Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Schiff Is Important To Trump

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Has The American Civil War II Started?

Rush Limbaugh Declares 'It Has Begun,' Says America in Middle of Cold Civil War

Stephen Lovekin / Getty ImagesRadio host Rush Limbaugh, pictured in a 2008 file photo, says the United States is already involved in a new civil war. But it's a "cold civil war." (Stephen Lovekin / Getty Images)

By C. Douglas Golden
Published October 2, 2019 at 7:55am

Pastor Robert Jeffress is now the center of a national controversy thanks to remarks he made about a “second Civil War” if Donald Trump were impeached and removed from office — remarks that were echoed by Trump on his Twitter account.

As the firestorm over Jeffress’ remarks rages on, radio host Rush Limbaugh is taking credit for it. Why? Because he says remarks he made last week were the impetus for what the pastor said on Fox News.

First, the quote in question from Jeffress, the sometimes controversial pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas. During an appearance Sunday on Fox News, when asked about how the evangelical community would respond to Trump’s impeachment, Jeffress said that “the only impeachable offense President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him.

“And I do want to make this prediction this morning. If the Democrats are successful in removing the president from office, I’m afraid it will cause a Civil War-like fracture in this nation from which this country will never heal.”

This produced a lot of social media pushback even before President Trump retweeted it:

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

· Sep 29, 2019

“Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats can’t put down the Impeachment match. They know they couldn’t beat him in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, and they’re increasingly aware of the fact that they won’t win against him in 2020, and Impeachment is the only tool they have to get....

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

....rid of Donald J. Trump - And the Democrats don’t care if they burn down and destroy this nation in the process. I have never seen the Evangelical Christians more angry over any issue than this attempt to illegitimately remove this President from office, overturn the 2016....

31.2K

9:11 PM - Sep 29, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

12.5K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

· Sep 29, 2019

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

....Election, and negate the votes of millions of Evangelicals in the process. They know the only Impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him.....

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

74.3K

9:11 PM - Sep 29, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

65.2K people are talking about this

Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh?

Jeffress made it clear to the Dallas Morning News that he wasn’t advocating civil war here, merely that if Trump were removed by the Democrats (something which has almost zero chance of happening, mind you), “such removal would cause a fracture in our country like our country experienced after the Civil War.”

However, Limbaugh said on his Friday show he thought the Ukraine whistleblower complaint has already exposed the fact that we were in a “cold civil war” on a political and cultural level.

“There really is no whistleblower. This is just a leaker who followed procedures that have been established to give whistleblowers protection,” Limbaugh said, according to RealClearPolitics.

“Bottom line, there isn’t anything really new here. This is just the next phase of ‘Get Trump.’ This is the next phase of the operation to overturn the election results of 2016.

“It’s the same players, it’s the same technique, it’s the same play. The whistleblower report, it was probably prepared with the assistance of House Intelligence Committee staffers.”

Limbaugh added that the report was “all about overturning the election results of 2016” and “about making sure the American people do not learn the extent of the corruption in the Obama administration and the Democrat Party at large, and particularly among these people in the deep state who did what they did to deny Trump his election victory.”

That last part was referring to the Justice Department probe into the intelligence that was the genesis of the Trump/Russia investigation, including the Steele dossier. The fact the Trump administration is looking into this is “why Pelosi’s out there today saying that Bill Barr has gone rogue,” Limbaugh said.

“The media is not media. It’s just Democrats who work in the media, and the whole group of ’em is aligned. And what we are in the middle of now, folks, is a cold civil war,” he said.

“It has begun. It is a cold civil war as opposed to hot. There’s no hostilities declared. There’s no two clear sides of this. And certainly no shots have been fired. But nevertheless we’re in the midst of a cold civil war, and it encompasses a lot of things.

“It encompasses overturning the election results of 2016, it is about protecting and defending the deep state, the Washington establishment going forward. Their careers, their fortunes, their corruption. There are terribly big stakes involved here for these people. And Trump is on the cusp of overturning it and exposing it. They cannot allow that to happen.”

On Monday, Limbaugh claimed he’d played a part in the weekend’s events — and wasn’t necessarily unhappy with the fact, either.

“I had so much influence over the weekend media coverage. That is just one example,” he said. “I was the first to call out Schiff’s fake stuff as committee chair. There’s a bunch of other examples here. Anyway, they’re just dumping all over Jeffress. Some Yale professor, other people say (impression), ‘It’s just obscene! It’s irresponsible to say that there’d be a cold civil war.’ Man, I’ll tell you, folks: When you call ’em out, when you ID what they are doing, is when they go bat-crap crazy — I mean, even crazier than they are on a normal day.”

The question is whether or not we’re talking about actual civil war here. Limbaugh made it clear he was talking about a political and cultural war that entrenched Washington elites and the media have long been waging against conservatives — and which, in his telling of it, conservatives were just becoming (ugh, I hate using this word) woke to.

In Jeffress’ case, the context wasn’t immediately clear but could be inferred. In both situations, I don’t think that either was picturing MAGA hat-wearing soldiers — all assuredly armed with “assault weapons” that the Second Amendment allowed them to procure — hunkered down in an encampment outside Manassas, waiting for the next battle against the Democrats and writing Ken Burns-style letters to their loved ones in the form of a Twitter thread. “My dearest Alexa, Our provisions are so low that we can only have avocado hard-tack thrice a week, and without a poached egg at that…

However, the United States is a polarized country where those opposed to the current president call themselves #TheResistance and have actively decided to rush an impeachment inquiry through Congress, an inquiry not designed to find facts but to provide the justification for an impeachment liberals have been calling for since the president was inaugurated.

If there is a cold civil war, it could well be argued conservatives weren’t the ones who fired the first shots.

Keeping "Friends" Close?

Schiff Gets Sold A Bag Of Horse Manure--Gobbles It Up!

Ukraine BOMBSHELL! Obama’s dirty deals uncovered

OCTOBER 2, 2019

The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and the Democrats’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump started in Ukraine years ago.

It wasn’t the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that set the Democrats impeachment efforts into motion.

That was only the final step. This Ukrainian nonsense has been going on behind-the-scenes for years.

In fact, the Democrats dirty dealings with Ukraine and Trump go back all the way to former President Barack Obama and his administration. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s quid-pro-quo removal of the top Ukrainian prosecutor that was investigating his son in 2014 was just the beginning.

Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan — an outspoken critic of Trump — traveled to Ukraine during the 2016 presidential election to help Democrats assemble dirt for the now-debunked Steele dossier.

That dossier was used later to get legal approval for the wiretap and spying efforts against the Trump presidential campaign.

Brennan used a fake passport and phony name at the time so his travel to Ukraine wouldn’t be noticed.

At the same time, Ukrainian government officials worked openly to help boost former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office,” a Politico investigation found in 2017. “They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”

“A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation,” Politico reported.

And these Ukrainian-Obama efforts did impact the presidential race. Manafort later resigned, and the conspiracy theory that Trump was colluding with Russia was born.

The Russian-Trump collusion narrative led to special counsel Robert Mueller’s three-year-long investigation of the White House and Trump allies.

During his exhaustive investigation, Mueller uncovered dirty tax dealings and a ring of Russian spies. But he finally concluded earlier this year that there was insufficient evidence of collusion.

Even House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff was eager to use foreign intelligence against Trump — so much so that he was asked the fake Ukrainian parliamentary chairman for it on-air during an 8-minute prank phone call.

The Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump before the president was even elected.

The Obama administration were actively using foreign intelligence to conduct wiretaps on the Trump presidential campaign and launch a special counsel investigation.

Democratic leadership was so desperate, they even asked Russian radio pranksters for nude photos of the president.

Now, these same Democrats are moving to impeach the president because of a phone call… because Trump asked about a Ukrainian criminal investigation that same administration demanded be buried in 2014.

The corruption pieces are all adding up — but it’s not Trump that needs to be worried.

In the end, the Ukrainian scandal all points straight back to Obama.

Looks Like Trump Is Doing What He Should Be Doing As President. Dems Wrong Again

A Little-Known, Clinton-Approved Treaty Lets Ukraine Help US Investigate Criminal Cases

Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty ImagesThen-President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton chat before the start of a memorial service for Senator Robert Byrd on July 2, 2010, at the West Virginia State Capitol in Charleston, West Virginia. (Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images)

By Josh Manning
Published September 30, 2019 at 6:23pm

Unless something massive surfaces — something massive that we’ve heard nothing about so far — President Donald Trump will be exonerated yet again from another Democrat-media tissue of lies.

Depending on how you keep score, this is either 2-0 Trump, 3-0 Trump, 10-0 Trump, or ~1,000,000-0 Trump.

The Mueller narrative was a fraud. The Kavanaugh narrative was a fraud. The Scotland resort narrative was a fraud. The second Kavanaugh narrative was a fraud. Who knows how many FISA applications were frauds. And now the Ukraine whistleblower controversy is shaping up to be a fraud.

Nothing has stuck to Trump, despite the intense level of scrutiny he’s endured.

The question now is how, exactly, the anti-Trump narrative will implode this time. There are lots of ways. It could turn out that the whistleblower doesn’t actually exist and is instead just a group of jaded, deep-state intel hacks. It could be that the whistleblower is one of those hacks. It could be that the whistleblower was fed faulty, fabricated or fraudulent information to induce action. It could be that Ukraine produces jarring evidence implicating those involved in the whistleblowing effort.

Any one of those scenarios would lead to fascinating analysis and speculation for weeks, if not months, to come.

But what if the seed of destruction sprouts from somewhere unexpected? Somewhere like a treaty that emerged at the very end of former President Bill Clinton’s administration and was approved by a Senate in which former Vice President Joe Biden proudly served.

The treaty in question is the Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, ratified by the U.S. Senate on Oct. 18, 2000.

While lawyers will have to dig into the exact wording of the treaty to tease out its applicability, an initial reading certainly lends itself to Trump’s defense.

Do you think this treaty further exonerates Trump?

99% (2697 Votes)

1% (23 Votes)

The treaty, crafted with drug trafficking in mind, allows either country to call on the other for assistance in “taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State,” according to the State Department’s summary.

That’s a long list, and according to the State Department, it’s “non-exclusive,” which means that there are many other forms of assistance the treaty could facilitate. One such form could be an investigation of a group called Crowdstrike, which is the same group that the DNC brought in to investigate hacking and are, as Buzzfeed senior reporter Ryan Broderick said in an NPR interview, “sort of the ones that started the whole idea of collusion with Russia.”

A stickler might note that the Ukraine treaty designates the U.S. attorney general as the treaty point of contact, which might mean that Trump wasn’t acting in line with the treaty.

But remember, it was the Democrats who were so eager to let everyone know that Trump referenced Attorney General William Barr on the Ukraine call. Trump was setting Barr up to talk with his counterpart in Ukraine.

Trump’s a negotiator, and he likes dealing with people in person or as close to in-person as he can get. It’s only natural for him to talk with a foreign leader, communicate his desires and then have someone else handle the heavy lifting — someone like Barr.

Making the treaty defense even worse for Democrats and the anti-Trumpers is the fact that none other than William Jefferson Clinton transmitted the treaty to the Senate, writing that “I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification.”

While not nearly as exciting as the other scenarios, defense under color of the treaty could dispense with the Democrats’ legal claims faster than any other defense the president might mount.

The Ukraine “scandal” will almost certainly fizzle, likely sooner rather than later given how quickly the cracks are forming. But if it somehow manages to gain traction, the president can easily appeal to the Clinton-era treaty designed to do exactly what Trump was trying to do — bring corruption and crime to a halt by leveraging America’s relationship with Ukraine.

Far from being illegal, it looks more and more like what Trump did was entirely appropriate for any dutiful executive, which is exactly what Trump, as the President of the United States, is.