RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1207428571947503616/video/1

Keep the faith America. They tried to stop the British people getting Brexit. Now they are trying to stop your President. The people will prevail. Nancy Pelosi is leading her party to their own funeral. I – for one – do not plan to attend. #ImpeachmentDay #MAGA2020

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/malice_in_blunderland.html#.XfUlW9CVq2M.twitter

Malice in Blunderland Doris O’Brien,

As if the stresses of the holiday season weren’t enough, harried Americans find themselves tumbling deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole of political insanity.

Originally orchestrated by Mad Hatter Adam Schiff, the plot of the impeachment hearings has been every bit as preposterous as that of the Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, written over a century and a half ago.  And the current cast of characters is eerily reminiscent of those in that childhood classic — if not even more bizarre.

You may recall that the original tale was about a young girl who nods off to sleep and dreams that she runs after an agitated white rabbit and unexpectedly falls into a warren of  strange misadventures from which she finally awakens — just in the nick of time to avoid the evil Red Queen’s edict, “Off with her head!”

Thus far, however, Americans have unfortunately not awakened from the nightmare of the contemporary “Malice in Blunderland,” the congressional impeachment hearings whose shifting Schiff-controlled narrative has been advanced by Trump-hating  Democrats and likeminded loathers brought into the proceedings to validate their biased claims. With its bungled series of changing charges, the presidential impeachment scenario can aptly be described as “curioser and curioser.”

If any “fun” is to be found in all of this nonsense, it might come from comparing the current wild-eyed crop of impeachment pushers to the hodgepodge of  fantastical characters Alice encounters in Wonderland.  The scampering white rabbit, for example, could well be white pants-suited Nancy Pelosi, nervously flitting here and there, eager to retain her  personal power by acquiescing to the demands  to impeach Trump, and then acknowledging — as she scurries off  to join her colleagues — “I’m late, I’m late, for a very important date.”

But the current impeachment hearings have been anything but a tea party. Mad Hatter Schiff and Dormouse Nadler – who snoozed at his own hearings! — have  played their  parallel roles looking  much like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber.  Meanwhile, at the prospect of finally impeaching her nemesis in the White House, perennial Congressional rabble-rouser Maxine Waters has been grinning like the Cheshire Cat .

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/greta-thunberg-isnt-a-hero-shes-a-victim-of-the-leftist-progressive-cult

Greta Thunberg isn’t a hero. She’s a victim of the leftist progressive cult.
TheBlaze.com

For the 16-year-old climate catastrophe prophetess turned Time Person of the Year has “How dare you’d” her way into our cultural folly, because her life has been entirely forsaken to a cause clearly not of her own choosing. From the perspective of the progressive cult, she is no less a worthy human sacrifice now than she would have been had she been aborted. Either way, all of her individuality has been subsumed by the cause.

The degree to which the poor girl is afflicted with Asperger’s, which adversely impacts socialization and communication skills, is clearly how she was able to be groomed into such a useful zealot’s frenzy of one-note rage at such a young age. Even though progressives will tell you they are about individuality and diversity — a scam I have exposed on my show many times before — what they really want is the sort of rigid, doctrinaire conformity that allows them to maximize their zeal for power and control over us all.

Greta was the perfect vessel for what other people, young and old, often try in the name of various progressive shibboleths, but can’t quite pull off because the lure of autonomy in their lives is just too strong. But the girl who just admitted she hardly spent any time talking to people before this year of pagan jubilee was programmed by her parents to live in such fear of a climate Armageddon that one neurosis was simply traded for another. Yes, that’s right. Her parents manipulated her curse of perpetual discomfort and weaponized it to suit the ends of the inglorious group think.

It’s not a coup. It’s a civil war. Phil D’Agostino,

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/its_not_a_coup_its_a_civil_war.html

Lately, it’s been convenient — and self-serving to some — to call what is going on with the Trump administration a coup.  It’s a “soft coup” or a “silent coup” or a wish-it-were-a-coup.

Let’s take a look at what that means.  According to all definitions I can find, a coup is a sudden, often violent overthrow of a government.  Every time I look up the definition of a coup, I get something like this from Merriam-Webster: “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics.”  But there is nothing sudden about this.

Have you ever thought, “What would a modern civil war look like?”  Tanks rolling down the streets of Washington, D.C.?  Missiles targeting the Congress?  Armed forces storming the White House or Capitol Building?  None of these would accomplish anything.  So what would a modern-day civil war look like?

At least since the 1960s, a faction of people have been looking for a chance to make our government conform to what they think it should be.  This faction has identified itself in many ways, and its members always embrace Marxist ideals with a top-down government run by a few.  A “law-based” government, on the other hand, would have a constitution to protect the rights of the minority from the “tyranny” of the majority.  That is what the United States of America is: a law-based government founded on the belief that those working in government are employees of the people, and not that the people are subservient to them.  And all decisions are to be based on our agreement to form such a government — that is, as spelled out in our Constitution.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/the-obamas-administrations-fisa-abuse-is-a-massive-scandal/

The Obama’s Administration’s FISA Abuse Is a Massive Scandal
David Harsanyi

All of it was to keep open a “low threshold” counterintelligence investigation into the opposition party’s political campaign during an election.

Perhaps if Democrats would momentarily shelve their obsession with Donald Trump, they’d comprehend the staggering abuse of power they’re defending these days.

Because much of Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing with DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz was jaw-dropping. Horowitz’s testimony, in fact, sounded little like the media depiction of the IG report only the day before. Most major outlets had stressed that the IG had found no bias in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. But failing to uncover explicit instances of bias and exonerating the FBI aren’t the same thing.

Worse, most of the media had buried the lede. An honest headline would have read something like: “Obama’s FBI cooked up evidence to keep rickety investigation into Trump campaign going.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/impeachment_and_the_confrontation_clause.html  

By W. Bruce DelValle

Beware of those who promise to secure rights by denying them.

The clamoring likes of Rep. Andrew Schiff, Conservative Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, the Washington Post’s Deanna Paul, Professor Steve Vladeck, and others similarly ill-advised — the “Constitutional Deniers” — are intellectually and historically errant to suggest that the Constitution has no place in congressional proceedings and processes – especially impeachment proceedings. 

These Constitutional Deniers use the hollow argument that impeachment is not a criminal process, therefore the Sixth Amendment does not apply. While it is a political process, impeachment is shorn more in the cloth of a criminal process than that of a civil proceeding.

The arguments to the contrary are devoid of even a modicum of intellectual credibility or historic reflection. The very fact that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are the entry point to begin the impeachment process seems to have evaded the Constitutional Deniers and the witless epigones of the Democratic Party. Federalist 65 recognizes that the impeachment process is a matter of “innocence or guilt” — alien terms in a civil proceeding.  

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/of-course-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaign

Of course the FBI spied on the Trump campaign
Byron York, WashingtonExaminer.com

The great debate about whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign continues. The question is why there is still any argument. The newly released report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz shows that by any definition the FBI did indeed spy.

The proof is in the details of the report. In addition to the much-discussed wiretap of Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Horowitz discussed the bureau’s use of what is called a CHS (a confidential human source, or, in more common terms, an informant) and a UCE (an undercover employee, or a secret agent) to gather information from at least three targets in the Trump campaign. One was Page, another was George Papadopoulos, also a member of the advisory team, and the third was an unnamed “high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us

The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.

Horowitz did say that the original decision to investigate was within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department. That standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring “articulable facts.” He said that, since this is a low discretionary standard, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start. United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the usual step of issuing a statement that he did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion at the beginning of the investigation.

Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. Nevertheless, the Justice Department has a standard requiring the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it is the campaign of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-09/opinion-trump-impeachment-hearings-democrats?_amp=true#click=https://t.co/FnzdfdzpOk

Jonathan Turley: Democrats need to connect more dots to impeach – Los Angeles Times

The problem with the evidence presented so far in congressional hearings on impeaching President Trump is that it can be viewed very differently depending on your perspective.

Last week artist Maurizio Cattelan reportedly sold his art piece “Comedian,” for $120,000. The work consisted of nothing more than a banana affixed to the wall with duct tape.
Some viewers of the piece saw art. Some saw hype. One person, performance artist David Datuna, saw lunch and proceeded to walk up and eat it. (It was later replaced by another banana and fresh duct tape).