How Far Do We Let the Left Go?

The District Attorney of San Francisco – huge Commie rat – has decided that public urination will no longer be a crime. One fine person made the correct suggestion: someone should go piss on the DA’s car. But once that excellent and patriotic action is completed, what then? Well, it got me thinking (I know, dangerous!) and then I recalled Article 4, section 4 of the United States Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

A Republican form of government is not just a bunch of voting going on. No; not at all. A Republic is a thing of dogmas and rules – and it only works if all the rules are enforced to the best of everyone’s ability. And one of the rules of a Republic is that laws cannot be set aside – but that is just what the DA is doing. In my view, per the Constitution, Trump could give the DA 24 hours to reverse himself and, if he refuses, send in US Marshals to enforce laws against public urination. A bit extreme? Sure – but extreme times do call for extreme measures.

It is best to step back a bit and think about what we’re dealing with here and the first step in that is to ask just why anyone would do anything which would allow or encourage people to piss on the streets? The answer lies in the DA – Chesa Boudin. If that surname seems familiar, it is because it is: he’s the son of Kathy Boudin, the psychotic Commie murderer. Which means that Chesa is both the son and grandson of hard core Communists. When his ma got arrested shortly after his birth he ended up being raised by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. He worked as a translator for the Commie dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. He’s a true believer, folks; he’s Communist to the core. And that means he believes – completely – that all of the social pathologies in society are the direct result of Capitalism…and that once Socialism is in place, all of these pathologies will disappear. No, seriously: this is what Commies believe. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

The reason why a Commie doesn’t want to enforce laws against public urination is not because he likes to smell piss on the streets: it is because he’s sure that the man pisses on the streets because the Capitalist system made him that way, and no real Commie is going to do anything to prop up the Capitalist system. What the DA is doing is essentially saying, “see, you Capitalist bastards! This is what you created!”; and he’ll then go on to propose Communism as the cure; though given he’s an American Commie and has learned from the experiences of his parents and grandparents, he’s not going to flat out say that…he’ll call it being Progressive and working against the criminalization of being homeless.

Any enforcement of any law regarding property or public decency or such is seen by a Communist as a mere propping up of the Capitalist system, because all such laws were created by Capitalists for the sole purpose of retaining power. They aren’t about public safety or justice or anything such thing. Capitalists are inherently incapable of doing anything good – all the laws are merely enforcement of Capitalist supremacy (though today’s Commies will more usually say they are about supporting White Supremacy – which is just a substitute phrase for the Class Enemy; you know, Capitalists). A true believer like Chesa Boudin simply will not enforce any laws – which means most of them – which he, as a Commie, considers to be laws enacted by Capitalists to suppress the people (whom he is the Vanguard for, being that he’s a conscious revolutionary Communist, dig?). At the end of the day, electing Chesa Boudin as DA was an act against the existence of a democratic Republic…there is a good chance that even most San Francisco voters didn’t realize this but it still remains that a person is in the DA’s office who is opposed to the whole idea of a Constitutional order (remember: all of that Constitutional order was merely created to protect the power and wealth of Capitalists/White Supremacists/Homophobes/Insert-Hated-Group-Here). He is, in short, opposed to a Republican form of government. And, so, must be stopped.

Right now a whole bunch of my fellow Conservatives are going to start going, “hold on there, sparky: what about federalism and local self rule? You call yourself a Distributist and that means you say you believe in Subsidiarity (thing should be done on the lowest level possible); you some kind of hypocrite?”. I don’t think so – no more than the Founders were. They placed in the Constitution very strong protections for States and individuals…but they also did include the above quoted bit, and also permitted the federal government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And do note the justifications for suspending the writ: in cases of invasion, insurrection or when the public safety may require it. The public isn’t very safe if those charged with enforcing the laws decide not to because their loyalty isn’t to the Republic, but to a Communist revolution which will overthrow the Republic.

The bottom line of Article 4, section 4 is that we are not allowed – no matter how much we might want to – to vote ourselves into tyranny. 99% of the people of California could vote to impose a Bolshevik Dictatorship, and that vote would be immediately null and void per the Constitution…and if the people of California decided to resist the restoration of freedom, then the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended and everyone in California trying to support the Bolshevik government could be arrested and held without trial.

What we’re seeing in the deeply Progressive areas of the United States is people voting for tyranny – voting for DA’s who won’t enforce laws; voting to excuse themselves from provisions of federal laws (the “sanctuary cities”. eg); allowing non-left voices to be physically attacked; threatening people with fines and tortuous legal action for merely dissenting. My question: how far do we let it go? My view is that we’ve let it go far enough, other’s may dispute this; but in the end, we’re either going to enforce our Constitution or we’re not…the Left is counting on us not enforcing it until they’ve gained enough power to simply do away with it. And make no mistake about it: that is what they want – an end to liberty, and end to property, and end to free thought. Their goal is a socialist future. That they believe this to be a good thing – meaning, that some of them sincerely think they are working for our benefit – is irrelevant. We know where this leads – how long will we let them advance? Where is our line in the sand?

We have to decide that, and decide it very soon. And if we want to have this be a peaceful push back, then our best recourse is to use the tools the Founders entrusted to us, including the tools designed to protect people from their own folly. The Founders knew full well that people – being at times perverse – would vote for very asinine things. They gave wide latitude for such idiocy – and, indeed, no sane person will lightly try to interfere with local self government. But, come on: we’ve got full blown Communists undermining the rule of law; we’ve got insane homeless people defecating and pissing on the streets; we’ve got masses of illegal immigrants being protected in violation of law; things are getting a bit out of hand…and they’ll get worse if we don’t start to take action.

46 thoughts on “How Far Do We Let the Left Go?

  1. M. Noonan November 13, 2019 / 1:05 am

    Nope; tyranny isn’t allowed: the Constitution prohibits it – and a DA, or any other official at any level of government, unilaterally abrogating laws is the definition of tyranny. If he can on his own hook legalize public urination, then he can legalize whatever he wants. We see it, already: it is legal in many Progressive cities to beat up non-Progressives, simply because the law enforcement agencies of those cities have chosen not to enforce the law against assault. You, yourself, might not see where this is leading – but I do. And it is time to call a halt to it.

    • Ryan Murphy November 13, 2019 / 6:49 am

      Name this situational enforcement. Specifics.

    • Amazona November 13, 2019 / 8:12 am

      In a similar vein to your thread, Mark, there is this chilling article.

      The New York Times, after all, dedicated a section of its website to a series of articles about the 1917 communist revolution in Russia, including a puff piece about Vladimir Lenin as an environmentalist and another touting women’s sex lives under socialism.

      Yet there was no mention of the mass cover-up of Soviet crimes in the 1930s by Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty.

      • Amazona November 13, 2019 / 10:07 am

        I’ve noticed the alarming acceleration of Leftist efforts and have been wondering why they have suddenly become so blatant and aggressive. One thought is that the Left has analyzed its successes in eroding our culture and dumbing down our populace, tested the waters with experiments to see how Socialism might be accepted by putting forth people like Sanders and AOC, and decided that the nation is at a tipping point and it is time to give it a good hard nudge to thrust it into the death spiral of absolute Leftist rule.

        But one is that possibly the Left is seeing a drift back toward the center/Right by some younger people and sees this as a make-or-break time, a fear amplified by the progress Trump is making in both eroding its long-entrenched power bases within our government and showing the nation how much better things work when the feds stay out of our way. More and more I am realizing, and appreciating, the threat he poses to the plans of the Left. They have spent decades planting their spies and agents in the very heart of our government, establishing a Shadow Government that has remained invisible to the public but poised to undermine any effort by any administration to implement any policy that is not in line with Leftist objectives, and right now they are facing the dismantling of a lot of that structure.

        Now the President has openly commented on the Democrat Party becoming more and more totalitarian, and giving examples. I think this is going to continue, with more examples as time goes on. I loved seeing him throw the gloves on the ice with that speech, and hope he keeps building on it.

        And one by one the embedded agents are being dragged out to be exposed, both to the public and a suddenly muscular Department of Justice. Suddenly an embedded agent is being identified as an embedded agent, with his activities laid out for people to see, whether his name is Comey or Ciaramella. Suddenly people on the Right are openly calling out people like Schiff as congenital liars and the antics of the House as Stalinist. And what CAN the Left do, when its activities are openly and accurately described as “Stalinist”? All they can do is what they are doing, and rewrite history to try to make Stalin a benign and even heroic character, to sanitize his brutal history and redefine him as a hero of the people.

        So this recent flurry of revisionist history might be a signal of panic on the Left, not a strategy for moving forward but an effort to halt a backward slide. They are basically, by not denying the Stalinist comparisons, acknowledging their accuracy, and just saying “Yeah, but Stalin was GREAT!” I think that is a signal that they are floundering as they see their advances starting to melt away, a little at a time.

      • M. Noonan November 13, 2019 / 8:30 pm

        I think it crucial – and hat tip to you for realizing it (at least here in the comments) a decade or so ago: we either have laws, or we don’t have them, at all. That someone might want a lawless society is fine and dandy: I don’t. But this means I really can’t let anyone get away with it…and laws are not only broken by some two bit crook robbing a liquor store, but by a well-spoken, highly educated Communist pretending to be about justice.

      • Amazona November 14, 2019 / 1:40 am

        Read “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. He talks about the type of person who believes that some people are so special that they should be given great power and authority and not be constrained by things like process. These are the people who end up assuming they are above the law, or so I extrapolate, and are also quite happy giving individuals great power and authority to run governments.

        (The other basic kind of personality understands that humans are all subject to temptation and weakness, so prefer systems with processes that limit the amount of power any one person, or group, can have.)

  2. Cluster November 13, 2019 / 10:20 am

    Conservatives need to take back the narrative and stop adhering to progressive rules; ie: language police. In other words we need to verbally attack them as viciously as they attack us. The only people the Left attacks are white Christian’s and the only values they attack are Judeo Christian because at their core, they are cowards. White Christian men are probably the most tolerant group of people on the planet and have thus far stayed quiet but I hope that dynamic changes soon. I know for myself that I am very tired of being labeled a bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, etc., etc. Case in point:

    MSNBC’s Hayes Trashes Peter King as ‘Notorious’ ‘Anti-Muslim’ Bigot

    Peter King represents a very large district in Long Island where many Muslims reside and there is zero proof of this accusation, yet it stands and no one ever fights back. Meanwhile “anti Christian” bigotry is played out every day on national tv and in our classrooms. One would think that Sharia Law would be a huge target of the “WOKE” left but NO, why? Because Muslims will cut their delicate little throats so the pony tailed professors and tattooed minions focus their petulant anger on a category of people who they know will not fight back.

    I will say again, at their core they are cowards which is why they advocate strongly for safe spaces and regulation against hate speech. They have been taught to fear a world where they are responsible for themselves and because of that fear they embrace completely unsustainable paradigms like abortion, equality, and socialism which has failed every time it’s applied. (And no RG and Casper, Sweden is not a socialist state). Also because of this fear, they become devotees to the often repeated State narrative of lashing out against those who threaten the State’s ability to comfort them. Northwestern University just succumbed to this fear the other day for apologizing to their undeveloped student base for writing an article that may have offended them.

    It’s truly unbelievable where this country is at this point. It’s a total clash of civilizations and I for one am fully prepared to defend liberty from tyranny. I think of Dr. Joseph Warren who would have been honored as one of the Founding Fathers had he survived Bunker Hill. Here was a very successful doctor and family man who so believed in the cause of freedom that he left his practice, kissed his wife goodbye, grabbed his rifle and ran to Bunker Hill to fight tyranny where he was killed. We need more men with this kind of courage. And no Casper, this does not include the cool kids, pajama boys or mentally ill trans weirdos.

    I am also tired of our President being exposed to Banana Republic like tactics of endless investigations. The media and federal bureaucrats do not run this country but for some reason, we are allowing them to. Conservatives need to yell from the rafters HELL YES WE ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE YOUR CORRUPTION whether that includes the pre dementia Joe Biden or not. Why conservatives shrink from that I will never understand. Conservatives need to stand up to the mental illness of the Left and never apologize for who you offend in the defense of liberty because they will fold every time when their precious little meaningless lives are at risk.

    • Amazona November 13, 2019 / 10:43 am

      Cluster, I could not agree more about taking back the narrative. We do just let the lies of the Left go unchallenged, far too often, until they creep into the national consciousness where they are simply accepted as fact. I am constantly hearing casual comments in “news” reports of Trump withholding money from Ukraine until that country investigates “a political rival”, or that the Dem server was hacked by Russia, or other debunked Leftist memes that will not die because the media continue to repeat them as if they are true.

      I’m seeing a little pushback, possibly growing in momentum, about the idea that no one should be immune from investigation just because he is a potential candidate for the presidency. Not much, but a little.

      I think a more effective approach would be to point out the Left’s apparent belief that some people should be protected from investigation and/or prosecution because they are part of the ruling elite, linking the Hillary Clinton free pass on violations of the Espionage Act to the efforts of the Left to protect the Biden family from investigation. This could go back to Ted Kennedy getting away, literally, with murder and then going on to become a hero of the Left.

      I’d like to see a whole campaign based on the unequal application of the law. Roger Stone is on trial for lying to Congress: John Kerry lied to Congress, had no consequences, and became a hero of the Left. Donald Trump was accused of breaking a law (which was never really identified) for allegedly working closely with a nation with which we are not in armed conflict and underwent two years of investigation, and even now this accusation is alive, while Jane Fonda openly gave aid and comfort to the enemy in North Viet Nam and became a hero of the Left. While it was demanded that a formal investigation be mounted to look into accusations of Trump and/or his campaign asking for interference from Russia into the 2016 campaign, there is strident resistance to investigating Clinton campaign working with Ukraine to interfere in that election. This would be a chance to point out that one reason Trump is fair game is that he is NOT part of the ruling elite.

      The nation is now divided along mostly invisible and imaginary lines, so why not establish real and distinct lines? On one side is the ruling elite under the umbrella of protection by the Left, and on the other are people who are not elites, and who are not part of the Left. Point out the differences in the ways they are treated.

      • Amazona November 13, 2019 / 10:47 am

        This is an example of how the media, and the Dems in general, have a double standard:

        Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called for a probe into four Democratic Senators on Sunday over a letter that they sent to Ukraine in 2018 that threatened to withhold aid from the country if it did not continue to investigate President Donald Trump.

        Heard anything about an investigation into THIS?

      • Amazona November 13, 2019 / 10:51 am

        Another effort to counter the lies and hysteria of the Left, largely ignored by the media: emphasis mine

        As for impeachment-wielding allegations against the Commander-in-Chief, Rand said the U.S. shouldn’t be giving aid to Ukraine anyway:

        [“I]f it were me, I wouldn’t give them the aid, because we don’t have the money. We have to actually borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine. So I’m against the aid. And I think it’s a mistake to do the aid.”

        And here’s where the books are on Trump’s side: Current U.S. law prevents the U.S. from lending help to corrupt countries.

        Therefore, the congressman explained, Trump would’ve needed to ask for a Biden investigation — since he suspected the family was corrupt — in order to give Ukraine the assistance.

        Here’s Mr. Paul:

        “Foreign aid, by law, can only go out to countries that are not corrupt. So, if you think that a country is acting in a corrupt way, a president can always withhold aid until the corruption is fixed. So, you’re going to have to get into the mind of Trump and his advisers and say, ‘Well, he didn’t really believe that the Bidens were corrupt.’ I think he absolutely does. I think you could give him a lie detector test and say, ‘Do you think the Bidens were corrupt? And do you think you were investigating corruption, and that corruption is in the law, that you can’t give aid to a country that has corruption?’”

        So, bottom line, it’s not an issue of lawbreaking, impeachment-summoning shadiness. It’s about policy:

        “This ends up being a policy debate and a partisan debate. And it has nothing to do with legality or illegality or impeachment. It’s purely a partisan way of trying to overturn the election.”

      • Cluster November 13, 2019 / 12:30 pm

        If I were Trump I would give Rand Paul a bigger platform. Rand is spot on in questioning the foreign aid that our diplomat corps thinks is rightfully theirs and that we just hand out like skittles. The corrupt Democrats have greatly enriched themselves on foreign aid and that too needs to be investigated.

  3. Cluster November 13, 2019 / 11:51 am

    The nation is now divided along mostly invisible and imaginary lines, so why not establish real and distinct lines?

    That’s exactly it. The entire Democrat narrative from 2016 forward is nothing but imaginary and their unchallenged narrative which has been repeated in the media ad nauseam has taken root with poorly informed people … which unfortunately is the majority.

  4. Amazona November 13, 2019 / 3:54 pm

    Out and about all morning and am not sure if I would have watched the show trial or not, but I heard a little of Taylor’s “testimony” and it was pathetic. I don’t know who had the role of questioner, but he was basically testifying FOR Taylor, laying out scenarios and then asking if Taylor agreed. When Taylor did talk it sounded canned, and he was just responding to cues and leading questions.

    I have a feeling Taylor is going to regret getting himself into this for the rest of his (careerless) life. I imagine it seemed pretty attractive at first, a chance to play the big dog and jab Trump at the same time, but now he is destroyed as a career diplomat and an ethical human being. And I imagine others at his level in government are watching this and learning from it.

    The old saying “If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas” comes to mind as the lesson Taylor is learning, and I hope others are picking up on, though to compare the Dems to dogs, which are decent, loyal and loving creatures is unfair to all canines, except maybe jackals.

  5. Retired Spook November 13, 2019 / 4:13 pm

    Jim Jordan destroyed Talor on cross examination.

    • Cluster November 13, 2019 / 5:09 pm

      “I’ve heard church prayer chains that are easier to understand” ROFLMAO

      Good job Jim

    • Cluster November 13, 2019 / 7:00 pm

      Also, did you see the way Amb. Taylor smiled and even laughed a little when Jordan said “and you’re their star witness!”

  6. JeremiahTMM November 13, 2019 / 6:04 pm

    I think it’s time, Mark, for there to be a movement of “Stop turning the other cheek.”

    The left has dictated the tempo for many, many years, and that’s because freedom loving Americans have been taught to turn the other cheek.

    People have to realize, the Democrats, they hate you, and they aren’t going to have any mercy on you, especially when they get the power of the federal government leveraged in their favor.

    So, we need to stop this trend of turning the cheek. Otherwise, they are coming for you.

  7. Cluster November 13, 2019 / 7:56 pm

    Meanwhile back in the real world, Trump and other Senators met with Erdogan today and reportedly the meeting was contentious at times. I think this could end up being a productive meeting and I give credit to Erdogan to come over here and listen.

  8. jdge1 November 13, 2019 / 8:01 pm

    Orwellian California: A man was handcuffed for…. eating, which is apparently illegal to do while waiting on the BART (subway) platform. But, only in California could that same man pee or defecate on the streets. That would then be ok.

    • Amazona November 13, 2019 / 9:01 pm

      Great observation.

  9. Amazona November 13, 2019 / 8:54 pm

    I seldom open the NYT articles that come to my aptly named junk mail folder, but I did take a look at what they had to say about the “hearing” today. Just a couple of examples of the vile pseudo-journalism propaganda spewed by that paper:

    Witnesses testified that President Trump pressured a foreign power to help him win re-election during historic hearings that previewed an intensely partisan battle.

    So now they have gone from “digging up dirt on a political opponent” to “pressured a foreign power to help him win re-election”. There’s not even a token pretense of trying to report what really happened.

    And: Mr. Taylor said that a member of his staff overheard a telephone conversation in which the president mentioned “the investigations” to Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, who told him “that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.” After the call, the aide asked Mr. Sondland what the president thought of Ukraine, in Mr. Taylor’s telling. The ambassador “responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.”

    Did anyone hear this testimony? It sounds like a member of Taylor’s staff overheard Sondland’s side of a conversation, allegedly with the president, because he heard Sondland say “the Ukrainians were ready to move forward,” ostensibly following what could not have been overheard by the aide unless he was a party to the call, which he did not hesitate to identify anyway as a mention by the president of “the investigations”. Then this sneaky tattle-tale aide told Taylor that he, the aide, had asked Sondland “what the president thought of Ukraine”. That’s a very strange question. Did he mean what the president thought of Ukraine as a country, its weather, its food, its people, or what he thought of Ukraine as a country capable of dealing with corruption, or ?????? I’d guess something more like the latter, as it would be pretty stupid to ask Sondland what the president’s personal opinion of Ukraine is—how would he know? In any case, then the aide told Taylor what he remembered Sondland saying, which was allegedly a reference to what the president told Sondland but which, as it was phrased, could only have been a Sondland crystal ball interpretation of what the president said anyway. Let’s see—Trump to Sondland to third party eavesdropping on Sondland’s end of the conversation and then relating his recollection how he put it all together to Taylor, including his recollection of Sonderland’s speculation about the motives or thoughts of Trump, who is then testifying about it.

    And the NYT finds this third-hand reference to a second party in an overheard conversation repeating an assumption of that second party, even if accurately recalled, compelling.

    But they have more: Republicans sought to defend Mr. Trump at Wednesday’s impeachment hearings by repeatedly raising unproven theories about Mr. Biden’s son and allegations that Ukraine conspired with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of the president’s rival.

    They just dig themselves in deeper and deeper. I don’t believe anyone has posited “unproven theories about Mr. Biden’s son”—what has been said about him has been factual, and proved. He did have the job, he did admit he got it because of his name, he didn’t have the qualifications, he did get paid the money. None of this is in any way an unproven theory”. As for the second lie, well, that is such a blatant lie I am surprised that even the vile NYT dared to print it. Ukraine ADMITTED that it “conspired with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of the president’s rival.”

    They are shameless, and they truly are enemies of the people.

  10. Amazona November 14, 2019 / 1:50 am

    I don’t think the Republicans I saw on TV tonight were blowing smoke when they said they had been approached by some Dems who are distressed by the show trial—and these are people who have run for office as Dems and presumably have a deeper connection with the party than your average voter. One Dem legislator allegedly said he was so conflicted he had toyed with the idea of changing parties, because what he was seeing was not the Democrat Party he knew.

    On the other hand, it looks like the Republicans are having fun, and you don’t have fun in a hearing if you can’t see how badly it is going for the other side. Jim Jordan was having a ball, and the guy who called out for anyone—ANYONE—to speak up if he knew of an impeachable offense hit it out of the park. Schiff looked panicked—this was the first time I saw the bug eyes I have heard about.

    You ought to watch the Greg Gutfeld show. I started liking him when he had Red Eye, and he and his crew are funny and make some good points. This is the show that has the guy doing the impersonation of Schiff, and now that I have seen the bug eyes I appreciate it even more. And I think it was Hannity who had the great slogan—Same Schiff, Different Day.

  11. Cluster November 14, 2019 / 8:42 am

    Yesterday proved that we (Democrats and conservatives) live in two completely different worlds. MSNBC is celebrating the day yesterday saying that it went very badly for the POTUS and even Jon Meecham is saying that there is enough evidence now to impeach and remove. WTF?? I think the Democrats case was largely dismantled yesterday. Other than opinion and hearsay from the two witness’s, the facts I heard were that Amb. Taylor admitting that he had three meetings with Zelensky following the phone call and not once was any of this discussed and that support for Ukraine has actually improved under the Trump admin, so all we saw yesterday were two long term diplomats upset that Trump is not allowing them to continue to run foreign policy for Ukraine. One question I wanted to hear yesterday was “how many Ukrainians were killed by Russia aggression in days that the funding was held up? According to Democrats, Ukraine faces an existential threat from Russia. Following that answer, I would then cite the number of Americans who have lost their life due to Mexican interference in our country.

    This manufactured Ukraine “crisis” has less meat to it than the contrived Russia collusion “crisis”. Hard to believe that the Democrats have chosen this hill to die on … on a humorous note, Joey Scarborough said that he had a lot of Republicans come up to him yesterday to tell him that they were “embarrassed to be Republicans”. Hahahahaha I would be embarrassed to be seen talking Joey Scarborough.

    • Amazona November 14, 2019 / 10:21 am

      Somehow I just don’t believe Joe Scarborough. I heard a lot of the testimony last night on the talk shows and literally didn’t hear a single word that implicated the president in anything, much less that would embarrass a Republican. He’s been too influenced by Schiff and thinks he can just make stuff up indefinitely and get away with it.

      I do believe that some Dems have said this charade has embarrassed them and hurt the party. Just being in the same party as Schiff would be embarrassing. Nancy tried dragging out her tired old “I am so moral and so deeply invested in my faith” routine, but she looked even more haggard and could barely get the words out.

      I was also impressed, if by ‘impressed” you mean astounded, by being informed that hearsay evidence can be more compelling than first hand evidence. Yes, the Dems have truly staked out this hill to die on, and the carnage is just beginning. Schiff doesn’t even pretend to believe his own lies, and that doofus “hearsay evidence” guy ought to have fun in his next reelection campaign trying to live that down.

      Mark Levin made a great point last night—that when the Founders put “bribery” in the list of impeachable offenses, it referred to the president being bribed by a foreign nation. That makes sense. He went back to the contemporaneous notes of Madison on the discussions of the Founders about impeachment, and that was included to be able to remove a president who had taken payoffs from other nations for one reason or another—NOT to impeach him on the claim that he paid someone else off.

      • Cluster November 14, 2019 / 12:01 pm

        to remove a president who had taken payoffs from other nations for one reason or another

        So if Hillary had won, could we have impeached her for the numerous foreign contributions to Clinton Global Initiative? Specifically the $500K fee paid to Bill Clinton for a speech which curiously was very close to the date that a large amount of our uranium stock was sold to Russia?

        Also, Adam Schiff LIED again yesterday when he said that he did not know who the whistle blower is.

      • Amazona November 14, 2019 / 1:32 pm

        “So if Hillary had won, could we have impeached her….?”

        Of course not. We can never hold a Clinton to any standard, moral or legal, much less impose any consequence or penalty for anything they do. Haven’t you been paying attention?

      • Amazona November 14, 2019 / 1:34 pm

        Also, Adam Schiff LIED again yesterday

        Well, the day DID end in a Y, and the sun did rise in the east, and Joe Scarborough did bleat out more insanity—in other words, just another day in the neighborhood.

        As Hannity said last night: Same Schiff, Different Day

  12. Cluster November 14, 2019 / 8:51 am

    One comment that perked my ears up yesterday was from Kent who said that Trump’s policies “are a deviation of how we have been doing things for 75 years, and throughout my entire diplomat career.” UH YEA. That’s the point moron and exactly why Trump was elected. The past 75 years has not worked out real well for the American taxpayer but has worked exceedingly well for foreign diplomats so I understand his frustration. The party is over.

    • Cluster November 14, 2019 / 3:06 pm

      From the article:

      Taylor also said a staffer asked Sondland what Trump thought about Ukraine, and Sondland allegedly replied that Trump cared more about the Bidens.

      And so do I. It’s not the POTUS’s job to “care” about Ukraine. His charged is to “care” about the United States and to find out how much American foreign aid is tied up in corruption and how much ended up in Hunter and Joe’s pockets.

  13. Retired Spook November 14, 2019 / 2:53 pm

    One of the defining moments in the questioning of Bill Taylor.

  14. Cluster November 14, 2019 / 4:32 pm

    Just heard on MSNBC – Jennifer Rubin “the noose is tightening” !!! hahahahahahaha

    How many times have we heard that phrase over the last 3 years? Any guesses?

  15. Cluster November 14, 2019 / 5:22 pm

    Aside from the absurdity of all of this, it’s really important to listen to the Democrats/Media at this point because they are telling us exactly who they are and what they believe … and that is that the American proletariat should never question the decisions of the federal bureaucracy and diplomats because these are “career patriots” who deal with complex issues that none of us could ever understand. We, the deplorables, just simply don’t understand the foreign policy nuances that have been put forth over the last 75 years and of which can never be questioned. They are lobbying strong for an Oligarchy or Statist government and they are not being shy about it. Listen to how the media pundits laud each other for their credentials and wisdom, and how they marvel at the “skills” of someone like Pelosi. It’s nauseating and I would easily wager to say that there is a minimum of 5 million other people in this country who could do all of their jobs much better than they do.

    NO ONE is indispensable.

  16. Amazona November 15, 2019 / 11:10 am

    A couple of things are bothering me. I have spoken often about the dangers of semantic infiltration—that is, the use of certain words or phrases until they become embedded in the consciousness of people and are then used as if they are accurate or true. Sometimes this is a tactic—the Left uses it all the time. But it also happens when people just start using the words they keep hearing, without analyzing them.

    One thing that is bothering me is the constant reference to “hearsay”. That’s fine, and accurate, up to a point. Yes, it refers to repeating something that someone heard second or third hand or at even a greater remove from the original source. But the problem here is, when it is used it implies that although it is hearsay it also refers back to something the original source actually SAID. And in the case of the hearsay offered and discussed in the context of the Ukraine discussion, that is simply not true.

    In this case, the hearsay is doubly false, because it is a repeated perception of what was heard from someone who repeated his perception of what he heard, and so on and so on. But what was perceived by the first person in this chain is still not what was HEARD but what was PERCEIVED—what was assumed, or attributed, as the underlying meaning or intent of what was said.

    By focusing on the word “hearsay” we are acting as if the original statement was accurate and the only problem is the number of people the statement went through before it got to testimony. I think we are making a big mistake by not emphasizing words like ATTRIBUTED or INTERPRETED, because these attributions and interpretations lie at the heart of the matter, and also form the entire substance of the Dem accusations.

    The other example is the use of the word “whistleblower”. It is simply not accurate. There is a definition of the term, and it does not apply to someone who is an agent of the opposition working to undermine and damage his opposing party by filing fraudulent reports with complicit agencies. I have repeatedly written about, and cited, the whistleblower rules for the Intelligence Community, and the fact that they were either manipulated or ignored to allow this to go forward is simply ignored. Under those rules, the whistleblower has to be reporting something of an urgent concern that occurred within his agency or community and committed by someone within his agency or community and which has to comply with certain specific criteria. Even though the Inspector General of that community manipulated the rules, changing them at the last minute to allow hearsay evidence to be submitted and forwarded in a report, this complicit IG then went on, though at this time he had a clear conflict of interest, to certify the report as “credible” and on tht basis alone forward it to Congress, though it failed to meet any of the other criteria.

    When none of the rules regarding the whistleblower statute were followed, I don’t think the word can be applied. While it appears the person who filed the report is a member of the Intelligence Community, he did not report a violation of anything within that community by anyone who is a member of that community related to any of the criteria listed as requirements for a report to be considered, much less forwarded. Even setting aside the irregularities of the IG first changing the rule to allow hearsay and then acting as the arbiter of the credibility of the report and then claiming that his assessment of the credibility supported the decision to forward it to Congress although it quite blatantly did not satisfy the criteria of the statute, if we go back to those criteria it is obvious that the report should never have (1) gone through the Intelligence Community or (2) been considered for review or (3) been forwarded to Congress.

    As this unravels, the actual chain of events becomes easier to see. An embedded agent of the Left was told in an improper and possibly illegal conversation initiated by an Army officer with the proper security clearance that the president had said something the officer personally interpreted as improper use of presidential power to investigate a political rival—who happened to be a leader in the party of both the agent and the military officer. Starting with that—-two biased people conferring not about an actual statement by the president but about the meaning assigned to the statement by the biased witness—we then move to the second party taking this improperly received and biased interpretation of the statement to someone known to be fanatically partisan and dedicated to harming the president, who happens to be a member of Congress. He is a member of the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives, and the agent is a member of the Intelligence Community, so though the alleged statement by the president was not associated in any way with Intelligence but would have been, if there was a problem with it, associated with the State Department and/or the Judicial Committee, the two conspirators at this time—the agent and the member of Congress—-decided to funnel the report through the Intelligence Community.

    At this time the decision was made to make this allegation public and give it the color of a legal proceeding by running it through the Intelligence Community whistleblower system. The member of Congress and his staff helped the agent write a report they thought covered all the legal concerns and then it was submitted as a whistleblower complaint within the Intelligence Community. To allow this to move forward, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community had to become involved, and he assisted the effort by changing the rules to allow second-hand evidence to be considered, and he then went on to assess it as “credible” and meeting the standard to be forwarded to Congress—in spite of the fact that none of the other disqualifying criteria for forwarding to Congress were met, and that the word “credible” is not among them. At this point, we now have the military officer who improperly relayed not the actual content of what the president said but what he decided the president “really meant” when he said it, we have the agent who was given this interpretation of what the president said, we have the member of Congress and his staff working with the agent to write a report on the allegation, and we have the decision to run it through the Whistleblower statute of the Intelligence Community with the complicity of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who facilitates the forwarding of the report back through this channel to Congress.

    Using the whistleblower rules to funnel a report back to Congress does not qualify the person who started the process as a whistleblower. There was literally not one single element of this process that qualified it as a legitimate whistleblower report. Not one. Constantly using the term “whistleblower” legitimizes the illegitimate process. The original reporter was and is an agent of the Left using his status to attack and undermine the opposition, including trying to compromise the ability of the President of the United States to do his job. He should be referred to as the Agent, or Opposition Agent, NOT as “the whistleblower”.

    And BTW, he is not guaranteed anonymity.

    • Retired Spook November 15, 2019 / 12:54 pm

      Excellent analysis.

      • Amazona November 15, 2019 / 7:20 pm

        Thank you. So when are we going to start looking at the IG? As far as I am concerned his role in this is analogous to the role played by the bank employee who leaves the bank door unlocked….maybe he didn’t actually rob the bank but he set it up.

  17. Retired Spook November 15, 2019 / 3:40 pm

    The Left is squealing with glee that Roger Stone was convicted of a handful of process crimes. But the fact still remains that none of the half dozen or so people convicted as a result of the Mueller Investigation were convicted of anything to do with campaign collusion with Russia, the original thrust of the investigation. Contrast that with the more than a dozen (if memory serves me) people who were convicted and imprisoned as a result of the Whitewater investigation that lead to Bill Clinton’s impeachment, including a sitting governor.

    • Amazona November 15, 2019 / 11:22 pm

      Yes, more than a dozen.

      (Susan) McDougal was one of 15 people convicted in the Whitewater controversy after she refused to answer questions for a grand jury. Basically, everyone associated with Whitewater except the Clintons—-and several had early and unexpected deaths.

  18. Retired Spook November 15, 2019 / 5:31 pm

    Meanwhile, all three major stock market indices closed at record highs with the DJIA closing above 28,000 for the first time ever.

  19. Retired Spook November 15, 2019 / 6:38 pm

    A new, rising star among House GOP ranks.

    Stefanik asked Yovanovitch about the first time she was personally made aware of the apparent conflict of interest — that is, when Hunter Biden accepted a paid role on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at the same time his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, led policy goals in the region.

    “You testified that in this particular practice Q & A with the Obama State Department, [that] it wasn’t just generally about Burisma and corruption; it was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Is that correct?” Stefanik asked.

    “Yes, it is,” Yovanovitch confirmed.

    “The exact quote from your testimony, ambassador, is, quote: ‘the way the question was phrased in this model Q & A was, “What can you tell us about Hunter Biden’s, you know, being named to the board of Burisma?'” Stefanik said.

    “So, for the millions of Americans watching,” the congresswoman continued. “President Obama’s own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation.”

    “And yet our Democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry fowl when we dare ask that same question the Obama administration was so concerned about. But we will continue asking it,” she concluded.

    • Amazona November 15, 2019 / 7:16 pm

      And yet our Democratic colleagues and the chairman of this committee cry fowl when we dare ask that same question …

      How do you “cry fowl”? Run around clucking like a chicken?

      More and more I appreciate the flash card drills of homonyms—reign, rain, rein; discrete, discreet; foul, fowl, etc. When people don’t read they don’t develop a realization of how words that sound the same mean different things or what words are supposed to look like. Adding to this is Spell Wrecker, which arbitrarily spells out words based on algorithms predicting what the typist might want to say. I am constantly having Spell
      Wrecker insert Rogue Apostrophes where they do not belong—or, as some would write, Rogue Apostrophe’s. When challenged once with a Hillaryesque question about how much it really matters, I said well, it COULD matter a lot.

      Let’s say someone working in a nuclear power plant knows that certain components might arc if placed too close together and cause an explosion or fire, so he sends a technician off with a manual that states that “discrete placement of these components is essential to prevent arcing”. Then the tech, ignorant of homonyms, places them next to each other but puts a potted plant in front of them. Kaboom.

      Sometimes semi-literacy is funny, always annoying, but sometimes potentially dangerous.

      • Amazona November 15, 2019 / 9:25 pm

        BTW, Spook, I am not giving YOU a hard time for commenting on fowl language. This was the author of the piece.

    • Amazona November 15, 2019 / 11:20 pm

      There are so many rising stars on the GOP bench, it’s really exciting to see so much talent backing up the conservative movement.

  20. Amazona November 15, 2019 / 9:07 pm

    The fretful Left is fretting itself into a puddle. Maria Yovanovitch is fretting that the president thinks he can appoint, and fire, diplomats and set foreign policy. The NYT is fretting that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces thinks he has authority over the armed forces. Adam Schiff just frets.

    I loved the exchange in which he interrupted Yovanovitch to explain that Trump was trying to intimidate her by tweeting something she couldn’t even know about till her told her and then when he asked her how it made her feel she responded “uh, well, uh, intimidated”.

Comments are closed.