Who’s Putting Who in Chains?

By Daren Williams{americanthinker.com } ~ It was in August, 2012, during the final months of the scumbag/liar-nObama reelection campaign, when then-Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden made the ham-fisted statement to a Danville… Virginia crowd which included many black Americans, that rino-Mitt Romney would, “put y’all back in chains,” by cutting regulations on Wall Street.  His gaffe was a clumsy attempt to slander rino-Romney and all Republicans by intimating their desire to put Americans ‘back’ in chains, interpreted by the hypersensitive liberal Left as a twisted reference to slavery. But unfortunately many Americans, especially blacks, believe this to be a truism — that Republicans are oppressors and slavemasters to be eradicated from the American landscape. The notion is ludicrous, both literally and figuratively. Given that Republicans freed American blacks from the slavery imposed by Democrats, the idea of the GOP somehow putting them back in chains is stupefyingly ignorant. This ignorance is exceeded only by the preposterousness of thinking that cutting the size and power of the federal government equals slavery when in fact, it is precisely the opposite that is true. President Donald Trump has been gradually unchaining Americans, especially blacks, from the slavery of big government, excessive regulation, high taxes, bad economic policy and a prejudicial criminal justice system. Black unemployment is the lowest in recorded American history. More people are working than ever in the history of the republic. More than a million children have been lifted from the chains of poverty and never have so many black men been given a chance for release from an unfair criminal justice system. It is for these reasons that President Donald Trump is, and will continue to be, portrayed by a dishonest Left as racist and wanting to shackle/chain/ enslave blacks — the polar opposite of reality. loose lips liar-Biden won’t admit it publicly but he knows, as do other powerful Democrats, that Trump is the biggest single threat to their plans to bring socialism to America. Trump has blown up their timetable, so he must be driven from office, not by being defeated at the ballot box but through impeachment. For a moment, let’s imagine that President Donald Trump is impeached, driven from office and hauled off to jail, and that Democrats win the White House in 2020, keep the House of Representatives and secure the Senate. What about those “chains” Uncle loose lips liar-Joe talked about? Democrats are promising to repeal the Trump tax cuts, shackling the household wealth of all Americans to a ravenous federal Treasury…https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/whos_putting_who_in_chains.html  

Democrats’ Decision to Televise Trump Impeachment Hearings Could Prove Politically Perilous

by ijr.com ~ Democrats in the U.S. Congress took a major step toward impeaching President Donald Trump this week when they agreed on the rules for publicly televised hearings after weeks of testimony behind closed doors… But it is also a step onto more politically perilous terrain for a party seeking to persuade Americans that their cause to remove Republican Trump, who they accuse of abusing his power, is just. Leaders of the Democratic-run U.S. House of Representatives believe that putting the main witnesses on TV will convince independent voters and other doubters that Trump was wrong in asking the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on a political rival, Democrat loose lips liar-Joe Biden, who hopes to be the candidate to oust Trump in the 2020 election. While Republicans and the president face great political risk in the hearings, so do Democrats. They must present themselves as sober and trustworthy investigators, former congressional aides and analysts said. “The allegations – and what the president has admitted to – are serious enough. They don’t need embellishment. They just need explanation,” said Mieke Eoyang, a former aide to the House Intelligence Committee who works for the Democratic think tank Third Way. Lawmakers will have to avoid the urge to grandstand before a TV audience of millions, Eoyang said. “The hardest thing for members in an open hearing is to remember they are not the star of the thing.” Republicans have painted the Democratic-led inquiry as a purely partisan exercise and will seek to present a different picture of Trump to the masses of viewers…https://ijr.com/democrats-decision-televise-trump-impeachment-hearings/  

U.S. Energy Chief Perry Refuses to Testify in Trump Impeachment Inquiry

by ijr.com ~ U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, a member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet who has played a pivotal role in the Ukraine controversy… will refuse to testify as requested next week in the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry against Trump, an Energy Department spokeswoman said on Friday. Perry’s refusal represented the latest instance of Trump’s administration refusing to cooperate in the fast-moving inquiry in the House of Representatives. Trump said on Oct. 17 that Perry was resigning from his Cabinet post and would step down by the end of the year. Perry, White House budget office acting director Russell Vought and two other officials were asked to testify on Wednesday next week in a closed session before the three House committees leading the inquiry, an official working on the probe said. The inquiry focuses on a July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate political rival loose lips liar-Joe Biden, a former U.S. vice president and a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face him in the 2020 election, and his son Hunter, who had served as a director for a Ukrainian energy company. Democrats have accused Trump of abusing his power and trying to pressure a vulnerable U.S. ally to interfere in an American election for his own political benefit…  https://ijr.com/perry-refuses-testify-trump-impeachment-inquiry/    

Trump Says Homeland Security Official Chad Wolf Will Be New Acting DHS Secretary

by ijr.com ~ Chad Wolf, a little-known policy staffer at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will be the agency’s new acting secretary… said President Donald Trump, whose hard-line immigration policies are spearheaded by the DHS. There have been a spate of departures at the DHS in recent months that have depleted its leadership ranks. The vacancies left the Republican Trump’s administration with no confirmed successor to outgoing acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, whose resignation was announced last month. “I put in a very good man who’s highly respected, and he’s acting right now. We’ll see where that goes,” Trump said when asked by reporters at the White House on Friday if Wolf would be the next DHS secretary. White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said McAleenan would step down after Nov. 11 and Wolf would then assume the position. Wolf will take control of the department as Trump pushes his immigration crackdown in the run-up to the 2020 election. The secretary plays a crucial and visible role in the implementation of Trump’s enforcement agenda. But Wolf, who previously was a top aide to former secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, has kept a low profile during his time in the administration. Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson, head of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement that the appointment of “someone without the necessary experience just points to the dysfunction that has plagued DHS since the first days of the Trump administration.”…  https://ijr.com/chad-wolf-new-acting-dhs-secretary/  

Connecticut: Where Ridicule is a Crime

by Alan M. Dershowitz{gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ Two students at the University of Connecticut have been charged with the crime of ridiculing African Americans by shouting the N-word as part of a childishly inappropriate game… A video of the incident went viral and generated protests on and off the campus. Outrageous as shouting this racist epithet is, the First Amendment protects it from criminal prosecution or other governmental sanctions. The Connecticut General Statute under which the students were charged is just about as unconstitutional as any statute can be. It is not even a close case. Here is what the statute criminalizes: Section 53-37 – Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor. “Ridicules or holds up to contempt”! Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were this absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians, professors and other students. Consider, for example, ridiculing people based on nationality. Sacha Baron Cohen, based on his films, would be guilty on multiple accounts. So would Mel Brooks. African American comedians often ridicule “whitey.” Feminist stand-up comedians mock men mercilessly.  Or consider “holds up to contempt” — half the faculty of many universities, including some at University of Connecticut — would be guilty for holding up Israel to contempt. Or students who attack other students for “white privilege” or “male privilege” would be committing a crime. Or pro-choice students or faculty who mock Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion or gay rights. Where would it stop?… https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15108/connecticut-ridicule-censorship  

What Baghdadi’s Death Tells Us About the Real Terror Threat

By DANIEL GREENFIELD{jihadwatch.org } ~ Always look for the country behind the curtain. What’s the best place to look for the terrorist leader of a defeated Islamic terrorist group?… When his men are on the run, look for his hideout in or near the country that sponsors him. We didn’t find Osama bin Laden hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, but in a compound in a Pakistani military city. And Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the former Caliph of ISIS, wasn’t hanging out in his home turf, but in an area controlled by Turkey and its allied Islamist militias right off the Turkish border. Osama bin Laden’s death confirmed the reports of his ties to Pakistan, and Baghdadi’s death confirmed the rumors of the links between ISIS and Turkey. Those links may not as run as deep as those between Pakistan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, but when Baghdadi wanted someplace to hide out with his family, he didn’t huddle with his forces, but picked a location under the shadow of the Turkish military. As Robert Spencer, an expert on the theology and geopolitics of Islamic terrorism, noted, “It strains credulity that Turkey, with its interests in northern Syria, did not know he was there. Al-Baghdadi was killed in Barisha in the Idlib province, a town of no more than 2,500 people right on the Turkish border.” Where did we actually find the Caliph of ISIS? Allegedly, he’d been living in the home of Abu Mohammed Salama, a Hurras al-Din leader. The Islamic terror group, whose name means Guardians of Religion, had been listed as Al Qaeda in Syria in its Specially Designated Global Terrorist designation. Hurras al-Din had formerly been part of Tahrir al-Sham which has been cooperating closely with Turkey. One of Tahrir’s four components was the Al-Nusra Front, which was formerly the official Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. While the US bombs Tahrir al-Sham, Turkey, a NATO member, works with it. If a NATO member is openly working with an Al Qaeda faction, how can it possibly be trusted?…  https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/11/what-baghdadis-death-tells-us-about-the-real-terror-threat    

Vote Harvesting a Recipe for Coercion, Election Fraud

 Hans von Spakovsky

Vote harvesting gives party activists, campaign consultants, and other political guns for hire the ability to manipulate election outcomes either through coercion of voters or outright ballot theft and forgery. Yet, in places such as California and the District of Columbia, vote harvesting is perfectly legal.Vote harvesting occurs when third parties — campaign workers, for example — collect absentee ballots from voters and deliver them to election officials.Most people had never heard that term until the 2018 elections. In North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, the Republican candidate was accused of illegal vote harvesting and, ultimately, the state election board overturned the election.Meanwhile, on the West Coast, concerns about vote harvesting were raised in California after unexpected losses by Republicans in several congressional races. Concerns were especially acute in Orange County, where the registrar of voters reported that individuals were dropping off hundreds of absentee ballots each.All states allow an individual to vote with an absentee ballot, often referred to as a mail-in ballot. The completed ballots are usually mailed back to local election officials, although voters can personally deliver their ballots, too.Nine states also allow a member of the voter’s family to hand-deliver the voted ballot; another 13 states don’t specify whether someone other than the voter can hand-deliver the ballot on the voter’s behalf.The vote-harvesting issue arises in the District and the 27 states that allow anyone to pick up an absentee ballot from a voter and deliver it to election officials. The contrast between these two approaches can be seen in North Carolina and California.North Carolina allows “a voter’s near relative or the voter’s verifiable legal guardian” to return an absentee ballot. California had a similar law that allowed a relative or household member to return an absentee ballot. The law was amended in 2016, effective in the 2018 election, and now allows a voter to “designate any person to return the ballot.”Allowing individuals other than the voter or his immediate family to handle absentee ballots is a recipe for mischief and wrongdoing.Neither voters nor election officials can verify that the secrecy of the ballot was not compromised, or that the ballot submitted in the voter’s name by a third party accurately reflects the voter’s choices and was not fraudulently changed by the vote harvester. And there is no guarantee that vote harvesters won’t simply discard the ballots of voters whose political preferences for candidates of the opposition party are known.It also gives campaign and political party intermediaries the ability to influence voters while they are casting a ballot out of election officials’ sight and without any supervision by them.Thus, there is no one present to ensure that voters are not being coerced, intimidated, threatened, or paid for their vote.The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database contains cases illustrating this problem. They include the conviction in 2017 of the former mayor of Eatonville, Florida, for coercing absentee voters to cast ballots for him — ballots that won him the election.Then there is the former mayor of Martin, Kentucky, who (along with her husband and son) was convicted in 2014 for threatening and intimidating poor and disabled citizens into casting absentee ballots for her, including ballots that the mayor had filled out.Obviously, there needs to be a way for individuals who cannot vote in person on Election Day due to illness or some other valid reason to cast a vote, and absentee ballots are the easiest way to make that possible. But the rules governing absentee ballots should not make them susceptible to theft, forgery, or coercion.That is exactly what states are doing when they allow vote harvesting. Giving third parties who have a stake in the outcome of an election unsupervised access to voters and their absentee ballots is not wise.Indeed, it is a proven threat to the integrity of our elections.   ~The Patriot Post



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *