December 22-25, 2019
Dec 22 01:40 The Democrats' illegitimate impeachment backfiring Dec 22 12:03 Democrats telling whoppers Dec 22 23:17 The GOP Hall of Heroes Dec 23 18:54 Schumer's major mistake Dec 24 01:07 Democrats' governing problem Dec 24 02:13 Gergen's incomplete history lesson Dec 24 14:10 The Democrats' all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda Dec 25 05:09 Merry Christmas everyone!!!
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
The Democrats' illegitimate impeachment backfiring
The Democrats' impeachment problem is bigger than the media is letting on. If reporters were honest brokers, which most aren't, they'd pose difficult questions to Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Schumer.
For instance, when Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler didn't ask the courts to compel Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey to testify, they essentially said that those men weren't essential to impeaching President Trump. When House Democrats voted for the first purely partisan impeachment in US history, those 229 votes affirmed that Democrats had enough evidence to impeach President Trump.
The only way to re-open the matter would require Speaker Pelosi to admit that the impeachment was illegitimate. That won't happen because that would require Speaker Pelosi to become history's laughingstock.
Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer insists that Blair, Bolton, Duffey and Mulvaney are required because they're the only people with a firsthand understanding of the transaction between Ukraine and the US. If the MSM was interested in the truth instead of assisting Democrats, they'd inquire whether Sen. Schumer meant the House's impeachment was illegitimate because they relied on hearsay evidence.
What would Sen. Schumer do at that point? He couldn't admit that the House Democrats' impeachment of President Trump was illegitimate. Sen. Schumer couldn't admit that he's just trying to cause trouble for Sen. McConnell because that wouldn't play well politically.
Obviously, the Democrats find themselves in a political pickle. That was the predictable outcome when Democrats decided they didn't care whether this quartet testified. The minute House Democrats made that decision, Democrats' claims to legitimacy disappeared. Democrats can't say that their impeachment of President Trump is built on hearsay testimony while simultaneously stating that 4 witnesses that didn't testify in the House are suddenly indispensable.
This video shows how in-the-tank the MSM is for Democrats:
[Video no longer available]
A legitimate reporter wouldn't let Sen. Schumer let him get away with saying that "we want the facts to come out" after the House decided that Blair, Bolton, Duffey and Mulvaney weren't important to their impeachment case.
Posted Sunday, December 22, 2019 1:40 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Dec-19 09:58 AM
You say - First purely partisan impeachment in American history?
You lose big time on that fiction.
What about Bill, his tool, and Monica?
Who cared of Bill's dalliance besides Ken Star and his "Robin" partner, Brett Kavanaugh? And salacious DC Republicans out to cause mischief.
Back than nobody but tongue-clluckers actually cared a rat's ass what Bill did with his tool, but you Republicans went for it anyway.
With that Precedent, don't whine. (Instead, go to YouTube and play James Brown, "The Big Payback.") Anyway, the bookmark set here for LFR is with that I set for Down With Tyranny. During the first cup of coffee I opened both in different tabs, started reading the one and wondered why Gary was saying such about Trump. Then I realized I was on the other site and that there are at least two opinions about everything.
(Bill, at least, never paid hush money over his dalliance. Also, no porn actress in his portfolio.)
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-19 11:31 AM
At the time, I didn't give a rat's ass what Clinton did with Ms. Lewinsky. Neither did House Republicans or Ken Starr. I cared that he lied to a grand jury. Don't whitewash away the fact that he lost his law license & had to pay Paula Jones $800,000 for defaming her.
As for Brett Kavanaugh, there's no proof that he did any of the things he was accused of. Even Blasey-Ford's best friend in high school said she didn't know Kavanaugh.
Comment 2 by John Palmer at 22-Dec-19 09:27 PM
Bi-Partisan means some on both sides on a question agree with each other. In the Trump impeachment only Ds voted aye. In the case of Clinton's impeachment some of the aye votes came from Ds thus making it a bi-partisan impeachment. The Trump impeachment is the first partisan impeachment and first impeachment where no crime is alleged. Clinton was impeached for the crime of perjury not anything regarding his"tool". Trump has been impeached for protecting the office of the president (executive privilege) and fulfilling our treaty obligations with Ukraine with regard to helping another country investigate corruption. The President also has an obligation to make sure funds given to a country do in fact get spent as they should. So you might say Trump is the first President impeached for doing his duty.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-19 10:41 PM
Let's remember that the National Defense Authorization Act, aka NDAA, requires the CoC to certify that the country to which lethal military aid is going isn't corrupt.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Dec-19 08:41 AM
Gary, you write of "CoC" and the only name coming to mind with that abbreviation is Chamber of Commerce. In this context, CoC = ? Too many statutes and rules have been an ongoing problem, especially in tax law, but please help on your "CoC" abbreviation for the obscure thing you cite.
Finally, to require anyone to certify another nation is or is not "corrupt" is, practically, a joke. It allows shakedown stuff as Ukraine experienced on the Biden dirt dig request.
Comment 4 by eric z at 23-Dec-19 08:47 AM
And Gary, help again. Are you saying that all the shit the Saudis buy, somebody certifies them as NOT corrupt? That is pure BS. They are as bad as it gets. To say the Saudis are not corrupt is a mockery of how elastically some can stretch the word "corrupt." When they want to.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Dec-19 12:30 AM
Eric, I didn't think of the Saudis because they didn't fit into this topic. Of course, they're corrupt. It's just that they make for a nice counterweight against Iran, which is working on becoming a nuclear power.
Democrats telling whoppers
Jessica Tarlov is a Fox News contributor and quite the Democrat spinmeister. In this Fox News op-ed , she spins quite the tall tale. She starts by saying "Imagine you are accused of a crime and ordered to stand trial - and you happily learn that your defense attorney is the jury foreman, and a majority of the jurors are your close friends and undying supporters. Ridiculous? Well, that's exactly the situation President Trump will face when he goes on trial in the Senate following his impeachment Wednesday by the House of Representatives."
Ms. Tarlov is a smooth spinmeister. Notice how she insinuated that President Trump had committed a crime. She didn't actually say that. She just said "Imagine you are accused of a crime." It's clear at that point that she's talking about President Trump even though President Trump hasn't been accused of committing a crime. In fact, he's the first president impeached without committing a crime.
Later, she writes this:
Impeaching a president is a solemn event. This is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., came to work Wednesday in a black dress, the traditional outfit for a funeral, and gave House members who momentarily cheered when the first article of impeachment was adopted the look of a very, very disappointed mother.
In Pelosi's attempt to make this impeachment look like a solemn event, the people who actually run the party, aka AOC + 3, decided to celebrate:
[Video no longer available]
Later in the article, Tarlov wrote this:
What happens now? Will McConnell and Graham try to change the oath? Perhaps they'd like it to say: "I will do whatever Donald Trump tells me to do at all times, never questioning his orders. I will never convict him of anything, because he can do whatever he wants."
The flaw with Ms. Tarlov's thinking is that Democrats haven't presented any proof that President Trump committed a crime. House Democrats passed a pair of crime-less articles of impeachment because they couldn't find a crime. Here's a thought -- standing with a man wrongly accused is what people with character do.
But while the framers anticipated a rogue president who would put himself above the law, they never imagined the possibility that rogue senators would disregard their duty and pledge blind loyalty to support the president, no matter what he did. This effectively puts the president above the law and above the Constitution.
Again, Ms. Tarlov's presumption is that President Trump has committed a crime. Democrats think that despite the fact that there isn't any proof that happened. I've watched the hearings. I've seen people discredit the accusations made by Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland:
[Video no longer available]
Ms. Tarlov, where's the proof that President Trump committed a crime? Is it invisible? Or is it that it just doesn't exist?
[Video no longer available]
Posted Sunday, December 22, 2019 12:03 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Dec-19 04:15 PM
The democrats are so bat shit crazy, they believe every word that comes out of their mouths now no matter how crazy or false those words are and the media is more than happy to keep spreading the lies.
The GOP Hall of Heroes
Though President Trump just got impeached by a bunch of vitriol-filled House Democrats, there's lots for Republicans to be thankful for. Because Republicans dealt with adversity after adversity after adversity, starting with President Trump, and because Republicans learned from him month-by-month, Republicans end the year stronger than they started the year.
First, this goes far beyond RNC fundraising and Trump rallies, though those are certainly signs of GOP vitality. Anyone who's watched Nancy Pelosi's post-impeachment press conference or any of Joe Biden's debate performances couldn't possibly mistake them for the vitality displayed at a Trump rally. How can you watch this video, then think that Speaker Pelosi is well?
[Video no longer available]
Here's the transcript :
We are, we have, I have... When we bring the bill, which is just so you know, there's a bill made in order by the Rules Committee that we can call up at any time in order to send it to the Senate and to have the provisions in it to pay for the, for the impeachment. And then the next step, and the eh, que, uh... uhl ... ... whatever you want to call it, the qu uh, the trial.
But I digress from the topic at hand. The topic at hand is how strengthened Republicans are. Throughout the year and before, Republicans rose up and fought back. During the Kavanaugh fight, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins stepped forward. They became leaders. Thanks to their leadership, Judge Kavanaugh got confirmed and became Justice Kavanaugh.
A year prior to the release of the Mueller Report, Devin Nunes questioned the validity of the opening of the counterintelligence investigation. Shortly thereafter, Adam Schiff put out his own report that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. When the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019, the Nunes Memo was totally vindicated while the Schiff Memo was rendered total trash. The fight between then-Chairman Nunes and current Chairman Schiff is over. Schiff lost in a trouncing.
As for the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. This committee provides additional proof that quality is more important than quantity. Justice is chaired by Jerry Nadler, where his chief 'assistants' are Zoe Lofgren, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hakeem Jefferies and Eric Swalwell. Meanwhile, Doug Collins could call on talented people like John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz and Tom McClintock.
Much needs to be said in praise of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. They both showed leadership at the most important times. Sen. McConnell helped confirm dozens of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Most recently, Sen. McConnell totally obliterated Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff. To be fair, though, Devin Nunes pretty much softened Schiff prior to Sen. McConnell finishing Schiff off. Here's how Sen. McConnell addressed Article 2 of impeachment:
"What it really does is impeach the president for asserting executive privilege, a two-century-old constitutional tradition." Presidents beginning with Washington have invoked it and courts repeatedly have recognized it. The House requested extraordinarily sensitive information - exactly the type of requests against which presidents from both parties have asserted privilege.
"It's not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up," McConnell said. "That's not a constitutional crisis! It's a routine occurrence. Separation of powers is messy - by design. Here's what should have happened -- either the president and Congress negotiate a settlement or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two."
During the Nixon impeachment inquiry, it was discovered that President Nixon told the FBI that they didn't need warrants to wiretap antiwar protesters. That's a legitimate constitutional crisis. It isn't an impeachable offense when a president asserts privilege. In fact, that's how the Constitution is supposed to work. When there's a dispute that can't resolved through negotiations, the judicial branch should settle the dispute:
"Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this," McConnell said of Schiff's decision to forego court assistance to overcome the president's lack of cooperation with the probe. "In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work." But these House Democrats, he added, "decided that due process is too much work."
McConnell further challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's attempt to bully the executive branch out of asserting executive privilege. He quoted Schiff saying, "any action that forces us to litigate : will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice."
Saying that a perfectly constitutional solution takes too much time is proof that Democrats were in too much of a hurry. That's a political consideration. That isn't a constitutional argument.
As Republicans approach a new year, there are lots of things to be thankful for. 2019 wasn't a perfect year for the GOP but it was a strong year.
Posted Sunday, December 22, 2019 11:17 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Dec-19 09:31 AM
The one republican I'd admit into any hall of heroes is Lincoln. After that, nada. Perhaps Eisenhower, but that would be militarily, not as a politician who diddled too long before shutting down Joe McCarthy [R]. Thinking of politicians as heroes is flawed. It is an alien way to view DC, as DC stands today and as it's likely been throughout our nation's brief history.
As to "defense" of Trump's solicitation of dirt on the Bidens, remember too, what goes around comes around;
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/28/house-republicans-subpoena-trump-943265
Not that it was "heroic" to give House Republicans a dose of their own medicine during impeachment procedures, but the initial enabling unilateral subpoena power rule was not a Dem concoction, despite all the GOP squealing (some at LFR) like stuck pugs when getting a dose of their own brand of civility and rule of law. Yet, by any measure, the innovators of unilateral subpoena power being lodged solely with committee chairs are less heroic than users of the abomination against the innovators as a form of merited justice. Or at least, payback. The bottom line, unilateral subpoena power was a bad idea when concocted, and it had its blowback, and the entire thing is anything but "heroic." Nobody in DC is a hero. Don't cheapen the word.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Dec-19 12:40 AM
Thanks to the Resist Movement, Democrats are getting criticized for not paying attention to the people's needs. That's why they'll lose their majority in the House next November. Democrats deserve the thumping that's heading their way, partially because Nadler kept changing the rules, partially because they insisted that hearsay testimony was legitimate proof & partially because they insisted that President Trump had to be impeached immediately before he stole another election. Hint: They don't have proof that he stole the first election & they never will.
One of the definitions of the word hero is "a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character." I'd argue that the men & women mentioned in this post are people noted for "nobility of character."
Schumer's major mistake
This morning, Sen. Schumer made a major mistake during his press conference. He said that "any Senate impeachment trial should be 'focused on the facts that the House presented, not on conspiracy theories.'" Then he renewed his request for 4 new witnesses that didn't testify.
It's difficult, if not impossible, to square those statements. At this point, they're contradictory at best. How do you focus solely on the facts that House Democrats presented, then insist on calling 4 witnesses that House Democrats didn't call?
It's apparent that Sen. Schumer hasn't figured it out that this is hurting Democrats. The longer Pelosi hangs onto the articles of impeachment, the more this looks like a partisan operation. The longer Sen. Schumer insists on calling witnesses that the House didn't fight for, the weaker the prosecution's case looks. And the Democrats' case already looked weak.
The only thing that'll hurt the Democrats' efforts more is what's inevitable. Picture Pelosi sitting in her office thinking of the nightmare of choosing between Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff to be the lead prosecutor. Then think of that nightmare happening on national TV. Then think of it happening for the next 2-3 weeks right before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary.
On the other hand, think of how positive Republicans are, knowing that Doug Collins, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe have been named impeachment managers for the trial. The thought of Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler making unsubstantiated accusations based on hearsay and presumptions, then watching Mssrs. Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe present exculpatory evidence that'll exonerate President Trump is something Republicans should look forward to. Anytime that the face of the Republican Party is Collins, Jordan and Ratcliffe, it's a good day. Anytime that Nadler and Schiff are the faces of the Democrat Party, it's a fantastic day for the GOP.
In the first half of this interview, Trey Gowdy dismantles Speaker Pelosi's impeachment arguments and Sen. Schumer's trial arguments:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Monday, December 23, 2019 6:54 PM
No comments.
Democrats' governing problem
Immediately after House Democrats impeached President Trump on a party-line vote, Speaker Pelosi announced that they'd be calling the USMCA up for a vote. With much pomp and fanfare, she announced that it was a much different trade agreement than the one that President Trump and Robert Lighthizer had sent them. The truth is that labor got a couple minor concessions.
The purpose of the vote on USMCA was to prove that Democrats could walk and chew gum at the same time. To use Mitch McConnell's immortal words, "it's time to stop this charade." It isn't that Ms. Pelosi isn't a skilled legislator. It's that the Resist Movement isn't interested in legislating. They're only interested in investigating, then impeaching. Without having sent articles of impeachment over to the Senate, House Democrats have started toying with the idea of impeaching President Trump again :
The lawyer for House Judiciary Committee Democrats revealed in a Monday court filing that there is a possibility lawmakers could pursue even more articles of impeachment against President Trump, despite having already adopted two of them last week following a grueling, historic and bitterly partisan debate. The prospect of additional articles, while perhaps unlikely, was floated as part of a court battle over Democrats' bid to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn.
House Democrats are quickly becoming a total farce. They spent their first year investigating President Trump while waiting for the Mueller Report to be published. When it finally was published, it was a monumental flop. Then they waited for Robert Mueller to "breath life" into the report. That hearing was a disaster, too.
Finally, a CIA snitch allegedly filed a whistleblower complaint even though they aren't covered by the ICWPA. Impeachment 1.0 was off and running. Just 6 weeks later, the House had completed its 'investigation.' House Democrats had impeached President Trump on what Jonathan Turley said would be "the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president."
Shortly before a 4 p.m. deadline imposed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the committee counsel filed a brief making their case for why they still want to hear from McGahn, despite having already voted for impeachment.
Here's the rest of the story:
While the Mueller probe never factored into the impeachment articles that were adopted, House Democrats' counsel Douglas Letter argued that McGahn's testimony is still vital, and could even be relevant to "consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment" against Trump.
This is another Democrat fishing expedition. Jerry Nadler shouldn't be taken seriously because he's changed the rules more often than a chameleon changing colors against a paisley background.
Let's simplify this. Democrats just wasted a year investigating President Trump. In that time, another Democrat told them that they'd compiled the thinnest pile of evidence during the shortest impeachment investigation ever. They took a one-morning pause to vote for USMCA before returning to a second round of impeachment investigations.
It isn't a matter of whether Democrats can walk and chew gum. It's a matter of whether they're interested in doing the people's business. At this point, the verdict on that is pretty clear.
Finally, this video highlights how Democrats weren't interested in hearing firsthand testimony or admitting that they'd heard exculpatory evidence:
[Video no longer available]
Then again, Democrats weren't interested in governing, either.
Posted Tuesday, December 24, 2019 1:07 AM
No comments.
Gergen's incomplete history lesson
David Gergen's op-ed also serves as an incomplete history lesson. Gergen starts off, saying "As the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday, he addressed a rally in Michigan and said, "By the way, it doesn't really feel like we're being impeached." In that moment, the difference between Trump and former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton became starkly clear. It's clear that Nixon and Clinton behaved very differently from Trump when faced with impeachment proceedings that clouded their presidencies. During their respective impeachment inquiries, both Nixon and Clinton ultimately cooperated with authorities. While Nixon resisted turning over information, he did yield to public pressure and let key witnesses testify. And he eventually turned over the infamous Watergate tapes when ordered by the Supreme Court. Clinton, on the other hand, agreed to testify after establishing predetermined conditions."
After that, things get incomplete. Gergen stated "[Trump's] supporters have argued that the evidence supporting Trump's impeachment is thin, never acknowledging it might well be bolstered if the President cooperated." Left unsaid is that Pelosi's Democrats thought that the documents and testimony weren't important enough to fight for in court. I won't take seriously testimony and documents that Democrats didn't fight for.
To top it off, Trump's comments characterizing impeachment as a "hoax" in the scorching letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with his defiant performance at the rally in Michigan make clear he is anything but contrite.
Considering the fact that the investigation took less than 6 weeks from the start of the first report of a whistleblower report to the House voting on 2 articles of impeachment, I can't see how that's anything except shoddy workmanship. The fact that Sen. Schumer wants additional witnesses to strengthen a weak case identifies this impeachment inquiry as not being serious.
Compare that with the Watergate investigation timeline . It starts with a Washington Post article on August 1, 1972. It essentially culminated on July 27-30, 1974 when the "House Judiciary Committee passes three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, misuse of power and contempt of Congress. By approving the charges, the committee sent the impeachment to the floor for a full House vote, but it never occurred."
When Bill Clinton was impeached, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr said that Clinton was guilty of committing multiple crimes. Nixon committed multiple crimes, too. What's left unsaid in Gergen's op-ed is that President Trump is the first president impeached who wasn't charged with committing a crime. Further, what isn't said in Gergen's op-ed is that the only evidence presented to the Impeachment Committee was either exculpatory or hearsay.
No, this is a President who is likely to lash out, seek revenge, and continue abusing the powers of his office. And if he is acquitted, and if his behavior thus far is any indication, Trump is bound to feel vindicated and strengthened by the support of his followers.
A person that's impeached with hearsay testimony has the right to feel vindicated. There isn't a court in this nation that should stand for people getting convicted on hearsay testimony. Next time, Mr. Gergen, don't leave out important details like the ones you omitted this time. This interview says it all:
[Video no longer available]
"The things that the Democrats couldn't get because of the stonewall, the documents they couldn't get, the witnesses they couldn't get, you know, I think it strengthens their case."
That's rather provocative language. The so-called stonewall is nothing more than President Trump exercising his executive privilege rights. If Democrats wanted that testimony and those documents, there was a legal path to get them. That's to file a lawsuit to compel the testimony. Democrats didn't do that because, in their words, that'd take too much time. That's a political judgment. That isn't a legal judgment.
Posted Tuesday, December 24, 2019 2:13 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 24-Dec-19 10:01 AM
Remember Gergen works for the all impeachment network where the boss was caught instructing his minions to focus on impeachment. If Gergen wants to keep his job he needs to please his master and if that means selective memory on key facts that's the price he pays for working for the Corrupt News Network.
The Democrats' all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda
Apparently, Democrats aren't interested in the American people's needs. That's obvious since they're talking about another impeachment investigation . This isn't speculation. Democrats filed briefs "Monday related to their quest for testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn and secret grand jury material from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation" that referenced another impeachment investigation.
Whether they're serious about another impeachment investigation or not is almost immaterial. It's clear that Democrats are serious about another round of investigations into President Trump. Keeping Democrats in the majority in the House means that Democrats won't focus on the people's business. It means that they'll spend their time investigating President Trump in an attempt to hurt him internationally and electorally.
Democrats insist that President Trump's phone call to President Zelenskiy hurt the US's national security. Quite the opposite is true. The Democrats' intentional timing decisions on their investigations has weakened President Trump's position while he negotiated with China, North Korea and the EU. Democrats scheduled an investigative hearing for the day that President Trump started the Singapore Summit. They pulled the same stunt when President Trump met with Xi Jinping.
Democrats should continue acting like dictators. That's what Pelosi is acting like. She has a lengthy history of that type of behavior, starting with shoving the ACA down our throat. The House Democrats' leader's latest dictatorial move was what might be called Pelosi's hurry-up-and-wait impeachment drama. That's where she rendered a verdict at the start, then finished with a vote that confirmed that pre-ordained verdict.
The Resist Movement, which Pelosi's Democrats are part of, hate President Trump. They're the ones approving of the Judiciary Committee's Democrats changing the rules virtually on a daily basis. They're the ones approving of the Intel Committee's Democrats changing the rules virtually on a daily basis when they were taking depositions. These Democrats don't represent the rule-of-law. These Democrats don't value fairness or due process, either. Here's how they value due process:
[Video no longer available]
As long as the Resist Movement is giving House Democrats their orders, House Democrats will continue their impeachment attempts. That's why it's time to throw these tyrants into the dustbin of history. Lindsey Graham got it right with this tweet:
Democrats are treating impeachment as an open bar tab.
Time to cut them off, take their car keys away (put GOP in control of the House), and end this insanity.
- Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 23, 2019
Posted Tuesday, December 24, 2019 2:10 PM
No comments.
Merry Christmas everyone!!!
Last night, I attended our church's annual special Christmas Eve worship service. As is always the case when Barry & Sue put this service together, it was memorable X 100. Instead of a traditional post celebrating Jesus' birth, I'm inspired by the Holy Spirit to celebrate His birth through the inspirational hymns celebrating Jesus' birth. Let's start with this hymn:
[Video no longer available]
Next, let's celebrate with this hymn:
[Video no longer available]
Christmas isn't complete without O Come All Ye Faithful:
[Video no longer available]
The birth of Christ was a majestic night. The King of kings and the Lord of Lords left eternity and stepped into time and space. Surely, such an event was worthy of the greatest light show God has ever put together. He didn't disappoint. Here's how the Gospel of Luke described that night:
Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them and they were sore afraid. Then the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the King. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!"
These weren't the Pharisees or the Sanhedrin, the supposed religious leaders. On such a regal night, God chose to bless the shepherds, men of humility and modest means, rather than the religious leaders of the time. Hint: There's a Bible study in there somewhere.
Finally, no Christmas is complete without this hymn:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, December 25, 2019 5:09 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen L Leisen at 25-Dec-19 01:36 PM
Thanks, Gary, for sharing these beautiful Christmas carols, and for reminding us what the real meaning of Christmas is - the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Dec-19 02:47 PM
It's my pleasure & treasure to share this with you, Gretchen. For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son so that we might become sons of God.
