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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

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

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

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

American Values Are the Cure To Leftism

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

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

Barack Obama

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

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

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

White House

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

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

Police Car

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

NRA President LtCol Oliver North has found the cure.

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


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

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

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

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

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

We are the cure.

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

A Case of Calumny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SENT TO:  Sent to: Barbara Snyder, President, CWRU; Barbara.snyder@case.edu; and Jessica Berg, Dean of the School of Law; Jessica.berg@case.edu)

Democrats: The Party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Pew Research Center found:

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

[ … ]

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


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

Pew also noted how Muslims have embraced intersectionality stating:

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

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

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

This is intersectionality at work.


Ayn Rand wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Democrats’ frightening embrace of socialism – The Washington Post

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

VIDEO: Hillary Is Back To Lead the Democrat Mob

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

Dan Bongino on NRATV

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

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

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


Of Course The Liberal Mob Is Real

Giving Violence a Chance

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

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

Google briefing says tech companies should abandon ‘American tradition’ of free speech

Google’s burying of material critical of Islam, along with Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censorship of material that violates Sharia blasphemy laws, show that the “official Google source” that said that “the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position” was lying. This is already being implemented on a massive scale. If it isn’t stopped, and these tech giants broken up, the First Amendment could soon be a dead letter, along with America as a free society.

“THE GOOD CENSOR: Leaked Briefing Says Google Must Move Away from ‘American Tradition’ of Free Speech to Expand Globally, Attract Advertiser $$$s,” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, October 9, 2018:

A leaked Google briefing titled “The Good Censor” advises tech companies to move away from the “American tradition” of free speech if they wish to attract advertising revenue and continue global expansion.

The briefing, leaked exclusively to Breitbart News, was the product of extensive research on the part of Google. This included expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer and tech critic Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries on five continents were consulted to produce it. It can be read in full here.

The 85-page briefing admits that Google and other tech platforms have fundamentally altered their policies in response to unwelcome political events around the world, including the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.

Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.

Page 14 of the document acknowledges that a few Silicon Valley tech giants now “control the majority of our conversations,” but that these platforms – including Google – must now break their initial promise to users of free speech and content neutrality.

Pages 19-21 of the briefing describe this initial support for free speech as a “utopian narrative” that has been undermined by political events including the 2016 election and the rise of the populist AfD party in Germany.

Later, on pages 66-70, the briefing explains that tech companies including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially leaned towards an “American tradition” of free speech that prioritizes “free speech for democracy, not civility.”

But it goes on to say that the same companies now embrace the “European tradition,” that favors “dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom.”

Google, argues the briefing, must move towards the European tradition and create “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility” rather than “unmediated marketplaces of ideas.”

Doing so, says the briefing, will enable Google to “respond to regulatory demands” and “maintain global expansion,” as well as “monetize content through its organization” and “protect advertisers from controversial content,” both of which will “increase revenues.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Arthur Osipyan on Unsplash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

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

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

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

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

Stanford University: Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted by Leftist-Fascist

This incident is one of many recent indications of the fact that the increasingly authoritarian Left, having comprehensively lost the public debate, is more and more resorting to violence in order to intimidate those whom it hates into silence. Then, taking a page from their jihadist allies, Leftist thugs turn around and claim victimhood, as we see from the predictable piece in the egregious Stanford Daily, “Change my mind: SCR’s only concern with violence is how to use it,” by Justin Wilck.

In that article, young Wilck claims that the Stanford College Republicans, despite the fact that the violence was directed against them, and the additional fact that they have never called for violence or approved of violence, are the real violent ones. They did this also when Stanford student Hamzeh Daoud vowed to physically assault supporters of Israel on campus. It’s a total inversion of reality, and it’s ideologically based: these Stanford Leftists are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they think that if a victim of a crime is an ideological enemy, and the perpetrator a comrade, then the true victim must be the perpetrator, and the true evildoer the one who suffered the injury.

Instead of being taught how to think for themselves, evaluate evidence, and determine the truth and falsehood of an assertion, Stanford students are being taught that adherence to the Leftist ideology and all that matters, and those who dare to dissent can justifiably be physically assaulted as well as libeled.

And so Justin Wilck, in the time-honored fashion of the Stanford Daily, can’t talk about the Stanford College Republicans without including a lie about me: “Did SCR care last November when Robert Spencer published students’ personal information and his followers sent them threatening emails?” I did not, of course, publish any students’ personal information. In reality, I responded point-by-point to attack pieces, most of them loaded with libels about my work and my character, written and signed by Stanford students. If these students hadn’t wanted their names known, they should have written the pieces anonymously. But in a civilized world of genuine rational discourse, which is, of course, quite far from what takes place at Stanford today, those who disagree have discussions based on evidence, and one side doesn’t start whining that “personal information” was published if the other side responds to attacks.

This is, however, the level of discourse that one would expect from Stanford students today. My event there last November was forcibly disrupted by administrators and fascist students, and the Leftists there still crow about their destruction of the possibility of genuine discussion and free discourse. The Left doesn’t want discussion or debate. Leftists want to silence their foes, by violence if necessary. We see that in arenas small and large, from Melinda Hernandez’s assault of John Rice-Cameron here all the way to the Stalinist gulags. In Stanford, the next generation of gulag guards is being trained now.

“Susan Rice’s Republican Son Assaulted at Pro-Kavanaugh Event,” by Kristina Wong, Breitbart, October 10, 2018:

Stanford College Republicans said Tuesday that John David Rice-Cameron, its president and son of former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice, was assaulted that day at a event at Stanford University, where he is a sophomore.

“Today, SCR experienced the violent and totalitarian behavior of the unhinged Stanford left. During a ‘Change My Mind’ tabling event regarding the presumption of innocence and the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, SCR’s President was assaulted by Melinda Hernandez. A sophomore at Stanford, Hernandez approached our President, hit him in chest and forcefully pushed him back,” the group posted on Facebook.

“Our President is pressing full charges against Hernandez. Violence is completely unacceptable, and we will not allow anyone to get away with it. Throughout the day, our signs were vandalized and destroyed, and we will be posting more video and photos shortly. Stay tuned,” it said.

The group posted pictures, including of sheriff’s deputies on the scene and a torn up poster.

Later, the group posted video of three students attempting to vandalize the table the Stanford College Republicans had set up.

“In addition to having our President assaulted by the violent and unhinged Melinda Hernandez, SCR members were harassed at yesterday’s ‘Change My Mind’ table throughout the day. Leftists vandalized and destroyed our signs, threw paint and water at our members, and hurled insults and profanities for hours. This is the state of poltical discourse at Stanford University: defined by the violent and childlish [sic] antics of the unhinged left.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video was originally published on Jihad Watch.

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

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

FULL VIDEO: Kanye West’s Meeting With President Donald Trump At The White House | NBC News

NBC News published the YouTube video below with this report:

On Thursday, rapper Kanye West met with President Trump in the Oval Office for a discussion on prison reform. While reporters were present, West delivered a long speech on a range of topics, including racism, liberalism, the universe, and more.


NBC News is a leading source of global news and information. Here you will find clips from NBC Nightly News, Meet The Press, and original digital videos. Subscribe to our channel for news stories, technology, politics, health, entertainment, science, business, and exclusive NBC investigations. Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC. Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews.


This Is CNN: Network Slimes Kanye as ‘a Man Who’s Clearly Not Okay’

MSNBC Hosts Suffer On-Air Meltdown After Kanye Meets With Trump


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an official White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian.

The Radical Left’s Sex Crimes Hypocrisy

The issue of sexual assault has become the latest focus for the leaders of the increasingly radical Democratic party.

Make no mistake, sexual assault is a terrible crime that may prove to be life-altering for the victim of such crimes and for members of the victim’s family.

However, the question that must be asked, is whether or not the Democrats really care about preventing sexual assault or in simply exploiting this horrific crime for political purposes.

Consider how so-called “Sanctuary Cities” shield aliens from detection and apprehension by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents including aliens who have been convicted of committing violent crimes that include sexual assault and rape that allow them to remain at large.

Sanctuary Cities are almost entirely the invention and creation of Democratic politicians.

While radical Democrats in the U.S. Senate desperately and viciously attacked Judge Kavanaugh for an alleged but utterly unsubstantiated sexual assault that purportedly occurred more than three decades ago, law enforcement officers on Long Island diligently went about their jobs to locate and apprehend an illegal alien from El Salvador, Ever Martinez Reyes (pictured above), an alleged violent rapist who is accused of raping a 36 year old woman on the lawn of her own house in Freeport, New York on September 28th of this year.

On October 6, 2018 a local television station, WPIX posted a news report about the case, Police arrest man accused of raping woman in Freeport.  The report concluded with these two sentences:

“I’ve been doing this a long time this is one of the most brutal rapes I have ever seen,” said Nassau County District Attorney Madeline Singas.

Police say Martinez Reyes is an illegal immigrant and was preparing to flee back to his native El Salvador when he caught.

That last sentence addresses an issue I have noted in many of my previous articles and even in some of my Congressional testimony over the years, that criminal aliens have a “trap door” that they may use to escape the “Long arm of the law.”  They have the ability to flee the United States and hide in their home countries where extradition bay be difficult if not impossible.

This provides foreign criminals with an advantage over law enforcement that American criminals don’t have and, in my experience, emboldens alien criminals who know that they can “get out of Dodge” when they commit crimes.

On October 6th the local CBS television station also posted an article about this case, Arrest Made In Violent Freeport Rape reporting that the attack on the 36 year old woman went on for approximately one hour during which She was allegedly knocked unconscious twice and suffered eye damage,   Her alleged assailant, Martinez Reyes has been charged with two counts of rape in the first-degree, two counts of sexual abuse and assault.

The CBS report noted:

Police describe Reyes as a day laborer/landscaper who did not know the victim with no prior criminal record. Investigators say he first came to the United States in 2010 at 16 after crossing the border in Texas. He was sent back and crossed the border again illegally in 2014.

The inexact language used by the reporters and police officers in describing immigration law violations underscores how immigration laws are ignored by all too many local law enforcement officers and prosecutors, thereby endangering public safety and national security.  What does the term “sent back” mean?  Was he ordered removed?

In point of fact, the expanding tactic for local, city and even some state governments to promulgate so-called “Sanctuary” policies all too frequently stymie law enforcement efforts by ICE agents to identify, locate, arrest and deport criminal aliens to effectively address the problem of recidivism.  This would help protect members of the ethnic immigrant communities where criminal aliens, from around the world, ply their criminal “trades.”

The stark reality is that Sanctuary Policies Protect Sex Offenderswhere victims are mere “speed bumps” on the road to anarchy.

The title of a frustrating recent report, States Enacted 116 Immigration Laws in 2018 It’s a slight decline from last year but still more than usual, shows how more and more jurisdictions are undermining border security and the integrity of the immigration system and, consequently, endangering public safety and national security.

Sanctuary policies may prohibit any sort of cooperation between those law enforcement entities and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to shield illegal aliens, including vicious criminals, from detection and removal from the United States by ICE agents.

As I noted in a recent article, Democrats’ Attack On Ice Agents Is Working (working to block border security and immigration law enforcement).

Meanwhile, there is irrefutable evidence that a nexus exists between Illegal Immigration And Crime.

News reports noted that Reyes was “sent back” but there is not clarity as to whether or not he was formally removed (deported) from the United States in 2010 per an order by an Immigration Judge.  He is alleged to have subsequently reentered the United States without authorization.

If his removal from the United States was the result of an order of removal, that act, of reentering after removal without authorization, in and of itself, would constitute a federal felony that carries a maximum of two years in prison under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens.  Under s section of that statute, aliens who have convictions for serious crimes face a maximum of 20 years in prison.

Aliens who had been previously deported and illegally reentered the U.S. would not only face jail tim[e], upon conviction. for crimes he/she may have committed upon returning illegally to the U.S., but could also face additional significant jail time for the crime of unlawful reentry.

Finally, such a criminal alien would then be deported from the United States.

These efforts would shield potential victims of such violent criminals who would be spending years in prison and then be removed from the United States.

Instead, sanctuary policies shield criminal aliens while endangering their potential victims.

However, none of the news accounts indicate that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had been involved in the investigation and arrest of Ever Martinez Reyes.

Today the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is greatly hobbled because of a number of factors beginning with the pitifully small number of ICE agents.  There are approximately 6,000 ICE agents throughout the entire United States.. Furthermore, these overwhelmed and beleaguered agents not only enforce our immigration laws but customs laws, intellectual property laws, narcotics laws, laws pertaining to financial crimes and even laws that focus on the production of kiddie porn along with many other laws that are irrelevant to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

While the Democrats have literally gone off the “deep end” Republican politicians are only marginally better.  The federal budget, for example, once again did not include funding for the border wall.

In fact, it is my belief that when President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, rather than enhance border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, his actions did quite the opposite.

On May 5, 2005 I testified at a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”  Of particular significance is the statement made by the then-chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. John Hostettler who, in part said in his prepared statement:

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

Consider this additional excerpt from Chairman Hostettler’s testimony:

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

The midterm elections are nearly upon us.  The Republicans must finally come to terms with what is in the best interests for America and Americans, effective immigration law enforcement that does more than pay “lip service” to the demands of the great majority of American citizens.

As I noted in a recent article, America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation.  Insulation, as any homeowner will tell you, pays for itself in short order.  Securing the U.S./Mexican border would save lives and billions of dollars annually in the terms of money flowing out of the United States from illegal aliens working in the United States and as a result of the drug trade.

The Republicans must provide Americans with a true alternative to the anarchy and calls to sedition by the radical Left even as more innocent people fall victim to criminal aliens that the Democrats sanctimoniously shield from ICE.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo by Ari Spada on Unsplash.

I Am One of the Over 800 Pages Purged from Facebook

Elizabeth Dwoskin Tony Romm in a column titled “Facebook purged over 800 accounts and pages pushing political messages for profit” reported:

Facebook said on Thursday [October 11, 2018] that it has purged more than 800 U.S. publishers and accounts for flooding users with politically oriented content that violated the company’s spam policies, a move that could reignite accusations of political censorship.

[ … ]

Facebook said it was not removing the publishers and accounts because of the type of content they posted but because of the behaviors they engaged in, including spamming Facebook groups with identical pieces of content, unauthorized coordination and using fake profiles.

When I went to my personal Facebook page today I got the message “Your Account Has Been Disabled.”

I do not, nor have I ever, monetized my Facebook page or my eMagazine www.DrRichSwier.com. My website is a Florida limited liability corporation. I do not spam other Facebook pages or conduct “unauthorized coordination.” I put links only on Facebook pages that have given me permission to do so. I am not a Russian bot, nor am I using a fake profile. Our eMagazine publishes articles from forty contributors including many considered conservative such as: The Daily Signal, Family Research Council, The Daily Caller, The Catholic Thing and many individual authors.

Facebook provided a link to the following information:

Why was my account disabled?

Your account was disabled for violating the Facebook Terms.

Our Policies

  • Your account must list your authentic name.
  • Personal accounts must represent individual people only. It’s a violation of our policies to use a personal profile to represent anything other than yourself (ex: celebrities, pets, ideas, objects, etc.).
  • Impersonating anyone or anything is not allowed.
  • Maintaining multiple accounts is a violation of our policies.
  • Accounts created for the purpose of spamming or harassing others are strictly prohibited.

Learn More

For more information about our policies, please review the Facebook Community Standards. If you think your account was disabled by mistake, please let us know.

I have sent Facebook two means of identification as they require to reinstate my Facebook page. I will keep you informed on how this episode comes out.

UPDATE: After I submitted proof of identity to Facebook I received the following in an email dated Thu, Oct 11, 7:47 PM titled “Thank you for submitting your ID”:

Hi Richard,

Thanks for confirming your identity. We’ve unlocked your account, and you should now be able to login. We’re sorry for the inconvenience.

If you have any problems getting back into your account, please let us know.


Jack McQueen


The Shocking Inside Story About A Facebook and NY Times Hit Job

Facebook Purge: Here Is The List Of Pages Deleted By Facebook

Facebook’s disinformation purge missed some major far-right networks

James Woods Alleges He’s Being Shadow Banned, Encourages His Followers to #VoteGOP

VIDEO: List of Conservatives Censored by Silicon Valley companies Facebook, Google, Twitter, PayPal, etc.

Facebook Flags, Censors NPR Report on Inflated Government School Shooting Statistics


EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Glen Carrie on Unsplash.

BREAKING NEW VIDEO: US Senate Candidate EXPOSED; “We don’t say that out of these walls.”

Tennessee: US Senate Candidate Phil Bredesen’s staff says he is lying about Kavanaugh vote in Undercover Video. “It’s a political move.”

Bredesen Staff Thinks Tennessee Voters Are “Ignorant”.

In an apparent Vote-Grab, Bredesen says he would vote YES on Kavanaugh but staffers say he wouldn’t, “It’s politics.”

His Lie was “a political move” that staffers call “gross.”

Bredesen wants to appear “Moderate” Rather Than Liberal – Bredesen’s Campaign Staff Report they are “all here” to Run Against Trump, “he hates Trump.”

Staffer confides “we’re trying to make it so it’s not about Democrats…” BUT “between you and me once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Blue Wave: “This isn’t about everything else… this is for the Blue Wave…” “we don’t say that out of these walls.”

On Alliance with Senate Democratic Leader Schumer: “Even though that’s all why we’re all here. We can’t put it out there.”

View the video:

#WalkAway Founder: Democrats are Jumping Ship over Kavanaugh Smear by Stephanie Hamill [VIDEO]


Brandon Straka, the openly gay former Democrat behind the recent movement to #Walkaway from liberalism says he has seen an uptick in the number of people who say they’re ‘walking away’ from the Democratic party.

He says hundreds of people have reached out to him since the Justice Brett Kavanaugh battle started, and he began receiving more video testimonials and messages from people who say they will now vote Republican because of the smear campaign launched against Kavanaugh.

Straka also talks about the first #WalkAway Campaign march he will be hosting in Washington D.C. on Oct 26-28th. For more details about the event, you can visit WalkAwayMarch.com .

“America Uncensored” is a Daily Caller program dedicated to political stories dominating the news cycle. TheDC’s Stephanie Hamill is a straight shooter who isn’t afraid to tell you what she thinks.

Hamill has put the Left on blast for turning a blind eye to the violent MS-13 gang, talked about the Left’s war on white men and highlighted the dangers of socialized medicine in some of her recent monologues. Check out a few of Hamill’s other greatest videos and subscribe to our YouTube channel to avoid missing out.


NOW CHECK OUT The Daily Caller’s Most Popular Shows:

Would You Rather Date A Trump Supporter or MS-13 Gang Member?

‘Trophy Culture’ Hijacks New Jersey High School Cheer Squad

Fact Checking White House ‘Truth Seekers’ On North Korea

UK High Court Rules That Declining to Bake ‘Gay Cake’ Isn’t Discrimination

The highest court in the United Kingdom has ruled that a Christian bakery’s refusal to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination.

The U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that the Northern Ireland-based family bakery, Ashers Baking Co., did not discriminate against a gay customer in 2014 by refusing to make the cake.

The cake’s icing was to include the “Sesame Street” characters Bert and Ernie and the slogan “Support Gay Marriage,” according to a report by the BBC.

Daniel and Amy McArthur, the married owners of the Belfast bakery, argued in court that they could not produce products with messages that go against their Christian faith.

Gareth Lee, the customer, sued the bakery on the grounds that its owners discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation and political beliefs.

Lee is a gay rights activist and campaigner.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a public body established by law in Northern Ireland, supported Lee both legally and financially throughout the case. The commission offers “protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion and political opinion, sex, and sexual orientation.”

Lee had ordered the cake for a civic event in another city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, the BBC reported. Another bakery made the cake.

Brenda Hale, president of the court, said in her ruling that “it is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief.”

“But that is not what happened in this case,” Hale said, speaking for the 12-member high court.

“They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” she said of the McArthurs.

What has been dubbed the “gay cake” case made its way to the U.K. Supreme Court after lower courts found the bakers to have discriminated against Lee. This was the first case from Northern Ireland that the Supreme Court has heard, according to CBS News.

So far the case has cost the bakery around 200,000 pounds (about $264,000). The Christian Institute, a charity and lobbying group, is paying the bakery’s legal expenses.

“I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone,” Daniel McArthur told BBC News.

McArthur has said his bakery took issue with the requested slogan and not Lee’s sexual orientation or political beliefs.

“We didn’t say no because of the customer; we’d served him before, we’d serve him again,” McArthur told the BCC in June at the start of the Supreme Court case.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization that litigates religious liberty cases and has an international affiliate, approved of the court’s ruling.

“The U.K. Supreme Court recognized that artists and other professionals don’t discriminate when they object ‘to the message, not the messenger,’” Kristen Waggoner, vice president of the organization’s U.S. legal division, said in a press release provided to The Daily Signal.

“The court also affirmed the fundamental freedom of Ashers Bakery’s owners to decline to express through one of their cakes ‘a message with which they deeply disagreed,’” Waggoner said.

The case in Northern Ireland has some similarities to the case of Colorado “cake artist” Jack Phillips, which Waggoner argued and won before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lee, however, said the case had nothing to do with freedom of speech or conscience, and that the ruling made him feel like a second-class citizen.

“To me, this was never about conscience or a statement. All I wanted to do was to order a cake in a shop,” he said.

“Too many people seem to think that every disagreement is discrimination,” Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of the book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” told The Daily Signal in an email.

“Thankfully the court correctly noted that the objection in this case was to the message, not the customer,” Anderson said, adding:

We live in societies where citizens disagree about the nature and purpose of marriage. No one should be punished simply because they believe and act on the belief that marriage unites husband and wife. That’s the only way to protect pluralism—to peacefully coexist—in the midst of disagreement.

Hale, for her part, said her ruling was not intended to diminish the need for protecting gays and lesbians and those who support same-sex marriage.

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


Troy Worden

Troy Worden is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is of Daniel and Amy McArthur, owners of Ashers Baking Co. (Photo: Victoria Jones/Zuma Press/Newscom)