Daily Archives: February 1, 2020

The Church in the Seventeenth Century — Ligonier Ministries Blog

In this brief clip from his teaching series A Survey of Church History, W. Robert Godfrey examines how the English Puritans came to view the church in the seventeenth century. Watch this entire message for free.

Transcript

By the seventeenth century, especially amongst the English Puritans, but also elsewhere in the Reformed world, there’s a new attitude growing that we could call, “Christ as the glorifier of his church.” It’s not just that he will build his church, but he will give the church earthly glory and success to dominate the world; not dominate it politically, that’s not what the Puritans were interested in, but dominate it spiritually, that millions and millions and millions would be drawn to Christ, and his church around the world would be dominant, it would be the dominant religion. There is coming a golden age for the church when Christ will be glorified on earth. The promise was made to Abraham, “That as the sands of the sea, so will your children be,” and that’s what they expected would happen in the most literal sort of way, dominating the world.

And, you know, that view of Christ as the glorifier of the church, came to dominate in the Reformed churches for the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; that’s what most Presbyterians at Princeton believed in the nineteenth century, it’s what Jonathan Edwards believed in the eighteenth century, and it’s what many believed, particularly the Congregationalists believed, like Oliver Cromwell, in the seventeenth century. It’s not what everybody believed, and that’s why the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn’t require a belief in that, but there were many at the assembly who believed that. And, of course, it’s a kind of nice thought, isn’t it, it’s very attractive in its own way. And I’m not saying that they believed it just because it was a nice thought, they really believed there was solid biblical evidence for that, I’m not persuaded myself, but what a wonderful thing to think, “The church, even though there are going to be ups and downs, is going to go from strength to strength;” isn’t that encouraging? “Christ is going to be victorious, we’re going to see it in this world;” isn’t that encouraging?

via The Church in the Seventeenth Century — Ligonier Ministries Blog

February 1, 2020 Morning Verse Of The Day

Negative Proof from the Old Testament

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” (3:10–12)

The Judaizers also strongly advocated the necessity of keeping the Mosaic Law in order to be saved. But here again, simply the sequence of Old Testament events should have shown them the foolishness of that belief. Abraham not only was declared righteous about 14 years before he was commanded to be circumcised, but more than 500 years before God revealed His law to Moses at Sinai. Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and countless other Hebrew believers lived and died long before the written law was given by God.

Just as the Judaizers and their Galatian victims should have known that justification is by faith and not circumcision, they should also have known it is not by the Law. Therefore after showing what faith can do, Paul now shows what works cannot do. As in verses 6–9, his argument is based on the Old Testament.

In his defense before King Agrippa in Caesarea, Paul states the scriptural foundation of all his preaching and teaching: “Having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22–23).

The ancient rabbis were so absolutely convinced that salvation could only be earned through keeping the law that they tried to prove God had somehow revealed His law even to the patriarchs and other saints who lived before Moses and that those people found favor with Him because they kept His law. Because they could not bring themselves to consider limiting the supremacy of the law, the rabbis sought instead to reconstruct history and the clear teaching of God’s Word.

But Paul turns the tables on them again. “Don’t you realize,” he says, “that as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse?” That question would have utterly perplexed the Judaizers, who would have responded vehemently, “We know no such thing. How can you speak such foolishness?” “Have you forgotten Deuteronomy, the last book of the Law?” Paul asks, in effect; “for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them’ ” (see Deut. 27:26). A curse is a divine judgment that brings the sentence of condemnation.

The apostle’s emphasis in the quotation was on the requirement to abide by all things. In other words, the fact that those who trust in the works of the Law are obligated to keep all things in the law, without exception, places them inevitably under a curse, because no one had the ability to abide by everything the divine and perfect law of God demands. Paul confessed his inability to keep the law even as a devout Pharisee. He testified that “this commandment which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me” (Rom. 7:10). Even as a believer he said, “I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25) If men proudly insist on living by the law, it will curse them, not save them, because they cannot possibly live up to it.

The legalistic Jews had “a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:2–4). Consequently, they unwittingly placed themselves under God’s wrath rather than His blessing, because they could not live up to His law and they would not submit to His grace.

Paul reminds his readers again of more teaching concerning God’s way of justification: Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith,” quoting this time from Habakkuk 2:4. The passage from Deuteronomy proves justification cannot be by the Law, and the passage from Habakkuk proves it must be by faith. The ways of law and faith are mutually exclusive. To live by law is to live by self-effort and leads inevitably to failure, condemnation, and death. To live by faith is to respond to God’s grace and leads to justification and eternal life.

Quoting another Old Testament text (Lev. 18:5), Paul again turns Scripture against the Judaizers by showing them that salvation by works and salvation by believing are mutually exclusive: However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” God’s written law itself marks the danger of trying to live up to its standard, which is perfection. If you are relying on works of the law as your means of salvation, then you have to live by them perfectly.

Pointing up that same truth in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus destroyed the very foundation of legalistic Judaism. Because God’s standard is perfection, He said; “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). And He had already made clear that God’s standard of perfection is inner virtue and perfection, not simply outwardly respectable behavior. To those who piously asserted they had never committed murder, He said, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell” (Matt. 5:22). And to those who claimed they had never committed adultery, He said, “Everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (v. 28).

Whether consulting the texts in Deuteronomy, Habakkuk, or Leviticus, the message is the same: perfection allows no exceptions, no failure of the smallest sort. To break the law in one place is to break it all, “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). No wonder the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight” (Rom. 3:20, KJV).

A ship that is moored to a dock by a chain is only as secure as the weakest link in that chain. If a severe storm comes and causes even one link to break, the entire ship breaks away. So it is for those who try to come to God by their own perfection. They will be lost and forever wrecked.[1]


11 This juxtaposition continues as Paul writes, “Clearly no one is justified before God by law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith.’ ” Paralleling the thought of v. 10, Paul reiterates the fact that no one is justified by the law. Paul’s scriptural argument, then, essentially continues along the lines of the preceding verses: “righteousness” is the domain of faith, while “curse” is the stronghold of law.

There is a measure of textual confusion with Paul’s quote of Habakkuk 2:4 in v. 11. The Hebrew text reads “the righteous will live by his faith,” while one text of the LXX reads “the righteous will live by my [God’s] faithfulness,” and another reads “my righteous one will live by faith.” Paul’s omission of the possessive pronoun “my,” however, would not have affected his argument in any case. Bruce, 162, has observed, “The faith by which one becomes righteous in God’s sight is faith in God, believing acceptance of his promise, as Abraham showed.”

Paul’s use of Habakkuk is probably his appropriation of an early Christian expression of faith. The early church would have used this “word of faith” as a vehicle to remind one another of the basis of life in Christ (cf. Longenecker, 119). The point Paul seems to be making with this quotation is that one who is “within this faith” shall live (ek pisteōs, “from within this faith”). In other words, Paul “strips faithfulness to its core of faith in God” (Fung, 144–45), thus expressing the validity of Habakkuk’s message as applied to his Galatian converts. Essentially, Paul is simply again emphasizing his previous point that the one who would emulate Abraham and share in his blessing is the one who exercises faith in God’s promise and integrity.[2]


11  Secondly, Paul states that it is clear that no person is ever justified in God’s sight “in terms of law” (NEB) or “by the law” (AV, RV, RSV, NIV, NASB). He justifies this statement by quoting Hab. 2:4b, in which (as in Gen. 15:6) the two concepts “righteous” and “faith” appear together and which is doubtless chosen for that reason. The MT of of Hab. 2:4b can be represented by “the righteous will live by his faith” (NASB, NIV, RSV) or “by his faithfulness” (NASB mg., NIV mg., RSV mg., NEB mg.), that is, by steadfastness in waiting for the vindication of God’s justice in the face of enemy oppression. The LXX, on the other hand, has “the righteous one will live by my faithfulness” (ho de dikaios ek pisteōs mou zēsetai) or (if mou be taken as objective genitive) “by faith in me.” There is a variant reading placing mou immediately after ho de dikaios and thus yielding the sense “my righteous one will live by faith,” which is the form quoted in Heb. 10:38a (so NIV). Paul omits the possessive pronoun mou (without any significant alteration of meaning) and apparently understands the statement to mean: “he who is righteous by faith shall live” (NASB mg.).36

On the other hand, it has been argued in favor of the translation “the righteous shall live by faith” (RV; AV, NASB, and NIV are similar) that (a) the original Hebrew certainly does not bear the other meaning and it is contrary to both the MT and the LXX to link “by faith” with “the righteous one” rather than with “will live”; (b) the order of the words in Paul’s quotation is not what would be most favorable to the other rendering; (c) Paul’s argument seems best sustained by linking “by faith” with “live”; and (d) this construction forms a more exact antithesis to the words “shall live by them” in v. 12 (RSV, NASB). At least one scholar has judged that the understanding reflected in the RSV and NEB renderings “is inspired more by Lutheran dogma than by a calm consideration of the evidence”;38 others, while agreeing that the text is construed by Paul as in RSV and NEB, question the “somewhat violent use of the quotation” and speak of “the Pauline distortion of Habakkuk.”

Against these objections may be set the following considerations: (a) The particular meaning which the quotation had for Paul and which he intended for his readers is to be gathered primarily from the context in which he employs it and the part which it plays in his argument. The expression “justified … by the law” in v. 11a, not to speak of the wider context from 2:15 onwards (where the concern is with how a man may be justified, not how the righteous shall live), naturally suggests the association of “by faith” with “the righteous one” rather than with “shall live.”

(b) That the order of the words quoted (the placement of the modifying prepositional phrase after the noun rather than between the article and the noun) would be amenable to this interpretation may be deduced from Paul’s writing elsewhere “the Israel according-to-flesh” (ton Israēl kata sarka, 1 Cor. 10:18) rather than “the according-to-flesh Israel” (ton kata sarka Israēl): “the righteous-one by-faith” (ho dikaios ek pisteōs) could similarly be intended to mean the same as “the by-faith righteous-one” (ho ek pisteōs dikaios).

(c) While Heb. ʾemûnâ strictly means “steadfastness” or “fidelity” rather than “trust” or “faith,” the former is based on the latter. As it has been well said, “can there be any `fidelity’ on man’s part, such as God can reward with the great gift of `life,’ which does not ultimately have its roots in man’s attitude of `faith’ in God?”

(d) Furthermore, “if it is `faith’ which makes the `just’ man worthy to receive life, what is it but his faith which gives him originally his title to be called `just’?” Seen in this light, Paul’s application of the Habakkuk text as though it read “he who is righteous-by-faith” does no violence to the prophet’s intention: he simply “strips faithfulness to its core of faith in God” and in so doing expresses the abiding validity of the prophet’s message.46 The quotation in Rom. 1:17 is to be similarly construed.

Paul’s argument in v. 11 is, then, to this effect: because Scripture says that it is he who is righteous (that is, justified) by faith that will live, it follows that no one is justified by works of the law (irrespective of one’s success or failure in keeping it).[3]


3:11 / When Paul states clearly no one is justified before God by the law his evidence is not phenomenological. That is, he does not cite the evidence of his or others’ experience. Rather, Paul cites Scripture: “The righteous will live by faith.” There are few other places where we see Paul the exegete so hard at work. Paul’s argument does not rest on an assumption that humans find it impossible to fulfill the law. Rather, Paul’s argument is based on the assumption that Scripture has something to say to the problem at hand, on the conviction that he rightly understands what it says, and on the desire to discredit whatever his opponents may have said on the basis of these Scriptures.

Paul is faced with the challenge of a seeming contradiction in Scripture. N. Dahl’s suggestion makes good sense of Paul’s use of Scripture in this passage. According to Dahl, Paul here uses legal arguments common among rabbis who sought to deal with contradictions in Scripture. When they were confronted with contradictory scriptural passages the rabbis sought to determine which passage held the basic principle that would serve to set the other passage in context. Paul sees an opposition between Habakkuk 2:4 (“the righteous will live by faith”) and passages such as Deuteronomy 27:26 and Leviticus 18:5 (“the man who does these things [i.e., observing the law] will live by them”). Dahl proposes that the way Paul resolves the contradiction is to determine that the valid principle is “by faith” (Gal. 3:13–14). This means that the other scriptural principle, “by law,” is provisional (Gal. 3:15–19; “Contradictions in Scripture,” in The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974], pp. 159–77).[4]


11. The fact that the opponents were diverting the law from its true purpose and that this attempt was bound to result in tragic failure is brought out clearly, as Paul continues: Now it is evident that by law no one is justified before God, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” The law has no power to subdue man’s sinful tendencies. It cannot destroy the power of sin within man (Rom. 8:3). How then can a sinner ever attain to the ultimate blessing of being righteous in the sight of God? How can that true, rich, full life in which man is at peace with his Maker, and abides in sweet communion with him, ever be reached? The answer, which holds for both dispensations, the old and the new, and for people of every race or nationality, whether Gentile or Jew, is this: “The righteous shall live by faith.” It is the man who has placed his entire confidence in God, trusting him implicitly, and accepting with gladness of heart the gracious provision which that merciful Father has made for his salvation, it is he, he alone, who shall live. This living consists in such things as: a. enjoying the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7), in the knowledge that in the sight of God’s holy majesty the believer is righteous (Rom. 5:1; 8:15); b. having fellowship with God “in Christ” (John 17:3); c. “rejoicing greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8); d. “being transformed into the image of the Lord from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18); and e., last but not least, striving to be a spiritual blessing to others to the glory of God (1 Thess. 3:8).

Now if the Judaizers had only paid more attention to the Word of God and had accepted it, they would have known that not by trusting in his own reasoning or in his own accomplishments but “by faith” the righteous man attains to this bliss of “living.” This had been clearly stated by Habakkuk the prophet (Hab. 2:4). That man of God appeared upon the scene of history during the reign of wicked Jehoiakim (608–597 b.c.). The words “The righteous shall live by his faith” may even be considered the theme of Habakkuk’s prophecy. The divisions then would be: I. Faith tested: the prophet’s questions and Jehovah’s answers (chapters 1 and 2), and II. Faith strengthened by a vision shown in answer to the prophet’s prayer. What bothered Habakkuk was that it seemed as if wicked men were getting away with their wickedness. Jehovah apparently tolerated such evils as the exploitation of the needy, strife, contention, violence, etc. So the prophet begins to ask questions. He addresses these questions to Jehovah. He complains, objects, and waits for an answer. Habakkuk’s first question amounted to this, “Why does Jehovah allow the wicked in Judah to oppress the righteous?” Jehovah answers, “Evil-doers will be punished. The Chaldeans (Babylonians) are coming.” But this answer does not quite satisfy the prophet. So he asks another one, which was tantamount to this: “Why does Jehovah allow the Chaldeans to punish the Jews, who, at least are more righteous than these foreigners?” The prophet stations himself upon his watch-tower and awaits an answer. The answer arrives: “The Chaldeans, too, will be punished. In fact all sinners will be punished … but the righteous shall live by his faith.” It is his duty and privilege to trust, and to do this even then when he is not able to “figure out” the justice of Jehovah’s doings. In this humble trust and quiet confidence he shall truly live.

But Jehovah does more than merely tell the prophet that he must exercise faith. He also strengthens that faith by means of a marvelous, progressive vision. Habakkuk sees the symbol of Jehovah’s presence, descending from Mt. Paran. Having descended he stands firm and shakes the earth. The tent-hangings of Cushan and Midian are trembling and are being torn to shreds. One question worries the prophet: “Upon whom is Jehovah’s wrath going to fall? Merely upon the realm of nature? Upon Judah perhaps?” Finally, the answer arrives: Jehovah destroys the Chaldeans and delivers his people.

So fearful and terrifying had been the appearance of Jehovah, so alarming the sound of the tempest, of crumbling mountains, etc., that the prophet is trembling in every part of his body. Nevertheless, having witnessed that Jehovah had descended for the defense of his own people, Habakkuk no longer questions the ways of God’s providence. From now on he “waits quietly.” He expresses his feelings in a beautiful Psalm of Trust: “For though the fig-tree shall not flourish.… Yet I will rejoice in Jehovah, I will joy in the God of my salvation.”

In this case, too, as with the quotation from the story of Abraham (Gen. 15:6; cf. Gal. 3:6), I beg to differ from those who think that Paul’s appeal to an Old Testament passage in his battle with the Judaizers is far-fetched. These interpreters seem to see little if any connection between “the faith versus law-works controversy” of Paul’s day and the “faith versus Chaldean self-confidence contrast” described in Habakkuk’s prophecy. It is an error, however, to restrict the latter contrast so narrowly. A rapid review of the contents of the Old testament book has certainly shown that the quiet confidence which Jehovah so patiently teaches his servant is contrasted also—perhaps especially—with the prophet’s own tendency to question the ways of God’s providence. Fact is that the sinner is beset with enemies: the accusing voice of conscience, the doubting mind, etc. He must have peace. How will he obtain it? The Judaizers answer: “by trusting in his own works (circumcision, etc.).” Habakkuk, before he had fully learned the lesson which God was teaching him, gives evidence of answering: “by trusting in his own reason.” That is why it was so difficult for him to harmonize the events that were happening in Judah with the existence of a holy God. That is why he had asked so many questions. But Habakkuk learned his lesson. When he sat down to write his prophecy he had learned it thoroughly, and gave an account of the experience through which he had passed. But whether a person trusts in his own works or in his own reason, in either case is he not trusting in “flesh”? As I see it, therefore, to clinch his argument Paul could not have chosen a better prophecy from which to quote than that of Habakkuk. The passage fits the situation exactly! In every age it remains true that “The righteous shall live by faith.” “In quietness and confidence shall be your strength” (Isa. 30:15).[5]


[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1983). Galatians (pp. 76–78). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Rapa, R. K. (2008). Galatians. In T. Longman III &. Garland, David E. (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans–Galatians (Revised Edition) (Vol. 11, p. 595). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Fung, R. Y. K. (1988). The Epistle to the Galatians (pp. 143–145). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[4] Jervis, L. A. (2011). Galatians (p. 90). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book.

[5] Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of Galatians (Vol. 8, pp. 127–129). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Hillary Clinton tries, fails to dodge lawsuit – YouTube

Former US State Sec. Hillary Clinton twice rebuffed efforts to serve her with the defamation lawsuit promised by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), whom Clinton called a “Russian asset.” Gabbard contends that Clinton’s remarks amount to defamation. After successfully dodging the notice of service by means of Secret Service and her personal attorney, Clinton has finally accepted them. RT America’s John Huddy reports for the News with Rick Sanchez.

— Read on m.youtube.com/watch

Chiefs’ Christ-following culture starts at the top with CEO/owner Clark Hunt | Sports Spectrum

MIAMI — Only minutes had passed since the Kansas City Chiefs clinched their first berth in the Super Bowl in 50 years, and Chiefs CEO/owner Clark Hunt was brought up on stage to accept the AFC championship hardware. It’s called the Lamar Hunt Trophy, named after the founder of both the AFL and the Kansas City Chiefs.

Lamar was Clark’s father.

The trophy has been named as such since 1984, but the victory marked the first time the Chiefs had earned it. The moment was not lost on Clark.

In the midst of confetti falling and euphoria flowing from the excitement of going to Super Bowl LIV, Clark gave thanks to his father — his Heavenly Father.

“I want to thank the Lord for blessing us with this opportunity,” Hunt said. “The glory belongs to Him. And this trophy belongs to the best fans in the National Football League!”

It wasn’t just an off-the-cuff remark. It was a statement to how Clark and the Hunt family live, and a glimpse into the kind of culture the Hunt family has established within the Kansas City organization.

It started with Lamar.

Marcellus Casey is the team’s chaplain, and his dad, Carey Casey, was a team chaplain years earlier. Marcellus will never forget the day he first met Lamar Hunt.

— Read on sportsspectrum.com/sport/football/2020/01/31/chiefs-christ-following-culture-starts-with-ceo-owner-clark-hunt/

Peace (Part 2 of 2) – Programs – Truth For Life

Life can be chaotic and distressing, even for Christians—yet in God’s abiding love, we can experience lasting peace, regardless of our circumstances. Hear more as we continue our study of the fruit of the Spirit on Truth For Life with Alistair Begg. 
Listen…

February 1 A New Identity

She called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.
(Genesis 35:18)

Are you still battling the old names they gave you and the old images you have of yourself? Nothing will change in your life until it first changes in your mind. Let me tell you a story. Jacob’s wife Rachel died in the desert in childbirth. Just before she died, she gave birth and named her son Ben-Oni, which means “son of my sorrow.” When the midwife handed him to his father, Jacob, he said, “He shall not be called Ben-Oni, the son of my sorrow; he shall be called Benjamin, the son of my right hand. He is my strength, not my sorrow!” Guess whose name prevailed? Benjamin! You are who your Father says you are!

If your heavenly Father didn’t give you that name—it’s not yours! Only accept the identity He places on you. No one knew better than Jacob/Israel the power of a name change! It was in God’s presence that he discovered he was not a trickster, but a prince! When Christ lives in you, He breaks the strength of every other name that would attach itself to you. You’re a saint not a sinner! Not a loser but a winner! When people try to label you, tell them you don’t answer to that name anymore. The person they’re talking about died and was buried two thousand years ago.

 

You have a new identity! You’re a new creature. (See 2 Corinthians 5:17.) So start acting like one![1]

 

[1] Gass, B. (1998). A Fresh Word For Today : 365 Insights For Daily Living (p. 32). Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

Devin Nunes: Schiff and Nadler won’t stop, They will go after Trump even after he’s acquitted – Sara A. Carter

“I just can’t imagine that Adam Schiff, after three and a half years of this nonsense, and Jerry Nadler are not going to continue this. Right? They are going to go back and subpoena John Bolton. We’re going to have the same exact thing that you have been seeing for the last three and a half years. I just think you should prepare,” House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, told “Tucker Carlson Tonight”.

“We thought once Mueller collapsed completely — we thought ‘OK, we’re going to get on to business.’ And then out of nowhere, this Ukraine hoax appeared.”

Nunes also pointed out that both Schiff and Nadler are damaging the democratic party by focusing all this time on Trump, ‘the party is moving toward potentially picking a socialist’.

“He is winning in Iowa,” Nunes said. “This could be — if Bernie wins on Monday night, you have an entire takeover by the extreme left of the historic Democratic Party. It ceases to exist. It gonna be the Socialist Party.”

More:

  • — Read on saraacarter.com/devin-nunes-schiff-and-nadler-wont-stop-they-will-go-after-trump-even-after-hes-acquitted/
  • Mollie Hemingway says Dems just don’t trust voters, whether for Trump or Sanders: ‘High degree of meddling there’ | Fox News

    Democrats knew they never had the legislative clout to get President Trump removed from office, but did know they could try to influence Americans’ opinions about him, Mollie Hemingway said Friday.

    Dems unveil 2020 campaign message: Trump not acquitted – WND

    Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

    Democrats already are honing their message for the 2020 campaign, insisting that the Senate Republicans’ decision not to allow further witnesses or documents in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump means the president’s inevitable acquittal next week won’t be valid.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York told reporters Friday “the acquittal will have no value, because Americans will know that this trial was not a real trial.”

    Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told senators, “You cannot have a true acquittal if you’ve not had a fair trial.”

    Impeachment manager Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, said “an acquittal on an incomplete record after a trial lacking witnesses and evidence will be no exoneration.”

    At her weekly news conference Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump “cannot be acquitted” if the trial lacks witness testimony and documentation. She added that Trump’s impeachment defense team “disgraced themselves” and should be disbarred.

    With a 51 to 49 vote Friday evening, Republicans voted down Democrats’ effort to hear the testimony of witnesses such as acting White House Chief of State Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

    The White House defense team argued that Democrats had 17 witnesses during the House investigation, and video clips from that testimony were used in the Senate trial. They further contend that the articles presented by the Democrats are not impeachable offenses, meaning any further testimony is unnecessary.

    Trump is expected to be acquitted next week, possibly on Wednesday, after final arguments are heard and the senators are given an opportunity to speak. Several Democrats are expected to join the 53 Republicans in voting to acquit the president. Removal from office would require a supermajority of 67 votes on either of the two articles of impeachment.

    The trial will resume Monday.

    Trump: ‘I never instructed John Bolton’

    Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, were the only Republicans to voted in favor of more witnesses. Romney said he wanted to hear from Bolton.

    Trump denied Friday the claim in a New York Times report citing John Bolton’s upcoming book that the president told his then-national security adviser to help him pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

    The New York Times reported earlier Friday that Bolton claims Trump directed him to ensure that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney.

    Bolton, according to the Times, said acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House counsel Pat Cipollone were at the May 2019 meeting in the Oval Office.

    “I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudy Giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in America and by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC, to meet with President Zelensky,” Trump said in a White House statement. “That meeting never happened.”

    The House Democrat impeachment managers continued to press Friday for additional witnesses, including Bolton and Mulvaney.

    But with the announcement early Friday by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that she would vote against new witnesses, the Republicans appeared to have the 51 votes they needed.

    “The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed,” she said in a statement. “I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.”

    — Read on www.wnd.com/2020/01/dems-unveil-2020-campaign-message-trump-not-acquitted/

    “When That Happens, Civil War Two Begins In Earnest!” | Zero Hedge

    …the hidden agenda behind this hot mess of an impeachment is clear – the Democrats are trying like hell to set the stage for disputing and negating the 2020 election…

    Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

    What a fatal mistake, allowing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to make himself the face of the Democratic Party. They would have been better off with another scion of Hollywood: the Phantom of the Opera. This grubby seditionist has marched the party into a wilderness of deceit and knavery that taints them all, and when this grotesque impeachment episode is over, a new chapter of consequences will open that should leave the party for dead.

    It’s hard to think of a more loathsome figure in US political history than Adam Schiff. General James Wilkinson? Senator Theodore Bilbo? Benjamin “Pitchfork” Tillman? Joseph McCarthy? Hillary Clinton? And that doesn’t count the mere rogues and rascals like Huey Long, Boss Tweed, and George Wallace. A universe of chaos lurks behind Mr. Schiff’s slick Tinseltown façade. The impeachment he led was crippled from the start with violations of process and errors of logic of exactly the kind that drives his party’s Woke hysteria with its assaults on free speech, its vicious “cancel” culture, its reckless race-hatred, its depraved Transsexual Reading Hours, and its neurotic obsession with Russian phantoms — a matrix of beliefs that would embarrass a conclave of medieval necromancers.

    Of course, the impeachment was just the latest sortie in a three-year campaign to confound and conceal the arrant misdeeds of a network of government employees in the Departments of State and Justice, the FBI, the CIA, and the remnants Barack Obama’s White House, who are all connected and all liable for prosecution, not to mention characters in congress such as the co-seditionist Mark Warner (D-VA), who trafficked the Steele dossier around official Washington.

    The “Whistleblower” in the current impeachment fiasco was a CIA agent and John Brennan protégé who had worked for Joe Biden both in the US and on trips to Ukraine when he was detailed to the Obama White House.

    Hunter Biden was known to be a dangerous abscess of grift years before Mr. Trump ever rode down that fabled golden escalator, and the “WB” was present for White House meetings with Ukrainian officials when embarrassing questions about Burisma and the Bidens came up. His supposed right to anonymity is fairytale and the time is not far off when he’ll have to answer for his deeds, whether it’s in a Senate committee or a grand jury.

    The Intel Inspector General who ushered him into the spotlight, Michael Atkinson was chief counsel to the same DOJ officials who signed phony FISA warrants and who ramped up both the dishonest “Crossfire Hurricane” scam, and its two-year continuation as the Mueller Special Counsel investigation. All of this activity involved the same gang of top FBI officials, DOJ lawyers, and Lawfare intriguers. It has obviously been a broad attempt to overthrow a president by any means, including plenty of collusion with foreign governments. In a truly just society, this ring would be busted under federal RICO and conspiracy raps, and perhaps they will be.

    You can see the next installment taking shape through the last stages of the impeachment fog. Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader “Chuck” Schumer have declared that “acquittal is meaningless.” Somebody ought to inform them that the hole they want to keep digging is the Democratic Party’s grave. Can there be no Democrats who are nauseated by what has gone down in their name, who understand the damage that has been wreaked by their own leaders, who are sick of re-investing in falsehoods and perfidy?

    I guess we’ll find out if the impeachment concludes as expected. If, by some fluke, it happens to proceed to witnesses, the Democrats will rue the day — or the weeks ensuing. They have one hole-card to play: the Joker, John Bolton. Bring him on, I say. The result will be exactly the sort of four-flush that is the specialty of their game. Then let the defense press the appearance of the “Whistleblower” and those connected to him. In the highest kind of court, which this is, is it possible that a defendant will not be allowed to face his accuser?

    I can’t see any possible legal grounds for that. And if, by some act of legal black magic he is excluded, there is enough to unpack between his confederates and Adam Schiff to not only unravel the premises of the impeachment case, but also pull out the key threads in the greater tapestry of sedition and official criminality dating back to before the election of 2016.

    As to the election of 2020, the Democrats are trying like hell to set the stage for disputing and negating it. In fact, that has mostly been the hidden agenda behind this hot mess of an impeachment. They will at least attempt to litigate it into a dangerous state of irresolution. Wouldn’t that be grand?

    When that happens, Civil War Two begins in earnest.

    — Read on www.zerohedge.com/political/when-happens-civil-war-two-begins-eanest

    Conforming or Transforming? – Crosswalk the Devotional – February 1 – Crosswalk: The Devotional – Daily Devotional

    Conforming or Transforming?
    by Meghan Kleppinger

    And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
    Romans 12:2, NAS 

    “Character is always lost when a high ideal is sacrificed on the altar of conformity and popularity.” — Charles Spurgeon

    Reading down a top magazine’s list of the 100 best English-language novels published since 1923 made my pulse quicken and my heart sink. As an avid and admittedly often obnoxiously-distracted-in-public reader (I always have a book on me in case the opportunity to read arises – like when I’m waiting for coffee, caught up in traffic, or standing in a line at the department of motor vehicles, to name a few examples), I just couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

    I nearly had a panic attack, not because of any distaste or disagreement over the books chosen, but because of the number of books listed that I haven’t read yet. Quickly, I made my way to both the local library and Amazon.com websites and planned to start building my reserve list and filling my online shopping cart. As I moved my mouse to the search box so I could enter my selection, a little something I like to call “common sense” came over me.

    Scolding myself, I whispered with clenched teeth, “Meghan, get a hold of yourself!”  

    After a few deep breaths, there was a point of rational thinking when I realized that I didn’t even know who wrote the list and that more than half of the books selected would never have been personal choices simply because of my dislike for the authors or the types of literature. I know and read what I like. Occasionally, I’ll try something new or especially challenging just for fun, but mostly I’m loyal to a small circle of favorite authors.

    Isn’t easy to get caught up in what everybody is doing? Polls, magazines, television advertisements and movies are constantly telling us how to think, what to wear, who to vote for, what to watch, and in this case, what to read.

    As Christians, we need to be especially careful with messages dictating what is “in.” This list of books, for example, had several titles I shouldn’t read simply because I am a Christ follower. It’s not about whether I can “handle” the content, it’s about living a life that reflects and pleases Christ. When I choose to read a book, I’m making a decision to commit hours and hours engrossed in that story.

    As we choose what to wear, listen to, watch, or read, we need to be remember what Scripture says about how we spend our time and what we spend our time focusing on.

    “…Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” (Philippians 4:8)

    A friend shared with me that a literature teacher at her Christian college was constantly putting down Christian authors and their books, and encouraging the students to read “good” literature instead. Our discussion concluded with a couple of great thoughts.

    First, just because something is written well, doesn’t make it “good” or appropriate for Christians. In the same way, just because something is written by a Christian, doesn’t mean it makes for a good read. Most importantly, however, how can we justify spending time on books that don’t glorify God when there are countless wholesome and well written books available… written by both Christian and non-Christian authors?

    In light of eternity, when I face Jesus one day, I don’t think the excuse that I “dwelt” on something that didn’t glorify God was because, “It was an award-winning book or movie,” will fly. Actually, I would be ashamed to say I let popularity or a good story get in the way of my relationship with Him.

    Basically, when my time on earth is through, I want it to be clear that transforming into the likeness of Christ was more important to me than conforming to the culture

    Intersecting Faith & Life: As Christians, we need to remember that everything we have belongs to God… and with that in mind, consider how we are spending His time

    Further Reading

    Psalms 90:12
    Choose This Day
    How God Develops Christian Character

    — Read on www.crosswalk.com/devotionals/crosswalk-devo/crosswalk-the-devotional-july-30-2009-11606819.html

    Zerohedge Suspended On Twitter | Zero Hedge

    “Hello zerohedge, Your account, zerohedge has been suspended for violating the Twitter Rules.”

     First it was Facebook, then all of New Zealand; now Twitter has decided to suspend Zero Hedge.

    Just as in the prior bans, which were eventually overturned, so in this case it is unclear what prompted Twitter’s abrupt censorship: the only notification we received from twitter was the following:

    It is news to us that this website has (ever) “engaged in the targeted harassment of someone.” 

    What appears to have happened is that twitter received a complaint from the website best known for publishing the discredited Steele dossier when no other media outlet would touch it, and making cat slideshows of course, Buzzfeed, in which someone called Ryan Broderick writes that Zero Hedge  has released the personal information of a scientist from Wuhan, China, falsely accusing them of creating the coronavirus as a bioweapon, in a plot it said is the real-life version of the video game Resident Evil.”

    A few points: the article referenced by Buzz Feed, “Is This The Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?”, is as the title implies, a question, and one which considering the huge significance and life or death import of the Coronavirus pandemic, has to be answered, especially since even the establishment’s Foreign Policy magazine writes bat soup, which is widely being cited and circulated by the mainstream press as the cause of the coronavirus breakout, is not the cause of the Wuhan virus. The widely read website Health.com also chimes in: “No, Coronavirus Was Not Caused by ‘Bat Soup‘”. Meanwhile, Business Insider writes “Experts think the Wuhan coronavirus jumped from bats to snakes to people. Bats have been the source of at least 4 pandemics.”

    So considering that Peng Zhou, who currently works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is the Leader of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunization Group at the Institute, the question certainly is a reasonable one and, in a normal world, would demand an answer from the established media (assuming it wasn’t afraid of risking lucrative Chinese funding) instead of leaving it to “fringe” websites.

    The impetus to ask the question if the disease originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is especially relevant in light of social media reports such as this one which claims to “have evidence here that the outbreak originated from Wuhan P4 Research Institute. You need to find a truly patriotic journalist to publish it to the public. You can personally trust me to provide a complete chain of evidence. Thank you.”

    So did we have a right to ask the question if there is an alternative version for the emergence of the Coronavirus pandemic, especially with hundreds if not thousands of lives at stake? Absolutely.

    As for Broderick’s statement that Peng was “accused falsely” we wonder how he knows this: did he speak to Peng? Did he get any comments? Did he get an official denial? No, he did not: as he writes, “BuzzFeed News has reached out to the scientist, whom it is declining to name.” So, it actually turns out that it is Buzzfeed that is once again presenting a false statement as fact, something Buzzfeed has been accused of doing over and over and over.

    Meanwhile, those who wonder if Dr. Zhou has any link to the possible emergence of the Coronavirus following years of experimenting with bats, we urge you to read our full article instead of relying on the hearsay of ideologically biased journalists.

    Second, and contrary to the claims presented by Buzzfeed, we did not release any “personal information”: Peng Zhou (周鹏) is a public figure, and all the contact information that we presented was pulled from his publicly posted bio found on a website at the Wuhan Institute of Virology which anyone with access to the internet can pull from the following URL: http://sourcedb.whiov.cas.cn/zw/rck/201705/t20170505_4783973.html, which is also the information we used.

    So about Buzzfeed’s allegation, which was adopted by Twitter, that somehow we incited “targeted abuse”, here is what we said:

    Something tells us, if anyone wants to find out what really caused the coronavirus pandemic that has infected thousands of people in China and around the globe, they should probably pay Dr. Peng a visit.

    To which we then added the information obtained from his own bio page on the Institute’s website:

    “Or at least start with an email: Dr Peng can be reached at peng.zhou@wh.iov.cn, and his phone# is 87197311″

    Are we then to understand that we have now reached a point the mere gathering of information, which our colleagues in the media may want to eventually do as thousands of people are afflicted daily by the Coronavirus, is now synonymous with “abuse and harassment”? According to Twitter, and certainly our competitors in the media, the answer is yes.

    In any case, we have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who incidentally happens to follow zerohedge…

    … for the answer. If we get one, we will promptly share it with our readers. We aren’t holding our breath, however, as we realize how important it is to today’s media giants not to ruffle too many Chinese feathers or lack losing access to the Chinese market. After all, who can forget the following report from the New York Times about another of our media competitors that several years ago was itself engaged in “doxing” us (yet oddly wasn’t suspended by Twitter):

    The chairman of Bloomberg L.P. said in a speech here on Thursday that the company should have reconsidered articles that deviated from its core of coverage of business news, because they jeopardized the huge sales potential for its products in the Chinese market.

    The comments by the chairman, Peter T. Grauer, represented the starkest acknowledgment yet by a senior Bloomberg executive that the ambitions of the news division should be assessed in the context of the business operation, which provides the bulk of the company’s revenue. They also signaled which of those considerations might get priority.

    Acknowledging the vast size of the Chinese economy, the world’s second-biggest after that of the United States, Mr. Grauer, said, “We have to be there.”

    “We have about 50 journalists in the market, primarily writing stories about the local business and economic environment,” Mr. Grauer said in response to questions after a speech at the Asia Society. “You’re all aware that every once in a while we wander a little bit away from that and write stories that we probably may have kind of rethought — should have rethought.”

    Bloomberg, the financial data and news company, relies on sales of its terminals, which are ubiquitous on bankers’ desks around the world, for about 82 percent of its $8.5 billion in revenue. But sales of those terminals in China declined after the company published an article in June 2012 on the family wealth of Xi Jinping, at that time the incoming Communist Party chief. After its publication, officials ordered state enterprises not to subscribe to the service. Mr. Grauer did not specifically mention the article about Mr. Xi or any other articles.

    “Being in China is very much a part of our long-term strategy and will continue to be so going forward,” Mr. Grauer said. “It occupies a lot of our thinking — Dan Doctoroff, our C.E.O.; me; Mike; and other members of our senior team.”

    Some current and former Bloomberg journalists, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they had hoped the controversy surrounding Bloomberg’s China reporting would prompt the company to reaffirm its support for investigative efforts. Mr. Grauer’s comments were met with dismay, particularly because he is regarded as close to Mr. Bloomberg and would be unlikely to voice views that were not broadly accepted at the top of the company.

    Unlike Bloomberg, or anyone else in the mainstream media, we don’t plan on “rethinking” any of our articles just to curry favor with the powerful and we certainly will continue our own “investigative efforts”, even if it means we lose some of our inbound traffic.

    — Read on www.zerohedge.com/political/zerohedge-suspended-twitter

    Hah! Ted Cruz Mimics Nancy Pelosi’s SOTU Clap as GOP Senators End Pelosi’s Sham Impeachment (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

    Hah-Hah! Ted Cruz turns out to have a sense of humor.

    Video captured the Texas Senator give a little Pelosi SOTU clap during voting today to shut down the impeachment scam.
    Go Ted!

    via Hah! Ted Cruz Mimics Nancy Pelosi’s SOTU Clap as GOP Senators End Pelosi’s Sham Impeachment (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

    Laura Ingraham rips Senate impeachment trial’s losers: ‘Trump has beaten them at their own game’ | Fox News

    Laura Ingraham called out some major players Friday for their actions related to the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump.
    — Read on www.foxnews.com/media/laura-ingraham-rips-rabid-democrats-and-bitter-romney

    Will The Coronavirus Outbreak Cause A Massive Stock Market Crash? — The Economic Collapse

    Could it be possible that this coronavirus outbreak will be the trigger that finally bursts the biggest stock market bubble in U.S. history?  As I have discussed previously, stock prices in the United States were the most overvalued that they have ever been during the month of January, and our stock market has never been more perfectly primed for a huge meltdown.  But stock prices are all about what investors believe will happen in the future, and if they remain convinced that the future is bright then perhaps this stock market bubble could persist for a while longer.  Unfortunately for Wall Street, this coronavirus outbreak is starting to create a wave of fear in the financial community.  In fact, concern about the coronavirus pushed the Dow Jones Industrial Average down more than 600 points on Friday, and that represented the worst day for the Dow since last August

    Stocks fell sharply on Friday, wiping out the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s gain for January, as investors grew increasingly worried about the potential economic impact of China’s fast-spreading coronavirus.

    The Dow dropped 603.41 points, or 2.1%, to 28,256.03 in the 30-stock average’s worst day since August. The S&P 500 had its worst day since October, falling 1.8% to 3,225.52. The Nasdaq Composite dropped 1.6% to 9,150.94.

    Up until now, investors were very confident that the Fed and the Trump administration could keep the party rolling, but now that is changing.  Just consider what Ilya Feygin just told CNBC

    “The theme coming into this year was the Fed and Trump are going to bail us out of any problems, but the virus is something neither one can do anything about. That’s a reason to become more fearful.”

    A reason “to become more fearful”?

    That certainly doesn’t sound good for stocks.

    And this coronavirus outbreak has also been pushing down the price of oil

    Oil prices have also suffered from the virus outbreak, because China is a big consumer of the commodity.

    US oil prices are on track for their worst month since May last year, when the US-China trade war and high inventory levels weighed on prices.

    Ultimately, the economic impact of this crisis will be determined by how bad this outbreak eventually becomes, and that is very uncertain at this point.

    But without a doubt the coronavirus is already having a substantial impact on the Chinese economy.  The following comes from CNN

    The economic impact of the virus is still impossible to determine, but one state media outlet and some economists have said that China’s growth rate could drop two percentage points this quarter because of the outbreak, which has brought large parts of the country to a standstill. A decline on that scale could mean $62 billion in lost growth.

    Goldman Sachs is warning that this outbreak will also cause the U.S. economy to slow down this quarter, but the bank is still convinced that next quarter will be better

    The fast-spreading coronavirus could slow first quarter growth of the United States economy, according to a new report from Goldman Sachs.

    Analysts at the firm forecast a 0.4 percentage point decline on US annualized growth through March. But it’s not all doom and gloom: Goldman Sachs (GS) also predicts that growth will rebound in the second quarter by roughly the same amount.

    Of course the analysts over at Goldman Sachs are assuming that this coronavirus outbreak is not going to turn into a horrifying global pandemic.

    But what if they are wrong?

    During the last two weeks of January the number of confirmed cases got 236 times larger, and if this outbreak continues to grow at an exponential rate it is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the entire global economy.

    Quite a few experts are now recognizing this reality, and that includes Tuomas Malinen

    Global recession, a European banking crisis and a crash in the U.S. capital markets will produce a global economic collapse which will almost certainly overwhelm any attempts—massive and coordinated as they may be—to turn the tide by over-stretched central banks and over-indebted governments.

    This is, why the coronavirus outbreak should be treated for what it is: a potential harbinger of human and economic calamity.

    Whether such a scenario materializes in the weeks ahead all depends on how widely this virus spreads.

    Personally, I am hoping that this outbreak fizzles out as rapidly as possible.  This virus has an incubation period of up to 14 days, and wondering who might have the virus is going to drive a lot of people completely nuts.

    Unfortunately, it looks like things are only going to get worse.  According to a study that was just released, we could soon have “independent self-sustaining outbreaks in major cities globally”.  The following comes from Natural News

    A new, urgent study just published in The Lancetwarns that “independent self-sustaining outbreaks in major cities globally” may be “inevitable” due to the “substantial exportation” of symptomless carriers of coronavirus. That same study also calculates that 75,815 individuals are infected right now in mainland China, where the official government numbers are currently under 10,000.

    Titled, “Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study,” the study is authored by Professor Gabriel M. Leung, MD and Kathy Leung, PhD.

    Coming into this year, so many of us felt such a sense of urgency, but I don’t know anyone that thought we would potentially be facing a horrific global pandemic by the end of January.

    The worse this outbreak becomes, the more pain the global economy is going to feel.

    And there is no way that this stock market bubble is going to survive a severe global economic downturn.

    The only way anyone ever makes money in the stock market is if they get out in time.  And unfortunately the ridiculously elevated prices that we have been witnessing may not last too much longer if this outbreak continues to spiral out of control.

    via Will The Coronavirus Outbreak Cause A Massive Stock Market Crash? — The Economic Collapse

    Top Conservative and Pro-Trump Website Zero Hedge is Suspended from Twitter — WHERE THE HELL IS THE GOP? — The Gateway Pundit

    The tech giants Google, Facebook and Twitter continue to purge conservative content from their platforms.

    In February 2018 Facebook launched a new algorithm to ensure that conservative news would not spread on the social media platform.

    The algorithm change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.

    In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement.

    Top pro-Trump Facebook pages with daily traffic in the millions have seen 75% to 95% drop in traffic since the 2016 election.  Young Cons, Western Journalism, SarahPalin.com, Independent Journal Review, Right Wing News, and several others have seen dramatic loss in traffic.

    In 2016 The Gateway Pundit was one of the few conservative sites that supported candidate Trump – along with Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge, Conservative Treehouse and others.  We were proud of our efforts to report the truth that led to Trump’s historic win.

    In 2017 Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review found that The Gateway Pundit was the 4th most influential conservative news source in the 2016 election.

    Because of this we were targeted and saw our numbers related to Facebook and Twitter decline dramatically.

    Facebook eventually shut down our traffic stream from the social media platform questioning our news reports.  Today it is clear that our reporting was 100% accurate but it was taken down anyway.  And the leftie mainstream media was allowed to promote their inaccurate Trump hit pieces at the same time for years.

    This is corrupt, if not criminal, behavior.

    In March 2018 Trump 2020 Campaign Manager Brad Parscale warned Facebook to keep the playing field level.

    via Top Conservative and Pro-Trump Website Zero Hedge is Suspended from Twitter — WHERE THE HELL IS THE GOP? — The Gateway Pundit

    “There Can Be No Acquittal Without a Trial” – Pelosi Accuses GOP Senators of a ‘Cover-Up’ After They Vote to Block Additional Witnesses — The Gateway Pundit


    Nancy Pelosi

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday evening accused Republican Senators of being accomplices to President Trump’s cover-up after they voted to block additional witnesses in the impeachment trial.

    In a huge win for President Trump and his defense team, the senate voted against impeachment witnesses in a 51-49 vote on Friday afternoon.

    President Trump’s all-star defense team completely destroyed Schiff and the Democrats.

    Pelosi lost and she will be thrown out of her position as Speaker of the House after the 2020 election.

    After rushing impeachment through the House, denying President Trump due process and blocking GOP Reps from bringing in witnesses and documents, Pelosi had the nerve to lash at at Republican senators.

    Pelosi thinks she is in charge of the senate and said ‘Trump cannot be acquitted’ because there was no trial.

    Pelosi’s full statement:

    “The Senate Republicans’ vote against calling witnesses and compelling documents in the impeachment proceedings makes them accomplices to the President’s cover-up.

    “The President was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is impeached forever. There can be no acquittal without a trial. And there is no trial without witnesses, documents and evidence.

    “It is a sad day for America to see Senator McConnell require the Chief Justice of the United States to preside over a vote which rejected our nation’s judicial norms, precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.”

    The House Democrats brought a weak, politically-charged impeachment case to the senate and they lost.

    President Trump will be acquitted next week when the senate casts the final vote.

    Nancy Pelosi

    @SpeakerPelosi

    President Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. By refusing to call witnesses and compel documents, Senate Republicans have chosen to become accomplices in his cover-up. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/13120-1 

    Pelosi Statement on Senate Vote to Block Witnesses and Documents

    The Senate Republicans’ vote against calling witnesses and compelling documents in the impeachment proceedings makes them accomplices to the President’s cover-up.

    speaker.gov

    26.2K people are talking about this

    via “There Can Be No Acquittal Without a Trial” – Pelosi Accuses GOP Senators of a ‘Cover-Up’ After They Vote to Block Additional Witnesses — The Gateway Pundit

    Democrats Suffer Humiliating Loss As Senate Votes Down Motion To Allow Additional Witnesses, Mitt Romney Sides With Liberals Against President — Now The End Begins

    The Senate on Friday voted down a motion to allow for additional witnesses to testify as part of the upper chamber’s impeachment trial, all but ensuring a quick acquittal of President Donald Trump.

    Well, now you can add impeachment to the list of things the Democrats have used to try and undo the election of 2016. The infamous ‘golden shower’ Russian Dossier, the Russian Collusion hoax, the cringe-inducing Mueller Report when he took the stand, and the Blockbuster!!, Game-Changing!!, the WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!!!impeachment scam started by a corrupt Congress for purely political motives. Today, the Senate has all but guaranteed that President Donald Trump will be acquitted next week. Now what?

    The Democrats have allowed their hatred for Donald Trump, catalyzed by their over-arching sadness at watching Hillary lose, to drive them to pathetically laughable acts of desperation that have only gotten crazier and crazier. Now with this latest defeat, combined with having no Democratic candidate able to beat Trump, and nearly out of time, they only have one option left. Can you guess what it is?

    Senate Votes Down Extra Impeachment Witnesses, Paves Way for Trump Acquittal

    FROM BREITBART NEWS: The 51 to 49 vote thwarted Democrats’ ongoing effort to hear from current and former Trump administration officials such as acting White House Chief of State Mick Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

    Bolton shot to the top of the Democrats’ witness wish list after a New York Times report alleged that his forthcoming book — The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir — contains allegations that President Trump sought to make U.S. military aid to Ukraine conditional on investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. President Trump vehemently denied the report and call the book “nasty & untrue.”

    The Hill

    @thehill

    CPAC says Romney “not invited” this year after vote to approve witnesses at Trump trial http://hill.cm/ybugRZu 

    View image on Twitter
    123 people are talking about this

    House Democrats’ impeachment managers failed to convince enough moderate Republicans to cross the aisle, falling short of the 51 votes need for more witnesses. Late Thursday evening, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) revealed that he will join the overwhelming majority of his colleagues to vote against hearing from others.

    “I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” the retiring Tennessee Republican said in a statement.

    Despite Alexander’s opposition, Democrats still had a glimmer of hope if Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted their way, which would have set up Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to decide on casting the tie-breaking vote. However, Roberts’ aversion to politics had always made the prospect of him voting highly improbable.

    However, Murkowski announced Friday that she will oppose hearing from other witnesses. In a pointed statement, Murkowski slammed the impeachment process’s “partisan nature” and said Congress had failed to do its job.

    “You’re impeached forever,” Pelosi said with a big grin in an interview with HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.” READ MORE

    “I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more,” said  Murkowski. “The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.”

    “Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed,” she added.

    Only two Republicans — Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) — voted in favor of the motion for more witnesses, with the former saying he believes that it was important to hear from Bolton. Shortly after Alexander’s announcement, Collins said she would vote for witnesses as “the most sensible way to proceed.”

    “I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity. Therefore, I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed,” Collins said.

    “If this motion passes, I believe that the most sensible way to proceed would be for the House Managers and the President’s attorneys to attempt to agree on a limited and equal number of witnesses for each side. If they can’t agree, then the Senate could choose the number of witnesses,” added the senator.

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted in favor of extra witnesses. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) also voted in favor. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement after Friday’s vote, predicting that the trial will draw to a close “in the coming days.”

    “A majority of the U.S. Senate has determined that the numerous witnesses and 28,000-plus pages of documents already in evidence are sufficient to judge the House Managers’ accusations and end this impeachment trial. There is no need for the Senate to re-open the investigation which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the Managers themselves continue to describe as “overwhelming” and “beyond any doubt,” said McConnell.

    “Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation. We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue,” the Kentucky Republican added.

    “Senators will now confer among ourselves, with the House Managers, and with the President’s counsel to determine next steps as we prepare to conclude the trial in the coming days,” he concluded. READ MORE

    Senate defeats motion to call witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial

    via Democrats Suffer Humiliating Loss As Senate Votes Down Motion To Allow Additional Witnesses, Mitt Romney Sides With Liberals Against President — Now The End Begins