Biden says, “it’s about jobs, good paying union jobs; it’s about workers; building our economy back better than before. It’s a whole government approach with climate change at the center of our domestic, national security and foreign policy. It’s amassing conservation, revitalizing communities, and in the cities and in the farm lands. It’s securing environmental justice.”
Giberish. Tens of thousands of jobs were wiped out by Biden when he shut down work on the Keystone Pipeline. Laid off workers said Biden made jobs for unemployment officers because they’d need more of them to process all the unemployment claims heading their way. But don’t forget, the Keystone Pipeline was shut down in the name of climate crisis and the continued battle against the unseen enemy: C02.
Climate Crisis EOs * Ban on new leases for oil and gas drilling * Ban on fracking on federal lands * Revocation of lease for Keystone pipeline (previous week)
Who’s to say the Democrats, the Coup Party, don’t turn around and dig that oil up anyway and send that oil to China? Why not? It’s the most practical thing to do as China is part of the Paris Accords only voluntarily and have no dues to pay and no responsibility to their carbon footprint or their emissions. Can it at least be noted that the approval by Trump on the Keystone saw an environmentally sound and clean extraction system?
It was climate day at the faux White House where O’Biden, his face practically falling off, said climate day was “job day.” Still, Biden’s promises for green jobs and compliance with the Paris Accords means Americans can depend on jobs to continue disappearing. Small jobs. Independent employers. Entrepreneurs. Drivers of economy will be able to settle in to their public sector jobs processing jobless claims and required government assistance. The Republicans, the Coup Party, will most likely be complicit and not challenge or overturn these Executive Orders issued by illegitimate President Select, Joe Biden.
This coup has been a long time coming. It could be seen by those with discerning eyes as in-progress long ago. It became evident with the unsurmountable tower of affidavits and undeniable examples of fraud and questionable behavior. It became evident that minus the coup apparent, successful as the networks have us believe, Joe Biden isn’t fit to serve as president of these United States of America.
It is apparent over 70 million Americans now know what they witnessed. They now know what they’ve been looking at the whole time. They now know beyond any doubt the rumors were true; the hushed whispers between friends and patriots were true; they now know the talk on talk radio and independent circuits were true. They now know conspiracy theory is fact of a conspiracy.
The question is, what are 70 million plus patriots going to do about it? 70 million discerning Americans are more than enough to begin and finish a civilized revolution. The kinetic action committed by the Left in the streets of America is no responsibility of law abiding conservative and patriotic; those who voted for President Trump eased the fingers off their triggers and respected the process of law. Dotted “I” to crossed “T,” line be line, with attention to the fine print, 70 million Americans went through the process, observed every step, recorded every move, and watched intently as the shoplifter passed the point of sale and walked out the door with the keys to our house. How could this coup stand until mid-terms or the next primary election season?
Over 70 million patriotic Americans watched the dueling currents of independent and centralized news media. More than 70 million Americans watched as one-by-one the rats came into the light, as each leak was discovered, as each bad actor was removed. At every turn they showed their stripes, revealed where their loyalty resides and we were given the recipe, the road map, the key to discovering these truths. We were schooled on where to begin and how to follow through. So, what are more than 70 million patriotic Americans going to do?
Press on until victory. Keep the light of faith on. Hold the door open for understanding and reconciliation. Leave a paper trail of your redresses and grievances. Research and report. Share. Become a unified force of truth and knowledge. Build up. Remember: we are the creators of our realities, we govern over our cities and our laws, those elected are the instruments that implement those laws and realities; we do not follow them by faith but by fruit of their actions as evidence of their intent and loyalties.
We were given a gift when we were able to recognize the true worth of man and our right to self-govern, the ability to exercise our free will. We were given the sacred duty of preserving that ability and idea for an entire world. Do we surrender our right to direct our course of existence? Do we surrender our right to move freely and at our discretion? Do we surrender our right to protect ourselves and those we care for? Do we surrender our right to defend our life against those who’d take it? Do we surrender our right to keep our freedom against those who want it? With President Trump stepping aside, and Joe Biden unlawfully accepting the office of President of the United States of America, the military must act as last defense to restoring the Constitution of these United States of America, and we the people of these United States of America must be ready to identify and receive that moment when it falls on us.
So the Million MAGA March (III) is over. We came, we saw, we got set up by the Legacy Media who, in usual fashion, blew the events out of proportion. Yes, exactly that. I was on the Capital grounds the entire time the events that the news reported were occurring. In fact, I was debunking incoming reports from our Q & A Holes production and correspondents who were live with us at the time. We had reports coming in of violence, vandalism, of riot police coming in and roughing up Trump supporters, of fires being lit around the capital building. But all was not the case. In the aftermath of the experience, which I might say was completely uplifting if not for the marring the legacy media presented, it seems they tried to paint the picture of a total riot. Of absolute chaos, but this, again, was not the case. All the ‘chaos’ that ensued was isolated to inside the Capital building and the back of the Capital. I found it quite funny that adjacent to treasonous elect Biden as he gave his meaningless and castrated commandments regarding the day’s events, that the news showed, to the discerning eye, footage of a camera man shaking his camera to mimic chaotic motion on an otherwise peaceful scene. And that is exactly what I’m saying. The general feeling, the vibe, that I got from the crowd was one of proud patriotism, almost a festive spirit. It was warm. It was welcoming. There were those on the ground that were following the news reports of riots erupting, of bombs going off. But this was not the case. The camera man had to shake and move his camera in a motion to make peaceful protestors, patriotic Americans, who are standing there singing songs, congregating, and declaring their love for their country, in order to paint the picture that there was inimitable chaos in the Capital so they could then spin it on television that the Trump supporters rioted worse than any BLM protest or ANTIFA interference. The legacy media finally learned the word “mob” and “riot” because what they reported on all summer long was not that. What they reported on all summer long in regards to people getting shot, to buildings being vandalized, businesses being looted, cars set ablaze–all that was peaceful protesting by a non existent group that merely existed in theory and does not call themselves Black Lives Matter or ANTIFA.
What I experienced on Wednesday, January 6 2021 were millions of patriotic Americans assembling at the nation’s capital to protest the coup that is currently still under way against these United States of America. It was to show those whom orchestrated the coup that the people of these United States of America see and know what is happening. In the aftermath of that experience forks have developed for some. For the legacy media has continued to report and continues to report that patriots laid siege to the capital and the event of the day was actually an insurrection. By the time 5 PM came around with a 6 PM curfew ordered by the mayor of Washington D.C. it did seem it could have been a siege on the capital because patriots were not leaving. This is the extent the law may have been broken or disregarded by patriotic Americans. The events that took place inside the capital is a different story entirely.
The story of the capital break-in is unfolding as the days have passed since the Million MAGA March. We here at Q and A Holes Podcast and patriots in the know already knew to expect ANTIFA and BLM actors would be infiltrating the rally in MAGA gear. But the timeline of events is also unfolding. On the ground in the midst of the Trump supporters I was hearing stories of patriots breaking in and running amok inside the capital, of them trying to make their way to the senate floor to disrupt the electoral vote count. At the close of Trump’s speech at the Elipse, I recall seeing a massive American flag slowly spread above the heads’ of patriots. Once the flag had unfurled it, along with the dozens of patriots beneath it, marched to the capital. Prior to this, before Trump started his speech, I had also noticed a contingent of Proud Boys in formation starting a march toward the capital. This an hour before the speech. Just prior to the end of President Trump’s speech I had noticed to individuals that fit the description of ANTIFA patriot moles: backwards MAGA caps and camo pants. These two individuals had started to make their way to the capital. There was definitely going on if you were aware of these events. As the event at the capital was originally scheduled at 12 noon, and he had not started his speech at the Elipse until noon, it should be expected people had already gathered in crowds at the capital. How many of these were ANTIFA actors is unknown, but what is known is that they were at the head of the group of patriots and they led the charge into the capital building. They smashed windows in some instances, where in others, security is seen letting them in and telling them where to go. The aftermath of this was with the untimely death of a woman (which to this day is still being questioned as accurate). Outside the capital, on the capital grounds, there is word of this, but nobody can confirm. Outside on the capital grounds, patriots are chanting, gathering, there is a definite air of excitement, but there was no violence. There are reports of armed guards, the National Guard, police forces moving in with riot gear. None of this can be seen in the front of the capital where hundreds are gathered. Any violence that happened was isolated to inside the capital and the back of the capital. I later spoke with a group of protestors that confirmed riot police were at the back of the building as there were patriots and ANTIFA moles present, some trying to scale the walls. At the time of this writing, it has been confirmed one of the “patriots” was in fact a head figure among ANTIFA, and it’s caught on video.
All in, 1.7 million patriots descend on Washington D.C. at the behest of their president, over 200 ANTIFA/BLM agitators infiltrate, the media runs a psy-op and false flag on the rest of the country to trick them into thinking the alt-right has finally attacked after four years of patiently waiting to strike back. But in reality, 1.7 million patriots showed up because they recognized a coup in progress when they see one. The real insurgents, the BLM and ANTIFA members, the aforementioned affinity groups gathering around the Sunshine Movement, those peacefully protesting with the burning of cars and smashing of windows, did not get to see the light of day in the way they wanted to. As the fresh batch of popcorn has finished popping and ready for consumption, I can only guess where this movie will take us next.
A late start to the Washington D.C. trip took me from temperate and sunny Texas weather to the muggy, chilly gloom in the District of Columbia. The third Million MAGA March is due to take place tomorrow all over the capital, from Freedom Plaza to the Capital building, and as it turns out, patriots are coming out in droves.
I couldn’t really see it on my connecting flight into Dallas, but from Dallas to D.C., it was evident why these passengers were flying. A welcoming and uplifting spirit came from strangers greeting patriots in Old Glory and Trump gear without hesitation. I even saw patriots from my old haunt, Austin, TX, piling on the plane.
It would be irresponsible of me not to stay cognizant of my surroundings and those in my peripheral. I noted an ANTIFA type individual that followed from the start of my trip all the way through its conclusion. Not wanting to stereotype or profile the guy, I noted he looked homeless, unkempt, and accompanied by an effeminate and affluent looking senior. Surely, ANTIFA, BLM and any other leftist type will be working the streets in D.C. as President Trump has called for patriots to come to Washington D.C. for a “wild” MAGA rally. It is good to note, as Joe 1of2 reported, that ANTIFA will be camouflaged in Trump and MAGA gear, and an interesting counterpoint that the Proud Boys will be gathering in all black. I will be keeping an eye out for both and get footage as possible. It has been advised to wear a body cam and to have cameras rolling the duration of the rally. It is scheduled to officially begin at noon, but there will be events starting as early as 7 AM. It will be an early day tomorrow, and a long one at that, but it will be a good day where millions of Americans, patriots, and the Q & A Holes team will be on the ground covering this historic event.
Be sure to keep up with all the live footage by checking us out on Youtube, Twitch, Spreaker, and Facebook. Visit the main page for all the links!
Q & A Holes podcast is proud to announce that they will be present and livestreaming from the Million MAGA March in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2020. Cited by Preisdent Trump to be “wild” we are looking forward to see a record turnout by patriots from all over the United States as we come together on this pivotal day in our nations history. This day is crucial for patriots and the deep state alike as the electoral college vote count will be held in the capital building and the fate of our freedom, and the freedom of the people of this planet hangs in the balance.
Mr. C will be on the ground covering the march and speakers for the Q & A Holes audience. We’ll be live on Spreaker, Youtube, and Facebook so be sure to stay tuned in for all developing stories.
Will Pence follow the constitution and disqualify the illegal electors sent to D.C.? Will the deep state strike with a false flag? Will ANTIFA and BLM show up to run amok? Will the Proud Boys whoop their ass??? Find out LIVE with Q & A Holes podcast!
Right now, you can help offset the costs of transportation, equipment and other accomodations by donating to the “Send Mr. C to Washington D.C.” campaign on Go Fund Me, or click the image above!
We look forward to having you live with us while we’re on the ground in Washington D.C. for this historical event!
In the midst of a heavily contested election, one in which an insurmountable tower of evidence has been discovered and disseminated to the American public and presented in civil lawsuits filed in at least four states on behalf of the President Trump’s legal team, is it possible for House and Senate Democrats (and Republicans) push for and succeed in impeaching President Trump again? One might ask, why would these corrupt politicians seek to impeach President Trump when their candidate appears to have won the election and is touting the title President-Elect? And how would this be beneficial to them? And furthermore, on what grounds would they impeach him?
A handy-dandy podcast host, Tore Lindman, got my gears in motion when she presented this notion on her program, Tore Says. She postulated that should the Supreme Court give the election to Donald Trump in the face of damning evidence which runs from hundreds of affidavits by personal witnesses to voter and ballot fraud and irregularities to now video evidence of these crimes taking place, that the house Democrats (and Republicans) could put into motion an impeachment of President Trump that would be upheld by the Constitution of these United States of America. Well, this was more than a theory without evidence, as I discovered by perusing the internet to put my mind at ease in regards to the next sideshow the Coup Party would present to the American people.
While searching the internet on the basis for impeachment of a president, I found this document prepared by the majority staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Even with a Forward by Chair of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (Coup Party), stating “The views and conclusions contained in the report are staff views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members,” I find it interesting they had such a document prepared and outline the various ways in which they may succeed in impeaching a president they strongly oppose for political reasons and reasons that have yet to come to light by the majority of the American people and the world.
In regards to the “final” impeachment of Donald Trump and what grounds the Democrats (and Republicans) would use, article IV, section C, titled “Abuse, Betrayal & Corruption” outlines grounds for impeachment based on abuse of power, entanglement in foreign bribes, but more importantly: CORRUPTION OFOffice or ELECTIONS.
An inference on this prepared report would suggest that the Democrats (and Republicans) could motion for impeachment on the basis that President Trump corrupted and interfered with an election to retain power or in pursuit of his own self-interest. The motion for impeachment could stand considering the stonewalling of the evidence, and the rampant denial by any opponent of President, as well as members of his own party. The fact that several GOP representatives have, at the time of this writing, signed an Amicus Brief in support of the state of Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin, is assuring to suit watchers, however, would only go to add ammunition to the Coup Party’s assertion of impeachment. And now as more than twenty states have formed a coalition against this lawsuit, a clear divide is beginning to show among these United States of America (as President Trump won in a landslide victory, turning almost every state in the nation red, I would say it is now time for those Trump supporters in blue states to get loud and persistent with their supposedly duly elected leaders).
Still, opponents of President Trump could only pull this impeachment off with the aid of their media counterparts and supporters, every major news media outlet in print and in television. “News” outlets have already begun to spin the story:
The full-fledge support of every major news outlet, including FOX News, for the Democrat party, and against President Donald Trump has become ever apparent to the American people. As Project Veritas has heroically revealed the unfair and biased coverage of President Trump’s efforts to expose the fraud and stealing of the 2020 Presidential Elections, and social media giants Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (and any platforms and subsidiaries they own) to all but stifle dissent against the egregious and treasonous coup against the will of the people and these United States of America, one can fathom the possibility of such a sideshow as a new impeachment against President Trump to take center stage in what they hope is the final days of his administration. The members of the Coup Party will stop at nothing to keep President Trump from taking office in his rightful second term, and through this impeachment, not only to add insult to injury, but also find a means from keeping him from running in 2024. It is the opinion of this writer that if Trump does not maintain the office we, the people of these United States of America, elected him to, there will not be an election in 2024 meaningful enough to consider just and Constitutional, or a representation of a free and sovereign people.
Senate Judicial Hearing – “Breaking the News: Censorhip, Suppression in 2020 Election” held on November 17, 2020.
Witnesses: Jack Dorsey/CEO Twitter Mark Zuckerberg/CEO Facebook
In regard to the obvious role social network giants, Twitter and Facebook, have played in dispensing information, flagging election posts, flagging accounts of individuals with specific political viewpoints, censoring posts of specific political content, locking or banning accounts of people in support of specific political viewpoints, or deleting accounts sharing beliefs, opinions, or analysis about the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election in these United States of America, the Senate called a Judiciary Hearing on Tuesday November 17, 2020 to address these issues specifically with two the CEOs of aforementioned social networks. This is not the first time Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, or Jack Dorsey of Twitter have paid a visit to Washington D.C. and sat down to answer questions under oath about their business, its role in social opinion shaping, and the legality of the actions taken against those of a specific political viewpoint or party.
Let’s be specific: In most, if not all cases, these actions are against individuals registered as Republican, individuals self-identified as Conservative or Constitutional, self-identified as President Trump supporters, whom openly supported President Trump, shared opinions in support of Trump as victor of the 2020 Presidential election, or shared opinions against or not in favor of Democrat nominee Joe Biden or not in favor of Democrat policy or actions.
The stage set, one wonders exactly how this hearing may have gone with GOP senators on one side of the coin and Democrat senators on the other. Senator Lindsey Graham led hearing opening with questions about who sets policy at the respective companies as users of the social media sites may have noted a series of policy changes prompted randomly seemingly throughout the first term of Republican President Donald Trump, but never more frequently than the weeks leading up to and beyond the 2020 Presidential Elections. Graham also opened with the question of who the companies used as ‘fact checkers,’ Zuckerberg replying the use of organizations approved by the Pointer Institute, including: Reuters, the AP, USA Today, Fact Check (dot) org, Science Feedback, and Politfact among others. Senator Cruz took Twitter’s Dorsey to task in regards to rampant voter fraud, citing a case in Texas of a woman indicted with 134 counts of voter fraud, and Senator Hawley laying down the heat by calling out the use of the internal ‘Tasks’ program that is used by Facebook employees whom are part of groups such a” the “Integrity Team,” and the “Hate Speech Engineering Team” that is in charge of identifying what hashtags, websites, and individuals to ban from their platform. Standout interactions included a calm, almost conversational chat from
Senator Kennedy who implemented a cordial commonsense approach that was almost irrefutable by witnesses alike, and a fiery close by Senator Blackburn who not only pointed out their contradictions in profile censorship, but spoke on her own behalf as being flagged on comments she made that had nothing to do with the elections.
The painfully obvious stand down of the Democrat senators in questioning the two CEOs, with exception to former presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar who asked questions regarding apparent violating possible antitrust laws (which they may be looking at implementing) for making it harder for some platforms to integrate with their own, citing the monopoly Facebook may have been forming with the acquirement of Instagram, a “nascent” [platform] that “if rose to power could hurt [Facebook].” Other senators avoided such questioning and focused on the social media websites’ lack of follow through and integrity in regards to banning certain profiles. Senator Blumenthal, for example, pressed Zuckerberg about why he had not banned Steve Bannon’s account and wanted him to commit to doing so. Senator Feinstein pressed Dorsey about President Trump’s account and asked why he’d been allowed to spread conspiracy threats about the outcome of the election. She stated it was not enough that his tweet about 2.7 million votes being deleted to merely be flagged, saying Trump tweeted false information with no basis in facts. Still others on the panel, such as Senator Whitehouse, soft balled the CEOs allowing them to defer to a written response.
The most egregious of the Senators, however, went to Hawaii senator, Mazie Hirono who emphasized the “truth is Joe Biden won as confirmed by the A.P.” and other “major news networks.” Senator Hirono, whom often comes off like a scathing snake in the grass, unrelenting and unrepentant, did not feel merely flagging tweets was enough in the case of President Trump.
This reporter finds it hard to believe that these Democrat Senators, proud members of the Coup Party, continue to carry the fire for the A.P. and other news networks as if these agencies are those that determine the outcome of the election. If it is not enough to flag a comment about President Trump to spread “false information” about the outcome of the election, is it not enough to flag the tweets of such treasonous senators that have ignored the process of declaring elections, and speaking at this hearing and before the American people as if the A.P. and other news agencies determine the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election? Perhaps they depend on the thought that their constituency does not know the process by which the winner of a presidential election is determined. They have ignored the fact that at the time of this hearing no states had declared a winner, let alone certified their respective contest. They have ignored the fact that each states electors had not met to cast the vote for each contest. Even during the 2004 elections, Democrat nominee Al Gore did not concede the race until mid December. Some states allow up to a month after the election to certify the winning vote. Amid the claims of unruly discrepancies and behavior at poll cites by Democrat representatives that have been reported in hundreds of sworn affidavits, and the mounting evidence of voting and ballot fraud as purported in unsecure vote counting software and sudden inclusion of illegitimate ballots that appear to be “stuffing the ballot box,” should these senators reconsider their choice of words when disseminating opinions and points-of-view? Would this not be the sensible, responsible, and American thing to do? Clearly not for members of the Democrat Party, those speaking on behalf of what this reporter has legitimately rechristened, the Coup Party.
Remarks of the President to The American Newspaper Publishers Association Waldorf Astoria Hotel April 27, 1961
Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bare heavy responsibilities these days, and a article I read some time ago, reminded me of how particularly heavy the burdens of present day events bare upon your profession. You may remember that in 1851 New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greely employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karly Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greely and managing editor Charles Dana, for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary for which he and Engles ungratefully labeled as the lousiest petty bourgeois cheatings. But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means for lively hood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune, and devoted his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution, and the Cold War. If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly, if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bare this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty stricken appeal from the small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaperman.
I have selected as a title of my remarks tonight, “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest this may be more naturally worded, “The President Versus the Press,” but those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our state department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleagues it was necessary for us to reply that this administration was not responsible for the press for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party-press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press accept from a few Republicans. Nor is my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some twenty million Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent, and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents. Nor, finally are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any president and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity that has surely done them no harm. On the other hand I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of ones golfing skills in action, but neither, on the other hand, did he ever bean a secret service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors. I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some, but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large for many years. Whatever the hopes may be for the future for reducing this threat or living with it, there is no escaping the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security. A challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity. This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and the president. Two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer first to the need for far greater public information. And second to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is very little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And
there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
That, I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. But I do ask every publisher, every editor and every newsman in the nation, to reexamine his own standards and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril.
In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self discipline to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of clear and present danger, the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the first amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today, no war has been declared. And however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of clear and present danger, then I can only say the danger has never been more clear. And its presence has never been more imminent. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a war time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security. And the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nations foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery, or espionage the details of this nations covet preparations to counter the enemies covet operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike. That the size, the strength, the location, and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategies for their use have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient enough to satisfy any foreign power, and that in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. The newspapers that published these stories were loyal, were patriotic and well meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absences of open warfare, they recognized only the test of journalism, and not the test of national security. And my question tonight is if additional tests should not now be adopted. That question alone is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bare, and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not command this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions I have said, and your newspapers have constantly said, that these are times that appeal to every citizens sense of sacrifice and self discipline; they call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new office for war information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classification. I have no easy answer to the dilemma I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking for the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree, and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint which that danger opposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself with respect to every story, is it news? All I suggest is that you have the question, is it in the interest of national security? And I hope that every group in America: unions and businessmen and public officials at every level will ask the same question of their endeavors and subject their actions to this same and exacting test. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole heartedly with those recommendations. Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject and any action that results are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history. It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation, an obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people. To make certain that they posses all the facts that they need, and understand them. As well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the choices that we face. No president should fear public scrutiny of his program for from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I’m not asking our newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers, I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors, for as a wise man once said, “an error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors, and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no administration can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmakers Solan(?) decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press is protected by the first amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution. Not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and to sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news. For it is no longer far away and foreign, but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security. And we intend to do it.
It was early in the 17th century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gun powder, and the printing press, “Now the links between the nations, first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world., the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all.” In that one world effort to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure. And so it is to the printing press, to the recorder of mans’ deeds, the keeper of conscience, the courier of his news that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
In light of the diligent work The Coup Party has put into stealing the 2020 Presidential Election and defrauding the American people, I dug up an article I wrote about their attempt to impeach President Trump over a phone call he had with President Zelensky of Ukraine in which they claim President Trump bribed President Zelensky to dig up dirt on his political opponent, Vice President Joe Biden (which we now know it was Joe Biden who bribed the leaders of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was looking into a fraudulent business matter with Biden’s son, Hunter [who, it has been now discovered through his laptop was involved with many illegal money exchanges between Ukraine, China and other countries], or he’d refuse to pay them millions of dollars). Yeesh.
On September 26, 2019, Democrat Representative of California, and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, included in his opening remarks to a Congressional DNI whistleblower hearing, the supposed transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelensky. This phone call is the catalyst to what then became a full fledged and partisan impeachment hearing.
Listening to the text of the supposed transcript shows a dialogue that’s sophomoric and uncomfortable. Even in moments where Schiff obviously looks for clarity in what he’s reading, he still powers through, head down and cheeks flushed. Hearing Schiff read the alleged transcript is embarrassing as poorly written. Whoever wrote this version of the transcript is lazy, didn’t do their homework, and assumed that as long as they included Trumps favorite word, “Reciprocity,” the American people would buy into it. The following is that version of the Trump/Zelenksy phone call transcript, as read by Adam Schiff. Schiff admits it’s not the exact conversation between the presidents, that it is “the essence” of what Trump says to Zelensky, but he paints an inconsolable caricature of a mafia ringleader president, shaking down a foreign country:
“In not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates, ‘We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m gonna say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, you understand, lots of it. On this and on that, I’m gonna put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m gonna put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American Law enforcement behind him. And I’m gonna put you in touch with Rudy, You’re gonna love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking, so I’m gonna say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.’”
This is what the chair of the House intelligence committee chose to share with members of Congress, the media, and the American people. A conversation that when House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi read remarked, “This isn’t even impeachable!” A conversation Schiff said “would be funny if it weren’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office.”
What would be funny is if Schiff would be held liable for embellishing the president’s conversation to the point of extortion and bribery. Due to no proven intent, and an obscure rule about immunity on the House floor, Schiff is neither being held on perjury or treason charges, this point augmented by the release of the actual phone call transcript between Trump and Zelensky. The transcript shows an entirely different conversation. I encourage every thinking and engaged American and historian to read the transcript (and it’s posted below this article) as it will show nothing of the interpretation used to foment consternation, division, and the impeachment of a duly elected president. What do you think about Schiff’s parody versus the actual phone transcript? Do you think it was courageous, or inappropriate?
Mr. C for Q & A Holes Podcast
The Trump / Zelensky Phone Transcript
The White House Situation Room
July 25, 2019, 9:03 - 9:33 a.m. EDT
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for _this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example to our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to
achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following: the first time you· called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
The President: [laughter] That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
President Zelensky: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us in that.
The President: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
President Zelensky: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following: I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area. We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next of defense steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes.
President Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation ..I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I .would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelensky: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have persona1 relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. G1uliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelensky: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of a11 I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and wi11 work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country. With regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Yovanovitch. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it ouit. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better, I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.
President Zelensky: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrain1an friends that live in the United· States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them· again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful in cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.
The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I 1ook forward to seeing you.
President Zelensky: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September lst we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.
The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.
President Zelensky: Thank you very much Mr. President.
The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you, Mr. President, bye-bye.
End of Conversation