PODCAST: In Which Direction Are the Democrats Heading?

It is not much of a secret the Democrats have a divided party. One side consists of “moderates,” representing traditional party values, and the other consisting of “extreme-Leftists,” representing radical politics, such as Socialism, the New Green Deal, and a plethora of entitlements. The question is, which side is winning? In 2019, and for the first time ever, a Gallup Poll noted the majority of the party classified themselves as “liberals.” This is to be expected as the Democrats began to turn extreme-left in 2016 when Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, began preaching his far-left dogma on the campaign trail to the Democrats. This opened the door in 2018 allowing extremist Democrats to be voted into the House of Representatives, e.g., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) (aka, “AOC”), Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-5), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-13).

We are now in the early stages of the political primary season, and already we are learning more about Democrat inclinations from the voters. Between the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), both generally acknowledged as representatives of the extreme-Left, pulled approximately 40% of the votes cast. This leaves approximately 60% for the other Democrat candidates. Some would claim Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former VP Joe Biden, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are “moderates,” but their background suggests otherwise as they subscribe to liberal doctrine. None could possibly be accused of being a conservative. All support abortion, open borders, health care, and additional entitlements. So much so, the Democrats are now referred to as the party of “giveaways.”

The fact there is a 60/40 split in the party suggests the majority of Democrats are traditionalists and do not necessarily embrace radical concepts like Socialism. Yet, if front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders lands the nomination, this is precisely what the party will ask Democrats to accept.

News reports claim voter turnout was down in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I could not verify this, but if it is true, why? Three possible reasons: general voter apathy, people believe there isn’t a candidate who can beat President Trump, or more likely, the extreme-Left leanings are turning off traditional Democrats. Apathetic voters do not bode well for the party as we approach the elections.

The perspective of the party split is still a bit hazy, but will become clearer following the primaries of Nevada, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday. After this, we should have a complete picture of who is leading the party, “moderates” or the “extreme-Left.”

As an aside, the New Hampshire primary also had a Republican contest. At this time, President Trump received approximately 128K votes, representing the largest voter approval by an incumbent President in history, easily trouncing the last three incumbent Presidents:

2020 – Donald Trump – 128,781
2012 – Barack Obama – 49,080
2004 – George W. Bush – 53,962
1996 – Bill Clinton – 76,797

The President received strong support as he has energized his base through a solid economy and anti-extreme-Left policies. It appears the more he is attacked by the Democrats, the stronger he becomes politically.

So, are the Democrats prepared to accept extreme-Left doctrine? Maybe, but the American people overall are not. Either way, this will be an awkward election for the Democrats.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

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

Paganism in 21st-century Europe – what’s the attraction?

Some Europeans have turned to ancient pagan religion to fill the spiritual vacuum created by today’s materialistic world – with a bit of tweaking here and there.

Our ancestors worshipped an array of nature spirits and deities before the advent of Christianity. The shaman (to use a generic term) was the intermediary between spirit beings and people. Fictitious beings such as fairies, pixies and elves were also part of this picture. The more advanced ancient civilizations developed complex belief systems involving pantheons and priesthoods. It all falls under the broad heading of ‘religion’ – pagan religion. (A good background source is Ken Dowden’s ‘European Paganism: The Realities of Cult from Antiquity to the Middle Ages’, 2000.)

Pagan beliefs have not completely vanished from Western culture. The Easter bunny, the mistletoe as a harbinger of future romantic love, and aspects of the Arthurian legends (the sword in the stone and the druids, for instance) have withstood the ravages of time to become part of our cultural heritage.

Most of us do not consciously think of these as relics of European paganism. But some people in our midst take all this quaint stuff deadly seriously to the point of professing belief in the chimeras our distant past throws up. They even call themselves ‘pagans’ despite the pejorative connotations of the term in common usage – paganism has long had bad press, including films such as the 1973 box-office success ‘The Wicker Man’ (a play on the word ‘wicca’) with sterling performances by Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee but apparently intent on portraying pagan religion as an orgy of barbarity and licentiousness.

Some commentators have applied the label ‘neo-pagan’ to the modern phenomenon. However, many self-professing pagans object to this term because of its alleged association with Nazism, particularly within the SS – Heinrich Himmler harboured eccentric views harking back to Germany’s pre-Christian past which he supposedly infused into SS ideology. What I will do in this article is use ‘Pagan’ (capital ‘P’) when referring to organised modern paganism.

Paganism is well established in a number of European countries including Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain, where the Home Office recognized it as a bona fide religion in 1971; one of the practical implications of that official recognition is that prisoners can ask to be visited by Pagan chaplains. As well as having a website, the British Pagan Federation produces the quarterly ‘Pagan Dawn’ – one edition for each season beginning with spring, identified using ancient Celtic names. I subscribed to this journal for several years and took part in some of the lively discussion that arose in the ‘Letters’ section.

My personal association with European paganism actually arises from my first name, which is of ancient Caucasian origin and is an allusion to the bear as a totem animal – given my generous BMI and the beard, that seems rather appropriate!

At a more intellectual level, what I am interested in is what makes the 21st century Western Pagan tick. There appears to be a dearth of scholarly interest in the matter, although the past decades have seen a lot of attention being paid to the ‘New Age’ phenomenon which overlaps with Paganism but should not be confused with it.

Some social scientists seem to be taking note – see, for instance, Irving Hexham’s ‘Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth’ in the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 36 No. 3 1999. I have formed my own impressions from Pagan source materials and come up with the following themes:

A romanticized view of our pre-Christian past.

There are shades of Garden of Eden mythology in Pagan writings when alluding to our distant past. Everything was honky-dory in those halcyon days of yore when paganism ruled the roost until outsiders came and screwed it all up. Perhaps Goscinny and Uderzo, the creators of the ‘Asterix and Obelix’ comic books, have something to answer for in this regard – look at all those happy, healthy, well-nourished folk in the idyllic Gaul village that those awful Romans are trying to subdue. (Not a hope while the Druid can still brew his magic potion, of course… remember, the one Obelix fell into as a baby?)

First it was the Romans bringing dreaded modernity; then later it was Christians who really put the boot in (as they see it). Hankering for a return to a mythical ‘perfect day’ past appears to be something many Pagans share with at least some Christians!

Hostility towards Christianity.

To claim that Pagans are contemptuous of Christianity is an understatement. They rightly point to the persecution of pagans by Christendom throughout the Middle Ages and well into the 17th century. To the Christian establishment, paganism was a tool of Satan. The widely recognised elk’s head with horns as a symbol of Satanism actually arose from an ancient European fertility ritual involving a guy prancing around in that head attire.

The hysteria surrounding the witch-hunts was largely attributable to the belief that witches – in practice, usually local ‘wise women’ who practised ‘the craft’ inherited from traditional paganism – were the Devil’s fifth columnists. The early Protestants were of much the same view and dealt with the perceived threat in much the same barbaric manner.

The most appalling atrocities were committed against innocent people because of the association the Christian authorities made between paganism and Satanism. Today’s Pagans have neither forgiven nor forgotten the main perpetrators (as they see it) responsible for that dark period in European history.

The ‘spiritual dimension’ that Paganism provides.

Pagans on the whole display a cynical attitude towards the modern materialistic lifestyle. They seek a spiritual dimension to existence but unequivocally reject the one that Christianity offers. For them, Paganism fills the vacuum. It moreover does so by returning them to their ethnocultural roots, giving them a sense of belonging that the ostensibly universal belief systems, particularly Christianity, do not.

The ‘roots movement’ aspect of Paganism is a sensitive one. I recall a vibrant discussion in the pages of ‘Pagan Dawn’ about 20 years ago concerning the ethnic aspect of pagan beliefs. Some commentators were aghast at the suggestion that there is any ‘racial’ aspect to Paganism, but I interpreted this as a kneejerk reaction to the prospect of being called ‘racist’, which is what one has to anticipate these days when to self-identify as a member of a European ethnic group is likely to be wilfully misinterpreted.

However, it is impossible to remove ethnicity from the pagan equation. Only Greek Pagans worship Zeus, and only Irish Pagans acknowledge the existence of leprechauns. Having said that, classical pagan beliefs are mostly local or regional rather than national. A Cornwallian Pagan and a Highlands Scottish Pagan share few pagan traditions or beliefs.

The special status of women in paganism.

This aspect of paganism past and present would merit several doctoral theses in its own right. The somewhat idealised Pagan reconstruction of pre-history presents an ‘equal but different’ gender scenario in which women formed a religious society that ran parallel to men’s, with its own hierarchy and rituals. Women in Paganism are considered to be endowed with extraordinary spiritual powers which are manifested through certain aspects of wicca (‘the craft’).

A lot of women who belong to the Pagan movement call themselves ‘white witches’ or just plain ‘witch’ – a term of respect in Pagan society. Many female Pagans worship goddesses – some reverentially speak of ‘The Goddess’. There’s plenty of room in Paganism for feminism, albeit with its own distinctive spin.

Paganism as environmentalism.

Paganism is replete with nature spirits that animate the natural world. The notion of sacredness is extended to living entities such as trees and geological features such as mountains. Harmony with Nature is a recurring theme in Pagan literature. Many Pagans are passionate about the natural environment, particularly those parts of it that remain relatively unspoiled. Pagans stand shoulder to shoulder with environmental activists in protecting such sites from exploitation.

Despite some of the trimmings that make Paganism appear more of a lark than a serious spiritual movement, it deserves to be taken seriously. Akin to many adherents of mainstream religion, bona fide Pagans are profoundly concerned about the direction our societies have taken – and have come up with countermeasures drawn from their own European religious past.


Barend Vlaardingerbroek

Barend Vlaardingerbroek BA BSc BEdSt PGDipLaws MAppSc PhD is at the American University of Beirut. Feedback welcome at bv00@aub.edu.lbI would be particularly interested in hearing from anyone who shares my academic interest in current-day European Paganism.

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

Coming Out of the Closet

Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky is a conservative, a label sometimes distracting; an invitation for controversy. But preaching the truth and acting on it is a Catholic thing.

At times, priests reveal intimate secrets about themselves from the pulpit.  I’ve always hesitated to do so mostly because a sermon should be about Jesus, and innermost secrets and feelings are none of your business. But there are certain advantages that a priest has in the twilight of his priesthood.  The expanding mosaic of his experiences – good and bad – can provide others with useful insights.

Parishioners notice many uncomfortable details about priests, ranging from personal hygiene to personality quirks.  Depending upon circumstances, a pastor may have a duty to affirm or deny rumors for the sake of tranquility, and transparency.  These acknowledgments can be painful but necessary.

So here is one of my many secrets:  I am a conservative.

I prefer the term “Catholic.” But since I have an obligation before God to conserve and preach what I have received, after careful consideration, I have come to accept the conservative characterization.

But I wasn’t “born that way.” My Baltimore Catechism upbringing, my undergraduate training in philosophy and logic, and even my professional grasp of accounting – that debits must always equal credits – contributed to a conservative understanding of words and reality. Honesty and realism are the stuff of a traditionalist spirit.  Nonetheless, the life of a conservative is not without real conflict.

Years ago, over lunch, a retired priest dismissed me as an “arch-conservative.”  Puzzled, I questioned the venerable old man. Did he consider me a heretic?  No. Did he disagree with me on any doctrinal matter?  No. Was he referring to my political positions, if he knew them?  No. Did he object to my preference for traditional Catholic practices?  No. What, then, is an arch-conservative? No answer.

I concluded that a “conservative” dares to vocalize the hard truths of Church teaching, and an “arch-conservative” – like the priests who deny pro-abortion politicians Communion – acts on his beliefs.  Of course, conservative testimony may be more imprudent or contrarian than courageous.  But even if the delivery isn’t picture-perfect, bold witness comes with a priest’s job description.  “Since we have the same spirit of faith as he had who wrote, ‘I believed, and so I spoke,’ we too believe, and so we speak.” (2 Cor. 4:13)


Many Gospel passages boldly challenge and deeply disturb souls.  Years ago, a permanent deacon read the Gospel and preached the homily during a Mass I celebrated. The Gospel included this phrase:  “every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt. 5:31-32)

To avoid controversy, the deacon ignored the passage in his homily and preached his customary platitudes.  After Mass, an irate parishioner – failing to distinguish between the sermon and the Gospel text – lambasted him for suggesting certain behavior was adulterous. The Gospel not only provokes consciences but can even implicate hesitant and timid messenger boys.

The new secular moral world order is far more demanding and unforgiving than the Ten Commandments.  Violations of political correctness provoke mean-spiritedness, hate, and intolerance.  The politically incorrect is an unforgivable infraction of the politics of inclusion, and respectable society must banish all offenders.

Even children are not immune.  Recently, prominent banks withheld scholarship money from Christian schools because of their religious opposition to gender ideology.

Perhaps, for the sake of peace, priests should insist that the Ten Commandments are not their personal opinions.  They are merely delivery boys, reporting to parishioners what God teaches us through His Church.

After all, priests and people alike fail to live up the demands of the Ten Commandments. We all hope for a patient, kindly, and an understanding priest for Confession. Not to put too fine a point on it, we might argue that if you disagree with the Ten Commandments, do not crucify the messengers. You actually want to crucify the Divine Author.

Alas, Jesus even has an uncomfortable answer to that scheme:   “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.” (John 15:20)

Contrary to the dogmas of political correctness and heterodoxy within the Church, intolerance is not exclusively a conservative vice.  The breakdown in the seminary system over the last fifty years is old news, though there seem to be recent improvements.  (Most senior priests like me are too far out of the loop to know for sure.)  But some of us recall past intolerance of Catholic orthodoxy and still have our seminary PTSD flashbacks.

In 1984, as a new seminary recruit, I attended a day of recollection at a retreat house in the Midwest.  Over beverages and snacks that evening, the conversation turned to the hot theological topics of the day.  I boldly weighed in on the questions of celibacy and the ordination of women, supporting Church teaching.  But I unwittingly violated a taboo and paid the price.

The vocations secretary breezily dismissed me with, “Jerry, you’re so conservative.”  I responded with good cheer. “You flatter me.”  But the rest of the evening, I found myself excluded from the conversation by seminarians who likely feared guilt by association.  It was an early encounter with the soft tyranny of institutional theological dissent.  In those days, many counted on the “spirit of Vatican II” (not the texts) to change the Church. Dismayed and isolated, I returned to the dormitory room and retired.

By and by, there was a gentle knock on the door; it was a young seminarian.  He introduced himself and asked:  “Doesn’t it bother you that they think of you as conservative? So am I, but I haven’t told them!”

In time, I moved on to happier ecclesial hunting grounds and lost track of the young Nicodemus, who always kept his distance, publicly at any rate.  In recent years, he was consecrated a bishop. Maybe he has come out of the closet.

The “conservative” label may be distracting and an invitation for controversy.  But preaching the truth and acting on it is a Catholic thing – and the cause for hope.


Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky

Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington. He is pastor of St. Catherine of Siena parish in Great Falls, Virginia.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Michael Bloomberg’s Plan for Immigration: We Need More!

I pay fairly close attention to the 2020 campaign news and especially when it comes to the Dem candidate’s plans for immigration should they regain the White House.

But, I think it’s odd that with all the other news about Michael Bloomberg, there is little mentioned about his now decade-long plan to increase immigration as seen in his National Partnership for a New American Economy.

I told you all about it here last November, but I have been writing about it off and on for years.

Now I see that there is a short piece at Bloomberg news briefly summarizing his immigration plans.

But, strangely, no mention of his organization that has been gradually softening up mayors by handing out grant money and praising elected officials for a decade through his New American Economy network.

Michael Bloomberg Unveils Plan for ‘Broken’ Immigration System

Michael Bloomberg proposed an immigration plan similar to proposals from his moderate [LOL!] Democratic presidential rivals that includes reversing President Donald Trump’s policies, creating a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented residents and allowing “place-based” visas.

The former New York mayor does not go as far as progressive rivals Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who would decriminalize migration.Bloomberg’s plan contains many of the same elements as those offered by Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. They include rescinding Trump’s travel ban, ending family separations at the border, protecting so-called dreamers — young adults who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children — as well as increasing the cap on resettling refugees and updating the asylum process.


Bloomberg would expand temporary worker visas to address labor shortages and allow certain localities to petition for “place-based” immigrant visas to meet economic or social needs in their communities.

For regular readers of ‘Frauds and Crooks‘ this should give you a chuckle….

He would also allow more opportunities for foreign-born doctors, nurses and other health professionals to address the shortage of health-care workers in under-served areas.

More here.

And, now see his platform that includes increasing refugee admissions to 125,000 per year!  (Trump’s is presently set at 18,000.)

End policies that run counter to our deepest values as Americans

Mike will rescind President Trump’s disgraceful travel ban, end family separations at the border, establish rigorous safeguards for children, and promote alternatives to detention for individuals and families who pose no threat to public safety. Mike will set the annual refugee resettlement target at 125,000 and also restore fairness and timeliness to the asylum process. And he will honor and protect immigrant service members, veterans and their families.


Mike will create a federal Office of New Americans to support the integration of newcomers….

With that he is recycling an Obama White House plan.

Read it all.


Where Was Amy Klobuchar That Day?

Virginia: Petty Bloomberg-bought Delegates Target NRA Firearms Training and Right-to-Carry

Super Bowl of Dishonesty: Michael Bloomberg Spends Big to Lie to America

Bloomberg: We Can No Longer Provide Health Care to the Elderly

Michael Bloomberg’s Constitutional Blinders

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

Political Bias and Anti-Americanism on College Campuses

A recent Pew Research Center survey finds that only half of American adults think colleges and universities are having a positive effect on our nation.

The leftward political bias, held by faculty members affiliated with the Democratic Party, at most institutions of higher education explains a lot of that disappointment.

Professors Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens document this bias in their study “Partisan Registration and Contributions of Faculty in Flagship Colleges.”

Langbert and Stevens conducted the new study of the political affiliation of 12,372 professors in the two leading private colleges and two leading public colleges in 31 states.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

For party registration, they found a Democratic to Republican (D:R) ratio of 8.5:1, which varied by rank of institution and region.

For donations to political candidates (using the Federal Election Commission database), they found a D:R ratio of 95:1, with only 22 Republican donors, compared with 2,081 Democratic donors.

Several consistent findings have emerged from Langbert and Stevens’ study.

The ratio of faculty who identify as or are registered as Democratic versus Republican almost always favors the Democratic Party.

Democratic professors outnumber their Republican counterparts most in the humanities and social sciences, compared with the natural sciences and engineering. The ratio is 42:1 in anthropology, 27:1 in sociology, and 27:1 in English.

In the social sciences, Democratic registered faculty outnumber their Republican counterparts the least in economics, 3:1. The partisan political slant is most extreme at the most highly rated institutions.

The leftist bias at our colleges and universities has many harmful effects. Let’s look at a few.

At University of California, Davis, a mathematics professor faced considerable backlash last month over her opposition to the requirement for faculty “diversity statements.” University of California, San Diego, requires job applicants to admit to the “barriers” preventing women and minorities from full participation in campus life.

At American University, a history professor recently wrote a book in which he advocates repealing the Second Amendment. A Rutgers University professor said, “Watching the Iowa caucus is a sickening display of the over representation of whiteness.”

Robert Reich, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, and former secretary of labor, chimed in to say:

Think about this: Iowa is 90.7% white. Iowa is now the only state with a lifetime voting ban for people with a felony conviction. Black people make up 4% of Iowa’s population but 26% of the prison population. How is this representative of our electorate?

A Williams College professor said he would advocate that social justice be included in math textbooks. Students at Wayne State University no longer have to take a single math course to graduate; however, they soon may be required to take a diversity course.

Then there’s a question about loyalty to our nation.

Charles Lieber, former chairman of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard, was arrested earlier this year on accusations that he made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement about work he did for a program run by the Chinese government that seeks to lure American talent to China.

Lieber was paid $50,000 a month and up to $158,000 in living expenses for his work, which involved cultivating young teachers and students, according to court documents.

The Justice Department said Lieber helped China “cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity, and national security.”

It’s not just Harvard professors. Newly found court records reveal that Emory University neuroscientist Li Xiao-Jiang was fired in late 2019 after being charged with lying about his own ties to China. Li was part of the same Chinese program as Lieber.

A jury found a University of California, Los Angeles, professor guilty of exporting stolen U.S. military technology to China. Newsweek reported that he was convicted June 26 on 18 federal charges.

Meanwhile, NBC News reported that federal prosecutors say that University of Texas professor Bo Mao attempted to steal U.S. technology by using his position as a professor to obtain access to protected circuitry and then hand it over to the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.

The true tragedy is that so many Americans are blind to the fact that today’s colleges and universities pose a threat on several fronts to the well-being of our nation.



Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


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

Too Often, Trump Critics Rely on False, Dangerous Ideas About National Security

No question, President Donald Trump is an unconventional statesman. On the global stage he looks like a fullback at a field hockey match.

Different doesn’t always mean wrong—except to the critics who have gone to absurd lengths to weaponize policy differences to undermine the legitimacy of the president’s decisions.

One of the most extreme and wrongheaded complaints is that this administration has violated how policy must be made. Critics complain the president seems to have a mind of his own and the audacity to not reflexively implement the recommendations the bureaucracy cranks out.

Nonsense. Not only is it wrong to suggest the White House must follow only the policy proposals its “experts” devise, it can at times be the worse step a president can take.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

It is risky business for the Oval Office to make policy in a vacuum. But there are a lot of ways for the White House to get good advice, and Trump actually may be better than most presidents when it comes to gathering information for decision-making.

Past as Prologue

The modern national security decision-making process emerged after World War II with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law created the National Security Council to create better coordination among the key government departments engaged in defense and foreign policy.

The establishment of the National Security Council facilitated a more systematic process for developing and making recommendations to the president.

Department representatives and National Security Council staff members would get together to hash out proposals and pass them to a deputies committee that included high-ranking department officials. These committees would, in turn, pass along their thinking to “principles committees” made up of Cabinet-level officials, who would, in turn, make recommendations to the president.

This bottoms-up approach solidified under President Dwight Eisenhower. As former military man, Eisenhower appreciated the rigor of staff work and frequently chaired National Security Council meetings.

Every president has had his own version of a national security policy-making process. The process isn’t codified in law and rarely looks like the flow chart in textbooks—just as the way Congress crafts legislation often doesn’t match what students are told in their civics lessons.

These advisers and this process are meant to help the president make decisions; not to put him in a straitjacket that allows the bureaucracy to hold the president’s policies hostage.

There are crucial, important moments in history when president’s ignored the “best” advice and did the right thing. Harry Truman recognized Israel against the recommendations of his Cabinet. JFK made all the tough calls in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ronald Reagan turned down Mikhail Gorbachev’s deal at Reykjavik. And all three emerged with better outcomes.

There also are instances where presidents went it alone and came to regret their decisions. President Jimmy Carter announced he was going to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea—only to find almost no one in Washington, not even his own secretary of defense, was willing to go along. Reagan turned over Iran-Contra to a few staffers in the National Security Council—and that didn’t end well.

Judge Policy by Outcomes, Not Process

Decision-making at the top is at least as important as bottom-up deliberations, particularly when the bureaucracy isn’t delivering good policy options. That said, making decisions in the isolation of the Oval Office can result in ghastly groupthink that’s no better than the mind-numbing same old, same old the agencies often crank out.

Smart presidents will shake things up and seek outside advice. FDR famously ranged far and wide for recommendations during World War II, consulting everyone from columnists to heads of state. Trump is more in the FDR mode; he likes to hear lots of opinions. Also like FDR, he is very much the decider-in-chief.

This is how Trump has chosen to run his presidency.

Those who don’t like it can vote him out. But it’s wrong to suggest the president is not legitimate or responsible because he doesn’t govern the way critics prefer.


James Carafano
James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


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

Time to End the Tyranny of District Court Judges’ Nationwide Injunctions

Question: What is the difference between God and a federal judge?

Answer: God knows that He isn’t a federal judge.

On Feb. 6, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs of North Carolina issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from implementing a new policy that changes how the government calculates the duration of an illegal immigrant’s unlawful presence in the country.

Although an injunction is the correct legal tool to stop someone from doing something, Biggs had a choice in how broad that injunction should be.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

She could use an injunction that prevented the government from using the new calculation on the plaintiffs who sued, or she could use a so-called nationwide injunction that barred the government from using the new calculation against anyone, anywhere.

Biggs chose to issue a nationwide injunction. Actually, that’s a misnomer. These are better called “universal” or even “absent-party” injunctions, because they aren’t limited either by their geographic scope or the parties they cover.

Instead, they stop the government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, anywhere.

These universal injunctions are controversial. U.S. Attorney General William Barr denounced them in a speech last May. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen did so in a speech on Feb. 12, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have criticized them as well.

So, what exactly are these strange things, and are they legal?

As always, it’s wise to start our analysis with the Constitution. The Constitution defines the judicial branch’s role in our system of government. Judges don’t pass laws or set broad policies, because that’s the job of the other branches.

Instead, according to Article III, judges decide “Cases” and “Controversies,” which are actual legal disputes between specific parties. Whether civil suits between private parties or criminal cases involving the government, these disputes are brought by the parties, and judges settle them for the parties.

It makes sense, therefore, that when a judge issues an injunction in the process of deciding a particular case, that injunction will not cover more than is necessary.

Historically, when a plaintiff successfully challenged a law as unconstitutional, for example, the judge would most often block the government from enforcing the law against the plaintiff, rather than completely wipe that law from the books.

But the judiciary has grown more powerful than America’s Founders intended and, since the 1960s, this has included issuing universal injunctions.

This type of injunction has become increasingly common over the past few decades as political activists try to enlist judges to make the kind of widespread policy changes that the legislative or executive branches are designed to handle.

Like a gavel thrown into a well-oiled machine, these universal injunctions cause a host of problems for our constitutional government—and for the judiciary itself.

First, they empower judges to exercise power over the entire government, rather than just the parties who brought a case before them.

Second, universal injunctions give individual district judges far more power than they ought to have. Even if 1,000 judges have upheld a law, or limited their injunctions only to the parties in specific cases, one granting a universal injunction means that the law cannot be enforced anywhere.

Third, they undermine public confidence in the judiciary by giving activists judges near limitless power to undo the laws and policies of the democratically accountable branches of government.

One infamous activist judge, the now-deceased Stephen Reinhardt, once joked of his lawless decisions that “they [the Supreme Court] can’t catch them all.”

Finally, universal injunctions lead to what Gorsuch calls “rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.” Oftentimes, judges issue universal injunctions at the beginning of a case, even before resolving legal and factual issues.

When that happens, the Justice Department often appeals on an emergency basis. That’s not good, because it doesn’t give the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, the time they need to make sure they get the answer right.

The Supreme Court, in particular, prefers to weigh in on a legal issue only after many lower courts, lawyers, and legal scholars have had time to discuss it. That debate sharpens the arguments and refines the issues. Emergency appeals, however, eliminate that.

The criticism of universal injunctions has reached a boiling point, and now it’s likely that the Supreme Court will step in. On Jan. 17, the Supreme Court accepted the case of Trump v. Pennsylvania.

One of the questions presented there is whether the court of appeals erred when it affirmed a universal injunction striking down regulations that would have allowed employers with sincere religious or moral objections to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage in employers’ insurance plans.

The high court should take this opportunity to end the practice of issuing universal injunctions. It should remind the lower courts that their power is limited to resolving cases and controversies, and that they are not gods sitting in judgment over the rest of the government.


GianCarlo Canaparo is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


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

Forthcoming Book lists Trump as one of the Greatest Presidents, Twitter Leftists’ heads explode

This morning I wrote an article for PJ Media that makes a point that I elaborate in my forthcoming book, Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Then over on Twitter I noticed that “#PresidentObama” was trending for Presidents Day, as a huge crowd of Twitter Leftists hailed the socialist internationalist Obama as if he had actually been a good President.

Well, I admit I couldn’t resist, and tweeted this:

Head over to Twitter and look at the comments on that tweet: watch the fun as the Twitter Leftists howl at the prospect of someone daring to question one of their most sacred dogmas. The truth really does hurt some people, badly, like a physical pain.

And preorder the book here.


Elizabeth Warren Channels Molly Bloom: Yeah! I Said Yeah! I Mean Yeah! (Part 1)

Senators ask how al-Qaeda leader was admitted as a “refugee” and became a US citizen

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

On Presidents Day, Remembering Why We Have a Strong Commander in Chief

On Presidents Day, we celebrate the life and accomplishments of our first president, George Washington, the father of our country, and Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president and one of our most renowned statesmen.

On that day, Feb. 17 this year, we should remember that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that an American president—such as Washington and Lincoln—would have the power to defend the country when the safety, security, and independence of its people are threatened.

And that power is exactly what they gave the president in the Constitution when they made him the commander in chief of our military forces.

This is particularly important given recent legislation passed by the House of Representatives, a so-called “war powers resolution.” It condemned President Donald Trump for ordering the lawful targeting of an Iranian general, terrorist mastermind Qassim Suleimani, and ordered Trump to stop using all military force against Iran without prior congressional approval.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Iran has been a longtime state sponsor of terrorism, according to our own State Department, and Suleimani made himself a target. He was a mass murderer responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans.

On a recent trip through Pennsylvania, I was reminded of what Americans have suffered at the hands of terrorists and the importance of having a commander in chief with broad constitutional authority to react immediately to threats against the nation.

On a cold, icy day, my wife and I stopped at the Flight 93 National Memorial, which honors the 33 passengers and seven crew members of United Flight 93 who died when their Boeing 757 airliner crashed into a field just outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on Sept. 11, 2001.

We all know what happened on 9/11. Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners. They flew two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and flew the third into the Pentagon, murdering almost 3,000 people.

The fourth flight was United Flight 93. It took off from Newark, New Jersey, headed for San Francisco with four hijackers on board masquerading as passengers. Forty-six minutes into the flight, they attacked the captain and first officer, took over the controls of the airplane, and changed direction to head for Washington, D.C.

Half an hour later, the plane crashed upside down at 563 miles per hour into the field where the memorial is today.

We know what happened in that critical half-hour not only from the cockpit voice recorder recovered by authorities at the horrendous crash site, but from the 37 telephone calls to, and voicemail messages left with, the friends and families of the passengers on the flight.

Through those phone calls, the passengers learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and quickly realized why the hijackers were headed for Washington.

The passengers made a collective decision, took a vote, and decided to attempt to retake the plane. Among the passengers was Todd Beamer, an Oracle account manager who was the father of two sons, David and Andrew, and whose wife, Lisa, was pregnant with their third child.

A born leader, Beamer decided to take matters into his own hands and fight back. Before leading other passengers in a final fight against the terrorists, he called flight dispatch and spoke with Lisa Jefferson. He asked her to say the Lord’s Prayer with him.

After praying with her, Beamer uttered his famous words, “Let’s roll,” to his fellow passengers. The cockpit recorder captured the shouts, crashes, and sounds of the melee that occurred when the passengers attacked, including one who yelled, “Let’s get them!”

The 9/11 Commission concluded that the hijackers crashed the plane when they realized that the passengers were only seconds away from overcoming them and taking back control of the plane.

The Flight 93 National Memorial, just like the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York and the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, is deeply affecting. Set in a bucolic, quiet Pennsylvania field, the memorial is a solemn reminder of the ravages of terrorism and the triumph of ordinary heroes over evil incarnate.

It is impossible to view, listen to, and read the personal stories of the individual passengers on that flight without being greatly moved and greatly angered. The stories explain what has happened on the plane and what the passengers plan to do about it even as they say farewell to their loved ones.

These average, ordinary Americans took on four jihadist hijackers at the cost of their own lives. They prevented those terrorists from what would have been a devastating attack on a notable location in Washington, most likely the U.S. Capitol or the White House. The Flight 93 crash site is only 18 minutes flying time from Washington.

There is no need to rehash what happened after 9/11, including the immediate steps that President George W. Bush took to safeguard the country and to go after the terrorists who had sponsored, financed, and planned the attack on America. But Bush’s actions illustrate how important it was then, and is today, that our Constitution provides for a strong commander in chief.

As the Justice Department said in a 2001 legal opinion, no law and no congressional resolution “can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make.”

That is a good thing.

So while we are celebrating Washington, who led an eight-year fight for our liberty, and Lincoln, who fought to stop the breakup of the Union, we also should be thankful for other presidents who used the strong power of the executive to protect the nation.

That includes President Franklin Roosevelt, who led us in the largest war in our history against two brutal tyrannies, as well as Bush, who acted decisively after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

Trump also should be applauded for taking out a terrorist thug who had American blood on his hands, and who would have continued to kill Americans.

Americans just like those who died on United Flight 93 when it crashed in what the National Park Service appropriately calls “a field of honor forever” in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.


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


Why We Should Celebrate Washington’s Birthday, Not Presidents Day

How George Washington’s Sterling Character Set an Example for the Ages

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


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

Rutgers: Jewish Democrat thrown out of Muslims4Peace event for calling Rashida Tlaib antisemitic

At virtually every university in the country, the academic establishment will use its thuggish cops to cosset and protect Leftists and Islamic supremacists from the slightest negative word. Institutions of higher learning? Hardly. They’re Antifa factories, centers of hard-Left indoctrination.

“Jewish Democrat Thrown Out of ‘Muslims4Peace’ Event for Calling Rashida Tlaib Antisemitic,” by Penny Starr, Breitbart, February 11, 2020:

Former New York State Democrat lawmaker Dov Hikind was tossed out of an event after confronting Rep. Rashida Tlaib (R-MI) on her past antisemitic remarks.

“Police just ejected me from an event of @Muslims4Peace at @RutgersU which was a fine event until @RashidaTlaib showed up. I challenged her about her antisemitism and spreading of an anti-Jewish blood libel! She had no answer for me,” Hikind tweeted. “They will never silence us!”

The crowd started shouting “Rashida!” “Rashida!” as Hikind was escorted out of the room.

The Daily Wire spoke to Hikind about attending the Muslims4Peace-sponsored event that was held over the weekend at Rutgers University.

The event was entitled “A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants, and Asylum Seekers – Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad,” according to the Daily Wire:

“As [Tlaib] started to speak about ‘showing up for allies,’ I decided it was time to take her to task for her recent promotion of an anti-Jewish blood libel,” Hikind said. “I stood up and asked her ‘what about your antisemitism? What about your spreading of a blood libel?’”

“And before I could finish my question, one man jumped at me and grabbed me,” Hikind continued. “I warned him to immediately get his hands off and he complied. The police were waiting on the sidelines and jumped in a second later and forcibly removed me. They did their job, and I have no qualms with them. But Rashida couldn’t answer me to my face.”

“I stood ten feet away from her, and all she could do was play the victim,” Hikind continued. “I was told that after I was escorted out she claimed that my question was part of a pattern of discrimination against people like her grandmother. In reality, she’s a shameless anti-Semite who hides her hate behind the guise of victimhood although she’s the only one consistently guilty of perpetuating hate. She’s the one guilty of promoting libelous lies that lead directly to violence! At the end of it all, Rashida showed us again that she has no backbone and has no real defense or justification for her abhorrent statements.”…


Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Court validates forced conversion, marriage of 14-year-old Christian girl to Muslim

That “Trump Muslim Ban” Is Still With Us


Jewish Activist Confronts Tlaib’s Jew-Hatred.

Iran’s former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps top dog: if US attacks, “we would raze Tel-Aviv to the ground.”

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

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

Recently, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest (R-N.C.) came under fire for comments he made regarding Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger. Speaking to an MLK Day breakfast at Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, Forest said this: “There is no doubt that when Planned Parenthood was created, it was created to destroy the entire black race. That was the purpose of Planned Parenthood. That’s the truth.” Forest later defended his comments to McClatchy News: “The facts speak for themselves. Since 1973, 19 million black babies have been aborted, mostly by Planned Parenthood. I care too much about the lives of these babies to debate the intent of Sanger’s views when the devastation she brought into this world is obvious.”

Margaret Sanger, her sister, Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York on October 16, 1916. The clinic was later raided by the NYPD, and all three women were arrested and charged with violating the Comstock Act for distributing obscene materials. After laws governing birth control were relaxed, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

While Lieutenant Governor Forest was attacked by many on the Left for pushing an uneducated, insensitive agenda, history backs him up. The fact is that Margaret Sanger strongly believed the Aryan race to be superior and that it must be purified, a view that finds its roots from Charles Darwin’s defense of evolution in The Origin of Species. Darwin argued that a process of “natural selection” favored the white race over all other “lesser races.” Sanger advocated for eugenics by calling for abortion and birth control among the “unfit” to produce a master race, a race consisting solely of wealthy, educated whites. Sanger said she believed blacks were “human weeds” that needed to be exterminated. She also referred to immigrants, African Americans, and poor people as “reckless breeders” and “spawning…human beings who never should have been born.”

Sanger once wrote “that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” In an effort to sell her birth control and abortion proposals to the black community, Sanger said: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” In 1926, Sanger was also the featured speaker at a women’s auxiliary meeting of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.

Sanger opened her clinics in largely minority neighborhoods because she believed immigrants and the working class were inferior and needed their population controlled so as to purify the human race. That trend continues today where almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. In fact, although only 13 percent of American women are black, over 35 percent of all black babies are aborted in the United States every year. Abortion is the leading cause of death for blacks in the United States. According to Students for Life of America, “more African-Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.” Black babies are about five times more likely to be aborted than whites. On Halloween in 2017, Planned Parenthood’s “Black Community” Twitter account tweeted: “If you’re a Black woman in America, it’s statistically safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term or give birth.”

While Margaret Sanger tried to portray Planned Parenthood as a merciful organization that helps needy families, the facts speak for themselves. In her testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September 2015, former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards openly admitted that over 80 percent of her organization’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions and not basic health care for poor or disadvantaged women. When you dive deeper, well over 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions.

Despite this sordid history, Margaret Sanger is almost universally recognized as a pioneer for women’s rights rather than the racist she actually was. When accepting Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she “admired Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…I am really in awe of her.” Those like Hillary Clinton are ignoring the explicitly racist statements that Margaret Sanger made throughout her life. The fact is that Sanger normalized birth control and abortion in the United States as a means to accomplish eugenics. Her ultimate goal was to eliminate non-white races, people with sickness or disabilities, children born to felons, the poor, and immigrants, to name a few.

Margaret Sanger is no heroine, and Planned Parenthood is not some merciful health care provider as the Left paints it to be. Margaret Sanger repeatedly stated her racist intentions for the whole world to see and hear, and Planned Parenthood was and still is the manifestation of those racist ideologies. America was founded on the idea that no matter your race, creed, national origin, disability, or station in life, everyone who comes here or is born here has the opportunity to live a successful, fulfilling life. Margaret Sanger didn’t believe that.

As pro-life activists, we must do our part to expose Margaret Sanger for who she really was. We must also expose the racist history of Planned Parenthood and how that history is still relevant today. For more information on Margaret Sanger and the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, check out these FRC resources: Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman and The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death.


Worth Loving

RELATED ARTICLE: Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger In Her Own Words

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Nike Swooshes in to Attack Women’s Sports

First, they attacked America. Then adoption. Now, women. Honestly, with such a busy schedule of political extremism, it’s a mystery how Nike has time to sell anything. But for all of the company’s radical campaigns, it’s Nike’s latest that’s really raising eyebrows. The retail titan is picking a side in the transgender sports debate — and it isn’t girls’.

Just how beholden is Big Business to LGBT activists? Well, one of the biggest manufacturers of international sports equipment just told half its market that it doesn’t care about the future of women’s sports. So much for Nike’s progressive feminist cred. In Tennessee, one of the states that’s considering a ban on biological boys competing against girls, the company actually suggested that keeping a level playing field for girls “put[s] our collective economic success at risk.” If anything puts our economic success at risk, it’s destroying 50 percent of high school, collegiate, and pro sports!

And yet, Nike, like 142 other businesses, is actively working to stop Tennessee (and at least six other states) from fighting the injustice of transgender sports. “I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in,” Connecticut track star Selena Soule says of her male competition. But athletics is “an entirely different situation. It’s scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It’s unfair to put someone who is biologically a male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy, against cis-gender girls… It’s upsetting when we work hard all season and put in a lot of effort, only to turn up at the state meets and get beat by someone who is biologically a male and lose state championships over this.”

And these boys aren’t just stealing trophies, they’re stealing scholarships too. With the Olympics around the corner and the debate exploding across the sports world, even athletes who’ve identified as gay or lesbian are calling the trend what it is: cheating. Tennis pro Martina Navratilova has been a great ally for the LGBT movement, but she had no problem blasting the radical ideology that’s killing sports and healthy competition. “It’s punishing the innocent,” she wrote indignantly, “and it’s insane.”

If there is a silver lining to this gender lunacy, it’s that more people are starting to see the quandary that’s created by policies and decisions that aren’t based in anatomical realities but emotional whims. This week, Selena — along with two other cross-country runners, Chelsea Mitchell and Alanna Smith — are suing to take back their sports. “Our dream is not to come in second or third place, but to win fair and square,” Mitchell said. “All we’re asking for is a fair chance.”

For these three girls, and so many others across the country, it’s upsetting to know the outcome of the race before it starts. And just because someone believes they’re a girl doesn’t mean their bodies act like one. “Forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is completely at odds with Title IX,” their Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Christiana Holcomb, pointed out. “Connecticut’s policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women.”

The issue has created such an unlikely coalition of feminists, liberals, conservatives, and parents that Congressman Greg Steube (R-Fla.) introduced a federal bill to make it clear that biology — not political correctness — should determine your team. “…Even people on the far-Left — [including] famous players [are] saying that it’s not fair that women are having to compete against men in women’s sports.” And while extremists may call that insensitive, the facts speak for themselves. “Males have 30 times more testosterone than females. That obviously helps make men’s bodies bigger and stronger… It’s just crazy to me that we’re even having to file bills on something like this. But that’s the world that we live in today, unfortunately.”

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.


Hidden Dragons in America, Pompeo Warns

Mass Burial Lays Dems’ Sincerity to Rest

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

McCabe Got Off?! – Outer Bands of a Category Five Hurricane – Stone, Barr, Smollet and a ton more…

McCabe got off! Comey got off! Nah, strategy. Their all going down. Timing and optics. Keep reading please.

Yes. The storm is upon us. This is a category five hurricane and we have just entered the outer bands of an intensifying category five with winds far exceeding 200 mph. There is a concentrated eye in this storm arriving at high tide with scores and scores of random erupting tornadoes. Yes, the storm us kicking up the dust and AG Barr is busy. The deep state is being exposed and they are going down. Nothing will stop this, nothing.

The stage is being set. And yes, the storm is now upon us. The outer bands of this category five hurricane, this intelligence battle to destroy or resurrect America, that category five hurricane, is kicking up a lot of dirt. Seems confusing, after all there are so many random particles just flying around and slapping us in the face and blurring our vision making it hard to see the road we are on.  Know this. The stage is being set. The hunters have become the hunted. This is the shakedown and soon to be the take down. Mark my words. The greatest military intelligence operation of our time is well underway.

We Are Winning

Lt. Col. Vindman and his brother were terminated and escorted out. Next? The four Chinese that were officially charged for the Equifax data breach hacking have been arrested. And Rudy Giuliani’s files on Biden’s, Burisma and the Ukraine will now be reviewed by AG Barry as well as Lyndsey Graham stating that at least half of all those involved in the Russian Hoax are going to prison. This is what winning looks like.

The left is now vehemently going after AG Barr. The chatter against Barr is heavy right now including sign.moveon.org which calls for signing a petition to remove Barr. Why? Because those that scream the loudest have the most to hide. The hammer of justice is about to fall as the storm is kicking up the dust. Arrest may be imminent. Let’s look at just a smattering of what this dust is currently kicking up.

The indictments are prepared, thank you, in part, to Jeff Sessions. We are now up to 192 new judges appointed in the Federal Courts. Twenty-two and counting thus far fired or redesigned from the FBI. AG Barr is in control. Durham is getting ready to deliver the goods. Rudy has been activated. Lyndsey Graham has been activated. Epstein case is on-going. Assange’s day in a US court is coming. Impeachment and scores of other coup’ d’ etat attempts have not only all utterly failed, but have back fired on the Deep State, the Democrats and the media. Roger Stone’s sentence has been reduced. I see a Trump pardon on the horizon, timing. Timing is everything. Jussie Smollett has been indicted. He will do time. This brings in Kim Fox who is next on the Smollett chopping block which leads up to the Obama’s. General Flynn, in the end, will be vindicated. This is what winning looks like.


The stage is being set. Q (QANON), has hit front and center by being revealed at the State of the Union by two honored guests by wearing a Q lapel pin. Accident? Who are you kidding! On February 5th Donald Trump Jr. on the Tucker Carlson show, as well as Eric Trump on the Laura Ingraham show, revealed to the world their Q lapel pins.  Notice no direct questions yet from the MSM as to what is this Q on their lapel pins? Humm. The stage is being set.

So who is panicking? Jerry Nadler for one. He sent a letter to AG Barr’s office as a desperate attempt to stop Rudy’s intel from entering into the justice dept. Oops, too late and Nadler has no case. Who else is panicking? Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, the meida, and the Deep State are panicking thus the aggressive approach to discredit and remove AG Barr, pathetic desperate criminals they are. They have been caught. This is what EXPOSURE is all about. They are cornered and again, False Flags and social media glitches and disruptions are what we can expect next.

Expect suicides, “suicided’s” and terminal illness to be a trend for some years and over time, particularly after Prosecutor Durham’s criminal investigation against the DOJ /Deep State/Dems?FBI/CIA etc. hits the news.

Yes. The storm is upon us. This is category five hurricane and we have just entered the outer bands of an intensifying cat 5 with winds far exceeding 200 mph. There is a concentrated eye in this storm arriving at high tide with scores and scores of random erupting tornadoes. Yes, the storm us kicking up the dust and AG Barr is busy. The deep state is being exposed and they are going down. Nothing will stop this, nothing.

Can you imagine what happens when the truth about Barry Sotoro BHO is uncovered? If his Presidency was in fact fraudulent in and of itself? Humm, are all the bills and EO’s he signed valid? Did you know that he too, even though no longer a sitting President can be impeached? Ponder that for a moment. Carry on fellow patriots. Remember President Trump has told us that he has caught the swamp, indeed he has! Sit back and enjoy the show.

Clarion Call

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

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Derangement Syndrome Explodes with Impeachment Acquittal

Corporate Leaders, Pay Attention: Americans Want You to Get Out of Politics

Corporate America, please pay attention. Contrary to the “woke” Twitter crowd, a new national survey shows that Americans want you to care for employees instead of catering to radical leftist policies.

According to the survey, part of which is immediately below this paragraph, 72 percent of Americans want the nation’s business community to prioritize employees now and in the future. Just 5.8 percent of Americans want the business community to put “promoting racial, gender, and LGBTQ equality through fair hiring practices” at the top of their agenda.

Got that? Fewer than 6 in 100 Americans want radical leftist priorities put before America’s workers and retirees. These 6 people might have the loudest voices on Twitter, Facebook, and CNN, but they don’t actually represent Americans. They don’t represent the 131 million workers across the nation. They’re just keyboard warriors.

Here are some other key takeaways on what Americans want from corporate America:

  • Political neutrality, not far right or far left propaganda
  • Appeal to as many Americans as possible. Over 65 percent of Americans believe corporations should run their businesses in a way that appeals to broad swaths of the public. Fewer than 23 percent of Americans said businesses should tailor themselves to the easily offended.

Some core beliefs Americans have are:

  • More than 3 times as many Americans want capitalism over socialism.
  • Almost 6 in 10 Americans believe that the American Dream can still be accomplished. Fewer than 35 percent of Americans disagree.
  • Over 81 percent of Americans believe political correctness has gone too far and that people are too easily offended. Just 13 percent of Americans disagreed.

The truth is plain to see. Appeasing radical political leftists is bad for business and it alienates the real Americans who buy products and services every day.

Corporate America, it’s time to wake up. Get out of politics or go out of business.


The Company Contrast – Adidas

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance, 02/14/20

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Explodes with Impeachment Acquittal

“They hate the president so much they are not going to let a little thing like having to lie deter them. They want him gone and are willing to lie to make it happen. Trump Derangement Syndrome is the Kool-Aid at Jonestown.” –  Derek Hunter, Townhall Political Columnist

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child, miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.  Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” –  P.J. O’Rourke

“Socialists cry, ‘Power to the People,’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it.  We all know what they really mean – power over people, power to the State.” –  Margaret Thatcher

“To argue with a person who has denounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” –  Thomas Paine

Trump supporters realize that the obsessed and demonically possessed Democratic Socialists led by our demented House Speaker Pelosi will not stop trying to destroy the blue-collar billionaire president elected by 63 million Americans.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a condition in which a person forsakes logical reasoning due to his or her strong dislike and fear of Donald Trump. Even therapists are starting to use the term to describe patients with these symptoms.  In other words, they’ve lost their minds, and there’s no cure in sight!

Early stages of TDS are inexplicable, fast eye-blinking, light palsy, stammering and overbearing snobbery. Sometimes redness of the face and shortness of breath accompany.  Later stages include total delusion, dementia, inability to think clearly and, ultimately, a madness that cannot be contained.

In 2016, the left was so sure that Hillary Clinton would win, that they abandoned their hold on reality when she was defeated by Donald J. Trump.  And they really hate this outsider who became President of the United States when it was first lady Hillary who was “promised” the position.  Imagine the corruption that would exist with Hillary in power…our lives would not be the same, but there’d be pots of gold pouring into the “pay to play” Clinton Foundation.

First, Russia, Russia, Russia, then obstruction of justice, and now impeachment.  They’ll never stop.


Night and day the mainstream media squawked that the “walls are closing in” on President Trump.  Impeachment was underway, “a solemn and somber process,” celebrated by House Speaker Pelosi handing out autographed pens during the impeachment article signing ceremony. One would think she was signing landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act given the pomp and circumstance.

The fact remains that the president was not allowed due process, and he was never allowed to face his accuser, or to question witnesses against him.  This was a bogus and contrived unconstitutional attack on President Trump.  Pelosi’s vindictiveness continued even after the president’s magnificent SOTU speech.

Rep. Matt Gaetz has filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi’s disgusting lack of respect and protocol at the SOTU when she tore up government property at the end of our President’s speech.  Gaetz tweeted that Pelosi’s conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071).  The law’s wording promises up to three years in prison for “whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys … any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office.”  Gaetz claims there will be an ethics investigation into Pelosi’s actions, but ethics investigations are only pursued when the politician is a Republican.

Trump’s Lawyers

Summary judgement or dismissal should have immediately been done by Trump’s lawyers regarding the false impeachment charges, but the show went on…theatre for the dumbed down masses.  This charade by the Democrat Socialists has cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, and I hope it costs the Democrats plenty of seats in both the House and Senate.

All of Trump’s lawyers did a magnificent job of exposing the Democrat’s lies, and Pam Bondi even brought up Hunter Biden’s statements that he hasn’t had a job for almost two years and has no money. Really? He and his new pregnant wife have been renting a $12,000 a month house in one of the most expensive zip codes in the country out in California for a long time. Who is paying for that? If Hunter is so talented, how come he hasn’t had a job in almost two years? (h/t Devvy)

Thankfully, the Senate rejected the act of tyranny by the Pelosi-Schiff coup cabal that controls the House.  After the magnificent State of the Union address, after the “acquittal” of President Trump…it was “Vindication Day” for the President. And if the Republicans retake the House, they plan on expunging the Trump impeachment.

The Senate couldn’t come close to the 67 votes needed to impeach the President. Only one Senator was seen wringing his hands because he had to vote for one of the two counts leveled by the TDS Democrats.  Willard the Rat Romney, in his defection from the Republican held Senate, succeeded in capturing a bit of air time by the MSM.

But hold on…now the House Democrat impeachment managers and CNN hosts had a meeting of the minds in an interview that aired two days after the President was vindicated.  They said Trump really hadn’t been acquitted because the trial hadn’t been fair, and the president hadn’t been “exonerated” by the trial.  Talk about the idiocy of grasping at straws to fulfill their desire of eliminating the people’s choice for President. Wake up Democrats…we didn’t want the Queen of Corruption, Hillary Clinton!

Democrats Plot Against Trump and America

The Democratic Socialists aren’t finished.  Already they’re plotting the next impeachment of our president and more investigations into President Trump’s involvement with Ukraine.  They need to take a look in the mirror.

Democrats already have lined up possible charges if they choose to pursue impeachment 2.0.  Still pending is a wide open probe launched by Rep. Adam B. Schiff, (D-CA) “Pencil neck” as Rush Limbaugh calls him, has been investigating President Trump, his family and businesses, and the Trump Organization, over the congressman’s suspicions of blackmail, money laundering and bribery.  Ah yes, once again Alinsky’s psychological projection tactics…these modern day Caligula’s charge President Trump with crimes they most likely have committed themselves.

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has his eyes set on a return investigation of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  On the same day the president was acquitted by the Senate, Nadler held an oversight hearing with Deep State FBI Director Christopher Wray. Nadler confirmed that, yes, we are indeed going there again. He is going to focus on questioning the legitimacy of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Nadler also claims lawmakers will likely subpoena John Bolton to learn what he was prepared to tell the Senate, and other high-ranking Democrats say the Ukraine story isn’t over.

During the oversight hearing, Director Wray admitted that the surveillance of Carter Page was illegal.  Wray has some explaining to do.  In May of 2019, he disagreed with AG Barr that there was any spying on the Trump campaign, but under oath again, he finally admitted that the surveillance of the Trump campaign was also illegal.

Worse yet is the fact that two men who have worked for our president would slander and libel the man for retribution.  Remember that Warhawk John Bolton was the foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Willard RomneyAnd President Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly said he believed former national security advisor John Bolton’s allegations concerning Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign.  Back in August before Bolton was fired, he described Trump’s call with Zelensky as “warm and cordial.”

Bolton and Kelly may believe they’ve gotten revenge for being fired, but their retaliation against America’s President only makes them look petty and small.  Tucker Carlson called Bolton a snake referring to the snake in the poem Trump read during the 2016 campaign.  Attorney Joe diGenova said the release of Bolton’s book is an act of treachery.

Trump Wins

On February 7, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by Democratic members of Congress charging that President Donald Trump was illegally profiting from his business interests in violation of the Constitution.  A three-judge panel issued a unanimous “per curiam” decision finding the lawmakers had no standing to bring their suit, which pointed to Trump profiting from foreign government officials choosing to spend money at Trump hotels as violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.  Link

This is the clause that states a President cannot profit off of his office. Considering the fact that the President is losing his wealth while serving the country, this has always been a ridiculous argument. Link

Pelosi has once again failed in her attempt to remove the President from office…but she is not accepting defeat. Pelosi has now authorized Maxine Waters, of all people, to expand her investigations against the President to include articles of impeachment over the emolument’s clause.

Tossing Treacherous Turncoats

The smirking smug face of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was escorted from the White House Friday, two days after President Donald Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial. Vindman violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by defying the Commander in Chief, and after he heard the call, he talked to a CIA officer. Was that Eric Ciaramella?  Then there’s Shawn Misko, who had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together.  Sean Misko spoke with Ciaramella about the need to “take out,” or remove, President Trump. Later he went to work for Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee.  Convenient?

Vindman and his twin are Ukrainian Russians who immigrated with their father and older brother when Yevgeny and Alexander were three.

Before he was detailed to the White House, Vindman served in the U.S. Army, where he once received a reprimand from a superior officer for badmouthing and ridiculing America in front of Russian soldiers his unit was training with during a joint 2012 exercise in Germany.

His commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, complained that Vindman, then a major, “was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly and really talked up Obama and globalism to the point of it being uncomfortable.”

“Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012,” Hickman, now retired, asserted. “Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.”

The National Security Council aide handling book approvals (including Bolton’s) is the twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior lawyer and ethics official in the NSC is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Their offices were across the hall from each other.  Alexander Vindman testified that he told his brother about Mr. Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Senior NSC official Timothy Morrison, who was the former boss of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, testified that Vindman’s bosses had numerous concerns and problems with him.  Morrison confirmed that multiple other officials were concerned that Vindman was potentially leaking sensitive information to the media.

Both men will go to the Pentagon.  Defense Secretary, Mark Esper was asked about potential retribution for Vindman during a trip to New York City. The defense secretary said the Pentagon “has protections for whistleblowers” who report waste, fraud or abuse.  But Democrat Vindman wasn’t a whistleblower, or was he?

Gordon Sondland, who as the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union was a central figure in the administration’s dealings with Ukraine, announced Friday that he was losing his job, according to Fox News. Good!  “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said. As of Friday, eight of 12 officials who testified publicly during the impeachment hearings have left the posts, either voluntarily or otherwise.  It’s about time!  Excise the Deep State!  And the National Security Council is being cut way back.  See my previous article on both of these men.

Not since Lt. General Michael Flynn was in charge of the NSC, were there people who could be trusted to have the President’s back.  When McMaster came in, those good people were fired, and the Deep State representatives were hired.  Now Robert O’Brien is hopefully eliminating the NSC of these treacherous Never-Trumpers.

But there’s even more! Officials confirmed that Trump and national security advisor, Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who had fattened the staff to 200.  Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.  That’s a big hooray…now clean out the DOJ swamp!


Word on the street is that there may be major deep state arrests coming, but we’ve heard this before. Remember Huber?  Lindsey Graham is touting the same thing…but I’m not holding my breath.

As for Twitter, one of my favorites is back on line…James Woods…and he returns with guns blazing.

Hillary Clinton told everyone to “Resist.”  We’ve all seen those bumper stickers…it’s time for a new one that says, “Resistance is Futile.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Impeachment – Tool of the Communist Movement.