Sunday, October 27, 2019


Dictatorship is not alway a bad thing, y'know. A dictator can strip away the red tape and get things done. If the Metro is too slow, the dictator can order it to run faster. If your cable company is gouging you, he (it is alway a he) can order them to lower prices and give customers free services and extra channels. If your medicine costs too much he can lower the price, just like that. You put a strong authoritarian in charge and he can get a lot of stuff done. Why was health care in Cuba better than ours after decades of Castro's rule? When the beaches of Boracay were too polluted for tourists, Filipino President Duterte sent troops there to shut the whole island down for six months and clean it up. If you put one guy in charge, and he gives orders, where the alternative is to be executed on the spot, guess what -- you can get a lot of stuff done.

Lots of Americans like the idea of dictatorship. There are problems in the country, so why don't we just go ahead and put somebody in charge to fix them? The logic is obvious.

Our system of government is based on the premise that people can govern themselves. We vote on stuff, debate issues in public, elect leaders. If the people are running things they can make choices that are fair to themselves as a whole. So, like, if you are accused of a crime the government doesn't just take you out back and shoot you. A dictator can do that, Duterte himself has gone out and killed "drug dealers" without a trial or any justice process. When the people are in charge they don't like the idea that they might be shot by authorities for attracting suspicion, or that they will be disappeared for holding an opinion that their leader disapproves of. So in the USA we pass laws and set up processes to treat people fairly and allow ordinary people to prosper. We call it "freedom."

That means, generally, that government programs are expensive and take a lot of time. Democracies want to hear from all interested parties, they want to do studies of the possible effects of decisions, they want to debate and discuss all aspects of a change so that policies are good for the people. A government needs a detailed plan and a budget before they start anything. Sometimes it happens that a leader meets with their diplomats and military experts and subject-matter experts and makes a decision that the relatively uninformed general public doesn't very well understand; maybe there is a decision to declare a war, or to decline to respond to some aggression, or maybe the government invests in a sagging industry or lets one fail. If the people really don't like the decisions they can elect a new leader. The public understands that situations are complicated and that leaders have detailed knowledge that the rest of us don't have. It's our job to elect someone we can more-or-less trust.

Trump was elected to be a dictator, and he would be one if he could. He tries to cut the experts out of his decision-making and works "from the gut," under the theory that it is best to do something, even if it is wrong. Unfortunately that means that his decisions are often foolish and unworkable, as he fails to take important factors into account. It also means that his decisions almost always enrich himself and his circle of friends, and oddly his most important decisions tend to benefit Russia more than the US. We don't have any way to know how he comes to any decision, and he does not feel it's any of our business.

Our country's founders recognized these weaknesses in a dictatorial form of government, and they worked long and hard to figure out a plan to avoid it. So far the system is holding. Though Trump and his accomplices in the Republican Party have packed the courts with sympathetic judges, even conservative judges still have to rule in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. The result was that, with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress who would approve anything he wanted, Trump still could not get anything done. And with the House going to the opposition party, he is being held accountable for his crimes and faces impeachment, as provided for by the Constitution.

Everybody understands the frustration of red tape, of having to look at all sides of an issue before you decide what to do, of having to consider things that are not important to yourself personally but might affect others. It might seem needlessly complicated, when you know that a simple decision is all you need. But there are good reasons to do it this way. I hope that enduring a few years of Trump's attempted dictatorship will teach us a lesson that we remember for a generation, at least.


Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Super pathetic Trump is trying to take credit for the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but the killing happened despite Trump's actions, not because of them according to military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

It was in fact the Kurds who Trump recently betrayed who found al-baghdadi. The CIA worked closely with Kurdish intelligence officials in Iraq and Syria to identify his whereabouts and to put spies in place to monitor his periodic movements:

New York Times

Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria disrupted the meticulous planning and forced Pentagon officials to press ahead with a risky, night raid before their ability to control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft dissappeared...

Trump staged a fake picture that was supposed to be him and officials during the raid but in fact Trump was golfing at that time - he was kept in the dark about the raid because it was feared he'd spill the beans.

October 27, 2019 8:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

How sweet it is.

Trump went to a baseball game and was greeted with a barrage of boos and chants of "Lock him up!" from 50,000 fans.

When I heard the clip I almost had an instantaneous orgasm.

October 28, 2019 12:17 AM  
Anonymous Protesting RumpStench is as all-American as baseball and apple pie said...

Rump Told Russia About Baghdadi Raid Before Congressional Leaders

So fittingly veterans, who understand we don't inform our enemy before we inform our own leaders, protested Rump at the World Series yesterday:

Veterans For Impeachment Score With Signs Right Behind Home Plate At World Series

Veterans for Impeachment staked out a high visibility site for their message at Game 5 of the World Series between the Washington Nationals and the Houston Astros: right behind home plate.

A blue sign, reading “Veterans for Impeachment,” managed to grab national audience views when the cameras trained on batters at Nationals Park. The sign also appeared on the Jumbotron in the stadium where Donald Trump watched the game. When the president and first lady appeared on the Jumbotron as well, the crowd booed him and chanted “Lock him up.”

A second Veterans for Impeachment sign that appeared behind home plate asked viewers to text a number to support the group.

A representative for Common Defense, an organization of veterans opposed to Trump administration policies, told HuffPost that the signs were visible for about 15 minutes during the fifth inning before security confiscated them.

Two other large red banners reading “Impeach Trump!”— apparently not linked to the veterans’ group — were also spotted at the game hanging from the bleachers in both the left and right field. They were also quickly removed.

Yet they live forever on the internet! Poor rumpypoo!

October 28, 2019 8:26 AM  
Anonymous RumpMed2.mp4 said...

October 28, 2019 10:46 AM  
Anonymous I just love our current Supreme Court said...

"Veterans for Impeachment staked out a high visibility site for their message at Game 5 of the World Series between the Washington Nationals and the Houston Astros: right behind home plate.

A blue sign, reading “Veterans for Impeachment,” managed to grab national audience views when the cameras trained on batters at Nationals Park. The sign also appeared on the Jumbotron in the stadium where Donald Trump watched the game. When the president and first lady appeared on the Jumbotron as well, the crowd booed him and chanted “Lock him up.”

A second Veterans for Impeachment sign that appeared behind home plate asked viewers to text a number to support the group.

A representative for Common Defense, an organization of veterans opposed to Trump administration policies, told HuffPost that the signs were visible for about 15 minutes during the fifth inning before security confiscated them.

Two other large red banners reading “Impeach Trump!”— apparently not linked to the veterans’ group — were also spotted at the game hanging from the bleachers in both the left and right field. They were also quickly removed."

While everyone with any sense was talking all weekend about how the World Series has finally found something to unite Washington.

Then come the poor pathetic cowardly anti-Trumpers who fear they can't win of election of ideas next year so impeachment is the only thing they can think of. Impeachhment, it would seem, is the last refuge to which the scoundrel clings.

But they did serve a purpose: to demonstrate there is no dictator. These sad people weren't asked to leave, weren't roughed up, weren't arrested, weren't harassed...

They would be if they publicly protested a dictator.

October 28, 2019 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But they did serve a purpose: to demonstrate there is no dictator. These sad people weren't asked to leave, weren't roughed up, weren't arrested, weren't harassed...

They would be if they publicly protested a dictator."

They could have been harmed had the been at a Rump Campaign rally.

We all saw the black man get sucker punched at one of Rump's ralleys, and we all heard Rump say, repeatedly, how much he missed the old days when protesters got harmed.

We all heard him compliment Duarte and Jong-un, two of the worse murdering dictators on earth.

Keep convincing yourself the Prince of Orange is not a wanna-be-dictator, but I suggest you keep your womenfolk away from his tiny pussy grabbing hands.

October 28, 2019 12:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "But they did serve a purpose: to demonstrate there is no dictator. These sad people weren't asked to leave, weren't roughed up, weren't arrested, weren't harassed..."

Trump may not be dictator yet, but its not for lack of trying - he's threatening to imprison all his political opponents - that's straight out of the dictators handbook.

And Wyatt/Regina are trying to dismiss every serious dictatorial move of Trump as nothing so that Trump CAN become dicatator. Evangelical christians like Wyatt/Regina want to turn the U.S. into an lgbt attacking duplicate of Russia.

October 28, 2019 1:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A lot of innocent protestors are roughed up at Trump rallies. Believe me, if Trump supporters greatly outnumbered the protestors at the ball game, they would have been attacked.

The only thing that's holding Trump back from declaring the end to democratic elections is that a clear majority of Americans openly oppose his dictatorship.

October 28, 2019 1:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump may not be dictator yet, but its not for a lack of trying on the part of evangelical christians like Wyatt and Regina Hardiman.

October 28, 2019 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Thanks, Mom said...

Enjoy These Deeply Satisfying Clips of Trump Getting Booed at the World Series

October 28, 2019 2:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

In this thread at October 27, 2019 4:39 PM Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous quoted me: "Trump used taxpayer money to blackmail a foreign government into lying to help his re-election campaign."

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous replied "he asked them to investigate a situation that bears investigating the foreign government has said they didn't interpret his remarks that way, they did not investigate as requested, they received the money before it was supposed to given [that's a lie] you could make a case that he was trying to manipulate them into investigate and failed"

So, Wyatt/Regina's defence of Trump pressuring the Ukranian president to lie to help Trump in 2020 is that Trump's blackmail attempt failed.

I said "If you try to bribe a cop to do something criminal, it does not matter that the cop didn't take your bribe, you've still committed a crime. Its no different with Trump. He and his closest advisers admitted Trump halted the defence funding that was to go to Ukraine and demanded help with his re-election campaign before he'd release it."

At October 27, 2019 4:39 PM Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous responded "actually, it's quite different he didn't try to bribe anyone"

He and his administration had a shadow campaign with Ukraine where for several months they, Guilianni and others pressured the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into the 2020 opponent Trump fears most, Joe Biden, although there wasn't a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing. The defence aid was to go to Ukraine back in the spring but Trump halted its release and he and his cronies in and without American government told the Ukrainian president if he wanted it he needed to announce a fake investigation into Biden.

In terms of culpability, that's no different than trying to bribe a cop. Guilianni's two associates have been charged with crimes for their involvement in Trump's blackmail scheme and Guilianni is under investigation and experts agree will likely be next.

October 28, 2019 2:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "he asked another country to do something they were obligated to do, by treaty".

Nonsense, there is no treaty that demands Biden be investigated, there isn't a shred of evidence of wrongdoing. Biden went to Ukraine on American government business to help Ukraine eliminate corruption in its oil and gas industry (dominated by Russia, Trump's friend). Trump and his russian interests were threatened by Biden's anti-corruption mission and so, straight out of the dictator's handbook: "We're not corrupt! Biden's corrupt!". The Ukrainian government despite being besieged by Trump and Russia held strong and didn't open a fake investigation into Biden despite month after month of pressure from the Trump, his administration and Russia

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "but, if so, why did Trump forward the aid when the investigation didn't commence?"

Duh! Because the whistleblower filed a complaint against Trump's covert pressure on Ukraine for personal favours using taxpayer money and a Trump appointed authority said the complaint was "credible, serious, and urgent".

Despite months of pressure, Trump's campaign hadn't forced the Ukrainian president to give in even though the defence aid congress appropriated for Ukraine was due to expire at the end of the fiscal year (October 31) and disappear for good.

So, obviously, Trump's blackmail scheme was exposed and if he refused to release the block he'd placed on the Ukrainian defence aid before it soon expired, it would have only more solidly confirmed his blackmail attempt was "Investigate my political opponent for 2020 and then I'll release the block on the congressional aid you were supposed to get back in the spring." The jig was up so Trump's only move to protect himself from criminal consequence was to, after months of attempted blackmail, release the block he had put on congressional defence aid to Ukraine.

October 28, 2019 2:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Dear TTF readers, a favour please. Since crismas 2018 I engaged in a great debate with an anonymous commentor on TTF who is Wyatt and Regina Hardiman. In these earlier Teach The Facts threads you can see me realize after two decades that they have always been arguing in bad faith and only working to deceive and derail honest debate. Once I reach that realization I start to really devastate the arguments they make for a more totalitarian world. Please forward these three TTF links to to anyone you know with an interest in fairness and making the best possible society for everyone:

As I demonstrate in the three comment threads on various political issues below, Evangelical Christians have perverted The Founder's Intent and are using the First Amendment as a weapon to entrench in law their legal superiority over innocent people they disapprove of. If they are left unchecked the oppression of LGBT people against the will of the democratic majority will be firmly entrenched in American society for decades to come.

Religion never has and never will unite the world. Humanity faces existential threats from Human Caused Global Climate Warming to nuclear holocaust. We need a united humanity to address these threats and will only have it if all religious willingly subordinate themselves to the highest moral imperative of society - "To have the best society we can, society's highest priority has to be maximizing the happiness for all in an equal and fair way."

To access the #200 and higher comments, go to the bottom of the blue page and click on th red "Post a comment" icon. When the white comment window page comes up, click on the "Newer" icon.

I know most are too busy to read all this (the anonymous religious conservative's lengthy posts you can mostly ignore), but I think this is important to making the world a better place so please pass on these links to anyone you know with an interest in LGBT issues and morality. Morality is the ground which greatly favours LGBT people. As I did in the comment threads above, you can't lose with an anti-gay conservative when you put the only rational moral code first - "Do whatever you want, but harm no one".

October 28, 2019 2:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Ukraine Complained Of Giuliani’s Pressure Back In May

NBC News reports:

"The White House was alerted as early as mid-May — earlier than previously known — that a budding pressure campaign by Rudy Giuliani and one of President Donald Trump’s ambassadors was rattling the new Ukrainian president. Alarm bells went off at the National Security Council when the White House’s top Europe official was told that Giuliani was pushing the incoming Ukrainian administration to shake up the leadership of state-owned energy giant Naftogaz, said the sources.

The official, Fiona Hill, learned then about the involvement of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Giuliani associates who were helping with the Naftogaz pressure and also with trying to find dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. Hill quickly briefed then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The revelation significantly moves up the timeline of when the White House learned that Trump’s allies had engaged with the incoming Ukrainian administration and were acting in ways that unnerved the Ukrainians — even before President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had been sworn in. Biden had entered the presidential race barely three weeks earlier.

October 28, 2019 3:14 PM  
Anonymous BeccaM said...

April was when Donald became convinced that the Mueller report wouldn't result in any consequences (including no impeachment proceedings whatsoever, despite 10 examples of blatant obstruction) AND he also learned that there would be none as long as he remained president.

Therefore he concluded he needed to do whatever it took to stay in office, no matter what.

October 28, 2019 3:18 PM  
Anonymous SCOTUS deferred to the states and now State Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Map said...

North Carolina’s congressional map can’t be used in 2020 because it’s so severely gerrymandered, a panel of three state judges ruled on Monday. The judges said the gerrymandering, which benefits Republicans in the state, was so severe that it ran afoul of the state’s constitution.

The ruling, a preliminary injunction, is a victory for advocacy groups, and blocks the state from using its current plan in 2020. Republicans drew the map in 2016 and openly talked about the advantage it gave to Republicans. The GOP controls 10 of the state’s 13 congressional seats.

The judicial panel cited the state constitution’s guarantee of free elections, equal protection under the law and freedom of speech and assembly.

The ruling comes after the same three-judge panel struck down the state’s map for legislative districts in September, saying they too violated the state’s constitution.

The ruling is a particularly significant victory for anti-gerrymandering advocates because they had tried to have the same districts struck down in federal court. A lower court struck the districts down, but in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the very same districts, saying partisan gerrymandering was a question beyond the reach of the federal courts.

Despite that decision, the five-justice majority at the Supreme Court said that state courts and state constitutions may be able to act against gerrymandering. Advocates now believe that bringing suits in state court may be the most effective legal strategy for combatting gerrymandering. The two gerrymandering victories in state court bolsters that theory.

The districts blocked on Monday were obviously and severely drawn to favor Republican candidates. When Republicans drew the districts in 2016, one of the explicit criteria for the plan was that it had to produce a map that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage in the congressional delegation. State Rep. David Lewis (R), one of the chairs of the redistricting committee, said he wanted to draw a map with that 10-3 advantage because he did not think it was possible to draw one that gave Republicans an 11-2 advantage.

October 28, 2019 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Orwell said...

"Lots of Americans like the idea of dictatorship. There are problems in the country, so why don't we just go ahead and put somebody in charge to fix them? The logic is obvious."

Indeed, this is the logic of the lunatic fringe liberal community. Knowing they can't win in a democratic contest, they seek to impose their views on the rest of us.

And, in the ultimate Orwellianism, they accuse the President, who has created an economic boom by reducing regulation, of being a dictator.

The Left’s fixation on climate change is cloaked in scientism, deploying computer models to create the illusion of certainty. Radical greens are increasingly intolerant of dissent or any questioning of their policy agenda. They embrace a sort of “soft Stalinism,” driven by a determination to remake society, whether people want it or not—and their draconian views are penetrating the mainstream. “Democracy,” a writer for Foreign Policy suggests, constitutes “the planet’s biggest enemy.”

Imagine what will happen if a President Elizabeth Warren bans fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania; in Texas alone, by some estimates, 1 million jobs would be lost. Overall, according to a Chamber of Commerce report, a full ban would cost 14 million jobs—far more than the 8 million lost in the Great Recession. And the environment itself would be somewhat of a loser in this game—natural gas has done more to reduce emissions than all the greens’ efforts.

Across the world, green-backed policies have hurt the working class far more than the affluent rich who most enthusiastically embrace them. The militant Extinction Rebellion—which the online magazine Spiked has described as “an upper-middle-class death cult”—has tried to disrupt commuters in Britain in their drive to “save the planet” but has earned more angry contempt than support from harried workers. Though cast by the media as heroic outsiders, greens have historically clustered in elite academic, nonprofit, media, and corporate sectors. The influential Limits to Growth, published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, was backed by major corporate interests, led by Fiat’s Aurelio Peccei. The authors’ long-term vision, based on the notion that the planet was running out of resources at a rapid rate, was to create “a carefully controlled balance” that would restrict growth, particularly in advanced countries.

October 28, 2019 10:50 PM  
Anonymous they call it democracy said...

The effort to find (or create) impeachable offense against President Donald Trump has now moved from the subjects of the Mueller investigation -- collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice -- to alleged recent political "sins": "quid pro quo" with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.

The goal of the impeach-at-any-cost cadre has always been the same: impeach and remove Trump, regardless of whether or not he did anything warranting removal. The means -- the alleged impeachable offenses -- have changed, as earlier ones have proved meritless. The search for the perfect impeachable offense against Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him. Or to paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find you the crime.

Although this is not Stalin's Soviet Union, all civil libertarians should be concerned about an Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that such a crime has actually been committed.

Before we get to the current search, a word about what constitutes an impeachable crime under the constitution, whose criteria are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior. Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.

What is not debatable is that "maladministration" is an impermissible ground for impeachment. Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary democracy in which the leader -- the prime minister -- is subject to removal by a simple vote of no confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to change these criteria without amending the Constitution. To paraphrase what many Democratic legislators are now saying: members of Congress are not above the law; they take an oath to apply the Constitution, not to ignore its specific criteria. Congresswoman Maxine Waters placed herself above the law when she said:

"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates impeachment. What the Constitution says is 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and we define that."

October 28, 2019 10:58 PM  
Anonymous they call it democracy said...

So, the question remains: did President Trump commit impeachable offenses when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are seeking his impeachment?

The answers are plainly no and no. There is a constitutionally significant difference between a political "sin," on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable offenses, on the other.

Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine -- a quid pro quo exchange of foreign aid for a political favor -- that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable offense.

Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal advantage. Most recently, President Barack Obama misused his power in order to take personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel's control over the Western Wall -- Judaism's holiest site -- constitutes a "flagrant violation of international law." Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense.

Nor did President George H. W. Bush commit an impeachable offense when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from pointing the finger at him.

This brings us to President Trump's directive with regard to the impeachment investigation. Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

So, the search for the holy grail of a removable offense will continue, but it is unlikely to succeed. Our constitution provides a better way to decide who shall serve as president: it's called an election.

October 28, 2019 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trump has ‘reshaped’ the evangelical movement into an ‘image of himself’: Columnist

On Monday, columnist Michael Gerson wrote for the Washington Post that in cutting a devil’s bargain to support President Donald Trump in return for their political agenda, right-wing evangelicals have let their culture and identity be co-opted by Trumpism — saying that “evangelicals have been reshaped into the image of Trump himself.”

“The story of Noah is an odd curricular choice for young children. Fresh off the boat, according to the biblical account, he plants a vineyard, gets drunk and lies naked in his tent. This is a source of consternation to Noah’s sons, who don’t want to see the dark side, much less the backside, of their father. So they cover him with a handy duvet,” wrote Gerson. “I thought of drunk, naked Noah while reading the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2019 American Values Survey. In the PRRI survey’s pages, white evangelical Protestants (WEPs) are fully disrobed. And it is an embarrassing sight.”

The poll, Gerson noted, showed a “cultlike” devotion to Trump’s presidency among these evangelicals.

“For many followers, Trump has defined an alternative, insular universe of facts and values that only marginally resembles our own,” wrote Gerson. “According to the PRRI poll, nearly two-thirds of WEPs deny that Trump has damaged the dignity of his office. Ponder that a moment. Well over half of this group is willing to deny a blindingly obvious, entirely irrefutable, manifestly clear reality because it is perceived as being critical of their leader. Forty-seven percent of WEPs say that Trump’s behavior makes no difference to their support. Thirty-one percent say there is almost nothing that Trump could do to forfeit their approval. This is preemptive permission for any violation of the moral law or the constitutional order.

Perhaps most stunning of all, Gerson continued, “An extraordinary 99 percent of WEPs oppose the impeachment and removal of the president — which probably puts me in the smallest political minority I have ever had the honor of occupying.”

As Gerson noted, there is a bright spot: Younger evangelicals have substantially different political views from the previous generation. “About two-thirds of young white evangelicals believe that immigrants strengthen the country. Their approval of Trump is significantly lower. Time will work in favor of sanity.”

“But we should not underestimate the cultural trauma that many leaders of the religious right have inflicted,” concluded Gerson. “It is in the order of things that a younger generation should challenge the views and values of its parents. It is a source of cynicism and social disruption when an older generation betrays civilizing values in full sight of its children. Many evangelical leaders now lie drunk, naked and exposed.”

You can read more here

October 28, 2019 11:16 PM  
Anonymous Heterosexuals want more special privileges said...

PHOENIX (AP) — An elected official in Arizona was suspended Monday after he was charged with running a human smuggling scheme that brought pregnant women from the Marshall Islands to the U.S. to give birth and then paid them to give up their children for adoption.

Leaders in Arizona's most populous county suspended Assessor Paul Petersen without pay for 120 days. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors doesn't have the power to permanently remove him from his office, which determines the value of properties for tax purposes in Phoenix and its suburbs.

Petersen, who is in federal custody, has so far refused to resign since his arrest on Oct. 8. His lawyer, Kurt Altman, said Petersen will fight to keep the $77,000-a-year job he was last elected to in 2016.
Petersen, a Republican, has been indicted in federal court in Arkansas and also charged in Arizona and Utah with crimes that include human smuggling, sale of a child, fraud, forgery and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The criminal case spans three years and involves some 75 adoptions, authorities said, with about 30 adoptions pending in three states.

Petersen is accused of illegally paying women from the Marshall Islands to have their babies in the United States and give them up for adoption. The women were crammed into homes owned or rented by Petersen, sometimes with little to no prenatal care, court documents say.
Petersen charged families $25,000 to $40,000 per adoption, prosecutors said.
Petersen completed a mission in the Marshall Islands, a collection of atolls and islands in the eastern Pacific, for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He later worked in the islands and the U.S. on behalf of an international adoption agency before going to law school and becoming an adoption attorney.

The Board of Supervisors said Monday that Arizona law allows it to suspend Petersen for "neglect of duty," citing his absence from the office during his incarceration and limited access to phone and email.
An audit of Petersen's office also found files from his adoption business on his county computer, which can't be used for personal business, the supervisors said.

October 29, 2019 2:15 AM  
Anonymous why Trump doesn't want Ukraine to investigate Warren said...

Elizabeth Warren wants to impose an annual wealth tax on those who possess more than $50 million. She is happy to bring it up whenever asked about how she is going to pay for her ambitious plans to expand government, implying that it will pay for most or all of them.

In reality, such a tax has been tried, and it would be foolish to write off the results. A wealth tax would set off an instant stampede of capital out of the United States, along with some degree of wealth and access to employment for the middle class, all in exchange for what she claims would be a $2.75 trillion windfall for the federal treasury over 10 years.

Note that this amount, a very generous estimate of what a wealth tax could generate based on humanity’s historical experience with wealth taxes, would not even cover three years of current deficits, let alone a 14-digit "Green New Deal" or single-payer health plan. But more to the point, Warren’s proposed tax on wealth is both impractical and useless.

First, a wealth tax is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress specific powers to impose particular taxes, including taxes on imports, taxes apportioned among the states, and (thanks to the 16th Amendment) an income tax. The nation’s chief governing document does not give Congress permission to impose a wealth tax.

The data haven't taught Buttigieg anything about the people he governs. As long as Mayor Pete relies entirely on data, the one thing the numbers do show is that they'll keep him out of the White House.

Second, as noted above, a wealth tax would not pay for Warren’s ambitious big-government plans anyway. As MSNBC’s Willie Geist noted, Warren could go beyond a tax and “confiscate all of the wealth” of people making $50 million or more, and that still “wouldn't cover the cost of all of the plans she is putting forward.” He is correct, considering that her preferred "Medicare for all" plan will cost more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

Third, wealth taxes do not work — which is to say, governments that impose them find that capital flight prevents collection of anything close to the amounts they hope for. In practical terms, these taxes are easy for the wealthy to avoid, as their capital is more mobile today than ever before. This is why nearly every European country that adopted a wealth tax has since repealed it and benefited economically from the repeal.

Leftist economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez insisted in a Washington Post op-ed last week that this time it’s different, an idea that any economist should recognize as problematic. They believe that “European governments” only failed in taxing wealth because they “made wrong choices, letting tax avoidance fester.” The same could be said of communism or New Coke: It would have worked if only they’d implemented it properly.

It is far more accurate to say that only an especially arrogant, ignorant bureaucrat could believe he can get a free lunch for government by somehow cornering the wealthy. In fact, the economic consequences of punishing wealth accumulation would easily make up for any benefits the government thinks it can realize from such a tax.

Economists Zucman and Saez also argue that because Americans can be compelled to pay federal taxes even if they expatriate themselves, the U.S. is an ideal place for a wealth tax. Even if the IRS’s claim to universal tax jurisdiction made collections more certain, and we doubt it, there is no sense in which such a tax would make the country better off. After all, the most important thing about a wealth tax is that it is not even intended to serve a fiscal purpose. It only exists to slake the hatred, envy, and resentment that socialism disseminates by design

October 29, 2019 8:51 AM  
Anonymous drip...drip..drip....... said...

The Justice Department’s inquiry into the origins of Russiagate has now expanded into a criminal matter, raising alarm bells among intelligence officials, Democratic leaders, and media pundits who promoted the theory of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump would like to exact political revenge on those behind the Russia probe, and it is fair to be skeptical of his Department of Justice. But it would be a mistake to reflexively dismiss the inquiry, which is led by US Attorney John Durham and overseen by Attorney General William Barr. The public deserves an accounting of what occurred. And given the intrusion of the nation’s intelligence’s services into domestic politics, a failure to learn lessons and enact safeguards could leave future candidates, especially on the left, vulnerable to similar investigations.

For more than two years, the FBI investigated a presidential campaign and then sitting president as a conspirator or agent of Russia. The story engulfed US media and political energy and had major consequences on domestic US politics and foreign relations. The probe found not only no Trump-Russia conspiracy, but barely even any contact between the two sides suspected of conspiring. Carrying a Russian passport (as the Russians in the Trump Tower meeting did), or falsely suggesting in an e-mail that you are acting at the Kremlin’s behest (as the British music publicist who arranged that meeting did), does not mean that you are actually working with the Russian government. Mueller, ultimately, showed no evidence that they—or any other suspected Kremlin intermediary—were Kremlin intermediaries. This helps explain why, as the report found, Kremlin officials trying to reach out to the Trump campaign after its election victory “appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

And even with this all-consuming investigation now over, we still do not have a firm understanding of how it began. We are told that the FBI launched the probe after receiving a tip that a Trump campaign volunteer, George Papadopoulos, may have been given advance notice by a mysterious professor, Joseph Mifsud, that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Former FBI director James Comey has declared that Mifsud is “a Russian agent.” But Mueller, conspicuously, never applied that label to Mifsud. Even more conspicuously, Mueller failed to indict him on any charges, despite claiming that Mifsud lied to FBI agents when they interviewed him in February 2017. Compounding the mystery, Barr and Durham reportedly obtained Mifsud’s cell phones during a recent trip to Italy, where he went missing in November 2017. In court filings, attorneys for Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, are now contending that Mifsud is a Western intelligence asset involved in a scheme to frame Flynn and the Trump campaign by association.

As the journalist T.A. Frank notes in Vanity Fair, there are strong reasons to doubt the theory that Mifsud was involved in an effort to set up the Trump campaign. But the presence of one potentially false conspiracy theory does not negate the fact that Mifsud helped trigger the certifiably false conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government. It would be most welcome to find out exactly how that occurred.

October 29, 2019 9:39 AM  
Anonymous drip...drip..drip....... said...

It is also important to find out the extent to which the FBI relied on the Steele dossier. We have yet to receive a credible explanation for why intelligence officials thought it was appropriate to take cues from an unverified collection of lurid conspiracy theories about Trump—all paid for by his political opponent. What has already been revealed is damning enough. The FBI cited the Steele dossier to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in October 2016, telling the court that it “believes that [Russia’s] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with,” the Trump campaign. Its source for that wild supposition was Steele, whom it described as “Source #1” & “credible.”

Then there is the role of the CIA under John Brennan. Multiple news reports make clear that the CIA is a principal focus of Barr and Durham’s inquiry. In breaking the story of the expanded criminal inquiry, The New York Times includes the curious claim that Durham has asked interview subjects “whether C.I.A. officials might have somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation.”

Although there are limitations on how much we can make of one sentence, that is a tantalizing clue pointing to Brennan. The former CIA director has taken credit for launching the Russia investigation, telling Congress in May 2017 that his own “concerns” about “contacts between Russian officials and US persons” associated with the Trump campaign “served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred.” The Barr-Durham inquiry will hopefully uncover what exactly Brennan’s “concerns” were.

Brennan’s role should be scrutinized because he not only said he helped initiate the Trump-Russia probe but because he managed the US intelligence response to alleged Russian interference. It was Brennan who personally delivered to the White House a top-secret envelope containing the claims of a Kremlin mole that Vladimir Putin had personally ordered an interference operation to install Trump. And amazingly, we have recently learned not only the mole’s identity but the curious circumstances of his exit from Russia. The mole, a mid-level Kremlin official named Oleg Smolenkov, initially refused CIA efforts to remove him, prompting concerns in Langley about his trustworthiness, and that he was possibly a double agent. Reporting from The New York Times makes clear that he left Russia only after leaks about a Kremlin mole began appearing in US media.

After his outing, journalists found Smolenkov living in the Virginia suburbs under his own name. All of this makes for a curious profile for someone who had supposedly revealed what The Washington Post dubbed “the crime of the century.”

October 29, 2019 9:41 AM  
Anonymous drip...drip..drip....... said...

In addition to helping trigger the Russia probe and overseeing the intelligence response, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that purportedly validated it. By claiming that Putin ordered an influence campaign to elect him, the January 2017 ICA helped cast a criminal shadow over Trump’s presidency just days before he took office. A series of unsubstantiated leaks from anonymous officials—about Flynn, about the Steele dossier, and about fictitious or overblown Trump-Russia contacts—continued that pattern as the Mueller investigation dragged on. Perhaps the most extraordinary example came in February 2017, when The New York Times reported that the US investigators had obtained “phone records and intercepted calls” showing that members of Trump’s campaign and other associates “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.” Four months later, FBI Jim Comey testified that this was “not true.”

If the FBI had investigated President Barack Obama for more than two years on the false allegation of conspiring with or being an agent of a foreign power, Democratic leaders would rightfully demand a full inquiry. It would set a dangerous precedent for liberals to now reject an effort to get answers only because those answers would not be politically expedient. If left unchecked now, the same intelligence services that involved themselves in domestic politics in 2016 could do so again against progressive candidates on similarly spurious grounds.

The unfortunate reality is that under Trump, Democratic leaders and intelligence officials used the Russia investigation as a political weapon against his presidency. Now that it has proven baseless, Trump and his supporters have legitimate grounds to uncover how it began. The fact that Trump will use Russiagate’s failure as a political weapon is exactly why us skeptics on the left warned that its evidentiary holes would help him. Rather than complaining, those who brought us Russiagate should accept responsibility for handing Trump that opportunity, and work to ensure that the national security state does not receive opportunities to intrude again.

October 29, 2019 9:41 AM  
Anonymous more Dem embarrassment - they must put up or shut up said...

President Trump has repeatedly slammed the secret impeachment hearings in the Capitol basement as a “kangaroo court.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the message. On Monday, she announced the full House will vote to formally launch impeachment proceedings that will be out in the open, instead of in the dark.

Democrats have been trying to suggest they have the goods on Trump. But fact is, none of the witnesses they have called so far have any firsthand knowledge of presidential wrongdoing.

Behind closed doors and with no media allowed, House Democrats have tried to put on the ­appearance of a legal proceeding. At the end of each session, they leak what they claim happened. The media are all too willing to play along, printing the Democratic pols’ claims as if they were fact.

“Powerful testimony from multiple State and national ­security officials,” The Hill reports, adding up to a “scathing picture of Trump and his allies withholding nearly $400 million in security aid from Ukraine.”

Politico called the testimony of Bill Taylor, the acting envoy to Kiev, “explosive” — though Taylor’s prepared statement merely ­regurgitated what other State ­Department bureaucrats had told him. His source was the rumor mill. It’s called hearsay.

The New York Times reports “a rapidly moving investigation securing damning testimony.” That’s hardly the case. But soon the jig will be up. No matter how many “witnesses” Democrats parade into their hearings, it won’t matter if they have no firsthand knowledge. Even the Times concedes that to ­impeach a president, the House needs proof “tying him directly” to wrongdoing.

Before Pelosi’s announcement on Monday, Adam Schiff, the House intelligence-committee chairman who is overseeing the secret hearings, gave up on calling witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of Trump’s ­negotiations with the Ukrainian president.

Schiff caved after a key witness actually challenged the committee’s subpoena as illegitimate and said see you in court. Charles Kupperman, former deputy ­national-security adviser and one of the few people who was on Trump’s Ukraine call, filed a lawsuit, arguing that the House committee can’t compel testimony for an impeachment until the full House votes to authorize subpoenas for that purpose. That, of course, is the vote Pelosi was dodging.

October 29, 2019 11:18 AM  
Anonymous more Dem embarrassment - they must put up or shut up said...

Why the secrecy, Rep. Schiff?

“We are not willing to allow the White House to engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope with the courts,” Schiff said. Translation: Democrats don’t think they would win in the highest court.

They also don’t want to risk dragging the inquiry on for months, as they did with the Mueller investigation. Better to ram anything through. After all, without evidence of grave wrongdoing, the Republican-controlled Senate won’t remove this president from office. But Dems have one goal — to impeach Trump, damaging him sufficiently to tip the 2020 election.

Schiff’s cynical decision not to meet Kupperman in court indicates he also may not want to press for testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or Energy Secretary Rick Perry, or former National Security Adviser John Bolton — men who actually know the facts about Trump’s dealings with the Ukraine.

Additional witnesses are scheduled to appear before Schiff’s committee later this week. But they will offer more of the same. “It’s always people who talked to people who have talked to other people who think that he might have meant this,” says Rep. Mark Meadows, an intelligence-committee member witnessing the charade.

The public isn’t stupid, and Pelosi is a far better politician than Schiff. Polls show fewer than half of voters supporting impeachment in key swing states like Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. These are states Trump won in 2016, and Pelosi has been reluctant to put Democratic members from these states on the spot. Trump called her bluff.

Now the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.

If you think the conclusion of the Mueller report was embarrassing for Dems, you ain't seen nothing yet !!!!!

October 29, 2019 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Former vice president Joe Biden was reportedly denied Communion on Sunday morning at a church in Florence, S.C., where he was making a campaign stop.

The Rev. Robert E. Morey of Saint Anthony Catholic Church, told a local newspaper that Biden, who is running in the 2020 presidential election, attended his church’s 9 a.m. Mass. Morey said he denied Biden Communion because of the Democratic candidate’s political stance on abortion.

“Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that,” Morey said in a statement to the Morning News. “Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching.”

The Catholic Church opposes abortion, but local priests and bishops in the United States have varying policies around whether to give Communion to someone who supports an issue like abortion rights.

This is not the first time Biden has been barred from receiving Communion over his stance on abortion rights. Biden was baptized and spent his early years in Scranton, Pa., where the bishop there had reportedly barred him from receiving communion.

Publicly, Biden has a complicated relationship with Catholic leaders. After he announced his run in 2008, several U.S. bishops insisted he should be refused Communion in their diocese.

Biden said in 2012 that he is personally opposed to abortion. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. … I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body,” he said during a debate.

In the past, he has supported the 1976 Hyde Amendment that prevents federal funding of most abortions. But earlier this year, he joined with other Democratic candidates for president saying that he did not support the amendment, and he defended his record at a Planned Parenthood event.

Catholic leaders consider ongoing and vocal support for legalized abortion as a grave sin with consequences. For instance, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) cannot receive Communion where he lives in the Archdiocese of New York. Cuomo’s support for the state’s new law allowing abortions later in pregnancy earlier this year raised questions over whether he should be excommunicated from the church.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bishop, San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, has suggested publicly that politicians who favor legal abortion should be refused Communion.

Biden and his wife, Jill, both regularly attend Mass at St. Joseph’s on the Brandywine in Greenville, Del..

October 29, 2019 12:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

My, my, my, look at all those cut&pastes by Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous

They're really scared of what I write.

October 29, 2019 12:46 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump used taxpayer money to blackmail a foreign government into committing a crime to help with him get re-elected.

Trump is not above the law. This corruption cannot stand, he must go.

October 29, 2019 12:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Ex-Christian: My Faith Shifted After Seeing Ken Ham Get “Destroyed” by Bill Nye

Kudos to the Christian Post: The publication just posted the first of eight (!) personal essays written by people who walked away from Christianity, even if they later returned. This one’s from Luke Douglas, the executive director of the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix and board member for the Secular Coalition for Arizona. In other words, a legit atheist activist.

Douglas was in law school — and taking seminary classes on his own over the summer because he was still a devout believer — when Creationist Ken Ham debated Bill Nye in 2014. That debate shifted his thinking.

"… When [Ham] debated Bill Nye the Science Guy on the scientific legitimacy of creationism, I was about halfway through law school and organized a debate watch party, ordered pizza, and gathered my evangelical colleagues to root for Ham together. So imagine how devastating it was to watch my childhood icon be so embarrassingly destroyed before my very eyes. Ken Ham brought faith to an evidence fight, and even my fundamentalist creationist eyes could see it. I resolved in that moment to learn more about evolution, astronomy, and geology so that, when it was my turn to debate the Bill Nyes of the world, I would do better than Ken Ham had."

We know what happens when fundamentalists “learn more.” They stop being fundamentalists. (“The more I tried to investigate, the more problems I ran into.”)

Eventually, Douglas was convinced that the religion he dedicated his life to was just flat-out wrong:

" … my desire to be an effective apologist left me with nothing to defend. I had wanted nothing more than to reinforce my faith, but willing myself to believe something that just didn’t make sense was no longer sustainable. So adrift on a sea of chaos, I called my then-fiance, who was doing missions work in Asia at the time, and begged her not to leave me as her faith insisted she would have to [religion is a divider, not a uniter].

You know the article is effective because one of the comments is from someone asking, “what is the purpose in giving this antichrist space on your website?”

It’s a compelling story. It’s also not uncommon. The most fervent believers often become the most active atheists.

October 29, 2019 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Akira625 said...

It's not easy to admit you've been wrong all your life. Well done him.

It's particularly difficult to admit that a belief system is wrong after one invests so much time and effort into it.

October 29, 2019 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Lavos (aka Bob) said...

the possibility of losing his wife because of it due to what the religion teaches isn't easy either

October 29, 2019 1:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Religion is a divider, not a uniter.

We best unite around making the highest priority of society maximizing the happiness for all in an equal and fair way.

October 29, 2019 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why the secrecy, Rep. Schiff?"

There isn't any secrecy. GOPers on his committee may attend any and all of his hearings, even those held in the SCIF.

"Schiff’s cynical decision not to meet Kupperman in court "

Schiff made no such decision.

Kupperman asked the court for guidance about who he should listen to in this impeachment inquiry, the president or Congress.

The court will deliver the only answer it can found in Article 1 of the Constitution, possibly tomorrow afternoon.

"A federal judge hearing arguments in a potentially critical impeachment inquiry case wants to hear from lawyers for the Trump White House, the House of Representatives and from impeachment witness Charles Kupperman on Thursday after Kupperman filed a lawsuit asking the federal court to decide whether he would need to testify.

Kupperman's House testimony had been set for Monday, but Kupperman didn't show up, citing White House and Justice Department reasoning that he was immune from testifying because of his previous work on the National Security Council.

Leon will meet the parties in court at 3 p.m. on Thursday, "due to the time-sensitive nature of the issues raised in this case," Judge Richard Leon of the DC District Court wrote Monday night."

But we all know Article 1 of the US Constitution says, "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Congress has a Constitutional right to conduct its impeachment inquiry.

How soon they forget: the court already forced Tricky Dicky to release his secret tapes during his impeachment inquiry.

October 29, 2019 1:29 PM  
Anonymous How low will President Bone Spurs go? said...

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is set to testify in the House impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, when he’s expected to tell lawmakers that he was so troubled by President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he reported it internally, twice.

In advance of what could be damning testimony from a White House staffer who personally listened in on the call, Trump and his allies are trying to smear the highly decorated war veteran.

Vindman, 44, currently serves as the top Ukraine expert for the National Security Council. Prior to that, the Harvard-educated officer served multiple overseas tours in South Korea, Germany and Iraq, where he was injured by a roadside bomb for which he received the Purple Heart.

“I am a patriot,” Vindman is expected to say in his opening statement, according to a copy of the remarks obtained by HuffPost, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.”

But on Monday night, Fox News host Laura Ingraham ― aided by her guest, former Justice Department official and “torture memos” author John Yoo ― chose to question Vindman’s loyalty and patriotism.

Vindman emigrated to the U.S. from Ukraine as a child. Because Ukrainian officials reportedly asked him how to deal with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani ― who’d inserted himself into official U.S. dealings with the country ― and those conversations may not always have been in English, Ingraham and Yoo speculated that Vindman had actually engaged in “espionage."

Former Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) doubled down on that notion in a CNN appearance Tuesday morning, during which he questioned the officer’s motives because “he speaks Ukrainian.” Again, Vindman currently serves as the White House’s top Ukraine expert.

Duffy ignored the question when asked if his motives in relation to U.S.-Irish policy should be similarly suspect because he’s of Irish heritage, or if Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) should be mistrusted because he was born in France.

Trump also tried to impugn the lieutenant colonel on Tuesday morning, tweeting "Supposedly, according to the Corrupt Media, the Ukraine call “concerned” today’s Never Trumper witness. Was he on the same call that I was? Can’t be possible! Please ask him to read the Transcript of the call. Witch Hunt! 9:09 AM - Oct 29, 2019"

October 29, 2019 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming has been an ardent defender of President Donald Trump during the impeachment inquiry, but she may have reached her breaking point on Tuesday.

Cheney said the attempts by members of her party to slur the patriotism of Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are “shameful” and that “we need to show that we are better than that as a nation.”

Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, is set to testify on Tuesday that he heard Trump pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden.

At a press conference ahead of Vindman’s testimony, Cheney said, “I also want to address something that’s been going on for the last several hours, and last night, which I think is also shameful, and that is questioning the patriotism and questioning the dedication to country of people like Mr. Vindman, Lt. Col. Vindman, who will be coming today, and others who have testified.”

“I think that we need to show that we are better than that as a nation,” she added. “Their patriotism, their love of country, we’re talking about decorated veterans who have served this nation, who have put their lives on the line, and it is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation, and we should not be involved in that process.”

On Monday, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham accused Vindman of being “apparently against the president’s interests” while inside the White House and tried to paint him as a double agent.

On Tuesday, former GOP Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisc.) told a CNN panel that Vindman’s loyalty might be suspect because he was born in Ukraine before his family moved to the United States.

RawStory noted that Cheney’s father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, trashed the military service of Democratic nominee and Purple Heart recipient John Kerry while campaigning for reelection in 2004.

October 29, 2019 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Interesting developments said...

Vindman’s testimony directly challenged that of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, a Trump appointee who met with impeachment investigators earlier this month. Sondland defended the president’s actions and told House investigators no one had raised concerns about them.

Asked to respond to Vindman’s testimony, Sondland attorney Robert Luskin said his client would decline to comment.

Sondland, in September text messages to the top American diplomat in Ukraine, Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., said Trump had not engaged in a quid pro quo. Those text messages were provided to impeachment investigators by Kurt Volker, the Trump administration’s former special envoy to Ukraine.

In his meeting with lawmakers last week, Taylor laid out in meticulous detail how a shadow Ukraine policy involving Sondland and directed by Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani prioritized investigating Trump’s political rivals over U.S. national security interests. Taylor’s testimony has been held up as the most incriminating to date.

Vindman’s recollections, while narrower, illuminate key episodes in Taylor’s narrative with an even closer perspective: Vindman was either in the room or briefed personally after meetings by administration officials involved in the exchanges Democrats believe amounted to a quid pro quo.

Vindman also went to the NSC’s lead counsel with concerns about a July 10 meeting between Sondland, Volker, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, then-national security adviser John Bolton and senior Ukrainian officials. During the meeting, according to Vindman’s prepared statement, Sondland demanded that Ukrainian leaders deliver “specific investigations” to secure a meeting between Zelensky and Trump.

Vindman said he was told about that meeting directly by Sondland in the immediate aftermath of the event, according to his prepared remarks. During the previously scheduled debrief, “Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” a Ukrainian energy company, Vindman’s prepared testimony reads.

“I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push,” Vindman adds.

Sondland is already under pressure from some lawmakers to return to Capitol Hill due to discrepancies between his testimony and that of others like Taylor, who told investigators Sondland was aware Trump was leveraging a meeting and, later, the military aid for Ukraine on promises to conduct investigations.

October 29, 2019 2:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, is set to testify on Tuesday that he heard Trump pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden."

Oh, it wasn't a matter of just "digging up dirt" on the Bidens, Trump and his administration pressured the Ukrainian president to open a fake criminal investigation into the Bidens.

That's a crime in Ukraine, just as it is in the United States and every other democracy around the world.

Trump blocked funding Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine defend itself against the Russian military invasion into Ukraine (an act condemned by free countries around the world(but not Trump).

Trump used American taxpayer money to try to force a foreign country to commit crimes to help Trump get re-elected.

October 29, 2019 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Even failed Bush economist is scurrying off the sinking ship said...

Count Greg Mankiw out of the GOP.

Mankiw, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President George W. Bush, announced Monday that he quit the Republican Party because of its acquiescence to President Donald Trump.

In a blog post amplified by CNN’s Jake Tapper, Mankiw revealed he’d just “switched my voter registration from Republican to unenrolled (aka independent)” for two reasons.

“First, the Republican Party has largely become the Party of Trump,” wrote Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University.

“Too many Republicans in Congress are willing, in the interest of protecting their jobs, to overlook Trump’s misdeeds (just as too many Democrats were for Clinton during his impeachment),” he continued.

“I have no interest in associating myself with that behavior,” Mankiw said. “Maybe someday, the party will return to having honorable leaders like Bush, McCain, and Romney. Until then, count me out.”

Secondly, Mankiw explained how unenrolled voters in his home state of Massachusetts can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries.

“The Democratic Party is at a crossroads, where it has to choose either a center-left candidate (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang) or a far-left populist (Warren, Sanders) as their nominee for president,” he said.

“I intend to help them choose the former. The latter propose to move the country too far in the direction of heavy-handed state control,” Mankiw concluded. “And in doing so, they tempt those in the center and center-right to hold their noses and vote for Trump’s reelection.”

October 29, 2019 4:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"“Too many Republicans in Congress are willing, in the interest of protecting their jobs, to overlook Trump’s misdeeds (just as too many Democrats were for Clinton during his impeachment),” he continued."

There's that false equivalence again.

Clinton was impeached for a consensual sex act with an adult. Trump has used the office of president to violate the constitution again and again; using government to enrich himself, corrupting the Justice Department to use it to go after his political opposition and honest law enforcement trying to do its job; working to advance the interests of Russia at the expense of the USA and the free world and many,many other crimes too numerous to mention.

October 29, 2019 5:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Indicted Ukrainian gas oligarch Dmytro Firtash spent more than $1 million hiring key figures in Republican efforts to investigate the Biden family.

His lawyers—who often go on Fox News to defend President Trump—say they needed the dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden to demonstrate that Firtash’s prosecution was politically motivated.

But the two men have a history. Two Ukrainian gas industry experts say the gas-market reforms pushed by Biden and others in 2014 and 2015 hit Firtash in the wallet, and badly. One knowledgeable outside observer estimated that the 2014 and 2015 gas reforms and legislation cost him hundreds of millions of dollars.

On Dec. 9, 2015, Biden gave a speech to Ukraine’s parliament. He praised the protesters who forced out Ukraine’s Russia-friendly president, he recited Ukrainian poetry, and he called for reforms to Ukraine’s gas market, too.

“The energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles—not sweetheart deals,” he said, basking in the audience’s repeated applause.

Firtash, who built his fortune in part through a rather sweet gas-trading deal, hated it. Earlier this year—more than three and a half years after the talk—he was still seething. Firtash told The Daily Beast that the Ukrainian parliamentarians in the audience were humiliatingly subservient to Biden.

Now people linked to Firtash are at the heart of Republicans’ efforts to find dirt on Biden, and a document Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has said is key to his theory of Biden World malfeasance was produced for Firtash’s legal team. The reporter who published that document, The Hill’s John Solomon, is a client of Firtash’s new lawyers, Victoria Toensing and Joe DiGenova. Over the summer, Trump pressured Ukraine’s president to cooperate with Giuliani’s efforts. That pressure stunned many Republicans and gave House Democratic leadership the impetus they had long sought to announce an impeachment inquiry.

October 29, 2019 8:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And two Giuliani associates reportedly brought up Firtash’s name when talking about their plans for Ukraine’s energy sector. Those two associates also worked with Giuliani to try to find dirt on Biden, and they’ve both been charged with financial crimes. On top of that, Firtash’s lawyers say one of them, Lev Parnas, has worked as a translator for his legal team.

Firtash’s company did not respond to requests for comment. Biden’s campaign called Firtash “a Kremlin-friendly Ukrainian oligarch who’s been wanted on bribery and racketeering charges in the U.S. since 2014.”

Firtash was born in Ukraine and—like many other up-and-coming oligarchs—grew rich in the rubble of the Soviet Union. After spending some time in Moscow, he started trading gas from Central Asia to Ukraine. His renown as a gas trader grew, and he made deals with Russia’s state-owned giant Gazprom to move Russia’s abundant gas to energy-hungry Ukraine.

With Gazprom’s blessing, he got deals widely characterized as of the sweetheart variety: Firtash bought cheap gas from Russia, sold it for a lot more in Ukraine, and profited. He then bankrolled Russia-friendly politicians in Ukraine. One such politician was Viktor Yanukovych, who hired Paul Manafort. American diplomats at the time saw Firtash as a vector of Russian influence—part of the connective tissue between the Kremlin and Kyiv.

And American law enforcement saw him as a crook. On April 2, 2014, the Justice Department announced that he had been indicted for authorizing $18.5 million in bribes to Indian government officials. The case involved efforts to mine for titanium that would be used in Boeing planes.

Austrian authorities arrested Firtash a few weeks before the DOJ’s announcement. He posted about $174 million in bail and has since been living in Vienna, fighting extradition from his palatial corporate offices there. And while the allegation isn’t part of the DOJ’s indictment of Firtash, U.S. government lawyers have said in court that he’s an “upper echelon” associate of a Russian criminal organization.

October 29, 2019 8:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

In June of this year, an Austrian judge greenlit his extradition to the U.S. But his high-powered legal team is still fighting. And this July, that team got some new oomph: DiGenova and Toensing, a husband-and-wife duo who have worked on a host of contentious fights and have deep ties in Washington’s tight-knit conservative legal community. They even reportedly secured a meeting about Firtash’s case with Attorney General Bill Barr—a sit-down many criminal defense lawyers would kill for.

In 2014, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in protest. After Yanukovych’s government killed dozens of protesters, he was forced out and fled to Russia. He left behind a $20 billion hole in Ukraine’s economy, and the country teetered on the brink of fiscal collapse.

Enter Biden. The vice president helmed America’s Ukraine policy, traveled to the country multiple times while in office, and said he spoke to the country’s president and prime minister “probably on average once a week if you average it out over the last year.” Kyiv was desperate for billions in support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), where the U.S. holds sway. The Americans and the IMF pushed Ukraine to roll out a host of reforms to get the cash.

"The Obama administration, and Vice President Biden in particular, led the international community to help advance gas sector reforms in Ukraine,” said a former State Department official with knowledge of the dynamics. “The thinking of the United States was that establishing an open, transparent gas sector would be vital to Ukraine’s fight against entrenched oligarchic corruption and would shore up the country’s strategic stability in the face of Russian aggression.”

“Mr. Firtash’s control of RosUkrEnergo, which exerted monopolistic control over regional gas distribution, would have been threatened by these reforms,” the official added.

The Americans and the IMF also pushed for a series of reforms to Ukraine’s energy sector, including the gas industry. In 2014 and 2015, the Ukrainians unveiled a variety of changes: Kyiv changed the corporate governance of its state-owned gas company, Naftogaz; it passed its “Natural Gas Market” law, which the prime minister touted as having “de-oligarchized and de-monopolized” the gas market; and it rolled out a basket of regulatory changes to its gas sector—with Biden cheerleading along the way.

In a July 2015 speech, Biden praised Ukraine for “closing the space for corrupt middlemen who rip off the Ukrainian people.”

“Middleman” was an epithet often aimed at oligarchs like Firtash, whose gas business had raked in millions by acting as a broker between Ukraine’s state-owned gas company and Russia’s Gazprom.

“There is one of the biggest state-owned enterprises, which is Ukrainian Naftogaz, a gas company, that had very shadowy and non-transparent deals with middlemen and with the Russian Federation,” Arseniy Yatseniuk, the country’s prime minister at the time, said in a speech just two days after Biden’s. “So last year we eliminated this middleman. His name is Mr. Firtash. He is under FBI investigation and expected to be extradited to the United States.”

October 29, 2019 8:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump call

"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president and was alarmed, testified that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript."

I said right from the beginning when Trump released his summary of the call that he left out key details that make the call even more damning than the already damning summary Trump put out.

October 29, 2019 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Rump is going to bring back all those coal jobs! Or NOT said...

Retired coal miners got the news Tuesday that they’ve feared for years: Murray Energy has filed for bankruptcy.

The biggest privately owned coal company in the U.S., Murray is the eighth coal company to seek Chapter 11 protection this year alone, according to The Wall Street Journal. Its founder, Bob Murray, has aspired to be the last man standing in an industry suffering a long decline. He is stepping down as chief executive but will serve as chairman of the board for the company’s new incarnation, according to a statement.

Critically for retired miners, Murray Energy is the last large coal operator paying into the pension fund of the United Mine Workers of America. That fact has made strange bedfellows out of Murray and UMWA retirees: He is infamously anti-union as a boss, yet his continued payments into the pension fund have helped keep it afloat for years.

But through bankruptcy proceedings Murray Energy will very likely be able to shed much of its pensions obligation, threatening a fund that is already on the brink of insolvency. This could lead to pensions being cut within a year, according to the UMWA. As the union’s president, Cecil Roberts, put it in a statement, “We have seen this sad act too many times before.” The pension fund covers roughly 86,000 retirees.

Despite the Trump administration’s repeated claims of a coal turnaround, the industry has been getting hammered for years due to cheaper energy alternatives like natural gas. Company bankruptcies and falling employment have hit the pension fund hard. The union says there are around 12 inactive miners drawing pensions from the fund for every current worker whose employer is making contributions ― an unsustainable ratio that the Murray bankruptcy will make even worse.

October 29, 2019 11:57 PM  
Anonymous Go Nats! said...

Game 7 tonight!

October 30, 2019 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


October 30, 2019 10:18 AM  
Anonymous GOP wallows in RumpStench said...

Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower’s name ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the whistleblower’s name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it’s an attempt to out the anonymous official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry.

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that GOP lawmakers and staffers have “repeatedly” used a name purporting to be that of the whistleblower during the depositions. The paper named Harvey as driving lines of questioning Democrats saw as attempting to determine the political loyalties of witnesses before the inquiry. A former official told the Post that Harvey “was passing notes [to GOP lawmakers] the entire time” ex-NSC Russia staffer Fiona Hill was testifying.

“Exposing the identity of the whistleblower and attacking our client would do nothing to undercut the validity of the complaint’s allegations,” said Mark Zaid, one of the whistleblower’s attorneys. “What it would do, however, is put that individual and their family at risk of harm. Perhaps more important, it would deter future whistleblowers from coming forward in subsequent administrations, Democratic or Republican.” Zaid has represented The Daily Beast in freedom-of-information lawsuits against the federal government.

The whistleblower is not Harvey’s only target. Another is a staffer for the House intelligence committee Democrats whom The Daily Beast has agreed not to name due to concerns about reprisals against the staffer. Harvey, both sources said, has spread a false story alleging that the whistleblower contacted the staffer ahead of raising internal alarm about President Trump’s July 25 phone call attempting to get a “favor” from Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to damage Trump’s rival Joe Biden. In right-wing circles, contact with Schiff is meant to discredit the whistleblower as partisan...

Derek Harvey’s career has been extraordinary. As a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, he played an important role in the 2007-8 troop surge in Iraq. David Petraeus kept Harvey aboard for an intelligence billet at U.S. Central Command. Harvey aligned with another member of the counterinsurgency coterie, DIA Director Mike Flynn, and followed Flynn onto Trump’s White NSC. From there, Harvey became a crucial aide to Nunes, a pivotal Flynn and Trump ally. There is no reasonable definition of Deep State that excludes Derek Harvey from elite membership.

Harvey did not respond to a request for comment. The staffer declined to comment. A spokesperson for Nunes did not respond to a request for comment.

October 30, 2019 11:59 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Its so clear Trump's corruption will result in his removal from office (not a minute too soon), Evangelical christian leader Tony Perkins met with Trump in the White House today to pray. Perkins is the head of the euphemistically named "Family Reseach Council". The "Family" "Research" Council doesn't do anything to benefit families, their entire focus is on promoting harm and oppression to lgbt people and subordinating women to forced childbearing. The FRC has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Souther Poverty Law Centre.

When you want to see who the god is that evangelical christians worship you just need to look at who Trump is. For evangelical christians, their god and Trump are one in the same.

October 30, 2019 3:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If there was a just and loving God, he sure wouldn't be answering any prayers to keep Trump in office.

October 30, 2019 7:16 PM  
Anonymous How sweet it is! said...

At last, Nats are champs!!

After 95 years, D.C. is baseball’s capital again after 6-2 win vs. Astros

After losing all three games in Washington over the weekend, the underdog Nationals became the first team in major league history to win the World Series by claiming four games on the road. The 6-2 win in Game 7 secured the franchise’s first title and Washington’s first World Series championship since 1924.

October 31, 2019 7:17 AM  
Anonymous SAD! said...

Trump Posts Faked Photo Of Him Giving Medal To Hero Dog

The photo tweeted by president shows the dog Photoshopped over the image of Medal of Honor winner James McCloughan.

October 31, 2019 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Interesting developments said...

Senate Republicans are taking the House impeachment proceedings against President Trump more seriously as damaging revelations against the president mount and the possibility of a quick dismissal of the charges shrinks.

Earlier this year, GOP senators pledged to quickly quash any articles of impeachment passed by the House. But as the Democrats compile more evidence that Trump withheld military assistance from Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, they are adopting a more sober tone.

While no Senate Republican has said the charges against Trump rise to the level of being an impeachable offense, many have expressed concern over the drip-drip of damaging revelations.

A [chickenshit] Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on internal party discussions said GOP colleagues are taking the possibility of an impeachment trial seriously as the Democratic-controlled House compiles more evidence.

“We’re all becoming much more aware of the process and that’s because of the situation we’re in with the House,” the senator said, who added of colleagues, “I don’t think they’re going to dismiss it.”

Now Senate Republicans are treating the allegations that Trump improperly withheld military assistance to Ukraine in an attempt to gain a political favor much more seriously than they did the findings of the Mueller report.

Senate Republicans initially dismissed the release of the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky as a nothing burger.

Senate Republicans have since seen several serious revelations emerge, and support for impeachment has ticked upward in recent polls.

One pivotal moment came last week when William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, testified that he was told by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, that Trump wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless Zelensky agreed to a corruption investigation.

Another came days before, when acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney appeared to confirm at a press conference that military aid was withheld as leverage to push Ukraine to investigate corruption, although he later tried to walk back the statement.

On Wednesday, another blow against the president came when Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, Trump’s nominee to serve as ambassador to Russia, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he was aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to remove Marie Yovanovitch as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, on Wednesday said it would be “inappropriate” if Giuliani or anyone else spread misinformation to remove a U.S. ambassador.

“I would be concerned if a U.S. ambassador anywhere in the world is the subject of a disinformation campaign directed from abroad or from any interest, for that matter,” he said. “That would be something I wouldn’t be happy about. That would be something I would find to be inappropriate.”

Rubio also said it is important that he and his Senate colleagues carefully weigh the facts compiled by the House investigation.

“It’s important for us to make decisions based on all of the facts taken in context and taken together,” said Rubio, who noted that all of the facts and evidence compiled by House investigators have yet to be shared with the Senate.

October 31, 2019 9:29 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Me: Oh, wow, this shop has everything my heart desires!

Spooky shopkeeper: Yes, I will warn you...every item comes with a price.

Me: Yes, I know how shops work.

Spooky shopkeeper: The price may be more than you expect to pay.

Me: Yes, I know how sales taxes work, too.

Shopkeeper, increasingly exasperated: I'm trying to tell you that I'm evil and offering these wares with no regard for the harm they will do!

Me, also increasingly exasperated: I know what capitalism is too goddammit

October 31, 2019 2:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Evangelical christian Michelle Bachman:

"[Trump] understands the difference between good and evil. We have not seen a
president with greater moral clarity than this president.”

What she really means by that is:

"Trump is 100% on the side of giving anti-gay christians everything and everyone else nothing.

October 31, 2019 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Donald J. Trump said...

I did try and fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they just let you do it. You can do anything...Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

October 31, 2019 2:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

To evangelical christians Trump is as moral as their god and a monogamous gay couple is deserving of eternal torture.

That's messed up.

October 31, 2019 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Another witness confirms quid pro quo said...

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, on Thursday corroborated the testimony of a senior U.S. diplomat who last week offered House impeachment investigators the most detailed account to date for how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with his deposition.

Morrison told impeachment investigators that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate. He said that he alerted Taylor to a push by Trump and his deputies to withhold both security aid and a White House visit for the Ukrainian president until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens and interference in the 2016 presidential election, said one person, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.

October 31, 2019 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Apparently the deficit isn't large enough yet said...

The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have begun working on a new tax package, the Washington Post reports.

In September, both Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and economic advisor Larry Kudlow hinted that President Trump wanted to pass "tax cuts 2.0" before the 2020 election. Trump also said publicly in September that there would be income tax cuts for the middle-class next year.

"We’ll be looking at tax cuts 2.0, something that will be something we’ll consider next year,” Mnuchin told reporters, at the time. “But right now, the economy is in very, very good shape.”

The narrative of a successful U.S. economy has changed since Mnuchin made these comments.

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department released the latest economic numbers that suggested economic downturn.

The economy has grown at an annualized rate of 1.9 percent, falling short of Trump's goal of three percent per year. The Federal Reserve lowered interested rates for the third time this year, in hopes of stimulating a dragging economy. Additionally, business investment has contracted for six straight months.

Sources told the Post that Kudlow is playing a lead role in discussions.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the top GOP member on the House Ways and Means Committee, told the paper "we are having those discussions with the White House, we’ll be engaging with them further, and we’ll have discussions with Republicans, too, in the House about what we think the most pro-growth elements can be the most pro-innovation."

Trump's 2017 plan has failed to gain public support and has yet to show visible economic dividends. However, one tangible by-product of the tax package was a considerable hike to the national debt, which grew nearly $1 trillion.

Details of what the upcoming tax package would include are still murky, but some components may include lower income tax and capital gains tax rates. However, this rumor directly contradicts a claim that Trump made in September, when he said that he wouldn't lower capital gains taxes.

Nonetheless, Brady asserts that new tax policy is a priority for the the president.

However, any GOP tax bill introduced is likely to face immediate axing in a Democrat-controlled House.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), who's a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, told the paper that a Trump tax plan would go "nowhere" and that any tax bill at this point would only serve as a "another distraction from the fact that he’s about to be impeached."

In 2018, Trump promised that large tax cuts for the middle-class would come if the Republicans retained control of the House in midterm elections. But, after Democrats won control of the House in 2018, a bill was never put forward by the White House.

October 31, 2019 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Jay said...

Funny you never hear of an "ex-gay" who's also an athiest. Shame and religion are like the peanut butter to the jelly.

October 31, 2019 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Cuberly Trois said...

It's a cult.

Quite literally they wish harm on fellow citizens because of Jesus. That is one fucked up religion.

October 31, 2019 4:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Ms Magazine reports:

Since 1981, Congress has spent over $2.2 billion on shame-based, abstinence-only sex education programs—even though data shows that those very programs are failing. One 2011 study funded by the University of Georgia Research Foundation concluded teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant.

Comprehensive sex education curriculums could be the solution for rising STI and teen pregnancy rates, yet the Trump administration has chosen instead to employ strategies to police young women’s bodies.

Young people are speaking back—and demanding better from their national leaders. In partnership with Trojan, Advocates for Youth today will erect a 20-foot activist billboard covered in chewed-up gum speaking truth to power. “You Are Not Chewed Gum,” it will read. “Information Is the Best Protection.”

Hemant Mehta explains the analogy:

It’s not unusual for abstinence-only programs to compare people (let’s face it — mostly young girls) who have sex before marriage to used gum, or roses without petals, or tape that is no longer sticky. The harmful (and baseless) message is that sexually active people have lost their value for a future spouse.

It’s not only objectifying on a non-religious level. From a Christian perspective, it implies that sexual sin is somehow the only one Jesus can’t redeem.

Teenage boys, on the other hand, are all but expected to have sex before marriage — and they’re easily forgiven for it — because, they’re told, they were created to be slaves to their impulses. It’s up to young women to keep them in check by covering themselves up and wearing those metaphorical chastity belts.

October 31, 2019 6:30 PM  
Anonymous someone who spells too well to qualify as a TTFer said...

"Another witness confirms quid pro quo said...
Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, on Thursday corroborated the testimony of a senior U.S. diplomat who last week offered House impeachment investigators the most detailed account to date for how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with his deposition.

Morrison told impeachment investigators that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate.""

there's no way of knowing if all these media reports are true since the Dems are keeoing all the hearings secret (aka, leak anything you can exaggerate as being harmful to Trump)

truth is, it is common for US Presidents as well as other leaders to push other countries to so things that will advance their agenda

if the Dems got away with their kangaroo court, it would seriously hinder other Presidents when they deal with other leaders and also make them vulnerable to blackmail

but, it's clear that Dems are anti-American

"the deficit isn't large enough yet said...
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have begun working on a new tax package, the Washington Post reports."

Federal revenue has risen since the First Trump tax cuts

the deficit is caused by over-spending

"On Wednesday, the Commerce Department released the latest economic numbers that suggested economic downturn.

The economy has grown at an annualized rate of 1.9 percent, falling short of Trump's goal of three percent per year. The Federal Reserve lowered interested rates for the third time this year, in hopes of stimulating a dragging economy. Additionally, business investment has contracted for six straight months."

growth is only a downturn in the Orwellian world of desperate Dems

1.9 growth was typical for Obama

he called it the new normal

"Funny you never hear of an "ex-gay" who's also an athiest."

funny, most people don't pay much attention to ex-gays

anyway, what's an "athiest"?

is it the most athy person?

October 31, 2019 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Breeze said...

I just find it hilarious that evangelical Christians' anointed messiah is the living embodiment of everything they claim to abhor.

October 31, 2019 7:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "there's no way of knowing if all these media reports are true since the Dems are keeoing all the hearings secret (aka, leak anything you can exaggerate as being harmful to Trump)"

There's nothing secret about them, 47 Republicans are on the committees holding the hearings - Republicans and Trump know exactly what's taken place. If there was anything presented in the impeachment hearings that would have exonerated Trump you can be 100% sure Republicans would have leaked it.

These are the same committee rules Republicans drew up in 2015 to benefit themselves. Democrats are using the Republican's rules to investigate Trump - these are rules they drew up to favour Republicans and now they are suddenly absurdly claiming they are unfair to Republicans!

Today the Democrats added to the rules giving Trump the right to be present at the hearings, present evidence, and ask questions of witnesses - protections for the accused Nixon and Clinton never had!

The process is not only fair for Trump, its tilted in his favour. And yet dishonest Republicans keep trying to gaslight America into believing Trump isn't being given due process - he is and far, far more.

Wyatt/Regina said "truth is, it is common for US Presidents as well as other leaders to push other countries to so things that will advance their agenda".

A shameful lie. Past presidents and leaders of true democracies avoid at all costs using their office and taxpayer funds to benefit themselves, or to circumvent the democratic process.

Trump blocked taxpayer funded aid the Ukraine needed to defend itself against Russian invasion and demanded in return the Ukrainian government violate its own laws and open a fake investigation into the Bidens to help Trump's re-election campaign.

If this kind of corruption stands, it is the end of American democracy and the beginning of the Trump dictatorship.

October 31, 2019 7:28 PM  
Anonymous Boreal said...

Nothing says "I'm an entitled, arrogant, self-absorbed twat" quite like believing that your god grants you special favours such as finding lost keys and scoring touch-downs, while at the same time allowing innocent children all around the world to suffer and starve to death.

October 31, 2019 7:30 PM  
Anonymous Boreal said...

Fun Fact: The prayer postion (kneeling hands held in front palms together) originated as a submissive slave stance, offering one's hands to be shackled.

Today it is used as a slave stance, offering one's mind to be shackled.

Evangelical christians certainly are Trump's slaves, doing everything they can to help Trump use the presidency to enrich himself and become dictator.

October 31, 2019 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nightly news: President Trump has shot a citizen on Fifth Avenue

Wyatt and Regina Hardiman: Oh, every president does that, its nothing to worry about. Vote Trump 2020.

October 31, 2019 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland ... LOL said...

The vote was scheduled for Thursday. Rep. Katie Porter dressed like Batman.

The masked California Democrat wore a leather suit and cape, complete with thigh-high boots and yellow utility belt, on the morning that the House voted to formalize an impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

The costume was occasioned by Halloween and the vote triggered by allegations that the president abused public office for personal political gain.

All of this, minus the dress-up, had seemed inevitable -- paperwork for the Impeach Trump Leadership PAC was filed less than a month after his inauguration. It also represents an evolution; the same Democrats who insisted earlier in the year that impeachment be bipartisan plunged headlong into that process with a vote almost strictly along party lines.

All but two Democrats voted for the resolution that lays the ground rules for the impeachment probe and finally begins the public phase of those proceedings. Republicans uniformly opposed it. The tally: 232-196.

If an impeachment trial were held in the House, that wouldn't be enough to convict. If there is eventually a trial, it will be in the Senate where it won't even get a majority vote, much less a two-thirds needed to convict. So, the motivation for Dems is political rather than to remove a President who has committed a crime.

If the probe is ultimately successful after all the hearings and the subpoenas and the debates, Trump would become just the third president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House. Aware of the gravity of the situation, Pelosi said that the coming process would be “solemn,” even “prayerful.” It should not be, she continued, “cause for any glee or comfort.”

Halloween costumes are fine, just don't get too jocular!

But the Democratic leadership is notably less cautious than they were in the recent past.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi said in March.

“If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea,” concluded House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that same month.

“You have to be in a situation to undertake impeachment where you believe that once all the evidence is public, not a majority but a good fraction of the opposition voters who supported the president would say, 'Well, they had to do it. It was the right thing to do,’” echoed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.

November 01, 2019 5:17 AM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland ... LOL said...

The next month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller released the much-anticipated report on his examination of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It ran 448 pages and included four appendices, but that investigation into alleged collusion involving the president and possible obstruction of justice did not provide the political impetus needed to start impeachment. Then the president called his counterpart in Ukraine.

The president would later describe the conversation as “a perfect call.” An unnamed whistleblower -- a CIA analyst detailed to the White House in the first year of Trump’s presidency -- filed a complaint with the Justice Department, alleging that the president may have violated campaign finance law and even engaged in a quid pro quo by withholding congressionally approved foreign aid unless the Ukrainians dug up dirt on the Bidens.

The White House released a transcript of that call in September and continues to argue that the president did nothing wrong. Behind the closed doors of the Intelligence Committee, key witnesses alternatively confirm and rebut that line.

While those hearings continued in secret, a debate erupted publicly over their legitimacy. Republicans noted that they were being denied their rights as the minority party, most significantly the power to subpoena witnesses. White House counsel Pat Cipollone was similarly outraged, writing to Pelosi on Oct. 8 that the inquiry “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.”

The White House complained that Pelosi was moving forward with impeachment without a floor vote, something that had been afforded the previously impeached presidents. The administration also said that it was denied access to evidence and the ability to cross-examine witnesses.

And for the last month, the debate has been over the nitty-gritty parliamentary procedures driving impeachment. Finally, Pelosi conceded and gave Republicans what they wanted: a floor vote.

Now adopted, the resolution directs the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways & Means committees to “continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist” for the chamber to “exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump.”

Going forward, Republicans will have subpoena power, albeit subject to the concurrence of the committee chairmen. The minority party quickly bemoaned that condition while the majority insisted the resolution is identical to the one used during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Republicans bandied about words like “coup” and “cult” and “corrupt.” All of it, according to Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, amounts to “a disaster for democracy.” And after the floor vote, the California Republican shifted the process argument: Democrats should not just guarantee the subpoena rights of the Republicans; they should put impeachment on hold and try their chances “at the ballot box.”

“To my colleagues on the other side, I say this: Give the people back their power,” McCarthy said. “Let them choose the next leader of the free world. Follow the principles of our Constitution. And do not dilute our democracy by interfering in elections from Washington.”

Democrats won’t take his advice.

Formalized impeachment began on Halloween. The Dems wore costumes and acted like children anticipating a bag of candy. It will continue into 2020, and its shadow will loom over the coming general election, when voters will judge how the Dems behaved.

History won't be kind to Nancy Pelosi.

November 01, 2019 5:19 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

Joe Biden, astonishingly still the front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, wants to take on the Trump economy. Good luck with that.

With the majority of Americans, even many who detest him, giving President Trump high marks for his handling of the country’s financial affairs, Biden will struggle to convince voters that they want to go back to the Obama era. And make no mistake — that’s what Biden wants to do.

Biden traveled to his home state of Pennsylvania recently and talked up the policies that he and “Barack,” as he calls his former boss, put forward during their eight years in office. “Things were beginning to really move," he said, claiming that Trump is in the midst of “squandering” that momentum.

Is that true? Has the economy weakened since Trump become president? Obviously not.

Unemployment stands at a 50-year low, the poverty rate is the lowest since 2001, U.S. household wealth hit an all-time high earlier this year, there are more than one million unfilled jobs and in 2018 the share of income held by the top 20 percent fell by the largest amount in over a decade, as did the Gini index, which measures inequality.

Lower unemployment has translated into higher wages, which have finally filtered through to middle-class families, with the greatest gains accruing to the lowest income brackets.

The Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore recently reported that, based on data from the Census Bureau, “middle-class incomes, after adjusting for inflation, have surged by $5,003 since Donald Trump became president in January 2017. Median household income has now reached $65,976 — an all-time high and up more than 8 percent in 2019 dollars under the Trump presidency."

Moore points out that under Obama, average monthly middle-class incomes increased by $11, while so far under Trump they have grown by $161.

Biden claims that the “forgotten” men and women that Trump promised to help have been forgotten by the president and cited the usual canard that the Republican tax cut signed by the president benefited only corporations and the wealthy. No matter how often the official bean counters tally up the tax savings that accrued to all Americans, including those in middle-income brackets, Democrats still deny that the GOP tax cuts boosted everyone.

The reality is, according to the Tax Policy Center, those in the middle-income bracket got a tax cut of $780.

To its credit, even the New York Times has acknowledged that most Americans saw their tax bill drop. But the Times noted that many don’t believe it, thanks to “a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase.”

November 01, 2019 5:27 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

There is no doubt that corporations were the major beneficiaries of the GOP tax law. The corporate tax rate had been at 35 percent, the highest of any developed country; it was lowered to 21 percent in an effort to match levies imposed on businesses elsewhere. The United States saw a steady stream of major corporations move operations to more tax-friendly regions in an effort to cut costs and stay competitive. Revenues and profits from those ventures were held outside the country in order to avoid U.S. taxes.

In some cases, firms relocated to foreign countries by buying an overseas company, a process called an inversion. As the gap between U.S. and overseas tax rates widened, the number of inversions soared. Under Obama and Biden, in the five years leading up to the tax re-write, 25 companies quit the U.S., including Samsonite, Medtronic and the parent company for Burger King.


inRead invented by Teads
Biden complains that corporations took their winnings from the tax change and squandered them on stock buybacks. He is correct that a significant amount of money has flowed to stock repurchases, as was the case when he was in the White House.

But it is also true that business investment, which was depressed by the Obama-Biden regulatory tsunami, finally turned around and ticked up under President Trump, hitting an all-time high in the first quarter of this year.

Biden said in Pennsylvania that he wants to hike taxes on corporations. What a terrible idea. A thriving business community is essential to providing for the less fortunate in the U.S., something Democrats like Biden don’t seem to understand. And by the way, corporate tax revenues, after dropping because of the GOP cuts, are again trending higher, thanks to record earnings. Which shows once again that a reduction in tax rates generates higher tax revenues.

Uncle Joe told the hometown audience that Trump lacks “empathy.” But this is the same Joe Biden who, as a senator and then vice president, watched as millions of American jobs went overseas. This is the fellow who claims to be looking out for the little guy, but under Biden, that “little guy” got a whole lot smaller.

We lost nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs under his White House watch. In Trump's first 30 months in office through June, we added half a million manufacturing jobs. That’s quite a turnaround.

Biden is correct that the economy, and in particular the manufacturing sector, has slowed of late. Donald Trump has spent some of his political capital and some of the economic resurgence created by his tax cuts and deregulation to challenge China. He wants to level the playing field and has demanded that Beijing treat U.S. companies fairly.

Biden has criticized that approach. But then this is the same Joe Biden who said China was not a threat to the U.S. That statement alone should disqualify him from occupying the Oval Office and running our economy.

November 01, 2019 5:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there's no way of knowing if all these media reports are true since the Dems are keeoing [sic] all the hearings secret"

How ill informed are you?

Every member of any Congressional Committee that is meeting in the SCIF is allowed to attend.

So apparently the GOP committee members are also keeping "all the hearings secret."

Like the GOP committee members, who rather than attend a hearing in a SCIF, are staging media stunts like attacking the SCIF along with non-committee members.

GOPers who love to emulate Rump would rather do anything than their jobs.

November 01, 2019 7:54 AM  
Anonymous The latest GOP prank said...

Capitol Police responded to reports of suspicious packages placed just outside the offices of several Democratic members of Congress on Thursday in what turned out to be an imprudent prank staged by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A spokeswoman for the police department told HuffPost the scene was declared safe by 4 p.m. EDT.

Police were called to confirm the packages were harmless because some staffers were unnerved by their sudden appearance. Last year, more than a dozen pipe bombs were mailed to progressive donors and prominent Democrats, some of whom served in Congress.

“I’d like to thank the Capitol Police for their professionalism in responding to the suspicious package left at our office today,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) said in a tweet.

She added: “The [NRCC] pulled a ridiculous stunt, leaving suspicious packages across Capitol Hill and diverting and wasting law enforcement resources.”

The conservative group expressed no hint of remorse on its Twitter page, instead offering gleeful commentary on the attempted prank.

“We know Democrats love investigations but why are they looking a gift horse in the mouth? These boxes will be useful next November!” read one NRCC post in response to a HuffPost reporter’s tweet about the boxes.

November 01, 2019 7:58 AM  
Anonymous RumpStench: Bribery said...

Former George W. Bush ethics lawyer Richard Painter compared President Donald Trump’s attempt to steer campaign donations to Republican incumbents who oppose his impeachment to “felony bribery.”

Politico reported Thursday that the Trump campaign is mobilizing the president’s “vast fundraising network” for GOP senators facing tough reelection bids. Each has signed onto a Republican-backed resolution condemning the inquiry as “unprecedented and undemocratic.”

“This is bribery,” Painter declared flatly in a tweet after the story appeared. He compared such payments to bribing jurors. If Trump is impeached, senators will decide his fate in a trial.

“Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery .... Criminal,” he added. Painter also indicated those who accept the campaign cash before a Senate trial are “guilty of accepting a bribe.”

The Trump reelection campaign on Wednesday sent out a fundraising appeal via email asking donors to contribute money to be divided among Trump and Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Thom Tillis. (R-N.C.). Each faces a tight race — and each supported an anti-impeachment resolution.

“If we don’t post strong fundraising numbers, we won’t be able to defend the President from this baseless Impeachment WITCH HUNT,” the email declared.

Next week, Trump is hosting an Atlanta fundraising lunch to benefit his campaign, the Republican National Committee and Sen. David Perdue’s reelection campaign, Politico reported. Perdue (R-Ga.) also backed the anti-impeachment resolution.


November 01, 2019 8:16 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage"

You can see by how often Wyatt/Regina bring up this off topic comment that nothing is more important to them than punishing gays. When they post the above statment, what they're really saying is "We want society to oppress and punish gays and force them to live in the shadows."

November 01, 2019 12:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump used congressionally approved taxpayer funded aid to try to blackmail Ukraine into opening a fake investigation into the Bidens to help with his re-election campaign.

What ever happened to Trump's claim he was uncorruptable because he's so rich "I don't need anyone else's money"?

Here he is, using taxpayer money yet again to benefit himself and his re-election campaign. Joe Biden is the potential democratic nominee that Trump fears most.

And now Trump is starting to bribe the Senate jury to judge his crimes.

November 01, 2019 12:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And now Trump is starting to bribe the Senate jury that is to judge his criminal responsibility.

November 01, 2019 12:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The American Constitution provides that a sitting president will nominate supreme court judges and that congress "will advise and consent." - it is the role of congress to advise and then it must consent to the president's nominee. Its not "advise and maybe consent", its not "advise and refuse to consent", its "advise and consent.

Mitch McConnell violated the constitution when for over a year he held up President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court Merrick Garland ( a judge Republicans had previously held up as the sort of nominee they wanted Obama to make).

McConnell's excuse for violating the constitution? A presidential election would happen in a year and "the voting public should have its say" in who the Supreme Court nominee is.

Recently McConnell was asked if he would hold to the "tradition" he proclaimed in 2015 as an excuse for not allowing Obama to nominate a Supreme Court judge in an election year if an opening were to come up in this election year and Trump nominated someone. McConnell smirked and said with glee "Oh, I think we'll find time to confirm a Trump nominee in an election year".

Its a big joke to Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Wyatt/Regina that they insist things must be done a certain way for a Democratic president but won't hold a Republican president to the same standard. Hypocrisy in their actions and treachery in lawmaking is just a laugh riot to Republicans who claim to be the party of a moral and just God. These are the people that claim a monogamous gay couple is evil, deserving of eternal torture and their ignoring their own rules when a Republican is in power is virtuous - "Ha Ha! We made the liberals follow our rule and now we're refusing to follow it!! Hahahaha!"

There's no virtue in Republicans. There's no honesty. They think being christians alone makes them moral so they don't care whether or not their behaviour is ethical, they just do what benefits them most and to hell with everyone else and to hell with American democracy.

November 01, 2019 3:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Mitch McConnell and Republicans have been on a tear appointing anti-gay men to lifetime appointments as judges. The sort of men they've been appointing are ridiculously unqualified, one being a lawyer who had never tried a case in court. The only thing Republican judicial nominees have had in common (beyond being grossly unqualified) is a long history of abuse of lgbt people.

Again and again the American Bar Association has warned against and rated as unqualified these Republican anti-gay judicial nominees. And again and again, Republicans have confirmed one unqualified anti-gay ideologue after another to a lifetime judicial appointment. They're doing this to please evangelican christians lead by Tony Perkins, Brian Brown and every misnamed christian group with "family" or "freedom" in its name. Nothing matters more to these people than punishing and oppressing harmless lgbt people - you can see it in Wyatt/Regina's posts here over the past two decades, they make it abundantly clear that nothing is more important to them than "forcing gays to live in society's shadows".

The latest Moscow Mitch/Trump/Tony Perkins judicial nominee, Lawrence VanDyke, is typical. The American Bar association which evaluates whether judicial nominees are fit for the federal court, went public with a scathing letter that determined he was “not qualified” based on his temperament and animus toward LGBT people.

Lawrence VanDyke, appeared unable to speak and visibly crying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to the American Bar Association’s conclusion he wouldn’t be fair to LGBT people as a judge.

“No, I did not say that,” VanDyke said crying crocodile tears, "I do not believe that. It is a fundamental belief that all people are created in the image of God, They should all be treated with dignity and respect, Senator.”

Vandyke's own words betray what he really thinks. When he says he believes "all people are created in the image of god and should be treated accordingly", what he really means is "I believe all people are required to adhere to my god's anti-gay standards and I will judge and rule accordingly."

“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” the letter says. “There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”

LGBT rights were specifically mentioned in the letter. Over the course of interviewing 60 individuals in the legal profession on VanDyke, the ABA said individuals questioned whether the nominee would be fair to LGBT litigants. During the course the interview with VanDyke himself, the nominee “would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community,” ABA reported.

VanDyke has a long history of anti-gay activism and writing - his animus towards the innocent lgbt community couldn't be more obvious and clearly that's why Tony Perkins, Trump, Moscow Mitch, and other Republicans want him on the appeals court. Republicans in a twisted sense of priority are doing everything possible to create an American judiciary that will oppress and punish harmless lgbt people at every turn. Its insane.

November 01, 2019 3:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Wyatt/Regina, and Tony Perkins aren't just happy that they got to pick a supreme court judge that was constitutionally Obama's choice to make, they're happy that they used lies and deception to get what they wanted.

They're happy that they pretended to be acting on principle when they refused to confirm Obama's nominee when they had no intention of following that principle themselves. They're thrilled they tricked the American public.

November 01, 2019 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Q: How do you spell COVER UP? said...

White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep quiet

Several days after President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a top White House lawyer instructed a senior national security official not to discuss his grave concerns about the leaders’ conversation with anyone outside the White House, according to three people familiar with the aide’s testimony.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said.

The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.

The instruction to stay quiet came after White House officials had already discussed moving a rough transcript of the call into a highly classified computer server, and the instruction was delivered by Eisenberg, who would later be involved in the administration’s battle to keep an explosive whistleblower complaint about the call from being shared with Congress.

The interaction between Eisenberg and Vindman suggests there was a sense among some in the White House that Trump’s call with Zelinsky was not, as the president has repeatedly claimed, “perfect.” And it threatens to undercut Trump’s argument that the expanding impeachment inquiry is politically driven.

“If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths?” said a U.S. official familiar with Vindman’s testimony this week. “Why are people running immediately to the White House counsel? Why is the White House counsel telling people not to talk about it?”

The revelation, first reported Friday afternoon by Politico, comes as the impeachment inquiry is entering a new, public phase after the House voted along party lines this week to proceed with open hearings for the first time while investigating committees begin to map out articles expected to accuse Trump of abusing his power and potentially obstructing justice...

A: Obstruction of justice

November 01, 2019 5:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Christian Group Slams Website Clarifying Churches’ Beliefs About Gayness

Every Christian church in the country should be able to answer a few basic questions: Is gayness a sin? Are married gay people allowed to be members? Can women be preachers?

Those are hot-button issues among the broader spectrum of Christians, but the point is that most churches have firm positions on all of them. Yet those positions are rarely advertised. It’s not like you’ll find those answers on their websites. (They’ll say “We love everyone”… but the fine print says something else.)

Why avoid the truth? Because if a church is open about being anti-gay, it could be a dealbreaker for some new members. Pastors would rather bring LGBTQ people into the fold, then spring all the bigotry on them later on, even if that takes a couple of years.

It’s really just cruel. By the time some people find out just how horrible these churches are, their entire life could be mixed in with the church. Walking away would leave them without any kind of social safety net. The cruelty is the point. It’s a way for the churches to suck you in to the point where you can’t leave even if you wanted to.

In 2017, a group of Christians launched a website called Church Clarity in order to fix this problem. Unlike some groups that fight against bigotry, these Christians were fighting against ambiguity. They wanted to make it easier for Christians to know where churches stood on issues like gayness so they could make informed decisions about where to go.

For example: Pastor Rick Warren runs Saddleback Church in California, one of the largest churches in the country. But Saddleback is rated “Unclear: Non-Affirming” on Church Clarity. That means Saddleback is anti-gay in the sense that they oppose same-sex marriage and wouldn’t hire an openly gay pastor… but they don’t say any of this on their website.

Ideally, churches would be labeled “Clear,” whether they’re “Affirming” or “Non-Affirming.”

This isn’t about shaming anti-gay churches (not that there’s anything wrong with that). This is about publicizing information that churches have private answers to already. This is about honesty.

Or to put it another way: This is about making sure churches don’t get credit for positions they don’t hold. Saddleback doesn’t deserve to be treated as welcoming and loving when their (hidden) policies are anything but that.

There’s no “penalty” on the site for being anti-gay. Nor does it look “bad” (to a casual observer) if a church is still openly deciding how to handle this issue. This is about compiling information that churches should be open about.

I love the website, if you can’t tell.

You know who hates it? Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal group, which published an article earlier this month condemning the site. Because if there’s one thing conservatives hate, it’s honesty.

"In reality, is a smear campaign, and it provides a list of churches for our opponents like ACLU to target with lawsuits. In a culture that is increasingly hostile toward long-held Christian views about the distinction of the sexes and marriage, this list is highly problematic because it can be used to punish Christian churches.
… it seems the intended outcome for is not to end hurt or suffering. Its goal is to harm churches that operate on biblical principles."

To paraphrase all that, Church Clarity organizes public information… and that transparency infuriates conservatives who prefer to hide their bigotry.

It’s not a smear campaign to tell people what a church actually believes. The website isn’t making stuff up! And the ACLU has never gone after churches for their bigoted beliefs. They wouldn’t do that.

You would think a legal group would have some basic understanding of how the First Amendment works…

Again, if the misnamed Alliance Defending Freedom has a problem with Church Clarity, they really have a problem with honesty and transparency. It says a lot about the organization that those qualities are perceived as problematic.

November 01, 2019 6:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Evangelical christians in the USA are trying to do there what they did in Russia - take away the right to free speech from gays.

They're going to fail. Unlike in the Russia American evangelical christians wish to emulate, in the United States gays have the right to free speech. The Alliance "Defending" Freedom isn't going to succeed in taking that away.

November 01, 2019 6:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Putin, Trump, Bill Barr, Mitch McConnell and Tony Perkins are soul mates.

November 01, 2019 6:52 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

"White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep quiet

Several days after President Trump’s phone call with the leader of Ukraine, a top White House lawyer instructed a senior national security official not to discuss his grave concerns about the leaders’ conversation with anyone outside the White House, according to three people familiar with the aide’s testimony."

we needed testimony that White House officials are not supposed to discuss overhead calls between the President and leaders of foreign countries? that's the default position. it's probably in the employee handbook.

"Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said."

sounds like good legal advice

"The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden."

dealings with foreign leaders by the President should by their nature be confidential. if they aren't, our foreign policy is vastly hindered and left ineffective

"The instruction to stay quiet came after White House officials had already discussed moving a rough transcript of the call into a highly classified computer server, and the instruction was delivered by Eisenberg, who would later be involved in the administration’s battle to keep an explosive whistleblower complaint about the call from being shared with Congress."

it wouldn't make any sense to make information classified and not let people who possess know that; aside from the foreign policy implications, it's not a good idea to let the sleazy Bidens know they are under investigation. that would allow them to cover their tracks!

"The interaction between Eisenberg and Vindman suggests there was a sense among some in the White House that Trump’s call with Zelinsky was not, as the president has repeatedly claimed, “perfect.” And it threatens to undercut Trump’s argument that the expanding impeachment inquiry is politically driven."

actually, no. calls between the President and foreign leaders should remain confidential. publicizing such information is why Edward Snowden is hiding out in Russia.

"“If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths?” said a U.S. official familiar with Vindman’s testimony this week."

classifying such information is routine, not extraordinary

“Why are people running immediately to the White House counsel?"

is there any documented "running"?

"Why is the White House counsel telling people not to talk about it?”

because it's classified information

"The revelation, first reported Friday afternoon by Politico, comes as the impeachment inquiry is entering a new, public phase after the House voted along party lines this week to proceed with open hearings for the first time"

in other words, Dems have been forced to make their kangaroo court public under heavy political pressure

"while investigating committees begin to map out articles expected to accuse Trump of abusing his power and potentially obstructing justice..."

the Dems' slow suicide continues

while Donald Trump has done the heavy lifting to provide opportunity and tax relief and wage growth to all Americans, Dems have abandoned any real work while wasting three years on endless witch hunts against Trump rather than wait until next November to make their case to the American people

they are scared to do that because they know what choice Americans will make

Dems have no case to make

November 02, 2019 7:08 AM  
Anonymous I reeeeeeeeally like our Supreme Court.and the best is yet to come!!!!!!! said...

The House vote to establish procedures for a possible impeachment of President Trump, along party lines with two Democrats opposing and no Republicans favoring, was exactly was Alexander Hamilton feared in discussing the impeachment provisions laid out in the Constitution.

Hamilton warned of the “greatest danger” that the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

It is almost as if this founding father were looking down at the House vote from heaven and describing what transpired this week. Impeachment is an extraordinary tool to be used only when the constitutional criteria are met. These criteria are limited and include only “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Hamilton described these as being “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

His use of the term “political” has been widely misunderstood in history. It does not mean that the process of impeachment and removal should be political in the partisan sense. Hamilton distinctly distinguished between the nature of the constitutional crimes, denoting them as political, while insisting that the process for impeachment and removal must remain scrupulously neutral and nonpartisan among members of Congress.

Thus, no impeachment should ever move forward without bipartisan support. That is a tall order in our age of hyperpartisan politics in which party loyalty leaves little room for neutrality. Proponents of the House vote argue it is only about procedures and not about innocence or guilt, and that further investigation may well persuade some Republicans to place principle over party and to vote for impeachment, or some Democrats to vote against impeachment. While that is entirely possible, the House vote would seem to make such nonpartisan neutrality extremely unlikely.

November 02, 2019 7:49 AM  
Anonymous I reeeeeeeeally like our Supreme Court.and the best is yet to come!!!!!!! said...

It is far more likely that, no matter how extensive the investigation is and regardless of what it uncovers, nearly all House Democrats will vote for impeachment and nearly all House Republicans will vote against it. Such a partisan vote would deny constitutional legitimacy to impeachment. It was because of this fear of partisanship in the House that the framers left the ultimate decision to remove an official to the Senate. The framers intended the Senate, which was not popularly elected at the time the Constitution was written, to be less partisan and act more like judges.

The Supreme Court chief justice presides over the Senate removal trial of a sitting president, and adding that key judicial element would seem to demonstrate a desire by the framers to have a presiding officer whose very job description is to do justice without regard to party or person. In both of the previous removal trials of President Johnson and President Clinton, however, the chief justice played a traditionally symbolic role.

If President Trump is impeached, it is certainly possible that his lawyers would ask Chief Justice John Roberts to play a more substantive role. If the grounds for impeachment designated by the House include criteria such as maladministration or corruption, his lawyers could plausibly demand the chief justice to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional.

After all, the framers explicitly rejected maladministration as a ground for impeachment and removal. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, argued that such open criteria would give Congress far too much power to remove a duly elected president. It would, he feared, turn our republic into a democracy in which the chief executive served at the pleasure of the parliament and could be removed by a simple vote of no confidence.

How many times have we heard from Democrats that “no one is above the law” in reference to President Trump? That is true, but neither is Congress above the law. It cannot substitute its own criteria for those mandated by the Constitution. The House vote may have been necessary to establish procedures. But the partisanship strongly suggests that what Hamilton regarded as the greatest danger may be on the horizon, namely a vote to impeach a duly elected president based not on “real demonstrations of innocence or guilt” but rather on “comparative strength of parties.”

November 02, 2019 7:49 AM  
Anonymous beto o'rourke ...LOL!!! said...

A defiant President Trump signaled he will not cooperate with the Democratic Party's impeachment proceedings, insisting his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "a good call" and that he might read it aloud to Americans so they can see his point.

“This is over a phone call that is a good call,” Trump, sitting behind the Resolute Desk, said in an interview. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it’s a straight call.”

November 02, 2019 7:52 AM  
Anonymous George Conway said...

Blessed be thy hush money, mayest all quid pro quos be thine, and mayest thy falsehoods persuade the multitudes.

ian bremmer
‏Verified account
@ian bremmer

Hands on Presidency

< photo of evangelical leaders laying their hands on Rump >

7:00 AM - 1 Nov 2019

6:32 PM - 1 Nov 2019

November 02, 2019 11:46 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage"

What Wyatt/Regina really mean when they post this is "We hate gays and want to see society oppress and punish them for no reason."

Note how they're afraid to discuss this with me, so they post these passive aggressive bits of hate instead of debating in good faith.

November 02, 2019 11:50 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "I reeeeeeeeally like our Supreme Court.and the best is yet to come!!!!!!!"

What delights Wyatt/Regina is not so much that Republicans got their guy on the Supreme Court, but that they lied and deceived to do it.

That's what Wyatt/Regina are really celebrating, that they got away with corruption.

November 02, 2019 11:52 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump and his administration engaged in a prolonged, multi-faceted shadow campaign to use congressionally approved taxpayer funded aid for Ukraine to blackmail them into opening a fake investigation into Joe Biden to help with Trump's re-election campaign.

Whatever happened to Trump's claim that he was so rich he was uncorruptable? Clearly that's not the case.

If this massive corruption is allowed to stand it will be the end of American democracy.

November 02, 2019 11:56 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said “If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths?” said a U.S. official familiar with Vindman’s testimony this week."

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said"classifying such information is routine, not extraordinary"

Thats a lie of course, as is usual for Wyatt/Regina.

The official routine mandated by the goverment presidential records act is that presidential communications are transcribed verbatim and go on a wide distribution list to many parties.

Instead of this, when a couple of people expressed alarm about the president using his office for personal gain at the expense of the country Trump and his minions panicked and tried to lock down all communications about the phone call.

They kept people who were supposed to automatically get a transcript of the call from receiving it and then locked down the misleading summary Trump made on a highly secret server intended for the goverments' most sensitive intelligence secrets.

Clearly if Trump's call was "perfect" and all on the up and up, they wouldn't have tried to hide it on the most classified intelligence server in the country where it did not belong.

Only after the whistleblower complaint about this became public did Trump and his cronies release his massaged summary of the call to the public in a desperate attempt to now falsely claim they wanted to be open about what they tried so hard to previously conceal.

November 02, 2019 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That is true, but neither is Congress above the law. It cannot substitute its own criteria for those mandated by the Constitution"

Tell that to the GOP and John Boehner.

The GOP instituted the most recent rules of Congressional investigation signed into law by Speaker of the House John Boehner.

Here's the resolution (from your favorite fake media) passed on Halloween.

Show us the "unconstitutional" parts or STFU.

November 02, 2019 12:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Folks, please have a look back in the Teach The Facts older threads which are similarly great.

You'll see that Wyatt and Regina Hardiman have waged a senseless two decade campaign of hate against harmless lgbt people and their "logic" for persecuting gays 20 years ago was no better then than it is now.

I've always posted under my real name because I take ownership of what I write and I'm not afraid of being held responsible for it. My earliest Teach The Facts posts are under the name Randy Schiminosky.

November 02, 2019 12:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yep, its clear that by far the most important thing to evangelical christians like Wyatt and Regina is persecuting gays.

Uganda recently re-introduced its proposed law to execute anyone who has gay sex more than once. Wyatt and Regina years ago when it was proposed said "I agree there should be criminal penalties with each conviction of homosexuality but executing them would be going to far"

Its no coincidence Uganda is doing this now. Tony Perkins and the other "Family" groups are working around the world to persecute gays, lobbying foreign governments not to repeal the death penalty for gayness and working with Russia on its law taking away free speech from gays which for all practical intents and purposes has made it illegal to be gay in Russia with severe penalties for being caught being gay.

That's what Tony Perkins wants for the United States, a dictatorial theocracy like Putin's Russia. And Trump is giving it to him. Trump appointed Evangelical christian leader Tony Perkins to a powerful foreign policy position, in effect giving him taxpayer funding and American government backing to promote persecution of gays in foreign countries.

Just recently when Tony Perkins and a bunch of the anti-gay "Family" leaders came to the Oval Office to "pray", what they really prayed for was more measures to persecute gays in the United States. And Trump gave those evangelical christians further legal superiority to other Americans in general and gays in particular.

While they were pretending to be praying, Trump bribed Tony Perkins and all the family leaders for loyalty with more legal measures to punish American gays to fulfill their animus towards us. I'll post details later.

Just imagine all the good the resources evangelical christians spend on persecuting innocent lgbt people could do if they spent it instead on combatting deforestation,wildfires, or whathave you?

Evangelical christians, please stop expending critical resources seeking our oppression. We aren't hurting you. Let's work together to make the world a better place.

November 02, 2019 12:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

My evangelical American friends:

What happened to "All men are created equal"?

November 02, 2019 1:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on Friday proposed a $20.5 trillion Medicare for All plan that she said would not require raising middle-class taxes "one penny," answering critics who had attacked her for failing to explain how she would pay for the sweeping healthcare system overhaul.

Warren said her plan would save American households $11 trillion in out-of-pocket healthcare spending over the next decade while imposing significant new taxes on corporations and the wealthy to help finance it.

"Healthcare is a human right, and we need a system that reflects our values," Warren wrote in a 20-page essay outlining her plan. "That system is Medicare for All."

Warren's proposal also calls for cuts in defense spending and passing immigration reform to increase tax revenue from newly legal Americans. The $20.5 trillion in new spending over 10 years would increase the entire federal budget by a third.

Medicare for All would replace private health insurance, including employer-sponsored plans, with full government-sponsored coverage, and individuals would no longer have to pay premiums, deductibles, co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs."

Even if Warren were to tax the middle class a bit as well to pay for healthcare, the savings from not having to pay anything for healthcare would still leave people with more money in their pockets.

November 02, 2019 1:59 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed Republicans’ attempts to spin the impeachment inquiry in favor of President Donald Trump on Thursday’s broadcast of “The Late Show.”

Host Stephen Colbert noted to Pelosi how “every Republican has rolled the bones that you don’t have enough to impeach the president.”

“Bah. No, no,” she responded.

House Democrats had earlier in the day approved a resolution to formalize the impeachment inquiry.

“The thing about this, again, it’s about the Constitution,” Pelosi explained. “We’re honoring our oath of office, we’re there to strengthen the institution in which we serve, and if they don’t want to do that, that’s their problem.

“But it’s interesting because they have been talking process, process, process, because they know they can’t really go near the substance issue,” she added.

Pelosi recalled her immediate reaction to hearing of the July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which sparked the impeachment inquiry. Trump on the call pressured Zelensky to dig up dirt on his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden.

Trump has repeatedly claimed the call was “perfect.” Pelosi said it was “perfectly wrong.”

“I prayed for the United States of America, really, because it’s very sad,” she said. “We don’t want to impeach a president. We don’t want the reality that a president has done something that is in violation of the Constitution.”

“I had not been, shall we say, enthusiastic about the divisiveness that would occur from an impeachment,” Pelosi explained. “I had said then, he’s not worth impeaching because it’s even going to divide this country further. But this was something that you could not ignore. In one conversation, he undermined our national security by withholding military assistance to a country that had been voted on by the Congress of the United States, to the benefit of the Russians. At the same time, he jeopardized the integrity of our elections, the heart of our democracy, and in doing so, he possibly violated his oath of office to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States.”

Pelosi also shut down Colbert’s theory that the White House released notes of the call because they didn’t understand what they did was wrong. “Well, you’re being very gentle,” she replied.

November 02, 2019 2:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If Trump and his people didn't know the extortion phone call with the Ukrainian prime minister was wrong, why did they immediately try to clamp down on distribution of the call notes through the normal channels mandated by federal presidential records law?

If they didn't know it was wrong, why did they take the extraordinary step of putting the call notes on the nations most highly classified server where only the most sensitive of intelligence secrets go and tell everyone to keep quiet about it?

Only after the whistleblower complaint became public knowledge did Trump and his loyalists decide to release the rough notes of the call.

You can't have it both ways - you can't on one hand say "no one can see this, lock it away on the most highly classified server and no one talk about it!" and later when the jig is up "it was completely innocent, we have nothing to hide, here's the truncated record of the call".

November 02, 2019 2:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump's alliance with evangelical christians seeking to persecute innocent lgbt people

Paula White, a televangelist based in Florida and personal pastor to President Trump whom he has known since 2002, has joined the Trump administration in an official capacity. Ms. White will work in the Office of Public Liaison, the official said, which is the division of the White House overseeing outreach to groups and coalitions organizing key parts of the president’s base [again an illegal use of the government for personal gain].

Her role will be to advise the administration’s Faith and Opportunity Initiative, which Mr. Trump established last year by executive order and which aims to give religious groups more of a voice in government programs devoted to issues like defending religious liberty and fighting poverty.

But of course as we can see from the priority evangelical christians like Tony Perkins place on persecuting harmless lgbt people around the world you can bet the entire emphasis will be on "religious liberty" which is a dog whistle meaning "We're going to give ourselves special privileges in law to persecute innocent lgb people".

Paula White claims if you oppose Trump, you are “fighting the hand of God.” She demands one month’s pay from followers or else they’ll suffer the “consequences” from God. She also sells “resurrection life seeds” for $1144.

From the editorial board of the Orlando Sentinel:

"We’re particularly appalled — though not surprised — by the appointment of Paula White. Not because she’s a conservative but because of her naked use of religion as a weapon. She’s trying to frighten believers with apocalyptic consequences if they don’t get in line behind this president.

It’s not hard to figure out why: Paula White and her kind will never be more visible or relevant in politics than they are with Donald Trump in office. That’s why they go about the cynical work of weaponizing religion, in contrast to the many Christians who quietly go about the hard work of growing their faith and using it to aid the afflicted."

November 02, 2019 4:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump directed Health and Human Services to remove lgbt people from the same protections everyone else gets.

The anti-gay evangelical christians have an official place in the American government, taxpayer funding, and the name and authority of the government of the United States of America to promote persecution of lgbt people at home and abroad.

The misnamed Alliance Defending Freedom hate group celebrates Trump's latest anti-lgbt plan

Trump at the behest of evangelical christians has stripped lgbt people of government protections everyone else gets. This will allow anti-gay medical professionals to let lgbt people die rather than do their jobs.

When you vote in 2020, ask yourself if you want Russia to control the world (and the USA) or evangelical christians to have legal superiority over everyone else in general and lgbt people in particular.

Hate group leader Matt Staver makes the orwellian argument that by forcing children to grow up in foster homes and institutions rather than be adopted by lgbt people he is "protecting" them. Decades of research show the children of lesbians and gays do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexual couples.

Wyatt/Regina keep harping on how they want a gay marriage ban, but evangelical christians lead by Tony Perkins and Matt Staver want a great deal more persecution of lesbians and gays than that.

Its no coincidence that months after Trump appointed the anti-gay Tony Perkins to a powerful goverment foreign policy position that Uganda has revived its "kill the gays" proposed law.

Several years ago Wyatt and Regina spoke approvingly of the aspect of the law that provided escalating criminal punishments for each conviction of consensual gay sex.

November 02, 2019 5:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The only freedom the legal group "Alliance Defending Freedom" is defending is the freedom to persecute lgbt people as long as you say its what your religion says.

Tony Perkins and Matt Staver - you two are truly terrible people.

Please stop this senseless and wasteful hate campaign against lgbt people and lets work together on something useful, okay?

November 02, 2019 5:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Supreme Court Justices Meet With Hate Group Leader

Above The Law reports:

If the Supreme Court followed the basic rules of ethics applicable to every other court, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh would have to recuse themselves from the Bostock, Altitude Express, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes cases — the ones which seek to reinterpret Title VII to allow for bigotry against the LGBTQ community. Alito and Kavanaugh took some sort of meeting and even posed for a picture with the leader of a virulent anti-LGBT group, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

It’s really bad enough that conservative justices are so willing to give public aid and comfort to right-wing groups like the Federalist Society. But this meeting with the NOM is is outrageous. NOM has filed an amicus brief with the Court in the Bostock/Altitude/Funeral Homes cases. The Court has heard arguments and the justices are ostensibly working on their opinions in those cases RIGHT NOW. Taking meeting and a picture with people who have a case and argument pending in front of you would be unacceptable for any other court in the land.

November 02, 2019 6:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

No wonder Trump goes around saying things like "They can't hold me accountable, I've got the Supreme Court.".

Straight out of the dictator's handbook, stack the courts with people loyal to Trump instead of to the United States.

November 02, 2019 6:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Of course Brian Brown's "National Organization for Marriage" isn't for marriage at all - their sole purpose for being is to ban gay marriage.

All these so called "family" and "marriage" and "freedom" religious groups don't do a damn thing for married heterosexual couples, they concentrate all their resources on persecuting gays.

"Family" Research Council, Alliance "Defending Freedom", National Organization "for Marriage" its all just a dog whistle, a euphemism for "we work to persecute gays and lesbians".

November 02, 2019 6:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

With the eager help of the small minority of Americans who are evangelical christians, Trump has made anti-gay christianity the global public face of American government.

The Treaty of Tripoli says "The United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

Don't let Trump and an anti-gay minority of christianity turn American democracy into a Russian style theocracy/dictatorship.

November 02, 2019 6:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Christian hate group leader Brian Brown’s photo with the two Supreme Courty justices is striking given that he is actively working to get the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 Obergefell decision, which recognized that same-sex couples have the right to get married, as well as Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman’s right to have an abortion. Brown has made a career of fighting to make life more difficult and dangerous for LGBTQ people around the world by resisting and seeking to reverse advances in cultural acceptance and legal equality.

Earlier this year, Brown denounced presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate and vowed to get marriage equality back before the Supreme Court so that its right-wing judges, fortified with Trump nominees, can reverse the marriage equality ruling. Appropriately for a Trump supporter, Brown doesn’t let honesty get in the way of a good scare tactic; a few months ago, he charged that the Equality Act “make showing support for marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman to be illegal.”

November 02, 2019 6:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Throughout the 2016 election Wyatt and Regina Hardiman promoted the idea that Trump was the most gay friendly presidential candidate ever and encouraged gays to vote for Trump because he was going to be so good to them.

As we see, with Trump its been one evangelical lead legal attack on lgbt people after another. Yet again, Wyatt and Regina conned people into believing Trump would do the exact opposite of what he's done.

Its time to stop the evangelical christian campaign of hate against lgbt people in the United States and around the world.

If you really believe Jesus is loving and just you know he doesn't support your anti-gay actions.

The essence of morality is "Do whatever you want, but harm no one". Gays and lesbians aren't hurting anyone, stop using the American law to persecute them.

November 02, 2019 7:24 PM  
Anonymous This it what happens when you try and keep out a bunch of construction workers said...

Human traffickers are easily sawing through President Donald Trump’s “impenetrable” southern border wall.

They’re using a cordless power tool easily purchased at hardware stores to open up sections of the multi-billion-dollar barrier to pass people and drugs through, sources told the newspaper.

The tool, a reciprocating saw fitted with a special blade, can cut through the steel and concrete bollards of the barrier in minutes, the Post reported. It sells for about $100.

The bollards — steel rods filled with concrete — are only attached at the top and bottom of the border barrier, and can be pushed aside once cut at the base, engineers explained.

In a demonstration last month, rock climbers clambered to the top of a replicated section of the barrier in as little as 13 seconds.

“We have a wall the likes of which very few places have ever seen,” Trump boasted in September at a section of new barrier in the Otay Mesa area of San Diego.

He declared then that “this wall can’t be climbed.” The president added: “If you think you’re going to cut it with a blow torch, that doesn’t work because you hit concrete, and then if you think you’re gonna go through the concrete, that doesn’t work because we have very powerful rebar inside.” He didn’t mention reciprocating saws.

It “really is virtually impenetrable,” Trump insisted.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
― William Goldman, The Princess Bride

November 02, 2019 9:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Earlier today I posted "The American Constitution provides that a sitting president will nominate supreme court judges and that congress "will advise and consent." - it is the role of congress to advise and then it must consent to the president's nominee. Its not "advise and maybe consent", its not "advise and refuse to consent", its "advise and consent."

That is not correct. That is wrong.

As Son of Trike said on JMG:

"Article II does not say "will advise and consent." It says "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." The plain English meaning of "with consent" means with permission or agreement. The Constitution does not mandate that the Senate consent to the President's choice. But it does require that the Senate participate and I agree that McConnell's obstruction amounted to unlawful obstruction of process"

November 02, 2019 9:41 PM  
Anonymous JackFknTwist said...

I don't have words to express what I think about this piece of garbage Brian Brown of the National Organization "for" Marriage.

Judges are usually so careful to avoid any association with partisan politics or be seen in what can only be described as compromising photo ops with advocacy lobbyists.
it is like pinning your colours to the mast and leaving no room for dispassionate distance, it just looks like throwing discretion to the winds.

Kavanaugh and Alito seem so doctrinaire and partisan now associating with these bigots that any case involving great moral or liberty of expression or discrimination issues look pre-determined.
It is exactly the characteristics one never wants to see in a judge, where impartiality and seeming impartiality should always be the uppermost in their demeanour.
Now they just look like Republican hacks, not Justices.

November 02, 2019 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland ... LOL ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! said...

Let me skip to the end: The Democratic-majority US House of Representatives, in partisan fashion, is all but certain to impeach President Donald Trump. The Republican-majority Senate, in partisan fashion, will almost certainly acquit him. And the net result will be that Democrats will have abused the US Constitution to satisfy political passions instead of approaching impeachment as the solemn act the framers intended.

Let's be honest. The Democrats were always going to do this. From the minute we realized on election night that Donald Trump had won, they began fantasizing about nullifying the election results. Indeed, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the Democrats' biggest concern was that Trump would not accept the outcome -- a Hillary Clinton win, of course! -- of which they were quite certain.

And as it turns out, it was the Democrats who had no intention of accepting it. How odd that they have again become what they claim to detest about Trump.

Over the last three years, the desire to impeach Trump among rank-and-file Democrats has only grown with each outrage, real or manufactured. Even as weak as political parties are these days, one thing remains true -- politicians nearly always do what their parties want them to do.

When Republicans took control of Congress, they cut taxes because the members of their party wanted them to. The fantasy for grassroots Democrats -- made possible when the party gained a House majority in the 2018 midterm -- was to impeach the President. Today you can listen to the Democrats on your average cable panel claiming their party cares most about health care and social justice. But that's baloney, as they care principally about one thing -- getting rid of Donald Trump as soon as possible.

So here we are with our partisan vote Thursday to approve a resolution setting rules for impeachment, and the process now underway at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

For months, Democrat talking heads portrayed Pelosi as a reluctant participant in this charade, someone who was restraining her party's most stridently anti-Trump elements.


She was destined to do this, and this Ukrainian business was simply her last chance before voters began casting ballots in the 2020 election.

Democrats have failed to galvanize public opinion to the view that Trump's controversial July 25 phone conversation with the Ukrainian president was an impeachable offense.

The latest polling shows that Democrats think it is impeachable and Republicans don't, and that voters in swing states aren't on board with this yet. In other words, the people who already wanted to impeach Trump are willing to throw any log onto the impeachment fire, no matter how wet the wood is.

But virtually no one else is joining in.

The most vocal Trump haters frequently bemoan the lack of "profiles in courage" among Republicans, demanding that someone -- anyone -- defy their party to impeach the President.

One might ask: where is the Democratic profile in courage, someone willing to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and call the House impeachment what it is: a norm-obliterating, kangaroo court, run by a party that apparently has little confidence in its ability to beat Trump in the next election?

Trump won't lose any Republican votes in the Senate during his all-but-certain impeachment trial.

And the numerous Senate Democrats running for president will be screaming about it, torn every day between showing up for jury duty and campaigning in Iowa.

In the end, Pelosi is doing nothing but checking a box for the most partisan people in her party. There will be nothing to show for it but wasted time and a diversion of the nation's political conversation away from issues that real people care about.

November 03, 2019 6:20 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

Nice breakdown of the Washington Post's horrible week.

The week before their parent company lost out on a government contact of 10 billion. Then, to start off last week, they ran an obituary of the ISIS leader the US military killed, calling him an "austere religious scholar", and when Trump said he died like a coward, they called him courageous for blowing himself up, killing three children in the process.

Speaking of children, remember the kid wearing a MAGA hat who came to Washington to March for Life, who the Washington Post defamed? A few months ago, liberals were celebrating that a judge threw the kid's defamation case out. This week, a higher court reversed and the lawsuit is back on and in discovery. Sorry, Post you may be paying out a big settlement for irresponsible "journalism"

There's so much more.

A week in the life of a propaganda institution!

November 03, 2019 6:37 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump used taxpayer money to blackmail a foreign government into committing a crime to help with him get re-elected.

Trump is not above the law. This corruption cannot stand, he must go.

November 03, 2019 9:31 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage".

Note the passive aggressive comment aimed indirectly at me. Wyatt and Regina are afraid to have a good faith debate about this with me.

I'm the adult in the room waiting at the table while they're the child on the playground standing a safe distance away and yelling insults.

The truth is, as Wyatt and Regina know, human population growth is exponential and the earth's resources are finite. We will destroy humanity if we don't rein in reckless uncontrolled procreation.

It is immoral for any heterosexual couple to have more than 2.1 children. Pressuring gays to pretend to be heterosexual to produce yet more unneeded children will hasten humanity's demise.

November 03, 2019 9:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous try to give the false impression that their goal is only to ban gay marriage.

These are people who called for lgbt schoolchildren to have their heads forced into toilets filled with urine and feces to "correct" these innocent children.

Wyatt/Regina and American evangelicals won't stop at banning gay marriage, their agenda is to persecute lgbt people to the greatest extent they can bring about.

Its no coincidence that Wyatt and Regina praised Iran for executing gays. That was not a joke on their part, that's what they really want deep down inside.

November 03, 2019 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Why doesn't he just shoot someone? said...

"Let me skip to the end: The Democratic-majority US House of Representatives, in partisan fashion, is all but certain to impeach President Donald Trump. The Republican-majority Senate, in partisan fashion, will almost certainly acquit him. And the net result will be that Democrats will have abused the US Constitution to satisfy political passions instead of approaching impeachment as the solemn act the framers intended."

Let me skip to the end:

If the House does impeach Rump, and the Senate acquits him, it will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans are willing to fully back a guy who acts more like a mafia mob boss than a president - just as long as he has an (R) behind his name.

Rump has been running his office to make sure his businesses profit, and so that he can stay in office by any means necessary - including getting foreign governments involved in democracy's most sacred
public process - elections. If that isn't considered a crime, then Trump might as well shoot someone on fifth avenue, because he could certainly get away with it.

As for all the whining about how unfair Democrats have been and not taking impeachment seriously, I will remind you that your selective memories have completely ignored the impeachment of Bill Clinton, who was impeached by a Republican house because he lied to investigators about a consensual relationship with someone who wasn't his wife. That didn't involve any foreign governments or interference in our election processes. He was impeached for bad behaviour - not undermining the foundations of our democratic process.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that if Clinton or Obama had committed any of Rump's sins while there was a Republican controlled House, he would have been impeached so fast it would have broken land speed records.

The spin that the "Law and Order" party is putting out now about Rump's malfeasance only serves to highlight their complicity in helping him continue his crimes.

November 03, 2019 11:56 AM  
Anonymous This is something Kings could do - not Presidents said...

Trump's Lawyer Argues President Can't Be Prosecuted for Shooting Someone on Fifth Avenue

President Trump's lawyer made the claim in a hearing about his tax returns

Oct 23, 2019

President Trump famously said during his campaign that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

In court Wednesday, his lawyers argued that legally, he really could -- and no one could do a thing about it.

The bold claim came up in a completely different context -- a hearing before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals about the Manhattan district attorney's efforts to subpoena the president's tax returns.

Trump's lawyer, William Consovoy, was answering questions about the limits of the presidency's legal protections for the officeholder, when one of the judges invoked the president's famous campaign claim.

"What's your view on the Fifth Avenue example?" Judge Denny Chin asked. "Local authorities couldn't investigate, they couldn't do anything about it?"

Consovoy said the president's immunity wasn't permanent, so Chin clarified to ask if they could act while the president was in office.

"No," Consovoy said.

"Nothing could be done? That's your position?" Chin asked.

"That is correct, that is correct," Consovoy responded.

The so-called Fifth Avenue example refers to a claim Trump made on the campaign trail in Iowa in early January 2016.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" he said.

November 03, 2019 11:59 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

U.S. spies say Trump's G7 performance suggests he's either a 'Russian asset' or a 'useful idiot' for Russian president Putin.

American banks refused to lend further to Trump in the '80s. Deutschebank then lent millions to Trump. Trump defaulted on those loans and sued DeutscheBank for his own failure to repay. DeutscheBank then lent Trump millions upon millions more.

DeutscheBank has been fined mega millions for laundering Russian proceeds of crime. Every foreign policy move Trump makes benefits Putin and hurts western democracies.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out - Trump is laundering criminal proceeds for Putin through DeutscheBank.

November 03, 2019 12:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Trump could shoot someone on fifth avenue and the justice system couldn't stop him or hold him accountable.

It necessarily follows that Trump could line up and shoot five of his critics every day and the law could not stop him.

This is what Trump's lawyers are arguing in court - Trump can start publicly murdering his critics each and every day and he cannot be restrained by the American law.

Nope, nothing dictatorial about that...

November 03, 2019 12:08 PM  
Anonymous I'm so tickled with the composition of our land's highest court said...

"As for all the whining about how unfair Democrats have been and not taking impeachment seriously, I will remind you that your selective memories have completely ignored the impeachment of Bill Clinton, who was impeached by a Republican house because he lied to investigators"

perjury is against the law

asking a foreign government to investigate someone who is suspected of illegal activity in that country isn't

even if that person is running against you in a presidential campaign

"If the House does impeach Rump, and the Senate acquits him, it will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans are willing to fully back a guy who acts more like a mafia mob boss than a president"

ah, I see

the whole dictator thing wasn't getting any traction

so, the loonies have moved on to the mafia

please provide us with some examples of Trump acting "more like a mafia mob boss than a president"

this should be fun!

November 03, 2019 12:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "
perjury is against the law asking a foreign government to investigate someone who is suspected of illegal activity in that country isn't"

The problem for you and Trump is that law enforcement in neither Ukraine, nor the USA suspects any illegal activity by the Bidens.

If Trump has evidence of criminal activity by the Bidens why hasn't he presented it to American law enforcement to pursue?

Because there isn't a shred of evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens.

What IS criminal is Trump using taxpayer funds to strongarm a foreign government into breaking its own laws and opening a fake investigation to benefit Trump personally.

November 03, 2019 1:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "please provide us with some examples of Trump acting "more like a mafia mob boss than a president"

Telling the American public he wouldn't report to law enforcement an illegal act by a foreign government to subvert an American presidential election.

Calling for his political opponents to be locked up.

Arguing in court that he is above the law.

Stacking the courts with people who proclaim their loyalty to Trump over the United States.

Non stop attacks on the press constantly claiming the free press is "the enemy of the people"

Taking legal steps to curtail freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Appointing an attorney general who lobbied for the job by saying Trump cannot be held accountable for any wrongdoing.

Using the Justice Department under Bill Barr to open an investigation into the investigation of Trump/Russia collusion

Refusing to cooperate with Congress's constitutionally mandated responsibility for oversight of the executive branch/president, refusing to provide any information congress routinely gets at regular intervals as mandated by American law.

Violating lawful subpoenas

Threatening witnesses testifying to his corruption with violence and murder

Firing all the top managment in the Justice Department and replacing them with people who have declared loyalty to Trump over the American public

Need I go on?

I certainly can. Trumps dictatorial actions pile up day after day to the delight of anti-gay evangelical Americans like Wyatt and Regina Hardiman.

November 03, 2019 1:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

How about Attorney General Bill Barr, who's declared his unconditional loyalty to Trump over the Constitution, going around to all U.S. allies and asking for anything they can provide to discredit the entire American intelligence and security community because their unanimous conclusion is that Russia engaged in a systematic massive attack on the 2016 election to get Trump elected?

Doesn't get any more mafia boss than asking all American allies to lie about all of American law enforcement and intelligence agencies to help Trump gaslight America.

November 03, 2019 1:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "I'm so tickled with the composition of our land's highest court".

What delights Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous about this is not so much that Republicans put a judge on the court that should have been Obama's to choose, but that they lied and deceived the public to do it.

When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell made up a new rule that in an election year a sitting president doesn't get to nominate a Supreme Court judge, that because its an election year "the public should have its say".

Later McConnell laughed heartily at the question as to whether or not he and Republicans would abide by their own rule and not confirm a supreme court nominee if an opening on the court occurred in this election year.

That McConnell and the Republicans lied and deceived the public to justify refusing to confirm an obama nominee they'd previously said would be ideal is what really delights Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous and Republicans.

Religious conservatives like Wyatt and Regina would rather use corruption than not to achieve ends even if it isn't necessary to getting what they want. Decades of psychological research shows dishonesty is a natural tendency of the right wing authoritarians that follow dictators like Trump:

November 03, 2019 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Put the liar in front of a court and see how fast he perjurs himself said...

"perjury is against the law"

President Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days

But I guess since he's only lying to the American people, and not a court of law, it's technically not "perjury."

You must be so proud of your president.

"so, the loonies have moved on to the mafia"

It was the Orange one that said he could "shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it."

Does that sound more like a mafia boss or a president?

I love how you keep denying the obvious. It's fun watching you wriggle around like a worm trying to justify Cheeto Benito's increasingly bad behavior. It really shows the depths of your partisanship and lack of moral fiber.

You're always good for a laugh.

November 03, 2019 1:41 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Only now, 16 months after a federal judge ordered migrant families reunified, has the scale of the adminstration's cruelty become understood. Most Americans thought the policy detestable. It was far worse than they imagined.

The Trump adminstration has stolen over 5000 children from their families and made it impossible for parents to find their children. The mental health community is unanimous that taking children from their parents does permanent psychological damage. Trump is creating thousands of what will be embittered adults, living in the USA, who will want revenge on the United States.

Trump is making the United States a great deal less safe with his needless cruelty.

November 03, 2019 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if you think Trump is more like a dictator or more like a mafia boss - either way he's dangerously corrupt and the sooner he's removed from office the better everyone will be.

November 03, 2019 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Wayne Besen said...

Truth Wins Out Supports the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

Truth Wins Out unequivocally supports the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. We have a president who clearly thinks he is above the law. A president who has broken the law. A president who believes he is the law. A president who treats subpoenas as suggestions.

Even presidents must be held accountable for their high crimes and misdemeanors. If not, the president is a monarch. And under no circumstances would we ever accept King Donald I. Sir, it’s time for you to get on the helicopter and wave goodbye to the American people. By doing so, you will have finally performed a public service.

Each morning we arise with a pit in our stomach. We read the news and wonder, “what the hell happened to our country?”

The disastrous daily headlines. The attacks on our once venerable, but now vulnerable institutions. The crumbling norms. The desecration of human rights and American values. The loss of respect and standing on the world stage – where our president has bowed down and kissed every ring and every ass of every dictator he has ever met.

The chaos and corruption and all around destruction of everything that good Americans hold dear.

The Trump presidency has traumatized this nation and destabilized the world. Supporting impeachment is not an act of partisanship. It’s an act of patriotism. It time Republicans stop the tribalism and rejoin the team – Team America.

Unfortunately, under Donald Trump, the universe isn’t moral and the arc is bending backwards and headed towards the bottom.

Trump has attacked the media as the enemy of the people. Without a free press, where would the LGBT movement be today?

Trump has hinted at Civil War and menacingly said that he is supported by the military, bikers and the police. How would LGBT people fare under a regime of bigots firing bullets?

The president has defended neo-Nazis and white supremacists as some “very fine people.”

Trump has put his personal business above the nation’s business.

Trump has debased and degraded the Justice Department, turning the Attorney General William Barr into his personal attack dog. It’s quickly turning into the Department of Inquisition.

This administration has also assaulted judicial independence, packing the court with extreme judges who are out of touch with the American people. This threatens to delegitimize the courts.

Without the rule of law we have no protections. Our lives and our loves, our families and our future – are in jeopardy – insecurely waiting on the whim of an autocrat and the mood swing of a madman. This is un-American and unacceptable.

November 03, 2019 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans like Wyatt and Regina Hardiman love the American Constitution like Michael Vick loves dogs.

November 03, 2019 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Adam Parkhomenko said...

It is truly stunning to watch reporters demand granular detail from Democrats on their plans while Trump was and is given a complete pass. One party is held to high standards, the Republican party is held to none.

November 03, 2019 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Enjoy your RumpStench said...

"please provide us with some examples of Trump acting "more like a mafia mob boss than a president""

You asked for it:

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

"I moved on her like a bitch"

"I'll beat the crap out of you"

"In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."

"I'd like to punch him in the face."

"Knock the crap out of them."

"I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will."

Have fun trying to differentiate your Mango Mussolini's statements from those of a real mobster:

Who Said It; Trump or Gotti?

November 03, 2019 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Merrick, Goresuch & Kavanaugh....LOL!!!!!! said...

well, it looks like Randy is using fake names to draw me into conversation and I can no longer tell who's posting

anyway, I'll take it on a case-by-case basis but I'll be responding to a lot fewer comments

honestly, it's not necessary to respond to most of your comments to make my points

I just do it because it's interesting to hear what you might say

entertaining, if you will

but my comments are usually self-evidently true and no defense is necessary

November 03, 2019 5:11 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

Democrats and the mainstream media keep underestimating the Trump boom. At this point, it’s beginning to seem more like defensiveness than wishful thinking.

Again and again, the experts get it wrong. Not unlike the political commentators who have been wishfully predicting “the end of Trump” for the past four years, economic naysayers have been telling us that a “Trump recession” is just around the corner. Clearly, its not.

Instead of wallowing in the gloom these experts foretold, investors are riding yet another stock market rally prompted by the latest series of expectation-shattering economic data. The numbers show, once again, that the Left’s dire economic predictions are based largely on an irrational disbelief in the strength of President Trump’s leadership — not sound economics.

Following dire predictions of a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), preliminary numbers put third quarter GDP growth at 1.9 percent, 0.3 percentage points higher than the estimate from a Dow Jones poll of economists and roughly on par with growth in the previous quarter.

The biggest factor the experts overlooked was consumer spending, which grew by an impressive 3.9 percent. Ordinary Americans, it seems, have the confidence in the Trump economy that the experts lack.

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed this confidence when it reported that the economy added 128,000 jobs in October. That helped keep the unemployment rate near a 50-year low of 3.6 percent in October, a negligible uptick from the 3.5 percent figure in September and despite the negative impact of 46,000 GM jobs lost due to the 40-day union strike (those jobs will be back in November). And, by the way, the jobs numbers for August and September were revised upward by an additional 95,000 jobs.

The October data proves yet again that Trump is still presiding over the strongest jobs market since the 1960s. The high demand for workers is also driving the fastest wage increases in many years. Average hourly earnings are up 3 percent over the past 12 months, reaching $28.18 per hour. Yearly wage growth has now been at or above 3 percent for 15 consecutive months. That’s means real money for American workers.

November 03, 2019 5:20 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

So the question is, why do people on the Left keep discounting the Trump economy?

The president’s opponents are desperate. They’ve been counting on a recession to sweep a left-winger such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders into the White House next year, but time is growing short and there is no evidence of a recession in the near term.

It’s been going on too long to simply be a matter of mistaken math. Trump-hating economist Paul Krugman wrote that “We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight,” on the day Trump was elected in 2016. In March 2017, The Atlantic insisted that “President Trump still seems likely to face a contraction.” In 2018, “NeverTrump” columnist Quin Hillyer told his readers to ”buy gold, hoard cash, and stock up on good canned foods” before “the likely crash hits (I predict late-October).”

Then, this year, we were told multiple times that “inverted yield curves” meant economic catastrophe was imminent. That, too, was a false alarm.

Somehow, journalists and economic prognosticators seem to take their own inaccurate predictions as evidence of Trump’s failure, while either denying the very real boom times we’re actually experienced or attributing the strong and growing economy to factors beyond the president’s control. It’s getting absurd – honestly, at this point, let’s label it officially absurd. Even CNN admitted Thursday that this economic expansion could very well continue without interruption for several more years.

By now, it’s clear that the president’s opponents are desperate. They’ve been counting on a recession to sweep a left-winger such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders into the White House next year, but time is growing short and there is no evidence of a recession in the near term.

This certainly helps explain why congressional Democrats are pursuing impeachment so aggressively despite the utter lack of evidence that Trump did anything wrong. Not to mention the unfathomably remote possibility that, with an election a year away, 20 Republican senators would join 47 Democratic senators to produce the two-thirds majority required to remove a duly elected Republican president – who has done nothing even remotely impeachable – from office.

But, with a rock-solid economy generating consistent gains for Americans at all income levels, it’s all they’ve got. There wasn’t a candidate on the stage during the Democratic debate who could beat Trump in a fair election, and the Democrats know it. So, fairness be damned.

Let’s face it, the Left’s pessimistic economic predictions are less plausible than ever before. In fact, as the strength of the Trump economy becomes increasingly obvious, their unrealistic impeachment push suggests even the Democrats no longer believe their economic spin. Seriously, with the economic data coming in, they can’t.

November 03, 2019 5:20 PM  
Anonymous What is self-evident isn't what you think it is said...

"but my comments are usually self-evidently true and no defense is necessary"

I'm sure the Rumpster thinks the same thing about his own comments.

That feeling is common among those who exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect.

November 03, 2019 5:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This entire "presidency" is like being tied to a chair and watching a toddler play with a loaded pistol.

November 03, 2019 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Don't fight hate with hate" is a subtle example of gaslighting.

Where our legitimate hurt and anger at the injustices we suffer is being equated to the bigotry and abuse of our oppressors.

Being angry doesn't mean you are being hateful, it means you love yourself enough to get upset at your own mistreatment.

November 03, 2019 10:43 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "well, it looks like Priya is using fake names to draw me into conversation and I can no longer tell who's posting

anyway, I'll take it on a case-by-case basis but I'll be responding to a lot fewer comments"

Its just like I realized it was back at crismas 2018 - Wyatt and Regina are afraid to debate me in good faith. As the right wing authoritarians they are, they're unconditionally opposed to engaging in honest good faith debate with me.

Its because there is no rational argument for making society's highest priority "Glorifying god and enjoying him", as Wyatt/Regina's church says it should be.

There's a good example of authoritarian gaslighting - "Everything is wonderful as it is, just sit back and enjoy it".

That's great for the 1%, but for anyone wanting a fair and just society, well, they're just out of luck. You're a gay person society forces to live in the shadows? Why, just sit back and enjoy it!

There is no rational argument against making society's highest priority "Maximizing the happiness for all in an equal and fair way"

Its very damaging to place one's religion ahead of that.

November 03, 2019 10:52 PM  
Anonymous no one is above the law, including the Bidens said...

Did you know transgenders are just a subset, one type, of sexist? Basically, you can't say you think you are another gender than your biological sex without indulging in a bunch of sexist stereotypes. To them, if a guy likes ballet and pink ties, he is obviously really a girl. If a girl likes NASACR and chicken wings, she's really a guy. What else could they mean when they say they think they are a different gender than that certain stereotypes define your gender? The whole concept is a sexist infringement on individual liberty. What's really scary is the moves on children, convincing young kids that these stereotypes make them another gender and then subjecting these kids to "treatment" to make the stereotype fact.

The growing rift between increasingly radicalized transgender-rights activists and the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) communities has finally come out into the open. This week, Europe’s biggest LGBT-rights organization, the London-based Stonewall charity, was publicly accused of subordinating LGB rights to the group’s increasingly single-minded goal of replacing sex with gender as a marker of identity. As Helen Joyce recently wrote in Standpoint, “Stonewall went all in for gender self-ID. Its online glossary now describes biological sex as ‘assigned at birth’ (presumably by a midwife with a Hogwarts-style Sorting Hat). ‘Gay’ and ‘lesbian’ now mean same-gender, not same-sex, attraction. ‘Transphobia’ is the ‘fear or dislike of someone based on the fact that they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity.’ At a stroke, anyone who declares themselves exclusively attracted to people of the same sex has become a bigot.”

November 03, 2019 11:37 PM  
Anonymous I got 2020 vision said...

On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to formalize the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry and begin the critical public phase of the investigation. The final vote was 232 to 196 — every Republican representative voted no, and only two Democrats defected from the majority.

As the impeachment process enters its public phase, Democrats must be mindful of the long-term implications of an apparently partisan inquiry. Undeniably, the media cycle will be dominated by impeachment for months to come, and it will invariably distract from any Democratic legislative priorities and accomplishments — importantly, the legislative promises that Democratic congressional candidates ran on in 2018.

“We could investigate the issues that we’re really concerned about without going further down the impeachment road,” said Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, one of the Democrats who voted no. “We’ll have the same president and presidential candidate who will be able to say he is exonerated. So, I don’t know how much we really gain from that.”

To be sure, House Democrats have more to lose than to gain from an impeachment process that appears to be tainted by partisanship. Aside from the potential implications for the presidential election, Democrats need to pay particular attention to defending the 41 House seats that they picked up in 2018, many of which were in swing districts. Just one year has passed since the Democrats took back the House — not much time has passed, and not much work has been done.

Democrats cannot and should not take their control of the House for granted. Given that several Republicans who lost by narrow margins in 2018, such as Young Kim in California’s 39th District and Maria Salazar in Florida’s 27th District, have already declared their candidacy for 2020, House Democrats must be mindful of how this apparently partisan impeachment inquiry will resonate with these voters.

As House Democrats move full speed ahead with their impeachment inquiry, it is essential that the party remains mindful of the promises and policies that they campaigned on in 2018, such as creating an economy that works for everyone, gun control and health care reform. With that said, as new evidence comes to light, it is clear that President Trump abused the power of his office for personal and political gain, and it is clear why House Democrats decided to press forward with impeachment proceedings.

“The genius of the Constitution, a separation of powers: three coequal branches of government to be a check and balance on each other,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during the vote on Thursday, reverting to a constitutional argument as a basis for opening the inquiry. While there is a sound constitutional argument to be made here, there is a level of political practicality that simply cannot be ignored in today’s deeply polarized political climate.

Whether House Democrats will acknowledge it or not, this impeachment inquiry is fundamentally partisan. The Republicans did not break ranks in the initial vote, nor are they likely to do so as the inquiry progresses, and Democratic leaders must seriously consider how this will resonate with independent and swing-state voters. Indeed, the country is sharply divided along partisan lines over whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

November 03, 2019 11:46 PM  
Anonymous I got 2020 vision said...

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released in October, 49 percent of Americans say the president should be impeached and removed from office, while 47 percent say he should not. Among Democrats, support for removing the president from office is nearly universal, with 82 percent in favor and 13 percent opposed. Among Republicans, it is almost the reverse, with 82 percent opposed and 18 percent in favor.

Moreover, even if the Democrats successfully impeach President Trump in the House, there is no sign that any Republicans in the Senate will vote to convict the president. Further, if Trump is impeached but not convicted, the Republican base will be emboldened and increasingly formidable, which will present serious challenges for whichever Democratic candidate ends up taking him on in the general election.

In order for Democrats to build off of their political success from one year ago, they need to continue to communicate on issues that the American people will consider when they go to the ballot box, such as how they are working to build an economy that works for everyone, achieving affordable health care and fixing the broken immigration system. If the 2020 election becomes a polarized battle over impeachment, Democrats may very well lose their gains from 2018 and, for the second election in a row, the White House.

November 03, 2019 11:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Trump used congressionally approved taxpayer funded aid to try to strongarm a foreign government into attacking the 2020 election like Russia did.

Make no mistake about it, Trump will destroy American democracy if he continues to get away with this corruption.

November 04, 2019 12:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "Just one year has passed since the Democrats took back the House — not much time has passed, and not much work has been done."

Which is entirely the fault of Moscow Mitch McConell and the Republicans.

This article was published in may. By that time the Democratic House passed over 100 bills which went to the Republican controlled Senate where no work whatsoever was done on them because that's the way Republicans want it.

This is standard procedure for Wyatt and Regina Hardiman's posts here - they falsely claim one thing when reality is the exact opposite.

These two have no morals, they haven't the slightest qualm about posting a constinuous string of lies. In fact research shows people like them lie even when the truth would serve them just as well. Wyatt and Regina take delight in being corrupt.

November 04, 2019 12:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does it mean after the House of Representatives — on an almost one-hundred-percent pure partisan vote, save for two Democrats who wisely demurred — decides to expand an impeachment investigation on what they claim to be serious charges when... the very next day... the stock market zooms to all-time highs, breaking records substantially on all major indexes, and black unemployment goes to all-time lows?

Well, the latter spells big trouble for the Democrats a year from now and the former means the investment world thinks impeachment is a bunch of horse hockey that will never happen (the Republican Senate will never convict Trump, not even envious Mitt) and the real news was the job figures.

And it's easy to see why both of those are true. No matter what polls tell you, it's not just Kanye. African Americans are wising up to the fact they've been royally you-know-what'd by decades of Democratic Party rule. Under Trump, their paychecks are going up faster than anybody's. Even black youth unemployment is at record lows. You think they're not making the connection?

As for the big investors, they know the charges are absurd. They read such things assiduously, as anyone who even skims the economic press knows. The transcript of the supposedly impeachable phone call is laughingly banal. But at the same time it's obvious why the Democrats were so alarmed by it.

And it's not about Joe Biden. Biden arose in the conversation with Zelensky as something of an afterthought. Why wouldn't he be? Hapless Joe's been a textbook example of The Peter Principle ever since he plagiarized in law school (think about that as an example to your son!) and it's doubtful Trump was overly concerned with him. What was on the president's mind was CrowdStrike, the digital firm. He was trying to enlist Ukrainian help in tracking down the who, what, where, and why of the Russia probe (aka Spygate). That interested him. And why wouldn't it? It would interest anyone who was the subject of such a nefarious plot. And the president was perfectly within his rights trying to do this — in the Ukraine or anywhere else.

November 04, 2019 1:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much of our media likes to dismiss Spygate and related matters as "debunked conspiracy theories." In truth, they're panicked by them. The entire impeachment roundelay is about deflecting from this coming storm. Adam Schiff, because he lied countless times about Russia collusion, is desperate to lead the way in this deflection. He will not succeed. Justice is coming.

Why am I so confident? I know many are not. Waiting for Barr or Durham or the inspector general feels like "Waiting for Godot." ("Soon Monsieur Godot will come." Yeah, right.) I sympathize. But patience, grasshopper. The Democrats are digging deeper and deeper holes for themselves. Some, rumor has it, already have buyer's remorse on impeachment. Soon enough the bombs will start to go off. You can already read the fear in their eyes. It's made manifest in the bad acting you see from all these Democratic congressmen and women — the phony "grave" assertions of how "sad" they are that they must undertake this "unfortunate" impeachment inquiry. But they do so for us, for the Constitution. (Again — yeah, right.)

Meanwhile, if you watched Trump in Tupelo Friday night, you know the people are with him, just as they were in Dallas and Minneapolis a week or two back. No one ever has had a grassroots response like that. And power, as we used to say back in the day, belongs to the people.

The deep state — the instigators of all this, from the fake Russia probe though Kavanaugh and now the risible Ukraine nonsense — made a big mistake in their approach. (And considering they're in a large part CIA, that's worrying.) It would have been smarter psychologically to have embraced Trump from the start, rather than try to subvert him. He's certainly favorably disposed to praise. Then they could have co-opted him. But they bollocked up the entire thing and alienated a huge swath of the republic in the process. After 2020, more of the deep-staters will be gone — and they know it (hence the panic). Good for us. Keep up the fight. And, as you know, never give up. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

November 04, 2019 1:16 AM  
Anonymous Paula said...

I don't think there is anything that they would not excuse trump from. He could be throwing infants off the top of Trump Tower and they would come up with some justification for it.

November 04, 2019 5:42 AM  
Anonymous billbear1961 said...

As Napolitano of Fox has said (and Jennifer Rubin in the WaPo has said Trump's crimes are the very definition of corruption): “That is a mouthful of facts to swallow in one bite, but the legal implications are straightforward and profound. Whether one agrees with federal law or not, it is a crime to solicit assistance for a federal campaign from a foreign government. As well, the crime of bribery consists of a government official refraining from performing a legal duty until a thing of value is delivered to him.”

"Proof of Trump’s Impeachable Offenses Plain to See"

November 04, 2019 5:49 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

we've already discussed how warped Nap's views are

“Whether one agrees with federal law or not, it is a crime to solicit assistance for a federal campaign from a foreign government."

he requested assistance with an investigation into how the Russian hoax was started and into whether the Hunter Biden's corrupt appearing relations with Ukraine was illegal

while either may tend to help him in the election, so could any number of actions

defining that as "illegal assistance for a federal campaign from a foreign government" would mean Presidents can only discuss things with foreign leaders that might hurt their public approval

that's pretty preposterous

"As well, the crime of bribery consists of a government official refraining from performing a legal duty until a thing of value is delivered to him.”

this bizarre formulation would make most Presidents guilty

Trump's a little less subtle but that's one of things he was elected for

"very definition of corruption"

not even close

corruption would be taking bribes, of a personal nature not political, to change your official actions

November 04, 2019 7:13 AM  
Anonymous Republicans flee Rump said...

Nineteen House Republicans have announced they will be leaving Congress.

Republicans are now fleeing Congress at a similar rate as they did in advance of the 2018 midterms when Democrats captured the House majority by winning 41 seats.

Polling released last week suggests Republican voters — and their politicians on Capitol Hill — are increasingly exhausted by President Trump’s lies, corruption and bullying.

Fifty-six percent of Americans told the Associated Press poll they would not describe Trump as “honest.”

That’s not just Democrats calling out Trump.

Almost half of Republicans can’t say that Trump is honest.

To be precise, only 53 percent of Republicans say the word ‘honest’ describes Trump “very or extremely well,” according to the poll by Associated Press-NORC.

That leaves a lot of Republicans to live with a painful reality.

They know Trump, a man they regard as less than fully honest, is likely to be at the top of the 2020 ticket for a Republican party that advertises itself as the home of evangelicals, American tradition and family values.

And there is another poll result showing why congressional Republicans are looking for the exit.

The same poll found 61 percent of Americans think Trump has “little or no respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions.”

Remember, Trump is the leader of a party that loves to talk about the Founding Fathers and defending the Constitution and American traditions.

By the way, 26 percent of law-and-order loving Republicans admit in the poll that Trump does not care about the nation’s constitutional-based government.

And get this — 33 percent, a third of Republicans, said Trump does not make them “proud.”

This implosion of Republican self-image, their eroding view of themselves as guardians of American values with Trump in the White House, helps explain why so many Republicans are leaving Congress.

A month ago, The Washington Post described the number of Republicans choosing to retire as “staggering.” By their count “41 House Republicans have left national politics or announced they won’t seek reelection in the nearly three years since Trump took office.”

Longtime GOP Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.) became the 19th House Republican to announce his retirement last week.

Recently, Walden was twice targeted by Trump’s MAGA mob on conservative social media. First, he was cursed for his lack of loyalty to Trump for opposing the president’s grab of military funding to pay for a wall on the Mexican border.

Then Walden was lashed for condemning Trump’s racist tweet suggesting that four Democratic congresswomen of color “go back” where they came from, even though three of the four were born in the U.S.

November 04, 2019 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Republicans flee Rump said...

In Trump’s own words, Republicans who criticize him are “human scum.”

In the Senate, where Republicans are in the majority, this battle for the soul of the party is also pushing conservatives with a conscience to the exits.

For example, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), has already announced he will retire rather than run again in 2022.

In May, Trump criticized Burr for issuing a subpoena for the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., to testify about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

At that time, The New York Times described Burr as facing an “extraordinary pressure campaign…forcing [GOP] senators to choose between their loyalty to the Intelligence Committee and to the president’s family.”

Four other veteran GOP senators are already choosing to quit rather than run on the 2020 ticket with Trump: Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), and Pat Roberts (Kan.).

Then there are five Republicans who want to stay in the Senate but find that being called on to blindly defend Trump’s behavior is creating the toughest reelection fights of their political lives: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Martha McSally (Ariz.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.).

Meanwhile, Trump’s most open GOP critic in the Senate, Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) is regularly savaged by Trump’s media defenders. Rush Limbaugh, the talk show host, told listeners without any proof that Romney is working with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and had “assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.”

That kind of political beating keeps most congressional Republicans from breaking with Trump, but it can’t stop others from leaving.

There are glimmers of courage, however, with Senate Republicans exhibiting some conscience in the last month.

A high level of congressional Republican criticism also led Trump to back down on plans to help himself financially by holding an international summit at his struggling resort in Doral, Fla.

“I think there was a lot of concern,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of Republican leadership, told the New York Times.

But moments of conscience are the exception for congressional Republicans in the Trump era.

Three years into Trump, the options for Republicans who tire of his lies, his bullying, and his claim to “great and unmatched wisdom” remain painfully clear — say nothing or head for the door.

November 04, 2019 7:46 AM  
Anonymous No one is above the law said...

"he requested assistance with an investigation into how the Russian hoax was started and into whether the Hunter Biden's corrupt appearing relations with Ukraine was illegal"

There is a State Department and a Department of Justice and a court system in place to handle all legitimate investigations. The Rumpster could have had his DOJ put together a case and go about the investigation legally.

He did not. Most likely because there is not enough evidence to to even begin a full investigation.

So instead, he took over the duty that is assigned to Congress - the power to appropriate funds for specific purposes - and took control of it himself.

US citizens are investigated all the time - but there are laws that have to be followed to get it done properly - otherwise officials risk breaking laws that protect citizens from an overreaching, all-powerful and corrupt government.

Trump has no idea how the real US government is supposed to work.

November 04, 2019 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Local pastor finally apologizes for his damaging propaganda said...

Former evangelical megachurch pastor Josh Harris said Sunday that he “excommunicated” himself from the religion that propelled him to fame.

Harris, who renounced his Christianity earlier this year, told “Axios on HBO” that he ruined lives and marriages while he served as one of the country’s most well-known evangelical pastors.

“If you’re not living according to the teaching of the Bible, and you’re living in unrepentant sin, then you have to be put out of the church,” Harris, 44, told Axios. “I excommunicated myself, essentially.”

Harris is famous for his 1997 book, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” in which he encouraged Christian teenagers to abstain from even dating and shunned homosexuality. He eventually stopped the book’s publication and apologized for the harm it caused in promoting purity culture among millennials, though by then the book had sold 1.2 million copies.

“It was a long process for me,” Harris said, according to Axios. “I started seeing that the book really had misled a lot of people.”

Harris, the former pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland, announced in July on Instagram that he was divorcing his wife. Just over a week later, he announced that he was no longer a Christian.

“To the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality,” he wrote in his July post. “I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me.”

In his first interview since renouncing his faith, Harris told Axios he was “really just trying to be honest about the fact that all the ways that I had defined faith and Christianity, that I was no longer choosing to live according to those.”

November 04, 2019 10:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "corruption would be taking bribes, of a personal nature not political, to change your official actions"

Lol, my dear boy, making bribes is just as much corruption as taking bribes.

Trump extorted the Ukrainian prime minister for personal gain.

But of course its too much to ask a right wing authoritarian like you to acknowledge the obvious reality, isn't it?

The truth is folks, there is nothing Trump could do that Wyatt and Regina wouldn't excuse. They've made themselves unconditionally loyal to Trump and even if he was throwing infants off the top of Trump tower that wouldn't change.

If you want to know who the god is that evangelical christians like Wyatt/Regina worship just look at who Trump is.

November 04, 2019 11:51 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Go ahead Wyatt/Regina, tell us a couple of evil things Trump could do that would make you stop supporting him.

This should be fun :)

November 04, 2019 11:56 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "Keep up the fight. And, as you know, never give up. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.".

Its hard to keep yourself blinded to reality year after year, huh guys?

You can only compartmentalize so many contradictory beliefs in your mind and then sooner or later you can't deal with your own cognitive dissonance.

November 04, 2019 12:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Facebook has announced it will allow Republicans to continue to run ads that make false claims.

Top Republicans are privately worried about this new threat to President Trump’s campaign: the possibility of Facebook pulling a Twitter and banning political ads. Facebook says it won’t, but future regulatory pressure could change that.

If Facebook were to ban — or even limit — false ads, it could upend Trump’s fundraising and re-election plan, GOP officials tell Axios. Trump relies heavily — much more so than Democrats — on targeted Facebook ads to shape views and raise money.

Kara Swisher, of Recode, the super plugged-in tech writer, predicted on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that Mark Zuckerberg will ultimately buckle on allowing demonstrably false political adds on Facebook: “He’s going to change his mind — 100%. He’s done it before.”

November 04, 2019 12:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Josh Harris said "To the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality. I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me.”

I forgive you, Josh.

November 04, 2019 1:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

TRANSCRIPT: Ambassador To Ukraine Was Told That Flattering Tweets About Trump Could Save Her Job

Facing a concerted campaign from Rudy Giuliani and his allies to oust her, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich struggled in vain to get cover from U.S. diplomats, including her boss: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. At one point, according to a transcript of her Oct. 11 deposition in front of congressional impeachment investigators, she was told that sending a flattering tweet about President Donald Trump could save her job.

Before she was recalled from her post in Kyiv in May, Yovanovich was targeted by Giuliani and his associates because she was viewed as an obstacle to their efforts to get the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to open a fake investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings and to falsely claim Ukraine hacked the 2016 U.S. election rather than Russia. President Trump believed she was “bad news,” according to the memo of his July 25 call with Zelensky, and Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit had been criticizing her on various platforms.

November 04, 2019 3:44 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

GERMANY: Bill Would Ban Ex-Gay Torture Nationwide

Deutsche Welle reports:

German Health Minister Jens Spahn unveiled a draft law on Monday that largely bans “conversion therapy” for LGBT+ people. The practice will be completely banned for all youths under the age of 18, the newspapers of the Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland (RND) reported, citing a copy of the draft law.

The law stops short of a complete ban, however, with consenting adults allowed to seek “treatment” for their sexuality — albeit under restricted circumstances. The practice would no longer be legal, however, if the person ended up consenting to the therapy after being deceived, coerced or threatened.

November 04, 2019 5:38 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

"There is a State Department and a Department of Justice and a court system in place to handle all legitimate investigations. The Rumpster could have had his DOJ put together a case and go about the investigation legally."

State Department? The DOJ is indeed doing an investigation of the origins of the Russian hoax, that sucked up more of America's energy for more than two years. Trump was asking for Ukraine's assistance in the investigation under a treaty that has a provision that allows that. Treaties are the epitome of legal.

"So instead, he took over the duty that is assigned to Congress - the power to appropriate funds for specific purposes - and took control of it himself."

Congress appropriates the funds but the President handles the transactions. It's OK to use that as leverage. Ukraine wound up getting the funds before the deadline. And they declined Trump's request so the Dems' theory is, how do we put this, full of crap

"US citizens are investigated all the time - but there are laws that have to be followed to get it done properly"

Trump didn't break any laws. Investigating things that tend to make your political opponents look bad is not illegal.

"- otherwise officials risk breaking laws that protect citizens from an overreaching, all-powerful and corrupt government."

Are you bringing up Obama harassing the Tea Party using the IRS or when he used the CIA to spy on Trump's headquarters during the election?

"Trump has no idea how the real US government is supposed to work."

That's true. Real government doesn't reduce unemployment among minorities to the lowest level ever. Real government, the deep state kind, makes sure minorities are struggling and dependent on government.

The best President of the 20th century said "government is not the solution to our problems. government is the problem"

November 04, 2019 10:11 PM  
Anonymous gay agenda...LOL!! said...

Remember Beto O'Rourke?

He wanted to confiscate all the guns from innocent citizens and to take away the tax exemption of churches that didn't marry gays.

When Bernie Sanders was first asked about Beto O’Rourke entering the presidential race, his reply was dismissive: “Free country, anybody can run.”

But others thought O’Rourke was a powerful new rival.

The New York Times said that Sanders’ “stronghold on the party’s progressive wing has weakened” because he was now “outflanked on the left by rising stars” like O’Rourke. O’Rourke debuted with a splash: a long, flattering profile in Vanity Fair in which O’Rourke—to his later regret—said “Man, I’m just born to be in it.”

He was not, as it turned out, born to be in it.

After the initial burst of publicity, Beto fizzled quickly. His poll numbers never got out of single digits, and at first he didn’t seem to know what he stood for or why he stood for it.

November 04, 2019 10:19 PM  
Anonymous Have some impeach pie said...

"Are you bringing up Obama harassing the Tea Party using the IRS or when he used the CIA to spy on Trump's headquarters during the election?"

I didn't, but you seem to be referring to the investigation where FISA warrants were legally issued by a judge, and Rump's conspiracy theory has been debunked?:

On June 5, 2018, Trump further alleged that a counterintelligence operation into the Trump campaign had been running since December 2015.[9] The House Intelligence Committee, then in Republican control, concluded in an April 2018 report that the FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign did not begin until late July 2016, while the February 2018 Nunes memo written by Republican aides reached the same conclusion, as did the February 2018 rebuttal memo by committee Democrats.[10][11][12] Whether the use of the FISA warrant, which permits investigators to collect archived communications well prior to the issuance of the warrant, includes the December 2015 date remains partially classified.

Political commentators and high-ranking politicians from both sides of the political spectrum have dismissed Trump's allegations as lacking evidence and maintained that the FBI's use of Halper as an covert informant was in no way improper. Trump's claims about when the counterintelligence investigation was initiated have been shown to be false.[13]
[ ]

"Trump didn't break any laws. Investigating things that tend to make your political opponents look bad is not illegal."

If that's the case, why do you keep complaining about the investigations under Obama's watch? Didn't you guys want to impeach Obama for that?

Oh yes, yes you did:

IRS targeting conservatives

On August 19, 2013, Republican Congressman Kerry Bentivolio stated that if he could write articles of impeachment, "it would be a dream come true". To help in achieving that goal, he retained experts and historians.[18][19] During the same interview, Bentivolio called the press "the most corrupt thing in Washington," and said that he was looking to tie the White House to the IRS targeting controversy "as evidence of impeachment [sic]".

And then there was the idea that threatening Obama with impeach was just a good idea to limit his executive actions:

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review wrote the book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case For Obama's Impeachment, which argued that threatening impeachment was a good way to limit executive action by Obama (McCarthy referred to Obama's actions as "the standard dictatorial self-image").[20][34]

Get off your high horse before you fall down and hurt yourself.

November 04, 2019 10:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "Trump was asking for Ukraine's assistance in the investigation under a treaty that has a provision that allows that. Treaties are the epitome of legal."

Total Bullshit.

There is no treaty that allows Trump to demand the Ukrainian president commit a crime by opening a fake investigation into the Bidens for Trump's personal benefit in his re-election campaign.

Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian president into committing a crime for Trump's personal benefit.

This kind of corruption cannot stand if American democracy is to survive.

November 04, 2019 11:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "Congress appropriates the funds but the President handles the transactions. It's OK to use that as leverage. Ukraine wound up getting the funds before the deadline".

It is never okay for a president to use his office to get leverage for personal gain!

Wyatt and Regina making up stuff again. Congress has the power of the purse, Trump had no business putting a hold on funds Ukraine desperately needed to defend against Russian attacks.

The defence aid was supposed to go to Ukraine in the spring, Trump blocked its release and for months demanded Ukraine commit a crime to help Trump get re-elected.

It was only after Trump's extortion became public knowledge that he released his block on the aid in a futile attempt to backtrack his extortion attempt.

Ukraine finally got the aid just before it was due to disappear at the end of the fiscal year in October.

November 04, 2019 11:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "the best President of the 20th century said "government is not the solution to our problems. government is the problem"

You mean the guy that added more to the federal debt than all previous presidents combined? You mean the man who exploded income inequality and set in motion vast income increases for the rich and stagnant wage increases for everyone else? You mean the man that shat all over the constitution and sold arms to terrorists to fund the overthrow of a democratic government in central America?

I've got news for you, the American public will never agree with you that social security, medicare, and medicaid "are the problem".

The American public will never agree with you that forcing health insurance companies to provide coverage to those with pre-existing health conditions at no charge above anyone else "is the problem".

The gaslighting of the public by Republicans is the problem.

November 04, 2019 11:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

When Republicans tell you "goverment is the problem", what they're telling you is they want to take away your social security, your medicare, your medicaid and your right to health insurance even if you have a pre-existing health condition.

November 04, 2019 11:28 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

"the investigation where FISA warrants were legally issued by a judge"

the information used by Obama to obtain the FISA warrants were false and misleading

the investigation is ongoing

remember Obama is no longer and may be prosecuted

"Get off your high horse before you fall down and hurt yourself."

so, you complain that Trump used his official authority to discredit a political opponent and when I say Obama did the same, you say I'm on a high horse?

I don't there's any need for me to point how bad that makes you look

but it is noteworthy that you didn't even try to deny Obama did it

the use of the IRS to prevent political opposition groups to form may have turned the close 2012 election

why did Obama get away with something Nixon had to resign over?

just as Clinton made sexual predatory activity normal for politicians, Obama made the use of government agencies to harass your opponent the norm

the Democratic Party: lowering American standards since the Civil War

now, Biden wants having your kids being paid by foreign governments to lobby the White House par for the course

November 05, 2019 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The massive document-dump of material from Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian ratfcking that popped on Buzzfeed and CNN over the weekend is far too extensive to analyze thoroughly in one blog, but the overwhelming conclusion to which anyone reading the documents has to arrive is that there no longer is The Russian Story and The Ukraine Story, but only one story—the Russian 2016 election attack and Volga Bagmen story—that leads directly to the president*'s 2016 campaign, to his administration*, and, ultimately, to his liability to impeachment and removal from office.

It is plain that the whole enterprise by which the Russian attackers would be shielded from suspicion by having that suspicion instead cast upon Ukraine—the fantastical theory that lay behind the president*'s extortionate demand of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—was a crucial part of the strategy by which the Russian attackers would assist the president's 2016 campaign. It was the alibi-in-reserve, and it was deployed.

In an April 2018 interview with the special counsel’s office, Trunp associate Rick Gates, who had served as deputy Trump campaign chair and had long been Trump campaign mannager Paul Manafort’s right hand, told investigators that after the campaign learned the DNC had been hacked, Manafort pushed the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had orchestrated the attack. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s persisted in right-wing circles, even after the US Intelligence Community concluded Russia was involved, and one that Trump brought up in his July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

In a written memorandum of the July call released by the White House, Trump at one point says to Zelensky, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

The documents also present a strong case that limiting the impeachment inquiry, and rushing it to a conclusion, likely will guarantee that we get only half of the story, at best. For example, the revelation in the documents that Konstantin Kilimnik dreamed up the Ukraine diversion not only hauls us again into The Many Lives of Paul Manafort, but also it shows the vast parameters of what should be investigated until every bit of it is unearthed. If that takes us a decade after we are mercifully freed from this venomous ball of snakes in one way or another, then so be it.

November 05, 2019 11:28 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage"

When Wyatt/Regina post this, what they really mean is "Nothing is more important to us than having society punish innocent lgbt people.

Wyatt and Regina have called for the imprisonment and execution of gays. They might say they'll stop at a gay marriage ban, but that will never be enough persecution for them.

November 05, 2019 11:31 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Good anonymous said "you seem to be referring to the investigation where FISA warrants were legally issued by a judge, and Rump's conspiracy theory has been debunked?"

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "the information used by Obama to obtain the FISA warrants were false and misleading"

This was routine monitoring that happens automatically. Obama didn't order it and had nothing to do with it and didn't even know it happened. The FISA application had to be reviewed by multiple administrative and legal personal and approved by various judges who require that there be clear evidence supporting the application. This high bar for granting a FISA warrant has to not only be met when it is first applied for, the high bar has to be met each time the warrant is renewed and it was renewed several times. This has been pointlessly investigated multiple times and each investigation concluded this was carried out properly by the rule of law. Unlike Trump's daily actions.

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "the use of the IRS to prevent political opposition groups to form may have turned the close 2012 election".

Another lie by Wyatt and Regina - never happened.

An investigation into whether the IRS targeted conservative groups was carried out and found there was no bias, the IRS treated liberal and Republican groups exactly the same.

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "now, Biden wants having your kids being paid by foreign governments to lobby the White House par for the course"

All untrue.

Biden's son was never paid by a foreign government and never did any lobbying. He worked for free on the board of an investment firm investing in Ukraine.

This is just more desperate attempts at distraction from the fact that Trump extorted a foreign government with taxpayer funds for his own personal gain.

If this Trump corruption stands it will be the end of American democracy. The wannabe dictator is making his final power grab and evangelical christians like Wyatt/Regina and Tony Perkins are all in for their hoped for theocratic dictatorship.

November 05, 2019 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Oh my! said...

Somebody's been drinking the GOP kool-aide and is spewing unfounded conspiracy theories that Rump's pet rock, AG Barr is trying to spin into something indictable.

The more impeachment inquiry testimony that becomes public, the more clear Rump and Rudy's corrupt extortion becomes.

I'm sure I'm not the only one curious to learn what Lev Parnas records and testimony will make clear.

No wonder Rump is interfering with so many of his administration's witnesses testimony.

It turns out that July phone call was not as "perfect" as Rump tried to spin it just last week.

It's a riot watching Rump and company pirouette from one excuse to another.

November 05, 2019 11:55 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The Trump/Repbulican half-baked nonsense is really flowing now, and that's the point. As the Ukraine fiasco drips into the public consciousness via leaks from the various congressional committees, the president's PR strategy is to unleash a deluge of often self-contradictory misinformation so that people lose the plot. It's not really that complicated, though: as soon as this thing broke, the president and his allies staked out the position that there was "no quid pro quo." It was an impeachable offense even without that: the president abused his power and betrayed his oath of office to convert American foreign policy into a vehicle for his personal political gain.

But we also learned, inevitably, that there was a quid pro quo. A career diplomat dropped some texts off at Congress that demonstrated two instances of a quid pro quo. Trump's chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo in a press conference and said they do this kind of thing all the time, before shamelessly saying he didn't say what he said. One of Trump's henchmen in the Ukraine caper, Gordon Sondland, told Congress he believed the arrangement constituted a quid pro quo. The indications are that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky knew full well what Trump was demanding in return for a bilateral meeting and the military aid he'd held hostage. That is to say, he knew the terms of the quid pro quo.

Now that it's all come into focus, Trump is trying to feed the whole thing through the kaleidoscope of his primally dishonest brain. Yet again, the Trumpists are leaning on their signature Cover All The Bases strategy: we didn't do the bad thing, Fake News, but even if we did it would be fine because everybody does it, and it's actually smart, and maybe some people would say we did it, but they're Lying Never Trumpers who want to undo the election. Read the transcript! Remarkably, the president managed to fit nearly all these excuses and non-explanations into a single tweet Sunday evening.

@realDonaldTrump "False stories are being reportat that a few Republican Senators are saying that President Trump may have done a quid pro quo, but it doesn't matter, there is nothing wrong with that, it is not an impeachable event. Perhaps so, but read the [truncated by Trump] transcript, there is no quid pro quo!

"May have done a quid pro quo" brings to mind "an intern did a retweet" incident, another bit of vintage toddlerspeak from Trump. But this is also a classic of the Bullshit Avalanche genre: there was no quid pro quo, but it's cool if there was, because it's not an impeachable offense. But "perhaps so" (!?), read the transcript (it says on the document that it's not a verbatim transcript, and a White House official just testified that key passages of the conversation were omitted, yet it still shows the president asking for a "favour" at the mention of military support), and in conclusion, there was no quid pro quo. Strange that, even though the president did nothing wrong (and even if he did something wrong it's no big deal), four White House staffers are reportedly refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas on Monday.

November 05, 2019 12:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

For further evidence the president is innocent of the non-serious offense, here he is earlier on Sunday suggesting he may shut down the government to try to stop the probe. [Wyatt and Regina earlier asked for examples of Trump's dictatorial behavior - it doesn't get much more dictatorial than that. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Wyatt and Regina are just fine with this]

Nothing like abusing your power to quash an investigation into whether you abused your power. This is kind of like how Trump is constantly demanding the public identification of the whistleblower(which could be a crime), which would of course invite retribution against them and serve as a warning to others about the dangers of reporting the president's misconduct*. Never mind that their complaint has been extensively confirmed by others involved. The crook is gonna crook. The question is whether the country will continue to put up with it.

*You see Wyatt and Regina doing the same thing here, regularly posting about how anyone who opposes Trump is or will be investigated and will "pay for their crimes". And by "criminals" they mean the tens of thousands of honest hardworking men and women of the Justice Department who strive every day to fulfill their job duties without bias and according to the rule of law. Yep, Wyatt and Regina never miss a chance to make a thinly veiled threat to anyone who feels obligated by the constitution to hold Trump accountable for his betrayal of the country to the benefit of Russia.

November 05, 2019 12:13 PM  
Anonymous government is the problem said...

"the more clear Rump and Rudy's corrupt extortion becomes"

talk about pirouettes!


actually bribery, which is the usual mischaracterization Dems construe, is completely different from extortion

and neither have any meaning in international relations

nor do they have any meaning here

bribery involves inducements of personal compensation to an authority to let someone escape justice

here, even assuming Dems' story is correct, the worst you have is someone offering rewards to a society, Ukraine's, if the government there will pursue justice

basically, the opposite of bribery

then, extortion

this refers to threatening harm to someone unless they give you something

that didn't happen, by any misconstrual, either

TTFers need to be careful what mushrooms they eat

some cause halluciantions

November 05, 2019 12:26 PM  
Anonymous RumpStench said...

Thank you for your bogus analysis, Rump U Law School Grad.

Extortion (also called shakedown, and, in a legal sense incorrectly, exaction) is obtaining benefit through coercion.

Coercion (/koʊˈɜːrʒən, -ʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats

Textbook example: You want your security money? Publicly declare you are investigating a leading candidate running against me in the next election.

Taylor's impeachment inquiry testimony deposition will be publicized soon and then we can read all about the extortion he witnessed.

We already have Taylor's opening statement about it.

"I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be crazy."

It would be extortion.

November 05, 2019 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Merrick Garland......LOL!! said...

"Extortion (also called shakedown, and, in a legal sense incorrectly, exaction) is obtaining benefit through coercion."

well, no one was coerced

by your definition, if gays boycott Chik-Fil-A, that's extortion

you sound like someone who can't brush his teeth without calling his lawyer

"Textbook example: You want your security money? Publicly declare you are investigating a leading candidate running against me in the next election."

not only is that not a textbook example, it's not an example at all

please, for the amusement of all, could you give us an example of someone charged with extortion, where the "coercive" threat was to withhold a gift to them

yeah kid, if you don't crying, I'm not buying you a lollipop!


President Trump on Tuesday offered to help Mexico “wage WAR on the drug cartels” after a shootout left at least nine Americans dead.

Initial reports indicated the victims were women and children traveling in at least three cars who may have been targeted by mistake or caught in a crossfire between rival gangs All the victims were believed to be Mormons with dual American-Mexican citizenship.

A relative of one of the victims said his cousin was on her way to the airport when she was shot and killed in her car along with her four children near La Mora, a decades-old religious settlement about 70 miles south of the Arizona border. Her car had been set on fire with the bodies of the victims inside, according to Agence France-Presse. Two other vehicles, containing the bodies of two more women and two children, were found several hours later.

According to the Arizona Republic, at least a dozen people remain missing.

“A wonderful family and friends from Utah got caught between two vicious drug cartels, who were shooting at each other, with the result being many great American people killed, including young children, and some missing,” Trump tweeted Tuesday. “If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing & able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively.”

November 05, 2019 1:43 PM  
Anonymous I just love our current Supreme Court said...

Donald Trump will probably be reelected in 2020 – not because he is a good president, smart, or has good policies. He will win, I believe, because the Democrats are awful.

The party that is meant to be ‘for the people’ has completely lost touch with the people.

Rather than address real issues, the Democrats have resorted to virtue signaling.

Take, for instance, the recent LGBTQ Democratic presidential town hall hosted by CNN.

Candidate after candidate stood up and repeated the words ‘transwomen of color’ as many times as they could manage, hoping that this would win over voters.

Have they learned nothing from the last election?

Empty words aimed at pleasing the young, woke and very privileged may score well on Twitter, but voters don’t want fakery. They don’t want to hear about a tiny minority of people who have invented a problem that doesn’t exist. While I have sympathy for people struggling with body dysmorphia and other forms of mental illness, pronouns are not an important election issue. People who exist outside college campuses know this.

People want politicians to address real-world problems. They want jobs. They want to know they can support their families. They want to keep their homes. They want access to food and health care and schools. They want to live their lives with dignity and freedom. They also want honest politicians. People they trust to tell the truth, even if the truth isn’t so pretty. They want courageous leaders who say what they think. And whether or not Trump actually is that leader, he appears so to many. The Democrats, meanwhile, confuse their base with social justice warriors on Twitter. Most working-class people simply aren’t interested in ideologies propagated by academics and college activists, or the rejection of material reality in favor of postmodernism.

November 05, 2019 1:53 PM  
Anonymous I just love our current Supreme Court said...

During the October 10 town hall, Kamala Harris took the stage and announced that ‘Twenty black transwomen have been killed this year. 20.’

The hysteria around the murders of transwomen in North America is staggering.

It’s sometimes difficult to read about anything else.

You can’t easily find the number of black women killed in the US today.

If you Google some version of ‘Black women killed 2019’, you will find article after article about ‘transgender women of color’ or ‘black transwomen’.

For his part, then-Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke chose just to repeat the words ‘transwomen of color’ ad nauseam.

He added that while states were passing ‘bathroom bills’ there was ‘an epidemic of trans people being killed.’

This might have made him feel good. But it isn’t true. Indeed, far more black men and women who don’t identify as anything at all are killed every day in America than ‘trans people’.

Hell, four women are killed every day in the US from domestic violence alone.

While any murder is concerning, there is no epidemic of trans-identified people being killed, and stirring up moral panics that distort reality for political gain strikes me as unethical.

November 05, 2019 1:55 PM  
Anonymous I just love our current Supreme Court said...

The entire event was odd, to say the least.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the town hall was spent discussing trans-identified people and gender-identity legislation, candidates were consistently interrupted by trans activists claiming they were being ignored.

From the audience, a man named Blossom Brown interrupted the parent of a ‘trans kid’, shouting ‘Transwomen are being hunted. Systematically.’

CNN moderator Don Lemon invited him to come to the stage, saying, ‘Blossom, let me tell you something. The reason that we’re here is to validate people like you.’ Lemon then gave the mic to Brown, who took the opportunity to complain about the lack of representation of black trans people at the town hall.

Earlier in the evening, a group of protesters descended on two gay men, Anderson Cooper and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, interrupting another gay man who was in the midst of asking a question, chanting, ‘Trans people are dying. Trans people are dying.’

After CNN host Nia-Malika Henderson mispronounced the name of a trans-identified singer named Shea Diamond, Diamond corrected her, then said ‘It’s violence to misgender or to alter the name of a trans person.’

The constant interruptions from trans-identified men, the endless complaints about being erased despite the fact that almost the entire evening was dedicated to discussion of trans issues, were revealing.

I don’t believe I heard the word ‘lesbian’ uttered once. People complain that the LGB movement has been coopted by the T, and they are right. Moreover, it’s not just the gay and lesbian rights movement that has been taken over by trans activism. Progressive politics and the liberal media have been, too. The public is fed up. The full embrace of gender identity ideology has become a major vote loser.

After the Campaign for American Principles (CAP) put out an attack ad targeting Democratic candidate Andy Beshear’s support for gender identity legislation, polls showed an eight point increase in support for GOP Kentucky governor Matt Bevin.

Say what you will about the right, but they vote too. And most people aren’t on board with allowing boys to compete against girls in sport, effectively destroying any chance of success for female athletes, no matter how often they are told ‘transwomen are women’.

What liberals and the left seem not to realize is that lies don’t simply become true through repetition.

The Democrats and the liberal media shoved the narrative that Trump was unpopular down the public’s throat in 2016, and were shocked when he won the election.

Now they are trying to force us to believe that the matter of gender identity is settled, and that males who identify as women are the most marginalized group on earth.

But the reality is that lots of people support Trump, and the vast majority of the world’s population does not believe that men can be female.

People really resent being told things they know not to be true. People do not like politicians who assume they are too stupid to think for themselves — that they will just swallow whatever is fed to them. Most people have real problems, not fake ones, and they don’t want to be shouted at by self-centered, entitled people, or woke bullies.

The Democrats are not just making the same mistakes, they are doubling down on those mistakes.

Democratic party may be protecting themselves from the wrath of social media activists.

They aren’t winning over the people who matter: voters.

November 05, 2019 2:00 PM  
Anonymous That's quite a lovely self-comforting pirouette said...

"Have they learned nothing from the last election? "

Still in denial, huh?

Democratic ‘Blue Wave’ Washes Over House as Republicans Keep Senate

Over 150 LGBTQ candidates claim victory in midterm elections

November 05, 2019 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Sondland revises his testimony said...

Top diplomat revises his earlier testimony, says U.S. aid to Ukraine was tied to public anti-corruption pledge

In excerpts of Gordon Sondland’s deposition, the ambassador to the European Union revised his earlier testimony. He said he acknowledged telling one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisers in Warsaw that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”

Sondland’s reversal puts him in the middle of what national security officials saw as an attempt by the White House to leverage nearly $400 million in security assistance for investigations that could benefit the president politically.

Sondland had initially testified that he knew of only one quid pro quo: a coveted White House invitation for Ukraine’s new president if Ukraine would commit to launching investigations that could have impugned the reputation of Joe Biden.

But William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, challenged Sondland’s claim that he did not know of a second quid pro quo involving the security aid.

Taylor testified that Sondland had conditioned the release of the funding on the investigations targeting Biden in a meeting in Poland in September.

Taylor said he understood that on Sept. 1, Sondland warned Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak that the security assistance “would not come” unless Zelensky committed to pursuing the investigation into Burisma, an energy company where Hunter Biden had held a board position.

“I was alarmed,” Taylor wrote, saying a national security official had told him that the demand was relayed in person by Sondland while the ambassador was traveling in Poland with Vice President Pence. “This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance . . . was conditioned on the investigation.”

In the footnote, Sondland said he “presumed” the funding was being held up because of the lack of the sought-after investigations.

November 05, 2019 2:51 PM  
Anonymous in denial about the big Transwave! LOL! said...

Yeah, I'm in denial. Trans have become so radicalized that even gays are distancing themselves from them. But transtalk is a big vote-getter for Dems.

Please encourage them to keep it up!

On Friday, President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a new proposed rule to allow faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to receive federal grants without compromising their religious beliefs.

The new rule will roll back harmful regulations from the Obama Administration that forced faith-based providers to choose between helping vulnerable children and birthmoms, or following their faith.

In 2016, just days before President Obama left office, HHS added “sexual orientation” as a protected class to a rule governing adoption agencies. Therefore, adoption and foster care providers could not continue to place children in need with married mothers and fathers only based on their biblical beliefs about marriage and sexuality. Their choice was to give up their beliefs in order to serve or else stop serving children and birthmothers altogether. And many did close their doors because they couldn’t violate their faith.

While the Obama rule sought to punish faith-based agencies into compliance with a radical political agenda, the real victims were children waiting for their forever home and birthmoms whose choices were limited.

With more than 440,000 children in foster care in the U.S., and at least 100,000 waiting for adoption, this misguided rule demanded attention.

The Trump Administration responded.

The new rule will allow adoption and foster care agencies to once again provide much-needed child placement services while maintaining their religious beliefs. They will not have to comply with politically motivated “sexual orientation” rules.

According to a White House press release, “The proposed rule represents the Trump Administration’s strong commitment to the rule of law—the Constitution, federal statutes, and Supreme Court decisions. These require that the federal government not infringe on religious freedom in its operation of HHS grant programs and address the impact of regulatory actions on small entities.”

This announcement represents one of several steps taken by the Trump Administration to protect religious freedom in America and restore common-sense in federal agencies. The Administration has also taken action to protect medical workers who have conscious objection to abortion and assisted suicide, and it has ensured that faith-based businesses can opt out of insurance plans that include contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Americans are delighted that the Department of Health and Human Services has issued this new rule to protect religious freedom and advance the work of faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. President Trump and his administration deserve our thanks.

If you are encouraged by this announcement, won’t you take a moment to personally thank President Trump for his leadership to protect religious freedom in our country?

November 05, 2019 3:36 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "please, for the amusement of all, could you give us an example of someone charged with extortion, where the "coercive" threat was to withhold a gift to them"

There's that willful stupidity again. Obviously if you offer a "gift" to a cop to get him to break the law that's a crime.

Trump withheld desperately needed aid to block the Russian attacks on Ukraine and demanded that the Ukrainian president commit a crime to benefit Trump to get it.

That's extortion - case closed.

November 05, 2019 3:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "The hysteria around the murders of transwomen in North America is staggering. It’s sometimes difficult to read about anything else."

Yes, of course, so annoying that one must be disturbed by hearing about the murder of transwomen - why can't they just murder transwomen and keep quiet about it and leave Wyatt/Regina in peace?

You can sure see the hate and disdain seeping out of every pore of Wyatt and Regina - the problem is not that transwomen are murdered, the problem is that they have to hear about it.

These anti-lgbt people are sick and dangerous.

November 05, 2019 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Annoying Christians by failing to prevent them from hearing about the murder of innocent transwomen is an attack on religious freedom! Stop persecuting us! See how the gay agenda is harming us????

November 05, 2019 4:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That's right people, we need to keep the murders of transwomen quiet so Wyatt and Regina aren't disturbed by this pointless hysteria of something no one should care about.

I mean, imagine, people making a fuss about something so trivial as the murder of transwomen!

But don't tell anyone they hate gays and think themselves morally superior!

November 05, 2019 4:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You can see Wyatt and Regina's hatred for lgbt people who do them no harm runs very deep.

This is why they unconditionally support Trump, nothing is more important to them than maximally persecuting innocent lgbt people.

November 05, 2019 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Evangelical Christian said...

There's no need for christians to concern themselves with the murder of transwomen, they simply don't matter.

November 05, 2019 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Feelin' all that love for the Rumpster said...

"But the reality is that lots of people support Trump,"

Tuesday, November 5
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post Biden 56, Trump 39 Biden +17
General Election: Trump vs. Warren ABC News/Wash Post Warren 55, Trump 40 Warren +15
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders ABC News/Wash Post Sanders 55, Trump 41 Sanders +14
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg ABC News/Wash Post Buttigieg 52, Trump 41 Buttigieg +11
General Election: Trump vs. Harris ABC News/Wash Post Harris 51, Trump 42 Harris +9

"and the vast majority of the world’s population does not believe that men can be female."

That's fine. But it's not fine to go around slandering Trans people, claiming they are mentally ill, sexual perverts, threats to women and children, and doing everything you can to make it difficult for them to obtain and keep jobs.

There are trans men and women currently serving in the military that would make a far better Commander in Chief than draft-dodging Cadet Bone Spurs. He frankly doesn't deserve to lead them.

November 05, 2019 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Is this your white hood? said...

"There's no need for christians to concern themselves with the murder of transwomen, they simply don't matter."

Spoken like a true Christian. You can almost feel Jesus' love coming through the screen right at you!

November 05, 2019 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Garland, Goresuch & Kavanaugh...two outta three ain't bad said...

"General Election: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post Biden 56, Trump 39 Biden +17
General Election: Trump vs. Warren ABC News/Wash Post Warren 55, Trump 40 Warren +15
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders ABC News/Wash Post Sanders 55, Trump 41 Sanders +14
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg ABC News/Wash Post Buttigieg 52, Trump 41 Buttigieg +11
General Election: Trump vs. Harris ABC News/Wash Post Harris 51, Trump 42 Harris +9"

you sad, sad person

we don't elect our leaders by popular vote

we are a collection of states who agreed to join together if the smaller states aren't oppressed by the larger states

that agreement is codified by the electoral college

in all battleground states, Trump is within striking distance and that's before the issues are discussed

btw, of the major players, Trump performs best against Warren, who looks like the current favorite

if you think middle America is going to give up the prosperity we enjoy under Trump for some ludicrous Dem proposals that everything is free, let me encourage you to stay the course


""and the vast majority of the world’s population does not believe that men can be female."

That's fine. But it's not fine to go around slandering Trans people, claiming they are mentally ill, sexual perverts, threats to women and children, and doing everything you can to make it difficult for them to obtain and keep jobs."

oh, well the vast majority of the world’s population thinks Trans people are mentally ill and that employers shouldn't be forced to hire them

just sayin'

some pathetic TTFer called himself an Evangelical Christian and posted this:

"There's no need for christians to concern themselves with the murder of transwomen, they simply don't matter."

then they pretended they didn't post that and posted this:

"Spoken like a true Christian. You can almost feel Jesus' love coming through the screen right at you!"

so TTers are very deceptive people

but the truth remains: trans are not murdered at a significantly higher rate than the general population

Dems are lying

November 05, 2019 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Pretty pirouettes said...

Democrats win the Virginia legislature for the first time in 24 years, ushering in a new era

Democrat Andy Beshear just unseated Kentucky’s Trump-loving governor Matt Bevin

November 05, 2019 10:08 PM  
Anonymous the crooked Biden family said...

Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.

During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”

November 05, 2019 10:17 PM  
Anonymous the transsexual world is dark and creepy said...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on the media to print the name of the whistleblower when President Trump invited him on stage at a 'Keep America Great' Trump campaign rally Monday night. Paul called the whistleblower a "material witness" because he worked with former Vice President Biden while Hunter Biden received money from oligarchs.

"President Trump has great courage, he faces down the fake media every day," Paul said. "But Congress needs to step up and have equal courage to defend the president."

"Hunter Biden made $50,000 a month. That's the definition of corruption. We know he got it only because of his family connections," Paul said.

"We also now know the name of the whistleblower," Paul continued. "The whistleblower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked with Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs."

"I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name!" Paul declared. "And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower."

November 05, 2019 10:20 PM  
Anonymous remember: Obama said 2% annual growth and the decline of American manufacturing was the new normal and can't be stopped said...

If the stock market is worried about the President Trump getting impeached it has a funny way of showing it: The Dow, the S&P and Nasdaq set new records Monday, buoyed by strong corporate earnings, a possible trade deal and the wide-spread belief among sophisticated investors that the US economy will continue to chug along handsomely.

Despite what you hear from doomsayers like the newly minted Dem front-runner Elizabeth Warren, the rising Trump economy is raising all boats, not just the fat cats on Wall Street. At least that’s what the people who have money in the game are saying, and their word counts a lot more than any leftist politician.

Of course, even in the best of times — and according to the data we are pretty close to them now with unemployment hovering at a 50-year-low of 3.6 percent — there are things to worry about. Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping may not reach their long-coveted trade deal. Sluggish business investment (which declined in the last quarter by an annualized rate of 3 percent after a 1 percent decline) could get even more sluggish, sending the modest economic growth of 1.9 percent in the past quarter into the red.

Wages are growing better than the dog-days of the Obama presidency, but growth has tapered off recently (to 3 percent in October) suggesting employers aren’t that worried about a tightening labor market and they’re slowing the pace of new hires. Meanwhile, the impeachment hearings could batter and bruise Trump so much that even an economic arsonist like Elizabeth Warren could slip through the electoral cracks and become president despite her fantastical utopian ideas of handing free stuff to everyone except wealth creators, who of course, she will tax so much they will stop creating any wealth.

More likely is that the current economy — which is strong and with a little luck likely to get stronger — will make Trump formidable in 2020.

The US economy grew nearly 2 percent last quarter, powered largely by continued strength of consumer spending, which grew solidly by 2.9 percent. People don’t generally spend money unless they’re feeling pretty good about their economic future, and you need more than the top 1 percent feeling good to accrue consumer spending growth like we now have.

In other words, the rich may be getting richer in the Trump economy, but so are most others.

Again, look at the numbers. I can’t wait for Warren & Co., to explain black unemployment, which has remained at record lows for the past three months. Yes, more needs to be done; black unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent compared to the overall 3.6 percent rate, but only a fool would argue that these numbers (possibly the biggest economic achievement of the Trump presidency) aren’t heading in the right direction, which is why for all of Warren’s class-warfare posturing, she has steered clear of them.

Keep in mind all this progress on the economy has been taking place in the face of prolonged business uncertainly as Trump fights his trade war with China. The president maintains he has good reasons to take on China’s abusive trade practices — from the theft of intellectual property to the uneven playing field faced by US companies doing business in the mainland — and he might have a point.

But there was an economic consequence to the tit-for-tat tariffs China and the US has been imposing on each other. As Trump and Xi move closer to ending the hostilities, the headache of uncertainty will be at the minimum removed. If they reach a decent deal allowing the likes of Chinese telecom company Huawei to have access to US markets, while US companies can have the same access to Chinese consumers, the economic benefits from both countries will be enormous.

I don’t know about you, but to me, a trade deal seems a lot more important for the markets, the economy and Trump’s re-election chances than some impeachment vote. And the best minds on Wall Street appear to agree.

November 05, 2019 10:23 PM  
Anonymous I'll have a blue, blue Christmas, without you Republicans said...

After 20 years of Democrats being out of power in the Virginia House of Delegates, a blue wave has swept the state capitol in Richmond.

Democrats pulled off a major win on Tuesday night, taking both the state House and state Senate. This ensures a trifecta: Democrats will have a majority in both legislative chambers, and the party is led in the state by Gov. Ralph Northam. Decision Desk called both races as of 9:30 pm Tuesday.

Tuesday’s elections were further evidence that once-purple Virginia is trending more and more solidly blue. Republicans have not won a statewide political office since 2009, but had hung onto power in the state legislature in part due to past redistricting that a court deemed a racial gerrymander. (The court ordered districts redrawn ahead of the 2019 election.)

It’s also evidence that Democrats are fired up and organized even on the state level. In the run-up to the 2019 elections, some grassroots activists told Vox they were seeing major enthusiasm, even for an off-year election where the biggest races on the ballot were for state lawmakers, instead of a governor’s or US Senate race. That could bode well for Democrats ahead of an all-important presidential election year.

The stakes for policy are also huge
Beyond the political implications for both Democrats and Republicans, tonight’s win also has some major policy consequences. Republicans in the House of Delegates had typically served as the stopping point for any Democratic legislation on a number of issues, including getting rid of right-to-work laws, raising the minimum wage, and passing gun safety provisions.

Even though Virginia passed Medicaid expansion last year when a handful of Republicans decided to support the bill, health care still ranks as a top issue for many Virginia voters — and the new majorities could bring sweeping changes.

Voters are still frustrated with the high cost of prescription drugs, and Democrats want their new majorities to fight back against Republican bills that would allow insurers to not cover those with preexisting conditions.

“They’re still feeling like there’s a heavy expense for prescription drugs, and they want to know how you’re going to try to get some of these costs down,” Virginia state Delegate Lashrecse Aird (D), who represents a predominantly minority district, recently told Vox about her constituents’ concerns.

Another huge issue that has come up both in Aird’s community as well as around the state is the issue of gun violence. In June, Northam called a special legislative session to address gun violence after a mass shooting in Virginia Beach claimed the lives of 12 people. Ultimately, the session didn’t yield any progress; Republicans adjourned it after just 90 minutes, without taking up a single bill. Now that his party controls the legislature, Northam may be encouraged to try again.

Democrats statewide are also eyeing a laundry list of other priorities that have been blocked by Republicans in the past, including raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and passing a state Equal Rights Amendment that would give civil rights protections to LGBTQ individuals.

Tuesday’s election just paved the way for some of those ideas to potentially become law.

November 05, 2019 11:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home