Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

FANTASTIC NEW TRUMP VIDEO

Wednesday, February 12th, 2020

Share

DEMOCRATS WANT A PROPHET, NOT A PRESIDENT

Wednesday, February 12th, 2020

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Democrats Want a Prophet, Not a President

They’re increasingly rigid and orthodox, even as Republicans have shown a new flexibility.

By Bobby Jindal    Mr. Jindal served as governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and was a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.   February 11, 2020

The Democrats have turned religious. Not in the sense that they espouse a belief in an omnipotent and benevolent Creator or eternal and universal moral principles. They are religious in the sense that they hold dogmatic beliefs that are impervious to contradiction by logic, evidence or experience, and cultivate a moral superiority toward unbelievers. The party that loudly prides itself on tolerance and diversity is increasingly intolerant in at least three areas.

First, Democrats have moved beyond traditional environmentalism, with its emphasis on regulation, technological innovation and market incentives to achieve incremental progress, toward a radical vision grounded in an unshakable belief in climate apocalypse. Both parties once cooperated to protect endangered species and clean the air, water and soil. Today’s Democrats demand bans on fracking and new oil and gas leases on federal lands, and endorse the elimination of all fossil fuels and decarbonization of the economy in unrealistic time frames. Rather than aspirational moonshots, intended to inspire the public and private sectors to work together, Democrats use these impossible goals as rationales for completely restructuring how Americans live, work, commute and even eat.

More-radical activists regard eating meat, driving SUVs, having children, flying and using plastic straws as akin to mortal sins. During last week’s primary debate, Tom Steyer went so far as to declare that climate change, not terrorism or a resurgent China, is the “biggest problem that we face internationally in the world.” Democrats are increasingly willing to sacrifice allies—such as union workers in extraction and construction—to scramble after unreachable climate targets. Sen. Bernie Sanders denounced the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, endorsed by the AFL-CIO, because it was silent on climate change.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – THE RADICAL NEW WAY FORWARD ACT

Tuesday, February 11th, 2020
This  bill now in Congress is sponsored by 44 Democrats and  would destroy the rule of law in our country regarding illegal immigration. Please share with your contacts as we need to make sure it never passes and  becomes law.   Nancy
VIDEO  TUCKER CARLSON – THE NEW WAY FORWARD ACT
YouTube
 · 640,000+ views
 · 2/8/2020
 · by
Fox News

 

Share

VIDEO – DERSHOWITZ DEFENDS PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE SENATE FLOOR

Tuesday, January 28th, 2020

Share

VIDEO HOW COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY INFILTRATED AMERICA’S SECURITY AGENCIES AND FUELED SPYGATE – DIANA WEST

Monday, January 27th, 2020

 

The information provided by Diana West, author of ‘American Betrayal’ and now ‘The Red Thread’,   in this video  explains so much of what has been happening in our country in the attempt to discredit and impeach President Trump.  Frightening !  Nancy

How Communist Ideology Infiltrated America’s Security Agencies & Fueled Spygate—Diana West

Why does Diana West believe that communist ideology has infiltrated America’s intelligence agencies? After looking into key figures involved in the Spygate scandal, what information did Diana West uncover about their ideological beliefs? How is Donald Trump a “counter-revolutionary” president, in West’s view? This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek. In this episode, we’ll sit down with Diana West, a journalist and author of “The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.”
 
67,445 views
Premiered Jan 13, 2020
 
 

Share

WOULD DEMOCRATS IMPEACH OBAMA?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

This article by Karl Rove lists the numerous times Obama’s  dubious tactics as president  were never criticized by Democrats.  One way to stop the Democrats at the senate trial, is to compare all the questionable tactics that Obama did as president to what they are alleging Trump has done.     Nancy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Would Democrats Impeach Obama?

His dealings with foreign officials and Congress look as suspect as Trump’s

By Karl Rove    January 23, 2020

Hypocrisy is common in Washington, but impeachment is bringing out more than its fair share. That’s true of some Republicans, and the mainstream media devotes countless hours to it. What gets much less attention is the hypocrisy of the party that to which most journalists are sympathetic: the Democrats.

Take Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. On Tuesday he demanded the Senate call witnesses, claiming they’re required for a “fair trial” and slamming Republican opposition as a “coverup.” But the GOP position is exactly what Mr. Schumer’s was during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. Back then he said it “doesn’t make sense” for the Senate to call witnesses.

More important than hypocrisy about the process of impeachment is hypocrisy about the substance. Removing a president is the most draconian act Congress can take. It ill serves America if the party opposed to the president uses impeachment as a political weapon to tarnish his standing and weaken him for the next election.

When considering the Democrats’ high-minded arguments, ask yourself: What if Hillary Clinton won in 2016? After she took office, it would have been revealed that her campaign hired the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which assigned Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence official, to reach out to Russian counterparts to solicit dirt on Donald Trump. Recall that the since-discredited dossier Mr. Steele peddled to the media in the fall of 2016 was made up of unsubstantiated rumors from former Russian agents.

It’s naive to believe the Kremlin was unaware that Mr. Steele asked Moscow pals for dirt on Mr. Trump. Those spies are retired, but they rely on Vladimir Putin for their pension checks. Who among congressional Democrats would now be calling for Mrs. Clinton’s removal if she were in the Oval Office? I doubt any. I’ve searched in vain for Democratic criticism for her soliciting foreign involvement in the 2016 election—the principal charge of their impeachment case against President Trump.

Furthermore, while Democrats say Mr. Trump should be removed for seeking a quid pro quo—a Ukrainian investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden in return for U.S. military aid—what about President Barack Obama’s March 2012 open-mic moment? At a summit in Seoul, he asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell his boss, then-Prime Minister Putin, that “on all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” In other words, if Mr. Putin didn’t create problems during Mr. Obama’s re-election fight with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama would show “flexibility” on missile defense and other important issues of national security and foreign policy after the election. Again, crickets when it comes to Democratic criticism.

(more…)

Share

THE SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY MOVEMENT ISN’T GOING AWAY

Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020

 

This is an interesting article about a man in Virginia who was not particularly political but he has become involved in supporting the 2nd amendment sanctuary movement.  The threat from the Democrats in Virginia has definitely got his attention !!!  Nancy

The Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Isn’t Going Away

The media smears them as ‘white supremacists,’ but thousands showed up in Richmond, Va., Monday

By Salena Zito    Ms. Zito is a reporter for the Washington Examiner, a columnist for the New York Post and a co-author of “The Great Revolt:  Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics.”
January 22, 2020

A rally against gun-control measures in Richmond, Va., Jan. 20. PHOTO: MIGUEL JUAREZ LUGO/ZUMA PRESS

Middletown, Va.

Troy Carter, 49, says that, other than voting, he’d never been involved in politics. That changed late last year, when he heard that a county board of supervisors in Virginia voted to become a gun sanctuary. On Monday he was one of an estimated 22,000 people who gathered peacefully at the Capitol Square in Richmond, Va., to support gun rights. Many of those attending were visibly armed.

Ninety-one of Virginia’s 96 counties have passed sanctuary measures to resist proposed state gun regulations. Last year Democrats took control of both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly for the first time in nearly three decades. They, along with Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, have stood firm on their campaign pledges to enact stricter gun control, partly in reaction to a shooting last May in Virginia Beach.

For Virginians like Mr. Carter, the effort has brought about a political awakening. He learned to shoot when he was six years old. Guns are a normal part of his life, like fishing or going to church every Sunday, and something he considers vital to protecting and providing for his family. Mr. Carter choked up as he described a tradition of safety, protection and providing taught to him by his grandfather—and his grandfather before him. When he discovered the sanctuary movement, he decided to go to a meeting two counties away to learn more.

Becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary means a locality won’t use law enforcement resources to prosecute the proposed antigun laws. Whether such resolutions have any teeth depends on local officials’ resolve, but at the very least these measures are a reflection of regional sentiment on gun control.

This grass-roots movement is largely composed of people like Mr. Carter, who aren’t otherwise political but strongly believe in the importance of the Second Amendment. At his first meeting, he encountered massive support, “I just couldn’t believe the amount of people that showed up.”

Mr. Carter soon found himself attending another gathering in another county, and then another. When it finally came time for his county supervisors to take a vote, he spoke at the meeting. They passed a sanctuary measure.

(more…)

Share

IS DONALD TRUMP ‘PROFOUNDLY UNCONSERVATIVE’?

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Is Donald Trump ‘profoundly unconservative’?

No. It doesn’t match his shrinking regulations and limiting government

by Allan H. Ryskind   Allan H. Ryskind, a former editor and owner of Human Events, is the author of “Hollywood Traitors” (Regnery, 2015)

December 31, 2019

Prominent liberal Fareed Zakaria insists that Donald Trump “has been profoundly unconservative” because he’s abandoned what “Republicans used to call the core of their agenda — limited government.” But it’s hard to take the charge seriously, even though some conservatives have sent his piece around for comment to see if he’s onto something. Yet no politician in recent memory has restricted the reach of government at both the federal and state level more than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Mr. Trump’s drastic shrinking of federal economic regulations, opening vast expanses of federal lands for energy exploration, drawing overseas businesses home with tax breaks and passing major tax cuts for corporations and individuals have generated an explosion of well-paying jobs, personal wealth and soaring wages, as well as the lowest level of unemployment for minorities on record. Some 7 million new jobs have been created during Mr. Trump’s presidency and more than 100 million American shareholders have watched the market jump 55 percent since his election.

You’d think Mr. Zakaria would be celebrating Mr. Trump’s low-tax, pro-growth economic agenda as not only core Republicanism but virtually Reaganesque. Increasing prosperity by stimulating market forces without enacting high taxes and big government programs is, of course, how conservatives try to keep government limited.

Mr. Zakaria concedes that Mr. Trump has delivered what conservatives have wanted in the realm of “social and cultural policy,” such as “appointing judges, tightening rules related to abortion and asylum, etc.” but suggests they have little to do with taming the Leviathan.

Really? Stacking the courts with judges steeped in the philosophy of federalism is, of course, precisely the way to limit government on both the economic and cultural fronts. Mr. Zakaria may ignore the threat, but Democratic Party presidential candidates, along with their media support groups, are panicked over the president’s court selections.

(more…)

Share

5 TIMES OBAMA PUT CONDITIONS ON FOREIGN AID AND DEMOCRATS DIDN’T CARE

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

 

The hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to  protecting Obama or Biden is  simply amazing that  they get away with it.    It is up to the conservative media to expose them.  Nancy

 
 PJMEDIA.COM

Five Times Obama Put Conditions on Foreign Aid and Democrats Didn’t Care

By Matt Margolis  Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis
 December 10, 2019

The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party over this impeachment nonsense knows no bounds. Last week I noted five examples of Barack Obama obstructing justice that they had no problem with. Sadly, there’s plenty more hypocrisy to point out.

Democrats have been so desperate to paint Trump’s actions as unprecedented, they’ve even argued that any time conditions are put on foreign aid that’s tantamount to an illegal quid pro quo. When White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney noted that conditions are put on foreign aid “all the time,” the media and the Democrats blew up, claiming this was an admission of a corrupt quid pro quo because, obviously, any condition for aid can’t be anything but. Right?

Of course, everyone knows that Mick Mulvaney was substantively correct. Conditions are put on aid all the time. In fact, some 2020 Democrats are calling for conditions on aid to Israel. Where were the allegations of a quid pro quo? It has already been established that there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and even the Democrats’ own witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma raised legitimate questions.

So, let’s get back to the issue of conditional aid. Quid pro quo or standard operating procedure? Well, if Democrats want to argue that conditional aid is a quid pro quoby default, then I guess Barack Obama should have been impeached. Here are five examples of Barack Obama placing conditions on foreign aid to align with his political agenda that Democrats didn’t have a problem with.

5. Colombia

Despite years of giving Colombia military and economic aid, in 2016, Obama made that aid conditional on the Colombian government negotiating a peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terror-group backed by former Cuban President Fidel Castro. FARC has “slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands of civilians, pumped unfathomable amounts of cocaine into the United States, kidnapped and raped children, and much more.” Yet thanks to Obama’s pressure, nearly half a billion in American taxpayer dollars went toward putting FARC terrorists in the Colombian government without ever being held accountable for their crimes.

4. Nigeria

 

Obama threatened to cut off aid to Nigeria over anti-gay legislation in the country in 2011. At the time, Obama had yet to publicly declare support for gay marriage in the United States, and certainly, his attempts to strongarm Nigeria over anti-gay legislation had the potential for personal political gain back home, right? Interestingly enough, Obama again made conditions for aid with Nigeria in 2013 over corruption issues.

(more…)

Share

“AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS ERODING” – VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Saturday, December 28th, 2019

 

IMPRIMIS

“American citizenship is eroding”

November 2019  • • Victor Davis Hanson

The following is an abridged version of a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on October 2, 2019, during the College’s 175th anniversary gala. Videos of this and other speeches delivered during the gala are available at fourpillars.hillsdale.edu.

Today many condemn the idea of nationalism by connecting it to race hatred (e.g., white nationalism). But historically, the modern nation-state has proven uniquely suitable to preserving individual rights. The American nation in particular was successful in uniting individuals of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and creeds into one people based on shared principles, a unique physical space, and a common national story. Our nation is the best example in human history of positive nationalism.

The key to this benign nationalism is American citizenship, based on an understanding of American exceptionalism and formed by the American melting pot. But today, our citizenship is eroding and, along with it, American nationalism in the positive sense is disappearing.

American citizenship is eroding in three ways.

First, we are blurring the line between mere residents and citizens. We have between 45-50 million non-native-born residents in the U.S. today—the largest absolute number we’ve ever had. There’s no legal problem with the 30 million of them who have green cards or have acquired citizenship—although even 30 million is a challenge for the American melting pot to assimilate and integrate.

But we also have, according to a recent Yale and MIT study, about 20 million people who are here illegally. In regard to them, the classical ingredients of American citizenship—the right to leave or enter the country as one pleases, for example, or to vote in elections, or to reside here as long as one pleases—are being blurred.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories