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.

PODCAST: David Harsanyi on America’s Enduring History With the Gun

On today’s show we feature an interview with David Harsanyi, author of the new book “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun.” Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and is a nationally syndicated columnist whose column appears weekly on The Daily Signal.

Also on today’s show:

  • Ken Starr, who served as independent counsel during Bill Clinton’s presidency, discusses impeachment, the Mueller investigation, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
  • We feature your letters to the editor. Don’t forget, your letter could be featured on our show; write us at or call 202-608-6205.
  • And some good news from two of America’s favorite quarterbacks.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunesSoundCloudStitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at

If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show!


Liberal Activists Just Made a Website Using Kavanaugh’s Name. That Could Be Illegal.

After enduring weeks of character attacks and a disgraceful media lynching, Brett Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court. But some activists still aren’t letting it go.

In a new assault on Kavanaugh, a liberal advocacy group has created a website called “”

Instead of containing accurate, truthful information about the justice’s professional credentials and legal career, the webpage instead is about sexual assault. The first thing the viewer sees is a banner headline saying, “We Believe Survivors.”

This is another hit job on Kavanaugh.

Aside from misleading the public about him, this website may very well break the law by constituting an unlawful theft of Kavanaugh’s property interest in his name.

The webpage was put up by a group called Fix the Court, run by Gabe Roth, a former NBC producer who also worked for a left-leaning political consulting firm. Fix the Court is entirely funded by the New Venture Fund, which, according to the Capital Research Center, is a “major funding organization for left-wing organizations as well as the fiscal sponsor of a number of activist groups like [Fix the Court].”

The New Venture Fund has been “criticized as a ‘dark money organization’ for serving as a way for left-wing groups to anonymously funnel money toward advocacy issues, such as attacking Republicans.”

As the Capital Research Center says, although Fix the Court purports to be nonpartisan, “Gabe Roth is highly critical of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.” This is clearly demonstrated in the way Roth used Kavanaugh’s name in the website domain.

Roth has used Fix the Court to push for term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as live television coverage of oral arguments. He has also pushed for a requirement that justices file detailed financial disclosure reports to be published online. (For the record, Fix the Court doesn’t disclose its donors on its own website.)

Roth has said that he believes the claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford despite their inconsistencies, the lack of corroborating evidence, and outright refutations by some of the alleged witnesses.

Congress has shown concern for the misuse of names in website domains. In 1999, it passed a federal law (15 U.S.C. §8131) that allows an individual to sue any person who “registers a domain name that consists of the name of” that individual without his or her consent “with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain.”

Roth may not fall within this federal statute unless it can be proven he registered Kavanaugh’s domain name in order to sell it for financial gain.

But Roth and Fix the Court may still be liable for what they have done. On its website, Fix the Court lists its office as being located in the District of Columbia. Therefore, D.C. law applies to its operations.

The District of Columbia recognizes the common law tort of misappropriation of another person’s name or likeness. In several decisions, including Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s (1985) and Tripp v. U.S. (2003), the D.C. courts have adopted the Second Restatement of the Law on Torts. Section 652C of the restatement provides that anyone “who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.”

The comments to Section 652 make it clear that the interest protected by this rule “is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity.” Unlike the federal statute, a violation does not require that someone like Roth acquire the name in order to make a profit, although there seems little doubt that Roth and Fix the Court may profit from increased donations due to the attention given to the website.

In fact, the restatement says that the rule “is not limited to commercial appropriation.” It applies when a “defendant makes use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for his own purposes and benefits, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one.”

Here, Roth is using the public’s interest in Kavanaugh to benefit his organization by bringing attention, support, and possible donations to Fix the Court and its advocacy against Kavanaugh. That public benefit falls squarely within the rule according to Tripp v. U.S., in which the court pointed out that the types of benefits contemplated under the restatement include “reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest, or other values of the plaintiff’s name or likeness.”

Roth’s use of Kavanaugh’s name is clearly not just “incidental,” and might well violate the misappropriation rule.

This kind of misappropriation of internet domain names of celebrities, government officials, and even ordinary Americans in order to fool the public into going to such a site and reading derogatory or misleading information about that person is another unpleasant and obnoxious misuse of the internet in the social media age.

No one should have a right to use someone else’s name or likeness in this manner. Roth, Fix the Court, and the New Venture Fund should be embarrassed that they are engaging in such deceitful, underhanded, and potentially unlawful behavior.


Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

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: .

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photographs is republished with permission. The feature image is of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/Sipa/Newscom)

A Rape Survivor Just Won the Nobel Peace Prize. ‘Feminists’ Are Nowhere to Be Found.

As feminists were busy peddling their “War on Women” narrative in the U.S., Yazidi sex slave survivor Nadia Murad was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting a real War on Women in the Middle East.

Nadia was honored for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, together with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who has been a relentless healer and advocate for women.

Their stories serve as an important reminder that as American women debate what constitutes enough evidence to block a nominee from taking a seat on the Supreme Court, corroboration and evidence are abundant in places such as northern Iraq, where hundreds of women and girls are still enslaved and routinely subjected to rape.

Nadia was abducted in northern Iraq in August 2014, when ISIS took over her village. Militants gave the Yazidi people—a Kurdish and Arabic-speaking religious minority—two choices: Convert to Islam or die. Refusing to give in, Nadia watched men get massacred and family members march to their graves.

At just 21 years old, she was kidnapped alongside an estimated 3,000 other Yazidi women and girls, traded as sex slaves from one ISIS fighter to another. She was forced to pray, dress up, and apply makeup in preparation for her rape, which was often committed by gangs.

While any comparison between Nadia’s story and the accusations leveled against newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be completely unfair, it is fair to wonder how news of uncorroborated allegations of gang rape brought by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti can overshadow a gang rape survivor-turned-women’s advocate being honored with the most prestigious award in the world.

For years, it seemed the world didn’t care about Nadia’s story and the thousands of others like it. It took two years for then-Secretary of State John Kerry to declare crimes against Yazidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims genocide, and the United Nations as well.

Thousands of Yazidis remain missing, including at least 1,300 women and children, and the question of how to hold ISIS accountable for its unspeakable crimes remains unanswered.

Nadia is a lonely voice in the fight against ISIS genocide. After making the genocide designation, the Obama administration did little to hold ISIS accountable for its crimes or to alleviate the suffering of survivors. The Trump administration is trying to right those wrongs by providing aid to the most vulnerable victims of ISIS genocide, but a lot of work remains to be done.

“The world should bear its moral and legal responsibility and ensure its proper and fair accountability,” Nadia said as she accepted her Nobel Peace Prize. “The sexual violence and conflicts in our towns and cities must be stopped.”

It’s strange how women who self-identify as feminists get so worked up over unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault, yet so callously overlook human rights injustices staring them in the face.

Imagine the difference these “feminists” could make if, in addition to banging on the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, they also took a few minutes to bang at the doors of the United Nations.

In the #MeToo era, feminists are rightly concerned about women being heard. It appears that Nadia’s with them, too.

“My hope is that all women who speak about their stories of sexual violence are heard and accepted, that their voices are heard so they feel safe,” she said.

But Nadia’s story is falling on deaf ears. Because being “heard” requires others to listen.

Listening to a Nobel Peace Prize winner whose mission is to bring back life after being destroyed by sexual violence and war is the least feminists can do as the freest and most liberated women in the world.

Sure, it’s easy to get caught up in the moment. There’s certainly no shortage of issues to debate. But it’s our job as feminists to look beyond ourselves and realize that Nadia’s fight is our fight, no matter what’s happening here in the U.S.


Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal and co-host of “Problematic Women,” a podcast and Facebook Live show. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: .

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and videos is republished with permission. The featured image is of Nadia Murad is a Yazidi human rights activist from Iraq, and the author of the book “The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State.” (Photo: Reuters/Vincent Kessler/File Photo/Newscom)

Is the Vatican Accord with China a Step Forward – or Back?

Ines A. Murzaku: The Sino-Vatican deal on the appointment of bishops, really does resemble, as Pope Francis has suggested, the status quo . . . of the 12th century. 

During the in-flight press conference as he was retuning from the Baltic countries, Pope Francis recalled how kings and emperors once controlled bishops’ appointments. He expressed relief that these regrettable situations have ended: “We forget that for 350 years it was the king of Portugal and of Spain to appoint the bishops and the Pope only gave jurisdiction. We forget the case of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. . . .thanks to God that they aren’t repeated.”

But the question now arises: Is this still the case in Communist China? How will the pontiff appoint bishops? Does the provisional agreement really allow him final say? A case in point: it seems the Communist Chinese government chose to send two bishops to the Synod on Youth – and the Vatican was forced to accept them.

It’s true historically that procedures for appointing bishops were never uniform in all of Christendom. Instead, there was a multiplicity of forms that depended on the historical circumstances of particular countries. The appointment process evolved, however, from being the prerogative of civil authorities to ecclesiastical authorities; until it became the sole decision of the pope.

Who has the right to appoint bishops? The Apostles were the first to appoint bishops, and from the apostolic Church up to 4th century the community of the early Church and the early Christians elected their shepherds. Hippolytus writes: “Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. . . .While all give their consent, the bishops shall lay hands upon him.” (Epistle67)

In the Christian East, the election of the bishop happened in the presence of the metropolitan who served as a judge, checking the qualities and especially the orthodoxy of the elected candidate and those who lay hands upon him.

In the Christian West, the tradition was slightly different: the bishop was often elected with full participation of local clergy and people under the leadership of the ecclesiastical superior.

In the 6th century, the Merovingian kings intervened in ecclesiastical elections. The investiture controversy led to restrictions of the electoral body to the canons of the cathedral chapter. The Second Lateran Council (1139) decreed that the right of election of a bishop was to be restricted to the canons of the cathedral chapter, and other clergy of the diocese have a consultative voice.

The Council of Trent (1545-63) discussed the selections of bishops and provided some norms for the qualifications required in case the appointment came directly from the pope. These procedures proved to be highly inefficient and the appointment of the bishops by the pope became normative afterwards.

The kings of France, Spain, and Portugal, however, continued to appoint bishops while the pope reserved for himself the institutio canonica, or what is known as the right of confirmation, which conferred episcopal jurisdiction on the bishops. These sovereigns were considered unjust usurpers of the right to appoint bishops, which belonged exclusively to the Roman Pontiff.

Photo: AFP

During the entire history of the Church, however, there has been a strong awareness that the appointment of the bishops was an ecclesiastical matter, reserved to the competence of ecclesiastical authorities and not to sovereigns. This principle underscored the importance of the Church’s freedom and the autonomy from the sovereign and the state.

What followed were many concordats or conventions between the Holy See and various sovereigns. The head of state could designate bishops for the vacant dioceses, but the pope conferred the Institutio canonica. If he satisfied all the qualifications required by Canon Law and was able to fulfil episcopal functions, the candidate designated by the civil authorities could not be refused. In other words, the state was in the driver’s seat, while the pope’s approval was secondary.

This situation changed dramatically at the Second Vatican Council, which called upon civil authorities to renounce previous agreements or concordats with the Holy See and relinquish the rights to select, nominate, or appoint bishops. The Council affirmed the exclusivity and competence of one sole authority to appoint bishops, the Roman Pontiff: “Since the apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ the Lord and pursues a spiritual and supernatural purpose, this sacred ecumenical synod declares that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority. (Christus Dominus)

The text continues:

Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the Church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities. The civil authorities, on the other hand, whose favorable attitude toward the Church the sacred synod gratefully acknowledges and highly appreciates, are most kindly requested voluntarily to renounce the above-mentioned rights and privileges which they presently enjoy by reason of a treaty or custom, after discussing the matter with the Apostolic See.

Moreover, the 1983 Code states: “In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.” (Canon 377)

So, returning to the Sino-Vatican provisional agreement and Holy Father’s speech: Is the Holy Father going against the teaching of Vatican II and going back fifty years? This explains why he said that Sino-Vatican relations are taking “two steps and back one, two ahead and back one.”

The step back is back fifty years, and it might have devastating consequences for the Catholic Church of China. In 1906 Vladimir Lenin published One Step Forward, Two Steps Back – Crisis in Our Party. Lenin was less optimistic in taking steps to remedy the split in his party. Should we say “two steps back and one forward” is symptomatic of a deep crisis in Sino-Vatican relations?

Ines A. Murzaku

Ines A. Murzaku

Ines Angeli Murzaku is Professor of Church History at Seton Hall University. Her extensive research on the history of Christianity, Catholicism, Religious Orders, and Ecumenism has been published in multiple scholarly articles and five books. Her latest book, edited and translated with Raymond L. Capra and Douglas J. Milewski, is The Life of Saint Neilos of Rossano, part of the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library. Dr. Murzaku has been featured frequently in national and international media, newspapers, radio and TV interviews, and blogs.

EDITORS NOTE: © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. The featured photo is by Annie Spratt on Unsplash.


American Values Are the Cure To Leftism

“Donald Trump isn’t the cause; he’s a symptom.”

Prominent leftists across the country parrot that statement often, but it’s most recently been championed by former President Barack Obama. A little over a month ago, Obama took the podium at the University of Illinois and echoed that exact sentiment to a crowd of sheep—that Trump is merely a symptom of the divide in our country, not the cause of it. The audience responded with mindless applause. Little did they know, Obama implicated himself, his party, and his ideology as the plague on our society.

Barack Obama

Obama’s assertion, then, begs the question: Who is the cause? And what exactly is Donald Trump a symptom of?

Radical leftists have long spent their days seeking control over individuals’ lives, pocket books, and freedoms, but since the turn of the 21st century, radical leftism in the United States has accelerated into the mainstream of the Democrat party and is looking to systematically dismantle the rights and values Americans have held since the colonists declared their independence.

Beginning in 2008, we experienced an Obama presidency that enabled leftism to sink into every facet of our lives. Political correctness and left-wing ideology infected governmental philosophy and the halls of Congress for generations previous. Radical rhetoric festered inside Washington, D.C., but rarely did it extend so far that it planted its roots so deeply into our daily lives.

White House

Gradually, we saw sporting events, the National Anthem, TV shows, and music take a downward turn toward the extreme left. Traditional values and American principles were scoffed at, and so-called “progressives” treated those who held said values with disdain, calling them bigots, xenophobes and homophobes. Leftists saw Heartland Americans—people found in Hillary’s basket of deplorables—as little more than ignorant rubes who clung to their god and their guns.

The left spread lethal lies and deadly rhetoric about law enforcement. They were disrespected as a whole, and children were raised to mistrust them, which gave rise to radical groups like Black Lives Matter and paved the way for a massacre of Dallas police officers.

Police Car

Trump is undoubtedly a symptom as well, but he’s not a symptom that indicates how far our country has fallen. Donald Trump is a symptom of our recovery. He’s a symptom that demonstrates America—the America the Founders envisioned—is beginning to wake up. He’s the sign that there is a cure to toxic liberalism.

NRA President LtCol Oliver North has found the cure.

The cure to the ills Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have inflicted upon our country is the Constitution. The cure is an American people who respect law and order, who cling to their god and their guns, who view America as the greatest country on the face of the earth.


The cure is people like Mark Robinson, a law-abiding citizen who stood for the Second Amendment. This is a man who had never owned a firearm, never was never a member of the NRA, yet he saw a fundamental right being chipped away and refuse to be silent.

The cure to mob rule and the violent left is people like Stephen Willeford, who responsibly own and bear arms for the defense of themselves, their families and their communities.

The cure to extreme leftism and socialist policies is people like Roozbeh Farahanipour, who experienced extremist tyranny first-hand and led a student revolt against the Iranian government. It’s people like Roozbeh who know what authoritarianism looks like and have stared it in the face, willing to be tortured and imprisoned if it means protecting their rights.

The cure to governmental overreach is people like Lucretia Hughes, who recognize that our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are given by our Creator and that they cannot and must not be taken away from us.

After eight years of an America under the weather, we’ve found the cure.

We are the cure.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with all images is republished with permission.

Racism, Sexual Assault Hypocrisy, & Mob Rule: The Planned Parenthood Approach

Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion company. It is also one of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups in the country.

That advocacy didn’t prevent Brett Kavanaugh from getting on the U.S. Supreme Court. But it did show corporate backers of Planned Parenthood that they are standing with racism, sexual assault hypocrisy, and mob rule.


This Tweet says it all, and the Rewire piece goes straight into wondering why white women aren’t dedicated supporters of liberal accusations of sexual assault and Democratic Party nominees named Hillary Clinton (no irony was included in the piece related to sexual assault accusations and the spouse of Hillary Clinton). The piece also says, “Throughout history, white women—including those who identify as feminists—have routinely thrown people of color under the bus to advance their own interests.”

Got it? White women are racist and self-interested, according to Planned Parenthood. (As opposed to Planned Parenthood, which uses half-a-billion taxpayer dollars to slaughter unborn babies for, what, altruism?) Additionally, white women allegedly vote how their husbands want them to.

To put it another way — Planned Parenthood and liberals at Rewire want women to make their own decisions, unless those decisions go against liberal preferences.

Hating Sexual Assault When It’s Convenient

According to Planned Parenthood when it retweeted NARAL, “we believe survivors.”

This is convenient for Planned Parenthood. During political campaigns and debates, it believes survivors. When it comes to their own abortion centers, Planned Parenthood has no problem covering up sexual assaultEven for those who abuse minors.

Mob Rule Instead of Republic Representation

Democracy has often been described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. This is why America is a representative republic, with competing interests in our political system to ensure that the wolves don’t always agree — and, thus, Americans could be free.

Planned Parenthood appears to be ignorant of this basic piece of American history. Check out these Tweets, the last two which were retweeted by Planned Parenthood:

Putting Politics Ahead of America

We want to make two last points about Planned Parenthood’s actions here. First, in supporting the Women’s March organization, Planned Parenthood is aligned with an activist group which is so anti-conservative and so incompetent that its initial anti-Kavanaugh press release had “XX” instead of Kavanaugh’s name because it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated. The Women’s March organizers were always going to take this route of aggressive and unethical opposition.

More importantly, Planned Parenthood’s support for mob rule clearly only applies when in support of the abortion giant’s goals. It has supported so-called “buffer zones” across the country — here’s just one example — which prevent pro-life activists from using free speech to advocate against abortion.

Yet corporations continue to blindly stand with Planned Parenthood. This cannot continue. It is long past time for corporations to put their money towards hiring Americans instead of killing them, and towards giving raises instead of deadly political activism.

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.

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.

Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema: “I don’t care” if Muslims go fight for Taliban against U.S.

The Left hates America, and considers “right-wing extremists,” a term all too often applied to American patriots, far more of a threat than jihad terrorists. It used to be that this fact was dismissed as hysterical hyperbole. Now it is becoming increasingly clear.

Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema

“Senate Dem hopeful Kyrsten Sinema said ‘I don’t care’ if people go to fight for Taliban against US,” by Lukas Mikelionis, Fox News, October 10, 2018:

An old interview has surfaced with Arizona senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, in which she co-hosted a show with a conspiracy theorists who blames 9/11 on the US. Government. Sinema separately said she didn’t object to individuals going abroad and fighting for groups hostile to the U.S.

U.S. Democratic Senate hopeful Kyrsten Sinema said “I don’t care” if people go and fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan in a newly resurfaced radio interview and co-hosted a radio show with a conspiracy theorist who claimed the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were perpetrated by the government, Fox News can reveal.

Sinema appeared on a radio show in February 2003 hosted by Ernest Hancock, a libertarian activist who presented “The Valley of the Sun” program on a local Arizona radio station.

During the interview, Sinema told the host that she didn’t object to individuals going abroad and fighting for groups hostile to the U.S.

“As an individual, if I want to go fight in the Taliban army, I go over there, and I’m fighting for the Taliban, I’m saying that’s a personal decision,” Hancock told Sinema, who was then a Green Party activist.

“Fine. I don’t care if you go and do that, go ahead,” she replied, according to the audio recording obtained by Fox News.

In the same interview, Sinema said the U.S. military went into the Middle East for “a number of reasons,” including “oil, power, control” of the region.

“There’s also, what I think is rather convenient, which is the switch and bait theory, which is, don’t pay attention to the falling economy, don’t pay attention to the tax cuts for wealthy, let’s pay attention to this horrible imminent threat,” she added.

Just two months after the interview and a month after the start of the Iraq War, she told the Arizona Republic that “we should feel compassion” for enemy combatants killed in the country….

RELATED ARTICLE: Exposed: Democratic Senate Candidate Has Damaging Tweets and Speeches Surface

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. Republished with permission. The featured photo is from Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema’s Facebook page.

A Case of Calumny

Marya Farah, legal research consultant with a human rights organization in the West Bank, was a visiting speaker at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) School of Law, on October 11.  The event was held in the Moot Court, yet “moot” or “debate” was discreetly discouraged.  We learned that the woman with the mic was told not to extend it to those whose opinions might prove inconsistent with the speaker’s narrative.

Professor of Law Avi Cover invited Farah to address students seeking Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and aptly served as her “cover” when she would decline to address certain issues.  A self-described Palestinian, she has come to delegitimize and denigrate Israel and the international Jewish community; this is stealth jihad.  She repeatedly spoke of Israel as the occupiers of areas she referenced as “occupied Palestinian territories” (OPT), and supports boycott-divestment-sanctions, BDS, against the Jewish state, ignoring the 4,000-year history of Jewish presence, preceding Christianity and Islam by more than two millennia.  Clearly not expansionist, Israel’s legality stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments accepted by the international community.  Her boundaries have changed only as a result of her winning a defensive war against the armed aggression of five Arab countries.

Here it should be noted that the Palestinian nomenclature designation is the largest hoax of the Twentieth Century, and it continues today as part of the plan to eradicate the Jewish State, taking control of small parts at a time.  The territories are neither “occupied” nor Palestinian; there is no Palestinian sovereignty.

One slide was described as a section of the wall that separates Israel from “Palestine,” and its serious inconvenience to the Palestinians.  Farah did not say why the wall exists; it was begun in 2002 to protect Israel’s citizens when Arab terror attacks had reached unprecedented levels.  Neither did she mention the considerable expense to Israelis to fund the barriers, bomb shelters, and all manner of security measures, so this wall is no frivolous undertaking.  Of course, despite the protective barrier, Palestinians have killed or maimed many thousands of Israelis through suicide bombings, stabbings, explosives, rocket fire and mortar shells, and most recently the use of incendiary balloons and fire kites that have destroyed more than 3,000 acres of forestry and agricultural land, livestock, wild animals, homes and industry – not to mention lung ailments from the smoke and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.

The speaker also criticized the color-coded license plates on cars that made it difficult for friends from different city sections to meet but failed to explain that the color-coding is necessary to distinguish the vehicle of a potential terrorist.  She spoke of the inconvenient road system, but not that they were designed to ensure safe access by Arabs and Israelis alike, and thwart Arab rock throwers from hitting passing Israeli cars and causing damage and deaths.  Another gripe was the tiresome checkpoints, again without clarifying their purpose of preventing armed terrorists from entering crowded places.

Another slide was one of bulldozer moving earth on a deep embankment, which she identified as the destruction of homes.  Houses are destroyed if built illegally, and when they are the homes of the families of martyred killers of Israelis. Israel has learned that this destruction is the greatest deterrent to terrorism because families will actually report a potential terrorist in order to avoid losing their home.  The excavator might also have been demolishing a terror tunnel, through which terrorists gain underground access into Israel proper, to kill Jewish children and families.

Farah lamented the assault and war (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, attacked Israel) that immediately followed Israel’s Independence in 1948 – and the 462,000 to 750,000 Arabs who remained homeless.  However, they had been commanded to leave by the Arab military leaders, with a promise of return upon the Arab victory.  Another 160,000 Arabs accepted Israel’s invitation to stay and live as Israeli citizens.  It is the subsequent generations of those who fled that are now hostages for negotiation.  No one cited the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab lands around the same time.  They were absorbed by Israel and some European countries, not held as displaced pawns.  The war of 1967 was yet another attack by five Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq) on Israel, yet Marya Farah said this was a war over water rights!  Absolutely not.

We spoke to Professor Cover after the event and Q&A.  He posited that he wants no barriers around Israel and that it was unjust that the many were inconvenienced because of the actions of the few. The Koran still commands death to Jews, and weaponizes their children to kill Jews. If, indeed, only 10 percent of the Palestinians were overcoming the border wall with firebombs and explosive devices, launching thousands of arson kites and booby-trapped incendiary balloons into Israeli communities, they are still killing indispensable people and wild-life.  Would the American citizens accept being blown up in coffee houses, pizzarias and schools by the 10 percent, or would they demand that their government protect them?

I am most dismayed at the American professor who identifies with a people who yell, “Death to Israel,” and “Death to America,” while expressing no sympathy for America’s steadfast ally, Israel, whose people are consistently attacked and slaughtered.

Finally, I also had a moment to ask Farah where, exactly, was her country of Palestine and when was it established.  She hesitated only momentarily and said she would not deal with a challenging question, and that I was denying her identity as a human being.  No, but the land is not “occupied” by Israelis.  Israel’s legal presence has been accepted by virtue of her history, documentation, and that the Jews’ built a thriving nation out of desert and malarial swampland; the only illegality is the “Palestinian” presence.  By this time, she had backed away so much, that she was against a wall, inviting others to queue up to her new position.

In summation, we heard not one iota of truth during the entire session.  I fault the school’s programming director, Professor Avi Cover, and his choice of speaker, who together altered the facts of every sub-topic raised.  This was no impartial criticism of a country or its policies, but anti-Zionist revisionism.  How is it that pure propaganda is acceptable for a CLE class?  How are the students perceived to benefit?  How did this activity qualify for law credit?  The majority of the attendees seemed either to not understand or not care to question the allegations, but surely they would remember some of the misinformation; a seed of hate has been sown, and there was no debate from anyone prepared to counter the fallacies.

In addition to current rules by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), and the commitment to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, I recommend that CWRU review the Trump administration’s new definition of antisemitism in schools, which includes the demonization or delegitimization of Israel.  For the sake of academic and intellectual honesty, CWRU is obligated to hold a CLE that presents and defends Israel’s position.

I herewith expressed my indignation at what transpired and asked that the department be called to account.  I look forward to a reply and explanation of how this may be avoided in the future.

(SENT TO:  Sent to: Barbara Snyder, President, CWRU;; and Jessica Berg, Dean of the School of Law;

Democrats Use Hitler’s Propaganda Technique

Folks, I guess I should let this go. But, it still blows my mind that the American left is committed to branding Brett Kavanaugh, without a shred of evidence, a sexual predator for the rest of his life. That is incredibly, cold, calculating and evil.

Adolf Hitler said,

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

This propaganda technique has been embraced by the Democratic party. Here are three huge lies Democrats continue to invest billions worth of media to deceive the public. Big lie number one: America’s cops are racist and routinely murder blacks. Big lie number two: Trump colluded with Russia to steal the presidency from Hillary. Big lie number three: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.

Let’s address Democrats’ big lie that cops kill blacks for being black. Harvard professor Roland Fryer analyzed over 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. Fryer concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. Inner-city black communities are plagued by criminals, not police.

In 2014, over 6000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. These blacks were not killed by whites or cops. They were killed by other blacks.

Researching “deadly force” a study by Washington University’s Lois James revealed that police were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed whites and Hispanics in similar threat scenarios. Federal crime stats show that 12% of whites and Hispanics who die by homicide are killed by cops. Only 4% of black homicide victims are killed by cops.

There is no government agency dedicated to protecting black lives more than the police. Proactive policing in the mid-1990s had a huge impact, bringing down the inner-city murder rate and saving tens of thousands of black lives. Democrats and leftists spread their lie that cops are racist which caused cops to back-off. This resulted in violent crime back on the rise and black lives lost. In cities with large black populations, homicides in 2015 rose from 54% to 90%

Immorally, Democrats, fake news media and Hollywood are still promoting the lie that black criminal Michael Brown was gunned-down by a racist white cop while trying to surrender with his hands up. Blood in the officer’s police car proved Brown was shot while assaulting the police officer inside his car. 

Leftists branding cops racist is a selfish evil scheme to keep blacks falsely believing they are victims in a forever racist America. Leftists’ message to blacks is voting for Democrats is blacks only hope of keeping racist white America at bay. A despicable Democrat get-out-the-vote campaign told black parents that they had better vote or send their elementary students to school wearing bullet proof vests to protect them from racist white police.

Black Lives Matter thugs, funded by George Soros and anti-America groups, continue to ambush and assassinate innocent police officers around the country because of Democrats’ lie that cops kill blacks because they are black.

Democrats’ big lie that Trump stole the presidential election via collusion with Russia. After two years of investigations, there is zero evidence supportive of this absurd Democrat lie. Democrats presented their lie in such a way to make voters believe Russia tampered with the counting of votes which is impossible. Fake news media, Democrats and Hollywood continue to promote their Trump-Russia-Collusion lie 24/7 for the past 2 years; believing American voters will come to believe it – making Trump’s presidency illegitimate.

Democrats’ big lie that conservative Brett Kavanaugh is a sexual predator/serial rapist. This huge lie pulled out of thin air by Democrats is particularly heinous and cruel. Throughout his 30 something year career, Kavanaugh passed seven FBI background checks with flying-colors. Dr Ford who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her 36 years ago does not remember the date, place and other crucial facts regarding her allegation.

And yet, Democrats, fake news media and Hollywood have decreed Kavanaugh guilty simply because this woman said so. Daily piling onto their outrageous allegations, Democrats sought to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the supreme court by branding him a drunk who experienced frequent blackouts in which he participated in group rapes. But get this folks, while these allegations against Kavanaugh are obviously false, Democrats will promote their Kavanaugh is a sexual predator/serial rapist lie for the rest of his life. How truly sick is that?

It bears repeating that leftists use liberal activist justices on the Supreme Court to force laws on voters against their will. Kavanaugh on the court will give conservatives a five to four majority. This is why leftists seek to destroy Kavanaugh, his wife and two daughters at any and all cost.

The mid-term elections are only weeks away. Clearly, Democrats’ big lies prove they are willing to sacrifice decency, morality and human lives in their depraved quest to win and maintain political power. Decent right-thinking Americans cannot possibly want Democrats in control of the peoples’ house and senate. The Democratic party has become the home of the ultra-left and demonically evil. It must be defeated. My fellow Americans, please vote Republican in the swiftly approaching mid-terms.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Brian Wertheim on Unsplash.

Democrats: The Party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed

On December 1, 2015 in a column titled “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed” I wrote:

Numerous writers and political pundits have written on President Obama’s pledge to “fundamentally transform America” when elected in 2008.

I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.

Extremism in the name of the collective is the over riding strategy of the neo-Democrat. Radicalism is the tactic. The more extreme the ideal, the more it is embraced. This leads to what some have labeled a form of political insanity. I call it political suicide. History teaches us that tyrants and tyranny ultimately lose the support of the masses. Why? Because the policies implemented harm the masses.


In today’s Democrat Party we find a growing number of candidates and elected officials who are followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed. You can name them from the follower of Mohammed Keith Ellison, to Socialists Bernie Sanders, Andrew Gillum, candidate for Governor of Florida, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


The Communist Party USA explained plans on May 23 [2018] to subvert the Democratic Party, alongside socialist and communist organizations including Democratic Socialists of America, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, LeftRoots, and others. In some U.S. states, communist party members are barred from becoming elected officials, yet through this latest effort, democrats may unwittingly vote communists into office.

Pew Research Center found:

Muslims constitute a strongly Democratic [Party] constituency. Three-quarters of Muslim voters say they cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and two-thirds of U.S. Muslims overall say they disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president.

[ … ]

Fully two-thirds of U.S. Muslims identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (66%). Far fewer say they are Republican or lean Republican (13%), while one-in-five say they prefer another party or are political independents and do not lean toward either major party. Muslim Americans’ partisan composition is little changed over the last decade, and they remain much more strongly Democratic than the public as a whole.


The Marxist, Maoist and Islamic Democrats have embraced “intersectionality” as their fundamental political strategy. Here is Ben Shapiro explaining what intersectionality really means:

Pew also noted how Muslims have embraced intersectionality stating:

There has, however, been one notable change in the social and political views of U.S. Muslims: They have become much more accepting of homosexuality over the past decade, matching a similar shift that has occurred among the public overall. Indeed, the share of Muslim Americans who say homosexuality should be accepted by society has nearly doubled since 2007.

Yet Islam condemns sodomy. Abu Dawud’s authoritative hadith collection records a report from Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done (38:4447).

This is intersectionality at work.


Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Here are some of the absurdities that have become the official ideology of the Democrat Party:

  • The greatest national security threat is climate change (i.e. formerly global warming).
  • White Christian men are a greater threat than the Islamic State, Iran and the Black Lives Matter movement.
  • Spending on social programs is more important than spending on national security.
  • Engagement and dialogue with America’s enemies (i.e. Iran) is preferred to any form of confrontation.
  • Nationalized health care (the Affordable Care Act) is affordable.
  • Deficit spending is good for the economy and will create jobs.
  • Putting more Americans on the public dole is good for creating more government jobs.
  • Anyone who disagrees with the neo-Democrat Party policies is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and a national security threat.
  • People don’t kill people, guns kill people (e.g. need to outlaw guns).
  • Public schools must teach children what to think, not how to think (i.e. Common Core).
  • Aborting the unborn and selling their body parts is noble.
  • Bigger government, more regulations and centralized powers and greater control over the behaviors of citizens is good.
  • Coal, oil and natural gas are evil.
  • Saving the planet is more important than saving the human race.
  • A weak America is good for world peace.
  • The Judeo/Christian God is dead.


The Democratic Party of JFK has morphed into the Democrat Party by dint of constant pressure from the radicals and the constant retreat of the Jeffersonian Democrats.

Today the Democrat Party has fundamentally transformed into the party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

It is a struggle between the civilized man and the uncivilized man (savage).

If you disagree please do so in the Comments section below.


List of Muslim Candidates Running in the U.S. General Elections

Democrats’ frightening embrace of socialism – The Washington Post

Young Democrats are embracing socialism, and it’s scary: Kennedy

VIDEO: Kanye Derangement Syndrome



The GOP Needs An Infusion of Kanye’s Dragon Energy

Democrats’ ‘Kanye Derangement Syndrome’ Explodes

JACKSON: Memo to Republicans — I Was Kanye, Before Kanye

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Kayne West is courtesy of Wikipedia.

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.

ON CIVILITY: Democrats Seek to Normalize Insanity

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Ever since the Kavanaugh hearings Democrats have scrambled to characterize their vicious, underhanded tactics as “just politics.” And as usual, the pundits are punting. Everyone from CNN to Fox News decries the “lack of civility” in current political discourse, as though this were a bipartisan problem that both sides shared equal blame for. Democrats even blame President Trump for being crude, one radio talker even called him “cruel.” Thus, their anger and insane behavior is “justified.”

None of this Democrat narrative is true. In fact it is the opposite. Democrats and the extreme Left (but I repeat myself), are simply doing what they always do when called out: doubling down on their behavior and trying to pass it off as legitimate.

Somehow, “crude” and “cruel” never applied to Bill Clinton’s rape, sexual abuse and likely pedophilia. And while accusations against Kavanaugh, debunked by Blasey-Ford’s own “witnesses,” justifies angry mobs “tearing this sh*t down,” we get crickets from Democrats regarding much more credible sexual abuse allegations from two former girlfriends of DNC Deputy Chairman and current Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison. This included a 2005 911 call, and most recently, allegations stemming from a 2016 incident. No confusion about when these events happened.

According to the luminaries of the Left there is now a new Word-That-Cannot-Be-Spoken — the “M” word. On CNN a few days ago, moderator Brooke Baldwin interrupted Daily Beast columnist Matt Lewis when he characterized the protesters who chased Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) out of a restaurant as “a mob.”

Baldwin: “Oh, you’re not going to use the ‘mob’ word here!”

Lewis: “It’s totally a mob.”

Baldwin: “Matt, Matt — a mob… Stop. Stop. A mob is what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, two Augusts ago.”

Lewis: “What about the people who were at the Supreme Court banging on the walls? What do you call that, civil protest?”

Mary Katherine Ham: “And if they were tea partiers we would call this a mob. C’mon. Let’s be serious.”

But Baldwin had set down the marker. The “M” word, like the “C”word, (for communist, which frankly is what most Democrats have become), is now verboten in polite DC company.

And Democrats are taking every opportunity to draw parallels between the kind of Tea Party protests we saw in 2010 with what the left is doing now.

But there is no comparison. Leftwing protests are routinely obscenity laden, disrespectful, pompous, entitled, threatening, often unsanctioned and violent. Furthermore, they are usually highly-organized astroturf protests with paid protesters financed by extreme Left groups, unions and Democrat mega-donors like George Soros.

Tea Party and other similar groups never engage in the kind of ugly, obscene behavior that is a signature of almost all leftwing protests, and have never engaged in unprovoked violence. Their protests are orderly and meticulously follow the law – obtaining permits, staying within their allotted areas, and very diligently cleaning up after themselves.

Even the Charlottesville protests, where  Democrats falsely characterized Richard Spencer’s group as demonstrative of mainline conservatives rather than the fringe group it is, became violent only when leftwing protestors showed up without a permit, violated the boundaries of the parade route sanctioned by the city, and were unopposed by police when they attacked Spencer’s group. This is no defense of Spencer, but without the leftists, the protest would have gone on without incident. President Trump was vilified for simply observing that both sides engaged in violence.

But it was the Left who provoked it.

The eight years of the Obama administration should be characterized as one long “opposite day,” where everything he said was the opposite of the truth, and almost everything he did opposed what he promised. His “most transparent administration in history” exceeded even Clinton’s promised “most transparent administration in history” in its duplicity, secrecy and obstruction.

Obama set his Justice Department and the IRS against the American people in a full-throated effort to silence us, while ramming his extremist agenda down our collective throats. The Obama administration carried out what has been characterized as a war on police, immigration-enforcement efforts, and electoral integrity. When he refused to turn over records on the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, responsible for at least one Border Patrol agent’s death and hundreds of Mexican deaths, Attorney General Eric Holder was the first ever declared in contempt of Congress. Lois Lerner’s IRS transcended all history in its abuse of law-abiding citizens.

The Obama administration was 1984 on steroids.

Vicious, over-the-top defamation, lawfare and violence are central tactics in the Left’s political bag of tricks, and have been for decades. The first time we saw Kavanaugh’s “search and destroy” tactic employed in confirmation hearings was with Justice Robert Bork, probably one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the Supreme Court. That was followed by the equally repulsive treatment of Justice Clarence Thomas.

You must also remember that this was, according to Democrats, a supposed age of “civility,” when, with the exception of a very few years, Democrats held a vice grip on both houses of Congress for over 60 years. At that time, GOP members of Congress were ignored, overlooked and disrespected by Democrats, while the GOP responded with “civility.” This is the kind of “civility” Hillary Clinton recently referred to when she said, “if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Now we have to contend with daily assaults from the absolutely unglued Left; from top to bottom. Google executive Ken Norton tweeted, “Abolish the Senate.”

The Senate and Electoral College are both institutions of racism according to the latest leftist mantra. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress tweets, “The Constitution of the United States has failed.

The New York Times wonders aloud if Donald Trump is “a threat to democracy.” It is actually the Left that is a threat. Our nation is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. As the founders knew, democracy ultimately leads to mob rule. But the Left isn’t really talking about democracy, they are talking about socialism. Either way, they are the threat!

Democrats have a different word for “mob rule” too. They call it “direct democracy,” and hold up Egypt’s so-called “Arab Spring” as a perfect example of direct democracy in action. But the “Arab Spring” did not result in a democratically elected government. Egypt is a nation of 92 million people, of which a small proportion took part in the protests.

And what kind of “democratic protest” was it? Why don’t you ask CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was stripped, repeatedly raped, beaten and nearly scalped by dozens of “democratic protesters.” Crickets from the Left about that unsavory aspect of mob rule, excuse me, direct democracy. Instead, Lara Logan is marginalized for having the temerity to get herself gang raped by these budding “democrats.”

Today we live in an alternative universe, like something out of the Twilight Zone or its cheaper knockoff, The Outer Limits. Do you remember? The announcer says:

“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission… We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical… sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear…”

Civility can only reign when Democrats hold the levers of power. Getting just rewards for the losers they are guarantees nothing but constant “resistance” in the form of insane incivility. During the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Lindsay Graham shouted directly at the Democrat senators “Boy, y’all want power. I hope you never get it.”

Truer words were never spoken. In their lust for power, Democrats have shown they will stoop to anything to have their way. President Trump recently said that if Democrats take power they will turn our nation into Venezuela.

It is beginning to look like that is actually what they want, Venezuelan Red Shirts and all.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Members of One Resistance, an alliance of Progressive groups in Austin, Texas, march across the 1st Street Bridge in protest of the inauguration of Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States. Photo by Andrew Vickers on Unsplash.