Desperate Democrats & RINOs

 

Reblogged from Canada Free Press on Bob’s Opinion … Thank you Judi For a great story, as always.

R.S. Helms … Bob’s Opinion

 

Desperado Dems will never see that Impeaching a popular, duly elected president is only a devil’s dream

Why Desperate Democrats MUST Impeach Trump

Judi McLeod 00

By Judi McLeod —— Bio and ArchivesOctober 30, 2019

 

 

 

Crime Families 000Desperate Democrats NEED to Impeach President Donald Trump for this reason:  Living the Dream of the official return of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to the White House.

 

Unofficially, Obama, Clinton and Biden are already there,  where they sincerely believe they are still running the show.

Ever since Election Night 2016, the overriding intent of the delirious Democrats has been to steamroll a president who loves his country into oblivion with one failed lie after another.

The widely televised bittersweet farewell of Barack and Michelle Obama on Inauguration Day, 2017 was a carefully staged ACT.  Even as the Obamas were uttering their fond farewells, their surrogate Linda Sarsour was organizing the Big Women’s March for the following day, making the Obamas’  kisses on the cheeks of the Trumps—Judas-like ones.

Having convinced themselves that they duped the new president with Best Wishes, little did they know that by dint of his presidential leadership, he’d soon be kissing them off.

Though the mainstream and social media were never to report on it, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden—the top two leaders of his 8-year-long administration— never folded their tents to go quietly into the night.

Instead, they went quietly into the Deep State where they’ve been working to bring down America ever since.

Presidents come and presidents go, according to electorate whims.  But Barack Obama’s not just a former president, he’s a multi-millionaire one, a president who left office with an estimated 40 million dollars, a booty he somehow accrued during his 8-year-long tenure.

While Obama was making himself rich, main street Americans were struggling to hang onto their Health Care, among other pressing family matters.

When the main players in the Obama admin were making their carefully crafted goodwill departures,  they were of the kind one that conned the masses into thinking, they were merely moving on wishing the new president well.

Yesterday Man Biden was a national disgrace long before throwing his hat into the 2020 presidential ring

Trouble is that Obama, Clinton and Biden never really departed, but merely hung in.

Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never willingly departed from anything, let alone delusions of grandeur that she “should have been president” just as most election campaign polls predicted.

Clinton forgets that most deplorables know that she dodged her victory supporters on Election Night, sending out Campaign Manager John Podesta in her place. Reserving the right to privacy to shed her tears of defeat, for herself, she knew the network talking heads would fill in with a massive national Boo-Fest.

In a book, likely already written in her head, she blamed Trump collusion with The Russians for her humiliating loss—birthing the ‘Russians-Stole-The—Election’ conspiracy with money she took from Democrat coffers.

Clinton continues to blame everything but the naked truth for her loss.  The truth is that some 63 million Americans voted for her opponent Donald Trump ,knowing that it was he and not Clinton who had America’s best interest at heart.

Joe Biden?

Yesterday Man Biden was a national disgrace long before throwing his hat into the 2020 presidential ring.

Age and corruption seem to have overtaken Biden

Age and corruption seem to have overtaken him.  Biden entered the 2020 race more doddering in state than even Clinton who was falling up and down stairs during the 2016 Election Campaign.

Biden—for all of the hoopla that surrounds him—is just another hopeful in the Bus Load of Democrat Crazies.

Activists pushing an agenda of Socialism on America, none of them is qualified to be president, but Democrat leadership is too busy trying to Impeach Trump to notice where they currently stand.

Lost in the seething hatred of Trump by the Democrats is that the masses are thinking of voting while they are stuck on Impeaching.

In the sicko reality of today’s Democrats, they are trying to force the masses back to Nov. 8, 2016 by forcing Obama, Clinton and Biden on the 2020 electorate.

All of their pipe dreams notwithstanding, it just isn’t going to happen.

Meanwhile, Desperado Dems will never see that Impeaching a popular, duly elected president is only a devil’s dream.

Judi McLeod — Bio and Archives

Copyright © Canada Free Press

Thank You, Dr. Carson.

Ben Carson Rejects Political Correctness as Fatal to the Nation

Posted Tuesday, October 29,

ben-carson-speak-768x512

 

“This whole concept of political correctness … it’s going to destroy our nation.” That was the no-nonsense response of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson last week to Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D-Va.

Wexton was trying for a “gotcha” moment in a congressional hearing when she asked Carson if he would “apologize” for being quoted for expressing concern over “big, hairy men” trying to gain entry to an Alaska women’s homeless shelter.

I could not have said it better. On the most recent edition of “Washington Watch,” Carson—or Dr. Politically Incorrect, as I’ve called him—joined me to make it clear he will not kowtow to political correctness.

“It’s foolishness because, you know, the First Amendment guarantees people freedom of speech,” he said. “What political correctness does is it makes people afraid to express themselves. So coming in the back door, it actually suppresses the First Amendment. And we need to be very, very wary of anything that takes away our constitutional rights.”

Carson went on to nail the consequences of caving into the left’s tantrums:

“Anything that doesn’t agree with them is a hateful word, and that’s what I mean when I said we need to be more mature than that. That’s what I might expect from a third-grade playground. If we make everything such a sensitive subject and everybody has to sit down and filter everything that they say, and we’re listening carefully to their words instead of what their meaning is, what do we become as a society and as a people?”

We’ve got to nip it in the bud before it gets to the place where everybody just is silent. And they can’t say anything because it’s going to offend somebody.

Carson is speaking up for what is a commonsense policy: Sexually assaulted and abused women seeking shelter should not be forced to sleep next to men who think or act like they are women when they are biological men.

But he is also speaking up for free speech and freedom of religion. The left portrays the Trump administration as lacking compassion for people who need housing, but the opposite is true.

It is the Department of House and Urban Development under Carson’s leadership that has expanded access to people who need housing because the agency is once again allowing faith-based organizations to partner with the government after they were excluded during the Obama years. This inclusion of faith-based organization helps meet the needs in local communities all across America.

The Obama administration required faith-based groups to leave their faith at the door and pushed bizarre policies that put men in women’s homeless shelters. Thankfully, we have a HUD secretary who understands the principle that has guided America for centuries—equal rights for all, special rights for none.

That’s what makes America work, not political correctness.

Reprinted with permission from – The Daily Signal – by Tony Perkins

If You Enjoy Articles Like This – Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

 

Just a reminder:  If you’re a senior over 50, you can join a senior’s organization for Conservatives, and it is so much better than the left’s AARP … 

R.S. Helms 

More on Dark Money

First, thanks for visiting Bob’s Opinion.

This article is reposted on Bob’s Opinion from the AMAC newsletter in an effort to share on more than Tweeter and Facebook, I would like to have you share it with your followers as it is another great article on the Issue of Socialist Dark Money influencing our national politics.

Thanks again, R.S. Helms — Bob’s Opinion.

 

Politics

Leftist Dark Money Group Pushes Scheme to Pack Supreme Court with Liberal Justices CRC’s “Dark Money Report” Cited by Breitbart Reporter Aaron Klein

Share
Tweet
Email
supreme court

This article originally appeared on Breitbart on October 13, 2019.

Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a secretive “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George Soros, is pushing a scheme to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices by adding new seats to the nation’s highest court.

This comes after Demand Justice has failed in its repeated attempts to bring about the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

A Demand Justice petition circulated over the weekend reads:The number of justices is not established in the Constitution — in fact, we’ve changed the number of justices seven times throughout our history.

We need every Democrat to join us. Sign the petition and tell Democrats to support adding seats to the Supreme Court today.

The missive, also promoted in Demand Justice mass emails, claims “Republicans stole a seat when they put Neil Gorsuch on the bench, so Democrats need to be committed to fighting back by adding seats to the Supreme Court.”

The petition continues, “You know what’s at stake: the right to a safe and legal abortion, the right to seek asylum, the right to a workplace free of discrimination for LGBTQ+ people, and so much more.”

The activism drive seeks to galvanize support for the concept of adding seats to the Supreme Court but does not explain the process of actually getting it done.

Immediately after the confirmation of Kavanaugh last year, Breitbart News reported that already some Democrats and progressive activists began shifting tactics, pushing the scheme to “pack” or “balance” the Supreme Court by adding two new seats to be filled by liberal judges.

The Supreme Court expansion plot would be enacted if Democrats retake Congress and the presidency in 2020, according to the plan.

Political scientist David Faris advocated in a book published last year for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court with as many liberal judges as they can. Farris branded the plan the “neutron option for the Supreme Court.”

Vice’s West Coast editor Harry Cheadle summarized Faris’s arguments thusly:

[It] would involve first proposing a constitutional amendment to end lifetime tenure on the court and pushing a proposal to let each president pick two justices per term, a compromise that Faris hopes would “end the court wars.” He suspects Republicans wouldn’t go for that, however, so he’d advise the next Democratic president to just “pack” the court as FDR tried to do in 1937 before Congress rose up against him and prevented it. That would involve passing a bill to expand the size of the court and allowing the president to appoint however many justices would be needed to create a new liberal majority, with the friendly Senate signing off on any appointee. (This would be legal, Faris points out, because there’s nothing in the Constitution stipulating the size of the court, which has in fact fluctuated in the past.)

Writing at NBC.com after Kavanagh’s nomination, political science professor Scott Lemieux opined that “Democrats are now much more likely to mobilize against an even more conservative court.”

He continued:

But how might Democratic leaders respond?

A more likely scenario — especially if a Trumpified Supreme Court not only effectively overrules Roe v. Wade but then keeps striking down legislation passed by the next unified Democratic government — is expanding the size of the Supreme Court. The constitution does not fix the size of any federal appellate court, and the number of justices can be changed with simple majorities of both houses of Congress. Doing so isn’t hypothetical: After the Civil War, congressional Republicans manipulated the size of the court to ensure that it wouldn’t interfere with Reconstruction.

In July 2018, Yale Law School professors Ian Ayres and John Fabian Witt laid out the case in the Washington Post for expanding the Supreme Court, referring to the tactic as “court balancing.”

“Democrats need a Plan B for the Supreme Court. Here’s one option,” their oped was titled.

The duo advocated for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to announce a plan aimed at “balancing” the Supreme Court if the Democrats can win a majority in Congress and take the presidency in the 2020 election.

Ayres and Witt note the Constitution does not stipulate the Supreme Court must have nine seats and they reference historical precedent for expanding the nation’s highest court:

The court originally had six seats. It expanded and contracted in the first half of the 19th century, then settled on nine. It has remained there since 1869, partly as a political norm and partly to preserve competitive equilibrium.

At crucial moments in U.S. politics, parties have acted to change the size of the Supreme Court. Often the tactic was a political power play. But sometimes it was undertaken for the good of the country, as during the Civil War, when the Republican Congress in 1863 added a seat to the court in part to protect the success of the war effort against formidable legal challenges.

The Democrats’ court-balancing proposal for 2020 should commit the party to expanding the size of the Supreme Court by appointing two new federal judges who, by statute, would be designated to sit on the court for 18 years; thereafter, the constitutionally required life tenure would be served in lower federal courts.

While pushing their proposal under the banner of “balancing,” the Yale professors do not disguise their goal of packing the court with two new liberal judges:

If Democrats took control of Congress and the presidency in 2020, the new administration would effectively have two Supreme Court slots to fill immediately. The party should commit to nominate one liberal (say, the liberal analog of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch) and to fill the other spot by renominating the liberal-centrist Garland himself.

Ayers and Witt were referring to the nomination of Merrick Garland, who was the pick of Barack Obama, then a lame duck president, to fill the slot left vacant following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Secretive Arabella Advisors 

Demand Justice has played a central role in leading activism against Kavanaugh.

Demand Justice is fiscally sponsored by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, one of four nonprofits run by the secretive, massively funded Arabella Advisors strategy company that pushes the interests of wealthy leftist donors. Arabella specializes in sponsoring countless dark money pop-up organizations designed to look like grassroots activist groups, as exposed in a recent extensive report by conservative watchdog Capital Research Center.

Soros’s Open Society documents that it provided financing to Sixteen Thirty specifically earmarked for Demand Justice activism.

The Capital Research Center’s expose documented that from 2013-2017 alone, Arabella’s four nonprofits spent a combined $1.16 billion with the aim of advancing “the political policies desired by wealthy left-wing interests through hundreds of ‘front’ groups.”

“And those interests pay well: the network’s revenues grew by an incredible 392 percent over that same period,” the report related.

“Together, these groups form an interlocking network of ‘dark money’ pop-up groups and other fiscally sponsored projects, all afloat in a half-billion-dollar ocean of cash,” states the report. “The real puppeteer, though, is Arabella Advisors, which has managed to largely conceal its role in coordinating so much of the professional Left’s infrastructure under a mask of ‘philanthropy.’”

Even before President Donald Trump first announced Kavanaugh as his official nominee, Demand Justice committed to spending about $5 million to oppose any eventual Trump nominee for the Supreme Court. The organization sought to raise $10 million in its first year.

Breitbart News reported that within less than one hour of Trump’s announcement that Kavanaugh was his nominee, Demand Justice had already put up the website stopkavanaugh.com, exclaiming: “We need to demand that the Senate defeat the Brett Kavanaugh nomination.”

The news media has routinely produced articles on Demand Justice protesters, with many pieces failing to inform readers that this is not a grassroots group but an organization spawned by professional organizers and tied to deep leftist funding.

Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, served as press secretary for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The group’s digital team is headed by Gabrielle McCaffrey, who was a digital organizer for Clinton’s campaign.

In an interview with the New York Times, Fallon would not comment on the source of the group’s financing, but the newspaper noted that he was recently a featured speaker at the conference of the Democracy Alliance, a grouping of progressive donors.

Democracy Alliance’s founding donors include billionaires Soros and Tom Steyer. Fallon’s panel at Democracy Alliance was moderated by Sarah Knight of Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

Reprinted with permission from – Capital Research Center

MOVIN’& SHAKEN The Biden Uncover

Opinion / Politics

Joe Biden’s Son Resigns – Creating Massive Ripples

         Reblogged this on Bob’s Opinion from Amac news letter… a great piece so Enjoy.
         R.S. Helms.
Biden CIA Trump UkraineMark Twain is famous for lots of reasons. One is his timeless quote: “Truth is stranger than fiction.” The bizarre story of Joe Biden and his increasingly ignominious family makes the point. Sad, but true.

Even retelling it, a writer is hard-pressed not to choke on barely digestible facts. Allow me to set them forth, then draw your own conclusions.
In December 2013, sitting Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, flew together on Air Force Two – to Communist China. By itself this is odd, but not unprecedented.

Ten days later, the younger Biden had a contract with a Chinese firm. That contract was to perform work which, by every appearance, the younger Biden was unqualified. Nevertheless, the deal was worth one billion dollars, later increased to 1.5 billion.

A billion dollars would buy the Los Angeles Lakers, Miami Marlins, or Toronto Maple Leaves. It would buy a country like The Solomon Islands, or five F-35 state-of-the-art fighters, or Queen Elizabeth’s Balmoral Castle. It is not small money.

Hunter Biden’s firm is controlled by Biden and a stepson of John Kerry. Kerry served as Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton. A third partner was nephew of organized crime boss Whitey Bulger, convicted in 2013.

Ukraine facts surrounding Joe and Hunter Biden are well-known. The elder Biden, as Vice President, went to Ukraine and threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid if they did not fire a prosecutor who had his son’s Ukrainian company – a company on which he was a board member – under investigation. The firing occurred; money was released.

Add the latest. On Sunday, October 13, Hunter Biden resigned a board position with a Chinese company, from which he profited mightily – during his father’s vice presidency. The younger Biden announced he saw a conflict of interest with his father running for president.

In the interests of – fill in the blank – the younger Biden resigned from the profitable Communist Chinese company with considerable fanfare. Candidate Joe Biden announced he heard about it in the press. Take that one to the bank.

Since character is king, research is needed to understand the Biden clan, specifically Hunter Biden. Who is he? First, he was booted in February 2014 from Navy Reserves for cocaine use, according to the Wall Street Journal.

That raised eyebrows, even in the Biden fan club. That occurred three months after young Biden’s billion-dollar deal was inked with the Chinese company, and after that trip with his father to that country.

Within months, the younger Biden got another deal, this one with Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian company at the center of questions about his father’s curious conduct. Looking after your son is fine; doing it in this way, well, not so much.

What else do we know about the sought-after son of Joe Biden? According to a global news report, an April 2017 divorce was wrenching to his wife and family. Reported facts are arresting. Biden’s wife of 24 years “wept” in court, as offenses were chronicled.

They included spending “hundreds of thousands of dollars of marital funds,” on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he had sexual relations,” then becoming lover of his recently deceased brother’s widow. Enough said.

We return to judgement of the elder Biden, what the weekend revelation means for Old Joe the presidential candidate – and for President Trump’s shaky impeachment inquiry. Mark Twain would, by this time, be howling.

Here are the implications of the resignation by young Biden. They are five.

First, this makes plain Joe and Hunter knew their behavior was unethical from the start. Why? If unethical to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars – or a billion – from a foreign company while your father is running for president, then it is surely so when he is vice president.

Second, since Hunter and Joe traveled together to China when Joe was Vice President and ten days later young Hunter’s ship came in, an inference is unavoidable: Joe allowed his son to profit from a view that the older was influenced by the younger. That is, of course, patently unethical.

Third, the son’s resignation confirms the father’s poor judgement. Why? Because helping his son win business in Communist China makes more likely his corrupt intentions in Ukraine, interceding to get a prosecutor fired who was investigating his son.

Fourth, and most significantly, this gives the lie to the Trump impeachment. Admitting a conflict of interest in China, odds spike that Joe Biden was involved in public corruption in Ukraine.

That justifies asking facts supporting a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation by a former government official, even a vice president – even a candidate. If a president or AG does not have that authority, presidential candidates become free from investigation for past criminality – by announcing.

Perhaps the biggest impact of young Biden’s resignation is that average Americans – Democrat and Republican – now understand the Biden campaign is in a tailspin. Truth eventually outs. The case for impeaching President Trump now falters.

Mark Twain is famous for lots of reasons. One is quotes like this one: “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Joe Biden might have read ore Twain.

So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

Thanks for the article and I reblogged it on Bob’s Opinion hoping that some of my readers will bookmark your blog — I appreciate you and all that you get done.
R.S. Helms

Publius-Huldah's Blog

By Publius Huldah

Yes he does. The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air 1 which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt), 2 in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.

This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders; 3 and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.4

Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve…

View original post 2,251 more words