Is There a Line in the Sand?

For the past three weeks now I have been getting up around 1:00 am to check the news. Dawn is breaking at that time in Ukraine and I want to see if Ukraine made it through another night.

Thus far Ukranians cling tenaciously to freedom. It seems every day that the end of the rope is getting closer as Russia escalates its atrocities.

With every Russian atrocity, the resolve of the Ukrainians grows stronger. It seems; however, that with every Russian atrocity, the United States and NATO throw a few more economic sanctions and perhaps a few small arms to the Ukrainian forces. There has been no serious help for the outgunned Ukrainian army.

While the Ukrainians are appreciative of any help they can get, the fact is that, as Vice President Kamala Harris enlightened us, “Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country.”

This invasion began months ago as Russia amassed its army on the border of Ukraine. Day after day, Putin promised that these were just war exercises and he had no intention of going to war. Few took him at his word, but at the same time the same ones who did not believe him, did nothing.

After the Olympics, Putin declared that part of the Ukraine was now an independent state. He sent in troops as peacekeepers for an alleged civil war that never was.

At that point, he dropped all pretenses. Tanks, troops, convoys, fighter planes, charged across the border in what was to be a 24-48 hour blitzkrieg that would end with Russia in full control of Ukraine.

The United States and NATO followed standard procedures and offered to take Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the country to set up a government in exile. Zelenskyy resolutely refused with a line that will go down in the history books, “I don’t need a ride, I need ammunition.” He acknowledged that he was number one on Putin’s hit list and his family was number two.

The world watched as civilians took up arms. Small Molotov cocktail manufacturing groups popped up like mushrooms and spread like kudzu across the Ukraine.

The Russians encountered fierce resistance at every corner. Putin learned that this was not the cake-walk he thought it would be.

An early warning sign of the desperation of Putin came when the Russians engaged in an assault on the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Even conventional weapons could create a nuclear disaster that would impact all of Europe. The United States and NATO, not wanting to escalate, cautiously stayed on the sidelines.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy asked NATO and the United States to declare the skies over Ukraine as a no-fly zone. Both denied the request because they did not want to escalate.

Russia has been accused of using weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention. NATO and the United States press for more economic sanctions and supply ground weapons. They granted no further assistance because they do not want to escalate.

Russia bombed civilian targets including a maternity hospital, killing at least three including one child. Zelenksyy, in a passionate address called on those who refused a no-fly zone to tell those families why they would not establish a no-fly zone.

Poland wanted to supply Ukraine with all of its Russian aircraft. Initially the Biden administration seemed to agree to help transfer the aircraft and backfill Poland with US aircraft.

Then the Pentagon decided it was not a good idea and nixed the deal. They did not want to escalate.

Reports are now that Russia will stage some type of terrorist attack at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. They will use the incident as a reason to escalate and perhaps even use chemical weapons on Ukraine.

Based on recent patterns, NATO and the United States will stand back and do nothing. They do not want to escalate.

At some point, one must come to grips with the question of responding to Russian escalation. Economic sanctions certainly are hurting the Russian economy but they do not seem to phase Putin.

No one wants WWIII, especially with a nuclear power, but how far do we go with the line of “we do not want to escalate”? The fact is that Russia has escalated, is escalating, and obviously will continue to escalate.

Is there a line in the sand? Is there a point where NATO and the United States must take more direct action, even if only through combat aircraft supply and support for the Ukrainians?

The fact is that Russian power against Ukraine is not a war, it is a massacre. Ukraine has done nothing to provoke a Russian invasion. There was no reason to invade other than the evil desire of Putin to conquer.

Let’s put this situation in an understandable model. Suppose there were kidnappers in a neighborhood who loaded a house with explosives and began to invade surrounding homes, taking hostages. They threaten to detonate the explosives killing the hostages and destroying homes in the area if there is any interference from law enforcement.

Obviously all these factors would play into the response by law enforcement agencies. One thing is for certain though. Law enforcement would not stand back and do nothing saying, “we do not want to escalate,” while the kidnappers took more and more hostages from surrounding neighborhoods.

The world faces this scenario. There is more than enough evidence to declare Putin a war criminal. We are in the third week of destruction and terror in Ukraine.

Are we going to stand by and watch Russia escalate the massacre of innocent civilians? Are we going to stand by and watch Russia continue to use prohibited weapons possibly including chemical warfare? Are we going to stand by and watch until eventually Russian soldiers capture and execute President Zelenskyy and his family?

I do not advocate for US soldiers entering a ground war. I do not advocate for overt US air combat operations over Ukraine. I do advocate that NATO and the US stop saying, “we do not want to escalate.”

Putin has already escalated beyond the point of reasonable and cautious tolerance. We cannot fear Putin but it appears that we do. It is well past time to seriously ask, “Is there a line in the sand?” The truth is that there is a line and Putin has crossed it.

Sign up to receive Common Sense from DC (Not Washington). I won’t waste your time or flood your inbox with junk or pleas for money. You’ll get my thoughts and commentary on various issues and stories about people, politics, and proclamation. You can unsubscribe easily at any time. I appreciate you as a reader and will strive to make it worth your while.

Sign up to receive Common Sense from DC (Not Washington). I won’t waste your time or flood your inbox with junk or pleas for money. You’ll get my thoughts and commentary on various issues and stories about people, politics, and proclamation. You can unsubscribe easily at any time. I appreciate you as a reader and will strive to make it worth your while.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

My Take on the Schiff Hearings

I have had several people ask me about the hearings that the House Intelligence Committee held over the past two weeks. I heard a lot of interpretations, understandings, and opinions from witnesses, but no facts that differed from the transcript of the phone call to the Ukrainian President that President Trump provided. 

The witnesses were all connected with the State Department or Intelligence community. They appeared to be disturbed over the call because the President did not follow their talking points or because he made the call at all. 

It was clear that Democrats set the rules to prevent Republican participation to the fullest degree possible.  When Republican Congressman David Nunes attempted to yield a portion of his time for questioning to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Schiff ruled her out of order because the rules, adopted just two weeks earlier, only allowed Nunes to yield time to the legal counsel.

One of the most revealing moments came when Republican Jim Jordan asked Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to name the individual to whom he spoke about the call. Vindman had earlier testified that he spoke to someone in the intelligence community. 

Vindman had also testified that he did not know who the whistleblower was. When Jordan asked to whom Vindman spoke, Chairman Schiff immediately interjected that he was not going to allow the witness to identify the whistleblower.

Jordan pointed out the obvious logic that if Vindman does not know who the whistleblower is and Schiff had publicly stated that he did not know who the whistleblower is, then how was Vindman outing the whistleblower?

What happens next? It looks like the Intelligence Committee will make a recommendation to the House Judiciary Committee to proceed with formal impeachment hearings. 

The report will present the opinions of the unelected bureaucrats as the troubling proof that the President abused his authority and should be removed. I do not think that Republicans will be allowed to provide a minority report .

Since Democrats have a majority, the Schiff report will be treated as the gospel. Democrats in the House will wring their hands in anguish over this travesty by the President as the Judiciary Committee begins its hearings.

Democrats will wield the power in the House of the simple majority and try to find one Republican to join them. If they find just one Republican to join them, be prepared to hear the term “bi-partisan majority impeachment”  until you are sick of hearing it.  

The high stakes match up comes if Nancy Pelosi goes through with this for a full impeachment vote. Once the matter goes over to the Senate, the Republicans are in control and they will not be gagged. 

All of this going on here at Christmas time is the lump of coal in the stocking for the American people every time they turn on the news. There is a bright side to this though.

Given the dismal viewership ratings of the Schiff hearings, Americans won’t be watching the news. They will be too busy watching Hallmark Christmas movies and shopping.

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Truth, Justice and the Inquisition

Democrats continue to shock and anger the nation with their assault on truth and justice in their ongoing coup attempt to remove Donald Trump. News outlets are calling the latest efforts an impeachment, but this is not an impeachment, it is an inquisition. 

A two year, multi-million dollar fishing expedition by Robert Mueller came back with no catch on Russian interference or obstruction of justice. The best Mueller could do was say that he could not file charges but neither could he exonerate President Trump.

The latest attempt came with an unauthorized discussion about the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July. Conversations between the President and leader of another country are classified. 

Someone who apparently was authorized to be involved in the conversation broke the law and talked about it with an unauthorized individual. That second-hand party, who is referred to as a “whistle blower,” then talked to Congressman Adam Schiff and his staff.

They helped the second-hand whistle blower craft a formal letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Schiff himself is the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. 

That letter, then went to the Intelligence Inspector General (IG) as a “whistle blower” complaint. What the IG received, was, at best, a second-hand report of an allegation about the President. 

It would seem that the IG would want to get someone who actually heard the call to corroborate the story. If he could not get a first-hand account, it should be “case closed.”  

On September 18, the Washington Post published a story, based on an anonymous source, about the existence of a “whistle blower” report on the President’s phone call.  That was the trigger in the Democrat playbook for Schiff, Pelosi, and the Democrats. 

On September 24, Nancy Pelosi met with the Democrat caucus behind closed doors to discuss impeachment. In order to begin an impeachment process, the House of Representatives must vote. Newly elected Democrats who ran as moderates did not want to go on record voting for an impeachment. 

Shortly after Pelosi had her closed door meeting, President Trump, who was at the United Nations, announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian President. The Whitehouse also announced that the second-hand whistle blower complaint would be released by the end of the week. 

Later that afternoon, Pelosi addressed Congress. She said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six Committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.” 

There was no vote then. There still has not been a vote. I do not believe that there will be a vote.  

In spite of having no vote for an impeachment inquiry, some Democrats were quick to jump on the bandwagon calling for Trump’s impeachment. Among the followers of the left was my member of Congress, Sanford Bishop, from Southwest Georgia’s 2nd Congressional District. 

Even after President Trump announced that he would be releasing the unredacted transcript of the call, Sanford Bishop published a statement saying that it was “imperative” that Congress begin an impeachment inquiry. He stated: 

“The President has admitted publicly to asking the Ukraine President to investigate Hunter Biden and has instructed his Director of National Intelligence to withhold the whistleblower’s complaint from Congress, which is illegal.”

Sanford Bishop made up his mind without getting any facts. He pre-judged the reported allegation before knowing the details or even seeing the complaint itself.  

The next day as President Trump promised, in an unprecedented display of transparency, he released the totally unredacted transcript of the call. Later that day, the second-hand whistle blower complaint was also declassified and forwarded to Congress. 

Democrats were so caught off guard by the release of the transcript that Congressman Adam Schiff made up his own version. In a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, Schiff read into the record a totally fictitious transcript of the call.

Republicans called his hand. He said that it was just a parody. 

When the second-hand whistle blower complaint was declassified, Sanford Bishop was quick to update his website with a link to the second-hand account of the whistle blower. In a blatant display of deceit, Bishop did not include a link to the transcript of the call itself.

The transcript was released before the whistle blower’s second-hand account and complaint. Nearly one month later, there is still only a link to the second-hand account made by the whistle blower.

Sanford Bishop has made no acknowledgement of the transcript.  He has not provided a link that would allow a constituent to read the transcript of the call itself.

Sanford Bishop should provide the transcript so that his constituents can get the complete and accurate account. He is presenting only one side. This is a calculated and disingenuous ploy to mislead.  

Democrats, with their loyal followers like Sanford Bishop, are seeking neither truth nor justice. They are carrying out a duplicitous, devious, dishonest inquisition. 

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather