Newsletters Romney loses GOP support in Utah after challenging Trump on impeachment

The Utah Republican senator, however, did gain among Democrats in his state.

Washington Examiner  "Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney lost support from Republicans and independents in his home state during the weeks after he called for witnesses in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial, a new poll shows.
"The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney, 72, going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday.
"The poll shows the senator’s approval rating falling among Utah Republicans from September through December 2019, and independents also shifted to disapproving of Romney over the quarter.
"In the prior quarter, 65% of Utah Republicans supported Romney, and while a majority still do presently, that number sank to 57%.
"The numbers are particularly striking for Utah, one of the most Republican states in the country. Romney romped to victory in his 2018 Senate bid and has been considered a local hero of sorts among his fellow Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constituents and others.

Steven F. Hayward tweeted, "So, the New York Times is trying to put the Babylon Bee out of business."

Don Surber

"One of the running gags is that the New York Times runs stories on things it sees as pending disasters from the angle of how it may affect certain groups. "World ends, woman and minorities hardest hit."

"Surely its headline writers know this. Its editors should but their abandonment of all appearance of objectivity in the Donald John Trump era is proof they are clueless.

"And so it headlined a story by its gender reporter, Alisha Haridasani Gupta, "With Brexit Looming, Experts Worry Women May Be Hit Hardest."

"Maybe the copy desk hates her. Maybe the copy desk is run by racists and misogynists. Maybe the copy desk wanted to get back at her for cutting an office donut in half and abandoning one half. Whatever the reason, "women may be hit hardest" is a dog whistle for "this column is stupid." And they labeled it.

"("Hit hardest" instead of "hardest hit" maybe a dodge around a computer program that automatically rejects any headline that ends with "hardest hit.")

"So what did she write? Exactly what a normal person would expect from a gender reporter." . . .

Thus far, Brexit has cost only one woman her job: former Prime Minister Theresa May.

 THE NEW YORK TIMES NEVER DISAPPOINTS!  . . . It’s like they’re trying to put the Babylon Bee out of business or something.

"Meanwhile, the Times has announced its endorsement for president. Big surprise: they have endorsed a Democrat. As they have for the last 50+ years. But wait—they’ve actually endorsed two Democrats: Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. The Times is calling it a “break with convention,” but it is exactly the opposite: clearly they cannot endorse a white male, no matter how experienced or qualified. Nothing is more conventional for liberalism today than the default to identity politics.
"The Times endorsement essay offers some wonderful comedy writing, such as: “Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.” Did no one at the Times pause for a moment to ponder how true this is?
"And this passage about Klobuchar is fun: “Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people.” Well, New York Times editorial writers obviously don’t have to worry about finding out first hand."

Who Adam Schiff Is? No One on Jeopardy! Knows

Got this info from Rush Limbaugh today.
Youtube

Watch Adam Schiff Tell Three Laughable Impeachment Whoppers in Less Than 90 Seconds  . . . "If the efforts to undo a presidential election, flout the Constitution and subvert the will of the American people using politically weaponized illegal surveillance and phony charges weren't so serious – and welcomed by so many many Democrats – it would be laughable.

"For the "laughable" part of this pathetic scenario we turn to Adam Schiff. The primary House Manager for impeachment, who should be a material witness in the case for his dealings with the amazing, disappearing "whistleblower," worshiped at the altar of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC News on Sunday. Schiff gamely reacted to the Trump legal team's first assertion that the House impeachment charges are facially unconstitutional.

"Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who will argue the unconstitutionality of the charges before the U.S. Senate impeachment trial, told Stephanopoulos why: . . ."

The ultimate conflict of interest: Democrat presidential candidates as impeachment jurors

Lynne Lechter  . . . "In the Senate trial, there is no voir dire! 

"The jurors are automatically preselected — comprising the elected 100 senators of the United States of America.  The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court is the presiding judge. 

"Three United States senators are currently running as Democrat potential nominees for president.  How can Senators Sanders, Warren, and Klobachar, with understandable but blatant self-interest and prejudice as potential Democrat presidential contenders, give Republican President Donald J. Trump a fair and unbiased trial?  The very notion is oxymoronic and risible. 

"Instead of opining that it is a sacred constitutional duty, or proclaiming as Bernie Sanders has that he would rather be in Iowa, it is shameful and a huge blot on their collective base character and lack of candor that the trio have not already recused themselves. 

"One can only hope that one, if not all, of the illustrious legal defense team that President Trump has assembled to defend him will quickly raise the issue of conflict of interest.  Even if such a motion fails, it should be duly noted for the record. 

"The Democrats are relentless, craven, and totally lacking in elementary standards of fair legal conduct that apply throughout our national legal system.  Why should the president of the United States be denied the same basic legal protection afforded every other citizen involved in a trial?"

Lynne Lechter is an elected member of the State Republican Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a practicing attorney in Philadelphia. 

MUST SEE LIST of President Trump’s Historical and Miraculous Accomplishments Three Years Into His Presidency

The Gateway Pundit

"President Donald J. Trump is celebrating arguably the best first three years for any President in US history since Washington.  And this is despite the fact that no President since Lincoln has faced the massive attacks from his adversaries that this President has faced.

"Below is a list of President Trump’s many major accomplishments in his first three years in office."  Full article

Charles Schumer’s 1999 letter about impeachment comes back to bite him

NY Post

"On Feb. 11, 1999 — one day before President Bill Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Senate — Sen. Charles Schumer penned a passionate letter, outlining why the process had taken an unfair toll on the nation. He noted that the president believed he had not crossed a line, and praised the large threshold needed to get a conviction in the Senate. He also cheered the American people for opposing impeachment. A Gallup poll in December 1998 found that 35 percent of Americans were pro-impeachment, with 73 percent of Republicans and only 12 percent of Democrats in favor. Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac poll this month found that 51 percent of Americans approve of President Donald Trump’s impeachment, with 46 percent disapproving, but the partisan divide is even starker with just 7 percent of Republicans and a whopping 91 percent of Democrats in favor. Though the individual details are different, many of the same points crafted by Schumer more than 20 years ago echo Republican arguments against the impeachment of President Trump. Here is Sen. Schumer’s original letter in full, with some of the more prescient sections bolded by The Post . . .

Statement for the Record of Senator Charles E. Schumer The Trial of the President February 11, 1999Mr. President, this is a day of solemnity and awe. I rise humbled that we are participating in a process that was mapped out more than 200 years ago by the Founding Fathers and that the words we say today will be looked upon by historians and future Congresses for guidance. That is quite a responsibility.I began this process in the House where it degenerated quickly into bitter acrimony. I would like to say to Majority Leader [Trent] Lott and Minority Leader [Tom] Daschle, and to my new colleagues who have wrestled with this case, that I deeply appreciate your fairness and patience and the way this has been handled with such dignity in the Senate.Growing up, our country and its government seemed like a mighty oak — strong, rooted, permanent, and grand.It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.Most troubling to me are the conditions that allowed this to happen, than the small group who precipitated them. . . .

Schumer argues for a no vote on the first article of impeachment in 1999.

The Democrats’ Sham Investigation

American Greatness  "As expected, Democrats last week insisted that a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses should be considered a sham trial. Those statements, whether from the lips of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), or Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), are part of the Democrats’ strategy to extend their investigation in hopes of finding a nugget of incriminating evidence against President Trump.
"Rather than passively accepting that, Republicans should highlight the sham investigation that Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and  Nadler conducted for House Democrats. The point should be to underscore the Democrats’ intellectual inconsistency. This video highlights the fact that Nadler refused to allow a hearing where Republicans could call witnesses:

"The Judiciary Committee, traditionally the “impeachment committee,” didn’t call any fact witnesses. The first hearing consisted of three partisan Democrat activists and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who has criticized the current impeachment effort. The other Judiciary Committee hearing consisted of the majority and minority counsels answering questions about the Schiff report. Schiff wasn’t required by Nadler to testify about his own report.

"A simple question screams out for attention. Where are the witnesses? We’re now told that a Senate trial must include witnesses. We are told now that it’s a sham trial if we don’t have witnesses. Pelosi even said that the Senate would be engaged in “a cover-up” if witnesses aren’t called." . . .

Can we all comprehend the sheer disrespect shown us by these obvious statements Democrats make? As with the "Russian collusion" fallacy, Democrats have only to make any ridiculous allegation that, even when proven a lie, becomes repeatable and used over and over by Democrats.
The hope of "keeping this Republic" fades with this Democrat Party. TD

So appropriate for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Overnight Open Thread: American Hero, Ship’s Cook Third Class Doris Miller
ABC News  . . . "The USS Miller, a frigate, was also named in honor of Miller. Miller also received a Purple Heart Medal, the American Defense Service Medal, Fleet Clasp, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. Miller died in action in 1943 after a torpedo hit the ship he was aboard in the Gilbert Islands.
" 'Doris Miller stood for everything that is good about our nation, and his story deserves to be remembered and repeated wherever our people continue the watch today," Modly said in a statement." . . .

Progressive Petards; When the Left has to live according to its own rules, it will rue the loss of the civilization it destroyed.

These are strange times, in which progressives grow near quiet when courageous Iranians hit the streets to protest a murderous government, but express remorse over the killing of one of the most murderous of all Iranian autocrats.

Victor Davis Hanson  "Since at least 2016, CNN has mostly ceased being a news agency, but that hasn’t stopped it from being an active participant in #TheResistance. The network is so caught up in the fervor of this movement that many of its guests and regular hosts have been fired, reprimanded, or apologized for threats to the president or general obscene references (e.g., Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, Kathy Griffin).

"Many of its marquee reporters have resigned, were fired, or reassigned for fake-news bias (e.g., Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris), or came under fire for false reporting (Jim Sciutto, Marshall Cohen, and Carl Bernstein) or have had to offer retractions and/or apologies (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus.)
"Its anchors have apologized for obscenity (Anderson Cooper) or simply making up false statements (Chris Cuomo), while analysts have been caught in a number of contradictions about their own role in on-going scandals (James Clapper).
"The common denominator has been the new journalistic ethos that aborting the Trump presidency justifies any means necessary to achieve such noble ends. Throughout CNN’s descent into parody, progressives still smiled at the usefulness of CNN for the larger project of delegitimizing the Trump presidency. Few understood the Thucydidean concept that once nihilists destroy norms and protocols of ethical behavior for perceived short-term advantage, they usually rue the loss when they themselves become victims of their own biased zealotry and are in dire need of the civilizational help they recently ruined.
"So it was last week, when CNN moderator Abby Phillip warped the recent Democratic presidential primary debate by not asking, so much as accusing, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) about a claim that he said a woman such as Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could not be elected president—in the fashion of a “When did you stop beating your wife?” question: “Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”

"Leftists were outraged at the CNN host’s flagrant bias— . . .

Conservatives Love McSally’s Brutal Media Diss

At the War Colleges (she went to the Air Force one, I went to the Army one) they teach you less about war than about how to behave so you don’t scare the civilians you have to work with at that level. Treating the members of the mainstream media like exactly what they are, with all the contempt they have earned – especially CNN – is not on the syllabus.

Townhall  "I had pretty much written off Martha McSally as a loser, a sure loss of the crucial Arizona Senate seat she got handed after flubbing a campaign to win the state’s other one, but it looks like I was wonderfully wrong. Somewhere along the line, McSally got woke, calling a liberal hack from CNN a “liberal hack” and inspiring a million Dem-loving media tears. It was glorious, and overdue. McSally laid out that simpering microphone jockey and showed that maybe she can take the fight to her gun-stealing, socialist-tolerating astronaut opponent and keep our seat." . . .
. . . "McSally is a literal hero, in military terms – an example to be emulated. But as a Republican senator, she just wasn’t getting it done. And she needed to hear that. She needed to unleash the Thunderbolt II pilot that was in there somewhere, buried under layers of consultant goo, just waiting for a chance to send a volley of figurative depleted uranium rounds at some Democrat lackey with a mic and a ‘tude."
. . . "What she can’t do is doubt herself. What she can’t do is listen to the whiny sissies of the media sobbing uncontrollably because the mean senator said a mean thing to one of the media mean girls. " . . .

Will police enforce Virginia’s anti-masking law at Monday’s rally?

 Steve Grammatico  "Monday’s pro Second Amendment rally in Richmond will surely attract left provocateurs bent on inciting violence.  And why not?  They know that Governor Northam and compliant media will blame any physical confrontations on gun rights advocates, making them the villains and obscuring their message. 

"Ostensibly to keep public order but more likely to foment trouble (as detailed in James G. Robertson’s article here), Northam took the constitutionally suspect step of banning lawful carry in an area around the Capitol’s grounds.  As of this writing, the order stands.

"On the subject of keeping the peace, there’s something else the Governor and local authorities could do but haven’t, as far as I know: declare they will rigorously enforce the following section of Virginia’s code on masking:

§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exception

It shall be unlawful for any person over 16 years of age to, with the intent to conceal his identity, wear any hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. [Exceptions include holiday masks, protective masks used by tradespeople, medical personnel, etc.]  The violation of any provisions of this section is a Class 6 felony.

"The risk of violence would be greatly reduced if Northam or police authorities cited the statute and declared that wearing a mask in or around the demonstration would be grounds for arrest.  That would eliminate the cloak of anonymity used by the left’s shock troops to avoid responsibility for their actions.

"So, why isn’t this message being proclaimed?  Have police been told to ignore the law and stand down on masks?  If so, why?  Inquiring minds want to know." 

1865: Richmond's capitol building during the War Between The States.

Virtue Signaling and the Indoctrination of the Left

"You might notice that Democrats are often dismissive of facts.  This is because they gauge the validity of different facts based on how well those facts fit their political positions, rather than gauging their political positions based on how well those positions square with the facts.  Once someone accepts a position as virtuous, and ties their sense of self-virtue to holding the right positions, they become immune to facts, and will find convenient ways to blow off any facts they don’t like."

Global Liberty Media

"Have you ever looked at a belief, and wondered how it is that someone can believe that thing, whatever it may be?  Have you ever wondered how it is that people can be so easily indoctrinated?

"Indoctrination is actually very easy to accomplish, and the purpose of this post is to expose exactly how indoctrination works.

"People think that the trick to indoctrination is to control the narrative, but it is not.  The trick is to control what is perceived as ‘true’.  Narratives follow.

"Controlling the perception of ‘truth’ starts with virtue-signaling.  The left constantly portrays their positions as virtuous, and other positions as lacking virtue.  Once someone buys into the notion that a position is, or is not, virtuous, then being a ‘good person’ comes from agreeing with the right positions, making it impossible to separate one’s self-identity from the political positions one holds.  Once someone’s sense of virtue becomes tied to their political positions, they will defend those political positions as if their lives depended on it, as not doing so would, to them, make them lack virtue.  Conversely, anyone who opposes their political positions becomes, by definition, evil." . . .

Hat tip to Doane Barile at Facebook Town Hall