Democrats Attack on Free Speech

Increasingly, Democrats are attempt to squelch speech that they do not like.

Biden Campaign Urges TV Networks to Stop Booking Giuliani

Kamala Harris’ Crusade To De-Platform Trump On Twitter Is Emblematic Of A Larger Problem

Protesters force DHS chief to cancel speech

Particularly troubling is this article: Rep. Maxine Waters: Trump 'setting some of us up to be killed' as Ms Waters repeatedly called for violence against Republicans. So here we have an irresponsible person calling for violence against Republicans demanding that she be "protected" from the consequences of her feckless actions that are a loathsome affront to free speech.

Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech

Free Speech Defenders Warn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez That She Is Violating the Constitution by Blocking Critics on Twitter

Elizabeth Warren's Laughable Ethical Proposal

When it comes to ethics lying Democrats have no shame in claiming that our public official must live by a high code of standards which they themselves do not adhere too. Recently, Elizabeth Warren offered a judicial ethics plan. One of her topical points was for a code-of-conduct. Well these may all be good points, but Ms. Warren herself has demonstrated that she is not ethical.

Ms. Warren, for example, as a self-serving action alluded to her being of Cherokee heritage. That has proven to be false. Not only that, but it was a form of underhanded "cultural appropriation".

Ms. Warren was previously a teacher. When she became pregnant, she apparently (on her own volition) ceased teaching. Yet on the campaign trail, she has strongly implied that she was "fired" from that job since she was pregnant. Clearly Ms. Warren was playing the sexist victim card to assert "discrimination".

Judges should have a high degree of ethical integrity, but Ms. Warren totally overlooks the dirty gutter politics of the Democratic Senators who participated in the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination process. If one proposes that judges have a high degree of ethics, the Senators evaluating them should also have expectational integrity. The Democratic Senators had none. Ms Warren should be calling-out these Senators for their atrocious behavior assuming that Ms Warren has at least a smidgen of integrity.

If Ms. Warren wants to run on being an ethical candidate, she needs to clean-up her act. She also needs to call-out fellow Democrats, like lying Adam Schiff, for their abusive unethical actions.

Andrew Yang on Immigration

Last night, the Democrats had their second debate on CNN. One of the debate participants was Andrew Yang. The participants were asked by one of the debate moderators about what they would do to stifle illegal immigration. Except for Yang, the Democratic participants foamed at the mouth to out-do each other in advocating that they were both for "border security" and allowing the illegal immigrants to enter the country unimpeded. That translates into holding two divergent opposing views at the same time. In turn, that translates into the respondents avoiding to answer the question by being disingenuously on both sides at the same time. Leaving the other Democrats behind, I move on to Yang's response.

Yang had a novel response, that was also Realpolitik. Yang (in part) responded: "If you go to a factory here in Michigan, you will not find wall-to-wall immigrants; you will find wall-to-wall robots and machines.". Though never explicitly expounded on by Yang, my interpretation of that comment is that the continued mass importation of (illegal) low skilled and poorly educated immigrants by the Democrats into the US will turn out to be a huge mistake. The reason is that these immigrants tend to have poor education and tend to lack today's work skills. Consequently they will be unable to find work in the US and will end-up being on taxpayer funded welfare. Unfortunately, the debate moderators never further delved into Yang's response. Yang's response, which could have been further discussed, implies that we could make legal immigration into the US skilled based. That would add to this countries economic base.

Additionally, we live in an environment of hyperbolic word parsing. Surprisingly, the media has evidently been silent on Yang's remarks. Had a Republican made a similar remark, that person would have been vilified by the media and accused of racism, xenophobia, and numerous other phobias.

Mueller Investigation Implodes

About time. Mueller, on July 24, 2019 appeared before Congress to testify concerning his report. Things did not go well. The headline on the Washington Times was: "Mueller, befuddled by own report, stumbles through testimony". 

Even some on the left were upset by the quality of Mueller's testimony. Fox News reported: "Liberal activist and filmaker Michael Moore delivered a scathing review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony on Wednesday, suggesting Democrats should reconsider why they trusted him in the first place."

Moore had tweeted: 

A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on

The Washington Times reported: "Former top Obama strategist David Axelrod said Mr. Mueller didn’t appear to be very “sharp,” and liberal star filmmaker Michael Moore called him “stumbling.”"

The New York Times reported in the article: The Blockbuster That Wasn’t: Mueller Disappoints the Democrats. The Times wrote:

"In the days leading up to the special counsel’s much-anticipated appearance before Congress, Democrats argued that hearing from Robert S. Mueller III on television could transform the impeachment debate. While Americans might not read the book, the argument went, they would watch the movie.

If so, the movie Americans tuned into on Wednesday was not the blockbuster Democrats had sought nor was Mr. Mueller the action star they had cast. Dignified but shaky, and at times struggling to keep up, he largely stuck to “yes” and “no” and “refer you to the report” answers, steadfastly refusing to dramatize his conclusions as President Trump’s critics wanted him to do.

By the time he finished nearly seven hours later, Democrats were disappointed they did not get the made-for-TV accusatory moment they wanted, and the prospect for impeachment appeared far more difficult. Although the president’s critics vowed to persist, a gleeful Mr. Trump claimed he was completely cleared while shouting angry insults at reporters on the South Lawn."

Since posting, I ran across Newt Gingrich's take on the Mueller testimony. Of special note, Newt Gingrich points out the even the rabidly partisan Democratic prosecutors were unable to dig-up enough dirt to find that the Trump Campaign had colluded with Russia. Gingrich quote below:

However, the more I watched him, the more I came to the conclusion that he had been a figurehead. The tough younger Trump-hating Democrats had networked with each other and assembled a legal team dedicated to destroying Trump and protecting the Clintons.

Seen from this perspective, it is a tribute to President Trump that despite their best efforts these deeply hostile prosecutors simply could not find any evidence of serious wrongdoing. They could write innuendo -- and huff and puff -- but in the end the Trump wall of obeying the law withstood the best these smart, tough widely-experienced Democratic prosecutors could do.

An additional update (July 31, 2019). Another attempt by Democrats, parallel to the Mueller investigation, has been derailed by the judicial system. Judge tosses Democrat's case against Trump 2016 campaign. The illegitimate fragile house of cards built by the Democrats is crumbling.

Though the Democrats publicly pumped up Mueller's anticipated testimony in hopes of hitting a home run with the public, the reality was that the Democrats had built a frail house of cards, in the form of the Mueller investigation. That house of cards was exposed to the American public on national TV. The winds of public opinion have now blown that house of cards into oblivion

 

Picture above from Gary Varvel in the Washington Times

The Mueller Report - The Failed Attempt to Implement a Coup in the US

Lavrentiy Beria infamously boasted: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. Mueller was appointed, as a special counsel, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to find crimes by the Trump campaign. On the surface, if an apparent crime has occurred, there may justification for investigating that crime. But it became quickly apparent, that the Trump campaign was specifically targeted for examination. The apparent purpose of this action was to establish, by the Democrats, an impeachment narrative. To be more blunt, the Democrats were advocating a coup.

1. The Obama administration was in charge of the government at the time Trump ran for President. The new "red scare" today, pushed by Democrats and even some Republicans is that the Russian somehow interfered in the US electoral process. Should the threat of Russian interference into the US electoral process be legitimate, Mueller should have been investigating the failure of the Obama administration to act on this possible threat. (Trump at the time was a private citizen who had no governmental authority to investigate this issue.) Mueller, apparently, did not look into the failure of the Obama administration to protect the US electoral process from this type of abuse.
2. Hillary Clinton (HRC) was also campaigning to become President. One can assume that if the Trump campaign was being approached by Russian agents seeking to manipulate the US electoral process, that the HRC campaign would also have been approached in some manner by the Russians. The Mueller investigation side stepped looking into this possibility.
3. The appointment of Mueller to lead the investigation into supposed Russian collusion by Rosenstein was suspicious for a variety of reasons. One reason was the use of the debunked Steele dossier as a reason for opening an investigation. Adding to the mystery have been the persistent claims by Adam Schiff: "Look, you can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion”. Seems that no one else has be able to view and verify the supposed evidence. So were is Schiff's evidence? Not to mention that the Mueller report concluded in March 2019 that no collusion occurred. Of course the claim can be made that an investigation was still necessary even-though, the investigation in-the-end failed to document its need. However, emerging evidence seems to demonstrate that the evidence used to authorize the Mueller investigation was not properly vetted. Should that be true, the Mueller investigation was illegitimate.
4. As the Mueller investigation progressed, just into the Trump campaign, some people were charged and convicted of with "crimes". But these "crimes" had nothing to do with Mueller's mandate of finding collusion. The people were either charged with  "process crimes" or crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign. So, some people were found guilty of something, but the Mueller team's investigation was unable to find evidence of collusion, which was their mandate.

In reviewing each of these distinct threads, it becomes discernible that the Trump campaign was specifically targeted as a political hit-job. A man was found, Donald Trump. Then a special counsel was appointed, to show us a crime either by hook or by crook. In the end, no crime was found. We should consider ourselves fortunate that the Mueller team had at least enough ethical integrity to acknowledge that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 

 

 Picture above by Michael Ramirez from the Washington Times