A Sober Take On The State Of The Union Through The Eyes Of CPAC

It was my first CPAC meeting, and it was awesome! But it was more than that. It was informative, encouraging, engaging and sobering.

So from a first-timer Here are some of the more prominent issues in the minds of conservatives this year.

The State Of The Union

Almost to a tee, conservatives were concerned about the state of the nation.  They recognized that for far too long America has been headed in the wrong direction, and they were painfully aware of the difficulty and the effort required to turn such a large and massive ship around.  Despite their optimism towards President Trump and the work he has been undertaking, very few seemed to believe America was headed in the right direction.

For most in attendance, the media have become an unapologetic instrument for left-wing propaganda.  The government footprint is way too large.  Our educational institutions have become liberal indoctrination camps, and the youth in our country is perilously close to accepting socialism as a valid socioeconomic alternative.

But despite these challenges, those in attendance knew they had a champion, a man who seemingly had come from nowhere and was now sitting in the White House calling the shots on the war against the Left.  And no moment solidified their faith in this President than when Donald J. Trump appeared at the CPAC stage, made his way to Old Glory, faced the audience, and gave the flag a protracted and joyous embrace.  It was a gesture that no one ever recalled any president ever doing, and it sealed their faith in the man that was both the spear for the conservative agenda and the target for the vitriol from the Left.

That image of President Trump hugging the American flag with a big, satisfied smile will likely become one of the great, indelible images in the minds of those present.

The State Of The Democratic Party

Conservatives’ view on the state of the Democrat Party was best articulated by Sen. Ted Cruz who, in his eloquence and sophistication, expertly and precisely described the Democrats in 2019.  To quote Senator Cruz, the Democrats have gone “bat-crap-crazy.”

From their position on border security to their Green New Deal, their open and unfettered embrace of socialism, their threats to disarm Americans, and their calls to execute American citizens without due process the Democrat mantra has devolved so precipitously that it defies belief.  The devolution of Democrat political policy is so extreme that, in a taste of so much more that is to come, it allowed President Trump to openly mock the Green New Deal and to encourage Democrats to continue to discuss it.

Objectively, it is difficult to see how a policy proposal that calls for the eradication of “farting cows,” the discontinuation of cars, and the termination of air travel can ever attract America’s swing voters.  And that’s without mentioning the Left’s renewed assault on the newborn.

The State of Right To Life

Amongst the issues where conservatives felt the most confident is the issue of the right to life.  Supporting their position is a recent Marist poll showing that 80% of Americans support limiting abortion to the first three months of pregnancy.  Additionally, those identifying themselves as pro-life rose nine percentage points to 47% and even with those who called themselves pro-choice.

The most likely explanation for this renewed confidence is the predictable tendency for the Left to overplay its hand.  Other than possessing an inherent disdain for life, it is difficult to explain how Democrats would undertake such an aggressively destructive stance on human life. Yet this is exactly what they have done.

The Democrats’ position on abortion can no longer be explained as a defense of women’s right to choose, nor can it be hailed as a women’s-health issue, as the babies they are arguing may be sentenced to death are the very ones that have either already achieved viability or are freely living.

Worse yet, the celebrations that took place in the New York legislature after the passage of a bill that would allow for the death of a baby as late as during partum plays out as a disgusting site when viewed under the lens of decency and respect for others.  And the audacity of lighting One World Trade Center pink in celebration for the passage of a death sentence for scores of thousands will definitely shine as a low point in American history.

The attendees at CPAC could sense this and were salivating at the chance of bringing the Left’s misconduct and insensitivities to the public fore — and get it past the blocking line of the media.

The State of Socialism And The GND

For the first time in history, the Democrats are openly and unabashedly embracing socialism as a viable policy answer for America.  It is a direction that goes against every principle upon which our nation was created and one that brings to mind images of the open assault on the liberties Americans cherish.  And of course, it is a system that has miserably failed in every country where it has been tried.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign for President and The Green New Deal have become the symbols for such policy changes and the overtly oppressive measures the Democrats are willing to promote.

One would think that socialism would represent an untenable position for anyone to seriously propose, yet the Democrats, espouse it and openly defend it.  Their disregard for the dangers of even flirting with a socialist governmental scheme will surely come back to haunt them in a general election.

The State of Gun Rights

With a powerful appearance by Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President and CEO of the NRA, and Oliver North, its greatest advocate, the National Rifle Association has doubled down on its expanded role as the great defender of social liberties and individual freedom.  It is certainly the right approach because ultimately, although the Left may argue statistics and trends, or even make some up, it will never be able to propose a viable substitute for the ultimate defense of liberties and personal freedoms; a loaded weapon.

At the end of the day, this is shaping up to be a strong year for the conservative movement in America.  Between a President who is adamant about promoting a conservative vision for America, a House of Representatives in disarray, Democrat members of Congress defending absurd political philosophies, and an economy that continues to perform light-years above the rest, it is easy to see how conservatives at this year’s CPAC feel they have the wind at their backs.

Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.

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

The Rise of an American Demagogue

Can America be destroyed? It is often said no external force can destroy America. This is likely true. But there is little doubt that under the right circumstances America can self destruct. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez a Socialist arose from a bar tending job to become one of the most influential member and voice in Congress. Make no mistake about it. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a dangerous  Socialist demagogue who is promoting a system to control the lives of every American from ‘Birth to Grave’. The  Socialist Party has infiltrated the Democrat Party and together with Bernie Sanders has enormous influence and control of it.  They are Democrats in name only. In effect we have two Party’s. One controlled by Nancy Pelosi Democrat and the other by Cortez socialist. Both claiming to be Democrats.

Congresswomen IIhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez share the same things in common. They are Antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American. Socialism is not an American value. The fact that the Cortez Socialist  faction was able to force Pelosi to place IIhan Omar a known Antisemitic and anti-Israel Muslim on the important Foreign Relation Committee shows  the enormous power of the  Cortez faction. Likewise Rashida Tlaib another outspoken Anti-Semite and anti-Israel Congresswoman was placed on the important Financial Services Committee. None of these Congresswomen have any legislative experience.

The appointment of IIhan Omar by Pelosi on the Foreign Relations Committee is especially egregious because she is now entitled to classified information involving Israel.  The Congress passed  H.RES. 183. The resolution is appropriate but it has no power and it even fails to name IIhan Omar for her Anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rants.

As Bret Stephens in a New York Times op-ed wrote:

“It says something about the progressive movement today that it has no trouble denouncing Republican racism, real and alleged, every day of the week but has so much trouble calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks. This is how progressivism becomes Corbynism… It’s how self-declared anti-fascists develop their own forms of fascism. Why are they afraid of open debate? And what about all the bigotry on their side?”

H.RES. 183 does not stop the hate and bigotry in our current political environment.

We now live in the age of the demagogue.

VIDEO UPDATE: Judicial Watch Exposes Deep State Anti-Trump Collusion

DOJ Records Showing Numerous Bruce Ohr Communications with Clinton-linked Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele

Big news. We just uncovered 339 pages of heavily redacted records from the Justice Department which reveal that former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr remained in regular contact with former British spy and Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele after Steele was terminated by the FBI in November 2016 for revealing to the media his position as an FBI confidential informant.

The records show that Ohr served as a go-between for Steele by passing along information to “his colleagues” on matters relating to Steele’s activities. Ohr also set up meetings with Steele, regularly talked to him on the telephone and provided him assistance in dealing with situations Steele was confronting with the media.

“Get Trump” Dossier author Steele worked for the Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign/DNC contractor that also employed Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr’s wife.

We obtained the records through a March 2018 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond a December 2017 request Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00490)). The lawsuit sought:

  • All records of contact or communication, including but not limited to emails, text messages, and instant chats between Bruce Ohr and any of the following individuals/entities: former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele; owner of Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson; and any other employees or representatives of Fusion GPS.
  • All travel requests, authorizations and expense reports for Bruce Ohr.
  • All calendar entries for Bruce Ohr.

We asked for records from January 1, 2015, to December 7, 2017. Of course, the emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele were heavily redacted, including some of the dates they were sent and received.

Here is a sampling.

On Friday, July 29, 2016, Steele emails Bruce Ohr about a meeting that is to include Bruce’s wife Nellie Ohr, who then worked for Fusion GPS, at the Mayflower Hotel:

Steele: Dear Bruce,

Just to let you know I shall be in DC at short notice on business from this PM till Saturday eve, staying at the Mayflower Hotel. If you are in town it would be good to meet up, perhaps for breakfast tomorrow morn? Happy to see Nellie too if she’s up for it. Please let me know. Best, Chris
Ohr: Dear Chris –
Nice to hear from you! Nellie and I would be up for breakfast tomorrow and can come into town. What would be a good time for you? Bruce
Steele: Thanks Bruce.
On me at the Mayflower Hotel, Conn Ave NW at 0900 should work but I’ll confirm the time for definite this eve if I may. Looking forward to seeing you. Chris
Ohr: Sounds good, but we won’t let you pay for breakfast! I’ll wait for your confirmation on time. Bruce
Steele: Let’s do 0900 then. See you in the lobby. Chris
Ohr: Very good. See you at 900.

On Saturday, July 30, 2016, Steele sends his thanks to Bruce Ohr for the meeting, “Great to see you and Nellie this morning:”

Ohr: Great to see you and Nellie this morning Bruce. Let’s keep in touch on the substantive issues/s. Glenn [Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson] is happy to speak to you on this if it would help. Best, Chris

On Friday, September 16, 2016, Steele and Ohr begin planning a meeting in the Capital Hilton:

Steele: Dear Bruce,
I hope you are well. I am probably going to visit Washington again in the next couple of weeks on business of mutual interest. I would like to see you again in person and therefore to coordinate diaries. So when are you planning to be in town please? Thanks and Best, Chris
P.S. I don’t think I have up to date cell or landline phone numbers for you. Grateful if you could send met them.
Ohr: Hi Chris –
It would be great to see you I DC. I’ll be out of town Sept 19-21 but should be here the rest of the time. My numbers are office 202 307 2510 and cell [Redacted] Let me know what works best for you.
Steele: Dear Bruce,
I have now arrived in DC and am staying at the Capital Hilton, 1101 16th Street NW. I don’t know my client-related programme yet but am keen to meet up with you. Might we provisionally say breakfast on Friday morn or even tomorrow morn if necessary? Look forward to hearing back from you. Best, Chris

Ohr: Hi Chris

Would tomorrow for breakfast still work for you? My calendar is pretty good tomorrow morning, not so good on Friday. An early breakfast Friday, say 8 am?, would work too. Should I come to your hotel? Bruce
Steele: Thanks Bruce.
0800 on Friday would still be better for me, at the hotel. More useful to all I think, after my scheduled meetings tomorrow. Thanks, Chris

Ohr: Chris –

Perfect. I’ll see you Friday at your hotel at 8 am. Bruce

Bruce Ohr’s December 8, 2016, phone log shows he called Simpson for a meeting “tomorrow at 3.”

Bruce Ohr’s December 13, 2016, phone log shows he spoke with Glenn Simpson the day before and received “some more news.” The log also lists “Rod Rosenstein 5:48 pm.”

An exchange beginning December 11, 2016, between Bruce Ohr and Simpson shows them discussing a Daily Beast and a Think Progress article and setting up a phone call between them.

The documents we obtained show a string of encrypted text messages from January to November 2017, well after the FBI had terminated Steele, discussing a possible new point of contact should Ohr leave the FBI; a series of appointments for phone calls; and assurance that Ohr shared information with his “colleagues”:

On January 31, 2017, messages are exchanged between Bruce Ohr and Steele regarding fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates:

Steele: B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re-SY [Sally Yates]. Just wanted to check you are OK, still in situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues, with our guy if the need arises? Many Thanks and Best as Always, C

Ohr: Bruce: Yes, a crazy day. I’m still here and able to help as discussed. I’ll let you know if that Changes. Thanks!

Steele: Thanks. You have my sympathy and support. If you end up out though, I really need another (Bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can’t allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous all round, though his position right now looks stable. A million thanks. C

Ohr: Bruce: Understood. I can certainly give you an FBI contact if it becomes necessary.

On March 6, 2017, Senator Grassley wrote a letter to former FBI Director Comey regarding payments to Steele.

On March 7, 2017, messages are exchanged between Steel and Bruce Ohr about the Grassley letter:

Steele: Would it be possible to speak later today please? We’re very concerned by the Grassley letter and it’s possible implications for our operations and our sources. We need some reassurance. Many thanks

Ohr: Bruce: Sure Would 1:30 today, DC time, work?

Steele: Yes thanks it would…. I know you’ll appreciate why we are concerned.

Ohr: Bruce: Of course.

Ohr: Bruce: My Skype app is acting up. Can we use the Whatapp [sic] voice call?

Ohr: Bruce: I think my skype is working now if you want to call me.

Steele: Thanks for that, old friend. Please do fight our cause and keep in touch. Really fundamental issues at stake here. Very Best

Ohr: Bruce: Likewise, hang in there!

An exchange beginning on March 18, 2017, tells of apprehension regarding Comey’s scheduled March 20, 2017, testimony before Congress and hopes that “important firewalls will hold”:

Steele: Hi! Just wondering if you had any news? Obviously we’re a bit apprehensive given Comey’s scheduled appearance at Congress on Monday. Hoping that important firewalls will hold. Many thanks,

Ohr: Bruce: Sorry, no new news. I believe my earlier information is still accurate. I will let you know immediately if there is any change.

Beginning on March 24, 2017, following Comey’s testimony, Ohr and Steele discuss “our response:”

Steele: Hi Bruce, … we understand an approach from the Senate Intelligence Committee to us is imminent. I would like to discuss this and our response with you in the next couple of days if possible. Please let me know when might suit? Many thanks and Best, Chris

Ohr: We can chat this weekend if you are available. Would sometime on Sunday work for you? I’m pretty open.

Steele: Thanks Bruce. Let’s speak on Sunday eve UK time, maybe 1400 or 1500 EST if that works for you? Best

Ohr: Bruce: 1400 east coast time on Sunday will work. Thanks and talk with you then.

On March 30, 2017, Steele writes to Bruce Ohr about concerns with Senate Intelligence Committee leaks:

Steele: Hi Bruce, any news? The Senate Intel Committee is leaking like a sieve [Redacted] Hopefully speak soon. Best, Chris

Ohr: Chris, no news on this end, aside from what I’m reading in the papers. Just amazing. [Redacted] Let me know if you would like to talk.

In May several messages are exchanged regarding scheduling calls ending on May 15, 2017, with Bruce Ohr confirming that he spoke with the FBI and will update Steele:

Ohr: Bruce: thanks again. I chatted with my colleagues and can give you an update when you have a minute.

On July 16, 2017, Steele asks Bruce Ohr to pass on information, and Ohr agrees:

Steele: Hi Bruce, hope you’re enjoying the summer. [Redacted] Please pass this on as appropriate.  Crazy week over there just past!  Best, Chris

Ohr: Bruce: Hi Chris, it’s good to hear from you. Hope all is well. I will pass this along to my colleagues. Thanks!

On October 26, 2017, Steele says he’s “very concerned” about documents the FBI intends to turn over to Congress “about my work and relationship with them:”

Steele: Hi Bruce. Can we have a word tomorrow please? Just seen a story in the media about the Bureau handing over docs to Congress about my work and relationship with them. Very concerned about this. Peoples live may be engangered [sic]. [Redacted] Thanks, Chris

On October 30, 2017, Steele writes that he spoke to Simpson about information discussed with Bruce Ohr:

Steele: Bruce, having spoken with Glenn [Simpson] in London today, I now understand and appreciate what you were talking about on Saturday. Love and Best Wishes to you, Nellie and all the family.

On November 18, 2017, Steele and Ohr plan to discuss “difficulties and uncertainty” via Whatsapp:

Steele: Dear Bruce, I hope you and the family are well. It’s been another tough week here under the media spotlight and with legal pressures bearing down on us. I am presuming [redacted]. Also, we remain in the dark as to what has been briefed to Congress about us, our assets and previous work. I know you understand the importance of all this and have done your very best to support us, but we would be grateful if you could continue to [Redacted]. Sincere thanks for everything you are doing and I hope to speak to you again soon. Best, Chris

Ohr: Chris, thanks for reaching out. I understand the difficulties and uncertainty you are experiencing. I [redacted]. Let’s plan to talk early in the week – Bruce

Steele: Hi Bruce, is there any chance we could have a catch-up Whatsapp call this eve GMT, maybe around 1500 with you? Otherwise tomorrow eve GMT? Many thanks, Chris

Ohr: Bruce: Chris – I have a meeting ending at 1500 today that might spill over a few minutes. Would 1515 work for you?

Steele: Yes, of course. C

Ohr: Bruce: I will call you then.

The documents also show that Nellie Ohr sent numerous emails and reports to Bruce Ohr and other Justice Department officials on Russia issues.

These smoking gun documents show that Christopher Steele, a Hillary Clinton operative and anti-Trump foreign national, secretly worked hand-in-glove with the Justice Department on its illicit targeting of President Trump

These documents leave no doubt that for more than a year after the FBI fired Christopher Steele for leaking, and for some 10 months after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, Bruce Ohr continued to act as a go-between for Steele with the FBI and Justice Department. The anti-Trump Russia investigation, now run by Robert Mueller, has been thoroughly compromised by this insider corruption.

Earlier we released 412 pages of documents about FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants targeting Carter Page, who had been a Trump campaign adviser, which seem to confirm that the FBI and DOJ misled the courts in withholding the material information that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were behind the “intelligence” used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.

We revealed that the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the FISA spy warrant applications targeting Page, who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.

We also uncovered documents showing that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” (CHS) after he disclosed his relationship with the FBI to a third party. The documents show at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016 and document that he was admonished for unknown reasons in February 2016.

We have more documents coming and more lawsuits pending on this Deep State collusion to target President Trump, so stay tuned…

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Records on Effort to Rollback Trump Decision to Declassify Russia Probe Documents

The Deep State bureaucracy is adept at covering up misconduct by government officials – especially the misconduct related to the illicit spying on and targeting of President Trump.  This is why Judicial Watch’s independent lawsuits to pry loose information on this assault on the rule of law are essential.

We just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records about the agency’s involvement in persuading President Trump to defer his September 2018 decision to declassify DOJ documents related to the Russia investigation.

Our lawsuit is also seeking DOJ official Bruce Ohr’s records of communications around the time of Trump’s declassification announcement. Ohr, once the fourth-ranking official at DOJ, was a key conduit between anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele and the FBI.

We filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 18, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00507)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the proposed declassification of certain Department of Justice records as ordered by President Trump on September 17, 2018. The request includes, but is not limited to, any and all related records of communication sent by or addressed to any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice.

Any and all emails or other records of communication sent by or addressed to DOJ official Bruce Ohr between September 16, 2018 and September 18, 2018.

On September 17, 2018, President Trump ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department to declassify certain documents related to the investigation of possible meddling by Russia in the 2016 election. The documents included FBI reports on interviews with Ohr; pages of an application for a renewed surveillance warrant against Carter Page; and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all other applications to surveil Carter Page. Also included are text messages of Ohr, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said that Trump ordered the documents released “at the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency.”

On September 21, 2018, President Trump tweeted: “I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release.”

In a follow-on tweet, President Trump said: “Therefore, the Inspector General … has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me – and everyone!”

The documents have not yet been declassified.

The UK’s Telegraph reported that the British spy agency MI6 had urged Trump not to declassify the documents.

We have little doubt the Deep State DOJ is improperly trying to cover-up FISA abuse and other Russia hoax documents that President Trump initially ordered declassified. President Trump should immediately declassify these documents in order to expose any other abuses by the DOJ and FBI. Regardless, Judicial Watch will continue to press for the truth through the courts in the ongoing Deep State scandal.

Obama Holdover Fires Journalists Over Report Critical of Soros

Two years into the administration of President Trump we have a holdover Obama appointee firing government employees in seeming retaliation for a report critical of the left-wing billionaire activist George Soros. The story involves your own Judicial Watch, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

At the request of a scandal-plagued Democratic senator tried for bribery and corruption, the head of the government’s international media networks is abusing his office to punish employees behind a broadcast critical of leftwing billionaire George Soros. U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) Chief John F. Lansing, an Obama appointee, is utilizing Stalinist techniques to retaliate against the journalists and producers involved in the Spanish-language segment which aired in May 2018 on Television Martí and was available for months online. Eight reporters and editors at the taxpayer-funded media outlet have been fired and Lansing has ordered a review of all content to address “patterns of unethical, unprofessional, biased, or sub-standard journalism.”

An employee at the Miami, Florida-based Martí headquarters said in a local newspaper report “the environment that has been created by the upper hierarchy of the Agency for Global Media is repressive. People write with fear. Adjectives are no longer used.”

Television Martí—and its radio counterpart—operate under the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) and comprise one of the USAGM’s five international multimedia networks. The others are Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting. The media outlets get about $685 million a year from American taxpayers and reportedly reach 345 million people worldwide in 59 languages. The global media agency was created to counter disinformation spread by oppressive regimes abroad. The USAGM website states that its mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” Television and Radio Martí were created to promote freedom and democracy by providing the people of Cuba with objective news and information programming.

The Soros broadcast focused on his efforts to cripple sovereign governments in Latin America. Judicial Watch was cited as a source because it investigated State Department funding of Soros groups in Colombia and published a report on Soros’ initiatives to advance a radical globalist agenda in Guatemala. Judicial Watch also released a special report documenting the financial and staffing nexus between Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the U.S. government. In that document, Judicial Watch connects the dots between U.S.-funded entities and OSF affiliates to further the Hungarian-born philanthropist’s agenda seeking to destabilize legitimate governments, erase national borders, target conservative politicians, finance civil unrest, subvert institutions of higher education, and orchestrate refugee crises for political gain. A few years ago Judicial Watch exposed a scheme in which the U.S. government spent millions of dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with Soros’ OSF.

More than five months after the Spanish-language Soros broadcast aired on Television Martí, the segment caught the eye of disgraced New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. In an October 31, 2018 letter to Lansing, the senator orders an immediate investigation into the Soros broadcast as well as an audit “on patterns of unethical and unprofessional reporting” at OCB. Menendez also smears Judicial Watch, stating that the Soros segment had “no credible sourcing” and “occasionally cites only a fringe website.” Lansing uses similar language in a mainstream newspaper article about the recent Martí firings over the Soros video. “The person developing the Soros story was using Judicial Watch as a source as I understand it — the story was not only poorly sourced, it relied heavily on one less-than-credible source,” Lansing says in the article, which states that “Soros has emerged as a leading boogeyman on the right.”

Menendez, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee despite his sordid history, blocked President Trump’s nomination last year to replace Lansing as USAGM chief. A few years ago, Menendez was charged with federal bribery and corruption stemming from his relationship with a crooked south Florida eye doctor that lavished him with cash, gifts and trips in exchange for political favors. The eye doctor, Salomon Melgen, got convicted of stealing $73 million from Medicare and was sentenced to 17 years in prison. Menendez got off because jurors were unable to reach a verdict and his trial ended in mistrial. His colleagues on the Senate Ethics Committee determined that the veteran lawmaker not only violated senate rules, but also federal law and applicable standards of conduct. In a public letter of admonition, the committee writes that over a six-year period Menendez knowingly and repeatedly accepted gifts of significant value from Melgen in violation of senate rules and federal law. “Additionally, while accepting these gifts, you used your position as a Member of the Senate to advance Dr. Melgen’s personal and business interests,” the committee writes.

Menendez has been embroiled in other corruption schemes throughout his political career and Judicial Watch has served as a credible source in uncovering them. As far back as 2007, Menendez was investigated by a federal grand jury for illegally steering lobbying business to his former chief of staff Kay LiCausi, with whom he was also romantically linked. In just a few years, her firm reported $1.3 million in business with nearly $300,000 coming from a New Jersey medical center that was later awarded government funding thanks to a push from her former boss and lover.

In 2010, Menendez and his colleague in corruption, New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg, allocated $8 million for a public walkway and park space adjacent to upscale, waterfront condos built by a developer whose executives donated generously to their political campaigns. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the developer’s Washington D.C. lobbyist was a longtime senior aide to Menendez. The senator was also embroiled in a hooker scandal in the Dominican Republic with his incarcerated eye doctor pal and he hired an illegal immigrant sex offender to work in his senate office.
This is the muck of The Swamp. It stinks.

How Liberal Companies Are Bringing Blue State Mindsets to Red States

Amazon isn’t the only one fed up with New York’s ridiculous tax rates. Plenty of companies are packing their bags and looking for office space in states with more business-friendly policies. There’s just one problem: A lot of these top firms can’t stand the conservative laws that make their new homes so successful.

AllianceBernstein, another firm fleeing the Empire State’s stifling economy, just announced that it’s relocating its $70 million headquarters to Nashville. But before it moves, the CEO is warning Tennessee: It’s not a fan of religious liberty. And AllianceBernstein is proving it by fighting the state’s faith-based adoption bill.

“AB chose to move to Tennessee because we believe it is a welcoming state that is focused on growing jobs, incomes, and the tax base,” Chief Operating Officer Jim Gingrich said in a statement. But, “the bills being debated in the current session of the legislature send a clear message to certain constituencies that they are not welcome. Other states have tried to pass similar bills,” he claims, “and this has proven to be anti-growth, anti-job, and against the interests of the citizens of those states.”

Is that so? Because the last time financial experts checked, the most socially conservative states also happened to be the most prosperous. For years, places like North Carolina (No. 1), Texas (No. 3), and Georgia (No. 6) have topped Forbes’s Best States for Business list—despite high-profile campaigns for privacy, religious liberty, and life.

What these liberal CEOs don’t understand is that these favorable business climates only come from conservative legislators who understand that real freedom leads to economic growth. That’s why these red states are so enticing to companies, because their social values haven’t just built a foundation for workforce and family success—but thriving corporations, too.

The left loves to throw around this stale talking point that fighting for conservative values hurts states. Hardly! In the aftermath of the fiercest bathroom fight ever in North Carolina, nothing the liberals predicted came to pass. Even after a string of canceled concerts and celebrity boycotts, the Tar Heels are thriving. More than two years after the law, more businesses are moving to North Carolina than away from it.

“The outlook is also strong. Job growth and gross state product growth are expected to rank among the strongest in the country over the next five years,” Forbes points out. As for all of those people moving out of the state because it dared to protect women and children? “The population is growing twice as fast as the U.S. average … “

Why? Because in states where the social structure is better, you don’t need as much government interference. There’s less regulation, more freedom, and lower taxes in places like Tennessee (No. 13). But companies like AllianceBernstein can’t have it both ways.

Too many of these corporate refugees are relocating and trying to impose their extreme politics on their new homes. If conservative states want to keep their economies competitive, they need to make it clear. Businesses can either embrace the social structure that leads to growth and opportunity, or they can do what most Americans would prefer—and stay out of politics all together.

If CEOs don’t like those options, tell them to go back to the high-regulation, high-tax states from which they come.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. Twitter: 

Will the “Deep-State” Destroy Democracy

The unrelenting drive to bring an indictment—any indictment—against Netanyahu has long exceeded the bounds of reasonable law enforcement.

The issue at the center of these investigations seems trivial against the background of the existential crises Israel is facing…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… In both cases, the prime minister is essentially being investigated for allegedly trying to push the media – with long histories of attacking him and his family – to be fairer…—Prof. Alan Deshowitz, Voters, Not the Police or the Courts, Should Decide Netanyahu’s Future

…what we are left with is an exploration of motives… [which] are not the kinds of questions that prosecutors and police should be empowered to ask elected officials and media moguls as a part of a criminal investigation…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…police and prosecutors should not intrude on this complex, messy and nuanced relationship between politics and the media, except in cases of clear and unambiguous financial corruption well beyond what is alleged in the current cases… to criminalize these political differences is to endanger democracy and freedom of the press—Prof. Alan Deshowitz, Voters, Not the Police or the Courts, Should Decide Netanyahu’s Future

I disagree with Alan Dershowitz on much regarding Israel. But I found myself identifying almost completely with his analysis of the indictments (subject to a hearing) filed against Prime Minister Netanyahu by the attorney-general, Avihai Mandelblit.

A product of politically partisan peer pressure

Of course, I am sure it is possible to devise some contorted and contrived legalistic interpretation of the acts allegedly perpetrated by Netanyahu that will impart them a stain of nefarious criminality. However, I am equally sure that such an interpretation would fly in the face of fairness and common sense—and would only serve to undermine, even more, the credibility of the Israeli legal system in the eyes of the average man-in-the-street.

Dershowitz—who, as a renowned American legal authority, doesn’t really have a “dog-in-the fight” vis-à-vis the outcome of Israel’s elections or any partisan preference for either side of the pro- vs. anti-Bibi divide—is certainly not the only prominent personality to slam the assault on Netanyahu.

For example, Caroline Glick, then-prominent journalist, today a candidate for the Knesset, powerfully underscored the dubious (to be charitable) nature of the allegations against Netanyahu and the troubling double standards applied to him that they reflect.

Likewise, veteran lawyer, Dr. Haim Misgav, clearly conveyed how flimsy and unconvincing the charges against the Prime Minister are. Rather than prosecutors being “watchdogs” of the public interest, Misgav depicts them as “attack dogs” of the anti-Netanyahu circles, bent not on “eliminating wrongdoing in our midst, but removing the prime minister by any means possible”. Indeed, according to Misgav, the entire indictment is the product of the Attorney-General caving into peer pressure from the politically biased prosecution, and the timing of its publication, a stark attempt to impact the elections.

Award-winning investigative journalist Yaov Yitzhak, in a harsh indictment of prosecutorial (mis)conduct, quotes directly from the text of the indictments and demonstrates decisively the dramatic disconnect between the facts presented in evidence—which he argues are largely exculpatory for Netanyahu—and accusatory conclusions the prosecution draws from them!!

Not an uncritical apologist

As readers who follow my INTO THE FRAY column will recall, I have never been an uncritical, pro-Bibi apologist.

On the contrary, I have excoriated a number of his policy decisions, regularly and severely, and have even called for his resignation…on matters of policy.

Thus, for example, I strongly condemned his 2009 Bar Ilan speech, in which he accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood – see here and here. Likewise, I was severely critical of his decision to release over 1000 convicted terrorists (2011) to secure the release of captured IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit — and was even more opposed to a subsequent (2013) release of prisoners as a futile gesture to assuage the then-Secretary of State, John Kerry, in the vain hope of coaxing Mahmoud Abbas into renewing negotiations — see here and here.

I vehemently disapproved of his ill-advised attempt at rapprochement with Turkey — particularly the compensation paid for the casualties incurred, when Israeli commandoes had to defend themselves against attempts to tear them limb-from limb on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish vessel, trying to breach the maritime quarantine of the terror enclave in Gaza.

Perhaps my most serious—and ongoing—criticism of Netanyahu is his enduring failure to adequately address the problem of international delegitimization of Israel, by refusing to allot adequate resources to initiate and sustain a strategic diplomatic offensive to confront, curtail and counter the global assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish state — see for example here.

Netanyahu: A transformative leader

But for all my sharp disagreements with Netanyahu, my criticism was always focused exclusively on matters of substantive policy, never on matters ad hominem.

Moreover, despite that criticism, it is undeniable that in many ways, he has been a truly transformative leader.

Under his stewardship, Israel has become one of the best performing economies in the world — with GDP per capita breaching the $40,000 mark for the first time ever in 2017, up sharply by almost 45% since 2009, when he was first re-elected after losing power in 1999.

He has drastically reduced Palestinian terror from the horrific levels he “inherited” from the Rabin-Peres era — and, despite occasional flare-ups, he has largely managed to contain it to hardly perceptible proportions — certainly nowhere near the grisly scale that prevailed under his predecessors.

In terms of foreign policy, he has produced remarkable success. He managed to wait out the inclement incumbency of Barack Obama, emerging largely unscathed — despite the undisguised antipathy between the two men.

His views on Iran and its perilous nuclear ambitions have been embraced by the Trump administration. He has managed to initiate far-reaching changes in Middle East politics, with increasingly amicable — albeit, as yet, only semi-overt — relations with important Arab states, inconceivable several years ago, while sidelining — or at least, significantly reducing — the centrality of the intractable “Palestinian problem”.

He has overseen Israel’s “pivot” eastwards, and burgeoning relationships with the ascendant economies of India and China, increasingly offsetting Israel’s commercial dependence on the oft less-than-benign EU. He also has scored remarkable diplomatic successes in Africa and South America.

Moreover, notwithstanding difficulties with western European countries, he has fostered increasingly warm relations and understanding with those in central and eastern Europe…

Despite success–unceasing assault

Yet, despite his remarkable success, Netanyahu has been ceaselessly assailed by his political adversaries, ever since he was first elected in 1996. Indeed, it is perhaps his very success that has generated such raw rancor against him.

After all, almost immediately following his unexpected, razor-thin 1996 victory over Shimon Peres—the left-leaning liberal establishment candidate for the premiership—Netanyahu has been hounded and harassed by his political rivals within Israel’s entrenched civil society elites, and subjected to a maelstrom of allegations that range from the petty to the preposterous.

For two decades, he has been berated by the self-appointed bon-ton set, who saw him as an impudent upstart usurper of their “divinely ordained” right to govern. Significantly, the recriminations against him rarely—if ever—related to the manner in which he discharged the duties of the office to which he was elected.

As their astonished disbelief morphed into visceral rage, a cavalcade of charges was unleashed, admonishing him (and/or his spouse) for irregular use of garden furniture, the employment of an electrician, the proceeds from the sale of recycled bottles; payments to a moving contractor, an inflated ice cream bill (no kidding), the cost of his wife’s coiffure, meals ordered for the official PM residence from restaurants; expenses involving the care of his ailing 96 year old father-in-law…

Cresting “Bibiphobia”

The “Bibi-phobia” worked towards a crescendo with the onset of the 2015 elections, in which the prevailing perceptions of the polls and the pundits was that the Herzog-Livni duo and the newly formed Zionist Union were poised to unseat him.

Back then, I described the mounting anti-Bibi hysteria across the main-stream media, fueled, among other things, by funding from the Obama-administration, in the following terms:

“What we are witnessing is, in effect, little less than an attempt at a bloodless coup d’état – conducted, not by the military, but by the messianic, indeed manic, mainstream media, buttressed by affiliated like-minded civil society elites, in a frenzied effort to impose their minority worldview on the nation…Enraged by their inability to rally sufficient public support on substantive policy issues, to unseat the object of their visceral enmity, Benjamin Netanyahu, and nonplussed by the tenacity of his “delinquent” hold on the premiership…his political rivals have despaired of removing him from office by normal electoral means…Instead, they have descended into an unprecedented nadir of mean-spirited malevolence in Israeli public life…”

Back then, in 2015, the anti-Bibi blitz was orchestrated largely by the media. When that proved ineffective, the tack—but not the target—was changed. Today, the onslaught is spear-headed largely by the legal establishment—that birthed Thursday’s indictments—in yet another attempt to unseat a duly elected prime minister—by means other than having another elected in his stead.

The real danger to democracy

Accordingly, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that real danger to Israel’s democracy is not in the alleged malfeasance by Netanyahu.

Indeed, the mere cost of their investigation dwarfs any conceivable damage his supposed misdeeds inflicted on the public coffers. After all, apart from the malicious and the malevolent, who really cares if Netanyahu (heaven forfend) helped his buddy Arnon Milchin, a man with a record of considerable contribution to the security of the country, acquire a US visa? And even if Netanyahu was perhaps excessively indulgent in accepting gifts from his well-heeled friend, surely some administrative sanction would be a more appropriate penalty than criminal proceedings??

Moreover, one can only wonder what grave damage the public interest suffered by Netanyahu NOT accepting the proffered bribe from Yedioth Aharonot editor, Arnon Mozes. And can lukewarm coverage in an otherwise overwhelming anti-Netanyahu channel be convincingly categorized as the fruits of “corruption”? Indeed, one might be able to argue, as does Dershowitz (see above), that it was precisely the all-pervasive media animus towards the PM that comprised a dangerous distortion of the public discourse, which needed to be corrected.

So, rather than the beleaguered Prime Minister comprising a dire threat to Israeli democracy, it is his implacable political adversaries across the gamut of Israeli civil society elites that do so—driven by their inability to reconcile themselves to the verdict of vox populi—as expressed, freely and fairly, at the ballot box.  It is their incessant endeavor to remove and replace an elected leader by the abuse of their unelected positions of power that erodes the very foundations of democratic governance.

 Letting the cat out of the bag

The unrelenting drive to bring an indictment—any indictment—against Netanyahu has long exceeded the bounds of reasonable law enforcement. Indeed, it increasingly seems that the levers of the justice system are being used for nothing more than to eject Netanyahu from power.

Strong corroboration of this was provided by the editor of the Jerusalem Post last week, who revealed that “…the [Attorney-General Mandelblit was prepared to close the cases against Netanyahu if the prime minister agreed to resign from political life.”

So there you have it. All Netanyahu’s allegedly grave crimes would be removed from the roster, forgiven and forgotten, and go unpunished if he would only vacate his elected office! Doesn’t get much clearer—or damning—than that!

And that, dear readers, is the bald and disturbing truth—from beginning to end.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel Institute for Strategic Studies column is republished with permission. The featured Image by Prawny on Pixabay.

Dear Esther: Chicago Does Not Need A Black Woman Mayor

What Chicago needs is an honest, non-corrupt, economically literate, competent mayor that can lift the once-great city out of the tragic farce it has become. That might be a black woman. It might not.

Esther Cepeda, in one of the most insipidly stupid takes on politics I’ve read in quite awhile — and that’s saying something — believes that the gender and skin color of the next Chicago mayor is all that is needed to miraculously turn the city around, heal racial wounds, lower crime rates, improve economics and, perhaps, bring unicorns prancing on rainbows!

It’s so bad one has to ask, even in these times, how in the world do some people get nationally syndicated columns through the Washington Post Group? Let’s start at the beginning of the nonsense. Probably best not to be eating while I quote from Cepeda.

“Finally, a spot of good news for a beleaguered city that has long been known as a hotbed of racism and government-sanctioned segregation: the promise of Chicago’s first black, female mayor.

In a dogpile of a mayoral race, 14 candidates fought it out to connect to voters who had long ago given into a nasty case of learned helplessness. The two top winners — both black women — beat out a rich scion of a Chicago political dynasty, a Latina state official, the city’s former top cop and a bevy of other local luminaries.

The two finalists are former assistant U.S. attorney Lori Lightfoot and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. And no matter which one of them wins the April 2 runoff Chicago’s inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim.”

Set aside the overt racialism and bigotry over assuming based on skin color and gender alone that the next mayor will be better, what is she even factually talking about? “Inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim?” Um…Baltimore is on it’s third straight black woman mayor. And look how great Baltimore is doing! OK, actually it’s racked by racial strife, incompetence, a skyrocketing murder rate and a so-so economy despite being right next door to D.C.

Let’s see, who else? Oh yeah, Washington, D.C. elected a black female mayor; San Francisco elected a black female mayor; Atlanta elected a black female mayor; New Orleans elected a black female mayor; Charlotte, N.C. elected a black female mayor. Oh heck, here’s a full list here.

So what in the world is she talking about? And does she have an editor? When she says “top cities” is she saying New York and L.A.? That’s cherry-picking at its worst. Pretty sure most rational people could consider San Fran and D.C. among America’s top cities. But it is the sort of dishonesty we come to expect from the media. Even opinion writers should be held to a standard of some sort. But I dream.

More Cepeda” “And it’s a relief, indicating that there are still strides people of color can hope for…”

Because again, not the quality of the candidate, the issues, the plans, dare I say even, the content of their character, is what is important. Black. Female. Better. That’s the entire measuring stick. Nothing racist or bigoted here at all, folks.

More Cepeda:

So, yeah, the city could use good news in the form of a historic change of leadership from Rahm Emanuel, a big-interests-focused political operator. Either one of these two women could, in theory, address the neglect of the African-American community, which has caused what some experts consider to be a mass migration of black people out of the city and into the suburbs, neighboring Indiana or the Southern states where the original Great Migration began.”

I believe “address the neglect” translates to: A black female mayor will give blacks more stuff. If it meant reforming the school system, attacking the total decimation of the black family, changing the attitude towards education and jobs among young, black men specifically, and maybe even creative opportunity zones for investment,  then that could really be something. But given Cepeda’s level of thought and insight, pretty sure she just means more stuff.

And finally, which of these two candidate finalists will win? Let’s look at one last note in Cepeda’s description to get a clue:

“At least it won’t be a boring race. As evidenced by her campaign thus far, Lightfoot — a self-proclaimed out and proud black lesbian — has seemingly never even heard of the “be nice” political playbook that’s expected of women politicians — perhaps a winning formula for other, future female high-office candidates?”

Straw man alert! Who exactly is expecting women to be “be nice” in politics? Not exactly what we’ve been seeing. And of course in another context, Cepeda would be bemoaning the state of our mean politics. What is really at work here is just the tired retread thinking of liberalism’s past quarter century.

Now, based on intersectional hierarchy, the black female lesbian candidate beats the black female candidate 3-2 in intersectional scoring. (Content of ideas need not apply.) But Chicago is well-known as a corrupt Democratic city and the non-lesbian black female candidate is part of that power structure. So it is entrenched power versus intersectional power.

Despite Cepeda’s fact-free, knee-jerk, stuck-in-a-rut thinking, it’s all but impossible to see how the city improves either way. Not, of course, because they are black women, but because they are shades of Chicago Democratic progressivism, which has proven itself a deep failure already. Changing faces won’t change the outcome.

Unfortunately, Cepeda and her fellow travellers will think the election itself means the city wins. That wasn’t the case with Barack Obama’s election as president. And it won’t be the case with Chicago’s choice.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. The featured Image by 12019 on Pixabay.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez ‘Cheap Seats’ Tweet Reminiscent of Racist ‘Sit At The Back Of The Bus’?

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democratic Socialist-NY) tweeted the following:

Everyone Who's Never Read A History Book Shocked As Socialist Turns Into Authoritarian At First Whiff Of Power

This tweet is reminiscent of a time when blacks were required to sit at the back of the bus, the cheap seats. This tweet is divisive and hurtful to those who remember Democrats preventing Ruby Nell Bridges Hall a black girl from attending the all white William Frantz Elementary School in Tylertown, Mississippi in 1960, cheap seats. At the time Ross Robert Barnett (Democrat) was the Governor of Mississippi. In a South where Democrats were “in charge.”

It was Dr. Martin Luther King who began shouting from the “cheap seats” to end racial discrimination in America. To end the we versus them mentality that hurt so very many. To judge one another based upon the “content of our character, not the color of our skin.” Today we have a new color – GREEN!

The Green New Deal

Let’s address directly Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s “come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal” comment.

America already has a solution. It’s called American ingenuity. It’s called freedom of choice in where we live, what we eat, who is our doctor, how we travel, which house we buy and who we choose to support in our community, state and nationally. It’s called the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Those guarantees of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness come from God, not government.

The Green New Deal is the polar opposite of “cheap seats” because if implemented in its entirety no seats in America will be cheap. They will all be very expensive to the tune of an estimated $70 trillion.

Conclusion

The so called “cheap seats” is a slap in the face of every American, not just those who fought for their rightful seat on a public bus or in a public school. It is Marxism on steroids. It is totalitarian in scope. It allows the federal government to regulate, and thereby control, every aspect of our lives including what seats we sit in.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is now driving the Democratic party’s agenda. She and her Justice Democrat allies are determined to silence any Democrat who disagrees with them.

Ocasio-Cortez even has a black list of any Democrat who votes with the Republicans.

The 2020 elections will be between the ideology of Karl Marx verses the U.S. Constitution. President Trump will be running against Karl Marx in Democratic Party drag.

RELATED ARTICLE: AOC’s List Sees Her Chasing Down Something That Doesn’t Exist: “Moderate” Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Free-Photos on Pixabay.

Declassification Countdown – Trump Goes To War With The Deep State

It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood. We have all been waiting so long for the hammer of justice to come down upon the deep state and its operatives. Having written about this extensively over the past 2 years first in my book Trump and the Resurrection of America, but also in the many articles I’ve written on my website, I draft this short post with much anticipation of the events on the now very short term horizon, like sixteen more days to be more specific.

Declassification Countdown – Trump Goes To War With The Deep State

The declassification will come in stages. We cannot expect justice to be served just yet. This comes a bit later. We are at steps 6, 7 & 8 on the scale of discovery and action. It is the media that will be hit the hardest with the soon to be steps of declassification. Why? Because the truth will be revealed and the media will have no choice but to cover it. What will they say? How will they handle this? After all, we are talking about evidence. Facts. Truth. Through FISA and other sources.

As you think this trough, this further exposes and implicates the MSM fake news deep state mouth pieces and slowly but surly the public and global support for Trump shifts (even if not expressed). The MSM will be fuhrer exposed not to mention all those implicated in the declassification. This then leads to the trials, hearings, grand juries and indictments which then leads to justice. And let us not forget, the military tribunals are already under way with at least two tribunals already completed where justice has been served.

And so, sixteen days to go. Get the popcorn and enjoy the paradigm shift of power and control as President Trump and team goes on the offense. This battle of sorts will rage on for some years to come as Trump restores the power to the people. Stay the course and trust the plan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Great Awakening – Stay the Course

You Have Little Faith – Trust The Plan

Calm Down and Enjoy the Ride!

Relax Trump Has The Goods

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov.

President Donald J. Trump’s Speech at CPAC 2019

Right Side Broadcasting Network posted President Donald J. Trump’s full speech at CPAC 2019 (below).

President Trump is the fourth Commander-in-Chief to speak at CPAC. President Trump has addressed CPAC in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 and on March 2nd, 2019.

The American Conservative Union’s annual CPAC conference is a gathering of conservative activists from all across the country who meet to learn from each other, receive training in activism and campaign management, and hear from prominent conservative leaders. The conference began in 1974, when then-Governor Ronald Reagan described his vision of America as a “city upon a hill” for the first time.

Watch President Trump’s full speech at CPAC 2019:

RELATED ARTICLE: WATCH: All of Donald Trump’s Past CPAC Speeches

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the American Conservative Union.

Cohen’s Testimony against Trump Was Plainly Unethical

If you watched the Democrat’s little circus this week in front of the House Oversight Committee, you may have been alternately angered and amused. The Cohen hearing was an echo of the Kavanaugh hearings. It was a blatant misuse of that hallowed room in the Capitol. Here’s what I wrote for Fox News:

Congress and the corrupt Washington Establishment set a new low for abuse of power Wednesday with the testimony of Michael Cohen before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

As President Trump’s former personal lawyer, Cohen can’t ethically testify to Congress about his interactions with Trump. Cohen knows this. Congress knows this. Special Counsel Robert Mueller knows this.

That the committee hearing took place anyway shows the lawless depth to the partisan Deep State abuse targeting President Trump.

Shameful.

Cohen’s testimony is not credible. He has a demonstrated record of not only lying to Congress, but of violating his ethical duties as a lawyer.

Cohen’s testimony did more than abuse Trump’s rights. Congress benefitted from this abuse and arguably obtained confidential documents belonging to President Trump in violation of its own rules, the president’s rights and the law.

Sure enough, the Democratic-controlled hearing was set up through Clinton, Inc., consigliore Lanny Davis, who is representing Cohen for free.

Judicial Watch uncovered Hillary Clinton emails showing Davis to be her biggest fan.

For example, on October 20, 2010, lawyer Davis wrote Hillary Clinton an email saying: “Thank you H for who you are and what you do,” followed in the exchange by another with “PS. I swear you look younger and better every time I see you, Good night dear Hillary. Lanny.”

So as we witness Cohen – with encouragement from Democrats – trampling over the rights of President Trump, remember this abuse would never have happened without the involvement of Team Clinton.

The Clinton team and Democratic National Committee directly colluded with the Obama Justice Department and FBI to target Donald Trump during the presidential campaign. This led to illicit spying on Trump and his team, an attempted coup by pro-Clinton Deep Staters, and the related appointment of a special counsel to try the further the aim of overthrowing President Trump.

And now the coup effort continues through hearings featuring Cohen this week set up in collusion with Hillary Clinton’s closest associates.

Why would Democrats, who cheered for Cohen to be indicted just a few months ago, now give him a platform to speak to the nation?

The answer is simple: They’re still not over Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

Michael Cohen is a criminal and Michael Cohen is a political prop. Michael Cohen is the furthest thing from a victim.

At the hearing Wednesday we witnessed history. Unfortunately for the reputation of the House, it is the type of history that will live in infamy. 

We have a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit pending for Michael Cohen’s alleged influence peddling and fraud related to his attempts to cash in on his relationship with President Trump. Also, we recently sent an official complaint to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (IG) calling for investigations into leaks of information about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The complaint asks for an investigation of leaks to BuzzFeed suggesting that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

Neither the abuses of power in an effort to end the Trump presidency, nor Judicial Watch’s relentless legal efforts to expose these abuses to the light of day will end soon.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with images is republished with permission.

Will Republicans Stand Against Socialism? Watch “Fight On”

There is growing concern that Republican members of Congress are afraid to confront Socialism. There are those who fear the media, fear being called names like racist, Nazi or Islamophobic. There is concern that Republicans are not speaking out against the greatest threat to our nation and Constitutional Republic – Socialism.

After the national anthem opened CPAC 2019 a five-minute video was played that captures what it is that conservatives are fighting for, and what they are fighting against. The video was so popular that CPAC officials received requests to make it publicly available on YouTube. Watch this CPAC 2019 video titled “Fight On.”

Will Republicans at every level get the message?

EDITORS NOTE: The embedded video is by CPAC. The featured image is by thommas68 on Pixabay.

The Trump Cultural Revolution

When I hear the vicious political discourse and boisterous hyperbole of today, it suggests to me the country is embroiled in a cultural revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since before the Civil War. One of the basic precepts regarding culture is, in order for a person to function and succeed, he/she must learn to conform to the culture or face rejection. Enter the ultimate outsider to our federal government, Donald Trump, a businessman who has never held political office. It is the very fact he was an outsider that propelled him to the presidency. After all, people had grown weary of “business as usual” in the nation’s capitol by both Republicans and Democrats, and were ready for a change.

As an outsider and businessman more concerned with results, Mr. Trump decided not to adapt to the Washington culture, but deliberately contested it instead, thereby causing friction with both parties. His agenda included overturning a great deal of former President Obama’s policies and treaties. More importantly, he wanted to change the mood and outlook of the country. To the public, this represented a “correction,” to the politicians, it represented heresy and a significant change to the status quo. The big question thereby becomes, was this change necessary? To those who elected Mr. Trump, the unequivocal answer is “Yes”; to everyone else, he is perceived as a genuine threat to their existence, which has triggered an uproar.

Some time ago, I wrote a review of author Mark Leibovich’s book, “This Town.” This was a fascinating description of the power and control of the Washington establishment. As I wrote back then…

“Leibovich reveals the true culture of DC, where an incestuous relationship exists between Government, Journalists, and Lobbyists. All scratch each other’s backs in order to climb their respective totem polls and grab as much money as possible along the way. He paints a picture of unadulterated collusion. He makes it clear Washington exists not to solve the problems of the country but to line the pockets of the residents there.”

“Through the book, Leibovich slips and reveals the Democratic bias of the press. Regardless of President Obama’s problems, he can do no wrong in the eyes of the mainstream media. In their eyes, the president is blameless for everything and genuinely the most brilliant president there has ever been. This is only surpassed by the media’s love affair with the Clintons. For some unknown reason, they are totally in awe of Hillary as well as her husband.”

“If the book teaches us anything, it is that the system is broken and in need of major repair.”

More than anything else, the corruption of the Washington establishment paved the way for Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency.

The push back to President Trump has been incredible, yet expected. Both political parties could not believe he was elected to the highest office in the land. The media considered him DOA as a candidate and nothing but a joke who could be easily defeated by Her Highness Hillary. They grossly underestimated the dissatisfaction of the American public to the goings-on in Washington. In contrast, Donald Trump didn’t underestimate the people and used this to his advantage. His election left the establishment in shock and awe, thereby creating the push back we’ve been experiencing since Mr. Trump’s election.

To illustrate, consider the substantial body of changes we have observed in just the first two years of Mr. Trump’s presidency, and how our lexicon has changed. It has hardly been “business as usual” since his arrival.

  • We’re now familiar with the concept of the “Deep State,” representing a body of people believed to be involved in the secret manipulation of government. We never heard of this expression prior to President Trump.
  • The terms “resistance” and “obstruction” are now commonly used in Congress to delay and thwart the president’s plans and appointees, such as the recent showdowns over the wall along our southern border.
  • Talks of presidential impeachment have surfaced in both the press and the Congress. The 25th amendment of the Constitution was relatively unknown. Now it is frequently quoted as a means to remove the president.
  • The “Mueller Probe” was initiated in the hopes it would discover the president was working illegally with the Russians in the election. So far, nothing of any substance has surfaced.
  • The term “RINO” was coined to denote “Republicans In Name Only,” meaning moderate Republicans who resist the president’s agenda. There is also the “Never Trump” movement consisting of Republicans dead set against Mr. Trump’s election and policies. It is this latter group that foiled the President’s plans for replacing Obamacare. He could have done much more without such people in the political establishment.
  • The “take a knee” protest in the National Football League caused a furor over the patriotism of the NFL players. Further, snubbing a White House visit upon winning a sports championship came into vogue. Such shenanigans were never considered before.
  • The public now accepts “Fake News” as a valid concept associated with the Main Stream Media, which continues to lose credibility (and subscribers). According to the MSM, President Trump is incompetent and, as such, is incapable of doing anything right, be it large or small.
  • Anti-Trump marches are still popular. We’ve also witnessed the rise of “ANTIFA,” self-proclaimed “Anti-Fascists” who use violence and mayhem as their tactics in demonstrations. We’ve also seen the rise of left-wing organizations, such as the Sunrise Movement, representing young demonstrators supporting such things as the “New Green Deal.” There is also the rise of the “#MeToo Movement” who attempted to disrupt the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
  • Free-speech on college campuses is under attack. If a talk does not conform to “political correctness,” the person’s 1st Amendment rights are suspended or assaulted. This has resulted in states writing legislation to overturn this policy.
  • It is not uncommon for social media to censor postings supporting President Trump.
  • Entertainer award ceremonies are now used as a political soap box as opposed to recognizing their craft.
  • Trump supporters are now regularly ridiculed and demeaned in terms of their intelligence and values.
  • Late night television, which used to avoid political subjects, is now dependent on jabs at the president.
  • We have witnessed fraudulent claims of victimization (e.g., Jussie Smollet, Covington Catholic) and false accusations of hate crimes, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia. This is all widely reported by the news media, regardless if it is right or wrong.
  • Anything said or done by the President, be it meaningful or a trifle, results in a Pavlovian protest and lampoon. This includes his family, the Vice President, and his inner circle of advisers. Opponents encourage people to openly harass them in public.
  • President Trump is frequently labeled a “pathological liar,” yet when the establishment is caught spreading falsehoods, “Oops” is the typical response and all is forgiven. Further, the days of respectful debate are long gone, and replaced by hate and yelling.
  • Today, we are witnessing the migration of people away from states controlled by Democrats, such as California and New York, to Republican controlled states, such as Texas and Florida, which are considered economically stable.
  • We are seeing the erosion of history and civics in our classrooms, thereby grooming a generation of people ignorant of how and why government works, thereby making them more manipulative.
  • Democrat candidates for president in 2020 have difficulty demonstrating their accomplishments. Instead of touting policy, they promise a multitude of public freebies and bash the President at every opportunity. Linked to this…
  • We’re witnessing a rise in Socialism in this country as it is perceived as the antithesis of the policies of the Trump administration. Even though Socialism has failed throughout the world, liberals continue to embrace it and vilify anyone opposing it.

Gee, have I missed anything?

Does this sound like a culture embracing Mr. Trump or stubbornly rejecting him? Such fierce refutation of the President denotes the severity of cultural change. It also appears to be orchestrated. Whereas the country was rapidly moving towards a liberal agenda under former President Obama, President Trump has changed the course of the country by 180 degrees, hence the push back.

Within any culture, a person must observe the rules of morality, protocol, and socialization. To change the culture, you must address all three areas, which is what the president has been doing since his inauguration.

  • In terms of morality, he has embraced God (and refuses to apologize for it), believes in the rule of law (particularly in the areas of immigration, and law and order), he is pro-life, supports charitable organizations (especially those for children), and believes in the dignity of work as it is important to the well-being of humans, both financially and mentally.
  • In terms of protocol, President Trump has let the world know, under no uncertain terms, it is no longer business as usual, that important treaties have to be renegotiated, he has re-appraised our allies and enemies, and spurns the culture of political correctness.
  • In terms of socialization, he has assumed a brash, unapologetic tone, and is unafraid to push back against his opponents, particularly the main stream media, which other presidents have been afraid to do. He has effectively used social media to perform an end-run around the press and get his message directly to the public, without the media’s filtering, something no other president has had the luxury of doing.

In other words, he has been bucking the establishment as described in Leibovich’s book.

President Trump has embraced the 3-Cs, Christianity, Capitalism, and Conservative values, all of which causes the news media and Democrats to panic, as well as a few Republicans. Yet, he perseveres. To change the culture of the country, he must remain steadfast and resolute, in spite of constant criticisms and resistance. This is something he became adept at as a successful businessman. He is fully cognizant success depends on “winning,” which explains why he has been pushing hard on economic initiatives, trade, peace, and safety of the country. This is not so much about creating a “Win-Lose” scenario (whereby in order for one to win, the other party must lose), as much as it is about changing the culture to “Win-Win” whereby the secret to success is getting people to take pride in their country, themselves, work together and thwart those who would undermine this extraordinary country as devised by our founding fathers. By doing so, he hopes to restore a sense of patriotism, citizenship, work ethic, and family values.

Yes, President Trump understands this is a cultural revolution we are embroiled in. He has seen it before in business on a smaller scale and understands it is difficult to change it, but he also understands the virtue of having everyone pulling on the same oar. He may have a few scars on him before he is finished, but he is unafraid to lead us into this brave new world. If he was to quit, the status quo wins and the establishment continues unabated.

Had the Democrat candidate won in 2016, there would not be the brouhaha we are experiencing today. Had any other Republican won the candidacy, most of whom were politicians, there would have likely been a cultural revolution, but not to the degree we are embroiled in now as Mr. Trump is the outsider and willing to push back against his opponents.

One last note, the 2020 election will tell us the effect of changing the nation’s culture. If President Trump wins, we know he is being successful, but if he is defeated, the Washington establishment will return to normal and the status quo has won. This will also affect the 2024 election in terms of electing Mr. Trump’s successor. Our support for President Trump will be measured by whether we want to see the culture of the country return to a liberal agenda, or if we favor a return to traditional conservative values.

Stay tuned.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce Is Right column with images is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured image of a build the wall rally in The Villages, Florida is by Wikimedia Commons.

The Protected Class of Celebrities and Politicians Want You Disarmed and Vulnerable

“In the eyes of America’s socialist leaders they, and they alone, are the protected class. It’s why Nancy Pelosi can in the morning, say that a border wall is immoral and tell law-abiding Americans that you shouldn’t own guns. And then at night, sleep soundly in a home protected by walls and, of course, secret service agents with guns. Because for Nancy Pelosi, she is the protected class. And we are not.” —Grant Stinchfield

Reject Socialist Disarmament. Join the NRA.

Episode Transcript

When elitist politicians refuse to stand and clap as our President declares that America will never be a socialist country, here is what they’re really saying: that they believe in the redistribution of your freedoms, to them. That only they deserve to feel safe and secure. We don’t. Because in the eyes of America’s socialist leaders they, and they alone, are the protected class.

It’s why Nancy Pelosi can in the morning, say that a border wall is immoral and tell law-abiding Americans that you shouldn’t own guns. And then at night, sleep soundly in a home protected by walls and, of course, secret service agents with guns. Because for Nancy Pelosi, she is the protected class. And we are not.

It’s why Michael Bloomberg funds politicians and extremist organizations that do whatever they can to block school safety measures. That fight against the right of teachers to train and arm themselves so that they may defend children from a potential killer. And then use children as political pawns in the aftermath of a massacre, never admitting the reason our schools are still soft targets is the result of their political anti-gun, anti-NRA stance. Because for Michael Bloomberg, he and his children are the protected class, while we and our children, are not.

It’s why Kamala Harris has the audacity to compare ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan. It’s why she wants to ban your semi-automatic firearms. Yet she’s lived for decades in a state protected by ICE agents. Now she works in the United States Senate, government buildings protected by the very firearms she insists you don’t deserve. Because for Kamala Harris, she is the protected class. And we are not.

Socialist arrogance is why Gavin Newsom is disarming law-abiding Californians by any means necessary, while he opens the doors of his state to illegal aliens, giving drug dealers, rapists and murderers sanctuary. Sanctuary everywhere in California except at his doorstep, where he is protected, again, by walls and guns. Because for Gavin Newsom, he is the protected class. And we are not.

It’s why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to disarm hard-working Americans, while giving those “unwilling to work” our money. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Saul Alinsky in a pant suit, who calls the firearms that protect our families weapons of war. While she smiles and pushes the same socialist disarmament policies that have led to war in the streets of Venezuela. Because for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is the protected class. And we are not.

These people are just the first drops of rain in the coming the socialist storm. A movement of elitists who want to force you to abandon your freedom for the false promise of free stuff. These are the people who want to disarm you. Guns in the hands of good people equals power. Power they want to take from you and harness for themselves.

But here is my guarantee: they will fail. America will never be a socialist country. Because of us. The NRA. The world’s oldest civil rights organization and the greatest defender of individual freedom the world has ever known. We as members will never let it happen. This is America. Where the right to self-protection is God-given, not socialist-driven. We know a firearm is the great equalizer. That every law-abiding American deserves the same right to safety and security the socialist protected class receives every day.

We will always fight for the Second Amendment and all our rights because it’s what we have always fought for: Freedom.

We will never relent on our quest to protect the Constitution. Because we are an unstoppable force. We are the NRA. Join our fight against this socialist storm. Stand on the frontlines with us. And together, we will protect this country from the arrogant protected class that tries to tear it apart.

Grant StinchfieldHost

Action Alert: Apple Needs Ideological Diversity

Apple, Inc. (1 – Liberal) supports the left’s agenda on every single issue. From pulling Pro-Life prayer apps from the App Store to funding the Center for American Progress to opposing religious liberty protections, it is clear that Apple’s decision makers have no regard for conservative values. We think it is time for a change and so do our friends at the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP).

On Friday, March 1st, FEP’s “True Board Diversity Policy” proposal will come up for a vote by shareholders at Apple’s annual meeting in California. The proposal calls for “meaningful disclosure” of potential board members’ backgrounds so that investors can consider the diverse perspectives and critical thinking candidates will bring to company leadership.

On Friday, March 1st, FEP’s “True Board Diversity Policy” proposal will come up for a vote by shareholders at Apple’s annual meeting in California. The proposal calls for “meaningful disclosure” of potential board members’ backgrounds so that investors can consider the diverse perspectives and critical thinking candidates will bring to company leadership.

Click here to Tweet at Apple!

Liberal activists at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have successfully forced tech companies like Amazon to adopt race and gender based “diversity” mandates in leadership and are working to push this agenda throughout Silicon Valley. However, as our friends at FEP say, “True diversity comes from diversity of thought.”

If companies like Apple were to bring in new board members who understand conservative values, it stands to reason we could see the beginning of a corporate shift back to Neutral. Then, we would proudly tell the 380,000 2ndVote subscribers why a company like Apple deserved their business.

First, if you know any Apple shareholders, make sure they know to support FEP’s proposal.

Second, help us tell Apple that Ideological Diversity is a good thing. Use the links provided to Tweet directly at Apple and let them know we will be watching on March 1st.

Tell Apple to adopt FEP’s proposal.

Will you help us reach more people with this critical information and grow our movement?

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by kropekk_pl from Pixabay.

Effort to Abandon Electoral College Gains Steam. Here’s What It Would Ruin for America.

Colorado is joining a list of states attempting to overturn the way Americans have selected their presidents for over two centuries.

The Colorado Legislature recently passed a bill to join an interstate effort called the “interstate compact,” to attempt to sidestep the Electoral College system defined by the Constitution. Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic” and vowed to sign the bill into law.

So far, 12 states representing 172 Electoral College votes have passed the initiative into law. With the addition of Colorado (which has nine votes), that number will rise to 181. They need 270 for the compact to go into effect. It would then undoubtedly be challenged in the courts.

Some major voices on the left were gleeful about the potential change.

While the Constitution, intentionally, gives wide latitude to states to create their own electoral systems, the law passed in Colorado, along with the rest of this effort, would be unprecedented. It would be the first time states potentially outsource their Electoral College votes to the will of the nation as a whole, rather than having elections determined by their own voters. The result of this, ironically, could be very undemocratic.

For instance, if the people of Colorado vote overwhelmingly for a Democrat, yet the total popular vote of the nation goes Republican, all of the state’s votes would go to the Republican, essentially overturning the will of the people in Colorado.

The Electoral College is already fairly democratic. Nearly every state switched to direct, democratic elections of electoral votes in the early 19th century, as opposed to selection by state legislatures. What the national popular vote would do is overturn the concept of federalism, which recognizes that states have unique interests that deserve representation in the electoral system. We are not just a nation of individuals, but a nation of communities and states.

Some have dismissed the Electoral College system as outmoded and unjust. But they are mistaken—the Electoral College system remains highly relevant and necessary today. The 2016 election actually demonstrated that.

In 2016, states that had gone Democratic in presidential politics for a generation flipped to Republican, in large part because of a unique candidate who appealed to their interests. While one candidate capitalized on their support, the other took them for granted and focused elsewhere. The result was a startling upset that demonstrates why the Framers wanted an Electoral College.

Without an Electoral College, candidates could more easily write off certain constituencies located in limited areas. The Electoral College binds those votes up with a larger mass of votes so that in order to win the whole, candidates have to appeal to the interests of more constituents.

Under a popular vote system, candidates could ignore entire localities and focus on driving up votes among their natural supporters.

Many on the left have also complained that the Electoral College gives an undue weight to small states, which, in their minds, are conservative. 

It’s true that small states are given a boost because Electoral College votes are based on population and Senate votes. Since every state automatically has two senators, small states do get slightly more weight per their population. But in practice, this ends up benefitting Democrats just as much as Republicans.

In 2018, for instance, the 10 smallest states sent 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans to the Senate, and the 10 largest states sent 11 Democrats and nine Republicans to the Senate.

This system of electors is not perfect, of course. But it is the best system for a large and diverse country like the United States, as it favors candidates who do the best job of appealing to diverse interests and not just the big population centers.

In fact, while the Founding Fathers disagreed on many things, the Electoral College was one thing that received the most wide acceptance, as Alexander Hamilton recorded in Federalist 68:

The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system … which has escaped without severe censure. … I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.

In addition to protecting diverse interests, the diffused federal nature of the Electoral College is also a vital tool to counteract election fraud and contentious recounts that could undo the public will. 

Imagine if the 2000 recount of the presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush included not just Florida, but the entire nation. That’s what would have happened if the Electoral College weren’t in place to isolate election systems from each other.

It doesn’t take long to see how the new system that the Colorado bill aims for could become a nightmare to deal with in other ways, too, especially in tightly contested races.

This Twitter thread explains one highly plausible scenario in which the national popular vote is decided by around 100,000 votes—a tiny margin given the nation’s population is over 320 million.

If Colorado were to narrowly choose a Democrat, while the other states chose the Republican by a wide margin, Colorado would have no way of making the other states conduct a recount.

The people of Colorado would essentially be forced to throw the election to a candidate they didn’t support.

Even more problematic is the effort in New Jersey to strip President Donald Trump from the state ballot over his refusal to release his tax returns. This will likely be ruled unconstitutional, but consider what it would do if implemented under a national popular vote: With Trump off the ballot in all of New Jersey, it would skew the vote for the entire nation.

Interestingly, stripping a candidate from the ballot has been used as a tactic against a Republican presidential candidate before. Southern states made it nearly impossible to create ballots for Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election, which severely depressed his support in those states.

Fortunately, because of the Electoral College, Lincoln was able to win without these states, even though he ended up with only around 39 percent of the popular vote.

If the nation had simply taken a popular vote at the time, Lincoln may never have been elected president.

At the end of the day, the Colorado law is unlikely to ever be put into effect, despite the best efforts of activists.

It’s important to note that while Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly voiced support for abolishing the Electoral College, she has said it would take a constitutional amendment to do so.

“There are some things that I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said in 2017 when asked about things she’d change in the Constitution. “But that would require a constitutional amendment and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do.”

Given the unlikeliness of such an amendment—which, according to Gallup, actually reached a high point of popularity after the 2016 election—national popular vote activists have turned to more indirect means to accomplish their ends.

This misguided attempt to subvert the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College has been cooked up for partisan purposes. It is based on the false notion that Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 reflected a failure in our electoral system—not an abysmal candidate—and that this “relic” from the founding stands in the way of progressive dominance of U.S. politics.

Such a view is not only partisan, but historically ignorant. It overlooks all that the Electoral College has produced—chiefly, a stable political system that forces politicians to reckon with our nation’s diverse needs.

We would be wise to cling to that system and reject these machinations to upend it.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Carter on Unsplash.