Poll: 45 Percent Support Impeachment While 43 Percent Support Trump

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedThere is another poll out that spells trouble for President Donald Trump if the Democrats do not succeed again in losing the unloseable election.  There are now more people supporting impeachment of President Trump than there are people supporting Donald Trump.  Forty-three percent support him while fifty-four percent oppose him. However, there are other problems lurking in these latest Gallop numbers.

What should be a concern is the strength of the feelings of the polled individuals. The number of people who feel “strongly” in opposition or support to Trump is astronomical.  Some 71% who approve feel strongly and 81% of those who disapprove are strongly. Those type of voters do not tend to shift.

Some 45% believe that Trump should be impeached and removed from office while 53% are against impeachment.

The divide between the parties is also extraordinary.  Only 6 percent of Democrats and only 37 percent of independent support Trump.  Yet, 89 percent of Republicans approve of Trump and 92% thought he should not be impeached.

Of course, the Democrats are rapidly moving to the far left on many issues, a dynamic that could help Trump in the general election. Moreover, these figures show that Trump could not spend a dime on the primaries and sail to victory — saving his money for the general.  That is not a luxury open to the candidates in a crowded Democratic field.

171 thoughts on “Poll: 45 Percent Support Impeachment While 43 Percent Support Trump”

  1. Just ridiculous…!
    Do not have words to say that how trump has influenced such quantity of people.

  2. Dude 45% and 43%? Might as well say people they polled (polls really mean nothing btw) were 50/50. Exaggerating is the whole reason these polls are taken. 2% difference and President Trump is in BIG trouble!!!! 🤣🤣🤣

  3. The comment about “many Democrats are moving to the far left” is a meme that is without contemplation. “Far left” is so relative. Everything has moved so far right that left is now center and far left simply left. To say “far” has become synonymous with wacko. If the weekend and 40 hour work weeks and social security were considered today, they’d be wacko. I believe it’s unintentional for pundits to describe supporting democratically social ideas as way left but it’s implanting the concepts in the national consciousness and should be far more carefully considered.

    1. ““many Democrats are moving to the far left” is a meme that is without contemplation.”

      There are multiple ways of looking at this time line. One of the easiest is to look at what is being said today and check out what was said by JFK.

      1. It isn’t difficult to recognize the policy distinctions between a Joe Biden and a Bernie Sanders.
        You have Rep.Hyphen-Cortez saying that the party must move left, you have candidates like Warren and Harris going in that direction, and you have moderate or centrists Democrats like Biden.
        It is not “without contemplation” to understand that the Democratic Party is currently divided on a number of issues, and that that the party will eventually rally around the 2020 nominee, even though either the “progressives” or the “moderates” will lose out.
        It looks like a toss-up at this point which way the Democratic Party will go, but you can never underestimate the appeal of someone like Bernie taking out his magic eraser and making $1.5 Trillion in student loan debt just disappear, or saving the average family $5,000 a year 😄😃 by eliminating all health insurance options and forcing everyone into the MediCare system.
        So there is a “left/centrist” decide within the Democratic Party, and it isn’t just some abstract or indefinable contest between the two factions.

  4. One of the biggest indictments against our culture, particularly the Left and so called “conservatives”, is that they lack joy. True Christians are imbued with joy knowing that they are loved by God and are to show this fact to others. The Left, having declared “God is dead” decades ago, have demonstrated their black hearts by lacking joy and in their violence towards others defend their wrath and justify their death grip on the most defenseless.


    Even when it costs, discipleship leads to joy.

    In last Sunday’s Gospel, Luke recounted the hostility Jesus faced on the road to Jerusalem. In this week’s Gospel passage, by contrast, he is quick to reveal the joy to be found on the same journey. The privations and conflict placed Jesus and his disciples in a position to encounter God’s love and action even more deeply. With that encounter came a deep peace that no difficulty could undo.

    Life on the road required a reordering of priorities. Poverty, hostility and rejection remained constant realities. As last week’s Gospel showed, ties of comfort and family could no longer be one’s first concern. Jesus instructed his disciples not to draw attention to themselves on the road, and once in a town to live simply and accept whatever hospitality is offered. If a town rejected them, they were just to move on. They could express their irritation ritually by shaking the dust from their feet and invoking the memory of Sodom, but they were to leave the rest to God. They were not to succumb to the desire for revenge or to discouragement.

    Luke recounts that, in spite of the hardships, 72 disciples rose to the challenge. In this, they discovered a new joy: They were becoming like Jesus. They had heard him preach; they may have even followed and assisted his work. Now that they had adopted his lifestyle, Jesus was entrusting his own mission to them, to go from town to town preaching the Gospel and healing the sick. They reflected his very identity. “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk 10:16), Jesus promised them, and the success they found resembled the one Jesus himself had earlier enjoyed.

    Life on the road brought with it a deepening sense of God’s love. Joy characterizes this Sunday’s Gospel. Jesus was quick to emphasize the real source of that joy—that each disciple was known and loved in heaven. Taking up the proclamation of God’s reign placed the disciples in an unexpectedly rich relationship with God and the world. This new relationship brought with it shalom, a quiet joy rooted in grace that no hostile force could extinguish. This inner peace was the first gift the disciples had to offer to anyone who received them.

    Christ offers this quiet joy to his disciples today. Many of us do not need to be reminded of our poverty. For some, the poverty is indeed material as incomes fall and opportunities dwindle. Many more experience a poverty of hope. The task before us is immense, and we can feel poorly prepared or ill-equipped to face it, but the world remains eager to feel the peace we can bring them. When a parent responds to a child’s mental illness, when a friend commits to helping a neighbor get through a period of unemployment, when a businessman takes time every day to speak to the homeless person outside his workplace, when the activist takes up a struggle against injustice and the forces of death, when a relative writes to a cousin in rehab or prison, each has found a way to share the peace that comes from the knowledge that God is near.

    Whatever town you enter and they welcome you,
    eat what is set before you,
    cure the sick in it and say to them,
    ‘The kingdom of God is at hand for you.’
    – Gospel of St Luke 10:9

    Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time (C)
    Is 66:10-14, Ps 66, Gal 6:14-18, Lk 10:1-20

  5. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

    “While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump’s victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred “principally” on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

    But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

    The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.

    The report’s timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

    There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
    Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.

    U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

    Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
    Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, “a private Russian entity” known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA)….”

    1. Bravo! Thank you for the time you spent educating and reminding people to scrutinize anti-Trump propaganda.

  6. https://www.wsj.com/articles/jason-riley-the-other-ferguson-tragedy-1416961287

    Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, and 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

    According to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are 10 times more likely than their white counterparts to be murdered. And while you’d never know it watching MSNBC, the police are not to blame. Blacks are just 13% of the population but responsible for a majority of all murders in the U.S., and more than 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. Liberals like to point out that most whites are killed by other whites, too. That’s true but beside the point given that the white crime rate is so much lower than the black rate.

    Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of “over-policing” certain neighborhoods to juice black arrest rates. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the emergency calls originate, and they spend much of their time trying to stop residents of the same race from harming one another.

    1. Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, and 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

      Estovir, this is utter nonsense. The Centers for Disease Control assembles mortality data, as here:


      The leading causes of death for black males would be heart disease, cancer, and accidents. Collectively, these causes account for 52% of all deaths. Homicide is the 4th leading cause, accounting for 5%.

      Homicide is the leading cause only among black men between the ages of 25 and 35. However, only 5% of all deaths among black males occur in that age group. Even in that small subset, 40% of all deaths are due to natural causes and 26% to accidents.

      1. The link you provided lumps Hispanics and blacks together with a cautionary note.

        Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for Hispanic persons are not tabulated by race; data for non-Hispanic persons are tabulated by race. Data for racial and ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black should be interpreted with caution because of misreporting of race and Hispanic origin on death certificates]

        Putting this data aside, the WSJ article stated “Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men…” though they do not define “young”.

        Otherwise heart disease, according to the CDC, is the number 1 killer of all Americans for both genders

      2. The WSJ article mentioned Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men…

        It appears that your CDC link supports that claim. From your link, on page 52:


        Non-Hispanic, black, both sexes, 15-24 years
        Rank #1: Assault (homicide) (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1) Rate: 46.2

        Non-Hispanic, black, both sexes, 25-34 years
        Rank #1: Assault (homicide) (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1) Rate: 49.2

      3. I think he was talking exclusively about murders. Not natural diseases prone to every person in the whole entire world.

    2. Estovir, I appreciate this post. It puts Chicago in perspective. The Chicago Police, City Hall and Cook County Democratic Organization cannot be blamed for Chicago’s homicide rate. That rate represents a city of 2.7 million that is roughly 40% Black. The largest Black population after New York. Los Angeles and Houston, America’s 2nd and 4th biggest cities are more Hispanic than Black.

      So Chicago, infamous for it’s historic mafia, spawned a Black underclass with horrendous crime statistics. Much of it has to do with the decline of manufacturing jobs on the city’s South Side. Black men with High School Degrees or less have sadly few prospects. So ‘the hood’ becomes an island where locals are restless.

      1. Peter, you have such a simplistic answers to problems. How many don’t have fathers? How many didn’t finish school or became pregnant before finishing school? What is their attitutde towards the police maintaining order? Lots of question but when you look into what the Democrats have done you will see they provided the wrong answers to most of the questions.

        1. Alan, you’re a bore so consistently you become a caricature of yourself: ‘The nasty old man who’s consistently negative’. Even in comedies characters like that get boring. They’re ‘one dimensional’. Good writers and actors know to hit different notes.

          1. Of course Peter, no one should say that children are better off when they have two parents a mother and a father. The fact that you don’t want to believe it shouldn’t be a reason for it not being said.

            By the way NYC decreased its violent crimes rate by being proactive. Had you been smart and read Estovir’s citation of Heather McDonald you would have recognized that with all the negativity towards policemen they don’t want to be as proactive in cities where the young black death hommicide rate is extremely high. In other words Heather McDonald is indirectly claiming that you, Peter HIll, are a good part of the cause for the high young black homicide rate.

            You look at yourself as a good person because you like to give other people’s money (not your own) to other people ( a virtue signal), but when one looks at you one should see crosses along with a lot of young dead bodies because you stood by and let it happen.

      2. So Chicago, infamous for it’s historic mafia, spawned a Black underclass with horrendous crime statistics. Much of it has to do with the decline of manufacturing jobs on the city’s South Side. Black men with High School Degrees or less have sadly few prospects. So ‘the hood’ becomes an island where locals are restless.

        It has nothing to do with the changes in the industrial mix and measured ecologically or longitudianlly, the correlation between crime rates and labor market conditions generally is somewhere between weak and zero. As for criminal gangs in Chicago, the Irish mafia evaporated nearly 80 years ago and the number of made men and associates in the Sicilianate Mafia was enumerated in three digit. That explains almost nothing about why you have 7,000 black-on-black homicides in this country every year. You have the same slum conditions pretty much everywhere without regard to whether you ever had a Sicilian gang there or not.

        Why not try some common sense, Peter? In 1980, Baltimore and New York had similar homicide rates. Over the succeeding 30 years, Baltimore’s rate increased by 85% while New York’s declined by 75%. It’s not difficult to figure out why, Peter, but the answer to that question is one you don’t want to hear.

        1. Tabby, New York has gentrified significantly in the last 30 years. Brooklyn, in particular, has gentrified to such an extent that White people are willing to pay prime rents to live in areas that were ghettos in the 70’s. Brooklyn, by the way, has a population roughly on par with Chicago’s.

          Baltimore has been in constant decline for the past 50 years. Baltimore, ranked among America’s Top 10 cities for almost 2 centuries. It currently ranks # 30 and is still declining. Outside its downtown, Baltimore is largely a dead zone with an ever-expanding stock of abandoned townhouses.

          Chicago has partly gentrified, but not all sections. Large parts of the city are economic dead zones; especially on the South Side. Blacks with college degrees stand a chance of finding decent jobs. But with high school degrees, or less, Blacks can only hope for a low-wage service job (with part time hours, more often than not).

          And one should note that all over the country people with high school degrees or less find themselves on the fast track to nowhere. White people in small industrial cities of the so-called ‘Rust Belt’ are beginning to suffer the social ills of urban Blacks. The opioid crisis, surging rates of suicides and declines in rates of marriage are all reflections of this trend.

          To suggest that Chicago’s history of corruption and violence had no effect on its Black community is like denying Climate Change. It’s merely a dismissal of the obvious.

          1. There wouldn’t be gentrification if the manufacturing jobs were not exported to other countries. People would be able to make a living and not have their communities be impoverished and you wouldn’t have all these wealthy people take over.

            1. There wouldn’t be gentrification if the manufacturing jobs were not exported to other countries.

              Non sequitur. Also false and false.

            2. communities be impoverished and you wouldn’t have all these wealthy people take over.

              Communities are comprised of people. When people cease to interact with each other, communities collapse. If you want healthy and dynamic communities, get people to disconnect from the internet, stop texting as their preferred modality of “communicating” and break bread together. Let us know how that goes in your barrio.

              from Latin commūnitās, fellowship, from commūnis, common;

  7. Impeached for what?

    Winning an election against Hillary Clinton ?Now Empirically the most epic embarrassment and failure in US electoral History?

    Trump and Hillary were the 2 most hated candidates in US history and it was Hilary who even chose TRUMP.Only Hillary Clinton was so repulsive that she could cheat and lose to her own pied piper .Hillary even knew she would lose to Ted Cruz so it had to be TRUMP and the MSM and CNN who were in the bag for Hillary { MSNBC fired Ed Shultz for wanting to cover Sanders, talk about interference in elections?..and they Trump 6 BILLON in free airtime and played Trumps speeches in full while ignoring Sanders who beat all of Obama the super stars records for Crowds and donations.

    Trump is more popular than Hillary Clinton who never polled over 36% in popularity.Democrats thought they could cram Hillary down the counties throat and the people said NO!

    Hillary lost states that went to Obama Twice……those bigots

    Hillary lost safe blue states……the ignorant racists

    I will let Michael Moore explain it to you…..

    Michael Moore: A Trump Victory Would Be “The Biggest ‘*** You’ Recorded In Human History”


    STOP blaming Trump who didnt even want to win!!

  8. The Democratic party has gone down the rabbit hole of extremism of any Leftist dictatorship. This is so sad. It is no longer recognizable. I am flabbergasted at the number of otherwise kind, reasonable people who have gotten brainwashed by the extremism, hatred, and intolerance of hard Leftism.

    1. Hillary Clinton is the only reason we have Trump.

      Sanders would have won and easily who is a FDR democrat.

      Since when are democrats against National healthcare and free education?

      The world is rejecting your neo liberalism Trump ,BREXIT and Yellow vest are just a symptom.The people are rejecting your neo Conservative wars….Obama stared more wars than Bush and Genocide in Yemen and coups in S America and the Ukraine and Hillary was worse.

      …….Trump and Sanders ran against the wars and free trade.And Trump won and rightly so.

      1. Emma, “Sanders would have won and easily who is a FDR democrat.”

        That is one reason Sanders would have lost to Mr. T. FDR was a big government toady who caused the great depression to last so long. FDR needed the GD to last so he could manipulate his way into big govt programs, socialist/communist style. Sanders would do the same.

        Look up The Depression You Never Heard Of. The reason you probably have not heard of it is because it didn’t last very long, a contrast to FDER’s elongated depression. The short depression didn’t try to expand the fed government. FDR did.


        1. FDR was a big government toady who caused the great depression to last so long.

          He wasn’t and he didn’t. Over the period running from the spring of 1933 to the fall of 1940 (i.e. antedating any military mobilization), Gross Domestic Product per capita grew at a mean rate of 6.5% per year. By 1939 that metric exceeded the pre-Depression peak in 1929.

          The ratio of federal expenditure to domestic product did increase during the Depression, but that wasn’t generating economic misery. (It stood at 0.028 in 1929; over the period running from 1933 through 1940, it varied between 0.065 and 0.097).

          You want to argue that the Roosevelt Administration made policy errors, fine. If you want to do that right, you have to make reference to the specific policy. Offering general characterizations which are nonsense is a waste of time.

      2. Although I oppose Socialism, Bernie Sanders should have had a fair shot. Clinton took over the debt of the DNC and gained control before the primaries.

        Today’s Democrats support open borders, through policy if not admitting it, evaluating someone’s worth based on race, abolishing private insurance, forgiving student loans (which is unfair to expect those who didn’t go to college to pay for the education of those who did and earn more money)…

        Basically, the Democratic Platform is dangling free stuff in front of voters with the claim that the rich will pay for everything, while continuing to employ people.

        The Los Angeles County sustainability plan is trying to force people to urbanize. It is trying to prohibit building in fire zones, which would also apply to renovating existing structures or adding on outbuildings, stalls, barns, etc. Since all of CA outside of cities are fire zones, that essentially means they want everyone to live in the city.

        They enacted “Road Diets” which deliberately took away lanes in the busiest roads. Instead of building more lanes, they took one away. That bottlenecks traffic. They did this because people don’t ride rapid transit in CA. This was an effort to force them to do so, and/or move to the city. The excuse that they created gridlock on purpose to achieve a Net Zero traffic fatality figure is abusive. Ambulances and fire trucks can’t get to people in an emergency. Angry drivers cut down residential streets in frustration, looking for a way around the Democrat-created gridlock, which puts kids in more danger. Parents spend less time with their kids and arrive home more stressed.

        This is the Leftist philosophy. When people don’t use rapid transit or concentrate enough in cities, punish them, and force them.

        I used to find common ground between all the parties. I can do so no longer.

  9. The Poles are walking around Chicago with Biden signs and the Russians are walking around with Trump signs on their shirts. Spell the word “Pole” right and do not refer to them as Polocks.



    A federal judge in Maryland is moving forward with a case that claims the Trump administration intended to discriminate against immigrant communities of color by adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

    U.S. District Judge George Hazel ordered proceedings to continue after lawyers with the Justice Department confirmed in a court filing Friday that they are still exploring possible ways to add the question — “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” — to the census form. On Wednesday, President Trump indicated that he wants to find a way to do that would be acceptable to the Supreme Court.

    Last month, the Supreme Court voted to leave in place a lower court ruling that rejected the Trump administration’s stated reason for the question. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the administration’s use of the Voting Rights Act to justify the question “seems to have been contrived.”

    Hazel’s order means that as the Trump administration prolongs the legal fight to add a citizenship question to the census, more evidence may be revealed in court about how and exactly why the administration tried to include it.

    The president was asked why on Friday, as he departed the White House for a weekend at his New Jersey golf club. “You need it for Congress, for districting,” he told reporters. “You need it for appropriations.”

    Census information helps guide how some $880 billion a year in federal spending is distributed for schools, roads and other public services. The constitutionally mandated head count of every person in the U.S. also determines how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state is allotted for a decade.

    The population numbers used, however, represent the total number of residents, not just U.S. citizens.

    Trump administration officials have said the addition of the citizenship question is needed to better protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities. But plaintiffs argue that Trump officials are attempting to give a political advantage to Republicans and non-Hispanic white people when new voting districts are drawn.

    Also on Friday, Trump said he is “very seriously” considering an executive order that would place a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

    “We have four or five ways we can do it,” Trump told reporters. “We’re working on a lot of things, including an executive order.”

    Opponents of adding the citizenship question to the census pointed out that an executive order cannot supersede a court ruling.

    “Such an order does not override a Supreme Court or other judicial decision; nor does it overturn or circumvent the congressionally established process for determining the content of the census,” said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing some of the groups that sued the Trump administration over the question.

    Edited from: “Judge To Review Claims Of Citizenship Question’s Discriminatory Origins”

    Today’s NPR

    1. Regarding Above:

      Trump’s admission that redistricting is his real motive here is not unlike his infamous interview with Lester Holt. Trump intimated to Holt (and everyone watching) that his real motive for firing James Comey was to stop the Russia Probe.

      This brings us to last night when Trump was crossing the White House lawn to board his helicopter. When asked about the citizenship question, Trump replied, “You need it for Congress, for districting. You need it for appropriations.”

      This totally honest answer totally contradicts the initial reasons Trump’s Commerce Department gave for attempting to add the Citizenship Question. Initially the justification was for “Voting Rights” enforcement. But opponents suspected from the start that redistricting was the real motive.

      Apparently Trump want to intimidate non-citizens in an effort to prevent them from responding to Census questionnaires. In his mind Trump thinks this scheme will punish California by causing its population count to be artificially low. Such an undercount could result in less congressional districts, electoral votes and federal funding.

      But clueless as always, Trump forgets that solid red Texas has as much, if not more, to lose than California. Other losers would include Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona; states crucial to Republicans. In short, a national undercount of the Census could screw several states and cities far beyond California.

      This entire effort illustrates how Trump and the Republicans are essentially at war with America for partisan reasons that are shamelessly stupid.

      1. “Trump’s admission that redistricting is his real motive”

        Are you even able to prove that contention? No. There are many reasons to know if one is a citizen. I think there are about 750,000 people to a district. If we have two districts with 375,000 each of citizens and 350,000 non citizens those two could only comprise one district for congressional purposes and certain financial benefits. You want those districts counted as two districts or twice as many districts as permissible under the law.

        In that example Peter wants twice as much representation for an individual as permissible under the law. You intentionally wish to break the law and as far as I am concerned you should be locked up behind bars, but for the fact that wishing and implementing a wish are two different things something you haven’t yet learned.

      2. Where does the Constitution require some kind of reason for, or question the motive of, the Executive Branch census Q or anything else the EB does? I note that what Mr. T attempts to do as he tries to right a listed ship, the USA, is stymied by the left’s activist judges. These lefties make up stuff to hamper the President but rarely if at all ever show us a law that is broken or where the EB is violating the Constitution. Judicial overreach is now the new dimm standard, not US law or our Constitution. Both of which they ignore.

        The left is desperate because they know in reality they have very little support for their commie/fascist take the USA down agenda. Dimms support open borders so they can herd illegals onto their welfare plantation with a promise to take care of them with ‘free’ stuff & then bribe the illegals to vote ‘D’..

        Dimms once held much the same position on illegal immigration as conservatives. Why did they change their minds? Because they know that without adding D voters via illegal immigration they will again lose in 2020. They will lose anyway.

        Polls. They tried that numbers game last election in an effort to distort public perception. They were trolling for votes. Polls. They predicted HRC would win bigly. Didn’t work out that way. Still won’t because We The People can now gain information for ourselves. We know know just how corrupt the left & RINO-CINOs are & what they are truly up to.

        What are they ‘truly up to’? Read the books Strategy, by Cloward & Piven & Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. Also the history of how we got the privately owned ‘Federal’ Reserve in the book The Creature From Jekyll Island. Those books are a good start.


      3. Hill, not all that good a job at deflecting what the left is up to onto Republicans & conservatives.

        Can you show us, please, where the Constitution allows for questioning the motives of the Executive Branch or Congress in regard to what they do or pass? That crap is made up jive by lefty activist judges because they have no truly legal basis for obstructing the Trump agenda. If that is not true, why was not the ungratified income tax amendment or the ‘Federal’ Reserve not put to the same ‘what’s the motive’ test? How about 0bamas Care? That one is classic Cloward & Piven. Why is it just recently a ‘motive’ test was put in place? Maybe in part because the dimms are getting killed by the Walk Away Movement?

        Also, why is it so wrong to know who is here legally & who is an illegal invader? You leftist enemies of the State only care about increasing dimm voting rolls & care nothing for them.

        If dimms & fake Repubs actually cared about the hoards of illegal invaders they would streamline the LEGAL process & end the bait they proffer to lure non US citizens. But NOOO! They leave incentives like ‘free’ welfare & healthcare in place to entice the unlawful entry of people into OUR nation.

        Fake R’s & heartless selfish dimms continue to woo these people into making a journey that will kill some of them. Dimms & fake R’s thus sanction the dead migrants, the rape of a high percent of the women & girls, the cartel drug ‘trade’, human trafficking & the extra crime the illegal invaders bring with them INTO the USA.

        Try explaining to Angel Families why illegal immigration is such a good thing.

        Mr. T tries to fix the border mess he INHERITED, but all he gets from the Take The USA Down crowd is resistance, fake polls, lies, hypocrisy, made up accusations, dead US citizens…


        1. Sam, you’re stuck in a time warp where liberals still dominate the courts.

          At least half the Federal judges today were appointed by Republican presidents. And Trump is filling judgeships at a rapid clip. Your comment is a good example of how rightwing media dumbs-people-down.

      4. As usual, you misconstrue what is being done. The addition of the question regarding citizenship will not undercount anybody, it will define more precisely who is being counted. Knowing how many citizens are among the persons being counted is a valuable metric and should be available.

    2. A lot of things are dependent on the number of US citizens. Inflate the number by adding non citizens and you have destroyed the practical uses of the census for those reasons.

      When one enters a planned unit development the guard at the gate asks if you live there (are a citizen of the PUD). I wonder why? When one votes one is supposed to be a citizen. I wonder why? When one receives most entitlements one is supposed to be a citizen. I wonder why? When I travel back to the US from abroad, before I step across the line I am checked for citizenship or registered as a non citizen. I wonder why? When I travel to Mexico they ask what my nationality is. I wonder why? If I don’t leave the country of Mexico staying illegally I go do jail for many years. I wonder why?

      There are a lot of questions that are answered when one looks at those fighting the question of citizenship on the Census. One doesn’t have to ask why because the answer is clear. Those people want open borders or they are people that don’t recognize that they belong to the open border crowd.

      1. I’ve seen the estimates of the number of non- citizen residents in the U.S., and I guess that calculating the number of non-citizens is done by tracking visas.
        If we have an estimated 40-45 million? non-citizens here……the ones assumed to be here legally…..I wonder how efficent and accurate our immigration agencies are in tracking the numbers, and the backgrounds of the people themselves.
        Maybe someone here that knows something about the workings of the system can comment on this.
        I don’t see anything wrong with a “citizen question” on the census, although it looks like the Trump Administration was too little, too late in making their case to the courts.
        It’d be interesting to see how the census non- citizen numbers matched up with the current, official number of 43? million, I think. Since it looks like that question won’t be on the census, there’s no danger of challenging or questioning the current official numbers we’re given.

        1. The census is meant to count persons in the US and representation is to be based on persons, not citizens. If the GOP wants to change that fact they should attempt to change the law, not the count. The court denied their attempt at present because they’re goal was misrepresented and was in fact another attempt by our minority party to suppress representation by demographic groups unfavorable to them including the young, the very old, non-white, and the poor. In Florida the GOP controlled state government passed a law now challenged by the League of Women Voters to limit looking locations by parking availability, the greatest effect of which would fall on campus locations, thus cutting down the student vote. These jerk o..s have people working full time inventing new means to keep their declining minority in power by any means necessary.

          1. “The census is meant to count persons in the US and representation is to be based on persons, not citizens.”

            This is a sticky point and I am not certain the question is settled because there are a lot of things that enter into the decision and are open to question.

            “The apportionment population base always has included those persons who have established a residence in the United States.” Citation: https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/about/history.html

            I don’t know if anything is settled. My residence has always been my home even when I was away at a university studying, travelling or living in other countries.

            Are we to say I am a resident of more than one state should I live in multiple states which I do? Is an illegal alien a resident or a criminal? Are students from China residents? The Chinese have bought a lot of residential property in NYC frequently in the name of their children (some not yet born). Does that make the children residents and thus the parents?

            Maybe someone knows for sure and can quote the finalized Supreme Court cases on this question. I’m not even sure about the 14th amendment’s usage except for those that were slaves and freed.

            Despite what Anon says (he is more frequently wrong than right), which may or may not be true, the .gov site doesn’t say “persons” rather it says ” persons who have established a residence in the United States.” Persons and persons who have established a residence are two different things.

        2. Tom, where are you getting 40-45 million??? I have never seen those numbers before! The official Census Bureau estimate of undocumented aliens for the entire country is still in the 11-13 million range. But 40 million is like the total population of California!

          If you think 40-45 million illegal aliens are hiding in plain sight, I would like to know ‘where’ you think they are. Cities and Counties have many ways of knowing the approximate populations of specific districts. It’s not like L A could have an extra 2 million people and not even know!

          1. Peter,
            Please re-read my comment. I did not say that there were 40-45 million illegal non-citizens…..I said that there were, officially, c. 43? million NON-CI

            1. ( screen froze up)
              I said that there were, officially, c.43? million NON-CITIZEN residents in the U.S.
              Not all non-citizens are here illegally…..that 12-14 million estimated group of illegal non-citizens is separate from the 43 million non- citizens here legally.

              1. Tom, it sounds like you’re saying we have about 30 million foreign students, diplomats and people here on visas and, or, waiting for Green Cards. That’s still a huge number! 30 million is about the population of Texas, our second largest state.

                1. I might go to the trouble of posting a link that shows the official government estimates.
                  But I’ll wait a while, and see if you try doing some research on your own, Peter.
                  If you think the numbers I presented are way off the mark, you can post/ cite a source that gives different numbers.

                    1. It looks like Peter and anon1 are correct, and I was wrong. This almost happens🤓, so I have no problem admitting it on those extremely rare occasions.
                      I went back to redo the Google search and hit the same “subquestion” that asked “how many non- citizens are in the U.S.? The site “answered” that specific question with the 43 million number…..if I’d read it more carefully, I would have seen that it was not answering that question, but was providing the numbers for foreign-born CITIZENS, not non-citizens.

                    2. PS……Just because I stand corrected on this mistake does not mean I’ll “stand” for any more of that.😄😃

                    3. https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2019/02/702000-overstay-visa-nearly-two-decades-after-terrorists-did-it-to-execute-9-11/
                      From the American Progress links posted by Peter and anona, it looks like c.15 million non-citizens here legally plus the 11 million here illegally. The 11 million number is widely debated…..I’m not sure how that’s calculated, especially when numerous jurisdictions forbid even questioning if an immigrant is here legally or not.
                      Related to the census/ citizenship question, I was looking at the issue of how well or how poorly we “track” non-citizens here…….after 9-11, there was the feeling that we’d better be a lot more careful about who we let in, and do a better job of tracking those who do come here.
                      It looks like we’re still not doing a very good job of that.

                    4. Tom, I’m glad to hear you say we should track these trends. Of course we should! Therefore sabotaging the Census is not the way to go. It’s really quite the opposite. We want to encourage non-citizens to answer Census forms. That way we can build computer models to get good estimates of non-citizens populations. It’s a concept any cop would understand.

                    5. Peter, how by adding important questions does it sabatoge the census?

    3. You do know that population counted in the Census not only pertains to monies allocated but to the numbers of house reps…..so its the same for both parties playing games to cheat citizens.

      1. Peter, trying to figure out the number of U.S. residents who are citizens and non- citizens is hardly “sabotaging the census” . Those objecting to that politically incorrect question are the ones sabotaging the attempt at getting an accurate count.

        1. Tom, get serious! With Trump in office most non-citizens will ignore the Census forms. That’s the whole idea behind the Citizenship Question. It’s a cynical calculation that ‘X’ number of non-citizens will shun the Census forms.

          Therefore certain states and cities are likely to be under-counted; giving them less congressmen, electoral votes and federal funds. A deceased Republican operative laid out the whole plan in exactly those terms. That story was widely reported during the last 2 months.

          But as I pointed out earlier, Red States like Texas and Arizona stand to lose as much as California. Trump doesn’t get that. Trump’s only thought is punishing California. He doesn’t realize he’s screwing Republican states as well.

          Texas has more big cities than California. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Forth Worth, El Paso have ratios of ‘illegal aliens’ as great, or greater, than California. A big Census undercount would screw ‘all’ of Texas. ..How stupid..!

          Maricopa, home of Phoenix, is one of the nation’s biggest counties. It accounts for a disproportionate share of Arizona’s population. An undercount there easily screws Arizona. Clark County Nevada is a very similar situation.

          Why should all these states be screwed because Donald Trump hates California?? There’s no logic whatsoever! It’s just stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

        2. Psst. Intercensal surveys include questions on nativity and citizenship. Evidently, this escapes the Democratic NPCs on this site and the lawfare artists in robes who populate our judiciary.

          The data is out there. It’s just that the lawfare artists are anxious it might be used for certain official purposes which are perfectly proper but which they don’t which to see come to pass.

        3. Tom, the intent of the administration was made clear to everyone, including the court majority and it wasn’t benign, it was an attempt at suppressing the response and increasing power for the GOP. If the GOP wants to change the census and base apportionment on citizens it should openly make that case and win it via legislation.

          1. The intent was to get the question on the census form. The reason why has various reasons but was not handled as well as it should have been handled by the Secretary. I believe the majority of the justices find such a change within the powers of the executive branch but sent it back to the lower courts because of the questions raised.

            I’ll let one of the attorney’s state what actually happened if one chooses to. I didn’t read the decisions so I am not totally clear on the details.

  11. I am not a registered Republican, and you better believe I’m voting for Trump. Polls are not the final word. There is already, this early in, nothing on this earth that could make me vote for ANY of the dem candidates. Not a one. It’s already decided for me, and I am not invited to participate in polls (due to being an Independent. The pollsters know they won’t get partisan bias from voters like me).

    1. Jill, why should we ‘care’ about Assange..??? He’s as narcissistic as Trump!

      Assange is not even liberal or progressive in any way. He’s an Australian Libertarian whose main ambition is to bring down the United States. In his mind that is necessary to promote world anarchy so Libertarianism can thrive. Therefore his efforts to reveal U S secrets and get Trump elected were all part of a warped vision. Nothing about Assange is the least bit sympathetic. I sincerely hope he rots in prison for decades to come. No one deserves that more than Assange.

      1. “to promote world anarchy so Libertarianism can thrive. ”

        Peter, what you don’t seem to know indicated here and multiple times elsewhere is that libertarian thinking fits on a large spectrum and there are even names for different types of libertarianism. You capitalized the L in Libertarianism and Libertarian. Was that for emphasis or to denote a specific type of libertarianism? Do you even know what you are talking about?

        What proof do you have that Assange’s efforts were to “get Trump elected”. You provide a lot of BS where you have no proof and run away when asked for proof. Is this more of the garbage you promote but can never prove?

        I don’t know enough about Assange to know his underlying ideology, but “Therefore his efforts to reveal U S secrets” is consistent with a lot of ideologies including the Democratic Party. Think of the release of the Pentagon papers.

        1. Peter Hill knows more than Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture?

      2. Hill, can you back up your opinion piece? Have you read what Assange posted after he received it from Manning? Manning is the one who gave Assange the material that was posted. That means all Assange did was be a journalist reporter, which is NOT illegal.


        1. Sam, any James Bond-like villain can roost in an off-shore colony and publish hacked state secrets to undermine democratic governments. And Julian Assange comes close to fitting that description. That doesn’t make him a ‘journalist’. The stolen documents from Snowden and Manning jeopardized the lives of many foreign agents the U.S. Military relies on. Assange published those documents to undermine U.S. power. That was his only motive! And if you’re a conservative I can’t understand why you think it’s cool to screw the U.S. Military. That doesn’t sound the least bit patriotic to me. It sound more like the sentiments of a far-left idiot.

          1. “The stolen documents from Snowden and Manning jeopardized the lives of many foreign agents the U.S. Military relies on.”

            Why don’t you back that up, Peter.

          2. Peter could read the following article and familiarize himself with those individuals with whom he is unfamiliar. He won’t though, preferring to remain in the dark.

            “VIPS: Extradition of Julian Assange Threatens Us All”


            Those who signed the statement/article:

            William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

            Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)

            Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)

            Thomas Drake, former Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and NSA whistleblower

            Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)

            Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

            Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

            Katherine Gun, former linguist and Iraq War whistleblower in UK’s GCHQ (affiliate VIPS)

            Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq; former Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

            James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)

            Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)

            John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

            Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

            Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)

            Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

            Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

            Annie Machon, former intelligence officer in the UK’s MI5 domestic security service (affiliate VIPS)

            Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)

            Craig Murray, former British diplomat and Ambassador to Uzbekistan, human rights activist and historian (affiliate VIPS)

            Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)

            Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

            Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

            Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

            J. Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

            Larry Wilkerson, Colonel, U.S. Army (ret.), former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State; Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary

            Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

            Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate VIPS)

            Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

        2. Sam Fox,
          I think one of the Assange indictments alleges that he assisted Mamning, that he participated in the illegal release of the massive amount of classified material.
          If prosecutors can make that case against him, then his defense that he’s a journalist isn’t going to help him.
          The Brits will hold him for another 8 months or so in their prison for Assange’s violation of British law.
          It’ll be interesting after that to see if he’s turned over to Sweden on the rape charges, or the U.S. gets him.
          There may be other possible outcomes, but I think Assange will end up in the U.S. or Sweden after serving his sentence in England.

  12. President Trump recognized 2 Catholics last night during his July 4th speech

    One of them, Army Colonel and Sister Dede Mary Berne, MD, was featured a few years ago in the Arlington Catholic Herald


    Soldier, surgeon, Sister

    Sister Deirdre “Dede” Mary Byrne has spent her life serving others while wearing multiple uniforms. Whether it was military fatigues while a Colonel in the U.S. Army Medical Corps; scrubs in an operating room or on a missionary trip as a general surgeon; or the traditional black habit of the Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts, Sister Dede fulfills each role with skill and compassion.

    Sister Dede grew up in McLean with her parents William, a thoracic surgeon, and Mary, a stay-at-home-mom who raised eight children. Despite hectic schedules and demanding careers, her parents attended daily Mass at St. Luke Church, and instilled in her the meaning of being a devout and faithful Catholic.

    Sister Dede said “the garden of vocations is family,” and she considers parents to be the best catechists. She credits the support of her parents with her and her sibling’s vocation choices. Her brother, Father William Byrne, is pastor of Our Lady of Mercy Church in Potomac, Md., five of her siblings are married and have families, and one sister is single, but helps take care of their mother and other family members. Sister Dede said she always felt a call to the religious life and that her mother often told her “she had a vocation in utero.” The call to religious life, however, came after she pursued her other passion – medicine.

    Sister Dede joined the Army in 1978 as a medical student looking for a way to help pay her tuition at Georgetown University in Washington. The military offered a scholarship program, so she signed up to serve her country and ultimately would devote 29 years to the military as a doctor and surgeon. She finished medical school in 1982 and practiced family medicine until 1985. She served as a full-time military officer from 1982 to1989, and as an Army reservist, she did a year of missionary work from 1989 to 1990. From 1990 to 1997, she did research and completed a second residency in general surgery in 1997.

    During that time, she met three people who would have a huge impact on determining what direction her life would take.

    Sister Dede spent time with Blessed Teresa of Kolkata during a visit she made to Washington in 1997. The Missionaries of Charity in Washington blessed Sister Dede with the “gift” of welcoming Blessed Teresa to the city and riding with her to their house, The Gift of Peace. Sister Dede was on hand if medical care was needed.

    Sister Dede met former Washington Cardinal James A. Hickey when he required open-heart surgery in 1996. Sister Dede was the first assistant during the surgery and spent almost every day with him during his recovery. She turned to him later as a friend for guidance on her calling.

    Sister Dede said that “she came very close to giving up the medical profession” to pursue the religious life, but a conversation with Jesuit Father John A. Hardon changed her mind. He told her that if she didn’t find a community that would allow her to keep practicing medicine, he thought that God would feel she was throwing away a gift. Once again, the call to religious life was put on hold.

    From 1997 to 1999, Sister Dede practiced medicine in Ventura, Calif., striving to “achieve the best training possible to be able to give to the poor.”

    In 2000, Cardinal Hickey asked her to come to Washington to serve the poor and focus on her discernment. She was introduced to the Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts during this time, and she fell in love with the order, which was roughly 80 percent school teachers and 20 percent medical workers. She finally had found her perfect fit and started formation in 2002, professing her first vows in 2004.

    The transition to being a full-time sister was not an easy one.

    In 2003, the military once again needed her, and as a reservist she was deployed three times and had to take off the habit. She said she basically “lived in scrubs” during that time.

    In 2003, she served at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington. In 2005, she was stationed at Ft. Carson in Colorado, and in 2008, she was deployed to Afghanistan. She described that time as having “one foot in the military door and one foot with the Sisters.”

    When she returned from Afghanistan, the order asked if she could retire from the military, and she did in 2009. She professed final vows with the Little Workers in 2011.

    Sister Dede now spends her days as clinical director of the Catholic Charities Medical Clinic in Washington, where she cares for refugees, the poor and the uninsured. If her patients require surgery, she operates at nearby Sibley Memorial Hospital.

    Sister Dede’s medical background influenced the start of a clinic run by the Little Sisters at their mission house in Washington. Staffed by volunteers and the five sisters who live at the convent, the mission offers a physical therapy clinic twice a week and an eye clinic for diabetics once a month. The clinic is an official rotation site for Georgetown University medical students and George Washington University’s physical therapy department.

    The Little Workers are an Italian pontifical institute founded in 1894. They have five mission sites in the United States, including the Washington mission started in 1954, one of the oldest.

    Sister Dede said she admires the order for making very minor changes after Vatican II and “loves that the sisters … are so humble and little and maintain their faithful vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and prayerful life,” she said. “The storm of Vatican II blew over their heads, and all they felt was a little breeze.”

    When asked how she lives her “dual life” of sister and doctor, she responded that it really isn’t a dual life for her. She quoted Blessed Teresa that she is “a sister first.” Her vocation is a “healing ministry and God is the healer, and I just try to stay out of His way.”

    Sister Dede’s training as a general surgeon, as well as a family practitioner, gives her a unique opportunity to be able to help those in need. This training especially comes in handy as a missionary overseas.

    “The specialties that I might not do here on a regular basis, like orthopaedics or obstetrics/gynecology, I can do there,” said Sister Dede. Also, during an emergency there may not be time to call in another doctor. She said it is the “dramatic cases that have told her God was the one really in charge.”

    With a calming presence, and “Sr. Dr. Dede” embroidered on the apron she wears over her habit, she said patients see her in the clinic and have a sense of security seeing her in the habit.

    “It reminds them of their place on earth and that God is in control,” she said.


    1. What an amazing story. There is a long tradition of medical care, hospitals, schools, and higher learning in Catholicism. My father was taught by Jesuits, and both my parents enjoy the Catholic University Series.

  13. We ALL know, that polls are ‘slanted and Proof is when Hillary kept being “ahead of Trump on ALL Liberal Outlets and those who did the polling.” Sorry don’t buy this poll either….just more ‘Anti-Trump BS’

    1. Itsjo, prior to Comey’s sabotage letter 2 weeks before the election , Hillary was up by about 5 points nationally. After that letter she dropped to about 2 points lead. She won the vote by 2 points. Trump drew a royal flush in the EC by winning 3 critical states by 70000 votes.

      The polls were accurate nationally and anyone expecting Trump to be that lucky twice is a fool. It could happen, but is not likely.

      1. Anon’s number theory is cr-p, but then almost everything he writes is cr=p.

        He continues to complain about the email on HIllary but forgets the years of phony accusations against Trump.

        1. Contrary to the Russian hoax, Hilary was in fact guilty of the mishandling of classified information. There really is no way to spin a bootleg server in her bathroom, holding Top Secret information, backed up to the Cloud, and with access given to people with zero clearance. Plus, she lied repeatedly about it.

          It was the discovery of recovered emails that Hillary had illegally deleted that caused a dip in the polls. Her own behavior and the range of tolerance of illegal activity among Democrats governed her numbers. Comey and the DOJ worked in coordination to abuse their authority in order to shield Clinton from the law. She should be grateful. The law continues to not apply equally to her as it does to everyone else.

          I suppose Democrats wish that Comey had taken it a step further and kept America in the dark about the recovery of some of her emails.

          1. What is most troubling is how many actors are in play to meddle with the 2020 election: GOOGLE, Youtube, Twitter, and the Mainstream media are all openly working to control the information available to voters in 2020.

            All voters have to work off of at the voting booth is the information they have at hand. Sometimes, that information is simply propaganda, with the overt purpose of affecting the next election. If Democrat voters don’t seek other sources of information than the highly propagandized detritus in the usual channels, then they are uneducated about the issues and consequences of Democrat policies.

            Anyone who only seeks sources of information from one viewpoint is uninformed on all sides of an issue.

            1. Karen proves her own point about listening to one side. How else explain her often factually wrong posts, like the one above about Hillary’s emails and the October surprise.

              1. Karen is mostly correct and you are mostly wrong. She provides details. You provide little more than your opinion which isn’t worth anything. You are unable to deal with her facts.

                  1. ….comment ARE “often factually wrong

                    Note to David Brock: send us some worthy trolls. Your current batch cost Hillary the election

                    Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals

                    “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
                    “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
                    “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
                    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
                    “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
                    “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
                    “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
                    “Keep the pressure on.”
                    “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
                    “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
                    “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
                    “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
                    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”


                  2. Karen’s comments are mostly right. Some is opinion and she has a right to her own. Some are facts that have more than one angle, but overall she is mostly correct, inciteful and measured. She deals more in specifics that have been verified and you deal mostly in your own opinion. When you say her facts are wrong you don’t state the alternative fact or prove hers is wrong. You generally can’t. You surround yourself with generalities that are meaningless.

                    1. “Rebutting Karen’s falsehoods is just a big waste of time.”

                      You are built on falsehoods and a waste of time. Karen corrects the few mistakes she makes. Your problem is that you don’t want to know the truth.

                    2. LOL: “inciteful”

                      A slip there, Allan? I think you meant “insightful. But what you typed certainly applies to some of her comments.

                    3. ” I think you meant “insightful. ”

                      Good pick up. Send an application and we will see if we can’t use you in the secretarial pool.

                    4. Karen does not correct her mistakes and doubles down them with smokescreens. That makes her a liar. This was clearly demonstrated a couple of weeks ago when she stated in bold letters that Obama “put everything he had ” into defeating Netanyahu in an Israeli election. In fact -demonstrated here – he put nothing into defeating Bebe and Karen the liar would not detract.

                    5. “Karen does not correct her mistakes and doubles down them with smokescreens. That makes her a liar. This was clearly demonstrated a couple of weeks ago when she stated in bold letters that Obama “put everything he had ” into defeating Netanyahu in an Israeli election. In fact -demonstrated here – he put nothing into defeating Bebe and Karen the liar would not detract.”

                      Karen certainly does correct her mistakes. What you are saying is that your opinion differs from her or that you have the facts wrong. That is what we have been trying to get across for a long time. It is not her, but you.

                      I believe Karen is right. I don’t think you understand the meaning behind the words “put everything he had ” into defeating Netanyahu in an Israeli election” and I think Karen provided some points but you didn’t bother to discuss her points rather you went directly to your erroneous facts, generalizations or off point remarks.

                      Let’s get it clear, when you were Jan F. You made comments and when someone accused you of those comments you said the person was lying. When that person copied the discussion that was made it proved you were lying and you remained silent. This has happened over again with you as Anon. Copy the statement of the person you are disagreeing with and then state why with facts instead of opinion and generalities. Do not use off point remarks to confuse or hide the discussion. If after your accusations she has a point or can show how facts can be viewed differently admit that you understand what she is saying. What you do is run away everytime someone demonstrates you are wrong, you are using generalities or you are off point. You have created a bad reputation for yourself in debate. That is not our problem. It is yours.

                      This your present position ‘he [Obama] ***put nothing*** into defeating Bebe ” based on your statement above. It is absolutely wrong.

                1. I have said this many times only because in my line of work, my colleagues and I are limited by the number of characters we can enter when requesting grant monies for our investigations.

                  The trolls are paid by the character including spaces. That they get paid for copying / pasting such shiddy “articles” and deceitful “data” are items that makes me proud that my end points are just a bit more worthy of achieving.

                  1. I don’t know what type of investigations you are involved with but I doubt these guys are being paid for what they do. If they are their employers are not getting their monies worth no matter how little they spend. These guys know almost nothing. However, if this is their job then knowing more might be more of a hinderance than a help.

          2. Karen should educated herself before posting such voluminous BS.

            Comey announced less than 2 weeks before the election that a laptop belonging to Hillary’s aide’s husband – Anthony Weiner – contained emails which might be relevant to the earlier investigation of her and the investigation would be reopened. The FBI later determined there was nothing new in the emails and that information was released 1 days before the election. The FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was kept secret from voters until well after the election.

            The SC ruled in 1942 that intent was necessary for a prosecution on the Treason Act of 1917 and that standard has been used ever since. The prosecution of the serviceman which is often used as contrast by those claiming Hilary got away with something is irrelevant. He was prosecuted under military law which none of us civilians are subject to.

            If Karen wrongly thinks that FBI investigations should be made public just prior to elections – and that is counter to their policy – she should be upset that the supposed “Deep State” kept the investigation into Trump’s campaign secret.

            In any case, the false point which itsjo tried to make was about polling.

          3. Karen is wrong on the facts.

            Cindy’s October surprise letter concerned emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop which turned out to be copies of already reviewed material.

            Under SC precedent established in the 1940’s, intent is necessary for prosecution on classified materials. The serviceman who’s conviction is brought up was convicted under military law, which is irrelevant to civilians.

          4. Let us compare what happened to Trump vs Clinton. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign that Anon refers to as an investigation. It was a phony investigation where the Fisa court was lied to and the FBI committed a slew of actions some of which may have been criminal. The main basis for this investigation was the Steele Dossier paid for by the Hillary campaign and leaked to the press likely by the FBI and through a circular bit of reporting had multiple people finding the same thing but all of that originated from the same source in a planned attempt to provide verification Ultimately the Mueller report that investigated every angle could find nothing done by Trump or anyone else’s actions having to do with the Trump campaign.

            The investigation of Trump was nothing more than opposition research that likely involved illegalities. The information was splashed on a daily basis accross the newspapers.

            Hillary committed what is generally considered a crime. Others have gone to jail for lesser offenses of the same nature. She compromised the security of the United States and we are still finding more confidential information that was released along with wrong doing when much of the information was culled. That information even made it to Anthony Wiener’s computer and much of it likely made it to Russia and China. Not only did Clinton violate security but she destroyed government property in an attempt to hide her crime. The investigation of Clinton found her innocent prior to it taking place and none of us know the complete details.

            Anon is simply stupid. No doubt about that. He is also arrogant and nasty.

Comments are closed.