Kerry Launching ‘World War Zero’ Against ‘Climate Change’

Former Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Saturday that he is launching “World War Zero,” forming a coalition of dozens of celebrities and former heads of state to help mobilize resources against “climate change” similar to the way in which the Western allies mobilized in World War II.

The New York Times reports that Kerry, the Vietnam War-era anti-American protester who helped former President Barack Obama craft the traitorous Iranian nuclear power deal, has recruited such figures as Bill ClintonJimmy Carter, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Leonardo DiCaprio to “treat this like a war.”

“We’re going to try to reach millions of people, Americans and people in other parts of the world, in order to mobilize an army of people who are going to demand action now on climate change sufficient to meet the challenge,” Kerry told the Times.

It’s ironic that Democrats are so eager to mobilize for war against anything but America’s real-world enemies like the Iranian regime Kerry colluded with.


196 Known Connections


Also in the early months of 2018, as speculation swirled that President Donald Trump might decide to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, Kerry secretly engaged in shadow diplomacy aimed at salvaging the deal. Most notably, he met twice with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, to discuss ways of possibly keeping the agreement intact. Kerry also met on separate occasions with French President Emmanuel Macron (in both Paris and New York) and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and he spoke by phone with European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Moreover, Kerry placed dozens of phone calls in an effort to persuade members Congress to try to influence President Trump’s decision.

To learn more about John Kerry, click on the profile link here.

Search our constantly growing database of the left and its Agendas


We need your support.

Donate Now

RELATED ARTICLE: Leftist Leonardo Di Caprio funded NGO’s behind Brazil jungle fires?

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column republished with permission. © Copyright 2019, Discover the Networks

Conservative Media Killing Operation Mockingbird

While visiting a relative, CBS evening news was on TV in the background. It felt like water torture hearing arrogant reporters authoritatively lie about president Trump and every political issue. Their deceptive message was Republicans are mean and Democrats are good. Incredibly, 95% of the broadcast was fake news.

Could I escape being bombarded with fake news in my car? No. Every news-break on the radio was crafted to imply that Trump is guilty of everything and Republicans are mean.

Clearly, there is a coordinated fake news media campaign to instill hatred for Trump, America, Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters and straight white men. It is as if a daily memo is sent to Democrat media operatives. “Okay everyone, the phrase of the day is “Trump is an existential threat.” Every news broadcast finds a way to fit it in.

“Here’s Amy with the weather report.” “Thanks Jim. It will be stormy today. And speaking of stormy, Trump is an existential threat.” No one knows what “existential threat” means. But it sounds smart and is intended to sell the lie that Trump is extremely dangerous.

Democrats are currently blitzing the media with their lie, “Trump is a cult leader”. What they are really promoting is Trump supporters are a small minority of mind-controlled hateful crazies.

I remember seeing “The FBI Story” 1959 movie starring Jimmy Stewart. As a child, I thought FBI agents were awesome men. We’ve learned that there are bad actors in the FBI and CIA. Allegedly, Operation Mockingbird is a program launched by the CIA in the 1950s to manipulate media to spread propaganda. Writer Deborah Davis said Operation Mockingbird recruited prominent American journalists and oversaw front groups.

Evidence suggest Operation Mockingbird is alive and well today. Shockingly, we have learned that the FBI and CIA played major roles in spreading the lie that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary.

Hillary paid for a lie-filled dossier written about Trump. Hillary’s gross dossier even claimed Trump paid prostitutes to urinate on a bed slept in by Obama. Her operatives in the FBI used the gross dossier to illegally acquire warrants to investigate whether or not Trump stole the election. The absurd investigation lasted 3 years, costing taxpayers $32 million.

CNN and MSNBC victimized their tiny leftist audiences 24/7 for the 3 year bogus investigation. They promised Trump’s guilt would be confirmed and he would be humiliatingly booted out of office. The Trump resistance movement was devastated when the investigation concluded that Trump won the election fair and square.

Moving on to their next treasonous scheme to remove Trump, Democrats launched a news narrative claiming Trump committed impeachable crimes during a phone call with the president of Ukraine. Democrat Adam Schiff read Trump’s extreme bullying outrageous demands on national TV. I watched it on TV in the doctor’s office waiting room. I thought, “Oh my gosh. Trump said that?” Schiff assumed he could get away with lying about the content of the phone call because presidents do not released the content of conversations with foreign leaders. Trump blew Schiff’s scheme by releasing the transcript of the phone call. But here is where it gets really crazy and unbelievably arrogant.

Democrats and fake news media simply ignored the transcript. Based on Schiff’s lying version of the phone call, Schiff held impeachment hearings on national TV for two weeks. In essence, Schiff and fake news media told the American people, you are too stupid and unsophisticated to detect Trump’s obvious crimes during the phone call.

After each day of Schiff’s hearings, fake news media excitedly reported that “bombshell” testimony confirmed Trump’s guilt. In truth, none of Schiff’s witnesses could name a crime committed by Trump.

Displaying their off-the-chain arrogance, everything fake news media reported about the impeachment hearings were lies.

If we did not have conservative media countering fake news media lies, millions would be clamoring for Trump’s head to be placed into the impeachment guillotine. Remarkably, Trump’s approval rating rose after the impeachment hearings.

I wish to express my utmost respect and thanks to conservative media and congressional republicans for daily fighting and explaining Democrats’ and fake news media’s coup to remove our president via Schiff’s kangaroo court impeachment hearings.”

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson, conservative talk radio, Fox News and the internet.

Fake news media is not all powerful. Despite a fake news media blackout, 1.7 million of us showed up in 2010 for a Washington DC Tea Party rally to protest Obamacare.

In 2016, fake news media gifted Hillary’s presidential campaign a billion dollars worth of lie-filled news stories designed to destroy candidate Trump and Trump the man. They failed. Hillary and her minions were devastated when Trump defeated her in an electoral landslide. We are well on our way to killing Operation Mockingbird.

We remember where we were during important events. It was 1988. During my lunch break, I returned a VHS movie to the video store – got back into my car and turned on the radio to listen to conservative talk show host Tom Marr on WCBM, 680AM in Baltimore. To my shock and disappointment, Tom’s show was replaced with some new guy, Rush Limbaugh.

This song cracks me up. I love it. The Rush Hawkins Singers’, “Thank the Lord Rush Limbaugh’s On.”

© All rights reserved.

Impeachment Crusade Is Bound to Backfire on the Left

As the impeachment season drones on, and Democrats continue down the path of self-destruction, one wonders if there is an exit ramp for them.

Before Donald Trump was even the Republican nominee for president, people in positions of power started their malevolent acts against him and his campaign, mostly in private. Democrats and the left entered this path and have been locked onto that course for more than three years now.

Democrats have publicly sprinted down this path since the day after Trump was elected. It is well documented, for instance, that Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, expressed his desire to impeach the president within mere months of his assuming office.

Hillary Clinton then stoked the “Russian collusion” hoax to explain what was inexplicable to her: the American voters had rejected her in favor of political outsider Donald J. Trump.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

The left’s first major goals out of the box were (1) to remove the president from office and, if that didn’t work, (2) declare Trump’s presidency to be illegitimate due to foreign influence in the 2016 election.

Friendly left-wing media outlets constantly reinforced the collusion narrative. Meanwhile, leftist groups exploited the Antifa and Resistance movements to cause political unrest. Some educators even encouraged their students to express outrage that Clinton lost and Trump won.

The earliest ideas often receive the most traction, even if they are not the best ideas. Suboptimal trajectories build up over time, not necessarily because they are the right course, but because they were first and get locked in even as better options come along.

So here we are. It’s 2019 and Democrats have committed themselves to expelling Trump from office, or if that fails, simply dragging his name through the mud.

It is folly to try to remove a president from office when the people will be able to make their own decision in less than a year. And despite Democrats’ best efforts to throw allegations at him, Trump receives consistently favorable numbers in regular polling.

Recent polling further suggests that voters are souring on the idea of impeachment.

This week, the House Judiciary Committee is bringing in several law professors to harangue the committee and to provide justification for impeachment. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has suggested that he might need to bring in additional witnesses.

Every time he has brought in witnesses promising blockbuster revelations, he has only produced duds. Democrats have yet to see these hearings produce any overwhelming evidence in their favor.

An alarm bell should be going off among Democrats when their chosen path to remove a sitting president is not bicameral or bipartisan, and opposition to impeachment is both. The facts scream that they are marching on a suboptimal path that might lead them over a cliff.

Why do Democrats persist?

It is likely that they believe the short-term cost of political embarrassment and demoralizing their base is too high. But stubbornly adhering to their chosen course is reckless if they want to appeal to a broader America. This won’t end well for them.


Rep. Andy Biggs a Republican, represents Arizona’s 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House. He is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and serves on the Judiciary and Science, Space and Technology committees. Twitter: .

Ted Budd is the U.S. representative for North Carolina’s 13th district. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: House GOP Report Contends Impeachment Drive Advances Rule by Bureaucrats

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


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

CrowdStrike: a Conspiracy Wrapped in a Conspiracy Inside a Conspiracy

In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word “CrowdStrike” a lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in a crazy idea that the DNC wasn’t hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.

A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.

Let’s look at the facts:

Fact 1. In 2016 the DNC hired the Ukrainian-linked firm CrowdStrike to analyze their server and investigate a data breach.

Fact 2. CrowdStrike experts determined that the culprit was Russia.

Fact 3. The FBI never received access to the DNC server, so the Russian connection was never officially confirmed and continues to be an allegation coming from the DNC and its Ukrainian-linked contractor.

Fact 4. Absent the official verdict, other theories continue to circulate, including the possibility that the theft was an inside job by a DNC employee, who simply copied the files to a USB drive and sent it to WikiLeaks.

None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian agent.

Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that “CrowdStrike” is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.

But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the first to call him on it and the impeachment would’ve been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back Trump every step of the way.

So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled now?

Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:

1. Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story with the same names and details as the real one.

2. Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.

3. Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory. Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for you.

4. Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let up.

This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story for another day.

For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are…

  • Haters
  • Racists
  • Fascists
  • Deniers of science
  • Destroyers of the environment
  • Heartless sellouts to corporate interests

And so on – the list is endless.

The Soviet communists had aptly named it “disinformation,” which is a cut above the English word “misinformation.” It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history, supplanting it with a bogus “progressive” narrative. The Soviet term for such art was “socialist realism.”

Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they’re acting as if they’d spent the last three years in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.

The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.

The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise why bother?). What’s not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has nothing to do with impeachment. We’re told it’s just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump’s head, that it’s a nonissue.

But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps because it’s more important than the story suggests.

Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom.

The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years.

And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should’ve been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama’s vice president.

This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump’s call a lot more gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.


“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.”

If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn’t understand what Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage, complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.

The fraudulent “CrowdStrike conspiracy” deflection is not a show of the Democrats’ strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target.

It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain’t Chris Wallace.

© All rights reserved.


Republicans Blast Impeachment Evidence in New Report: Nothing Proves Any of Democrats’ Allegations

So, Just Who Are the Academic ‘Experts’ House Judiciary Dems Called?

The Democrats’ Trump Impeachment Game Has Become an Exercise in the Perversion of Governance

Anti-Capitalism: Trendy but Wrong

We should remember; the data simply doesn’t support the anti-capitalists.

You can’t escape it; capitalism has a bad rap.

Last night, thousands of anti-capitalist protestors took to the streets in capital cities across the world. Wearing V for Vendetta-inspired Guy Fawkes masks (most of which are made in China), these self-styled “anti-establishment” demonstrators, who took part in annual Million Mask March, sought to express their dissatisfaction with the capitalist system and the unfair outcomes it allegedly creates.

Large anti-capitalist protests like those we saw last night are, of course, nothing unusual. In August, French police resorted to using water cannons and tear gas to disperse thousands of anti-capitalist demonstrators who were protesting in the French coastal town of Bayonne, during the G7 summit which was taking place in a nearby resort.

But it is not just during protests that we see disdain for capitalism. All over our newspapers there are headlines such as, “Capitalism is in crisis,” “Capitalism is failing,” or most recently “Capitalism is dead,”—the latter being a recent quote from billionaire Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, who amassed his fortune thanks to the capitalist system.

The consistent bombardment of capitalism in our media and on our streets has culminated in a recent YouGov poll showing that nearly half of all Millennials and Gen-Z’ers hold an unfavorable view of capitalism. The same poll also found that more than 70 percent of Millennials would likely vote for a socialist candidate.

It is fundamentally trendy to be socialist, and to decry the alleged ills of capitalism. But does this persistent condemnation of capitalism hold up to scrutiny?

Every year, the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank publishes its Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) report in order to find out which countries have the freest (i.e. most capitalist) economies. The EFW ranks the level of freedom of 162 economies, using 43 indices, across major policy areas: size of government, legal systems and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation.

The idea behind the EFW report is that if you can find out which countries have the most capitalist economies, you can then use this information to see if more capitalist countries have better outcomes for their citizens when compared to their more socialist (or at least: less capitalist) counterparts. To analyze the correlation between economic freedom and human wellbeing, the EFW splits the 162 economies into quartiles, based on their level of economic freedom. And the results are staggering.

The average income in the most capitalist quartile of countries is an astonishing six times higher, in real terms, than the average income in the least capitalist economies ($36,770 and $6,140 respectively). For the poorest in society, this gap widens even more. The bottom 10 percent of income earners in the most capitalist countries make, on average, seven times more than the poorest ten percent in the least free economies.Similarly, more than 27 percent of people in the most socialist economies live in extreme poverty (as defined by the World Bank as an income of less than $1.90 a day), whereas just 1.8 percent of people in freest economies live in extreme poverty—a figure that is still too high (the optimal number is zero), but vastly better than the level that persists in the least free countries.

Economic measures aside, people living in the most capitalist countries also live on average 14 years longer, have an infant mortality rate six times lower, enjoy greater political and civil liberties, gender equality, and to the extent you can measure such things, greater happiness too—when compared to the least capitalist economies.

Take Hong Kong, for example, which is the world’s freest economy according the EFW report. In 1941, journalist and travel writer Martha Gellhorn visited the city-state with her husband, Ernest Hemmingway and noted “the real Hong Kong…was the most cruel poverty, worse than any I had seen before. Worse still because of an air of eternity; life had always been like this, always would be.” But just a few years after Gellhorn’s visit, the surrender of the Japanese in 1945 meant that British rule returned to the island and with it came a largely laissez-faire approach to the city’s economy.

In 1950, the average citizen in Hong Kong earned just 36 percent of what the average citizen in the United Kingdom earned. But as Hong Kong embraced economic freedom (according the EFW, Hong Kong has had the most capitalist economy every year bar one since 1970), it became substantially richer. Today, Hong Kong’s GDP per capita is a whooping than 68 percent higher than the UK’s. As Marian Tupy, editor of, notes, “the poverty that Gellhorn bemoaned is gone – thanks to economic freedom.”We can see far bigger gaps whenever we pair a broadly capitalist country with an otherwise similar socialist country: Chile vs. VenezuelaWest Germany vs. East GermanySouth Korea vs. North Korea, Taiwan vs. Maoist China, Costa Rica vs Cuba, and so on. (Yes, I know: none of that was “real” socialism. But then, it always is real socialism, until it isn’t.)

Decrying the ills of capitalism on a placard or in a newspaper headline is a trend with little sign of going away any time soon, but when we see such unsubstantiated claims, we should remember; the data simply doesn’t support the anti-capitalists.

This article is republished from the Institute of Economic Affairs.


Alexander Hammond

Alexander C. R. Hammond is a researcher at a Washington D.C. think tank and Senior Fellow for African Liberty. He is also a Young Voices contributor and frequently writes about economic freedom, African development, and globalization.


New California Ballot Initiative Is Just More Favoritism

Why the Marvel Movies Are Better than Scorsese’s “The Irishman”

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

VIDEO: Death of Globalism

The news that really never makes the news, certainly not the trending news of the day, is how President Trump is leading the world away from globalism and a tyrannical global police state. All indications are that Boris Johnson will lead the way against globalist policies in the UK and of course we, and the world, have President Donald J Trump. As I stated, way back when, Global Support Coming Soon for Trump.

In previous related articles that I have written which are archived here on my website under the financial category, I have been talking about Trump restoring sound money and resetting the global economic, trade and monetary system, the GFR or “Global Financial Reset”. You cannot make America Great Again unless you control the economy and control your own currency. To remain fully informed, for what will prove down the road to be one of the biggest news stories of the century, I encourage you to subscribe for free to my YouTube channel and visit with me and Economist Dr. Kirk Elliott, (nominated for two Trump committee positions), as we take on step by step, the behind the news news of the Global Financial Reset. Here is a link to that YouTube playlist. We began broadcasting each Wednesday at 6:00 PM on July 17, 2019. Subscribe to my channel today.

Global Financial Reset

Death of Globalism

In this video clip of a speech I gave at the Sarasota Truth Conference in September 2019, you will come to understand what Globalism is and the origins of Globalism. I connect the dots on just how it is that President Trump is also draining the economic swamp and that we are well on our way now only after three short years, to delivering a death to globalism. By the mid to late term of President Trumps second term we may see full victory. This video clip and the GFR (Global Financial Reset) playlist is a good way to be informed and to stay informed and connected.



In short, Trump is quietly setting the stage. Manufacturers are returning home. Apple is launching its new massive facility in Texas. Jobs follow manufacturing so this is a good thing. For all of the President’s progress in this area click on this link. NAFTA’s rude awakening under President Trump along with tariffs and trade deal negotiations around the world are yet additional steps towards the ultimate reset.

What is the ultimate reset? Seizing control from a debt based Central Bank, Petrodollar, IMF, Federal Reserve banking and monetary system by restoring sound money and creating a booming economy here at home while providing opportunity to other nations who don’t fall off the cliff with the old guard and come aboard in this new world that is being created before our very eyes, (well if you know where to look  for information). This is why Pelosi will not sign the USMCA document that the President so wisely and brilliantly put forth. Why? Because it will deliver yet another blow to the ruling elites march towards globalism. It’s okay we will get it done and Pelosi’s days are numbered anyway while Trump has another five years to set the world right. In short this is what is happening but again please subscribe to the YouTube Channel and become familiar with the playlist titled GFR for weekly discussions with me and the  Economist.

  • Strong arming and exposing the Federal Reserve
  • De-funding the UN and setting NAFTA straight
  • Manufacturing returning home
  • Best Economy by most measures in the history of our country and best economy by far in the world today
  • HR 24 & HR 25

China. Yes China. Trump has this covered. Don’t buy the fake news headlines. Finally China has met it’s match. The plan to empower China as part of the globalists plan has been thwarted by Trump. China is hemorrhaging and in a rapid decline having the plug pulled out by Trump. President Trump is repositioning step by step the global playing field while working their own rigged system against them by keeping the markets propped and expanding. Big historical change begins sometime after the 2020 election. The global shift of power is now well underway.

Video Commentary

Clarion Call

This battle will rage on for the rest of our lives. Pray for our President and his family. No Trump-no hope. What we do right here, right now is for posterity. So when your children and grandchildren ask you “What were you doing when the global governance was being thrust down the throat of America and the world, what will your answer be? Freedom, it’s up to U.S.

Merkel: German government “will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be free.”

Does this mean that the German government will forcibly silence opposition to jihad mass murder, Sharia oppression of women, and mass Muslim migration into Europe? You can bet on it.

“STUNNING! Globalist Angela Merkel to German Parliament: We Have to Take Away your Freedom of Speech or We Won’t Be Free,” by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, November 28, 2019:

Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered an emotional speech to the German Budestag this week on the need for limiting freedom of speech.

Merkel is the current globalist leader on the international stage.

Merkel argued that the government must take away freedom of speech to save freedom of speech, or something.

Angela Merkel: For those who claim they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express and pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost. But freedom of expression has its limits. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.

Via Ezra Levant:


Germany: Muslim migrant rapes woman in car with police close by

As Muslim Is Arrested for NY Subway Plot, CAIR Demands Bloomberg Apologize for Counterterror Program

Jordan conducts military exercise simulating war with Israel

Two more muslim murderous terror attacks that we know of today

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

VIDEO: What Americans Have in Common With Conservatives Across the Globe

Are Americans alone in their fight against big government, extreme sex ed, and more? Or are other people across the world similarly fighting? In this episode of “The Bill Walton Show,” Matt and Mercedes Schlapp join Bill Walton to discuss. Former White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp grew up as the daughter of a man who defied Fidel Castro, and American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp has experience working with conservatives across the world. Read an edited portion of their interview with Walton, pasted below, or watch the full interview:

Bill Walton: Your father was a Cuban dissident and went up against Fidel Castro.

Mercedes Schlapp: That’s right. I think one of the reasons why I felt at an early age that I wanted to go into public service, that I wanted to work in politics, was because of my father’s experience.

He was a very successful businessman in Cuba, and when Fidel Castro came into power, the dictatorship, they took away his businesses. So my father had two options, either be quiet and just follow the communist swell that was happening in Cuba or fight back.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

My father joined a group of counter-revolutionaries and fought against the Castro regime, ended up in jail for six years.

So he taught me at a young age that, first of all, love America. America’s a very special place, and always remember that you have a responsibility to protect our freedoms and our democracy because this democracy is fragile, and you can lose it in an instant.

So I knew at that point, and I’m talking … I mean at 15 years old, I said, “I want to go to Washington and try to make a difference here and work in politics.” It’s where my life has led me. It’s led me to my husband where we met at the White House. I feel very strongly as we talk to our youth, I talk to our daughters, and talk to our daughters’ friends, that there is … this real sense that we can lose America.

Walton: Well, I think the word “fragile” is the right word. Civilization’s kind of a thin veneer, and the Constitution’s a piece of paper to a lot of people that doesn’t mean much. If you take away all the civilizing influences and the role of the Constitution, you don’t end up with something that’s very pretty.

Mercedes Schlapp: Well, and we dealing with right now academic institutions that are basically brainwashing our youth … for example, teaching sex education to middle schoolers on how to use a condom in different school districts, or this issue where you have 36 different genders.

There is this sense of pushing these liberal ideas in our public school systems and not giving choices to parents for them to say, “Wait a second, I don’t really feel comfortable with my kid going to school here. Let me put them in a different school, in a Catholic school, in a Christian school.”

Walton: Where are your kids in school now?

Matt Schlapp: They’re in private school. They’re in Catholic school, all of them. We have two in high school and three in what I guess you would call middle school.

Mercedes Schlapp: So as a parent it’s troubling to see that you have our academic institutions really taking on this liberal agenda across the board, and it starts when they’re young, when you’re able to influence and talk to them about the realities of just even a conversation agenda or even talking about the dangers of socialism, which are very real now in the United States, something we haven’t seen in generations.

Matt Schlapp: My theory on this is, I don’t know if you agree, but I think you do, is liberals don’t really create anything. Socialists don’t create anything. It’s entrepreneurs that create things. It’s conservatives that create culture and create institutions.

Then over time the parasites on the left are great at coming in there in an insidious way taking them over, and conservatives kind of back … out. They’re like, “Well, we started it. We got it going. Oh, they have their point of view. Maybe we should have multiple points of view.” And they’ll kind of recede, and the left comes in aggressively and completely takes it over.

Bill, they’ve done it almost [at] every major institution in our society. This is not just public schools. This is private schools. This is churches. This is foundations. This is other institutions.

Part of the Trump disruption is, “Dammit, no more. No more. We are drawing a line in the sand.” By the way, our point of view matters as well. We are being pushed away from tables. We are being pushed out of rooms. We’re being called haters, and we’re being told to shut up and to back off. We paid for these institutions. We pay massive amounts of taxes for all of these public institutions, and this has to stop.

Walton: You’re watching “The Bill Walton Show.” I’m here with Matt and Mercy Schlapp, and we’re talking about the deconstruction of a lot of terrific American institutions and what the two of them are doing to fight back.

Matt Schlapp: Yeah, I think it’s time to fight. Fighting has a lot of connotations to it.

Walton: Now, let’s put this in the framework of what you do when you’re chairman of the American Conservative Union and run CPAC. How is ACU trying to bring about the good things that we want to bring about?

Matt Schlapp: Well, I know you do a lot of the work with me. I’d love your point of view on it.

Walton: Yeah, let’s do that, both of you.

Mercedes Schlapp: Oh, great. Well, I have enjoyed watching American Conservative Union and CPAC grow. I mean, it’s become an international phenomenal, and Matt can speak more on this, but you have countries coming to us, leaders of these countries coming to us saying, “We love what you’re doing with CPAC in the United States. Can we have some of that? Can you teach us how to organize from a grassroots perspective?” Because they all feel there’s several components …

I’ll say one story. When we were [at] CPAC Brazil … all of a sudden they start talking in Portuguese and then all of a sudden they’ll go, “Blah, blah, blah,” and then they’ll go, “Fake news!” Then everyone jumps up. They’re like, “Yes!”

Walton: Do you speak Portuguese?

Mercedes Schlapp: No, I don’t.

Walton: How do you say “fake news” in Portuguese?

Matt Schlapp: No, no. No interpreter needed for “fake news.”

Mercedes Schlapp: “Fake news” was in English.

Matt Schlapp: No interpreter needed for “Make America Great Again.” The crowd would erupt.

Mercedes Schlapp: … They’re facing similar issues where the media predicted that [Brazilian President Jair] Bolsonaro was never going to win, now the current president of Brazil. They are ones that have been incredibly critical of that president. They are left, left-leaning. They’re saying, “We need a voice. We need an outlet.” Like, we don’t have several of these more conservative media outlets in their country.

So it’s interesting how what we’re experiencing here in the United States and these other nations, there are some similarities that we’re seeing.

Matt Schlapp: We’re talking about thousands of people, thousands coming together in a foreign city to try to figure out what this whole conservative movement is in America.

Walton: So let me be clear about this. You’re running CPAC meetings in Brazil? You have CPAC meetings?

Matt Schlapp: Yeah, we have five international.

Walton: I think you also ran one in Hong Kong.

Matt Schlapp: Yep, we did. We ran one in Tokyo. We ran one in Seoul, South Korea. We ran one in Sydney, Australia. These events were so successful that they want to annualize them.

Walton: Tell me how you put one of these together—

Matt Schlapp: Well, we started off in Japan literally.

Walton: … because ACU was doing none of this before you showed up.

Matt Schlapp: ACU, when I—

Walton: What, has it been about five years?

Matt Schlapp: Yeah, five, six years. I have to give my predecessor credit because he had started to do battle ground CPACs in the country …

But I was walking down the halls of CPAC, Bill, where you and Sarah have been, and this Japanese fellow walks up to me, this is five, six years ago, and says, “Hey, I started a Japanese Conservative Union.” I was like, “Oh, that’s kind of interesting.”

This man, Jay Aeba, who now has had three CPACs in Tokyo in a row, literally thousands of conservative Japanese coming together. Believe it or not, people will wear their MAGA hats. Some people will wear their MAGA hats to these international events. We engaged them in a conversation about what is conservatism, the dignity of the individual, and these practical solutions that can bring people—

Walton: Now, are these economic conservatives, social conservatives?

Matt Schlapp: It’s a little—

Walton: Here we have the Constitution. That’s unique.

Matt Schlapp: It is unique.

Walton: So if you’re a Japanese conservative, what are you conserving?

Matt Schlapp: The first step for most of these conservatives in Japan is their fear of communist China. The reason why we’ve had so many CPACs in Asia, Bill, is because obviously they have an immediate connection to the fact that conservatives in America fight communism. We’ve always fought communism, as your father experience[d] … in Cuba. And the fact that China is such a danger in that neighborhood. So we have immediate credibility with Japanese conservatives.

The second question is they’ve experienced—and you would know this from your business career—decades, really a generation of economic stagnation, what we don’t fully understand over here is basically rampant socialism.

Walton: Japan’s been flatlined for a couple decades now.

Matt Schlapp: That’s right. The government is too big. They tax too much. People can’t afford some of the things to make their life better because taxation is what it is. They’re realizing that they need to find a different way.

Mercedes Schlapp: In CPAC Brazil, their big focus was free markets. It was all about, how do we improve trade relations with the United States? So all on the economic sense is it is about bringing prosperity to these countries and to their people.

Walton: Now, do they have the issues with the elites versus the rest of us that we have in America?

Matt Schlapp: Oh, yeah.

Walton: It seems like this is maybe … if you look at Brexit, you look at what’s going on—

Matt Schlapp: I’m going to jump out of my chair—

Walton: Jump out of your chair.

Matt Schlapp: … because I didn’t realize this. We went to Australia, and we had Judge Pirro with us and some congressman with us. Nigel Farage came down. In the middle of CPAC Australia …

First of all, to start CPAC Australia, they tried to ban me, Dan Schneider, and Raheem Kassam from even being able to fly to Australia because Dan and I had the audacity to be life members of the NRA, and because we were then associated with gun violence, they tried to literally, this is a democracy, to prevent us from flying into Australia.

Then we get there and Parliament tries to pass a law to say that CPAC is actually a criminal enterprise in Australia. There’s a lawsuit going on about this. Then I walk outside the event and there’s 100 crazy-looking Antifa protesters in Australia. So what I want the American listeners—

Walton: Antifa in Australia?

Matt Schlapp: That’s right.

Mercedes Schlapp: Right.

Matt Schlapp: What I want the American listeners to understand is that this crazy idea of 56 and 32 genders and pushing this kind of crazy gender ideology on 7- and 8-year-olds here in America, this is alive and well in every major city on the globe.

The Green New Deal and the idea that fossil fuels are immoral and that capitalism is a cancer, this is alive and well and very well funded by European and American left-wing billionaires all over the world.

The same problems that we see us facing in the Commonwealth of Virginia or in America, it’s a bonding experience with these activists all over the world because they are facing the very same things.

I’ll give you an example. In Brazil, we were there as a guest of the Bolsonaro family, the president of Brazil and his son, Eduardo. He was explaining to me that fourth graders have aggressive sexual education. We can all have a conversation about what a more mature person needs to learn in terms of sexual information, but we have a daughter in fourth grade.

Walton: How old are your girls?

Matt Schlapp: Well, we have five—

Mercedes Schlapp: [Try] range, so 16 to 7.

Matt Schlapp: But I mean a fourth-grader, Bill, getting—

Mercedes Schlapp: She’s a 10-year-old, or not even a 10-year-old.

Matt Schlapp: … detailed descriptions how on to orally satisfy either a male or a female lover is child abuse. This is something for parents to determine what they do. It’s not for school systems.

So I said to them … “How do you stop that?” He said, “We have three-year contracts with these big corporate textbook companies. We can do nothing to stop this until we get to the third year.” He said, “We’re one year into it, and in two years all those textbooks are coming out. They’re going to learn math, and they’re going to learn history, and they’re going to learn English. We’re going to let parents and churches—

Walton: How are they going to do that, though? Because people who try to change education, you get textbook publishers. You get the curriculum developers. You’ve got the teachers’ colleges. You’ve got this whole group of people who are thriving with the existing system. How do you pull the textbooks?

Matt Schlapp: Well, I’m not going to tell you that I have the absolute game plan, but I will tell you in Brazil, one of the reasons why Bolsonaro is the president, one of the reasons why Trump is the president here, even if Trump doesn’t fully understand it, is the idea that not even conservatives, just ordinary, commonsense people are repelled by this aggressive, radical stuff that’s going on in schools and in these institutions.

All I can tell you is that there’s an SOS. There’s a white flag. There’s a cry for help. And there’s the resulting political success of those who are saying, “No more.”

Mercedes Schlapp: I think to President Trump’s credit, it is because he is the fighter. It is because he speaks up. He’s not silenced. He speaks up for those individuals who have felt for too long that identity politics is what is in play. They have to be careful of what they say or how they say things.

For President Trump, look, he’s going to speak his mind. I think it resonates with so many Americans who for too long feel like they have to be silenced. I mean, we’re seeing this on college campuses where the conservative kids feel that they have to be quiet, and they cannot speak up and say, “I’m a Trump supporter,” for example, because they’ll be bullied.

What is worrisome with where the left is going is that, when Hillary Clinton said the word “deplorable,” they want us to feel like we are less than them. How can we not agree with what they are saying? How can we not agree with their beliefs? Quite frankly, I think for everyday Americans, they’re like, “I just want to live my life and raise my family and do what I can to help my community and leave me alone. Government, leave me alone.”

Matt Schlapp: By the way, they have the values that made us great.

Mercedes Schlapp: Yes, exactly.

Matt Schlapp: The left has tried to undermine all of that. ….

Mercedes Schlapp: Matt had a experience. We bring up Hong Kong as being one of those examples of—

Matt Schlapp: Very moving, yeah.

Mercedes Schlapp: … eye-opening experiences. Obviously, as a wife, I was very concerned that Matt or anyone from the CPAC crew would get arrested.

Walton: When were you in Hong Kong?

Matt Schlapp: Right at the beginning of all this, but what was the timing? I’m sorry.

Mercedes Schlapp: You can’t even remember when happened yesterday.

Matt Schlapp: I’m so bad at remembering days. It was August.

Mercedes Schlapp: It was August.

Matt Schlapp: It was August. The protests had been going for a while. Really Westerners had not been invited, and there was a bit of a controversy about whether they really wanted Westerners. Because they’ve approached these protests with diffuse leadership. There’s not one leader.

When they had the Umbrella Revolution of 2014, Bill, they were able to decapitate the protests by taking out its leaders. They also wanted it to be Hong Kong. You will remember there was a time when they would have said, “Chinese,” but they don’t say, “Chinese.” They say, “Hong Kong.” They’re Hong Kongers. Most of them want their own independent entity. Some of them want complete independence from China.

But the fact that Americans actually took to the streets, and we went to two protests with the students and with these mostly young people. The first day, some of the Hong Kongers were a little … some were disgruntled that we were there, and of course the communists have completely infiltrated as well. There are spies everywhere.

By the second day, it was really so gratifying because I look very American obviously. I have big white hair. I’m taller than most of the people there and all these … young Hong Kongers would walk up to me, and it was so moving to hear, they said, “Would you please go back to America and tell your president that we appreciate him because the first time in 30 years we have an American president who’s fighting the communists in Beijing.” They felt such a kinship with Americans.

Now, the secondary thing they did to me is the second night we were right across from the police station. They had their weapons out pointed at the crowd, and they kept putting up these warning signs saying they were going to start shooting. Now, that could be rubber bullets. That can be tear gas. It can be different things. But they’ve shot people too.

So we were very close. We were right across the street. We were there with some other Americans, some supporters of CPAC. It’s unnerving. I can’t tell you how many people I had … once again, mostly young people, although it’s all ages, but it’s mostly young people coming up. They’d communicate by these interesting apps. They’d say, “We’re going to start moving a block here, or we’re going to move back 20 feet or whatever.” So they’re constantly communicating.

The one thing they kept saying to me is, “We’re very worried about you.” I’d say, “Why?” They’re like, “Well, you stand out, When they start shooting you have to run really fast.” I was like, “Oh, OK, I got it.” Then another guy would come to me and say, “No, when I say you have to run fast, you’re going to have to run fast, and we’re worried you can’t run fast.” I was like, “You just wait till that moment happens.” I was like, “I will be running. I can’t run for a long period of time, but I can do a quick burst here.”

Walton: You’re going to use tennis player skills.

Matt Schlapp: Exactly. I can run from the net to the baseline, and then I’ll be tired.

Mercedes Schlapp: But the bigger story here, and this is the message I think for our youth as well, is that they’ve got 28 years. Just think about it, in 28 years these 18-year-olds, 20-something-year-olds are looking at their lives and saying, “We’re going to be under Chinese communism, if not earlier.”

Matt Schlapp: They’re going to face what your dad … faced …

Mercedes Schlapp: If not earlier, yes. They are going to lose the freedom of speech, their freedom to practice their religion. …

Walton: Well, the Chinese Communist Party absolutely wants to take both Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Matt Schlapp: Totally.

Mercedes Schlapp: Yes, completely. … But thinking about where these young people … they’re looking at their future and it’s bleak because they know that they’re going to lose their rights. I say that because I think it’s important to understand where we are as a country. I mean, are we at a point that we’re going to turn toward this if you’re conservative, you’re not allowed to speak up? I mean, are we going to move toward that direction?


William L. Walton is the host of “The Bill Walton Show.” He is the founder and chairman of Rappahannock Ventures LLC, a private equity firm, and Rush River Entertainment, a feature-film production company. Walton is a trustee of The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .


He Grew Up Poor in Chicago. Then Conservative Values Helped Transform His Life.

Supreme Court to Hear Gun, Obamacare Cases

Some British Lessons on ‘Single Payer’ Health Care

Georgia on My Mind

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is poised to select Kelly Loeffler to replace Georgia’s retiring Republican Senator Johnny Isakson. Kemp’s choice has provoked vehement opposition from conservative Georgians and the White House. Why is Kemp’s choice so controversial?

For starters, President Trump helped Kemp get elected, and POTUS has made it widely known his preference to fill the senate vacancy is conservative Rep. Doug Collins.

So, who is Kelly Loeffler and why is she controversial?

Businesswoman Kelly Loeffler is the chief executive of Bakkt, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Intercontinental Exchange Inc (ICE) and co-owner of Georgia’s Women’s National Basketball Association team the Atlanta Dream. Atlanta News Now reports that Loeffler’s application to Governor Kemp states:

“From working on the family farm to creating jobs and opportunity in the business world, I have been blessed to live the American Dream. I am offering myself to serve hardworking Georgians as a political outsider in the United States Senate to protect that dream for everyone.”

But that’s not all!

Kelly Loeffler is married to Jeffrey Sprecher the Founder, Chairman, and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE) and Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. Jeffrey Sprecher owns the NYSE? Yep!

A December 12, 2013 Reuters article, ICE completes takeover of NYSE, describes the transaction, “The deal, which was worth $10.9 billion as of November 1, gives ICE control of Liffe, Europe’s No. 2 derivatives market, as well as the New York Stock Exchange, which has been at the center of American capitalism since it was started in 1792.

According to Wikipedia, “Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) is an American company that owns exchanges for financial and commodity markets, and operates 12 regulated exchanges and marketplaces. This includes ICE futures exchanges in the United States, Canada and Europe, the Liffe futures exchanges in Europe, the New York Stock Exchange, equity options exchanges and OTC energy, credit and equity markets. ICE also owns and operates 6 central clearing houses: ICE Clear U.S., ICE Clear Europe, ICE Clear Singapore, ICE Clear Credit, ICE Clear Netherlands and ICE NGX.” 

According to Fortune Magazine, “In August 2018 Intercontinental Exchange announced it was forming the new company Bakkt, which is intended to leverage Microsoft online servers to manage digital assets. Bakkt was said to be working with Boston Consulting Group (BCG), MicrosoftStarbucks, and others to create a software platform. The Bakkt ecosystem is expected to include federally regulated markets and warehousing along with merchant and consumer applications. Its first use cases will be for trading and conversion of Bitcoin (BTC) versus fiat currenciesKelly Loeffler is Bakkt’s CEO.

Bakkt, a subsidiary of Sprecher’s Intercontinental Exchange, was valued at $740 million after series A funding round March 2019. So what is the problem and why does it matter that Loeffler is Bakkt’s CEO?

Kelly Loeffler and Jeffrey Sprecher’s personal wealth is not the problem, their philosophical aspirations regarding globalized trading with global cryptocurrency like Bitcoin through Bakkt is the problem.

Today’s worldwide clash between globalism and national sovereignty is reflected in American politics. The Leftist/Globalist axis has attacked the America-first agenda of President Donald Trump and repeatedly attempted to unseat him through impeachment, or defeat him in the 2020 presidential election.

The unsuccessful coup attempts against President Donald Trump have been coordinated by the deep state through the intelligence community to destabilize and overthrow the president because of his America-first policies. President Donald J. Trump is the existential enemy of globalism and is unapologetically committed to American freedom and American sovereignty. His presidency is challenged by the Democrat party support for open borders and uncontrolled immigration that facilitates the one-world government envisioned by the globalist political elite.

The difference between global trade and globalism is being intentionally blurred to disguise globalism’s sinister objective of a New World Order of internationalized one-world government. One of the essential requirements for national sovereignty is a national currency. The United States dollar is our country’s national currency. Globalists Kelly Loeffler and her husband Jeffrey Sprecher support the internationalized cryptocurrency they are promoting with Bakkt where trades will be conducted with Bitcoin instead of fiat currency like the U.S. dollar.

Bitcoin is the world’s first global, digital currency. Its use eliminates the need for central banks or even the nation-state’s government that regulate banks. Bitcoin is the global currency of an internationalized planet. It is the currency of globalism’s New World Order and one-world government.

The fact that Kelly Loeffler is a woman, a business leader, and a registered Republican cannot erase her $750,000 support for globalist RINO Romney in 2012, or the globalist ambitions of the Bitcoin exchange she leads. Kelly Loeffler is a globalist and a dangerous choice for American sovereignty because her Senate vote could theoretically tip the scale against President Trump’s America-first agenda.

Globalists are determined to stack the political deck with senate seats of Romney supporters like Loeffler rather than republicans who support President Trump’s America-first agenda like Georgia Rep. Doug Collins.

So, who is Governor Brian Kemp and why would he choose a globalist like Kelly Loeffler? Georgians want to know – and so do I.

RELATED ARTICLE: Doug Collins Won’t Rule Out Primary Bid Against Governor’s Choice For Senate

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

First Lady Dissed by Wimpy Snowflakes

First Lady Melania Trump was booed by students when she spoke at an opioid awareness summit in Baltimore. Snowflake adults said the students were justified because Melania’s husband hurt their feelings by saying bad things about their city.

Folks, this infuriated me. I am so sick of snowflake adults who create dumb-down, brain-dead and wimpy snowflake youths. Taught to believe they are entitled, snowflakes are unable to submit to authority or deal with the normal pressures of life; living in their parent’s basement playing video games at age 30.

Liberal Democrats have controlled Baltimore for the past 50 years, transforming it into a hellhole of poverty, fatherless households, failing schools, economic decline and record breaking black on black homicides.

As a child, I lived in the Baltimore projects. I don’t remember any neighborhood so horribly out-of-control that no one dared to venture after dark. And yet, that is the ridiculous situation in Baltimore today.

Visiting Baltimore for my dad’s funeral, it was shocking to see endless blocks of empty rundown row-houses, rats and trash. What the heck happened to my beloved hometown once renowned as “Charm City”?

In the 1980s, Baltimore’s first black mayor, Kurt Schmoke ordered that my song “Hello Baltimore” be placed into the city’s time capsule. To illustrate Charm City’s shocking transformation, I made a music video of my song using footage of recent Baltimore riots.

Back in the day, the neighborhood around Pimlico Race Track where the Preakness Race is held was safe and upscale. Today, the Pimlico neighborhood has dramatically declined, infested with drugs and crime.

In the 1990s, I saw the beginning of the end for Baltimore because of stupid liberal Democrat policies. Park Avenue was the place to enjoy dinner at an upscale restaurant. Smelly, dirty vagrants began sleeping on the sidewalks and aggressively pestering patrons outside of the beautiful restaurants. Due to the city’s commitment to political correctness, restaurant owners could do nothing to save their businesses. Finally, every restaurant closed or moved away.

Living in the projects as a child, I loved exploring Park Avenue downtown“The lights are much brighter there. You can forget all your troubles, forgot all your cares. Downtown, things’ll be great when you’re downtown. Everything’s waiting for you.”  Park Avenue has become another depressed section of the city unsafe after dark.

Incredibly, liberal Democrats who run Baltimore still have not learned to be friendly to businesses. During the recent Baltimore riots the mayor ordered the police to stand down and allow thugs to destroy businesses to express their frustrations regarding racial injustice. Unbelievable.

Late Democrat congressman Elijah Cummings received billions in federal grants to clean up his rat and crime infested district. The money was wasted or stolen. By the way, idiot black relatives of mine who live in Baltimore still praise Cummings for his wonderful service to the black community. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

Cummings’ wife also emits a putrid odor of corruption; using the suffering of her fellow blacks to get rich.

White liberals in fake news media claim to be advocates for black empowerment. The liberal Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP also lie about their commitment to black empowerment. These black and white liberals viciously attack anyone who dares to address problems which plague blacks in cities controlled by Democrats.

Thank God president Trump cares enough to address the problems of blacks who are suffering in Democrat urban plantations. Therefore, I don’t give a rat’s derriere about the hurt feelings of spoiled-brat snowflake youths, upset because Trump told the truth about their cesspool city run by corrupt Democrats. Adults who defended the students for booing our first lady are a part of our nation’s morally bankrupt and wimpy culture. They should be ashamed of themselves.

This hypersensitivity to “hurt feelings” turns my stomach. For crying out loud, adults need to start instructing wimpy youths to grow a spine.

World War II Americans are turning over in their graves in disgust of this new generation of snowflake Americans. My black dad passed away at age 90. When my brother was a teen, he quit his summer job because his boss hurt his feelings by yelling at him.

Dad could hardly believe his ears. Annoyed at my brother, Dad said, “He hurt your feelings? Boy, you had better go back and get your job!” Dad was teaching my brother to be a man!

As a black civil rights pioneer in the Merchant Marines and Baltimore City Fire Department, Dad endured all kinds of humiliation and hurt feelings. But Dad knew a man has to do what a man has to do. He had a wife and five kids to feed. His hurt feelings were irrelevant.

To restore our youths, we need to have zero tolerance for all this hypersensitivity, wimpy-ness and entitlement that liberals have instilled in our youths.

A snowflake reading this article will probably say, “Lloyd you sound angry. I feel triggered. Your toxic masculinity makes me feel unsafe. You should be silenced and jailed.”

Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be if a snowflake ever became president?

Thank God president Trump is a real man.

VIDEO: Worthy speech by Tucker Carlson

Posted by Eeyore

NOTE: Yucki sent in this link set up to start at minute 7:41.

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

Elizabeth Warren: Those Settlements ‘Violate International Law and Make Peace Harder to Achieve’ by Hugh Fitzgerald

Elizabeth Warren reacted to Secretary Pompeo’s statement that in the view of the Administration, Israel’s settlements did not violate international law with characteristic swift certainty:

Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region. Not only do these settlements violate international law — they make peace harder to achieve. As president, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution,” Warren said.

Was Pompeo’s announcement merely a cynical attempt to “distract” the public “from its failures in the region”? Surely such an announcement was certain to have exactly the opposite effect – it would focus the media’s attention on the Israelis and Palestinians as it had not been so focussed since the Great March of Return began on March 30, 2018. Every major media outlet – CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post – covered Pompeo’s remarks in detail. Those remarks were hardly designed to “distract” from supposed “failures in the region.” And as for those “failures,” what does Warren have in mind? Was the defeat, by the Americans and the Kurds, of ISIS in Syria a “failure”? Was the collapse of ISIS in Iraq, to which American military assistance contributed, a “failure”? Was the body-blow to Iran’s economy, that the Administration brought about by reimposing sanctions, that in turn led to the streets of Iran now being filled with Iranians shouting against the regime, a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the massively corrupt UNRWA a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority, because of its Pay-for-Slay program, a “failure”?

Warren then blithely noted that the settlements “violate international law.” This was not always her understanding. At a Town Hall in August 2014, Warren called into question the notion that future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Clearly she did not then regard the settlements as being “illegal.”

And two years later, in September 2016, ahead of a U.N vote on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren was one of 88 senators who signed a letter to President Obama sponsored by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, urging him to “veto any one-sided UNSC resolution that may be offered in the coming months”: the resolution was approved by the Security Council 14-1-0, with the United States shamefully abstaining.

Again, Warren was still willing to urge the government to veto a Security Council resolution that treated the West Bank settlements as “illegal.”

What changed her mind? Perhaps, after Bernie Sanders’s claim that he would take some aid money away from Israel and give it to the Palestinians in Gaza, Warren felt she needed to establish her bona-fides among the “progressives” in the Democratic Party, who have become increasingly anti-Israel. And what better way to do it than to instantly attack Pompeo on the “legality” of Israel’s West Bank settlements?

A law professor for many years, Warren is well-versed in reading statutes and codes. As a professor of bankruptcy law, she can comprehend the Bankruptcy Code, so he Mandate for Palestine ought to be child’s play. If she reads that Mandate, she will understand that the League of Nations established, on a sliver of land that had been identified with the Jewish people for two thousand years, and that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire, the Mandate for Palestine. That Palestine Mandate was entrusted to Great Britain, whose task it was to prepare that territory for independence as the Jewish National Home. There were other Mandates that were intended to create Arab states – Syria, Lebanon, Iraq – but the Mandate for Palestine was intended solely for the Jews. Warren would then want to know, as the thorough policy wonk she is, precisely what territory was to be included in that Mandate. Upon investigation, she would discover that the Mandate for Palestine applied to all the territory from Dan in the north to Beersheva in the south, and from the river Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the West. In other words, all of what is present day Israel, and the entire West Bank, was included in the Mandate. Israel cannot be called the “occupier” of land that was assigned by the League of Nations to be part of the Jewish National Home, which would then become the State of Israel. When the League of Nations shut down, its successor organization, the United Nations, implicitly recognized in Article 80 of its Charter (the so-called Jewish People’s article) the continuing in force of the Mandate for Palestine. The only thing that prevented the West Bank from becoming, as it legally should have, part of the state of Israel in 1949, was that Jordan managed to hold onto the West Bank, and remained its “occupier” until 1967.

Elizabeth Warren never mentions the Mandate for Palestine, which is the indispensable document in judging the legality of the Israeli settlements. Nor does she mention, in any of her statements online, U.N. Resolution 242 and its significance in giving Israel the right to “secure and recognizable boundaries.” She has a duty to study both the Mandate, and Resolution 242, before making her self-assured and dismissive pronouncements about how those settlements “violate international law.” And she might also explain why those same settlements did not “violate international law” back in 2014, when she opposed making aid to Israel contingent on its halting of settlement building. Did she know something in 2014 about the settlements’ legality that she then forgot, or did she learn something since about their supposed illegality?

Then there is Warren’s remark that the settlements are not only “illegal,” but that they “make peace harder to achieve.” How does she, and the many others who mindlessly repeat this mantra – “settlements make peace harder to achieve” – know this? Because the Arabs – the Palestinians – keep telling them so.

What kind of “peace” is possible between Israel and the Palestinians? Some may insist that by squeezing itself back within the 1949 armistice lines, what Ambassador Abba Eban called “the lines of Auschwitz,” Israel makes peace more likely. But those who recognize that the war being waged, by all possible means, including terrorism, combat (qitaal), economic and diplomatic warfare, and demographic jihad, against Israel has no end, for Muslims, until the complete disappearance of the Jewish state, will not be so quick to put their trust in treaties. That is especially true because the Muslim model for all treaty-making with non-Muslims is the agreement that Muhammad reached with the Meccans at al-Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D., a treaty that was to last for ten years, but which he broke after 18 months, attacking the Meccans as soon as he felt his forces were strong enough to win. Given that Muhammad is the Model of Conduct for all Muslims, Israel cannot rely on a peace treaty with Muslim Arabs to be kept indefinitely.

Instead, there is another and better way to maintain the peace between Israel and its neighbors. That is deterrence: the enemy’s understanding that if Israel is attacked, it will respond, and much more devastatingly. Egypt and Syria now know what they did not know in October 1973, when they launched a surprise attack on Israel. Despite early losses, Israel delivered punishing blows in response. No Arab state since has tried to attack Israel; terror groups are a different matter, for their members are ready to be “martyrs.” For rational actors – fanatic Muslim groups and groupuscules are not among them – deterrence works. It kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for more than four decades after World War II. Israel must remain overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger than its enemies for deterrence to be effective.

That is where the West Bank settlements come in. The 400,000 Jews who live in the West Bank, with all of the adults having undergone military training when fulfilling their mandatory service in the IDF, are an indispensable part of that deterrence. Those settlements throughout the West Bank, especially those strategically placed on the Judean hills, and overlooking, the Jordan Valley, are a powerful obstacle to invasion from the east. The settlements significantly improve Israel’s deterrence, and a credible deterrence is the only guarantee that peace between Israel and the Arabs will be kept.

Warren claims the settlements will make peace “harder to achieve.” She has things backwards. The settlements may make a “peace treaty” harder to achieve, but they will make the only peace that really matters, a peace based on deterrence, easier to achieve.

In addition to the Mandate for Palestine (especially the Preamble and Articles 4 and 6), and U.N. Resolution 242, Elizabeth Warren should read about the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya and its continuing significance, in Majid Khadduri’s magisterial War and Peace in the Law of Islam. That’s all the studying she need devote to the matter for now. The exam will be take-home. We’re all hoping that Professor Warren earns an A.


Hugh Fitzgerald


Chicago: University students honor Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader

Accusers of Ilhan Omar refuse to provide details on her alleged work for Qatar

Raymond Buckley and the Democrats’ Craven Lust for Power

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

Merited mistrust?

There is something sick in the State Prosecutor’s Office; Shai Nitzan is not fit to be the State Prosecutor” – Judge Hila Gerstel, former Commissioner for Prosecutorial Oversight

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (But who will guard the guardians themselves?) Juvenal, a Roman poet (circa 55 CE- circa 127 CE), Satire VI, line 347.

Public trust in the police – the lowest in the West…only 22% of Israelis believe that judges don’t take bribesHaaretz, Oct. 31, 2011.

Public approval of the police at all time low – below all other public services – Haaretz, July 7, 2013.

Last Thursday (Nov. 21, 2019), Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit dropped a long-awaited bombshell on Israel’s political system.

Emotions erupt

After months of speculation, he announced his intent to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud and breach of trust in Case 4000 (the Bezeq-Walla Affair); for breach of trust in Case 1000 (the Illegal Gifts Affair); and for breach of trust in Case 2000 (the Yediot Aharonot-Israel Hayom Affair).

The announcement ignited an eruption of divergent public emotions. The Bibiphobes applauded it with undisguised glee, the Bibiphiles rejected it with unmasked abhorrence.

Netanyahu himself lambasted the decision. After a bland statement expressing generic “respect” for “the legal authorities”, he launched a bitter attack against specific sectors of those same authorities: “you have to be blind not to see that something bad has happened to the police investigators and to the people in the State Attorney’s Office.”

Continuing his condemnation, he alleged: “We are witnessing an attempted coup against a prime minister on trumped-up charges and a tainted and tendentious investigation process…They didn’t pursue the truth; they pursued me.”

According to Netanyahu:

“[The} tainted investigation process, including inventing new crimes, has reached its apex today. It horrifies not only me, but masses of citizens in Israel, and not only on the right…This tainted process raises questions among the public about the police’s investigations and the prosecution. The public has lost trust in these institutions…This is selective enforcement on steroids. It’s enforcement just for me.”

Similar sentiments

I confess that I find that Netanyahu’s words of censure resonate with me.

Indeed, over the past two years I have expressed similar sentiments myself. For example, in February 2018, I wrote a piece entitled Coup d’etat, in which I warned :

If he is … forced out of office, many will see this as naked politicization of law enforcement in the country, in effect, a legalistic coup d’état, designed to annul the outcome of elections — and will deal a mortal blow to their faith in the democratic process”.

Shortly thereafter, in The police, the press and a politicized “Putsch”?, I wrote: “The unrelenting drive to bring an indictment — any indictment — against Netanyahu has long exceeded the bounds of reasonable law enforcement”.

In March this year, in Will the “Deep-State” destroy democracy, I cited the prominent legal expert, Prof Alan Dershowitz, who sharply criticized the legal action against Netanyahu: “ The first probe, also known as case 1000, involves gifts of cigars and champagne Netanyahu received from close friends…I strongly believe that the appropriate criteria for criminal prosecution have not been met in the cigar and champagne case against Netanyahu…The other investigations (dubbed 2000 and 4000) pose even greater dangers to democratic governance and civil liberties…”

Earlier this month, in Democracy devoid of the demos?, I recalled the warning articulated by former Justice Minister, ‘Tommy’ Lapid (father of MK Yair Lapid of the Blue & White faction) : “…the legal system in Israel is being undermined by an over-zealous State Prosecutor’s Office, that is losing esteem and credibility with each additional trial…”; while the current Justice Minister expressed concern over a “dangerous symbiosis between elements in the police Major Crimes Unit, the State Prosecutor’s Office and the media”.

Understandable uproar

The hullabaloo is not difficult to understand.

Indeed, for the layman, the indictments appear to be uncompelling—to say the least.

After all, as I have written elsewhere, to “anyone but a rabid “Bibiphobe”, they appear transparently contrived, indeed, a thinly veiled attempt at a legalistic coup…creating a deep sense of unease that Israel’s legal establishment is being exploited for patent political ends — i.e. that unelected elites are using their positions of influence and authority to bring about political outcomes that do not correspond to — even contradict — the election results, depleting the influence of the demos in Israeli democracy.”

With regard to Case 1000, it is a little difficult to grasp why gifts of perishable goods from well-heeled acquaintances, even if inappropriately excessive, should be grounds for removing an incumbent prime minister from office. Indeed, even if punitive measures are called for, it would seem far more appropriate to impose administrative measures such as monetary penalties, rather than criminal ones.

With regards to Case 2000 involving a discussion between Netanyahu and Arnon Mozes, owner of Yediot Aharonot, it seems more than a little puzzling as to why any legal action is merited because of a meeting that produced no concrete result or even concrete action towards achieving that result—especially when over 40 other MKs did in fact act to do Mozes’s bidding , while Netanyahu opposed it! Perversely, no charges have been, or will be, filed against the 43 members of Knesset, who actually attempted to give Mozes what he asked for.

Case 4000 is a little more abstruse, involving Netanyahu’s actions in his role of Minister of Communications, and in which he is alleged to have bestowed on Shaul Elovitch, owner of the popular Walla channel, commercial benefits in exchange for improved coverage of Netanyahu and his family. However, not only did Netanyahu’s actions fall well within the bounds of his role as Minister of Communications, but as Caroline Glick and Alex Traiman point out, nowhere in the democratic world, has any prosecutor ever indicted – or even investigated – a politician or media organization of having committed bribery for providing positive coverage—even when such coverage came in direct exchange for legislation.

Puzzling precedent

A layman’s puzzlement might well by increased by the fact that the State Prosecution has as good as admitted that Netanyahu could not be indicted on the basis of well-established legal practice—and to do so, new legal precedents needed to be invoked.

This emerges clearly from an interview (May 8, 2019) with Shai Nitzan, the State Prosecutor, leading the legal action against Netanyahu.

During the interview, Nitzan was asked: “The determination that positive media coverage should be considered “bribery” is a legal precedent. Is it appropriate to set such a precedent for the first time in a case against a prime minister?”

His stunning, almost self-contradictory, response was:

Every legal precedent has to begin at some point. For example, in Case 4000 [involving positive coverage in the Walla site], there was no disagreement and everyone agreed that it was right to indict on bribery, despite the fact that it did not involve envelopes filled with cash, but influencing media coverage. So, just because it involves the prime minister, we should delay the precedent for another time? I do not think that this decision involves a widening of the charge of bribery or breach of trust.”

This leaves one to ponder over why, if the decision was in fact unprecedented, how could it possibly not involve widening the charges?

Bursting the bubble?

Significantly, grave questions have been raised over the functioning of the State Prosecutor’s Office, in general, and of the State Prosecutor Nitzan, in particular—by none other than the person appointed to oversee them—retired Judge Hila Gerstel, who resigned from her role as Commissioner for Prosecutorial Oversight—after an acrimonious relationship with the State Prosecutor’s Office.

In an interview in the business daily, The Marker (owned by the far-left Haaretz), headlined There is something sick in the State Prosecutor’s Office; Shai Nitzan is not fit to be the State Prosecutor, Gerstel was sharply critical of both.

Asked how she felt about what she had experienced as Prosecutorial Oversight Commissioner, she replied: “As if the bubble, in which I had lived for 24 years, had burst. I believed that there were systems that worked properly in the country and I discovered that the particular system, over which I was appointed to inspect, was not functioning as it should.

Gerstel admitted that, despite the fact that her fellow judges warned her that she did not know what she was getting into, she believed that the State Prosecutor’s Office was a body of honest diligent people, which focused exclusively on the public interest and were not willing to “cut corners” . Later, however, this changed: “We got the feeling that no-one cared about the system.”

As for Shai Nitzan, Gerstel was brusque and harsh: “In the contacts between us there were several times I got the impression that there was a problem with him being precise and truthful. I believe that the State Prosecutor must be a manager and a leader. This was not what I discovered. There is no leadership in the State Prosecutor’s Office.”

In response to the question whether Shai Nitzan should be State Prosecutor, she answered bluntly: “According to my criteria: No. From my knowledge of him: No.

Experts excoriate

The profound sense of unease, which all the preceding accumulation of troubling question marks generates, is heightened by the fact that an impressive battery of internationally renowned legal experts has excoriated the legal action against Netanyahu—in no uncertain terms.

Thus, in a detailed critique in Tablet Magazine, Prof. Avi Bell warned: “Mandelblit’s announcement inserts law enforcement officials into the political arena in an unprecedented way, and on a very shaky legal foundation. If the legal theories that the attorney general is introducing against Netanyahu become general law, a considerable part of the democratic life of Israel will have to pass through police interrogation rooms. If they remain restricted to Netanyahu, the partisanship will permanently damage public trust in the Israeli legal system.”

According to Bell: “…the danger in the novel legal theories introduced by Mandelblit is stark. The criminal charges against the prime minister lack legal substance, and they threaten both the rule of law in Israel and the health of its democracy.”

Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who has written several critical op-eds and an open letter to Mandelblit, calling on him to drop the indictments, warned that we’re seeing the weaponization of criminal justice for political purposes.”

According to Deshowitz:

The relationship between politics and the media—and between politicians and publishers—is too nuanced, subtle and complex to be subject to the heavy hand of criminal law…To empower prosecutors to probe these mixed motivations is to empower them to exercise undemocratic control over crucial institutions of democracy.”

Capacious crimes?

Prof. Bell concludes his Table Magazine critique in dour tones: “The dispiriting truth is that there have always been two ways to understand the investigations against Netanyahu, and the implications for Israeli democracy are alarming.”

According to Bell:

One way to look at the investigation is as a neutral application of a new understanding of the traditional crimes of bribery and breach of public trust. Under this interpretation, Mandelblit’s capacious understanding of the crimes of breach of trust and bribery may be unprecedented, but will now be applied across the board to all public officials and politicians. The horrifying result will be police oversight of nearly all interactions between media and public officials.

Underscoring the absurdity of the situation likely to arise, Bell points out: “When the evening news devotes 15 minutes of generally positive coverage to Benny Gantz or to Mandelblit himself, producers and reporters may have to expect a summons to a police interrogation where they will be asked to demonstrate the purity of their motives. Politicians and public officials in constant touch with the media—that is, everyone in public life—will always find themselves on the verge of conviction of the felony of taking bribes, or, at least, ‘breach of public trust’. The center of Israeli political life will move to [police] interrogation rooms ….”

As Bell explains:

“The other interpretation is that the investigations should be seen as Netanyahu and his supporters paint them: special rules that are meant to apply only to Netanyahu. Israeli political life will not move to the police station, but will face the constant threat that law enforcement authorities may suddenly decide to apply “Bibi rules.

He warns sternly:

The harm to Israeli democracy of double standards in the criminal law based on prosecutor’s will would be incalculable. And law enforcement officials could never be seen as nonpartisan again.”

Contrived criminality

It was Dershowitz who astutely remarked:

If somebody were to introduce legislation saying that it is a crime for a politician to seek good coverage and it came for a vote, it wouldn’t get a single vote in the Knesset. And that’s the best proof that it shouldn’t be prosecuted as a crime under today’s law…If you couldn’t get the Knesset to pass as law criminalizing this, you shouldn’t be punishing it.”

One thing is beyond doubt: No good result can come out of these indictments.

If Netanyahu is found guilty, roughly half the Israeli public will feel that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice—and the already tenuous public trust in Israel’s arms of law and order with be undermined even further.

On the other hand, if he is acquitted, roughly (the other) half of the Israeli public will feel that has been a gross miscarriage of justice-and the already tenuous faith in Israel’s system of law and order will eroded even further.

Among the biggest losers will be those who launched this ill-considered initiative in the first place. The mistrust it will generate in them, will be certainly be well merited.

© All rights reserved.

Michael Bloomberg’s Ready-Made Network of Cities in Support of His Open Borders Agenda

In 2010, the forward-thinking mayor of New York created the National Partnership for a New American Economy.  I say forward-thinking because now 9 years later, he has what amounts to a local government network of cities that favor more immigration as he launches his bid to defeat Donald Trump in 2020.

He and his cohorts have been awarding prizes, including grants and cataloging cities by their willingness to welcome an ever increasing number of immigrants with his special desire to legalize more of the illegals.

Co-Chairs of the Partnership for a New American Economy
Name Affiliation
Mark Hurd Co-CEO Oracle
Robert Iger Chairman and CEO, Walt Disney Co.
J.W. Marriott, Jr. Chairman and CEO of Marriott International, Inc.
Jim McNerney Chairman of Boeing
Rupert Murdoch Chairman, CEO and Founder of News Corporation
Julián Castro Former Mayor of San Antonio
Michael Bloomberg Former Mayor of New York City
Michael Nutter Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Antonio Villaraigosa Former Mayor of Los Angeles

Really what you see here is a list of (bipartisan) corporations that say they can’t live without immigrant laborers.

In between your turkey and stuffing and parade watching, take a look at the extensive website and operation Bloomberg has put in place.

I don’t see anything like this kind of organization anywhere in the immigration control movement.  Well, maybe NumbersUSA could come close on the other side of the argument about workers.

It really is a no-brainer, too many foreign workers depress wages of Americans including African Americans, but for moneybags like Bloomberg there is no such thing as too many low skilled and low wage immigrants!

Here, earlier this month, Bloomberg’s gang is chortling about bringing Midwestern cities into the light of their understanding.

New ranking of top 100 cities shows Midwestern cities are becoming more welcoming to immigrants. (You can read it yourself).

And, since we are talking about mayors and city leaders falling in line, don’t miss RRW today and see if your mayor is one of 88 telling the President that they want 100,000 refugees and want the feds (with their taxpayer funded contractors) to continue to decide which lucky cities will welcome the stranger.

RELATED ARTICLE: ICE Catches Alleged Child Sexual Predator Repeatedly Released by Philadelphia Police

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

Perils of the Left: The Unrecognized, Profound Danger of Elizabeth Warren

Senator Elizabeth Warren, one-time Indian and beer drinker, would make a very dangerous president. This isn’t just because of her policies, which include ending the Electoral College, banning fracking everywhere, regulating a naturally occurring gas (CO2), being radically pro-abortion, decriminalizing illegal border crossing, and free health care for illegal aliens. It’s not only her complete phoniness, which is in one way actually reassuring: It informs that the aforementioned policies are surely as pliable as her family history narrative. No, it’s also because she’s frightfully out of touch with reality in a largely unrecognized way, one common to leftists.

Approximately 25 years ago, I attended a local feminist conference concerning how our “patriarchal” society supposedly hobbled girls’ academic performance. Because I’d articulately refuted the speakers’ thesis using facts and reason during the commenting period, some of the organizers approached me afterwards, suspicious, wondering what organization I represented (only myself). The group, perhaps four middle-aged women, remained civil, but the arrows shooting from their eyes betrayed their thinly veiled feelings. Anyway, uninterested in my thoughts, they quickly begged out of the conversation by offering to mail me literature on their positions. I said, jokingly, sure, “as long as you don’t send a hit squad to my house.” The response?

Very seriously and sternly they replied, “We don’t do things like that.” They didn’t get that it was a joke (and, mercifully, I didn’t get the literature).

But perhaps those feminists graduated from the Patsy Schroeder School of Comedy. To wit: Engaging in demagoguery during a 1990s budget battle, the Democrats claimed the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine if the GOP prevailed. Radio host Rush Limbaugh then spoofed this in a GOPAC speech, claiming he’d bought his mother a new can opener so “she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it.”

Taking this seriously, liberal congresswoman Patsy Schroeder (D-Colo.) appeared on the House floor the next day and emotionally exclaimed that “this is what it’s come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said he’s going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!” The point?

These women exhibited a drastically poor grasp of man’s nature, a profound illiteracy with respect to reading others. They also are Elizabeth Warren; she is them. This is plain.

Consider Warren’s livestream broadcast from her home, last New Year’s Eve, in which she tried to sound down-home authentic and said, “Hold on a sec, I’m gonna get me a beer.” She consequently was widely mocked, with even left-wing columnist Joel Stein calling it the “worst impersonation of a non-elite since John Kerry entered an Ohio grocery store and asked, ‘Can I get me a hunting license here?’”

Even better was the top-rated comment under the below YouTube video of Warren’s beer gambit. “Another Native American succumbs to alcoholism,” “Shepface XL” plaintively remarked (you won the Internet that day, sir!).

Then there was Warren’s response to an endorsement by an obscure, fringe activist group calling itself “Black Womxn For.” “Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy…,” she tweeted November 7th.

Now, maybe ol’ Liz was drunk on beer, or firewater, but as one Twitter respondent put it, “The ‘backbone of our democracy’? They aren’t even the backbone of the alphabet soup community.” (In fairness, though, how many politicians have acquaintance with the concept of “backbone”?) In fact, I went far down through the Twitter responses and didn’t even see Warren’s followers defending her puffery. It was that bad.

The issue is not, however, that Warren was marketing herself with the livestream and pandering with the LGBTQ praise; such is typical of politicians. But it’s normally done with some finesse and sophistication, giving wanna’-be believers some plausible deniability in their own minds.

Warren’s inability to do this — her obviously total ignorance of how ridiculous she’d look and her inability to read how others would read her — speak volumes. Call it extremely low emotional IQ, dislocation from reality in the given area, poor people skills, stupidity or something else, but it’s a fatal defect in a leader.

Remember, for a president to effectively deal and negotiate with others, manage geopolitical crises and keep our nation safe, he must be able to interpret foreign leaders properly and send them the right messages. Thus, a deep grasp of man’s nature, which should involve a great ability to read others, is imperative — especially when your “finger is on the button.” Elizabeth Warren clearly, abjectly fails in this regard.

In fact, being only human, even the relatively discerning can stumble here. Just consider how in the early ‘80s President Ronald Reagan reportedly remarked, upon hearing that the Soviets genuinely feared a surprise attack by the U.S., “Can they really believe that we’re about to launch a nuclear attack?”

However accurate this report, I’m certain the Soviets could have. Note that people tend to project their own mindsets and priorities onto others; thus would Reagan never think that another government could suspect utter madness from his, and thus would the utterly mad absolutely suspect it.

Note here that leftists are characteristically godless, and to paraphrase Belgian poet Émile Cammaerts,

“When people cease believing in God, it’s not that they start to believe in nothing; it’s that they’ll believe in anything.”

Leftists occupy an inverted moral world, a reality perhaps best illustrated by what an American defector learned about his “hosts” while spending decades in North Korea.

“In North Korea, when you lie they think you are telling the truth, and when you tell the truth they think you are lying,” said ex-Army Sergeant Charles Jenkins. “You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes, and yes when you mean no.”

The North Koreans are obviously an extreme example. But this all raises interesting questions: How do people get this way? Does the dislocation from reality lead to the embrace of the unreality of leftism? Or does the unreality of leftism lead to wider dislocation from reality? I’m quite sure it’s both, actually. But now I’ll briefly outline Descent into Unreality 101.

Man has a great capacity to rationalize, which, of course, is when you lie to yourself, twist reality for yourself. People do it when reality isn’t what they want it to be. This especially characterizes leftists, whose agenda is wholly contrary to reality, to Truth.

The problem is that when you lie to yourself over and over again, bending reality year after year, you fall further and further out of touch with reality. Not only can rationalization then become entirely habitual, but you may reach a point where you can’t “find” reality even when you want to (Warren certainly didn’t want to make a fool of herself). Once severe enough, this may be called being crazy.

It’s like continually feeding bad data into a computer. How will the output be? In fact, people can reach the point of having “corrupted files,” more commonly known as character defects or dysfunction (though I dislike psychobabble terms reflecting the atheistic lexicon).

By the way, this habitual rationalization likely begins in childhood, when parents (often “liberal”) enable it by not holding their kids responsible and forcing them to face reality. “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree” — and in this case it’s not the tree of liberty.

And in reality, being human, we all have to guard against rationalization and ask ourselves, honestly, if we’re ever and always seeking Truth above all things, even our passions. What is for certain, however, is that the people we today call leftists surely don’t — and they belong nowhere near the levers of power.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to

© All rights reserved.


No Matter What the Left Says, ‘Medicare for All’ Will Cost You. A Lot.

Maps: Mexican Drug Cartels Control Large Swath of America