Thursday, February 6, 2020
Thom Tillis: Why I voted to acquit President Trump
Last fall, Nancy Pelosi finally lost control of the radicals in her conference and reluctantly imposed upon the American people a bitter impeachment process that threatened to inflict irreversible damage upon our country. Congressional Democrats have spent the last five months working for themselves and trying to quench their three-year thirst to reverse the results of the 2016 election, when they should have been working for you.
In the end, the Democrats produced a weak case with weak evidence, all while denying the President basic due process rights.
I voted to acquit the President, and I’m glad it’s over so our country can move on and I can get back to work to deliver more results for the people of North Carolina.
Unfortunately, some Democrats and members of the liberal media are not ready to move on and will spend the months leading up to the election in November still trying to convince you that a “cover-up” took place and argue that the President should be impeached again and again until he is removed from office.
How did we get to this point? It started when Nancy Pelosi commenced the impeachment process without even seeing the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart. Instead of affording President Trump the due process that he deserved and conducting a transparent investigation, Democrats used secret, closed-door hearings, coordinated selective leaks to the press that they believed advanced their own narrative, and denied the President access to hearings for 71 of the 78 days of the impeachment process.
The Senate trial that I witnessed first-hand proved the weakness and inherent contradictions of their case. While House managers repeatedly declared what a strong and indisputable case they had, they also curiously said that the Senate needed to subpoena witnesses, something the House refused to do themselves. Given the presumption of innocence in America, one can wonder how Democrats could justify a...
In the end, the Democrats produced a weak case with weak evidence, all while denying the President basic due process rights.
I voted to acquit the President, and I’m glad it’s over so our country can move on and I can get back to work to deliver more results for the people of North Carolina.
Unfortunately, some Democrats and members of the liberal media are not ready to move on and will spend the months leading up to the election in November still trying to convince you that a “cover-up” took place and argue that the President should be impeached again and again until he is removed from office.
How did we get to this point? It started when Nancy Pelosi commenced the impeachment process without even seeing the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart. Instead of affording President Trump the due process that he deserved and conducting a transparent investigation, Democrats used secret, closed-door hearings, coordinated selective leaks to the press that they believed advanced their own narrative, and denied the President access to hearings for 71 of the 78 days of the impeachment process.
The Senate trial that I witnessed first-hand proved the weakness and inherent contradictions of their case. While House managers repeatedly declared what a strong and indisputable case they had, they also curiously said that the Senate needed to subpoena witnesses, something the House refused to do themselves. Given the presumption of innocence in America, one can wonder how Democrats could justify a...
America After Trump
Trump stirred up the hornet's nest that is Washington D.C. when no other President has dared to even go there. This resulted in a strong reaction from the media, the Democrat Party, Hollywood, the elitists and globalists, even worldwide socialists. Trump was not a politician, but in his line of work he had to deal with them. So, he understood corruption existed, but not to the extent that we have witnessed recently.
Also, unlike previous Republicans, President Trump fights back, and fights hard. Some have suggested that “Trump is the political version of Floyd Mayweather, a counterpuncher who turned opponents’ attacks into his opportunities.”
Nothing is ever certain in politics, with that in mind and assuming President Trump will win the 2020 election, what happens when he leaves the office in 2024? Who is well suited to continue his unmatched legacy of keeping America safe, strong and powerful while dealing with the massive corruption that is eating the very fabric of our society and institutions? How to get the public trust back?
Some serious domestic issues that have been divisive may take years to heal. The political upheaval that Obama generated in his eight-year leadership (or lack of it), has left America domestically more divided than at any time in our history. i.e., the race issue. Obama revived a racial divide that had been gradually disappearing in American society. The damage Obama left behind will take generations to correct.
Looking ahead, the 2024 Republican nomination looks wide open. The most logical successor would be Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, who has devotedly remained in the background of a passionate man for nearly three years in office. Pence is a careful career politician and a day and night contrast to Trump. We should never rule him out. His dedication and loyalty to the President in addition to being the vice president is no minor achievement.
One historical roadblock stands in Pence’s way: “Vice Presidents have trouble directly succeeding the presidents they served. It's only been done twice, by Vice Presidents Martin Van Buren, in 1836, and George H.W. Bush, in 1988. Several others in recent decades have tried but come up short, including Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and Al Gore in 2000.”
At this early stage, only a few Republicans have shown interest or have been mentioned by others:
Larry Elder: Trump critics denounce pro-Trump blacks as ‘sellouts’– While criticizing Trump for not having more ‘sellouts’
The Donald Trump White House put out a photograph of the president’s task force on the coronavirus. CNN promptly showed its displeasure, not with the task force’s effort but with its racial composition. There was insufficient “diversity” in the photo.
In a piece called “Coronavirus Task Force Another Example of Trump Administration’s Lack of Diversity,” CNN national political writer Brandon Tensley wrote: “Who are these experts? They’re largely the same sorts of white men (and a couple women on the sidelines) who’ve dominated the Trump administration from the very beginning.
“By contrast, former President Barack Obama’s circle of advisers in the face of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was hardly so monochromatic. Neither was it so abysmal in terms of gender diversity. (Of course, to contextualize, Obama’s administration, on the whole, was far more diverse than Trump’s.)
“And yet, as unsurprising as the diversity issue in the Trump era has become, it’s still worth pointing out from time to time, especially as the country approaches the 2020 presidential election in earnest.
“That’s partly because the recent photos of ‘the best experts’ telegraph the kinds of people the administration deems worthy of holding power — and even being in close proximity to it.”
That’s a mouthful.
The writer implies, without proof, that more racial and ethnic diversity in the Trump administration’s coronavirus team means — by definition — a better response to dealing with this virus in particular and a more effective...
Polls Show President Trump More Popular in Utah Than Defecto Benedict Romney
A UtahPolicy.com survey released this week found that for the first time since his election, a majority of Utah voters approve of the president’s job performance–with 52% of likely voters approving of President Trump, while 45% disapprove.
The survey, notes UtahPolicy.com, “was conducted during the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, but after the drone strike that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, one of that country’s top military commanders.”
The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard points out that a poll for UtahPolicy.com conducted in October found that Romney’s approval rating in Utah was underwater–with 46 percent “strongly” or “somewhat” approving and 51 percent “strongly or somewhat” disapproving.
Bedard notes:
Significantly, Trump’s approval rating is high among Mormons, said the survey.
“Trump does get strong job approval ratings among Mormon and other religious voters in Utah. 59% of ‘very active’ LDS Church members, 64% of somewhat active Mormons approve of how he’s handling his duties in the White House while 52% of inactive Mormons disapprove,” it said.
The poll is significant in light of Romney’s vote yesterday to impeach President Trump, which made him the only Republican in both the House and Senate to do so.
His decision was slammed by conservatives, with many, including Donald Trump Jr., calling for him to be expelled from the Republican Party.
“Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS. He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joining them now. He’s now officially a member of the resistance & should be...
His decision was slammed by conservatives, with many, including Donald Trump Jr., calling for him to be expelled from the Republican Party.
“Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS. He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joining them now. He’s now officially a member of the resistance & should be...
An Al Qaeda Leader Came to America as a Refugee, And Applied for Disability for Bullet Wounds
How Biden helped an Al-Qaeda leader come to the USA.
After engaging in terrorism in Iraq, an Al Qaeda leader came to America as a refugee and applied for Social Security disability benefits because his “injuries” in Iraq had made it too hard for him to work.
In 2006, Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri was the Emir of an Al Qaeda terrorist group in Fallujah. The Iraqi city was the scene of brutal battles between Al Qaeda and America. It was where American soldiers had suffered the most casualties in any battle since the Vietnam War. Despite multiple defeats, Al Qaeda remained deeply entrenched in the city and was even able to seize a number of neighborhoods in 2014.
By then, Al-Nouri was living in Arizona.
Only 2 years after being the Emir of an Al Qaeda group, Al-Nouri had traded the deserts of Al-Anbar for the deserts of the Southwest. How was an Al Qaeda leader able to move to the United States?
Easy. He claimed to be a refugee from Al Qaeda.
In 2008, the United States raised the refugee admission celling to 80,000 to accommodate the surge of Iraqis applying to come to the United States. The Iraqis claimed to be fleeing terrorism, but some, like Al-Nouri were terrorists, and our refugee resettlement program was not interested in telling them apart.
A quarter of refugees that year were Iraqis. The Al Qaeda leader was one of 13,823 Iraqi refugees. The huge increase from 1,608 in 2007, made any real screening of the Iraqis all but impossible. And, worse still, Iraqis, like Al-Nouri, were in the top 3 refugee groups and their claims were processed 'in-country'.
"In-country processing", as noted by the Center of American Progress, makes "the process less onerous and cumbersome for Iraqis seeking asylum by allowing for in-country visa processing, making screening less restrictive." And what migrants from Al-Qaeda’s stronghold needed was less restrictive screenings.
The less restrictive screenings were one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final immigration gifts to America:
In 2006, Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri was the Emir of an Al Qaeda terrorist group in Fallujah. The Iraqi city was the scene of brutal battles between Al Qaeda and America. It was where American soldiers had suffered the most casualties in any battle since the Vietnam War. Despite multiple defeats, Al Qaeda remained deeply entrenched in the city and was even able to seize a number of neighborhoods in 2014.
By then, Al-Nouri was living in Arizona.
Only 2 years after being the Emir of an Al Qaeda group, Al-Nouri had traded the deserts of Al-Anbar for the deserts of the Southwest. How was an Al Qaeda leader able to move to the United States?
Easy. He claimed to be a refugee from Al Qaeda.
In 2008, the United States raised the refugee admission celling to 80,000 to accommodate the surge of Iraqis applying to come to the United States. The Iraqis claimed to be fleeing terrorism, but some, like Al-Nouri were terrorists, and our refugee resettlement program was not interested in telling them apart.
A quarter of refugees that year were Iraqis. The Al Qaeda leader was one of 13,823 Iraqi refugees. The huge increase from 1,608 in 2007, made any real screening of the Iraqis all but impossible. And, worse still, Iraqis, like Al-Nouri, were in the top 3 refugee groups and their claims were processed 'in-country'.
"In-country processing", as noted by the Center of American Progress, makes "the process less onerous and cumbersome for Iraqis seeking asylum by allowing for in-country visa processing, making screening less restrictive." And what migrants from Al-Qaeda’s stronghold needed was less restrictive screenings.
The less restrictive screenings were one of Senator Ted Kennedy’s final immigration gifts to America:
The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #191
Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #889
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)