The Fall Of The Deep State 1989’s And Communism

The collapse of the figurative and literal wall between East and West Germany was chief among the upheavals in those final weeks of 1989.  Not even a year out of office and Reagan was magnificently proven correct in his understanding of basic humanity: people want to be free.  Apart from one major exception, the oppressed behind the Iron Curtain that autumn overcame their regimes without bloodshed and violence.

YouTube screen grab

I was in high school during the fall of communism across Eastern Europe.  I could not then imagine that precisely thirty years later a caricature of upheaval would be transpiring in my own country.

“Resist!” is screamed by media personalities and celebrities and politicians who in a sane world would never win a race for city lieutenant sanitation commissioner.  They betray ignorance of what real dictatorship is, as they dare ascribe the gravitas of 1989’s righteous rebellions upon their own crusade.

When I consider Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Nadler maneuvering for impeachment of President Donald Trump, it is with some dark bewilderment.  They have no idea what disaster they are courting for themselves and their allies.  It will not end well for them.

It is a disaster already.  Television ratings for the House’s impeachment inquiry have cratered.  I have heard absolutely nobody in the real world gushing breathlessly over Trump’s pending downfall.  The pundits are lamenting that the American people are not taking this revolution seriously.

Those same pundits neglect to accept that the revolution already happened.  It came in 2016, when the long-ignored hinterlands turned against their “betters” in Washington.

So, let’s clarify something: the present effort to impeach Donald Trump is not a revolution.  It is a counter-revolution.

Since the summer of 2015 the hardliners of the Deep State have gazed at Trump with derision, then desperation, and now total destruction in mind.  To them the American people simply aren’t meant for a loosening of control and regaining oversight of their own government.  Trump’s message resonated with those same American people as had nothing in recent memory.  Democracy came to Eastern Europe by ballots and not bullets.  So too did American citizenry in flyover country begin to revolt against their elitist masters.

It wasn’t part of “the plan” and perhaps for the first time ever, the Deep State shuddered in fear.  The revolution was not only televised, it was splayed across Facebook and Twitter.  But if not Trump himself, someone else would have inevitably threatened the entrenched political and media complex.  The peril would come.  It was only a matter of when.

The Deep State will not tolerate rebellion.  And now an example must be made to force the unwashed masses back into submission.

Trump’s domestic and foreign efforts share some kinship with glasnost and perestroika.  Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies encouraged greater transparency of the Soviet government and loosening of control over the Russian people.  But Gorbachev’s reforms were too great for Soviet upper crust to accept.  Their frustrations with Gorbachev came to a head in August of 1991, when the USSR’s own hardliners staged their coup and tried to depose the Russian president.

The coup failed, and Gorbachev was restored to office.  His policies against entrenched Soviet politics had succeeded beyond any expectation.  So too are many of Trump’s own policies, particularly economic, already bearing great fruit.  “Make America Great Again” may sound ruffian compared to the beautiful enunciation of perestroika, but it has shaken the power structure of our own establishment all the same.

The likelihood of success for the coup in our midst is comparatively less.  Doubtful the methodology will mirror that of the Soviet hardliners.  However, the motive remains the same: hold on to power over the people.

Happily, counterrevolutions rarely succeed without overwhelming firepower.  And so far as counterrevolutions go, this one is pretty lousy.  It’s also the acme of fantasy to expect the same people you have condemned as “deplorable” to rally to your cause.

And even should Trump be impeached and removed: what then?  The “Color Revolutions” of the autumn of 1989 were, well… colorful.  The playwright Vaclav Havel.  Boris Yeltsin, eyes gleaming with brewing mischief.  And that feisty electrician of the Gdansk shipyard, Lech Walesa.  All three and many other reputable characters across Eastern Europe would soon ascend to lead their respective nations in transitions to democratic government.

Who among the faces of this “glorious revolution” will win the White House in 2020?  It may be the most lackluster field of candidates in modern history.  Which alone indicates to me that Trump would be too smart than to level unethical sabotage against any political opponent: Joseph Biden will never be as formidable as even George McGovern.  And Adam Schiff as the one who will go down in legend as the man who toppled the President?  Oh please….

The German band Scorpions released “Wind of Change” in the weeks following the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It immediately became the anthem of that sudden zeitgeist.  The gales of autumn 1989 were a hurricane of triumph.  Fully three decades later and a weak zephyr blows across the Beltway.  1989’s was the aroma of freedom.  2019’s “revolution” reeks of crude behavior after a dinner of bad beans.

We watched with rapt attention as one communist regime fell after another.  But in 2019 the attempt to impeach and remove Donald Trump from the Oval Office is not captivating by any measure.  Bill Clinton was impeached over a stained blue dress.  Today the House leadership is trying to remove Donald Trump over the matter of a phone call.  A phone call, incidentally, that in the normal everyday routine of business might be referred to human resources before crumpling the complaint into the circular file.

The American people are daring to openly acknowledge what is already known: that the House leadership and its allies have made the re-acquisition of political power its only priority.  It is hellbent on crushing the true revolution against encroaching government.  Hence, counterrevolution.  This one is already a certain failure.  But counterrevolutions also often demand a heavy price.

As noted, there was one significant deviation from the pattern of the pro-democracy movements in the autumn of ’89.  For a quarter century communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu wielded absolute power over the Romanian people.  As one Soviet satellite after another fell, he staged a bloody countercoup against Romania’s own invigorated malcontents.  It didn’t work.

Out of desperation Ceausescu promised higher salaries and student aid.  But Ceausescu had woefully mis-gauged the frustrations of the people amassed before him in Bucharest.  The moment his decades of control evaporated was chronicled on worldwide television.  Nicolai and Elena Ceausescu promptly fled the palace by helicopter and were soon captured.

December 25, 1989 was not a Merry Christmas for the Ceausescus. Found guilty by a drumhead trial of crimes against the Romanian people, Nicolai and Elena were immediately thrown against the wall – literally – and shot dead.  Images of their shattered bodies were broadcast around the globe.

So far as analogies go, the comforts and careers of the petty tyrants in Washington may soon be just as crumbled.  Our own would-be overlords would do well to be mindful of that.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Image result for Obama Ignored Constitutional Checks and Balances

Did President Obama study American civics when he was in school? One among many who wonders is Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who heads the House Judiciary Committee. Recently Goodlatte held hearings to determine what steps Congress might take to rein in a president who governs by edict without regard for the constitutional limits on the executive branch.

Said the Virginia lawmaker:

Our Constitution is clear: Congress writes our laws, the Judiciary interprets them, and the Executive enforces them. But for the past five years, President Obama has waived, amended, or ignored our laws and has bypassed the Congress, issuing executive decrees from the Oval Office rather than working with Americans’ elected representatives in Congress.

Congressman Goodlatte

Immigration policy is one of the most flagrant examples of this usurpation of authority. In 2010 Congress voted not to offer legal status (amnesty) to illegal aliens in the Dream Act category. But two years later, the President simply decreed that to be. Instead of enforcing the law that Congress refused to change, Obama ignored it and acted as if he had the authority of the legislative branch.

Most interestingly, about a year prior to that edict, the President conceded that he had no such authority. But with pressure on him from amnesty advocates, he evidently allowed expediency to trump his stated principle.

Having gotten away with that, the President may feel that he can do the same thing again if the House fails to pass an amnesty bill this year or next. Earlier this year, he threatened to use his “pen” and “phone” to make his wishes law if Congress fails to act as he thinks it should on immigration and other issues.

Goodlatte’s hearings aim to advance legislation to stop this kind of unilateral executive action. The congressman deserves credit for his effort. Our constitutional system of checks and balances among the branches of government offers a formidable bulwark against authoritarian government. But the system will fail if a branch is too timid to defend its legitimate rights against usurpation.

Success requires commitment to the rule of law. And on this point Congressman Goodlatte might do some soul searching, as one who has endorsed legislative action to give legal status to most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. While doing this by an act of Congress would uphold the proper separation of powers, it would undermine the principle of law by rewarding people who have broken it.

Obama’s actions have not taken place in a vacuum. Past amnesties have created an attitude that immigration laws, which uphold our national sovereignty, are not significant. And being insignificant, they can be disregarded on a whim. Government by whim is another name for dictatorship.

Horde of Thugs Beat Actress Bloody in New York City VS Violence Against Women Act!

In no way, will i downgrade that happen here, but i ask the question, how did the Violence Against Women Act stop this?


The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States.

The passage of VAWA in 1994 and its reauthorization in 2000, 2005 and 2013, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.

One actress has suffered a concussion, multiple cuts, and bruises, and might have to get multiple surgeries after a horrific attack outside of a New York City bar that may have racial elements. Jennifer Agostini and a friend were having a good time last weekend. But when they left around 3 A.M. on Sunday, a horde of 10-15 thugs brutally beat them. She took pictures of the aftermath and is just covered in blood. The assault was reportedly caused when one of their friends tried to re-enter the bar to get her credit card that was left behind (via NY Post):

Cameron Gray@Cameron_Gray

They got jumped and beaten to the ground by a group of 10 to 15 people who were yelling “white motherf—ers,” “dirty white b—-es” and “f—k those white b—-es and their money”

Raise your hand if this is also your first time hearing about this story …New York Post@nypostHoods attacked actress Jennifer Agostini, friends leaving Midtown bar: suit 18.4K3:45 PM – Nov 26, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy11K people are talking about this

Actress Jennifer Agostini, 43, and swimsuit model Prendinellys Garcia, 47, ran up a nearly $1,000 tab at Midtown lounge Sky Room for their friend’s birthday Saturday night before leaving around 3 a.m. Sunday, papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court sat.

But on their way out of the West 40th Street club, they got jumped and beaten to the ground by a group of 10 to 15 people who were yelling “white motherf—ers,” “dirty white b—-es” and “f—k those white b—-es and their money,” the court papers say.

“It was just this stampede as we were leaving. We just got rushed and assaulted by, I can’t tell you by how many people,” Agostini — who is set to begin filming the show “Brooklyn Ties” this spring — told The Post.


Agostini and the others — who are asking a judge to have the bar keep surveillance video and other records of the incident — say they don’t know exactly why the brawl erupted.

The incident touched off when one of their friends tried to go back into the bar for a forgotten credit card after their party had left, according to court papers.

The actress wants Sky Room to hold the surveillance footage of the attack. Now, it’s a local crime story for sure, but let’s not kid ourselves that if this was a non-white person, we would have a tad more coverage, along with endless thought pieces and commentaries about how Donald Trump is to blame for this. I hope Agostini finds justice after this horrendous assault. 

Animal cruelty now a federal crime after Trump signs bipartisan bill into law, But The Same Law For Baby?

The outlawing purposeful crushing, burning, drowning, suffocation, impalement or other violence causing serious bodily injury to animals But Not A Baby?

The U.S. abortion rate falls to lowest level since Roe v. Wade

A report by the Guttmacher Institute released Wednesday outlines dramatic changes in the abortion landscape between 2011 and 2017. The U.S. abortion rate has again hit an all-time low. States passed an unprecedented wave of 400 bills imposing restrictions on the procedure, and medical abortions, which involve taking pills rather than undergoing a surgical procedure, became widely available.

The 48-page research document, used by policymakers and activists on both sides of the debate, provides detailed information by state and region about how American women access abortion.

Those convicted would face federal felony charges, fines and up to seven years in

California Rep. John Garamendi tweeted confirmation of the bill signed into law.

“Good news: The bipartisan legislation I cosponsored to make animal cruelty a federal crime was signed into law today!” he tweeted on Monday. “I’m pleased that Republicans and Democrats came together in bipartisan fashion to support this critical bill.”

John Garamendi@RepGaramendi

Good news: The bipartisan legislation I cosponsored to make animal cruelty a federal crime was signed into law today!

I’m pleased that Republicans and Democrats came together in bipartisan fashion to support this critical bill. …Most animal cruelty isn’t a federal crime. That changes Monday, when a bipartisan bill becomes law.The bill gives law enforcement power to fight cruelty that happens across jurisdictional lines or on federal property.washingtonpost.com412:07 PM – Nov 25, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy27 people are talking about this

The PACT Act would make it easier to prosecute those involved in the gruesome killing of animals. But Wait A moment, What about gruesome killing Of Baby’s That Is Roe V Wade?

“Most people are shocked to know that the U.S. does not have a federal animal cruelty law,” Animal Wellness Foundation Director of Federal Affairs Holly Gann said in an October press release.

The bill was first introduced in January by Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla.,and Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., to criminalize certain acts of animal cruelty that were not included in the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act, which was signed into law in 2010.

It aims to close a loophole in the 2010 law, which only punished abuse in videos. That law was spurred by “crush” videos, which often showed small creatures being stomped under a woman’s shoe, the Washington Post reported

“The torture of innocent animals is abhorrent and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law,” Buchanan said in a statement before the signing ceremony, according to the paper. “Signing this bill into law is a significant milestone for pet owners and animal lovers across the country.”

Fiona Hill Testifies That Obama Was Putin’s Puppet

While the fake news media are trying to convince you that Trump investigating the obvious and blatant corruption of the Biden family in Ukraine is a crime, one of their witnesses declared that Obama danced to Putin’s tune.

Fiona Hill testified that Obama refused to give military aid to Ukraine despite the fact that the “interagency” — the unelected wonks like Vindman who think they not Trump should run foreign policy — said that the U.S. should provide weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves against the Russian invasion.

Hill testified that Obama refused to provide lethal aid to Ukraine so as to not upset Putin.

That’s pretty clear evidence that Obama, not Trump, was in Putin’s pocket.

Hill’s testimony also creates problems for the Democrats’ impeachment narrative.

After all, the elite policy wonks said the U.S. should arm Ukraine to help defeat Russia’s invasion, but Obama said he wouldn’t because that would make Putin mad.  Given that the Democrats are saying in the impeachment hearings that Trump temporarily not following the “guidance” of the interagency is an impeachable offense, clearly, Obama’s permanent rejection of the interagency guidance must also be a crime.

What Republicans are doing is using the impeachment farce to shine a light on the many failings of the Democrats that the fake news media will never cover, including how the Democrats, not Republicans, have always been on Russia’s side.

To see who was really putting America first, we can compare Obama’s deference to Putin to Trump’s actions that have gone directly against Putin’s interest, such as provided weapons to Ukraine.  Trump held the military aid up for a short time only because of his concerns about corruption and the fact the Europeans should be providing more aid to Ukraine.  Unlike Obama Trump did what Putin didn’t want done and what the interagency wanted done.

But that’s not the only evidence we have that Obama was dancing to Putin’s tune.

In March 2012 Obama told Russian president Dimitry Medvedev the following: “On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space[.]”

Putin did give Obama space and didn’t act aggressively during the 2012 campaign, which is why Obama was able to mock Mitt Romney for Romney’s concern about Russian aggression.

Why did Putin agree?  Because Obama also told Medvedev this: “This is my last election.  After my election I have more flexibility.”

That’s far from the only example of Obama doing Putin’s bidding for political gain.  Here’s a few things that Obama did that really helped Putin:

1. Obama “reset” our relationship with Russia even though Russia continued to hold pieces of the country of Georgia that they had taken by force.

2. Obama let a Russian company get control of 20% of U.S. uranium reserves.

3. Obama canceled a missile defense system for Europe, which was designed to prevent Iran from being able to blackmail the E.U. because Putin didn’t like it.

4. Obama set up a deal with Iran, a Russian client in the Middle East, so that Iran would be able to develop nuclear weapons once Obama was out of office.

5. When the Russian client running Syria used chemical weapons against civilians, Obama did nothing despite having proclaimed that to be a red line.  Instead, he turned the problem over to the Russians, who we now know allowed their client to retain some chemical weapons.

Compare that to how Trump’s been treating Putin:

1. Got Germany to cancel a massive natural gas deal with Russia which cost Putin billions.
2. Got NATO to significantly increase defense spending.
3. Increased sanctions on Iran to get them to stop nuclear weapon development.
4. Bombed the Russian client’s air base in Syria in response to the Syrian government using chemical weapons against civilians.
5. Significantly increased U.S. defense spending.
6. Provided lethal aid to the Ukrainians to help them fight off the Russian invasion.
7. Has told Russia to get its troops out of Venezuela.
8. Has increased sanctions on Russian entities.

This part of an interesting pattern where Democrats accuse Trump of crimes that he isn’t committing but Democrats are.  Examples include the following:

  • Accusing Trump of “bribing” Ukraine when in fact that’s what Biden did.
  • Accusing Trump of going easy on Putin when in fact that’s what Obama did.
  • Accusing Trump of putting kids in cages when in fact that’s what Obama did.
  • Accusing Trump of financial crimes and profiting from his office when in fact that’s what Hillary did.
  • Accusing Trump of being racist when it’s the Democrats who ignore the mass shooting of blacks in Chicago and deny black kids decent educations.

The reality is simple: the whole story that Trump and Republicans are soft on the Russians is a big lie.  Since back in the old days, when leftists supported Hitler because he was allied with Russia, ’til the present, leftists have always supported Russia and said that it is a great place.

That changed only when leftists thought Putin might have hurt Hillary, or more likely because they thought he’d be a good scapegoat to blame Hillary’s loss on while attempting to convince the American people that Trump isn’t really the president.

While the fake news media won’t cover it, Fiona Hill’s testimony shows that not only are the Democrats condemning Trump for something they said was great when Obama did it, but it was Obama, not Trump, who did Putin’s bidding in return for help getting elected.

Given the lack of conservative media outlets, you need to help save America by telling your friends these facts.  Given the truth, most people who vote for Democrats wouldn’t do so, so do your part and flood the U.S. with truth.  As Scripture says “the truth shall set you free.”

Lindsey Graham Said This Date Is a Lock for the Release of the Report on Alleged FISA Abuses Under Obama

Lindsey Graham Said This Date Is a Lock for the Release of the Report onn Alleged FISA Abuses Under Obama

Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

It’s been months. We’ve heard timetables offered over and over again. When will it drop? When will the report of alleged FISA abuse during the Obama administration drop? It was supposed to be sometime during the summer. Now, we’re way into fall and there was still no word. Every journalist and blogger was hoping that it wouldn’t drop during Thanksgiving. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Instead, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the report would drop on a Monday. December 9th is the date this long-awaited report will be available to the public. As Katie wrote in a prior post, December 11 is when Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, an Obama appointee, will come before Congress to testify about the contents of the report (via Fox News):

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Wednesday that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse during the 2016 election will be released on Dec. 9.

During an appearance on “Hannity” Wednesday, host Sean Hannity noted Horowitz will be coming before Graham’s committee on Dec. 11 to testify on the matter and went on to ask Graham not to allow a Friday night document “dump” that could muffle the coverage of the news.

In response, Graham smiled and nodded.

“It’ll be December 9th — you’ll get the report,” the South Carolina lawmaker said.

“That’s locked.”

The report will surely dive into the allegations that the FBI was spying on Trump officials. The Trump dossier, which was compiled by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele, was used as credible evidence to secure a FISA warrant on Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, despite no one appearing to verify the document. There are glaring errors in the dossier that could have been cleaned up with a simple Google search. This document, which was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, was a piece of biased political opposition research. Even the State Department knew this document was biased; Steele told them

This dossier is also alleged to be the “insurance policy” disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referring to in texts with his mistress, bureau lawyer Lisa Page, when he met with ex-deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe who refused to answer questions from Congress concerning whether this document was verified. I wonder why? Strzok was fired for the tens of thousands of anti-Trump texts he sent to Page, which damaged the credibility and professionalism of the bureau. He was a top counterintelligence agent who was a key person in two of the agency’s most sensitive investigations: the review of Hillary Clinton’s email server and the probe into Russian collusion that was eventually taken over by ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation when he learned about these texts, one of which has Strzok assuring Page that they will stop Trump. Yes, anti-Trump deep state, spying, and viva la resistance should be pervasive themes in this report. 

RecommendedWe’ll Tell You Who’s PrivilegedAnn Coulter

The DOJ of a sitting administration was allegedly spying on the presidential campaign of a rival party. That’s pretty nasty, huh? 

Christmas came early, folks. And you know there’s going to be a lot of dirt against Democrats. They’re scrambling. The Trump impeachment nonsense will be wiped off the news cycle. Grab the popcorn, the eggnog, and the mug to grab all the liberal tears of frustration.    

Susan Crabtree@susancrabtree

Inbox: @LindseyGrahamSC announces DOJ IG Horowitz report on FISA process/abuse for its Russia/2016 probe will be released Dec. 9 and Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Dec. 11.

View image on Twitter

1937:24 AM – Nov 21, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy149 people are talking about this


The United States Environmental Protection Agency warned California’s agency charged with ensuring the state’s air quality warning the state could face federal sanctions if it did not rapidly submit complete required state air quality plans.

Image result for Trump VS gavin newsom

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to California’s agency charged with ensuring the state’s air quality warning the state could face federal sanctions, including the withholding of federal highway funds, if it did not rapidly address its decades old failure to submit complete reports detailing its plans for how it would reduce air pollution to levels required in the 1970 Clean Air Act.

In a September 24 letter to Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the EPA, wrote California has the worst air quality in the United States and has failed to carry out its most basic tasks under the federal law, submitting state implementation plans for areas in the California with levels of regulated air pollutants exceeding federal standards.

The Clean Air Act requires states to submit implementation plans to the EPA for approval outlining their efforts to cut emissions of six types of pollutants. When President Donald Trump entered office, the administration faced a backlog of over 700 incomplete or out of date reports, and EPA says approximately one-third of the areas still having incomplete or out of date plans, roughly 140, are in California.

According to EPA’s data, California contains 82 areas, in which 34 million people reside, with pollution levels exceeding federal standards for one or more regulated pollutants.

Comply or Face Consequences

EPA gave California until October 10 to rescind their “incomplete” plans and resubmit new reports addressing the areas in non-compliance for air quality, waring inaction will result in “disapproval,” of their plans triggering sanctions clocks that could penalize the state with cuts to highway funding, and allow the federal government to impose an implementation plan of its own.

At this writing, California has failed to comply with EPA’s demand for completed state implementation plans for its areas in non-compliance.

Any penalty involving the loss of highway funds would be steep for California since it receives more highway funds than any other state in the country. The Federal Highway Administration estimates California will have received more than $19 billion from the Federal Highway Administration between fiscal years 2016 and 2020.

“We certainly want to avoid these statutory triggers, but our foremost concern must ensuring clean air for all Americans,” said Wheeler’s letter. “That is our goal.”

At present only about a dozen of California’s 58 counties meet the EPA’s standards for Ozone air quality. About half meet the standards for fine particulate matter in the air, such as dust, smoke or other inhalable particles. The counties meeting both standards are primarily rural and sparsely populated.

If Democrats The Party Of Public Safety Honestly Cared About Public Safety They Would Support Border Security, They Would Not Support Sanctuary Cities!

In their every press conference and interview rejecting President Trump’s call for a wall along our southern border to help prevent and protect against human trafficking of women and children, the unbridled import of opioids, and the entry of criminals and terrorists into our country, the Democrats maintain that they oppose only the Wall but otherwise strongly support border security. Thus, they state that they prefer drones and hi-tech equipment instead of a wall because, they say, those more modern approaches will do an even better job than will an old-fashioned wall at guarding the border. In other words, they claim to be as concerned as is the President over the chaos transpiring along our porous southern border.

There are two ways to demonstrate they are lying. One way is by sitting and arguing back-and-forth with the other side endlessly, as in a cable news panel discussion. I have come to hate wasting my time watching those. When I have a few moments each day to grab some news on Fox, the only value-added from Marie Harf, Chris Hahn, and Jessica Tarlov is that, while muting them, they offer a few moments for me to check the channel guide or pay a bill or two. But there is a much quicker alternative way to cut through the muck and prove Pelosi, Schumer, and their gang a bunch of liars on border security:

Just ask yourself: Side by side with their opposition to a wall, why do they also support Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States? If they truly are so concerned about protecting the public against the infiltration of Illegals into our midst, why do they seek to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from receiving the information and tools ICE needs to remove illegal entrants safely and promptly from our land? Would that kind of helpful cooperation with ICE not be a logical part of any drone, hi-tech, and “everything-but-a-wall” approach to protecting the border?

They support Sanctuary Cities because they want porous borders, and they will do everything humanly possible to swell the tide of illegal immigration into a tsunami. They do not want word to spread southward that this country punishes and promptly deports those here illegally. Au contraire — they want a message to be sent to Guatemala, the Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico that it all is a children’s game of tag: once you get past the “home-base” line without getting tagged, you may call “Sanctuary” — just like Quasimodo (or even Totalmodo) — and you are safe. Thus, ICE plans a raid to arrest Illegals, and Pelosi’s northern California ally, the despicable mayor of Oakland, publicly warns the Illegals that “The Fuzz” are coming, so get away quick. In another time in this country’s history, that mayor of Oakland would have been arrested. However, in today’s America it is the President of the United States whom the Democrats would impeach. The inmates in charge of the asylum.

Need more proof that the Democrats do not merely oppose The Wall but actually want porous borders? OK. Remember Jeff Sessions, the guy whose virtual absence from ministering the Justice Department for two years prepared all of us to experience what a Government Shutdown would look, sound, and feel like if they ever did to the rest of Washington what The Recuser did to Justice? Well, no sooner did he finally act against Sanctuary Cities, announcing a Trump Administration decision to withhold federal funds from any municipality refusing to cooperate with ICE, than the Democrats and their Left allies sprinted to House Lannister in King’s Landing — the Westeros-like fantasy land also known as the region within the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — and got themselves an Obama Judge to strike down the law with a nationwide injunction. United States District Judge William H. Orrick III nailed the door, pending eventual Supreme Court review one of these years, on the Trump Administration’s efforts to stop the madness. “Not an Obama Judge,” huh? Guess what? He previously had bundled $200,000 for Obama. Thus, the Justice Department never had a chance with him, and they did not have a snowball’s chance in a California summer of doing any better on appeal in the Democrat-Left-dominated Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court in pertinent part.

(The Ninth Circuit panel split 2-1. Affirming the Obama Judge were U.S. Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas and Ronald Gould, both named by Bill Clinton. Voting in the Ninth Circuit minority to support the President’s Executive Order was U.S. Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, initially named a federal district judge by President Reagan and there after elevated by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge Fernandez found that District Judge Orrick’s court “fail[ed] to accord the Executive Order a fair enough reading. That resulted in its abusing its discretion when it issued the injunction.” In the words of Chief Justice Roberts: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”)

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all those newly harvested Democrat House representatives up and down California really wanted border security, why did they not join the chorus who spoke out against the judge’s ruling? Why do they instead all support Sanctuary Cities? Just as we are told that cereal and fruit juice are part of a balanced breakfast, isn’t the arrest and removal of illegal immigrants an obvious part of a complete border-control policy, side-by-side with drones and high technology and increased border patrols? Is there a consistency between Democrats saying, on the one hand, that they would pay for more guards and drones along the border… while, on the other hand, guaranteeing “sanctuary” for all criminals who sneak past those very guards and drones?

So it all is a game. A joke, a lie. When they say they are for border security in every which way — everything, everything except for a wall — there is the truth, the proof. No need for a cable television-news panel debate. This does not take rocket science. If you install a home protection system, but then a crook evades the front-door camera or the home alarm or just defiantly smashes your front window and breaks into your home anyway, do you take the position that you will not shoot the invader or call the police — or first call the police and then shoot the invader — because, well, they got past the alarm, so…SANCTUARY! If you employ an insect exterminator — and, no, we are not comparing illegal immigrants other than MS-13 and opioid smugglers and human traffickers to insects — and if that exterminator does a great job, but you later see an ant or spider or silverfish that got past him, would you not squish it? Or do you look at that centipede and proclaim liberty throughout the land: SANCTUARY!

The pernicious “Sanctuary City” secessionist movement from the federal government and from the supremacy of federal immigration law that has spread throughout Democrat-controlled urban polities proves definitively that all the other talk about “protecting our borders, just not with a wall” is facially mendacious. For the liberals and their Democrat party, the issue is not The Wall but assuring that our southern border remains porous so that the national voting electorate can continue to be transmogrified from a rooted majority-conservative constituency to a blue New Mexico, a converted-blue California, an increasingly blue-ing Nevada, and a purpling Arizona. It is about changing the demographic of our country by importing a new voting bloc of people who, because of their understandable poverty and limited Anglophonic skills, amplified by their utter ignorance of the values and beliefs and self-evident truths that animated our nation’s founding, will need to fall on the Government for handouts for at least a generation — free healthcare, free education, free hospital emergency rooms for stuffy noses, food stamps, welfare. They will be as natural a constituency for Democrats in other states as they have proven to be since turning California from the reliably Republican state that it was as recently as twenty years ago.

That is what this is all about. It is not about drones and high tech and about what else “works better” than a wall. Rather, it is about the destiny of this magnificent social experiment that, as of now, we still call America — until someone on the Left finds a tweet from Amerigo Vespucci where he said that there only are two genders, male and female.

The Schiff Coup: Day One

These facts cannot be disputed:

1. Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted and bragged on TV that he threatened to withhold one billion dollars in American foreign aid to Ukraine if Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.  Burisma was paying Hunter Biden, son of the Joe Biden, over $50,000 per month as a board member of Burisma.  There is no dirt to dig up.  Joe Biden admitted to the dirt.

2. The Obama-Biden administration did not supply military aid to Ukraine when Ukraine needed the aid against Russia. This was admitted by the acting ambassador to the Ukraine, William Taylor, in his testimony.Trump in December 2017 announced that the United States would send military aid to Ukraine that then–Ukraine president Poroshenko requested from the USA.  Obama and Biden had refused the sale of $47 million’s worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko thanked Trump for supporting Ukraine and providing the Javelin antitank missile systems.

3. On July 25, 2019 President Trump asked Ukraine’s President Zelensky to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election.  There is evidence that Ukraine helped Hillary in the 2016 election and tried to sabotage the Trump election.

4. The transcript of the phone call was released by President Trump.  The transcript speaks for itself.  There is no mention of conditioning American aid on any investigation of Biden.

5. There was no investigation by Ukraine into the 2016 election or any investigation of Joe Biden.

6. Ukraine received the American military aid that is the subject of the “impeachment inquiry” on September 11, 2019, six weeks after the July 25, 2019 phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

7. The Democrats have refused to produce the so-called “whistleblower” to testify.

The Democrats, led by Adam Schiff, AKA Shifty Schiff, believe that these facts are enough to constitute “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” to impeach and remove President Trump.

Shifty Schiff is calling as “witnesses” State Department employees who are giving their opinions about the meaning of the transcript and their opinion of the events. They do not agree with President Trump’s foreign policy. 

 We have the transcript, and anyone, including Congress, can decide what it means.  It means exactly what the words of the transcript show: no quid pro quo, nothing illegal.

The first two witnesses, George Kent, a State Department official

William Taylor, acting ambassador to Ukraine, clearly by their demeanor and opinions show that they do not support President Trump.

  I would bet anything they voted for Hillary Clinton. 

 Both are annoyed that Trump is president and that Trump used his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate corruption in Ukraine.  Rudy investigated as part of his defense of Trump in the Robert Muller investigation.

It appears that Shifty Schiff is offering these witnesses as “expert witnesses” as to how to deal with Ukraine.  In a court of law, expert witnesses have to be qualified as experts in the field in which they testify

and are used only when an expert is needed to explain to a court and jury something beyond the understanding of the layman.  For example, claims against doctors require that a doctor explain what the defendant doctor did wrong.

Kent and Taylor, and the rest, are employees who are to carry out the foreign policy established by the president.  Their opinions about President Trump’s foreign policy are irrelevant to whether the facts constitute “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

  At best, their opinions qualify them for a job at CNN or MSNBC, alongside John Brennan and James Clapper, to attack Trump. 

 But their testimony is not relevant and not material to the issue of whether the phone call amounts to “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Kent and Taylor are upset that President Trump used Rudy Giuliani, his private attorney, to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in our politics

. After watching Taylor and Kent, the first two witnesses called by Shifty Schiff, President Trump was wise to use Rudy and not rely on these two.

But their “concern” about Ukraine rings hollow.  They both knew that Obama refused to give Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine when Ukraine needed those during its battles with Russia.  

Yet now they are “concerned” about Ukraine’s safety.  They are following the Shifty Schiff narrative that Trump withheld aid for about six weeks, from July 25 to September 11.  Both said that defending Ukraine means defending the USA. 

 If they and the Democrats and media, who have suddenly discovered that Ukraine is crucial to the USA defense, believed that, then they should have impeached Obama for failing to give the Javelin missiles to Ukraine.

In sum: President Trump supplied the Javelin missiles to Ukraine. Obama refused to supply the missiles.  Joe Biden threatened Ukraine with the loss of one billion dollars in aid if Ukraine didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma.  Burisma paid Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, over $50,000 a month for a no-show job only because he was the V.P.’s son. 

 But it is wrong, according the Democrats and media, to question Biden about this, and Trump should be removed from office because they interpret his phone call as asking Ukraine to investigate Biden.

The crime is that there is no investigation of Joe Biden using his position as V.P. to get the $50,000 per month to his son and to get the prosecutor fired.  Nor is there any investigation of the Ukraine interference in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton and Trump.

President Trump and the Republicans are correct to fight this shabby attempted coup.  He should ignore the “advice” of former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy, who is usually correct in his legal analysis, and Fox reporter Chris Wallace, who is usually wrong in his political analysis because he is a NeverTrump.  Both suggested following the hearing on November 13 that Trump admit that his phone call was inappropriate or wrong and argue that impeachment is too severe for the phone call.  This is admitting the premise of Schiff’s charge.  It is similar to a guilty plea where you ask for lenient sentence.

The Democrats and media have nothing.

If this were a real trial, the judge would dismiss the complaint and assess counsel fees and costs against the Schiff Democrats for bringing a suit with no basis in law or fact, and brought solely in bad faith to harass President Trump.

Corrections: $50,000 per year corrected to $50 per month; November 25 corrected to July 25

For Democrats, Power Isn’t Everything — It’s the Only Thing

The partisan impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump is little more than the Democrats’ latest attempt to gain what has always been the object of their party’s desire: political power.  To the end of obtaining power, the Democratic Party has supported every tyrannical and immoral policy — from slavery to confiscatory taxation to abortion — presented in the political domain over the past two hundred years.  Paraphrasing Vince Lombardi: For the Democrats, power isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.

Aiding and abetting this impeachment process are the mainstream media, whose portrayal of the Democratic primary candidates as the cool cats from Ocean’s 11(when from a political perspective they actually resemble the mutants of The Island of Dr. Moreau), combined with an unceasing barrage of Trump-hatred, would seem to offer the Democrats an unbeatable advantage in the 2020 race.  Why, then, is such feverish energy being channeled into impeachment, which will likely die on the vine in the Senate led by recent pro-Trump ally Mitch McConnell?  Because with Democrats, some things never change.  Trump’s dogged refusal to back down in the face of all their shenanigans simply aggravates their rabid and insatiable lust for power.  By pursuing impeachment, they are aiming to harass the president into resignation.  If that fails, they hope to weaken him sufficiently that whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic primary will actually win the Electoral College in 2020.

To achieve their current goal of ousting Trump, perhaps the Pelosi-Schiff-Nadler cabal decided to study their party’s history, because their conduct in their persecution of President Trump looks remarkably like that of their party forefathers in two analogous cases.  In the first analogue, today’s nefarious bunch have taken a page from the playbook of their Democratic predecessors who successfully dislodged a Republican executive near the end of Reconstruction.

Southern Democrats tasted blood in the water subsequent to the 1874 midterm elections, when, like the undead, their party rose from the political grave dug for them at Appomattox Court House in 1865.  Having regained control of Congress, the Democrats ramped up their efforts to conquer the state governments of the old Confederacy.  In 1875, Adalbert Ames — a Civil War veteran and Radical Republican who favored civil rights for the freedmen — was in the middle of his term as governor of Mississippi.  Former slave and one of the first blacks to serve in Congress John Roy Lynch recounted in The Facts of Reconstruction (published in 1913) that winning control of the Mississippi Legislature was insufficient for the Democrats:

[T]the Democrats could not afford to wait until Governor Ames’ term expired.  They were determined to get immediate control of the State Government.  There was only one way in which this could be done, and that was by impeachment.