We are the drain the swamp people

Pope Francis, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Mayor Pete Buttigieg along with any number of SJWs who rarely set foot in a church, open a Bible, much less engage in Bible study, are sure as heck that what the Bible says about the Holy Family’s journey from Nazareth (Jesus not born yet) to Bethlehem (where He was born) and then to Egypt, was to convey that they were homeless refugees or immigrants with no intention of going back to their home of Nazareth.

Their intent of course is political — to imply that Christian ethics requires open borders and a right to welfare and homestead for anyone who happens to be present in a territory.  Their characterization is not only a corrupted Biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, epistemology, what have you, it is unscrupulous secular history, employs a ridiculous practicality and would result in the destruction of Christian culture.  At best it is better understood as soft-headedness than soft-heartedness.

While it is a recurring theme of ours, this Cheryl K. Chumley essay in the Washington Times effectively elucidates the hypocrisy at play as regards Pope Francis and by inference any liberal personage who lives in am exclusive area, behind locked doors or surrounded by an entourage or guards. (excerpt below)

Pope Francis, secure in his Vatican, scolds ‘stony’ hearts toward migrants 

Pope Francis delivered a Christmas speech that called on the people of the world to soften “stony and self-centered hearts” and help those fleeing conflicts in their countries — to basically drop the border walls and let these people in; to stop all this border first, people second stuff and nonsense. And so forth and so on.

His remarks may have packed more punch if he didn’t deliver them from the heavily fortified St. Peter’s Basilica, while gazing from a secure Vatican City balcony, a couple hundred feet or so above the assembled fray. With armed guards standing and patrolling near by.

It’s not that those fleeing injustice and inhumanity don’t deserve better lives.

It’s just that the pope’s finger-wagging, from inside the bubble of Vatican City, strikes a big ol’ cup of hypocrisy that’s hard to swallow.

He spoke of migrants seeking the “hope of a secure life,” only to find, at the end of their journeys, “inhumane detention camps” and “walls of indifference.”

. . .

But let’s remember: Vatican City is sovereign, secure and well-protected, surrounded — mostly — by high walls.

From Crux — in a piece, weirdly enough, that was trying to argue the Vatican is “not a walled city” — comes this: “To gain access to St. Peter’s Basilica as well as the Vatican Museums — which includes the Sistine Chapel — requires waiting in a long security line and going through a metal detector. Access to other parts of the Vatican — including the gardens, the Vatican Bank and Casa Santa Marta, where Pope Francis lives — is a bit more difficult. It requires having the proper credentials, such as a press pass or an academic affiliation, and a short conversation with a member of the Swiss Guard, which protects most entrances. Unlike the walls, the Guard are not anachronisms. They carry guns, and their protection is supplemented with assistance from Italian police.”

Walled city.

Metal detectors.

Papers and credentials.

Armed guards.

What’s good for the pope should be good for America. What’s good for the securing of Vatican City should be good for the securing of American citizens. Human injustice is not — nor should it be — the trigger that causes an automatic drop of all border controls.

As Regards The Gospel According to Cardinal Dolan

“A Christmas lesson on housing the poor,” according to Cardinal Timothy Dolan: “The Son of God was homeless; his earthly parents were immigrants and refugees.”

Really?! Not the way the Church taught it when I was a ‘yute’…that is before Marx replaced Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John…and most everything else in this Faith.

Scott Johnson writing at PowerLine:  Fake religion from Timothy Cardinal Dolan

Even more surprising than fake religion from Pete Buttigieg is fake religion from the formidable Timothy Cardinal Dolan. In his Christmas Eve New York Post column “A Christmas lesson on housing the poor,” Cardinal Dolan writes: “The Son of God was homeless; his earthly parents were immigrants and refugees.”

I’m not Christian and mean no disrespect. For the reasons set forth in Paul’s post, however, I doubt Cardinal Dolan has this right and Cardinal Dolan doesn’t set forth an argument on these points.

Cardinal Dolan himself twists Jewish tradition to suit his purposes a bit further along in the column. After discussing Abraham’s hospitality to strangers, Cardinal Dolan writes: “No wonder, as I’m told, Jewish families still set a place at the table for an unexpected guest who might show up for a meal on one of their holy days.”

Here is a good discussion of Jewish hospitality. Consider this related teaching: “Traditional mandates extend to the guest as well. Guests should avoid causing hosts extra work. They should accede to their host’s or hostess’s requests. A guest should not bring along another, uninvited guest. If guest and host are entering the home together, the guest should defer to the host. Leaving together, a guest should exit before the host.”

Anyone who reads the Hebrew Bible will be impressed by the recurring injunction not to oppress a stranger, for we were strangers in the land of Egypt. We want to get that commandment right, to be sure, but it is the teaching that most frequently gets the sort of treatment from liberal Jews that Cardinal Dolan gives to the gospel story of Mary and Joseph’s travel to Bethlehem.

There is also The Gospel According to Pete Buttigieg:  From a Christmas greeting he tweeted to the world:

“Today I join millions around the world in celebrating the arrival of divinity on earth, who came into this world not in riches but in poverty, not as a citizen but as a refugee. No matter where or how we celebrate, Merry Christmas.”

Alex Parker writing at RedState responds:

Advice to Pete Buttigieg: Don’t Use the Christmas Story to Promote Your Politics if You Can’t Get the Story Right

Was he a refugee? Is that the situation? The message?

Was Bethlehem a sanctuary city? Were things just like they are now, 2000 years ago? Was Donald Trump President of Judea?

Comments responding to Buttigeigs tweet as appearing on the RedState article :

“OMG — Joseph and mary were traveling to register as required by a totalitarian Roma occupation for a census so Rome could tax the region more efficiently — do @TheDemocrats choose to be stupid or are they incapable of speaking the truth?”

National Review Online’s Dan McLaughlin got in on it, too:

“You were doing okay until ‘refugee.’ Joseph & Mary were in Bethlehem because the government commanded them there to pay taxes. A Christian would know this.”

User John Hayward made a special Christmas wish:

“All I want for Christmas is for left-wing totalitarians to stop misrepresenting Jesus as a ‘migrant’ or ‘refugee’ in clumsy efforts to trick Christians into giving up on protecting their borders.”

“Who came into this world not in riches, but in poverty, not as a citizen, but as a refugee”? When did you come up with THAT load of crap? Joseph was NOT a poor man, and Jesus did NOT come into this world as a refugee from heaven. Please stop.

— Dr.Darrell Scott (@PastorDScott) December 26, 2019

Dipstick: Jesus was NOT a “refugee.” He was a victim of big gubment taxation policies that forced a pregnant woman to travel 90 mi. to make sure her family paid their taxes.

 Also from RedState (this by Streif)

No, Jesus Was Not a Refugee and He Was Not Homeless

Every Christmas, we hear the same tired refrain from the same charlatans. Jesus, they claim, was a refugee. The implication is that if you are a Christian that you are obligated to welcome refugees because they are pretty much like Jesus.

This is patent nonsense.

First, at no point in Scripture, or, if you are Catholic, in Sacred Tradition is there any intimation that Jesus was born in poverty. Tradition holds that Saint Joseph was a carpenter. Lately there has been a debate among lefty theologians over his occupation, rendered by Matthew as “tektori,” and whether than meant “carpenter.” Tektori can mean any skilled artisan. There is a hint, based on the procedures laid out for a census in 1st Century Egypt, that Joseph might have had some property interest in Bethlehem that would have required him to register for the census there. The upshot is that Joseph was a skilled craftsman and while probably not affluent, he most likely provided a home for his family that was a bit above the poverty line for Judea in the 1st Century AD.

Jesus was not homeless. He was born in a manger because his parents arrived in a Bethlehem in the midst of an influx of people there to register for the census. There were no rooms to be had. It was the manager or nothing. The Holy Family had a home in Nazareth.

Finally, Jesus was not a refugee.

Joseph and Mary and Jesus were citizens of a province of the Roman Empire. When the Massacre of Innocents took place, they fled to Egypt and stayed, we think, in the rather sizable Jewish community there. Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire . . .

A birth cohort is not “membership in a particular social group.” They Holy Family was a refugee in exactly the same way that anyone today on the run from state authorities would be called a refugee. The move from one region of the Roman Empire to another is not even remotely similar to that of a modern refugee. At a stretch, He could be classed as an internally displaced person, with an emphasis on the singular form of “person” because there were no others similarly situated. The period of time in which the Holy Family was away from Nazareth was fairly short. Herod the Great died no more than a year or two after the birth of Christ and then the family returned home. By age 12, we know the Holy Family was traveling openly to Jerusalem for Passover pilgrimage (again, not a mark of a family in poverty).

Related reading:

Buttigieg Politicizes Christmas  

Ask A Franciscan: The Holy Family’s Arrival in Nazareth

Don’t Be Fooled By This Viral Liberal Meme About Christmas

0

0

Maybe McCain Is With John Dingell, Gazing at us from their ~~ vantage point . . .

IG Report Reveals Steele Funneled Claims Through John McCain After FBI Dropped Him 

Late Senator John McCain provided disgraced former FBI chief James Comey with five separate reports from Christopher Steele that the FBI didn’t previously possess related to unsubstantiated allegations of collusion between Russia and President Trump’s 2016 campaign, the Justice Department’s recent Inspector General report revealed.

There have long been questions about why it was necessary for McCain to pass Steele’s anti-Trump dossier to Comey on December 9, 2016, several weeks after the November 2016 presidential election. By then, Steele had already met numerous times with FBI agents to provide them with his controversial reports. Steele, however, was terminated as an FBI source in the fall of 2016 because he spoke to the news media.   . . .

Prior to his death, McCain admitted to personally handing the dossier to Comey but he refused repeated requests for comment about whether he had a role in providing the dossier to BuzzFeed, including numerous inquiries sent to his office by this reporter.

In his book published last year, McCain maintained he had an “obligation” to pass the dossier charges against Trump to Comey and he would even do it again. “Anyone who doesn’t like it can go to hell,” McCain exclaimed.

0

0

Destroying a 5′ X 8′ banner gets much stiffer sentence than instances of physical assaults against persons

Below are links to news reports last week regarding the offense, arrest, trial, conviction (by jury) and sentencing of Adolfo Martinez. Judge Steven Van Marel sentenced Martinez to 15+ years in prison for reaching up, tearing down and then burning outdoors a $125 to $200 gay pride banner pictured.  He admitted to doing it apparently out of  personal, cultural or religious conviction about homosexuality. Accordingly he was found guilty of a hate crime. The sentence was largely what was advocated by the Story County Attorney office.

Please read the linked articles then ponder the implications, our points and other commentary about the matter.

Iowa man sentenced to 16 years for setting LGBTQ flag on fire  

Ames man to spend nearly 2 decades behind bars for LGBTQ flag burning

He burned a church’s LGBTQ flag and got 16 years. They responded by advocating for him. 

Key points, questions and implications:

• This was vandalism, not a meaningful physical assault against a person

• Trial/sentencing judge Steven P. Van Marel no Cicero

• Assistant County Attorney  Jessica Reynolds represents the definition of an overzealous prosecutor*

• Why is the judge not mentioned by name in media reports (we have an idea)  — we had to dig it out from court records?

• The biggest assault on justice in this matter is from the aforementioned grand-standing legal jerks abusing their power
  

  ---

• How is it that a gay banner (representing an idea) has more protected significance than the American flag?

• Conservative social justice warriors (SJW) can join with liberal SJWs to condemn this prosecutoral and judicial atrocity along with the very thought of thought crime persecutions — will it happen?

• While the liberal leadership of the church that had its property vandalized is playing this to the hilt, they have apparently criticized the sentence and offered aid to the arguably mentally ill vandal
  

  ---

• How does this matter compare to treatment by dominant liberal media of vandalism against pro-life display objects, not to mention assaults on pro-life persons?
  

  ---

• If there is to be enhanced punishment for so called hate crimes (do not most crimes arguably involve “acting out” or animus at some level?) shouldn’t that kind of punishment be reserved for assaults against persons?
  

  ---

• Some conservative reaction disappointing
  

  ---

By inference of the dominant media treatment of the matter, tearing down a gay-pride banner is a direct assault against gay people and that is all you need to know.  The act was so hugely intimidating even though no gay people were involved, or injured, or probably even witnessed the incident, maybe never even owned the damn banner! (Gadzooks did I just commit a hate crime by referring to a gay rights symbol in a pejorative way?)

One more time. A sixteen-year prison sentence for ripping a cheap banner down and taking it to a parking lot across the street and burning it, seriously endangering no one.  Let that sink in. Now it was a stupid antic by someone who on video seems mentally off-balance, or perhaps under the influence, but clearly wasn’t much concerned about getting caught or getting away with something.

We are told the vandal, Adolfo Martinez, had priors including a felony or two (not recounted in specific number or severity in the reports we read). However the persecution and draconian sentencing supposedly had something to do with his rap sheet and  “three (felony) strikes” sentencing guide lines and allowances. Does anyone else wonder how many multiple offenders never get such treatment?

We also wonder why the property theft and destruction was classified a felony in the first place when the banner or flag, which appears to be maybe 5’X8′ is readily available at a cost of from $125 to $175 at “Rainbow Depot.” . Throw in maybe a few bucks for the printing overlay and we see maybe an offense of simple misdemeanor theft or at most a serious misdemeanor theft, the latter punishable by up to a year in jail and a scheduled fine. But oh no, Mr Martinez thinks ill of the gay lifestyle which that banner arguably represents.

Desecrating it is a hate crime

So what about that? We thought hate crime laws were designed to punish direct crimes against persons not theft of objects that are easily replaceable, of no inherent consequence or value, do not deprive anyone of the ability to make a living. If attacks on symbols are a felonious crime regardless of the cost of the item then protestors who desecrate the American flag in this country should be charged with felonies – except that desecrating the American flag has been ruled protected speech.

Desecrating it is protected speech

So now in Story County Iowa we have a gay rights banner, a symbol,  having more protection than the American flag, a symbol of nothing?! The desecration of that is something no one can take actionable offense at?

Mr. Martinez was also charged with some specie of arson.  SERIOUSLY – ARSON! He lit a banner on fire in a parking lot! A burning without a permit citation maybe, but ARSON?!  Back to the people who desecrate the US flag — are they not hate criminals, and if they burn it, now arsonists as well by the lights of Judge Phantly Roy Bean Steven Van Marel, “The Law East of the Skunk River.”?

The prosecutor persecutor on the case who various journals identify as the Assistant County Attorney Jessica Reynolds, is actually THE County Attorney  as the Story County Board of Supervisors appointed her to the position in 2016 rather than hold an election after the position was vacated due to the retirement of the elected County Attorney. At this writing we also now see that, effective February 7th, Attorney Reynolds has resigned to take a job with the Iowa Attorney General’s office held by vacant liberal Democrat Tom Miller, and get this, as training coordinator for County Attorney’s in Iowa.  By the way state prosecutors are one of the special projects of the George Soros machine to undermine the Constitution.

There maybe was a time when the ACLU would have jumped on the charges against Martinez, the verdict and sentencing inflicted on him as a desecration of the Constitution and right reason. But probably conservative legal outfits will need to go it alone because for the left, disrespect of the US flag is speech, even honorable speech, but disrespect of the rainbow flag “Gay Glory” is a hate crime. If Anton Scalia could accept that flag burning was protected speech then you would think the ACLU would see that hating a rainbow flag is also protected speech and not deserving of special aggravated treatment in prosecutions and sentencing.  But we doubt it.  We actually see a difference between the rainbow flag and desecration of Old Glory but we will hold that discussion for another day.

We are curious what Attorney Reynolds and Judge Van Marle would do about a malcontent purchasing a rainbow flag himself (herself) and then parading in front of that church or some other identifiable leftist political venue, perhaps on the public sidewalk, no, better, in rather risque fashion on the street without a permit outside such venue, and then lit said emotionally loaded property and waved it around in protest?

Now there might rightly be a minor charge or two possible (not in our book) but by Reynolds’ and Van Marel’s lights such a horrible person should be looking at ARSON charges along with obstructing traffic (however minimally as it is just one person but remember the good liberals are trying to send a message), maybe incitement to riot, littering perhaps?

But ADD to or amplify all such charges if the malcontent has ever evidenced the temerity to say something equivalent to “hate” for the gay lifestyle or special rights for gays, the charge enhancement HATE CRIME. They would probably do that out of the feeling that more messaging is needed (that is what this is all about – put all those deplorables on notice, NOT individual justice). If said malcontent has any criminal record, really throw the book at them as such a thought criminal needs to be put away. Indeed, make room in prison by accelerating the release of offenders one can have more  sympathy for, hit and run perps, domestic abusers,  (having handed them lesser sentences to begin with).

Speaking of which — as is pointed out by way of some of the conservative links regarding this story, serious bodily injury crimes are frequently met with lesser penalties in Iowa. We noticed some in the court reporting blotters mentioning Reynolds and Van Marel (web-search their full names, dig deep and you will find some). We have no idea how they would explain their double standards. For example regarding assaulting a police officer – four days in jail.  Frankly we are not questioning leniency in individual cases, we are challenging extremely harsh political sentencing to send a message.

As regards comparing treatment of vandals of  icons associated with the left with those icons associated with conservatism, all too many examples emerge when one looks at charges and punishments meted out for damage to pro-life displays. Of the hundreds of instances  over the years how many of the perps apprehended have the book thrown at them as has Adolfo Martinez?  Of those in Iowa, how many have been treated as hate crimes rather than simple vandalism?

Short of evidence of a pattern by a person or group, we believe that restitution, jail and fines as ordinarily appropriate, and any civil recourse are enough for any single incidence.  And government should not be the thought police and get into the business of picking which “hate” to be afforded enhanced punishment.

One more thing — why did none of the media stories we viewed regarding this matter  not mention the name of the judge involved?  Strangely, even conservative outlets did not.

Could it be because liberal outlets realize state judges sit for retention. While such retention votes in Iowa are typically free rides it is because people do not know the records of the judges unless something sensational happens. Iowa threw out a couple of state Supreme Court justices ten years ago hot on their vote after their constitutionally imaginative gay marriage decision.

The charges and sentence for Martinez are so out of kilter that one wonders — is this judge trying to politically martyr himself or is he relying on typical retention vote indifference, or maybe he is retiring. He was just retained by the typical wide margin for judges in 2016 and has four years left before the next retention vote for his position.  If he intends to stay he probably figures that he can rely on get-out-the-vote efforts by the usual suspects in campus town to save him.  By the way, he was first appointed in 1987 by Republican Terry Branstad.

Related reading:  (various reports list the Martinez sentence as 15, 16 or 17 years)

At RedState: Man Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison for Burning a Gay Pride Flag   You will be made to care

Reason: A 15-Year Sentence for Burning a Stolen Gay Pride Flag Is Not Justice 
Hate crime enhancements meet three-strikes laws, and the consequences are terrible.

Caffeinated Thoughts: An Unjust Sentence: 16 Years for Burning an LGBT Pride Flag?

BBC: Fifteen years in Iowa jail for burning pride flag

Queerty.com: Iowa man sentenced to 15 years after stealing and burning Pride flag

This article at American Greatness is an example of the lesson conservatives should not take from the Martinez sentencing – roll over, be overly careful of creating dissidence in favor of separatism.

*Overzealous Prosecution Law and Legal Definition  USlegal.com

Overzealous prosecution refers to someone instituting legal proceedings against a defendant for criminal behavior with the intention to support an excessive enthusiasm for some cause,rather than with any genuine basics for the suit. Prosecution is the act of commencing and carrying out or pursing a lawsuit or criminal trial.

More later

0

0

• They exposed themselves to a lot more people as the insufferable tyrants they are
• Now, just to rub it in a little:

0

0

Can and should the Senate proceed in response to the House vote to impeach President Trump at this point sans anything else from the House?  What are the logical, legal, political implications of a Senate impeachment trial proceeding  promptly regardless of further communication from Nancy Pelosi’s House?

We will hold forth with our opinion (or split opinion ) about it later but we would like to know your opinion as to what properly can and or should occur now that the House took a vote to impeachment President Trump on two specific counts of impeachment.

The event is rare enough and the law arguably vague enough along with the implications that there might be no expert conclusion on the legal or political propriety of proceeding on the matter without further delay .  Anyway, not hearing any conclusive legal argument about the Senate’s obligations today, pretend there isn’t and answer:

Should the Senate proceed to consider the articles of impeachment against Trump passed by the Democrats based on the conclusion of the House vote? 

or

Should the Senate wait for Speaker Pelosi to “send” some sort of official notice to the Senate presumably after she is satisfied with the proceedings in the Senate (for whatever legal or political reasons you might hold to)?

There are various conclusions and implications to be drawn from the fact of the impeachment vote in the House and whether or not the action is conveyed automatically or a separate action is required without which there is nothing for the Senate to act on, including whether or not President Trump has actually been impeached short of the formal transmission of the House action. The political implications of holding a trial as regards the impeachment vote, or not, or submitting to delay maneuvered by Pelosi, or not, might be reflected upon. There are a number of permutations.

Issues or formulations of the issues that may fit into your thought process may include:  Should Majority Leader McConnell wait until hell freezes over before trying the impeachment articles as passed rather than play Pelosi’s game?  Should the McConnell Senate proceed promptly with a responsive communication justifying proceedings decided upon with or without Democrat concurrence?  What is your opinion as to whether “impeachment” has occurred if a memo or whatever formalization Pelosi believes is necessary to be sent to the Senate has not or does not occur?

Is Pelosi delaying any further proceeding (assuming she has anything practical to delay) because she believes she can  “leverage” the Senate to provide Democrat advantages she refused Republicans . . . or perhaps even to avoid the adverse political implications of a trial as regards Democrat fortunes by sitting on it (AKA the Lawrence Tribe gambit)?  Is this about her being able to claim victory over a pound of flesh thrown to her rabid base while trying to not let Republicans have any opportunity to bite back, or limit the bite, on the presumption she will find any proceeding in the Senate unfair in an effort to discredit it if not prevent it?

Of course such a gambit would invite payback anytime the House is controlled by Republicans as regards any Democrat in office —  making impeachment a political football of the House majority.  In times of protected (politically assured) districts that might be something they have decided to live with, while getting the first blood and relying on RINOs to save them from retribution.  Or maybe they think this can be a one-time tool  period, and they will get to be the one’s to use it?  These are very cynical animals or ones with such hubris that they believe they can control the narrative.  What say you?

0

0

Another good column by Michael Goodwin…like Chuck Schumer’s ‘warning’, it should cause America real fear and concern…this is KGB stuff!

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said on MSNBC.

“It was an incredible thing to say in a nation where the people are supposedly sovereign, but soon it would become clear that Schumer knew what he was talking about, which still raises questions.

“How did he know the FBI, CIA and others were going after Trump?

“Did he warn them against meddling in politics? Did he alert prosecutors?

“If so, nobody did anything because it was quickly obvious that law enforcement and intelligence officials in the Obama administration were leaking secrets designed to embarrass the new president — and kill his administration in its infancy.”

Bold our emphasis

Donald Trump’s ‘they’re after you’ tweet says it all: Goodwin 

On its face, a tweet President Trump sent last week is fairly benign. It doesn’t mock anyone, isn’t personally nasty and hasn’t caused any hair-on-fire controversy.

Yet it is powerful in its own way, for it artfully sums up the Trump era from the perspective of the president and his supporters. With a likeness to the Uncle Sam “I want you” poster, the disrupter in chief reaffirms in 14 words the belief of Trump Nation that the political establishment, the media, the permanent bureaucracy and yes, the deep state, are trying to crush him and them.

The president tweeted the image the day House Democrats voted to impeach him, and hours after his raucous rally in Michigan that evening.

The tweet included no added comment because none was needed. The message is clear: I am all that stands between you and the barbarians at the gate. If I fall, you are next.

Critics regard it as fear-mongering, and there is no denying that the president wanted to rally his base, lest it be discouraged by the day’s events.

Yet Trump’s oblique reference to a weaponized and powerful adversary is hardly unfounded, with a partisan, flimsy impeachment the latest example. The tweet’s siren call to believers is a shorthand way of saying that impeachment is just a continuation of the endless attacks against us.

Indeed, his presidency effectively begins with a prophecy of those attacks, one that came 17 days before Trump took the oath.

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said on MSNBC.

It was an incredible thing to say in a nation where the people are supposedly sovereign, but soon it would become clear that Schumer knew what he was talking about, which still raises questions.

How did he know the FBI, CIA and others were going after Trump?

Did he warn them against meddling in politics? Did he alert prosecutors?

If so, nobody did anything because it was quickly obvious that law enforcement and intelligence officials in the Obama administration were leaking secrets designed to embarrass the new president — and kill his administration in its infancy.

The effort never stopped, with impeachment launched when a man identified by the media as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella filed a complaint about Trump’s July 25 call with the president of Ukraine.

Most of the period between Schumer’s warning and the Ukraine complaint was dominated by the two-year slog of special counsel Robert Mueller. It, too, made lots of noise and the Democrat/media frenzy created the clear implication that Trump would be formally charged with helping Russia tip the 2016 election.

Of course, Mueller found no such evidence, but he still hurt the president. The probe was a black cloud hanging over the White House during the 2018 midterm campaign, and thus likely played a role in Dems winning the House majority — the majority they would use to impeach the president.

Thus, Mueller’s team struck out legally, but helped Dems score big politically. So much for its integrity.

More recently, added confirmation that Schumer was right has come in spades. Thanks to reports from the Justice Department’s inspector general, we know there was rampant misconduct and political bias at Jim Comey’s FBI.

We learned through texts that top agent Peter Strzok, who said he could “smell” Trump voters in a Walmart, had exchanges with his office paramour about stopping Trump, including references to an “insurance policy” in case Trump won. J. Edgar Hoover would blush at the audacity.

A second probe scorched the FBI’s handling of the FISA applications to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. Although the probe found no direct evidence that anti-Trump bias was a factor, it did reveal that all the omissions, failures and mistakes worked against Trump, with even exculpatory evidence against Page intentionally withheld.

Thankfully and finally, the fallout from those findings is picking up speed, with the top FISA judge questioning the FBI’s “candor” and saying the flawed submissions “calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”

Even bigger fish could be on the grill in a separate probe. Other top officials in the Obama administration, CIA head John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, are reportedly under scrutiny by US Attorney John Durham, who is conducting a criminal investigation of the spying effort against Trump.

The New York Times reported that Durham is gathering Brennan’s emails and documents in a focus on his congressional testimony about the use of the Hillary Clinton-financed Steele dossier in the government finding that Russia tried to help Trump in 2016.

To understand the import of the investigation, it pays to recall that Brennan, Clapper, Comey and his former top deputy, Andrew McCabe, have for years appeared on hate-Trump TV to accuse him of treason and other crimes, as has Clinton.

None of those charges was true, but the endless attacks on Trump from former insiders are unprecedented, and reflect badly on the institutions they led and the government as a whole. All these false charges were amplified by a media that ignored basic fairness.

Attorney General Bill Barr offers the best overview of this unholy alliance, saying, “Our nation was turned on its head for three years based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by a completely irresponsible press.”

Barr also says the question of whether anti-Trump bias led to FBI misconduct is still open. He also says Durham’s probe will not be limited to that agency or even to the United States.

So Schumer’s warning hit the bull’s-eye — but uncharacteristically, he’s been shy about taking credit.

Is he afraid of the intelligence agencies, or is he OK with the officials playing politics because Trump was the target? If the latter, he joins a crowd who fancy themselves liberals of integrity, but who are comfortable with abuses of power and double standards against Trump.

Even impeachment was not the grand, noble process the Founders envisioned, despite Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to dress up a dirty trick. Under her, impeachment proved that the House, like the FBI, CIA and the media, has corrupted itself in a bid to destroy Trump and delegitimize his presidency.

In his bristling letter to Pelosi, Trump cited numerous examples where Dems talked of impeachment long before Ukraine, including a Washington Post story on Inauguration Day that said, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.”

Trump also highlighted the quote that, for my money, is the matching bookend to Schumer’s “six ways from Sunday” prophecy. This one came from Rep. Al Green from Texas, who said last May he was “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”

Can’t have that. Whatever it takes, can’t have that.

0

0

• Everything is open to interpretation
• Ninety-eight score and seven years ago, our fathers didn’t know what they were talking about
• Latest Papal Bull

From 1970 through 1974, one of the most popular shows on television was “The Flip Wilson Comedy Show”.

One of Flip’s most popular bits was “The Church of What’s Happening Now”. Wilson created the role of Reverend Leroy, who was the minister of the ‘Church of What’s Happening Now!’ It featured a ministry somewhat like what Pope Francis seems to advocate in his latest pronouncement to ‘conservative and traditionalist’ Catholics. At Flip Wilson’s ‘church comedy’ creation, new parishioners were wary of coming to the church as it was hinted that Reverend Leroy was a con artist. Wilson popularized the catchphrase “The Devil made me do it!”.

(We offer no further comment as to any similarity to current religious events in the world today.)

Pope Francis is Warning That The Catholic Church Must “Embrace Change”

“Have to beware…” of being “too rigid”, Francis cautions; If Church “ends up disseminating stakes…in the ground of the common good”…it could end up “turning into a minefield of misunderstanding and hatred”.

Apparently clinging rigidly to its notions of things like ‘right to life for the unborn” could threaten the Church’s popularity with Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Hollywood, etc……………or,

“You Wanna ‘Get Along’, You Gotta “Go Along”?

Pope Francis has been one of the Associated Press’s favorite religious figures since the ‘humble pontiff’ burst on the scene, almost 7 years ago (Mar, 2013).

He has been the liberal media’s favorite pope, undoubtedly, for his Marxist approach to Catholicism and for the contemptual impulses he exhibits toward some of its historic tenets. We’re guessing the AP’s affection for His Holiness grew out of his early Papal pronouncements to the effect that, and we paraphrase, ‘there was too much ‘obsession’ going on regarding abortion and gay marriage among those ‘rigid’, conservative Catholics’.

He also garnered much admiration among the mainstream media, including the AP, for his expressed dislike for President Trump, his disapproval of America’s capitalist ways, and Francis’s belief that our country is to blame for Latin America’s dysfunction and most of the ‘woes of the modern world’.

“Borders” are apparently one of Il Papa’s pet peeves, especially. He has frequently excoriated those who support the concept of private property and oppose “open borders’ and the ‘redistribution of wealth’.

So it is not surprising that the former Argentine cardinal has come out against the Church’s “rigidity” in clinging to its doctrines which clash with the Marxist beliefs as outlined in the leftist “liberation theology’ which flourished in Latin America during Bergoglio’s ministry there. (One of the tenets of “Liberation theology’ relates to its disdain for the concept of personal property).
———————-

The ‘story’ as reported by Nichole Winfield of the Associated Press:

Pope denounces ‘rigidity’ as he warns of Christian decline

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis warned Saturday that “rigidity” in living out the Christian faith is creating a “minefield” of hatred and misunderstanding in a world where Christianity is increasing irrelevant.

Francis called for Vatican bureaucrats to instead embrace change during his annual Christmas greetings to the cardinals, bishops and priests who work in the Holy See.
Francis’ message appeared aimed at conservative and traditionalist Catholics, including within the Vatican Curia, who have voiced increasing opposition to his progressive-minded papacy. Their criticisms have accelerated over the past year, amid Vatican financial and sex abuse scandals that may have predated Francis’ papacy but are nevertheless coming to light now.

Francis issued a stark reality check to the men in the Sala Clementina of the Apostolic Palace, acknowledging that Christianity no longer holds the commanding presence and influence in society that it once did.

He cited the late Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a leader of the progressive wing of the Catholic Church, who in his final interview before dying in 2012 lamented that the church found itself “200 years behind” because of its inbred fear of change.

“Today we are no longer the only ones that produce culture, no longer the first nor the most listened to,” Francis told the prelates. “The faith in Europe and in much of the West is no longer an obvious presumption but is often denied, derided, marginalized and ridiculed.”

As a result, he urged the Catholic hierarchy to embrace the necessary pastoral reforms and outlook that will make the church attractive so that it can fulfill its mission to spread the faith.

“Here we have to beware of the temptation of assuming a rigid outlook,” Francis said. “Rigidity that is born from fear of change and ends up disseminating stakes and obstacles in the ground of the common good, turning it into a minefield of misunderstanding and hatred.”

He recalled, as he has in the past, that people who take rigid positions are usually using them to mask their own problems, scandals or “imbalances.”
“Rigidity and imbalance fuel one another in a vicious circle,” he said. “And these days, the temptation to rigidity has become so apparent.”

Traditionalist Catholics have denounced Francis’ emphasis on mercy and openness to doctrinal wiggle room on issues such as sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. They also sharply criticized his recent synod on the Amazon, which called for the ordination of married men as priests, and what they considered pagan worship of an Amazonian statue of a pregnant woman that was featured during the meeting.

Francis has defended his outlook and priorities as a reflection of the Gospel, and the axium that the true tradition of the church is one of a continuous, discerned path of change.
“Tradition is not static, it’s dynamic,” he said Saturday.

In a tangible sign of change, Francis issued a new decree Saturday limiting the term of the dean of the College of Cardinals, an influential job that had previously been held for life. Francis accepted the resignation of the current dean, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, and decreed that going forward, the future top cardinal would only have a five-year renewable term.

Sodano had been the powerful secretary of state under St. John Paul II, and was blamed in part for the Vatican’s refusal to crack down on pedophile priests, including the notorious Rev. Marcial Maciel. Sodano, 92, continued to wield behind-the-scenes influence in the two papacies that followed, acting most recently as something of a beacon for conservative opposition to Francis.

As dean, he delivered his final Christmas greeting to Francis on Saturday.

0

0

• Deserves pity not respect

‘Classy’ Robert DeNiro exhibits the character which Barack Obama apparently saw in him to award the Medal of Freedom

President Obama presents the 2016 Medal of Freedom to star-studded honorees (main criterion)

DeNiro: “Pigs have dignity. He (President Trump) has no dignity. He is a disgrace to the human race. I’d like to see a bag of shit right in his face. Hit him right in the face like that, and let the picture go all over the world.”

This is evidently what passes for “dignity, respect, wisdom, and character” in Barack Obama’s world. Some in Hollywood accuse Donald Trump of acting “unpresidential”.
How do they describe this clown, on whom many ‘awards’ have been given by his ‘friends’ in the “entertainment” industry and by “progressive” politicians?

It’s fair to assume that there are far saner people than DeNiro who, at this moment, are undergoing psychological and emotional therapy to alleviate serious disorders!

Whatever respect DeNiro may have earned in the past for his acting talent, is now in great jeopardy; he has become a silly caricature…deserving of pity, not respect!

If he had true friends who were themselves, stable, they’d discourage him from appearing in public and begging the senile actor to seek help, immediately!     dlh

Given his filmography and off-the-set demeanor it seems DeNiro has been type cast for believability as a nut case or person of limited intellectual capacity.

Taxi Driver

Bang the Drum Slowly

Cape Fear 

Analyze That

The Bag Man 

Hide and Seek

Red Lights 

He is also attracted to a whole bunch of films with the goofiest of plots.

0

0

• And “Ginsberg Is Not a President”, Mr. Trump Could Have Responded
• And “the Justice is not a Senator or a constitutionalist” we would add

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a brief answer earlier this week to a President Trump tweet earlier this month suggesting he could appeal to the Supreme Court to stop impeachment proceedings.

“The president is not a lawyer,” Ginsburg said Monday.

— On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted, “I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?”

“He’s not law-trained,” Ginsburg continued at a New York City event where she was being honored, according to the BBC.

“The truth is, the judiciary is a reactive institution,” she said. “We don’t have a program, we don’t have an agenda. We react to what’s out there.”

And thus was the solemn pronouncement from on high by the Supreme Court’s oldest (86), and most liberal Justice

But, then, “Ruthie” turned around and ‘advised’ the Senate on their prerogatives:

“Ginsburg also suggested that senators who show bias on impeachment should not be allowed to serve as jurors in the impeachment trial.

“If a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case,” she added.”

“THE JUSTICE IS NOT A SENATOR”, WOULD CERTAINLY SEEM TO BE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN OUR OPINION

Numerous members of the Senate of both parties have already stated their opinion on Trump’s impeachment even though the trial isn’t expected to be held until January, if the House follows through with impeachment this week.
——————————–
IN THIS WORLD, IT SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTED FORM AND PROPRIETY TO NOT ONLY ‘RESPECT’ THE JUDUCIARY (AND WITH THAT, THE ‘LEGAL PROFESSION’ TO AN EXTENT), BUT TO BOW DOWN IN ABJECT ACQUIESCENCE TO ITS ALWAYS WISE PRONOUNCEMENTS AND DICTATES ??.

In the vignette setforth above Justice Ginsberg seems to seek to reinforce that concept: “The President is NOT a LAWYER…you may now feel free to gaze upon my countenance”, she seems to say.

How many times, before someone wishes to make an observation on a legal action taken by some judge or attorney, have you heard them say, almost apologetically, “I’m not a lawyer, but…”, as though saying, “I know I have no right…and certainly not the wisdom…to suggest that the judge erred, or the lawyer was off base in his remarks…”
Donald Trump is often described as ‘unpresidential’, in part because he doesn’t show such undeserved deference to lawyers and judges. That’s one of the many things I like about him! And that has nothing to do with being “presidential”…that’s just being “human’ and having good old common sense.

And thus, let me say, “I’m not a lawyer”, and I don’t know if Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel is or not; however, in my ‘oh so humble’ opinion, Ms. Strassel is right on target in her column this Friday:           dlh

FISA COURT OWES SOME ANSWERS   (excerpt, pay wall)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court this week blasted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for “misconduct” in the Carter Page surveillance warrant. Some would call this accountability. Others will more rightly call it the FISC’s “shocked to find gambling” moment.

Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer issued her four-page rebuke of the FBI Tuesday, after a Justice Department inspector general report publicly exposing the FBI’s abuses. The judge blasted the FBI for misleading the court by providing “unsupported or contradicted” information and by withholding exculpatory details about Mr. Page. The FISC noted the seriousness of the conduct and gave the FBI until Jan. 10 to explain how it will do better.

The order depicts a court stunned to discover that the FBI failed in its “duty of candor,” and angry it was duped. That’s disingenuous. To buy it, you’d have to believe that not one of the court’s 11 members—all federal judges—caught a whiff of this controversy until now. More importantly, you’d have to ignore that the court was directly informed of the FBI’s abuses nearly two years ago. . . . .

0

0

BLUE ALERT Our firewall was down and some malcontent slipped this into our website !!

Actually this is from 2018. We only this week viewed this gem from Allie Stuckey.  It has received several million hits but how many accumulated after 2018?  Our point is we suspect people were tuned out and the result was Nancy Pelosi running the House in 2019. Seems longer but then Paul Ryan did not leave much of an inspiration deficit. The content  is still timely (socialism, command and control is in their bones).  Send it to all your friends and encourage them to post it on social media. Begin the inoculation regime now.

Comments on the Youtube site.

Allie sarcastically depicts a new campaign ad for the Democratic Party.

Sadly this isn’t even an exaggeration it’s literally their platform.

Are you sure this is a parody?

Awesome, for the first time in history a honest Democrat commercial.

I will chip in $20 to get this ad aired. Many others would as well. Get it done!

I’ve never yet seen the Democrat platform so accurately depicted. I think this about sums it up.

CNN approves this message.

Show this to a Democrat, and he might think it’s a great ad.
He’ll keep nodding his head in agreement with Allie.

Watch this get removed for hate speech. Downloading now.

Love your sarcasm. However, half of America don’t know the difference and will still vote Democrat.

Half of me is laughing out loud at this and the other half is crying at the truth . . .

In all seriousness – This is the best depiction of the crazy left. Ms. Stuckey did a phenomenal job in this skit.

Many times better humor and REALITY than anything SNL ever produced.

Oh man, as a UK nationalist I must say, the satire is excellent lol.
wonder how long it will be allowed to stand before youtube says it violates some of their imaginary “community values” and removes it.

HOW did you do this with a straight face?? You are female Bud Abbott. well done.

. . . The only thing missing is someone screaming in my face.

This is maddening because of how true that is

0

0