‘Drain the Swamp’ Promise Drives Establishment Panic

I’m consistently asked this question by bewildered Republicans and Trump supporters: Why won’t Democrats give President Trump a chance? He was duly elected and yet the attacks began immediately. Why? There was an election and Trump won. Give him a chance.

It’s a reasonable question. And the answer is the perfect confluence of dynamics propelling this phenomena of immediate and historically intense opposition.

First, we need to understand that the response by Democrats, the media and the reactionary, organized and funded street Left, needs to be seen through the prism of why Trump was elected in the first place.

Trump’s campaign and election is a repudiation in every conceivable way of Obama’s policies, many of Bush’s policies and Congress’ game-playing. Many Americans did mediocre under Bush, and most did poorly under Obama. The reasons for which are a different topic, but they fall under the broadest umbrella of “The way Washington does things.” And the way Washington does things is to put Washington interests first. Not Americans’.

Trump tapped into those frustrations and angers at Washington, and into substantial American anxiety over the country’s direction and slow demise. The anger of Trump supporters was largely not race-based. Not immigrant-based. Obviously not gender-based.

It was Washington-based.

The swamp today

Washington is a well-oiled machine — for Washington interests.

The power structure within Washington — the most important, wealthy and powerful capitol in the world — is this: Politicians, beginning with the President and Congress; political appointees, starting with Cabinet members, then their deputies and so on; lobbyists, who are often former members of Congress and former political appointees (that’s the revolving door Trump is trying to close); and finally, the entrenched bureaucracy that makes a solid living by the tens of thousands, often accomplishing little more than self-perpetuating. The leaks damaging to Trump and appointees is coming from this final group.

The Washington metro area never suffered through the long recession and economic downturn that the rest of the country did. It never does. Because the billions of dollars — trillions, actually — just keep pouring into the Capitol.

This is the swamp that hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters chanted about at his campaign stops across the country.

When Trump was elected, he immediately set about keeping the promises he made over and over on the campaign trail. Draining would commence. That in itself is shocking, as it has long been accepted — by the media and “smart” circles, not so much the rest of America — that Republicans and Democrats alike say a lot of things during a campaign to get elected that we all know — wink, wink — they do not intend to act on.

This is the bait and switch. Clinton was never going to provide a middle class tax cut. Bush was never going to cut entitlements. Obama was never going to block gay marriage. The media knows it and is part of the act.

This Beltway acceptance of lying to the American people in “campaign mode” reflects the elite’s expectation that the masses are stupid enough to not see it during governing mode. That’s also how Washington works. But the people saw it, and found someone they believed would do what he said. The results are in. Trump is setting about the draining.

Rapid response

The establishment of both parties was rocked on their keisters by Trump’s election. His campaign mode is the same as his governing mode in terms of doing what he said he would. His quick actions on promises to start undoing the Washington that does not work for most Americans was like poking a mama grizzly in her den with her cubs.

Reaction was swift, from demonstrations without to leaks from within. The small minority of Republicans publicly opposing Trump gave cover to Democrats to go to unexplored extremes, beyond the normal political oppositions all presidents naturally face from the opposing party.

Because of Trump’s own careless linguistic excesses and thin skin, he provides continual fodder for the masses of the angry Left that was being used by the organized, funded elements of the Left.

Remember, these were people who were sure they were going to get the first woman president and losing to such an upstart apple cart over-turner was enraging. The demonstration organizers and funders are able to take that anger and frustration of the Left and use it to leverage their existing infrastructure of protesting machines. While many people in the demonstrations are sincerely upset, they are being used by the Left establishment.

So this impressive array came together: The Democrat establishment, just a small but cover-providing portion of the Republican establishment, the media establishment that Trump continues to engage head-on like no one else, the entrenched bureaucratic establishment (including the intelligence agencies) and ancillary establishments of lobbyists, experts, etc. They aligned in common cause against the man that most seems to threatened the system that has empowered and enriched them.

Trump is a highly imperfect vehicle for this undertaking, but this same array would have come together against any candidate who truly meant to “drain the swamp.” Trump just makes it a little easier with his public carelessness.

If Trump is allowed to do what he says he wants to do, it becomes the first loosening of the plug at the bottom of the swamp. A lot of political oxes will be gored, power and influence will be lost and cozy D.C. establishments on the Left and Right will be up-ended.

They won’t wait to see how he does because it is not in their best interests to do so, and they seem to have all the components in place to not wait.

Seismic change: Tuesday’s address to Congress

Key phrase being “seem to.”

This is vital, because Trump presented a dramatically different image of himself when he address the Joint Session of Congress Tuesday night — a State of the Union for a newly elected president. In it, Trump laid out a vision for the country that was not sifted through the heavy filter of media bias and negativity.

Trump was presidential, controlled, focused on his vision and agenda, compassionate and patriotic. He hit 80 percent conservative notes, 20 percent populist notes. The reviews even in the media were that Trump not only gave a great speech — because expectations are low with him on giving speeches — but a well above-average speech for any State of the Union or equivalent. It was a real effort at post-partisanship (to which the Democrats in attendance gave the metaphorical middle finger) and a forceful vision of a renewed America.

Even his fiercest enemies, such as Van Jones, said: “He became President of the United States in that moment, period.”

So if Trump not only does exactly what he promised to do in terms of the broadest “drain the swamp” actions, but does it with more of the gravitas expected of the office, then the Washington establishment will have two options: dig in deeper and ratchet up or give up and surrender.

There is no reason to think they will easily surrender their power, influence and wealth.


Moral Clarity: Get the Feds Out of Bathrooms

A New Era: Trump vs. Obama, White House vs. Shadow White House

10 Stunning But Quickly Forgotten Obama Comments

Time for a Legislative Override of Activist Courts

Illegal Immigration Drives Income Inequality

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.


Defending Jeff Sessions: Democrats need to stop the overreach

My advice to Democrats, regarding their demand for the head of Attorney General Jeff Sessions: turn off MSNBC and CNN, and calmly read the transcripts of the remarks that have been made.

In Sessions’ Senate confirmation hearing, former Saturday Night Live comedy star Al Franken referred to scurrilous allegations being peddled around Washington by a former British intelligence operative, about Donald Trump’s alleged “ties” to Russia, including secret meetings between Trump campaign officials and Kremlin emissaries.

Senator Franken mentioned alleged meetings and contacts where three Trump campaign staffers were supposed to have travelled to Europe for secret meetings with Putin emissaries. Then he asked Senator Sessions if he was aware of contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians. That is when Sessions volunteered that he had appeared as a campaign surrogate, and hadn’t had meetings with the Russians.

It’s very clear that Sessions was referring to the allegations Franken and others had been making about Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Michael Cohen.

The former British intelligence operative, whose “investigation” was bought and paid for by the Democrat National Committee, claimed that Trump lawyer Cohen had met with Russian agents in Prague. Cohen subsequently presented his passport to his boss to show he had never left the country during that period.

Democrats hate Jeff Sessions because he is tough, he is determined, and he is fair-minded.

They know he will change the way the Department of Justice has done business over the past eight years.

For example, he is likely to reinvigorate DoJ investigations into voter fraud, and to drop politically-motivated investigations launched by his predecessor. Example: just this week, the DoJ dropped its long-standing lawsuit against Texas over its voter ID law.

Attorney General Sessions is also likely to cut off a political slush fund administered by the Department of Justice that funnelled an estimated $3 billion to left-wing activist organizations.

Washington is nothing if it is not about the money, and whose ox gets gored. After taking out LTG Michael Flynn, they smell blood in the waters.

Last week, Democrat activists at CNN made an attempt to smear White House advisor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, creating a story, made up of whole cloth, that somehow Gorka was a closet anti-Semite.

What they really feared, of course, was Dr. Gorka’s outspoken support for defeating radical Islamic terrorism and winning the war of ideas against the ideology motivating the jihadis who want to kill us and destroy our way of life.

When that failed, they looked for fresh meat.

The attack on Attorney General Sessions is the continuation of a Democrat party effort to undermine the Trump administration with allegations of untoward Russian influence.

In addition to the scurrilous dossier from the former MI6 operative, which has been dismissed as total fantasy by the FBI, former Obama administration and Clinton campaign operatives continue to make dark allegations that somehow the Russians “have something” on Donald Trump and could be subjecting him to blackmail.

One player in these sordid efforts at disinformation is former Obama Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas.

Ms. Farkas, who was a deputy assistant secretary of defense handling Russia and Ukrainian issues, resigned in September 2015 because she grew frustrated with President Obama’s handling of the Russian annexation of Crimea and its occupation of Eastern Ukraine.

So she joined the Hillary Clinton campaign as an advisor, noting that Mrs. Clinton “got it” on Russia.

(Exactly why anyone thought Mrs. Clinton would get tough on Russia when she approved the sell-off of America’s uranium deposits to Kremlin interests while Secretary of State, then sat back as the beneficiaries of those deals funnelled over $100 million into the Clinton Foundation coffers, continues to baffle me).

Ms. Farkas has appeared repeatedly in media outlets and op-ed pieces, peddling her bill of goods questioning whether Donald Trump has been “compromised” by Russia.

Last month, she called for an independent investigation into Trump administration ties to Russia in mid-February 2017, saying the core question was, “Are you susceptible to blackmail from a foreign entity or individual?”

On Wednesday night, she told MSNBC host Brian Williams that she was part of an effort, described by the New York Times, to “preserve” classified intelligence about the alleged Trump-Russia ties, by making sure it was sent to Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Funny how MSNBC consistently introduces her as a Russia expert and former Pentagon official, but fails to mention that she was a Hillary Clinton campaign advisor.

She launched her Russia smear of Donald Trump in an April 2016 column in Politico, titled: “Trump and Putin: Two Liars Separated at Birth?” Once again, a left-wing media outlet failed to disclose her relationship to the Clinton campaign.

It should be obvious to any disinterested observer that we are witnessing a political witch-hunt, not an actual investigation.,

The Democrats are grasping at straws, and I believe they will soon regret their overreach.


Sen: 30 Dems Met With Russian Ambassador On Iran Deal | The Daily Caller

How Soros Money Is Corrupting Politics in This Small European Nation

Government Watchdog Questions Sessions’ Need for Recusal From Russian Probe

Conservative Leaders Call on Trump to Protect Religious Freedom

These Cases Prove the Left Is Wrong to Dismiss Voter Fraud

EDITORS NOTE: This column with featured image originally appeared in The Hill. It is reprinted with permission.

media madness

The media’s descent into partisan madness

The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

The press has been having a field day with Donald Trump since before his inauguration, magnifying every misstep, exploiting every controversy, and packaging its indignation as straight news in the apparent belief that its job is to delegitimize his presidency.  Granted, Mr. Trump’s unfiltered use of twitter, penchant for audacious statements, and tendency to discredit rather than dialogue have provided his critics with plenty of ammunition; but the one constant seems to be the media’s refusal to forgive any miscues or consider reasonable interpretations for any of his statements or policies.  Its relentless treatment of Trump contrasts with the fawning sycophancy it displayed during the administration of his predecessor, who was spared from any probing scrutiny or objective criticism.

Even before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, mainstream reporters strained to brand his incoming administration as bigoted and racist.  They attempted, for example, to characterize his Chief White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, as an anti-Semite – despite Bannon’s public record of support for Israel and opposition to anti-Jewish boycotts.  Though some progressive Jewish organizations initially echoed these sentiments, they retracted their comments after prominent liberals like Alan Dershowitz stated there was nothing in Bannon’s background to suggest he bore any animosity towards Jews or Israel

If mainstream journalists and commentators were honestly troubled by the scourge of anti-Semitism after Trump’s election, one must wonder why they expressed no concern during Mr. Obama’s eight years in office.  Why did they ignore Obama’s longstanding relationships with Israel bashers and progressive anti-Semites?  Where was their outrage over the Jew-hatred on display in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week movements?  Or the left’s use of repugnant stereotypes to demonize Israel and her supporters?  Or the anti-Jewish rhetoric and intimidation that have become commonplace on North American college campuses?

The media’s faux indignation over allegations of anti-Semitism was matched only by its fatuous efforts to characterize Trump as a fascist by rewriting history.  More than a few liberal pundits have likened Trump and his supporters to Nazis, claiming that just like Hitler, Trump was elected by a radical and extreme electorate.  Such comparisons show profound ignorance, however, in that (a) Hitler was never elected to office (he was appointed chancellor after losing the only election he ever ran), and (b) many of Trump’s views are not so different from the mainstream, as indicated by a number public opinion polls.

Ironically, it was American progressives who viewed fascism favorably in the 1930s because of their shared affinity for secular statism and social engineering.

The press represents itself as the innocent victim of a Trump vendetta and counts on his outrageousness to validate the narrative of its victimhood.  Though he might be combative, it does not mean his distrust of the media is unwarranted – particularly given its role in fomenting hysteria against him and blurring the line between editorial and fact.  The coverage regarding his first executive order imposing a temporary travel ban was indicative of reporters who engage in political activism instead of objective reportage.

On January 27, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (since blocked in court), which would have imposed a ninety-day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, seven high-terror nations as identified by the Obama administration.  Hysterical media critics dubbed it a “Muslim ban” and proclaimed it unlawful, though the President has both constitutional and statutory authority to promulgate such orders, and extraterritorial foreign nationals have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The executive order could not have effectuated a Muslim ban as media reports claimed, however, because it applied to only seven out of fifty-seven Muslim nations.  The litmus test for its application was not religion or ethnicity, but origination from any of the seven nations identified.  Nevertheless, opponents claimed the ban’s intent was to target Islam, with some scaremongers characterizing it as the first step toward confining Muslims to internment camps.  Such claims were outrageous, particularly considering the Obama administration imposed a six-month travel ban with the approval of Congressional Democrats in 2011.  Where were the protests then?

Though the rollout of Executive Order 13769 was flawed and its scope too broad (it would have included resident aliens with green cards), its purpose was to prevent terrorism and protect the homeland – priorities that are clearly within the president’s purview.  However, Trump’s naysayers engaged in disinformation when they said he had no authority to sign the order or that no other president had ever done so.

Taking a page from Obama’s playbook, some opponents of the travel ban attempted to obfuscate the connection between terrorism and radical Islam and minimized the impact of terrorist attacks on American soil.  Although Press Secretary Sean Spicer was excoriated for claiming that terrorism in the U.S. has been underreported, he had a valid point considering the media’s history of calling it workplace violence, domestic assault, or generic extremism.

Over the past few years, journalists have described the Orlando massacre as an anti-gay hate crime and the San Bernardino and Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence.  They labeled beheadings and murders of Coptic Christians, apostate Muslims, and Jews in Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas and Massachusetts as criminal assaults, workplace violence, or violent extremism; and they continue to describe honor killings of Muslim women as domestic crimes.  Though Obama’s policy of apologetics is fading in the rearview, the media continues to call terrorism anything but what it is.

Establishment reporters are upset over Mr. Trump’s treatment of the White House media corps and his refusal to follow traditional press conference protocol, and they claim he threatens free speech with his confrontational demeanor and preoccupation with fake news.  However, Trump is not the first president to have a contentious relationship with the media; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were as combative with the press in their time as Trump is today.

And a president’s challenge to media credibility is not the same as government restraint of speech.  Regardless of how Trump questions the media’s excesses or impugns its veracity, he is not restricting reporters from writing what they want.  Consequently, he is trampling nobody’s First Amendment rights.

Those who claim otherwise sounded no alarm when Obama marginalized conservative outlets, especially Fox News, or when his Justice Department threatened reporters with prosecution.  The use of government offices during his administration to monitor and intimidate the press really did implicate the First Amendment.

None of this should be surprising given the evolution of journalism since the 1960s, when reporters began to inject personal sensibilities into the news and infuse their reporting with a political point of view.  The truth is that journalism was never completely objective because writers have always had opinions.  Still, reporters traditionally strove to suspend their own subjectivity.  With the advent of the “New Journalism,” however, it became acceptable to displace objectivity with literary artifice.  Though this trend was soon jettisoned as an acceptable journalistic standard, it left behind a legacy of editorial tolerance for writers whose reporting reflected their political views – particularly when they promoted liberal politicians, advocated progressive policies, or disparaged Israel.

Through the First Amendment, America’s founding fathers envisioned a free citizen press that would be independent of government.  They did not anticipate a factional media that would actively promote some administrations and undermine others.  The media’s embarrassingly soft coverage of the Obama White House and adversarial treatment of Trump’s administration show the polar extremes of its partisan dysfunction.

There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the president and reporting his gaffes, or with publishing opinion and commentary on the editorial page.  Straight news, however, should be reported without venom or spleen.  The media failed in its constitutional mission by not covering Obama’s administration critically, and continues to fail as it behaves like an opposition party against Trump.

Reporters should never seek to placate their subjects, but neither should they present tendentious advocacy as hard news or neutral analysis.  When public opinion surveys show that many people find Mr. Trump’s tweets more credible sources of information than traditional news outlets, the media should realize it has a problem and correct its behavior accordingly – for the proper functioning of society if not for the sake of its own integrity.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.

democrat women where white

Democrats Wear White at State of Union: Remember when Democrats wore white before?

House Democratic women are wearing white — a symbol of women’s suffrage — to Trump’s speech” 

Democratic women in Congress made a bold statement at President Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday night by wearing white, a symbol of the suffragist movement.

The effort was led by Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), chair of the House Democratic Women’s Working Group. That working group includes all 66 Democratic women members and delegates of the US House of Representatives, many of whom participated in the action.

“We wear white to unite against any attempts by the Trump administration to roll back the incredible progress women have made in the last century, and we will continue to support the advancement of all women,” Frankel said in a statement. “We will not go back.”

So what exactly are these women protesting? These women in white already have the right to vote, not only in elections but on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Perhaps they should help President Trump do some of the things he said during his address to the United States Congress.

President Trump began his remarks with a commitment to civil rights:

And citizens of America, tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of black history month, we are reminded of our nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains to be done. Recent threats — Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.

President Trump stated during his Remarks to Congress that he set up a council with the Prime Minister of Canada to focus on women entrepreneurs. President Trump emphatically stated:

And with the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a counsel with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.

He also talked about the plight of mothers living in inter-cities and the education of children who live there. President Trump drew attention to one young woman who fought against a broken public education system and succeeded despite the odds against her. The President recognized Denisha Merriweather with these words:

Joining us tonight in the gallery is a remarkable woman, Denisha Merriweather. As a young girl, Denisha struggled in school and failed third grade twice. But then she was able to enroll in a private center for learning, great learning center, with the help of a tax credit, and a scholarship program. Today, she is the first in her family to graduate, not just from high school, but from college. Later this year, she will get her master’s degree in social work. We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.

President Trump pointed out the violence that harms women and children stating:

But to break the cycle of poverty, we must also break the cycle of violence.

The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century. In Chicago, more than 4,000 people were shot last year alone –- and the murder rate so far this year has been even higher. This is not acceptable in our society. Every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community, to attend a great school, and to have access to a high-paying job.

Perhaps it is time for Democrats in general, and women who are Democrats and members of Congress to work with President Trump. Wearing white is not the answer. This act creates division when unity is needed to make America great, again.

Watch President Trump’s full speech to the America people:


What Trump Got Right in His Speech to Congress

Trump Outlines Agenda for ‘New Chapter of American Greatness’

Rep. Maxine Waters Is Boycotting Trump’s Speech

On Education, the Left Protects a Miserable Status Quo


According to Wikipedia:

Suffragist is a more general term for members of the suffrage movement. The term “suffragette” is particularly associated with activists in the British Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, who were influenced by Russian methods of protest such as hunger strikes. The WSPU It was best known for hunger strikes (and forced feeding), for breaking windows in prominent buildings, and for night-time arson of unoccupied houses and churches.

In the United State the suffragette movement was a feminist movement. According to Wikipedia:

Women’s suffrage in the United States, the legal right of women to vote in that country, was established over the course of several decades, first in various states and localities, sometimes on a limited basis, and then nationally in 1920.

ds450 voting system

Most Advanced Secure and Reliable Voting System Certified

OMAHA, Neb. /PRNewswire/ — Election Systems & Software (ES&S), designs, builds and sells voting systems that adhere to current industry standards of security as a part of their core mission. With the federal approval of EVS 5220, ES&S is proud to announce the certification of the industry’s NEWEST complex end-to-end voting solution. The certification includes the introduction of the most advanced security and reliability modules within its software package along with the DS450® high-throughput scanner and tabulator. ES&S developed this new tabulation equipment to meet the needs of jurisdictions requiring high-speed scanning with a smaller footprint and increased affordability.

This new tabulator provides:

  • High-speed scanning of ballots and sorting the tabulated ballots into output bins seamlessly
  • Ballot tracking features, saving operators time and effort by enabling ballot management to occur
  • Onscreen messages and guiding lights to direct the operator through the ballot scanning process

Standard in all ES&S tabulators, the DS450 comes equipped with patented IMR™ and PTRAC™ technology, increasing the accuracy of tabulation and decreasing the need for manual review.

Other enhancements in ES&S’ newest certification include the ExpressVote® Universal Voting System supporting third-party activation barcodes. Jurisdictions that utilize electronic pollbooks can print activation barcodes so the voter can start their voting session without assistance. ES&S’ popular ExpressVote technology also received a nice feature upgrade. Officials can easily configure the screen layout to display two columns of candidates, all thanks to enhancements that extend to the Electionware® Election Management System.

“One of the things I’m most proud of is our company’s commitment to building solutions our customers want. The DS450 alongside other products in our visionary voting suite are the direct result of customers expressing a need and ES&S finding a way to fulfill it,” stated Matt Nelson, Senior Vice President, Corporate Sales for ES&S. “The certification of our EVS 5220 brings to market real solutions for real world elections.”

To learn more about the full ES&S suite of voting solutions, please visit

ess logoABOUT ES&S:

Election Systems & Software’s visionary approach to election equipment, software and solutions has helped improve the voting experience throughout North America for nearly 40 years. We are committed to developing integrated voting solutions that improve the marketplace and are flexible enough to meet multiple jurisdictions’ needs and voter preferences. Learn more about ES&S at and on Facebook at

trump wrapped in us flag

VIDEO: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. thinks President Trump ‘can be the greatest president in history’

CNN’s Don Lemon started by asking Robert f. Kennedy Jr. how he felt about comparisons between the Trump family and the Kennedy’s. Of course Lemon assumed that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would shoot down that line of thinking down.

Lemon wasn’t prepared for what came next.

“Well I think Donald Trump can be any kind of president he wants. He has this extraordinary opportunity because he’s coming into office less burdened by obligation than probably any president in our history, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson,” Robert f. Kennedy Jr. said.

“Both of them, Jackson and Trump, came in, people were sickened, people were outraged, and he became, unless you were an American Indian, a very good president at defending the country against corporate power, and really democratizing American in many ways.

“He said to Leonardo di Caprio that he wants to be the next Teddy Roosevelt, and he can easily do that.“

Lemon was in shock at this point, and wasn’t sure how to fill the final seconds of the interview. He stumbled and asked a question that didn’t even make sense: “Do you think the new Kennedys, do you think that’s a fair competition?”

“Like I said, I think he can be any kind of president he wants, I think he can be the greatest president in history,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said.

A liberal environmental lawyer praising Trump? And he’s a top Democrat and a Kennedy? It doesn’t get any worse for CNN and liberals.

RELATED ARTICLE: Jacksonian Ideas That Would Make America Great Again

organizing for action logo

VIDEO: Organizing for Action — Obama’s Shadow Government

New York Post contributor Paul Sperry joined Lou Dobbs on Wednesday night to discuss Barack Obama’s shadow government organization to sabotage President Trump. Sperry says Obama has trained tens of thousands of organizers already in Alinsky tactics at his boot camps.


HILARIOUS Chart Sums Up How Democrats Debate

L.A.R.K. program proposed for care of detained terrorists……

church militant

VIDEO: Church Militants are Tearing Down the Wall between Church and State

President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists wrote:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson’s letter has been interpreted to mean the Church has no role in government, which is a lie.

Jefferson was in fact saying the government has no role in dictating to the Church. In his letter he quoted the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stating that Congress, the Courts nor the Executive Branch should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Jefferson understood that the newly formed United States of America was a Christian nation. The Baptists were rightly concerned that the fledgling government would establish a national Church, as had many of the original colonies at that time, thereby making Baptists second class citizens and force them to bow down to a government established religion, as was the case in England.

As President Jefferson wrote, “I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”


Michael Voris, founder of The Church Militant

There is a group that intends to place religion at its proper place in America.

A Christian religion, upon which this nation was founded. That group was founded in 2008 by Michael Voris, who has compared President Trump with Constantine, the Roman emperor whom he says was “not a moral man,” but who saw it desirable to end the persecution of Christians. He was a human vessel who elevated Catholicism to the state religion.

Is Voris’ goal to make Catholicism our state religion? Answer: No!

Voris, founder of The Church Militant, is interested in elevating Judeo-Christian beliefs as the only way to “restore to man all his natural rights.” Mankind and leaders serve God, not themselves. Voris sees a cultural war in America and is dedicated to do something about it. Voris believes Americans have been living in a “secular dictatorship,” and solid moral principles are expressed in Catholicism “more perfectly than any other” source.

These moral principles are best expressed in the Ten Commandments,  which are listed twice in the Hebrew Bible, first at Exodus 20:1–17, and then at Deuteronomy 5:6–21. If one lives by these Ten Commandments then Americans will live under the “protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man” as President Jefferson wrote.

The Church Militant mission statement reads:

The Holy Catholic Church, the Universal Church, is divided into three supernatural missions:

  • The Church Militant
  • The Church Suffering
  • The Church Triumphant

The Church Suffering comprises the souls of the righteous suffering in purgatory as they are purified for Heaven.
The Church Triumphant comprises the souls of the Saints who have been glorified in Heaven.
The Church Militant comprises the souls on Earth engaged in battle against the forces evil.

The Church Militant (“Ecclesia Militans”) is the Christian militia. The Church Militant does battle against sin, the devil and the demonic “rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

Recently the Detroit Free Press and other media outlets, including the Drudge Report, have elevated interest in Voris and The Church Militant. Why? Because Voris and The Church Militant are having an impact and will have a greater impact under a Trump administration. America is in a cultural war, a war against good versus evil. This has been the case in human history. Evil has killed hundreds of millions of people and destroys men’s souls.

Here is Michael Voris’ take on Church Militants new found media attention and a growing love of truth: aims to win the cultural war “by bringing Jesus Christ to the internet through the use of digital media.”

What the secular dictators missed during the Presidential election was in part the rise of Church Militants in America.


How a right-wing Ferndale fringe group is building a multimedia empire – Detroit Free Press

A look inside the Church Militant headquarters

Our Miserable 21st Century: From work to income to health to social mobility, the year 2000 marked the beginning of what has become a distressing era for the United States

perez ellison

IDENTITY POLITICS: New DNC Chair a Latino Racist, Deputy-Chair a Black/Islamic Supremacist?

Obama’s former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was narrowly elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Perez then quickly moved to appoint Representative Keith Ellison (D-MI) as his deputy-Chairman. Ellison said, “It’s my honor to serve this party under the chairmanship of Tom Perez.”

Perez was a staunch Hillary supporter while Ellison’s bid for the DNC chairmanship was supported by Bernie Sanders. Why is this important?

Kevin Gosztola in a column titled “Labor Secretary Advised Clinton To Cast Sanders As Candidate Of Whites To Turn Off Minorities” reported:

Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who has spent a considerable amount of time boosting Hillary Clinton’s campaign, offered advice in February on how to change the narrative so people of color were discouraged from supporting Bernie Sanders.

The advice was sent in an email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, which was published as part of a third batch of emails released by WikiLeaks.

“Nevada is an opportunity to fight back on so many levels,” Perez argued. “First, the current storyline is that she does not connect well with young voters. Given that Nevada is far more demographically representative of America, I am confident that HRC can do well with all African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans (don’t forget the sizeable [sic] population of Asian Americans in Nevada, including Filipinos.).”

Perez continued, “Emmy and the team have a good plan to attract all minority voters. When we do well there, then the narrative changes from Bernie kicks ass among young voters to Bernie does well only among young white liberals—that is a different story and a perfect lead in to South Carolina, where once again, we can work to attract young voters of color. So I think Nevada is a real opportunity, and I would strongly urge HRC to get out there within a couple days of [New Hampshire].”

Read more…

Here are links to emails from Perez to John Podesta published by Wikileaks.

 in his February 21st, 2017 Washington Times column “Support of Ellison for DNC chief the next test of Sanders’ movement” wrote:

The Kansas Democratic Party was searching for a big name to headline its annual dinner and asked the candidates running to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee for help landing a guest.

Rep. Keith Ellison responded with the sexiest of offers: He could get them Sen. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who lit the party on fire with his presidential bid last year.

Mr. Sanders has gone all in for Mr. Ellison, even changing his travel plans to make the Kansas dinner, state party officials said.

He was also one of Mr. Ellison’s early backers, helping establish the Minnesotan as the pick of anti-establishment types in the party’s liberal wing and in the race for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship.

Some Democrats are privately wondering what Mr. Sanders will get in return for his efforts behind Mr. Ellison, one of two front-runners in a surprisingly large field of candidates for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

In a column titled “Van Jones Says Muslim Keith Ellison Is Future of the Democratic Party,” published in PJ Media on January 1, 2017 Tyler O’Neil reported:

On CNN, liberal activist Anthony Kapel “Van” Jones said that “the Clinton days are over” in the Democratic Party, and pointed to two emerging leaders as the future of a more progressive political party focused on identity politics. Naturally, he chose two racial minority members of Congress — and the extremely controversial first Muslim congressman.

“You have to understand, I think that the Clinton days are over,” Jones told CNN’s Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “This idea that we’re going to be this moderate party … those days are over.” Jones called for a new generation of Democrat leadership, touting California Attorney General Kamala Harris (an anti-free speech activist) and Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress and a candidate for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship.

“I think that Keith Ellison is very important because he is somebody who represents the progressive wing of the party,” Jones declared. “On thing that happened, when Hillary Clinton had a chance to make a VP pick, she didn’t pick someone from the progressive wing, which made it much harder to heal the wounds with the [Bernie] Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing. Keith Ellison represents that wing very, very well.” [Emphasis added]

In the column “Muslim Supremicist Rep. Keith Ellison is future of Democratic Party” Robert Spencer writes:

Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

This is today’s Democratic Party.

Ellison at a 1992 protest said that “black people don’t live in a democracy” and “don’t have an obligation” to obey the government. So is that not black supremacism?

With their holding the reigns of power in the Democrat Party, the views of Perez and Ellison are now mainstream Democrat ideology and policy. Win at all costs, denigrate your opponent and promote racism and black supremacy as the new-normal.

This the long awaited creating of the Red/Green alliance in the Democratic National Committee. The Marxists joined at the hip with the Islamists. The Democrat Party is now the party of Marx, Mohammed, Manning and Meryl.

This is the party of identity politics.


New DNC Chair Perez Did Not Think Whites Should Have Equal “Voting Rights” – TruthFeed

Learn more about how dangerous Tom Perez will be as head of the DNC

Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march | New York Post

Democrat Party and the Media are going Nucking Futs

New Democrat Party: The Red–Green–Rainbow Troika

The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed

Minnesota Democrat Party candidate: ‘The Islamic State isn’t necessarily evil’

wayne lapierre cpac 2017

VIDEO: Wayne LaPierre at CPAC 2017

NRA Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre addressed the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. “Have we ever seen such anger in this country,” asked the NRA chief, referring to the enraged leftist movement. He said many of these people hate everything that America stands for and they’re willing to engage in criminal violence to get what they want.

These are dangerous times, warned LaPierre, who declared that we’re also under siege from the national media machine. Everything they do, he pointed out, is intended to purposely and maliciously destroy the Trump presidency.

But when Americans voted last November, the NRA vowed to stand by Donald Trump’s side and LaPierre promised that gun owners across the country will fight the violent left and will not be defeated. “Terror knows no more ferocious foe than freedom in the hands of ‘We the people.’

Businessman Donald Trump and actress Omarosa Manigault attend the 'All-Star Celebrity Apprentice' red carpet event at Trump Tower on April 1, 2013 in New York City.

Pictured: Donald Trump and Omarosa Manigault
Ref: SPL1055487  010413  
Picture by: Splash News

Splash News and Pictures
Los Angeles:	310-821-2666
New York:	212-619-2666
London:	870-934-2666

Why Is President Trump’s Only Senior Black Staffer a Democrat?

Republicans haven’t shown any serious efforts of making Blacks an integral part of their party since the Nixon Administration of the 60s and 70s.

As former Nixon speechwriter, Pat Buchanan stated in one of his columns, “In 1956, as vice president, Nixon went to Harlem to declare, “America can’t afford the cost of segregation.” The following year, Nixon got a personal letter from Dr. King thanking him for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Nixon supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968.

During Nixon’s presidency, the civil rights enforcement budget rose 800 percent. Record numbers of Blacks were appointed to federal office. An Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created. SBA loans to minorities soared 1,000 percent. Aid to Black colleges doubled.”


Omarosa Manigault

Nixon surrounded himself with “credible” Blacks like Bob Brown and baseball legend, Jackie Robinson. President Trump seems to be satisfied with surrounding himself with Black Democrats like Omarosa Manigault, who have absolutely no standing in the Black community, nor any institutional knowledge of Black Republicans or the Republican Party.

President Trump, would you hire a carpenter to do electrical work on one of your development projects? Would you ask NBA legend Michael Jordan to diagnose your sick child’s medical condition? Would you ask your chauffer to pilot your plane?

The only obvious answer to each of the above questions is, “Hell No!”

So, why then, Mr. President, do you think it is okay to hire a liberal, Black Democrat to be the highest-ranking Black staffer in your White House?

President Trump, you and your staffers have met with more liberal Blacks than Black Republicans who have been working in the trenches for the party.

We get it. Manigault is an alumna of your hugely successful, reality show franchise. You have a personal relationship with her. You trust her. I say, so what. I have a personal relationship with my physician, but I don’t go to him for tax advice.

President Trump, you must make a decision. If your goal is to build the Republican Party into a quasi-Independent Party, then having Manigault around makes sense, but if your goal is to build the Republican Party relative to the Black community, then your decision doesn’t make any sense. You have told the American people incessantly that you like to hire “very successful” people, but it seems when it comes to the Black community you have a lower standard.

President Trump, how can you have a Black History event in the White House with not one Black media outlet being invited? Why were a majority of the Black attendees Democrats?

If you had one of your tax lawyers or your personal physician doing the masonry work or laying the rebar on one of your construction sites, you would be sued for gross negligence.

But, yet you seem to be okay with having a Black Democrat in your White House, who totally ignores the very people who were part of getting you elected. And I am not referring to your so-called diversity council; they were a joke.

You received less than 10 percent of the Black vote and those votes came from Black Republicans who thought you would shake up the party establishment and finally pay attention to those who have been Black Republicans for decades not fair-weather Republicans or recently converted Democrats.
You don’t understand how offensive that is to Black Republicans all across the country, who have put their blood, sweat, and tears into getting more Blacks in the Republican Party. Manigault has no idea who the real, credible Black Republicans are.

When your Chief of Staff attempted to rein Manigault in last month, she pretty much cursed him out and when he came to you on this matter, supposedly you said, “leave her alone.”

Mr. President, there are only four Blacks on the RNC: Ada Fisher (North Carolina), Glen McCall (South Carolina), Robin Armstrong(Texas), and James Evans (Utah). They have little to no contact with you or your administration. How is that even possible when they are basically members of the party’s board of directors?

In 2014, Manigault tweeted, “I’m Ready for Hillary. Are you? #Hillary2016.” On April 12, 2015, she tweeted, “So proud to know her and support her! Run Hillary Run! #HisStoryisNowHerStory!”

Two months later you make your famous announcement to run for president and all of a sudden she switches over to you. Charlatans have their place in politics, but not if you want to get a significant level of Black support.

President Trump, you say you are a man of results and one who is loyal. So, then can you please explain to me why you and your staff are bending over backwards to meet with Blacks who have called you a racist, incompetent, and stupid just to name a few?

When will you show your loyalty to “real” Black Republicans who have party credentials, as well as know what the hell they are doing when it comes to politics?

Come on Mr. President, what the hell do you have to lose?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

trump black background

A New Era: Trump vs. Obama, White House vs. Shadow White House

This is a new era for our country. The election never ended. And apparently never will. And that seems to be the plan.

We have a new president, Donald Trump, who is unlike any president we’ve had in modern times. And we have a former president, Barak Obama, acting unlike any president we’ve had in modern history or perhaps ever.

It’s creating a dynamic that is both divisive and subversive, generating fissures in families, communities, organizations and the nation. It portends deep dangers for the country. But one thing it is most definitely not, is spontaneous.

Trump’s methodologies are well chronicled — very well chronicled — by the media. From his incautious verbal bombast and tweets to his reasonable policies and appointments reflecting his winning campaign.

But the other side is less well known, and undoubtedly will remain so for consumers of the mainstream media. But the veil was pulled back recently in a New York Post article.

The bottom line is that former President Obama maintained his campaign organization, now called Organizing for America OFA, throughout his second term and is now running it from a D.C. office a short distance from the White House. It is funded by George Soros-backed organizations and others, has literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and Obama said in December that he plans to keep fighting for his agenda after he was out of office.

This is pre-planned and purposeful.

The only question is how many of the demonstrations around the country, from street protests, to interstate blockages, to school blockades to airport protests, to riots were organized by Obama’s OFA? Were they doing so while he was still President? And how many of the leaks pouring out of the State Department and other federal bureaucracies are coordinated or encouraged by Obama’s OFA?

One thing we definitely know is that the mainstream media is unlikely to ever dig into any of this. When it comes to Obama wrongdoings, they are stunningly disinterested. There are no Woodward and Bernsteins digging into this when the media can just focus on Trump tweets.

What we know

This is hard to say, but a very realistic conclusion can be arrived at that Barak Obama is actively working to undermine this country, at least as far as being the world’s powerhouse.

We know that because he himself said that the world is a better place if America is not the lone superpower. We know that because there is no other way to explain “fundamentally transforming” the greatest nation on earth, maybe ever, without making it weaker or lesser. Fundamentally transforming would not make it incrementally better, by definition. We know this because of his actions from preemptively taking our defensive shield out of Eastern Europe while getting nothing in return from Russia, to doubling the national debt to a staggering $20 trillion, to severely weakening the military through funding starvation.

Oh the list of evidences goes on.

But the conclusion wrapped up with the new revelations about OFA explains so much of what we’ve been seeing. Obama never disbanded his huge political organization — long before Trump was on the scene. The realistic conclusion? Obama planned to do this no matter which Republican was elected.

It is a planned, funded effort to undermine a duly elected president. This is actually a war — non-shooting war and may it stay that way — but an all-out war against a new administration. This is *not* how we have handled our presidential transitions before. You want permanent divisiveness? This is how you get it. You want a weaker America? This is how you get it.

And Barak Obama has given us every indication to conclude that is what he wants.

The evidence piles up

Really, once you begin piling up the evidence that is sitting out there in public, the case is surprisingly strong:

  • Obama said there is nothing more exceptional about America than any other country. If you are a Frenchman, you think France is exceptional, and so on. So in his eyes, America is not exceptional.
  • Obama said he wanted to “fundamentally transform” America (when it was already the greatest nation.) He has done that and we are worse off. That strongly suggests intent.
  • Obama said the world is better if America is weaker, if we are not the only super power. He believes that a tension of two or more super powers maintains peace, such as the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine with the Soviet Union.
  • Obama told the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” This came after Islamists slaughtered 3,000 American civilians on 9-11, and while around the world Islamists are slaughtering those who slander the prophet and everyone else not on their side.
  • Obama created a gateway for nukes and terrorist funding to Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States, through the Iran nuclear agreement. That was never signed by Iran or approved by the United States, but Obama sent the Mullahs $400 million in cash on an airplane as part of their unfrozen assets.
  • Obama actively distanced us from our strongest allies in England and Israel, right from the start of his administration.
  • Obama doubled the national debt to about $20 trillion, hampering us now and putting us in grave danger down the road. This is a financial weight our children will have to carry and virtually all of which went to transfer payments. Disastrous. And on purpose.
  • Obama influences have been subversives and anti-Americans such as Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright among others. Ayers was a terrorist and Wright actively seeks doom for the country.

On top of this heap is OFA

And now, on top of that incomplete litany, we find that Obama is reportedly building an organization (funded by others) to essentially fight in the streets of America against the duly elected government of the United States.

This is not overstated. It’s obviously not about Trump. Obama kept his organization all along. He was going to do this regardless of which Republican won. Trump just offers some more protesters to manipulate.

What American presidents have ever acted in such a subversive way, actively ginning up strife and unrest throughout the country in pursuit of “fundamental change” after they were out of office?

There’s no other way to read the signs. Obama means to continue the divisive strife and anger and is apparently OK if it rips the country apart.

Maybe more than OK.

After all, what is the difference between an acceptable consequence and a desired outcome if the actions lead to the same end? None.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.


I have come here to bury CPAC, not to praise it

CPAC has gone and done it again. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and this year is no exception. It’s hard to believe that they could continue their loser’s streak, but they have. They continue to screw up year after year, and manage to outdo themselves every time.

You’d have to be living under a rock to have missed the latest brouhaha concerning CPAC. Milo Yiannopoulos, gay gadfly, British writer, public speaker, and senior editor for Breitbart News, was banned from CPAC in the wake of some truly awful remarks of his that came out after the announcement that he would keynote CPAC. No surprise that it was a Never Trump group behind the attack that quashed Milo’s CPAC gig (and his Simon and Schuster book deal, too). But that is typical of the right — eating our own.

Before I get to CPAC, let me get some things out of the way. First, pedophilia is monstrous, and Milo’s offhand remarks were disgusting. Milo is a victim of his own outrageous self-promotion — he thinks of himself perhaps as a bit of Oscar Wilde, and so he provocatively prattles on and on with the obvious intent to shock others, which, of course, he does. What he said was indefensible and horrible. I don’t know how much of what he says is even true or just sort of street theater, but this time he jumped the shark.

It bears noting that as flippant as he was in his graphic descriptions, Milo was the victim of  the episodes he describes with gay priests and gay adults. That does not excuse what he said. But he was the victim. Yes, he might very well suffer from some kind of PTSD or Stockholm Syndrome, but that is out of my wheelhouse. I’m not a shrink. In everything he described, he is the preyed upon. Do I think he is damaged? Yes, very. Do I think his remarks were a stunning indictment of what can only be described as a predatory gay community? I do.

But I am not here to bury Milo, or to save him. It’s CPAC that needs burying. My battles with CPAC are well known and long fought. I have been unable to speak or hold an event at CPAC for going on seven years now. Every year I ask, every year I am denied. This year was no different. I asked Matt Schlapp whether or not the ban on AFDI at CPAC is still in place, or whether we can reserve a room this year. I told him we wanted to hold an event entitled “Europe’s Present, America’s Future: Why We Need Trump’s Immigration Ban for a Global Freedom Initiative.” We were planning on inviting Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen, and Kent Ekeroth of the Sweden Democratic Party, as well as other supporters of the immigration ban including Anders Gravers and Lars Hedegaard. Schlapp hemmed and hawed and never got back to me. As a matter of fact, Shlapp invited Milo right after I requested the space.

The CPAC/Geller saga has been running on for years now, but I thought with the election of President Trump, we might have somehow broken the barrier and would be able to move forward from this. I was wrong. CPAC is still CPAC.

Yes, CPAC invited Milo. Schlapp wanted to prove to me and everyone else that the ACU were down with cool kids, standing up for free speech — like, they totally get it — can you dig it? CPAC wanted to show it was brave and cutting edge. Geller is more toxic but look how open-minded we are! But like all false bravado, it crumbled when challenged. I am sure they did not listen to his speeches, or view his YouTube videos, or have a clue as to what Milo said or did. And that would be OK if they were true to their premise for inviting him. Matt Schlapp told NBC News, “the fact there are voices on American campuses that are just shut down. We think those voices are usually voices that stem from the center-right, and we talk about that every year at CPAC, and we think that’s an appropriate thing to talk about.” But of course, Schlapp doesn’t mean it; otherwise, why would I be banned from speaking or holding an event there?

The thing is, Milo is barely a conservative. When he appeared on HBO’s Bill Maher Show last week, Yiannopoulos said that he wasn’t even sure he would call himself conservative. So clearly it wasn’t Milo’s conservative bonafides that got him the keynote spot.

CPAC has twisted itself into some terrible knot — they invited Milo because he was not permitted to speak on college campuses due to his controversial statements, and now they have uninvited him, banned him from speaking there, because of these new controversial statements.

Their years-long ban on me is unconscionable. What is my crime? Standing for the First Amendment? Holding a free speech event in Texas in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo jihad slaughter? Holding an art exhibit that depicted Muhammad? Is CPAC a Muslim convention that adheres to the sharia?

They are shocked at Milo’s comments, but they still have a known Muslim Brotherhood-linked operative on their board: Grover Norquist. Despite all the controversy surrounding Grover for years, they never wavered — is he slipping them a lot of jihad money?

I will repeat what I have said for years: CPAC needs new leadership.

SCHLAPP: We totally reject that. We actually spend a lot of time going through a whole process determining what topics will be discussed. Any CPAC watcher over the last three years can see there is a much more substantive discussion on stage, not just conservative stump speeches one after the other. We believe it is an important responsibility we have to make sure the activists that come from around the country get better educated on these issues.

Does he believe the manure he shoveling?

Politico (of all places) does a pretty good job lambasting CPAC’s identity crisis here. What’s left of the agenda by the CPAC sissies is a bore — look at the agenda.

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference, had a clear message when he announced on Saturday that right-wing agitator Milo Yiannopoulos would be highlighting this year’s event. “We think free speech includes hearing Milo’s important perspective,” he tweeted. Yiannopoulos was an unexpected invitee. The central figure in a number of campus controversies, he traffics in shock then spins it as free-speech advocacy. Schlapp had clearly gobbled up the spin.

But not everyone was buying it. The announcement drew immediate protests from prominent conservatives. Peter Wehner, a conservative writer and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the invite “more evidence of the moral decay of conservatism.” Jonah Goldberg of National Review, who greeted the news as “sad and disappointing,” added, “This new big tent is gonna have some wild parties, but leave me off the invite list.”

It’s not hard to see why conservatives might object to Yiannopoulos. Emerging from the alt-right swamps of GamerGate and Breitbart (he calls himself a “fellow-traveller” of the alt-right, a white nationalist, misogynist movement), Yiannopoulos’s reputation hangs on his willingness to make all sorts of anti-woman, anti-Semitic, anti-gay (even though he is gay himself), anti-Islam, anti-everyone comments. His profanity and explicit sexual talk makes him anathema to the Christian right, and he’s never had a word to say about the economic policies that make the supply-side right tick. And this was before folks began to pay attention to his comments criticizing sexual consent and promoting sex with underage teens—comments that ended up getting him disinvited from the conservative conference on Monday.

So, why was he even invited to CPAC in the first place?

The answer has to do with an organization and a movement that have lost their way. CPAC, once the place where American conservatism defined itself, is in disarray because conservatives are in disarray. Having just traded much of their belief system to win an election, they’re finding it hard to reset their ideological compasses. Yiannopoulos is just a symptom. And withdrawing his invitation is not the cure.

[ … ]

There was a historical irony in CPAC’s decision to embrace an offensive, fringe figure like Yiannopoulos. Back in 1964 the American Conservative Union, the organization that runs CPAC, was founded to clean up conservatism’s image, to make it responsible and respectable.

The ACU emerged in the aftermath of Barry Goldwater’s disastrous 1964 presidential bid. Throughout the campaign, Democrats successfully tied Goldwater to the racists in the Ku Klux Klan and the conspiracists in the John Birch Society. For the conservative writers and activists who gathered in Washington D.C. after the election, the extremism charge was an existential problem. If conservatism could be dismissed as a fringe collection of kooks and Klansmen, it could not be an effective force in American politics. So they erected the ACU as a guardian of “responsible conservatism.” The first prohibition: No one could join the board of directors who had ties to the Birch Society.

The ACU was part of a broader effort to police the lines of conservatism, to toss out any groups that might tarnish the right’s image. In the late 1950s,for instance, National Review purged writers with connections to the anti-Semitic rag American Mercury. As William F. Buckley Jr., National Review’s founder, later observed, “Conservatism must be wiped clean of the parasitic cant that defaces it, and repels so many of those who approach it inquiringly.” The ACU, and through it, the CPAC speaker roster, was a place where that parasitic cant could be regularly scrubbed away.

So long as the core of the conservative project held, CPAC operated as a standard annual meeting. Every year, conservatives flocked to D.C. to rub elbows with the politicians and activists who formulated, popularized and enacted the ideas and policies that defined the American right. But as conservatism began to fracture in the mid-2000s, CPAC became a more tumultuous event. The invite list became a battle not just over who spoke when, but how conservatism would be defined—what controversial figures and celebrities it would include, what values and identities it would embrace. Entertainment value began to matter in a way that it hadn’t before, which is how someone like Donald Trump, hardly a conservative leader, came to speak at the 2011 meeting. And there were some Yiannopoulos-esque exclusions:Anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, who had been a CPAC regular since 2009, was barred in 2013 as conservative activists sought to moderate their image after the 2012 election. She hasn’t been allowed back since. And Chris Christie was left out in the cold in 2013 after hugging Barack Obama during Hurricane Sandy.

CPAC also reflected deeper splits in the conservative coalition. In the late 2000s, as the influence of the religious right waned and libertarians grew more powerful, there were open battles over whether to include gay conservatives and atheists, as these groups became lightning rods for a growing power struggle within the movement. When GOProud, a group of gay conservatives, was allowed to serve as a sponsor in 2010 and 2011, speakers at the event denounced the decision. That opposition led to GOProud’s exclusion in 2012, an exile that lasted until the organization was dissolved in mid-2014. The Log Cabin Republicans had a protracted fight with the organization over sponsorship, which they finally won in 2016. American Atheists likewise were disinvited in 2014, only to be welcomed the next year.

CPAC has spent much of the 2010s extending and revoking invitations, seemingly unsure who, exactly, counts as a conservative. Such was the fate of Yiannopoulos: His invitation was trumpeted as a coup for free speech; his disinvitation as a coup for conservative values. That was hardly the message CPAC had hoped to deliver—that one had to choose between free speech and conservatism—but the organization’s ham-fisted handling of the whole affair ultimately drove them to that choice.

Yet CPAC does not bear all the blame here. If organizers were confused about how someone like Yiannopoulos fits into the conservative movement, they are by no means alone. The rise of Trumpism has scuttled old conservative alliances and values. The right has largely abandoned free trade and open markets. In 2015, CPAC presented a united front against Vladimir Putin; his popularity among Republicans has since surged. Trump himself—profane, scandal-ridden and uninterested in conservative ideas—has become the leader of the Republican Party and a wildly popular figure in conservative circles. The conservative resistance to Trump is vocal but small. Most of the rest of the movement set aside their values to embrace Trump, smashing their ideological compasses in the process.

How were CPAC organizers supposed to know conservatives would be put off by Yiannopoulos? After all, it was largely a small anti-Trump conservative faction that opposed the invitation at first, before the remarks about pedophilia (remarks that Yiannopoulos responded to first with defiance, then contrition, stressing that he had not meant to suggest sexual contact with underage children and teens was acceptable). For Trump supporters—and the vast majority of conservatives support Trump—the distance between the president and Yiannopoulus was not significant. He has said deeply offensive things about women and Muslims. So has Trump. He writes for Breitbart, “the platform of the alt-right.” The site’s former chairman, Steve Bannon, is Trump’s senior counselor and chief strategist. He has criticized sexual consent and celebrates sex with underage teens. Trump starred in an Access Hollywood tape that made clear he wasn’t a huge fan of sexual consent himself, and that he had no qualms with forcing himself on women. Trump and Yiannopoulos are brothers-in-arms in the fight against “political correctness,” drawing heated criticism from liberals and select members of the conservative establishment. Even now it’s not clear that the majority of conservatives were put off by Yiannopoulos’s comments, just that the firestorm had gotten a little too uncomfortable. Looking at it this way, the shocking thing isn’t that Yiannopoulos was invited. It’s that CPAC felt pressured to drop him.

With Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of Congress, conservatives have more political power today than they have had in a decade. Still, conservatism as a political movement is disintegrating, held together not by a shared commitment to ideas like democratic governance, stability or a distinct moral vision, but rather a desire for power. That makes for a movement whose boundaries are blurred beyond recognition and whose standards are impossible to detect. And that is a problem that no disinvitation can fix.

UPDATE: Milos apologizes – his presser:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.


VIDEO: Culture Warrior Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns from Breitbart

Milo Yiannopoulos is a man of character. He does the right things for the right reasons.

Milo has resigned as editor of Breitbart Tech after his remarks on sexual relationships between boys and older men went public. This is interesting because academics are promoting pedophilia and they have yet to be dismissed.

Dr. Judith Reisman in her column “They’re mainstreaming pedophilia!” reported in March 2016:

Matt Barber, associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, and I attended the “B4U-ACT” pedophile conference Aug. 17 [2015]. To eliminate the “stigma” against pedophiles, this growing sexual anarchist lobby wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation of “Minor-Attracted Persons.”

[ … ]

In 1973, our “post Kinsey era,” a small APA committee of psychiatrists, quite terrified by homosexist public harassment, agreed to rely on Kinsey’s fraudulent human sexuality “data” to redefine homosexuality as normal, removing it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of mental disorders.

[ … ]

To redefine homosexuality as a normal “orientation,” nature not nurture, researchers were told to ignore all data of early sex abuse or other trauma. This hoax was followed by the 1999 U.S. Department of Justice data that found 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims to be boys under age 12. [Emphasis added]

Fast forward to the treatment of Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay man who misspoke. Milo is the target of “homosexist public harassment.” Yiannopoulos tweeted this after the tape of his comments surfaced:

Milo’s resignation is a principled move. One that those who are destroying him would never make. Milo stated that he did not want “to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my [Breitbart] colleagues’ important reporting.”

He did what General Flynn did to protect the cause. He must be celebrated for that.

Milo is a cultural warrior who is fighting against those who would bring America down. He gained more and more national attention by using his speaking skills to tell the truth about those who would destroy our culture. America is in a cultural war and Milo has become a wounded warrior in the war against cultural relativism.

We cannot but believe that Milo will rise, like the Phoenix, from the ashes to fight once again. We look forward to his biting commentary and brilliance to shine the light on those who would destroy our uniquely American culture.

Milo, we are with you. One team, one fight!

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Maher advocates for PEDOPHILIA


Dear Senator McCain please follow or get out of the way!

Dear Senator John McCain (R-AZ),

You had your chance to become the leader of the free world. You failed. As General George S. Patton said, “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.”

Since you are not President of the United States then you have a duty to follow Donald J. Trump as a Republican, based upon your oath to uphold the Constitution and as an American citizen to allow President Trump to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit.

There is a long standing tradition that members of the Senate do not criticize a sitting President overseas.

Speaking in 1947, Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, provided key support to Democratic President Harry S. Truman and admonished his colleagues that “[W]e must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

You are the current chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. You have a duty to speak with President Trump privately on issues important to you but you have no right to suggest the POTUS is a dictator or dictatorial in a foreign land.

President Trump has the power to conduct U.S. foreign policy under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Please remember President Trump took the oath of office which states, ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Gateway Pundit reports that in a February 2017 recording in what appears to be a conversation between Senator McCain with Russian comedians Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stoliarov — known as Vovan and Lexus — posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman in a prank phone call, you discussed key national security issues on U.S. policy towards Ukraine and Russia.

Please understand that President Trump won the election. Therefore you are bound by your oath of office and the rules of the Republican Party to follow the lead of President Trump or get out of the way.


The American People