Conservatives welcome. Libs & RINOs go away. It's all of you destroying the society and conservatives must no longer appease you!
The Chinese social media app TikTok, which has become one of the most popular apps for youth in the United States, has banned pro-life group Live Action. The organization’s founder, Lila Rose, tweeted on Jan. 31, 2020, “TikTok has just BANNED & permanently removed Live Action from the platform.”
via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/
American presidents have their famous speeches, remembered long after they leave office. JFK said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and told Mikhail Gorbachev to: “Tear down this wall.”
Some speeches are memorable in other ways. George W. Bush, days after 9/11, ironically announced that: “Islam is peace.” Barack Obama proclaimed himself the messiah: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”
President Trump has certainly given strong speeches, such as at the recent March for Life. But he may be remembered more for his raucous rallies and hilarious tweets. Yet one speech has flown under the radar.
On Oct. 13, 2016, just weeks before the election, Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Florida. Leading up to the election, he was holding several rallies each day, giving numerous speeches, but this seemingly random speech stands out.
The enigmatic Q group refers to it as the speech that got Donald Trump elected. As it was one of many pre-election speeches he gave and at a Florida rally, it may have only been heard by a fraction of Trump voters before the election, but it certainly encapsulates his philosophy, both before and after the election, toward government corruption.
The speech explains the resistance by the Washington, D.C. ruling class to Trump’s candidacy, election, and presidency. Trump attacked the foundation of deep state power, wealth, and corruption. Trump was indeed an “existential threat” to the cabal.
Before even being elected, and years before Joe Biden decided to run for president, Donald Trump was focused on corruption. Not to influence his reelection, as House Democrats accuse, since he wasn’t even president yet. But because rooting out corruption was part of his plan to make America great again.
Everything that followed his election, from the Russian collusion accusations, White House leaks, special counsel investigation, and now impeachment, is a reaction to the ideas Trump explains in this 6-minute speech. Watch it here or read the transcript.
YouTube screen grab
The opening lines are prescient, becoming painfully obvious now almost four years after he laid out the scale of corruption.
Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political
establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.
The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.
The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.
For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.
Candidate Trump then went on to say:
It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.
This is money given to corrupt foreign countries, disguised as aid, only to be returned to the political elite by hiring their unqualified family members for do-nothing jobs, as in Hunter Biden, or funneling these U.S. taxpayer dollars back into political foundations, consultancies, or campaign contributions.
Once upon a time, journalists investigated such corruption. Now they ignore it, aiding and abetting the deception. As Trump said in his speech:
The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an agenda.
Speak up against the cabal and you will be destroyed, or even commit suicide. Trump went on:
The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means that are well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more.
It’s amazing that Trump predicted exactly what happened a few days ago when “Republican political strategist” Rick Wilson called the group of “you” mentioned above, “credulous boomer rubes” with CNN hack Don Lemon laughing so hard he almost fell off his chair.
President Trump has been impeached for drawing back the curtain on deep state malfeasance. Before handing over millions of hard earned U.S. taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, he wanted to know the money was necessary and going where promised, rather than into the pockets of oligarchs and U.S. politician grifters.
He acted as he was required to under the “Treaty with Ukraine on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,” ratified in 2000, 15 years before Trump announced his run for president. He was doing his job, fulfilling his Constitutional oath of office. His reward for pouring roach killer in the nest of Democrat crooks and knaves was impeachment and a concerted effort by Democrats, the media, and nasty NeverTrump Republicans, all heads on the same toxic hydra, to overturn the last election and rig the next one.
It’s not about Trump enriching himself, despite what Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler say, it’s for the country. Again, from the famous speech:
I didn’t need to do this. I built a great company, and I had wonderful life. I could have enjoyed the benefits of years of successful business for myself and my family, instead of going through this absolute horror show of lies, deceptions and malicious attacks. I’m doing it because this country has given me so much, and I feel strongly it was my turn to give back.
It’s all about corruption, exposing it, rooting it out, and destroying it. Those who are the most threatened are those who scream the loudest. Given the Democrat and media apoplexy, Trump must be getting closer to the truth.
He ended his speech by throwing down the gauntlet:
We will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business. We will remove from our politics the special interests who have betrayed our workers, our borders, our freedoms, and our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit, we will end the rule of special interests, we will put a stop to the raiding of our country – and the disenfranchisement of our people.
It’s not about abuse of power or obstruction of Congress. It’s not about quid pro quo or bribery. It’s simply a new sheriff in town, bringing law and order to drain a swamp of greed and corruption. It’s President Trump doing exactly what he said he would do if elected, making America great again.
He is doing what past presidents have talked about and promised, but then either looked the other way or became active participants in the graft. And those milking the system are petrified over exposure and their long overdue reckoning.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.
American presidents have their famous speeches, remembered long after they leave office. JFK said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and told Mikhail Gorbachev to: “Tear down this wall.”
Some speeches are memorable in other ways. George W. Bush, days after 9/11, ironically announced that: “Islam is peace.” Barack Obama proclaimed himself the messiah: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”
President Trump has certainly given strong speeches, such as at the recent March for Life. But he may be remembered more for his raucous rallies and hilarious tweets. Yet one speech has flown under the radar.
On Oct. 13, 2016, just weeks before the election, Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Florida. Leading up to the election, he was holding several rallies each day, giving numerous speeches, but this seemingly random speech stands out.
The enigmatic Q group refers to it as the speech that got Donald Trump elected. As it was one of many pre-election speeches he gave and at a Florida rally, it may have only been heard by a fraction of Trump voters before the election, but it certainly encapsulates his philosophy, both before and after the election, toward government corruption.
The speech explains the resistance by the Washington, D.C. ruling class to Trump’s candidacy, election, and presidency. Trump attacked the foundation of deep state power, wealth, and corruption. Trump was indeed an “existential threat” to the cabal.
Before even being elected, and years before Joe Biden decided to run for president, Donald Trump was focused on corruption. Not to influence his reelection, as House Democrats accuse, since he wasn’t even president yet. But because rooting out corruption was part of his plan to make America great again.
Everything that followed his election, from the Russian collusion accusations, White House leaks, special counsel investigation, and now impeachment, is a reaction to the ideas Trump explains in this 6-minute speech. Watch it here or read the transcript.
YouTube screen grab
The opening lines are prescient, becoming painfully obvious now almost four years after he laid out the scale of corruption.
Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political
establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.
The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.
The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.
For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption.
Candidate Trump then went on to say:
It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.
This is money given to corrupt foreign countries, disguised as aid, only to be returned to the political elite by hiring their unqualified family members for do-nothing jobs, as in Hunter Biden, or funneling these U.S. taxpayer dollars back into political foundations, consultancies, or campaign contributions.
Once upon a time, journalists investigated such corruption. Now they ignore it, aiding and abetting the deception. As Trump said in his speech:
The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an agenda.
Speak up against the cabal and you will be destroyed, or even commit suicide. Trump went on:
The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means that are well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more.
It’s amazing that Trump predicted exactly what happened a few days ago when “Republican political strategist” Rick Wilson called the group of “you” mentioned above, “credulous boomer rubes” with CNN hack Don Lemon laughing so hard he almost fell off his chair.
President Trump has been impeached for drawing back the curtain on deep state malfeasance. Before handing over millions of hard earned U.S. taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, he wanted to know the money was necessary and going where promised, rather than into the pockets of oligarchs and U.S. politician grifters.
He acted as he was required to under the “Treaty with Ukraine on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,” ratified in 2000, 15 years before Trump announced his run for president. He was doing his job, fulfilling his Constitutional oath of office. His reward for pouring roach killer in the nest of Democrat crooks and knaves was impeachment and a concerted effort by Democrats, the media, and nasty NeverTrump Republicans, all heads on the same toxic hydra, to overturn the last election and rig the next one.
It’s not about Trump enriching himself, despite what Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler say, it’s for the country. Again, from the famous speech:
I didn’t need to do this. I built a great company, and I had wonderful life. I could have enjoyed the benefits of years of successful business for myself and my family, instead of going through this absolute horror show of lies, deceptions and malicious attacks. I’m doing it because this country has given me so much, and I feel strongly it was my turn to give back.
It’s all about corruption, exposing it, rooting it out, and destroying it. Those who are the most threatened are those who scream the loudest. Given the Democrat and media apoplexy, Trump must be getting closer to the truth.
He ended his speech by throwing down the gauntlet:
We will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business. We will remove from our politics the special interests who have betrayed our workers, our borders, our freedoms, and our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit, we will end the rule of special interests, we will put a stop to the raiding of our country – and the disenfranchisement of our people.
It’s not about abuse of power or obstruction of Congress. It’s not about quid pro quo or bribery. It’s simply a new sheriff in town, bringing law and order to drain a swamp of greed and corruption. It’s President Trump doing exactly what he said he would do if elected, making America great again.
He is doing what past presidents have talked about and promised, but then either looked the other way or became active participants in the graft. And those milking the system are petrified over exposure and their long overdue reckoning.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and QuodVerum.
via American Thinker
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/
On Thursday, a Texas court ruled in favor of Jeff Younger, the father of James Younger, the seven-year-old whose pediatrician mother was attempting to medically transition her son into a girl.
Dallas Judge Mary Brown upheld an October decision that gave both parents conservatorship over their child and denied the mother’s request that the case revert to the October 21 11-1 jury decision that gave her sole managing conservatorship. That decision was later overruled by Judge Kim Cooks, who ruled that conservatorship would be split evenly between both parents.
But then the mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, and her attorneys argued that Cooks had acted improperly by posting an article about the case on her Facebook page, prompting Cooks to be summarily recused from the case.,
The Daily Mail noted, “In November it was revealed the youngster had decided to attend school this year as a boy. In a post from the Facebook page ‘Save James,’ pictures of James dressed in a button down shirt, slacks and tennis shoes were shared online. The caption read: ‘Going to school. This is what it looks like when JAMES gets to choose! *Affirm this! * Also, a photo taken yesterday, just before church. James and Jude proud to be men! Save James, save thousands of children!’”
Georgulas and Younger were in 2010 and underwent in vitro fertilization to have twins; they requested the babies to be male. Georgulas later brought James to see a gender therapist at the Children’s Hospital Center, where she claimed he had wanted a girls’ toy from McDonald’s and then started imitating the female characters from Disney’s Frozenand asking to wear dresses, as The Texan reported.
The Texan continued:
She said she contacted the GENecis clinic at Children’s Hospital Center, and they referred her to Rebekka Ouer for counseling. Ouer recommended a process of “affirmation” and thought that a “social transition” for James to begin going to school dressed as a girl named “Luna” would be in his best interest.
Jeff Younger said Georgulas had been pushing their son to transition after their divorce. He claimed that when his son was three years old, his mother locked him in his bedroom and told him, “monsters only eat boys.” He also said she had forced James to wear dresses.
Jeff Younger stated:
I want you to imagine having electronic communication with your son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you. He has false eyelashes and makeup. His hair has got glitter in it. He’s wearing a dress.
Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse — I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy. Every. Single. Day. You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm… because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That’s what it’s like.
In October, GOP Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated that the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services were looking into the case, which had drawn national attention. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) also weighed in, tweeting, “A 7-year-old child doesn’t have the maturity to make profound decisions like this. The state of Texas should protect this child’s right to choose—as an informed, mature person—and not be used as a pawn in a left-wing political agenda.”
A 7-year-old child doesn’t have the maturity to make profound decisions like this. The state of Texas should protect this child’s right to choose—as an informed, mature person—and not be used as a pawn in a left-wing political agenda. #ProtectJamesYounger
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) October 24, 2019
via The Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com
What is capitalism?
To understand true capitalism you have to start with an
understanding of capital. Capital is the secret sauce of capitalism. So, what
is it?
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines capital as: wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.
In plain words, capital means tools and know-how. There’s
nothing sinister about it.
Skilled workers contribute more value and thus make more
money than the semi-skilled. The semi-skilled contribute more and make more
than the unskilled. Great tools make workers far more productive than crude tools.
Crude tools make us more productive than no tools.
Capital is simply skills and tools.
Stocks and bonds are the classical instruments of capitalism.
These are “claim checks.” They are the instruments proving that someone with savings
has put those savings into a business, thereby owning a portion or being its
lender.
The business then uses that money to build factories, warehouses,
office space, or to buy equipment or other necessities for being productive.
That’s called “the cost of doing business.”
>>> Purchase Ralph Benko and William R. Collier Jr.’s book, “The Capitalist Manifesto: The End of Class Warfare, Toward Universal Affluence”
People with know-how—the “human capital”—invent, build,
sell, and distribute goods and services. These enterprises contribute more to
the general welfare than they cost. That’s “profit.”
Profit is not a dirty word. If a business doesn’t add more
to the general welfare than its cost of doing business it doesn’t last long.
Ecologists are not the only ones concerned with sustainability.
True capitalism rewards those who bring capital—skills and
tools—to society. The more value they create for the rest of us the more profit
they make. If profits get too high, competitors swoop in. Competition—not officious
meddling—is what pushes prices down.
The first mortal enemy of capitalism is philosophical and
obvious: Socialists, including those of its most virulent form, communists, are
committed to capitalism’s destruction and are forthright in declaring that.
The second mortal enemy is practical and unexpected: Many
successful capitalists disdain, sometimes with implacable hostility, the system
by which they achieved wealth.
The great classical liberal prophet and free market champion
Friedrich
Hayek wrote, in an essay titled “Intellectuals and Socialism” published in the Spring 1949 issue of The University of Chicago Law Review:
The difficulty of finding genuine and disinterested support for a systematic policy for freedom is not new. In a passage of which the reception of a recent book of mine has often reminded me, Lord Acton long ago described how
“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition…”
More recently, one of the most distinguished living American economists has complained in a similar vein that the main task of those who believe in the basic principles of the capitalist system must frequently be to defend this system against the capitalists—indeed the great liberal economists, from Adam Smith to the present, have always known this.
…
It may be that as a free society as we have known it carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that once freedom has been achieved it is taken for granted and ceases to be valued, and that the free growth of ideas which is the essence of a free society will bring about the destruction of the foundations on which it depends.
There can be little doubt that in countries like the United States the ideal of freedom today has less real appeal for the young than it has in countries where they have learned what its loss means.
Big business today is often in cahoots with big government.
Together they preserve the facade while hollowing out the substance of true capitalism.
Thus they enhance their privileges at our expense, traducing the soul of capitalism.
Thus do some capitalists seek to appropriate and devalue the
capitalist brand. Fat cats are discrediting a fine philosophy.
They betray its essence to justify what are essentially
feudalistic practices, economic success based on status rather than merit. By
misappropriating and misrepresenting the capitalist brand they persuade a naïve
public to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
True capitalism is an imperfect but, in practice, unrivaled mechanism to generate equitable prosperity. To reiterate the words of its original philosopher and prophet, Adam Smith, true capitalism will produce “universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.”
This expert was taken with permission from Ralph Benko and William R. Collier Jr.’s book, “The Capitalist Manifesto: The End of Class Warfare, Toward Universal Affluence.”
The post Why Capitalism Is a Blessing to Mankind appeared first on The Daily Signal.
via The Daily Signal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/
Brexit goes through today, and Britain is finally independent, free from the clutches of the European Union. It’s a great event regardless of how it happens, but in this case, it was cool beyond description.
It all ended with a pretty amazing flourish, one that told us a lot about both the European Commission and newly sovereign Britain itself. Chief Brexiteer Nigel Farage made his last speech before the European Commission, which was a great scolding and call to shut down the whole operation altogether, which was subversive enough. But he drove it even further.
Here was the great final moment:
Farage and his buddies ended the whole thing by explicitly waving the British flag of sovereignty right in the faces of all the angry little European Commission eurocrats, even as they sputtered and cut off his mic.
Metaphor, anyone? It was the mother of all metaphors, a Britain that asserted its sovereignty in waving its symbolic flag as its soulless eurocrat masters got angry and tried to stop it, not on political grounds, not because they were afraid the other member states might follow, but on petty rules grounds, little administrative state foot-stamping, insisting on cookie-cutter order and obedience, no exceptions, in the face of a newly freed state that just asserted that it can do what it wants.
The ending was absolutely perfect. The mean librarian-looking woman of no memorable name repeatedly, humorlessly, ordering Farage and his allies to take his waved Union Jack flags down. No flags here! It came off as saying ‘no sovereignty, you’re all the EU’s slaves now. And she had no idea how bad she looked doing it, something that is sure to give other restless states of the E.U. some pause. As she cut off his mic, Farage continued demonstrating his country’s newfound sovereignty by laughing at her and refusing. Sovereigns, after all, have flags. Vassal states do not.
It’s not the first time Farage has shown such sense of purpose. His preceding speech had it – here’s the whole thing here:
And remember his fierce speech to this same bunch of Eurocrats, telling them they laughed at him once but for that now got Brexit. That, too, was electrifying:
Farage not only has a stellar sense of the theatrical, he seems to understand the importance of creating memorable moments and understands how to do them. In a way the self-unaware eurocrate would never understand, he understands the meaning in his movement. That’s why his Brexit was so powerful – and is sure to redound to future acts of rebellion against this nasty, petty little eurocracy Britain broke away from.
Image credit: Screen shot from The Telegraph, shareable YouTube video
Brexit goes through today, and Britain is finally independent, free from the clutches of the European Union. It’s a great event regardless of how it happens, but in this case, it was cool beyond description.
It all ended with a pretty amazing flourish, one that told us a lot about both the European Commission and newly sovereign Britain itself. Chief Brexiteer Nigel Farage made his last speech before the European Commission, which was a great scolding and call to shut down the whole operation altogether, which was subversive enough. But he drove it even further.
Here was the great final moment:
Farage and his buddies ended the whole thing by explicitly waving the British flag of sovereignty right in the faces of all the angry little European Commission eurocrats, even as they sputtered and cut off his mic.
Metaphor, anyone? It was the mother of all metaphors, a Britain that asserted its sovereignty in waving its symbolic flag as its soulless eurocrat masters got angry and tried to stop it, not on political grounds, not because they were afraid the other member states might follow, but on petty rules grounds, little administrative state foot-stamping, insisting on cookie-cutter order and obedience, no exceptions, in the face of a newly freed state that just asserted that it can do what it wants.
The ending was absolutely perfect. The mean librarian-looking woman of no memorable name repeatedly, humorlessly, ordering Farage and his allies to take his waved Union Jack flags down. No flags here! It came off as saying ‘no sovereignty, you’re all the EU’s slaves now. And she had no idea how bad she looked doing it, something that is sure to give other restless states of the E.U. some pause. As she cut off his mic, Farage continued demonstrating his country’s newfound sovereignty by laughing at her and refusing. Sovereigns, after all, have flags. Vassal states do not.
It’s not the first time Farage has shown such sense of purpose. His preceding speech had it – here’s the whole thing here:
And remember his fierce speech to this same bunch of Eurocrats, telling them they laughed at him once but for that now got Brexit. That, too, was electrifying:
Farage not only has a stellar sense of the theatrical, he seems to understand the importance of creating memorable moments and understands how to do them. In a way the self-unaware eurocrate would never understand, he understands the meaning in his movement. That’s why his Brexit was so powerful – and is sure to redound to future acts of rebellion against this nasty, petty little eurocracy Britain broke away from.
Image credit: Screen shot from The Telegraph, shareable YouTube video
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) continues to push campaign cash to a firm run by her alleged boyfriend, filings show.
Omar’s new committee filings submitted Friday morning show that between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31, 2019, her committee made $215,000 in additional payments to the E Street Group, a firm run by political consultant Tim Mynett, Omar’s alleged boyfriend. The payments were reported as going toward consulting, direct mail, research services, travel expenses, advertisements, and graphic design.
The new payments mark another increase in money funneled to the firm. Mynett’s group is yet again the highest-paid vendor from Omar’s campaign.
The committee reported hauling in $403,000 in individual contributions while disbursing $404,000 over the last three months of 2019. The $215,000 paid to Mynett’s group for its services accounts for 53 percent of the total disbursements from the campaign during this time.
Over the first three quarters of 2019, Omar’s campaign paid out a total of $310,000 to the E Street Group. Accounting for the fourth-quarter payments, Mynett’s firm collected a total of $525,000 from Omar’s campaign in 2019.
Omar’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the payments.
Dr. Beth Mynett, Mynett’s ex-wife, said in divorce papers filed last year that her husband was having an affair with Omar. "The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when defendant told plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar," the papers said.
"By way of example, days prior to defendant’s devastating and shocking declaration of love for Rep. Omar and admission of their affair, he and Rep. Omar took the parties’ son to dinner to formally meet for the first time at the family’s favorite neighborhood restaurant while plaintiff was out of town," the papers said. "Rep. Omar gave the parties’ son a gift and the defendant later brought her back inside the family’s home."
Omar has evaded questions on the situation while Mynett has denied allegations of an affair. The pair, however, has been spotted together on numerous occasions.
The Daily Mail reported last year that Omar and Mynett are living together. The Washington Free Beacon also spotted the two together last November at the posh Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington, D.C., during a secretive gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a liberal millionaire and billionaire donor club, where they were mingling with other attendees.
The post Omar Paid Additional $215,000 From Campaign Coffers to Alleged Boyfriend’s Firm appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
via Washington Free Beacon
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com
In a previous American Thinker article, I asked if Chief Justice John Roberts had the judicial acumen of a traffic court judge. We now know he doesn’t.
During the course of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, Americans have now seen the chief justice have three historical strikes. Consequently, the Senate should immediately vote to have case dismissed, against President Trump. Our fairly elected president should be immediately acquitted of these most politically driven bogus charges in American constitutional history.
Strike one by John Roberts is simple, based on the conduct of his presiding over the trial. It is obvious that he has been over-the-top prejudiced against President Trump by not holding House Democrat managers accountable for their gross breach of decorum.
Early in the proceedings, Chief Justice Roberts invoked a precedent from 1905, using the word ”pettifoggery,” to establish decorum during the impeachment trial the Constitution makes him preside over.
Definition of pettifogger
1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER
2: one given to quibbling over trifles
“I think it is appropriate for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said. ”One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
Yet the chief justice of the United States allowed Chairman Nadler to call the president of the United States a dictator without a moment’s hesitation or admonishment on decorum and civil discourse. That smacks of Justice Roberts being an inconstant intellectual coward against the
“This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful, he does not have to respect the Congress, he does not have to respect the representatives of the people, only his will goes,” said Nadler. ”He is a dictator.”
If Representative Nadler (D-N.Y.) had said that personal insult during a House debate his words would have been “taken
Rule XVII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House of Representatives describes a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Member may call another Member to order for the use of disorderly language. Disorderly, or unparliamentary, remarks are a violation of House rules of decorum. This mechanism, which is referred to as “words taken down,” may be invoked during debate on the House floor, in the Committee of the Whole, or in the standing and select committees of the House.
In addition, Members whose words are determined to be unparliamentary may not be recognized to speak for the rest of the day (even on yielded time) unless the Member is allowed to proceed in order by unanimous consent or a motion.
Strike two for Chief Justice Roberts is that he has shown so far that there is no judicial admonishment or accountability for committing perjury. We have a saying in the Marines about lying: the Democrat House managers put their back against the wall and lied like a rug. Why have a witness if the person is allowed to lie without penalty?
If the chief justice had instructed the House managers to stop committing perjury, then perhaps their posturing in calling witnesses to get at the truth may be more credible. If there is no penalty for perjury, then why have any witnesses? So far, this entire impeachment is just more D.C. political blustering and fake news reporting theater of the absurd that Americans hate at so many levels.
Strike three, and you are called out, Mr. Chief Justice. Senator Rand Paul asked a question that was not allowed that goes to the heart of my traffic court analogy in President Trump facing his accusers.
Senator Rand Paul: My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
As I previously pointed out:
If the person reporting the transgression is not present, then the judge will issue a verdict of not guilty. The judge, in doing so, is actually reaching back to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (facing one’s accusers), which, with the genius of the Founding Fathers, is actually built out from English Common Law and even Roman law. The Sixth Amendment is one of the foundational stones upon which our entire edifice of a fair system of justice is built.
If the past is prologue for this entire sham process, and a witness can lie with impunity, and the president’s accusers can use “disorderly language” to attack him with no consequences, and President Trump cannot face his accusers, then shame on everyone involved, and this has gone much too far. End it.
In a previous American Thinker article, I asked if Chief Justice John Roberts had the judicial acumen of a traffic court judge. We now know he doesn’t.
During the course of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, Americans have now seen the chief justice have three historical strikes. Consequently, the Senate should immediately vote to have case dismissed, against President Trump. Our fairly elected president should be immediately acquitted of these most politically driven bogus charges in American constitutional history.
Strike one by John Roberts is simple, based on the conduct of his presiding over the trial. It is obvious that he has been over-the-top prejudiced against President Trump by not holding House Democrat managers accountable for their gross breach of decorum.
Early in the proceedings, Chief Justice Roberts invoked a precedent from 1905, using the word ”pettifoggery,” to establish decorum during the impeachment trial the Constitution makes him preside over.
Definition of pettifogger
1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER
2: one given to quibbling over trifles
“I think it is appropriate for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said. ”One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
Yet the chief justice of the United States allowed Chairman Nadler to call the president of the United States a dictator without a moment’s hesitation or admonishment on decorum and civil discourse. That smacks of Justice Roberts being an inconstant intellectual coward against the
“This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful, he does not have to respect the Congress, he does not have to respect the representatives of the people, only his will goes,” said Nadler. ”He is a dictator.”
If Representative Nadler (D-N.Y.) had said that personal insult during a House debate his words would have been “taken
Rule XVII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House of Representatives describes a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Member may call another Member to order for the use of disorderly language. Disorderly, or unparliamentary, remarks are a violation of House rules of decorum. This mechanism, which is referred to as “words taken down,” may be invoked during debate on the House floor, in the Committee of the Whole, or in the standing and select committees of the House.
In addition, Members whose words are determined to be unparliamentary may not be recognized to speak for the rest of the day (even on yielded time) unless the Member is allowed to proceed in order by unanimous consent or a motion.
Strike two for Chief Justice Roberts is that he has shown so far that there is no judicial admonishment or accountability for committing perjury. We have a saying in the Marines about lying: the Democrat House managers put their back against the wall and lied like a rug. Why have a witness if the person is allowed to lie without penalty?
If the chief justice had instructed the House managers to stop committing perjury, then perhaps their posturing in calling witnesses to get at the truth may be more credible. If there is no penalty for perjury, then why have any witnesses? So far, this entire impeachment is just more D.C. political blustering and fake news reporting theater of the absurd that Americans hate at so many levels.
Strike three, and you are called out, Mr. Chief Justice. Senator Rand Paul asked a question that was not allowed that goes to the heart of my traffic court analogy in President Trump facing his accusers.
Senator Rand Paul: My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.
As I previously pointed out:
If the person reporting the transgression is not present, then the judge will issue a verdict of not guilty. The judge, in doing so, is actually reaching back to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (facing one’s accusers), which, with the genius of the Founding Fathers, is actually built out from English Common Law and even Roman law. The Sixth Amendment is one of the foundational stones upon which our entire edifice of a fair system of justice is built.
If the past is prologue for this entire sham process, and a witness can lie with impunity, and the president’s accusers can use “disorderly language” to attack him with no consequences, and President Trump cannot face his accusers, then shame on everyone involved, and this has gone much too far. End it.
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, one of the original anti-Trumpers who in 2016 tried to block President Donald Trump from getting the party’s presidential nomination, announced that he wants to call additional witnesses in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.
The action, which Romney had been publicly ruminating about throughout the week, was confirmed by Liz Johnson, Romney’s communications director.
“For those asking: As @SenatorRomney has said, he wants to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and he will vote in favor of the motion today to consider witnesses,” she tweeted.
For those asking: As @SenatorRomney has said, he wants to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and he will vote in favor of the motion today to consider witnesses.
— Liz Johnson (@LJ0hnson) January 31, 2020
The Senate is expected to vote Friday on whether to call witnesses now that the first two phases of the trial are complete.
Each side was given three days to present opening arguments. Senators followed that up with two days of written questions to the two sides.
Democrats have said from the start that they wanted the case sent to the Senate by the House to be augmented with witnesses.
Those calls grew louder after media reports said a book being released in March by former national security adviser John Bolton claims that Trump linked military aid to Ukraine with the country’s willingness to investigate a corruption investigation from 2016 that targeted Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who intervened to derail the investigation.
Did you expect Romney to side against the president?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
Trump has denied any connection, but the claim has roiled the waters of Trump’s impeachment trial because it is at the heart of the allegations against him.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has said she wants to hear from a limited number of witnesses, which would include Bolton.
However, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee has said no witnesses are necessary, leaving only Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska among the Republicans who are publicly on the fence over the issue of witnesses.
Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning Democrats would need four GOP senators to support witnesses in order to extend the trial. As of Friday, that seemed unlikely.
Romney, the GOP’s presidential candidate in 2012, said he believed more testimony was necessary.
RELATED: Breaking: Trump Likely Acquitted by End of Day & Impeachment Over Thanks to Sen. Alexander
“I, of course, will make a final decision on witnesses after we’ve heard from not only the prosecution, but also the defense. But I think at this stage it is pretty fair to say John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide,” Romney said to reporters, according to the Desert News.
“I know there are some who feel if we open the door, we’d have tons of witnesses and court battles,” Romney said, according to The New York Times.
Many on Twitter took Romney to task for his stand.
2. I guess he wasn’t listening when the president’s lawyers eviscerated the Democrat House managers yesterday. But he is getting lots of fawning press. https://t.co/BL6xH7g7bn
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 26, 2020
Mitt Romney is doing a fantastic job of making us all realize how utterly disappointing a Romney presidency would have been.
— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) January 31, 2020
Mitt Romney is a yes on witnesses because he hates President Trump
Susan Collins is a yes on witnesses because she’s trying to hold on to her seat in a blue state
I’m ok with the latter, not the former https://t.co/U9BZuoGvtn
— Will Chamberlain 🇺🇸 (@willchamberlain) January 31, 2020
Romney’s plan calls for each side getting one or two witnesses, with each side getting 30 days to have them testify.
“I think of this as an inflection point, politically in our country,” Romney said. “It’s a constitutional issue. I feel a sense of deep responsibility to abide by the Constitution, to determine — absent the pulls from the right and the pulls from the left — what is the right thing to do?”
Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, said calling witnesses would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging a future House to send “half-baked” cases to the Senate.
“It will do grave damage to this body as an institution to say that the proceedings in the House don’t have to really be complete,” Philbin said, according to USA Today. “That’s not the way the way that his chamber should allow impeachments to be presented to it.”
Philbin also noted that Bolton has not publicly said whether the report about his book is true.
Jay Sekulow, another defense lawyer for the president, said that if witnesses are allowed, Trump’s defense wants to call the Bidens and the whistleblower whose complaint last summer touched off the impeachment inquiry.
Mitt Romney Announces He’s Siding with the Democrats Scroll down to comment below.
via The Western Journal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com
The demonstrators were chanting for Trump to be removed from office and for more witnesses to be called in the trial.
In DC Hundreds of protesters avoid arrest by moving and being silent.#WeWantWitnessespic.twitter.com/1x3FkZJx8k
— Bill Maxwell ? #CountryOverParty (@Bill_Maxwell_) January 29, 2020
The Hill reports that groups involved in the protest included Public Citizen, Women’s March, Center for Popular Democracy Action, Stand Up America, March for Truth, Demand Justice and the Poor People’s Campaign.
BREAKING: Hart Senate Office Building is full of protesters. At least hundreds more in all security lines stretched around the block. Are GOP Senators listening? Americans know they are trying to cover this up. We won’t let them. #WeWantWitnesses
— Scott Dworkin (@funder) January 29, 2020
“The Republicans are rigging this trial and the one force that could actually change this equation is the power of the people coming out in the streets and demanding witnesses, demanding evidence and demanding conviction and removal,” Rafael Kadaris, a protester with RefuseFacism.org, a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party, a cult lead by Bob Avakian, told The Hill.
?BREAKING:
44 protesters were just arrested on the steps of the Capitol!#WeWantWitnesses#RemoveTrump https://t.co/fjzTpOjyIC pic.twitter.com/dje5sWjqF3
— Kristin Mink #ImpeachTrump #ImpeachKavanaugh (@KristinMinkDC) January 29, 2020
LIVE: Protesters #SwarmTheSenate to demand witnesses & documents to end the #GOPCoverUp https://t.co/k5IvQS0JG8
— MoveOn (@MoveOn) January 29, 2020
@eqca was at the US Capitol in Washington, DC today, alongside thousands of protesters and @RevDrBarber to demand the Senate bring witnesses to the impeachment trial. pic.twitter.com/YFMNUeX7SS
— Valerie Ploumpis (@vploumpis) January 29, 2020
The arrests began when the protesters moved to the Capitol Building steps and unfurled a giant banner with the impeachment clause of the US Constitution printed on it.
The police have started arresting protesters on the Capitol steps.
For holding the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
— Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) January 29, 2020
Those arrested have been charged with “crowding, obstructing or incommoding.”
The Senate is scheduled to vote on Friday on whether or not more witnesses will be called, including neocon former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
The post Capitol Police Arrest 41 ‘Remove Trump’ Protesters, Charge Them With ‘Crowding, Obstructing or Incommoding’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com
Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty ImagesTwo drag queens read to children gathered for Drag Queen Story Hour at Cellar Door Books in Riverside, California, on June 22, 2019. (Frederic J. Brown / AFP via Getty Images)
Now firmly established in many public libraries across the nation, drag queen story hour is branching out to new territory: public school.
On Monday, New York Post Op-Ed editor Sohrab Ahmari posted a screenshot of an apparent notification to parents of children at Brooklyn’s Public School 118.
“In an effort to continue to strengthen and enhance inclusiveness and diversity in our school, the first grade will be taking part in a ‘Drag Queen Story Hour!’” the notification read.
Apparently, this is not the first time a drag queen has visited the school to read to young children.
The upcoming drag queen visit, slated for Feb. 24, will only be the latest in a series of drag queen interactions that has seemingly taken place over “years.”
TRENDING: Brett Baier Rebukes Chris Wallace On-Air for Snapping at Conservative Katie Pavlich
“She will read to the students,” the post continued, referring to the male performer, “all while teaching into ideas of inclusiveness, gender fluidity and gender roles, family structures, acceptance, empathy, and individuality.”
For vulnerable kids, this is especially heinous.
For example, a young child from a broken home will likely have little grasp of the realities of functioning families by the first grade.
Unfortunately for any kids like this, they won’t have professional help, but a full-grown man in women’s clothing coming to teach them about “family structures.”
Do you think this type of event should be held at a public school?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
And parents will have to pay for the privilege.
The school is offering this in-house “field trip” for the low price of $6. After all, drag queens are adult entertainment workers who don’t perform for free.
Read the entire message below.
Remember when I predicted that Drag Queen Story Hour wouldn’t stay confined to public libraries. Well, here it is: It’s coming to Primary School 118 in Brooklyn — to teach *first-graders* about “gender fluidity.” pic.twitter.com/Zc5rqQSHac
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) January 28, 2020
RELATED: LGBT Crowd Celebrates Super Bowl Ad Exposing Nation to Drag Queens: ‘Ready, Cracker?’
The increasing normalization of drag queens and their encroachment into the American family is only ramping up in recent years.
Even the upcoming Super Bowl will have progressive overtones as a drag queen commercial is set to air in millions of homes across the country.
Parents who can’t afford private school and those without the resources to homeschool their children are often left only with public school as the only viable option to give their kids an education.
Unfortunately, these same parents may soon be fighting a battle against progressive culture that yearns to indoctrinate children at the earliest possible time.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
via The Western Journal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com