Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category

Speaker Pelosi’s office issued a Fact Sheet Monday that’s utterly dishonest. Here’s the opening page:

Notice what Pelosi’s document omits. Under the heading of “In President Trump’s own words”, Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Fact Sheet’ says “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution of his son and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

This is what the White House official transcript says:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you.do it if that’s possible.

Let’s call this the ‘Favor’ paragraph. In the official White House transcript, which was put together by career White House security personnel, there isn’t a mention of the Bidens in the Favor paragraph.

That’s proof that Ms. Pelosi’s ‘Fact Sheet’ is as dishonest as the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, Adam Schiff. It’s fair to say that Ms. Pelosi doesn’t have integrity. If she had integrity, she wouldn’t have merged 2 paragraphs together that were a page apart. This wasn’t accidental. It was intentional so that the dishonest Fact Sheet would send the message that President Trump called Ukraine’s president and asked him to dig up “lots of dirt” (Schiff’s phrase from the Maguire hearing opening statement).

Most of the information in Ms. Pelosi’s Fact Sheet is distortion or outright lies. She accused Secretary of State Pompeo and Vice President Pence of being part of President Trump’s coverup. Read the Fact Sheet for yourself. Then read the Trump-Zelensky transcript and notice the differences. Then remind yourself that the transcript was put together by career White House security personnel. Ms. Pelosi’s Fact Sheet was put together by the 2 most dishonest Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Earlier tonight, Democrat ‘moderates’ Angie Craig, Collin Peterson and Dean Phillips voted against censuring Democrat Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff for lying to the American people while delivering his opening statement in the Maguire hearing. For those who don’t remember that hearing by that name, it’s the one where Democrat Impeachment Chairman opened with this speech:

Here’s the heart of Schiff’s speech:

horn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.

In Schiff’s speech, it’s clear that he’s signaling that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky with the withholding of military aid. According to Schiff’s fake phone call transcript, that military aid would be withheld from Ukraine if President Zelensky didn’t “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it.”

The bottom line is this — Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, lied to Congress and the American people. This isn’t just a silly prank. Schiff’s speech is permanently part of the Congressional Record. Minnesota’s ‘moderate Democrats’ didn’t think Schiff’s dishonest speech was worthy of official criticism. These ‘moderate Democrats’ thought that the man leading an investigation to remove the president of the United States shouldn’t be officially criticized. Perhaps, it’s because they bought Schiff’s BS that this was a parody. If that’s a parody, how do Phillips, Peterson and Craig explain this paragraph from Schiff’s speech?

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff said it with his own words that “this is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine.” That’s a pretty fanciful interpretation of the transcript. Here’s what President Trump actually told President Zelensky:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation … I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Nothing in Schiff’s speech sounds like anything from Trump’s phone call. It’s appalling that Minnesota’s supposedly moderate Democrats bought Schiff’s BS and voted the way that Pelosi wanted them to vote. They aren’t moderates. They’re just gullible Democrats.

Democrats can’t pretend that they’re moderates because they’re doing things that are historically unprecedented. Recently, Schiff said that he’s essentially doing the work of a special counsel. I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was officially employed by the DOJ. Schiff’s biggest problem is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch. Impeachment chairs are fixtures of the legislative branch.

The Constitution matters

This says everything:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller led the Russia probe, but no new prosecutor has been tapped by Attorney General William Barr for the Ukraine matter. That leaves House Democrats with only a whistleblower’s complaint rather than boxes of investigators’ evidence to guide them. “Congress has to do that,” Schiff said, because the Justice Department believes “there’s nothing to see here.”

Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, is leading the probe at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and proceeding like the prosecutor he once was, staging a grand jury-like process that has been pilloried by Republicans. As Schiff works behind closed doors to build the case, Republicans accuse Democrats of waging an unfair, and according to the White House, illegitimate, investigation. But Schiff says the House has few other choices than to build the case on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that members of the legislative branch have the authority to impanel investigative grand juries. If the DOJ tells the legislative branch to pound sand if the House refers cases to the DOJ, that’s what happens when you lose elections. When Republicans made criminal referrals to Eric Holder’s DOJ about the IRS scandal and Holder rejected those referrals, Trey Gowdy couldn’t impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder. That was it. If the DOJ says no, then the answer is no. Period.

The thing is that Schiff didn’t bother trying to hide his attempt to be an investigator/prosecutor. He said this right out in the open.

Republicans, led by Andy Biggs, the new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, have gone on the offensive against the Democrats’ weakest link, aka Adam Schiff. Schiff’s tactics have been unfair, unconstitutional and totally partisan. If the goal of this impeachment process is to win people over and hold them there, it’s failing.

Newt Gingrich knows a thing or two about impeachment. He said “Schiff is an embarrassingly dishonest person. Pelosi has become an embarrassingly dishonest person.” He’s right, albeit a bit gentle. He said that to Fox & Friends. When he appeared on Outnumbered, Newt said “I think he’s lost his mind”, which is true, though not in the clinical sense.

Schiff isn’t interested in being fair. Further, his statements are further out there than Hillary’s latest statements. Hillary’s statements about Tulsi Gabbard are out there beyond the edge of the solar system. Schiff’s statements are out there beyond the edge of the galaxy.

This information should frighten Democrats:

In the six closest states carried by the president in 2016, registered voters support the impeachment inquiry by a five-point margin, 50 percent to 45 percent. The same voters oppose impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, 53 percent to 43 percent.

In other words, Democrats are pushing something that’s underwater in the polls. Support for an impeachment inquiry isn’t that popular. Support for impeaching and removing President Trump is far less popular. If Pelosi and Schiff push forward on impeachment and removal, 2 things can’t be avoided. First, those vulnerable freshman Democrats will have to vote for impeachment for it to pass. Their other option is voting against impeachment, which hangs out their far leftist Democrats to dry.

This isn’t good news for Democrats either:

An NBC/WSJ poll, for instance, found that adults opposed impeachment and removal by a six-point margin, 49 percent to 43 percent, nearly the reverse of Fox’s result of 51 percent supporting and 43 percent opposed. Other surveys, from Marist College, Quinnipiac, CNN/SSRS and Monmouth College, also found more opposition than support for impeachment and removal. The Times/Siena results are fairly consistent with those surveys.

Any issue that consistently polls at 43% isn’t an issue I’d spend more than a few seconds on. That being said, I hope Democrats spend the next month on this. While Democrats are holding impeachment hearings in private, then leaking partial transcripts to the press, they’re reinforcing their image of being the Swamp. Meanwhile, President Trump can hold weekly rallies to tell 25,000+ people at each event that he’s still fighting for them but these Do-Nothing Democrats keep holding these hearings instead of working with him on fixing immigration or making his tax cuts permanent or doing other things.

Don’t be surprised if, a year from now, people say that they prefer a president who wants to fix things over Democrats who want to spend all of their time investigating things. Do-Nothing Democrats isn’t just a talking point. It’s the truth. This truth, though, won’t set Democrats free.

The question that needs to be asked of Adam Schiff and the Democrats is what they’ll do if they’re called to testify about the faux whistleblower. Let’s stop with the euphemisms. This guy is nothing but a snitch, an anonymous informant.

Let’s lay out what will be required if President Trump is impeached. The first witness who should testify should be the snitch. Let’s find out what he/she told Schiff. Let’s lock this down under oath so there’s no wiggle room. The next witness should be Speaker Pelosi. Let’s find out what she thought of impeachment through her documents, texts and phone logs. Finally, let’s put Schiff on the stand. What was his proof that was “more than circumstantial”? Did he promise the snitch anything? Why did he hire the NSC people right before the snitch appeared.

This lays out the case against Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and the House Democrats:


That pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way of Ms. Pelosi’s and Mr. Schiff’s charade. First, Ms. Pelosi declared an impeachment inquiry. Courts have consistently ruled that the only time that the House of Representatives does something official is when it votes. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution says “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” It doesn’t say that the Speaker will have the sole power of impeachment. It says “the House of Representatives” shall have that authority.

Initially, Mr. Schiff and the Democrats insisted that the snitch would bring President Trump to his knees. This time, though, the snitch is likely to bring Democrats to their knees.

Leader McCarthy’s statement is important for another reason. He highlights the fact that Schiff is acting as a full-fledged investigator, which he isn’t. Criminal investigators are found in agencies like the DEA, the FBI, ICE, the BATFE, etc. Those agencies are found exclusively in the executive branch. The only time that the legislative branch has truly investigative authority is after a vote of the whole House of Representatives authorizing an impeachment investigation. That vote must include the rules for calling witnesses, whether the President’s counsel can be in the room, who can subpoena witnesses, whether both sides can cross-examine witnesses, etc.

The point behind it is to show that impeachment isn’t getting weaponized to take out political opponents. At this point, Democrats are proving the Republicans’ case that this is just the political weaponization of impeachment.

Presidents that don’t attempt to stop international corruption are derelict in their duties. That’s what President Trump fought against when he held up military aid to the Ukraine. Further, there’s nothing wrong with a president investigating a political opponent who was investigating his political opponent’s son. That’s what Joe Biden did when he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

That wasn’t an attempt to eliminate corruption. VP Biden tried preventing the prosecutor from identifying Hunter Biden as being corrupt. Hunter wasn’t serving on Burisma’s board because he was an expert on natural gas or the Ukraine. He was there as an insurance policy to protect Burisma from investigations.

After articles of impeachment are approved by Democrats only, those articles of impeachment go to the Senate for trial. By that time, Pelosi’s vulnerable freshmen will have already voted for impeachment. Once Pelosi’s freshman Democrats cast that vote, the ‘moderate’ sticker gets ripped off their resume. Impeaching a president for something this trivial isn’t the definition of moderation. Once this moves to the Senate, Pelosi’s ability to protect her freshman Democrats flies out the window.

At this point, the only person nuttier than Schiff is Hillary Clinton. To think that she was once only 38 electoral votes short of the Oval Office is frightening.

This op-ed about prescription drug prices was written by Kevin Brady, Virginia Foxx and Greg Walden. The question now is whether Do-Nothing Democrats will join in the effort or whether they’ll do what they usually do, which is resist in the name of Trump.

I’m betting that they’ll express an interest in working together without actually working together. That’s what they did with the Trump-GOP tax cuts. The end result was that no Democrats, either in the House or Senate, voted for the tax cuts. That’s proof that no Democrats were willing to compromise with Republicans to strengthen the US economy.

Right now, President Trump and GOP leaders in the House and Senate are pressuring Ms. Pelosi into putting the USMCA up for a vote. Ms. Pelosi’s statement is that they’re (Democrats) are working their way to yes. Today, they’re saying it’s close. I’m not holding my breath. But I digress. Back to getting something done.

The op-ed tells the story of “Tracy Bush, a 45-year-old mother and an active and accomplished food allergy blogger from Pfafftown, North Carolina.”

The cost of prescription drugs is way too high. Tracy Bush, a 45-year-old mother and an active and accomplished food allergy blogger from Pfafftown, North Carolina, knows this firsthand. Tracy always has two EpiPens on her. Her son, age 17 now, carries another. This practice began when he was diagnosed with serious allergies as a 2-year-old. This is life for Tracy, and for thousands of other parents across America. But when a drug company charges $1,819.08 for three EpiPen two-packs – and the medicine in the device costs only a few dollars – alarm bells go off.

I’d be outraged if that happened to me. Here’s where the problem exists:

Then in 2017, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Reauthorization Act was signed into law leading to the approval of 971 generics, or copies of brand name drug, including the first generic version of the EpiPen. Congress saw a problem, put aside politics, and made progress for families like Tracy Bush.

We started to do that this year, too. Republicans and Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee moved three significant and bipartisan bills to the U.S. House floor in May. The CREATES Act, Pay for Delay, and the BLOCKING Act each removed barriers for generic drugs to get to consumers faster, pushing back on bad behavior from big pharmaceutical companies gaming the system and preventing competition. These policies would help bring down drug prices at the counter, an obvious win for the American people.

That’s where the problem starts:

Enter Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker of the House opted to discard months of bipartisan work to put politics over progress. This Washington Post headline nailed it, “Democrats are putting a political pothole in the way of bipartisan drug pricing bills.” She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, forsaking a bipartisan win on lowering drug prices for the American people.

~~~

Like clockwork, Speaker Pelosi entered the fray with her partisan drug pricing scheme – written behind closed doors. The Speaker’s drug plan attempts to nationalize the prescription drug industry through foreign price controls, retroactive tax penalties, arbitrary inflation caps, and federally mandated “negotiations,” which amount to nothing more than government extortion and price-setting. And as for Medicare Part D modernization? Once Speaker Pelosi’s plan was introduced, bipartisan negotiations ceased, making clear the Democrats’ position is their way or the highway. Bad news for seniors.

This is proof that Democrats weren’t serious about walking and chewing gum at the same time. They just wanted to impeach President Trump. Implementing policies that made their constituents’ lives better just wasn’t that high of a priority for Democrats. This is a fantastic clip on that subject:

With her actions, Nancy Pelosi admitted that she’s violated President Trump’s due process rights. While she’s right that there isn’t a checklist to follow for impeachment, she’s stupid if she thinks that there aren’t some constitutional principles that must be adhered to. She’s stupid if she thinks that past impeachment investigations haven’t set a path that subsequent impeachment investigations must meet.

When the House initiated their impeachment investigation of President Nixon, there was a defined set of rules that guaranteed the House’s ability to investigate and President Nixon’s right to cross-examine witnesses. The rules adopted by Peter Rodino’s Judiciary Committee permitted President Nixon’s attorneys the right to subpoena witnesses. When Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee adopted the Rodino-Nixon rules.

This sham investigation doesn’t have a clear set of rules and procedures. It doesn’t have any consistent rules or procedures other than to thwart President Trump’s legal team. That’s a violation of President Trump’s due process rights. Then there’s this:

Executive privilege was one of the protections mentioned by Counsel to the Vice President Matthew Morgan in a Tuesday letter to the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees, who are overseeing the ongoing inquiry. Morgan’s letter claimed that the committees’ request for documents was overbroad because it included some documents that were “clearly not vice-presidential records,” and that the request was not within the realm of “legitimate legislative oversight.”

Morgan continued, saying this:

“Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an ‘impeachment inquiry’ against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process,” Morgan wrote, noting that “House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.”

Ms. Pelosi can’t speak rules into existence. They have to be written, then approved of by a majority of the “Committee of the Whole”. Without that vote, no committee has authorization to start impeachment. As with other points in her career, Ms. Pelosi is acting like the autocrat she’s always wanted to be.

The goal of due process is to guarantee fairness, consistency and predictability. You can’t have due process if there isn’t a process. When this lawsuit gets filed, Pelosi’s Democrats will have problems:

“Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

Doug Collins nails it with this tweet:


Pelosi’s fatal flaw is that she thinks she can run the House like a tyrant. Frequently, she gets away with that. This is a totally different situation. It’s like the difference between a sandlot football game and the Super Bowl. The scrutiny is through the roof and the stakes don’t get higher.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that Speaker Pelosi delegated a responsibility to Adam Schiff that will leave him in a difficult position. While Ms. Pelosi puts Schiff ‘in charge’ of the Democrats’ anti-transparent impeachment inquiry, what she’s actually done is dumped all the grief that’s heading his direction into Schiff’s lap. When Ms. Pelosi declared the start of impeachment, she thrust on Schiff the day-to-day details of the impeachment inquiry. Forever the attention-seeker, Schiff gobbled up the attention.

Ms. Pelosi left it up to Schiff how the investigation would be run. Would they hold public hearings? Would President Trump’s attorneys be permitted to cross-examine the Democrats’ witnesses? Would the Democrats allow Republicans to call witnesses? Those are just some of the day-to-day details that Ms. Pelosi dropped into Schiff’s lap. That way, when the shit hits the fan, Pelosi is a mile away while Schiff is holding a ticking time bomb.

This isn’t a matter of if it happens. It’s a matter of when. Anyone that thinks that this isn’t finishing with a lawsuit is kidding themselves. President Trump’s due process rights weren’t merely violated. President Trump’s rights have gotten trampled.

Republicans who haven’t gotten kicked out of the room by Schiff have noted that there aren’t any rules that govern these interviews and depositions. In fact, different rules govern interviews and depositions. Rep. Lee Zeldin notes that minority members of the committee are allowed to talk about the content of witness interviews, albeit in a limited fashion, whereas minority members of the committee aren’t allowed to speak publicly about depositions.

This is the definition of making the rules up as you go along. You can’t have due process where process doesn’t exist. Jim Trusty and Ken Starr explain what’s at stake in this video:

This isn’t complicated. If Adam Schiff wanted to run a fair process, he could. He doesn’t want that. That’s why this process isn’t happening in public. Trusty is right that there isn’t a set procedure codified into the Constitution on conducting impeachment investigations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t safeguards that are built into the process.

Schiff says that he doesn’t want witnesses to fabricate their testimony. What proof does Schiff have that anyone’s done that? Is that proof like the proof he had that was “more than circumstantial” that Schiff didn’t show, that Rep. Zeldin didn’t see and that Robert Mueller didn’t find?

At the end of the day, the American people will reject this process because it’s built upon deception, inconsistencies and the process keeps shifting. That isn’t the definition of fair. Further, Democrats haven’t identified anything approaching treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking a foreign country for help with an investigation into a corrupt US politician isn’t a high crime. It’s common sense.

President Nixon and President Clinton were allowed to defend themselves during the House impeachment investigations. Queen Pelosi ruled by fiat that wasn’t acceptable. Queen Pelosi understood that the case was flimsy. That’s why Queen Pelosi won’t permit a vote of the full House to authorize a legitimate impeachment investigation.

This afternoon, I wrote this post, which I titled “Is Schiff intentionally tipping the impeachment scales?” Hint: The answer is yes, Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment. That’s the good news for Schiff and Pelosi. The bad news for Schiff and Pelosi is that Schiff is tipping the impeachment scales to guarantee impeachment.

This tactic is starting to cause an anti-Democrat backlash, thanks in large part to House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lee Zeldin, (R-NY). This past Sunday, Rep. Zeldin appeared on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 New York” with John Catsimatidis. During the interview, Rep. Zeldin said this:

Something that I find outrageous is the cherry-picked leaks, the withholding of key facts and the lying about other claims that’s misleading the American public. Why are we sitting inside of Adam Schiff’s bunker turning in our cell phones before we come in and being told that nothing here can be told to the American public?

Tonight, Zeldin appeared on Martha McCallum’s show. Here’s that interview:

During tonight’s interview, Rep. Zeldin raised a great question after mentioning that Adam Schiff threw Matt Gaetz out of the hearing. Rep. Zeldin asked “what rule is governing any of this process? What rule of the House is governing this impeachment inquiry?” That’s a pair of rhetorical questions. A 4th-grader would understand that this is a Schiff-for-brains, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants Special rule. Whatever rule helps Democrats the most at the moment will be deployed. Whether it’s been used before or whether it’s precedent-setting isn’t relevant. Whatever the Democrats need in the situation is what the rules appear to be.

For now, the process doesn’t matter from a legal standpoint. That won’t last forever. Even Democrats are bright enough to know that these procedures will be challenged in the courts. While Ms. Pelosi is right that there isn’t a set way to impeach a president, she’s foolish if she thinks that several constitutional principles aren’t essential.

For instance, if Ms. Pelosi thinks that having agreed upon a set of rules isn’t important, then she doesn’t understand the importance of due process. Without due process, the Democrats’ witch hunt is a highly-publicized kangaroo court. That won’t fly in court. Further, ignoring the past precedent of letting the president’s counsel sit in on witness testimony can’t be ignored. The impeachment and conviction of a president is a somber event that shouldn’t be acted upon capriciously. It’s wonderfully ironic that Pelosi’s words would get thrown back in her face would be delightful to Republicans.

Watching the entire Zeldin interview is well worth it. Pay special attention to the crosstalk about the 4 Pinocchios part of the interview. I found it quite enjoyable.

Back on March 27, 2006, I wrote this post. That’s when I coined the phrase Agenda Media. By definition, the Agenda Media is interested in furthering the Democrats’ leftist agenda. The Agenda Media isn’t interested in spreading the truth. If the Agenda Media had a mission statement, I’m betting that it would say that acquiring, then maintaining, power for Democrats is their mission. That’s a shameful mission.

Kim Strassel’s new book, titled Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America is essentially about the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Resist movement couldn’t exist without the Agenda Media’s help. Ms. Strassel writes:

Last week The Washington Post revealed the alarming news that House Democrats were considering having their anonymous “whistleblower” testify from a remote location, and in disguise. Just as shocking as the details of this plan was the justification the Post ladled on this Democratic effort to hide impeachment information from the public.

It explained, high up in the story, that the cloak-and-dagger approach was merely Democrats expressing “distrust of their GOP colleagues, whom they see as fully invested in defending a president who has attacked the whistleblower’s credibility and demanded absolute loyalty from Republicans.”

This year, House Minority Leader McCarthy coined a phrase that said “Democrats hate President Trump more than they love America. That’d sound extreme if you haven’t paid attention to the Democrats’ actions. If you’ve paid attention to the Democrats’ actions, Leader McCarthy’s cliché is legitimate.

It’d be wrong to call Pelosi’s Democrats a domestic terrorist organization but I wouldn’t be that far off. Since President Trump’s election, Democrats have voted virtually unanimously against prosperity and against giving President Trump some political victories. Let’s not forget that every Democrat in DC voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that’s been the heart of this incredible economic performance.

Let’s remember that every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirming Justice Kavanaugh. In fact, those Democrats did everything imaginable to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation and Justice Kavanaugh’s family. It isn’t surprising that every Democrat voted against Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The Resist Movement is spearheaded by the Agenda Media. The truth is that the Agenda Media is significantly to the left of traditional Democrats. That doesn’t mean that today’s Democrats are moderates. They definitely aren’t. The AOC wing of the Democratic Party is the biggest wing of the Party. They’re also the craziest part of the Party. Check out this interview:

Notice that Leslie Marshall cites polls favoring impeachment rather than defending the secrecy with which House Democrats are conducting their sham impeachment proceedings. Marshall didn’t attempt to defend Pelosi’s or Schiff’s indefensible actions.

That’s changed in the age of Trump. The press has embraced its bias, joined the Resistance and declared its allegiance to one side of a partisan war. It now openly declares those who offer any fair defense of this administration as Trump “enablers.” It writes off those who question the FBI or Department of Justice actions in 2016 as “conspiracy” theorists. It acts as willing scribes for Democrats and former Obama officials; peddles evidence-free accusations; sources stories from people with clear political axes to grind; and closes its eyes to clear evidence of government abuse.

It’s time for truth-loving Republicans and independents to shove the NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post off a non-literal cliff. They’re propagandists. They aren’t real journalists.

I didn’t know that Collin Peterson was truly independent. I’m skeptical of that characterization ever since I wrote this post. I’d received an email from Lt. Gov. Fischbach announcing her candidacy to challenge Peterson. This jumped off the page at me:

“Collin Peterson no longer represents Western Minnesota values,” added Fischbach. “One of his first votes this Congress was to ban the wall, and he votes against President Trump 85 percent of the time. Unlike Peterson, I will work with President Trump to secure our borders, build the wall, fight against the Democrats’ socialist agenda, and keep America great.”

It’s important to remember that President Trump won the Seventh District by 31 points. Voting against President Trump 85% of the time isn’t proof of Peterson’s independence. It’s proof that Peterson wants it both ways. Peterson apparently is afflicted by Tom Daschle Disease. That’s where a politician votes liberal in DC, then professes his moderation the minute he enters his rural district.

This is who Peterson really is:

In 2010, I’d say that Peterson is a Blue Dog Democrat until Pelosi needed his vote.