Watch The Only Democrat Campaign Ad You Need to See This Year!

This ad is perfect in every way possible. Political Satire or Truth? You decide.

Allie Beth Stuckey satirically depicts a new campaign ad for the Democratic Party.


©Allie Beth Stuckey. All rights reserved.

Warner Bros Inks New Deal with Marxist Leader

Why is Marxist ideology enjoying the red-carpet treatment by big media?

While the public fights over scraps of ideas through social media wars or street protests, Marxist ideologies are being steamrolled into popular culture by big media. The question is, why?

Less than 10 years ago, those promoting this ideology were shunned not only in the political sphere but also in Hollywood. Yet in 2020, we have seen the mainstream news and entertainment quick to support — if not outright adopt — Marxist-friendly content and personalities.

In some cases, Marxist content is adopted through the premise of race or social issues. In other cases, it comes with the denial that Antifa is more than an idea — and a violent one at that.

However, whether it is done to survive a culture war, cancellation or otherwise avoid risking the wrath of consumer groups, media outlets are rolling out the red carpet for Marxist ideology, albeit reshaped itself to appear palatable for the 21st century audience.

We saw the same with Islamism, which went from leaning on religious supremacy to marking itself as a vulnerable minority group at risk of oppression.

The latest promotion of this ideology comes courtesy of Warner Bros TV, which just signed a deal with the self-proclaimed “trained Marxist” Patrisse Cullors. In 2013, Cullors co-founded Black Lives Matter (BLM). In 2015, Cullors confirmed in an interview that she is a “trained Marxist.”

The proposed show follows a trend of big media contributing to the psychological unraveling of shared codes of law and social norms, which (whether intended or not) soften the public to accept an alternate ideology.

For example, the new Amazon show White Slaves reverses racial discrimination while openly relishing in ideological vulgarity and human depravity. Another Amazon show, The Boys, posits a world where heroes are subverted by rogue vigilantes desperate for justice taking their place.

These shows are not so different from the real world where terrorists like the Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are featured on the cover of The Rolling Stone magazine; Islamists and antisemites like Linda Sarsour, who invoke the language of resistance to justify their agenda, are feted by universities and others; and newspapers of record like The New York Times devotes thousands of column inches to arguments against the right to free speech.

Clarion recently explored how the media is becoming a social contagion for radicalization, meaning that repeat exposure to an idea activates absorption and acceptance.

In addition, we explored how all of these trends may be part of a push toward cultural hegemony. Whether or not we label this cultural Marxism can be debated. However, what cannot be debated is the fact that Marxism has always sought to gain control of the “organs of culture” including newspapers, magazines, media and so forth.

The question remains: Are what we are seeing by these industries an attempt to appease a consumer base and stay viable in a culture that has become dependent on virtue signaling as a means of marketing, or is it coming from a real ideological agenda?


Shireen Qudosi


New Gov’t Report About Foreign Funding Confirms Nat’l Security Issue

The Mindset of the Jihadist

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

Florida Data, Not Polls, Points To Trump Victory

The polls are the polls and no one other than the paid pollsters with obvious vested interests can tell you if they are accurate. They suggest Trump is down a couple of percentage points in Florida. That is highly doubtful for several concrete, number-driven reasons.

First, let’s understand the difference between polls and other data. The best polls ask registered voters who voted in the last two elections — labeling them likely voters — who they will vote for this year. In 2016, pollsters missed a few percentage points of Trump voters because those voters lied to them, unwilling to tell a stranger they were voting for Trump. That phenomenon is assuredly more in play this year considering the societal travails of being a Trump supporter in many parts of the country.

And Republicans in Florida and elsewhere have seen dramatically higher voter registration totals than Democrats since 2016, which means they are not showing up in those polls. Neither of these polling shortcomings are the fault of nefarious pollsters. Oversampling Democrats, however, is on pollsters and still seems to happen too often.

So polling numbers are squishy, malleable and missing important data. On the other hand, here are some concrete data points to consider that color a different picture.

Each week for the past several weeks, Republican volunteers knocked on three million doors and made one million phone calls to Floridians. (Side note: Democrats pay a lot of volunteers on a weekly basis, calling them the oxymoron “paid volunteers.” Republicans do not.) This election cycle alone, Florida Republican and Trump Victory volunteers have made more than 22 million voter contacts in Florida alone. They also held more than 55,000 events and mobilized tens of thousands of volunteers. This counters the Democrats’ monetary advantage for smothering ad buys — which is what the media is focusing on. Naturally. But human contact is proven to be the most effective.

Republicans have signed up something like half a million new voters since 2016 in Florida, lowering the Democrats once large voter advantage to less than one percent, and dwindling. Democrats held a voter registration advantage nearing 500,000 voters in 2016. That is now below 130,000 and continuing to drop.

In the past five years, Florida Republicans have flipped 21 counties from blue to red via voter registration rolls. These were mostly rural counties, but not all. Pinellas County, which is home to St. Pete and the Tampa Bay Rays has one million residents as part of Tampa Bay, also saw Republicans pass Democrats in voter registration.

These voter registration efforts since 2016 have been a roaring success across the state, with Republicans beating Democrats in new registrations in even the large metro counties of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties (Tampa Bay) and Orange and Seminole counties (Orlando.) And amazingly, Republicans almost tripled the number of newly registered voters in Miami-Dade over newly registered Democrats.

This is not strictly a data point, but the largest Florida county has an incredible diversity of voters in its Hispanic community. It’s not just the conservative Cuban community, but Venezuelans, Guatamalens and Hondurans also trend more Republican because they come from failed socialist countries. The black community is also more diverse with the Caribbean influence, particularly Haitians who are much more conservative than traditional American blacks.

When you take this hard data just on face value, it suggests a different picture than the polls. But even with those, remember that all of the recent ones have the race even when considering the margin of error.

RELATED ARTICLE: As Florida Goes, So Goes the Country


EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Like The Revolutionary Act on Facebook.

Help Gain Justice for Survivor Bekah Charleston! Stop Sexual Exploitation Now!

Bekah Charleston is a survivor.


The youngest of six children, she grew up in a loving home in Keller, Texas. Her parents have been married for 57 years. As a little girl, Bekah loved soccer, school, and cheerleading, and looked forward to going to church every week with her family.

But it took just one horrible event to turn her idyllic childhood into a living nightmare.

At just 14 years old, Bekah was raped, shattering her innocence and her life. Feeling immense shame and fear, she refused to tell anyone, including her loving family, about what happened. Like many survivors of sexual assault, she blamed herself for the crime that was committed against her.

Alone and afraid, she turned to drugs and acting out in various ways to cope with the trauma from what she had experienced. Three years later, at the age of 17, she ran away from her family and loving home, exchanging that secure environment for the harsh life of a new home on the streets.

It was there where she thought she met her rescuer — her “knight in shining armor.”

Her “knight” was an aspiring magician in his twenties. At least that was the story he told Bekah. He promised to take care of her. Being young, vulnerable, and afraid, Bekah fell for all his lies.

First, he became her boyfriend. Then, he started to incrementally establish absolute control over every aspect of her life. Bekah moved in with him and was quickly introduced to a vicious cycle of copious drug consumption, including hallucinogens, which turned her life into a confused blur.

The drug use was followed by punching, kicking, and beatings. Sadly, as is similar with many victims of abuse, Bekah felt he loved her. Instead, he only saw her as a product to be sold, bought, and consumed.

Her rescuer, her “knight in shining armor” was, in reality, a trafficker who took her across state lines to Nevada, where the state’s practice of legalized prostitution allows sex trafficking to be openly practiced, resulting in Bekah’s abuse escalating even further. Her trafficker then moved her to Las Vegas, placing her in one of Nevada’s most “famous” legal brothels where she was held as a virtual captive. Bekah was not allowed to turn down any sex buyer for fear of being kicked out and beaten by her trafficker who also received all the money she was paid for providing sex.

For ten years, Bekah endured this sexual servitude until her real rescuers came in the form of a church, along with federal authorities, who helped Bekah escape her living nightmare. While   now free from her forced imprisonment, she remained terrified of her trafficker who still threatened to kill her.

Although Bekah will struggle with a lifetime of triggers and emotional scars from the complex trauma, indescribable violence, and sexual abuse she endured, she is a woman of great courage. She now leads national efforts to prevent other young women from experiencing the very type of exploitation she suffered as well as helping women escape these abusive situations.

With the backing of the NCOSE Law Center, Bekah is going to court and asking that the state of Nevada be held accountable under the law. The NCOSE Law Center filed a suit on her behalf and one other survivor to sue Nevada for creating, promoting, and advertising the environment that made her abuse possible — an environment that made the state not only a magnet for trafficked women but also a jackpot for those who profit from sexual exploitation. Bekah says in a powerful video:

Forty-eight years ago, prostitution was legalized in Nevada. It was a social experiment. That experiment has failed. Women and children have paid the price. Nevada has the largest sex trade (illegal and legal) of any state in the country. Sixty-three percent higher than the next highest state. Nevada ranks in the top 10 for trafficked and exploited youth. It’s time to end prostitution and trafficking in Nevada.

NCOSE could not agree more. Just like you, we cannot hear stories like Bekah’s and do nothing. We must stop this gross abuse and exploitation of vulnerable young women like her. It is her story, and the tragic stories of all the women who have been trafficked and exploited in the Silver State, that led NCOSE to name Nevada to our annual Dirty Dozen List last year.

These stories also shed light on the patterns and realities of human trafficking and show why we must act now to stop more tragedies before they occur.

That is why I am writing you today. Will you join with the NCOSE Law Center to hold the state of Nevada accountable and protect innocent young women from the horrors of the state’s sanctioned sex trafficking?

But if we are to be successful in stopping the exploitation of young women like Bekah, and all the others who have fallen or could fall prey to being sex trafficked, we need the necessary resources to file these lawsuits and win. Those resources are your generosity, passion, and partnership. Equipped with these resources, we are confident that we can defeat the powerful forces the commercial sex industry, including Nevada’s legal brothel system, with its deep pockets and long-held traditions, has its disposal.

Bekah’s story also serves to highlight another key part of this exploitation — one that is often overlooked by the media and others concerned with human trafficking — the intersection of trafficking and prostitution.

The simple answer to stopping trafficking is this: without the men looking to buy women in prostitution (the demand), there would not be a need for traffickers to supply victims.

We are at a critical time. Occasionally, we are faced with landmark opportunities that have the potential to change the world. This is one of them.

We can strike at the heart of so much needless sexual exploitation and suffering by making an aggressive strike against one of the hotbeds of this endless and tragic sexual demand. Nevada’s sex tourism industry has created an unquenchable demand, one that requires more and younger women each year to satisfy the ravenous hunger of commercial sex buyers. Many young women, like Bekah and the other plaintiff in this case, have been or are being brought across Nevada state line against their will, all to satisfy this demand.

©National Center for Sexual Exploitation. All rights reserved.

8 States in Voting Lawsuits With Election Day Less Than a Week Away

With Election Day just days away, and early voting already underway in many states, the election-related lawsuits have been piling up, and court decisions (and appeals) have been coming out at a dizzying rate.

Some are still trying to change the rules in the middle of the election that would make it easier to commit fraud and to manipulate election results—not unlike a college football coach persuading the referees to change the rules in the middle of a bowl game to make sure his team can win.

Challenges to election procedures in South Carolina (witness requirements for absentee ballots); Ohio and Texas (ballot drop-box locations); and Florida (registration deadline)—to name just a few—have all made the news as they make their way through the federal courts.

But wait, there’s more!

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Absentee-ballot deadlines have been a major contention—especially when federal judges extend them well beyond Election Day. That raises many serious issues about the integrity of the election process and the possibility of ballots being voted and collected (or altered) by so-called “vote harvesters” after Election Day to shift reported preliminary results.

Here are eight such cases:

1) Wisconsin

We previously wrote about the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that “extended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3 … .”

In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that “the Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election date” and that “the design of adjustments during a pandemic” is not a “judicial task.”

On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committee’s request for a stay of the 7th Circuit’s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high court’s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that “[t]he Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules … [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”

2) Indiana

Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit’s election-related work didn’t end with Wisconsin’s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when it stayed and “summarily reversed” an Indiana-based federal judge’s order “requiring the state [of Indiana] to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.”

The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said “[s]ubstitute ‘Indiana’ for ‘Wisconsin’ and the essential point remains.”

An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7th Circuit said, “as long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.”

The fact that there is a pandemic is still “not a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.”

In other words, it is up to state officials, not judges, to decide what the rules are applying to voting and the receipt of absentee ballots.

3) North Carolina

Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.

That’s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they don’t like or that were passed by their political opposition.

Even more problematic, these consent decrees in turn often spawn their own rounds of federal litigation by state legislators and others who object to state laws being undefended and summarily changed through settlement agreements.

That’s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a six-day extension—from three days after the election to nine—during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.

This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.

A lower court judge found that the board had “secretly” negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and “showed little or no interest” in defending state law against the lawsuit.

Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4th Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.

The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the “status quo” when applying the Purcell principle, established by the Supreme Court in 2006. That’s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a state’s election-related decisions close to an election.

Wynn and the majority said, “The state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2.  This October 2 order established the relevant status quo for Purcell purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.”

The dissenters countered that “we are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the power” to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.

As the dissenters pointed out, “The Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state government—‘the Legislatures thereof.’”

Foreshadowing Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, “Whether it is a federal court … or a state election board—as it is here—does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an election—exactly what Purcell … counsels against.”

In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4th Circuit majority was changing the rules when “well over 1,000,000” North Carolinians had already voted.

The court’s action “disrespects the Supreme Court’s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day.  This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.”

Emergency appeals have already been filed with the Supreme Court by both the Trump campaign and North Carolina state legislators, no doubt encouraged by Wilkinson and Agee saying that they “are likely to succeed on their appeal.”

4) Minnesota

A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. There—as in North Carolina—Steve Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, a former Democratic state legislator, entered into a consent decree with certain groups, as a result of a state court lawsuit, agreeing “not to enforce Minnesota’s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.”

“Instead, the [state] court ordered [Minnesota officials, consistent with the consent decree] to count ballots that are postmarked by November 3, so long as election officials receive them within a week of Election Day.”

As a result, two Republican Party presidential electors  brought suit in federal court challenging the collusive consent decree and the court order approving it as unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued the actions violated the “Electors Clause” in Article II of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the authority to determine how to select presidential electors, and Congress’ power under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 to set the “[t]ime of [choosing] the Electors.”

However, the court never reached the merits of this case because it found that the electors did not have standing, or the ability to pursue these claims in federal court, because they had not been injured by the change in election procedures. But this seems like an odd result, given that it is presidential electors who are elected by voters when they cast ballots, not the presidential candidates themselves.

5) Michigan

The Michigan Court of Appeals, that state’s intermediate appellate court, ruled on Oct. 16 that a lower Michigan court had incorrectly required the state to accept mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day and that it had improperly prohibited the state from enforcing its laws relating to who, other than the voter, can handle and deliver his or her ballot.

It made clear that “designing adjustments to our election integrity laws is the responsibility of our elected policymakers, not the judiciary.”

In fact, the court said:

Our legislature has addressed the expected increase in [absentee] voter ballots by empowering clerks to begin processing [absentee] voter ballots earlier in an effort to provide a final vote tally after polls close for the 2020 election … .

While plaintiffs may view these efforts as inadequate first steps, there is no reason to believe that these specific efforts are constitutionally required, even in the midst of a pandemic.

Instead, they reflect the proper ‘exercise of discretion, the marshaling and allocation of resources, and the confrontation of thorny policy issues’ that the people have reserved exclusively for our Legislative and Executive branches to exercise.

The court also acknowledged that “[i]mposing limits on whether third parties can possess or collect ballots simply reflects a policy decision by a duly elected legislature, where the Constitution places responsibility to regulate and preserve the purity of elections.”

Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in this case is the Phillip Randolph Institute. This is the same radical organization that lost a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Husted v. Phillip Randolph Institute, in which it tried to prevent the state of Ohio from maintaining the accuracy of its voter-registration list by removing individuals who had died or moved out of the state.

6) Pennsylvania

On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would require—according to that court’s interpretation of state law—state  officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they don’t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.

In a surprising move, it was Roberts who joined with the court’s liberals to refuse Supreme Court review of the state court’s decision.

Roberts didn’t explain his vote in this case. However, he did write a short concurrence in the later case out of Wisconsin in which he agreed to stop the extension of the absentee ballot deadline to try to explain why he voted differently in each case.

He claimed that because “the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations,” that case was different than “the federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes” in Wisconsin.

According to Roberts, because “different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations,” the circumstances require “that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin.”

The fallacy of that argument is that the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election rules to state legislatures, not state courts.

On Oct. 24, however, perhaps in anticipation of possibly getting a better decision with the empty seat on the Supreme Court filled, the state’s Republican Party went back to the Supreme Court and asked it to decide the case on the merits, rather than simply asking it to stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.

The outcome of that request remains to be seen.

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court also ruled on Oct. 23 that election officials could not reject absentee ballots because the signature on the ballot does not match the signature of the voter on file, throwing out one of the most basic security protocols in place for mail-in ballots.

7) Iowa

On Oct. 14, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a lower state court abused its discretion when it issued an Oct. 5 stay preventing the Iowa secretary of state from requiring that county officials distribute “only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form … .”

While the decision turns largely on state law, the court said, “Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on whether sending out blank or prepopulated absentee-ballot request forms is better policy … [but m]ore importantly, it is not the role of the court system to evaluate the wisdom or fairness of policy choices made by other branches of governments.”

Contrary to the court’s comment about “reasonable people,” knowledgeable election officials understand that sending out absentee-ballot request forms that are already populated with a voter’s registration information—rather than requiring the voter to provide that information—cuts out one of the safety protocols for authenticating absentee-ballot requests.

8) Alabama

And finally, we turn to Alabama.  We previously discussed the 11th Circuit’s rulings that have repeatedly stayed a recalcitrant federal district judge’s order prohibiting Alabama from enforcing its witness and photo-ID requirements for absentee ballots, and the fact that this same decision did not stay the district court’s order telling Alabama state officials they could not stop local officials from providing curbside voting, something not authorized under state law.

As we noted before, federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa—who was rumored to have been one of two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy that ultimately went to appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett—would also have stayed the district court’s order with regard to curbside voting.

Well, Lagoa was right. Alabama officials sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which it granted—meaning Alabama officials can run their elections as they see fit (within constitutional bounds, of course) and once again prohibit curbside voting.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined, that makes it clear that they would have no hesitation in substituting their “expert” judgment on how to deal with the health issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic for that of state and local officials.

All told, an avalanche of election-related litigation has been filed in courts across the country. The common objective in all of these cases seems to be to get rid of the deadlines and security measures in place for absentee or mail-in ballots by overriding the rules set by state legislatures to govern the election.

The quantity and complexity of these lawsuits so close to an election—after many votes have already been cast—emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle that federal courts should not intervene at the last minute, upsetting expectations and creating even more chaos in the process.


Zack Smith is a legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


4 Big Takeaways From Senate Hearing on Tech Bias

Left’s Woke Education and Social Policies Are Scary

Meet Marilyn Mosby, the Rogue Prosecutor Wreaking Havoc in Baltimore

Kenosha Auto Dealer Says Insurer Won’t Cover Riot Damage

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.


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

Why I’m a One Issue Voter

The issue of abortion has barely come up in the debates of Election 2020. But for many of us, it is still the issue that matters most.

I am a one issue voter, without apology, and that issue is abortion. I’m against it. If a politician thinks it is acceptable—whatever the rhetoric—to deliberately kill a living, developing human being in the womb, that politician is wrong. And he or she will never have my vote.

The issue of life is so basic. It is even the first Creator-given right listed in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence. Without life, how can there be liberty or the pursuit of happiness or the right to property? Or any other right?

Those politicians who get the issue of life wrong tend to get just about everything else wrong.

With the window to the womb that science provides today, the emperor has no clothes when they say that a baby is not being killed.

Remember the case of Abby Johnson, manager of a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic and “Planned Parenthood Employee of the Year,” who resigned her lucrative position when she saw a sonogram of an abortion in her own clinic? She suddenly realized that this was not a clump of tissue being cleansed away. This was a tiny little human being in the making, fighting a losing battle against a high-power suction machine. Her book (with Cindy Lambert), Unplanned, chronicles all this.

In this election, there has arisen a group that claims to be “evangelical” and “pro-life” that in reality supports pro-abortion politicians. Who are they fooling? What they claim is that the “pro-life” position goes beyond simply the issue of abortion to such issues as “climate change.” All they do is to attempt to dilute the phrase “pro-life” so that it loses its real meaning: opposition to abortion.

For example, they claim that being “pro-life” means being against racism, which they inconsistently argue somehow necessitates voting for pro-abortion candidates. Imagine that—fighting racism by supporting Black genocide. The fact is, abortion kills almost 30 percent of Black children in the womb—and more than half of them in New York City.

It is well documented that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, was a racist.

On December 10, 1939, in a letter to her board member, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, Sanger wrote,

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., told me in a television interview: “During her lifetime Dr. Margaret Sanger said ‘colored’ people are like weeds and they need to be exterminated.” No wonder that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood facilities—to this day—are in the minority neighborhoods.

Former Vice President Joe Biden used to be (supposedly) “moderately pro-choice.” But now he’s shifted to the position of accepting abortion up to the moment of birth. And he believes we the taxpayers should fund it. His running mate is fiercely pro-abortion. As attorney general of California, Kamala Harris prosecuted and persecuted David Daleiden, the pro-life whistle-blower who made “60 Minutes”-style undercover videos, documenting that abortionists were trafficking in baby body parts for profit.

In contrast, President Donald Trump has been described by Steven Ertelt, editor of, as “the most pro-life president in history.”

Since a president chooses judges and the senate confirms or rejects them, abortion is definitely on the ballot in Election 2020. And there is stark contrast between where the parties stand on this life-and-death issue.

At D. James Kennedy Ministries, we provide a simple party platform comparison on a variety of key issues. Here’s the comparison on the issue of life:

  • Republicans: “We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”
  • “Democrats believe that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.”
  • The Word of God: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:13-14)

We hear endlessly about evils from Americans in times past—especially slavery. I firmly believe that future generations will look back at us and see the rampant practice of abortion, and they will judge us for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies—even more deplorable in light of the window to the womb we have through modern technology.

Christians need to vote our values, and the issue of life is the most important of these.

Thomas Jefferson said that he trembled when he considered that God is just and that His justice cannot slumber forever. No, indeed it won’t.

©Jerry Newcomb. All rights reserved.

New Campaign by National Police Support Fund to Reach 800,000 Supporters

ALEXANDRIA, Va.Oct. 28, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — With just a few weeks to go until the election, the National Police Support Fund is launching a new effort to make sure that everyone who wants to support police can cast their ballot this fall.

National Police Support Fund is contacting more than 800,000 supporters across the U.S. to urge them to get to the polls on November 3, or vote early if voting in-person is not an option. The goal of the campaign is to encourage as many people as possible to show their support for police and politicians who are committed to upholding and defending the rule of law.

“While we knew that this would be an extremely important election year, we have also faced many unprecedented political and social events this year,” said Executive Director Simon Lewis. “Police officers have been on the front lines in the midst of a global pandemic, been attacked and assaulted both on and off duty, and are currently facing riots and calls from activists to dismantle their departments.”

“With only a few weeks before the election, it is more important than ever to activate our pro-police supporters across the country,” continued Mr. Lewis. “National Police Support Fund will be engaging and activating hundreds of thousands of pro-police citizens in the coming weeks before the election on November 3rd.”

National Police Support Fund is a national political organization that brings together Americans from all walks of life united under the banner of respect and support of our nation’s law enforcement officers. National Police Support Fund is committed to promoting the interests and well-being of American police officers within the public policy process through grassroots political action. This grassroots movement is driven by everyday Americans who believe in supporting the rule of law and honoring the police officers who uphold and enforce it everyday.


National Police Support Fund is a national political organization organized under Section 527 of the IRS Tax Code. Contributions made to National Police Support Fund are not tax-deductible. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

©National Police Support Fund. All rights reserved.

As Florida Goes, So Goes the Country

It’s time for me to announce my prediction for the 2020 presidential election.

I was right on the money in 2016 and in 2018 for the mid-term elections, and I did it without the aid of the polls which, as I discovered, are totally useless. Instead, I rely on the voting data received from the Florida Board of Elections which routinely updates their numbers, thereby providing me with the means to study trends. Let me show you how I did it.

Before I begin, please remember in 2016 the Republicans won in Florida under the category of Vote-by-Mail (aka, “Absentee”), the Democrats won the Early-Voting, and the Republicans won the Election Day votes. Things didn’t work out quite this way in 2020, which I will explain, but suffice it to say more people will have voted in all three categories in Florida this year than in 2016 (which also set a record at the time).

In 2020, the Democrats started well by running away with the Vote-by-Mail ballots. In fact, this was their preferred voting venue. Two reasons for this, first; the Democrats had an aggressive campaign to get people to vote by mail, and second; Republicans were scared their ballot would be lost or misappropriated and, as such, opted to vote in person instead. Nonetheless, the Democrats built an early lead based on the Vote-by-Mail ballots which became difficult for the Republicans to overcome.

Early-Voting started one week later and lasted two weeks (it will close this Sunday). The Republicans seized on this and never relinquished the lead in this category. In the Tampa Bay metro area alone, all of the counties were dominated by the Republicans, including Hillsborough, a Democrat stronghold. Then, slowly but surely, the Republicans took control of the total votes. As we approach election day next week, the Republicans will find themselves in the lead, and will likely turn out in record numbers on election day (as they have done historically). In contrast, the Democrats voted early through Vote-by-Mail. Prior to election day, well over 50% of the registered Democrats had voted. Normally, only 66% of registered Democrats vote overall, but even if they get to the 70% or 75% plateau on election day, it will not be enough to stop the Republican tsunami at the voting booth. As an aside, 75% of registered Republicans typically vote in a presidential election, but I suspect this number will go higher this year.

One other note worth mentioning, independent voters also flexed their muscle in Florida’s elections, setting another voting record. In 2016, Independents helped carry Mr. Trump across the finish line. I cannot help but believe they will do likewise in 2020 as many are disturbed by the violence and mayhem in Democrat controlled cities. Even if it is a 50/50 split, it will be good for Republicans.

Click HERE for my spreadsheet showing Florida/Tampa Bay voting data.

In the final analysis, unless there is some massive voter fraud, President Donald Trump is going to win re-election. From the data I have seen, he will win Florida handily, and as Florida goes, so goes the country (as evidenced by the 2016 election).

The key to all of this is the enthusiasm of the voters, pitting the Silent Majority against the “Haters.” I say the “Haters” as I do not truly believe they embrace their candidate, former VP Joe Biden, as much as they hate President Trump. In contrast, the Silent Majority is a movement of people who openly support the president and demonstrated in his favor at numerous Flag rallies, Automobile rallies, and Boat rallies, the largest of which was over 2,000 in nearby Clearwater, Florida, thereby setting a world record. This was all done at the grassroots level by volunteers. Here in Florida, there were some occasional flag rallies for Mr. Biden, but I learned many people were paid to wave Biden signs and flags, just the antithesis of the Trump supporters. This is when I knew President Trump was going to win as he possessed the true support of the people.

I also call the Biden supporters “Haters” as I have personally seen members of their group yell and scream obscenities at Trump supporters unprovoked. It is crude and offensive to a lot of people, particularly children. Unfortunately, I witnessed this too many times. The Democrats like to portray President Trump as the “Divider-in-Chief,” but in reality, it is their own party imbued in hate. They are simply classless.

I also find it disturbing to see so many Trump signs and flags defaced or stolen. When was the last time you saw a Biden sign stolen? No, I cannot think of an instance either. Unfortunately, the “Haters” believe this is morally acceptable to do.

We also see signs of the Silent Majority at Trump Rallies featuring the president, where thousands of people attend and cling to his words. Contrast this to the few Biden Rallies which are sparsely attended.

As in 2016, the polls were dead wrong. Once again they will be embarrassed by the elections. How can anyone take them seriously? I, for one, do not, which is why I rely on actual voter data instead. The numbers I use are real. The numbers the polls use are fake and produce fallacious results. Further, the Main Stream Media will also suffer another black eye in terms of credibility as they have obviously become nothing more than shills for the DNC.

Bottom-line: Just as in 2016, the Democrats will be crying come election night.

As an aside, just because I can confidently call the race here doesn’t mean the race is over. Instead, I encourage everyone to get out the vote, regardless of your political persuasion.

Finally, let me be the first to say, “Congratulations President Trump.”

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also, I have a NEW book, “Before You Vote: Know How Your Government Works”, What American youth should know about government, available in Printed, PDF and eBook form. This is the perfect gift for youth!


EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Report: Kamala Harris Listed as ‘Key Contact’ for Biden Family Business Venture in China

It gets worse and worse. The corruption is standard operating procedure.

Report: Kamala Harris Listed as ‘Key Contact’ for Biden Family Business Venture in China

By Breitbart News, October 22, 0202:

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was reportedly listed as one of several “key domestic contacts” for a Chinese business venture proposed in 2017 by Hunter Biden and James Biden, the son and brother of former Vice President Joe Biden, respectively.

Fox News reported Thursday morning:

A list of “key domestic contacts” for a joint venture involving Jim and Hunter Biden and now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. included former Vice President Joe Biden’s current running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, among other prominent Democrats, Fox News has learned.

An email exclusively obtained by Fox News, with the subject line “Phase one domestic contacts/ projects” and dated May 15, 2017, Biden’s brother, Jim Biden, shared a list of “key domestic contacts for phase one target projects.”

The list, included Harris, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio; former Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe, among others.

It is unclear if any of the Democrats were ever contacted about the “target projects.”

Last week, the New York Post revealed Hunter Biden’s venture in China, citing emails in which he said that a deal could be “interesting for me and my family” and that 10% of the equity in a new firm would be “held … for the big guy.”

On Wednesday evening, Breitbart News reported that one of the recipients of Hunter Biden’s emails, Tony Bobulinski, confirmed that “the big guy” was a reference to Joe Biden himself.

Bobulinski also said in a statement to the press: “I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”

Breitbart contributor Peter Schweizer noted recently in his book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite that Biden’s relatives often traded on his name to make money abroad:

The Biden family partners are often foreign governments, where the deals occur in the dark corners of international finance like Kazakhstan, China, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Ukraine, and Russia. Some deals have even involved U.S. taxpayer money. The cast of characters includes sketchy companies, violent convicted felons, foreign oligarchs, and other people who typically expect favors in return.

The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment depends on Joe Biden’s political influence and involves no less than five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, daughter Ashley, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie.

The Bidens leverage political power not only for generating deals, but also for the opportunities to quietly develop the financial resources of wealthy friends for the benefit of the family. Friends that help the Bidens can count on Joe to grant them governmental favors.

Though Biden has tried to dismiss recent stories about Hunter Biden’s emails as a “smear” campaign, no one has yet disputed the authenticity of the emails released by the Post, Breitbart News, Fox News, and others.


OMG: PHOTOS Of The Aftermath Of Widespread Looting In Philadelphia By Pro-Biden/BLM/Antifa

DEMENTED JOE BIDEN SAVED BY THE STAFF: Biden Struggles to Answer Questions, Trails Off as Campaign Ushers Him Away

Los Angeles: Woman Finds Discarded Ballots Near Drive-Thru ATM

Jackboot Jack Dorsey Defends Allowing Iranian Threats to Eliminate ‘Cancerous’ Jews: ‘Respecting Their Right to Speak’

ABC/WaPo puts out garbage poll to suppress Trump voters in Wisconsin and Michigan

Car Rams Through Line of NYPD Officers During RIOTS By Biden Voters/Antifa/Black Lives

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

Science Nazis Demand Obedience To Their Political Agenda

We’ve seen this before.

Whether the issue is “Climate Change” or ways of dealing with COVID-19 the Radical Left ridicules anyone who would dare to question their positions on critical issues.  They accuse those who question them or their claims of not believing in science.

Consider the Yahoo News report that AOL posted on October 26, 2020, Bill Gates slams Trump’s COVID-19 adviser as  ‘pseudo-expert’ who’s ‘off-the-rails’ which began with this excerpt:

In a new interview, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates sharply criticized the Trump administration for muzzling experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) while instead listening to White House COVID-19 adviser Dr. Scott Atlas, whom Gates calls a pseudo-expert” whooff-the-rails.”

Atlas, a member of the administrations coronavirus task force who formerly appeared as a commentator for Fox News, reportedly opposes an expansion of COVID testing and earlier this month posted a tweet falsely downplaying the effectiveness of masks. Twitter later removed the post from Atlas, a Stanford University professor with a medical degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine.

We now have a pseudo-expert advising the president,” Gates, the former Microsoft (MSFT) CEO and a leading backer of global public health initiatives, told Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in an interview that aired on Monday as part of the the news organizationAll Markets Summit.

After the interview, taped on Oct. 15, Gates confirmed that he had made the comments in reference to Atlas, who has opposed lockdowns and co-authored an op-ed in The Hill called The COVID-19 shutdowns will cost Americans millions of years of lives.”

This article is important for a number of reasons.  First of all, Gates demonstrated colossal chutzpah to insult a medical doctor who graduated from a highly respected medical school and serves as a professor at Stanford University, while Gates, himself, never attended any medical school.

In fact, Gates has no degree of any kind!

What then, could possibly qualify Gates to pass judgement on the credibility of a medical doctor especially one with the clear credentials of Dr. Scott Atlas even as he castigated President Trump for challenging the contradictory and morphing advice of Dr. Fauci.

The AOL/Yahoo article stated that Twitter had removed what they claimed was a tweet posted by Dr. Atlas that they claim falsely downplayed the effectiveness of masks.

It is more than a bit disturbing that Twitter censored Dr. Atlas and, in so doing, prevented the general public from benefitting from his perspectives.  This should alarm everyone.

About 20 years ago I was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.  The surgeon who examined me and told me of my situation was the chief of urology at a major New York Hospital and chaired the department of urology at a major medical school.

However, while he told me that he believed that he could save my life, he urged me to seek out at least one additional opinion so that I would be confident that I was making the proper decision.

I did seek out that second opinion and my medical insurance policy covered that second opinion, because this notion of seeking additional opinions is considered the standard way for people to make certain that they are making proper life and death decisions.

Needless to say, my surgeon saved my life- this a good thing because I have not aggravated my quota yet!

Where science and the Radical Left are concerned, however, not blindly following what their anointed experts proclaim, is an act of heresy.

This flies in the face of commonsense and threatens the First Amendment and all of our freedoms.

In doing a bit of research I found a similar situation that existed in a different country many years ago.

That country was Germany as the Third Reich began taking control of Germany and its population, Jews came under vicious attack.  No less a scientist that Albert Einstein was attacked for his work.  Scientific America on February 13, 2015 published an important article about the lunacy that transpired at that time, How 2 Pro-Nazi Nobelists Attacked Einsteins “Jewish Science” [Excerpt].

The article discussed the mass book burnings carried out on college campuses, not unlike the way that Antifa operates today.  Books authored by Albert Einstein were incinerated.  Here is an important paragraph from this article:

It would be absurd, of course, to suppose that most of the book-burners had given these questions a moments thought. The simple fact was that Einstein was a prominent Jew, and his thoughts therefore fit for the bonfire. But Einsteins theory was attacked on racial grounds. This assault came not by asinine ideologues in the party whose knowledge of science extended no further than a belief in fairy tales about cosmic ice,” nor from individuals on the scientific fringe seeking official approval and support. It was orchestrated by two Nobel laureates in physics, who devised a full-blown thesis (it cant be dignified by calling it a theory) on how stereotypical racial features are exhibited in scientific thinking. They were Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, and they wanted to become the new Führers of German physics.

Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and his concept of Space-Time were mocked and ridiculed by two Nazi Nobel laureates.

Of course nearly all of Einstein’s brilliant theories have been validated in recent years by scientists and physicists who now have the technological tools to conduct appropriate experiments.

Understandably fearing for his life,  Einstein fled Nazi Germany and came to America where, ironically, he helped America defeat Fascism in Germany and Japan and, in so doing, safeguarded freedom for people across the globe.

Today the Radical Left demands obedience to theories about climate change that support their demands for the “New Green Deal” even as some scientists question the validity of the notion that human actions have climatological consequences that must be stopped at all costs.

They seek nothing short of a fundamental transformation in the way that we live and work and these demands can only be justified by claiming that catastrophic climate change can only be averted if we adopt draconian changes.

Science has always been about challenges beliefs and devising experiments to seek the truth.

To cite an interesting example of how highly respected scientists may come to diametrically opposed conclusions consider a pair of articles that ran on the same website ( on two consecutive days.

On October 19, 2020, that website posted, Whats Happening with Betelgeuse? Astronomers Propose a Specialized Telescope to Watch the Star Every Night.

The very next day, October 20, the website published, Wow, Betelgeuse Might Be 25% Closer than Previously Believed.

The physicists who wrote the first article postulated that because Betelgeuse is so huge and pulsating, it is likely to explode within our lifetimes.  They estimated that that star is 700 light-years from earth.  This is why they proposed the construction of a special telescope to keep an astronomical eye on that star.

However, if the physicists who published the second article are right, Betelgeuse is 548 light years away.  This would mean that the star is not nearly as large or bright as the other physicists believe.  This would mean that Betelgeuse is not likely to become a super nova any time soon- at least not for another 100,000 years by their estimates.

This may not seem important to us on our beleaguered planet, but the lessons to be learned is very important.

Experts can and do disagree.  The process of questioning is behind all of our achievements. Scientists who serve a political agenda are the scientists who must not be trusted.

Science is supposed to be the tireless search for universal truths and must be unencumbered by political agendas.

Scientists who yield to the political elite betray their professions and should be ignored as the science-fascists that they are.

Voltaire sagely observed that you could determine the intelligence of a person by considering the questions that they ask, the same questions that today will earn you scorn and ridicule by the Radical Left.

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.


Florida Voter Data Analysis as of October 28th

Florida Republicans took another 57K votes from the Democrats overall, thanks to their dominance of Early-Voting.

By Friday, Polk County will join Manatee, Pasco, and Sarasota counties in putting the county firmly into Republican hands.

By the weekend, Tampa Bay will likely go to the Republicans as well.

Democrats continue to control Vote-by-Mail (absentee), but their rate has slipped to +6K; on the other hand, Republicans control of Early-Voting has increased to +162K, easily out-pacing absentee voting.

This is indicative the Democrats are running out of steam (as expected).


Supreme Court sides with President Trump, Blocks Wisconsin Ballot Extension

Pushback against the Democrat election putsch……

Supreme Court won’t revive 6-day ballot deadline extension in Wisconsin, siding with GOP

By: CNBC, October 26, 2020:

The Supreme Court on Monday evening voted 5-3 against Democrats who were pushing to extend the deadline for counting absentee ballots in Wisconsin by six days in order to provide the state more time to deal with the surge in mail-in voting caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The decision, announced in an order, came eight days before Election Day. Wisconsin is a key battleground state in the battle between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, ballots will have to be delivered by 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 to be counted.

The court’s eight justices divided along partisan lines, with the court’s three Democratic-appointees in dissent. The order, which came amid a flurry of election-related disputes that are making their way to the justices, was released as the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Barrett’s confirmation gives conservatives a 6-3 majority.

The top court’s order followed a ruling from District Court Judge William Conley last month extending the state’s absentee ballot counting deadline in response to a suit from the Democratic National Committee and its allies. Conley cited the unusually high number of ballots cast by mail as well as delays with the Postal Service.

A similar 6-day extension that was in place for Wisconsin’s April elections resulted in 80,000 ballots being counted that otherwise would have been disqualified, or 5% of the total ballots, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

A panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Conley’s ruling earlier in October. The Democrats appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court ruling, but the justices declined to do so.


Watch: Joe Biden Refers to Doug Emhoff as ‘Kamala’s Wife’

President Trump ready to help Philly police after 30 officers injured in riots: White House

EPIC FAIL: CNN Misses Revenue Targets by $100+ Million

Report: Mail-in Ballots Stolen from Mailboxes in Colorado Springs Stolen Mail-In Ballot

Israeli Pro-Trump Caravan drives From Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

France Warns Citizens To Be Cautious As Anger Seethes in Muslim World

BOMBSHELL AUDIO! Hunter Biden Confesses Partnership With “The F**king Spy Chief of China” … Joe Biden Named In Criminal Case Witness

Texas: “Republican” consultant & ‘Ballot Chaser’ ILLEGALLY pressures voter to CHANGE VOTE TO DEMOCRAT with GIFT

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

White House Official Alyssa Farah Reflects on Key Moments of Trump Presidency

Alyssa Farah, the White House’s strategic communications director, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss President Donald Trump’s leadership over the past four years and share some of her experiences working closely with him.

She is proud to serve alongside the commander in chief, Farah says, because she knows that “every day, President Trump gets up and says, ‘What can I do to better this country and serve the American people?’”

We also cover these stories:

  • Trump’s political opponents call for new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from cases related to the 2020 election.
  • Rioters injure 30 police officers in Philadelphia after the fatal shooting by police of Walter Wallace, a 27-year-old black man.
  • Activists on the left pressure Democrats to expand the Supreme Court.

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at Enjoy the show!

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Virginia Allen: I am joined by White House Strategic Communications Director Alyssa Farah. Alyssa, welcome to “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Alyssa Farah: Great to be with you. Thanks so much for having me.

Allen: So, Alyssa, President Donald Trump came into office with a bold plan to strengthen America’s economy and cut taxes for all Americans, and of course, COVID-19 has had a major impact on our economy, and we’re going to talk a little bit more about the virus in just a minute, but up until March of this year, explain what economic development we saw under the Trump administration.

Farah: Yeah, that’s a great question. So, under President Trump, we saw the hottest economy in modern history, and it was a result of a deregulatory agenda, the tax cuts that he and Republicans still helped usher through, as well as just looking at the economy from a free-market perspective, where we’re eliminating barriers to business to be able to do their work.

And so, we were in a position where virtually every people group was seeing some of the record low unemployment. So, women, African-Americans, Hispanics, record low unemployment. College educated, non-college educated, because of this inclusive economy and diverse economy that was created by this president.

It was also diverse in terms of the industries that were thriving. So, the previous administration, President [Barack] Obama famously said, “You have to wave a wand to bring back manufacturing,” meaning manufacturing in the U.S. is dead. It’s an outdated industry.

But, in fact, it thrived under President Trump’s leadership. And of course, as you noted, in February of this year, the virus came into the country, and that changed, sort of, our trajectory. We had to pause and artificially shut down the economy for a period, but what we did … saved countless lives, and that’s always first and foremost the most important thing, but then secondarily, we took steps to ensure that once we got the economy back open, which we’re doing now, we’re in a position to trend toward growth.

Allen: Well, and the president, he did say that that was one of the hardest decisions that he’s ever had to make, was that decision to close part of the U.S. economy because of the pandemic. 

So, what is it going to take in order for America to return to the place of economic prosperity that we did find ourselves in before the pandemic?

Farah: Yeah, that’s a great question. Absolutely, it was a very tough decision to make. The president was faced with the facts of, look, doing a temporary lockdown. We hate to use that word, but it is what we did, could save American lives. And with that, he knew that was the right decision to make. But as we put in place the guidelines for reopening America, which gave state and local authorities sort of provisions to follow to be able to safely open industries, schools, medical facilities, et cetera, we’ve started moving toward reopen.

And frankly, a lot of our country is not fully reopened yet. This is something the president regularly notes. Pennsylvania, Michigan, for example, are not fully reopened. So, a lot of the economic national numbers we’re seeing will reflect that. So, we are really hoping to get to a place where we can safely get people back into the workforce.

If we’re doing the mitigation tactics with COVID, if we’re wearing masks, we’re socially distancing, we’re following hygiene protocols, we believe that we should get our country fully reopened and help just stimulate this economy.

I mean, millions of Americans who were impacted by the virus were also impacted by loss of wages, loss of work, or kids out of school. That requires a parent to stay home and not be working because they have to be home with the child. It’s really kind of an unprecedented crisis that our country found itself in.

But because of the president’s leadership, he’s put us on a trajectory where our country is close to fully reopened. We are rounding the corner on the virus, and we’re hoping that, first quarter of next year, will really be a record one in terms of growth, and in terms of low unemployment for Americans.

Allen: If you would just take us inside the walls of the White House for a moment. President Trump has had to make some really challenging decisions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. What has it been like to be working in the administration during this time?

Farah: Yeah, absolutely. So, to me, one of the most notable moments of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S., and the most significant in terms of the president’s leadership, was the early decision to stop travel from China.

So, at that time, I was actually serving in a different role in the administration. I was the Pentagon press secretary. And I remember when we got the notice from the White House that we would be stopping all travel from China, except repatriating U.S. citizens.

People were shocked, four-star generals who have served for decades, because it’s really unprecedented for America to do this. But the president took this decisive action when confronted with the potential loss of life and acted without hesitation.

I genuinely can’t think of another living politician who would have been as decisive on such a life-saving matter as that decision.

But then, moving forward, as you know, we then moved on to stopping some travel from Europe and to putting in place the 15 days to slow the spread, then the 30 days, and a widespread public health awareness campaign to help stop the spread of the virus.

I came over here to serve at the White House, and what I can tell you is the president’s sort of businessman ingenuity and enterprise that he thinks through, that lens that he thinks through, is key toward getting our country to where it is now, but to an even better place, looking forward.

So, what I mean by that, for example, [is] we set up Operation Warp Speed early on in the virus. So, what that does is, it basically has the military, the private sector, and our public health officials work together in coordination to safely develop an effective vaccine, and then work with the military to be able to mass-distribute it once we reach one.

So, in the coming weeks, we’re optimistic we may have a safe and effective vaccine ready for market. And because of the efforts of Operation Warp Speed, we’ll be able to almost immediately deploy it to about 50 million Americans. And by early January, likely to 100 million and so on in the month ahead after that.

So, that’s a tremendous, just forward-looking sort of unique to Donald Trump way of addressing something like this, that I worry previous, more bureaucratic administrations wouldn’t have had that forethought, the idea that we should work with the private sector.

So, listen, the country is still in the midst of the pandemic. We can’t get complacent. We still have to follow protocols, but we are, I can say this, we are in the best place to date to treat people who are affected by it through therapeutics, and soon we’ll be in a place where the majority of the population, especially the most vulnerable, can be vaccinated.

Allen: Well, so, thank you. That’s great. I want to shift gears just for a moment and talk a little bit about an issue that we have all been watching unfold in the news over the past couple of weeks, and that is now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And we all saw on Monday night that she was sworn in to become the third Supreme Court justice to be confirmed under President Trump’s leadership. 

What principles have governed Trump’s decision on his picks?

Farah: That’s a great question, and we were all thrilled last night to witness history at the White House, seeing the swearing in of now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett by Justice Clarence Thomas, a hero to many conservatives like myself, both heroes to conservatives like myself, and also kind of a reflection of how the court in many ways is best representative of the American public, as it ever has been.

Having an African-American man swearing in a female jurist, it just shows that sort of diversity and forward-looking nature that we like to see.

But as far as the president’s governing philosophy for justice is, a big part of this president’s first-term legacy will be that he really reshaped the judiciary for years to come, having appointed nearly 300 federal judicial appointments, as well as three Supreme Court justices.

He is looking for originalist, textualist jurists, who will be independent, who will interpret the law as written and not legislate from the bench. And I think that’s reflected in the three picks he’s made so far to the Supreme Court. Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh, Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, and now Justice Coney Barrett.

And it’s actually very contrasted with the Democrats, who are now coming out, saying we need to stack the court, that they want to fill seats on the court and add additional seats because they don’t agree with policy positions they perceive Justice Barrett to have.

But the president sees it as jurists are independent. They’re not policymakers. They are meant to interpret the law as written and to uphold the Constitution. It really is the left who sees judges as almost an extension of the legislative branch, and this president has been committed to countering that.

It’s not what our Founders intended. It’s not what the courts should be. There’s a reason they’re separate but equal branches. And that’s reflected across the board in the judicial appointments he’s made.

Allen: Let’s chat just for a moment about the president’s foreign policy. For so many years, we saw presidents say that they would move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and no president ever did until President Trump. 

So, what process did the president go through in order to finally move that embassy?

Farah: That’s really a highlight of the President’s foreign policy, because it’s following through not just on a promise he made to the American people, but a decades-long promise that previous politicians had made to our Israeli allies. And what it shows is our commitment to the Israeli people, to the state of Israel, and to that unwavering alliance that we have.

For him, it wasn’t really a tough decision to be made. Something that he’s joked, and he said this publicly before is, he immediately saw when coming into office and started discussing making that move that he’d hear from other leaders saying, “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, you can’t do this. This is going to bother certain players on the world stage. This isn’t worth the risk. Don’t do it.”

And the president joked that he just didn’t return those calls for a bit while he made the decision, because he was committed to following through on the promise that he made and doing what he thought was right by our ally.

And as you’ve seen since then, we’ve had three different nations who have not previously had diplomatic relations with Israel come forward striking peace deals with Israel, and fully restoring political and diplomatic relationships. So, that’s the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and then most recently Sudan.

So, we actually show that that bold decision shifted some countries in the Middle East into coming more into the fold.

Allen: Alyssa, before we let you go, I just want to ask. Very few individuals in America ever have the opportunity that you do to work so closely with a U.S. President. What do you enjoy most about working with President Trump, and what have you learned about him?

Farah: That’s an excellent question. So, President Trump is one of the most thoughtful, kind, and compassionate people that I’ve had just the honor of knowing. The President Trump that you [see] publicly isn’t much different than who you see privately, though I will say this: Oftentimes, the big crowd, storytelling President Trump doesn’t always mirror the private Trump.

When I’m in a room with him, he asks about me. He asks my opinion. He’ll survey the room and want to know what everyone thinks. And then he’ll take the best different opinions that he heard, and then formulate what his position is going to be on something.

In moments, he’s a quiet listener and leader, but then when the situation requires that, he’s bold and he’s forward-looking.

He’s a fascinating individual. Something that I’m always reminded of is it really is the 1% of the 1% that rises to this position throughout our history. And there are people who are truly passionate about our country, who love our country, and I know that every day, President Trump gets up and says, “What can I do to better this country and serve the American people?”

And I’m extremely proud to work for him.

Allen: Alyssa, thank you so much. We just really appreciate your time, and you coming on the show today.

FARAH: Absolutely. Thanks so much. Happy to do it.


Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a news producer for The Daily Signal. She is the co-host of The Daily Signal Podcast and Problematic Women. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.


COVID-19 Vaccine Will Be Safe, Operation Warp Speed Leaders Vow

It’s Time to Fix Section 230. Here’s a Plan to Do It.

Pence Praises Barrett, Says ‘That Dogma Lives Loudly in Me’

What Amy Coney Barrett Means to Conservative Women

Newsom’s Absurd Thanksgiving Rules

A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.


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

Laugh of the day! MAGA Hat-Attack Ad

Remember that Alinsky told us humor is the best political weapon!  (BTW, for serious news see RRW this morning).

This made me laugh!  How about you?


RELATED VIDEO: President Trump throws MAGA hats to the crowd at Duluth, Minnesota rally.

RELATED TWEET: Now this is funny. When political satire becomes reality.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEOS: Police Unable To Handle Philadelphia Looters As Businesses Get Ransacked

EDITORS NOTE: Philadelphia has not had a Republican mayor since 1952. The current Mayor is  Jim Kenney elected in January, 2016.

PHILADELPHIA — Police in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were unable to handle swarms of looters Tuesday evening as parts of the city devolved into unrest following an officer-related shooting Monday.

Walter Wallace Jr., 27, died Monday after police responded to a report of a man with a weapon. Wallace was shot multiple times after officers told him to drop a knife, according to reports. Protests and riots developed Monday in parts of Philadelphia following the death and continued for a second day Tuesday, journalists for the Caller reported from the ground.

The evening began with a large, peaceful protest in west Philadelphia’s Malcolm X park, just blocks away from where Wallace was shot. Protesters took turns giving speeches as others attended a memorial where the incident occurred, releasing blue and white balloons into the sky at one point.

Speeches turned to marching in the early evening, and west Philadelphia remained tense but largely peaceful, according to reporters on the ground. Bouts of infighting occasionally broke up the peace, and the marching group quickly split into two, with one crowd breaking off to head towards a police precinct. That crowd was soon met by a wall of police officers, and an hours-long standoff would ensue.


Meanwhile, just over 10 miles away within Philadelphia, mass unrest and looting overwhelmed police officers on a busy shopping street in the Port Richmond neighborhood. Reporters witnessed stores such as Walmart and Dollar Tree being broken into as clumps of police officers watched nearby, unable to adequately respond.

The situation proved dangerous and tense, and an “every-man-for-himself” attitude seemed to ensue as roughly 1,000 people sprinted across parking lots and through broken storefronts.

As looters ran through the aisles of Five Below, several targeted Blaze TV reporter Elijah Schaffer, punching him repeatedly for filming the scene, footage from on the ground shows. Meanwhile, some people ran about, stealing some items and throwing others to the floor.


Inside the Dollar Tree, a few rioters simply opted for destruction, knocking over displays of mugs and eyeglasses. Police would occasionally speed through the parking lots with sirens on, crunching over the broken glass and flattening goods left behind amid the unrest.

The occasional police presence prompted the swarms of looters to sprint out of the stores en masse, often hopping into vehicles with getaway drivers waiting, engines always running — but the peace would never last long.

Several stores were looted again as officers left to respond to other incidents, with the crowd taking advantage of the intermittent police response. One policewoman indicated that they were extremely understaffed to respond to such a mass of people. Many looters were able to go up and down the busy road for hours.


The mass looting affected multiple businesses on Aramingo Avenue, with cars peeling in and out of strip mall parking lots after filling vehicles with stolen goods. Some people wheeled out entire shopping carts full of items, while others kept it small – one man appeared to opt for two grey pillows, a Caller reporter saw. Another man quickly wheeled a washing machine through one of the parking lots.

As the looting wore on, police began to respond in larger groups, shutting down parts of the street and returning to the storefronts after idling for a time in front of a gas station down the road. Reporters saw few interactions between police and looters, with looters almost always successfully fleeing the scene.

Philadelphia police commanders called the evening on Aramingo Avenue “a total loss,” according to CBS3 reporter Joe Holden. The National Guard, which was reportedly deployed earlier Tuesday in preparation for continuing unrest, was not spotted by reporters on the ground throughout the entire evening.

After looters fled the area for the last time Tuesday, large bouts of destruction would remain on Aramingo Avenue. Broken glass, empty shelves and knocked over goods served as leftovers from the unrest – as alarm systems continued to blare out late into the evening, with cop car lights finally serving as a backdrop.


As unrest ripped through Port Richmond, Wallace’s children remembered their father during a press conference Tuesday evening near the first protest scene.

“We always go places,” one child said Tuesday, according to Fox News. “He always teach [sic] me how to be a man. And these white racist cops got my own dad. And Black Lives still matter.”

Police would make arrests in west Philadelphia’s protest as the evening wore on, according to Robert Klemko, a reporter for The Washington Post. While the scene remained peaceful earlier in the evening, later hours experienced some “rock and brick throwers,” Klemko reported.


RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Looting Is Not A Protest, It Is A Crime’: Joe Biden Issues Statement On Philadelphia Police Shooting

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