Democrats continue to insist that Trump’s request that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate the allegations of Ukraine’s involvement in 2016 election interference and the corrupt dealings of Joe and Hunter Biden constitutes an abuse of power for personal gain. However, Trump’s request of an investigation was well within his legal authority — irrespective of whether it benefited him politically — per the U.S. treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed by scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton in 1998 and ratified by Congress in 2000. This fact only serves to underline how baseless the Democrats’ charges are.

“As long as we come up with articles that are clear and concise that the American public can understand that this is supportive of the Constitution, I’m pleased,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) stated on Sunday. Well, Cohen’s sentiments notwithstanding, what the Democrats have produced fails to provide any clear, objective, nonpartisan, or constitutionally consistent rational for impeachment. In truth, as Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) observed, “They’re desperate to have an impeachment vote on this president.”

And while scumbag liar-Nadler may claim that both Democrats and Republicans can “surely agree that no public official, including and especially the president of the United States, should use his office for private gain,” that charge has never been proven. Rather, Democrats are stretching the understanding of “private gain” in ways the Constitution never intended, and, ironically, all for their own political gain.

Nadler further contends, “We agree that no president should put himself before the country.” How exactly did Trump put himself before the country? For the Democrats, the real answer to that question is that he chose to run for president and defeated their favored candidate. That’s why they have been seeking to impeach him ever since.

Finally, while House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi once claimed that she would not move forward on impeachment without bipartisan support, it is almost certain that not a single Republican will vote in favor of impeachment. To make matters worse, she is likely to lose the votes of several Democrats. So much for liar-Pelosi’s bipartisan claims. If anything, it will be the Republicans who will be able to tout bipartisan support against the Democrats’ partisan impeachment sham, and deservedly so.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67269?mailing_id=4723&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4723&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

If the report had dispensed with the Trump administration’s claim that a handful of top government bureaucrats who supported scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, most notably Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s former FBI Director scumbag-James Comey and former CIA Director scumbag/commie-John Brennan, used the FISA court search warrants as a layup for Robert Mueller’s investigation — in effect a bureaucratic coup d'etat to take Trump down — the report would have been the top headline this morning, teeing up fodder for the House impeachment inquisition.

scumbag/commie-Brennan and scumbag-Comey, and their corrupt scumbag/liar-Clinton cronies, used their “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation to set Trump up for a takedown. And the best evidence supporting that fact provided by Horowitz: Of the 17 most egregious “errors” a handful of corrupt FBI managers committed in order to justify the FISA warrants and launch the Mueller investigation, every one favored the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign.

As you recall, the Russia-collusion investigation  originated with the FBI’s “evidence” for unaccredited FISA warrants linked to the fake Trump dossier they knew was funded by the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign.

And that has been the fundamental basis for our objection to these “investigations” from their inception.

According to Horowitz’s report: “We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents … we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. In most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with the OI (Office of Investigations), that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant. On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of the OI, or in place of the court, to weigh the probative value of the information.”

In other words, members of the deep-state cabal who set Trump up proceeded on the basis of their opinion, which was obviously a reflection of their bias.

To that end, the Horowitz report concludes: “We also found that the FBI did not aggressively seek to obtain certain potentially important information from Steele [author of the fake Trump/Russia dossier]. For example, the FBI did not press Steele for information about the actual funding force source for his election reporting work.”

So, we are to believe that nobody involved in this setup thought to ask the critical question, “Who funded the dossier?” — even though it had been suggested the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign was behind it. How convenient! Again, we now know, as scumbag/liar-Clinton’s FBI backers knew then — that the funding was from the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee.

And a note regarding the report’s assertion that, based on the mandate of what Horowitz was tasked to investigate, there was no evidence of “bias.” scumbag/liar-Clinton’s backers were high-ranking FBI bureaucrats — of course they did not leave an official trail of evidence pointing to their political bias in kicking off this investigation. However, there is no question that each of the individuals involved in the chain of command demonstrated significant personal bias against Trump. Horowitz was not tasked with evaluating their personal bias, only the evidence directly related to the FISA warrants.

The FBI’s predication for those FISA warrants is what prompted Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham to declare the Horowitz report woefully incomplete.

According to AG Barr: “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.”

Durham, who is investigating the origins of scumbag-Comey’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation in a criminal probe, took the unusual step prior to the release of his own report to note: “I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff, however, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

The Wall Street Journal notes, “The FBI corrupted the secret court process for obtaining warrants to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page. And it did so by supplying the court with false information produced by Christopher Steele, an agent of the scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton campaign.” The editors noted further, regarding the report’s finding that “the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order,” that “This confirms what Rep. Devin Nunes and House Republicans first disclosed in February 2018, which was denied by Rep. scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff and sneered at by the press at the time.”

As seasoned political analyst Brit Hume concludes, “The 17 instances of misconduct cited in the report — they are damning… The FISA court was clearly taken for a ride by the FBI … up and down the chain of command. … The FBI has had some dark days in its past, but nothing like this recently. … This was very serious misconduct on the part of the FBI.”

Of course, the now-demented scumbag-James Comey is out taking a victory lap, laughably insisting, “The FBI fulfilled its mission — protecting the American people and upholding the U.S. Constitution.” While most rank-and-file agents are devoted to that mission, scumbag-Comey was not among them. The report indicates that, among other things, scumbag-Comey lied to Congress when he asserted he did not open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump prior to the 2016 election, leading to the FISA warrants. But in fact, he did just that.

Finally, responding to the FISA report, Trump said: “They got caught, they got caught red-handed. … Never ever should this happen again in our country.” And he is right.

Stay tuned for the Durham report…   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/67271?mailing_id=4723&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4723&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler opened Wednesday’s impeachment hearing with testimony from three left-wing law professors who consider President Trump to be evil incarnate. If scumbag liar-Nadler thought this display would somehow convince the public that the president’s actions merit impeachment, he is sure to be disappointed.

The three professors simply failed to make the case.

scumbag liar-Nadler’s witnesses were Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford University.

The sole Republican witness was Jonathan Turley of George Washington University.

The key question was: What type of presidential misconduct justifies impeachment?

In drafting the Constitution, America’s founders did not provide for impeachment as a partisan political weapon or as a response by Congress to a president who lawmakers dislike or whose policies they consider misguided.

Rather, the founders viewed impeachment solely as a remedy for misconduct so serious that it renders the president unfit to remain in office for another day. Otherwise, lawmakers could wait for the next election and let voters decide who should occupy the Oval Office.

Professor Karlan is a campaign contributor to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination to run against Trump. In addition, Karlan was a political appointee of President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.

I encountered Karlan several years ago when she published a law review article making patently false claims about the supposed lack of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act by the Bush administration. She started talking about impeaching Trump over his business ties in 2016 — before he even took the oath of office.

In her testimony Wednesday, Karlan claimed that Trump should be impeached because the “evidence reveals” that he abused the “powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency.”

The problem with that claim — as Professor Turley observed — is that the evidence does not show that at all.

Turley, a self-professed liberal who told the committee he voted against Trump in 2016, pointed out that the House is moving toward impeachment on a “record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge.”

Moreover, the “only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo, and two expressly deny such a precondition,” Turley said.

In other words, Karlan’s claim that the president demanded that a foreign government interfere in our 2020 presidential election is not supported by the evidence. While much for her testimony consisted of grandiose statements about the importance of the right to vote and the dangers of “foreign interference,” she failed to prove that impeachment is warranted.

Professor Feldman is a columnist for Bloomberg News, which is owned by Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Feldman recently wrote that Democrats shouldn’t let legal concerns “obfuscate the fundamental wrongness of Trump’s conduct.”

In his testimony Wednesday, Feldman echoed Karlan’s claim that the “testimony” and “publicly released memorandum” of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky show Trump illegally “solicited” Ukraine to investigate “his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage.”

As Turley said, the evidence did not show this.

In fact, the military aid that was the supposed source of the non-existent quid pro quo was released after “a delay that the witness described as ‘not uncommon’ for this or prior administrations,” Turley said.

Professor Gerhardt has been deeply involved in Democratic politics, working on everything from the Clinton transition team to helping Sen. Dianne Fein-stein, D-Calif., oppose the nomination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

In what can only be considered a bizarre claim, Gerhardt’s written testimony asserted that he could not “help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country.”

Trump is trying to make himself a king? Really, professor? That is supposed to be a persuasive argument?

Gerhardt even resurrected a claim that House Democrats have all but abandoned: that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice by interfering in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 election.

According to Gerhardt, Trump’s behavior is as bad as President Richard Nixon’s.

In contrast, Turley prudently advised the Judiciary Committee to recognize the sparsity of the record before it.

“There is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee,” Turley said. He said there is no evidence of a quid pro quo; the evidence does not meet the requirements for proving bribery or extortion; and there are “no good-faith grounds” for arguing that the president violated campaign finance laws.

Democrats would do well to heed the final warning in Turley’s written testimony. If they impeach a president on the deficient record they have established, he cautioned, they will “expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

Turley is right about that. Impeachment for partisan reasons threatens the stability of our democratic republic. The founders would be mortified.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/67225?mailing_id=4721&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4721&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

Among the former group of naysayers are such notables as French President Emmanuel Macron, who labels those who characterize Russia as a threat “relics,” slavishly chained to outdated thinking. Rather, he asserts, the real focus of NATO — setting aside the question in his mind of whether NATO has a place in today’s world at all — is to fight terrorism. And Macron should know a thing or two that particular topic, since his country is a veritable haven for terrorists — but we digress. The Kremlin, of course, is practically “giddy” at Macron’s attempt to draw fire away from Russia, even more so after his reckless statement that NATO is “on the edge of a precipice” and suffering “brain death” because of its loss of focus on its “real” target: Terrorism. Sure thing.

For our part, we actually echo Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s off-the-top-turnbuckle snappy retort: “First of all, check if you are not brain-dead yourself!” In other words, one would have to be practically brain-dead not to appreciate NATO’s contribution to the stability of the West — let alone to world stability. And NATO continues to anchor the European component of the Pax Americana international order. If even Erdoğan “gets” that, perhaps Monsieur Macron should, as well. All this “pushback,” of course, sources from a country whose on-again-off-again “full” membership in NATO was restored only 10 years ago, based on its cagey-at-best view of NATO. Moreover, Macron’s appeasing, willful blindness to Russia’s naked aggressions — for example, Russia’s energy-blackmail of Europe, its buildup of offensive military forces along its borders, and even outside its borders, in the cases of Ukraine, Crimea, and Georgia — can only have negative consequences in the long run. Ask Neville Chamberlain: “Peace for our time” — Oui, Emmanuel?

The U.S. has paid more than its fair share in blood, sweat, and capital to maintain NATO’s viability, and Europe — and the rest of the planet, for that matter — is so much the better off for it. In a related-passing question we ask: Why do some nations consider it surprising that a somewhat-brash U.S. leader is calling out foot-dragging NATO nations for failures to pony-up to obligations to which they’ve signed up for, for decades, but which they’ve never actually fulfilled? The U.S. has long seen its fate and that of Europe — however allegedly disparate our demographics, beliefs, and cultures — as being intimately and inextricably intertwined, and based on a lookback at history that view is more than justified. Asking for Europe’s member nations to step up to obligations to which they’ve previously promised to fulfill, in our minds, isn’t a stretch.

Hopefully NATO will endure through this present uncertainty. If not, it will be every-nation-for-itself, resulting in an endgame no nation should want. We should also keep in mind the existential threats posed by both China and Russia: Both nations are actively engaged in undermining the fundamental values and orders of both the U.S. and Europe, so to the extent these threats are ignored, to that extent they will continue to grow.

As to the argument citing discord among NATO member nations as a rationale for ending NATO, we note that while NATO isn’t perfect — no large alliance of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people should be expected to be so — it has lasted now for more than 70 years with a demonstrated track record of success. Perhaps before we “throw the baby out with the bath water,” we — and the people of Europe — should reconsider the dire consequences of ending the amazing run of the success known simply as “NATO.” As one senior U.S. administration official noted, “Underneath all of the democratic politics hurly-burly, the alliance members are fully in accord on the goals of their shared commitments in this institute, absolutely.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67242?mailing_id=4721&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4721&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Democrats should be worried. Democrats are worried. The reelection of President Trump in 2020 at the hands of an uprising black evacuation from the Democrat plantation would be groundbreaking. The only person that comes to mind that has led such an exodus is named Moses.

Moses was trying to lead slaves out of the mentality of the Egyptian slave plantation to no avail. After leading them to freedom through the Red Sea away from their slave masters, the tide shifted. The Israelites preferred the scraps of food from Pharaoh’s plantation. They wanted to continue being dominated by slavery. They begged to go back to slavery. Why? Because they did not want to obey God.

They made God furious! They could not see for seeing and they could not hear for hearing. God took them through the wilderness to get the slave mentality out of their minds, but they were so stiff-necked that it didn’t work. They marched the streets, complained about their living conditions, and protested their “civil” rights for 40 years. Nothing happened. They marched so much that they would end up marching around the same mountain for 40 years. If you can see the correlation, keep reading.

We are told in the Bible that this 40-year wilderness journey should have taken only 11 days! Deuteronomy 1:2 reads, “Normally it takes only eleven days to travel from Mount Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea going by way of Mount Seir.”

An 11-day trip that took 40 YEARS? God reminded this new generation of their parents’ and relatives’ rebelling, grumbling, murmuring, arrogance, and involvement with worshiping other gods, which all led to them wandering and dying in the wilderness. Did their marching and protesting work with God? NO. Did they overcome? NO! Did they see the Promised Land? NEVER.

Enter the new generation.

Joshua 5:6 tells us, “The Israelites had moved about in the wilderness forty years until all the men who were of military age when they left Egypt had died, since they had not obeyed the LORD. For the LORD had sworn to them that they would not see the land he had solemnly promised their ancestors to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.” The older generation had to die out before God would allow His people to see the Promised Land.

The younger generation made it to the Promise Land. They had no reference of a slave mentality. They never fought for their rights. They never heard the crack of a whip and they never fought the wrong fight/enemy. They were young, brazen, and courageous. Joshua and Caleb did not let the GIANTS stop them from the Promised Land…

Today, the youth of this generation (Christ Followers who are Conservatives) are called to take down the Giants and walk into the Promised Land.

The Exodus out of 40 years of voting Democrat and servitude on the liberal plantation is taking charge. It is time to take the land. Black and brown people have had enough! Let my people go!   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67185?mailing_id=4715&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4715&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

“Tithe: verb — "to pay or give a tenth part of especially for the support of a religious establishment or organization.”

These definitions hearken back to the millennia-old biblical teaching of tithing to God. Christians are commanded (yes, commanded) by Scripture to give at least a tenth of their income (the fruits of their labor) to the Lord. Christians differ in principle on where that money should go, and the vast majority of Christians fail to fully obey this command. But that doesn’t mean it’s a new command.

But you wouldn’t know this by reading a recent article at the lefty news-splaining website Vox. The article, titled “This man has donated at least 10% of his salary to charity for 10 years running,” treats this as a novel concept. It’s a profile of Toby Ord, a “philosopher at Oxford” who “set up an organization called Giving What We Can,” an altruistic group meant to spur people to pledge donating to charitable causes. That’s great; more power to them.

The Vox writer says, “This commitment, from a not particularly well-paid research fellow, earned Ord profiles at the time from the likes of the BBC, the Telegraph, and the Wall Street Journal.” And Ord says that, over the last 10 years, “I’ve been able to give £106,000 to a variety of organizations, all focused on global poverty. That’s 28 percent of all the income I’ve ever earned.” Again, well done.

Yet it’s worth pondering how Vox managed to “explain” this news without ever mentioning the words “Bible,” “Christian,” or “faith.” No other religions are named, either.

The answer is that Ord seems to think this was largely his idea. His website claims he was “inspired by the ideas of ethicists such as Peter Singer.” But it’s worth noting that Singer is the atheist Princeton professor and infanticide proponent who once said that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth.

Regular Christians are, generally speaking, the most generous people around. While most don’t give away a full 10%, many do. Yet few of these regular Joes are profiled in major media outlets. To be clear, we hope Ord and his followers keep giving. We just also hope he also gives credit (and perhaps a little money) to the God who actually came up with the idea.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67187?mailing_id=4715&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4715&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Maybe what really upsets them is that President Trump is challenging the status quo.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, “Donald Trump promised to shake up U.S. foreign policy. He has certainly done that from the Middle East to Asia. The U.S. is currently engaged in a three-front, maximum-pressure standoff with China, Iran, and North Korea — involving everything from tariffs to possible military action and the strictest sanctions in memory.”

Hanson reminds us, “At first, Trump critics saw these policy recalibrations as either impotent or counterproductive. Pessimists asserted that China, with a population four times the size of the United States’, was fated for world hegemony. Why antagonize those who might soon control our political and economic future?”

But it looks like Trump’s approach is working, at least for now.

North Korea hasn’t given up its nuclear ambitions, but Kim Jong-un has toned down his rhetoric (minus the occasional outlandish threat). As for China, trade negotiations are in the works. And that’s the point. Do we really think Chinese President Xi Jinping would have negotiated with a President Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush? Until Trump came along, U.S. leaders in both parties seemed resigned to China supplanting the U.S. as the world’s pre-eminent economic and military power. So there was nothing to negotiate.

But what about the Kurds? Remember all the criticism from across the spectrum that President Trump had betrayed our trusted friends?

“Trump upended the chessboard in Syria, creating momentary havoc,” Jamie McIntyre writes at the Washington Examiner. “Still, as the dust settles, the U.S. alliance with the Kurds has survived, joint operations against ISIS have resumed, coalition partners have hung tight, and 1,000 U.S. troops have been withdrawn. Chalk some of that up to the ingenuity of U.S. military commanders who have an uncanny knack for turning Trump’s spur-of-the-moment policy pronouncements into a workable strategy.”

We have to remember that it’s in America’s strategic interests to placate both sides. Sure, the Kurds have fought loyally alongside American forces, but we do have NATO obligations involving Turkey. The president’s decision to remove U.S. forces from the region was a minor move that had a broader impact on the region. Recall that it happened just before the successful raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a raid that began in Turkish airspace and relied in part on Turkish intelligence.

In Afghanistan, the likelihood of a deal between the U.S. and the Taliban doesn’t seem likely, especially after Trump canceled a meeting at Camp David back in September. Yet, the fact that Trump took a stand just as the Taliban had claimed credit for an attack shows that he’s aiming to force an agreement at some point.

Another important factor lost in the discussion about the Taliban is that the Trump administration is in the process of reducing the number of American troops in Afghanistan from about 13,000 to 8,600 without compromising our effectiveness.

Last week, the president remarked that, when it comes to the Taliban, “We’ve hit them very, very hard. And they’re down to literally hundreds as opposed to thousands. They had many thousands a short while ago, and now they’re down to hundreds. Probably 200 left. And we’re scouting them out. So we’ll be down to very little, if anything, in a very short period of time.”

That’s probably Trumpian hyperbole, but his move is important considering that we don’t seem to have an end strategy in the region, and most Americans want a way to bring our nearly 20-year presence there to an end.

While some Trump foes claim he’s undermining decades of American foreign policy and embracing isolationism, The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the administration is considering sending up to 14,000 troops to the Middle East in order to thwart Iran’s immediate and long-term objectives. Clearly, the president’s unconventional policy decisions are made with an eye toward countering the real threats we continue to face.

Again, the point here is this president is engaged and is approaching these seemingly intractable matters in new ways. This in itself has been very upsetting to policy-wonks and politicians who are content with the status quo. As for the Democrat-controlled Congress, if they think these wars are a good thing for the country, perhaps they might do their constitutional duty and go on the record by supporting them.

Of course, they won’t. It’s much easier to lob rhetorical grenades at the president than actually get involved in decision-making. Then again, the Democrats simply might not have time to roll up their sleeves and get in the trenches with the president. They’re too busy trying to overturn the 2016 election.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67203?mailing_id=4715&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4715&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Meanwhile in the real world, the November jobs numbers are out and the news is good. The booming economy continues to chug along with 266,000 jobs added (more than the 185,000 expected) and near-record-low unemployment of 3.5%. The jobs included 54,000 manufacturing jobs in the midst of panic over Trump’s trade moves. And the number of Americans working is a record-high 158,593,000.

So how exactly is Trump threatening civilization? The only thing he’s actually threatening is the Democrats’ goal of an ever-expanding centralized authoritarian government. Under Trump, American Liberty has been protected from the onslaught of the leftist elites.

What is at stake in the 2020 election? Which party is running on a platform of promising to limit and take away Americans’ constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms? Which party is advocating for open borders, harboring illegal aliens, using taxpayer money to cover illegal aliens’ healthcare, ending private health insurance, and raising taxes? Which party blames capitalism for causing climate change and advocates replacing the U.S. free-market economy with socialism? It’s certainly not Trump and the Republicans. But we digress.

Back to liar-Pelosi, her statement let the cat out of the bag regarding the Democrats’ true motivation for impeaching Trump. It’s all about the 2020 election. It’s all a political strategy they have been committed to implementing ever since Trump won the election, irrespective of liar-Pelosi’s phony denial.

Speaking of phony, back in March, liar-Pelosi opined, “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And [Trump is] just not worth it.” Clearly, liar-Pelosi had no intention of meeting that standard for impeachment. Not one Republican has sided with this obviously partisan charade.

Finally, we note liar-Pelosi’s laughable claim to not hate Trump because “as a Catholic … I don’t hate anyone.” She sanctimoniously continued, “I was raised in a way that is full of a heart of love and always pray for the president. … I pray for the president all the time. So, don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.” We’re not sure what’s more phony — her claim of being a Catholic while rejecting Bible and Church teaching on life in the womb, or her statement that she doesn’t “hate” Trump while leading the party of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone actual believe her? Judging by her record, no one should.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67208?mailing_id=4715&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4715&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Round Two of Impeachapolooza began yesterday in the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler decided to begin the second phase of this colossal waste of time by bringing in four constitutional law professors to explain the pros and cons of impeachment. That speaks volumes about just how weak the Democrats’ case truly is.

We can all read the Constitution for ourselves to understand impeachment. But clearly Democrats don’t think they’ve made the case yet after two weeks of stacked hearings in the House Intelligence Committee. (The polls certainly show that they haven’t convinced the American people.) They still need help from so-called “experts” on the Constitution.  

And that’s not the only problem they’ve got. Some progressives are fuming that none of yesterday’s witnesses were minorities. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up!

Rep. scumbag-Al Green (D-TX) took to the House floor Wednesday morning and essentially accused Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi and Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler of racism. 

Here are some facts you should know:

• While Democrats were pretending to appeal to the Constitution yesterday, this is a raw partisan power grab. Yesterday’s witnesses were stacked 3 to 1 against the president.

• One of the witnesses is a rabid leftist who bought into the Russia-collusion hoax hook, line, and sinker. He also wanted to impeach Trump back in 2017 — over a tweet, of all things! Another witness is so consumed with hate that she gets triggered by the Trump Hotel.

• As we have noted before, the left has been braying for Trump’s impeachment quite literally since the day he was sworn into office. scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler has been plotting impeachment since the day he took over the Judiciary Committee.

• In other words, yesterday’s hearings were a foregone conclusion in search of a crime. The left convicted Trump the moment he won the 2016 election and has been searching ever since for any excuse it could find to remove him. scumbag liar-Nadler thought he had it with the Russia/Mueller probe. But that turned out to be a big flop.

• Yesterday’s lone “Republican” witness isn’t even a supporter of President Trump. George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley is an avowed liberal who voted for scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 1996. He’s also an advocate for polygamy.

• Nevertheless, Turley blasted the Democrats’ case for impeachment as “woefully inadequate,” “dangerous,” and plagued by “a scarcity of evidence.” I guess that’s one thing Turley and I agree on. But if Democrats can’t win over a liberal like Jonathan Turley, they are clearly falling short.

scumbag/liar-Schiff’s Shifty Subpoenas

Unfortunately, scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler’s impeachment hearings distracted the media and most Americans from what should be the banner story of the day — scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff’s shifty subpoenas.

Somehow the Democrat chairman of the House Intelligence Committee managed to get his hands on the phone records of Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, journalist John Solomon, and others.

Here we are in the middle of a national debate over what the Deep State did to spy on a presidential campaign and it appears that the Deep State used its powers to spy on a journalist, a member of Congress, and the president’s lawyer. 

This should outrage every American concerned about potential abuses by Big Brother. Perhaps Attorney General Barr should refer scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff to John Durham’s current criminal investigation.

Sadly, this is not the first time Democrats have spied on members of Congress and the media.

Think about this, my friends: If they are willing to do this now while we have a certain degree of power with the White House, just think of what the left will do if it gets power next year. Just something to remember in November.

Faith Under Fire

I was stunned Tuesday after reading a report that the Army has banned Shields of Strength from printing Bible verses on personnel dog tags. The company has been doing this for 20 years, but after one complaint from the radical Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Army folded like a cheap tent.

How is it possible that there is still someone so dumb in the Pentagon bureaucracy that they don’t realize Barack scumbag/liar-nObama and loose lips liar-Joe Biden are no longer in the White House? 

Or did they do it intentionally just to stick their finger in the eye of this president and vice president who have been such strong advocates for religious liberty?

If it is unconstitutional to have a Bible verse on dog tags, then it must be unconstitutional to have pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams ministering to our troops. Of course, that is the ultimate goal of the militant secularists at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and their progressive allies.

The 2020 Clown Show

As we reported to you, Sen. lowlife-Kamala Harris dropped out of the Democrat presidential contest Tuesday. So far, Sen. scumbag-Cory Booker and Andrew Yang have not qualified for the next Democrat debate. 

As a result, a lot of progressives are outraged that the next debate may feature only white candidates. What??? They must have forgotten about dinky/liar-Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren. (If you needed another reason to vote against Warren, just consider her devotion to Planned Parenthood.)

There’s an obvious solution to the Democrat debate debacle: loose lips liar-Biden, commie-Bernie, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg should link arms with Rev. scumbag-Al Sharpton in boycotting the Democrat debates! Or they could all just check their privilege by dropping out and letting scumbag-Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Andrew Yang fight it out.

In all seriousness, the left’s obsession with identity politics, which Rep. scumbag-Green put on full display yesterday, will destroy this country. 

Meanwhile, loose lips liar-Joe Biden is making a big play for the nonagenarian (over 90) vote with his “No Malarkey” bus tour.

I mean, doggone it, couldn’t he come up with a better slogan than that? He’s just cruisin’ for a bruisin’ with that bus tour. I hope he doesn’t flip his wig when people criticize the name. There better not be any hanky panky going on if there’s a shindig on the bus. Biden must think he’s in fat city and has it made in the shade.

Prayers for Ed

I was saddened to hear that my good friend, former Attorney General Ed Meese, a stalwart conservative and the chief of Reaganites, has suffered a mild stroke. Please join me in praying for Ed’s full and complete recovery from any speech and mobility issues.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/67170?mailing_id=4709&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4709&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The relentless Beltway news churn about the Democrat Party’s ongoing efforts to undermine the Trump administration never took a rest. The “scumbag/liar-Schiff Show” charade to impeach Trump is now being handed off to Demo Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler for more testimony drama this week, on its way to a full House vote for Christmas.

On the way to scumbag liar-Nadler, Republicans Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, and Michael McCaul issued a 123-page report declaring: “The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.”

The Republican report concludes: “The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry paints a picture of unelected bureaucrats within the foreign policy and national security apparatus who fundamentally disagreed with President Trump’s style, world view, and decisions. Their disagreements with President Trump’s policies and their discomfort with President Trump’s actions set in motion the anonymous, secondhand whistleblower complaint. Democrats seized on the whistleblower complaint to fulfill their years-old obsession with removing President Trump from office.”

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

scumbag/liar-Schiff then rushed out his committee’s 300-page impeachment report, declaring that Trump “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election” and “sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process.”

As I have noted, if not for double standards, Democrat politicians wouldn’t have any standards.

Regarding election interference, in 2016 it was the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee that colluded with Russian operatives to fabricate the fake Trump/Putin dossier, which led to the Mueller investigation.

That baseless inquiry helped give Democrats control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, which is to say Democrats, in scumbag/liar-Schiff’s words, “solicited the interference of a foreign government” and succeeded in their effort to “undermine the integrity” of that election.

The Demo report further notes the main focus of the hearings: “President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance” to Ukraine “without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification.”

But remember, it was loose lips liar-Biden as vice president in 2015 and a group of Democrat senators in 2018 who threatened Ukraine in order to, in loose lips liar-Biden’s case, protect his son Hunter and, in the Demo senators’ case, demand dirt on Trump to assist the failing Mueller investigation.

So now it’s scumbag liar-Nadler who will endeavor to spin the Demos’ MAGA sabotage into something even bigger ahead of next year’s election. According to the Democrat Daily, a.k.a. The Washington Post, “House Democrats are debating whether to expand articles of impeachment to include charges beyond abuse of power in the Ukraine controversy.”

Who’d’ve thunk it? Oh, wait. We said this was exactly what the Democrats would do as soon as they announced their impeachment plans.

As our Managing Editor Nate Jackson wrote yesterday, “Democrats think combining the fizzled impeachment coup 1.0 (Trump/Russia) with its coup 2.0 sequel (Trump/Ukraine) is the combo to defeat Trump. Color us skeptical.”

Now, with all that out of the way, this column is really about a group of individuals who have overwatch on the House impeachment farce. No, I’m not referring to the news recyclers who report every minute of this political theater as if it were a spectator blood sport in order to support their advertising revenue. I am referring to a group of remarkable individuals above the House chamber.

You may already know about the many subtle ways in which the foundation of American Liberty — the irrevocable fact that we are endowed by our Creator with “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — is reflected symbolically around our nation’s capital.

For example, the cap on the 555-foot Washington Monument is engraved, “Laus Deo,” Latin for “Praise be to God.” The great oak doors leading into the Supreme Court chamber are engraved with the Roman numerals I through X, representing the Ten Commandments, and the relief above the mahogany bench where the Supreme Court justices sit during session is likewise marble engraved with a stone tablet and the numerals I through X. In fact, monuments and engravings honoring the Judeo-Christian foundation of American law are found all across that town.

But what you may not know is that forming a ring around the House of Representatives chamber are 23 bas-reliefs of noted law-givers — those whose principles are the foundation for our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, as well as the Rule of Law they enshrine. There is one in particular that is most noteworthy.

You have likely seen our national motto, “In God We Trust,” inscribed in large gold letters above and behind the speaker’s rostrum in the House chamber. Above those words behind the rostrum is a quote from the venerable Daniel Webster that serves as the starting point for the 23 reliefs that look down upon the room: “Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.”

But it is the 28-inch reliefs above the gallery doors, surrounding and looking down upon the chamber, sculpted in white Vermont marble, that should give pause and warrant reflection upon all proceedings in that room and whether such proceedings might be “worthy to be remembered.”

In order clockwise around the chamber from Webster’s quote are the images of George Mason (Virginia Declaration of Rights), Robert Joseph Pothier, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Edward I, Alfonso X, Gregory IX, Louis IX, Justinian I, Tribonian, Lycurgus, Hammurabi (The Code of Hammurabi), Moses (The Ten Commandments),  Solon, Aemilius Papinianus, Gaius, Maimonides,  Suleiman the Magnificent, Innocent III, Simon de Montfort, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone  (Commentaries on the Laws of England), Napoleon and, of course, Thomas Jefferson (The Declaration of Independence). 

Now, I would argue that there are some American Founders whose reliefs should also be included within that ring of honor — most notably that of George Washington. I would further argue that the man whose life and teaching is the centerpiece of the most important and most produced (more than five billion copies) book of all time, Jesus of Nazareth, should be there.

But here is what I find most interesting about those reliefs. Of the 23, all but one are facing left or right, all gazing toward the full front relief of the singularly important relief that is centered directly across from the dais occupied by the speaker of the House. The 11 profiles in the eastern half of the chamber face left and 11 in the western half face right.

They all look toward the frontal relief of Moses, the Old Testament’s essential lawgiver.

When all the rancorous debate within the Judiciary Committee and the full House is concluded, and as liar-Nancy Pelosi gavels the House to order for the inevitable impeachment referral vote to the Senate, she should remember those who are watching and, most notably, whom she is addressing directly across the room.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/67157?mailing_id=4709&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4709&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue explained, “This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans reenter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.” The USDA rule applies to adults ages 18 to 49 who are able-bodied without any dependents, limiting their SNAP benefits to three months, unless they are working or training for at least 20 hours a week. This rule does not change; what does change is the flexibility states have to grant SNAP waivers.

The new rule will limit the ability of states to use loopholes to get around the SNAP requirements. Previously, states were allowed to grant waivers to the SNAP rule in areas that were experiencing unemployment rates 20% higher than the national rate. Furthermore, states were given flexibility by the USDA in granting SNAP waivers. The Wall Street Journal reports, “The new rule requires the unemployment rate to be 6% or higher for states to issue such waivers. The rule also curbs the amount of discretionary exemptions from federal work requirements that states can issue.”

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government,” said our Constitution’s author, James Madison. The absolute bare minimum the Trump administration can do to work toward that ideal is to require able-bodied adults without dependents to look for jobs instead of handouts.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67164?mailing_id=4709&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4709&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

President Donald Trump met with Gov. Kemp to advocate for his own choice for Isakson’s Senate seat — Rep. Doug Collins. The widely reported narrative is that Kemp “bucked” Trump by picking Loeffler instead. For our part, we suspect there was a good cop/bad cop wink and nod here. In other words, Trump gave Kemp some needed political space.

Collins is a staunch conservative who represents the Ninth District, one of Georgia’s most conservative districts; no one questions his credentials. In fact, he’s currently the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, where his task is to defend Trump against the Democrats’ absurd impeachment inquisition. Collins is needed where he is, but, in part due to his vigorous Trump defense, he’s also arguably less well-suited for a statewide Senate contest next year. The state isn’t as “red” as it used to be, primarily because of women in the Atlanta suburbs. Not only does the Senate pick have to win in 2020, but Kemp has to prove he’s not just “doing Trump’s bidding.”

We believe Kemp (and Trump) had this in mind when picking Loeffler. She is a complete unknown to grassroots Republicans, and many wonder if we’re getting a senatorial version John Roberts — acceptable on the surface but an unreliable “moderate” underneath. After all, Loeffler served on the board of Grady Memorial Hospital, the largest provider of abortions in Georgia. She’s also CEO of Bakkt, a bitcoin-focused company, and part owner of the WNBA’s Atlanta Dream. The WNBA donates to Planned Parenthood and other feminist groups, and Loeffler’s involvement in the WNBA means she’s benefited from the cronyism that funds sports stadiums across the country.

But Kemp’s no dummy, and he’s most certainly not trying to win the approval of the Planned Parenthood Left. In fact, he’s doing his best to keep conservative support. He signed one of the most pro-life laws in the country last year despite the threats of Hollywood, which is heavily invested in the Peach State. Kemp’s stand is all the more remarkable after the previous Republican governor caved to the Rainbow Mafia and vetoed a religious-liberty bill after having promised to sign it.

Kemp stood firm against critics of his yet-to-be-announced Senate pick, too. “I stand with hardworking Georgians and @POTUS,” Kemp tweeted last month. “The idea that I would appoint someone to the U.S. Senate that is NOT pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-freedom, and 100% supportive of our President (and his plan to Keep America Great) is ridiculous.”

Our own Louis DeBroux notes, “The governor has also made some very shrewd appointments in recent months, tapping John King (law-enforcement background) to serve as interim Insurance Commissioner, becoming the first Hispanic constitutional officer in Georgia history. He also appointed the first black woman to serve as Cobb County DA, a county that used to be deep red but that Hillary won in 2016. Through June, about half of the appointments he’d made were women, and almost a quarter were black. Georgia is becoming less white every year, and while we reject the ‘demography is destiny’ mantra of the Democrats, we’d argue that if the GOP doesn’t show that minorities and women are welcomed in the party, not only as voters but as leaders, then Democrats will continue to effectively hammer them as the party of old white men.”

Meanwhile, for all the caterwauling about Kemp “bowing to the Swamp” with his pick, it’s interesting to note that he choose the self-made millionaire who isn’t beholden to any political base and who isn’t currently employed in the Beltway. As Loeffler put it, “I am not a career politician or even someone who’s run for office. Over the last 25 years, I’ve been building businesses, taking risks, and creating jobs. I haven’t spent my life trying to get to Washington.”

As for her conservative bona fides, she says, “But here’s what folks are gonna find out about me: I’m a lifelong conservative. Pro-Second Amendment. Pro-military. Pro-wall. And pro-Trump. And I make no apologies for my conservative values, and will proudly support President Trump’s conservative judges. I am strongly pro-life. The abortion-on-demand agenda is immoral. In the Senate, I look forward to voting for S. 160, Senator Lindsey Graham’s 20-week abortion ban. When it comes to protecting innocent life, I look to God because every life is a blessing. In Washington, I will work with President Trump to continue the incredible economic progress our nation has seen.”

Obviously, Loeffler’s actual track record has yet to be established and there are indeed questions — if not outright flags — about what we do know, but she checked a lot of the right boxes with her remarks. “As an outsider to Washington, I know I will have to prove it,” she admitted. “To earn your confidence and support, with my votes, my priorities, and my actions. And that’s exactly what I’ll do.” As long as that’s the case, the controversy surrounding her pick will soon be a distant memory.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67165?mailing_id=4709&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4709&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi at least waited until Thursday morning to instruct the Judiciary Committee to proceed with drawing up articles of impeachment. President Trump “abused his power for his own personal political benefit,” she declared, which “strikes at the very heart of our Constitution.” To hear such melodrama from a Democrat is as amusing as it is pathetically hypocritical. But they have a Christmas deadline to keep.

So, back to the hearings. Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman claimed that the Founding Fathers “would identify President Trump’s conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office, high crimes and misdemeanors that they were worried about. And they would want the House of Representatives to take appropriate action and to impeach.” Please. In any case, Feldman is hardly a source for unbiased analysis — he’s been calling for Trump’s impeachment for the past three years. A mere two months after Trump’s inauguration, Feldman was demanding his impeachment because he disliked one of Trump’s social-media messages. He also claimed Trump should be impeached over his use of the constitutional pardon power.

Leftist professor Pamela Karlan, who also has a history of repeatedly clamoring for Trump’s impeachment even prior to his taking office, demonstrated her profound anti-Trump bias by claiming that the president sees himself as a king as the setup for a lame and rehearsed joke about why he named his son Baron.

However, the one witness who turned the hearing on its head was the only one called by Republicans — George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley. A Clinton supporter and a Democrat, Turley reiterated that he’s not a Trump backer while he presented the most reasoned, non-biased opinion regarding this impeachment fiasco. He challenged the Democrats’ entire rationale for impeachment, noting that, unlike all prior impeachment proceedings in U.S. history, no case for an actual crime has been established.

“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” Turley argued. He then observed, “We are all mad. Where has that taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration? That is why this is wrong.”

Turley also blasted Democrats for abusing their power, the very thing they’ve charged Trump with doing: “President Trump has gone … to the courts. He’s allowed to do that — we have three branches, not two. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You are doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

In their desperation to remove Trump from office with this ridiculous impeachment gambit, Democrats are doing grievous damage to themselves and our governmental institutions. No wonder they have lost the attention and concern of the majority of Americans, as demonstrated by the fact that more Americans are doing online searches for a “controversial” commercial for an exercise bike than for impeachment testimony. Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed four more of Trump’s court nominees Wednesday, so at least something worthwhile was taking place on Capitol Hill.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67177?mailing_id=4709&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4709&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

It’s not just that Democrats are adopting a Republican strategy; it’s that they have mastered it. Democrats created the current campaign-finance system that limits contributions directly to political candidates, thus favoring their special-interest groups who raise millions for their political objectives. They may claim to hate the influence of political action committees and the like, but they created the “monster.” After all, money is like water — it will find all the cracks.

Democrats pontificate about “getting money out of politics,” as if that will make their cause pure as the wind-driven snow. But money also is effectively political speech itself. The First Amendment was crafted to protect political speech from congressional interference. Thus, we believe some campaign-finance restrictions run afoul of the First Amendment — particularly those that flood the political landscape with an endless flow of “anonymous” cash.

However, we believe that political donations should not allow a small group of wealthy leftists, such as scumbag-George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and Jeff Bezos, to dictate politics and policy for the whole nation. That is why there are and should be limits on contributions to individual candidates — that evens the playing field so that more voices can be heard, much as the Electoral College does not allow a few large states to dictate policy for the nation. But Democrats don’t want a level playing field, not in electoral donations or the Electoral College.

Of course, Democrats head to the fainting couch whenever the name of a wealthy Republican donor is mentioned, but they have no problem accepting hundreds of millions of dollars each year from leftist billionaires. Of such hypocrisy I have observed, “If not for double standards, Democrat politicians would have no standards.”

On a final note, in an age when leftists sic the wrath of the mob on conservatives who fund what is good and right, it’s understandable why some would desire anonymity. (See Chic-fil-A.) And the word “dark” implies something sinister — when the purpose of this leftist graft is to foist socialism on the American people, it doesn’t get any more sinister.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67125?mailing_id=4703&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4703&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body