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