VIDEO: “Corrupt” Andrew Gillum vs. FBI Investigation

Andrew Gillum, Socialist candidate for Governor in Florida, is in a massive battle with TV station over airing a Republican commercial about Gillum’s corruption investigation in Tallahassee FL. Check out Tom Trento’s brief comments on how unhinged Comrade Gillum is becoming as the FBI investigation deepens.


Andrew Gillum campaign demands TV stations pull GOP ad attacking his ties to FBI investigation

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

Fellow Alum of Andrew Gillum’s running mate: “[Chris] King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple.”

VIDEOS: Why Socialist Andrew Gillum is “Unfit to Lead” Florida

Why Did Gillum’s Campaign Share a Building with a Taxpayer-Funded Solar Project and His Consulting Firm?

EDITORS NOTE: The modified featured photo is by Steve Halama on Unsplash.

Corporate Leaders Need To Decide: Stand With The Violent Left Or Renounce It

The American Left has long stooped as low as necessary to get their way.

We recently saw this with death threats and mobs regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. While these efforts failed, they are just the latest efforts that go back decades — such as the “high-tech lynching” of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the regularly-used “Nazi” card against conservatives. The Obama administration regularly accused conservatives of holding America “hostage” — despite similar behavior by Obama when he was a U.S. Senator. And few prominent liberal leaders were willing to tell rioters to stop hurting their fellow Americans after President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016.

Of course, vigorous but peaceful Tea Party and pro-life rallies are regularly decried as major threats to Americans’ safety back in the day. ‘Cause nothing scares the Left more than balanced budgets and unborn children surviving the womb.

But things are getting worse. Last year’s congressional shooting by a deranged leftist, Senator Rand Paul’s broken ribs, doxxing of Senators’ homes and their families, harassing right-of-center Senators at restaurants and at their homes…Paul is right. Somebody is going to get killed.

So what can 2ndVote shoppers do? First and foremost, tell corporations to stop backing those groups which are leading America to a violent political future. Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, The Women’s March — these are just a few of the leftist organizations which led mob efforts last week. 2ndVote shoppers should avoid those organizations’ sponsors.

Conservatives should also demand that mainstream reporters learn how to be journalists, not activists. Boycotting media outlets which spew violent rhetoric would send a strong message.

Liberals will always defend their violence, of course. Hillary Clinton did that just yesterday on CNN, and abortion is always justifiable in liberal minds. Here’s hoping the power of 2ndVotes can show corporations the right way to go — toward peace, not violence.

Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Shutterstock.

VIDEO: Hillary Is Back To Lead the Democrat Mob

After Hillary Clinton called for her party to act without civility, Eric Holder declared, “when they go low, we kick them… that’s the new Democratic party.” Bongino exposes another reason why we all need to start owning the libs. Plus, the Senate race heats up in Texas. Bongino on why Beto cannot win. And, CNN calls Kanye West a “token negro.” Because tolerance.

Dan Bongino on NRATV

Country, service, the Second Amendment, the Truth and every Big R God-given Right. This is what WE STAND for and these are the American foundations Former Secret Service Agent and NYPD Officer Dan Bongino will defend every weekday at 4:30 p.m. CT/5:30 p.m. ET on NRATV.

Dan Bongino joins NRATV’s lineup, rounding out the most experienced and patriotic team of journalists and conservatives on the air today. Together, they are on a mission to Take Back The Truth.

Smart. Tough. Extraordinary background in law enforcement. In other words, enemy number one in the eyes of progressives. And what’s worse for those elitists? Dan welcomes Grant Stinchfield for each episode. So radical socialists—bring your best. We dare you to join that cage fight.


Of Course The Liberal Mob Is Real

Giving Violence a Chance

High School Band Who Depicted Shooting Cops During Half-Time Performance Faces a Massive Penalty

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Hasan Almasi on Unsplash.

The Left Lost on Kavanaugh, So Now They Want to Abolish the Senate

After every political defeat, the left seems to blame anyone but themselves. Instead, they lash out at our political institutions.

Whether it’s seeking to pack the Supreme Court, removing President Donald Trump from office by stretching the intent of the 25th Amendment, or calling on low-level bureaucrats to “resist” the president’s policies, the left has had no shortage of terrible ideas in the past year alone.

Given the level of rage following Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, it was no surprise that the left took aim at the fundamental framework of our constitutional system.

Many progressives are now blaming the Electoral College and the Senate for defeat because they aren’t democratic enough. Worse, they’ve claimed that these institutions were simply designed to protect slavery, which is an incorrect and absurd distortion of the truth.

Ken Norton, a Google executive, tweeted out that we should abolish the Senate after it became clear that Kavanaugh would be confirmed.

“Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans,” read a headline by The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, who wrote that the Senate violates the concept that “all men are created equal.”

These weren’t the only attacks on the role of the Senate.

The Electoral College has been under siege since 2016 when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton despite not winning the popular vote.

But the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for a national plebiscite to elect presidents. Instead, they wanted to preserve federalism by creating the best system of majority rule with a necessary protection of the minority.

This new criticism of the Senate falls on similar ground as the attacks on the Electoral College.

The left now portrays the Senate as a dark, Republican conspiracy—another vestige of slavery meant to keep Democrats down and out of power.

The Founders created the Senate for several reasons—no, not to promote slavery or ensure the Democratic Party couldn’t win in 2018. Instead, it was the result of a compromise and the desire to preserve the concept of federalism.

Representatives of small states worried that the interests of larger states would overwhelm them, large states wanted to base representation on population for obvious reasons. The solution, in part, was to create two branches of the legislature—one based on population and one that treats large and small states equally.

The Founders gave these bodies specific powers: the Senate would give advice and consent on executive branch nominees, and the House would control spending.

In this way, our system is mixed, with the House representing “democracy” and the Senate representing the equal power of states within a federal system. The Senate, as the smaller body with longer terms, could also act as the more tempered branch of Congress. This would be set against the more bumptious, tumultuous, and democratic House.

This hasn’t always been the case, but it does show how the Founders were always concerned about placing checks on power. They trusted the people to rule themselves, but feared their power to rule others. They did not want to replace one tyrant with millions of others.

It should be noted that the complaints over the “unfairness” of the Senate’s role confirming Supreme Court justices fails to take into consideration that the court itself—where justices serve for life or on good behavior—is a more or less undemocratic institution.

This was by design. The Founders wanted our government to have democratic elements—like the House—but did not think democracy was a good way to create good government or protect God-given rights, the basis of our constitutional system.

“[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself,”wrote John Adams. “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Beyond the intentions of the Founders, is there truth in the idea that this system is simply unfair to Democrats? There would perhaps be some validity to it if all small states were predominately Republican.

But the truth is that the composition of the Senate also helps states that are very small and very blue, like Connecticut and Rhode Island. Kyle Sammin explained in The Federalist how the Senate actually helps and hurts both parties and that the narrative that it only benefits Republicans is incorrect.

“[T]he focus on small states as Republican strongholds does not survive even the gentlest scrutiny,” Sammin wrote. “The senators from the 10 smallest states are nine Democrats, nine Republicans, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. That’s an 11-9 split in Democrats’ favor.”

The fact is, bulldozing the Senate is an all-around bad idea. Worse, it would be more or less unconstitutional. Article V mandates that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The odds of small states sacrificing their power is virtually nil. The only real way to get rid of the Senate is if we essentially overthrew the Constitution—though it seems some on the far left wouldn’t have an issue with that these days.

In more practical terms we should be wary before we let poor losers upend our most valuable and enduring institutions for short-term political gain. That is how republics die and tyranny thrives.

Fortunately, our Founders had the foresight to create obstacles to such temporary madness from even the people themselves—barriers like the Senate.


Portrait of 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: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Vandals Hit NYC GOP Headquarters: ‘Attack Is Merely A Beginning’

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with images with permission. Photo: Ken Cedeno/UPI/Newscom

Michael Cutler: Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner Says Illegal Immigration Contributes to Chicago Gun Violence

Former INS Agent Michael Cutler joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

To Deal with Leftists, Imagine You’re Confronting Satan

If you’re a conned-servative who gets sand thrown in your eyes, your kneecaps kicked off and slashed with a broken bottle and then still fights the next time by Queensberry rules, this article isn’t for you. But if you’re disturbed by the Left’s behavior these last years and want to know how to handle these people whose “mask has been dropping,” understand this: Behind that mask is the Devil.

If you’re not a person of faith, view this as a thought exercise. But it’s one connedservatives — those nice guys who always finish last — had better embrace fast. Because the behavior of what we call today’s “Left” and what Satan would prescribe are virtually identical.

Truth means nothing to leftists. The ends justify the means and they will literally say or do anything to achieve their aims. They’ll use violence — Antifa, BLM, rioting and attacking Trump supporters — and intimidation (doxxing public officials and confronting them in various public places) while calling conservatives fascists and blaming them for the unrest. They’ll rail against “racism” one moment and then excoriate a race (whites) the next. They’ll preach equality while practicing inequality and discrimination, as with quotas and affirmative action. They’ll claim to care about women victims (Kavanaugh/Ford affair) and then smear women victims (Rep. Keith Ellison case). They’ll say “Do it for the children,” using kids as human props, while abetting the brutal killing of children in the womb. They’ll preach tolerance but then insist this means “safe spaces” excluding conservatives and whites and that opposing views must be squelched. They’ll say it’s un-American to question election outcomes — as H. Clinton did prior to Nov. 8, 2016 — but upon losing scream how an election was “stolen,” as leftists did after Nov. 8, 2016. Theirs is the ideology of Anything Goes.

In fact, leftists will swear that Truth (properly understood as objective) itself doesn’t even exist, that everything is shades of gray — but then turn about and sing blatant black-white tunes portraying their political opponents as evil. This is similar to Satan, who knows that God’s rules exist but doesn’t believe they should be considered “Truth.” Leftists will superciliously scoff at traditionalists’ moral positions and insist everything is relative. But they really want to play God and have everything be relative to themselves — like the Devil.

One difference between leftists and Satan is that the latter knows God exists. That’s where the differences end. Leftists hate everything great and good: God, family, country and even the idea of countries (attacks on sovereignty). They hate religion, especially Christianity; the Church; marriage; sexual propriety; and anything else reflecting God’s plan. Thus, they not only hated the Boy Scouts before they became the Gender Fluid Scouts, but hate the idea that “boys” and “girls” even exist in any pure sense; they reject the message that “male and female He made them.” They hate virtues (good moral habits) and do violence — directly or indirectly — to every single one, be it faith, charity, chastity, honesty, diligence, temperance, kindness, humility, fortitude, justice or something else. They are the very negation of Norman Rockwell.

Leftists hate the Constitution, though they’ll use and misuse (twist) it to serve their ends. Of course, like Leon Trotsky, the Kronstadt sailors and so many other useful idiots, it will be discarded once leftists have enough power and its utility is no more. (Christine Blasey Ford, take note.) In fact, they would destroy civilization itself — and are currently doing so — to achieve power. They’d rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

While leftists will usually deny the above, at certain times they obliquely acknowledge it. Consider how Democrat operative Scott Foval, caught in a 2016 sting operation stealing votes and inciting violence at Trump rallies, essentially admitted Republicans are more honest. “There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over,” he said. Many leftists know they’re scum — and they’re content being scum.

They don’t put it in those terms, of course. But they live in an inverted (im)moral universe. They crave the con, love the lie, delight in deceit. They respect fellow travelers who can most effectively destroy their adversaries with artifice — or vanquish them with violence.

What does this mean for conservatives? First, stop being connedservatives. Know thy enemy. Oh, I know, connedservatives reject the idea of viewing “fellow Americans” as enemies. But that’s what Barack Obama called you, what the alt-Left leftists consider you and that’s what they are. Denying it only makes us sheep being led to the slaughter.

Second, know that you have to fight dirty — just like the other side. This doesn’t mean being immoral, but it does mean fighting fire with fire and playing for keeps. I’ll provide some examples.

I’ve long advocated nullification, which Thomas Jefferson called the “rightful remedy” for all federal overreach. For instance, the unconstitutional Obergefell v. Hodges marriage ruling in 2015 should simply have been ignored by the states. Connedservatives consider this radical and wrong, but what has the Left been doing for ages? What do you think “sanctuary” (lawless, actually) cities and resistance to federal drug law are? Nullification. California currently embodies this. The difference is that liberals don’t call it nullification. They just do it — and win.

Then there’s the matter of reclaiming the Supreme Court for constitutionalism. We should attempt this, and are. But when the leftists regain control over the legislative and executive branches, as they will one day, will they let “opinions” by unelected, black-robed lawyers impede them? They’re already talking about impeaching Justice Kavanaugh and one day packing the court.

Moreover, judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution, which is why I’ve long advocated the ignoring of unconstitutional rulings. Future leftists controlling Uncle Sam’s executive branch absolutely will do this, embracing Jefferson’s warning that accepting judicial supremacy makes our Constitution a felo de se — an “act of suicide.” The difference is that they’ll ignore even constitutional rulings contrary to their agenda.

In fact, it’s no surprise leftists hate the Founding Fathers: The former aren’t American in any real sense and aren’t suited to proper constitutional government. As President John Adams warned in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly in adequate to the government of any other.” However “moral and religious” we are today — and we are thus lacking — leftists assuredly are the “other.”

Additionally, a contract can only work if those subject to it abide by it. If one party consistently violates it to advantage itself and oppress the other party, however, the contract is rendered null and void. That is, at least until the violators are eliminated from the equation.

The other thing connedservatives must do is stop conserving yesterday’s leftists’ social and political victories. Connedservatives, for example, accept the Left’s immigration regime, which guarantees leftist-empowering demographic change. But demographics is destiny, and over the long term you can’t win elections while continuously importing the other side’s voters.

Connedservatives also too often accept elements of leftists’ isms (e.g., feminism), use their language — not just politically correct speech but also the vulgarity liberals have normalized — hew to yesterday’s leftists’ sexual mores, imbibe their entertainment and support their propaganda mills (i.e., universities). But since politics is downstream of culture, we ultimately can’t win the government if we embrace the Left’s abnormal social norms.

Lastly, don’t bend to their intimidation. If they call you a “racist,” respond with the truth: “You’re the ‘racist,’ as you only level that accusation because I’m white.” React correspondingly to “sexism” charges, remembering that the best defense is a good offense. Take the fight to them, give no quarter and take no prisoners.

So, connedservatives, stop being conned. One of the Left’s tactics, outlined in its devilish “bible” Rules for Radicals (dedicated to Lucifer), is to get the other side (us) to live up to its own rules. And fighting by Queensberry rules only guarantees a knock-out because the Devil knows no limits. The Left has one guiding “principle,” articulated many years ago by occultist Aleister Crowley: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured photo is by Mark Koellmann on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Andrew Gillum – Job Interview – Florida Election 2018

The United West team “creates” Comrade Andrew Gillum’s Job interview for CEO of 80 billion dollar company.

Clearly, no one in their right mind would hire Gillum to run their candy store, but the crazy socialists will vote for him to run the state of Florida!

SHARE THIS to your friends and VOTE INTELLIGENTLY on November 6, 2018!

Andrew Gillum Endorses Antisemites – MUST WATCH!

Democrat candidate for Florida Governor, Andrew Gillum says he’s pro-Israel, but he just says that to get Jewish money for his campaign.

He endorses, and is endorsed by, a radical, anti-Israel movement.

VIDEO: Choose Wisely — Next Governor of Florida Will Appoint Three Supreme Court Justices

If radical socialist Andrew Gillum is elected governor of Florida on November 6, 2018, he will most likely appoint three Florida Supreme Court Justices who agree with his “progressive” agenda.

The Gillum Agenda includes massive governmental bureaucracy, increased taxes, decreased law enforcement, legalized recreational marijuana, open borders making Florida a sanctuary state! Make no mistake about it, Andrew Gillum’s political philosophy is based upon the core ideological beliefs of Marxists, like Stalin, Lenin and Marx himself!

Floridians, get out and vote intelligently on November 6, 2018!


Anti-Capitalism Group: Andrew Gillum ‘By Far’ Best Candidate ‘In Pushing Our Revolutionary Vision’

Hillary Clinton Backs Harassment of Conservatives, Says “You Can’t be Civil With” Republicans

Pro-Abortion Professor Who Said White Republican Men Should Be Castrated Placed on “Research” Leave

Ocasio-Cortez: The Electoral College is a Shadow of Slavery!

The Democratic Candidate for New York’s 14th Congressional District, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, continued to display her less than superior intelligence on Saturday when she tweeted that the Electoral College was a “shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.”

There are many reasons one could validly employ in arguing that the Electoral College ought not be used in selecting the President. Those arguments include the underrepresentation of urban areas and the apparent inconsistency of a victorious president who fails to win the popular vote.  I understand these arguments and am willing to debate against them.  But claiming that the Electoral College represents some outcrop of slavery is not merely an immensely unsubstantiated charge, its promotion serves only to reveal its proponent’s complete ignorance.

The Electoral College is a method by which the President of the United States is elected that employs electoral votes instead of popular votes.  Those electoral votes are loosely proportional to each state’s population and serve to grant slightly greater weight to those less populous states; states that tend to be more agrarian in nature.

The Electoral College is an outcrop of the tension between those larger, more commercial states and those smaller, more agrarian states at the time of our nation’s founding.  Although those states were largely separated by latitudes back then, today the battle lines are more properly drawn between the urban coastal centers and the nation’s agrarian midsection, erasing whatever shadows Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may be divining.

Moreover, the selection of the Electoral College as the system by which the President is chosen springs from the philosophical presumption that the President of the United States answers to the states.  It is because he or she is subservient to the states that the states ought to be given the responsibility of electing the President.  This concept was a foundational precept for the nation’s creation.

But if her wildly erroneous comment about the Electoral College and slavery’s power were insufficient to demonstrate her ignorance, her charge that it “undermines our nation as a democratic republic” does.

The Electoral College is the centerpiece of our republican system of government because it places an extra tier of representation within the democratic process.  Not only is each state a republican system of government, but also by making sure that the states elect the President, we have essentially created a second republic.  This concept of multiple republics under the auspices of a larger one is the essence of federalism and provides an extra layer of protection for the minority.

For Ocasio-Cortez not to recognize these concepts as the Democratic candidate in a general election defies belief.  Quite frankly, the notion that any district within this great Republic would ever cast its vote for her is even more inexplicable.


Poll: Almost a Third of Millennials Identify as Socialists

The History Russians and Communists Want Us to Forget

RELATED VIDEO: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls to abolish Electoral College

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

For Kagan, Only The Illusion Of Impartiality Is Important

Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court is no more impartial or neutral a body than Congress itself.

I have heard it said so many times that the Supreme Court’s opinion is the final word on a legal issue. The contention is that because justices are neutral arbiters of the law and draw up their conclusions based on legal tenants equally applicable to all, then the answers they give us must be the “correct” position on a matter.

In reality that supposition is erroneous. If the judicial process is truly driven by such neutrally applicable and neutrally applied principles, then why so many 5-4 opinions on politically charged questions? As a matter of fact, why even have an appellate court?

In school, we were taught that appellate courts existed to see whether a judge made an error in law during a trial. That contention may be true, but in the really important cases, the ones touching our fundamental relationships with government, the appellate judge is not being asked to review whether the trial judge forgot to consider a certain statute or whether he or she was correct in ruling a piece of evidence inadmissible. The question before the appellate court is whether the lower judge was wrong in believing a law or action to be constitutional. This question is not so much a legal one as it is a political one.

In reality, there are no immutable legal principles. They are all subject to the taint of judicial interpretation and application subject to the philosophical slant of the presiding judge or judges.  Think of legal jurisprudence not as black versus white but as containing every shade of color imaginable and then arguing about the particular shade employed in a certain case. That’s politics. That’s the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the whole reason the nation has been subjected to the traumatic Kavanaugh confirmation process is because liberals know the Court is inherently political. As a matter of fact, if the Court were not political, then what difference does it make who sits on the bench?

The fact is that the inhabitants of the Court and their political views are quintessentially important to those who wish to use the Courts to fashion the laws of the land. And therein lies the motivation for all the nonsense we have recently seen.

In a women’s conference at Princeton University last week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said,

“It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply an extension of a terribly polarizing process.”

Important to whom?

Notice that Justice Kagan did not say that it was important for the Court to guard its impartiality or neutrality. Rather, it was the reputation of impartiality about which she worried. Indeed, when it comes to the promise of impartiality and the Court, the only thing there is for liberals to worry about is the illusion of impartiality. That’s because the Court is in fact not impartial.

And why is it so important for liberals to preserve the reputation of impartiality in the Court?  Because as long as the Court is viewed as a pillar of impartiality and neutral legal assessment, it will be able to keep its chokehold over the other branches of government — a chokehold that was never given to it by the Constitution, but rather acquired by fiat through the legal opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall.

In his letter to William Charles Jarvis regarding Jarvis’s book, Thomas Jefferson derailed the idea of the Court being a neutral arbiter of laws. “You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” he said. “A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” (emphasis added)

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has demonstrated that every judge is tainted with his or her own personal political philosophy and that his or her politics colors every opinion and ruling he or she makes. Now that we can acknowledge this fundamental fact, it is time to enact a correction to the Constitution that places a check on this inherently political body. It’s time to allow the Court’s opinions to come under the scrutiny of those who are actually elected into office. It’s time to fashion a supermajority legislative override of Supreme Court opinions. And Jefferson would agree.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Escape Artiste on Unsplash.

Fellow Alum of Andrew Gillum’s running mate: “[Chris] King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple.”

Florida State Representative Randy Fine went to Harvard College with Chris King. King was named by Socialist Andrew Gillum to be his running mate for governor of the Sunshine State.

In a Sun Sentinel op-ed titled “Why Chris King’s comments matter and why as a fellow Harvard alum I know” Representative Fine wrote:

In 1998, while a student at Harvard College, Chris King ran for president of the Harvard student government, the Undergraduate Council. He lost. In reflecting on his campaign the following year in a Newhouse News Service article, King blamed the Harvard Student newspaper, the Crimson, for his loss. “I was nailed to the cross,” said King, in referring to the coverage of his race by the Crimson. “And most of the editorial staff that was so hard on me, the vast majority were Jewish.”

After the comment surfaced earlier this year during his ill-fated race for governor, King did not deny making the statement, apologized and claimed it was “at odds with [his] beliefs.”

Baloney. King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple. I’ll tell you how I know. I was a Harvard undergraduate around the same time as King. I graduated in 1996; two years before King’s ill-fated election. I was involved in the Undergraduate Council as well, and I even had my own run-ins with the Crimson. Oh, and I’m Jewish.

Read more.

Representative Fine states:

So why would Andrew Gillum select someone with King’s record, when there were so many other options? Because he either shares those views or is willing to tolerate people with those views. You don’t cavort with CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in financing terrorism — or work with the Dream Defenders, modern day anti-Semites who openly glorify terrorists, if you don’t subscribe to it.

If Andrew Gillum and Chris King are elected, how will they treat our large Jewish population here in Florida? No one can question Ron DeSantis’ record on supporting Israel and fighting anti-Semitism.

Read more.

In a FrontPage Magazine article titled “Who Is Andrew Gillum?” Discover The Networks reports on the school and political background of King’s running mate Gillum stating:

A few days ago, 39-year-old Andrew Gillum – the Tallahassee, Florida mayor who proudly embraces the socialist political and economic agenda of Bernie Sanders – won his party’s gubernatorial primary race in that state. This sets the stage for November, when Gillum will face Republican Ron DeSantis in the election for governor. Gillum’s campaign has been endorsed not only by Sanders, but also by Our Revolution, an activist organization that explicitly promotes the Vermont senator’s agenda.

Gillum has a long history of political activism that stretches back to his school days. When he was enrolled at Florida A&M University, for instance, he was very active in the Student Government Association. In early 2000, Gillum helped organize a large “March on Tallahassee” to protest Governor Jeb Bush’s 1999 executive order abolishing affirmative action in state university admissions and state contracting. To reward Gillum’s activism vis-a-vis this and other matters, the Center for Policy Alternatives recognized him as the nation’s top student leader in 2001.

In 2002, Gillum became the Florida Field Organizer with the People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF), spearheading its “Arrive With 5” initiative – a pro-Democrat voter-mobilization campaign whereby young people pledged to bring five additional voters with them to the polls on Election Day.

Read more.

Discover the Networks lists Gillum’s positions on a variety of key political issues:

  • strongly favors the expansion of Obamacare as a step toward a government-run, single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” healthcare system;
  • strongly favors government-enforced affirmative action policies designed to compensate nonwhites and women for the effects of past and present discrimination;
  • strongly favors a steeply progressive income-tax structure where high earners pay disproportionately high rates, and where corporate taxes are increased significantly;
  • strongly favors the implementation of a pathway-to-citizenship for illegal aliens;
  • strongly favors the enactment of carbon taxes, higher CAFE standards for automobiles, and federal funding for the research-and-development of wind and solar power technology;
  • strongly opposes Voter ID laws as racist schemes that are designed to suppress minority voting;
  • believes that the enactment of voucher programs through which low-income parents can take their children out of substandard public schools and send them instead to superior private schools, constitutes bad public policy;
  • believes that the availability of guns should be severely restricted, even for law-abiding citizens who have never been convicted of a crime, and that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee Americans the right to possess a firearm;
  • supports a complete ban on so-called “assault weapons”;
  • believes that the federal government should inject large amounts of funding – in the form of cash as well as federal job-creation programs – to help the U.S. economy recover from downturns that it may experience;
  • believes that the nationalization of banks and corporations is more appropriate than government bailouts of those entities when they fail economically;
  • calls for a national $15-per-hour minimum wage requirement for all workers; and
  • advocates the repeal of Florida’s “stand-your-ground” gun laws which permit people to use deadly force if they feel that their lives are threatened by an aggressor or assailant.

“Gillum also has released a video demanding that President Trump be impeached because he allegedly “obstructed justice” by firing former FBI Director James Comey.” notes Discover The Networks.

Anti-Semitic Chris King teams up with Socialist Andrew Gillum. You just can’t make this stuff up.


Andrew Gillum’s ‘Maoist’ Support Network

FL GOP Gives 10 Reasons Andrew Gillum is Too Radical/Corrupt for Governor but Misses Number 11

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Democrat running mate Chris King’s Facebook page.

The Secret’s Out: Corporate America Is Standing With Soros & Steyer Against American Values

George Soros and Tom Steyer are two of conservative America’s biggest boogeyman. Each has donated untold millions to various liberal groups — including election efforts — to turn America against its core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But corporate America is just as bad. For just one example, Levi Strauss — the iconic designer of jeans for blue-collar, hard-working Americans — launched a Get Out The Vote ad. It was bad enough that their 2ndVote rank is “1” in the five areas where they engage in politics. It was worse when they put $1 million to push gun control. Now they’re outright telling Americans to vote for Levi’s liberal agenda.

The ACLU has likewise become part of the Democratic Party/left-wing smear machine. Rather than stick to their historically left-leaning civil rights principles, they put $1 million into an ad accusing Brett Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein. That ad went into five states to target five Senators the ACLU believes could be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is only one solution to stopping the Soros-Steyer-Corporate left-wing charge, and that’s to create a culture of informed 2ndVoters. Tell your family, friends, and neighbors how their shopping habits have real economic and political power. Urge them to use that power by backing good companies and abandoning bad ones.

Corporate America and allegedly “non-partisan” non-profits like the ACLU think they’re pulling a fast one on the American people. Let them know they’re wrong today, tomorrow, and after election day with your network’s 2ndVote power.

Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

The Political Pasts of the Lawyers Representing Kavanaugh Accusers

The lawyers for the three women accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct all have been on the legal battlefields of either celebrity or politics.

One ran for office multiple times as a Democrat. Another was a federal appointee of both Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Still another defended the alleged misconduct of Democrat politicians.

Kavanaugh has denied allegations made by each woman.

Here’s a look at the political pasts of the lawyers representing the accusers in one of the most politically charged Supreme Court confirmation processes in recent times.

From Iran Contra Prosecutor to McCabe Advocate

Michael Bromwich is one of the lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford. Bromwich and another lawyer, Debra Katz, sat on either side of Ford during the Sept. 27 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford claims that in the early 1980s, during a small gathering of teens, a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and forcefully tried to remove her clothing.

Before going into private practice, Bromwich was a prominent federal prosecutor.

In the 1980s, he served as associate counsel for the Office of Independent Counsel during its investigation of the Iran-contra affair.

He was one of three courtroom lawyers leading the prosecution against Lt. Col. Oliver North, then a National Security Council aide. North’s conviction was overturned on appeal in 1990.

In 1994, Clinton nominated Bromwich and the Senate confirmed him as inspector general for the Justice Department. The Office of Inspector General acts as the internal watchdog to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse, and in some cases, make a criminal referral.

A little over a decade later, Obama tapped Bromwich to lead an effort to reform the Minerals Management Service in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 off the Gulf of Mexico.

Bromwich oversaw reorganization of the agency to eliminate conflicts among its different missions, which included establishing safety standards, regulating industry compliance, and collecting royalties, according to the Obama White House.

Starting this year, Bromwich began representing Andrew McCabe, who had been deputy FBI director under James Comey since 2016 and, for a short time after President Donald Trump fired Comey, was the acting FBI director.

McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, ran an unsuccessful campaign for state Senate in Virginia, receiving about $500,000 from a political action committee run by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a political ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bromwich, the Justice Department’s former inspector general, represented McCabe as he was under a probe by the current Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General that determined he was not honest with investigators.

The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that McCabe be fired. Attorney General Jeff Sessions followed up by firing him.

Bromwich consistently has contributed to Democrats, including Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He also has made donations to the Democratic National Committee.

Bromwich did not respond to email and phone inquiries.

Defender of Al Franken and Bill Clinton

Debra Katz has hit the talk show circuit, speaking up for Ford’s allegations more than Bromwich has. And she is no stranger to commenting for the media.

Last year, Katz provided commentary defending Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., before he resigned in disgrace after multiple reports of groping women.

“Context is relevant,” Katz said about Franken. “He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”

In the 1990s, Katz was also a strong defender of Bill Clinton amid charges of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones.

In April 1999, Katz said on “CBS Evening News”:

Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim.

Katz also talked about the Jones case to The New York Times in March 1998.

“If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment, I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case,” Katz told the Times.

Clinton eventually settled his case with Jones, and was found in contempt of federal court.

In a follow up point in the Times, Katz continued: “If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”

Katz is a donor to Obama’s presidential campaigns and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and to numerous Democratic congressional candidates across the country.

In a Facebook post in March 2017, Katz, referring to a Hillary Clinton line during the campaign, said of advisers to President Donald Trump: “These people are all miscreants. The term ‘basket of deplorables’ is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors.”

Katz did not respond to phone and email inquiries.

He Has an Eye on 2020

While most of the lawyers involved in the Kavanaugh accusations have a past in politics, Michael Avenatti hints at a significant political future.

Avenatti already has asserted that he is considering running for president in 2020.

Over the past year, he has built a high-profile legal resume to raise his name recognition, making well more than 100 TV appearances.

One of his clients, Julie Swetnick, made the most serious accusation against Kavanaugh—one that the nominee and current D.C. Circuit Court judge called a farce.

Swetnick claims in an affidavit that when she was a young adult, she was present at multiple parties where Kavanaugh, as a high school student, participated in gang rapes.

She said that she eventually was gang-raped at one of the parties she attended. She said she couldn’t remember whether Kavanaugh was one of her attackers—only that he was present at that party.

Avenatti also represents porn star Stormy Daniels, a stage name for Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had a consensual one-night stand with Trump in 2006. Daniels was trying to get out of a nondisclosure agreement that she signed shortly before the 2016 election.

While in college and later in law school, Avenatti worked for Rahm Emanuel’s Democratic-affiliated opposition research firm the Research Group. Emanuel is now mayor of Chicago.

However, most of Avenatti’s career has been with the entertainment industry in Los Angeles, where he once sued businessman Trump.

Avenatti wasn’t a major political donor, but contributed to the presidential campaign of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry’s presidential campaign, and at least one of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaigns.

Democratic Candidate

Deborah Ramirez claims that as a college freshman Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a party when they were both students at Yale.

The two lawyers representing her, according to reports, are Stan Garnett and John Clune, both of Colorado.

Garnett is a former district attorney for Colorado’s 20th Judicial District in Boulder County, an elected office he held for about a decade, according to an online biography.

In 2010, Garnett was the Democratic nominee for Colorado attorney general. He lost the race to Republican John Suthers.

In private practice during 2003, Garnett represented Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., in his capacity as an individual in the case of Salazar v. Davidson, which led to a court’s striking down a redistricting plan approved by a Republican-led state legislature.

He contributed to Democratic congressional candidates across the country, and also to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

High-Profile Cases

Clune, also an attorney for Ramirez, hasn’t been as transparently political as most of the other lawyers involved in the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Many of his high-profile cases involve sexual assault, however.

Clune has represented students and families on campus rape and Title IX matters.

Clune represented clients alleging sexual assault in civil litigation against pro basketball’s Kobe Bryant, as well as in a civil lawsuit against pro baseball’s Johan Santana and several actions against schools alleging Title IX violations.

In 2009, Clune co-founded and served as the first legal director for Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, a pro-bono nonprofit organization dedicated to enforcing the rights of crime victims, according to an online biography.


Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.


Sen. Flake, I Was Assaulted by a Stranger. Here’s Why I Want Kavanaugh Confirmed.

I Was a Crime Reporter in Maryland in the Early ’80s. I Never Heard of Teen Gang-Rape Parties

The Daily Signal Podcast: The Media’s Shameful Handling of Kavanaugh Accusations

Harvard Students Want Kavanaugh Banned From Public Life, Because of #MeToo

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with all images was republished with permission. The featured image of Christine Blasey Ford is joined by her lawyers, Debra Katz, left, and Michael Bromwich as she testified Sept. 27 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Katz and Bromwich both have partisan pasts. (Photo: Win McNamee/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Will Hyatt actually comply with Sharia law by banning groups that criticize Islam?

Muslim groups have won their first major victory in censoring Judeo-Christian and patriotic groups that hold meetings in hotels.  Hyatt plans to ban certain “hate groups” after Muslim Advocates pressed hotels to stop doing business with them.   Such a ban follows the Sharia tenet which calls for strong punishment of anyone who criticizes Islam or Muhammad.  Sharia law, which is a combination of the Quran and fatwas, calls for punitive treatment of people who insult Islam. published an article titled Hyatt hotels won’t rent to hate groups, CEO says; Muslim group claims a victory.  The article states in part:  Hyatt Hotels Corp., one of the nation’s largest hotel companies, announced it will no longer host hate groups at its nearly 800 properties, a move that was praised by a Muslim advocacy group.   Act for America, a strong advocate for preserving America’s constitutional republic, was the subject of heavy Muslim contention reported in the LA Times article.  Act for America opposes the infiltration of Sharia law into America public policy and law. reports in part that CAIR wants Corporate America to ban associations with groups that openly criticize Islam. reports in part:

Derrick Morrow, Hyatt’s area vice president and general manager of the Hyatt Crystal City, implied to HuffPost that it would be illegal for the hotel to discriminate against the group by declining to hold their conference.

Robert McCaw, government affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, tells DCist that isn’t true. He points to Airbnb’s decision to boot white supremacists from their platform before “Unite the Right 2.” And last year, white supremacist Richard Spencer had so much trouble booking a hotel for his conference that he had to hold it in his office in Alexandria.

McCaw argues that the Hyatt, and other hotels and event spaces, should treat this group the way they would any other hate group.  “I wouldn’t see the Hyatt providing rooms to the Ku Klux Klan,” McCaw says. “So why are they providing it to these guys?” further reported:  It was not clear from Hyatt’s statement how the hotel company planned to determine which groups promote hate, but it added:

“This is a complex and emotional issue, but what we’ve concluded is that we need to commit to a higher level of vetting such that groups using hate speech, primarily seeking to disparage or demean a particular group, are not welcome in our hotels.”

The Council on American Islamic Relations has hundreds of articles posted on its news release web page that openly and aggressively attack government officials, companies, teachers, professors, candidates for office and individuals who dare say anything negative about Islam, Sharia law or Muhammad.

Where is Hyatt’s concern about the people CAIR attacks?

CAIR pushes an Islamist agenda which includes forcing Corporate America and Government Agencies to recognize various tenets of Sharia law.   Many tenets of Sharia law are antithetical to the rights afforded all Americans under the United States Constitution.

Reverend Franklin Graham

There are dozens of organizations and thousands of churches across American that openly express concerns about the Islamist political agenda and Islamic terrorism.

Muslim activists recently called on the United Kingdom Parliament to ban Reverend Franklin Graham entrance into Great Britain because he called Islam “evil” and “wicked.”

Will Hyatt ban groups led by Reverend Franklin Graham?

Given CAIR’s radical history, links to terrorism and hostility towards opponents of Islam it is outrageous that Hyatt has adopted such an anti-First Amendment, anti-America public policy.  Will Hyatt actually enforce its ban against groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda?

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors about its policy to ban groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda.  Please feel free to change the Subject line and Email Content.

Click here to send your email to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors about its policy to ban groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda.

For contact information click here.

Trump Proves To Be The Greatest Weapon For The American Worker

President Trump’s first and most enduring promise has been kept, and the American worker can rejoice.

A deal experts said was dead in the water materialized last weekend when Canada announced it had reached an agreement with the United States to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The deal came about as a frustrated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a late night meeting with his cabinet. Indeed, the materialization of an agreement serving to improve America’s trade position in North America would not have occurred were it not for the negotiating prowess and vision of President Donald Trump.

The workings of the trade deal date back to before President Trump’s election; actually from before he even started his campaign. For years, Trump voiced his frustration at the United States’ involvement in deals that were hurting the American worker. Calling them “bad deals,” Trump expressed his befuddlement at how politicians could agree to such catastrophic trade deals. NAFTA quickly became a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign for president and the object of his ridicule. But it should be remembered it was also a centerpiece of his speeches long before he came down the elevator.

Upon assuming power, President Trump wasted no time threatening the stability of NAFTA by announcing his intention to pull the United States out of it. Predictably, the naysayers took to the airwaves, arguing that NAFTA was a creator of jobs. Investor Dennis Gartman called such a move, “egregiously stupid,” and CNBC proudly published his opinion. Meanwhile at Forbes Magazine, Professor J. Bradford DeLong called the prospect of leaving NAFTA, “a disaster” while Stuart Anderson, the author of the article, mocked Trump by stating that visual aids were needed to teach the President why leaving NAFTA was a bad idea. Anderson held nothing back when he concluded, “Donald Trump does not know much about the trade agreement he has so frequently criticized.”

Undeterred, President Trump continued to place his disapproval of NAFTA at the center of public discourse. Recognizing his greater advantage over Mexico, he then pealed America’s southern neighbor into a separate agreement that did not include Canada calling it a “terrific agreement for everybody.”

With the Mexican trade deal solidified, Trump turned his attention to Canada, this time suggesting that he might leave Canada out of the deal if it did not negotiate.

Canada remained defiant. “We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class,” said a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. For Canada, there were a number of sticking points to a new deal. First the NAFTA dispute resolution process that protected the cultural exemptions was “fundamental.” This “exemption” protected Canadian artistic products, including media outlets. Understandably, Canadians feel threatened that American networks might buy Canadian media affiliates and essentially control their media coverage. Further, the abandonment of Canada’s tariffs on American dairy products was considered too great a threat to be acceptable.

But President Trump remained undeterred. He imposed an Oct. 1 deadline upon Canada, insisting that if it did not provide the text for a new trade deal to the United States Congress by that time he would move ahead with the deal with Mexico and exclude Canada.

Trudeau did the only thing he could and called for “common sense to prevail.” He appealed to Canada’s partners, including the European Union, to ramp up their pressure on the United States. But the reality was that Canada could ill afford to be kept out of a new North American trade agreement. The Canadian dollar was weakening, and the prospect of Canada continuing without a treaty seemed like a doomsday scenario for its economy; and for Trudeau’s impending reelection.

With negotiations seemingly hopelessly stalled as recently as late September, Canadian negotiators went to work. And by Sunday, Sept. 30, the two countries agreed to terms.

The new agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is nothing short of revolutionary. Among other provisions, the USMCA curbs Canada’s high tariffs and low quotas on American dairy product; drops the percentage of a car needing to be manufactured in China that would still allow it to be considered “North American;” includes provisions that help NFL advertising; and forces Canada and Mexico to respect American drug patents for 10 years. And Canada gets to keep its cultural resolution process exemption.

In a very real sense, the trade deal vindicates President Trump — and the wisdom of the American worker supporting him. He identified a palpable problem in North American trade and placed his political capital on the line to see it terminated. As a result, Trump emerged much stronger, an important perception at a time when he is knee deep in trade negotiations with China. But more importantly, President Trump’s priority of protecting the American worker and improving the environment for American businesses prevailed.

There is also the glaring realization that these new agreements would have never come to fruition without President Trump. The events leading to Sunday’s breakthrough would never have been possible without Trump’s aggressive, even bombastic style. Most importantly, when President Trump said he would walk away from the deal, he was believable, forcing all players to look hard at the possibility of having no deal at all.

Say what you want about President Trump, but he has become America’s greatest weapon in international negotiations, much to the joy of the American worker.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Malte Wingen on Unsplash.