Jake Tapper and the Myth of a Muslim Ban

Looks like CNN's Jake Tapper has decided to stop, at least for now, with the Russian Trump campaign collusion conspiracy theory, and the Trump sought campaign help from Ukraine conspiracy theory, to go back to the Trump instituted a Muslim travel ban. Or well, he didn't but that is what he really wanted. So therefore he is anti Muslim.

In a long running debate today on twitter Tapper claimed that there was a Muslim ban, then he backtracked, and said that while there was no Muslim ban implemented, that is what Trump wanted.

Tapper bases this on a statement candidate Trump made in December of 2015.

He cites then candidate Trump, in response to Islamic terror groups, and the increased volume of terrorist attacks, saying that he wanted to stop immigration from Muslim countries, "until we figure out what the hell is going on."

That was in December of 2015, when Trump was a candidate, a new candidate thinking out loud.

Seems like it is prudent thing to want to "figure out what the hell is going on" and until then stop immigration from mid east countries. Certainly Trump did not a call for a permanent ban.

However, Tapper conveniently ignores candidate Trump's nomination speech on July 21, 2016, when he described the "Muslim ban" this way:

"We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place."

This is what got implemented and approved by the supreme court. It is not even a ban, it is enhanced vetting. People still come into our country from those places.

Tapper picks the iteration of the ban proposal that he likes, and ignores future explanations by candidate Trump.

He also ignores that the so called ban doesn't include the world's largest Muslim country Indonesia or the country with the second largest Muslim population India. And last I checked North Korea and Venezuela are not Muslim countries.

To Jake Tapper there is a Muslim ban, but we know Jake Tapper is not a reporter. He is a hack.

Lewis Suggests Democrats Nominate a Biden-Klobuchar Ticket

In his column on the left wing site,"The Daily Beast", CNN's Matt Lewis looks to the 2020 election and what Democrats must do to win. According to Lewis the key is to nominate a "moderate" ticket with Joe Biden as Presidential nominee and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar as his running mate.

Why he describes either one of them as a moderate I don't know, and he doesn't say. The American Conservative Union rates members based on their voting record. And Amy Klobuchar's lifetime rating was just under 5. A perfect conservative score would be 100. It would be hard for Klobuchar to be any more liberal.

Lewis acknowledges that, as Yogi Berra once pointed out, be careful about predicating, especially about the future. He says:

"Who would have predicted that a Ukraine call would dominate the second half of 2019?"

Well, President Trump released the transcript of that call, which he didn't have to do. And it "dominated" because fake news CNN, and others in the MSM, tried to twist the words said in the call to claim that the President committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The President never mentioned the 2020 election, yet Lewis and the other lefties on CNN claim that he invited "foreign interference into our election."

Only a truly partisan person could believe such an insane translation. It is a translation that is made up for political reasons. A fake narrative.

In his piece Lewis also darkly raises the possibility that:

"Some sort of crisis - even one provoked by Trump's erratic policies-could have the short term effect of bolstering his re election chances,"

This is an extraordinary sentence. Lewis is saying Trump will do something bad(erratic) and voters will like him for it.

Damn deplorables.

Let The Shaming of Christian Trump Backers Begin!

Liberals have always said that they despise "bullying" and "shaming", but that doesn't apply to Trump backers. The left has tried for 3 years to separate Christian voters from Trump, a key part of his voting base.

Well, this week they had an excuse to start some shaming. Mark Galli, I have never heard of him, wrote on a liberal site, Christianity Today, I have never read it before, that Trump should be impeached for his behavior. He never mentioned any High Crimes or Misdemeanors, which is required by the constitution, rather he suggests Trump is not a Christian and a bad person. Neither charge is impeachable.

Well, CNN gave Galli some airtime, something that they would never ordinarily do, but since he was attacking Trump they offered him some time.

So the other never Trumpers used this opportunity to join in. Now Franklin Graham came to the defense of President Trump tweeting:

"I hadn’t shared who my father @BillyGraham voted for in 2016, but because of
@CTMagazine’s article, I felt it necessary to share now. My father knew
@realDonaldTrump believed in him & voted for him. He believed Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation."

CNN's token Republican and never Trumper Matt Lewis responded with:
"In one tweet, you have undermined a legacy and a Christian witness that your dad spent a lifetime cultivating. Congrats?"

Lewis a few minutes earlier tweeted:

"For what shall it profit a group of believers if they own the libs, but lose their own soul?"

Lewis is saying that Billy Graham was less of a Christian for voting for Trump, and other Christians who back Trump risk losing their souls! Nonsense, the New Testament does not talk about politics. On judgement day God will not ask you how you voted.

The President is not a pastor. He does not need to have the moral rectitude of a deacon in the LDS Church. The President is the head of the executive branch of government. Who do you want to have the power to sign legislation and veto legislation? In 2016 Evangelicals chose Trump over Hillary for a multitude of reasons. BTW Most CNN employees voted for Hillary.

In Lewis's mind a Christion should vote for a Christian. But Christians like most voters decide who to vote for based on issues, and what they actually do in office. Voting for Trump doesn't mean that they think he is a Christian or even a good person.

Why wouldn't Christians like Trump? President Trump is the most conservative President since Ronald Reagan. He is pro life, pro law enforcement, pro Israel, and appointed a judge to the Supreme Court who says Merry Christmas. Great conservative judges.

Christians usually vote for social conservatives, and cultural conservatives. The candidates personal life is for the most part irrelevant.

Lewis Tips His Hand, Impeachment is About The Election

CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis seems to admit in a tweet this afternoon that the impeachment of President Trump has nothing to do with High Crimes and Misdemeanors as the constitution requires, rather it is about the 2016 election.

Lewis Tweets:

I get why Pelosi says she feels sad. And maybe she means it. But I was sad the day the GOP nominated Trump. I was sad the day the American people elected him president. Today feels more like a tiny bit of justice... a tiny bit of redemption..."

He feels a tiny bit of justice. What was the injustice? Lewis admits, "The day the American people elected him President." As far as 'redemption', well, the voters elected him, and the House on what appears to be a straight party line vote, without a single impeachable crime, will try to remove him.

Lewis concludes, "a tiny bit of redemption."

Lewis Claims His Position on Impeachment is 'Consistent."

As support for impeachment of President Trump continues to slip, CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis claimed on Twitter today:

"As much as I’m a member of the “media,” my position on Trump is consistent with my position on Clinton: They both deserved to be impeached. Others (including Republicans making excuses for Trump) are being inconsistent."

By consistent, Lewis means he has supported an impeachment of a Democrat President and a Republican President. How opened minded.

Well, two points. Lewis wasn't with CNN during the Clinton impeachment. And while both Clinton and Trump have the Presidency in common, the cases are very different.

Clinton actually committed a crime, perjury. The Constitution requires "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" to impeach a President. So for Lewis to support both impeachments is inconsistent with the constitution.

He supports the constitutional standard in one impeachment, and a coup in the other. An impeachment, without High Crimes and Misdemeanors, is a coup.

Lewis Cites A Fox Poll. One Problem, It's Not Good News For His Side.

"The walls are slowly closing in on Trump." declared CNN never Trumper Matt Lewis several weeks ago. "Nancy Pelosi is right on this one." Lewis was ebullient. Finally, we have got Trump.

Now, at some level Lewis had to know that there were no grounds for impeachment. He tried everything, "quid pro quo", "bribery", "campaign finance violations", "extortion." None of it fits.

As of his last column on the left wing site the Daily Beast, Lewis was down to, "attempting to coerce a foreign leader into announcing an investigation into Joe Biden."

Not impeachable, but certainly laughable. There was no announcement and no investigation. We don't impeach Presidents based on imaginary crimes.

Well, the House is about to pass, with only Democrat votes, two articles of impeachment. Lewis didn't mention the actual articles in his last Daily Beast column, so I will.

They are "obstruction of congress", a made up crime and "abuse of power." On the first article, the legislative and executive branches are equal. And if they are at loggerheads, the executive can fight it out in court. Not a crime.

Trump released the transcript of the call with Zalensky, even though he had every right to withhold it. A transcript Pelosi admitted that she hadn't read before she launched the impeachment push.

The second article "Abuse of power" is equally ridiculous. The executive has a right to say to a foreign leader, "Do me a favor and find out what happened." The legislative branch can't restrict the speech of the executive.

Despite not meeting a constitutional standard Lewis is of course still an advocate for impeachment. Of course a constitutional conservative, which Lewis is not, would oppose impeachment in this case.

But Lewis doesn't seem discouraged. On Twitter, he sites a Fox poll which he thinks is positive.

First he ignores the fact that Trump's approval rating is up from the last Fox poll, 45 percent today as opposed to 43 percent in October.

He shows a screen shot of these results on twitter:

Abused his Power 53 percent
Obstructed Congress 48 percent
Committed Bribery 45 percent

Good news for the impeachment forces? No.

Two of the three listed don't have majority support. The "Abuse of power." is vague and not a crime. It is a characterization. It can mean all kinds of things that aren't impeachable. After Obama signed the ACA you probably had a majority that would describe that as "an abuse of power." Or his DACA executive order. A majority may have thought that was an abuse of power.

If you listen to Lewis's colleagues at CNN Trump has been putting children in cages at the southern border. That's got to be "abuse of power."

To impeach a President you need broad bi partisan support. If after a month of hearings, and around the clock CNN and media propaganda in favor of impeachment, the public is still evenly split, that is not good news for Lewis and the Democrats.

The last President to be impeached came out stronger. So will Trump.

Lewis Tries to Shift Impeachment Burden

The constitution requires High Crimes and Misdemeanors to impeach a President. In Matt Lewis's latest post on the left wing site the Daily Beast Lewis fails to point to one crime committed by the President. Lewis wants to skip over that fact and force Trump to mount a defense. Lewis can then claim it is a weak defense.

For weeks Lewis has been groping for something, anything that is impeachable. He, like his allies on CNN and the Democrat party, have failed.

A couple weeks ago Lewis thought the magic words were "quid pro quo." In this latest post he makes no mention of this Latin phrase. Lewis in the past used the poll tested words "Bribery" and "distortion." Lewis even tried to claim campaign finance violation for the help from Ukraine. Truly laughable.

No, none of that nonsense is found in his latest piece. So what now has Lewis come up with? I am not making this up, "attempting to coerce a foreign leader into announcing an investigation into Joe Biden."

One it never happened, and two it is not a crime.

But Lewis fails to mention the two articles that passed the judiciary committee today. I wonder why?

They are "obstruction of congress", a made up crime and "abuse of power." On the first article, the legislative and executive branches are equal. And if they are at loggerheads, the executive can fight in court. Not a crime.

Second article "Abuse of power" is equally ridiculous. The executive has a right to say to a foreign leader, "Do me a favor and find out what happened." The legislative branch can't restrict the speech of the executive.

Lewis says:

"To be sure, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both faced impeachment in their second term. Donald Trump is exceptional in that he has been quicker to commit obviously impeachable offenses."

What impeachable offenses??


I think Lewis knows that there are no High crimes, or even a low crime committed, because in his title, he uses the word "Behavior." Sorry not the constitutional standard. If Lewis were a constitutional conservative he'd know that.

The rest of Lewis's article are digs at Trump supporters, "cultish." and other conservatives. Not worth a response.

Lewis Claims It Can't be a Coup Because Impeachment is Mentioned in the Constitution!

CNN's token Republican Matt Lewis has asserted on twitter that impeachment can not be considered a coup. On December 2 he tweeted:

"This impeachment is the exact opposite of a "coup". It is the triumph of the rule of law."

I wonder what Lewis would consider a coup? Nancy orders the sergeant of arms to arrest Trump and she takes over? Anything short of that is not a coup?

The constitution requires "Bribery, Treason or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." to impeach a President. If that condition does not exist, the impeachment is unconstitutional, and the House is abusing its power.

As Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler said yesterday, "We can't rely on an election to solve our problems." For Lewis and Nadler, Trump is the problem. He must be removed whether they meet the constitutional standard or not.

That is not a "triumph of the rule of law." That is a coup.

Lewis Pushing Democrat Talking Points?

If you caught Tucker Carlson's show tonight, you saw a clip of 11 liberals, 12 if you count Matt Lewis, accusing Republicans of working for Russia. McCarthyism anyone?

Shockingly they all use the same words. The same phrase, with a couple of variations. They say Republicans are "using Russian talking points.", in suggesting that Ukraine meddled in our elections.

The left has to reject this theory. If it turned out that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election the American people would demand that foreign aid to Ukraine be held up. Not good for the Trump impeachment push. So Matt Lewis and the other lefties have to denounce the very possibility of Ukraine meddling. Can't be possible!

So can Lewis and all these liberals just happen to use the same phrase? On the same day? And keep in mind Lewis wrote a post on December 3, "The Republican Party is the Russian Propaganda Party? Which I debunked on this site.

No coincidence. The talking points of the left is what Lewis will push.

Check out the video. It comes in about 15 minutes into the show. Lewis seems to stutter as he is repeating the line. He says Republicans are, "pushing..(he seems to pause for a second) Russian talking points."

Lewis, "Dem primary voters have, so far, exceeded my expectations."

As far as I know not one vote in the 2020 Presidential campaign has been cast, but CNN's Matt Lewis is already impressed by the results so far, Lewis tweeted this out today, "I have to admit that Dem primary voters have, so far, exceeded my expectations."

No doubt Lewis has great expectations that Democrat primary voters will make a great choice. So confident of that fact that he is already complimenting them.

Some Background:

On twitter I found the following. After the first series of debates this summer Lewis expressed "concern" that Democrats were moving too far left. Not sure why he was "concerned", but he was.

Being too liberal is known as being "woke". Lewis joined Bill Mahar in urging Democrats to move to the center. That is less "woke."

Lewis has now changed his view. In a tweet Lewis said:
"I wrote my column after early Dem debates featured unanimous and unfettered support for abortion (including for a 'trans female'), support for decriminalizing border crossings, and a call for 'mandatory' gun buybacks, etc..."

What changed? Why does Lewis now think Democrats are looking for a moderate.

Looks like a column by Times opinion writer James Bouie convinced Lewis.

Bouie's thesis is this. The woke (far left) candidates have done the worst, so that proves that Democrats want a moderate candidate. That theory only works if you ignore the so called moderate Democrats who have dropped out.

Bouie ignores Gov. John Hickenlooper. Rep. Tim Ryan, Gove Steve Bullock, former Rep. Joe Donnelly. All moderates. Instead he focuses on two left wing Democrats that dropped out. Beto O'Rourke, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

O'Rourke and Gillibrand were not plausible candidates to begin with. They didn't lose because they were too far to the left. O'Rourke served a couple terms in the House, but lost his last campaign for the Senate despite spending a record 70 million dollars. And there is a mug shot out there of him from an arrest when he was young.

Gillibrand had a moderate voting record and her lurch to the left would not have been bought by the woke Democrat party.

Lewis and Bouie claim Joe Biden is a moderate. Biden is renouncing every sane vote he cast over the last 5 decades. That is woke! He now realizes that he was wrong to support more cops on the street, marriage, welfare reform etc.

He is the poster boy, well, grandfather, of woke liberals. He is making amends and sincerely apologizing.

Lewis and Bouie claim Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a moderate, but Mayor Pete has taken very liberal positions. And he is gay and married to a man. What is more woke than that? If he were a heterosexual would he be doing so well?

In his newsletter today Lewis parroted Bouie and said Democrat primary voters are showing signs of moderation. He showed no such evidence if he has it. Lewis optimistically concluded:

"Democratic voters, it turns out, are much more sane, moderate, pragmatic, and stubborn than many of us suspected."

Usually, we wait for the returns to come in first, but CNN is fake news after all.

Lewis Praises Pelosi, "She is not Looking to score Political Points."

CNN's token Republican is love sick. The source of his devotion? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of course. In his latest post "Pelosi Takes Her Shot At Trump. Lewis heaps such praise on Pelosi that if she read it she would no doubt blush. And anyone of serious intellect who reads it would most likely throw up.

The opening paragraph:

"Its on. Donald Trump-in case there is any doubt- will be the third President to join the ignominious list of Presidents to be impeached."

He may join the "ignominious" list but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong, especially since it will probably be on a party line vote. And if he is acquitted in the senate he will be vindicated.

Lewis describes this impeachment as "stunning and historic." No, it is not. Democrats have been planning this since Trump was elected, and even before he was sworn in.

Lewis takes a feeble shot at Trump defenders, saying what Nancy said was basically airtight. "If you are being honest you can't disagree", Lewis purrs. Perfect, if you will. Well, to a sycophant like Lewis that may be true, but to a thinking person, Pelosi's arguments are very weak both logically and constitutionally.

Pelosi, told reporters:

"The President abused his power for personal and political benefit." What benefit? And she went on to say, "seriously violated the constitution." This is total gibberish. Full of sound and fury, told (and counting Lewis retold) by an idiot signifying nothing.

The President said to Zalensky, "Do me a favor and find out what happened." How can that be illegal? The President runs foreign policy and would like to know what the previous administration was doing in the Ukraine. In no way does that violate his office, or abuse his power.

The legislative branch can't limit the speech of the executive.

Lewis says, "Most experts speculate that articles will include abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of congress, obstruction of Justice." What a bizarre sentence! "Experts speculate?" Not to digress but is that what experts do? They speculate?

Anyway, these are characterizations. It doesn't say what he did. It is like accusing someone of be a "fascist" or having "McCarty like tendencies" It is meaningless.

What are the specific charges against Trump? Lewis acknowledges that he doesn't know what they will be because he says he doesn't know how "wide of a net Democrats will cast." Meaning that they might bring back the Russian collusion hoax, or the emoluments clause.

Lewis has spent the last month trying to find an impeachable offense. And like the guy trying to find a needle in a haystack, Lewis has failed. He went from, "quid pro quo",(the only Latin he ever learned) to "campaign finance violation", to "pressuring" a foreign country, (yes, that is illegal), to Bribery.

Little does Lewis know that the constitutional prohibition on bribery was included because we didn't want our President being bribed by another country. The framers never considered, or were concerned about the President bribing another country! Isn't foreign aid bribery? But bribery is only ok when the Legislative branch engages in it?

Lewis gives his legal opinion by opining. "In my estimation Trump Obviously committed impeachable offenses." His estimation and 150 dollars can buy you a new tire at Pep boys.

Lewis has no idea what Trump did wrong. But in Nancy he trusts.

Who is to Blame for the Impeachment Mess? Lewis points a Finger at Nikki Haley

In a bizarre tweet this afternoon, CNN's token Republican, Matt Lewis, pointed a finger of blame at Nikki Haley for the impeachment mess. Not a mess for Democrats, which it is, but according to Lewis a mess for Senate Republicans.

Haley Tweeted:
"I don’t believe the Dems are pushing these impeachment hearings because they believe they can defeat the President, I believe this is a political game to win senate seats of those senators in vulnerable elections. It is one of the biggest political campaigns we have ever seen."

Lewis responded:
"Gee, I wonder who’s to blame for putting these vulnerable Republican senators in such an awkward no-win situation???"

Lewis is referring to a story that Nikki Haley resisted joining a coup against President Trump a couple years ago.

In Lewis's mind if Haley had gone along with a cabinet coup a couple years ago, this latest coup wouldn't be necessary.

In a later tweet Lewis declared that he is now in the "Don't rush it camp" regarding impeachment. After spending the last couple weeks in vain searching for a High Crime and Misdemeanor Lewis now seems to concede that there is no basis, yet, for impeaching the President.

It could be that Lewis doesn't support impeachment now because of his reading of the polls. The politics are not good for Democrats. I doubt he has an understanding of the constitution, or the long term ramification of impeaching a President without a crime.

However, it is clear Lewis is no conservative. Someone who supports the constitution would not support a coup within the executive branch. And a conservative would not support an impeachment without a crime.

Lewis Claims, "The GOP is The Russia Propaganda Party."

On the left wing site the Daily Beast Matt Lewis, claims: "I am so old I remember when the Republican party stood up against Russian interference and aggression."

Lewis doesn't mention in his post that when Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election there was a Democrat President, and when they marched into the Ukraine we had a Democrat as commander and chief.

He doesn't mention that Obama told Dmitri Medvedev, on a live microphone, "Tell Vlad after the election I will be more flexible." Russia then invaded the Ukraine. Could you imagine what Lewis would have said if Trump said, "Tell Vlad after the election I will be more flexible."

The piece is rather discursive, and of unconvincing, but Lewis tries to claim that the Republican party is acting at the behest of Vladimir Putin. Lewis doesn't make the case. He seriously claims that Republicans feel sympathy for Russia, since Red is the color of the Republican party. He doesn't seem to realize that red is not the color of Russia. Rather it is the color of the old soviet union, which died in 1991.

Lewis does not use Obama's Medvedev quote, but he oddly uses another quote that doesn't help his case at all. In a Presidential debate Obama chastised Mitt Ronmney for being too tough on Putin. Romney described Russia as our greatest strategic threat. Obama responded, "Mitt, the 1980's called they want their foreign policy back." Lewis doesn't seem to realize that the Obama quote undermines his argument that the GOP is soft on Putin.

He goes on to attack Senator Kennedy (R-LA), for being a mouthpiece for Putin. Why? Kennedy doesn't deny Russia meddled in the election. He just claims that the Ukraine did as well. Come to think of it CNN also meddled by campaigning for Hillary..

But to Lewis this is acting as "Putin's mouthpiece." Because Putin said the same thing! If Putin says something, and you said the same thing, well, you are an agent for Putin.

He then goes into a history dissertation, which is not very good history. He doesn't seem to even understand what the cold war was about. He seems to think it was anti Russia. It was not, it was anti communism. And it was fought against the Soviet Union, which does not exist anymore.

Lewis misuses the old quote "Better dead than red. Red refers to communism, not Russia.

In his rambling piece Lewis mentions everything from the movie Rambo to Helen Gahagan's Douglas's underwear. I won't comment on any of it. However, one more thing that was interesting.

He quotes deep state actress Fiona Hill, who testified on the Hill last week at the impeachment inquiry. He quotes her when he thinks it helps his case, actually it doesn't really.

But he doesn't quote her admission that the Obama administration denied Ukraine lethal aid after Russia invaded. And that it was the Trump administration that restored the aid.

That fact doesn't fit his narrative that the Trump administration is acting on behalf of Vladimir Putin.