Beth Baumann


On Saturday, six Trump campaign volunteers in Jacksonville, Florida were working to register voters. At approximately 2:45 p.m., a golden-colored van attempted intentionally ran through their booths with the intention of mauling volunteers. Thankfully, no one was injured.

After driving through the tent, knocking over tables and chairs, the man stopped, took a video and flipped the Republican volunteers off. The driver sped off but was later apprehended.

Police arrested 27-year-old Gregory William Loel Timm. He was “charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a person over 65 years old, criminal mischief and driving without a license,” News Jax 4 reported.

Lt. Larry Gayle told News Jax 4 that police are monitoring social media to see if Timm’s video will pop up.

“We don’t know if this is politically motivated,” Gayle said. “We’ve got detectives coming out. We’re following up on information and trying to determine if we can identify this person right now.”

Multiple people condemned the attack as politically motivated, including Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, President Donald Trump, Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott and Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Trump Supporters Were Registering People to Vote… Until Someone Attempted to Maul Them

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is in Iowa doing last-minute campaigning on behalf of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). During an event in Clive Iowa, Omar explained how her idea of the “American Dream” were shattered once she came to America.

“When I first came to the United States, I remember one of the first things that I saw was homeless people sleeping on the sides of Manhattan when we arrived in New York. And I remember turning to my father and saying, ‘This doesn’t look like the America you promised.’ And my father looked at me and said, ‘Hush, child, we are going to get to our America,'” Omar recounted. “Because the America we were shown in the orientation tapes when we were coming here from the refugee camp in Kenya had beautiful homes with white picket fences, happy families eating a full meal in their beautiful living rooms. It had happy children getting on the bus to go to their beautiful schools. It had pictures of amazing malls, megamalls, and had pictures of beautifully built bridges and highways. It was a picture of abundance. Now that is the ideal.”

“That is the America we all know we deserve but our reality is full of homeless people. Our reality is full of families who have moms and dads who are going without dinner or lunch or breakfast just so that they can have enough for their children,” she explained. “Our reality is full of kids who are showing up to schools that are full of mold and leaking rooftops. Our reality has children who are facing drills every single day to learn about how they can escape being shot in our schools.”

Omar seems to forget that the areas that are being overrun with homeless people – like San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City – are all cities under Democratic mayors and legislators. Homelessness isn’t a new phenomenon. L.A. has always had “Skid Row,” an area in downtown that has become infamous because of its condensed homeless population. Democrats continually cite areas like Skid Row or even Downtown San Francisco as an area they want to “clean up” and “fix.” What do they do? Throw our taxpayer dollars at the problem but they never get to the root cause of the issue and why people are homeless to begin with. Is it because people fell on hard times and couldn’t afford a house or an apartment? Did someone get involved in drugs and they’re living on the streets so the money they’d spend on housing can go towards their drug habit? Does mental illness play a role in a person’s instable living conditions?

In fact, Dr. Drew Pinsky has repeatedly said the people on Los Angeles’ streets are people who are “chronically mentally ill” and they fail to receive treatment. That’s a place for Democrats to start instead of launching poop patrols like San Francisco did.

Instead of coming to America and blaming the country for not living up to her fantasy, Omar should be looking at her party for failing to give her and her family the “American Dream” they were promised.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: WATCH: Omar Trashes the U.S. for Not Living Up to Her ‘American Dream’

Democrats continually say far-fetched things, especially as President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is underway. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) might take the cake (at least for this week).

Once the House impeachment managers wrapped up their case on Friday, Schumer hit the airwaves to talk about the arguments his Democratic colleagues made in the Senate. And the Senate Minority Leader somehow believes House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) is comparable to Martin Luther King Jr.

“There are certain speakers who are quite compelling, I mean the greatest of these I think is Martin Luther King. He forced American to listen to him even when people didn’t want to hear it, when, you know, bigotry had been swept under the rug for a hundred years,” Schumer told CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

“They – when Adam Schiff gets to his closing remarks, all three nights, the Republicans are looking at him and listening,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “Much of the time they’re talking to each other or looking down. They don’t want to hear this stuff because they know it’s uncomfortable in the way it points out how terrible their president has been on so many different things. But when Schiff talks, they listen.”

Martin Luther King Jr. is, arguably, one of the greatest Civil Rights heroes in American history. He fought for African Americans to have equal rights. When he could have been violent, he rose above and preached peaceful protesting. He did everything with integrity and strength, even when he faced adversity.

Adam Schiff is a politician who has it out for President Donald Trump simply because he dislikes the guy. He has wanted to get Trump ousted from office since he was inaugurated. Just look at how he pushed Russia collusion. When that blew up in his face he moved to this Ukraine call.

Schiff claims he wants to get to the bottom of things on behalf of the American people. The reality is he wants to be considered a hero. He wants the limelight. He wants progressives to hail him as the man who singlehandedly got the Big Bad Orange Man kicked out of office.

Comparing Adam Schiff to Martin Luther King Jr. is disgusting. And Schumer should be ashamed of himself.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: ICYMI: Chuck Schumer Somehow Believes Adam Schiff Is Comparable to Martin Luther King Jr.

Now that it is officially 2020, illegal alien adults in California are now eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s health care system for low-income families. Starting January 1 – today – Medi-Cal is now extended to illegal aliens ages 19 to 26. Before today those under the age of 19 were able to receive Medi-Cal benefits, the Modesto Bee reported.

Before the new legislation took effect, quite a few illegal aliens were receiving limited Medi-Cal benefits (basically emergency services). Now they are able to receive full-scope Medi-Cal benefits, which include preventative and primary care on top of emergency services.

Those who were in the system receiving limited scope benefits received letters saying that, at the start of the new year, they would have full access to Medi-Cal benefits. Lucky them, right?

Officials in the state estimate that roughly 138,000 illegal alien adults will receive full-scope benefits under the medical plan. What that actually translates to can vary once coverage begins.

Before the Medi-Cal expansion kicked in, once an illegal alien turned 19, they would lose their benefits. Now that is extended until they are 26.

Legislators in California allocated $98 million to provide health care to illegal aliens. But that budget is only for fiscal year 2020. It will be interesting to see how much money the Golden State spends on this.

According to a 2019 health policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 2.2 million people in the state are illegal aliens. And guess what? Those between 19 and 26 – the very age demographic these benefits are geared towards – make up seven percent of the low-income, illegal alien population. Those between the ages of 0 and 18 make up 12 percent of the population. That means that California is going to spend millions providing health care for 19 percent of the low-income, illegal alien population.

The largest demographic of the state’s illegal aliens – 56 percent – are those aged 26 to through 55. And you know it is only a matter of time before liberals in the state decide those folks need taxpayer-funded health care too.

Congratulations, California. You are the first state in the nation to extend even greater health care benefits to illegal aliens (as if they should be given any to begin with). And just more proof that your legislators are willing to put illegal aliens before actual Americans.

It really is sad to think about it. I have friends and family members who still live in California and they suffer under the state’s ridiculous laws. They are expected to pay a crap ton of taxes, pay for their own health insurance and for what? To be told that someone who should not even be in America can get “free” health care (translation: they can essentially take money from an American citizen to use for their own health care). And people like Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) cannot possibly understand why people flock to our southern border en masse. It is because they know they can get benefits like this.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Nothing Says ‘Happy New Year’ Quite Like Giving Taxpayer-Funded Health Care to Illegal Aliens

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday night discussed the attacks on the United States’ embassy in Baghdad with Fox News’ Mike Emanuel. According to Pompeo, those who carried out the attacks are terrorists that are backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Well, what you say was Iranian-backed terrorists. Many of them are individuals that have been designated terrorists by the United States and others, coming to the American embassy and posing a risk to the American diplomats and personnel inside the embassy,” Pompeo explained. “You saw President Trump direct a quick, decisive, prudent response by making sure that we had all the resources necessary to keep our people safe and to secure the compound as well.”

“Any plans to evacuate the embassy in Baghdad, sir?” Emanuel asked.

“None,” Pompeo replied.

“Okay. Any plans to pull some of the 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq out?” Emanuel asked.

“None,” Pompeo replied.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon deployed 750 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg that were sent to nearby military bases where they will wait until they are needed in Baghdad. Up to 5,000 troops from the 82nd are reportedly being sent overseas. Emanuel asked about the 82nd being used to “bolster forces in the region.”

According to the Secretary of State, more context has to be given to the situation.

“This is 40 years of the Islamic Republic of Iran [being] engaged in global terror campaigns, nuclear weapons dreams and nuclear enrichment capability existing today,” he explained.

Pompeo said that when the Trump administration took over, they inherited a difficult situation.

“The previous administration provided lots of money, lots of money that was used for that nuclear program, lots of money that had been used for terror all around the world, to develop their missile program,” he said. “The Trump administration has taken a much different view.”

“We put real pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he explained. “We will continue to do so. And you saw the president say today we will continue to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable wherever we find their malign activity and we’ll make sure we have the resources to do so.”

Although Pompeo refused to talk about specific actions that can and will be taken against Iran, he reiterated President Trump’s stance that Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will feel America’s power if the situation warrants it.

The Trump administration has continually worked to “convince the Islamic Republic of Iran to behave like a normal nation for the entire three years we’ve been in office,” he said.

The Secretary of State said the Iranian people have demanded their political leaders behave differently than they have in the past.

“Unfortunately the Iranians responded by killing hundreds of their own citizens,” he said. “We’ve watched even in Beirut and in Iraq. Even today, there were protestors, it wasn’t in your footage, but there were protestors today. We saw real protestors today, not Iranian-backed militiamen who had been directed to go to the embassy by Qasem Soleimani, but rather real protestors, demanding to say that those folks at the embassy, those aren’t Iraqis.”

Pompeo made it clear that America cares about Iraq and “we want an Iraq that’s free, independent and sovereign.”

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: WATCH: Pompeo Responds to Iran’s Three Demands Following Their Attack on the U.S. Embassy

When Democrats initially launched their partisan impeachment push, they continually claimed it’s what the majority of Americans want. As time goes on and they continue to push this one-sided agenda, polling continually reveals that the majority of Americans – regardless of political party – do not want Congress to impeach and remove President Donald Trump. In fact, some lifelong Democratic voters are walking away from the party and plan to vote for Trump in 2020. The reason? They see this for what this is: a farce that’s based on hatred of the president, not based on facts or wrongdoing.

A panel of voters recently sat down with NBC News’ Dante Chinni to discuss impeachment. As the camera went around the table, each one of the people said impeachment isn’t something that they care about or hear their neighbors talk about. It’s not significant in their everyday lives.

“I don’t even care about it. It’s just noise,” Dr. Michael Wittmer, a professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Cornerstone University, explained. “Have you ever recorded a football game but found out the final score before you watched it? You just don’t even care. You know what’s going to happen. The House will vote [to approve] articles of impeachment. The Senate will probably acquit. And so, it’s already baked in. It’s not interesting.”

Cindy Timmerman, a former chamber of commerce executive, said things are “already a done deal” because we already know how both the House and Senate will vote.

“We’re not hearing people talk about it in my circle. At all,” Timmerman said. “Pretty much everyone knows where everyone else stands. You know, they’re just not interested or they don’t have the time to try to follow it.”

Chinni asked the group if people don’t care about impeachment because it’s “too complicated” to understand. The group seemed to agree that wasn’t the case.

“I think it’s fairly straightforward,” attorney Peter Smit replied. “I think a lot of people see it more as an infomercial politically and it is very different than, like, looking back on the Nixon impeachment, which was really, really grave at the time, and, by the vote, very bipartisan. And this just seems like it really is political theater.”

The truth is Democrats are so focused on “being on the right side of history” and being one of the people who “took down Trump” that they don’t care about what’s best for our nation. They would rather see their country crumble if it means Trump is no longer president. They’d rather see a nation in ruins than Americans prosperous under Trump.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Voters in the Battleground State of Michigan Describe Impeachment as ‘Political Theater’

The White House on Sunday notified House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NJ) that they would not be participating in the Committee’s impeachment hearings scheduled for Wednesday.

“As you know, this baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to Nadler.

In his letter, he blasted Nadler for giving the White House little time to respond to the letter and for scheduling the hearings “during the time that you know the President will be out of the country attending the NATO Leaders Meeting in London.”

Cipollone also suggested the hearing is a waste of time because it will focus on the “historical and constitutional basis of impeachment,” and will feature academics, not witnesses relating to Ukraine or the current impeachment inquiry.

Nadler sent another letter with a different deadline, something Cipollone said provides absolutely no details for the White House.

“Again, your letter provided no information whatsoever as to what the schedule will be, what the procedures will be, or what rights, if any, the Committee intends to afford the President,” he wrote. “In other words, you have given no information regarding your plans, set arbitrary deadlines, and then demand a response, all to create the false appearance of providing the President some rudimentary process.”

Cipollone said the White House would respond further if Nadler provided any further information.

He did, however, blast Nadler for making it seem as though he was affording Trump and his legal team any sort of due process. According to Cipollone, Nadler isn’t following past precedent, like during the Clinton impeachment saga. When the Clinton impeachment hearings took place, the president’s legal team had two-and-a-half weeks to prepare and allowed the president to have a say in a hearing date. None of those things have been done in this case, Cipollone said.

The White House Counsel slammed the Democrats for the moves they’ve made thus far, specifically House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) refusal to allow Trump to participate in closed-door hearings.

“There, Chairman Schiff attempted to concoct a false narrative through selective citation of the testimony of witnesses of his choosing, after vetting them during closed-door depositions hidden from both the President and the American public,” he wrote. “The President was not allowed to present evidence, to call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses, or to even see transcripts until weeks after testimony had been taken, and he was allowed absolutely no participation in the public hearings that followed. Further, witness requests made by Republicans were denied. In addition, certain questioning of the witnesses who did testify was censored by Democrats.”

Cipollone pointed out the clear difference between the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings and the Democrats’ current impeachment push. In the past, both parties had subpoena powers. In the Trump impeachment inquiry, only Democrats have that power and any Republican requests have been stifled. He argued that this will cause “long term institutional harm.”

The announcement comes after Nadler sent the White House a letter telling them they have until 5 p.m. EST on December 6th to let the Committee know whether or not Trump’s legal counsel will participate in the hearings. The Committee Chairman sent a similar letter to Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) letting him know he has the same deadline to send a list of witnesses to Committee Democrats to review. Although Republicans can issue subpoenas and interrogatories, Nadler has the final say in whether or not they can and will be issued.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: White House Sends Blistering Response to Nadler: No, We Aren’t Participating in Your Bogus Hearings

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Sunday told “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“No one’s testified there’s been a quid pro quo,” Jordan explained. “Everyone’s got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn’t think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn’t think anything improper or illegal happened in the call.”

The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.

“That’s the funny thing about facts. They don’t change. The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call. We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage,” he explained. “My point is that he [Zelensky] didn’t know that their aid was held up at the time of the call. And, most importantly, they didn’t do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released.”

Democrats have continually said President Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Zelensky launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. At the time, the VP was handling international relations with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration. Hunter was being paid $50,000 a month by Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, despite having no natural energy experience. Trump asked Zelensky to look into the corruption but the transcript showed there was no quid pro quo.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

The House Ethics Committee on Wednesday announced its intent to investigate freshman Congresswoman Katie Hill (D-CA) for having an extra-marital affair with a congressional staffer. The announcement was made after intimate photos of Hill were posted online without her consent.

The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a). The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.

The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee. No other public comment will be made on this matter except in accordance with Committee rules.

Two weeks ago, our friends at RedState broke news that Hill was allegedly having an affair with her Legislative Director, Graham Kelly, and a throuple relationship with a female campaign staffer, whose name has yet to be released.

Hill has repeatedly said she’s going through a divorce from her abusive husband but text messages show Hill, her husband, Kenny Heslep, and the female staffer had an ongoing relationship. The husband admits in text messages to the campaign staffer that he and Hill abused her.

According to RedState, this is the letter Hill sent out to constituents (emphasis mine):

To my family, friends, supporters and members of my community,

It pains me deeply that I have to send you this note at all, but I want you to hear from me so that I can hopefully put to rest some of the gossip, innuendo and lies that have been told in recent days.

During the final tumultuous years of my abusive marriage, I became involved in a relationship with someone on my campaign. I know that even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate, but I still allowed it to happen despite my better judgment. For that I apologize. I wish nothing but the best for her and hope everyone respects her privacy in this difficult time.

But the truth is, distributing intimate photos with the intent to publish them is a crime, and the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. I have notified Capitol Police, who are investigating it, and therefore will have no further comment on the matter.

I am going through a divorce from an abusive husband who seems determined to try to humiliate me. I am disgusted that my opponents would seek to exploit such a private matter for political gain. This coordinated effort to try to destroy me and the people close to me is despicable and will not succeed. I, like many women who have faced attacks like this before, am stronger than those who want me to be afraid.

I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view, even the false allegations of a relationship with my congressional staffer, which I have publicly denied, and I am fully and proactively cooperating with the Ethics Committee.

This smear campaign will not get in the way of the work I am doing every day to move our district and our country forward. I am truly grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from colleagues and constituents alike, and I know we will get through this together.

There is important work to do on behalf of our district and I promise to keep working as hard as I can to fight for the ideals that I committed to from day one. Out of respect for the law enforcement and the Ethics Committee, I will not have more to say on this subject until their work is concluded.

House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a) clearly states a member of Congress cannot engage in a sexual relationship with an employee:

18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.

Hill can make this out to be a smear tactic but really, she’s upset that she got caught doing something that she’s not supposed to. This has nothing to do with her politics or her being a woman. This has everything to do with her breaking a very simple, easy-to-understand rule.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: House Ethics Committee Launches Investigation Into Katie Hill’s Sexcapades With Staffers

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sat down with Texas Tribune CEO Evan Smith for a Q&A session. One of the questions that came up was very political in nature: Isn’t Pelosi worried about the Democrats losing their majority in the House in 2020, especially on the heels of her formal impeachment inquiry announcement.

“I wanna ask you, Speaker, heading into the next election cycle, do you have any anxiety at all, about anything we’re talking about, or anything we’re not talking about, impacting your ability to hold control of the House in 2020?” Smith asked, a clear reference to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

“It doesn’t matter,” she replied.

“It doesn’t matter?” he asked.

“Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

According to the Speaker, she doesn’t take any joy in moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, ABC News reported.

“This is a very sad time for our country. There is no joy in this,” she said. “We must be somber, we must be prayerful and we must pursue the facts further to make a decision as to did this violate the Constitution of the United States? Which I believe it did.”

“I’m heartbroken about it. I would just have hoped that there would be something exculpatory, something that would say, ‘This is not what it seems to be,’ but that’s not where we are right now,” she said. “I think that right now there’s a cover up of the cover up. This really goes beyond.”

Pelosi said the political risk “doesn’t matter” because the president took an oath that he needs to uphold.

“We cannot have a President of the United States undermining his oath of office. His loyalty is to his oath of office,” she explained.

She argued Trump is undermining the United States’ national security and the integrity of our elections.

“Our elections are the fundamental point of our democracy,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi sure is changing her tune. It wasn’t long ago that she refused to move forward with impeaching Trump. Now we’re suddenly at this major crossroads where election meddling took place? She announced her official impeachment inquiry before anyone knew what the transcripts of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. It’s hard for anyone to take this political charade seriously, especially when there’s absolutely zero evidence of quid pro quo.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Pelosi: It Doesn’t Matter If Dems Lose The House Over Impeachment

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!