaying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few other incidents .
In 2004 , a man was stabbed and a woman was run over by a float .
In 1999 , two young children were killed by floats , and one man was killed by a sound truck .
The 2017 `` Unite the Right '' rally in Charlottesville , which left one person dead , would have been a banner year for safety at the Caribbean Day parade .
Despite the annual bloodshed , you will never see the headlines : `` Crown Heights Braces for West Indian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Edge Before Caribbean Carnival . ''
( And why not : `` Playing and Swaying to Stirring Second Amendment Rhetoric '' ? )
Our media simply will not report crimes by non-whites .
Journalists think to themselves : What 's the point of reporting a crime if it was committed by a black person ?
At least this makes it easy to figure out the race of the perp .
If any white person commits a crime , you know – oh my gosh , do you know !
But if there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race … it 's a minority !
Journalists have convinced themselves that it 's not dishonorable to mislead the public – in fact , it 's actually the honorable thing to do !
If we tell the truth , it will just feed the racists !
This is why the media are constantly demanding censorship of the internet .
The ability of the public to escape the media 's sleazy , dishonest ecosystem and get the truth elsewhere is a mortal threat , as it is to all totalitarian regimes .
Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three TV stations , a handful of national newspapers and magazines – and nothing else !
Every night on MSNBC , you can see them warmly reminiscing about the good old days when they could remove a president from office without breaking a sweat .
The next time you read a denunciation of Mark Zuckerberg for his maddening refusal to censor Trump ads on Facebook , remember : The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was safer than the average Caribbean Day parade .
The media want to make sure you have no @ @ @ @ @

The tedium of the impeachment trial has at least allowed me to catch up on my reading. Apparently, there was a peaceful gun-rights rally in Virginia last week that had the media in a panic.
Today, I will explain how their hysteria about the gun rally is directly related to their hysteria about the Russians throwing the 2016 election with Facebook ads – or, as MSNBC's Brian Williams put it, using Facebook, Instagram and Twitter "to turn Americans against one another, psychological and information warfare, that didn't stop with the election."
First, the moral panic on guns:
"Virginia's capital braces for gun-rights rally" – The Associated Press
"New fears tied to a pro-gun rally that's scheduled in Virginia" – NBC News
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"A gun rights rally in Richmond on MLK Day has people fearing a repeat of Charlottesville" – Richmond Times Dispatch
As we have come to expect, the "newspaper of record," The New York Times, bested them all:
"Virginia Capital on Edge as F.B.I. Arrests Suspected Neo-Nazis Before Gun Rally"
Wow – neo-Nazis! Wait, what did the arrest of "neo-Nazis" have to do with the Virginia gun rally?
Not a thing, it turns out.
The FBI had arrested three white guys with guns in another state the week before the rally. One of the men was an illegal alien from Canada. Three of the four charges against the men had to do with his immigration status.
What does the arrest of an illegal alien and his accomplices in Maryland have to do with a gun rally in Virginia? As the Times explained, "Although the charges were not directly linked to the Richmond rally, law enforcement officials said the three men had discussed attending it."
Here's an idea for you, New York Times. Every time an African American is arrested for some infamous crime, cite that arrest in a headline claiming that people are "on edge" about a coming NAACP convention – or maybe a meeting of black scientists.
"Virginia Capital on Edge as F.B.I. Arrests R. Kelly Before NAACP Convention" (Just say Kelly had "discussed attending it"!)
The media are liars, and they know they're liars. We've been having gun-rights rallies forever, and they've never turned into murderous bacchanals. How about some flood-the-zone coverage of Big Foot sightings?
If journalists were serious about alerting the public to events that are likely to result in violence, they should check out the West Indian Carnival parade in New York.
The Wikipedia entry on the parade has a special listing for "incidents," which I have fact-checked and edited for brevity:
– In 2003, a man was fatally shot and another was stabbed in the neck.
– In 2005, one man was shot and killed along the parade route.
– In 2006, one man was shot and another was stabbed.
– At the 2007 parade, a man was shot twice in the leg.
– In 2011, there was one murder, three stabbings and numerous shootings, including of a policeman.
– In 2012, two people were fatally stabbed; two others were shot.
– In 2013, several shootings killed two and wounded three.
– In 2015, at a pre-parade celebration, there was one fatal stabbing and one fatal shooting, when an aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Carey Gabay, was shot in the head. He died eight days later.
– In 2016, during pre-parade celebrations, four people were shot, two fatally, and two more were stabbed.
Under the bloodcurdling headline,"Playing and Swaying to Caribbean Rhythms," the Times mentioned a few other incidents. In 2004, a man was stabbed and a woman was run over by a float. In 1999, two young children were killed by floats, and one man was killed by a sound truck.
The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, which left one person dead, would have been a banner year for safety at the Caribbean Day parade.
Despite the annual bloodshed, you will never see the headlines: "Crown Heights Braces for West Indian Labor Day Parade" or "City on Edge Before Caribbean Carnival." (And why not: "Playing and Swaying to Stirring Second Amendment Rhetoric"?)
Our media simply will not report crimes by non-whites. Journalists think to themselves: What's the point of reporting a crime if it was committed by a black person?
At least this makes it easy to figure out the race of the perp. If any white person commits a crime, you know – oh my gosh, do you know! But if there's no mention of the perp's race … it's a minority!
Journalists have convinced themselves that it's not dishonorable to mislead the public – in fact, it's actually the honorable thing to do! If we tell the truth, it will just feed the racists!
This is why the media are constantly demanding censorship of the internet. The ability of the public to escape the media's sleazy, dishonest ecosystem and get the truth elsewhere is a mortal threat, as it is to all totalitarian regimes.
Oh, how they long for the days of three TV stations, a handful of national newspapers and magazines – and nothing else! Every night on MSNBC, you can see them warmly reminiscing about the good old days when they could remove a president from office without breaking a sweat.
The next time you read a denunciation of Mark Zuckerberg for his maddening refusal to censor Trump ads on Facebook, remember: The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was safer than the average Caribbean Day parade. The media want to make sure you have no way of knowing that.


wnd--2020-01-30--The 1 sticking point in Trump's Mideast peace plan

There is much to study and digest in President Trump 's just unveiled `` Deal of the Century , '' but allow me here to offer some immediate reflections .
First , it is true that many evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews are dead set against a two-state solution ( or a divided Jerusalem ) in any sense of the word .
They feel that to divide the land is to defy God and His Word ( see Joel 3:2 ; another interpretation of this verse is that it refers to nations dividing up the land between themselves for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pragmatic concerns about any type of two-state solution , as argued eloquently by Caroline Glick in her book `` The Israeli Solution : A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East . ''
That being said , if this proposal has the enthusiastic support of Prime Minister Netanyahu , his rival Gen. Benny Gantz and our ambassador , David Friedman , then who am I to reject it ?
In the words of INSS ( The Institute for National Security Studies ) , `` This is the most favorable plan for Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' ( See here for their detailed assessment . )
Overall , I know that lasting , true peace can only come to the region through Jesus the Messiah .
But if there can be temporary respites that help all the inhabitants of the region , so be it .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' Second , if I understand things correctly , what the Palestinian people as a whole want more than anything is personal dignity , self-respect , the right to self-determination , and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their children .
To the extent the Trump plan can make this happen , it should be embraced by the Palestinians .
( Again , there is much to digest in the plan , and these are only my immediate reactions to the announcement . )
What would they have to give up in exchange ?
Realistically , they would have to give up systemic hostility to Israel .
They would have to accept Israelis living in their midst ( just as roughly 2 million Palestinian Arabs currently live within Israel 's recognized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismantle Hamas .
They would have to renounce all support of terror .
Will they ?
As far as the populace as a whole , I believe many would gladly embrace this .
After all , they are fathers and mothers , sons and daughters , husbands and wives , young and old .
They have aspirations and dreams and desires like everyone else , and to live without dignity and without hope is oppressive .
The vast majority are not terrorist or terroristic .
Not only so , but realistically , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called West Bank ( Judea and Samaria ) , there is little realistic expectation that they will ever gain complete autonomy with a Judenfrein ( Jew-free ) state .
So , why not embrace the proposal ?
This leads me to the third and final point .
There have already been bloody , civil wars between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority , and Hamas remains popular with many Palestinians .
That 's because Hamas identifies with their struggle for freedom , and Hamas also does humanitarian work in their midst ( speaking of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the minds of many Gazan Palestinians , Hamas is not the cause of their rampant unemployment and many hardships , Israel is .
How in the world would the PA disarm Hamas ?
Would the PA really provide a much better government than Hamas ?
And would the PA abandon its financial support of Palestinians imprisoned for acts of terror against Israel ?
Or withdraw financial support for the families of Palestinian `` martyrs '' ?
Or cease inciting hatred towards Israel through educational and media propaganda ?
To all these questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emphatic `` No ! ''
That 's why , immediately after the peace plan was unveiled , PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that the plan should be tossed into the trash ( literally , into the dustbin of history ) .
And that 's why there were reports of thousands of Palestinians protesting in Gaza before the plan was even released ( who even knows what version of the plan they heard ? )
.
Yet , if the Palestinian populace as a whole could see a way forward to peace and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve it ?
And what if the surrounding Muslim nations said , `` Yes , do this and we will help you prosper as well ! ''
?
What then ?
But here is the rub : The Palestinian leadership has a history of corruption .
Yet the peace plan basically says this : `` The state will only come into existence in four years if the Palestinians accept the plan , if the Palestinian Authority stops paying terrorists and inciting terrorism and if Hamas and Islamic Jihad put down their weapons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Palestinians to give up corruption , respect human rights , freedom of religion and a free press , so that they do n't have a failed state .
If those conditions are met , the U.S. will recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan to assist it . ''
Frankly , without massive pressure from the populace as a whole , joined by other Muslim nations , I do not see this happening .
And that is the crux of the problem .
Middle East scholar Efraim Karsh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Betrayed , '' outlining how the Arab leadership consistently failed its people in agreeing to terms of peace and co-existence with Israel .
And I would expect nothing less than that today , sad to say .
And this brings me to the famous quote attributed to Golda Meir .
She said , `` Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us . ''
Does n't that remain the biggest issue until this day ?

There is much to study and digest in President Trump's just unveiled "Deal of the Century," but allow me here to offer some immediate reflections.
First, it is true that many evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews are dead set against a two-state solution (or a divided Jerusalem) in any sense of the word. They feel that to divide the land is to defy God and His Word (see Joel 3:2; another interpretation of this verse is that it refers to nations dividing up the land between themselves for their own use).
There are also pragmatic concerns about any type of two-state solution, as argued eloquently by Caroline Glick in her book "The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East."
That being said, if this proposal has the enthusiastic support of Prime Minister Netanyahu, his rival Gen. Benny Gantz and our ambassador, David Friedman, then who am I to reject it? In the words of INSS (The Institute for National Security Studies), "This is the most favorable plan for Israel ever presented by an international player." (See here for their detailed assessment.)
Overall, I know that lasting, true peace can only come to the region through Jesus the Messiah. But if there can be temporary respites that help all the inhabitants of the region, so be it.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Second, if I understand things correctly, what the Palestinian people as a whole want more than anything is personal dignity, self-respect, the right to self-determination, and good educational and vocational opportunities for themselves and their children.
To the extent the Trump plan can make this happen, it should be embraced by the Palestinians. (Again, there is much to digest in the plan, and these are only my immediate reactions to the announcement.)
What would they have to give up in exchange? Realistically, they would have to give up systemic hostility to Israel. They would have to accept Israelis living in their midst (just as roughly 2 million Palestinian Arabs currently live within Israel's recognized borders). They would have to dismantle Hamas. They would have to renounce all support of terror. Will they?
As far as the populace as a whole, I believe many would gladly embrace this. After all, they are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, young and old. They have aspirations and dreams and desires like everyone else, and to live without dignity and without hope is oppressive. The vast majority are not terrorist or terroristic.
Not only so, but realistically, with the growth of Israeli settlements in the so-called West Bank (Judea and Samaria), there is little realistic expectation that they will ever gain complete autonomy with a Judenfrein (Jew-free) state. So, why not embrace the proposal?
This leads me to the third and final point.
There have already been bloody, civil wars between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas remains popular with many Palestinians. That's because Hamas identifies with their struggle for freedom, and Hamas also does humanitarian work in their midst (speaking of Gaza, in particular). And in the minds of many Gazan Palestinians, Hamas is not the cause of their rampant unemployment and many hardships, Israel is.
How in the world would the PA disarm Hamas? Would the PA really provide a much better government than Hamas? And would the PA abandon its financial support of Palestinians imprisoned for acts of terror against Israel? Or withdraw financial support for the families of Palestinian "martyrs"? Or cease inciting hatred towards Israel through educational and media propaganda?
To all these questions, the answer would appear to be an emphatic "No!"
That's why, immediately after the peace plan was unveiled, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that the plan should be tossed into the trash (literally, into the dustbin of history).
And that's why there were reports of thousands of Palestinians protesting in Gaza before the plan was even released (who even knows what version of the plan they heard?).
Yet, if the Palestinian populace as a whole could see a way forward to peace and prosperity, wouldn't they want to achieve it? And what if the surrounding Muslim nations said, "Yes, do this and we will help you prosper as well!"? What then?
But here is the rub: The Palestinian leadership has a history of corruption. Yet the peace plan basically says this: "The state will only come into existence in four years if the Palestinians accept the plan, if the Palestinian Authority stops paying terrorists and inciting terrorism and if Hamas and Islamic Jihad put down their weapons. In addition, the American plan calls on the Palestinians to give up corruption, respect human rights, freedom of religion and a free press, so that they don't have a failed state. If those conditions are met, the U.S. will recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan to assist it."
Frankly, without massive pressure from the populace as a whole, joined by other Muslim nations, I do not see this happening. And that is the crux of the problem.
Middle East scholar Efraim Karsh wrote an important volume titled "Palestine Betrayed," outlining how the Arab leadership consistently failed its people in agreeing to terms of peace and co-existence with Israel. And I would expect nothing less than that today, sad to say.
And this brings me to the famous quote attributed to Golda Meir. She said, "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."
Doesn't that remain the biggest issue until this day?


wnd--2020-01-30--Impeachment: Remember when Pelosi insisted on bipartisanship?

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists she does not `` hate '' President Donald Trump .
Responding to a reporter 's question after she directed the Democratic House Committee chairmen to draft articles of impeachment , Pelosi said : `` As a Catholic , I resent your using the word 'hate ' in a sentence that addresses me .
I do n't hate anyone .
I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president .
And I still pray for the president .
I pray for the president all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me when it comes to words like that . ''
Yet , in December 1998 , during the House debate on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton , Pelosi attributed the Republicans ' motive to their alleged `` hatred '' of Clinton .
On the floor of the House , Pelosi said : `` Today the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance .
In the investigation of the president , fundamental principles which Americans hold dear – privacy , fairness , checks and balances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why ?
Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton , and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred , our country will suffer . ''
As recently as last March , Pelosi argued that , without significant buy-in from Republicans , she considered a Trump impeachment a non-starter .
Pelosi said : `` Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there 's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan , I do n't think we should go down that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he 's just not worth it . ''
In 2017 , the now House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , then in competition for the chairmanship against fellow Democrat Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif. , shared Pelosi 's position : `` There 's not much point in impeaching a president and having him acquitted in the Senate as happened with Clinton .
… If you are actually going to remove a president from office , you are in effect nullifying the last election .
Certainly the people who voted for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It 's OK to do that .
It may be necessary to do that – as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president 's former supporters , the people who voted for him , that you have to , that it 's necessary . ''
And , at the time , Lofgren agreed .
`` By the time the vote was taken in the Judiciary Committee to impeach Richard Nixon , the country understood it and they agreed with it , '' said Lofgren .
`` This should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisive effort , if it happens . ''
Trump defenders call his impeachment the `` most partisan in history . ''
It is .
The House vote to start an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon was 410-4 .
In the case of President Bill Clinton , 31 House Democrats joined House Republicans in voting for a formal impeachment inquiry , and eventually five Democrats voted for at least one article of impeachment .
Not one House Republican joined the House Democrats in voting for an impeachment inquiry of Trump , and none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment .
Not one .
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' At the time of Clinton 's impeachment , about two-thirds of Republican voters wanted Clinton convicted and ejected from office .
Currently , 89 % of Democrats want Trump convicted and ejected from office .
Again , as a percentage of their own parties , fewer Republicans wanted the expulsion of the `` hated '' Bill Clinton from office than Democrats who today want Trump expelled .
Again , 31 House Democrats voted for Clinton 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting for an article of impeachment .
Today , 89 % of Democrats want Trump out , even though not one Republican in the house voted for the Trump impeachment inquiry .
How weak is the Democrats ' case for impeachment ?
After the first day of Trump 's defense team that argued against conviction , Jeffrey Toobin , CNN 's chief legal analyst , said : `` I just think the Republicans are winning here .
The president is winning here .
And as long as they do n't completely fall on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all competent lawyers ; they 're not going to do that – I think that 's fine for them . ''
And as to obstruction of Congress , the second article of impeachment , CNN legal analyst Ross Garber said : `` Presidents going back to Washington have asserted privileges and immunities and objections .
You know , President Obama 's attorney general was cited for criminal and civil contempt of Congress .
I think it would be very dangerous to say that that is now a basis for impeachment . ''
Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's impeachment well before the whistleblower filed his or her complaint , said : `` Impeachment is whatever Congress says it is .
There is no law . ''
She 's right .
Her statement shows that impeachment is really a political process rather than a legal one .
However one feels about the merits of Trump 's impeachment , it fails the bipartisan standard that Democrats like Pelosi and Nadler once demanded .

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists she does not "hate" President Donald Trump. Responding to a reporter's question after she directed the Democratic House Committee chairmen to draft articles of impeachment, Pelosi said: "As a Catholic, I resent your using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
Yet, in December 1998, during the House debate on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Pelosi attributed the Republicans' motive to their alleged "hatred" of Clinton. On the floor of the House, Pelosi said: "Today the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the investigation of the president, fundamental principles which Americans hold dear – privacy, fairness, checks and balances – have been seriously violated, and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer."
As recently as last March, Pelosi argued that, without significant buy-in from Republicans, she considered a Trump impeachment a non-starter. Pelosi said: "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."
In 2017, the now House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., then in competition for the chairmanship against fellow Democrat Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., shared Pelosi's position: "There's not much point in impeaching a president and having him acquitted in the Senate as happened with Clinton. … If you are actually going to remove a president from office, you are in effect nullifying the last election. Certainly the people who voted for him will think you're nullifying the election. It's OK to do that. It may be necessary to do that – as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president's former supporters, the people who voted for him, that you have to, that it's necessary." And, at the time, Lofgren agreed. "By the time the vote was taken in the Judiciary Committee to impeach Richard Nixon, the country understood it and they agreed with it," said Lofgren. "This should be a healing effort, not a divisive effort, if it happens."
Trump defenders call his impeachment the "most partisan in history." It is. The House vote to start an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon was 410-4. In the case of President Bill Clinton, 31 House Democrats joined House Republicans in voting for a formal impeachment inquiry, and eventually five Democrats voted for at least one article of impeachment. Not one House Republican joined the House Democrats in voting for an impeachment inquiry of Trump, and none voted for either of the two articles of impeachment. Not one.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
At the time of Clinton's impeachment, about two-thirds of Republican voters wanted Clinton convicted and ejected from office. Currently, 89% of Democrats want Trump convicted and ejected from office.
Again, as a percentage of their own parties, fewer Republicans wanted the expulsion of the "hated" Bill Clinton from office than Democrats who today want Trump expelled. Again, 31 House Democrats voted for Clinton's impeachment inquiry, with five House Democrats voting for an article of impeachment. Today, 89% of Democrats want Trump out, even though not one Republican in the house voted for the Trump impeachment inquiry.
How weak is the Democrats' case for impeachment? After the first day of Trump's defense team that argued against conviction, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief legal analyst, said: "I just think the Republicans are winning here. The president is winning here. And as long as they don't completely fall on their faces – which, they're all competent lawyers; they're not going to do that – I think that's fine for them." And as to obstruction of Congress, the second article of impeachment, CNN legal analyst Ross Garber said: "Presidents going back to Washington have asserted privileges and immunities and objections. You know, President Obama's attorney general was cited for criminal and civil contempt of Congress. I think it would be very dangerous to say that that is now a basis for impeachment."
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who demanded Trump's impeachment well before the whistleblower filed his or her complaint, said: "Impeachment is whatever Congress says it is. There is no law." She's right. Her statement shows that impeachment is really a political process rather than a legal one. However one feels about the merits of Trump's impeachment, it fails the bipartisan standard that Democrats like Pelosi and Nadler once demanded.


wnd--2020-01-30--Dershowitz: Warren 'doesn't understand the law'

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been schooled publicly on her lack of understanding of the nation 's laws .
The lesson came from Alan Dershowitz , a longtime liberal regarded as an expert on the Constitution .
Dershowitz , as a member of President Trump 's team , contended during the Senate trial Tuesday night that the Democrats ' articles of impeachment fall short of the constitutional requirements .
Warren claimed on Twitter that Dershowitz 's argument is `` contrary to both law & fact . ''
TRENDING : Limbaugh : Something 'just magical ' about Bolton 'bombshell' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow '' his argument .
`` Warren does n't understand the law , '' Dershowitz tweeted Tuesday .
`` My former colleague , Senator Warren , claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand .
This says more about Warren than it does about me . ''
Dershowitz said Warren `` willfully mischaracterized what I said , claiming that I spoke about `` intent . ''
`` I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation , '' he said .
`` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motives . ''
The Harvard lawyer said that if Warren `` knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime — and intent , which is . ''
`` It 's the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law , '' he said .
`` And of course there 's something that always must be remembered about Elizabeth Warren , '' the site said , pointing to a tweet saying Warren `` is a pathological liar '' who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The Washington Examiner said she `` has built her campaign on a foundation of exaggerations and misrepresentations . ''
Among her falsehoods is claiming that she was Native American and that none of her children attended a private school .

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been schooled publicly on her lack of understanding of the nation's laws.
The lesson came from Alan Dershowitz, a longtime liberal regarded as an expert on the Constitution.
Dershowitz, as a member of President Trump's team, contended during the Senate trial Tuesday night that the Democrats' articles of impeachment fall short of the constitutional requirements.
Warren claimed on Twitter that Dershowitz's argument is "contrary to both law & fact."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
She said she "truly could not follow" his argument.
"Warren doesn't understand the law," Dershowitz tweeted Tuesday. "My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me."
Dershowitz said Warren "willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about "intent."
"I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation," he said. "I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives."
The Harvard lawyer said that if Warren "knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime — and intent, which is."
"It's the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law," he said.
Warren doesn’t understand the law.
My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. (1 of 2) — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. (2 of 3 — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
(3 OF 3) If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law. — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020
Twitter news aggregator Twitchy added another point.
"And of course there's something that always must be remembered about Elizabeth Warren," the site said, pointing to a tweet saying Warren "is a pathological liar" who "lies about even the smallest things."
The Washington Examiner said she "has built her campaign on a foundation of exaggerations and misrepresentations."
Among her falsehoods is claiming that she was Native American and that none of her children attended a private school.


Schiff vs. Putin

CBS gives Warren another chance to address angry dad , she digs an even deeper hole

* Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required.
Thank you for contacting us. Please check your email inbox to confirm your message and send it to our editorial team.