Open Letter To Congressman Steve Scalise By J.W. Bryan

Dear Congressman Scalise:

The purpose of this article is to delve deeper into the concerns mentioned in my recent letter to you regarding the USMCA Treaty.  The publication of this letter will hopefully bring more information to concerned Americans about the Treaty.  It will also answer questions from the folks who read and respond to my articles.  I will send it to all of our Louisiana Congressmen and Senators, as well as those in other states.

America’s legislators need to know why we are so concerned and hopefully, some will be drawn to join our cause. I firmly believe that there will be those who shall choose to side with us in the coming weeks, months, and years to aid us in our efforts to protect our sovereignty, our independence, and our liberty.

Of course, I realize that at present, to all appearances, we have congressman and senators who may possibly choose to sell themselves to our enemies, those who seek to destroy us as an independent nation, and individually by violating our God-given right to life, liberty and property. This is a perversion of the law which comes to us through God’s authority. I don’t believe God is just going to let that slide.

Bastiat – Rights from God

Claude Frederic Bastiat stated in his treatise, The Law,

“Life is a gift from God…each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, these are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.”

Let us suppose that at some point, the powers that be could say that our liberty, and perhaps even our property, is no longer sustainable, and that we should consider ourselves lucky just to be alive. No! Without liberty and property—there is no life—but only an existence.  They could also decide that they’d only permit life for a certain period of time, just as they’ve decided the murder of 61 million babies in their mothers’ wombs is simply a “choice.”

Even now the United Nations is involved in their promotion of “Agenda 2030” which is designed to destroy the sovereignty of our nation, our liberty and the ownership of property by Americans. Private property, single family homes, and so much more are not socially equitable, so they are not “sustainable” and will have to be eliminated. All of this falls under the UN Agenda 2030 and what they call, “Sustainable Development.”

Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center explains, “According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.”

The principle that Bastiat addressed is completely non-existent in the minds of society’s hierarchy in general.

If the USMCA is ratified, and is implemented according to the texts of it, the result will give the UN nearly complete domestic control of our lives. And the Law, as we know it will be completely destroyed. And that, my dear Congressman, has always been the goal of the United Nations.

Back to Bastiat

Bastiat proceeds further into the origin of law and the basis for its legitimacy when he presents the question, “What is Law?” And he then answers it.

It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. If every person has a right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to unwaveringly protect these rights. Thus, the principle of any group’s rights—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right.

The common force that protects this right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for what it acts as a substitute. Since an individual cannot use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

My family and I, and most of the folks around me, are very thankful for what the President has done for us these past three years. However, we are very much concerned about the President’s support of the USMCA. We cannot understand why he could state the disparaging things about the TPP and NAFTA, but speak glowingly about the USMCA.

I have stated, over and over, in my articles, published in NewsWithViews, that evidently President Trump does not know what is in this traitorous agreement. But I recently received an email from one of the readers of my articles who said, “I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I think Trump knows all that’s in the USMCA.” If that is the case, and I realize it could well be, then we are in trouble.

Yet, I cannot believe that the President has only been stringing us along with his declarations when he states, “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy, America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism.” All this sounded great. But then he said, “The United States is committed to making the United Nations more effective.” Why? The UN is an enemy of freedom.

Unfortunately, Congressman, he has made the U.N. more effective, and the irony of it is that he did it through choosing to support the USMCA, along with choosing to make the U.N. more effective.


There is an immutable principle which came into being with the Creation: All choices, good or bad, result in consequences, both proportionately and in accordance with the nature of the choices. There is no doubt in my mind that what we see transpiring in our nation today is going to bring forth consequences most people could never imagine. As we have seen, our officials and authorities have promoted and supported an invasion of our country. And they have continued to sustain these people even after they have invaded us. Our officials have allowed people to come here whose goal is to supplant their form of government in place of ours.

As we proceed further into the future, our citizens, with help from a few likeminded folks, could possibly come to an understanding that these so-called authorities have acted outside the law, as I wrote in, “When Does Law Become the Outlaw?” They have destroyed the law and replaced it with what is unlawful—and this is a rule of force, which they call “law,” but is only a bastardized, illegitimate, entity that enables them to proceed with their unlawful agenda.

The consequences of this, at some point, could be that in order to restore our rightful liberties, the so-called law will have to be violated to regain the Law.

I realize that what I have written would be inadmissible in court, but that’s not the objective here.  What I am longing to do is to make what I write concerning the law common knowledge among the people that are bogged down in lethargy. If we can only get a tenth of one percent knowledgeable regarding what has happened to our system of justice, and in our governmental operations as a whole, then things will begin to turn around in our favor.

In time, this could result in people beginning to see that without liberty or property—there is no life, only existence. And this enlightening could bring about the consequences I alluded to with reference to the principle that all choices result in consequences.

Patrick Henry said in his classic address,

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun…our chains are forged; their clanking may be heard across the plains of Boston. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery. What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!”

The following is a quote By Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society,

“What we are witnessing today is a tactic being implemented once again to shut down anything that would prevent the Conspiracy from being successful in destroying America as a free country and as an example to the rest of the world.”

He is referring to the action of the traitorous judges in America’s courts preventing the President from stopping the invasion of our country through illegal immigration.

The reason for this action by these tyrannical justices is to prevent the president from taking any action in defending our country that would result, in part, in our success in defending it from the designs of the globalists agenda to eliminate our sovereignty as an independent nation.

No one that advances an agenda which destroys, or circumvents, or in any way limits our unalienable rights—has any right to be here. Since our rights come from God, then it follows that God is not going to give rights to those involved in destroying the rights of others. So why is it considered to be legal?

And why are there so many who praise the traitorous trade deals that will result in more Legal Plunder by those who seek to exploit the liberty, and property of others?

The USMCA is worse than NAFTA or the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). If it is ratified, I think it could possibly evolve into a situation that could result in consequences which could lead to what Jefferson said,

“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

And Congressman Scalise, we may be approaching such a time which, as a result of consequences from evil choices will cause people to think,

“Well, we haven’t any way to go but up. What we have is not worth having, we really don’t have to be worried about losing anything by our resistance—we can’t lose what we ain’t got, so when you come to think about it, it may be that the only way to liberty is through the blood of tyrants—we’ve had plenty of it shed by patriots to no avail.”

We hope and pray that we will never experience a time as this. But it could happen. This link from the Washington Standard is so important; I hope you’ll read it.

Please read what retired attorney and constitutional scholar Publius Huldah has outlined regarding exactly how the USMCA will begin to set up global government in the Northern Hemisphere.

Congressman, I am asking you to go to read the link and examine for yourself, and for Americans—what’s in this sovereignty destroying deal that so many Congressmen and Senators are so enamored with.

Regarding the USMCA, the U.N. can, and will begin taking over our nation through ongoing operations of Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development, and the lies of Climate Change. The UN is already promoting that as a result of “Climate Change,” states must accept refugees from areas affected by it.  What hogwash!

This reveals that the UN will concoct any kind of scheme for the excuse to have more control of people. The Climate Change propaganda is nothing but a despicable lie. The word of God has this to say on the subject: Col. 1: 16 – 17,

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

Also, in Second Peter, there is this:

3:7, But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

All this is in reference to the power and authority of Jesus Christ, so what kind of fool would think that what has been set up by the word can be changed by people?  Only those who believe their power and might overrides the Word of God.




J.W. Bryan was born in 1927 and spent five years in the Marines, from 1945 – 1951. He worked at International Paper Company for 31 years as paper machine worker, and later in quality control. He is a Lifetime member of the John Birch Society, having joined in 1961. After retirement from International Paper, he and his wife Polly worked several years as house parents in children’s homes, both in Virginia and Mississippi, 1991 – 2008. They now reside in the country out of West Monroe, La. where he produces peaches, watermelons and vegetables. He has spent his life fighting to keep our Constitutional Republic. Email:

Senator Rand Paul: Impeachment Trial question [Video]

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog video posted by is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Holocaust Survivors Have A Message For AOC.


Holocaust, Hebrew Shoʾah, Yiddish and Hebrew Ḥurban (“Destruction”), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this “the final solution to the Jewish question.” The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word ʿolah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open fires. – Encyclopedia Britannica

Socialism Sucks: Thank You Dr. Bob.

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims America runs Concentration camps.

We asked the only people who have true authority on the matter: concentration camp survivors. David and Sami survived the Holocaust. They were beaten and starved. They watched their loved ones die. Sami was experimented on by Nazi doctors. David still has numbers on his arm from Auschwitz. AOC, stop. For once in your life, please listen.

These men have a message for you. You need to hear it.

Trump Delivers State Of The Union In Scuba Gear To Avoid Drowning In Liberal Tears

WASHINGTON D.C.—After completely mopping the floor with the snowflake libs on the Senate floor, the Trump administration fears that he is at high risk of drowning in a literal tidal wave of liberal tears during Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

“The risk for liberal tear downpour is always high any time Trump speaks,” said climatologist Dr. Herbert Thwayne. “But under these conditions, the risk is driven up exponentially. Not only is there going to be a record amount of crying like a bunch of babies, but the melting snowflakes are going to cause a rapid rise in the sea level. It’s smart for the president to take any precautions necessary.”

For the general public, Weather scientists recommend staying indoors on Tuesday and for families located in blue states to wear life vests on Tuesday night.


Halftime Show Reduces Risk Of Wardrobe Malfunction By Eliminating Most Of Wardrobe

Breaking: Health Officials Quarantine Portland To Prevent Spread Of Communism

Study: People Tend To Tune Out By The Fifth Threat To Our Democracy Per Day

Baptist Church Service Halftime Show Criticized For Showing Too Much Ankle

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by The Babylon Bee is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Chicken or the Egg—and the Rooster

Children who grow up on a farm learn the “facts of life” at an early age, such as the observation in an old song: “They’re laying eggs now/ Just like they used ter/ Ever since that rooster/ Came into our yard.”

All species that propagate by sexual reproduction have two sexes, and every new organism arises from one male and one female gamete. Except in the rare hermaphroditic species, every organism has two different parents, one male and one female, permitting the wonderful variety that exists in the natural world.

One can debate endlessly about the role of nature or nurture in molding a person—or animal—but sex is 100 percent nature. It is not “assigned.” It is recognized at birth, or on a prenatal ultrasound—or hundreds of years later in a skeleton. If there is ambiguity, it is a medical emergency. The newborn needs to be seen immediately by a pediatric endocrinologist because he might die from adrenal insufficiency.

Sexual differentiation begins long before any visible differences—the Y chromosome affects every cell in the body. Skilled persons can sex chicks soon after they hatch.

Gender is a subjective concept these days. If there are not two, how many are there? Three, 50, 83, hundreds? New ones keep getting named. Doctors are being told to be hyperaware so as to treat each patient appropriately, as defined by the person’s self-identity. How about, instead of trying to stuff people into artificially created gender/racial/ethnic boxes, treating everyone as an individual?

There is some yang in every yin, and some yin in every yang, but the yin and the yang exist and are not the same. There is not a womb in a trans-woman, but there is in a trans-man who has not had it removed. We do patients a terrible disservice by pretending to treat organs that aren’t there, or by ignoring organs that are.

Roosters are different, as I learned visiting a farm, where I was attacked by the Bad Rooster. I might have been pecked to death, save for the timely intervention of an 8-year-old boy who thought boys were supposed to protect girls. (I will be his friend for life.)

This brings us to the reason for wanting to sex chicks. A farmer doesn’t want to waste money raising a chicken that doesn’t lay eggs. You only need a few roosters. They fight and are disruptive. Similarly, if you are raising sheep or cattle, you want to be the one who is in charge of the herd—so you castrate most of the males.

Now, if your goal is to have a compliant society of dependent serfs, you need to geld (“detoxify”) the males or make them irrelevant. A father in each family protects his own and works hard so his offspring can thrive. But strong families can thwart the designs of would-be rulers.

For decades, we have tried using Big Daddy/ Big Brother government to look after the flock, and herd it in the proper direction. The results are terrible: poverty, despair, delinquency, drug abuse, and crime.

The stated goals of the growing transgender movement sound noble: make a troubled minority happy, and do away with patriarchy, discrimination, and oppression. And by the way with overpopulation. This assumes we are smarter than Mother Nature.

If we could turn a lot of boys into girls, or at least non-boys, and shame the rest, there would be fewer roosters. True, some girls want to become boys, but while they can grow a beard they cannot increase their muscle strength by 40 percent and their lung capacity by 25 percent, nor can they match a genetic male in bone density and body size. What prevents men from crushing women physically is civilization. Boys must be trained not to hit girls. But if a man “identifies” as a woman, “she” can dominate women in prisons, shelters for abused women, and female sports. The rooster attitude may persist along with the strength.

Would we be better off with women in charge? Women like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, “Bloody Mary,” or a modern radical feminist? Or how about a bureaucratic technocracy in which your every thought and deed is monitored—as in Orwell’s 1984.

To eliminate Thought Crime under Ingsoc, it was necessary to make people believe the absurd: that two plus two is not equal to four.

It is equally absurd to say that boys can be turned into girls, or vice versa. But people are being punished professionally for asserting that there are two and only two sexes, determined and fixed by biology.

Could we get rid of natural, complementary sex, and strong men, without getting rid of humanity?

Excellent Tommy Robinson video on the hypocrisy of reporting on Islam and Islamic terror

If this video gets pulled from YouTube or requires a sign in, please leave a comment saying so under this post and I will make sure its restored immediately.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Burying ‘dead white males’: Will the deconstructionists win the battle for ‘Western Civilization’?

In the on-going debate over whether “dead white males” like William Shakespeare are needed anymore in English courses, Sheffield University, one of England’s leading institutions of higher education, says No.

According to a report in The Telegraph, an induction video for first-year students asserts that “academia has historically been a white dominated space” and encourages students to call out “racial bias” in the curriculum.

Writers like Geoffrey Chaucer, George Eliot (a woman, actually), Charles Dickens and Samuel Beckett are described as white writers whose works survive in the curriculum because they “simply fit better” with academic culture.

“Many of the writers, thinkers and academics who are traditionally studied are white too,” the video says. “This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the ones producing the best work, rather that they simply better fit into an academic culture that’s affected by the same racial biases that we see in the rest of society.”

On the other side of the pond, Yale University, one of America’s oldest and finest universities, has ditched its famous art history survey course. Apparently students are disturbed by the “overwhelming” whiteness, maleness, and straightness of canonical Western artists. Its replacement will examine art in relation to “questions of gender, class and ‘race’” as well as capitalism and climate change, according to the instructor.

These are just two examples of an academic scramble to assert that Western civilization, if it exists at all, is just a chronicle of racism, sexism and imperialism. As a result, young women and men who have the privilege of studying at some of the world’s great centres of learning are being cheated out of their past. They are being denied the intellectual tools for understanding themselves and the society in which they live. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant, wrote a very dead white male, Tacitus, about how the Roman Empire treated subject nations: “where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.” Some universities are a bit like that.

The desolation is eerily similar to the setting of one of the last century’s most famous sci fi novels, A Canticle for Leibowitz. A nuclear holocaust is followed by the Simplification, a violent backlash against technology. Literate people are killed by rampaging mobs of “Simpletons”. Illiteracy becoms almost universal and books are destroyed. In one of the novel’s most imaginative touches, Benedictine monks in the 26th Century painstakingly illuminate copies of electrical diagrams which no one understands any more.

We’re not there yet, but the possibility of getting an education in “the best which has been thought and said in the world”, as 19th Century critic Matthew Arnold put it, is becoming increasingly remote.

Of course, 150 years later, with more access to other cultures, “the best” needs to include contributions from India, China, Japan and other civilisations. But “Western civilisation” is far more than a reeking dung heap of gender and racial bias.

A report by Stanley Kurtz, a cultural commentator, reviews the history of American universities’ repudiation of “Western civilization” in an excellent short book, The Lost History of Western Civilization, published by the National Association of Scholars. (Available on Amazon and also as a free PDF.)

He uses the disintegration of humanist scholarship at Stanford University as a lens to analyse sceptics of the achievements of the West.

In January 1987 students chanting “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture’s got to go” kick-started the erosion of Stanford’s commitment to “the canon”. They were protesting a course called Western Culture which was required for first-year students. It was eventually abolished.

One of the main guns trained on the status quo, Kurtz says, was an influential article written in 1982 by historian Gilbert Allardyce which traced the idea of “Western Civilization” back to World War I. Allardyce described it, Kurtz writes, as “a modern invention devised during World War I as a way of hoodwinking young American soldiers into fighting and dying in the trenches of Europe.” Western Civilization was “a thinly disguised form of neo-imperial war propaganda”.

Kurtz expertly debunks this argument, which found enthusiastic supporters and allies amongst historians. He reviews the most influential historians of the 19th Century in the United States – the Scot William Robertson and the Frenchman François Guizot — and shows that they had demonstrated the existence of a distinctive Western Civilization long before “the Great War”. It’s a fascinating history, and Kurtz deploys it to critique contemporary developments as well. Citing a number of other conservative scholars, he argues that the soul of the nation is at stake:

We’ll argue, among other things, that: 1) Postmodern academic skepticism, and the broader collapse of faith it reflects, has backed us into a corner in which inflated accusations of racism, bigotry, and genocide are virtually the only remaining sources of collective purpose; 2) Postmodern academic skepticism has become a petrified orthodoxy every bit as due for critique as the Aristotelianism of Hobbes’s day; 3) So-called multiculturalism isn’t really about preserving traditional cultures at all—instead “multiculturalism” has ushered in a radically new sort of culture in which perpetually expanding accusations of racism, bigotry, and genocide stand as quasi-religious ends in themselves; and 4) The American experiment cannot survive without checking or reversing these trends.

If “Western Civilization”, which has a history stretching back 2,500 years, can be deconstructed, so can its nihilistic critique, which has a history stretching back 40 years. In the long run, Western Civilization will survive.

But how long is the long run? The monks in A Canticle for Leibowitz laboured over their mysterious scraps for generations. “The Memorabilia was there, and it was given to them by duty to preserve, and preserve it they would if the darkness in the world lasted ten more centuries, or even ten thousand years.”

Surely ending this deconstructionist madness will not take that long!



Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. Michael Cook likes bad puns, bushwalking and black coffee. He did a BA at Harvard University in the US where it was good for networking, but moved to Sydney where it wasn’t. He also did a PhD on an obscure corner of Australian literature. He has worked as a book editor and magazine editor and has published articles in magazines and newspapers in the US, the UK and Australia. Currently he is the editor of BioEdge, a newsletter about bioethics, and MercatorNet. He also writes a bioethics column for Australasian Science and contributes occasional op-ed pieces to newspapers and websites in the US, UK and Australia.


Why more democracy isn’t better democracy

Remembering Roger Scruton, a defender of reason in a world of postmodern barbarians

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Stunning Sham Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

From day one, when Donald Trump became the president of the United States, the entire leftist media, law enforcement establishment, former President Obama, and minions of former President Obama, to include Hillary Clinton, Hollywood celebrities, and the Democratic Party had one mission: To force President Trump out of office.  They drove investigation after investigation, and after three years, along with tens of millions of dollars spent at taxpayers’ expense, they found nothing on him to force him out. ZERO.

The Russian hoax turned out to be a hoax. Trump said “[Special counsel Robert] Mueller showed the Democrats not only have nothing, now they have less than nothing.”

But that did not please the appetite of hungry leftist wolves who were after blood. Since the House of Representatives is controlled by the Democrats, they contrived a fake excuse to impeach Trump.

“House Democrats have long wanted to overturn the votes of 63 million Americans.  They have determined that they must impeach President Trump because they cannot legitimately defeat him at the ballot box. The Democrats’ use of a phone call with the president of Ukraine – with a transcript the president himself released — served as their excuse for this partisan, gratuitous, and pathetic attempt to overthrow the Trump administration and reverse the results of the 2016 election.”

It was 100% sham.

Even the Democrats’ witnesses stories were based on hearsay and what they had heard and what they had been told, but no one seemed to be able to offer direct “I heard it directly from the president himself” testimony — except, of course, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who testified that the president had told him directly that he wanted no quid pro quo.

Nevertheless, the House — on a purely partisan basis, — voted to impeach President Trump.

So, what would be “fair” in the Senate? Democrats’ demand for witnesses who did not testify in the House is absurd. A Democrat majority of the House impeached the president based on the evidence that they presented. That’s the evidence that should be presented to the Senate — no more, no less.

After the impeachment, Nancy Pelosi did something that had never been done before. She refused to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month. When a reporter asked about the possibility of her not forwarding the articles of impeachment, she quickly shut him down, and in so doing, also proved the impeachment fiasco had less to do with “protecting democracy” and more to do with partisan political motivation and the November 2020 general election.

President Trump, during three years in office has done more for this country than any other in our lifetime.

We have the best economy in decades. Highest stock market numbers ever. Lowest unemployment amongst Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, ever. Trade victories with Japan and China, now coming into view.

More equity in NATO cost-sharing. Massive reduction of regulations and bureaucratic red tape. Conservative judicial court appointees that will stop activist overreach.  All without drawing a salary, and while putting up with non-stop harassment.

The Democrats, instead of letting American voters decide if President Trump stays or goes in November, went ahead with a sham impeachment based on rumors and hearsay — and now it likely will cost them their electoral viability in many other races.

Trump’s impeachment had absolutely nothing to do with a Russian hoax or Ukrainian fiasco. It was about Trump winning the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton. Hillary simply could not accept the loss. Then she mobilized her radical army to take Trump out by hook or crook. These Democrats wanted to impeach President Trump in the worst possible way. Literally.

They wanted to impeach him even before he took the oath of office. They’ve called for impeachment every day he’s been on the job. Democrats have asserted they can impeach him multiple times. Hard to believe we live in America! Democrats are desperate and at their wits’ end.

Since the Democrats tragically failed in their Constitutional obligation to provide clear evidence of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors, bearing true faith and upholding allegiance can only bring about one ethical vote.


© All rights reserved.

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Their calls for violence created ANTIFA

EDITORS NOTE: This is the eighth in a series titled Decadent Democrats. You may read the previous installments here:

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Pedophilia to Sex with Animals

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Electing a Dream ‘Queer Latina’ Candidate to No Incarceration For Drug Use of Any Kind

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: The Enemies of America are Our Best Friends Forever

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globe Diatribe to Abortion to Climate Change [+Videos]

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From Creating Weak Men and Disorderly Women to Making Sex a Biological Reality Illegal

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From the Party of Abortion and Allah Akbar to the 2020 Right to Life March and death of terrorist Soleimani

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: The Party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” – Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Tweet “At @MoonPaliceBooks I just found the [ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray] book that strike fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump.”Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General

“You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don’t have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.” ― Mark Bray, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an “ORGANIZATION OF TERROR.” Portland is being watched very closely. Hopefully the Mayor will be able to properly do his job! – President Donald J. Trump on 17 August 2019

The first instances of violence against the election of Donald J. Trump began on January 20, 2017. Sara Ganim and Chris Welch in a May 3rd, 2019 CNN article titled Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement reported:

On the morning of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Keval Bhatt hunted through a closet in his parents’ Virginia home for the darkest clothes he could find.

The 19-year-old didn’t own much in black, the color he knew his fellow protesters would wear head to toe on the streets of Washington that day.

As Bhatt drove into the city for his first-ever protest, he hesitated.

“I thought, there’s a very good chance that I might get arrested, that my whole life could be radically altered in a negative way if I kept driving, and I was really close to turning around,” Bhatt told CNN. “But I think the rationale is that even if it did negatively affect my life, I had still contributed to this movement that was necessary. I was still making an effort to make other people’s lives better, even if it made my life worse, and once I realized that, I had no regrets.”

Bhatt joined protesters dressed completely in black, some with their faces covered by masks — a tactic known as “black bloc” that aims to unify demonstrators’ efforts and hide their identities.

And with them, Bhatt got arrested.


Since the inauguration of Donald J. Trump there have been numerous calls for violence as reported in the House of Representatives Political Violence Report. Among these calls for violence are:

  • Jun 4th, 2017 – Radical Anti-Trump, Terrorist, James Hodgkinson Shoots Up GOP Baseball Field
  • October 12th, 2018 – ANTIFA attacks GOP Headquarters in New York City
  • June 8th, 2018 – ANTIFA Takes Over Downtown Portland Wielding Weapons, Intimidating Citizens
  • October 15th, 2018 – Alec Baldwin: “We need to overthrow the government of U.S. under Donald Trump”
  • April 2nd, 2017 – WA: ANTIFA Clash with Trump Supporters at Pro-Rally
  • The impeachment proceedings.

ANTIFA violence continues today. Watch the following:


ANTIFA is the militant arm of the Democrat Party, whether they admit it or not. ANTIFA is a Communist organization that is causing violence against anyone who supports the President, ICE and law enforcement in general. ANTIFA are anarchists.

© All rights reserved.


Leftist Values Are Causing Young Americans to Be Miserable

Media Paints Virginia 2A Supporters as White Nationalists


Portland photographer attacked by Antifa mob

City/State Government Representative of Berlin explains how ANTIFA is destroying democracy

VIDEO: Senator Marco Rubio’s statement on ‘why I will not vote to remove the President’

Florida Senator Marco Rubio released the following in an email:

On Friday, I released a statement on the ongoing impeachment trial explaining why I will not vote to remove the President — because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation. Read my full statement here and watch my video message here.

My Statement on the President’s Impeachment Trial

Voting to find the President guilty would not just be a condemnation of his action. If I vote guilty, I will be voting to remove a President from office for the first time in the 243-year history of our Republic.

When they decided to include impeachment in the Constitution, the Framers understood how disruptive and traumatic it would be. As Alexander Hamilton warned, impeachment will “agitate the passions of the whole community.”

This is why they decided to require the support of two thirds of the Senate to remove a President — we serve as a guardrail against partisan impeachment and against removal of a President without broad public support.

Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there would be “little to be gained by putting the country through” the “wrenching experience” of a partisan impeachment.

And yet, only a few months later, a partisan impeachment is exactly what the House produced.

This meant two Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect the nation but rather to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, stain the President’s record because “he has been impeached forever” and “they can never erase that.”

It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House produced and faithfully execute our duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Why does impeachment exist?

As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.

The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”

That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable.

The two are not the same. Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one.

Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, not impeachment, should be the front-line recourse when Congress and the President disagree on the separation of powers. But here, the House failed to go to court because, as Manager Schiff admitted, they did not want to go through a yearlong exercise to get the information they wanted. Ironically, they now demand that the Senate go through this very long exercise they themselves decided to avoid.

On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that “Abuse of Power” can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.

However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the President.

Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.

I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.

I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the President — especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party and opposed by another, and without broad public support — would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, “produce divisiveness and bitterness” that will threaten our nation for decades.

Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.

I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial. They cannot argue that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to pursue.

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I rejected calls to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting that he “has two years left in his term,” and, instead of pursuing impeachment, we should use existing tools at our disposal to “limit the amount of damage he’s doing to our economy and our national security.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, once warned, “[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.”

His words are more true today than when he said them two decades ago. We should heed his advice. I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: We Are The News

Now that Rudy Giuliani has been activated, we can mark this as a critical and pivotal moment. Sure, there has been the “alternative media” for quite some time now, but this is different. And as Q, (QANON) has told us, we are the news.

Now with the most recent and incredibly dangerous and disruptive impeachment hoax behind us, we are now ramping up our offensive moves against the Deep State, the Democrats, and the Fake News. This well planned and calculated move, (timing is everything), with Rudy Giuliani being activated, indicates that  a new phase in the battle to resurrect America, has begun. A battle of of which we are clearly, winning. Just today, I made a decision to begin to reveal and unload all the data and intel that must now see the light of day. Yes, it is time. Please subscribe to the “News Behind the News” which will soon be available on multiple platforms. The gloves are off!

Check out Rudy’s YouTube channel and subscribe to the “News Behind the News”Request a copy of a free digital report that I have authored which includes over 50 links to alternative places to get information. Watch what now begins to unfold here in 2020 and beyond. We are truly in uncharted waters but the pendulum has shifted. The Deep State and its operatives are being exposed. We are at the “expose” stage. I refer you once again to steps six, seven and eight on the scale of discovery and action. The gig is up. They are panicking and False Flags will continue to ensue. Justice is coming. Take a win now that the President will be fully vindicated and acquitted. They, as I have stated all along, are all going down. Three cheers for our amazing commander in chief- hip-hip-hooray, hip-hip-hooray, hip-hip-hooray!

The Trump plan: The good, the bad, the unknown and the untenable

Assessing the overall long-term merits of the “Deal of the Century” is a little like trying to hit a rapidly moving target

“There was a wedding today. The groom showed up. The bride stayed home and wished the groom dead. And everyone clapped – A caustic assessment of the ‘Deal of the Century’”, attributed to Meir Jolovitz, Middle East Radio, Phoenix, AZ, courtesy of my Facebook friend, Jan Sniderman

Over the years, I have expressed what are generally considered distinctly hardline, hawkish views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I categorically opposed any notion entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state and any withdrawal from territory currently under Israel’s administration, west of the Jordan.

Given my past positions, I should, of course, vigorously reject the “Deal of the Century” as proposed last week by the Trump Administration, which does involve both these elements.

Significant benefits, grave detriments

Indeed, the “Deal of the Century” offers Israel huge benefits that would have been unthinkable barely three years ago, but it also includes grave detriments that seriously undermine both its desirability from a partisan Israeli point of view, and its practicality from a more objective point of view.

So, the crucial consideration must be whether, in the long run, the overall beneficial impact of accumulated positive components outweighs (or is outweighed by) the overall detrimental impact of the accumulated negative components.

Making such an appraisal is, of course, not an easy task—and is getting more complex as time progresses. For what it was initially understood to entail has become shrouded in subsequent “clarifications”, which did little to clarify anything.

Indeed, making a measured assessment of the overall merits (or lack thereof) is a little like trying to hit a rapidly moving target, just when you think you have it in your sights, it turns out you don’t.

Thus, what originally appeared to be a US endorsement of the immediate extension of Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the large settlement blocks, turned out to be a deferred endorsement, contingent on the formation of a committee—and its subsequent deliberations—with eventual sovereignty being delayed until after the March 2020 elections.

This, regrettably, raises several perturbing question marks regarding the practical value of the “Deal” for Israel—as will be detailed a little later.

The basic elements

But putting aside for the moment the admittedly weighty issue of the timing of the application of Israeli sovereignty, in the broadest of brush strokes, the basic elements of the “Deal”, as presented at the White House, were as follows:

Israeli Sovereignty: The US will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the major Jewish settlement blocs and over an undivided Jerusalem, within the present contours of the security barrier, as the undivided capital of Israel. Sovereignty will also be applied to Jewish communities beyond the major blocs, which although accessible by road, would be in the unenviable position of being isolated enclaves surrounded by Palestinian-Arab territory.

Security: Security in the entire area—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River–will be under the control of the IDF for an indeterminant period of time.

Borders and Airspace: The external borders, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum are to remain under Israeli control.

Refugees: There will be no “Right of Return” and no Palestinian-Arab refugee will be resettled in Israel.

These are all clearly significant and tangible benefits for Israel, planned to accrue to it, if not immediately, then within a relatively short time. Their net value, however, must be weighed against the countervailing returns envisaged for the Palestinian—Arab side.

The basic elements (cont.)

In this regard, the “Deal” envisions any benefits to the Palestinian side as being both deferred and contingent on the fulfilment of a number of onerous conditions.

This, unsurprisingly, has elicited harsh responses from pro-Palestinian sources. Thus, according to Tareq Baconi of the International Crisis Group, cited in a recent NPR article:

“…it [the “Deal”] places Palestinians on probation while they prove their worthiness of statehood, using conditions that are malleable and ill-defined; it seeks to induce Palestinian capitulation through economic largesse; and it removes the onus on Israel to make any concessions until Palestinians declare their full surrender.

It is not difficult grasp why the Palestinian-Arabs take such a dim view of the proposal, which an infuriated Mahmoud Abbas rejected with “a 1000 ‘no’s”.

For although the “Deal” does trace a path to eventual Palestinian statehood on about 70% of Judea-Samaria, including significant portions of Area C, currently under sole Israeli control, this depends on the Palestinian-Arab side complying with several significant provisos over a period of four years.

Among others, these include:

  • Recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people
  • Ceasing the funding of terrorists and their families
  • Ending Judeophobic incitement
  • Disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihad
  • Establishing an orderly civil society by eradicating corruption, respecting human rights and permitting a free press

Only after these conditions are met, will the US recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan—reportedly $50 billion– to assist it. Moreover, some sort of “safe passage”—such as a tunnel—between Gaza and the Palestinian areas in Judea-Samaria is planned.

Is the “Deal” a good deal?

So, on the surface, the “Deal” appears a highly advantageous one for Israel.

It entails immediate—or soon to be realized—enhancement of the standing of Jewish communities, entrenches Israel’s hold over the strategically vital Jordan Valley, ensures the status of Jerusalem as the country’s undivided capital and maintains Israel’s indefinite control over the borders and airspace.

Thus, the former head of Israel’s Internal Security (Shin Bet), Yoram Cohen, summed it up as follows:

From Israel’s point of view, this is a great achievement….We have received almost all of our security requirements we’ve sought for years. Continued counterterrorism in the West Bank, security in the Jordan Valley as well, the request for Gaza disarmament and responsibility for counterterrorism after giving them a state or autonomy. We’ve got everything we want except the safe passage issue, but I’m not sure we’ll really get to it.”

According to Cohen:

The most dramatic things are Jerusalem and the Old City that will remain under Israeli sovereignty, the legitimization of all settlements [by] the US, the abolishment of the right of return and transfer 30% of Judea and Samaria to Israeli sovereignty. In this area I think Israel has great achievements.”

Moreover, some astute analysts have very cogently pointed out that perhaps the greatest merit of the “Deal” is that it has upended the mendacious Palestinian narrative, which hitherto has largely defined international attitudes to the conflict -see here, here, and here.

There are, however, other considerations that could countermand the accumulated advantages that the “Deal” heralds for Israel—or at least, severely erode their value.

Does the “Deal” address Israel’s twin imperatives

In this regard, I have been at pains to underscore that for Israel to endure, in the long run, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, it must adequately address both its Geographic Imperative and its Demographic Imperative—see for example here (2012), here (2015), here (2017), here (2019) and here (2019).

Addressing the former, precludes undertaking perilous territorial concessions that would make Israel untenable geographically; while addressing the later precludes the presence of a large scale, recalcitrant non-Jewish population within the contours of the sovereign Jewish nation-state, that would make Israel untenable demographically.

Given the fact that the “Deal” stipulates that the IDF will remain deployed throughout the territory and Israel will control both the airspace and electromagnetic spectrum above it, it would appear that the Geographic Imperative is largely addressed.

With the Demographic Imperative, the situation is distinctly different. After all, according to the “Deal’s” parameters, the entire Arab population will remain in place west of Jordan. True, they will not have political rights within Israel, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, the demographic danger to the status of Israel is not solely—or even chiefly—dependent on whether or not the inherently hostile Palestinian-Arab population is enfranchised or not. For their impact at the ballot box would hardly be less than their impact on the socio-cultural fabric of the country – see for example here (2019), here (2017), here (2015), here (2014) and here (2013)– inevitably imperiling the ability of Israel to sustain its dominantly Jewish character.

Perpetuates rather than resolves?

So, whether or not the “Deal” is implemented, the reality will be that Israel will be left with a significant, inimical non-Jewish population within the territory, which it is obliged to control—at least militarily for its vital security needs.

After all, if the “Deal” is eventually implemented, the Arab population in Judea and Samaria (and Gaza) will be left with limited, sub-sovereign rights—making the accusations of discrimination on the basis of ethnic origins not only inevitable but difficult to refute. If, on the other hand, the “Deal” is not implemented after the pledged extension of Israeli sovereignty, the Arabs of Judea-Samaria (and Gaza) will remain in their current situation, under the dysfunctional rule of a corrupt kleptocracy in the former and the tyrannical theocracy in the latter .

Of course, if the “Deal” is implemented, one of the major considerations will be the degree of freedom of movement into Israel afforded the Arab residents of “Palestine”. If they have relatively unfettered access to Israeli beaches, shopping malls, entertainment centers and so on, the impact on the socio-cultural fabric will be greatly enhanced; if not, “Palestine “will become a ghetto-like enclave and a lighting rod for anti-Israeli censure…and possible sanctions.

So, whether it is actually implemented or not, the “Deal” cannot effectively address Israel’s demographic menace, but only perpetuate it.

The question of Gaza and succession

The “Deal” also called for the disarming of the terror groups in Gaza—chiefly Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Leaving aside the feasibility of such a worthy objective, let us suppose for a moment that it could be achieved. Then, how would a demilitarized Gaza, which abuts the Sinai, withstand any onslaughts for the Jihadi elements that abound in the peninsula, frustrating Egyptian efforts to subdue them. Would the IDF be redeployed in Gaza? If not, who would be responsible for the external security of the coastal enclave? Would the Palestinian Authority be armed sufficiently to meet impending threats from Sinai, especially if Egyptians find the burden of contending the Jihadi insurgents too onerous—and withdraw from the peninsula to deal with the mounting challenges elsewhere—see for example here and here?

No less grave is the question of the durability of the conditions prescribed by the “Deal”.
After all, even if, against all odds, the current Palestinian-Arab leadership agrees to accept the conditions prescribed for statehood, who can guarantee that it will not be replaced—by bullet or ballot—with far less amenable successors, who repudiate these conditions and revert to a resumption of hostilities against the Jewish state? And if such a scenario came about, could Israel retract its recognition of Palestinian “statehood” and reinstate the status quo ante?

The question of cost & the Humanitarian alternative

Apart from the US$50 billion aid package intended to boost the Palestinian economy, the “Deal” envisages a dizzying array of overpasses and underpasses, bridges and tunnels connecting the various Palestinian allotted territories in Judea-Samaria—as well as an approximately 30 mile long tunnel, linking Gaza with the “West Bank” (Judea-Samaria)—which alone is estimated as costing up to $15 billion.

Indeed, although the true cost of the “Deal” is not only unknown, but almost impossible to assess with any accuracy, one thing is beyond doubt. It will certainly carry a price tag that reaches into the tens of billions—to produce results that, at best, will be tenuous.

The underlying flaws in the “Deal” are inherent in its very essence, and although it is certainly a huge improvement on previous attempts to resolve the conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land, it is still afflicted by the same defects that afflicted its predecessors. It fails to come to terms with the stark reality that there is no way to devise a scheme that can resolve this conflict by a division—however ingenious–of  the land from the River to the Sea between two inimical collectives with irreconcilable founding narratives. Thus, there is no way to convert an intrinsically “zero sum” game into a “win-win” “positive sum” game. Any attempt to do so is doomed to inevitable failure.

It is for this reason that, for the last decade and half, I have urged Israel to launch a large-scale initiative for the incentivized emigration of the Arab population of Judea-Samaria and Gaza as the only strategic measure that can adequately address both Israel’s Geographic and Demographic Imperatives. It is toward this end that the billions planned to be invested in the “Deal” should be channeled.

Epilogue: The “Deal” – What to do?

In the final analysis – what should Israel do?

My sense is that Israel should accept the “Deal”, secure in the knowledge it will be rejected by the Palestinians, who will not—indeed, cannot—comply with the conditions required of them– and thus reap, the tangible benefits it bestows on it, with negligible risk of future Palestinian compliance. It should, however, do so before the upcoming March elections: For who knows whether a future coalition headed by Benny Gantz’s Blue & White would, or could, support such far-reaching unilateral moves by Israel?

After all, there is no better time to strike the iron than when it is hot!

© All rights reserved.

Amicus Curiae Brief: ‘The House action against Trump was illegal attainder not valid impeachment.’

ARLINGTON, Va.Jan. 31, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — In a historic first amicus curiae brief (“friend of the court brief”) ever filed with the Impeachment Court, Professor Victor Williams successfully set the Senate record straight:

“The House action against Trump was illegal attainder not valid impeachment.”  

“An immediate Trump acquittal, without calling witnesses, is a formal and final nullification of the 116th House’s attempted illegal attainder,” said Williams in a statement released today. Trump was never impeached.

Williams’ amicus curiae brief, filed in full support of Donald Trump’s own trial brief, detailed how House Democrats conspired with deep-state bureaucrats and establishment “resistors” in an attempted attainder against Trump.

The brief was formally lodged with the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer at both the SCOTUS Clerk’s Office at the Supreme Court and at the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.

In a belt-and-suspenders “skeptical” procedure for the first-ever argument, Williams also had electronic and even print copies of the brief delivered directly to U.S. Senate offices.

Williams explained that his skepticism of the neutrality of the Chief Justice was sadly proven correct when John Roberts’ refused to read Senator Rand Paul’s question regarding the collusion of Adam Shift’s Intelligence Committee staff with deep-state treacherous operatives.

“So much for Chief Justice John Roberts acting as a ‘neutral umpire’ when deep state actors and media elites enter the high-stakes game,” said Williams today.

Williams is Chair of “Law Professors for Trump”  ( and is also a 2020 candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia against anti-Trump incumbent Mark Warner.  (“Victor Williams 4 Virginia –

The brief began (excepts with footnotes omitted):

This amicus curiae brief argues alternatively that the House action against Trump should be analyzed by this Court as an unconstitutional attainder meant to taint and stain Trump. 

Amicus relies heavily on Professor Charles Black’s Impeachment: A Handbook to draw the Court’s attention to how the Constitution’s attainder ban restricts impeachment processes and further circumscribes its “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” impeachment standard. 

This brief explains that our Constitution’s Framers explicitly rejected the abusive English legislative practice of using of attainders for the removal of public officers.

This brief presents the establishment of our uniquely American attainder ban as one of Alexander Hamilton’s great causes.

Amicus summarizes Supreme Court attainder jurisprudence on the protection of public officials from legislative removal and separation of powers norms.

Without such a prophylactic treatment of the House impeachment articles formally reflected in this Court’s record and certain acquittal verdict, amicus respectfully counsels that Senators may wish to adjust their 2020 schedules for an additional impeachment trial.

House lawyers confirmed plans for additional House impeachment hearings that are to likely lead to a second House impeachment of Trump during recent arguments before different panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The brief concluded:

The constitutional proscription against legislative punishment is a solid shield of individual liberty for all Americans including those individuals whose ideology is the subject of intense, passionate hatred.

In the context of this House action – an attainder wrapped in impeachment cloth — only the Senate transmuted into our nation’s High Court of Impeachment has authority and opportunity to take up Colonel Alexander Hamilton’s cause to insure that defamatory legislative attainders will never be allowed in America.

While campaigning since July 4, 2019, Senate candidate Williams has frequently condemned Mark Warner and other congressional Democrats’ abuse of Trump.

SOURCE Professor Victor Williams

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Alan Dershowitz – When Trump Is Acquitted He Will No Longer Be Impeached – The Impeachment Disappears

First Thoughts On the Trump Plan and How Mahmoud Abbas Will Save the Day by Hugh Fitzgerald

“The Deal of the Century” turned out to be remarkably generous to the “Palestinians,” giving them far more than they had any right to expect. It promises them a state – the state of Palestine. It doubles the size of the territory under Palestinian control. The Palestinians will under the plan possess nearly 80% of the West Bank. They will also have their capital in East Jerusalem. The plan includes Palestinian use and management of facilities in Haifa and Ashdod ports, Palestinian development of a resort area in the north shore of the Dead Sea, and continued Palestinian agricultural activity in the Jordan Valley. Ultimately, the plan envisions “modern and efficient transportation links” through the future Palestinian state, including Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza will be linked through a tunnel.

Under the Trump plan, the Palestinians will be obligated to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad, must stop their Pay-For-Slay plan, must stop inciting terrorism, must end the rampant corruption in the PA, must respect human rights, and must guarantee a free press and religious freedom. We shall see if the PA is able to meet these conditions precedent to achieving a state. The PA’s record to date is not encouraging.

The plan also requires Israel to observe a four-year moratorium on any new settlements in the West Bank while negotiations with the Palestinians are going on, but says nothing about whether the moratorium would continue if, after four years, negotiations are still continuing. It makes provision for $50 billion in aid to be given to the Palestinians, as had previously been announced at the “Peace Through Prosperity” workshop in Manama last June. That is a huge sum, but who would pay it? One hopes that it will not be the Western Infidels paying for the Palestinians. The $50 billion ought by rights to come from fellow Muslim Arabs, those who live in the oil-rich states of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar.

The most important concession of all, according to Trump’s peace initiative, would be the recognition of a new state, the State of Palestine. This State of Palestine would have to agree to be disarmed, but how that disarmament would be enforced, and exactly what arms it would include, remains unclear.

Israel also gets certain concessions. Existing Israeli settlements (that is, towns and cities) in the West Bank would be recognized as sovereign Israeli territory. The Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees, or “refugees” (the quotation marks indicate that these are the descendants of refugees, not true refugees themselves) would be integrated into the countries where they now live. There would be no right of return.

Netanyahu and Gantz have both declared themselves pleased with Trump’s peace plan. But can they truly be pleased with the recognition of a State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem? Perhaps they are pleased because the plan is better than any of the previous plans presented by Trump’s predecessors, and because they know that Abbas will never accept it, so they needn’t worry. They can afford to be pleased. There is no other state in the world that has been successfully disarmed. How likely is it that a State of Palestine, full of Jihadis, could be permanently disarmed, and not become a source of terrorism against Israelis, whether living in the West Bank or elsewhere in Israel?

The plan is generally good, but I confess that I expected even better. I did not think this administration would recognize a State of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem. I envisioned instead an arrangement whereby the local Arabs (to be carefully referred to as “Palestinian Arabs”) in the West Bank would be given as much autonomy as was consonant with Israeli security, but not a state. The safer the Israelis, the greater the degree of local autonomy. I see that I was wrong.

However, there is one thing about this plan that makes it most welcome. And that is the assurance that neither Mahmoud Abbas, nor any of his successors in the Palestinian Authority, nor anyone in Hamas, will be willing to negotiate over this plan in good faith. The Palestinians rejected Trump’s plan before they knew what was in it; they reject it again now that they know what is in it. Much of the world will be able to see that even when the Palestinians are offered a state of their own, even when they are promised that that state’s capital will be in East Jerusalem, even when they are further promised $50 billion in aid, far more than any of the more than 100 developing countries have ever received In aid, that is not enough to satisfy them. They are the spoiled brats of the international community.

Other Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, will urge the Palestinians to take the deal — “You get a state, you have your capital in Jerusalem, the Israelis have to stop building settlements, you’ll have 80% of the West Bank” – “or else.” “Or else” would mean only this: “We are tired of your whining, tired of the whole Palestinian problem; tired of your refusal to accept $50 billion in aid. We have so many bigger problems to think about, starting but not ending with Iran. Get with the program. Or count us out.” The refusal of the Palestinians to take the deal will only widen the gap between them and the other Arabs.

In agreeing to the Trump plan, Israel will have committed itself to not building new settlements in the West Bank for four years, while negotiations are going on. It’s a big concession. But if there are no negotiations, because the Palestinians continue to refuse enter into them, then the Trump administration has made clear that Israel is no longer required to refrain from settlement building. The Trump administration has noted that, in that case, it will support Israel should it decide to unilaterally incorporate other areas of the West Bank, beyond what it will already have annexed. And the offer of a State of Palestine will not be revived. And very few, at that point, will care.


Hamas top dog writes to all Islamic heads of state, urging them to reject Trump peace plan

A General’s View of Why US Should Stay in Afghanistan

Trump: “It’s time for the Muslim world to fix the mistake of 1948 and recognize Israel”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Democrats Don’t Care About American Lives

My article about Pop Kern, an 89 year old kind white gentleman and how Democrats seek to punish him for his bogus unfair and racist “white privilege” received a tremendous amount of positive response. A young relative of Pop Kern wrote informing me that Pop Kern is a loyal Democrat. This is not surprising. My black dad who passed away at age 90 was also a lifelong Democrat. Dad drilled into my head that Democrats are for the working man and Republicans are for the rich.

Respectfully, I tried to gently convince an elderly family member that her Democratic Party has dramatically changed. It is now the party of all things amoral, anti-Christianity, anti-freedom and anti-American. Looking me firmly in the eye, she stubbornly spouted, “I’m votin’ for Biden!”

I watched the movie, “Schindler’s List” for the first time. The Nazi’s total disregard for the lives of Jews was breathtakingly evil, while they cruelly deceived the Jews. In shockingly similar fashion, the Democratic Party deceives Americans into believing it is their best friend, while having zero regard for American lives.

The singular intention of the Democratic Party is to obtain power to control every aspect of our lives. Obamacare gave them godlike power to decide who lives and who dies. If you refuse to give up your second amendment right to own a gun, no healthcare for you. If you hold firm to your biblical convictions, no healthcare for you.

Fake news media allowed Obama to lie to the American people 29 times that Obamacare would allow them to keep health care plans that they liked. This huge lie won Obama the Politifact “Lie of the Year” award. Obamacare became law against the will of the American people and cancer patients lost their lifesaving doctors. Obamacare was a major step in Democrats’ mission to transform America into a totally government controlled nation. The lives of cancer patients did not matter.

The same way Jewish lives did not matter to the Nazis, Democrats’ behavior says American lives do not matter in regards to the invasion of illegal aliens. In defiance of federal law, Democrats host sanctuary cities which protect illegal alien rapists, murders, drug dealers and career criminals. Outrageously, illegals are gifted driver’s licenses, healthcare, attorneys, allowed to vote and numerous handouts unavailable to U.S. citizens.

Democrats deem coddling illegals more important than American lives. Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien while strolling with her dad on a lazy Sunday afternoon in San Francisco. Kate’s murderer had been deported numerous times, repeatedly welcomed back to the sanctuary city. Democrats acquitted Kate’s murderer and even voted down a law to punish deported illegals who keep coming back.

Democrats’ vision for the perfect America includes transforming her into a wild, wild west of sex, a society in which every perversion is legalized and citizens are forced to celebrate. A memo exposed Obama’s DOJ plan to legalize 12 perversions including pedophilia and bestiality. Colleges are laying the ground work by scolding us about our bigoted intolerance of pedophiles.

Democrats are sexualizing children beginning in pre-k with a mandatory LGBTQ curriculum. “I Am Jazz”, a book about a boy whose parents began his so-called sex change at age 3 is required reading.

Once you realize that Democrats only care about furthering their agenda and American lives do-not- matter, you understand their behavior. U.S. students are sick with strange diseases due to untested illegal alien children being sent to public schools.

Transsexuals who regret having sex change surgery are blocked from media.

Pediatricians whose research confirm that transgender ideology is child abuse are persecuted, fired and blocked from media. Women who regret aborting their baby are blocked from media. Women and little girls assaulted by men posing as women in transgender friendly restrooms are hidden from the public. Feminists who fight transgenders destroying women sports are blocked from media. Every truth that undercuts Democrats’ lies and evil agenda is blocked by fake news media.

President Donald J. Trump is our only protection against Democrats and fake news media implementing their vision of a new America, removed from her position as leader of the free world. This is why they are repulsed by Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

Their only hope is to separate Trump from his supporters via a thousand cuts; lying about him 24/7; spinning everything good he does into a negative; a reason to impeach him.

By reducing tons of Obama’s over-reaching regulations, Trump has our economy at its strongest in 50 years. Black unemployment is at its lowest in U.S. history. Democrats hate that blacks are doing so well under Trump. Clearly, black lives matter to Trump, but not to their so-called advocates in the Democratic Party and fake news media.

Iranian terrorist Soleimani murdered and severely wounded hundreds of U.S troops using roadside bombs. Soleimani planned attacks on U.S. Embassies to murder thousands more Americans. Trump killed Soleimani. Remarkably, Democrats sought to spin Trump acting to save American lives into a crime, a reason to impeach him. The Democratic Party has become the home of pure hate and evil, obsessed with gaining power.

Elderly lifelong Democrats are unaware that their “working man” party has become an anti-American and anti-Christian mob of hate-filled activists at war with everyday Americans.

Straight white men like elderly Pop Kern are number one on Democrats’ hit list, targeted for destruction.

I ran into Pop Kern at the post office. With his great smile, he said, “I want to thank you for what you wrote on that internet.” I asked, “Did you read it?” He replied, “No, but I heard about it from Florida to Pittsburgh. Thanks for what you wrote. I really appreciate it.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Stories of Pain and Misery’ Moved Lawmaker to Take Action on Childhood Gender Transition