Connect with us

Democrats

Left scrambles to downplay Biden’s words, ‘If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money’

Published

on

Left scrambles to downplay Bidens words If the prosecutors not fired youre not getting the money

We all know Joe Biden is a gaffe-machine. We also know he was involved in many of the scandals and foul play that were littered throughout President Obama’s time in the White House. Now, we’re learning that Biden used his power as Vice President to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a firm that employed Biden’s own son, Hunter.

This didn’t come from a FOIA request or deep investigations into Biden’s past. It came from the clumsy presidential frontrunner’s own mouth. While speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden discussed his dealings with Ukraine, including the threats he made if the prosecutor wasn’t fired.

“If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden said. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro and Representative Mark Meadows discussed it last night on her show:

It isn’t often that I disagree with assessments from my team, but this article claiming the media is done with Biden is wrong. He’s right that Biden’s campaign may be over, but progressive media will try to prevent it. There may be some far-left media outlets who were displeased with Biden from the beginning and are now using the Ukraine story to sink him further, but mainstream media is generally still in Biden’s corner. This story from the NY Times, an attempt to debunk the Trump administration’s claims that Biden played dirty to protect his son, lays out most of the facts while coming to completely wrong conclusions, as they’re wont to do.

Biden’s Work in Ukraine: What We Know and Don’t Know

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-trump.htmlThe president has often been vague about the specifics of his allegations, but one detail that he and his allies have repeatedly cited is the former vice president’s threatening to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the prosecutor. Mr. Trump’s campaign on Saturday publicized footage of Mr. Biden recounting the threat.

The prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, was soon voted out by the Ukrainian Parliament.

His dismissal had been sought not just by Mr. Biden, but also by others in the Obama administration, as well other Western governments and international lenders. Mr. Shokin had been repeatedly accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his office and among the Ukrainian political elite, and criticized for failing to bring corruption cases.

There are two huge, gaping hole in the NY Times’ assessment that he was being pushed out by many in and out of the White House at the time. First, neither the U.S. government nor any other is likely to be concerned about corruption within a sovereign nation’s state prosecutor’s office. It’s just not something we do, and we especially wouldn’t hold a billion dollar loan guarantee back because we didn’t like a prosecutor.

But more importantly, the NY Times readily admits the prosecutor WAS investigating Hunter Biden’s company. His replacement looked into the matter and came to the quick, politically expedient conclusion that there was nothing to see here. That certainly sounds like political pressure being used to subvert an investigation into a company with deep financial ties to the son of a Vice President. It definitely doesn’t sound like the United States government’s sudden desire to end corruption in a prosecutor’s office for the sake of doing the right thing.

No, legacy media is not pushing the Ukraine scandal because they don’t like Joe Biden. They’re pushing the Ukraine scandal because they don’t like President Trump and they believe the American people are too stupid to connect the dots back to Biden. They believe their propaganda machine can offer Biden the cover he needs while pointing their fingers at a phone call, a whistleblower, and an exchange between world leaders that almost certainly did nothing to break any laws.

Democrats and the media are so desperate to push the unpopular impeachment narrative that they’ll take their chances with harming Biden along the way. They think we’re too dumb to see the truth. I, for one, refuse to believe their lies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

0

Democrats

Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Published

on

Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has one goal. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not impeachment of the President. She’s supporting it now because she has to for various reasons ranging from a revolting left within her own caucus to acting as a smokescreen to protect Joe Biden and other Democrats (possibly including herself) who have engaged with the previous corrupt government of Ukraine. But it’s not what she wants because she knows it will fail in the end.

Her actual goal is to clear the stink of impeachment off the Democrats before the 2020 election. Yes, it’s going to stink. Thanks to the antics of Adam Schiff and others, it’s already stinking pretty badly and it hasn’t even had very much time to rot in front of American voters. She wants to get in, check off the impeachment box on her list of “accomplishments” as Speaker, and move onto the next component of obstruction that she’ll hope to ride into the 2020 election.

We cannot allow that to happen. This stink must remain firmly attached to the Democrats who support impeachment all the way through to election day next year. They need to wear impeachment like an albatross of shame around the necks, and they must not be allowed to shed it until they’re ousted from office.

This is important. The press is going to help them “move on” after it’s done. But conservatives must keep pressing it. We cannot allow it to fall off the radar as we’ve done so many times in recent elections. Benghazi should have sunk President Obama, but he was let off the hook. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation debacle should have helped Republicans expand their control of the Senate, but it was old news a month after his confirmation just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Time and time again, Democrats hand Republicans something that stinks, and Republicans fail to capitalize on it during elections.

If former FBI Director James Comey had let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her email scandal a month earlier than he did, she might have won the 2016 election. That’s how bad Republicans are at capitalizing on Democratic mistakes. Impeachment is such a mistake, a huge one. And if Republicans don’t handle it right, they’ll let it slip into the history books instead of letting it carry them to big gains in the House and Senate.

President Trump will be fine. He’ll capitalize on it without even trying and will use it to win his reelection. Down-ballot races must do the same. Any Republican running against a Democrat who supports impeachment should use that as the anchor that sinks the incumbent into a dark electoral pit. They should hammer this debacle until their opponents’ names are synonymous with “impeachment” among their constituents.

We must help them.

If your representative supports impeachment, make certain everyone you influence knows just how bad that really is. Today, it is allegedly popular with many. But it’s going to end up stinking very badly, and that odor must stick to Democrats like glue.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Andrew Wilkow: Elizabeth Warren’s lack of real-world experience is why progressives love her

Published

on

Andrew Wilkow Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. I’ll admit, I never expected that to be the case until recently. I truly believed she would be in the middle of the pack before bowing out in favor of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, or one of the other radical progressives who would take on Joe Biden. But I was wrong. She has surged into the lead and at this point, it’s her race to lose.

BlazeTV’s Andrew Wilkow explained her popularity among the progressives, and in doing so showed by I was unable to see her appeal. According to Wilkow, the difference between her and Hillary Clinton is that she’s a member of the elite academia, which progressives love. Her lack of real-world experience isn’t seen as the clear detraction that it should be. Instead, having lived in a theoretical bubble of feel-good progressive policy proposals gives her an advantage in the eyes of hyper-leftists.

In other words, she hasn’t had any real-world experience to burst her bubble, so she’s able to enact hypothetical ideas that are demonstrably bad without reality clouding her judgment. To the far-left, this makes her an ideal candidate.

How in the world is Elizabeth Warren leading in the Democratic polls? Andrew Wilkow breaks it all down for us in this eye-opening analysis for BlazeTV. She’s as detached from reality as her policy proposals, which is why the radicals adore her.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

The next demand after ‘universal’ background checks: Governmental permission to defend yourself

Published

on

By

Universal Background Checks Video

As predicted, the left is now moving on to new demands for licensing for unalienable human rights.

FreedomToons debunks the next stage in the authoritarian socialist left’s obsession with gun confiscation, the requirement for governmental permission to possess an unalienable human right. The left is never satisfied with just one incremental imposition on our freedom. They see their campaign to destroy liberty as a multi-step process.

‘Universal’ background checks place the government in control of private property, something the founding fathers would find to be abhorrent. Having to obtain governmental permission to buy, sell or transfer private property means the government is asserting control over that property, to record who has that property, tax it when they see fit or even deny said transfers. This is why the national socialist left obsesses over this step towards gun confiscation.

Registration/licensing is the next step on this journey, formally placing the government in control of an unalienable human right.

‘Universal’ background checks change the essential relationship of government having the consent of the people, to that of the people needing to obtain the consent of the government in exercising their unalienable human rights. Make no mistake, these kinds of tyrannical moves only begin with the right of self-preservation. Soon enough, they morph into requirements for other freedoms.

Registration is confiscation.

Placing the government in control of an unalienable human right means that permission can be withdrawn at any moment. We have already proven that registration/licensing is confiscation with the only distinction being were the guns are stored until they are destroyed.

Licensing/registration schemes for basic civil rights means that the government can simply revoke it’s permission on a whim and demand that the people surrender their guns as has happened down through history. Our second video will make that point clear.

While they will promise that each new restriction on freedom will miraculously solve the problem, these are but mere steps to their ultimate goal of gun confiscation. As we already predicted, the demand for ‘universal’ background checks will quickly morph into demands for self-defense licensing. A requirement that everyone obtain permission from the government in order to exercise the basic human right of self-preservation. Never mind that setting up the government to be in control of it’s own constraints makes no sense.

Does the left really want to place the government in control of our civil liberties?

We would have riots in the newsrooms of the New York Times if freedom of the press depended upon governmental permission. The precepts of the Bill of Rights are constraints on the government, they don’t exist if they depend upon it’s permission. The right to privacy or due process, won’t exist if the powers that be control their implementation. But somehow the authoritarian socialist left doesn’t seem to have a problem with this issue when applied to guns. It’s that special exception that everyone misses in the founding documents that says that these are unalienable human rights, but only if kids aren’t crying on the tele.

Please note that the 2nd amendment only affirms a pre-existing right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Emphasis added]

Note that says the people, not militia and that this pre-existing right shall not be infringed. This was meant as a bulwark against tyranny, it doesn’t make any sense to have this control against tyranny in the hands of the government.

Sometimes, it’s just too easy to predict the actions of the authoritarian socialist left.

It was only back in August that we predicted that if the Republicans and President Trump knuckled under to the liberty grabber leftists, that they would be back with new demands for licensing/registration requirements on our inalienable human rights.

In the case of the original video from VOX, published in September, they are getting ahead of themselves with new demands even before their old obsessions were fulfilled. Apparently the left is so obsessed with gun confiscation, they couldn’t wait to make this new demand for the restriction of liberty.

The authoritarian left wants to restrict liberty based on what might happen.

One almost has to admire the chutzpah of the authors of the original production in talking about restricting the liberty of people based on future actions. Part of their ‘logic’ being that a long arduous licensing process would catch or deter someone who is ‘in crisis’ [whatever that means] before they might do something ‘bad’.

Again, it’s easy to predict where this will go from here, since it’s just a minor leap in logic to decide to preclude any future actions with the final solution of gun confiscation.

Registration, Confiscation, Annihilation.

Our second video proves the point that licensing/registration is virtually confiscation. It is a first hand account of what happens when people forget that the common sense human right of self-defense is a restraint on the government.

We also had gun control. The government said that children were playing with guns and we had hunting accidents. People accidentally shooting each other and we had criminals again murderers. The only way that they could track the murderer was by the serial number of the gun so bring us your gun to the police station then we can register the serial number and we can track the criminal.

Not long afterwards they said, no it did not help we could not track all the criminals the best way to have no more crimes and no more people getting hurt. Bring your guns to the police station and they already know who had guns because we registered our guns.

[Emphasis added]

The Bottom-line.

Everyone should be able to see why the national socialist left obsesses over ‘universal’ background checks, a critical step to gun confiscation. The ‘big picture’ on all of this should make it clear why the left is double-dealing on demanding gun confiscation while denying they are demanding gun confiscation.

They need to determine gun ownership with ‘universal’ background checks. This is followed by virtual gun confiscation with licensing/registration schemes. From there it’s just a matter of calling in the guns at the appropriate time, most likely after another mass murder tragedy since these requirements never solve the problem of societal violence.

This is why more people are answering NO or we will not comply to the demands of the left in destroying our liberty. The original VOX video proves than ‘universal’ background checks won’t ever be enough. Virtual gun confiscation with licensing/registration won’t be enough for the liberty grabbers. For the national socialist left, gun confiscation will always be the final solution to the liberty problem.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending