DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Deny sex is binary, embrace conversion therapy and then theirs Pete Buttigieg

EDITORS NOTE: This is the eleventh in a series titled Decadent Democrats. You may read the previous installments here:

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Pedophilia to Sex with Animals

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Electing a Dream ‘Queer Latina’ Candidate to No Incarceration For Drug Use of Any Kind

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: The Enemies of America are Our Best Friends Forever

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globe Diatribe to Abortion to Climate Change [+Videos]

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From Creating Weak Men and Disorderly Women to Making Sex a Biological Reality Illegal

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From the Party of Abortion and Allah Akbar to the 2020 Right to Life March and death of terrorist Soleimani

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: The Party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Their calls for violence created ANTIFA

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Biden, Warren and Sanders reject President Trump’s Middle East peace plan

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Liberals pay $2,500 to be told they’re racists, kiss the boots of blacks [Video]

The Democratic Party is all in when it comes to homosexuals. The party of Catholic President John F. Kennedy can’t help itself. Democrats even have, for the first time in history, Pete Buttigieg, a homosexual, running for president in their primary.

This is a turn around in policy and politics. We must remember what President Barack Obama, Oct. 27, 2010, in in an interview with liberal bloggers discussed his views on gay marriage:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

Then in May, 2012 Politico reported that President Obama evolved in his opinion of same-sex marriage stating:

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

Rhuaridh Marr in a July 27, 2016 article The Democratic Party Platform is the most pro-LGBT in history reported:

This week, in Philadelphia, Democrats approved the most pro-LGBT party platform in their history. Almost half a century in the making, it represents a culmination of the struggle of LGBT activists to be recognized at the highest levels of politics. If 2012 was a watershed moment, when marriage equality was enshrined in that year’s party platform, 2016’s platform is an affirmation, a celebration of the rights of every LGBT American. The sheer breadth of the platform stands in contrast to the hate and opposition of its Republican counterpart.

Why do Democrats fully embrace the LGBTQ agenda?

The LGBTQ agenda includes:

  • Conversion therapy.
  • Teaching children about homosexuality in elementary schools.
  • Supporting male transgenders into women and girl sports.
  • Call anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda homophobic.
  • Embracing pedophiles such as Jeffery Epstein.
  • Passing policy The Equality Act on on May 17, 2019. The Equality Act is a bill passed by the United States House of Representatives that would amend the Civil Rights Act to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity.”

ANSWER: Because the Democratic Party loves what they consider homosexuals to be consummate victims.

For Democrats homosexuals are victims, just as are blacks, Muslims, illegal aliens, pedophiles, transsexuals, Hispanics, etc. Victimhood is a prerequisite to becoming a member of the Democrat Party.

What is most interesting is that Democrats embrace a lifestyle that is both harmful and hurts individuals according to recent studies.

Democrats ignore science, genetics, DNA and multiple scientific studies that show homosexuality is neither natural nor normal. In fact science tells us that homosexuality is harmful and hurtful.

But this doesn’t matter because its all about getting votes.

Sex is Binary

In a February 14, 2020 Breitbart article titled No Sex ‘Spectrum’ Beyond Male and Female Thomas D. Williams, PH. D wrote:

The Wall Street Journal has issued a throwdown to the gender lobby, insisting in an op-ed Thursday that sex is binary and there is no “spectrum.”

“In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time,” note biologists Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton. “The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova.”

“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary,” they assert.

In a February 16, 2020 article in the journal Public Discourse titled Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes notes:

A pattern begins to emerge as we survey some of the best and longest outcome studies on gender transition: the longer the studies and the better the methods, the more negative the results.

The [conversion therapy]treatment for this particular disorder is severe: lifelong experimental medicalization, sterilization, and complete removal of healthy body parts—a treatment Dr. Ray Blanchard, one of the world’s foremost sexologists, calls “palliative.” In spite of its severity, however, medical gender transition is no longer a rarity. It is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria, a diagnosable disorder of incongruence between one’s felt “gender” and one’s natal sex, the prevalence of which is increasing tremendously throughout the world. More and more children and adolescents are being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are undergoing medical treatment prior even to completing puberty.

For those who express caution or concern there is a familiar retort: “Trust the experts.” If you don’t, “you’re a bigot.”

This argument, however, makes a mockery of the fact that three of the most influential sex researchers of the last couple decades—Ray BlanchardMichael Bailey, and the recently vindicated Ken Zucker—all have problems with the affirmation-only transition narrative that is currently being promoted. You could add to this list names like James CantorEric VilainStephen LevineDebra Soh, and Lisa Littman.

In the February 13, 2020 article Science, Sex, and Suicide   asks, “Why would Scientific American urge a ban on therapies that may free some from an identity associated with greater depression and suicide, and yet never question “treatments” for gender dysphoria that lead to increased confusion, depression, and suicidal tendencies?

Otto explains:

Scientific American started off the new year—the publication’s 175th—with an editorial that unintentionally demonstrates the reality that science is not simply the dispassionate determination of the laws of nature. A great deal more than genetics and biology seems to be involved when the subject is LGBTQ-related, particularly when it concerns young people who are questioning their sexual identity.

The editorial, “Time’s Up for ‘Anti-Gay Therapy,’” calls for a federal resolution banning “conversion therapy.” The editors begin by referring to the story of a man named McKrae Game, a former champion of conversion therapy who recently left his wife and his ministry, “Hope for Wholeness.” Game has now come out as gay, pleading forgiveness for the harm he did by promoting what his organization called “freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ.” Game joins a growing number of former leaders of so-called “anti-gay therapy” who have recently disavowed the practice.


Democrats are hell bent on pushing the LGBTQ agenda on all Americans. Saying that sex is binary, believing that marriage is between one man and one woman are considered “hate speech” by Democrats.

Pointing out  that conversion therapy is harmful is deemed non-scientific, when the science is clear. The entire concepts of boy and girl, man and woman, husband and wife are now foreign to the Democratic Party.

Same-sex marriage may be legal but it is not common. What is common is that since the legalization of same-sex marriage the Democrats in concert with LGBTQ activists have made it their mission to fundamentally transform the ideal that sex is binary.

© All rights reserved.

For more articles on the LGBTQ Agenda click here.

Does the Catholic Church Really Have An ‘Islamophobia’ Problem?

My latest at PJ Media:

Out of India this week comes the harrowing story of T.J. Joseph, a professor at a Catholic college and member of the Syro Malabar Church, an Eastern Catholic Church in communion with Rome. Ten years ago, Joseph was accused of blasphemy, whereupon a Muslim group attacked him and severed his hand. In the ensuing years, the Syro Malabar Church, aghast not at the attack but at Joseph’s alleged “Islamophobia,” fired him from his job and excommunicated him. The day after that story came out, one Jordan Denari Duffner of Georgetown University’s Hamas-linked Bridge Initiative, published a piece in the Religion News Service (RNS) claiming that Catholics have an “Islamophobia” problem. Ask T.J. Joseph what he thinks of that, Ms. Duffner.

Duffner piece focused upon the case of the Rev. Nick VanDenBroeke, about which I wrote here at PJ Media. VanDenBroeke landed in hot water when he called Islam “the greatest threat” to Christianity and the U.S., and was subsequently forced to recant and apologize by his boss, Archbishop Bernard Hebda. “The whole incident,” says Duffner, “is reflective of a deeper problem,” which is unlikely to be something she would say about the excommunication of T.J. Joseph. No, Duffner is more worried about what she characterizes as “the discrepancy between the church’s positive official teaching on Muslims and the Islamophobia that often permeates U.S. Catholic communities and discourse.”

Duffner reminds us that “in its 1965 ‘Declaration on Non-Christian Religions,’ issued during the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church begins by declaring its high esteem and respect for Muslims.” She apparently would have us believe that VanDenBroeke, by identifying a threat from the religion that preaches warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, is demonstrating a lack of esteem and respect for Muslims. For “the most important aspect of the church’s statement about Muslims,” she says, “is the first line — the teaching that we are to treat Muslims with respect and hold them in high regard. In other words, as Catholics our default attitude toward Muslims is to be a positive one.”

Back in the real world, however, the real problem the Catholic Church has is not the spurious neologism “Islamophobia,” but a fantasy-based Islamophilia that denies obvious reality and is ruthlessly enforced, as the outrages the Church committed against T.J. Joseph demonstrates, and of which Duffner’s article is an example.

Duffner is either spectacularly naive or outrageously deceptive or both; in all her writings, not just this one in RNS, she completely ignores the reality of jihad violence and the violent exhortations in the Qur’an and Sunnah. She continuously writes as if Muslims were victims of widespread discrimination and harassment in the U.S., which they are not and should not be, and that any examination of the motivating ideology behind that jihad violence is tantamount to inciting violence against innocent Muslims.

In her book Finding Jesus among Muslims: How Loving Islam Makes Me a Better Catholic, Duffner even laments the “Islamophobia” of a Christian family in Jordan she stayed with as an exchange student, claiming they picked it up from Christian television channels and not from their lived experience, which she assumes would have given them a positive impression of Islam: “Despite the fact that they lived among Muslims — who are the vast majority of the population in Jordan — my Christian host family bought into these Christian TV channels’ negative portrayals of Islam.”

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLE: HBO runs yet another anti-Catholic series, remains silent on Muslims

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

Lawmakers in 9 States Move to Protect Children From LGBT ‘Transition’ Agenda

Conservative lawmakers have decided to become proactive about the transgender epidemic infiltrating the nation’s youth.

In the past couple of months, Republican lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced legislation to ban medical providers from helping boys and girls undergo a medical transition via surgery and/or hormone replacement therapy before they turn 18.

Some of the bills would make it a felony to prescribe hormones or perform related surgeries for minors.

In South Dakota, state Rep. Fred Deutsch, a Republican, spearheaded the effort. The South Dakota Legislature passed its version of the bill just this month.

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

If Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, signs the bill into law, doctors who offer medical transitions in the form of hormone replacements or surgery to children under 16 could receive a one-year jail sentence or a hefty fine.

Colorado, West Virginia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, Florida, Illinois, and Kentucky all have similar provisions in the works, although the details vary.

In a tweet, Deutsch said: “The world is upside-down that protecting children from sterilization and mutilation is causing a firestorm.”

In a statement emailed to USA Today, he said:

Every child in South Dakota should be protected from dangerous drugs and procedures. The solution for children’s identification with the opposite sex isn’t to poison their bodies with mega-doses of the wrong hormones, to chemically or surgically castrate and sterilize them, or to remove healthy breasts and reproductive organs.

Sex reassignment surgery—a phrase the LGBTQ lobby hijacked and changed to “gender reassignment surgery,” a subtle but important difference—has had enough success and failure for lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle to use to their advantage.

Or so they think. A USA Today article, which is rather thorough, paints GOP lawmakers as interventionists who suddenly want to get involved in people’s “personal” lives. It cites professionals who voice disdain for lawmakers who would keep today’s youth from living as their feelings dictate.

These lawmakers face an uphill battle because of LGBTQ backlash and public relations. Reputable medical groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have come out in favor of providing surgical and hormone replacement transitions as appropriate treatment for children struggling with gender dysphoria, despite little evidence it cures the dysphoria.

In fact, while little evidence exists either for or against medical transitions, because it’s such a new phenomenon, statistics show that some people who transition experience regret.

Fortunately, conservative lawmakers who propose these bills come from a place of education, combined with empathy and caution.

Because this is optional surgery, and not a life-or-death medical procedure (such as neurosurgery following a stroke), Republican lawmakers propose banning the surgery for teenagers, to err on the side of safety.

Although a speckling of success stories are told by medically transitioned teens and adults, more tales of failure, and horror, are out there.

These stories abound, though critics of the proposed bills seem to ignore them entirely.

In a powerful essay published by The New York Times in 2018, a writer who was born a man and was about to medically transition to a woman admitted, as the headline stated: “My new vagina won’t make me happy.” But the writer wanted to go ahead with the surgery anyway.

Jazz Jennings, 19, was born a biological male but socially transitioned to female years ago. The teen’s transgender journey has been a hit TLC show.

Doctors recently performed a third surgery on Jennings to further the transition from young man to young woman. Jennings suffered from severe complications after receiving a “new vagina.”

Walt Heyer is well known for his crusade against such medical transitions. Heyer, a fellow contributor to The Daily Signal, lived as a woman for several years. After taking female hormones, he had breast implants but was still suicidal after a short reprieve.

Eventually Heyer came to the belief not only that sex reassignment surgeries didn’t make him female, but that his issues were rooted in trauma and abuse—as they are for most people.

Heyer wrote in The Daily Signal in 2017:

Too many post-surgical patients contact me to report they deeply regret the gender change surgery and that the false hope of surgical outcomes was a factor. For children, the focus on encouraging, assisting, and affirming them toward changing genders at earlier and earlier ages, with no research showing the outcomes, may lead to more suicides.

Although it’s true that many conservatives would reject government involvement in the family via heavy-handed legislation, there are times when it’s necessary, specifically when safety—even common sense—is rejected in favor of the cause du jour.

This is such a time, when parents and activists are blindly answering the rallying cry of progressives who favor feelings over facts, even when it means leading our own children down a path of pain and regret.


Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .


Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes

WSJ: No Sex ‘Spectrum’ Beyond Male and Female

My New Life After Transgender Despair

PODCAST: Problematic Women on Abortion, Pornography, and Transgender Models

PODCAST: The Radical Feminists Who Are Fighting the Transgender Movement

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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


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

VIDEO: Linda Sarsour Uses Nazi Tactic to Dehumanize Israelis

Sharia-activist Linda Sarsour used a classic Nazi tactic employed against Jews when she urged her followers not to fall into the trap of “humanizing” Israelis. Dehumanization was a classic Nazi tactic used against Jews during World War II.

Sarsour made the comments while endorsing the many different anti-Israel strategies employed by activists. But the bottom line, she said, was,

“If you are on the side of the oppressor, or you are defending the oppressor or you are actually trying to humanize the oppressor, then that’s a problem, sisters and brothers, and we gotta be able to say that is not the position of the Muslim-American community.”

As noted in the tweet, British journalist Mehdi Hasan “nods along as Linda Sarsour warns against ‘humanizing’ Israelis.”

In addition, the tweeter, Stephen Knight, rightly comments, “The dehumanization of opponents is a bright red flag for anyone knowledgeable on extremism and fascism.”

Dehumanization was  a classic Nazi tactic used during World War II to turn the German people against the Jews, who were referred to as rats and vermin.

Psychologists warn that the first step in mass murder is to dehumanize the victim. In a talk titled “’Less Than Human’: The Psychology of Cruelty,” David Livingstone Smith, co-founder and director of the Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New England, notes,

“[For the Nazis, Jews] were untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It’s wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat.”

Sarsour’s comments came just before the United Nations published a blacklist of Israeli businesses that operate in Jewish areas located beyond the 1967 lines in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

As The Jerusalem Post noted, “Israel is the only country against which such a list has been complied of businesses suspected [of] breaking international law.”

There are close to 100 land disputes worldwide that have not been subject to a similar blacklist, which means that the UN action falls under the classic definition of anti-Semitism, i.e. treating Jews or Israel with different standards than other people or countries in the world.

This is the main reason why the U.S., as well many other countries have deemed the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement against Israel anti-Semitic at its core. Sarsour is a huge proponent of the BDS movement.

After a year-long legal investigation by the U.S. State Department, in November 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.”


Linda Sarsour to Fundraise for Terror-Tied Organization

Linda Sarsour Uses Latest Women’s March to Spew Anti-Semitism

CAIR Leads Fight for ‘Right’ of Universities to Promote Anti-Semitism

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

To Prosper, Africans Must be Free to Innovate

The African Union must focus on reducing the overbearing costs of intellectual property across the region.

Africa’s potential to flourish in the coming years is enormous. The newly-minted African Continental Free Trade Area(AfCFTA) is set to immediately get rid of 90 percent of tariffs on goods traded between member states upon its July 1 implementation, which will dramatically ramp up trade and add billions to the continent’s economy.

Already, 29 of the 55 African Union (AU) nations have ratified the agreement. But to truly reap the potential benefits of this new trade area, African states must drastically reform existing intellectual property laws in order to allow and encourage innovation among their citizenry.

A recent report from the Brookings Institution found that in 2017, African countries registered a mere 1,330 patents. This amount is a fraction of the 592,508 patents registered in Asia and the 116,359 registered in Europe in the same year. What’s more, the majority of patents in Africa are registered by non-residents—and that’s not the case in the rest of the world. As a continent with a young and increasingly educated population, it’s vital that Africans are free to innovate and reap the rewards for doing so.

As Francis Gurry, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, notes:

Africa has a great tradition of innovation and creativity and has extraordinary creative resources but has often struggled to realize their full economic potential.

The main reason this potential is hindered is because of the hefty costs of patent registration. Indeed, Africa has some of the steepest registration costs in the world.

In two of the continent’s fastest-growing economies, Kenya and Ethiopia, patent registration fees are a whopping 13 and eight times the national average income respectively. To put that in perspective, in the U.S., patent registration costs equate to just 0.1 times average incomes, and in Germany, just 0.3. African innovators, who are mostly young with either no job, or a low-paying job, therefore struggle to afford these exorbitant fees.

To make matters worse, in some cases, new technologies are required to be registered in every single country they enter, meaning further costs for entrepreneurs who are often already facing significant financial challenges. Making it easier for Africans to obtain patents would help the states’ and the overall region’s economies, as it would boost the production and export of higher-value goods, rather than having nations primarily reliant on exporting commodities.

Today, many African economies rely heavily on exporting raw materials. And for three-quarters of African nations, commodities (which are typically exported outside of the continent) account for at least 70 percent of their exports. This is bad news for African nations, as raw materials are especially prone to price fluctuations, so reliance on commodities risks economic volatility, and creates unstable business environments.

However, when African states trade with one another, the goods traded are almost three times more likely to be higher-valued manufactured products, when compared to the goods that leave the continent. And as one of the main aims of the AfCFTA is to increase intra-regional trade, the enormous barriers to entry posed by large patent registration fees must be reformed in order for the continent to harness the talents of innovators and boost the trade of such manufactured and technological goods.

Indeed, the benefits of lowering the cost of patent registration have already been demonstrated in a variety of outliers across the continent. Botswana, Tanzania, and South Africa, for example, all have patent registration costs far below the African average, and partly as a result, have a much more diverse export market, which helps create a more stable business environment.

Phase I of the AfCFTA negotiations, which largely focused on removing concessions for goods traded intra-continentally, are coming to a close. The AU is now starting to look ahead at Phase II, which will largely focus on competition policy and, perhaps most importantly, intellectual property rights.

As Phase II draws closer, the AU must focus on reducing the overbearing costs of intellectual property across the region. Without a universal set cost, or unilateral lowering of patent registration fees, it seems the AfCFTA’s goal of drastically boosting intra-regional trade will be harder to achieve.

By reducing the costs of patents, African innovators will be free to reap the rewards of their innovations without being crippled by burdensome governmental regulation. If the AU fails to address this growing problem, intellectual property rights on the continent will remain something typically enjoyed by wealthy foreigners, and that’s not a future Africa should strive for.

This article is republished with permission from the Pulse by Business Insider. 


Alexander Hammond

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

RELATED ARTICLE: LA’s Traffic Safety Policies Were Supposed to Reduce Deaths. Instead, More People Are Dying

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

The Prosecution of Roger Stone by an Overzealous and Politicized Justice Department

“The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision.  It is a silent acquiescence to evil.  The tragedy of our time is that those who still believe in honesty lack fire and conviction, while those who believe in dishonesty are full of passionate conviction.”  –  Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” –  Thomas Jefferson

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” – Elie Wiesel

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” –  Julian Assange

President Trump tweeted minutes after Stone’s conviction, “Now they have convicted Roger Stone for lying to Congress and want to give him a long prison term. What about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok and Page who helped launch Crossfire Hurricane, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Ohr, Steele and Mueller himself who all lied and have not been prosecuted. This is double standard like never seen before in our country.”

No charges against any of them, or any charges against the treachery committed by Hillary Clinton whose home server was hacked in real time by Red China and other foreign nations for classified government documents.  And corrupt cop Comey set her free on the request of Attorney General Loretta Lynch who met with Bill on the tarmac in a Phoenix airport.

The President is right, all of them lied under oath to Congress about consequential matters.  Yet, Judge Amy Berman Jackson specifically prohibited Stone defense lawyers from arguing that Stone’s case was one of “selective prosecution.”  (Trump suggested a pardon for Mr. Stone after he heard the harsh and drastic punitive sentencing.)

Roger Stone needs our help.  Please consider donating to his legal defense fund at

The Stone prosecution is a disgrace, it’s lawless, and it was rigged from the beginning.

Excessive Punishment

Judge Jackson put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for nine months before he was even convicted.  At his age, the man was sentenced to die in prison, and that’s what they want to do to Roger Stone.  The prosecutions’ recommendation of seven to nine years for a 67-year-old, non-violent first offender has finally revealed Robert Mueller’s prosecution team for the corrupt Deep State monsters they are.

Stone did nothing that was of a criminal nature that threatened the people of this country or violated the laws that helped the Trump campaign win an allegedly “illegal election.”  His only crime was supporting Donald J. Trump for President, just like Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and so many others.

Roger Stone was charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the special counsel. Significantly, the alleged false statements specified in the indictment were about conduct, which, if admitted, was not criminal.

On January 23, 2019, Mueller’s office illegally leaked Roger Stone’s indictment, written by Andrew Weissmann, to CNN. The illegal leak is a bigger crime that carries a heavier penalty than what Stone was charged with. See the entire Mueller timeline.

Mueller’s witch hunt was closed last May, although several prosecutors had remained behind to handle cases like Stone’s — prompting conservative commentators to openly wonder if politics had motivated their desire for an especially harsh sentence for Stone.

Prosecutors Resign

Timothy Shea is the new interim U.S. attorney for the D.C. office replacing Jessie Liu. Liu’s office oversaw prosecutions including those against Trump associates Paul Manafort, General Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone.

President Trump withdrew his nomination of Liu to serve as a top Treasury Department official.  She had worked in Justice during the Bush administration and became a member of Trump’s transition team and was appointed U.S. Attorney for DC.

Last year, AG Barr tried to promote her to the number three slot in justice, but that plan was thwarted by Senator Mike Lee. As it turned out, Liu was a pro-abort and she had opposed the confirmation of Samuel Alito. Senator Lee and AG Barr actually got into a shouting match when Liu was blocked for not being conservative.

The president’s move to withdraw Liu’s nomination comes just hours after four Justice Department lawyers quit following a move by senior leaders at the department to overrule the prosecutors’ judgment by seeking a lesser sentence for long-time Trump ally Roger Stone after he was found guilty of lying to Congress.

Timothy Shea is a former close adviser to AG Barr.  As a top Barr aide, Shea helped manage the Epstein crisis and oversee the lingering Mueller Cases in D.C.  As explained in my previous article, the entire Mueller drama was unnecessary and everyone knew it; the goal was to destroy those who had supported Donald Trump in order to discredit him.

Front-line prosecutors, two previously with Mueller’s team, argued for a sentence on the higher end for Stone than some of their supervisors were comfortable with, according to people familiar with the discussions.  Just as interestingly, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney, Shea, approved this aggressive stance, though not without some pushback.  The judge actually does the sentencing, the prosecutors only suggest punishment.

Four career DOJ prosecutors, abruptly resigned from their posts on Tuesday, February 10th in an apparent dramatic protest just hours after senior leaders at the DOJ said they would take the extraordinary step of effectively overruling the prosecutors’ judgment by seeking a lesser sentence for President Trump’s former adviser Roger Stone.

Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando all withdrew.  Jed and Zelensky were prosecutors who worked for Robert Mueller.  All four quit in a crybaby huff because they weren’t getting their way.  Well, good riddance!

After the withdrawals by other attorneys, the DOJ’s new sentencing memo in Stone’s case was signed only by John Crabb Jr., the acting head of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, DC.

Former acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker said, “There is no precedent for a harsh sentence recommendation for Roger Stone.” The sentencing judgment was draconian for the conviction.  The average time a rapist spends in prison is four years, an armed robber serves three years and for violent assault, one and half years. Link

Nowhere on the web can anyone even find what Stone lied to Congress about! The prosecution’s desire to imprison Stone for seven to nine years is more than vicious, it’s despotic.

DOJ Alters Sentence

The decision to alter the sentencing recommendation was made before President Trump’s tweet, said Kerri Kupec, the director of DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs. Kupec said the DOJ has had no contact with the White House regarding the sentencing recommendation.

The democrats went into their typical Trump Derangement Syndrome hysteria and threatened another impeachment with Schiff accusing Trump of an “abuse of power.”

Speaker Pelosi, (D-CA) repeated the tired and preposterous meme.  Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-CA) a chronic impeachment enthusiast, refused to rule out another attempt to remove Trump from office.  The unhinged harangues were all predicated on a brazen assumption that Trump had directed AG Barr to overrule the trial prosecutors and recommend a more appropriate and equitable sentence for Stone, which by the way, he has the right to do.  The deranged left is angry at Trump for exposing the wrongdoing.

Pelosi’s gang of psychotic lunatics are now using Barr as a political punching bag, and unfortunately Trump’s tweets made it worse.

Barr Complains About Tweets

AG Barr publicly complained that Trump’s tweets make it difficult for him to do his job.  He told ABC News, “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president.  Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.”  Well, if Barr thinks this is a righteous case, then where are indictments for McCabe and Comey?  AG Barr stressed, however, that the president never asked him to interfere in the criminal case against Stone, a longtime friend of the president.

Barr was disrespectful of our president and his first amendment rights; Donald J. Trump is the boss, not Bill Barr. Tweeting is how the President communicates with the American people.  The AG should have had a private meeting with President Trump rather than voicing his disapproval publicly.  Link

Two-Tiered Justice

A prime example of two-tiered justice is the reason the president withdrew his nomination of Jessie Liu.  During her time as U.S. attorney she helped a man by the name of James Wolfe get away with leaking classified information and ultimately lying to the FBI.

Wolfe was the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was indicted in 2018 for leaking info to four journalists including one with whom he was having an affair.   He lied to the FBI and according to his indictment Wolfe picked up a highly classified document on the 17th of March to take to the intel committee.  A later FBI sentencing recommendation confirms that that document contained the first two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants for Carter Page and was the foundation for accelerated “Spygate.”

So, what happened to James Wolfe?  He was never charged with leaking classified information.  Politico reports that during the lame duck session after the 2018 midterms, Senators Warner, Richard Burr and Diane Feinstein asked for leniency in his case and that’s where Jessie Liu comes back into the case.  Link

Also, on March 17, Democratic Senator, Intel committee chairman, Sen. Mark Warner texted Christopher Steele’s attorney, Adam Waldman, that he was “going into the skiff.” (The skiff is a secure room.) What did they talk about?  March 17th is also the date stamped on the released FISA warrants that allowed the spying to begin on Carter Page.  And from that, it is fair to say that James Wolfe took custody of the Carter Page FISA applications and delivered them to the skiff where they were reviewed by Senator Warner and then leaked to the press by James Wolfe.

It was Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and U.S. Attorney for DC Jessie Liu who were the decision-makers.  U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu dropped most of the charges against Wolfe; she allowed him to plead guilty to only one count of lying to investigators.  Wolfe served exactly two months in prison.  Did Liu help coverup the Wolfe case?  It sure looks like it. Remember, two months in prison.  The President has pulled the nomination of Jessie Liu, and it’s not because of Roger Stone.

The disparity in treatment of those connected to President Trump is shocking when one considers the leniency to James Wolfe via the democrat senators requests.  Consider that none of the people responsible for the phony Russian collusion story have been prosecuted.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz filed criminal referrals against former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. AG Barr refused to indict, and no action has been taken against them.

IG Horowitz determined that officials at the FBI and Justice Department deceived the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtained illegal warrants without probable cause in order to spy on a Trump campaign associate. So far, no one has been held accountable.


And oh yes, it was Roger Stone who came up with Make America Great Again (MAGA)!  On September 16, 2011, Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime political advisor and a veteran of Reagan’s 1980 campaign, tweeted the slogan, “Make America Great Again -Trump Huckabee 2012.” Two months later, in December 2011, Trump made a statement in which he said he was unwilling to rule out running as a presidential candidate in the future, explaining “I must leave all of my options open because, above all else, we must make America great again.”

© All rights reserved.


Burn Down the DOJ and Start Over

More Than 1,100 Former DOJ Staffers, Including Current MSNBC and CNN Analysts, Call on AG Barr to Resign

Parkland Dad, Andrew Pollack: “March for Our Lives” Made Kids LESS SAFE

Andrew Pollack is the father of Meadow Pollack, a victim of the Parkland mass murderer.  He works to get the truth out while gun control zealots work to hide the truth by blaming guns.  This courageous story is a must read for those who really want to know the truth.

Parkland Dad Andrew Pollack: ‘March for Our Lives’ Made America’s Kids Less Safe

By Andrew Pollack


February 14, 2020

Two years ago today, my daughter Meadow and sixteen others were murdered in the Parkland school shooting. For the families of the victims, it was an unspeakable tragedy. But for others, it was an incredible political opportunity.

The shooting propelled a handful of shrill student activists to fame. The most prominent one, David Hogg, later mused, “We really only remember a few hundred people, if that many, out of the billions that have ever lived. Is that what I was destined to become?”

No, David. My daughter wasn’t murdered so that you could fulfill your “destiny” of tweeting about historically marginalized “indigenous lgbtq women and non binary” gun control activists.

She was murdered because of the failures of the Broward County school district, sheriff’s office, and mental health services. Failures that partisan agitprop, spewed by you and the other March For Our Lives (MFOL) activists, helped to shield from the public eye.

Although I disagreed with the gun control kids politically, I made it a rule not to criticize them publicly. Because I figured that despite our differences, we all wanted the same thing: safe schools…

Read the full story here.

Court victory for UK ‘transphobia’ delinquent

Tweeting rhymes against transgenderism is allowed in a non-Orwellian state, says a judge.

Former British police officer Harry Miller has successfully challenged the use of Hate Crime Operational guidelines, issued by the College of Policing in 2014 and followed by police forces nationally.

A Judge found that they had been unlawfully used to interfere with Mr Miller’s freedom of speech when he was visited by a policeman to question him over a “transphobic limerick” he shared on Twitter.

The guidelines deal with actions “perceived to be motivated by hostility towards religion, race or transgender identity,” which must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element.”

Although the police accepted that “such incidents are not crimes, they are still logged on a system and can show up during a criminal records check” when an individual applies for a job.

In a landmark ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Julian Knowles ruled the tweets were lawful, and that there was not “the slightest risk” that Mr Miller “would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.” The judge added that the UK has never been an “Orwellian society,” nor had it experienced “a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi.” (“Judge rules in favour of free speech in ‘transphobic’ limerick case,” Telegraph, February 15, 2020).

But precisely because we have never lived in a police state – rather, having been used to a political system in which open debate brings about changes in the law and in society by democratic means – we have been slow to recognise the threat of fundamental changes introduced by stealth, incrementally and promoting apparently benign measures.

Coming from different angles, in fact it was a pincer movement conducted by social campaigners on one side and legal activists on the other, in whose grip the majority are suddenly finding themselves trapped.

After his self-funded challenge, Mr Miller celebrated his victory outside court, hailing the outcome as a “watershed moment for liberty” and vowing to continue tweeting. However, Mr Justice Knowles rejected his wider challenge to the lawfulness of the College of Policing’s guidance, ruling that it “serves legitimate purpose and is not disproportionate.”’

The case will now be tested at the Supreme Court after Mr Justice Knowles granted a “leapfrog certificate” to allow it to skip the Court of Appeal stage, but as the Telegraph points out, although “scathing in his judgment of Mr Miller’s treatment,” Mr Justice Knowles “defended the College of Policing’s guidelines on ‘non-crime hate incidents’,” even though they are the source of the problem.

The guidelines speak of incidents that are “perceived … to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice” and which are to be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element.”

Moreover, although “the police say they are working hard and that they just do not have the money or time to attend every crime scene,” they are putting huge efforts into “recording non-crimes”. The Government has pledged to introduce 20,000 new police officers, but “the Home Office must make sure that they are deployed to tackle actual crime, not people’s opinions.” (Telegraph comment, “Non-crimes should not waste police time,” February 15, 2020).

Thanks to Freedom of Information requests made by the Telegraph – and cited in court by Mr Miller – it has emerged that ‘nearly 120,000 “non-crime” hate incidents were recorded by police forces between 2014 and 2019.

Mr Miller was investigated by PC Mansoor Gul, a “community cohesion officer” who said Mr Miller needed to “check his thinking” – at which point, he says, he knew the police had gone too far. He told The Telegraph the incident was indicative of the growing “political corruption” of British policing, recalling strict instructions, during his time in the force, when policing public marches “to not even step in time with the music in case it gave the impression of being political,” although now they are doing the complete opposite. “I even have one picture of a British police officer carrying a riot shield painted in the trans flag colours.” (“’Don’t tell me to check my thinking … that is not the job of the police’,” Telegraph, February 15, 2020).

PC Gul disputes Mr Miller’s claim, but in fact it is the police that need to “check their thinking” – even check whether they are still thinking. For several years now, uniformed police have marched in Gay Pride marches. Far from fostering community cohesion, they have been dragged in to become enforcers of sexual diversity, thereby setting the majority against a tiny number of troubled individuals, at the behest of their self-appointed champions.

It is said that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but although the public pays for policing they do not pay to be policed; it is the sexual diversity campaign that is calling the tune to which the police are marching in lockstep. And the Supreme Court, which will hear Mr Miller’s case and may reject it, thus entrenching intolerance in law, has shown its left-liberal bias regarding Brexit.

In 2010 the Equality Act introduced legal protections on the basis of race and disability – things that cannot be helped – but also sexual activity and identity – things that can be helped.

Recently, an employment tribunal judge ruled that the view of tax expert Maya Forstater, who expressed criticism of trans issues online, was not “a protected philosophical belief under the 2010 Equality Act,” that there was “no legal right to question whether a transgender person is a man or a woman,” and that Ms Forstater’s belief was ‘“not worthy of respect in a democratic society’.” (“Test case rules against tax expert sacked over transgender tweet,” Telegraph, December 19, 2019).

An Orwellian situation has morphed into a Kafkaesque one, where no one knows exactly what they are accused of and no one knows exactly what they are allowed to say – consequently the safest course is to say nothing on the subject. The activists who police other people’s speech are the ones who decide who is guilty and who is innocent, and they can be as offensive as they like – nobody will investigate them.

Indeed, although the police guidelines purport to protect religion, anyone quoting the Bible or citing it in defence of traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality, is in danger of being arrested or sacked.

We have gone from true tolerance – where everyone has a right to their opinion – to the self-identifying policers of public speech believing that only their opinion is the truth. Of course, though everyone has a right to their opinion, everyone’s opinion cannot be right, but it does help to be backed up by medical science. In the case of trans issues this is entirely lacking, yet we have come to a point where, in the face of biological evidence, a tiny number of individuals who believe themselves to be the opposite sex, must be believed.

Indeed, their beliefs must be affirmed and even celebrated, as clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson found in 2017 when he refused to refer to individuals in line with their chosen gender. He famously protested an Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” in a workplace or a school, would probably be considered discrimination.”

Peterson argued that his objections were on the grounds of free speech, and nothing to do with discrimination, and that at no time in British Common Law history has the legal code mandated what we must say, as opposed to what we must not say. He did add that “he would use the gender-neutral pronoun of a particular person, if they asked him.” (Mick Brown, “What’s wrong with the Petersons?” Telegraph, February 15, 2020).

In a very short time we have gone from policing speech to censoring speech to compelled speech, but even those who defend the right to free speech fall silent on the issue of banning silent prayer outside abortion clinics.

This is chiefly because the defenders of free speech are on the Left, and although on trans issues they have truth on their side, the strongest party will win if politicians continue to back the trans campaign. In this war of words, the trans fascists will succeed in silencing every mention of the issue apart from fulsome praise for all things trans.

The anti-trans campaigners reject dire warnings that criticism can be hurtful, insisting that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. In this case, however, the words of the trans activists will not only hurt the right to free speech, but kill it off entirely.



Ann Farmer lives in the UK. She is the author of By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (CUAP, 2008); The Language of Life: Christians Facing the Abortion Challenge (St Pauls, 1995), and Prophets & Priests: the Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (St Austin Press, 2002).

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

Granddaughter of Slaying Victim, 92, Backs Trump’s Fight Against Illegal-Immigrant ‘Sanctuaries’


Daria Ortiz’s voice cracked when speaking at a White House event Friday, as she described how New York City’s “sanctuary city” status let her family—and the rest of the city’s residents—down.

Her 92-year-old grandmother, Maria Fuertes, a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, was sexually assaulted and killed last month, and police have charged illegal immigrant and alleged repeat criminal offender Reeaz Khan, 21.

Khan, from Guyana, was previously arrested on assault charges, but the city released him, despite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer request.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities, counties, and states that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants—in some cases, dangerous criminals—and obstruct federal immigration enforcement. That usually comes in the form of ignoring ICE detainer orders, except when there is a court order.

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

“Before coming to America, [Fuertes] worked as a secretary for the president in her native country, the Dominican Republic. She is a shining example of people who come legally to this country, work hard and do the right thing, and are law-abiding citizens,” Ortiz said. “My grandmother raised her children and her grandchildren while working hard to give us a future.”

Ortiz stood with President Donald Trump in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House, speaking to a crowd of about 220 U.S. Border Patrol agents and family members at a gathering of the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union.

During the event, Trump spoke about his administration’s immigration policies, the border wall, and cracking down on sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Justice Department recently filed lawsuits against the states of California and New Jersey, as well as against King County, Washington. All three lawsuits argue that the states and the county have violated the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, contending the jurisdictions are flouting federal immigration laws.

“Unfortunately, my grandmother had to be the example of why something like this horrific crime should never happen,” Ortiz said, adding:

Our family’s hope is that her death was not in vain and that preventative measures are put into place to ensure that nothing like this happens to anyone again.

The tragedy in all of this is the fact that this could have been avoided had there been no sanctuary law.

She then talked about Khan, the defendant, facing seven charges, including second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, first-degree attempted rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and tampering with physical evidence.

“The man that is responsible for this should have never had the opportunity to do this, had his multiple offenses not been ignored,” Ortiz said, adding:

The system not only failed our family, but it failed our city. Our family would like to thank the administration for acknowledging my family’s tragedy and extending their concern.

Trump, who introduced Ortiz, returned to the podium and called for Congress to pass legislation that would allow the families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue municipalities over sanctuary laws.

A bill to do just that, the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and a companion House bill was introduced by Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., last summer. No action has taken place on either bill, according to

“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities,” the president said. “They are all over the place, and a lot of people don’t want them. Many, many communities don’t want them in California. The politicians want them for whatever reason.”

The California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom made it the nation’s first sanctuary state.

“That’s why we are calling on Congress to pass legislation giving American victims the right to sue sanctuary cities and hold them accountable for the suffering and the damages that they’ve caused,” Trump said.

“American citizens are entitled to safe neighborhoods and safe streets that, really, the people in this room have provided when given the opportunity,” he said, referring to the Border Patrol agents at the event. “The sanctuary cities are not really giving that opportunity.”


Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.


ICE Uncovers Forced-Labor, Trafficking Scheme Involving Church in the Philippines

Reader Praises Maryland Delegate Kathy Szeliga for Battling the Forces Looking to Make Maryland the Next Sanctuary State

Trump Begins Counterattack on Sanctuary Cities

Texas Begins Legal Fight With California Over Its Red State Travel Ban

China’s Hidden Influence in America

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

That “Trump Muslim Ban” Is Still With Us

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

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

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Worth Loving

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

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

PODCAST: Nike Swooshes in to Attack Women’s Sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hidden Dragons in America, Pompeo Warns

Mass Burial Lays Dems’ Sincerity to Rest

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

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

On the Wisdom of Taking Children to Funerals

Filipe Avillez: What could be more harmful in the long run than bringing up your child to think that nobody they love will ever die?

Somebody alerted me the other day to a podcast by a child psychologist. He was asked whether children should attend funerals and firmly replied that they should not.

Funerals are very private, intimate, and ugly affairs, he reasoned. Even adults only attend them because they must, and when attending them children might see their parents in a state of fragility, which can be traumatic.

Of course, there’s a lot of this these days: it’s part of the post-Christian outlook on death. But I admit I was shocked to hear it from the mouth of a professional therapist.

I remember taking a newborn baby to the funeral of a good friend’s grandfather. I simply didn’t have anywhere to leave him. I knew no harm would come to him, but I wasn’t expecting the effect it would have on everybody else. His presence lit up what was otherwise a rather heavy and gloomy affair. People in mourning seemed grateful to be able to stoop down and play with him instead of musing on death and what had been a drawn-out illness. The conversation turned to the joys and potential of young life.

I suppose some funerals might be ugly and sad, but do they have to be? The only funerals I’ve been to that I’d describe as ugly were those of people who had no faith and, therefore, no hope in the afterlife. These invariably end up at the ugliest institution created by modern man: the crematorium.

But funerals can be beautiful. I’m not so sure about joyful, but definitely beautiful. And what a privilege to be a part of that beauty. To share in that moment with a family. When was it that sad and tragic became synonymous with ugly?

I want my funeral to be a declaration of my faith in the resurrection and eternal life. I want my body placed in the earth like the sacred thing it is, not incinerated like waste. I want booming hymns and a liturgy that makes the knees of my many atheist friends quake in awe.

I’ve told my football friends that they can drape my (simple) coffin in my club’s flag, but only outside of the church. I want nothing between me and my Lord and Savior when I’m placed in his sanctuary.

My wife keeps telling me I should write everything down so that she knows what to do when the time comes. I think I will.

I decided to write a short piece in reply to the therapist, laying out why I will continue to take my children to funerals and to speak to them frankly and openly about the fact that those we love grow old, frail, and die. Or sometimes die earlier and in more tragic circumstances. I published it on my blog and shared it on social media and prepared myself for a couple of pats on the back and maybe some criticism. (Both the original podcast and my response are in Portuguese).

Instead, it went viral. Thousands of hits later I am still overwhelmed by many of the stories people have shared with me, about how consoling it was to be able to say a final goodbye to loved ones when they were small. My own sister never got over the fact that she missed our great-grandmother’s funeral because we were out of the country.

One story, shared by a priest friend, struck me in particular: “When I was 10 I lost my older brother, who was 12. The truth and the pain of what was going on were never kept from us during his illness. My father’s expression changed forever, and I would never have understood him, nor the anxiety he felt for me during my own adolescence, had I not seen his face that day.”

Another friend shared that when her father died the family organized a special Mass just for the children, where a message of hope in eternal life was shared with them in a way they could better understand. What a wonderful idea!

Of course, if all there is to look forward to after you die is to have your decaying body eaten by worms, you might fear introducing the topic to impressionable kids. But in that case, your problem isn’t death but a lack of faith.

My children don’t like the idea that their 90-year-old great-grandfather might not be with us much longer. When some close friends of ours lost their newborn son, there were nights when our 9-year-old crawled into our bed for comfort. But this is the same little girl who, being told of the premature death of a very good friend – a priest – from cancer, asked what all the fuss was about. Surely, he was happy in heaven now!

Yes, we think we’re strengthening them by exposing them to this, but sometimes it’s we who walk away with our faith uplifted.

Of course, there is a time and a place. I’m not suggesting we take children to every funeral we go to and make them stare at random corpses. But there are other ways of preparing them. Stories about martyrs, heroes who gave their lives for others, gentle reminders that the soul is more important than the body, and that love sometimes requires the ultimate sacrifice.

Secularists often say we are harming our kids by filling their heads with fantasies about God, saints and angels. But what could be more harmful in the long run than bringing up your child to think that nobody they love dies? They’ll find out eventually, right?

The question is, do we want to raise our children to be unrealistically happy, or to be free? If happiness is based on shielding them from tragedy at all cost, it’s bound to be short-lived – and harmful, as the psychologists should recognize. I’ll take freedom, true freedom any day: a freedom that strengthens and gives hope and does not tremble in the face of death.

The freedom Christ bequeathed us on the day he broke our chains.


Filipe Avillez

Filipe d’Avillez is a religious affairs reporter with Renascença, a Catholic media group. He has a degree in international relations and a masters in history and theology of religion and currently lives in Lisbon with his wife and six children. Since 2012 he has worked with The Catholic Thing translating articles into Portuguese. He blogs at Actualidade Religiosa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some core beliefs Americans have are:

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

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

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


The Company Contrast – Adidas

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

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

Trump Derangement Syndrome Explodes with Impeachment Acquittal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Trump’s Lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats Plot Against Trump and America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Wins

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

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

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

Tossing Treacherous Turncoats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

© All rights reserved.