Tweets are cause for impeachment?

Fox’s Bret Baier: Trump Gave Schiff a New ‘Article of Impeachment in Real Time’ With Twitter Attack on Yovanovitch

Here’s a simple question for you. Was Marie Yovanovitch monitoring her Twitter account during her testimony today? Based upon media reports like the one linked above, she must have been and she must be following President Trump as well. Otherwise, how would she have been aware of the President’s tweets that so many are now claiming is an impeachable offense? She can’t be intimidated prior to her testifying if she isn’t aware of the tweets. Oh wait, Adam Schiff read the tweet live during the hearing so she was aware. Doesn’t that make Adam Schiff an accomplice? Yovanovitch would have never heard it during the hearing and been intimidated otherwise. It’s only because Schiff enabled it because he chose to read it aloud to her. I can only assume this was an attempt by Schiff to intimidate the witness. Clearly if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have read it live.

Yes, we can all play the stupid game. I really have no idea how every democrat doesn’t just walk out on Schiff head held in shame. They have been made to look utterly pathetic and ridiculous. Here’s an idea. How about you, Adam Shifty Schiff, stay off your damn phone during an impeachment inquiry to overturn a United States election? In fact, how about disallowing any and all electronics during these hearings so we can at least appear to have the full attention of the participants?

Tragedy in California is one more piece

Shooting at California’s Saugus High School leaves 2 students dead, suspect in custody, officials say

Let the same old arguments begin. Pro-gun supporters will point out that California already has laws in place akin to what the gun grabbers are pushing for nationwide. They clearly didn’t work today in California so why enact them nationwide? As I observed in a multitude of social media the gun grabbers argument is that the shooter may have obtained the weapon in another state without such stringent gun laws. The pro-gun people will point out that teenagers can’t legally purchase handguns in any state so it’s a moot point. The gun grabbers will say that an adult may have legally purchased the handgun in another state and the minor was able to access it somehow and commit the crime. The pro-gun people will point out that every step of the process no matter how the minor obtained the gun is already covered by an existing gun law and passing further nationwide gun laws won’t prevent what happened today. And on and on and on.

Where does this always ultimately lead to? Total gun confiscation. That’s the only potentially ironclad way to prevent these senseless killings. Of course the criminals will never abide by any such confiscation law so a police state coast to coast shakedown of each and every square foot of America would be required to accomplish this. Even after that you have guns available in other countries that can be smuggled in. You have dirty cops and military who would ensure that some amount of supply would still make it into the public’s hands. You have those who are crafty enough to build their own at home and then create their own black market.

Would America really be willing to go to an even more radical step? All existing weapons and ammunition must be destroyed. This includes law enforcement and the military. If not, how do ever insure total compliance? If you exempt enforcement agencies there will always be a black market. Who are the potential black market customers? Criminals. Yes, the very people all of our laws are passed in order to keep disarmed. If only enforcement agencies are armed, how do you ever prevent a police state? How many Americans are idiotic enough to think that would never happen here?

Even if were somehow successful enough to cleanse the country of guns, you then have to move on to knives or clubs or any type of object that could be used to harm another human. We’re a crafty little organism who always adapts. Now the gun grabbers say this is all just silly conspiracy talk and that something must be done. I agree. However, no half measures will ever work. No amount of laws. No ever more sequentially stringent confiscation measures. Even if your argument is we must do something and reduce violence in even just a small measure, how do you sell that to the future victims and their families? Will they be ok with the idea that at least you tried?

As always, the solution to a problem is best solved by addressing the problem at its source. That does not fit the narrative of the gun grabbers. They will tell you that if you merely remove temptation from someone who has temporarily lost it, we can successfully eliminate or reduce violence. This goes back to my earlier point. If you’re a person considering a violent act against another and you don’t have a gun handy and no access to get one will you just say oh well or will you use whatever will do the job? This would likely reduce events of mass violence. Will you then be that person to address the victims family and say sorry you lost your child to an attack by a baseball bat but at least it was just you and not your neighbor as well? Feel better now? This is what happens when you don’t address a problem at its source. I don’t think you can make the case that mass murderers are copycat criminals who are only driven my media attention and their trait of a tendency toward violence will simply disappear if these stories stop appearing on the nightly news. Sick people are sick. Period.

And I know I’m ignoring the elephant in the room and not even addressing those who wish to disarm the country for devious means. Tyrants and dictators and such. They couldn’t care less about the plight of the victim, only a means to an end. They recognized long ago the benefit in manipulating public opinion by utilizing fear and compassion. Americans interested in protecting themselves are labeled conspiracy nuts. They are being led down the road to mold them into believing that if dangerous weapons are removed from existence, their need for self-protection will be greatly reduced. They may then rely upon law enforcement to protect them. You may again refer to the baseball bat scenario mentioned previously. None of this removes the human aspect in which if someone wants to harm someone else they will use any available means to do so. If the public consensus doesn’t demand a solution based upon the root issue, we will never make any real headway in solving it. This idea that sick people should be allowed to just continue on unaddressed and our best solution is just keep the guns out of their hands in case they snap is psychobabble. Worse yet is the idea that perfectly normal, well balanced people somehow go over to the dark side when a weapon is available. If we just keep the guns away from good people when they stray a bit and have a dark thought they won’t act on it. Or something. I believe that speaks to integrity. Say you’re in a room all alone and your co-worker left his wallet on the table. You can easily snatch the cash and no one will ever know it’s you. What stops you? Integrity. Doing the right thing when no one else will even know. Yet the argument of the left is it is we who are bad by allowing a temptation. If we just remove the temptation. Or is the problem at a deeper level?

The bigger question becomes should we alter the lives of the many because of the few? Isn’t that always the question with big social issues? And doesn’t every big social issue also have the alternative agenda groups that latch on to a movement in one direction or the other for their own purposes? This is why big, over reaching government doesn’t solve problems, it merely shuffles the deck. Their solutions end up pitting groups of people against each other. It just shows the folly of governing hundreds of millions of very different people into one umbrella policy. Unfortunately there are those who take it even further with globalism policies designed as a one size fits all approach. Protecting ourselves from each other can’t be mandated from above. It’s pure individualism vs. collectivism. The rules of collectivism mandate taking away something of value from the collective in the name of protecting the few. There would be no need for a governing body to intervene to institute what the majority supports and is already doing. They exist to take away from the majority. All of our social justice warriors who are so eager for social change are useful idiots that can’t ever see the endgame in this progressive march towards globalism. There is very little room at the top of the globalists pyramid and the vast majority of the useful idiots helping push their agenda seemingly have no idea that they will be a mere peasant one day as well. Gun control is just a small piece of a far bigger puzzle. Today’s school shooting in California won’t be seen for the tragedy it is for those involved but just as another piece of the puzzle.

Impeachment inquiry hearings today? How about something that actually matters instead?

You’re not really watching, are you? I mean the clown show impeachment inquiry hearings on tv today. There can be no possible rational reason to do so. If you’re a never Trumper, the decision has already been made. If you’re not you know you won’t learn anything new. The inquiry serves only one purpose. The left is counting on the media to reconstruct the inquiry to paint Trump in as bad a light as possible in order to shift public opinion. If your mind isn’t already made up, you’re an idiot. Nothing personal but if you’re informed and following along you don’t need to hear anything else. If you’re a casual observer thinking you’ll become more informed by watching the inquiry then again, you’re an idiot.

I heard something on Rush Limbaugh that made me take pause. He was making the point that politicians govern based on their personal agenda all the time. Do you agree? Do you think this is a good thing? As a voter, do you vote based upon what a politician sells as their personal vision or do you vote for the candidate that best reflects your views? This is a difference with a distinction. If you vote based upon what they’re selling you, you are aware that politicians do lie? That they sometimes ‘evolve’ in their views over time, particularly career politicians? Certainly you know they are influenced by special interests and lobbyists? Point being that if you believe in what they tell you prior to being elected, they may and likely will change their agenda once in office. Of course, your views may be altered over time as well making the likelihood that your views will continue to align with that politician even less. So should you cast your vote based upon an advertised agenda? What else do you have to go on? I’ve heard it proposed that voters should submit a profile that highlights their priorities. Candidates could then spell out their agenda which could then be ‘scored’ as to how well that matches up to your personal priorities. You then simply cast your vote for the highest scoring candidate. Sounds great except for the earlier point that politicians lie and change their agenda once in office. What is the common man to do?

Perhaps you see the wisdom in the idea of a far, far smaller federal government, term limits and eliminating career politicians. Doesn’t matter where you fall in the political spectrum, the majority of what the swamp debates doesn’t even concern you. The spectacle going on today is a good example. Whether or not Trump leveraged aid to Ukraine to investigate Biden won’t affect your daily life one iota. All politicians utilize leverage whenever possible so the sanctimony of the left is infantile. The fact that Biden is dirty? Please, spare me. Go back to my first sentence in this paragraph.

I would disagree with Rush Limbaugh in that we should vote based upon choosing amongst candidate’s agendas. The focus should be on our priorities, not theirs. The allure of being a civil servant shouldn’t be an easy street career and a chance to inject one’s personal agenda. The sense of patriotism and a call to serve should be selfless, not selfish. This is true for all of us except the swamp dwellers that prioritize everything big government simply for job security. The entire debate over Trump is only about them which is why your elected officials aren’t governing in your interests. That will never stop until the people restore power to the local level. Obviously that doesn’t eliminate corruption as man is flawed but accountability is far easier to manage at the lowest level possible. You would also find that politicians would be debating issues which actually concern you in the area in which you live. We wouldn’t have to suffer the constant deluge of representatives elected for just one district making policy for the entire country. Tired of the spectacle and the same old arguments over issues that for the most part don’t impact your daily life? Vote for somebody who agrees and will change it.

CBS/ABC collude to fire whistleblower (who isn’t the whistleblower)- Updated***

Any bets on how quickly the identity of this whistleblower is revealed? No doubt it will easily meet ABC’s editorial standards unlike the Trump-Ukraine phone call never Trumper leaker Eric Ciaramella.


The fired employee is Ashley Bianco. She was fired not for leaking the ABC video but merely for accessing it. The leaker still works at ABC.

Halloween will become Groundhog Day

Today is Halloween, October 31, 2019. Today the democrats officially opened their impeachment of President Trump. The impeachment process began immediately after the election results were finalized.

It’s been 1,086 days since President Trump won the 2016 election. In 10 days it will be the 3 year anniversary of that election.

It’s 369 days until the 2020 election. In 4 days it will be 1 year until the 2020 election.

The democrats will have waited over 3 full years to overturn the will of the people that elected President Trump when they finally get around to casting their vote for impeachment.

It will be less than 1 year before the people will speak again once that impeachment vote is taken. Your elected officials will have invalidated your vote from 2016 if you voted for Trump. They will begin their efforts immediately after Trump wins re-election to invalidate your 2020 vote. Unless you want more and more of the same, be very cognizant of how you vote. The major political parties have no interest in what you want. The swamp encompasses both of them. Halloween today will turn into Groundhog Day. Ask yourself why you expect different results when you vote candidates from the same group over and over.

Did Joe Biden just publicly disown his son Hunter?

OMG! Did Joe Biden just disown his son Hunter? Hunter has of course made millions of dollars profiting off his father’s name without being qualified to earn any of it. His qualifications to serve on the Amtrak Board? He rode the train. Seriously. His qualifications to serve on the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Board? He served on the Amtrak Board. Seriously. You can’t make this stuff up. Do Republicans profit off their political connections? You’re darn tootin’ they do. But they just can’t seem to master the totally self-unawareness that people like the Bidens and Clinton’s do so effortlessly. Or maybe Joe has really decided to disown poor Hunter as he’s become such a political liability. Let’s hope that after Joe realizes he can’t win in 2020 and retires he’ll seek some family therapy to repair his fractured relationship with his son. Heck, Hunter can even pick up the doctor tab with the millions upon millions he’s profited from over the years despite not being the Republican Joe really wanted.

POTUS are you listening? You must do this

Told ya. In my October 7th post titled 3rd Whistleblower, I opined that Trump must gather up all the transcribers from the July 25th Ukraine phone call and march them up to the hill and make them testify. That’s the only way to head off the strategy of the left to keep the fake quid pro quo narrative alive. The transcribers merely need to state that what’s in the transcript is exactly what they heard to the best of their recollection. No omissions. No alterations. Now Schiff and Pelosi may refuse to play. Fine. Send them to the Senate and have them testify in front of Graham’s committee. The point is to make it public.

Why? The left is predictably moving forward with their strategy to claim the released transcript was altered. That’s the idea behind Alexander Vindman testifying. The only way to deflect from the strategy of the right to point to the released transcript as proof of no quid pro quo is to claim it’s a fake. The only way to bury that argument is to do what I propose above. The sooner the better if Trump wants to take this issue off the table and derail the so-called impeachment inquiry fiasco now underway.

Or not if the Trump strategy is to force an actual impeachment believing it will be tactfully beneficial come election time. I wouldn’t recommend it. Allowing the left to control the narrative is just dumb. A President may be able to overcome an impeachment and get re-elected but only if it clearly appears as a partisan act. Letting the left create gray areas to create doubt is not the way to go about it. Look how many people today who believe that Clinton was impeached for having sex in the Oval Office. It doesn’t matter that it was for lying to a Grand Jury, the media controlled the narrative and history shows they were successful in changing the public perception. Even if Trump believes that impeachment is a forgone conclusion and the Senate won’t convict, he can’t allow the left to write his obituary.

A story about an angel covering up a story about an evil felon?

Couple pushing stroller saved by vehicle blocking ‘drunk’ driver via

An angel protected that family. When you read the rest of the story it makes you wonder why a drunk driver arrested for dui and assault with a lengthy prior record would be released just two hours later. Yet another illegal alien put right back on the streets by our politically correct system?