Thursday, October 31, 2019

Washington Post: Your Austere Religious Scholar, al-Baghdadi, Tortured and Raped Kayla Mueller

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Terrorism / Islamic State / Media

It is funny. Not in a comical way, that the Washington Post's byline states: Democracy Dies in Darkness. Yet everyday, the mainstream media like the Washington Post buries factual information in an ever increasing grave of hypocritical bias, political prejudice, and irrational behavior.

When the mainstream media fell over backwards to try and save the tarnished and dishonored name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that is when mainstream media lost any credibility it ever had. To the Washington Post, al-Baghdadi was an "austere religious leader." According to a DailyMail interview in 2015, he was something else entirely:
A Yazidi woman kidnapped and detained as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's personal sex slave has told how the ISIS leader repeatedly raped U.S. hostage Kayla Mueller – who he had taken as a secret bride.
al-Baghadadi was a monster. There is no way to save such an evil soul. He was not a man.

At least President Trump remembered Kayla and had the mission to avenge her named after her. 

What have you done for her memory, Washington Post? Mainstream media? 

Why do the Progressives and Socialists create, support, and worship murderous raving lunatic monsters? Serial murderers and rapists akin to being Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy are somehow propelled into sainthood by mainstream media as long as the monster in question has a foreign name.

All jihadis should be arrested for war crimes and their families should be expelled from western countries. There should be no excuse. People of the world should stand firm in ridding our nations of radical extremists and their ideologies. 

That includes the mainstream media. 

If you love you some unrepented monsters, then go live with them and leave the rest of us alone. 

The Washington Post and other politicos who were impotent to rid the world of the monsters they created... Deep State, Bush and Obama Administrations creation, aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda/Islamic state just to name a few... owe Kayla Mueller and her family an apology as well as James Foley, who was beheaded, and his family for ever referring to al-Baghdadi as anything other than a monster. 

Or would you rather keep slaughtering your own reputations by giving monsters the Jeffrey Dahmer/Teddy Bundy achievement award for the most mass murders and rapes on record? 

There is a reason the east and the west do not live together. Maybe it is time to put the jihadis back in their bottle so the rest of humanity can further our species in peace and quiet with invention and exploration. 

The elite have interfered with humanity's progression for almost twenty years. We tried it their way. Their way sucked.

Now everyone should go back to their corners and live as they would like. 

And, if you do not like our Republic... do not let the border door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Take the mainstream media along with you. 

Source: DailyMail, Washington Examiner, Breitbart, Breitbart 2

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Potentiality of Virus Transmission through Vaccines

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Vaccines / Virus Transmission

Investigating Viruses in Cells Used to Make Vaccines; and Evaluating the Potential Threat Posed by Transmission of Viruses to Humans

The emergence of pathogenic virus infections like influenza and HIV have created an urgent need for new vaccines.

Virus-based vaccines are made in living cells (cell substrates). Some manufacturers are investigating the use of new cell lines to make vaccines. The continual growth of cell lines ensures that there is a consistent supply of the same cells that can yield high quantities of the vaccine.

In some cases the cell lines that are used might be tumorigenic, that is, they form tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent, or "quiet," viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions. Therefore, to ensure the safety of vaccines, our laboratory is investigating ways to activate latent viruses in cell lines and to detect the activated viruses, as well as other unknown viruses, using new technologies. We will then adapt our findings to detect viruses in the same types of cell substrates that are used to produce vaccines. We are also trying to identify specific biological processes that reflect virus activity.

These methods will enable FDA scientists to help manufacturers to determine whether their specific cell substrate is safe to use for vaccine production. The methods our laboratory are developing and testing will help to ensure the production of safe and effective vaccines in two ways: 1) FDA will be able to develop testing guidelines for manufacturers who use new cell substrates for producing vaccines; and 2) FDA will publish the new methods it develops in peer-reviewed scientific journals, thus making them readily accessible to all manufacturers.

We are also evaluating the risk of retrovirus infections in humans. (Retroviruses are RNA viruses that use an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (RT) to replicate; RNA is the de-coded form of DNA). Simian foamy virus (SFV) can be transmitted from nonhuman primates (e.g., monkeys) to humans. Although there is no evidence that SFV causes disease, the virus can remain in a lifelong quiet state in the DNA after infection. Moreover, two individuals in Africa were recently found to be infected with both HIV-1 and SFV. Therefore, it is important to determine if SFV poses a threat to human health and to understand how the virus spreads in order to create strategies for controlling human infections. Such work will also help FDA to develop a new policy regarding blood donation by individuals working with nonhuman primates and implementing formal safety guidelines for people working with SFV-infected animals. We are also investigating the consequences of dual SFV and HIV-1 infection in the monkey model.

Source: FDA 

Grounding, Earthing on Inflammation, Immune Response Study

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Grounding / Immune Response
The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases
Multi-disciplinary research has revealed that electrically conductive contact of the human body with the surface of the Earth (grounding or earthing) produces intriguing effects on physiology and health. Such effects relate to inflammation, immune responses, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The purpose of this report is two-fold: to 1) inform researchers about what appears to be a new perspective to the study of inflammation, and 2) alert researchers that the length of time and degree (resistance to ground) of grounding of experimental animals is an important but usually overlooked factor that can influence outcomes of studies of inflammation, wound healing, and tumorigenesis. Specifically, grounding an organism produces measurable differences in the concentrations of white blood cells, cytokines, and other molecules involved in the inflammatory response. We present several hypotheses to explain observed effects, based on current research results and our understanding of the electronic aspects of cell and tissue physiology, cell biology, biophysics, and biochemistry. An experimental injury to muscles, known as delayed onset muscle soreness, has been used to monitor the immune response under grounded versus ungrounded conditions. Grounding reduces pain and alters the numbers of circulating neutrophils and lymphocytes, and also affects various circulating chemical factors related to inflammation.

Source: PMC

Friday, October 25, 2019

I am... Sock Puppet; The History and Right of the Non de Plume

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Big Tech Censorship / 1st Amendment / Internet Identification
A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.
Your favorite authors do it. Singers and songwriters do it. Actresses and Actors do it. 

A sock puppet is more than creating a persona for political groups to terrorize online communities for paid jest. Anonymity is a time-honored tradition that has become a literary staple in human society. A pseudonym, or non de plume, is a tool for satire and criticism. 

In a world of social media where one post can send you to the unemployment line or even jail for an unpopular opinion, non de plumes are more important than ever. Unfortunately big tech like Facebook as well as lawmakers in Washington, D.C. would like to restrict freedom of speech by imposing another layer of internet identification onto the populace. 

That requirement would be to the disadvantage especially for women. Women have often used pen names in the writing world because female authors are discriminated against by readers and judged as their sex instead of their merits. So women like Joanne Rowling use their initials: J.K. Rowling as well as she used a male name Robert Galbraith. In centuries past, female authors like Jane Austen, The Bronte sisters, and Mary Ann Evans were in fact authored as "The Lady," Currer Bell, Ellis Bell, Acton Bell, and George Eliot respectively.

Non de Plumes are not just for women, but also male historical figures:
FIRDOUSI, Persian poet. Abu '1 Kasim Mansur (or Hasan), who took the nom de plume of Firdousi (Firdausi or Firdusi), author of the epic poem the Shdhndma, or "Book of Kings," a complete history of Persia in nearly 6o,000 verses, was born at Shadab, a suburb of Tus, about the year 329 of the Hegira (A.D. or earlier. Firdousi was profoundly versed in the Arabic language and literature and had also studied deeply the Pahlavi or Old Persian, and was conversant with the ancient historical records which existed in that tongue.
NĀSIR KHOSRAU (Nasiri Khusru), Abū Mu‘in-ed-din Nāsir b. Khosrau (1004-1088), whose nom de plume was Hujjat,
Clemens had become widely known in Virginia City — if not necessarily widely liked — by the time the pseudonym Mark Twain first appeared in the Enterprise on February 3, 1863.
In 1784 he [Arthur Young] began the publication of the Annals of Agriculture, which was continued for 45 volumes: contributors included King George III, writing under the nom de plume of "Ralph Robinson."
Is it no wonder that communication from print to online has seen its share of these anonymous sock puppets? But is the hysteria of election meddling really that relevant to require everyone to be bagged and tagged? Isn't the mere call for identification meddling in and of itself?

Americans already suffer the unlawful condition of using a cellular phone to use social media like Twitter and Facebook as a form of internet identification. Unlawful because why are Americans forced to buy another separate product and service when their home computer and internet service provider (ISP) already allows them to use social media, which is supposed to be free, as well as their ISP is a layer of forced governmental and intrusive identification?

Disabled people who cannot afford or are otherwise unable to use cellular phone service are restricted from access to social media because of this unwarranted and unnecessary bias that cellular phones equal identification when burner phones could be used in their sted.  The requirement makes no sense. To mandate additional internet identification and financial consumption of cellular phone service is discrimination akin to voter suppression when viewed through the lens of political philosophy and supposed election meddling.

What the political and tech elite fail to understand is that Americans have the right to be anonymous. Freedom of expression covers many areas of thought and creativity. A non de plume is a creative expression of one's native identity.

Richard Saunders
Anthony Afterwit
Silence Dogood
Celia Single
Miss Polly Baker
Busy Body
Margaret Aftercast
Bridget Saunders

All pseudonyms of one American Founding Father: Benjamin Franklin, so he could parody, criticize, and discuss gender topics as well as political conceptions in Puritan colonial America.

Other male writers who have used false identities are:  
In his satires, Jonathan Swift used seventeen pseudonyms including Isaac Bickerstaff and M. B. Drapier...  
In the eighteenth century, Enlightenment figures became prolific users ofpseudonyms. Voltaire, whose real name was Francois Marie Arouet, used 173 pseudonyms (174 ifone includes "Voltaire").
Daniel Defoe, who holds the record of using 198 pseudonyms, had one called Miranda Meanwell.
Social media identification in any form is unwarranted. First internet service providers track and identify users. Cellular phone service serves that same function. If authorities need to investigate and seek a warrant for criminal activities, a person's identity is a foregone conclusion. 

However the history and usage of a non de plume (literary double) is not only an American right, but a human historical fact. From the far east and into the writings of our most beloved authors, the pseudonym helps society workout its social norms, mores, and taboos through criticism and satire.

If politicians and corporations cannot stand criticism, then stay out of the public arena, do not do anything wrong, and cease all activities associated with social engineering. 

Americans and the world have the right to speak freely and without persecution. It is a human right. It is the human condition. 

Expressing an honest, nonviolent opinion without corporate and governmental repercussions, that is also a fundamental civil liberty online, at home, and on the streets.  

Freedom of speech and expression are nonnegotiable.

Sources: Urban Dictionary, Mashable, NPR, Glued Ideas, Wikisource, Time, PraBook, Digital Commons, Wikipedia,   

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Cases of Conscience by Increase Matter

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Spectral Evidence / Witch Trials

Are we not plagued by the same third-person hearsay of spectral evidence in today's politics and media? Why haven't Americans learned from the sins of the past?

Increase Matter's Essay: Cases of Conscience Concerning Witchcraft:
The First Case that I am desired to express my Judgement in, is this, Whether it is not Possible for the Devil to impose on the Imaginations of Persons Bewitched, and to cause them to Believe that an Innocent, yea that a Pious person does torment them, when the Devil himself doth it, or whether Satan may not appear in the Shape of an Innocent and Pious, as well as of a Nocent and Wicked Person to Afflict such as suffer by Diabolical Molestations?
The Answer to the Question must be Affirmative; Let the following Arguments be duly weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary.
Argu. I. There are several Scriptures from which we may infer the Possibility of what is Affirmed.
I. We find that the Devil by the Instigation of the Witch at Endor appeared in the Likeness of the Prophet Samuel. I am not Ignorant that some have asserted that, which, if it were proved would avert this Argument, Viz. that it was the true and not a delusive Samuel which the Witch brought to converse with Saul. Of this Opinion are some of the Jewish Rabbis (a) and some Christian Doctors (b) and many late Popish Authors (c) amongst whom Cornel. a Lapide is most elaborate. But that it was a Demon representing Samuel has been evinced by Learned and Orthodox Writers: especially (e) Peter Martyr, (f) Baldainus (†) Lavater, and our Incomparable John Rainolde. I shall not here insist on the clearing of that, especially considering, that elsewhere I have done it: only let me add that the Witch said to Saul, I see Elohim, i.e. A God; (for the whole Context shows, that a single Person is intended) Ascending out of the Earth. I Sam. 28. 13. The Devil would be Worshipped as a God, and Saul now, that he was become a Necromancer, must bow himself to him. Moreover, had it been the true Samuel from Heaven reprehending Saul, there is great Reason to believe that he would not only have reproved him for his sin, in not executing Judgement on the Amalekites; as in Ver. 18. But for his wickedness in consulting with Familiar Spirits: for which Sin it was in special that he Died. 2 Chron. 10. 13. But in as much as there is not one word to Testify against that Abomination, we may conclude that it was not Real Samuel that appeared to Saul. And if it were the Devil in his likeness the Argument seems very strong, that if the Devil, may appear in the Form of a Saint in Glory, much more is it possible for him, to put on the Likeness, of the most Pious and innocent Saint on Earth. There are, who acknowledge that a Demon may appear in the Shape of a Godly Person, But not as doing Evil. Whereas the Devil in Samuel’s likeness told a Pernicious Lie, when he said Thou hast Disquieted me. It was not in the Power of Saul, nor of all the Devils in Hell, to disquiet a Soul in Heaven, where Samuel had been for Two years before this Apparition. Nor did the Spectre speak true, when he said, Thou and thy Sons shall be with me; though Saul himself at his Death went to be with the Devil, his Son Jonathan did not so. Besides, (which suits with the matter in hand) the Devil in Samuel’s shape confirmed Necromancy and cursed Witchery. He that can in the likeness of Saints encourage Witches to Familiarity with Hell, may possibly in the Likeness of a Saint afflict a Bewitched Person. But this we see from Scripture Satan may be Permitted to do.
And whereas it is objected, that the Devil may appear indeed in the Form of Dead Persons, but that he cannot represent such as are living; The Contrary is manifest. No Question had Saul said to the Witch, bring me David who was then living, she could as easily have shown living David as dead Samuel, as easily as that great Conjurer, of whom Wierus speaks, brought the appearance of Hector and Achilles and after that of David before the Emperor Maximilian.
And that evil Angels have sometimes appeared in the likeness of living absent persons is a thing abundantly confirmed by History.
I. It is possible that the Persons in Question may be Possessed with Cacodemons. That bewitched Persons are many times really possessed with evil Spirits, is most certain. And as Mr. Perkins observes, no man can prove but that Witchcraft might be the cause of many of those Possessions, which we read of in the Gospel. And that Devils have been emitted into the Bodies of miserable Creatures by Magicians and Witches, Histories and Experience do abundantly testify. Hierom (h) relates concerning a certain Virgin, that a young man, whose Amours she despised, prevailed with a Magician to send an evil Spirit into her, by means whereof she was strangely besotted. It is reported (i) of Simon Magus that after he had used a Hellish Sacrifice, to be revenged of some that had called him a great Witch, he caused infernal Spirits to enter into them. Many confessing Witches have acknowledged that they were the cause of such and such Persons being Possessed by evil Angels, as (k) Thyraeus and others have observed. Now no Credit ought to be given to what Demons in such, as are by them Obsessed, shall say. Our Savior by his own unerring Example has taught us not to receive the Devil’s Testimony in anything.

Source: Columbia University

Thursday, October 17, 2019

The Elephant in the Room: What is Killing the African American Community is Not Guns or Abortion

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
African Americans / Social Justice

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Democrat debate discussed in part the African American community with remarks from the stage and peanut gallery. Kamala Harris stated: what is killing African Americans in this country is guns. A commentator on Fire Power News, Will Johnson, opined that abortion is the main killer of members of this community.

Both comments are wrong. The main killer of African Americans in this country is the lack of opportunity. Agenda 21 and Free Trade have deindustrialized inner cities so there is no job creation. School curriculum under George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind and the United Nations' Common Core have decimated the ability for adults to critically think and gain knowledge of events and facts. Instead, Social Justice Warriors have been created and pumped up to become agents of change through communist/socialist revolution that further degrades an already bleak outlook. See, Black Lives Matter.

Guns, gang affiliations, and abortion are symptoms of the overall problem plaguing not only the African American community in the United States but the larger negative effects that are produced through socialism and communism also known as Globalism.

Before Americans can tackle international issues of import, we need to deal with our own governmental complicit degradation of minority communities in our society. The CIA, who is not supposed to work inside the United States and propagandize the American people, has been busy for decades bringing in and profiting from the drug trafficking trade.

When the opportunities of a good education, social experience, entrepreneurship, income, home/family, and national discourse are turned into economic, social, and political deficiencies, that is when guns, abortion, gang affiliations and criminal enterprises take root in society.

When media and politicos discuss the hardships and negative outcomes, they must also trace those results to an overarching policy. In order to have a one world government based on the communistic feudal system and overseen by a Politburo, the general population of the world cannot have any type of positive means be it money, critical thinking skills, communication, mobility, motility, or political power to override a defunct and illegitimate political system.

Everyone from every walk of life must be decimated economically, socially, and politically in order to create the "equality" of socialism and communism.

Socialism, which always turns into the nightmare scenario of communism, promises a utopia, but that utopian dream dies when the resources dry up and communism is then enforced to keep the public order. See, Venezuela.

To treat the symptoms of a negative system is not to outlaw guns, ban abortion, or regulate social problems just as a doctor cannot treat the symptoms of an infection without first diagnosing what bacteria s/he is working to defeat. That is the number one failure of our democratically elected representatives: always trying to impose policies on the symptoms. The political parties never want to take on the infection head on because that would mean their bread and butter political and emotional blackmail to raise campaign funds would dry up if there were no problems to solve.

So the problems persist. Republicans never outlaw abortion. Democrats never pass a bill to keep abortion legal. Both political parties make the courts do their dirty work for them so they can keep raising money on the hopes and fears of their constituencies.

The sign of a freedom-centered, individual-minded republic is not to legislate morality but rather create opportunities that allow for better choices within that society. The United States of America is not based on any one religion. America is not and never has been a Christian nation. That lie is being perpetuated, especially in the independent media, to again further political and monetary aspirations instead of being honest with the public. See the Founding Fathers and the Separation between Church and State.

Democrats cannot outlaw guns no more than Republicans can outlaw abortion no matter how much each makes their case to the American people. Guns are protected under the Second Amendment. Abortion is protected under Roe v. Wade. 

Get over it. 

Now can America solve the bigger problems? The elephant in the room problems? The problems once solved that cannot make any political party any more money? 

America needs to have this adult conversation instead of allowing political theater to distract and detract from the wider issue of the intelligence apparatus of the Deep State centralization of the world for a communist overthrow of the entire world's governments and governance. 

The intelligence apparatus, including America's 17 agencies that have been consistently wrong about President Trump and the Middle East all the while meddling in other countries' elections/governance for decades, are also incompetent about their handling of American inner cities.

CIA and the Drug Trafficking Epidemic:
CIA and Music Industry: 
Inner City Prison Pipeline:
Inner City and Education
Drugs, bad education, low employment, and reliance on governmental systems for food, clothing, shelter, and medicine as well as behavior modification programs in entertainment, education, and prisons has led to the systemic deterioration of the inner cities.

By design as a Petri dish to test and understand human behavior... something akin to what a Nazi would do in a concentration camp scenario.  The inner cities become a crucible of human reactionary responses to negative stimuli in a situation that was built to keep people in and never allow them to succeed to get out. See MK Ultra.

It is really sick.

To blame the symptoms is to ignore the fundamental failures of policies enacted to "help" minority populations. When in fact, these policies accomplished their wider goals of disproportionately destroying hope through the loss of economic opportunity. 

When are we going to discuss the issues instead of being distracted by political and religious theatrical propaganda?  

These inner city designed destructive architectures are now being forced on the wider population. Parents flee public schools and demand vouchers as designed to herd children into charter schools. After public schools are destroyed, the corporate controlled charter schools will then dictate education to the masses and thus taking away the rest of parental rights from Americans. 

Welcome to the ghetto! Now you are all equally dumbed down, America.
Isn't socialism great? How about communism? American schools are ground zero for implementation of this political terrorism. See the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt.

Guns, abortion, gangs and drugs are all symptoms of a system that has been designed to malfunction, fail, and implode. 

What are your children being taught? 

Sources: See above, Charlotte Iserbyt, October 15th Democrat Presidential Debate, Fire Power News with Will Johnson, theology edu,

Wednesday, October 16, 2019

American Elites Are Nothing but Globalist, Communist Chinese House Slaves

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Slavery / History / Globalism / Communism

There, it has been said.

Freedom lovers have all thought it, now the thought has been made manifest. Not only have our elite politicians, entrepreneurs, sports stars, celebrities, musicians, actors/actresses, activists, and the ultra-rich become sellouts, these house slaves have also become the tools for which the Globalists and their Chinese communist minions are using to keep the rest of us field workers in line.

Can you say: Arbeit Macht Frei?

Swing lo, swing chariot... if you love communism (socialism) so much, then why don't you let it carry you home to China? 

The African American community lectures white America via on the do's and dont's of racial inequity yet, uses the "N" word in their daily lives and entertainment, commits crimes and yells: "hands up, don't shoot" when arrests go wrong, and tries to be the moral high ground in anything race related while having the highest crime rates against other races. 

Why is that important? Because Communist groups like Black Lives Matter have become the surrogate voices of the African American community to complain about race relations using racism to push for a race war. So African American sports stars (Colin Kapernick) and other celebrities (Jesse Smollet, Edawn Coughman) jump on the bandwagon and infect the national discourse with highly charged racial speech and incidents.

Just to be clear, we are talking about communists here who have created discord within the African American community. For example, one of the philosophical founders of Black Lives Matter, Assata Shakur, otherwise known as Joanne Deborah Chesimard is "a radical feminist and Marxist revolutionary" who murdered a police officer, is on the FBI's most wanted list, and escaped to Cuba after breaking out of prison in 1979. Is she really a role model? 

These communist voices complain that being African American is in itself unfair and that mentality has carried over into the sports world. Some players complain that the owner/manager and team player relationship is akin to the slave-owner and slave relationship during the times before the civil war. Except for the fact the players are highly compensated and have to sign contracts to participate, unlike real slavery.

Ask yourselves: China has how many black Africans in their population? Has taken in how many economic migrants? Does what to their Muslim converts? Christian religious followers? Is America really that racist? Or, are certain groups only creating that illusion? 

Hollywood and other entertainment elites scream and cry about "Climate Change" while sipping thousand dollar glasses of champagne on their carbon spewing planes jet-setting across the world to lecture everyone but China about needing to be Net Carbon Zero... which having zero carbon is mass extinction for humans, animals, and plants alike.

Ask yourselves: China builds how many coal fire plants a year? Has what kind of environmental standards on industry? How are employees treated?

And... the Squad. Or, should these four Congress Critters be referred to as: the Squanderers? Because these four women seem to squander any opportunity to create positive change in our society. If the situation isn't marrying their brother for a Green Card, stealing from the till of their campaign, acting paranoid during house committee hearings, or being a downright media nuisance, it appears these four want to make headlines instead of headway. That is the crux of Social Justice. All selfie driven me, me, me social climbing, and absolutely no justice.

Ask yourselves: Could you protest in China? Could you mouth off and disrespect their leader the way you do President Trump here in America? Could you worship your god(s)/religion freely?

Then there is the private sector. Businesses like Apple, Google, or Facebook that believe China is the happening place. Where these moguls can use slave labor to manufacture their goods and sell Americans their wares for an overpriced ransom. Unless of course you identify yourself as a "publisher" in order to steal user data for profiteering, funnel users into ghettos for social control, and implement community standards to force Americans into the Chinese social credit score model.

Ask yourselves: Are you free? Or, did you have to hand over 51% of your shares to the Communist Chinese government for being tax free slave owners?

What intersection brings these four classes of elites together? Globalism. Globalism is the one world government, step on everyone, create a 1%er Politburo known as the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and enslave the field workers dystopian nightmare.

Our elite believe that their money and status will protect them from the Globalist model of taking everything from everyone who is not in the One Percent as long as you shut up, put up, and keep everyone under you in line.

One problem: humans want to be free.

Take Hong Kong for example as what is to come for the rest of the world under this Globalist model of Chinese dictatorship. China has stolen Tibet. China wants to take over all the Asian countries along its borders and the islands thereof. 

Hong Kong is a free and independent nation. China has no right to the British held colony. Here is how:
The New Territories were leased from Qing China to the United Kingdom in 1898 for 99 years in the Second Convention of Peking (The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory). Upon the expiry of the lease, sovereignty was transferred to the People's Republic of China in 1997, together with the Qing-ceded territories of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula.
Sounds straight forward until further research shows that the British were granted ownership of Hong Kong Island (and later Kowloon) in perpetuity by the Qing Emperor in 1842. 
Treaty of Nanjing, (August 29, 1842) treaty that ended the first Opium War, the first of the unequal treaties between China and foreign imperialist powers. China paid the British an indemnity, ceded the territory of Hong Kong, and agreed to establish a “fair and reasonable” tariff. 
Just because Britain walked away from the lease does not mean China owns the land. That land is still under the auspice of Great Britain. If Britain is no longer interested in the island (essentially has abandoned the land), then Hong Kong should be legally free from colonial as well as communist rule. You're welcome.

The people of Hong Kong escaped from the terrible and murderous Maoist regime that is now under the unelected dictator: Xi Jinping. The People's Republic of China is no republic and cares nothing of its people; it is just a stage name.

Anyone in the entertainment industry should understand that.

So what do we have here? We have protesters in Hong Kong being MORE American than our American elites. Our elites should be using their money, status, and celebrity to side with the free peoples of Hong Kong and shame the communist government of China on an international scale.

Instead Americans have people like LeBron James telling other NBA players to shut up about Hong Kong and China. A sports figure whose net worth is approximately $450 million dollars. Enough money for several generations to not be able to spend in their lifetime.

On October 1st, the 70th anniversary of communist rule in China, which has seen over 100 million dead, Hong Kong endured our 9/11, which has now persisted for over 15 days. The Communist Chinese have used our terrorist attack to garner sympathy in the international community for attacking the peaceful Hong Kong residents. 

10/1 is Hong Kong's 9/11. 

Let's show some respect for our dead and theirs. The Communist Chinese do not deserve any recognition for this day except to reiterate that you can never trust a communist. A communist is nothing but a lying, manipulative serial killer.

So let's return to the intersection of Globalism and ask our traitors a question.

Private Sector Profiteers... why don't you just go live in China and stop selling your high-priced crap to Americans if you love slave ownership that much? 

Squanderers... if you love you some Socialism, then why don't you to go live in China for a year without resource or connection? 

Hollywood and other entertainment elite... if the environment is so important to you, then why are you not protesting in China? 

Black Lives Matter... if you hate race relations here in America, then why don't you try your hand at living in homogeneous China? 

Then there is the NFL and NBA disrespecting America, American fans, and Americans in general. These players take affront to any type of negative outcome in police or domestic situations no matter the fault, but will give up their honor, integrity, and community for profit. Kapernick takes a knee to disrespect Americans during football games. LeBron James sides with China versus Hong Kong to protect his revenue stream. 

Since LeBron James has sided with the Communist Chinese government in current events, he will be our example:
“Yes, we do have freedom of speech,” James said on Monday. “But at times, there are ramifications for the negative that can happen when you’re not thinking about others when you only think about yourself.”

James went on to scold [Houston Rockets General Manager Daryll] Morey for tweeting his support for Hong Kong’s demonstrators despite the harm it may have done to the NBA’s big-money deals with the Chinese.

“So many people could have been harmed,” James complained, “not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what we tweet and what we say and what we do. Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech, it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.”
So King LeBron, you want everyone in the world to call you: Maesta... but allow the Communist Chinese to call you: boy? Is that something the African American Community would approve? Or, are you trying to be the sports world's international communist representative?

That is embarrassing. America is embarrassed for you. And, you call yourself a Christian choosing money over people?

The world stands on the precipice of history. Are you for freedom? Or, are you for the slavery of communism? 

Do you want to be the master of others? Or, do you want to be the master of your own life? 

You can either be history or be apart of history. The choice is yours. But choose wisely because the international community will never get another chance to defeat Globalism and communism once the tyranny takes control of our governments and lands.

When it comes to the history of slavery, we can either become the nameless, faceless victims of communism, or the Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubmans to defeat it. 

Swing low, sweet chariot,
coming for to carry me home... to freedom instead.

Stand with Hong Kong. 

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Nancy Pelosi Needs to Resign; the People Demand Her Impeachment

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Nancy Pelosi / Resignation Call

With the Trump Administration's eight page rebuttal of the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi responded on her website:
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement when the White House asserted that the Administration will not comply with House Committee subpoenas as part of the impeachment inquiry, making false claims about the Constitution, House rules and House precedent:

“For a while, the President has tried to normalize lawlessness. Now, he is trying to make lawlessness a virtue. The American people have already heard the President’s own words – ‘do us a favor, though.’ The President’s actions threaten our national security, violate our Constitution and undermine the integrity of our elections. The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law.

“This letter is manifestly wrong, and is simply another unlawful attempt to hide the facts of the Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 elections. Despite the White House’s stonewalling, we see a growing body of evidence that shows that President Trump abused his office and violated his oath to ‘protect, preserve and defend the Constitution.’

“The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.

“Mr. President, you are not above the law. You will be held accountable.”
Except the American people are not buying the political theater staged by Progressives and Socialists in the Democrat Party. Instead, the American people are revolting at the premise of impeachment. 

There has been no formal vote to even begin conducting impeachment proceedings so why is Nancy Pelosi threatening the President of the United States with obstruction and other issues? 

Because this impeachment inquiry is about creating headlines and not about finding out any facts. The facts have been presented but the Speaker of the House refuses to acknowledge what does not fit into her crafted rebuke of the Trump Administration. Is Pelosi so consumed with bitterness and hate that she cannot accept that Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump fair and square? 

The American people are fed up with the Progressive and Socialist agenda of ruining our country. Open borders, corruption, and manipulation by the Progressives, Socialists, and Rino Republicans are the true lawlessness the American People are tired of. 

Americans have had enough.

So much so, that Americans began a petition on the White House website demanding Nancy Pelosi be impeached herself: 

Or is it time that the 79 year old woman with over 30 years in the House of Representatives who is past her ability to represent the American people and not her selfish interest to her party for her to save what is left of her reputation by resigning? 

The corrupt Globalists need to resign beginning with the Speaker. 

Sources: Speaker's website, White House Petitions,

White House Opposition Letter to Questionable Impeachment Inquiry

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Impeachment / Legal Rebuttal


October 8, 2019

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff
House Permanent Select Committee on
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an "impeachment inquiry." As you know,you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process. 

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and eve1y past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the
American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is "concerned that if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage
to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

Interview with Rep. Al Green, MSNBC (May 5, 2019).
Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 2

For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency hy declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff's decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.

In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact with Chairman Schiffs office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff"clearly made a statement thatwas false. "2 In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a
counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral "investigator."

For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless,
unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.

Your "Inquiry" Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights
and the Separation of Powers.

Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply
announced an "official impeachment inquiry." 3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the 2 3 Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Committee Had Not Spoken to the Whistleblower, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 20 I 9). Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019).

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings
Page 3

history of the Nation, 4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. 5 The Committees' inquiry also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker Pelosi's commitment to "treat the President with fairness," 6 the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that "[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process," and that in this context "due process mean[s] ... the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. "7 All of these procedures have been abandoned here. These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements.

The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations. 8 Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings. 9 And precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back nearly 150 years. 10 Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution. No citizen-including the President-should be treated this unfairly. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Since the Founding of the Republic, under unbroken practice, the House has never undertaken the solemn responsibility of an impeachment inquiry directed at the President without first adopting a resolution authorizing a committee to begin the inquiry. The inquiries into the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton proceeded in multiple phases, each authorized by a separate House resolution. See, e.g., H.R. Res. 581, I 05th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 525, I 05th Cong. (1998); III Hinds' Precedents §§ 2400-02, 2408, 2412. And before the Judiciary Committee initiated an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, the Committee's chairman rightfully recognized that "a[n) [inquiry] resolution has always been passed by the House" and "is a necessary step." III Deschler's Precedents ch. 14, § 15.2. The House then satisfied that requirement by adopting H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974), Chairman Nadler has recognized the importance of taking a vote in the House before beginning a presidential impeachment inquiry. At the outset of the Clinton impeachment inquiry-where a floor vote was held-he argued that even limiting the time for debate before that vote was improper and that "an hour debate on this momentous decision is an insult to the American people and another sign that this is not going to be fair." 144 Cong. Rec. HI 0018 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler). Here, the House has dispensed with any vote and any debate "t {II/, Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today (Oct. 2, 2019). Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (Part II): Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the J11diciG1J', 114th Cong. 3 (2016) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler); Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 17 (1998) (statement of Rep, Jerrold Nadler). See, e.g., Watkinsv. United States, 354 U.S. 178,188 (1957); Quinnv. United States, 349 U.S. 155,161 (1955). See Hastings v. United Stales, 802 F. Supp. 490, 504 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated on other grounds by Hastings v. United States, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993). See, e.g., III Hinds' Precedents § 2445.


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 4
To comply with the Constitution's demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony. Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called
to testify in the inquiry. The Committees' current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights. 

In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. 11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.

As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the
Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process. In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened­
without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena-that "[a]ny failure to appear" in response to a mere letter request for a deposition "shall constitute evidence of  obstruction." 12 Worse, the Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if
they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld. 13 

The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long­
established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for



H.R. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974).
Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to George P. Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State I (Sept. 27, 2019). 

See Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to John J. Sullivan,
Deputy Secretary of State 2-3 (Oct. I, 2019).


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 5

following such instructions. 14 Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, and the Office of Legal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions. 15 In addition, any attempt to withhold an official's salary for the assertion of such interests would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. 16 The Committees'
assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.

The Invalid "Impeachment Inquiry " Plainly Seeks To Reverse the Election of 2016 and To Influence the Election of 2020.

The effort to impeach President Trump-----without regard to any evidence of his actions in office is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before. 17 In fact, your transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported "impeachment inquiry." The Founders, however, did not create the extraordinary mechanism of impeachment so it could be used by a political party that feared for its prospects against the sitting President in the next election. The decision as to who will be elected President in 2020 should rest with the people of the United States, exactly where the Constitution places it.
Democrats themselves used to recognize the dire implications of impeachment for the Nation. For example, in the past, Chairman Nadler has explained:
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We
must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to
defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire
threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the
American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an
impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by
another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our



See, e.g., Testimonial Immunity Before Congress a/the Former Counsel to the President, 43 Op. O.L.C. _, * 19 (May 20, 2019); Prosecution/or Contempt a/Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a
Claim of Executive Privilege, 8 Op. O.L.C. IO I, I 02, 140 (l 984)("The Executive, however, must be free from the threat of criminal prosecution if its right to assert executive privilege is to have any practical substance,,,)
Attempted Exclusion of Agency Counsel for Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. O.L.C._, * 1-2 (May 23, 2019).

See President Donald J. Trump, Statement by the President on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Feb. 15, 20 19); Authority of Agency Officials To Prohibit Employees From Providing information to
Congress, 28 Op, O.L.C. 79, 80 (2004).

See Matea Gold, The Campaign To Impeach President Trump Has Begun, Wash. Post (Jan. 21, 2017) ("At the moment the new commander in chief was sworn in, a campaign to build public support for his impeachment went live .... ").

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 6
politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of
our political institutions. 18

Unfortunately, the President's political opponents now seem eager to transform
impeachment from an extraordinary remedy that should rarely be contemplated into a conventional political weapon to be deployed for partisan gain. These actions are a far cry from what our Founders envisioned when they vested Congress with the "important trust" of considering impeachment. 19 Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the country and creating long-lasting rifts in the body politic. 20 Unfortunately, you are now playing out exactly the partisan rush to judgment that the Founders so strongly warned against. The American people deserve much better than this.

There Is No Legitimate Basis for Your "Impeachment Inquiry"; Instead, the
Committees' Actions Raise Serious Questions.

It is transparent that you have resorted to such unprecedented and unconstitutional procedures because you know that a fair process would expose the lack of any basis for your inquiry. Your current effort is founded on a completely appropriate call on July 25, 2019, between President Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an "impeachment inquiry"
based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call. 21 To rebut those falsehoods, and to provide transparency to the American people, President Trump secured agreement from the Government of Ukraine and took the extraordinary step of declassifying and publicly releasing the record of the call. That record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate, that the President did nothing wrong, and that there is no basis for an impeachment inquiry. At a joint press conference shortly after the call's public release, President Zelenskyy agreed that the call was appropriate. 22 In addition, the Department of Justice announced that officials there had reviewed the call after a referral for an alleged campaign finance law violation and found no such violation. 23 Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing. 24 This


144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler).

The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).
See id.

Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 20 19).

President Trump Meeting with Ukrainian President, C-SPAN (Sept. 25, 2019).
Statement of Kerri Kupec, Director, Office of Public Affairs, Dept. of Justice (Sept. 25, 2019) ("[T]he Department's Criminal Division reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted.").

See Whistleblower Disclosure: Hearing Before the H Select Comm. 011 Intel., I 16th Cong. (Sept. 26, 2019)
(statement of Rep. Adam Schiff).


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 7

powerfully confirms there is no issue with the actual call. Otherwise, why would Chairman Schiff feel the need to make up his own version? The Chairman's action only further undermines the public's confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his Committee.

The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiffs office, and perhaps others-despite initial denials-were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaint was filed. Initially, when asked on national television about interactions with the whistleblower, Chairman Schiff unequivocally stated that "[w]e have not spoken directly with
the whistleblower. We would like to."25 Now, however, it has been reported that the whistleblower approached the House Intelligence Committee with information-and received guidance from the Committee-before filing a complaint with the Inspector General. 26 As a result, The Washington Post concluded that Chairman Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. "27 Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower's complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter-particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.

All of this raises serious questions that must be investigated. However, the Committees are preventing anyone, including the minority, from looking into these critically important matters. At the very least, Chairman Schiff must immediately make available all documents relating to these issues. After all, the American people have a right to know about the Committees' own actions with respect to these matters.



Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it. Because participating in this inquiry under the current unconstitutional posture would inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of powers, you have left the President no choice. Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve
the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.
Your recent letter to the Acting White House Chief of Staff argues that "[e]ven if an impeachment inquiry were not underway," the Oversight Committee may seek this information



Interview with Chairman Adam Schiff, MSNBC (Sept. l 7, 2019).
Julian Barnes, et al., Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower's Concerns Grew, N.Y. Times(Oct. 2, 20 l 9).

Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Co111111i//ee Had Not Spoke11 to the Whistleblower, Wash, Post (Oct. 4,


Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 8

as a matter of the established oversight process. 28 Respectfolly, the Committees cannot have it both ways. The letter comes from the Chairmen of three different Committees, it transmits a subpoena "[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry," it recites that the documents will "be collected as part of the House's impeachment inquiry," and it asserts that the documents will be "shared among the Committees, as well as with the Committee on the Judiciary as appropriate."29 The letter is in no way directed at collecting information in aid of legislation, and you simply cannot expect to rely on oversight authority to gather information for an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers. If the Committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of
unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.




Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives
Hon. Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Hon. Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on
Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Letter from Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, et al., to John Michael Mulvaney, Acting Chief of Staff to the President 3 (Oct. 4, 2019).
Id. at I.