Archive for the ‘Weaponized Government’ Category

This morning, Speaker Pelosi announced that she’s instructed the House Judiciary Committee to start drafting articles of impeachment. In making the announcement, Speaker Pelosi said “His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution. Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit.”

It’s frightening to think that someone as constitutionally illiterate as Ms. Pelosi is just 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office. We don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. It’s frightening that a person that’s 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office is so corrupt that she’s willing to say that President Trump is trying to rig the elections. What’s worse is that she’s saying this without offering a bit of proof.

“Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and our heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with the articles of impeachment,” she said.

That’s insulting in the extreme. Ms. Pelosi just instructed the Judiciary Committee to start writing articles of impeachment with what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as a “paucity of evidence and abundance of anger.”

Democrats seem willing to forge ahead despite the fact that the only firsthand evidence is exculpatory evidence. The people who listened to the call verified that the transcript was accurate. Ukraine’s president has repeatedly stated that he wasn’t pressured into investigating the Bidens. Despite that verified and verifiable proof, Ms. Pelosi said this:

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security by withholding military aid and crucial oval office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.”

When Democrats insist that ‘the facts are uncontested’, what Democrats really mean is that they’re contested but Democrats aren’t willing to listen to exculpatory evidence. Further, Democrats haven’t hesitated in trusting hearsay evidence.

It’s incredible that Ms. Pelosi didn’t hesitate in saying that an Oval Office visit was crucial to our national security. After saying something that stupid, we shouldn’t take Ms. Pelosi seriously. It’s noteworthy that each time Ms. Pelosi speaks about impeachment, she talks about the Constitution, national security, the survival of our democracy and that President Trump didn’t leave Democrats a choice.

Since opening the impeachment inquiry, not a single bit of convicting evidence has been introduced. GWU Law Prof. Jonathan Turley was right in saying that there’s a “paucity of evidence.” When Ms. Pelosi says that President Trump left them no choice, what she meant is that her socialist activist base insists on impeaching President Trump.

If she holds to form, the House will vote for impeachment within 48 hours of Christmas. That’s what she did with the ACA. If that’s what happens, expect House Democrats to experience a similar electoral bloodbath. Expect it to be Ms. Pelosi’s second Christmas Massacre.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:


What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

Apparently, the DFL isn’t serious about protecting whistleblowers. If the DFL was serious about eliminating corruption, this wouldn’t still be happening:

A state whistleblower says she is still being retaliated against months after she reported wrongdoing. Faye Bernstein, a compliance officer at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said she has been excluded from the work she did before speaking out, told by superiors that her opinion “is no longer needed,” and encouraged to take time off or seek therapy when she objected to the retaliation she continues to face. And Bernstein said some employees have even started “wild and hurtful rumors” to discredit her.

Bernstein, a 14-year veteran of the department, raised concerns in July about “substandard and noncompliant” state contracts that were being approved by leaders in the agency’s behavioral health division, which pays out millions of dollars in contracts and grants for programs that include battling addiction and the opioid epidemic.

This started before the Walz administration but it’s obvious that the Walz administration isn’t taking their responsibilities seriously. When she was appointed, I said that new Commissioner Jodi Harpstead was a terrible pick. That was mid-August. It’s now late October. Changing the culture takes time but it isn’t unreasonable to think that Ms. Harpstead should get 1-2 of her top priorities fixed in that time. According to this testimony from Ms. Harpstead, changing the culture wasn’t a high priority:

That’s depressing. What’s depressing, too, is that, after naming Harpstead the new commissioner 2 months ago, Democrat Gov. Tim Walz essentially disappeared. I just did multiple searches for Gov. Walz but found only a handful of articles, most of which dealt the insulin issue. The insulin issue is important but the DHS whistleblower/bullying scandal is important, too. Walz and the DFL have disappeared on the issue of eliminating fraud within DHS.

The DFL hasn’t provided meaningful oversight on DHS. Tim Walz has disappeared. Walz’s new leader for DHS, Jodi Harpstead, hasn’t prioritized changing the culture in her new department, meaning that DHS’s culture remains toxic. Big government that thinks it doesn’t answer to anybody is a nightmare. Why doesn’t the DFL think that stopping corruption and bullying is a big thing? The DFL has treated these scandals like they aren’t interested.

This morning, Matt Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to listen to Fiona Hill, allegedly a Schiff-coached witness. Schiff didn’t permit his entry. The Democrats aren’t letting Republicans in even though Gaetz has the proper security clearance. Yesterday, Chairman Schiff told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that “If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away.”

Does Chairman Schiff, one of the nastiest, most dishonest partisan Democrats on Capitol Hill, have proof that any witnesses have provided false testimony? Do Democrats have any proof that any witnesses have thought about providing false testimony? Later, Schiff continued, saying “Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

Schiff has already let one liar into that secure facility. That person’s name is Adam Schiff. Remember this?

He called that a parody. I call it a bald-faced lie. Then there’s this:

That’s when Schiff insisted that he hadn’t talked with the whistleblower. Today, Schiff’s insisting that he “misspoke.” That’s BS. Schiff didn’t misspeak. Schiff lied intentionally.

In other words, the problem restricting liars isn’t keeping Republicans out. Democrats are secretive liars on the inside. Not just that but Democrats are prolific leakers, with Shiffty Schiff being the worst of the worst.

According to Sean Davis’ article, the snitch’s complaint (my word, not Sean’s) put together by the snitch’s legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean’s article, he highlights the fact that Steele’s dossier didn’t use people’s names:

Steele hadn’t gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. “Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Steele wrote. “Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.

Let’s compare this with the snitch’s complaint:

“I was told that a State Department official” did this or that. “I heard from multiple US officials” that such and such. “Officials have informed me. …” And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump’s guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn’t even in the same room.

Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn’t rely on their own observations? That isn’t a whistleblower. That’s a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele’s discredited dossier and this snitch’s questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn’t have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won’t run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.

The snitch’s story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:

The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.

Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn’t known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.

I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy. There’s no question that President Trump brought up Biden’s son late in the conversation. I still don’t see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn’t one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump’s priorities.

The other thing that’s noteworthy is what wasn’t said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn’t there, not even in a dog whistle.

Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats’ impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven’t passed anything that’s improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.

While campaigning, then-Candidate Trump would say that Americans would get tired of all the winning if they elected him. As the 2020 election nears, Victor Davis Hanson has written this article that’s appropriately titled “Trumped Out?” I’m not. Give me 4 more years of this. I’m loving it.

Hanson is apparently loving it, too:

The August jobs report “unexpectedly” reminds us that never have so many Americans been at work. The 3.7 percent unemployment rate continues to be the lowest peacetime unemployment figure in 50 years. Black and Hispanic unemployment remain at record lows. Workers’ wages continue to rise. Talk of recession is belied by low interest, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong stock market. The result is that millions of Americans enjoy far better lives than they had in 2016.

If President Trump isn’t re-elected, what will happen? Here’s Hanson’s opinion into that:

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

That doesn’t sound attractive. That’s what would likely happen with a Democrat president. Democrats control the House. The woman who really runs the House is so radical that she thinks this isn’t radical enough. I’m not talking about Nancy Pelosi. I’m talking about AOC. This is what awaits us if AOC ever assumes total control:

But these are not normal times. There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.

Over my dead body. President Trump has had quite the effect on otherwise timid Republicans. Check out the ‘Trump effect’ on Lindsey Graham:

It’s important that traditional-thinking people decimate today’s AOC Democrats. They’re despicable. They’re the antithesis of fair-minded. Today’s AOC Democrats don’t see the United States as the greatest protector of human rights or civil rights. Check out what Robert Francis O’Rourke thinks of your right to protect your family:

Prof. Hanson is a historian by trade. When he makes statements about history, I pay attention. That’s why I paid attention to this statement:

I cannot remember a moment in U.S. history when a presidential candidate conspired with the intelligence community of the lame-duck administration of the same party to destroy a presidential rival.

Robert Mueller forever discredited the idea of a special counsel, given his unprofessionalism, bias, and apparent incompetence that ate up 22 months of the Trump presidency. Even in the crude post-1960s, we have never seen anything like the current assassination rhetoric of Hollywood celebrities and the boasts of doing bodily harm to the president by his political opponents.

That’s what AOC’s Democratic Party is about. They’re mostly interested in trampling anyone, whether it’s a Republican, a Democrat who isn’t sufficiently woke or an apolitical person, who doesn’t march in lockstep with them. I don’t agree with each of President Trump’s tweets. I certainly disagreed with his idea of bringing the Taliban to Camp David. But I’ve literally thanked God that he’s our president. I thank God because he’s a fighter. As Prof. Hanson said, “After all that, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing.”

Isn’t it a coincidence that this article just happened to pop up right after Jerry Nadler’s impeachment inquiry fizzled, again. It seems like the fiftieth time on that. It feels like the fiftieth time that Democrats have brought forth unsubstantiated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats have put together another ‘scandal’ involving Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This time, a significant portion of the Democrats’ presidential candidates insist that Justice Kavanaugh be impeached. According to this article, “Top 2020 Democratic contenders Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro announced on Sunday that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh ‘must be impeached,’ after a new, uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh surfaced in a weekend New York Times piece.”

Apparently, Democrats don’t care if they destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s family, including his beautiful daughters. Remember this moment from Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing?

That’s a moment I’ll never forget. Conversely, I wish I could forget the torture that Democrats inflicted on Justice Kavanaugh’s family. I wish I didn’t have to know this BS:

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Then there’s this:

But, the Times’ article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode. “The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” observed The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”

The book reads: “[Tracy] Harmon, whose surname is now Harmon Joyce, has also refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”

It isn’t a coincidence that Ms. Blasey-Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, just admitted in a speech that Dr. Blasey-Ford had political motivations for testifying:

This is frightening:

The Times went on to note in the article that it had “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.

In other words, the NYTimes’ article is just about worthless. This story is just as corroborate as Ms. Blasey-Ford’s initial accusation. This is just as frightening:

Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, who infamously said last year that Kavanaugh did not deserve a fair hearing because he might be pro-life, said the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin an impeachment inquiry to determine whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.

Sen. Hirono should take a civics class from Dean Urdahl. Impeachment doesn’t start in the Senate. Impeachment investigations start in the House because the House is the only body authorized by the Constitution to start articles of Impeachment.

These Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t contributed a thing to make the United States better. That’s why Democrats should be run out of Dodge, proverbially speaking.

Within minutes of the mass shootings last weekend, Democrats were blaming President Trump’s rhetoric for the shootings. Saying that their antics were disgusting doesn’t suffice. When Joaquin Castro outed his own constituents, he insisted repeatedly that “No one was targeted or harassed in my post.” I said then that he lied through his teeth. Now, I’ve got verification in the form of this article:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workers are facing a rapidly escalating series of threats, including protesters menacing their children and shots being fired at their offices, amid a rising tide of anti-ICE rhetoric from the left fueled by congressional Democrats, media voices and presidential hopefuls.

Other than FNC, nobody else in the media is covering this. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ threats don’t stop there:

Footage published Tuesday by Breitbart News shows protesters in Florida from groups such as Never Again Action and Black Lives Matter Alliance of Broward County threatening workers and former employees of the GEO Group, a private contractor used by ICE.

One protester threatened the family of GEO Group’s former general counsel, John Bulfin. “We know where all your children live throughout the country … John Bulfin you have kids in [bleeped out], you have kids in [bleeped out],” the protester yelled. “We know everything about you and you won’t just be seeing us here.”

Joaquin Castro’s denials notwithstanding, it’s exceptionally clear that these Democrat-affiliated hate organizations won’t hesitate in threatening and intimidating political opponents.


In this video, Joe Scarborough lied when he said that Republicans insisted that the information that Rep. Castro published was secret:

That’s an outright lie. Period. Republicans repeatedly said that the information on the “San Antonio 44” would be used to harass those donors. In fact, Republicans were remarkably consistent in repeating that claim. Now, we’ve got proof that those people have gotten harassed. Additionally, we’ve got verification that Democrat-affiliated anarchist organizations are threatening and intimidating ICE agents and their families.

In the video, Castro tries absolving himself of guilt by saying that “this information was first put up by a local Indivisible group.” Here’s what Indivisible stands for:

Close your eyes for a minute and imagine this: it’s 2021. Trump lost and an inspiring progressive takes office. Democrats held the House and retook the Senate. On day one, the new Congress passes sweeping democracy reforms to roll back decades of Republican attacks on our democracy. We smash voter suppression and expand voter access, end gerrymandering, take on money in politics, admit new states, and take back the courts. In short, we unrig the rules and put democracy back in the hands of the people. Then we turn to a major progressive legislative agenda – immigration reform, climate change, health care, and more.

Let’s admit that this isn’t a centrist agenda. I’m betting that the vast majority of these items wouldn’t poll above 20%. That’s who’s supporting Joaquin Castro. That’s who’s supporting Democrats. Remember that Joaquin Castro is described as a moderate.

From what’s written, I’d argue that he’s a far left nutjob whose brother stated on national TV that he’d decriminalize illegal immigration. That’s the veiled way of saying he’s for open borders. There’s nothing moderate about these positions.

When you couple outright threats and intimidation with policies that deliver outright lawlessness and corruption, that’s something that must be rejected forcefully and immediately.

Apparently, Rep. Joaquin Castro hasn’t learned the first rule of holes. For people like Rep. Castro, the first rule of holes is simple: if you’re in one, stop digging. Immediately! Rep. Castro didn’t do that. Instead, he tried defending his indefensible actions. Rep. Castro was accused of “targeting and harassing Americans” by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Rep. Castro replied via Twitter, saying “No one was targeted or harassed in my post. You know that. All that info is routinely published. You’re trying to distract from the racism that has overtaken the GOP and the fact that President Trump spends donor money on thousands of ads about Hispanics ‘invading’ America.”

Technically, Rep. Castro is right that this information is published. He’s lying through his teeth, however, in saying that it’s “routinely” published. Having taken a trip through FEC reports once or twice before, I can state that it’s a pain in the butt. Adding what businesses these Trump max donors from San Antonio work at isn’t difficult if you have tons of time. However, it’s indisputable that it’s a labor-intensive project.

Further, saying that “no one was targeted or harassed” in Rep. Castro’s tweet is incomplete. It’s far more likely that it’ll be accurate if the tweet said ‘no one was targeted or harassed yet.’ Does Rep. Castro think that we’ve forgotten about this lunatic?

It isn’t likely that we’ll forget this incident anytime soon:

Does Rep. Castro actually think that his doxing of President Trump’s supporters won’t trigger Antifa protests against these businesses or these people’s homes? If Rep. Castro thinks that we’ll buy that BS, then he’s insulting our intelligence. Democrats have tried playing the racist/bullying/intimidation game for years. Democrats don’t have any fresh solutions but they’re well-schooled in intimidation tactics.

America is at a cultural crossroads tonight. We can reject the Resist Movement and return to being the greatest nation on this planet. Either that or we can accept Antifa’s intimidation tactics as America’s new normal. Personally, I won’t accept the Democrats’/Antifa’s intimidation tactics. Period. There’s nothing normal about the Democrats’ intimidation tactics.

What’s interesting is that Democrats are using the same tactics that they’re accusing President Trump is using. If there are thoughtful Democrats left, it’s time to reject these thugs immediately. There’s no place in politics for intimidation tactics.