Pelosi Says Death of Iran General Who Killed Hundreds of Americans ‘Disproportionate’

Rep. Lee Zeldin tore into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after she criticized the attack that killed top Iranian terrorist General Qassem Soleimani, a man with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands, as “disproportionate.” pelosi iran

Soleimani’s record prior to the end of his life included the documented deaths of over 600 American soldiers.

Additionally, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN earlier this week that “[Soleimani] was actively plotting in the region to take actions … that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk.”

According to Pelosi, however, a rocket attack that took out the terrorist and a few of his friends was “disproportionate” to the lives of hundreds of Americans.

“American leaders’ highest priority is to protect American lives and interests,” tweeted Pelosi. “But we cannot put the lives of American servicemembers, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions.”

What an absolute disgrace to claim the lives of hundreds of American men and women aren’t equal to an attack targetting one man who caused their deaths.

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) wasn’t about to let the comment slide.

Appearing with Fox News personality Laura Ingraham, Zeldin was exasperated by Pelosi’s use of the term ‘disproportionate.’

isproportionate?” he gasped. “How many more hundreds of US troops have to be killed before it’s proportionate? How many more thousands of US troops have to lose limbs before it’s proportionate, Nancy Pelosi?”

“This was done to protect American diplomats and service members,” he seethed. “It was an emergency. It was done effectively. It was appropriate.”

It is an absolute outrage that anybody in America, much less the Speaker of the House of Representatives, would find the killing of a terror leader with the blood of hundreds of our fighting men and women on his hands, to be “disproportionate.”

Oddly enough, she didn’t have a problem with an actual ‘disproportionate’ trade-off made by former president Barack Obama, when he gave the Taliban five high-ranking officials in exchange for one traitor named Bowe Bergdahl.

“Today is a joyful day for our nation,” Pelosi said of Bergdahl’s return home.

“I commend President Obama for his strong leadership in ensuring that the United States delivered on its most solemn vow to our men and women in uniform: that we leave no one behind.”

Yet, here we are just five years later, calling retaliation for the deaths of hundreds of men and women in uniform unfair. What a joke the Democrats have become.

CONFIRMED VIDEO: Тrump Removеѕ Мuslim Fеderal Јudge Fоr Тrying Тo Implеment Ѕharia Lаw In Аmeriсa Approved

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Hansam al Alallawalahi-Smith emerged as genuinely newsworthy this week when he upset a choice out of Dearborn, Michigan. The choice allowed two fundamental and furious standards of Sharia Law to be practiced here in the United States.

FOLLOW THE NEXT PAGE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

Exactly when asked regarding why the feds hold the benefit to empower a man to brutalize his significant other to chat with another man and to pound the life out of her about in the event that she some way or another figured out how to catch up on her main impetuses, the judge referenced the orderly imbuement stipulation and said the Sharia Law should be allowed in light of the way that tFourteenthnth Amendment guarantees them the rights guaranteed by various states.

Those laws may be qualified to savages, anyway here in America, we have higher standards.

Allah-Smith saw that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t generally deny outside effect from being allowed by law, referring to the Christmas Holiday for example:

CHRISTMAS IS A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY EXCLUSIVELY, YET IF YOU’RE A MUSLIM AND YOU WANT TO GO ABOUT YOUR DAY WITHOUT BEING BOTHERED YOU CAN’T BECAUSE THE LAWS OF A CITY IN A CITY IN ROME TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE 1ST AMENDMENT, WHICH GUARANTEES NO STATE SPONSORED RELIGION. A FEDERAL CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY IS JUST THAT.

WITH THAT AS PRECEDENT, UNDERSTANDING THAT A HIGHER COURT MAY REVERSE IT, MY DECISION IS THAT ITEMS ONE AND TWO ON THE DOCKET ARE ALLOWABLE BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS AS PRESCRIBED BY SHARIA LAW.”

“President Trump used an old perspective and an official demand to oust al Allalawaralahali-Smith from the seat, referring to net inconsiderateness of his commitments and wanton carelessness for the United States Constitution reports As American As Apple Pie.

Democrats can’t stop crying over this, ensuring since the game plan wasn’t Trump’s,
he can’t use the perspective to fire him. Trump responded that people constantly need him to think about the Office in these conditions. His single clarification was,

“THE OFFICE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO LET HIM GO FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTR

BARACK OBAMA ANNOUNCES INTENTION TO RUN AS PRESIDENT OF KENYA IN 2021

In a surprise announcement that could upset African politics for years to come, former American President Barack Obama has confirmed this morning his candidacy in the 2021 Kenyan presidential campaign.
Son of a Kenyan senior governmental economist, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017 is actually touring Africa to give a series of conferences.

While visiting the Kenyan port city of Mombasa, he was greeted by a large and extremely enthusiastic crowd, loudly cheering and chanting his name.

Mr. Obama drew an almost ecstatic roar from the crowd when he made the announcement that he was returning to politics.

“I’m a bit disgusted with American politics recently while seeing Kenya struggle. I realized I needed to do something to help my Homeland.”
The former U.S. President believes he can help the country overcome its social and economic problems as he did with the U.S.

“I was able to solve the U.S.’ worse economic crisis in its history and put it on the right track until they elected a narcissistic reality tv star. I can certainly help Kenya.”
Mr. Obama announced that he was launching his own political party, the National Democratic Party of Kenya (NDP) and confirmed he was considering negotiations with existing parties to form a coalition.

Obama was met with the same kind of enthusiastic reaction yesterday in the country’s capital, Nairobi.

Kenya is still struggling with social instability, poverty issues, government corruption, and an important water crisis even if it has recently known a few years of economic growth.

Although its economy enjoys the leading position in eastern and central Africa, 39.9% of its population lives below the poverty line, according to the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative.

To make things worse, the country has been struggling with several economic problems recently, the most recent of which is a huge swarm of locust that destroyed swathes of maize, coffee, vegetable, and tea plantations, threatening the country’s food security.

Several experts believe the former American President’s chances of getting elected are extremely good.

Many analysts also note that the actual government will certainly hesitate to forbid his candidacy or trick the election if it takes place under international scrutiny.

The next Presidential election in Kenya is set for October 2021 and candidates have until April 2021 to confirm their candidacy.

BABYSITTER TRANSPORTED TO HOSPITAL AFTER INSERTING A BABY IN HER VAGINA

Cincinnati, Ohio | A 31-year old woman was admitted to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center yesterday after the 14-month old toddler she was babysitting got stuck in her vaginal cavity.
Latifah Brown called 911 around 9:30 PM last night, reporting that she had a baby stuck in her vagina.

The operator first assumed that she was giving birth at home and dispatched an ambulance to the site.

The paramedics had quite a surprise when they arrived on the site and saw what was actually happening.

One of the paramedics, Brian Whitmore, related the incident in an interview with WBNS-10 TV.

“The little boy wore a diaper and pyjamas, but he had his legs and abdomen stuck in the woman’s vagina.”
The paramedics spent more than an hour on the site trying to release the child from his difficult position but were unable to get the toddler out.

“I don’t know how she got the child in there! We were both pulling as strong as we could and he wouldn’t come out.”
Ms. Brown and the child were finally transported to the hospital, where doctors were able to separate them after a delicate operation.

The young boy suffers from a dislocated hip, but doctors don’t think he will suffer any sequelae from the incident.

The paramedic, Ryan Whitmore, says he was shocked when he arrived on the scene and saw the fully dressed toddler caught in the woman’s vagina.

The babysitter was interrogated by police and confessed to deliberately inserting the child in her vaginal cavity.

She explained that she was feeling depressed after her doctor told her she could never have children and wanted to know how it felt to give birth.

Ms. Brown now faces a total of 11 criminal charges, including aggravated child neglect causing bodily harm, and could spend up to 65 years in prison.

Her lawyer has asked for a psychiatric evaluation, claiming that she isn’t fit to stand trial.

Depending on the results of the evaluation, her trial could begin in June.

MIAMI STRIPPER ARRESTED FOR SQUIRTING VAGINAL FLUIDS AT POLICE OFFICERS IN SELF-DEFENSE

vA Florida lap dancer has been arrested in Miami after assaulting five police officers with her vagina and using it as a deadly weapon without the intent to kill.
Britney Simmons, 24, was performing at the Camel Toe strip club when an altercation began between Simmons and several clients at the club.

Miami police were called to intervene and attempted to apprehend Simmons who was highly intoxicated and acting erratically according to the official police report.

Five Miami Police Department officers attempted to place Simmons under arrest but were momentarily indisposed when the lap dancer ejected vaginal fluids towards the officers, temporarily blinding three and injuring two.

“She just spread her legs wide open and started squirting in the cops’ faces, eyes and mouths from a distance of about twelve to fifteen feet,” one eyewitness told reporters, visibly amused by the whole affair.

Officer Miguel Aguera of the Miami Police Department told reporters that all five of the officers had since tested positive for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and herpes after being exposed to the vaginal fluids.

“Knowing full well that she was exposing the police officers to a number of sexually transmitted diseases and potentially HIV as well, it is considered that she used her vagina with lethal force against the officers” explained Miguel Aguera, spokesman for the Miami Police Department.
Simmons’s attorney, Alan Smith, argued that his client acted in self-defense and used her vagina, not as a deadly weapon, but in the “appropriate boundaries of her working skills and abilities.”

According to current Florida laws and if convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against five police officers, Simmons could face up to 1,036 years in jail believe legal experts.

In a 2013 court case, another Miami citizen was convicted of armed robbery after threatening a convenient store clerk with his erect and “AIDS-infected penis” and was sentenced to 237 years in jail.

Nunes Unloads $435M Impeachment Lawsuit – Burns Washington Media Swamp Down

evin Nunes just went to the source – they didn’t think he would dare!

Democrats have been pushing impeachment for one simple reason: the media lets them.

In fact, the mainstream media is so biased against Trump, they spin every story to hurt him as much as possible.

It’s not a big surprise that major outlets are backing Democrats in this impeachment scheme.

The media thinks it can get away with spinning every story to damage the president.

Woah. Devin Nunes is suing CNN for $435 million over what he calls a false hit piece.

The news network published a piece claiming Nunes met with a Ukrainian prosecutor in 2018 to get dirt on Joe Biden.

The problem? Nunes asserts it never happened. He didn’t go anywhere near where CNN claimed he went. He also says he never met the prosecutor they named.

his isn’t the first time a liberal media outlet published blatantly false stories. In the past, they’ve been forced to issue corrections, hoping nobody would notice.

But Nunes is done with the constant attacks on conservatives by the media.

His lawsuit will send a powerful message to CNN—and every other outlet—that they can’t just broadcast unfactual stuff, just because they want to.

The media has for a long time pushed stories that end up being fake news. They’ve hidden behind the First Amendment as if that could protect them from their bogus lies.

As a result, few Americans even respect most news outlets, especially mainstream ones.

Nunes is showing them that there are consequences to their actions. And that it’s high time they paid for what they’ve done.

SHARE if you think CNN should pay!

Law Enforcement Today: It’s time to impeach Nancy Pelosi for “obstruction of Congress”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The irony of Nancy Pelosi’s move to impeach Trump for “Obstruction of Congress” is arguably that it’s exactly what she herself is now doing.

In the impeachment debacle of President Trump, the first “political” impeachment in history, Democrats in the House cited two “violations:”

Article I was “Abuse of Power.”

Article II was “Obstruction of Congress.”

Neither one of these articles rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore are not impeachable offenses, but I digress.

Let us address the second article, “obstruction of Congress.” While the president has a constitutional basis for the conduct that House Democrats are calling “obstruction,” the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has no such basis.

Let’s look at some of the rhetoric that was emanating from the hot air chamber of the Democrat caucus. For weeks, Democrats such as Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Pelosi herself insisted that President Trump was a threat to our “national security,” that “elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic,” and that, “if we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty.”

Indeed, the most serious legal action that a legislative body in the United States can take against the duly elected president was undertaken in weeks. By contrast, the impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton took over two months from the time it started until Clinton was impeached by the House.\

Yet, Pelosi has now said that she wasn’t prepared to deliver the articles of impeachment to the deciding body, the US Senate, and said that she had not yet decided who the House “managers” in the Senate would b

omplaining that the trial in the Senate will not be ‘fair.”

They had no such reservations when Schiff ran roughshod over Republicans in the inquisition before the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff decided who would be allowed to testify, had autocratic authority over questions asked, and even actively advised witnesses as to their testimony when questioned by Republicans. Apparently for Democrats, “fair” is a one-way street.

When Democrats speak of fairness, they are talking about fairness to them, in this case the “prosecution.” They have so much faith in their case being “rock solid” that they want to be able to call additional witnesses in the trial before the Senate.

So, President Trump, who is, according to the House a “clear and present danger” and a “threat to national security” isn’t as much of a threat as Democrats were making him out to be.

Pelosi has now said that she will not send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate until after she and the rest of the House Democrats enjoy their Christmas recess. Hopefully, President Trump doesn’t go “rogue” during that two-week period of time.

Nowhere does it say that the House gets to demand how the process works and who can testify. That is the sole responsibility of the Senate under the Constitution.

The Constitution also allows the Senate to hold a trial as soon as an impeachment takes place in the House. This is not subject to the interpretation of left-wing college professors or liberal talking heads on cable news.

In fact, Pelosi herself is currently obstructing the Senate by refusing to transmit the impeachment articles to that body.

This means one of two things. Either Pelosi knows that the impeachment is doomed to defeat in the Senate (obvious since Republicans have the majority and it is extremely unlikely that a sufficient number can be turned in order to reach a 2/3 threshold), or she never intended to transmit the articles in the first place.

Democrats in one form or another have been seeking to impeach President Trump since he was inaugurated, if not before. Pelosi herself admitted that they have been working on impeachment for 2-1/2 years.

Why would Pelosi not send the articles to the Senate? She may feel she doesn’t have to.

Since this impeachment has all the makings of a political impeachment, which the founders warned against, instead of a legal impeachment, Pelosi may feel that just the fact that Trump was impeached will make for good sound bites for Democrats in next year’s election.

In the case of the president, who can cite text and precedent in resisting congressional subpoenas, Pelosi’s obstruction is unlawful and unprecedented. One could easily claim that Pelosi herself is guilty of obstruction of Congress, by interfering with the Senate’s duty to adjudicate the articles the House passed.

Based on precedent set by the House, apparently the intent or possibility of committing an action is sufficient to hold an elected official in contempt. Nadler himself alluded to this during the House impeachment debate, stating,

If this is the new standard Pelosi and the Democrats have set, then she too can be held accountable for trying to undermine the Constitution or her intention to do so.

In some ways, it would be nice to see Mitch McConnell and the Republicans actually hold a trial in the Senate, and subpoena the so-called “whistleblower,” Adam Schiff, the Bidens, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and the rest of the deep-state cabal that conspired to overturn an election that was an electoral landslide for President Trump.

McConnell will likely tire of the Democrat grandstanding and just dismiss the impeachment. It would be nice however to add a cherry on top—charging Pelosi with Contempt of Congress for stonewalling the ability of the Senate to try the case.

As we reported last night, holding back those articles of impeachment could easily backfire.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart reported that Pelosi appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

Her move is not only a violation of Constitutional procedures, but could result in the Senate acquitting the President without a formal trial.

Unfortunately for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat House Majority, the Senate can act regardless — and would vote to acquit.

“That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments’…”
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules.

And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself).

Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment.

They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

During parts of the hearings controlled by the Democrats, phrases like “the President is an ‘existential threat’ to national security” and that the President must be removed immediately because of “the impact on our world” and “we have to do this right now for our grandchildren” were uttered ad nauseum by both politicians and left-leaning news sources.

Now this delay by Pelosi seems to contradict their “hair on fire” attitudes toward the President and show the transparency of their farce of a process.

Three factors are glaringly true:

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.
Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.
Case closed.

In a related matter, it is truly astonishing that a huge majority of liberals believed that by the act of passing Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives, President Trump would be removed from office.

This isn’t now, nor has it ever been true, or the way things work. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the house and didn’t leave office. And he was found guilty of a crime.

Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office near the end of his term. He was also found guilty of a crime.

President Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything – in fact, the articles are so vague, the chance of him being convicted even in a Democrat-majority Senate is close to impossible. Even then, he doesn’t have to leave office.

That’s one of those “what if” scenarios that doesn’t exist – we have a Republican-controlled Senate and 67 votes are required to convict.

In all fairness, there’s enough exculpatory evidence of fraud and bias displayed by Democrats to take a conviction effort and shoot it in the proverbial foot.

And next comes the results of the Durham investigation. It’s likely that 2020 will be a good year for patriots.

If this is the new standard Pelosi and the Democrats have set, then she too can be held accountable for trying to undermine the Constitution or her intention to do so.

In some ways, it would be nice to see Mitch McConnell and the Republicans actually hold a trial in the Senate, and subpoena the so-called “whistleblower,” Adam Schiff, the Bidens, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and the rest of the deep-state cabal that conspired to overturn an election that was an electoral landslide for President Trump.

McConnell will likely tire of the Democrat grandstanding and just dismiss the impeachment. It would be nice however to add a cherry on top—charging Pelosi with Contempt of Congress for stonewalling the ability of the Senate to try the case.

As we reported last night, holding back those articles of impeachment could easily backfire.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart reported that Pelosi appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

Her move is not only a violation of Constitutional procedures, but could result in the Senate acquitting the President without a formal trial.

Unfortunately for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat House Majority, the Senate can act regardless — and would vote to acquit.

“That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments’…”
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules.

And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself).

Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment.

They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

During parts of the hearings controlled by the Democrats, phrases like “the President is an ‘existential threat’ to national security” and that the President must be removed immediately because of “the impact on our world” and “we have to do this right now for our grandchildren” were uttered ad nauseum by both politicians and left-leaning news sources.

Now this delay by Pelosi seems to contradict their “hair on fire” attitudes toward the President and show the transparency of their farce of a process.

Three factors are glaringly true:

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.
Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.
Case closed.

In a related matter, it is truly astonishing that a huge majority of liberals believed that by the act of passing Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives, President Trump would be removed from office.

This isn’t now, nor has it ever been true, or the way things work. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the house and didn’t leave office. And he was found guilty of a crime.

Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office near the end of his term. He was also found guilty of a crime.

President Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything – in fact, the articles are so vague, the chance of him being convicted even in a Democrat-majority Senate is close to impossible. Even then, he doesn’t have to leave office.

That’s one of those “what if” scenarios that doesn’t exist – we have a Republican-controlled Senate and 67 votes are required to convict.

In all fairness, there’s enough exculpatory evidence of fraud and bias displayed by Democrats to take a conviction effort and shoot it in the proverbial foot.

And next comes the results of the Durham investigation. It’s likely that 2020 will be a good year for patriots.

President Trump backs bill to make burning American flag illegal

It was a fitting piece of legislation to propose on Flag Day, not to mention somewhat of a birthday gift for President Trump.

On Friday, Republicans reintroduced a proposal calling for a ban on burning the American flag. It was immediately endorsed by President Trump.

“All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!,” the president wrote in a Twitter mes

The legislation being sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Steve Daines of Montana and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and in the House by Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas.

It calls for the U.S. Constitution to be amended in a way that would give Congress “constitutional authority to ban the desecration of the United States flag.”

he amendment is the only way to go about banning flag burning. That’s because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that flag-burning is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Critics on social media were quick to attack the proposal.

“I love the “Red, White ,and Blue” and am a patriot. But I disagree with Trump’s demand that flag burning be criminalized in all settings,” wrote one person.

“Please not this stupidity again. the supreme court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally-protected speech. any such legislation would be unconstitutional. that a loudmouth internet nobody like me has to explain this to the president of the united states boggles the mind”

Some say an amendment like this would be an insult to the country and what we stand for.

Here’s how the process works.

Amendments can be added to the Constitution if two-thirds of both the House and Senate agree on a proposal and then three-fourths of the states ratify it, or if two-thirds of state legislatures call a convention to propose changes to the Constitution, and then three-fourths of the states ratify the change.

here’s been a concerted effort to bring God and country back into America. And a recent vote in California shows progress is being made.

After heated controversy, the city council in Bakersfield, California voted earlier this month to add “In God We Trust” decals to both police and fire vehicles.

“I love the motto,” said Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan. “It’s meaningful. It’s powerful. Those words are intended to encourage.”

Sullivan runs a non-profit organization called “In God We Trust America”, which has offered to pay for the decals.
U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who represents Bakersfield, was thrilled.

“Displaying ‘In God We Trust’ — the official motto of the United States — on Bakersfield Police Department cars is a testament to each officer’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and defending the City of Bakersfield and its residents,” he said.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union were ripping mad, and showed up at the city council meeting to fight the proposal and call it bad public policy.

“Unlike God, police officers are fallible,” ACLU lawyer Jordan Wells said. “Their conduct should be scrutinized by the public, and when they overstep their authority, we must insist on accountability.”

One council member, Andrae Gonzales, voted against the decals despite claiming he is Christian.

“The God I believe in is much bigger than a bumper sticker,” he said.

Last month, the same proposal was approved by city council members in nearby Delano. They also voted to add “In God We Trust” to police vehicles.

Next month, the city of Shafter, which borders Bakersfield, is expected to vote on a similar proposal.

In Bakersfield, it started when Pastor Angelo Frazier of Riverlakes Community Church asked the Bakersfield City Council to put the nation’s motto on the city’s police department vehicles.

Jennifer Bloomquist, the founder of the Atheist Society of Kern, was adamantly against it.

“Once again, I oppose adding ‘In God We Trust’ to Bakersfield police vehicles and I also see ‘In God We Trust’ in the chambers and I don’t feel welcomed here,” she said.

Pastor Frazier has lived in the city for close to 30 years. He has also been a volunteer chaplain with the BPD for almost 20.

“One of the things I see a consistency, because we have it in our courts and everything, police officers are an extension of our courts,” Frazier said.

It’s a debate that’s hit Bakersfield before.

In 2002, Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan bro

The debate hasn’t been limited to Bakersfield… it’s come up across the country, with a number of law enforcement agencies voting to display decals and bumpers stickers carrying the motto on cars driven by police officers, sheriff deputies and firefighters.

But there are those who argue that displaying “In God We Trust” infringes on the First Amendment.

“It’s an inherently religious statement and not every single one of our police officers is religious,” said Bloomquist. “They don’t believe in a single God. They might believe in a Goddess or multiple Gods or none at all.”

We want to know what you think about the proposed amendment… and the decals on the cruisers. Send us your thoughts in the comments below.

Treason? Ilhan Omar Gives Iran Military Advice, Suggests It Could Target Trump Hotels

The inspiringly patriotic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Tehran, no, check that, I’m hearing she’s from Minnesota) tweeted Monday offering some unsolicited military advice to the Islamic Republic of Iran: “Trump needs to immediately divest from his businesses and comply with the emoluments clause. Iran could threaten Trump hotels worldwide and he could provoke war over the loss of revenue from skittish guests. His business interests should not be driving military decisions.” She also tweeted a video in which the late comedian George Carlin asserts that the U.S. is “not very good at anything” besides war. And so once again we have to ask the by-now-familiar question: Is Ilhan Omar a traitor who hates America?

Omar’s warning that Trump’s “business interests should not be driving military decisions” makes no sense, because clearly the fact that Trump owns hotels that Iran could target didn’t stop him from going after Qasem Soleimani. But as far as Omar and her ideological allies are concerned, it doesn’t matter how much they have to twist their logic into pretzels to get Trump, as long as they make the president look bad.

That imperative has now driven Omar even to give a military suggestion to a hostile foreign power. The mullahs and their henchmen haven’t said anything about targeting Trump hotels, so here is a United States congresswoman to give them a marvelous new idea about how they could murder Americans and others, and further menace the United States.

The definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran order their people to chant “Death to America” in mosques every Friday, and repeatedly vow that they will ultimately destroy the United States of America and the state of Israel. They were doing this before Soleimani was killed, and they’re doing it now. How is giving them a suggestion about how they could target the United States, whether or not they have or would have thought of it themselves, not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and hence treason?

When she took the oath of office to become a member of the United States House of Representatives, she swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” as well as to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Inviting, out of a hysterical hostility to the president of the United States, a nation that regularly chants “Death to America” to strike American-owned businesses – is that supporting and defending the nation against foreign enemies? Omar might well split hairs and assert that she suggested no attack on the Constitution, which is what she specifically swore to defend, but clearly the oath uses “Constitution” as a metonymy for the nation as a whole.

Abetting this impression is the fact that Omar on the same day demonstrated her hostility to the country that she has sworn to protect and defend. She tweeted the Carlin video with the comment: “It’s no laughing matter,” just so we’re clear that she didn’t mean any joke. She is seriously offering the claim that the country to which she has sworn allegiance and which she represents in its Legislative Branch is just a war-mongering blunderer that is not good at anything besides being militarily aggressive. Meanwhile, she invites the military aggression of one of America’s foremost enemies. If the Islamic Republic of Iran turns out to be not good at much of anything besides war against the United States, would Ilhan Omar have any problem with that?

Despite all this and more, it is, of course, inconceivable that any treason charges will ever be brought against Ilhan Omar. Her hatred of America plays well among the American Leftists who share it, and the Democratic Party establishment would condemn any such charges as a partisan attack and the attacker as a racist right-wing white supremacist and enemy of all that is good. Meanwhile, the past week has given us abundant examples of how the Democrats hate Trump with such burning intensity that they are willing to lionize and mourn a man who was responsible for the deaths of at least 600 Americans, as well as for a great deal more terrorist activity. So what’s a little treason among America-hating friends?

Share if you want Ilhan Omar Deported

Treason? Pro-Iran Dem Rep Ilhan Omar Suggests Iran Attack Trump Hotels

This ___ch is actually inviting Iranian attacks on US soil.

The inspiringly patriotic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Tehran, no, check that, I’m hearing she’s from Minnesota) tweeted Monday offering some unsolicited military advice to the Islamic Republic of Iran: “Trump needs to immediately divest from his businesses and comply with the emoluments clause. Iran could threaten Trump hotels worldwide and he could provoke war over the loss of revenue from skittish guests. His business interests should not be driving military decisions.” She also tweeted a video in which the late comedian George Carlin asserts that the U.S. is “not very good at anything” besides war. And so once again we have to ask the by-now-familiar question: Is Ilhan Omar a traitor who hates America?

Omar’s warning that Trump’s “business interests should not be driving military decisions” makes no sense, because clearly the fact that Trump owns hotels that Iran could target didn’t stop him from going after Qasem Soleimani. But as far as Omar and her ideological allies are concerned, it doesn’t matter how much they have to twist their logic into pretzels to get Trump, as long as they make the president look bad.

That imperative has now driven Omar even to give a military suggestion to a hostile foreign power. The mullahs and their henchmen haven’t said anything about targeting Trump hotels, so here is a United States congresswoman to give them a marvelous new idea about how they could murder Americans and others, and further menace the United States.

The definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran order their people to chant “Death to America” in mosques every Friday, and repeatedly vow that they will ultimately destroy the United States of America and the state of Israel. They were doing this before Soleimani was killed, and they’re doing it now. How is giving them a suggestion about how they could target the United States, whether or not they have or would have thought of it themselves, not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and hence treason?

When she took the oath of office to become a member of the United States House of Representatives, she swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” as well as to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Inviting, out of a hysterical hostility to the president of the United States, a nation that regularly chants “Death to America” to strike American-owned businesses – is that supporting and defending the nation against foreign enemies? Omar might well split hairs and assert that she suggested no attack on the Constitution, which is what she specifically swore to defend, but clearly the oath uses “Constitution” as a metonymy for the nation as a whole.

Abetting this impression is the fact that Omar on the same day demonstrated her hostility to the country that she has sworn to protect and defend. She tweeted the Carlin video with the comment: “It’s no laughing matter,” just so we’re clear that she didn’t mean any joke. She is seriously offering the claim that the country to which she has sworn allegiance and which she represents in its Legislative Branch is just a war-mongering blunderer that is not good at anything besides being militarily aggressive. Meanwhile, she invites the military aggression of one of America’s foremost enemies. If the Islamic Republic of Iran turns out to be not good at much of anything besides war against the United States, would Ilhan Omar have any problem with that?

Despite all this and more, it is, of course, inconceivable that any treason charges will ever be brought against Ilhan Omar. Her hatred of America plays well among the American Leftists who share it, and the Democratic Party establishment would condemn any such charges as a partisan attack and the attacker as a racist right-wing white supremacist and enemy of all that is good. Meanwhile, the past week has given us abundant examples of how the Democrats hate Trump with such burning intensity that they are willing to lionize and mourn a man who was responsible for the deaths of at least 600 Americans, as well as for a great deal more terrorist activity. So what’s a little treason among America-hating friends?