07/30/20

Willie Brown’s Mistress #HeelsUpHarris To Be Biden Heartbeat Away From WH?

By: Daniel John Sobieski

At least it sure looks that way based on a since-pulled Politico story suggesting the California Senator was Biden’s soon-to-be-announced VP pick.  Was the story wrong or simply premature?  It was based on a photo of a notecard held by Biden on which it looked like talking points in favor of Harris were written down in anticipation of the questions Biden might get in announcing her:

Joe Biden was uncharacteristically tight-lipped on Tuesday about the final stretch of his search for a vice president. But the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee seemed prepared to talk about at least one leading contender: California Sen. Kamala Harris.

As he took questions from reporters on Tuesday, Biden held notes that were captured by an Associated Press photographer. Harris’ name was scrawled across the top, followed by five talking points.

“Do not hold grudges.” “Campaigned with me & Jill.” “Talented.” “Great help to campaign.” “Great respect for her.”

For a time it looked like Harris wasn’t even on the shortlist, consistently failing to make the top tier in the Democratic presidential primary debates, after being ignored in either another Biden brain cramp or a deliberate snub in which he called former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun the only African-American woman to serve in the Senate, and after a heated attack from Harris during a debate regarding Biden’s record on school busing:

The debate-stage skirmish was one of the seminal moments of the Democratic primary. Harris, who is Black, said Biden made “very hurtful” comments about his past work with segregationist senators before she slammed his opposition to busing as schools began to integrate.

“There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”

At the time, Biden called her comments “a mischaracterization of my position.”

A Biden pick of Harris would fulfill Biden’s identity-politics decision to pick a “woman of color” although Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the fake Cherokee Indian, could also qualify. Harris is glib, if not articulate, a stark contrast to Biden who can’t complete a sentence or a thought or remember where he is. It comes as Biden steadily slips among minority voters.

More great news for the Trump campaign.  Blacks and Minority voters are at record highs for President Trump.

Rasmussen Reports released their latest polling of likely black voters of President Trump’s job approval is now over 40%.

If Trump gets just 20% of the African-American vote it is curtains for the Democrats and a landslide for Trump.  Biden’s patronizing of African-Americans is typified by his arguably racist and demeaning remark that if blacks do not vote for him they are not in fact black. Does Harris believe this as well?  Biden has the baggage of supporting the 1994 Crime Bill which incarcerated thousands of young African American males while Trump passed and signed criminal justice reform which freed them and the likes of Alice Marie Johnson who was locked up for non-violent crimes:

Alice Marie Johnson, the Tennessee grandmother featured in a Super Bowl commercial spotlighting President Trump’s record on criminal justice issues, spoke to Fox News Tuesday in response to Trump’s critics after he pardoned seven people and commuted the sentences of four others. …

“I know I wasn’t politically connected,” Alice Marie Johnson told “The Story.” “And I know that three of my friends, Judith Negron, Crystal Munoz, and Tynice Hall, were granted commutations today and they definitely are not politically connected, and anyone who thinks these women should not have been granted clemency has not looked at their cases.”

Biden is and was pandering while Trump acted with genuine concern for the plight of minorities in the inner cities which is why he was pushing opportunity zones. Before the Chinese virus and the Democratic urban riots, those zones were reducing minority unemployment to record lows with wage growth at its highest among lower-income and minority voters.

For eight years Obama-Biden did nothing while Kamala Harris, as a former California state attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, did measurable harm to the community she claims to be a leader of:

She is counting on strong support from African Americans. But many black voters are wary of her 27 years as a prosecutor enforcing laws that sent African Americans to prison….

Still, her home state’s high rate of incarcerating people of color goes a long way in explaining the trouble she has had selling her candidacy to black voters nationwide. In California and many other states, racial disparities in imprisonment have intensified resentments of what many see as deeply ingrained discrimination in America’s criminal justice system….

But the prisons remain emblematic of chronic racial inequities in the justice system. African Americans make up less than 6% of California’s population but 29% of its inmates, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Latinos are 39% of the population but 43% of the inmates.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News calls Kamala Harris a corrupt and dangerous fraud who sees laws and powers only as means to punish her enemies, pursue her agenda, and get elected. She seems particularly fond of abusing the law herself as she pushes her agenda in with a ruthlessness that would make any despot blush. As Carlson noted:

Carlson, who called Biden’s vice-presidential pick the “most consequential” choice in U.S. history, disputed Sen. Kamala Harris’s authenticity on her progressive positions, saying the “front-runner” only stands by issues she knows will get her ahead in the polls. He cited the California Democrat’s low polling numbers at the time that she ended her own bid for the presidency and dropped out of the Democratic primary race.

“The wrap on Harris in exit polls is that she’s a fraud,” Carlson said. “She doesn’t really believe in anything, she’ll say whatever it takes. Of course, that is also Harris’s primary strength.”

Carlson also brought up an incident in which anti-abortion activist David Daleiden filed a lawsuit against Harris, alleging she and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra conspired with Planned Parenthood to terminate an investigation he was conducting into the fetal-tissue business. Daleiden accused Harris and Becerra of violating his First Amendment rights and abusing the state’s two-party recording law to silence “disfavored speech.”

“I think what we can conclude from this episode is that Kamala Harris, or any politician willing to use law enforcement to stop journalism she doesn’t like, probably doesn’t care too much about civil liberties or equality under the law, and indeed, she doesn’t,” Carlson said.

Kamala Harris, like Biden, supports Planned Parenthood’s crimes against the unborn and takes money and endorsements from the abortion industry. One remembers her bitter and vitriolic participation in the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, her resorting to lies, falsehoods, and innuendo in an attempt to get what she wanted. Biden is dangerous, only because he will let others control him and run the show. Harris is worse. She knows what she’s doing and will do it with astounding relish and ruthlessness,

The well-rehearsed attack on Joe Biden that nearly derailed his candidacy during the clown-car Democratic presidential debates by Sen. Kamala Harris should have come as no surprise to those who have watched her rise to political prominence. Never mind its relevance or accuracy. For Harris, the ends have always justified the means.

We saw during the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that Kamala Harris is an ambitious politician with a chain-saw-prosecutorial style designed to bludgeon her targets with attacks and arguments that are more bluster than brilliant. She revealed herself to be a political opportunist who, as Sen. Cory Booker’s “Spartacus moment” fizzled, knew an “Elmer Gantry moment” when she saw one. As Jonathan S. Tobin noted in National Review:

She first earned notoriety in the Senate last year by demonstrating open incivility bordering on bullying when she interrogated Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the national-intelligence chiefs. Bullying witnesses and cutting them off before they have a chance to answer is her modus operandi during hearings….

The same qualities were on display during her questioning of Kavanaugh. But while, like the other Democrats, she never succeeding in outsmarting the judge, she was the only one to momentarily flummox him by bringing up the Mueller investigation.

She started with an impossibly general and specious query about whether he had ever discussed the Mueller probe with “anyone.”… by asserting, even by implication, that Kavanaugh might somehow be part of the Russia-collusion discussion, Harris gave liberal Democrats exactly the kind of red meat they crave.

Along with her snide and disrespectful prosecutorial tone, that made her the winner of the first day of the Kavanaugh primary.

But Harris did more than badger, mislead, and imply in her attempt to slander Kavanaugh. Harris circulated a deceptively edited video designed to further her narrative that far from being an originalist that would apply the law fairly in any case, including those involving abortion, Kavanaugh was an active participant in the campaign to repeal Roe V. Wade. As Ashe Schow noted in the Daily Wire:

Harris’ Twitter account put out a clip that appeared to show Kavanaugh referring to birth control blanketly as “abortion-inducing drugs.”

This is clearly deceptive, as it’s obvious this was not the beginning of one of Kavanaugh’s answers. Kavanaugh’s full sentence, which would have only required one or two extra seconds had Harris’ team started at the beginning, made it clear he was summarizing what a party in a Supreme Court case said.

Kavanaugh said, “In that case, they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.” (Emphasis added.)

Harris was willing to falsify evidence to slander Kavanaugh and push the false narrative that Kavanaugh was just another pro-lifer waging a war on women. As she tweeted:

Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake – this is about punishing women.

Make no mistake – her abuse of Kavanaugh and Biden is about advancing the career of Kamala Harris. While portraying herself as a victim of segregation Biden supported, she neglected to point out her vehement opposition to school vouchers and school choice, things that would really free minorities from being trapped in failing schools and give them a real and equal shot at getting a quality education. She’s all for busing children from and to the schools the government chooses, but not for letting parents send their kids to the schools they choose. Harris in 2017 joined fellow Senate Democrats in a 24-hour floor session trying to sink the nomination of pro-school choice nominee Betsy DeVos to be Education Secretary.  As Joy Resmovits reported in the Los Angeles Times:

Harris’ remarks came amid a 24-hour marathon session that Democrats mounted to debate DeVos’ nomination on the Senate floor — a last-ditch effort to secure the one additional Republican vote needed to torpedo her confirmation.

DeVos, a Republican fundraiser from Michigan, former state party chair and school choice activist, has faced intense opposition since her confirmation hearing in January — the most of any of President Trump’s Cabinet picks. DeVos spent her career advancing school vouchers, which would allow students to use public dollars to attend private schools, both secular and religious. 

It would seem it is Kamala Harris who continues to stand in the schoolhouse door. During a visit with DeVos to Saint Andrew Catholic School in Orlando Florida in 2017, President Trump rightly called education “the civil rights issue of our time.” As the New York Post reported:

Trump’s visit capped off a week in which he addressed the nation in a Joint Session of Congress, pledging to fix the education system in America, invoking civil rights and claiming it could be fixed using school choice — using public funds to enroll students in alternative charter schools and private schools as traditional public schools.

“We want millions more to have the same chance to achieve the great success that you’re achieving,” said Trump during his visit to St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, which receives a state-funded benefit to operate as a religious school.

“St. Andrew’s Catholic School represents one of the many parochial schools dedicated to the education of some of our nation’s most disadvantaged children, but they’re becoming just the opposite very rapidly through education and with the help of the school choice programs,” Trump said in very brief remarks….

“As I’ve often said — in my address to Congress and just about anyplace else I can speak —education is the civil rights issue of our time. And it’s why I’ve asked Congress to support a school choice bill,’ he said.

Don’t ask Kamala Harris who, while thanking school busing for helping to launch her career, owes much more for her advancement for her association with former Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown. As the Washington Examiner noted:

Kamala Harris’ first significant political role was an appointment by her powerful then-boyfriend Willie Brown, three decades her senior, to a California medical board that has been criticized as a landing spot for patronage jobs and kickbacks.

Then 30, Harris was dating 60-year-old Willie Brown, at the time the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly, when he placed her on the California Medical Assistance Commission in 1994. The position paid over $70,000 per year, $120,700 in current money, and Harris served on the board until 1998. 

The medical commission met twice a month, and Harris, a United States senator for California since 2017 and now a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, missed about 20% of the meetings each year, according to commission records obtained by the Washington Examiner.

Harris, now 54, and Brown, now 85, started dating in the spring of 1994, showing up arm-in-arm at numerous high-profile functions, including Brown’s lavish parties and celebrity galas. He has been separated but not divorced from his wife Blanche Vitero since the 1980s and has maintained a string of girlfriends over the years.

Hey, politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say. Can we count her as a hardcore feminist then?  Conservative  Twitter icon James Wood has dubbed her #HeelsUpHarris, Kamala Harris is a dangerous and malevolent political opportunist who doesn’t belong in the same zip code as the White House – and the Lincoln Bedroom.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

07/30/20

Chinese Embassy in San Francisco Still Open, Why?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer: The Chinese consulate in San Francisco is harboring a biology researcher who falsely denied connections to the Chinese military to obtain a visa and gain access to the country, according to court documents filed by the FBI.

The filing came as part of a document that cited a slew of other episodes in which Chinese nationals allegedly lied on their visa applications by hiding their military connections. More details.

FBI Arrests Chinese Researcher for Visa Fraud After She ...

Axios:

Every country spies. And many countries — including the U.S. — use their diplomatic outposts to do it. But for years, China has used its embassies and consulates to do far more than that.

Why it matters: The Trump administration’s recent hardline stance against China’s illicit consular activities is a public acknowledgment of real problems, but it comes at a time when U.S.-China relations are already dangerously tense.

Driving the news: Last week, the U.S. demanded that China close its Houston consulate in order to “protect American intellectual property and Americans’ private information,” White House National Security Council spokesperson John Ullyot said in a statement.

  • In response, the Chinese government ordered the closure of the U.S. consulate in Chengdu, a facility nestled in China’s more remote inland region that served primarily as a visa-issuing office for Chinese hoping to visit the U.S., and was not a major hub for U.S. intelligence activity.

Yes, but: The Houston consulate wasn’t China’s most important espionage hub.

  • “San Francisco is the real gem but the U.S. won’t close it,” a former U.S. intelligence official told Axios.
  • It indicates the Trump administration is likely making an example of the Houston consulate in a bid to achieve its goal of a reduction in Chinese espionage activities without taking an even harsher measure, such as closing the San Francisco or New York consulates.

The Chinese government has long used its embassy and consulates in the U.S. to exert control over student groups, collect information on Uighurs and Chinese dissident groups, and coordinate local and state-level political influence activities.

Surveilling Uighurs: Leaked classified Chinese government documents have revealed that Chinese embassies and consulates are complicit in the ongoing cultural and demographic genocide against Uighurs.

  • The CCP has sought to track down Uighurs who have left China and force them to return, with orders to place them in mass internment camps “the moment they cross the border.”
  • China’s embassies and consulates have also collected information on Uighurs abroad and submitted that information to Xinjiang police.
  • Consular officials have frequently refused to renew Uighur passports, telling them they must return to China in order to obtain new documents — only to be disappeared into camps as soon as they do.

Controlling Chinese students: The Chinese embassy and consulates keep close tabs on Chinese students in the U.S., occasionally sending them political directives and quietly organizing demonstrations.

  • The Chinese embassy and consulates have paid students to demonstrate in support of visiting Chinese leaders, instructing them to crowd out anti-CCP protesters. They have also asked Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSA) presidents to hold study sessions on party thought and to send back photos of the sessions to ensure compliance.
  • “I feel like the tendency is that the consulate tries to control CSSAs more and more,” one CSSA president told me in 2018.

Supporting United Front organizations: Chinese diplomatic officials regularly meet with leaders of U.S.-based organizations tied to the United Front Work Department, the political influence arm of the CCP, and preside over the ceremonies and banquets held by these organizations.

  • One such organization, the National Association for China’s Peaceful Unification, has branches in more than 30 U.S. cities. Its members issued statements in support of China’s official foreign policy positions, and the Chinese embassy and consular officials encourage them to engage in local U.S. politics.

The bottom line: Dealing with bad behavior by diplomats is a highly sensitive geopolitical issue that can easily result in damaged relations.

Go deeper … Mapped: Where U.S. and Chinese embassies and consulates are located

***

In part, how big a problem does the U.S. have regarding Chinese spies around the nation?

Economic Espionage

To achieve its goals and surpass America, China recognizes it needs to make leaps in cutting-edge technologies. But the sad fact is that instead of engaging in the hard slog of innovation, China often steals American intellectual property and then uses it to compete against the very American companies it victimized—in effect, cheating twice over. They’re targeting research on everything from military equipment to wind turbines to rice and corn seeds.

Through its talent recruitment programs, like the so-called Thousand Talents Program, the Chinese government tries to entice scientists to secretly bring our knowledge and innovation back to China—even if that means stealing proprietary information or violating our export controls and conflict-of-interest rules.

Take the case of scientist Hongjin Tan, for example, a Chinese national and American lawful permanent resident. He applied to China’s Thousand Talents Program and stole more than $1 billion—that’s with a “b”—worth of trade secrets from his former employer, an Oklahoma-based petroleum company, and got caught. A few months ago, he was convicted and sent to prison.

Or there’s the case of Shan Shi, a Texas-based scientist, also sentenced to prison earlier this year. Shi stole trade secrets regarding syntactic foam, an important naval technology used in submarines. Shi, too, had applied to China’s Thousand Talents Program and specifically pledged to “digest” and “absorb” the relevant technology in the United States. He did this on behalf of Chinese state-owned enterprises, which ultimately planned to put the American company out of business and take over the market.

In one of the more galling and egregious aspects of the scheme, the conspirators actually patented in China the very manufacturing process they’d stolen and then offered their victim American company a joint venture using its own stolen technology. We’re talking about an American company that spent years and millions of dollars developing that technology, and China couldn’t replicate it—so, instead, it paid to have it stolen.

And just two weeks ago, Hao Zhang was convicted of economic espionage, theft of trade secrets, and conspiracy for stealing proprietary information about wireless devices from two U.S. companies. One of those companies had spent over 20 years developing the technology Zhang stole.

These cases were among more than a thousand investigations the FBI has into China’s actual and attempted theft of American technology—which is to say nothing of over a thousand more ongoing counterintelligence investigations of other kinds related to China. We’re conducting these kinds of investigations in all 56 of our field offices. And over the past decade, we’ve seen economic espionage cases with a link to China increase by approximately 1,300 percent.

The stakes could not be higher, and the potential economic harm to American businesses and the economy as a whole almost defies calculation. More details here.

07/30/20

Joe Biden Calls for Jihad Against America

By: Clare Lopez | CCNS

Speaking via Webinar on 20 July 2020, presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden addressed the “Million Muslim Votes” summit, sponsored by a Muslim Brotherhood operation called Emgage Action. Among other things, he (certainly unwittingly) endorsed jihad against the United States (U.S.) when he cited from a hadith, well-known to Muslims, but likely not so much to Biden. It’s worthwhile here to explore just how this whole episode may have occurred.

Emgage Action is a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Political Action Committee (PAC) that endorsed Biden back in April 2020. Left out of most media accounts, however, is the fact that Emgage Action’s parent organization, Emgage USA (formerly called Emerge USA, an acronym for Empowering, Motivating, & Educating Resourceful Grassroots Entities), is a front group for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is the U.S. branch of designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, HAMAS (itself the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood). CAIR was named by the Department of Justice an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

The Emerge USA/Emgage USA connection to the Muslim Brotherhood may be traced back to the founding in November 2006 in Broward, Florida of a 501(c)3 called “Center for Voter Advocacy” whose mission was to promote Muslim candidates for elected office. The founder of the Center for Voter Advocacy was Khurrum Wahid, a past Director of CAIR-FL and legal advisor to CAIR National.

Wahid has been a regular speaker at Muslim Brotherhood events sponsored by front groups like the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). From the Center for Voter Advocacy, Wahid moved on to become a co-founder of Emerge USA, along with a young Brotherhood operative named Farooq Mitha, who served in the Obama administration from 2010-2011 as Special Assistant to the Director of the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Small Business Programs.

In August 2014, Emerge USA changed its name to the current Emgage USA. Many of the Emerge USA leadership figures, including Wahid and Mitha, simply moved over to Emgage USA, where Wahid served as Chairman and is now listed as a Co-chairperson. Mitha is listed as a Board Member. 2014 is the year that the Muslim Brotherhood (under the aegis of the Turkish AKP, or Justice and Development Party) formed its first political umbrella group in the U.S., the USCMO (U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations). Emgage is one of the USCMO’s key members.

So, to recap this dizzying sequence of linkages (yes, it is done deliberately to obscure the connections): first, there was the Muslim Brotherhood. Then, HAMAS. The U.S. branch of HAMAS is CAIR, founded in 1993. Through the continuing leadership figure of Khurrum Wahid, we can trace from CAIR to the Center for Voter Advocacy, to Emerge USA, and now to Emgage USA. It is Emgage USA via its Emgage Action PAC that endorsed Joe Biden and featured him as a speaker at the 20 July 2020 online summit. Biden’s senior advisor, Farooq Mitha, sits on the Board of Emgage USA, a key member organization of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. political group, the USCMO.

At that summit, Biden mindlessly quoted from a well-known hadith [177] 78 – (49) by Sahih Muslim, one of the two most authoritative of all hadith collectors. David Wood produced an excellent video about that hadith, explaining exactly what it says and what it means. This is the hadith itself:

“Whoever among you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand (by taking action), if he cannot, then with his tongue (by speaking out); and if he cannot, then with his heart (by hating it and feeling it is wrong), and that is the weakest of faith.”  

According to this hadith (and another follow-on one as well), true-believing Muslims are obligated to “strive” with hand, tongue, and heart against those who fail to obey Allah’s commandments, encoded in Islamic Law, or shariah. It does not matter if those failing to obey are Muslims or not: shariah is meant for the entire world, like it or not.

We know the Arabic word for “strive” as “jihad.” Jihad to impose and enforce shariah includes kinetic warfare to terrorize unbelievers (think al-Qa’eda), subversion (think the Muslim Brotherhood), promotion of Shariah-Compliant Finance (think the U.S. Treasury Department), and information operations (think taqiyya by posers who only pretend to oppose shariah). Amputation, beheading, crucifixion, execution for adultery, apostasy, and homosexuality, flogging, and sex slavery are all part of Islamic Law.

Every informed Muslim listening to Joe Biden understood that he was encouraging them to wage jihad against non-believing Americans. We can be fairly certain that Biden had no idea what he was actually saying, but just as certain that Muslims listening now know he can be made to say whatever they would like to hear. This is incredibly dangerous.

On a final note, then, we need to ask how this segment found its way into Biden’s speech. Which advisor, which speechwriter made sure that hadith came out of Joe Biden’s mouth? Well, how about senior Biden advisor Farooq Mitha, whom we now know is a Muslim Brotherhood operative, who sits on the Board of Emgage USA, a key member of the USCMO? Matthew Edwards wrote a good summary of how the Islamic Movement has penetrated the Biden campaign at Jihad Watch on July 1, 2020, entitled “Islamic Movement Influence Operations Target Biden Campaign.”

That Joe Biden has no idea who’s inside his campaign is bad enough. But wondering whether the Trump campaign does is even more worrisome.

This column was originally published at ConservativeHQ.

07/29/20

Norm Eisen Partnered With Nadler On All Things Impeachment

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

When Democrats took back the House of Representatives in 2018, the Judiciary Committee hired Norm Eisen to be special counsel.

He’d been a White House ethics czar and a U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic during the Obama administration. And when he showed up to work for Congress, he started preparing for the possibility that the House might impeach President Trump.

Less than a year later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an official impeachment inquiry. Eisen’s new book, A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump describes this moment in time through the House vote to impeach Trump and the Senate trial, which ended in acquittal.

The book reveals that Eisen had drafted 10 articles of impeachment a month before Pelosi’s announcement. More here from NPR.

The Former White House Ethics Lawyer Umpiring Trump’s ...

While we all seem to rely on leaks and alleged leaks for unknown truths or some access to an inside track, perhaps just reading Norm Eisen’s book is a must to understand the real workings in Washington DC.

Sure, it will make Republicans and conservatives angry but consider reading it to understand more and for context as well as the opportunity to think more strategically when it comes to politics in DC.

“A Case for the American People,” by Norm Eisen — an architect of the House Democrats’ impeachment strategy —isn’t shy about its conclusions: Eisen believes in his bones that Trump is a recidivist criminal who must be ousted to save the republic. He also believes the Democrats who engineered Trump’s impeachment are heroes on par with the founders. The book is, at the bottom, an effort to convey those conclusions — and Eisen’s centrality to the impeachment effort — to the wider world.

But Eisen’s 280-page chronicle of the impeachment era, replete with his inside-the-room knowledge of how the process unfolded, juxtaposes lawmakers’ lofty pronouncements about protecting democracy with the often provincial tensions and messy House politics that drove decisions of national significance.

Eisen, who signed up as a House Judiciary Committee attorney in early 2019 with an eye toward impeachment, also describes the hail of early “f— you’s” he delivered to House Intelligence Committee aide Daniel Goldman, who he said had accused him of treading on the panel’s turf. (They would later get past the initial tension, Eisen says). He describes how internal Democratic politics led him to shave a planned 10 articles of impeachment — encompassing a sweeping range of allegations such as “collusion” and “hush money payments” down to three, and then two after vulnerable Democrats rejected charging Trump with obstruction of justice.

Eisen reveals the sometimes painful conflicts between House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) — in Eisen’s eyes, the unsung hero of impeachment — and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who often resisted Nadler’s lead-foot on the impeachment accelerator. Nadler drew Pelosi’s ire throughout the process by leaning into calls for impeachment faster than the rest of the House was ready for, and Eisen said Nadler had accepted that it would take time to restore his “former level personal warmth” with the speaker.

Eisen writes. [Nadler chief of staff Amy Rutkin] and I furiously worked our Rolodexes, as did the entire staff.”

Among their successes? Eisen writes that he persuaded anti-Trump conservative Bill Kristol to rescind support for a select committee and that Rutkin persuaded progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to retweet Kristol’s reversal, adding her own note of urgency to leave the process with the Judiciary Committee. Eisen — a former ambassador to the Czech Republic and Obama White House’s ethics czar — regales readers with his decades-old entanglements with many of the figures involved in Trump’s trial, from Trump’s trial lawyers to even the State Department’s impeachment witnesses, like former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, whom he describes as “my friend and former colleague.” Read more here from Politico.

07/28/20

AG Barr’s Testimony Before House Judiciary Cmte

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Written Statement of AG Bar… by Fox News on Scribd

Primer: This is going to be a contentious session slated to last up to 4 or more hours. Why?

Some Democrats have suggested trying to impeach Barr over accusations he’s politicized the Justice Department. Nadler said his committee “may very well” initiate impeachment proceedings.

“I think the weight of the evidence and of what’s happened leads to that conclusion,” Nadler said.

Two other Democrats, Reps. Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey, have called for Barr’s impeachment.

Items to be covered will be RussiaGate, the militant demonstrations around the country, criminal statistics, Roger Stone, and more.

JUST IN: AG Barr Warns House Dems He May Not Appear at ...

Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here this morning. I accepted an invitation to testify before this Committee in late March, but it was postponed as a result of the pandemic that continues to pose challenges to us all. I know some other hearings this week have been postponed to honor your late colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia. On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to pay my respects to Congressman Lewis, an indomitable champion of civil rights and the rule of law. I think it is especially important to remember today that he pursued his cause passionately and successfully with an unwavering commitment to nonviolence. We are in a time when the political discourse in Washington often reflects the politically divided nation in which we live, and too often drives that divide even deeper. Political rhetoric is inherent in our democratic system, and politics is to be expected by politicians, especially in an election year. While that may be appropriate here on Capitol Hill or on cable news, it is not acceptable at the Department of Justice. At the Department, decisions must be made with no regard to political pressure—pressure from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, or from the media or mobs. Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus “Russiagate” scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions. Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today. So let me turn to that first. As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and that criminal cases are handled even-handedly, based on the law and the facts, and without regard to political or personal considerations. I can tell you that I have handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this way.

The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done. From my experience, the President has played a role properly and traditionally played by Presidents. Like his predecessors, President Trump and his National Security Council have appropriately weighed in on law-enforcement decisions that directly implicate national security or foreign policy, because those decisions necessarily involve considerations that transcend typical prosecutorial factors. Moreover, when some noteworthy event occurs that potentially has legal ramifications – such as leaks of classified information, potential civil rights abuses by police, or illegal price-fixing or gouging – the President has occasionally, and appropriately, confirmed that the Department is aware of the matter. But the handling of the matter and my decisions on criminal matters have been left to my independent judgment, based on the law and fact, without any direction or interference from the White House or anyone outside the Department. Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that induced me serve once again as Attorney General. As you know, I served as Attorney General under President George H. W. Bush. After that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost 70 years old, slipping happily into retirement as I enjoyed my grandchildren. I had nothing to prove and had no desire to return to government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump. But as an outsider, I became deeply troubled by what I perceived as the increasing use of the criminal justice process as a political weapon and the emergence of two separate standards of justice. The Department had been drawn into the political maelstrom and was being buffeted on all sides. When asked to consider returning, I did so because I revere the Department and believed my independence would allow me to help steer her back to her core mission of applying one standard of justice for everyone and enforcing the law even-handedly, without partisan considerations. Since returning to the Department, I have done precisely that. My decisions on criminal matters before the Department have been my own, and they have been made because I  believed they were right under the law and principles of justice. Let me turn briefly to several pressing issues of the day. (…) Read on here.

07/28/20

The Bab al-Mandab Strait Must Not Fall to Iran

By: Clare Lopez | CCNS

Congressional House Democrats have been trying for a long time to end U.S. government support for the Saudi Coalition that is fighting to restore the legitimate government of Yemen. Led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), member of the House Armed Services Committee, they and a few misguided Republicans in effect would allow the jihadist regime in Tehran and its Shi’ite Houthi proxy forces to take over Yemen and its strategic position at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula, astride the critical Bab al-Mandab.

Map of Arabian Peninsula with Iran and Bab al-Mandab Strait highlighted

After President Donald Trump vetoed a bipartisan War Powers resolution to halt U.S. activity in Yemen in April 2019, the Democrats fixed their sights on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by co-sponsoring an amendment to the NDAA that would defund U.S. military support for activities in Yemen. That bill passed the House with bipartisan support in July 2019. But the Senate version of the NDAA did not contain that defunding language and the so-called ‘reconciliation process’ to mesh the House and Senate versions has, to date, not yet produced final language on a unified piece of legislation.

Just before the 4th of July recess, the Democrat-controlled House Armed Services Committee voted to add a rider to the NDAA that would ban the administration from using funds to provide the Saudi coalition with logistical support in its war against the Houthi rebels. The only Republican to join the Democrats this time was Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). As of 21 July 2020, amendments were still being offered in separate House and Senate debates.

So, what happens if the Democrats’ efforts succeed in ending the U.S. role helping the Saudi Coalition stop Iran from taking over the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula? And what are the stakes for this NDAA bill, should it pass both chambers and not be overridden with a sustainable veto by President Trump?

It’s useful to look at a map of this critical region of the Middle East. The Bab al-Mandab is one of the most important straits in the world because it controls access to the Red Sea and Suez Canal. Yemen sits astride this waterway, across from the Horn of Africa. Were Iran to gain a foothold there, it would be in a position to threaten maritime traffic at this critical spot as well as to further surround its arch-rival, Saudi Arabia.

Map of Saudi Arabian Peninsula including Bab al-Mandab Strait and Yemen (Jemen)

The stakes directly affect some 29 million Yemenis, too, at least 19 million of whom already suffer under horrific conditions as a direct result of Houthi aggression, banditry, and terror. Impoverished and in need of international assistance in the best of times, since the 2014-15 coup by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels, Yemen has sunk even deeper into disease, population displacement, famine, and poverty. In the last five years, the Houthis have looted the Yemeni Central Bank of nearly $5 billion in foreign reserves, planted tens of thousands of landmines that kill and maim Yemeni civilians, and seize and even burn international food assistance sent to help the Yemeni people. Amidst all these ravages, the Yemeni currency, the rial, is now in freefall collapse.

There are efforts underway to resolve the conflict in Yemen and return the country to its legitimate government. Speaking at a Middle East Institute program on 10 June 2020, Commander of the United States Central Command General Kenneth McKenzie lauded Saudi efforts to lead a negotiated settlement and indicated that it was Iran that did not want the conflict resolved. Gen. McKenzie also branded Iran as the greatest threat to regional security and stability, specifically citing Iran for providing advanced weapons to the Houthi rebels.

07/28/20

Rep. Gohmert Resolves to #CancelDemocrat Name/Party

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer: The political enforcement of Jim Crow was entirely in Democratic hands. The Ku Klux Klan functioned as the paramilitary wing of the Democratic party, and it was used to drive Republicans out of the South after the Civil War. Before he took up the cause of civil rights as president, Lyndon Johnson acting as Senate majority leader blocked the GOP’s 1956 civil-rights bill and gutted Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. Democratic senators filibustered the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act. More here.

Frankly, Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert’s resolution is brilliant. Since we are in the midst of a cancel culture, changing the name of the ‘Democrat’ Party falls in line with what the Democrats led by Speaker Pelosi are supporting by even voting to remove selected statues from the halls of Congress.

Actually, last week, The DailyWire reported the following:

Official Portrait : U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) introduced a bill Thursday on the floor of the House of Representatives that would ban the Democratic Party due to the party’s history of having supported slavery and the Confederacy, saying “that is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur.”

“Whereas on June 18, 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered the removal from the capital portraits of four previous speakers of the House who served in the Confederacy, saying that these portraits ‘set back our nation’s work to confront and combat bigotry,’” Gohmert said. “The men depicted in the portraits were Democrat Robert M.T. Hunter, Democrat Howell Cobb, Democrat James L. Orr, and Democrat Charles F. Crisp.”

“Resolved that the speaker of the House of Representatives shall remove any item that named symbolizes or mentions any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy from any area within the House wing of the Capitol or any House office building and shall donate such item or symbol to the Library of Congress, and two, that any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery of the Confederacy shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House of Representatives,” Gohmert concluded. “With that, I would yield back.”

“As outlined in the resolution, a great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred,” Gohmert said in a statement. “Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan.”

“As the country watches violent Leftists burn our cities, tear down our statues and call upon every school, military base and city street to be renamed, it is important to note that past atrocities these radicals claim to be so violently offensive were largely committed by members in good standing of the Democratic Party,” Gohmert continued. “Whether it be supporting the most vile forms of racism or actively working against Civil Rights legislation, Democrats in this country perpetuated these abhorrent forms of discrimination and violence practically since their party’s inception.”

Gohmert concluded, “To avoid triggering innocent bystanders by the racist past of the Democratic Party, I would suggest they change their name. That is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur.”

07/28/20

For Immediate Release: The Truth About John Lewis

By: Cliff Kincaid

Contact: Cliff Kincaid, [email protected]

The media claim, “John Lewis leaves behind a powerful legacy of social justice.” In fact, he called President Trump a Russian agent when he, Lewis, worshipped a Russian agent — communist Stalinist Paul Robeson. Lewis betrayed the cause of civil rights when he praised identified Communist Party USA member Paul Robeson. Learn the truth through Cliff Kincaid’s interview with Charles Moscowitz. Read the Kincaid article, censored by most of the media, about this, “From One Plantation to Another: The Tainted Red Legacy of John Lewis.”

07/28/20

DNC Platform Mentions ‘Whites’ 15 Times, All Damning

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Just being born white appears to be a basis for ridicule and shaming. Imagine that.

The draft 2020 Democratic National Committee platform being circulated in Washington aims to reinforce the view that liberals are best situated to battle for minorities seeking higher wages, better housing and jobs, and more money for schools.

With the August convention coming on the heels of the Black Lives Matter protests, it features support for the movement and an expanded pledge to root out racism.

The preamble says, “We will give hate no safe harbor. We will never amplify or legitimize the voices of bigotry, racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or white supremacy.”

In promising change, it sets up one group that has it too good and is holding minorities back: whites.

In more than 80 pages in the draft platform published by Politico, whites are mentioned 15 times, all critical, including three references to white supremacy or supremacists and one to white nationalists. The document doesn’t capitalize white as it does Black, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.

In most mentions, the reference is to how whites are better off at the expense of others. And the promise often is to “close the gap” between minorities and whites, though no solutions are offered.

While the nation elected its first black president in 2008, racial issues still rage, and that is a huge factor in former Vice President Joe Biden’s consideration of a running mate in time for the Democratic National Convention, where the platform will be confirmed.

As part of the preamble to the DNC 2020 draft:

Democrats will fight to repair the soul of this nation. To unite and to heal our country. To turn this crisis into a crucible, from which we will forge a stronger, brighter, and more equitable future. We must right the wrongs in our democracy, redress the systemic injustices that have long plagued our society, throw open the doors of opportunity for all Americans, and reinvent our institutions at home and our leadership abroad. We do not simply aspire to return our country to where we were four years ago. We know we must be bolder and more ambitious. We must once again stop another Republican recession from becoming a second Great Depression. President Trump and the Republican Party have rigged the economy in favor of the wealthiest few and the biggest corporations and left working families and small businesses out in the cold. Democrats will forge a new social and economic contract with the American 1people—a contract that creates millions of new jobs and promotes shared prosperity, closes racial gaps in income and wealth, guarantees the right to join or form a union, raises wages and ensures equal pay for women and paid family leave for all, and safeguards a secure and dignified retirement.

The full draft text is found here.

A sample of how this ‘whiteness’ thing has spread around the nation, enter Rutgers University. Without much press….

Rutgers University: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA

H/T: The College Fix has uncovered a fascinating change in programming plans for the English Department and Writing Center at Rutgers. You see, teaching all of the rules of grammar, sentence structure, and where to put the nouns, verbs, and adjectives are apparently insensitive. To whom, you might ask? Well, the title of the memo detailing all of the proposed changes is, “Department actions in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.”

Titled “Department actions in solidarity with Black Lives Matter,” the email states that the ongoing and future initiatives that the English Department has planned are a “way to contribute to the eradication of systemic inequities facing black, indigenous, and people of color.”

One of the initiatives is described as “incorporating ‘critical grammar’ into our pedagogy.”

It is listed as one of the efforts for Rutgers’ Graduate Writing Program, which “serves graduate students across the Rutgers community.

***

This should be added to yet another item that also got almost no press and that is the Smithsonian Museum. There is a unique separate wing called the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It is not only funded by private donations of which Oprah Winfrey is a top donor with more than $30 million but Congress also provided funding. Why is this a big deal you ask?

National Museum of African American History & Culture | NMAAHC

There is a specific portal and ‘whiteness’ here too is a political target.

Phase one of the portal features eight foundational subjects including:

  • Being Anti-Racist: a conscious decision to make frequent, consistent, equitable choices daily.
  • Bias: the inclination or prejudice toward or against something or someone.
  • Community Building: connecting and engaging with others doing anti-racism work and exploring issues of race.
  • Historical Foundations of Race: how race, white privilege, and anti-blackness are woven into the very fabric of American society.
  • Race and Racial Identity: how societies use race to establish and justify systems of power, privilege, disenfranchisement, and oppression.
  • Self-Care: caring for one’s mental, emotional, and physical health to sustain the work of dismantling racism.
  • Social Identities and Systems of Oppression: systems built around the ideology that some groups are superior to others.
  • Whiteness: an ideology that reinforces power at the expense of others.

07/27/20

Re. Gaetz Files Criminal Referral Against CEO Zuckerberg

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Washington, D.C.  Today, U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz (FL-01) filed a criminal referral against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for making materially false statements to Congress while under oath during two joint hearings in Congress on April 10th, 2018 and April 11th, 2018.

During a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and also a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Mr. Zuckerberg repeatedly and categorically denied his company engaged in bias against conservative speech, persons, policies, or politics and also denied that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives.

In June of 2020 however, Project Veritas published the results of an undercover investigation featuring two whistleblowers who worked as Facebook’s “content moderators,” revealing that the overwhelming majority of content filtered by Facebook’s AI program was content in support of President Donald Trump, Republican candidates for office, or conservatism in general.

“Oversight is an essential part of Congress’ constitutional authority,” Congressman Gaetz states in the letter. “As a member of this body, I question Mr. Zuckerberg’s veracity and challenge his willingness to cooperate with our oversight authority, diverting congressional resources during time-sensitive investigations, and materially impeding our work. Such misrepresentations are not only unfair, they are potentially illegal and fraudulent.”

The letter refers Mr. Zuckerberg to the Department of Justice for an investigation into the false statements made to Congress while under oath.

Full text of the letter sent to Attorney General William Barr may be found PDF iconHERE and below.

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable William Barr

Attorney General of the United States

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I write to urge you to investigate the conduct of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, Inc., before the United States Congress.

On April 10, 2018, Mr. Zuckerberg testified in a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. The next day, Mr. Zuckerberg testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On both occasions, members of Congress asked Mr. Zuckerberg about allegations that Facebook censored and suppressed content supportive of President Donald Trump and other conservatives. In his responses, Mr. Zuckerberg repeatedly and categorically denied any bias against conservative speech, persons, policies, or politics. Mr. Zuckerberg also dismissed the suggestion that Facebook exercises any form of editorial manipulation. However, recent reports from Project Veritas, featuring whistleblowers who worked as Facebook’s “content moderators,” have shown ample evidence of such bias and manipulation.

Two content moderators, Zach McElroy and Ryan Hartwig, both worked on the Facebook content review flow generated by Facebook’s artificial intelligence (AI) program for flagging questionable content. McElroy worked at the Facebook-Cognizant facility in Tampa, Florida and Hartwig worked at the Facebook-Cognizant facility in Phoenix, Arizona.

On June 23, 2020, Project Veritas published the results of an undercover investigation featuring the aforementioned whistleblowers. Their report revealed that the overwhelming majority of content filtered by Facebook’s AI program was content in support of President Donald Trump, Republican candidates for office, or conservatism in general. This alone is already an indication of bias within the platform.

Once flagged by Facebook’s AI, moderators reviewed the filtered content and adjudicated whether it qualified as removable. According to the Veritas report and undercover footage, the adjudicators were outspoken about their political bias against Republicans and actively chose to eliminate otherwise-allowable content from the platform and from public view simply due to its political orientation. This arbitrary and capricious behavior is not done in good faith, and falls outside of the express intent of §230 of the Communications Decency Act, which affords Facebook liability protection as long as the platform moderates content in “good faith.”

Additionally, these facts are in direct contrast to Mr. Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress where he stated under oath that Facebook is a politically-neutral platform and that he personally is working to root out any employees who are restricting speech based on Silicon Valley’s overwhelmingly leftist culture.

Project Veritas’ undercover footage shows that a great deal of “political speech” supporting the President was labeled “hate speech,” or was considered in violation of Facebook’s “Community Standards.” At the same time, speech promoting violence against the President and his supporters was labeled as merely “political,” and was thus allowed to stay on the platform. For example, McElroy captured a shot of a Facebook corporate ruling that an illustration of a hand holding a knife slashing the throat of the President, captioned by “Fuck Trump,” would be allowed as political speech, despite being in clear violation of Facebook’s guidelines. In this case, the guidance to content moderators instructed them to watch for hostility directed at the gallery that posted the image.

Facebook’s AI screening content is not politically neutral. Neither are the moderators hired to review content flagged by the AI program. This stands in opposition to Mr. Zuckerberg’s congressional testimony and violates the “good faith” provision of Section 230(c)(2)(A) of the Communications Decency Act.

Accordingly, I respectfully refer Mr. Zuckerberg to the Department for an investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§1001, 1505, and 1621 for materially false statements made to Congress while testifying under oath.

Oversight is an essential part of Congress’ constitutional authority. Customarily, Congress is grateful to citizens who come forward with relevant information in good faith, as the aforementioned whistleblowers have done. As a member of this body, I question Mr. Zuckerberg’s veracity and challenge his willingness to cooperate with our oversight authority, diverting congressional resources during time-sensitive investigations, and materially impeding our work. Such misrepresentations are not only unfair, they are potentially illegal and fraudulent.

I hope you will give this referral full and proper consideration. If you need further clarification, please contact my chief of staff, Jillian Lane-Wyant.

Sincerely,

Matt Gaetz

Member of Congress

*** Reference: Project Veritas has a history of hidden camera “stings” that use deceptively-edited video to fuel outrage against YouTube executivesCNNGeorge Soros, and other liberal boogeymen. (Notably, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in 2010 after being arrested for trying to tamper with a Senator’s phone.) More here.