The Beginning of The End

It’s over! President Trump is done: his presidency is in tatters, NATO nation leaders laugh at the American president, American voters have lost confidence in President Trump’s ability to lead, and the nation is doomed.

That’s the message that has been presented to Americans for month after month by the American Press. While doing so non-stop since the 2016 election, they giggle with glee for Trump’s non-existent failures! The irony of all this? Americans don’t agree with them!

Likely Articles of Impeachment Content

It is not likely the House Judiciary Committee will complete as soon as this week’s proposed Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. What will those probably include?

The articles of impeachment are likely to cover two major themes — abuse of office and obstruction. But they could be divvied up into multiple articles.

An impeachment article accusing Trump of abuse of office, or abuse of power, would focus on the findings of the Ukraine investigation and his efforts to persuade the Ukrainian government to investigate Democrats as the U.S. withheld military aid. That conduct is the focus of a House Intelligence Committee report that will be presented to the Judiciary panel for consideration in a Monday hearing.

Some lawmakers have suggested that Democrats could break out “bribery” as a separate article. It would likely center on Trump withholding the aid and also withholding a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in exchange for the political investigations.

Obstruction articles could be broken up into obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice, or the two could be combined.

The administration’s repeated refusals to provide documents and testimony would serve as the basis for an article charging Trump with obstruction of Congress. If Democrats decide to draft an article on obstruction of justice, it could mention the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The Impeachment Process

If the House continues down the impeachment road, here is how it will most certainly look like:

  • The Judiciary Committee will present their finalized charges — “Articles” — to the full House for approval by a House vote. Each Article will be presented, debated, and determined by a House vote one at a time.
  • It is likely as few as three Articles to as many as five or six will be presented, considered by the House, and determined by votes whether to move forward.
  • At the completion of the House process, however many of those Articles are approved by the House will then be presented to the Senate for a trial.
  • The Senate could actually via a motion determine to not even take impeachment under consideration. That is unlikely to happen.
  • If/when the Senate initiates a trial, each “charge” (or Article) will be presented by an appointed prosecutor who will present evidence that will include documents and the testimony of witnesses. The President’s defense team will also counter with the cross examination of each prosecution witness presented as well as evidence. Then the defense team will also present witnesses and evidence that the prosecution will also cross examine and challenge as desired.
  • U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. He will have total control of the process of the Senate trial according to Senate rules. When trial details are completed a vote will be taken. The President would if found guilty of any charges be removed from office.

Summary

How likely is it that President Trump will be removed from office? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Most Americans when confronted with facts of Democrats’ allegations will shake their heads in disbelief this is actually happening. Sure, many Americans disagree with the President’s demeanor, his way of speaking, his brash, confrontational communication, and even his bragging. But most Americans question those things are impeachable offenses.

But I must be honest: this is only the third time in U.S. history this has happened. And the fact the Democrats are actually pushing down this road with the tremendous across-the-board Trump accomplishments that have and are significantly impacting Americans is scary. Common sense should dictate impeachment of a president might be appropriate for criminal activity by a President or unethical actions in office that include ”bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no one has presented any evidence of any of those necessary wrongdoings by this president.

Because those facts have not been sufficient to shut the door on impeachment is giving millions of Americans pause: this really could happen!

Fear is gripping the hearts of millions! This fear is of a government that is considering overturning the votes of 63 million Americans. Their doing while ignoring not just those voters but the best economic data in the nation in decades should make all Americans afraid. The fear is that Democrats just might pull this off.

The next two weeks will show the World exactly where the U.S. is in support of the Constitution, the American people, and the Rule of Law. If Democrats succeed in this, it will be the death-nail in history’s greatest country ever.

Democracy will die.

 

 

Michael Horowitz Part II

Conservatives for months have been waiting breathlessly for the release of the Horowitz report on the sources and the basis for the inception of the FBI investigation into collusion with the Russians by the Donald Trump campaign. Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. His report was expected for release in the late Spring of 2019. It will be released to the public Monday, December 9.

Supposedly the delays are the result of witnesses who, for whatever reasons, did not cooperate with Horowitz regarding testimony early in the investigation but decided to come forward late. Their doing so is rumored to be because of fear of Federal Prosecutor John Durham, who was tasked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate all the 2016-2017 matters in the election. These matters include the Clinton Foundation, FISA warrant applications and all details about the warrants, and who the players were in the surveillance of members of the Trump campaign by the FBI. Durham, unlike Horowitz, has subpoena power. He can convene grand juries (and probably already has), interrogate witnesses, and has wide latitude to obtain evidence of wrongdoing. It is expected many who are included in the Horowitz report are subjects of Durham’s investigation. They are choosing to cooperate with Horowitz so as to not make themselves Durham’s targets for their lack of cooperation.

                   President Trump with U.S. Attorney General William Barr

Just a week after Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz’s report on the Obama administration’s spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 was published, The Washington Post released another supposed leak.

Attorney General Barr apparently disagrees with the Inspector General that Obama officials and agents were justified in spying on Trump’s campaign and Trump’s transition team, according to the Washington Post report.

Barr may include a formal letter in the report or may publicly state his concern.

According to leaks, behind the scenes at the Department of Justice, there appears to be a disagreement over one of Horowitz’s central conclusions about the origins of the Russian investigation. The conflict could be the beginning of a significant rift within the federal agency over the controversial issue of investigating a presidential campaign.

Barr has not been influenced by Horowitz’s “logic” to conclude that the FBI had a sufficient basis to open their investigation on July 31, 2016. Horowitz will testify in the Senate on Dec. 11 about the findings of the investigation into possible FISA abuses.

For more than a year and a half, Horowitz has been investigating an alleged abuse of FISA by the Obama Justice Department and FBI during the 2016 elections against President Trump.

But the report is more than just a FISA abuse; it is a whole conspiracy campaign against President Trump orchestrated by the Democratic Party in cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies. The IG report will also likely result in the declassification of documents requested by high-ranking Republican legislators for several years.

Republicans and President Trump had argued that the FBI’s alleged FISA abuses, which occurred when the federal agency sought criminal links between Trump’s campaign team and Russia during the 2016 campaign, were politically motivated.

In fact, in recent months, several documents have been uncovered that corroborate those claims, for example:

  • Text messages obtained by Fox News showed that before the FISA application was approved, FBI agents were dealing with a senior Justice Department official who had “continued concerns” about “possible bias” of a source pivotal to the application.
  • The 2016 messages, sent between Lisa Page and then FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, also revealed that members of the intelligence bureau circulated at least two ‘anti-Trump’ blog articles.
  • These text messages were based in part on information from former British spy Christopher Steele who cited Page’s alleged links to Russia. The FBI assured the FISA court that the media independently corroborated Steele’s claims, but it later came to light that Steele had previously leaked those data to the press.
  • The FBI did not clearly state that Steele worked for a company hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Much of the Steele dossier has been discredited or unfounded. In fact, the extensive report by special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign members and the Kremlin.

The “Disagreement”

Reports are beginning to float to the surface that Barr is basically saying that Horowitz, confined as he is to examine issues related to the DOJ, doesn’t have the information he and Durham have uncovered as to what other agencies (such as the CIA) and entities may have been doing during the investigation.

He doesn’t have all the information, Barr says, so his conclusion might be appropriate within the limited parameters he had to work with, but there’s more to the story.

That’s it.

It’s not a slam against Horowitz, nor is it a slam against the report. Only an acknowledgment — and a necessary one, given the spin-doctoring that’s been happening in the lead up to the report’s release next week — that Horowitz was limited in the scope of his investigation.

This is actually how governing is supposed to work, with the players showing respect for each other’s roles and taking care not to step on toes. The Obama administration had a different view of how the intelligence agencies were supposed to function, and Barr seems to be thinking back to a time before super-sharing between agencies was a thing.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham warned that if you believe Horowitz and Barr are at odds with each other in their upcoming reports, you’re buying into the spin.

“Be wary of the Washington Post and the New York Times reporting on what is coming up with Horowitz. They have been trying overtime to spin this thing to diminish its effect, to downplay it,” Graham said Monday.

“I can tell you without any hesitation Attorney General Barr has every confidence in the world in Mr. Horowitz,” Graham added. “He believes that he has done a good job, a professional job, and he appreciates the work and the effort he has put into disclosing abuse at the Department of Justice.”

Summary

Uncharacteristically, Radio Host Rush Limbaugh has been skeptical of any blockbuster revelations of DOJ and FBI wrongdoing in the Russia collusion probe being included in the Horowitz report. Conservatives have been nervously anticipating the story, hoping that there will be certain damning information added that will result in criminal referrals to the DOJ for the prosecution of those who allegedly illegally created and maintained the allegations of Russia collusion by the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Many Conservatives will be sorely disappointed if no action is recommended by Horowitz.

On the other hand, Federal Attorney John Durham has all the power necessary to do exactly what Horowitz cannot do: grand juries, subpoena witnesses, issue indictments, even conduct arrests. And Durham made an announcement recently that his investigation is now considered a criminal investigation as compared to that of Horowitz.

All this means, Folks, is that we are set for waiting again for any definitive information about alleged wrongdoing by those in the Obama White House, the FBI under James Comey, the Department of Justice under Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and by management at several of the intelligence community departments: specifically John Brennan and James Clapper.

Yes, this is a convoluted and intricate period of digging for the truth. What bothers many Americans is that no one seems to know for certain who are the “guys wearing the black hats” and who “wear the white hats.” Are the investigators in all this clean and objective, or are they “in the tank” for the perpetrators? In other words, millions have queasy stomachs when thinking through it all.

It’s sad to know that any people who work for the American people in government are evil. But there’s one thing that is indisputable: there are plenty of people in our government who are evil. Corruption runs amuck. We must discover who they are, identify their specific wrongdoing, and hold them accountable.

Do you think that will ever happen?

Play

The Hypocrisy of Impeachment ‘98 vs. ‘19

There is quite a bit of hypocrisy festering in the rush by Democrats to send President Trump the “big” Christmas present: Impeachment. Democrat Party leaders are foaming at the mouth about what would certainly be their Christmas gift: Trump’s D.C. departure. No American can truthfully question Dems disdain for the President, no matter what good has happened during his presidency as direct results of HIS policies — and there are many.

Who are the angriest, most voracious, and hate-filled of those Democrats? Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, and others in Democrat leadership. They were all involved in Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment, all were unbelievably vocal, and all expressed very specific ideas about impeachment. Surprisingly, though, their ‘98 views are significantly different from their ‘19 views. That in itself is not surprising. What IS surprising is they seem to either forget or not care that there are recordings in abundance — both in audio and video — that document their flip-flops on not just impeachment of two different individuals, but on the impeachment process itself.

Here are the video and audio segments of those leaders sharing their varying views. We’ll leave the conclusions to the hypocrisy they each reveal when they addressed Bill Clinton impeachment in 1998 and impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019.

Summary

For reasoning and reasonable Americans, it is unconscionable that ANY activity on Capitol Hill (or anywhere in Washington D.C.) is initiated and action taken unless it happens for one and only one purpose: the Peoples’ business. Americans are not blind to the partisanship and purely political purposes of the 2019 impeachment activities initiated solely by Democrats.

Is it not stupid for any elected government official to stand and decry the evils of this or any President while all around the nation, far more great things than even Republicans expected in a Trump presidency play out every day? Most Americans find it difficult to even tiptoe past all that to walk down “Impeachment Row.” And with Thursday’s surprising economic numbers that reveal unemployment for Americans at a 50-year low in part due to 260,000 new jobs during the previous month, Americans’ jaws dropped and they shook their heads. Why? Americans do not understand how Congress could even consider impeachment now — not just because of wonderful economic news, but primarily because not a single Democrat witness who each was supposed to be qualified to factually confirm impeachable wrongdoing of Donald Trump when asked could even name one impeachable act on the part of the President!

Yet, according to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Monday, December 9, “evidence” will be presented to the House Judiciary Committee that will initiate votes in the House on several Articles of Impeachment that “will” justify the Senate trying President Trump, convicting him, and removing him from office.

On another day, we will example “Abuse of Power,” one of the allegations against the President Democrats are now claiming. The common denominator in all this: Adam Schiff. In that famous cartoon, Wiley Coyote spent his entire life trying to catch the Roadrunner but just could never get the job done. “Schiff Coyote” is pretty much daily duplicating his namesake’s efforts. But Mr. “Coyote” is chasing “Trump-runner.”

Clinton Donors Charged in Massive Campaign-Finance Scheme

Eight people, including major Hillary Clinton donors and a witness in the Mueller investigation, have been charged in a massive campaign-finance scheme, the Justice Department announced on Tuesday.

The individuals conspired to “make and conceal conduit and excessive campaign contributions” valued around $3.5 million in the 2016 election campaign and beyond, according to the announcement. Although the indictment does not explicitly name the recipient of the donations, it is clear that the contributions went to groups allied with Clinton’s presidential campaign.

One of those charged, George Nader, is a Lebanese American businessman who was a witness in the Mueller report. Nader was also caught in 2018 in possession of child pornography but received partial immunity in exchange for testimony in the Mueller investigation. He faces between 15 to 40 years in prison if convicted on child-pornography charges.

Also indicted on campaign-finance charges was Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, who hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in Los Angeles in 2016 and who conspired to conceal campaign donations from 2016 to 2018. Khawaja owns an online-payments company used by, among others, debt collectors, offshore gamblers, and pornographers. The company has made numerous campaign donations to both Democrats and Republicans.

Nader also gained access to the Trump administration, meeting with the president on several occasions. Nader has experience in international diplomacy, has served as a diplomatic conduit to the Middle East and Russia, and was an informal adviser to the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.

Unreported History of Clinton Campaign Fraud: 2016

Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 was stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they made what was supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, according to multiple sources.

The overcharges were occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks received up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who was a victim of this fraud scheme, filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

“We got up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department stated. The source claimed that the Clinton campaign had been pulling this stunt since the Spring of 2016. The Hillary for America campaign overcharged small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically didn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we didn’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they stop the charges just below $100. We saw her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who worked for Wells Fargo for over ten years, said that the total amount they refunded customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varied” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who called in attempted to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never got anywhere. “They called the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never got resolved. So they called us, and we just issued a refund. The Clinton campaign knew these charges were small potatoes and that we’d just refund the money back.”

The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people were overcharged by Hillary’s campaign, and they had no idea.”

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother of seven from Minnesota, was one of the victims of Clinton’s campaign donor fraud scandal. In March of 2016, Mahre said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made. Mahre, who said in an interview she only contributed $25 because she’s “not rich” and that’s all she could afford, contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

Roger, who is an attorney, stated that he called the Clinton campaign dozens of times in April and early May of 2016 in an attempt to resolve the issue. “It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger said. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

Incredibly, the very next day, Carol’s card was charged yet again, and the campaign had never reversed the initial fraudulent charges. “I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card, but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments. “She’s very good with the internet, so I know she only made a one-time payment.” Roger also pointed out that even if his mother mistakenly signed up for recurring monthly payments then she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, not multiple charges for varying amounts on the same day or in the same month. Furthermore, Roger said that after the campaign was made aware of this situation, the charges should’ve stopped, but they never did.

The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, a total of $94 in fraudulent charges. The campaign’s overcharges to Carol were just a few dollars short of $100. This paralleled what the Wells Fargo bank source revealed.

Since the campaign failed to amend the problem for Carol, Roger contacted her bank, U.S. Bank. However, he ran into problems when he asked U.S. Bank to refund his mother’s money. Roger stated that the bank would not reverse the charges and that a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges. At that point, Roger decided to contact his local news and filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother. After local TV news KARE-11 ran a story, someone from U.S. Bank contacted Roger the next day and said that they had reversed and stopped the charges to his mother’s card.

Roger did eventually get a letter from a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign. In the letter, the lawyer wrote that his mother would be removed from their donor list; however, the campaign did not take any responsibility for the fraudulent charges.

“They said that they weren’t accepting responsibility for this, but they’d remove my mom from the donor list,” he said. Roger is less than happy with the way the Clinton campaign handled this nightmare for him and his mother. “This is a load of crap!” Mahre said. “The self-righteousness of politicians drives me insane. If you and I did this, we’d be thrown in jail. This is theft, fraud or wire fraud—it’s a federal crime!”

When Carol’s story became public, Roger said he heard from other people who were ripped off by the Clinton campaign. “I’ve heard this happened to other small donors,” Roger said. “People donated $25, but then when they received their credit card statement, they were charged $25 multiple times.”

The Wells Fargo Bank source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department never received one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary did is so messed up, she stole from her poorest supporters.”

Nothing New

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund and subtract hundreds of thousands of dollars from its first-quarter total often because donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations, three times more than the $900K President Barack Obama’s campaign repaid.

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her Visa card. Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit. Callahan said that after a month of “begging and pleading,” she wasn’t able to get her money back until she threatened to go to authorities. However, when she was finally refunded her money, the Clinton campaign refused to compensate her for the $400 in overdraft and bank charges.

Summary

Do we need even to discuss the obvious here? Consider this:

  • Since the Clintons both entered politics — first in Arkansas, then in Washington and New York — rumors of financial corruption have followed right along with them. Few Americans care to pay the price and invest the time and energy to investigate their financial wrongdoings. Quite honestly, there are quite a few  “wounded” Americans in their political wake! (“Wounded” here is an oxymoron!) You can even look outside the U.S. to Clinton Foundation issues. In Haiti, after the horrific earthquake, millions of dollars that flowed through the Clinton Foundation for aid to Haiti vanished. And financial nepotism put millions more in the pockets of Clinton cronies. Why should this latest DOJ report of Clinton Campaign fraud be surprising?
  • Why do we not hear anything about any of this until after the fact? It seems that either the American Media is oblivious to the “news” that Clintons’ financial wrongdoing has been rampant or that the “Lame-Stream Media” simply do not care. No matter if it’s because of one or both, their doing so is a travesty.

I’ll close with this undeniable thought — my conclusion: Can you imagine how the heads of U.S. Media pundits would be exploding if Donald Trump was implicated in any such matters?

Oh, and then there’s this: what would be happening if the Clintons were back in the White House?

Play

House Republicans Fight Back

Wednesday, December 4, America heard from four Constitutional “experts” about their opinions of impeachment, its foundation, its purposes, its past uses, and how the Constitutional guidelines determine its appropriate uses. At the end of it all, we are no closer to firm and final answers about impeachment as it applies to what is happening in Washington today than we did six months ago. Democrats are on a quest and continually exist in “Dump-Trump” mode. Republicans are on a quest, too. Theirs is “Let’s get about conducting legislative business for the American people.”

Do you notice any similarities in thought between Dems and the GOP? Neither do I. But, as promised, we at TruthNewsNetwork are committed to bringing you the facts that we can discern through research of every applicable D.C. matter that impacts Americans. That promise applies to members and issues of both parties, issues that arise daily in Congress, the White House, and the Judiciary, and every applicable matter in U.S. foreign relations that impact our nation. Here’s our analysis of “Impeach Trump, Part III.”

“Where’s the Beef?”

Democrats have not veered away from their one unified cry about Mr. Trump since even before he won the 2016 election: “We don’t like him. We think he’s unfit to serve as President. We will do anything and everything we can do to drive him out of the White House and even from Washington, D.C.” The only things that have changed in the three years of Mr. Trump’s first term as President are the bullets in the Democrats’ “Dump-Trump” gun they have used. They are Trump Campaign Russian Collusion, the Mueller Investigation, Obstruction of Justice, Emoluments Clause violations, and now we find ourselves in “Ukraine-Gate Part III.” Who’s universally in all of these? Rep. Adams Schiff (D-CA), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

Of course, the President is universal in all of this. If he’d go away, so would the faux impeachment!

House Republicans on Monday, December 2, released a report of evidence in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, in which they affirmed none of the Democrats’ witnesses have proof of President Donald Trump’s involvement in bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor.

And by working to impeach President Trump since his election, 231 House Democrats are trying to undo the will of nearly 63 million American people who chose him as the 45th president of the United States.

The following are the key findings from the report presented by House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

  • President Trump has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.
  • President Trump has a long-held skepticism of U.S. foreign assistance and believes that Europe should pay its fair share for mutual defense.
  • President Trump’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma Holdings’ board are valid. The Obama State Department noted concerns about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma in 2015 and 2016.
  • There is indisputable evidence that senior Ukrainian government officials opposed President Trump in 2016 and did so publicly. It has been reported that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative worked with Ukrainian officials, including the Ukrainian Embassy, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump.
  • The evidence does not establish that President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election to benefit him in the 2020 election.
  • The evidence does not establish that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Zelenskiy to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump withheld U.S. security assistance to Ukraine to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump orchestrated a shadow foreign policy apparatus to pressure Ukraine to investigate Burisma, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election.
  • The evidence does not support that President Trump covered up the substance of his telephone conversation with President Zelenskiy by restricting access to the call summary.
  • President Trump’s assertion of longstanding claims of executive privilege is a legitimate response to an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.

In summary, House Republicans said the evidence in the Democrats’ probe does not prove their allegations that President Trump abused his authority to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, a potential political rival, for his benefit in the 2020 election. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy again affirmed he did not discuss with President Donald Trump about a “quid pro quo” involving the withholding of military aid to Ukraine from the United States, which is at the center of the House impeachment inquiry against the president.

In an interview with Time.com published on Monday, Dec. 2, Zelenskiy said, “I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. Zelenskiy was answering the question, “When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump’s decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations for which Trump and his allies were asking? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?”

“I don’t want us to look like beggars,” he continued. “But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying,” he added.

This is not the first time Zelenskiy denied the accusation of wrongdoing regarding a phone call between him and President Trump. In October, the Ukrainian president also affirmed: “there was no blackmail” in their July phone call, and there were no “conditions” from the American side.

Summary

Yep: this is brief today. Why is it so short? There’s not much to discuss!

What we could do is spend a bunch of your time going back over all the “what-if’s” and “if-only’s.” But we’d still be here next month and probably next year trying to ascertain what this Democrat charade is going to morph into. Until we arrive at the end of all that, we are no longer going to “speculate.” We’ll just let the actions of the Left tell us what they are going to do.

Yes, it appears that House Democrats are going to send to the Floor Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. Probably, the vote on at least several of the likeliest Articles will be approved. And then the Senate will examine whatever Articles of Impeachment make the trip across the Hall.

If that happens, the fun will begin!

Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing that can be funny about all of this. But know this for sure: if a Senate impeachment trial actually occurs, every bit of the dirty laundry from the past four to six years will be brought before the American public through witness and document subpoenas. And it all will be exposed every day INTERNATIONALLY!

Just imagine that witness list: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strozk, Peter Steele, James Clapper, John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, etc.

Don’t forget about three witnesses that will undoubtedly appear before the Senate: former Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and even former President Barack Obama.

Do Democrats want all of the wrongdoing on the part of their minions in the Deep State to appear daily for the next year on national television? Do they want to take the chance that members of their own “crew” will face indictment(s), millions of dollars in legal defense costs, public embarrassment and humiliation, and the destruction of their personal and professional lives, all in an attempt to rid D.C. of President Trump?

“Hey Nancy: Tag, You’re It!”

Play

Naziism Is Alive in America: And It Has No Color

You probably have not heard of Malcolm Nance. You need to know who he is. You need to know what he’s about. You need to know what he represents.

We’ll get into the specifics of his background in a bit, but what is most important is that he is a radical leftist cloaked in his claims of his patriotism, his belief and “undying support” to the Constitution and that President Trump has ushered a criminal enterprise into the White House.

There’s much we will share with you today and later about Mr. Nance. Why? It’s essential you know just how deep the Deep State is. You need to know how far left some in the Deep State are. You need to know and understand why the likes of those in ANTIFA and other radical left groups somehow find justification for actually attacking the Constitution and what it stands for while they declare they are doing so to PROTECT the Constitution.

Meet Malcolm Nance:

You have now seen and heard Malcolm Nance. He owns a pretty significant pedigree in National Security. And as you just witnessed, he fashions himself to be a Constitutional scholar, a political ethicist, and a narcissist who makes the claims by some of Trump’s alleged narcissism appear laughable. Malcolm Nance is scary. Why?

He has a pulpit — a big one. MSNBC has given it to him. Just knowing that NBC and its political arm are all-in with the Nance message isn’t unusual. But what IS surprising is that NBC’s doing so legitimizes the beliefs of many that Nance makes sense. If what he said in that short interview segment you just witnessed does not awaken you to the “Malcolm Nance reality,” you need to rethink it. Nance is not alone in his thoughts and beliefs. And the results of his messaging could easily loose the dragon of violence in the U.S. — that is really isn’t already walking among us.

Read/listen on.

White supremacist “foot soldiers” perceive President Donald Trump’s rhetoric as “subliminal orders in their head,” warns MSNBC’s national security analyst Malcolm Nance.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Hardball during a segment on the massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, Nance claimed mass shootings in the United States are fueled by far-right, white supremacist ideology by shooters who want to eliminate liberalism.

”I think that we’re finally in for a significant societal change where we’re finally addressing this issue. I wrote a book last year called The Plot to Destroy Democracy, and in one of the chapters, I led off with the massacre of 68 children in Norway by the original white supremacist terrorist who created the concept of this terrorist manifesto — Anders Behring Breivik,” he said. “And he did that because he thought “The Great Replacement” was underway in Norway and that the government was allowing unbridled immigration into that country.”

So in his trial, he said he massacred those children because he wanted to eliminate the next generation of liberal leadership from Norway as a warning,” he continued. “This country has had several of these mass incidents, but I think we’re overdue for a Breivik-style real massacre of a political nature.”

Trump is fostering a culture that facilitates white supremacist terrorists, Nance argued.

“These people feel that they are the foot soldiers and executors of what the disenfranchisement that the white race is feeling, and Donald Trump is giving them subliminal orders in their heads,” he said. “They are no different than the mobilized, self-starting, self-radicalized terrorists of ISIS here in the United States and Europe, who take cars and drive down streets. It’s just that they have a permissive environment in which they can get firearms and go out and attack their perceived enemies.”

While Nance, in conjunction with many Democrat lawmakers and the Lame-stream media establishment, insist Trump’s “racist” rhetoric inspired the mentally ill mass shooters, an abundance of evidence, first reported by conservative media outlets, irrefutably verifies they were leftists – not Trump supporters.

Nance appeared in May of 2019 on AM Joy on MSNBC. Here’s a sample of Nance’s opinions about President Trump and those in his administration:

MALCOLM NANCE: This administration is completely and wholly a corrupt criminal enterprise now. You have the Attorney General of the United States acting as a hit man for the President of the United States, not looking out for the interests of the people of the United States, and laws now no longer matter. I’ve dedicated every second of my life to defend this nation. I love and believe in the Constitution of the United States. My country is now under attack by the President of the United States. Who will stand for it? Who in our own Congress is wanting to negotiate with him, right? Their last bit of power is now going to come under 18 months of crushing pressure from a man that is all but in name a dictator. And I would like to hear how we’re going to handle this problem.

You know, I come on here and I try to be nice and calm when I come in, and then I listen to all this analysis and it just brings out the inner patriot in me, and it should in everyone in this country. We have got to stand for our Constitution, we’ve got to stand for our laws, and to say we’re going to negotiate it out, we’re going to create a nice paper trail, that is not fighting for this country. That is not fighting for what we believe, that is not fighting to defend this nation.

So, I think, all these people that write me every day. They need to just blow up the telephone lines on Monday. They need blow up the Twitter, and they need to hold Democrats accountable. Not the Republicans, hold the Democrats accountable, and say, this nation and our laws, you will now stand and defend. Because if you don’t them, we may not have them in 18 months. This White House now feels it can do anything. Robert Mueller has now given him permission to believe that he is untouchable. And he is not the Eliot Ness that we all wanted. And if this Congressman comes in here and says okay, we’re going to have this discussion, then that’s what you’re gonna have: you’re going to have a harshly-worded letter in a machine-gun fight.

Summary

It’s hard for me to believe there are people who are considered “experts” who espouse such wild and crazy ideas. It’s harder to think that someone like Nance has credibility and credentials sufficient to command a seat on the most significant media stage in world media: New York. It’s mind-boggling to me that Malcolm Nance has tens of thousands of Americans who believe these same things he spouts! But they do. And they live among us.

What’s the fuel for all this? If you stop and look at the world around us today, there is no realistic way to equate what this totalitarian ex-military expert claims about the United States and this government with what is playing out in the lives of Americans every day. It just cannot be reconciled.

For what Nance claims in today’s story to be true even in a small part, tens of millions of Americans must be living in a fog of unseen dementia or are too uninformed or mentally incapable of reason. Most of us live in a world in which we rely on circumstances of life and how they directly impact us: our families, our homes and neighborhoods, our cities in which we live and work, and the extended environment in which we live and function daily.

I suggest that you do an internet search to view exactly what his pedigree is. It’s lengthy. He’s lived and worked in an intelligence and military environment for many years. On the surface, he strikes me as something of a James Bond or at least a Bond wannabe.

I don’t know Malcolm Nance; I just know “about him.” He sounds amazingly intelligent. He speaks clearly and certainly believes what he says. But what scares me is that so did Adolph Hitler!

The United States is undoubtedly the melting pot of those from 100+ nations on Earth. That means it’s the melting pot of those with numerous political and social perspectives. Expressing those through a couple of centuries has resulted in a great part in creating the greatness of our nation. But such creation has been based on respect for the differences of others — differences of all kinds. The success of where we realistically find ourselves today is rooted in those first ten Constitutional amendments that detail the elements of life that “we the people” did NOT relegate to the government but retained for ourselves. It’s those ten that will keep us safe from despots of every kind who attack those with different ideas.

But facts are required for any lasting positive results in a country. Let’s face it: ours is pretty good. No doubt there’s a large amount of tweaking necessarily going on. That’s a good thing. I don’t want to take the streets to start blowing up things and people just because I might disagree with them. It seems like doing so might be a pretty good alternative for Malcolm Nance.

Play

“Accuser-In-Chief:” Jerrold Nadler

Wednesday of this week, December 4, 2019, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) who Chairs the House Judiciary Committee has another committee hearing regarding President Trump’s impeachment. Supposedly this hearing is to question Constitutional “experts” on what is and what is not an impeachable offense based on their opinions regarding impeachment wording in the Constitution. (Again, please note the word “opinions.”)

Nadler as nothing more than a soundbyte offered President Trump the opportunity to “participate” in these hearings. The offer is nothing but a sham: as of this moment, Democrats witnesses haven’t even been named. How could anyone prepare for a hearing without even knowing who will participate?

With this third step of the “Impeachment Inquiry” pending, why don’t we look back to 1998 when then-Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) gave an impassionate and scathing speech on the floor of the House of Representative demeaning Republicans for even initiating impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. It is almost comical to see the obvious hypocrisy among today’s Democrats in Congress and those from 1998 regarding their justifications of what “was” right to do at the time compared to now, and what was “wrong” to do in 1998 compared to today. It’s obvious that political expedience is all that mattered then as it does today.

I’ll read Mr. Nadler’s Congressional speech. We searched diligently in an effort to find an original recording but could not. His verbatim speech text is available for your download at the end of today’s story. In full disclosure, for the sake of your time and the length of his speech, my verbal rendition has been edited for time only — not for context. We have highlighted some of Mr. Nadler’s most salient points, putting those in italics. We’ll spend a few minutes in Summary after the speech.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) December 18, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the precedents show and the Nation’s leading scholars and historians overwhelmingly agree that impeachment is reserved under the Constitution only for abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of the government or of constitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punishment for crimes but as a protection against the President who would abuse his powers to make himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called impeachment a substitute for assassination. We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per se impeachable offense, but bribery goes to the heart of the President’s conduct of his constitutional duties. It converts his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to promoting some other interest.

Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not involve the President’s duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense.

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.

The American people have heard the allegations against the President, and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected President Clinton, they still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, the case against the President has not been made. There is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven true, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. This is clearly a partisan railroad job. The American people are watching, and they will not forget.

I believe that we need to get back to basics — the Constitution and what the impeachment power conferred on the Congress requires of us. Article II, section 4 of the Constitution says that a President ‘‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’’ We have received testimony from some of the nation’s leading legal scholars and historians who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of Presidential power that undermine the structure or functioning of government, or constitutional liberty.

History and the precedents alike show that impeachment is not a punishment for crimes, but a means to protect the constitutional system, and it was certainly not meant to be a means to punish a President for personal wrongdoing not related to his office. Some of our Republican colleagues have made much of the fact that some of the Democrats on this Committee in 1974 voted in favor of an article of impeachment relating to President Nixon’s alleged perjury on his tax returns, but the plain fact is that a bipartisan vote of that Committee — something we have not yet had in this process on any substantive question — rejected that article. That’s the historical record, and it was largely based on the belief that an impeachable offense must be an abuse of Presidential power, a ‘‘great and dangerous offense against the Nation,’’ not perjury on a private matter.

We are told that perjury is as serious an offense as bribery, a per se impeachable offense. But bribery goes to the heart of the President’s conduct of his constitutional duties — it converts his loyalties and efforts from promoting the welfare of the Republic to promoting some other interest. Perjury is a serious crime — and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may, or may not, involve the President’s duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter — perjury regarding sex — is not a ‘‘great and dangerous offense against the Nation.’’ It is not an abuse of uniquely Presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense.

There are clearly some members of the Republican majority who have never accepted the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections, and who apparently have chosen to ignore the message of last month’s election, but in a democracy, it is the people who rule, not political elites — and not members of political elites who were repudiated at the last election. Some members of the House may think the people have chosen badly, but it is the people’s choice and we must respect it absent a threat to our democracy that would justify overturning the repeated expression of their will at the ballot box. Members of Congress have no right to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent that compelling case.

The Judiciary Committee also received testimony from some outstanding former prosecutors, including the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, who headed up the Criminal Division of Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, who compellingly explained why all the loose talk about perjury and obstruction of justice would not hold up in a real prosecutor’s office — that the evidence we have been given would never support a criminal prosecution in a real court of law.

For those who demand that the President prove his innocence, without his accusers having to prove his guilt or even to state clearly the charges, the Judiciary Committee received answers from the President’s Counsel in which they meticulously pointed out how the charges were not supported and were indeed contradicted, by the evidence Mr. Starr’s own office had assembled. In fact, Mr. Starr has stated in his referral to Congress, that his own ‘‘star witness’’ is not credible, except when her uncorroborated testimony conflicts with the President’s, and then it proves his perjury.

We have received sanctimonious lectures from the other side about the ‘’rule of law,’’ but the law does not permit perjury to be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Nor does the law recognize as corroboration the fact that the witness made the same statement to several different people. You may choose to believe that the President was disingenuous, that he was not particularly helpful to Paula Jones’ lawyers when they asked him intentionally vague questions, or that he is a bum, but that does not make him guilty of perjury.

This House is not a grand jury. To impeach the President would subject the country to the trauma of a trial in the Senate. It would paralyze the government for many months. We cannot simply punt the duty to judge the facts to the Senate if we find mere ‘‘probable cause’’ that an impeachable offense may have been committed. To do so would be a derogation of our constitutional duty. The proponents of impeachment have provided no direct evidence of impeachable offenses. They rely solely on the findings of an ‘‘independent’’ counsel who has repeatedly mischaracterized evidence, failed to include exculpatory evidence, and consistently misstated the law.

We have been entrusted with this grave and dangerous duty by the American people, by the Constitution and by history. We must exercise that duty responsibly. At a bare minimum, that means the President’s accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo, and beyond demands that the President prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct. This they have failed to do.

Some say that if we do not impeach the President, we treat him as if he is above the law. Is the President above the law? Certainly not. He is subject to the criminal law — to indictment and prosecution when he leaves office like any other citizen, whether or not he is impeached. And if the Republican leadership allows a vote, he would likely be the third President in U.S. history, and the first since 1848, to be censured by Congress. But impeachment is intended as a remedy to protect the nation, not as a punishment for a President.

The case is not there — there is far from sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the allegations, even if proven, do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the Senate. To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this House to the condemnation of history for generations to come. The American people are watching, and they won’t forget. You may have the votes, you may have the muscle, but you lack the legitimacy of a national consensus and the Constitution. This partisan coup d’etat will go down in the history of this nation in infamy.

Summary

Do Democrats really believe that the majority of Americans have no sense of American history? Do they believe the Americans who lived through the Clinton Impeachment do not remember speeches like this one given by Nadler and others in the House of Representatives? If Democrats believe in Americans and our ability to recognize House actions taken in 1998, they would run from their obvious hypocrisy and stop using the same arguments FOR impeachment of President Trump today that they used AGAINST the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998!

Let’s face facts:

  • There are NO facts in evidence that Constitutionally justify impeachment;
  • There is no historical precedent to which Democrats can point that supported even the Mueller Investigation yet alone Impeachment;
  • Democrats have now three different “circus rings” in which they have attempted to remove Mr. Trump from office. First was the closed hearings in which they looked for potential witnesses for public testimony to expose to the public Mr. Trump’s wrongdoing. Second were the public hearings in which each of their star witnesses bombed when they presented alleged wrongdoing by the President that even if committed were not justification for impeachment. Finally, the final stage set for this week: Rep. Nadler presents Constitutional “experts” to teach Americans about impeachment. Of course, they’ll use their “opinions” of the Constitutional basis for Trump’s impeachment.

That’s it — there’s nothing more!

Oh, by the way: the House of Representatives has been doing NOTHING, is doing NOTHING, and will do NOTHING regarding the governing of the United States. Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler owe the American people multiple apologies for holding the nation hostage to their partisan, dishonest, expensive, and now the three-and-one-half year “vacation” they have taken at our expense to demean the integrity of 63 million American voters who elected Donald Trump.

And, it ain’t over!

(Here’s Nadler’s entire 1998 Impeachment speech)

https://truthnewsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Impeachment-of-President-Bill-Clinton.pdf

Play

Obama Weaponized Foreign Aid

President Trump has been demonized in the latest chapter of the “Dump-Trump” movement for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the alleged corruption of former VP Joe Biden and his son. In that telephone call between Mr. Trump and the newly elected president of Ukraine Zelensky, the Biden corruption investigation in Ukraine was mentioned. While Vice President, Biden publicly threatened to withhold an approximate $1 Billion of U.S. aid to Ukraine unless that prosecutor investigating Biden and his son was fired. Biden gave them six hours to do so. They fired the prosecutor and the relief was released.

Democrats have parlayed that phone call into the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” to launch formal impeachment proceedings against the President. It has been a fiasco. Partisan witnesses one after another were paraded before Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee to each demean President Trump’s Ukraine actions in an effort to build support from Americans sufficient to drive Trump from the White House.

The fundamental premise for their actions is the alleged use of U.S. aid to force Ukraine to restart the investigation into the Bidens. Why the uproar? Democrats’ justification (though lame) is that it is somehow unethical to use foreign aid to pressure foreign countries to do the bidding of America.

First, that’s not illegal. Secondly, it has been common practice for president after president going all the way back to the very first time foreign aid from the U.S. was given. And, guess what? Barack Obama used foreign aid multiple times to force countries to subvert to his opinion and policies on various issues. He even weaponized his foreign support for purely social issues — NOT anything involved in U.S. or other nations’ laws!

Obama’s Foreign Aid Blackmail Scheme: “Quid Pro Quo”

In July of 2015, the eyes of the world were on Africa as President Obama welcomed Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari to the White House and, for the first time as president, Obama visited his father’s home country of Kenya.

Reports indicated that Buhari and Obama discussed the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, as well as possible political and economic reforms for Buhari’s struggling country. Similar discussions took place during the Kenya trip.

While all seemed well on the public front, the reality is that both Buhari’s and Obama’s visits were used by the White House to promote what Pope Francis called “ideological colonization.” This agenda was let slip just days before Buhari arrived in Washington when the U.S. State Department indicated it would push the Nigerian government to redefine marriage.

According to the Nigerian Pilot, America’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told reporters that “as a policy, we will continue to press the government of Nigeria, as well as other governments which have provided legislation that discriminates against the LGBT community.”

Thomas-Greenfield defended the pressure, saying it was not international interference in Nigeria’s domestic affairs, but rather is “very much a work in progress…I think you will agree with me that the law in Nigeria went far in discriminating against this community but also people who associate with them. So, we will continue to press the government, to press the legislature to change these laws and provide human rights for all Nigerian people regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Across Africa, millions of people face starvation, war, oppression, poverty, and death due to a lack of essential aid. For decades, the United States has provided many forms of assistance designed to help nations resolve these problems.

Under the Obama administration, however, humanitarian aid often came with a price tag: Abandoning traditional values, especially those related to contraception, abortion, and marriage.

In 2011, Obama issued a memorandum that directed all U.S. embassies worldwide to promote LGBT rights, which he said were “central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights.”

“Under my Administration, agencies engaged abroad have already begun taking action to promote the fundamental human rights of LGBT persons everywhere,” he said.

That same year, the administration made aid to Nigeria dependent upon it’s not enacting the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act. And before she stepped down as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton compared same-sex relationships to race and sex in a speech that left African leaders furious.

In 2016, at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both suggested that Africa’s war-torn, impoverished nations could attract economic and development aid from the West by becoming more gay-friendly.

This is social engineering at its finest, but it is not limited to redefining marriage. Contraception and abortion policies — carefully disguised as “family planning” — are also pushed upon Nigeria, whose citizens have rejected these mandates, which they consider harmful anti-women policies. (”Family planning:” sound familiar?)

Again, this “ideological colonization” is not limited to Nigeria. During his visit to Kenya, Obama publicly lectured President Uhuru Kenyatta on his nation’s laws against same-sex sexual relationships. According to CNN, sexual relations between males over 14 is illegal and punishable by as many as 14 years in prison.

Think about this: the Obama Administration is the same administration that spent tens of billions of dollars PLUS substantial political capital on that infamous Iranian deal Obama put in place without Congress that included virtually no requirements of performance of any kind by Iran. And Iran outwardly supports terrorists! And then Obama opened relations with Cuba despite requiring NO political reforms from the Castro dictatorship.

African leaders have long opposed Obama’s 21st-century imperialism, especially religious leaders. Ignatius Kaigama, an Archbishop in Nigeria – whose diocese is in the heart of the area affected by the terrorist organization Boko Haram – and Bishop Joseph Osei-Bonsu of Ghana said they were tired of international pressure to legalize gay marriage.

The Nigerian law explains, “Marriage is between a man and a woman… even outside of scriptural support, our culture tells us that, nature tells us that.”

And despite threats of denial of much-needed aid, he says, Africans will not give in to the demands. “These are our cultures, and we’re not going to compromise over them.”

Former Population Research Institute Media and Research Coordinator Anne Morse went to Kenya during the Obama Administration. An observation she made on Facebook explained a lot:

“Dear President Obama,” wrote Morse, “please justify why–for every dollar USAID spends on water and sanitation in Kenya–it spends TWELVE dollars on family planning.” Morse noted that she “had seen four television advertisements for condoms today, but hasn’t had a hot shower since Sunday.”

The worst example of America’s new-age imperialism was found in the growing evidence that President Obama purposely withheld aid to fight the terrorist group Boko Haram. While Buhari’s predecessor was accused of refusing U.S. aid to fight terrorism, what has been less reported is that the refusal came in part because the United States demanded Nigeria change its laws on marriage.

These accusations aren’t just coming from Catholic bishops. A former U.S. Congressman, a Pentagon Army spokesperson, a Nigerian official, and the Nigerian Ambassador to the United States all confirmed this was the case. To quote Ambassador Adebowale Adefuye in his statement to the Council on Foreign Relations, “the U.S. government has refused to grant Nigeria’s request to purchase lethal equipment that would have brought down the terrorists (Boko Haram) within a short time.”

Nigerian-American Winnie Obike, a candidate in political communications at the University of Maryland, said she was “appalled by the Obama administration’s foreign policy objectives for the African continent.”

“It was ironic that a president who passionately apologized for America’s 19th and 20th century imperialism adopted a twenty-first century imperialism toward Africa by forcing nations to change their beliefs on marriage, abortion, and contraception in exchange for basic humanitarian aid,” said Obike, who was the Minority Outreach Coordinator for the Minnesota for Marriage Campaign.

“Nigeria and other African nations need humanitarian aid and help fighting terrorist groups like Boko Haram, not the West’s declining values,” said Obike. “I urge President Buhari not to compromise traditional values in exchange for foreign aid.”

In 2009, President Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize because many hoped he would lead the world to greater peace and security. The world looked in, hoping that he would take action to justify the award. He could have easily done so by setting aside his ideology and focusing on the real aid needed by Nigerians, Kenyans, and many other Africans. As we all know, that did not happen.

Summary

Try as I might, I cannot find any way to reconcile the consistent and non-stop hypocrisy of the actions of House Democrats regarding their faux-impeachment process to rid Washington of Donald Trump. It is unconscionable that they somehow justify their doing so to an alleged demand by President Trump of Ukraine to investigate Biden corruption in Ukraine in exchange for U.S. foreign aid. I’ll say this one more time: Even if the President did just that it would not have been unusual, illegal, but would have been part of his (and that of any other U.S. president) duty as American president to honor the 1999 Treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine to work together to rid each country of corruption of every kind that involved in any way the other’s country or members of its government. 

If the truth were known, Rep. Schiff would probably have wanted to instigate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump if he had NOT restarted corruption investigations by Ukraine IN Ukraine as part of the treaty.

All of the facts of this story have been in the public domain for some time. Yet no one in the Lame-Stream media has made any effort to report the facts. It’s far more palatable for them to continue their nonstop stream of vitriol at this President who refuses to play the Deep State D.C. games to perpetuate the flow of power, control, and money from D.C. to their minions to support their often illegal actions at the expense of the American people.

Isn’t it sad that President Obama was using same-sex marriage and abortion as a bargaining chit for the United States to send money to African nations to buy food, clean water, medical supplies, and to acquire military-grade equipment to destroy the Islamic Terrorist organization Boko Haram? Remember those several hundred young African girls kidnapped and held by Boko Haram for several years in which they were enslaved and turned into sex toys of those terrorists? All of those babies’ horrors and pain and brutality at the hands of those monsters fall on Barack Obama, who refused to fund measures to obliterate those terrorists. Those young girls would have never been kidnapped or turned into sex slaves. And the U.S. President refused because he demanded those African nations to mirror HIS values about sex, abortion, and same-sex marriage. And Obama did all that in the name of the American people.

I don’t know which is worse: Obama doing so or the Media hiding what he did and the details for years from the American people. And today’s Lame-Stream media are trying to turn what Obama DID do into something that President Trump did NOT do. And House Democrats are using the misrepresentations, lies, and lawlessness to impeach the President, and in doing so, subvert the wills of 63 million American voters who voted for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize WAS a joke and is now a travesty thrust on the World that has destroyed a large number of the African people in the name of political elitism. And the World thinks you and I supported his doing so.

Play