Cookies
Classes
Cookbooks
Entertainmt
News Blog

I had some apple juice left over from making a cake and I don’t like to drink apple juice - it’s too sweet.  And because I’ve been so cold and wanting something to warm me up I decided to make soup with it.  This is a great recipe to achieve both goals:  use the juice, get warm.

Ingredients

4 Tbsps. butter

1 cup chopped onion

1 small apple (I used a Snap Dragon), peeled, cored, and coarsely chopped

2 cloves garlic, crushed

1 tsp. curry powder

1⁄4 teaspoon crushed red pepper

2 cups chicken broth

1 cup apple juice

2 cups pumpkin puree

1 cup half-and-half

1⁄4 cup maple syrup (optional)

How To Make It

*  Melt butter in a large saucepan. Add onion, apple and garlic, and saute until soft, about 5 minutes. Add the curry powder and red pepper; cook for 1 minute.

*  Stir in broth and cider and simmer, uncovered, for 15 to 20 minutes.

*  Stir in the pumpkin, cream and maple syrup; cook for 5 minutes.

*  In a food processor or blender, puree the soup in three or four batches. Return the soup to the pot and cook over low heat for 5 minutes.

No one is above the law. By the same token, no one is below the law.  

The Constitution of the United States protects everyone.  Not just Democrats.  It protects everyone.  Amongst that everyone is President Donald Trump.  The Constitution gives him the right face his accuser in court.  The alleged “whistleblower” cannot demand annonymity.

While I realize that our educational system no longer teaches our US Constitution - it is still available to read on line so there is no excuse that some people do not know what is in that Constitution.  I speak mostly of the left wing lunatic Dimwitocrats and their spokespeople - the Main Stream Media.

I wish these uneducated morons would just read theConstitution before flapping their traps.  

Today I would like them to pay special attention to the Sixth Amendment.  It sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied most of the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (The lefties might want to take time to read that one as well.)

But going back to the Sixth Amendment - let’s look at the Confrontation Clause which relates to the “common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person to prove that the statement or observation was true.” 

The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making the statements. 

Some exceptions apply to hearsay:  for example…..if the person who heard the issue on trial is “unavailable at trial” - in other words DEAD.

An as we know the issue at hand - the person reporting the hearsay (the alleged whistleblower - he is not dead.  

A few months ago this person would not have been able to report ”hearsay” evidence - but just before he came forward a change was made in the rules saying a whistleblower did not have to be the “first person.”  The new rule said a whistleblower could report anything he overheard or someone told him at the water cooler.

Wasn’t that convenient?  That the rule was changed just in time for him to make his complaint. The change was made quietly.  No announcements.  The change appeared all of a sudden on the Department of Justice website.  I find this suspicious.  Am I the only one?

Now - again for the uneducated - let’s also look at the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12.  This is a federal law that protects federal workers who report the “possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.” 

A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. And makes sure that the federal employee (1)  won’t be fired and (2) won’t have their security clearance rescinded.

There is nothing in the law about a whistleblower being guaranteed anonymity because if it did it would fly in the face of the Constitution (see above).

Some of you may recall the case of Robert MacLean who blew the whistle on the TSA when he blabbed that TSA had cut its funding for more air marshals. He was fired for reporting that. In 2009 MacLean challenged his dismissal on the grounds that "his disclosure was protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, because he reasonably believed that the leaked information disclosed a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.  MacLean - as he should have - won the case in the Supreme Court (7-2) in January 2015.

But in most cases (I think it is 98%) the whistleblower who has been fired is ruled against because can’t prove that they would not have been fired for other reasons.

So - while the whistleblower (he’s not) in the Ukraine case cannot be fired because he reported secret conversations of the President - he could be fired for other reasons.  And that is why he does not want to come forward … because he is a slime bucket liar and could never defend any of his other scurrilous actions.  This same character allegedly was transferred out of the White House in 2017 because he was caught leaking back then.  Why they did not fire him and transferred him back to CIA headquarters is beyond me.  This scum should have been booted out the door on the spot back in 2017.  I also want to know why he was still entitled to a Security Clearance.

The Trump Administration - very few of whom have been involved previously in the shady goings-on of politics - are very naive.  They think the Deep Staters are going to play by the Marquis of Queensberry Rules.  The Democrats play by the rules of terrorists, the Mafia and Mexican cartel lords.  They will kill you if they have to. (Just ask Seth Rich and Ron Brown.)

FYI again to the uneducated:  Marquis of Queensberry Rules are a code of generally accepted behavior in the sport of boxing.