Impeachment Pop Quiz

pop-quizBelow is a series of questions designed to cut through the din of information and get to some simple bottom lines. The answers to these questions are at the end with links to the various sources that validate them as accurate.

Here we go!

1) What are the Democrats accusing President Trump of that constitutes an impeachable offense?

a) accepting money from the Ukrainian government
b) stealing money from the Russians
c) withholding aid from the Ukrainians in exchange for investigating a political opponent

2) True of False: President Trump has released a transcript of the phone call that happened between him and President Zelensky where he supposedly said that he would not give them military aid unless they investigate Joe Biden.

3) True or False: President Zelensky insists that there was no quid pro quo dynamic in the conversation he had with President Trump

4) The Democrats have assembled the information they believe to be pertinent to the hearings behind closed door and have allowed…

a) some Republicans to attend the meetings
b) any Republican who’s interested in hearing the evidence they plan on presenting
c) no Republicans to attend whatsoever

5) Initially, President Trump was accused of “quid pro quo,” then he was accused of “extortion.” Finally, the accusation was defined as “bribery.” The reason for these changes was…

a) legal experts were allowed to weigh in and better define Trump’s actions
b) members of Congress were given the opportunity to better define what it was that Trump had done
c) The Washington Times polled their readers and was able to determine that “bribery” was a more marketable term

6) Every key witness (Yavonvitch, Kent, Taylor, Sondland) has had one thing in common where their testimony is concerned. What is that common denominator?

a) they all work for the state department
b) they have no first hand knowledge of the phone call in question
c) they were not able to specify an impeachable offense
d) all of the above

7) Gordon Sondland initially generated a lot of excitement when he said in his opening testimony that everyone knew President Trump had demanded a quid pro quo from President Zelensky. Upon being questioned, however, his testimony seemed to change when being questioned by Chairman Adam Schiff when he said…

a) “When I asked President Trump, ‘What do you want from Ukraine,’ he said, ‘I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky I want him to do the right thing.'”
b) “President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement [the statement being,”Clear things up and do it in public.”].”
c) both a and b

8) George Kent, one of the Democrats’ witnesses, recommended that the placement of Hunter Biden on the Executive Board of Burisma, a Ukrainian Power Company that pays him $83,500.00 a month, needs to be investigated. This is the very thing Trump was asking President Zelensky to consider. True of False?

9) Lt Colonel Vindman is the only witness that actually heard the call placed by President Trump to President Zelensky. He believed the call to be “improper” because, according to him, having come from a “military culture,” Trump’s request for information about Joe Biden sounded like a command more so than a favor. Lt. Colonel Vindman’s indignation seems somewhat bizarre, however, in light of the fact that…

a) a military culture doesn’t explain why Vindman would interpret the call the way that he did
b) Trump didn’t mention anything about Joe Biden in his call to Zelensky
c) Vindman is more determined to transform Trump’s call to Zelensky as a quid pro quo than he is in acknowledging the obvious quid pro quo represented by then Vice President Joe Biden blatantly telling the Ukrainian government that they had six hours to fire a prosecutor if they wanted the billion dollars of aid that had been promised

10) Did the Trump administration provide the kind of military aid to Ukraine that was previously refused by Obama?

a) Yes
b) No

Answers


#1 c) withholding aid from the Ukrainians in exchange for investigating a political opponent

While impeachment has been a goal of the Democrats since Trump took office, it was the recent “whistleblower” that insisted that Trump threatened to withhold federal aid from Ukraine unless they investigated Joe Biden. Click here to hear more and advance the video to 12:57.

#2 True

You can see a full transcript of the call between President Trump and President Zelensky at by clicking here.

#3 True

President Zelensky insisted there was no quid pro quo between himself and with President Trump. Click here to read more.

#4 c) no Republicans to attend whatsoever

The Democrats have prepared their entire case for impeachment in a manner that is entirely partisan and have allowed no Republicans to attend any of the meetings. Click here to read more.

#5  c) The Washington Times polled their readers and was able to determine that “bribery” was a more marketable term

The Democrats wanted to “market” their platform in the best possible manner which is why they changed their accusations to better match what the polls said would resonate better with the masses. Click here to read more.

#6 d) all of the above

Diplomats are not elected. Rather they are appointed and often fluctuate depending on who’s in the Oval Office. The conversation that the President had with Zelensky was not something heard by any of the aforementioned witnesses and none of them were able to specify an impeachable offense. Click here to watch a summary Kent and Taylor’s testimony. Click here to watch Yavonvitch’s testimony. Click here to watch a breakdown of Sondland’s testimony and advance the video to 10:26.

#7 c) both a and b

Sondland seemed to be the perfect indictment until it was revealed that his accusations were based totally on hearsay and assumptions. Click here to watch his testimony.

#8 True

George Kent knew Burisma was corrupt and wanted to see it investigated. Here’s footage of his testimony. Go to 8:54.

#9 Vindman is more determined to transform Trump’s call to Zelensky as a quid pro quo than he is in acknowledging the obvious quid pro quo represented by then Vice President Joe Biden blatantly telling the Ukrainian government that they had six hours to fire a prosecutor if they wanted the billion dollars of aid that had been promised

Vindman is more than willing to superimpose his interpretation of a “favor” versus an “order” on to President Trump’s exchange with President Zelensky, but when asked about Joe Biden’s blatant quid pro quo with Ukraine, he’s unwilling to admit the obvious. Click here to see his exchange with Congressman Chris Stewart.

#10 Yes

Obama refused lethal military aid to Ukraine because Obama was concerned about upsetting US / Russia relations and, as a result, Ukraine was attacked and the area of Crimea was annexed to Russia. Trump, on the other hand, after having first taken the time to determine whether or not the kind of corruption that accommodated Joe Biden as well interfered with the 2016 election on behalf of the Democrats, appropriated aid to Ukraine which included Javelin antit-tank missles. Click here to read more.

 

Vocabulary Test

schoolHate, Fear, Propaganda, White Supremacy, Judgmental, Homophobe, Islamaphobe, Misogynist, Social Justice, Compassion

Imagine you’re back in school for a moment and the teacher has just announced that you’re going to take a “pop quiz” on some vocabulary words as they’re used by the Left. The words you’re being tested on are above.

Are you ready?

Go!

How did you do?

Here are the answers:

Hate – a word used to transform anyone that is guilty of wrong doing into a victim so as to make them appear innocent

Fear – a word used to create a flaw in the character of a person who is articulating an argument a Liberal can’t refute

Propaganda – any platform that rightly differs from the liberal mindset

White Supremacy – anything championed by a Caucasian that doesn’t unjustly favor a minority

Judgmental – what a guilty person says when they’re being criticized for doing something immoral

Homophobe – a combination of “fear” and “judgmental.” A tactic used to criticize the character of anyone who supports conservative Christian values.

Islamaphobe – again, another combination of “fear” and “judgmental.” A tactic used to minimize the toxic dynamics of militant Islam while simultaneously highlight the abuses and distortions of the Christian faith. This works well too as far as redefining out nation’s Christian heritage as something ignorant and sinister.

Misogynist – someone who isn’t willing to force an employer to finance a woman’s sexual practices

Social Justice – a form a financial favoritism that awards people things they would otherwise have to earn.

Compassion – strategic subsidies given to ensure a person’s financial status never changes in order to guarantee they vote for a Democrat

Spin – the truthful logic that characterizes the typical Conservative the the Left can neither silence or refute

For more on the way “hate” and “fear” is used by the media, head out to Fear and Hate – Start Listening for Those Words.

I Want Hillary as President (said the Kremlin)!

525px-Uranium_One_logo.svgDo you know anything about Uranium One?

Here’s the way it looks:

Uranium One is the name of a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes all over the world including the western part of the United States. In 2010, the US Regulatory Commission estimated that Uranium One had extraction rights to 20% of the uranium embedded in US soil.

In 2010, ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian Nuclear Energy company, acquired a controlling interest in Uranium One. The sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. That committee was formed by President Gerald Ford in 1975 and is comprised of several heads of state including the Secretary of State.

In 2010, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State.

According to a New York Times article, there were actually three separate transactions that resulted in greater control of Uranium One and it was during that time that a suspicious flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.  By default, each of those transactions had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment / Hillary Clinton.

Here’s a portion of that article:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Hillary blames Russian interference for her loss to President Trump despite the fact he defeated her in the Electoral College by a margin of 304 to 227. She recently attempted to smear Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat candidate for President, by insisting that she’s a Russian plant. She references Russian influence in every way shape and form except for the way it most obviously applies: Her own scandals and crimes against the US.

It is possible to minimize the role of Hillary Clinton and even Barack Obama in this scenario to the point where it looks like everything is ethical albeit questionable. But in order to do so, you have to first accept the reality that a material used for the construction of nuclear weapons is being sold to Russia and is being approved by the Oval Office and the Secretary of State.

You can supplement that scenario with as many dynamics and concessions as you wish, but in the end you have a blatant breach of national security made worse by the coincidental financial “contributions” made to the Clinton Foundation.

However you want to process that, if I were a high ranking official in the Russian government and was given the opportunity to influence an election, I would want someone with a track record of deals and compromises that benefit me.

Can you hear that person? Can you hear how they’re defining “Russian Collusion?”

Here it comes…

I want Hillary as President!

Watch How the Media Reports on Turkey and Syria

_109132731_mediaitem109132505This morning the Wall Street Journal had this as a headline:

Turkey Agrees to Pause Syria Fight

The next sentence read like this:

Turkey agreed to suspend military operations in northern Syria for five days in return for a U.S. pledge to facilitate a pullout by Syiran Kurdish fighters, a deal President Trump hailed as an “an amazing outcome,” but that some critics said mainly fulfilled Turkish goals.”

Here’s the thing…

Since 2002 Syria has been in the military cross hairs of the United States because of their support of terrorism. There are elements within Syria, however, that are opposed to terrorism and want a democracy that respects human rights and religious freedom. These are the Kurds. They represent between 7% and 10% of the Syrian population and have established a self-governing region in northeastern Syria. They are perpetually compelled to engage in military operations, however, in order to fight the Turks from the north and the militant Muslims to the west.

The Turks rule the Kurds within their borders with an iron fist. They’re so intimidated by their Kurdish population that they’ve decided that their Kurdish neighbors in Syria represent an extension of the threat they feel in their own homeland, especially given the way the Syrian Kurdish Militia (called the People’s Protection Unites [YPG]) has been so successful in defeating the Islamic State (IS) within Syria with the aid of US-led multinational air strikes. They see the YPG as being sympathetic to those they define as Kurdish rebels within their own country.

President Trump worked with Turkey’s President Recap Tayyip Erdogan to create a “safe zone” in north eastern Syria. It would be a 20-30 mile area that would separate the border between north eastern Syria and Turkey. The Kurds complied and dismantled all of their military defenses in that area.

Once the US withdrew its support however, Turkey began carrying out military operations in the agreed upon safe zone. In their defense, there are members of the cancerous Islamic State who have infiltrated the Syrian fighters and it is a mess. But it’s because of America’s withdrawal from the area that Turkey was emboldened to initiate military attacks and it’s for this reason that President Trump has been criticized despite his having promised that he would bring our troops home who have been serving and dying in this area for several years.

Yesterday, President Trump returned from Turkey having met with President Erdogan and gotten him to agree to a five day cease fire. During that cease fire, the Kurds are going to move out of the “safe zone” and Turkey will put a halt to any and all military activity in that area. This was done following Trump’s having threatened Turkey with substantial sanctions that would’ve been difficult to endure.

The resulting cease fire is significant. And what makes it significant is that Trump is keeping his promise to withdraw our troops AND maintain a force for good in the region.

But that’s not how the press is presenting it. Had any other Democratic figure been this successful in negotiating with Turkey and the Kurds in Syria, they would’ve been hailed as a brilliant statesman.

Some want to insist that America should remain in Syria and continue spending money lives in the context of a struggle that is rooted in religious and political unrest that has been in place for centuries. Others recognize the futility represented in involving one’s self in an argument that isn’t solved by the logic of democracy or the force of weaponry. Perhaps Proverbs 26:17 should be considered in the midst of all this…?

What Trump was able to accomplish represents the best approach in that it facilitates peace through the strength of sanctions that can be deployed from a laptop and the power of negotiations that can be delivered from a conference table. Mind you, neither one of those two things are effective unless they’re coming from someone what has the will and wherewith all to fight…

…and that’s why Trump can pull it off and that’s why it will work.

But that’s not how the media will present it and it’s that refusal to give Trump any credit that reveals them as the biased and sinister force that they are.

 

For further reading: The BBC has an excellent article that expounds on the history and the details surrounding the Kurds in Syria, Turkey and US involvement which you can access by clicking here.

Reparations and Being Sorry for Being White

slavesIn addition to the quality content represented by the Prager U video that you can access by clicking on the image to the right, I wanted to add yet another point to the conversation pertaining to reparations and apologizing for being white.

Here it is: The Civil War was fought over how we as a nation were resolved to define a human being. Granted, Lincoln’s initial concern was the preservation of the Union. But the Emancipation Proclamation was the legislative manifestation of Lincoln’s belief that the only Union worth preserving was a Union that was devoid of slavery. And if you consider the debates he had with Stephen Douglas leading up to his nomination, he references race specifically. It wasn’t just the Slave Trade, according to Lincoln, it was the enslavement of a specifc race justified by the nonsensical belief that ethnicity defined one’s humanity.

That’s what the Civil War was about.

To be ashamed of being caucasian is to ignore the fact that Lincoln was white as were the over 300,000 white soldiers who died to make his point.

I am not ashamed of being white because I do not evaluate my ethnicity by the mindset of the Antebellum South any more than I would expect a black man to guage his worth according to the atrocities committed by Idi Amin.

Race is not what defines you, it is your individual character that matters. The ranks of caucasians include several sinister characters, but they also include Abraham Lincoln and Billy Graham. The African American demographic includes a number of flawed individuals but it also includes Fredrick Douglas and George Washington Carver.

To be ashamed of your race is to adopt a cowardly perspective on yourself and the world around you because it means that you’re dismissing an individual’s responsibility to be moral and instead blaming it on the pigmentation of one’s skin.

And what’s ironic is that these people who are apologizing for being white are being just as racist as their Jim Crow counterparts in that they’re focusing on race rather than responsibility.

And it needs to stop…

Impeachment Inquiry Begins…?

Screen Shot 2019-09-27 at 9.45.32 AM

In May 2016, Joe Biden, as Barack Obama’s designated point man on Ukraine, flew to Kiev to inform President Petro Poroshenko that a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee had been approved to enable Kiev to continue to service its mammoth debt.

But, said Biden, the aid was conditional. There was a quid pro quo.

If Poroshenko’s regime did not fire its chief prosecutor in six hours, Biden would fly home and Ukraine would get no loan guarantee. Ukraine capitulated instantly, said Joe, reveling in his pro-consul role.

Yet, left out of Biden’s drama about how he dropped the hammer on a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was this detail.

The prosecutor had been investigating Burisma Holdings, the biggest gas company in Ukraine. And right after the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the pro-Russian government in Kiev, and after Joe Biden had been given the lead on foreign aid for Ukraine, Burisma had installed on its board, at $50,000 a month, Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president (townhall.com).

Fast forward now to a recent conversation between President Trump and Ukraine’s newly elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky (you can read the entire transcript by clicking here):

President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was hut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing: There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging the he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelensk: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United State from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as new President well enough.

So, apparently the prosecutor that was relieved according to Joe Biden’s shakedown was actually a force for good and it was his dismissal that translated into a position for Hunter Biden. It reeked of corruption, a lot of people were upset about it and whether Biden is a political opponent or not, the fact that he’s guilty of having used his position as Vice President to facilitate a truly heinous form of extortion is something Trump should be investigating.

And yet…

The Democrats want to use the above scenario as grounds to impeach Trump.

This is the first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday:

WASHINGTON – After months of resisting an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would move ahead with an “official” effort after reports that the president withheld aid to Ukraine while he was pressing the country to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.”

 

Within this one paragraph you have multiple layers of falsehoods and exaggerations that leave one scratching their head as far as how in the world you can take the above situation and twist it into something that reflects poorly on Trump.

First of all, to say that Speaker Pelosi has been “resisting” impeachment inquiries is to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the witch hunt that has gone on for the last two and half years in the context of the Mueller Report. A report that involved

  • 19 lawyers who were on the team,
  • approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and professional staff
  • more than 2,800 subpoenas
  • nearly 500 search warrants
  • more than 230 orders for communication records
  • almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registered
  • 13 requests to foreign government for evidence
  • and the interviewing of approximately 500 witnesses

 

Two and a half years of intense investigation inspired by the confident belief that Donald Trump could not have defeated Hillary Clinton without having cheated. And it’s because that he cheated that his administration constitutes a real threat to our democratic process and must therefore be impeached.

The Mueller Report proved impotent, however, in its ability to deliver a credible impeachable offense. If anything, it came dangerously close to indicting Hillary and the Obama administration for its abuse of power when it came to wiretapping and the unmasking of sensitive information in an attempt to discredit the Trump presidential campaign.

In short, we’ve been hearing about “impeachment” almost since the day Trump took office and the accusations have not only proven false, but ludicrous to the point of inspiring many voters who were previously on the fence to now being passionate Trump supporters.

And yet, here comes the Wall Street Journal with the “Impeachment Inquiry Begins” headline.

This is not a “beginning.” It is a continuation of a desperate attempt to recover the political power that was lost when Trump took office.

As you continue to come in contact with the MSM’s “reporting” of the most recent generation of impeachment proceedings, feel free to go out and read the transcript of the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy for yourself. Trump is doing what he promised to do, as far as draining the swamp, and the fact that the Democrats want to use this as grounds for impeachment reveals their desperation, their corruption and the media’s enthusiastic willingness to support them regardless of how wrong and how sinister they truly are.

Keep. America. Great!

Be Sure Your Sins Will Find You Out

burrYears ago, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton faced off in a duel. Neither one of them were necessarily paragons of virtue, but Burr was a dark character. Among the suspected skeletons in his closet was an inappropriate relationship with his daughter – something that Hamilton made mention of which was one of the things that resulted in the two of them agreeing to a duel.

Hamilton took the higher road. He was able to get his shot off first, but he intentionally shot to miss. Burr, on the other hand, shot to kill and was able to mortally wound Hamilton who died the following day.

Here’s the thing…

Burr’s reputation never recovered from the incident. The former Vice President was actually tried for treason not long after because of a questionable situation where it looked as though he was getting ready to stage an uprising that would’ve formed an independent nation with him at the helm. He was acquitted, but his reputation as a traitor was so conspicuous, he fled to Europe and didn’t return to the US until several years later.

Whether Comey, Clinton, Obama, Holder and all of the other individuals who abused their power and aggressively sought to undermine their political opponents are ever successfully indicted and imprisoned for their crimes, they will nevertheless pay for their wrongdoings. Whether it’s the kind of disgrace one can never hope to recover from or yet another crime that translates to a prison sentence, “…be sure your sins will find you out (Num 32:23).”

Who Defines “Good?”

Who defines “good?”

You?

Me?

How does one measure virtue?

And how do you convince someone who’s vile that they’re not “good” unless you can point to a standard that goes beyond personal preferences, impressions and experiences?

Suggesting that there is a collective mindset that has proven to be beneficial – that there is a sociological evolutionary process that can produce a transcendent absolute that all actions can be compared to – is a theory that does not stand up historically or practically.

You can insist that man is his own god but with that premise comes the need to explain your existence as a lucky accident, your purpose as temporary distraction and your destiny as a meaningless conclusion.

Every adjective you use assumes a philosophical foundation that must be based on something beyond what is human in order for it to resonate as True. Otherwise, your approach to yourself and the world around you is an opinion that is as pointless as your next breath.

Yet, in the context of the gospel, everything you say is True because you were made in God’s image with a Purpose and a Destiny that was established by Christ’s death and resurrection. That’s the best and greatest exclamation point at the end of person’s experiential sentence they could ever hope for!

BOOM!

But in the context of a purely humanistic paradigm, you’re looking in a mirror insisting that you can find significance and meaning while intentionally ignoring Who created both you and the mirror to begin with.

Fear and Hate – Start Listening for Those Words…

omarIt’s healthy, I think, to start listening for the words, “fear” and “hate.”

It is possible to win an argument without saying a word simply by positioning yourself as a victim. If you can successfully portray yourself as somebody who’s being unfairly treated as a result of “fear” and “hatred,” then anyone who would question you, let alone criticize you, is automatically categorized as a villain.

Fear and Hate

Those sentiments are real and the damage that has been done throughout the centuries as a result of unreasonable fear and nonsensical hatred ranges from the Holocaust to the KKK. That’s one of the reasons both those words are so effective in shutting down any real dialogue. You invoke those words and all of the horrific images associated with those words overwhelm whatever conversation would otherwise occur and the person who asserted those terms is acknowledged as the noble victor and their opponent is dismissed as a fool if not worse.

And that’s appropriate. Provided, of course, that the situation being addressed is truly characterized by fear and hate.

These days, however, those words are usually nothing more than strategic tools to veil the lack of substance that characterizes the argument that would otherwise be revealed for the hollow philosophical paradigm that it is. Listen for how often those words are used by the Left and watch how any kind of rebuttal to their argument is silenced simply by accusing the other side of being motivated by “fear” and “hate.”

Take for example Ilhan Abdullahi Omar. She is a Muslim from Somalia whose family sought asylum back in 1995 at which point they moved to Minneapolis. In 2016 she ran on the Democrat-Farmer-Labor ticket and won the opportunity to champion the state of Minnesota in the House of Representatives.

On the surface, it looks like the American Dream come to life. But Omar has been caught saying some things that make it apparent her convictions are both anti Semitic and perhaps even treacherous.

Description of 9/11 attacks: “…some people did something.

To describe the attack on America at the hands of militant Muslims as “some people did something” begs the question whether or not Omar is capable of condemning a terrorist act done by militant Muslims. It’s not an uncommon dilemma. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims acting out those portions of the Koran that encourage the slaughter of “infidels.” As a quick sidebar, our country has been contending with Islamic terrorists through much of its 200 year history. The Marine Corps Hymn features the line, “…to the shores of Tripoli” which references a battle that was fought against militant Muslims.

The backlash to Omar’s comment was significant, even to the point of receiving death threats. While that is not an appropriate, let alone a moral response, rather than apologizing for what she said, Omar blames President Trump’s response to her reckless comments as being the problem and not her statement.

In other words, she’s a victim.

Response to the way in which America supports Israel: “…it’s all about the Benjamins”

The AIPAC (American – Israel Public Affairs Committee) is an organization that champions Israel’s interests to the legislative and Executive branches of the United States government based on its shared values. It is a welcome perspective in the minds of those who value Israel, it is a toxic distraction in the minds of those who don’t.

In 2012, Omar tweeted that Israel had “hypnotized the world,” referring to the way in which many nations supported Israel’s attack on Hamas in an Israeli military operation called, “Operation Pillar of Defense.” It was Israel’s response to Gaza militants having launched over 100 rockets against civilian targets on the Gaza Strip. Kevin McCarthy, a Republican Representative from California, rightfully criticized both Omar and Rashida Tlaib, another Muslim who has made her pro-BDS (Boycott, Divestment Sanctions) sentiments known, for their anti-Semitic statements.

McCarthy’s tweet was criticized by Glenn Greenwald when he claimed McCarthy was more interested in attacking the free speech rights of Omar and Tlaib then he was in addressing the supposed fallacy of supporting Israel. Mind you, Greenwald is no fan of Israel.   When Omar saw his tweet, she endorsed his sentiments by saying,” It’s all about the Benjamins,” meaning that it all comes down to corruption and payoffs etc. As one might expect, her obvious disdain for Israel having been revealed yet again was criticized by a number of people including Nancy Pelosi.

Omar didn’t push back on Nancy Pelosi’s comments, but when challenged by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, she responded by citing the recent attacks in Pittsburgh  and the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand rather than answering for what she said.

In other words, rather than taking responsibility for her comments, she deflects any of the scrutiny that would otherwise be directed towards her by suggesting that Netanyahu is singling her out for criticism when there are more dramatic scenarios around the world.

Again, she’s a victim.

Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) – “…thousands of Somali citizens killed by American forces that day”

Somalia in the nineties was a scene best described as violently chaotic. The preexisting regime had been overthrown and four Islamic factions were now fighting over who should be in charge. The fighting was such that Somalia’s agriculture was destroyed which lead to a national crisis that had thousands of people starving to death.

The U.N. stepped in and delivered food and other resources in an attempt to relieve the suffering only for those supplies to be intercepted and sold for weapons. On March 15, 1993, the Conference on National Reconciliation in Somalia was held which sought to bring together the various clans represented by 15 representatives and agree to a ceasefire. Initially, the results seemed positive but one particular individual refused to cooperate. His name was Mohammed Farrah Aidid.  He would escalate tensions by ordering his forces to attack UN troops who were inspecting a radio station that was not only broadcasting anti-UN propaganda, but was also suspected of being used as an armory to store weapons. At that point, Adid was rightfully declared an international criminal and military strategies were initiated to apprehend him.

“Bloody Monday” was the name given to the operation that was intended to arrest Adid on July 12, 1993. An informant had passed on intelligence that Adid was located in a structure that was subsequently bombed. However, a journalist by the name of Scott Peterson insisted, along with various Somali newspapers, that the building was not the location of Adid. Rather, it was a place where several Somali elders had gathered to discuss peace. What was either a massively successful lie or a tragic truth did a great deal of damage to the way in which the US was perceived by those loyal to Adid and to those who were prone to view any international assistance as being unwelcome, especially given the fact that there were 200 civilian casualties.

In the weeks that followed, various Somalian attacks lead to the death of several US serviceman. In October of 1993, the US responded with an operation designed to apprehend Adid’s foreign minister, Omar Salad Elmi and his top political advisor, Mohamed Hassan Awale. Due to several logistical errors, however, the operation, which was supposed to last no more than an hour, became a debacle that left 19 US soldiers killed and 73 wounded. Somali combatants, on the other hand, sustained far worse casualties ranging from 315 to over 2,000 depending on what resource you refer to.

Omar’s perspective on America’s military presence in Somalia intentionally overlooks the fact that we were there to protect the UN’s desire to provide humanitarian aid. It was the way in which those resources were being hijacked and the fact that Mohammed Farrah Aidid had murdered several UN and American military personnel that had lead to Bloody Monday and the Battle of MogadishuWe were there to assist Somalia and the Somalians that would later drag our dead through the streets of Somalia were enemies not only of the UN, the US and the rest of the world, they were also enemies of Somalia itself.

But…

Omar doesn’t see it that way. Rather, she sees America as the problem.

According to her recent comments on the Stephen Colbert show, she, and the “truths” that she espouses are subjects of unjust criticism coming from people who are predisposed against her because of her ethnicity and her gender.

She is a victim.

 

Ilhan Omar is being criticized for her words. Not her skin color or her ethnicity. She’s being called to give an account for her condemnation of Israel, the American military and her apparent inability to define the 9/11 attack as an act of terrorism carried out by militant Muslims.

But she’s a “victim.”

The Nation recently reported how on April 30, “…over 100 Black women activists gathered in Washington DC, to support Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar in the face of Islamophobic incitement from the Trump White House.” The article goes on to say…

The protest came as a moment of Black women’s unity in the face of Islamophobic misogynoir, with speakers such as Representative Ayanna Pressley contextualizing the attacks on Omar as part of a long-standing pattern of silencing of Black women’s voices. Speaking at the event, Omar described the attacks on her in the broader context of white supremacy, including anti-Jewish violence like the attack on a synagogue in Poway, California, saying, “We collectively must make sure that we are dismantling all systems of oppression.

Hate.

By the way, notice how any criticism of Omar is categorized as “white supremacy.” In other words, to be critical of her comments is to identify yourself as being anti-Semitic and a racist. There’s no real mention of what she’s saying, only the fact that if you disagree, you must be either afraid or enraged by her ethnicity.

You see how this works?

Later in the article, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors is asked, “Why do you think Omar is such a target not only for the far right but also some Democrats?” Patrisse answered,

It’s simple. She’s Black, she’s Muslim, she’s hijab-wearing. That is literally the image of fear that Trump has invoked in order to win over his base. She is a scapegoat for him and the right wing. I also think the Democratic Party doesn’t know what to do with her. They don’t know how to protect her, and they aren’t being the fierce advocates that we need them to be.

Fear.

No one is examining the substance of  Omar’s comments. They simply defend her and their platform as being the appropriate response to those who are fearful and hateful.

Bottom line:  No one can be critical of a victim without appearing either cruel or irrational. This is the modus operandi of the Democrat party. Champion every bogus talking point as a “cry for justice” and defend every violent outburst as an understandable reaction to an irrational fear or an immoral brand of disgust and you have a strategy that can work very well…

…right up to the point where people start basing their convictions on research rather than soundbytes.

And as part of that research, start listening for the words, “Fear” and “Hate.” More often than not, that will be your cue to dig deeper and discover there’s so much more to the issue you’re looking at than just the knee jerk reaction some are hoping you’ll default to.

 

Why Would You Impeach President Trump?

accomplishmentsWhy would you impeach President Trump? For doing the very things that he promised he would do as a candidate? For reducing the number of regulations that our industries have had to contend with under Obama resulting in one of the strongest economies we’ve had in a long time? For recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?

He’s effective and the Dems can’t stand it. And the fact that he won the election fair and square can’t be admitted because that means their platform is no longer in sync with public opinion let alone what’s consistent with what’s best for America.

The impeachment process will be a theatrical production. There is no substance to their accusations just like there was no collusion with Russia. But it’s the only card they can play because they don’t have the majority and they don’t have any plan or theme apart from regaining power.

Think about it. What would the Dems promise? A strong economy? We have it. A solid foreign policy? We have it. A group of Supreme Court justices that interpret the Constitution rather than try to rewrite it? Perhaps not all Dems want that, but we have it.

The Dems don’t have anything they can present to our country save a Socialist agenda disguised as social justice and compassionate. But even that is wearing thin as their true colors become more apparent every day.

Impeachment is their last, desperate attempt to regain the momentum they had with Obama. He has a great gift for communicating something vile, yet making it sound patriotic. Trump is not a politician. He’s one of country’s most successful businessmen who gauges success by action and not intention. And the Dems can’t fight that with anything other than accusations, law suits, innuendos and…

…impeachment proceedings.