This is my weekly summary of news that the legacy media and Democrats have obfuscated for partisan political reasons.

1. Here is another window into the insanity that runs amok at “institutions of higher learning” across the country:

A Romania-born academic says he recently left his tenured position at Columbia University because the Ivy League school is “on its way toward full blown communism,” according to a Romanian TV interview translated by a Romanian-American immigrant.

Prof. Andrei Serban, an award-winning director, complained about the increasing social justice demands he faced in the theater department in the interview, which aired on Romania’s TVR1 Oct. 26. One prominent example he gave: pressure to admit a transgender applicant who auditioned as Juliet from “Romeo and Juliet.”

Read the rest here. How else do we get the preponderance of Millennials believing in the false promises of socialism? Academia needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom.

2. Victor Davis Hanson identifies what is at stake in the 2020 elections in this masterful opinion piece:

We are also well beyond even the stark choices of 1972 and 1984 that remained within the parameters of the two parties. In contrast, the Democratic Party as we have known it, is extinct for now. It has been replaced since 2016 by a radical progressive revolutionary movement that serves as a touchstone for a variety of auxiliary extremist causes, agendas, and cliques—almost all of them radically leftwing and nihilistic, and largely without majority popular support.

If the leading Democratic presidential candidates openly embrace the Green New Deal, reparations, abolishing the Electoral College, welfare for illegal aliens, open borders, amnesties, wealth taxes, a 70-90 percent income tax code, Medicare for all, and legal infanticide—what is the alternative vision and who stands between all that and a targeted traditional America? The new progressive party is Jacobin. It sees politics in all-inclusive French revolutionary terms—encompassing every aspect of American life from entertainment, sports, academia, religion, and family matters to politics, foreign policy, and individual rights.

Like it or not, 2020 is going to be a plebiscite on an American version of Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four. One side advocates a complete transformation not just of the American present but of the past as well. The Left is quite eager to change our very vocabulary and monitor our private behavior to ensure we are not just guilty of incorrect behavior but thought as well. The other side believes America is far better than the alternative, that it never had to be perfect to be good, and that, all and all, its flawed past is a story of a moral nation’s constant struggle for moral improvement.

One side will say, “Just give us more power and we will create heaven on earth.” The other says “Why would anyone wish to take their road to an Orwellian nightmare?” The 2020 election is that simple.

Read the rest here. The stakes in 2020 could not be clearer, folks. A vote for ANY Democrat is a vote for the destruction of the American experiment.

3.Here is a great article about the Deep State; it is real and is a direct threat to the Republic.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is living, breathing, testifying proof the Deep State exists. He has shown his true colors and the agenda of the self-appointed elites who think they run this country. The term “deep state” is now highly charged politically. The right takes it as a given, the left sometimes denies its existence. Here’s my definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Deep State (noun): The permanent, professional bureaucracy of the U.S. government, specifically those who believe their judgment and continual service makes them better suited to run the country than elected officials or political appointees.

That’s accurate, but to expand on why it matters, we should note the political contributions of federal employees in the last presidential election went 95 percent to Hillary Clinton. There is nothing illegal or nefarious about that, but it certainly points out the one-sided political nature of this cohort.

While they may not openly organize into political action committees, their hold on federal levers of power dangerously skews government’s actions and inactions toward the preferences of the political left. Any mention of this is immediately discounted and attacked by the media because they have a symbiotic relationship with these folks. They are the sources for most of the leaks that are the lifeblood of the political press, and exposing that is in neither group’s interest. They treat it as a conspiracy theory and continue to use it to serve their joint purpose of advancing a leftist agenda globally. They do this regardless of which party has political control of government, although their cooperation with Democrats and undermining of Republicans is the deepest problem.

[LTC] Vindman gave the game away with his prepared testimony. He believes the permanent bureaucracy should reign supreme, and if some elected politician gets crosswise with the solons of the state, then they must act. So he did, as he detailed in his prepared statement and testimony to Congress. From the statement: “In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy.”

There is a lot of wrong in those two sentences, which profoundly illustrate the fundamental flaw Vindman and his fellow Deep Staters operate under. The interagency he mentions is a collection of staff from the major agencies like the State Department, Department of Defense, and intelligence agencies, who meet to coordinate and plan implementation of policy. They most certainly are not supposed to decide what policy the United States will follow. That is 100 percent the purview of the president. His standard for an outsider was anyone not in concert with the unelected mid-level bureaucrats of the interagency. Wrong answer, but indicative of his belief that they are the ones whose opinions matter and anyone acting outside of that is acting against U.S. interests. Even if that conflicted with the policy of his superiors all the way up to the president, Vindman and the Deep State would decide what “advanced U.S. policy interests.”

He was actively undermining what he believes is the president’s chosen policy—not because it is illegal, but because he disagrees with it and doesn’t think it is important. That is far beyond Vindman’s duties or authority, and in applying his opinion and actions to counter the president’s goals he was violating the oath he swore to obey the orders of “officers appointed above me.” This is insubordination and malfeasance, and likely punishable under several sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Vindman serves the interests of the partisan witch hunt round two happening in the House. The first one failed, as former special counsel Robert Mueller found zero collusion. Now the Dems and the Deep State have elevated more policy disagreements to what amounts to an attempted coup.

Read the rest here. That was the definitive article about LTC Vindman and the Deep State in operation. This is the REAL story that the Democrats and their lickspittle media are suppressing. They are attempting once again to criminalize policy differences to serve their impeachment aims.

4.Shifty Schiff continues to be hit with broadsides on his star chamber impeachment gambit. Here’s a good one.

Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 65, dealing with impeachments in the House of Representatives and trials in the Senate, that during the impeachment phase there may often be “animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He hoped the Senate would be able to determine guilt or innocence and serve impartially “between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, pressing hard for the House to formally become President Trump’s “accusers” and hand over articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, is displaying the worst traits that Alexander Hamilton described. The latest example is Schiff’s refusal to let the American people hear from the whistleblower, whose complaint containing a secondhand account of President Trump’s July 25, 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave rise to the impeachment inquiry against President Trump in the first place.

We need to know whether any of the whistleblower’s sources are the witnesses who have or will be testifying for the Democrats. If so, in order to help assess the witnesses’ credibility, we need to be able to compare their testimony to what the whistleblower says they told him or her.  The Democrats railroading the impeachment investigation are an embarrassment to the nation.

Read the rest here. Amen to that! And most objective Americans see how one-sided (and desperate) the Democrats really are.

5. This next topic is NEVER discussed in the legacy media, which is disgraceful in a majority Christian country.

“It’s easy to go about our lives and forget that in places like Nigeria, Iran and North Korea being a Christian can often lead to death.” — Vernon Brewer, founder and CEO of World Help, Fox News, November 4, 2019.

“4,136 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons. On average, that’s 11 Christians killed every day for their faith.” — Open Doors, World Watch List 2019.

More than 245 million Christians around the world are currently suffering from persecution. — Open Doors, World Watch List 2019.

“Evidence shows not only the geographic spread of anti-Christian persecution, but also its increasing severity… close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.” — Review led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro, April 21, 2019.

Typically women fare worse: “In many places, they experience a ‘double persecution’— one for being a Christian and one for being a woman.”

As for specific numbers: “At least six women every day are raped, sexually harassed or forced into marriage to a Muslim man under the threat of death for their Christian faith…”

Read the rest here. President Trump is right to consider conditioning all future US foreign aid on how recipient countries treat their religious minorities.

6. There is a ton in this piece that unpacks the DNC ties to Ukraine and the Biden campaign’s attempt to discredit the author of that 2017 article in Politico that outed Democrat involvement with Ukraine. Here is just a snippet of the conclusion.

There are endless intersections between the Trump-Russia collusion hoax and Ukrainegate—same journalists, same fabricated evidence, same impeachment grist, and same plotters, including Adam Schiff. But the end game is the same: Obscure the actual foreign interference in an American election.

In the Trump-Russia collusion scheme, the purpose was to cover up for the weaponization of the federal government, including the use of foreign intelligence agencies and foreign operatives, to go after Team Trump in 2016. Now, the goal is to protect Joe Biden, the only candidate most Democrats think can beat Trump, both from any political fall-out for his son’s shady dealings in Ukraine as well as how the Democrats enlisted Ukrainian help to sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign.

Read the rest here. The real foreign meddling in the 2016 elections was Ukraine’s on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and that is fair game for @POTUS to investigate. That’s the real reason why Democrats are pressing ahead quickly with their impeachment star chamber.

7. This article begins to get to the heart of the political corruption in the US embassy in Ukraine, a subject that Democrats and the media refuse to acknowledge and examine.

The first time I ever heard the name of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was in early March of this year. It did not come from a Ukrainian or an ally of President Trump. It came from a career diplomat I was interviewing on background on a different story. The diplomat, as I recall, suggested that Yovanovitch had just caused a commotion in Ukraine a few weeks before that country’s presidential election by calling for the firing of one of the prosecutors aligned with the incumbent president.

[S]ure as day, Yovanovitch did give a speech on March 5, 2019 calling for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed. Given that Soros spent millions trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in 2016, I thought it was a legitimate public policy question to ask whether a State Department that is supposed to be politically neutral should be in joint business with a partisan figure’s nonprofit entity.

State officials confirmed that Soros’ foundation and the U.S. embassy jointly funded the AntiCorruption Action Centre, and that Soros’ vocal role in Ukraine as an anticorruption voice afforded him unique access to the State Department, including in 2016 to the top official on Ukraine policy, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. I learned that Ukrainian officials, particularly the country’s prosecutors, viewed Yovanovitch as the embodiment of an activist U.S. embassy in Kiev that ruffled feathers by meddling in internal law enforcement cases inside the country.

My sources told me specifically that the U.S. embassy had pressured the Ukraine prosecutors in 2016 to drop or avoid pursuing several cases, including one involving the Soros-backed AntiCorruption Action Centre and two cases involving Ukraine officials who criticized Donald Trump and his campaign manager Paul Manafort. State was confirming its own embassy had engaged in pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop certain law enforcement cases, just as Lutsenko and other Ukrainian officials had alleged.

When I asked that State official whether this was kosher with the Geneva Convention’s prohibition on internal interference, he answered: “Kiev in recent years has been a bit more activist and autonomous than other embassies.” U.S. embassy officials DID apply pressure to try to stop Ukrainian prosecutors from pursuing certain cases. The U.S. diplomats saw no problem in their actions, believing that it served the American interest in combating Ukrainian corruption. The Ukrainians viewed it far differently as an improper intervention in the internal affairs of their country that was forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Read the rest here. Yovanovitch was fired for cause, not on a whim. There’s plenty more to unpack in the US embassy in Kyiv during the Obama administration, too.

8. Have you wondered why many legacy media outlets have moved ideologically to the left in service of the Democrat Party? This article gives a big part of the answer:

Free speech is no longer sacred among young journalists who have absorbed the campus lessons about “hate speech”—defined more and more broadly—and they’re breaking long-standing taboos as they bring “cancel culture” into professional newsrooms. They’re not yet in charge, but many of their editors are reacting like beleaguered college presidents, terrified of seeming insufficiently “woke.” Most professional journalists, young and old, still pay lip service to the First Amendment, and they certainly believe that it protects their work, but they’re increasingly eager for others to be “de-platformed” or “no-platformed,” as today’s censors like to put it—effectively silenced.

These mostly younger progressive journalists lead campaigns to get conservative journalists fired, banned from Twitter, and “de-monetized” on YouTube. They don’t burn books, but they’ve successfully pressured Amazon to stop selling titles that they deem offensive. They encourage advertising boycotts designed to put ideological rivals out of business. They’re loath to report forthrightly on left-wing censorship and violence, even when fellow journalists get attacked. They equate conservatives’ speech with violence and rationalize leftists’ actual violence as . . . speech.

Today, though, journalists are becoming zealous to silence their ideological rivals—and the fervor is mainly on the left. During the 1960s, the left-wing activists leading Berkeley’s Free Speech movement fought for the rights of conservatives to speak on campus, but today’s activists embrace the New Left’s intellectual rationalizations for censorship.

To justify the protection of an ever-expanding array of victimized groups, theorists of intersectionality—the idea that subgroup identities, such as race, gender, and sexuality, overlap to make people more oppressed—have adapted Herbert Marcuse’s neo-Marxist notion of “repressive tolerance.” Marcuse propounded that Orwellian oxymoron in the 1960s to justify government censorship of right-wing groups that were supposedly oppressing the powerless.

The result is what Dean Baquet, the New York Times executive editor, recently called a “generational divide” in newsrooms. The progressive activism of younger journalists often leaves their older colleagues exasperated. “The paper is now written by 25-year-old gender studies majors,” said one Washington Post veteran. She wouldn’t speak for the record, though: as fragile and marginalized as these young progressives claim to be, they know how to make life miserable for unwoke colleagues.

Read the rest here. The “know-nothings” have taken over the newsrooms, folks. They have no real experience or perspective, and yet they claim to know it all, just as all youth claim until they hit about 30 or so after reality has knocked some sense into them.

9. This tells you all you need to know about the first day of the Democrat’s impeachment star chamber.

Day 1 of the public House impeachment hearings on President Trump is in the books, and nothing that happened will move public opinion in a meaningful way. The folks who have wanted to impeach Trump since he won the presidency still do, and the folks who don’t still don’t. In other words, it’s a lost day for Democrats.

The opening-day witnesses — diplomatic officials Bill Taylor and George Kent — testified professionally and with honor, but they failed to deliver a made-for-TV gotcha. Rather, they simply reiterated that they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s interactions and had not had conversations with the president directly.

If you listened closely to Wednesday’s testimony …, you would have been reminded that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, during President Obama’s administration. The invasion was a big deal. The Russians were testing Obama just as they were also embarking on their successful attempts to meddle in our 2016 presidential election. At home and abroad, Obama dithered when confronted with Russian aggression. For two years, Obama and Biden, supposedly a Ukrainian savant, refused to send our allies lethal aid to beat back the Russians. And we know from the report of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III that they did nothing to stop election meddling. Russia beat Obama on both fronts.

An inconvenient truth is emerging for Democrats: if you are worried about Russian influence, Trump has done a much better job than Obama ever did. Under Trump, we actually sent the Ukrainians lethal aid, a policy that Taylor and Kent admitted is better than it was before. And under Trump, the 2018 midterm election was apparently conducted free from Russian meddling.

Democrats want to overturn an election based on merely a momentary halting of military assistance to Ukraine by Trump’s White House because Trump raised questions about corruption in a notoriously corrupt country. But they never bothered to ask the Obama White House why they held up lethal aid for two years when it was sorely needed.

Read the rest here. Analysis: true! I watched the whole thing and live-tweeted it, and the Republicans beat back every single Democrat claim throughout the day.

10. At the crux of the Democrats’ impeachment push lies this truth: the Deep State thinks they run foreign policy, not an elected POTUS.

President Trump may well have been altering foreign policy on Ukraine. It should be of no surprise that he wasn’t operating “business as usual,” since he ran on that platform and has executed it from day one. It’s clear that Kent and Taylor didn’t like or agree with Trump’s ideas, and believe they know what’s best. Trump rankled, contradicted and “embarrassed” them by operating outside the “regular” chain.

But they seem to miss the fact that their desires are subordinate to the president’s. “Official foreign policy,” as they called it, is not an independent unmovable-force object that exists outside the president’s authority; it is what the president determines it to be. The diplomats must execute the president’s wishes or resign from their posts if they feel they cannot bring themselves to do so.

Kent and Taylor genuinely seem to believe Trump was acting for his own political benefit — though they acknowledged they never had spoken to him or met him. Obviously, President Trump would say he was acting in the national interest. But their testimony makes it pretty clear why President Trump would develop a communications chain that would attempt to minimize career diplomats who do not wish to execute his wishes and may be working to undermine them.

Read the rest here. Wednesday’s charade allowed us to put two faces on the Deep State. Unfortunately, there are THOUSANDS more ready, willing, and able to help take down this president.

11.We will finish this week off with the definitive piece nailing the execrable John Brennan to the wall for the dossier and the now-debunked “Russian collusion” gambit.

Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries into the Trump-Russia probe’s origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan’s role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception. The record shows that:

  • Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
  • Leveraging his close proximity to President Obama, Brennan sounded the alarm about alleged Russian interference to the White House, and was tasked with managing the U.S. intelligence community’s response.
  • While some FBI officials expressed skepticism about the Trump/Russia narrative as they hunted down investigative leads, Brennan stood out for insisting on its veracity.
  • To substantiate his claims, Brennan relied on a Kremlin informant who was later found to be a mid-level official with limited access to Putin’s inner circle.
  • Circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings, Brennan supplied then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a pair of public letters late in the election campaign.
  • After Trump’s unexpected victory, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous Intelligence Community Assessment.
  • Departing from his predecessors’ usual practice of staying above the political fray after leaving office, Brennan has worked as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he has used his authority as a former guardian of the nation’s top secrets to launch vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, accusing Trump of “treasonous” conduct.

The Barr-Durham probe is set to determine, among other things, whether Brennan’s actions and faulty information amounted to incompetence or something considerably worse.

Read the rest here. Of course it’s considerably worse! It’s called sedition, and Brennan was at the center of it all.

Here are this week’s “honorable mention” articles:

Here is the short summary of this week’s articles:

  • First off was a window into the continuing insanity in America’s colleges and universities.
  • Victor Davis Hanson clearly explained what is at stake in the 2020 elections.
  • Next, the Deep State was explained in detail.
  • Adam Schiff continues to get questions that show his star chamber gambit to be outside the Constitution.
  • Then, we learned some statistics about the continuing worldwide persecution of Christians.
  • The purpose of “Ukrainegate” is elucidated as an attempt to shield Joe Biden from corruption charges (and other Democrats, too!).
  • The next article examined massive corruption in the US embassy in Ukraine during the tenure of US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
  • A key reason for the leftward movement, ideologically speaking, of the legacy media was described in detail.
  • At the heart of the Democrats’ star chamber lies the Deep State’s belief that they control US foreign policy, not the elected US president.
  • Finally, John Brennan is exposed as the mastermind of the fake dossier and the faux Russia collusion gambit in an outstanding article.

What a week! The Democrats’ star chamber hearings were duds despite the build-up. Even their paid legacy media admit that when pressed about it. And we found out more about the farce of Ukrainegate and the coup, too. There are a couple of IG reports still in the queue. Who in America doesn’t know about the Deep State after this past week? Very illuminating! The next week should be very interesting, too. Stay tuned!

The end.