Thursday Top Headline Summary

by Media Editors: Political witch hunt: “President Trump on Wednesday denounced House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag-Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) as a ‘political hack’ for opening a sweeping investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia and his personal finances,” The Hill reports. The new investigation “extends beyond alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia that would examine whether Trump’s decisions as president have been motivated by financial gain.”

“House Democrats will take their first step toward obtaining President Donald Trump’s personal tax returns, convening a hearing Thursday to examine legislative proposals and laws dictating the process to acquire the documents,” according to ABC News. “Democratic leaders have argued that the filings could produce a road map for investigations into Trump’s tangle of global businesses and provide a cure for anxiety caused by his refusal to share details about his wealth, debt, charitable giving and potential conflicts of interests.” The only “cure for anxiety” Democrats are after is Trump’s impeachment.

Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax may soon be pushed out the exit. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is urging Fairfax, who is accused of sexual assault stemming from an incident in 2004, to step down. NOW President Toni Van Pelt says the accuser’s account “is horrifying, compelling and clear as day — and we believe her.” (National Review)

Apologies ad nauseam: “Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren, D-Mass., on Wednesday was once again forced to apologize for claiming Native American ancestry on a 1986 registration card for the Texas state bar, and left the door open that there may be more documents out there with a similar claim,” Fox News reports. Her latest apology is just a few days removed from her quietly giving a private mea culpa to the chief of the Cherokee Nation.

Last year was another warm one, according to government scientists. In fact, the current five-year period is the warmest on record. Democrats are complaining that climate change was absent from President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address, but the U.S. is doing its part to reduce emissions. That’s not the case with other nations, which is why the Green New Deal, the goals of which were unveiled today, is senseless. In any event, there are more unknowns than there are knowns.

“Cutting the supply of prescription opioids has been a popular intervention to fight the drug crisis. But, according to a study released last week by the Journal of the American Medical Association, these interventions are likely to cut opioid deaths by only 3 to 6 percent by 2025.” Read why The Washington Free Beacon says that “policymakers must think bigger to stop opioid deaths.”

Not satire: “Calls for Liam Neeson to be removed from the upcoming ‘Men In Black’ film are making the rounds on social media after the actor made highly controversial statements about wanting to find and kill a black person.” (Fox News)

Humor: Elizabeth dinky-Warren admits to wearing paleface at college costume party (The Babylon Bee)

Policy: What can be done to improve retirees’ security? The American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew G. Biggs recently testified before the House Ways & Means Committee “to discuss developments in retirement income policy in the United States.”

Policy: Assuming Congress doesn’t fund a border barrier, the president is almost guaranteed to declare an emergency. And according to National Review’s John Yoo, he’s got the law on his side.

~The Patriot Post


Manafort and dirty cop-Mueller attorneys clash, judge yet to make a decision

by Jerry McCormick

{} ~ Monday may have been the first good “legal” day for former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in quite some time… In a closed hearing, Manafort’s attorneys stood toe-to-toe with the dirty cop-Mueller legal team in an effort to get his plea deal reinstated. The judge seemed willing to listen too — Manafort’s attorneys spent more than four hours battling it out for their client. The transcripts of the case have yet to be revealed, as the judge has ordered both parties to present their redactions by Wednesday close of business. Manafort’s team argued that Manafort never intentionally lied, just that he was unclear of certain events as well as some timelines. Once his memory was refreshed, however, they say he told the truth as he knew it…


Democrats’ Astoundingly Unconstitutional Campaign-Finance Bill


{} ~ Today, House Democrats are holding hearings on a monstrous, 571-page election- and campaign-finance-reform bill called the “For the People Act of 2019.”… I can think of other, more accurate, names — like the “First Amendment Demolition Act,” or perhaps the “Federalism Repeal Act,” or maybe, most accurate of all, the “Constitutional Lawyers Enrichment Act,” because the passage of the law would trigger a full decade at least of litigation on numerous constitutional fronts. At its essence, the bill federalizes control over elections to an unprecedented scale, expands government power over political speech, mandates increased disclosures of private citizens’ personal information down to name and address, places conditions on citizen contact with legislators that inhibits citizens’ freedom of expression, and then places enforcement of most of these measures in the hands of a revamped Federal Election Commission that is far more responsive to presidential influence. The bill is too long and complex to analyze in its entirety in one essay, but let’s pull out a few components. The bill contains a section misleadingly entitled “Stopping Super PAC-Candidate Coordination” that dramatically expands government regulation of political speech and contact with candidates for public office. These provisions not only work to flatly prohibit constitutionally protected speech, but their sheer scope would also chill a considerable amount of protected speech as law-abiding citizens try to steer clear of violating broad and vague laws…


Trump goes big, uses delayed State of the Union to make case on border, much more

by Byron York

{} ~ When House Speaker Nancy Pulosi, D-Calif., disinvited President Trump from delivering the State of the Union on its originally scheduled date, Jan. 29… the White House and Republicans in Congress brainstormed about what to do. Should Trump travel somewhere, such as the U.S.-Mexico border, and give his speech there? Should he show up at the Capitol on the 29th and demand to speak? Should he deliver the address in writing, as it was for many years of the nation’s history? Fortunately for Trump, none of those ideas passed muster. Then, when the partial government shutdown was temporarily resolved, the speaker relented and invited the president to appear Feb. 5. Trump agreed, which to some Republicans seemed like a surrender but was in fact a wise decision. Trump realized that there simply was no equally good alternative to delivering the State of the Union from the House chamber, with most of the United States government gathered inside and millions watching not only on the cable news channels but the broadcast entertainment networks, too. That was especially true with the issue that sparked the shutdown — Trump’s proposal for a barrier along some parts of the southern border — still unresolved. A House-Senate conference committee has a little more than a week to come to an agreement over the barrier, or the government could well shut down again. With both sides dug in, the State of the Union was Trump’s best chance to make his case to the American people that the barrier should be part of a broader border policy. Trump had already tried a prime-time address to the nation, on Jan. 8, and failed to move the needle. The State of the Union was his last chance. But it was also a chance to make a much bigger case — a case for the results Trump has achieved during his presidency and his agenda for the rest of his term. And Trump made the best of that chance. The speech was big, not just in length — about 80 minutes — but also in concept. It had a structure. It had a message. It had passages to appeal to all Americans. It had passages to appeal to Trump’s conservative base. And it had passages to appeal to opposition Democrats, who otherwise hated nearly every word of it…


China to Reorient the Bible to Promote Socialism, Create a New Christianity

by Olivia Enos

{} ~ China’s attempts to secularize religion have spilled over into rewriting the Bible… Under the direction of the Chinese government, two Protestant organizations in China, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement and the Chinese Christian Council, created a five-year plan to reorient the Bible to promote socialism and create a new Christianity that favors the communist government’s agenda. The goal is to eradicate any form of Christianity deemed to threaten the authority of the Chinese state and replace it with a form that advances the Communist Party’s ends. This secularizing process is known as sicinization. New reports on the five-year plan from the Rev. Bob Fu, founder of the persecution watchdog organization ChinaAid, come in the wake of intensifying persecution of Christians throughout China… This bible is not Gods Words. Rev. 22:18-19


Reintroducing Tax Subsidies That Benefit Only a Few Americans Is a Terrible Idea

by Adam Michel

{} ~ Every few years, Congress renews a list of expiring tax subsidies called “tax extenders” at the behest of powerful industry lobbyists. Instead of returning to business as usual in the swamp… Congress should focus on fixing a few mistakes in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would benefit all Americans. The 2017 tax reform package was supposed to end the practice of implementing temporary extenders, but wealthy corporate interests haven’t gone quietly into the night. There are about 26 narrowly tailored special-interest tax privileges that expired at the end of 2017. At the end of 2018, a bipartisan group of policy organizations recommended, “Congress should not insert these policies back into the tax code now or in the future.” It was right. Each extender grants an economic privilege, tailored to some particular group or business interest. By picking winners and losers, these corrupt policies reduce opportunity for individuals and businesses that Congress does not shower with special favors…


Homosexuals Reject ‘Transgender’ Claim

by Culture Beat: Some members of the homosexual lobby are beginning to ring the warning bells concerning the growing threat posed by “transgender” ideology. In a recent article published in New York Magazine, Andrew Sullivan, a journalist who is himself homosexual, argues that there are obvious problems with the leftist proposal to expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include protections for “transgender” persons. Sullivan notes that the proposal would redefine “sex” to include “gender identity” and defines it as “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words, the biology-based definition of sex would be thrown out in favor of a socially constructed self-definition paradigm, irrespective of biology. Sullivan pointedly observes the cultural conundrum such a redefinition would create:

And the truth is that many lesbians and gay men are quite attached to the concept of sex as a natural, biological, material thing. Yes, we are very well aware that sex can be expressed in many different ways. A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. We are men and attracted to other men. If the concept of a man is deconstructed, so that someone without a penis is a man, then homosexuality itself is deconstructed. Transgender people pose no threat to us, and the vast majority of gay men and lesbians wholeheartedly support protections for transgender people. But transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept.

And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it’s all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not?

As Mark Alexander wrote in “The Gender Deniers,” “There is no such thing as ‘transgendered,’ and the word itself constitutes an egregious deception. A gender-disoriented person may ‘identify’ as the other gender, but they will always be the same gender they were at conception. The notion of so-called ‘gender reassignment’ is equally fallacious.”

Thus, to hear Sullivan come to virtually the same conclusion is another marker on the road as the homosexual lobby tries to figure out what to do with the “transgendered” lobby. It is not compatible. ~The Patriot Post


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