https://patriot.imgix.net/3f59e9b560cbe262996c13176685692c2dc13e012e139202255add09ff64dfc4.jpg?auto=format" width="452" height="226" />

NO THANKS: White House won’t participate in first House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing on Wednesday (The Hill)

OPEN BORDERS ANYONE? Mexico gun battle near Texas border between suspected cartel members and police leaves at least 21 dead (Fox News)

National Security

POTUS IN MIDDLE EAST: Trump surprises U.S. troops in Afghanistan on Thanksgiving, announces new talks with Taliban (The Washington Times)

MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED: DHS still can’t identify all separated families from zero-tolerance border fiasco (The Washington Times)

JUSTICE SERVED? Mexican authorities make arrests in killings of American Mormons (The Washington Post)

Around the Nation

RETAIL NUMBERS: Black Friday shopping at brick-and-mortar stores dropped by 6% as consumers spent record online (CNBC)

RAINBOW MAFIA: Hallmark Channel holiday movies under fire from the diversity police (Hot Air)

Other Notables

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT?: New scandal hits Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador involved in impeachment hearings (The Daily Wire)

LEFTMEDIA HACK FIRED: Newsweek reporter fired over bungled Trump Thanksgiving story (The Washington Times)

BRUTAL CRACKDOWN: Iran kills hundreds of unarmed protesters as Quran expert warns it may kill thousands (The Daily Wire)

KNOWN ASSAILANT: London Bridge attacker had been jailed for terror crimes; two fatally stabbed (The Washington Times)

Closing Arguments

POLICY: The middle class always pays: Europe shows how the dinky/liar-Warren/commie-Sanders agenda really works (The Wall Street Journal)

POLICY: How UK free-riding on U.S. drug innovation is affecting Brexit (The Federalist)

HUMOR: Leftists protest new Mister Rogers film for controversial message of being nice to everyone (The Babylon Bee)  

Don’t. Just don’t.

If you believe, even for a moment, that a political debate will lead to contention during the holiday festivities, don’t start. Your family relationships and the love you share for one another are far, far too important to put in jeopardy by fighting over Donald Trump, liar-Nancy Pelosi, scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, or any of the other cast of characters in the ongoing drama that is the DC swamp.

Have we not politicized enough in American life without politicizing the dinner table as well? Religion, sports, television, movies, and even chicken sandwiches are now the subject of raging political debate.

Where is the humility? Where is the grace? “Where is”, as the Black-Eyed Peas sang, “the love?”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid wants to see hostilities between family members. She recently disparaged the “food holiday” and it’s “problematic history,” instructing good progressives everywhere that is their duty to engage in verbal combat with any Trump-supporting relatives, of whose intellectual and moral capacity she thinks very little.

Reid says, “Here’s a hint: Do not worry about trying to explain the cast of characters … or the very overused term, ‘quid pro quo.’ … Most people can’t say it, spell it or understand it. What we’re actually talking about here is not a pithy Latin phrase. It’s something a lot simpler: Bribery and extortion. Beyond the whistleblower and over 100 hours of testimony backing up that fact, Donald Trump admitted to it, and even released edited notes from his call with the Ukrainian president — which, by the way, is not a transcript — that actually proved he did it! Even Uncle Roscoe and Auntie Carol ought to understand that.”

The fact that Reid is wrong on every single one of those points doesn’t seem to matter to her. In fact, it may not even have occurred to her. To Reid and her comrades, only the goal matters; beating those knuckle-dragging, pro-Trump relatives into submission.

This desire in anti-Trump leftists runs so deep that one random Twitter user’s tweet went viral among progressives, gleefully declaring, “I will be changing my wifi password to ‘IMPEACH45’ this Thursday so that my MAGA family members have to put that in their devices to have some of my delicious WiFi.” How sad and pathetic.

This type of maliciousness seems to run deep for political Southpaws. Barack scumbag/liar-nObama called us “bitter clingers,” scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton called us “deplorables” and “irredeemables,” and leftist philosopher Noam Chomsky, beloved by Democrats everywhere, referred to the Republican Party as “the most dangerous organization in world history.” More dangerous than the Soviet Politburo or the Communist Chinese Party Central Committee or the Nazi SS? More dangerous than the KKK or ISIS? That seems a bit of a stretch.

Slate columnist Jamelle Bouie openly laid out the leftist view of those of us in “flyover country,” asserting, “There’s no such thing as a good Trump voter: People voted for a racist who promised racist outcomes. They don’t deserve your empathy.” The Left has made it clear they believe we conservative, Christian, Republican, pro-Trump Americans are not just wrong, we are evil.

And lest some argue these are the comments of isolated individuals, please note that Bouie’s column garnered more than 100,000 shares on Facebook, and scumbag/liar-Hillary received the votes of more than 65 million Americans after relentlessly portraying Trump supporters as awful human beings. Never mind that of the 700 U.S. counties that twice voted for scumbag/liar-nObama, 209 voted for Trump. How does one go from voting twice for a black man for president to suddenly becoming a rabid racist by voting for Trump? Is it possible that reasons other than racism, nationalism, and xenophobia drove tens of millions of Americans to vote for Trump?

Luckily, as it turns out, most Americans are ignoring the exhortations of the division-seekers like Reid and the NYT. A 2017 HuffPo/YouGov survey found that just 3% of Americans said they were “very likely” and 8% “somewhat likely” to get into a political argument with family members during Thanksgiving.

Maybe most Americans are well-schooled in etiquette, and hearkened to the counsel of Lizzie Post, co-president of the Emily Post Institute, who advised, “Not bringing it up is better. … There’s nothing wrong with saying in a really polite and friendly way that ‘I hope you’ll understand, but I’ve actually decided to take a break from politics this holiday.” Or maybe they are just decent human beings who have no desire to bludgeon family over politics.

So, as you enjoy the turkey, stuffing, and pecan pie around the Thanksgiving table remember, you don’t have to engage in political debate. Thanksgiving is a day to celebrate those things that bring joy to our life — family, friends, faith, football, and our love for the greatest nation in the history of the world.

However, if you choose to debate politics, or are dealing with a relative who will not take no for an answer, remember that good and decent people can have opposing opinions, so we can discourse about controversial topics without being contentious.

Or you can, as Andrew Klavan satirically writes, civilly debate your opponent until they are dead.

Happy Thanksgiving!   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67031?mailing_id=4693&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4693&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

Timeline updates:

We now have some key information on the timeline of events regarding Ukraine aid. Primarily these two things:

First, NBC News reports, “The White House Office of Management and Budget made its first official move to withhold military aid to Ukraine on July 25, the same day President Donald Trump spoke to Ukrainian President [Volodymyr Zelensky] by phone.”

Second, “President Trump was briefed about the whistleblower complaint prompted by his dealings with Kyiv before the White House lifted a hold on more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine,” according to The Wall Street Journal. That’s important because if Trump released the funds because of the whistleblower complaint, it looks more like a coverup. The Journal explains, “The White House has defended the president’s actions, in part by saying there was no link between suspending the aid and the president’s request for investigations because the hold on the money was lifted in September.” And, “Mr. Trump said at an Oct. 2 news conference that he lifted the aid after a request from Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio).”

Trump needs to do a better job of keeping the story straight.

Meanwhile, “The House committees released interviews with the acting assistant secretary of state in charge of European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Reeker and senior Office of Management and Budget official Mark Sandy,”  reports The Daily Caller. “The committees also released several short transcripts of people who did not comply with subpoenas, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.” Those transcripts shed light on the aforementioned timeline.

Whistleblower:

“The anonymous whistleblower reached out to the intelligence community watchdog on October 8 to clarify the nature of his or her contact with Democratic majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee before the complaint was filed,” CBS News reports. “The whistleblower acknowledged reaching out to the committee, but claimed that nothing substantial was discussed and that the staff member directed them to go through official channels.”

What else happened Oct. 8? We learned that the whistleblower had contact with a 2020 Democrat who turned out to be loose lips liar-Joe Biden.

No wonder scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff changed his mind on having the whistleblower testify. That may change when impeachment reaches the upper chamber and Senate Republicans seek testimony from Eric Ciaramella, the CIA analyst widely believed to be the whistleblower.

Giuliani:

Did Trump send his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to Ukraine or specifically direct him? “I didn’t direct him,” Trump said on Tuesday. “I don’t even know. I know he was going to go to Ukraine, and I think he canceled a trip, but you know Rudy has other clients other than me. He’s done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years.”

Does anyone believe Trump’s denials on this? Back in May, Giuliani said of his efforts in Ukraine, “He basically knows what I’m doing … as his lawyer.” And, oh, by the way, in the infamous July 25 phone call, Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to … talk to Giuliani. “Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy,” Trump said. “If you could speak to him that would be great.”

Trump needs to do a better job of keeping the story straight.

So what if Rudy is thrown under the bus? “I do have very, very good insurance,” Giuliani said earlier this month, “so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid.”

scumbag liar-Nadler hearings:

Next up are hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, which Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler has set for Wednesday, Dec. 4.

Polls:

A final note of warning about pollaganda. Some polls show that support for impeachment — especially among independents — dropped during public hearings. Other polls say support has increased. Our advice is, as usual, don’t be swayed by polls that are meant to shape, rather than reflect, public opinion.

And forget all about impeachment over Thanksgiving.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67043?mailing_id=4693&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4693&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

There is a telling scene in Season 3 of the Netflix drama “The Crown” about the reign of Queen Elizabeth II that can instruct contemporary America about Democrats’ attempt to impeach President Trump.

The episode is titled “Coup.” Harold Wilson is prime minister of Britain. He has just devalued the British pound and a bad economy has provoked street demonstrators to call for his removal from office.

A cabal ensues, led by Cecil King, the editor of the otherwise pro-Labour Party newspaper, the Daily Mirror. The plotters select Lord Mountbatten as the one they wish to replace Wilson.

Wilson hears about the coup attempt and calls the Queen before the plotters can get to her. She then invites Mountbatten to Buckingham Palace where she admonishes her second cousin after which the following exchange takes place:

Mountbatten: “Why would you protect a man like Wilson?”

The Queen: “I am protecting the prime minister. I am protecting the Constitution. I am protecting democracy.”

Mountbatten: “But if the man at the heart of that democracy threatens to destroy it, are we supposed to just stand by and do nothing?”

The Queen: Yes. Doing nothing is exactly what we do and bide our time and wait for the people who voted him in to vote him out again if, indeed that is what they decide to do.“

Mountbatten decides not to proceed. Whether this scene is accurate, or not (and much of the series claims fidelity to history), it makes a point Americans should take to heart. President Trump won the 2016 election in spite of many obstacles, including united media opposition, meddling by Russia and corrupt elements in Ukraine, which sought to tilt the U.S. election in favor of scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton.

Unlike 1968 when the economy was bad in Britain, the U.S. economy now is booming and consumer confidence is high. The impeachment hearings exposed disagreements over foreign policy, foreign policy the president has a right to make. They revealed a legitimate concern by the president that U.S. aid would go down a corruption rabbit hole, something the scumbag/liar-nObama administration had been concerned about because it refused to send lethal aid to Ukraine "fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.”

It appears that Trump also wanted the new leadership in Ukraine to investigate the activities of former Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden and his son, Hunter in Ukraine, and whether they had become tainted, something the American media and President scumbag/liar-nObama’s Justice Department failed to do.

If articles of impeachment are passed by the House, it could take the Senate at least until the beginning of primary election season in February to hold a trial. The process might drag on even further should Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decide to do so, and Republicans call witnesses of their own, including the loose lips liar-Bidens.

While impeachment is a constitutional process, democracy is a greater one. The phrase “We the people” in the Preamble was critical to the Founders. It separated America from the notion that the state and its leader, whether kings, queens, or dictators, and testimony from unelected bureaucrats is supreme. It says the people possess ultimate power.

That is why it should be up to voters this close to the next election. Wait for the people who voted Trump in either to re-elect him or vote him out. Impeaching him will likely alienate half the country and could damage faith in our electoral process.

If Democrats are right in their antipathy toward the president and if they can sell their version of facts to voters, they should try to do so. That is the best way to protect both our Constitution and our democracy.

Long live the Queen!   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/66995?mailing_id=4690&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4690&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

“The 2020 Democratic candidate last week appeared to deny that she sent either of her two children to a private school,” writes the Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams. “The problem is that Warren did indeed send her son, Alex, to a private school in Texas starting at about 5th grade.”

dinky/liar-Warren, like most Democrats, opposes school choice because she’s backed by teachers’ unions. But Warren also wants blacks to vote for her, and school choice is popular among the black community because it is their kids who suffer most in failing urban schools. A black school-choice proponent confronted dinky/liar-Warren, saying, “We are going to have the same choice that you had for your kids, because I read that your children went to private schools.” Warren replied simply, “My children went to public schools.”

The lie was one of omission. Her son did attend public school … until he didn’t. Yet, like her handmaid’s tale of being let go from a teaching job because she was pregnant, this lie was meant to bolster her “street cred” with the desired constituency group.

Warren’s lies about her supposed Cherokee ancestry advanced her academic career. She’s now fibbing about her biography in other ways for political gain. But we’re supposed to trust her to manage our healthcare and our taxes and our schools and our entitlements and every other thing under the sun for which she has “a plan”? Hard pass.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67001?mailing_id=4690&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4690&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

In an internal memo, Bloomberg News Chief Editor John Micklethwait explained that following the entry of the company’s billionaire owner, Michael Bloomberg, into the 2020 Democrat primary, the news outlet would cease doing any investigative journalism into the current crop of Democrat candidates, including Mr. Bloomberg himself. “We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family and foundation) and we will extend the same policy to his rivals in the Democratic primaries,” Micklethwait wrote. And will the same courtesy be afforded to Trump? Of course not, as Micklethwait lamely contends that Bloomberg will continue to investigate Trump because his is “the government of the day.” Furthermore, several current members of Bloomberg News’ editorial team will be moved over to Mr. Bloomberg’s 2020 campaign.

Former Bloomberg BusinessWeek editor Megan Murphy blasted the decision, pointedly noting, “This is not journalism.” Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell wondered, “Bloomberg ‘News’ declares it will not investigate Bloomberg or his fellow Democrats, but WILL investigate Trump. If that isn’t a massively illegal in-kind campaign contribution, what is?” And David Martosko, political editor for The Daily Mail, insightfully postulated, “I predict Trump rallies will include this: ‘Is there a Bloomberg reporter back there in the fake news section? They fly on Air Force One every day and chase me around but Little Mike won’t let them investigate ANY Democrats. It’s crooked as hell.’”

In one sense Bloomberg “News” is doing Americans a service. The activists at the outlet just let everyone know that they are not objective reporters but are Democrat Party propagandists. But it’s also worth noting that this is no great deviation from the rest of the media. It’s not as if other Leftmedia outlets are doing anything different from Bloomberg News. They’re just not saying so.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67003?mailing_id=4690&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4690&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Warnings that a day would come in which the federal government would far exceed its constitutional bounds and that this centralized government would be overbearing at best and tyrannical at worst were issued during the window of time from September 1787, just eight days after the Constitution was signed, through the 1790s in the form of published essays. The group serving as the day’s town criers was the anti-Federalists. Included among them were a few notable names: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe.

The anti-Federalists composed and published arguments that were made available to the public via the newspapers arguing for the addition to the Constitution of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments ratified that include key enumerated individual liberties such as the freedom of speech and worship, the right to bear arms, and assurances of judicial protections and private property. The most popularly known of these writings were the 16 essays that were the point-counterpoint to the more renowned Federalist Papers, written, as one would guess, by Founders supporting the U.S. Constitution without the Bill of Rights. It was the compromise between these two groups of intellects in a brand-new America that gave us today’s form of government.

An analysis published by the Foundation of Economic Education of the debate between Federalism and Anti-Federalism composed by Dr. Gary Galles, a Pepperdine University economics professor, posited the astute stance that the anti-Federalists were indeed prescient.

Declaring in the title, “The Antifederalists Were Eerily Prophetic,” Galles assigns a value to these leaders that, while their efforts appeared to be subordinate to those who struck the Federalist position, demonstrates either supernatural clairvoyance or an insightful awareness of human nature … or maybe a bit of both.

Focusing on the rise of judicial tyranny and the ability for courts “to make law, manipulating the meanings of arguably vague clauses to justify it,” Dr. Galles cited Brutus, the nom de plume of a little-known judge from New York, Robert Yates in this critical time of America’s founding. Yates had been selected as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention but withdrew claiming that the assembled body was “exceeding its instructions.”

Brutus reasoned in the anti-Federalist essays that, not only would the judiciary be unaccountable to the citizenry, the legislative branch, or the executive branch in writing its own law, but that federal power would grow dangerously by expansive interpretations to promote “the general welfare” and the “all laws necessary and proper” clause that would certainly be abused.

Brutus, writing only as the first 10 amendments were ultimately ratified, couldn’t have imagined today’s judiciary in its wide variances of the law that actually encourages lawyers to shop various circuits of the judiciary knowing that the political leanings and interpretations of the Constitution and law materially impact rulings. Brutus could not likely appreciate that the early arguments for a centralized government to pay off its war debt of the Revolutionary War would malignantly grow to confiscate the earnings of the productive and redistribute to the idle via the 16th Amendment, which permitted the income tax.

The expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 has been part of the absolute rejection of the powers of the 10th Amendment, that of state’s rights and an infringement of personal Liberty. Originally, the Founders meant to regulate the free exchange of goods between the states and eliminate the possibility of tariffs that existed in the sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation, before the passage of the U.S. Constitution.

The implementation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal gets a pretty consistent nod to be one of the largest expansions of the Commerce Clause and a snapshot at the value of the Supreme Court relative to political leanings. Initially, much of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. FDR, in turn, introduced a proposal to expand the number of justices — called his “court-packing plan,” to appoint a new jurist for each existing one turning 70 years of age and failing to retire. Despite the legislation failing, the churn of the Court, as well as the growing sentiment to view the Constitution as changing to reflect the times and circumstances versus a document cast as a standard for all time, much of the New Deal was upheld. The courts justified this expansion of power with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It was stretched, as just one example, in the name of Commerce and community good in the “excessive condemnation” of private property as recorded by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration.

Pepperdine’s Galles was concise, “The Antifederalists warned us that the cost Americans would bear in both liberty and resources for the government that would evolve under the Constitution would rise sharply. That is why their objections led to the Bill of Rights, to limit that tendency.”

Has this evolution occurred because the federal government is so efficient, effective, and trustworthy?

As oft cited in The Patriot Post, John Adams opined, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” A limited government is adequate when its people self-govern with the understanding that rights are coupled with personal responsibility and that one’s rights end when they infringe upon another’s rights of property and depend upon another’s indulgence and patronage.

Brutus and his anti-Federalist friends could not have possibly imagined the massive role of today’s federal government. Were they prophetic or prescient? Maybe. Or, were they accurate based on some awareness that citizens prefer to be kept up by others with a premonition of moral decline and the inability to see that one’s poor choices cost others when rights are seized with no comprehension of responsibilities? Who knows?

But all seem to apply.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66979?mailing_id=4687&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4687&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

 Hans von Spakovsky

 

Watching the hysterical reaction of the radical left — such as Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post — to Attorney General William Barr’s thoughtful, well-reasoned, important speech at the Federalist Society convention on the constitutional doctrine of the unitary executive is like history repeating itself.

Liberals had the same overreaction to then-Attorney General Edwin Meese’s 1985 speech to the American Bar Association on the Constitution and originalism.

Only someone as openly partisan and ill-informed as Marcus could possibly claim that a speech explaining the historical basis of the Founders’ views on the importance of a strong executive is “angrily partisan” and “scary.” So what did Barr say that was so alarming to liberals?

First, he cited President Donald Trump’s praise of Meese as one of the “most eloquent champions for following the Constitution as written.”

Praising Meese and originalism is anathema to liberals who believe in a “living” Constitution that can be bent, twisted, and broken by ideological judges to fit their view of what an American utopia should look like, ignoring rights they don’t want (like the Second Amendment) and creating nonexistent rights they do want (like the court-created abortion “amendment” in the Bill of Rights).

But Barr’s real crime in his November speech was detailing the damage being done to the Constitution by Congress and the courts usurping presidential authority.

The American presidency, Barr said, is “one of the great, and remarkable innovations in our Constitution.” It has been “one of the most successful features of the Constitution in protecting the liberties of the American people.” The “steady encroachment on presidential authority” has “substantially weakened the functioning of the executive branch, to the detriment of the nation.”

Many historians mistakenly believe the American Revolution was a rebellion against “monarchical tyranny” and that the Founders wanted a weak executive. By that time, though, the British Parliament had “effectively neutered” the monarchy. In fact, as Barr explained, the Founders understood that their “prime antagonist was an overweening” legislature, a view strengthened by a weak executive during the American Revolution as well as under the Articles of Confederation.

Thus, said Barr, the Founders wanted a strong executive who could “act with energy, consistency, and decisiveness.” As Thomas Jefferson put it, for “the prompt, clear, and consistent action so necessary in an Executive, unity of person is necessary.” And so we have the constitutional doctrine of the unitary executive.

Barr pointed out that one of the “more amusing aspects of modern progressive polemic is the breathless attacks” on the unitary executive as if this doctrine is something new that justifies “executive power of sweeping scope.” But this is also wrong.

Not only isn’t the unitary executive a new idea, but rather than pertaining to “the breadth of presidential power,” it simply means that that the powers of the executive branch, whatever they are, “must be exercised under the president’s supervision.”

Thus, when Congress encroaches on the authority of the executive branch by vesting the “power to enforce the law in someone beyond the control of the president, it contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person, the president.” So much, says Barr, “for this supposedly nefarious theory of the unitary executive.”

Barr is deeply concerned that “there has been a steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority” that damages the ability of the president to carry out his constitutional duties and to protect the liberty and freedom of the American people. With Trump’s election, his opponents launched what Barr called “The Resistance,” an explicit strategy to use “every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his administration.”

The word “resistance,” points out Barr, is the word used to “describe insurgency against … an occupying military power” and it “connotes that the government is not legitimate.” Barr warns that this is “a very dangerous — indeed incendiary — notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic.”

Instead of acting as the “loyal opposition” as political opponents have done throughout our history, Trump’s opponents are “engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.”

This includes the Senate’s “unprecedented abuse of the advice-and-consent process” that is intended “to delay the confirmation process” so the president can’t have a “functional government.”

Congress also has “largely abdicated its core function of legislating on the most pressing issues facing” our country. Even when it does legislate, it punts “the most difficult and critical issues” by “broad delegations to a modern administrative state that they increasingly seek to insulate from presidential control.”

All this gives Congress the time to “drown the executive branch with ‘oversight’ demands for testimony and documents.” Barr acknowledges congressional oversight authority but says that the “sheer volume” of investigations today is meant to “incapacitate the executive branch,” something members of Congress brag about.

Congress also is now dismissive of the long-recognized doctrine of executive privilege, falsely labeling “good faith attempts to protect executive branch equities” as “obstruction of justice.”

Barr doesn’t just take Congress to task — he also goes after the judicial branch. In fact, he says that the federal courts are “the prime source of the erosion of separation-of-power principles” and “executive branch authority.” The steady encroachment by judges “has substantially undercut the functioning of the presidency.”

By appointing themselves “the ultimate arbiter of separation of powers disputes between Congress and executive,” they are “preempting the political process” and usurping presidential authority in areas that are “considered at the core of presidential power.”

That includes substituting their judgments for the president’s in areas “that only a few decades ago would have been unimaginable — such as matters involving national security or foreign affairs.”

The travel ban case is a good example of that, says Barr, where the lower courts ignored an “explicit legislative grant of authority” to the president, as “well as his constitutional national security role.”

An “especially troubling aspect” of this expanded judicial power is the courts now looking into the “subjective motivation behind governmental action,” something the Supreme Court has traditionally refused to do. Judicial review in the past has focused on executive action, not executive motive.

Barr charges that the courts are now acting “like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an executive official’s ‘real motive’ — often after ordering invasive discovery in the executive branch’s privileged decision-making process.” The attorney general says that has “no more foundation in the law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge’s real motive for issuing its decision.”

All of this has been made much worse by another “judicial innovation” — the nationwide injunction, which has “no foundation” in the law and “radically” inflates the otherwise limited power of district court judges.

More than 40 have been issued during the Trump administration, compared to only two against the Obama administration. As a result, “virtually every major policy of the Trump administration has been subjected to immediate freezing by the lower courts.” No other president in our history has been “subjected to such sustained efforts to” stop his policy agenda. These injunctions “disrupt the political process.”

This also happened in the George W. Bush administration, according to Barr, when the Supreme Court, after 9/11, “set itself up as the ultimate arbiter and superintendent of military decisions inherent in prosecuting a military conflict.”

The high court has wrongly taken “the rules that govern our domestic criminal justice process” and “superimposed them on the Nation’s activities when it is engaged in armed conflict with foreign enemies.” This runs “roughshod” over the Constitution and the role played by the president as the commander in chief.

Barr points out the absurdity of the idea that the Constitution, intended to protect the rights of the American people, confers “rights” on our foreign enemies.

Barr charges that the president’s opponents constantly accuse him of “waging a war on the rule of law” and “shredding” the Constitution. But when Barr asks them to explain what they are referring to, all he gets are “vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the travel ban.”

It is the left that is actually shredding constitutional norms and “undermining” the rule of law with its “scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of ‘resistance’ against this administration” says Barr.

Unfortunately, “so-called progressives treat politics as their religion” and their “holy mission” is to “use the coercive power of the state to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection.” They are willing “to use any means necessary” to achieve those ends, posing a danger to our freedom and liberties.

Fortunately, conservatives don’t think that way because they don’t “seek an earthly paradise.” They are “interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing.” Thus, conservatives “have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel the ends justify the means.”

Barr ends his speech with a call to “not allow the passions of the moment to cause us to permanently disfigure the genius of our constitutional structure.”

Over our history, it has been the presidency that has “provided the leadership, consistency, energy, and perseverance that allowed us to surmount” the challenges we have faced as a nation. It “has brought to our republic a dynamism and effectiveness that other democracies have lacked.”

This was, without doubt, the most important speech given by an attorney general since Meese put us back on the road to restoring the original understanding of the Constitution in 1985.

Barr encapsulated the severe damage being done to the remarkable and extraordinary experiment in self-rule that the Framers of the Constitution created in that long, hot summer of 1787. That damage has been going on for decades, but it has accelerated exponentially during the Trump administration.

Progressive activists and the president’s opponents in Congress, the judiciary, and inside the executive branch itself are so intent on destroying Trump that they are willing to burn down our republic to do it.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/66968?mailing_id=4687&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4687&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Thursday evening, news broke alleging that a former FBI lawyer is currently under criminal investigation for altering documents related to the application for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page. This revelation is based on the findings of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose report will be released on December 9th.

Keep in mind that the FISA courts were established so that intelligence agencies could monitor America’s enemies — foreign spies and terrorists. 

We already know those courts were abused by elements of the scumbag/liar-nObama/loose lips liar-Biden administration in what clearly looks like an attempt to bring down candidate Trump and then to undermine President-elect Trump in the months leading up to and following his inauguration.

Most conservative commentators and analysts, as well as the president yesterday on Fox News, are pleased with this leak, if it is true, because it appears to support what we have all been saying for the past three years. 

I want to urge caution, however. The leak went to CNN and The Washington Post, which tells me that it’s likely coming from the same Deep State people inside the intelligence agencies who are routinely leaking to friendly left-wing outlets. 

Maybe they are just trying to get ahead of the story so it won’t appear as dramatic when it is confirmed on December 9th. But there’s another very real possibility.

Perhaps this unnamed former FBI lawyer is being set up as the fall guy. By that I mean maybe the Deep State has picked somebody and decided to throw him under the bus, while claiming that his actions didn’t have that much impact and that everything else was done by the book.

After the repeated disappointments of the last three years, I think it is prudent to temper our enthusiasm until we have all the facts.

Trump Wants a Trial

President Trump spent much of the day Thursday with GOP senators discussing a host of issues. He had lunch with several senators, including rino-Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, and later hosted Sen. Lindsey Graham and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

As a result of these deliberations, it appears that an agreement has been reached between the president, the Senate leadership, as well as Trump’s defenders in the House. If Speaker liar-Pelosi, scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, and House Democrats impeach the president, our side will call their bluff. 

We will have a trial, and we will subpoena the witnesses scumbag/liar-Schiff refused to call. We will bring Hunter Biden, the Deep State “whistleblower,” and others before the Senate and the American people. 

And if this trial goes on for some time, Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, commie-Sanders, and dinky/liar-Warren will be stuck in Washington, while Mayor Pete and Sleepy loose lips liar-Joe are dominating the campaign trail.

By the way, you may recall that liar-Nancy Pelosi said recently that she was pursuing impeachment in a “somber” and “prayerful” manner. Well, apparently some of scumbag/liar-Schiff’s staffers didn’t get the memo. After putting the country through this wrenching experience, they threw a party at a Washington, DC, bar Thursday night.

Their celebrations may be premature. After weeks of baseless accusations and five days of public hearings, the latest polls suggest that the tide is turning against the left’s impeachment nonsense. 

Making His Case

President Trump took over “Fox & Friends” Friday morning during the 8:00 hour. If you missed it, you can watch it here. 

It struck me that the Fox co-hosts were really beside the point. They did their best to interject and ask Trump questions, but the president used the time well to get his points across.

Here’s what really jumped out at me, and I hope it’s the beginning of a new theme. In discussing Ukraine, the president emphasized something he’s touched on before but, in my view, should be his main argument. 

He said he was concerned about corruption and frustrated with constant giveaways to foreign countries. 

“Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption?” Trump asked. “Why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money? … The European Union is benefitting a lot more from Ukraine than we are.”

In case I don’t get to see the president today, I hope our friends at the White House will tell him that this argument is a grand slam. He needs to keep saying it!

The Chicken Wars

Like so much of America, Chick-fil-A has been caught up in a culture war it never wanted. But while the left has insisted on forcing its morality on the rest of the country, Chick-fil-A has remained true to its values while most of corporate America surrendered with barely a fight.

Or so it seemed until this week when reports emerged that Chick-fil-A’s charitable foundation will no longer support the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Christians who have rallied to Chick-fil-A’s defense over the years were confused and crestfallen. 

There was no reason for this apparent betrayal. The company has been wildly successful, especially when you consider that it is closed one day a week. It gained nothing from the left. Predictably, the tyrants of tolerance demanded even more, while loyal customers were livid.

I am pleased to report that my friend Franklin Graham went straight to the top for a clear answer. He called Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, who assured Graham that the company remains committed to its core values. I certainly hope so.

In the days ahead, please join me in praying for the leadership of Chick-fil-A to remain steadfast in the faith. 

Good News

Any time you hear something that demoralizes you, I want you to think about this: President Trump and the Republican Senate are making tremendous progress when it comes to restoring balance to the federal courts.

This week, the Senate confirmed Judge Barbara Logoa to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, flipping the court’s composition to a conservative majority. In recent weeks, Trump appointees have flipped the Second and Third Circuit Courts too!

While it may seem at times that little is getting done in Washington, more than 160 Trump judges have been confirmed because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made reforming the courts his top priority. 

If Donald Trump and Mike Pence get four more years, and if the GOP maintains control of the Senate, many more circuit courts will be flipped and our slim 5 to 4 majority on the Supreme Court could well become a 6 to 3 majority.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/66964?mailing_id=4687&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4687&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Memo to Chick-fil-A from the BSA

Mark Alexander:  I was a Boy Scouts of America leader for almost 15 years, my two sons are Eagle Scouts, and for the last 10 years, I have served on the Executive Board of a historic Council. It is with that background for context that I issue the following warning to our friends at Chick-fil-A.

As the latest test results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveal, the unionized school model is an ongoing failure. “The average performance of the nation’s fourth and eighth graders mostly declined in math and reading from 2017 to 2019, following a decade of stagnation in educational progress, according to the results of a test released on Oct. 30, 2019,” columnist Jill Barshay reveals. “The one exception was fourth-grade math, with the average score rising by one point between 2017 and 2019.”

These results are not anomalous. Scores also declined between 2013 and 2015. But this particular drop was described as “substantial,” because reading scores for fourth-graders and eighth-graders declined in 14 states and 31 states, respectively.

Peggy G. Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) sounded the alarm. “Over the past decade, there has been no progress in either mathematics or reading performance, and the lowest performing students are doing worse,” she said in a prepared statement. “In fact, over the long term in reading, the lowest performing students — those readers who struggle the most — have made no progress from the first NAEP administration almost 30 years ago.”

How is it that three decades of stagnation are even remotely acceptable? OpenSecrets.org, a website that tracks political contributions, reveals half of the equation.

“Democrats haven’t received under 70 percent of education industry donations in a cycle since 2002,” the site explains. “In 2018, individuals from the education industry gave more than $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans. The industry’s peak giving year thus far, 2016, saw more than $75 million go to Democrats and $12 million to Republicans.”

The two largest teachers unions, National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), lean even further left. “Even more than most labor unions, they have little use for Republicans, giving Democrats at least 94 percent of the funds they contributed to candidates and parties since as far back as 1990, where our data begins,” Open Secrets adds.

The other half of the equation? Quite simply, unionism itself. By definition, a union exists to promote and protect the interests of its members. Thus, under the best of circumstances, the concerns of students and parents are secondary.

This dynamic is nothing new. “Bosses, have I got an idea for you: Don’t pay your best employees more, don’t ease out your least productive workers, and for crying out loud, never fire anyone, not even for the most blatant misconduct on the job,” wrote columnist John Stossel — 13 years ago.

Stossel further explained that since unions are government monopolies, “they don’t care” and yet “never go out of business.” He asserts, “They just keep doing what they’re doing, year after year, churning out class after class of students handicapped by a poor education.”

Being monopolies, unions oppose school choice and charter schools, especially when those charter schools  outperform union models — and even when the public favors them by a two-to-one margin — which becomes a three-to-one margin among black Americans.

It’s no secret why black Americans are far more supportive of charter schools than any other demographic. “The achievement gap between white students and black students has barely narrowed over the last 50 years, despite nearly a half century of supposed progress in race relations and an increased emphasis on closing such academic discrepancies between groups of students,” columnist Lauren Camera explained in 2016.

Isn’t 30 years of overall stagnation and 50 years of a black-white achievement gap enough evidence to suggest the status quo is broken beyond repair?

Unfortunately the unionized-schools monopoly is so powerful that unless one has the wherewithal to put one’s child in a private/parochial school (like school-choice opponent Elizabeth Warren did and then lied about), that child’s future — or complete lack thereof — can literally be determined by one’s zip code.

It’s truly remarkable how sanguine most Americans are regarding that kind of coercive power. If one were shopping for a car, and government confined that shopping to a particular neighborhood, most Americans would be appalled by such an assault on their Liberty. Yet every year, millions of children, mostly in cities controlled by Democrat Party machines, are forcibly assigned to transparently failing schools.

Even more abusive? The fraud of increasingly higher “graduation” rates. The national average public-school graduation rate for 2019-2020 is approximately 84%, yet 40 to 60% of first-year college students require remedial courses in math, English, or both according to a 2016 report by the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Those two stats are irreconcilable. Yet they are never seriously challenged, any more than the contemptible cornucopia of bogus educational theories that engender the discrepancy. Such theories — from “whole reading” instruction, “reform” math and “cooperative” learning, to an obsession with self-esteem, forced-fed multiculturalism and hostility to testing — have produced legions of weak-thinking younger Americans.

Younger Americans nonetheless taught to view their own nation’s customs culture, traditions, and economic system with contempt. “Our children are being intentionally brainwashed,” asserts columnist Ziva Dahl. “Postmodern academics, disdainful of America and the West, know that the best way to bring down our political and economic system is to refashion our history for future generations.” What to do? First, Americans must recognize that the union monopoly and the demands it imposes on students, parents, and a lot of capable and well-meaning teachers is a complete bust — at best.

At worst? Given the animus toward America union-monopolized schools disseminate to children on a daily basis, they are arguably a threat to national security.

Second, nationally televised Senate hearings should be convened, aimed at exposing the damage these monopolies have done. While most Americans are somewhat aware of the problems, seeing those who represent the status quo of ongoing educational failure defending their agenda — one after another, after another — might precipitate the collective outrage necessary to engender the paradigm shift in public education this nation desperately needs.

One critical to our ability to survive as a constitutional republic.

Every serious problem afflicting this nation can directly or indirectly traced back to the corruption of our education system. Right now, a least two generations of Americans believe American exceptionalism should be supplanted by a nihilistic stew of identity politics, economic collectivism, and intellectual bankruptcy epitomized by the words “my truth.”

Genuine truth? It’s time to start all over from scratch. After half a century of consistent decline, buying into yet another round of union promises to “reform” the system must be seen as the Titanic deck-chair rearrangement it truly is. It’s time to sink the union monopolies in school districts across the nation.

We’ve countenanced their insanity long enough.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66967?mailing_id=4687&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4687&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Obviously, there’s no legitimate reason to change Thanksgiving’s name, as we Americans have much to be thankful for. This year marks the 398th year since those first Pilgrims came together with their Native American neighbors to feast and offer thanks to God for blessing and sustaining them through to their first harvest in the New World. How much more do we, living in this free, beautiful, strong, and most prosperous nation in the world, have reason to give thanks?

Take the opportunity this Thanksgiving to turn away from the rampant and unending cavalcade of negative news and look with fresh eyes on the mind-boggling abundance and blessings we all enjoy living in America. Honestly embrace the reality; it’s a great time to be alive.

Economically speaking, unemployment is at its lowest level since 1969. Hourly wages are up across the board by 5.6% since 2009, and full-time workers are earning 3% more this year than last. Poverty is down to the lowest rate since 2001, with the real poverty rate at 2.8%. These are all things to be thankful for.

And with all this abundance, Americans continue to lead the world in generosity. Last year, $427 billion was donated to charity, while 63 million Americans volunteered their time in helping others, totaling over eight billion hours of service.

While it might not appear to be so with all the media coverage, the rate of violent crime continues to decline and is down 51% since 1993. And less crime equates to fewer numbers of people in prison. The number of those incarcerated has decreased by 100,000 from 10 years ago.

Americans, believe it or not, are also healthier than ever. Since 2000, the number of those dying from cancer has decreased from 168 per 100,000 to 146 per 100,000. The number of Americans smoking is at its lowest level since 1965, and the infant mortality rate has dropped by 14% since 2007.

Finally, that taboo subject not to bring up while passing the mashed potatoes to your Uncle Lou: politics. Watching the news, one gets the sense that politics is all that matters, but the reality is that of the 327 million people living in the U.S. today, 99% of them didn’t bother watching the news yesterday. That’s a lot of people who realize there is much more to life than concerning themselves with the circus of Washington. We can all be thankful for that.

We here at The Patriot Post wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving!  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67044?mailing_id=4693&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4693&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Don’t get us wrong, the allegations against Gallagher were very disturbing, but it should be noted that he was acquitted of all of the charges except one, in which he posed for a selfie with the corpse of an ISIS scumbag. Given what we know of ISIS atrocities, the conduct Gallagher was proven to have engaged in via the military justice system seems like spitting on the sidewalk.

As a result of being convicted on the single charge, Chief Gallagher was sentenced to some time in prison and to be reduced in rank. President Donald Trump reversed the reduction in rank, and Gallagher was freed with only time served in pre-court-martial confinement. Then, the Navy opened administrative proceedings against Gallagher in the form of a review board.

In essence, it appears that the Navy was trying to take another shot at punishing him for the allegations that prosecutors could not prove in a court-martial. President Trump, though, took to Twitter on Thursday, and said in a tweet that Gallagher would not lose his Trident Pin.

Whether you agree with that sort of decision or not (and there is a case to be made given the seriousness of the allegations against Gallagher), if you believe that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the right to make these sorts of calls, then that should have been the end of it. Especially given the legitimate questions about the integrity of the process — no thanks to Navy prosecutors trying to spy on not just Gallagher’s attorneys but the Navy Times as well.

Yet Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer and some admirals seemed to resist following Trump’s directive, and reportedly made his private proposal. After about 72 hours of controversy that built up (to include reports that Spencer and Rear Admiral Collin Green, the top SEAL in the Navy, had considered resigning, the secretary of the Navy was fired by Defense Secretary Esper — and rightly so.

We are aware of reports of problems in the Naval Special Warfare community. However, given that special operations forces have had to shoulder the bulk of the burden in the Global War on Terror, we have to wonder how much is because of 18 years of war and constant deployments.

That said, some of the concern about President Trump’s involvement ring hollow to us, particularly in light of actions President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama took during his time in office. scumbag/liar-nObama’s actions in the Bradley Manning and Bowe Bergdahl cases, while they drew controversy, faced nowhere near the level of public defiance that we’ve seen on the Gallagher case, and such defiance would have been far more warranted, given that the individuals involved were a traitor and a deserter, respectively.

scumbag/liar-nObama also removed then-General James Mattis as commander of United States Central Command  for far less than what we’ve seen in the Gallagher case. Again, Mattis’s actions then were nowhere near the level we’ve seen directed at President Trump.

As we noted earlier this month, Mattis was not the only case in American history where a removal of a general with a distinguished combat record from a military position was deemed necessary. Yet somehow, even if defiance of scumbag/liar-nObama over policy had emerged, whether over Bergdahl and/or Manning, or other foreign policy moves we regarded as blunders (withdrawing from Iraq, the Iran nuclear deal, the Russia “reset”), we suspect it would not get the same level of deference from the media as what we’ve seen in the Gallagher case.

What Gallagher was accused of was troubling. But so are the very real questions about the integrity of the process that emerged from the conduct of the Navy prosecutors and the reported actions of Secretary Spencer. Those concerned about protecting integrity seem to miss two key points: President Trump didn’t send malware-ridden emails to defense attorneys and the press; Navy prosecutors did. President Trump didn’t steal valor; one of those investigating Major Golsteyn did.

The phrase “lack of candor” has turned up elsewhere in connection with investigations where investigators have engaged in questionable conduct. America needs accountability from Navy leadership in the wake of this case, just as it is needed in other cases.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66980?mailing_id=4687&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4687&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

Obviously, there’s no legitimate reason to change Thanksgiving’s name, as we Americans have much to be thankful for. This year marks the 398th year since those first Pilgrims came together with their Native American neighbors to feast and offer thanks to God for blessing and sustaining them through to their first harvest in the New World. How much more do we, living in this free, beautiful, strong, and most prosperous nation in the world, have reason to give thanks?

Take the opportunity this Thanksgiving to turn away from the rampant and unending cavalcade of negative news and look with fresh eyes on the mind-boggling abundance and blessings we all enjoy living in America. Honestly embrace the reality; it’s a great time to be alive.

Economically speaking, unemployment is at its lowest level since 1969. Hourly wages are up across the board by 5.6% since 2009, and full-time workers are earning 3% more this year than last. Poverty is down to the lowest rate since 2001, with the real poverty rate at 2.8%. These are all things to be thankful for.

And with all this abundance, Americans continue to lead the world in generosity. Last year, $427 billion was donated to charity, while 63 million Americans volunteered their time in helping others, totaling over eight billion hours of service.

While it might not appear to be so with all the media coverage, the rate of violent crime continues to decline and is down 51% since 1993. And less crime equates to fewer numbers of people in prison. The number of those incarcerated has decreased by 100,000 from 10 years ago.

Americans, believe it or not, are also healthier than ever. Since 2000, the number of those dying from cancer has decreased from 168 per 100,000 to 146 per 100,000. The number of Americans smoking is at its lowest level since 1965, and the infant mortality rate has dropped by 14% since 2007.

Finally, that taboo subject not to bring up while passing the mashed potatoes to your Uncle Lou: politics. Watching the news, one gets the sense that politics is all that matters, but the reality is that of the 327 million people living in the U.S. today, 99% of them didn’t bother watching the news yesterday. That’s a lot of people who realize there is much more to life than concerning themselves with the circus of Washington. We can all be thankful for that.

We here at The Patriot Post wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving!  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/67044?mailing_id=4693&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4693&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Don’t get us wrong, the allegations against Gallagher were very disturbing, but it should be noted that he was acquitted of all of the charges except one, in which he posed for a selfie with the corpse of an ISIS scumbag. Given what we know of ISIS atrocities, the conduct Gallagher was proven to have engaged in via the military justice system seems like spitting on the sidewalk.

As a result of being convicted on the single charge, Chief Gallagher was sentenced to some time in prison and to be reduced in rank. President Donald Trump reversed the reduction in rank, and Gallagher was freed with only time served in pre-court-martial confinement. Then, the Navy opened administrative proceedings against Gallagher in the form of a review board.

In essence, it appears that the Navy was trying to take another shot at punishing him for the allegations that prosecutors could not prove in a court-martial. President Trump, though, took to Twitter on Thursday, and said in a tweet that Gallagher would not lose his Trident Pin.

Whether you agree with that sort of decision or not (and there is a case to be made given the seriousness of the allegations against Gallagher), if you believe that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the right to make these sorts of calls, then that should have been the end of it. Especially given the legitimate questions about the integrity of the process — no thanks to Navy prosecutors trying to spy on not just Gallagher’s attorneys but the Navy Times as well.

Yet Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer and some admirals seemed to resist following Trump’s directive, and reportedly made his private proposal. After about 72 hours of controversy that built up (to include reports that Spencer and Rear Admiral Collin Green, the top SEAL in the Navy, had considered resigning, the secretary of the Navy was fired by Defense Secretary Esper — and rightly so.

We are aware of reports of problems in the Naval Special Warfare community. However, given that special operations forces have had to shoulder the bulk of the burden in the Global War on Terror, we have to wonder how much is because of 18 years of war and constant deployments.

That said, some of the concern about President Trump’s involvement ring hollow to us, particularly in light of actions President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama took during his time in office. scumbag/liar-nObama’s actions in the Bradley Manning and Bowe Bergdahl cases, while they drew controversy, faced nowhere near the level of public defiance that we’ve seen on the Gallagher case, and such defiance would have been far more warranted, given that the individuals involved were a traitor and a deserter, respectively.

scumbag/liar-nObama also removed then-General James Mattis as commander of United States Central Command  for far less than what we’ve seen in the Gallagher case. Again, Mattis’s actions then were nowhere near the level we’ve seen directed at President Trump.

As we noted earlier this month, Mattis was not the only case in American history where a removal of a general with a distinguished combat record from a military position was deemed necessary. Yet somehow, even if defiance of scumbag/liar-nObama over policy had emerged, whether over Bergdahl and/or Manning, or other foreign policy moves we regarded as blunders (withdrawing from Iraq, the Iran nuclear deal, the Russia “reset”), we suspect it would not get the same level of deference from the media as what we’ve seen in the Gallagher case.

What Gallagher was accused of was troubling. But so are the very real questions about the integrity of the process that emerged from the conduct of the Navy prosecutors and the reported actions of Secretary Spencer. Those concerned about protecting integrity seem to miss two key points: President Trump didn’t send malware-ridden emails to defense attorneys and the press; Navy prosecutors did. President Trump didn’t steal valor; one of those investigating Major Golsteyn did.

The phrase “lack of candor” has turned up elsewhere in connection with investigations where investigators have engaged in questionable conduct. America needs accountability from Navy leadership in the wake of this case, just as it is needed in other cases.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66980?mailing_id=4687&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4687&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

Republicans were quick to take apart Hill’s false accusation, pointedly noting that every single Republican had signed off on the Justice Department’s conclusion that Russia had acted to interfere in the 2016 election. (Not to mention actual Ukrainian interference doesn’t preclude Russian interference.) Upon further questioning, Hill admitted that the accounts of Ukrainian officials working against then-candidate Donald Trump were accurate. “They bet on scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton winning the election,” she said. “So, you know, they were trying to curry favor with the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign.”

Furthermore, Hill tacitly gave a plausible reason for Trump’s negative view of Ukraine, stating, “Many [Ukrainian officials] said some pretty disparaging and hateful things about President Trump, and I can’t blame him for feeling aggrieved about that. … I would also take offense to some of the things that were said if I was the president.”

Hill also testified that former National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed to her his negative views of Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, calling him a “hand grenade” — a statement he did not elaborate on any further. This reinforced a recurring theme: Many people were frustrated by Giuliani and viewed him as meddlesome.

An important point was also established that the stopping and starting of foreign aid is not an uncommon event. Republican counsel Steve Castor asked Hill, “Is it fair to say … stops and starts in aid like this sometimes do happen?” Hill responded, “That’s correct.” Castor then asked, “I believe you testified there was a freeze put on all kinds of aid and assistance because it was placed in a process of significant reviews of foreign assistance going on?” Hill answered, “That’s correct. … As I understand, there had been a directive for a wholesale review of our … foreign-policy assistance, and the ties … between our foreign-policy objectives and the assistance.”

Democrats also had David Holmes, a political counselor to the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testify. He dubiously claimed to have overheard a phone conversation between Gordon Sondland and Trump that so alarmed him that … he elected to continue with his vacation plans before deciding to act on it. According to Holmes, he heard Trump ask Sondland how the investigation was going, which Holmes interpreted as the investigation into Barisma and the loose lips liar-Bidens. Needless to say, Holmes offered only hearsay as evidence.

Finally, a statement from soon-to-be-retiring Republican Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas moderate who is no fan of Trump, serves to demonstrate just how badly this impeachment gambit has gone for the Democrats. Hurd said, “I have not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion.” As liar-Nancy Pelosi writes up articles of impeachment, she faces the very real probability that not one Republican will vote in favor of impeachment while she may even lose two or three Democrats, giving Republicans the bipartisan talking point to level against this obviously partisan sham.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66953?mailing_id=4681&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4681&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced U.S policy toward Israel’s “settlements” is reverting to one held by the Reagan administration; that is the right of Israelis to settle in the ancient lands of Judea and Samaria “is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.”

This is good news, not only for Israel and its right to national security and sovereignty, but after seven decades of enemy attempts to eradicate the Jewish state it says to the world, “time’s up.”

Israel’s enemies have had the most generous offers to live in peace, including the relinquishing of land captured by Israel after many aggressive and unprovoked wars and terrorist attacks. With ongoing propaganda statements by Israel’s enemies, the firing of rockets into civilian areas from Gaza and elsewhere, and ongoing sermons attempting to justify the violent overthrow of Israel and the murder of Jews, a reality check is long overdue.

Israel, under all of its prime ministers, has gone more than halfway trying to make peace. The responses have been as if no outreaches were ever made. Israel and the West have a right to question the sincerity of those Arab and Muslin nations when they continue to denounce and defame Israel and the Jewish people as illegitimate occupiers of “Palestinian” land. As long as such denial continues, there can be no opportunity for peace and Israel is well within its rights to defend itself against such ominous and ongoing verbal, theological and military threats.

It is and always has been wishful thinking to believe that people motivated by hate, a mandate from Allah to conduct what would amount to genocide against Jews and revisionist history as to the original owners of “occupied land,” would miraculously change their minds and agree to reverse decades of provocations and proof of their ultimate objective.

This has always been the danger when Westerners believe all humans are alike and given the right incentives can be persuaded to act in ways consistent with Western values and practices.

The next step is for the Israeli Knesset to validate the Trump administration’s new policy, which aligns with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ultimate goal.

As reported in the Jerusalem Post, “Likud MK Sharren Haskel proposed the bill weeks ago, but decided to fast-track it in light of the change in U.S. policy. Haskel submitted a request to exempt her bill to annex the Jordan Valley from the mandatory six-week waiting period for any new legislation, so that it can go to a vote in the plenum next week.”

Columnist Caroline Glick wrote for the publication Israel Hayot, “In the interest of promoting peace, Pompeo instead told the truth. Not only are Israeli settlements not illegal. Pompeo noted that they are arguably more justified than civilian settlements built in other disputed territories.

"In his words, the administration’s determination ‘is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.’ That is, it is based on the historic ties of the Jewish people to Judea and Samaria. These ties lay at the heart of Jewish history and religion.”

Indeed, they do. Now if the European Union, whose hatred of Israel goes back to the shameless days of Nazi anti-Semitism, and is now resurging, would only see the light and end its recently announced policy to require “goods from illegal settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories to be labeled as such,” perhaps some real steps forward might occur.

As long as a religious motivation for wiping out Israel persists, there will be no peace, and no two-state solution. It is why the Trump administration’s position on the legality of settlements in Judea and Samaria is not only correct, but a necessary contribution to Israel’s security and any true peace, or at least stability.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/66914?mailing_id=4677&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4677&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

WRAPPING UP: Trump impeachment report could drop next week, though summoning additional witnesses isn’t being ruled out (AFP)

GOP RETORT: House Republicans drafting rebuttal to counter Democrats’ impeachment report (Washington Examiner)

Government & Politics

MUST COMPLY: Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must testify to Congress, judge rules; administration will appeal (The New York Times)

TRUMP FINANCIALS SHIELDED: Supreme Court blocks House committee from immediately reviewing Trump’s financial records (The Washington Post)

SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES: Ex-Pentagon aide Guy Snodgrass evades answering if he’s anonymous author of anti-Trump book A Warning (Fox News)

OBSTRUCTIONISTS AT THE HELM: Three years into Trump administration, a quarter of embassy slots are vacant, leaving State Department bureaucrats in charge (The Daily Caller)

AN AFFRONT TO FREE SPEECH: Justice Samuel Alito pens fiery dissent after Supreme Court declines to hear dispute between climate professor Michael Mann and National Review (Fox News)

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION: Four big questions about the inspector general report on FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign (The Daily Signal)

Other Notables

MOVING ON: Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher to retire from active duty, will not take part in a review board (Fox News)

REVENUE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY: California Department of Motor Vehicles makes $50 million a year selling drivers’ info to private companies (National Review)

Closing Arguments

POLICY: Disaster looms for Democrats as Trump goes “bigly” with blacks (Roger L. Simon)

POLICY: In 2020, the world should pay more attention to the South China Sea (The Economist)

HUMOR: Local man who’s never given a dollar to charity mad Jeff Bezos only donated $98.5 million to homeless (Genesius Times)  

Yesterday it was Gordon Sondland’s turn in the impeachment sham spotlight. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, suggested there was a “potential quid pro quo” between the Trump administration and Ukraine. But his remarks also undercut the Democrats’ primary line of attack.

Sondland said the quid pro quo related to a White House meeting. As for any demands linked to U.S. military aid (lethal aid that scumbag/liar-nObama would never give), Sondland said Trump never expressed such a demand and that he merely guessed at it. 

Democrats have repeatedly insisted that President Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate loose lips liar-Joe Biden in order to help his 2020 prospects. But Sondland was clear in his testimony that the request for investigations related to Ukraine’s efforts in the 2016 election to help scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and the natural-gas company Bursima, which paid Hunter Biden at least $50,000 a month.

Sondland also said that when he pressed the president about what he wanted from Ukraine’s leaders, President Trump replied, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” (The president triumphantly read that statement in the Rose Garden on his way to Texas yesterday afternoon.)

That doesn’t sound like bribery or extortion to me.

Speaking of bribery and extortion, watch this video of Rep. Elise Stefanik questioning Ambassador Kurt Volker and former National Security Council official Tim Morrison. Both men denied that there was ever any hint of bribery or extortion. 

In addition, Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser, who also sat in on the July 25th call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, said he heard “nothing wrong or improper” on the call.

This is essentially boiling down to a disagreement over individual perceptions, opinions, and guesses — hardly the stuff of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

A big part of the impeachment sham is “The Resistance” attempting to take down the president before the 2020 election. It is so desperate to defeat him now because it doesn’t think any of its candidates can win the election. And it doesn’t want to give you, the American people, the chance to reelect the president.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi is trying to rally her caucus around the idea that Trump must be impeached now because it is “dangerous” to let the voters decide.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee announced yesterday that they intend to subpoena Hunter Biden, the mysterious whistleblower, and Alexandra Chalupa, a Democrat operative who was in Ukraine in 2016 digging up dirt on Donald Trump.

The Deep State on Display

As I suggested earlier, what’s on display in these hearings is not “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the offenses our Founding Fathers believed might justify impeachment, but the Deep State’s sense of entitlement.

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch appeared to be in an existential crisis because the president no longer wanted her to serve as ambassador to Ukraine. Her feelings were hurt because she was fired.

But just to repeat, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. And Barack scumbag/liar-nObama fired all of George W. Bush ambassadors before he was even inaugurated! 

Can you imagine the media’s reaction if Republican senators had called up Bush’s ambassadors to testify about how upset they were, how their feelings were hurt? They would have been laughed out of the room, and rightly so.

Tuesday, we heard from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who said it was his job to coordinate U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Vindman never met the president, and his superiors expressed concerns about his judgment and temperament.

During his testimony Tuesday, it seemed Vindman was upset that Trump wasn’t reading his memos. Nevertheless, Vindman did concede that the president ultimately sets policy and was within his rights to request Ukraine’s help with any investigations.

Again, what we’re witnessing in the House Intelligence Committee is the Deep State throwing a temper tantrum, upset that the bureaucratic establishment isn’t calling the shots anymore. 

Beijing’s Espionage

Several weeks ago, I told you about reports that the Trump administration was taking steps to stop China’s efforts to recruit scientists in the United States for its espionage efforts. A Senate report released this week reveals just how extensive Beijing’s efforts were.

The Chinese “Thousand Talents” program began in 2008. It recruited at least 2,600 scientists in the United States, most of them Chinese nationals, at government labs or federal-funded university research facilities. 

While these scientists were being paid by the U.S. government to conduct research on a wide range of issues, they were also being paid by the Chinese Communist Party to make sure their research found its way back to China. 

Incredibly, the FBI did not begin aggressively confronting the Chinese espionage until 2018! Presumably, scumbag-James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok were just too busy sniffing out Russians in the Trump campaign to notice all the Chinese spies crawling around our college campuses and government labs.

But I do remember being surprised when scumbag-Comey’s successor, FBI Director Christopher Wray, told the Senate Intelligence Committee at the beginning of this year:

The Chinese counterintelligence threat is more deep, more diverse, more vexing, more challenging, more comprehensive and more concerning than any counterintelligence threat I can think of.

While the left and the media are focused on Russia and Ukraine, the Chinese are robbing us blind.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/66917?mailing_id=4677&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4677&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body