Get Ready to See The Show America!



Latka has a taxi problem.

Goodwin: Impeachment trial is the ace up President Trump’s sleeve

 

Here’s my slam-dunk choice for the Quote of the Year: “I want a trial.”

The President of the United States said that Friday morning, and his title alone would be reason enough to make it the most significant thing said in 2019. But there’s much more to it because Donald Trump’s demand highlights the historically unique set of circumstances he and the nation face in 2020.

As of now, the new year will feature an impeachment trial in the Senate followed by the presidential election. If Trump survives Democrats’ effort to remove him, he would be the first impeached president to face voters again.

Andrew Johnson, impeached in 1868, was later denied his party’s nomination for a second term. Bill Clinton won his second term before he was impeached.

While there’s some skepticism that Trump really wants to put everything on the line over allegations involving his dealings with Ukraine, I’m convinced he’s ­serious.

I’m also convinced he’s crazy like a fox. Given the flimsy allegations and the unfair, one-party nature of the House process, beating impeachment in the Senate seems close to a sure thing. And doing so would dramatically boost Trump’s chances of getting four more years.

Indeed, it’s probable that as impeachment goes, so goes the election.

Of course, there’s no question Trump would much prefer the House not brand him with the “I” word, but that’s a pipe dream.

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff can’t muster 218 votes on a set of articles after five long days of public testimony and hyperbolic assertions that the president is an existential threat to the world, Trump will claim he’s been exonerated. Who could blame him?

Pelosi can’t let that happen, having picked her poison by embracing the whistleblower complaint before she saw the transcript of Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. Turning back now is not an option, so she’ll beg, bribe and twist the arms of any reluctant Dems to get to 218.

That vote will probably come in December, with a Senate trial starting in January.

There, the president will enjoy all the advantages Schiff denied him in the House’s kangaroo court. Most important, Trump starts with 53 GOP senators in the jury, and with a super-majority of 67 votes required for conviction, Dems need to flip 20 of them. That assumes they can hold all Democrats, which is not certain.

In addition to Trump having home-field advantage, a Senate trial, presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, would be expected to follow federal rules on evidence and procedures.

One clear change from the House: no hearsay testimony. Thus, much of what passed for evidence there — and spurred the most sensational headlines — would not be permitted in the ­Senate.

For another, Trump’s lawyers would have wide latitude in a witness list and would use it to turn the tables on Democrats, the resistance and the Bidens. Trump likes nothing more than being on offense, and his aim would be to put his accusers on trial.

Already the president has named three people he wants grilled, starting with Hunter Biden and his lucrative gig on the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president.

Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect:

  • Is it true you were discharged from the Navy for cocaine use months before being named to Burisma in 2014?
  • Do you speak Ukrainian?
  • What do you know about energy exploration and markets?
  • How many board meetings did you attend?
  •  Is it true you were paid more than $3 million over five years?
  • How much more?
  • Did you discuss the job with your father?
  • Did you ask your father to intercede in Ukrainian politics to help Burisma?

Joe Biden is already showing the strains, blasting Sen. Lindsey Graham for asking the State Department for documents relating to Joe Biden’s calls with Ukraine’s then-president and his own documented efforts to oust a prosecutor.

“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Joe Biden told reporters.

Actually, you would assume Biden might be filled with regret, given the shameful way his son profited from his father’s position.

Moreover, there are legitimate questions about the 2016 anti-Trump campaign waged by Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, which included millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Were the payments to Hunter Biden and the foundation aimed at buying Democrats’ silence over Ukrainian corruption? What does Joe Biden know about that effort?

Trump also wants to call Schiff, and GOP lawyers believe there is ample precedent. They note that Bill Clinton’s lawyers grilled independent prosecutor Ken Starr during Clinton’s Senate trial.

Schiff acted as chief prosecutor against Trump and his dealings with the whistleblower would make him a key witness to the initial allegations.

Trump also wants the whistleblower to be named and forced to testify because he had no first-hand knowledge of the president’s Ukraine call. Some of the initial allegations were proven false by the transcript and some of the whistleblower’s sources might have broken the law. His links to Dems could also undermine his assertions about Trump.A fourth possible witness would be Mark Zaid, one of the whistleblower’s attorneys. Zaid tweeted in January 2017 that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Trump has called Zaid a “disgrace” and suggested he should be sued for treason.Naturally, a trial poses risks to Trump as well. New evidence and witnesses could emerge, chief among them John Bolton, the former national security adviser Trump fired. Bolton is writing a book on his time in the White House and dropping hints he’s eager to air dirty laundry.There is also the danger that, even if Trump beats back the effort to remove him, a trial could dirty him enough that he loses at the ballot box next November.For now, though, the president has picked a path that appears to give him the upper hand. As he likes to say, we’ll see what happens.

Article

Latka has a taxi problem.

……”Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”……

The DNC Caught in their Frame Up of Our Elected President

Devine: Democrats should eat a big serving of humble pie

By: Miranda Devine

It was ironic that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland used the word “humble” to describe himself in his opening statement on the fourth day of public impeachment hearings.

This was a virtue he said his parents took care to instill in him, and kudos to him for recognizing its importance at least enough to mention it.

But humility is the one quality missing from this impeachment process and the one quality most essential to a functioning society.

Only a profound absence of humility on the part of the Democrats would have allowed them to follow up their three-year Russia-collusion failure with another shameless attempt to overturn the 2016 election for no reason other than that they are deranged with Trump hatred.

Humility would have caused a moment’s introspection after the Mueller probe flopped, remorse that lasting damage had been done to the nation on a pointless witch hunt, and a realization that what goes around comes around.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his boss, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, certainly affect an air of humility, stifling glee at the trouble they’re causing President Trump and pretending they are “prayerful.” But they fool no one.

Humility would have Schiff understand that when witness after witness testifies to nothing that amounts to impeachable evidence against the president, it’s time to fold the tent and admit you’ve failed.

On Wednesday, for example, Sondland was supposed to be Schiff’s smoking gun. But he was a dead duck by 10:20 a.m.

Schiff had promised that Sondland would confirm Trump had demanded military aid be withheld from Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelensky committed to investigating Ukrainian meddling in our 2016 election and corruption at Ukrainian company Burisma, including dodgy dealings of the Biden family.

But when Schiff asserted that Trump wanted Ukraine to perform investigations “that would help his re-election campaign,” Sondland replied, “I can’t characterize why he wanted them.”

Over and over, Sondland disappointed: “I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of an investigation.”

“Trump never told me directly … He did not ever have a conversation with me about the aid.”

“When I asked him, ‘What do you want from Ukraine,’ he said, ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelinsky to do the right thing.’ ”

It was before noon and Trump knew he had won. On the South Lawn, before he jumped on Marine One, the president repeated Sondland’s words at a mocking press conference.

He knew Sondland’s testimony was a disaster for the Democratic project, not that you’d know it from Schiff’s triumphal bathroom break press conference, or the online headlines.

That’s what a lack of humility does: It destroys your judgment.

It also makes you pompous and preposterous, as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was Tuesday, another Democratic star who fizzled fast, despite his best efforts.

Vindman’s hubris was so great that he even chastised Republican ranking member Devin Nunes for addressing him as “Mr.” and not by his military title. The unnecessary act of dressing up in his uniform was another prideful act.

Vindman testified that he advised the Ukrainian administration to ignore the US president, and he overstated his importance in the chain of command, claiming he was the “principal adviser” to the president when he’d never even met him.

He admitted that he bypassed his boss to go straight to the lawyers with concerns that Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky was “improper,” and he all but confirmed that it was he who tipped off the so-called whistleblower and set off the chain reaction that led to this impeachment hearing.

Vindman’s beef with Trump was that the president’s foreign policy was “undermining the consensus policy” of unelected bureaucrats like him.

The arrogance had to be seen to be believed, and yet people with no concept of humility fell over themselves to praise Vindman.

The corrosive absence of humility among Washington bureaucrats has been the hallmark of these hearings.

They “have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ‘turf,’ ” said Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, in a letter submitted to the inquiry.

“They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”

Johnson isn’t speaking through his hat. He is integral to this story as he went to Ukraine, met with Zelensky and saw Vindman and most of the other witnesses in action, and was not impressed.

“American foreign policy is what the president determines it to be, not what the ‘consensus’ on unelected foreign-policy bureaucrats wants it to be.”

That is humility and it used to be a hallmark of the Washington establishment, those grand personages who wore bow ties without irony, the restrained men and women who never sought to exceed their power, whose wisdom helped keep the republic on course.

Humility has been the mainstay of Christian societies, and central to the Protestant ethic of the American Midwest of the last century that fueled the greatest period of prosperity the world has ever seen.

Humility was the core value of people who created the moral capital for generations to come.

Humility was what made America great, and without it we are lost.

Mayor’s cycle of madness

The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That’s Mayor Bill de Blasio in a nutshell.

After years of forcing the city to absorb unwanted bike lanes, which slow traffic, have done nothing to reduce cyclist fatalities or rule-breaking, and have probably contributed to a rise in pedestrian deaths, the mayor this week decided we need more of the same.

He signed a law requiring the Transportation Department to implement another 250 miles of protected bike lanes.

“All in a good day’s work,” he said.

Of course, de Blasio’s definition of “work” is different from most people’s. It’s the first time he’s signed anything since March because he’s been AWOL on his joke presidential bid.

But we were better off when he was goofing off.

Chick-fil-A chickens out

Now that Chick-fil-A has capitulated to the bullying of rainbow activists, it will learn that cowardice is a lose-lose proposition.

The chicken chain’s profits soared in the seven years since it was targeted over its boss’ comments opposing same-sex marriage. Its sales reportedly rose 12 percent, not because chicken lovers are homophobic but because no one likes a bully telling you what to believe.

Now the company has gone woke by announcing it won’t be “financially supporting anti-LGBTQ organizations,” which apparently means the Salvation Army and other Christian outfits with a traditional view of marriage.

Catholic writer Rod Dreher has a word for these craven chicken surrender merchants: “Cluckservatives.”

Article

Silent Coup: The Frame Up of An Elected President

Article

 …Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with A light from above”…

A Veterans Day Message – 2019

A Veterans Day Message – 2019

By: Retired General Paul Vallely 11 11 2019

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 an armistice between Germany and the Allied nations came into effect. On November 11, 1919, Armistice Day was commemorated for the first time. In 1919, President Wilson proclaimed the day should be “filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory.” There were plans for parades, public meetings and a brief suspension of business activities at 11 a.m.

Today, our Nation comes together to honor our veterans and commemorate the legacy of profound service and sacrifice they have upheld in pursuit of a more perfect Union. Through their steadfast defense of America’s ideals, our service members have ensured our country stands strong and these ideals and virtues still shine throughout America. Nations around the world seek freedom. We know the blessings of freedom. As we offer our sincere appreciation and respect to our veterans, to their families, to those who are still in harm’s way, and to those we have laid to rest, let us dedicate ourselves to keep America strong.

Our men and women in uniform are bearers of a proud military tradition that has been dutifully passed forward—from generation to generation—for more than two centuries. In times of war and peace alike, our veterans have served with courage and distinction in the face of tremendous adversity, demonstrating an unfaltering commitment to America and our people. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the country they loved including our son, Scott Vallely. The selflessness of our service members is unmatched, and they remind us that there are few things more fundamentally American than doing our utmost to make a difference in the lives of others and secure our great Country.

Just as our veterans stood watch and stand watch today on freedom’s frontier and along our borders, so have they safeguarded the pros­perity of our Nation in our neighborhoods, our businesses, and our homes. It is our moral obligation to ensure they receive our support, despite the current gutting of our Armed Forces, for as long as they live as proud veterans of the United States Armed Forces. On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to the veterans, to the fallen, and to their families. To honor their contributions to our Nation, let us strive with renewed determination to keep the promises we have made to all who have answered our country’s call. As we fulfill our obligations to them, we keep faith with the patriots who have risked their lives to preserve our Union, and with the ideals of service and sacrifice upon which our Republic was founded.

We CALL upon every member of federal, state and local government, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and military, who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitutional Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to act upon those oaths for the stated purpose of restoring the Constitutional Republic.

We CALL upon ALL veterans and veteran organizations in America, who still believe in their oath to protect and defend, to unite with us at once—in this Declaration to maintain the Constitutional Republic.

We CALL for ALL citizens who still desire freedom and liberty, to stand with us and carry our demands to right the wrongs against our nation in the preservation of freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law.

Wow! The Entire State of Ohio…

 

Invasion USA Operations Plan

Ohio officials seize 40 pounds of fentanyl, an amount close to ‘chemical warfare’

 

A drug task force in Ohio seized more than 40 pounds of fentanyl — an amount akin to “chemical warfare” that could kill every person in the state, authorities said.

The suspected fentanyl — a powerful, synthetic opioid that’s up to 100 times more potent than morphine — was seized last late month along with 3 pounds of methamphetamine, a pound of heroin, three guns and more than $30,000 in cash, Ohio’s Regional Agencies Narcotics & Gun Enforcement Task Force announced Tuesday.

“The quantity of fentanyl in this case amounts to chemical warfare and a weapon of mass destruction,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said. “I applaud the work of our task force and our law enforcement partners — this is an enormous amount of deadly drugs that will no longer be on our streets.”

Vance Callender, Homeland Security Investigations’ special agent in charge for Michigan and Ohio, said the seized fentanyl alone is “enough to kill the entire population” of the Buckeye State — roughly 11.69 million people as of last year — many times over.

Three men from Dayton were charged in the investigation and are facing charges including possession with intent to distribute 400 or more grams of fentanyl and possession of a firearm as a felon, authorities said.

The suspects were identified as Shamar Davis, 31, Anthony Franklin, 30, and Grady Jackson, 37.

“These illegal drugs ruin lives, destroy families, fuels violence, drives up property crime, and wrecks neighborhoods,” Montgomery County Sheriff Rob Streck said. “Anyone associated with it — especially those who sell and traffic it — are doing violence to people and causing harm in our communities.”

Fentanyl is often mixed with heroin or cocaine without the user’s knowledge, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But a government report released last month found that meth is actually the bigger killer, despite fentanyl driving up drug overdoses in the United States overall. In 2017, meth was the drug most frequently involved in deaths in 19 states west of the Mississippi, according to the data.

Article

 

Recognition of Reality by MG Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.)

Editor’s Note: While the DNC engages in sabotage and treason to cover for The Deep State within our government agencies…As it was before 9 11 in “protest of an election” to add delay…The sabotage of the White House computers by Clinton staffers…The Aviation Security Agent’s report and warning concerning Logan Airport…what was the D.I.A. investigating and what personnel records were involved within that side of The Pentagon… and much more…History repeats itself.


“Recognition of Reality”

By: MG Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)

November 1, 2019

 

 

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to co-chair a delegation to Cairo, Egypt to meet with General El-Sisi and his staff regarding the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi from office of the President. The first revolution was the removal of President Mubarak and the second revolution being the removal of Morsi. It was a tumultuous time in Egypt with a failing economy, chaos throughout the country, and a future election to elect a new President. As it turned out, General El-Sisi was elected the new President and formed a new government.

During our conference with the General Officer staff, El-Sisi and the Generals on his staff expressed that they were quite disturbed and upset with the United States, Obama, and Congress, for denying military aid and supplies to Egypt for overthrowing Morsi. General El-Sisi turned to me in his office and said, very emphatically, why does America and its political leaders always make their decisions looking through a “political prism” and not through a “reality prism”? I thought about his statement and I said to myself, yes, we do that in the US. We tend in Washington to make all our decisions through, particularly Congress, in a partisan, political way. El- Sisi said, “I cannot function that way as I have to look at the reality of our region: troubled countries like Libya to our west, Somalia to our south, the Suez Canal, the Sinai.” Well, it was a renaissance moment for me as I pondered and came to the realization, if you analyze and solve a countries issues, the country is best served by solving its problems by looking through a “reality prism” and not attempt to solve its problems through a dreaded “political prism” that tends to distort the issues and come to no logical conclusions.

Definition of reality:

 

“Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of the universe, known and unknown. Philosophical questions about the nature of reality or existence or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, which is a major branch of metaphysics in the Western philosophical tradition. Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophical logic. These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (i.e., Physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., Idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist, whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist. the world or the state of things as they exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”

 

Well, then,  what do the citizens of the United States do about this dilemma and the system of governing by our partisan, elected, political leaders and how do we as a country start solving our problems based on reality and not partisan politics?

Rise of Partisan Politics

Even during George Washington’s first administration it was evident that partisan factions had emerged within the cabinet as well as within the country at large. The forces favoring a strong federal government were led by Alexander Hamilton and would become known as the Federalist Party. The advocates of strong state governments were led by Thomas Jefferson and became known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

There is no unbroken descent from the early political factions to today’s parties. Hamilton would no doubt be attracted to the pro-business inclinations of the current Republican Party, but his preference for direct government intervention in the economy would fit better with the Democrats. Similarly, Jefferson’s emphasis on individual rights would be welcomed by today’s Democrats, but his insistence on a small federal government would be viewed today as a Republican concept.

In the United States, the meaning of the term “partisan” has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. Before the American National Election Study (described in Angus Campbell et al., in The American Voter) began in 1952, an individual’s partisan tendencies were typically determined from their voting behavior. Since then, “partisan” has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties. Candidates, depending on their political beliefs, may choose to join a party. As they build the framework for career advancement, parties are more often than not the preferred choice for candidates. Wherein there are many parties in a system, candidates often join them as opposed to standing as an Independent, if that is provided for.

In the U.S., politicians have generally been identified with a party. Many local elections in the U.S. (as for mayor) are “nonpartisan.” A candidate may have a party affiliation, but it is not listed on the ballot. Independents occasionally appear in major contests but rarely win.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was nonpartisan until 1952, when he joined the Republican Party and was elected president. According to David A. Crockett, “Much of Eisenhower’s nonpartisan image was genuine, for he found Truman’s campaigning distasteful and inappropriate, and he disliked the partisan aspects of campaigning.”[1] With little interest in routine partisanship, Eisenhower left much of the building and sustaining of the Republican Party to his vice president, Richard Nixon.[2] With Eisenhower uninvolved in party building, Nixon became the de facto national GOP leader.”[3]

Eisenhower’s largely nonpartisan stance allowed him to work smoothly with the Democratic leaders Speaker Sam Rayburn in the House, and Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson in the Senate.

Jean Smith says that:

“Disagreement among Republican and Democratic voters on a range of political issues has risen sharply in recent years, a political divide that intensified during the first year of President Trump’s administration, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.”

“The divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values—on government, race, immigration, national security, environmental protection, and other areas—reached record levels during Barack Obama’s presidency,” Pew’s report states. “In Donald Trump’s first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger.”

Since the widening of the partisan opinion gap is a continuation of a trend, Trump’s presidency hasn’t ushered in a new era of intense political polarization so much as it marks a new chapter in an increasingly polarized political time. Public opinion remains more divided along partisan lines than along the lines of race, religion, age, gender, and educational background, Pew finds.

As the country’s partisan divide has increased in recent years, hostility between Republicans and Democrats has remained high. Perhaps surprisingly, Pew’s data shows a slight decline in the share of Democrats and Republicans who say they have a “very unfavorable” view of the opposing party relative to one year ago. Overall, though, the numbers don’t represent a major change, and aren’t enough on their own to say that partisan hostilities are lessening. The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats, at 81 percent for both parties, say they have an unfavorable view of the other side.

 

Released and distributed by: The Stand Up America US Foundation.