90 Miles From Tyranny

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Left’s Rhetoric in Impeachment Hearings Reveals Desperation

If you are in need of more evidence as to why so many Americans are cynical about politics in general and Washington in particular (and isn’t current evidence sufficient?), you need look no further than the etymological shift taken by Democrats during the House impeachment hearings.

As The Washington Post first reported, the decision to replace “quid pro quo” with “bribery” when speaking of President Donald Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s president came from focus groups conducted in key battleground states.

Among the questions asked of people was whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion,” or “bribery” was the best description of the president’s alleged conduct. The groups found “bribery” to be the most descriptive and “damning.”

Armed with their talking points, Democrats at the House Intelligence Committee hearing, across the country and on TV programs, began using the word bribery. Listening to some of the montages compiled by conservative media is hilarious. It is straight out of “newspeak” in George Orwell’s novel “1984,” which the author said was “designed to diminish the range of thought.”

This represents the death rattle of a party once known for promoting big ideas. Last week, the stock market achieved another record high, the Dow Jones Industrial Average topping 28,000, fattening the savings of current and future retirees. While not everyone is invested in the market, when companies make money, they tend to hire more...

Silent bombshell in last week’s impeachment testimony: State Dept. witnesses are the ones who conducted “shadow diplomacy”

There has been an understandable (and predictable) effort by President Trump’s opponents within the State Department and beyond to controversialize his foreign policy practices.

Among the supposed controversies is Trump’s use of his personal adviser and attorney Rudy Giuliani, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Director of Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney to implement Ukrainian diplomacy.

Trump critics and some in the media have incorrectly termed that as “shadow diplomacy.”

Impeachment witness Ambassador William Taylor took great pains to repeatedly called this an “irregular channel,” implying there was something sinister and wrong– maybe even impeachable– about the arrangement.

In fact, the resisting diplomats are the ones who are conducting shadow diplomacy when they are acting contrary to the president’s wishes. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president directs all foreign policy; not the other way around.

Along those lines, there was something of a silent bombshell that nobody flagged in last week’s impeachment testimony from Ambassador Taylor.

Taylor testified that he understood it was President Trump’s desire to lock in a commitment from Ukraine to launch a corruption investigation by having the president, Vlodymyr Zelensky, say so on CNN. But Taylor further testified that he did not want the CNN interview to happen, and “sought assurances from Zelensky that he would not do so.”

Under what authority did Taylor resist the President’s foreign policy– presumably behind his back?

Taylor and others also testified they assumed President Trump was seeking a campaign 2020 quid pro quo from Ukraine, and that they resisted that, too. We now know that Trump never mentioned the 2020 campaign– at least there’s no testimony or documentation so far that he did. He discussed investigating corruption tied to the 2016 election.

And we also know that quids pro quo — although one was not consummated in the Ukraine case — are a common and necessary part of foreign aid.

So, under what authority did these diplomats, who are tasked with implementing the president’s foreign policy, assume his motivations as nefarious (having never met or spoken with him) and resist his policy desires?

Much of what they criticized isn’t controversial at all– except to the extent it’s President Trump who’s making the decisions. And, at times, his decisions are contrary to the opinions of some long-established diplomats.

What follows below is a description of the U.S. president’s authority when it comes to...

Benefits Of Diversity In Oslo.

A video out of Norway shows Muslims vaulting fences to try to attack an anti-Islam activist who burned a Koran.

The incident took place in Oslo on Saturday.

A group called ‘Stop Islamization of Norway’ held a demonstration and were faced by a counter-protest of left-wing activists.

“We wanted to burn the Koran but police don’t allow it…so we toss it,” one of the speakers says.

A copy of the Koran is then tossed into a bucket, but almost immediately after another participant lights a copy on fire.

Several Muslims vault steel fences to try to attack the man who burned the Koran and police immediately...

U.S.—Chick-fil-A has said it will stop making donations to Christian groups that oppose the LGBTQ movement.

The move is said to be a "good trade" as Chick-fil-A has sacrificed its Christian fans in favor of an outraged mob that will stop at nothing to destroy them.

Restaurant spokespeople say they believe this move will be enough to appease the LGBTQ community and aren't worried about further demands from the mob until Chick-fil-A is groveling at the outraged leftists' feet.

"In no way will this backfire on us," said Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. "Surely the left will be entirely appeased by this move. They will definitely forgive us right away and welcome us as one of them. In no way will they hold our past activities against us. This is much better than our previous Christian audience, who were always adoring us and never protesting us."

Cathy said the Christian fans have been great, but it's boring just having loyal fans who support you through thick and thin, and he'd much rather have fans who stage die-ins and cancel you when you don't cave in.

"Sometimes you just want to be loved by a group that protests you for years and calls you...