Everything you need to know about today’s partisan impeachment stunt

Nineteen minutes after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as America’s 45th President, The Washington Post published this headline on its website: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” For once, anyway, the media was telling it like it is.

Democrats in Congress have been selling their far-left base on impeachment since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race. After nearly 3 years of coming up empty—including $32 million of taxpayer money spent on the Russia collusion hoax—Democrat leaders knew they needed to do something to appease their party’s left fringe.

That’s why Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment “inquiry” in a hastily organized press conference—before the full House voted, and before any of the relevant evidence could even come to light. This time, Democrats knew they couldn’t risk letting the facts derail their momentum, as had happened with the Mueller Report flop.

Watch: The Swamp wanted a media circus, and they got it!

House Democrats are effectively shutting down Congress—yet again—over their impeachment sham. Nothing substantive can get done while the left remains fixated on undoing the 2016 election. They have repeatedly ignored opportunities to work with President Trump and take action on issues that will help the very people they represent.

The President continues to push forward on trade deals, healthcare, our booming economy, immigration, and other areas where Americans want real solutions. Democrat leaders, unable to control their far-left fringe, can only stage TV hearings. Meanwhile:

  • Speaker Pelosi still refuses to hold a vote on USMCA to replace NAFTA—despite growing pressure from manufacturers, labor unions, farmers, and workers.
  • Democrats have failed to come up with any areas where they’ll work with President Trump to lower medicine prices for our families and seniors.
  • House Democrats have failed to do anything to help rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure.
  • They continue to ignore loopholes in our immigration laws that drive the border crisis, fuel human smuggling, and hurt both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

Americans have every right to be angry. It’s remarkable to think about where our country could be if Democrats in Congress put country before party. Under President Trump, the U.S. economy has hit its lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Illegal immigration is finally starting to come under control after decades of neglect.

If House Democrats were as committed to helping Americans succeed under President Trump as they are to tearing him down, imagine where we could be now.

Instead, bring in the cameras. The one bright spot from today’s embarrassing spectacle is that American families finally got front-row seats to how Congress wastes its time—and spends millions of their taxpayer dollars—on partisan stunts. No wonder Americans don’t trust Washington. Who can blame them?

Don’t rely on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-hand accounts. Read the transcript yourself here.

Impeachment czar Adam Schiff has lied to Americans—over and over again.

What I Have Learned About The Democrats

I have been active in politics for nearly 48 years now as a Republican and have witnessed many changes to the party over the years. I have campaigned for candidates, served on political board of directors, served as a correspondent at political events, and have written about politics for well over a decade. As a political pundit, I am pleased to have correctly predicted the outcome of the 2016 and 2018 elections, and No, I certainly didn’t do it by studying the polls (which are useless).

I have also watched as the Democrats have shifted from moderate positions to the far left. When I write about the Democrats I can always expect some visceral rebuttal. From this, I have learned some of their fundamental characteristics:

1. Democrats do not know how to argue, only attack. This is particularly true in Letters to the Editor or on-line replies. They usually rely on visceral sarcasm and obscene expletives to make their point in a Pavlovian type of response. This reflects their hatred and attempt to discredit the author by assassinating his/her character. Some have been so offensive, I have seen such postings automatically deleted by a publication. My question is, can you not argue without becoming belligerent?

Quite often, the Democrats set down a smoke screen in order to create a diversion and not answer a pointed question. They regularly parrot talking points as prescribed by the media. For example, they accuse President Trump of being a liar, a racist, a homophobic, xenophobic, etc. They have repeated it so often, they treat it as gospel. In reality, there is no evidence to indicate he is any of these things, only conjecture.

In my case, I have also noted Democrats do not read an article in its entirety, resulting in convoluted comments totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Strange.

Democrats honestly think they are smarter than everyone else; as such, they believe they are the only ones who know what is best for the country. Their arrogance is their Achilles’ Heel and explains why they look upon the president’s supporters as “deplorables” who are condemned for their “inferior intellects.” This also contributes to their problem in arguing a point as Democrats believe it is below their dignity to argue with deplorables, only to dismiss them outright.

Democrats tend to see a conspiracy in everything they oppose which is why they insist on political correctness. Again, only their views are considered acceptable. This implies they want control, not compromise.

So, how do you argue with a Democrat? Stick to the facts and your principles. On-line, they do not believe in a fair debate, and rely on vicious discourse instead. As such, do not waste your time arguing with them. Also, in a public setting, do not allow yourself to be baited. The worst thing you can do is to engage in a heated rhubarb and be dragged down to their level where you may say something inappropriate and lose the respect of your audience. It is just not worth it.

2. Democrats understand the power of culture control. Not surprising, they set the trends in fashion, music, entertainment, and news media, anything appealing to the five senses. By doing so, they subliminally influence the perceptions of people as to what should be right and wrong.

Not surprising, they are mindful of the power of symbols which they either embrace or disgrace, such as the Black Lives Matter Flag vs. the Police Thin Blue Line American Flag, desecration of historical symbols, and treatment of patriotic icons, such as the American flag. In my travels with the press corps, it was rather obvious they choose their party over God and country.

Democrats have the luxury of controlling the public narrative, thanks, in large part, to their incestuous relationship with the news media. The morality of the Democrats is not the same as the public’s. This was revealed not long ago by a Gallop Report, all because they are acutely aware of controlling the culture.

The party’s political campaign playbook has long been that prescribed by Saul Alinsky, author of the book, “Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals Paperback.” Alinsky, of course, is the well known Socialist community organizer who greatly affected the political schemes of President Obama, and Secretary Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, his underlying theme in terms of politics is, “All is fair in love and war.” This includes cheating and deceit in political campaigns.

3. Democrats do not assume responsibility for their actions. This became rather obvious recently with the resignation of Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) after reports surfaced of alleged sexual indiscretions with a congressional staffer and an admission to a relationship with a campaign aide. In her final speech on the House floor, she blamed others for revealing her indiscretions and claimed the role of victim. There was no admission she was at fault, that someone else must be.

4. Democrats believe they can buy votes simply by offering free goods and services. To illustrate, programs such as the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Free College Tuition, may sound nice to the uninformed, but the country simply cannot afford to implement any of it. These programs appeal to people who want a free lunch which simply doesn’t exist as somebody has to pick up the bill. Somehow the Democrats have forgotten what President Kennedy, of their party, said at his inauguration, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Today, it is just the reverse.

So far the Democrats have been playing with money in the trillions of dollars. Let’s hope they never discover what “quadrillion” means as they would spend it.

Most politicians tell the people what they want to hear. Conversely, President Trump tells the people what they need to hear. There is a difference.


I am certain my old moderate Democrat friends will argue with me on these points, but I would remind them it is a new day in Democrat politics. This is no longer your father’s Democrat party. However, I’ll be interested to read their response to this. Let’s see if they know how to effectively argue.

Keep the Faith!

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

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

VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS of the now open ‘impeachment’ process

Posted by Eeyore

More will be added as the day progresses.

RELATED VIDEO: Matt Bracken speaks with Brad Johnson on the state of the impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump.


Mike Quigley Claims That Hearsay Can Be Better Than Direct Evidence

6 Key Moments From the First Day of Public Impeachment Hearings

White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of Eric Ciaramella

Impeachment Is the Left’s Sad Final Attempt to Beat Trump

Trump had a constitutional duty to ask Zelensky about Hunter Biden

4 GOP torpedoes aim to sink Dems’ impeachment hopes

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with videos is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

CAIR’s Goal: 30 Islamists into Congress

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently held its 25th Annual Gala in Washington, D.C, in which CAIR’s executive director announced a goal of pushing more Islamists into Congress. 

As the  Investigative Project on Terrorism reports, CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad shares the “formula” he believes will secure Islamists greater political power: 

“A strong CAIR equals a strong community. A strong community will produce a strong and confident and successful Muslim … “So I’m telling you tonight we are going to work in the next years, inshallah (God willing], to elect at least 30 Muslims in the Congress. This number is equivalent to our size and our potential as American Muslims. Including at least two [U.S.] senator Muslims.”

In addition, Awad envisions Muslim judges, including a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, along with an Islamist extension of Hollywood. 

No matter that Awad got his numbers wrong, this has been the Islamist agenda since at least the 2000s, when I heard the same professional targets outlined at national conventions. But as Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes wrote in 2003, it goes further.

Pipes documents how, in 1998, CAIR’s Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of Muslims in California:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.” 

In 2008, I heard this message echoed at a southern California mosque by Imam Siraj Wahhaj at an event sponsored by the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), where Wahhaj said: 

“There is no America. There is only Islam.” 

None of these views have been clandestine. Over the years the message has been consistent. What has changed is that the Islamist candidates they produce are more vocal about exactly which interests they represent.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s support of the Hamas terror group and the anti-Semitic BDS movement against Israel is the most recent demonstration of that. 

Within this discussion of CAIR’s vision of Muslim in Congress — that is, Islamists in Congress — and those seeking other avenues of political power, it’s important to underscore that not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Muslims are race and religious supremacists who believe that the politicization of faith is the way to go. Many Muslims stand opposed to the politicization of faith; many stand opposed to Islamists. 

Veteran military serviceman and former California congressional candidate Omar Qudrat is an example of the type of Muslims who deserve to be elected —Muslims who put duty to constitution and country ahead of any religious agendas. 

Dalia Al-Aqidi is another — a veteran Iraqi American journalist poised to challenge Ilhan Omar in Minnesota in the 2020 race for Omar’s congressional seat in district 5. 

Both candidates are steadfast opponents of Islamists, their agenda and ideology. Both are allied with Muslim reformers.

Neither CAIR nor their allies represent the Muslim community. The American Muslim diaspora is so diverse that it would be dishonest to say that any one person or organization represents them. There is no central representation and there shouldn’t be. All our voices deserve to be heard, but what you keep seeing be pushed by mainstream media is this fabricated monolith fantasy of a Muslim — in short, an Islamist.


Omar Qudrat: Tired of Islamist & Apologist Narratives

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Why CAIR Doesn’t Represent American Muslims

Was Virginia Doctor Performing a Kind of Demographic Jihad?

Helping turn Virginia blue?

Because so many readers sent the news about a Pakistani doctor in Virginia under arrest for performing unwanted and unneeded medical procedures on women in his care, I need to post the news.

Even if there weren’t questions about why some women were unknowingly (allegedly) made infertile, Dr Perwaiz would have come to our attention, joining a growing list of ‘new American’ doctors who are busy committing Medicaid/Medicare fraud one of the interests highlighted here at ‘Frauds and Crooks.

Here is Robert Spencer’s (Jihad Watch) take on the incredible news at PJ Media

Demographic Jihad? Virginia Muslim Doctor Tied Women’s Tubes Without Their Consent

The details of this case are simply horrifying. One woman tried for years to conceive a child, but couldn’t. When she finally consulted a fertility specialist, she discovered, according to the Virginian-Pilot, that her “Fallopian tubes had been burned down to nubs, making it impossible to conceive naturally.” It turned out that her physician, Dr. Javaid Perwaiz of Chesapeake, Virginia, had tied her tubes without telling her was doing it or obtaining her consent. And she was by no means the only woman whom Dr. Perwaiz victimized in this way.


About the good doctor we are told that he was “educated abroad,” with no hint as to where – it was actually in his native Pakistan, as the Virginian-Pilot notes: “Perwaiz has had a medical license since at least 1980, according to state records, having attended medical school in his native Pakistan and completed a residency at Charleston Area Medical Center.”

Read the Virginian-Pilot story to see what Perwaiz is being charged with.

Spencer wraps with this after telling us what Muslim leaders have said in the past about demographic jihad:

Is it possible that Javaid Perwaiz has the same kind of mindset, believing that he is performing an Islamic duty by preventing infidel women from having children? It cannot be discounted, but of course the possibility will never be investigated; to do so would be “Islamophobic.”

Continue reading here.

One reader who sent me the story remarked that any woman who goes to a Muslim doctor is foolish (harsher words than that).  However, I will bet most American women have no clue if their ‘new American’ doctor is a Muslim and if they do they don’t know any basic tenets of Islam.

Changing America by changing the people!

Don’t miss my RRW story about how Muslims are winning big in local elections. Virginia was a big winner for them on election day 2019.

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

The Cult of Transgenderism: My Brother’s Crisis of Identity in an America Gone Mad

By Lisa*Editor’s Note: This is Part 1 of a 6-Part Series. The author of this true account, a wife and mother of three, wishes to remain anonymous. All names in this account have been changed.The Abandonment of Reality and the Embrace of the “True Self”

Last year, my brother Josh, a 37-year-old married father with five kids under the age of 9, announced he was becoming a woman.

His wife, in turn, announced that she not only plans to stay married, but that she is “more proud of him” than she’s ever been. Actually, she said she is “more proud of her than she’s ever been.” That’s because my brother Josh changed his name to Melissa and now requires everyone to use “she/her” pronouns when referring to him. If the grandparents refuse to do this, they have been threatened with limited access to their grandchildren.

My brother and sister-in-law claim that through several years of therapy, they came to realize the truth: that Melissa was Josh’s “true self” all along.

Thus, my tall, handsome, muscular brother began taking strong female hormones that transformed him into a different person. His facial hair stopped growing. He grew breasts instead. As part of his “social transition” he began wearing dresses, wigs, heels, and makeup in public. He will have to stay on female hormones until the day he dies. He refuses to answer to the name Josh now—the only name anyone’s known him as for almost four decades. He says Josh is dead. There was even some type of symbolic “burial ceremony” to say goodbye to Josh once and for all. Unfortunately, I didn’t get invited to that. Nor did my parents. No one sent us flowers. No one dropped off a casserole.

Basically, the best way to describe what happens when a loved one decides to swap genders is this: It’s as though someone murders your loved one and then the murderer gets extremely angry if you won’t let them take the victim’s place in your family.

My family and I are now called “transphobic” for not embracing Melissa with open arms.

When I told my brother, “I’m sorry…I love Josh, but I cannot move forward with this new Melissa girl,” he simply texted me: “So long then.” So long to almost 40 years of relating as siblings. So long to weekly dinners at my parents’ home. So long to our kids growing up with their cousins. But I do not fault him or his wife for this. They are victims. They have been brainwashed by the trans cult. It all began with a therapist’s advice and ended with lifelong payments to the trans medical machine. There’s lots of money to be made in telling people to become the opposite gender. Lots. (More on that later.)

Oddly, even in this #MeToo era, American culture now tells me that my brother—who’s spent 37 years as a Caucasian male—now deserves the same rights and respects that I, an actual woman, deserve. I’m a woman who’s been sexually harassed hundreds of times in my 40 years of life. My brother was a star high school athlete who had his pick of girls to date. While I was fending off unwanted stares and groping hands of males in my 20s, he was enjoying all the perks of being just such a male in the 21st century. While I was giving birth to three babies who will grow up to be women in my 30s, he was joining the fight to get legal access to their public restrooms.

See, if my brother was claiming to be an alien or a time traveler instead of a woman, our culture would never support it. But since it’s 2019 and the denial of reality when it comes to biological sex is en vogue—countless people are blindly embracing Melissa as my brother’s “True Self.” Even though reality clearly proves my brother is male, people unabashedly deny reality out of fear of being called “intolerant.” They’re terrified of being lumped in with all the “Trump-supporting, LGBTQ haters.” They say things like, “If Josh tells us that this Melissa is actually his ‘true self,’ who are we to argue?”

The “True Self” has become the final measure of all things. Every book we open, every show we watch, every internet meme we read suggests we can all attain greater levels of health and peace through a deeper understanding and expression of our “True Self.”

It sounds so right. How can it be wrong?

In his book The Road to Character, David Brooks explains that back in the day, there was something called moral realism—a worldview that put an emphasis on human sin and human weakness. Biblical figures like David and Moses were seen as great leaders who were also deeply flawed. Augustine and the early church fathers talked constantly about the depravity of sin and the need for grace. Then around the 18th century, moral realism found a rival in moral romanticism. Romantics like Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized the inherent goodness of man and rejected the concept of sin.

Fast forward to the 20th century when books like Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s New York Times best seller Peace of Mind (published in 1946) urged people toward a new morality based on the idea that you should never repress any part of yourself as sinful. Instead, you should “love yourself” and not be afraid of your hidden impulses. Humanist psychologists ran with this idea. They began arguing that the primary problem for humans was no longer sin, but rather the fact that we weren’t fully accepting of ourselves exactly as God made us. This line of thinking led to the advent of the self-esteem movement in 1969, and the core of that movement morphed into what Charles Taylor calls “The Culture of Authenticity.” That’s the culture we’re contending with today.

The central belief of the culture of authenticity goes something like this:

At the center of every one of us is a Golden Figure known as “the True Self.” The True Self can always be trusted. You know that what you’re doing is right when you feel an inner peace inside your True Self. You know that what you’re doing is wrong when you do not feel inner peace inside your True Self.

Because the True Self is inherently good, there is no sin to be found in it. Thus, sin is now found only in the external structures of society that seek to repress the True Self or stop it from fully emerging.

Previous generations believed the development of character and the road to salvation came by struggling against the desires of the True Self. This is why traits like selflessness and self-sacrifice were considered most admirable. But not anymore. Our culture now has a new “salvation”—with the True Self playing the role of redeemer.

The steps to this “new salvation” are as follows:

  1. Relinquish any previous struggle you had against your True Self.
  2. Allow your ego/shadow self to fall away so your True Self can fully emerge without any guilt or shame (both of which are constructs of old, outdated religious systems).
  3. Adopt a new lexicon in which words like “sin” and “evil” now refer to the external constructs of society that caused you to doubt your True Self was good and perfect in the first place. (Thus, the only real sin a man is now capable of engaging in is the sin of intolerance.)

Yet many influential thinkers of the past, including John Stuart Mill, believed the point of life was to struggle every day to sacrifice the True Self on the altar of care and concern for others. This is done by achieving a series of small, inner victories against your own desires because you know that acting upon those desires could result in dire consequences for others.

Because we are all bound together through our good and bad choices, the smallest decisions we make today can negatively impact everyone in our sphere of influence, even reaching forward into generations to come. Thus, we build character by a thousand selfless acts of restraint every day that no one ever sees or applauds.

Our society once believed this sort of self-restraint was the best way to live. Men and women were encouraged to exercise self-restraint in building a life of integrity. But the ideals of selflessness and self-restraint are now seen as hopelessly outdated and must be discarded in favor of the True Self.

To continue reading Lisa’s story, click over to the FRC blog…


New Data Show “Gender-Affirming” Surgery Doesn’t Really Improve Mental Health. So Why Are the Study’s Authors Saying It Does?

4 Feminist Lies That Are Making Women Miserable

Military Trans Surgery: It’s on the House!

School Library Leaves Parents Shelf Shocked

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

Ilhan Omar and ‘Western Imperialism’ by Hugh Fitzgerald

On November 3, at a political rally with Bernie Sanders in Minneapolis, Ilhan Omar exclaimed that she was happy to have endorsed, and to campaign for, a candidate who “will fight against Western imperialism and fight for a just world.”

One would like to know what Omar meant by “Western imperialism.” The Americans never had an imperial empire; they never turned the Philippines and Cuba, that they had won in the Spanish-American War, in 1898, into colonies; there was no large-scale settlement of Americans in either place. There never has been an American colony in Africa; Liberia was not an American colony, but rather was intended to be an independent state populated by former slaves. The only place in the Americas where the United States has not a colony but a “territory” is Puerto Rico. Far from being exploited by American imperialists, Puerto Rico receives $21 billion a year from the American government. The Puerto Ricans apparently do not feel they are victims of American “imperialism” who demand independence – in 2018, 500,000 of them voted for statehood, while only 7,000 wanted independence.

Perhaps Ilhan Omar was thinking of the British as the quintessential “Western imperialists.” But the British Empire is long gone. The British pulled completely out of what is present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in 1947. They are nowhere else, as an imperial power, in Asia, including Hong Kong, which they turned over to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. In the Middle East, the British were in Iraq only as holders of the Mandate, tasked with guiding that country to full independence, as was achieved in 1932. The British also helped create the Emirate of Transjordan, which was never a British colony. There was a small British garrison in what was called the Crown Colony of Aden, but there were no “British colonists” in evidence; Aden was merely an entrepot to resupply ships going to and from India. In South America, the colony of British Guiana became independent in 1966. British Honduras, another colony, became independent, as the country of Belize, in 1981. In Africa, all of Britain’s former colonies, with one exception, had received their independence by 1968. That one exception was Southern Rhodesia, which received its independence, and a new name – Zimbabwe – in 1980. What examples of British imperialism does Ilhan Omar have in mind? Bermuda? Anguilla?  Two tiny vacation spots that are not exploited by British colonials, but profit handsomely from Western tourism? Does she really think those islands would want to sever their ties to Great Britain?

Or could Omar be thinking of the French “imperialists”? Where are those French colonies that so offend her? The French left their last colony in North Africa, Algeria, in 1962, nearly 58 years ago. The vast territories of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa were given their independence by 1960. Perhaps Ilhan Omar has some vague notion that the French still rule these lands. As for the two Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, and the two even smaller islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon in the North Atlantic, these are not colonies, but juridically parts of France itself, with full representation in the French Parliament.

There is one great imperialism that we can be sure Ilhan Omar does not recognize. This is the imperialism of the Muslim Arabs, who not only managed to conquer many lands and many peoples, but to impose their religion, and even their ethnic identity, on those peoples. Many of those peoples who converted to Islam, whether willingly, or out of a desire to escape the onerous conditions imposed on them as dhimmis (tolerated non-Muslims under Muslim rule), were so eager to identify with their conquerors, that that they took Arab names, and in some cases, assumed as well the name “Sayyid,” which meant they were declaring themselves to be descendants of Muhammad’s own tribe, the Quraysh. That is why the writer V. S. Naipaul, the scholar of Islam Anwar Sheikh, and many others have described Islam as the most successful imperialism in history, because those who are its victims identify completely with those victimizing them. Naipaul writes about this in Among the Believers — the Pakistanis, Malays, and Indonesians who , he discovered, all want to be “little Arabs.”

This desire makes sense. After all, the Message of Allah was delivered in Arabic, and to a 7th-century Arab. Ideally, the Qur’an must be read and recited in Arabic. Muslims who prostrate themselves in prayer must always turn toward Mecca, in Arabia. They make the Hajj, too, to the same city of Mecca, again in Arabia. As a consequence of all this, Arabs enjoy the highest prestige among Islamic peoples, and non-Arab Muslims seek to identify with them.

Many of those victims of Muslim Arab imperialism were taught to regard their own pre-Islamic histories as of no interest or significance; they dismissed those pasts as belonging to the Jahiliyya, the Time of Ignorance. A good example of this is the singular lack of interest shown by Muslim Pakistanis in the spectacular remains of Mohenjo-Daro, which dates from 2500 B.C., and is one of the world’s earliest major cities. But it is from the pre-Islamic times of ignorance, and consequently is of no significance to Muslims.

Among those conquered by Muslim Arabs, many people replaced their indigenous languages with Arabic; speakers of Coptic in Egypt, Aramaic in Syria, and Tamazight in North Africa have noticeably decreased over the centuries. Even after the conquered peoples converted to Islam, as non-Arabs they were regarded as inferior. The Berbers in North Africa, the region’s original inhabitants, today suffer from Arab cultural supremacism within their own lands, where their language, Tamazight, for a long time was prohibited from being taught or recognized as an official language – now it can again be taught in a few schools – and Berber culture continues to be suppressed. The Kurds, too, though Muslim, have been on the receiving end of Arab imperialism, that reached its apotheosis in Saddam Hussein’s murderous Anfal campaign, when his Arab soldiers murdered 182,000 Kurds.

Many may not know that the greatest mass murder in history was that conducted by Muslims in India, during several centuries of Mughal rule, when 70-80 million Hindus were killed. Those Hindus who chose to convert were the ancestors of today’s Muslims in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Does Ilhan Omar even know how Islam spread, through conquest, in India, and how many Hindus were its victims, and how many converted to Islam to avoid being killed? Perhaps she can be asked publicly about these matters; her display of ignorance will be most telling..

Where else do we see Muslim imperialism on display? Wherever Muslims are murdering non-Muslims in order to increase their own power, as with Boko Haram in Nigeria, and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, or with Muslims killing Copts in Egypt. These are attempts to strike terror in the hearts of non-Muslims, and if possible, to frighten some to convert, and to seize the lands, and sometimes to murder, those who refuse. Muslim imperialism is on the march, in a different way, even within European countries. Muslims have managed to carve out for themselves many No-Go areas, where non-Muslims fear to tread, and firemen enter only with police protection, and the police themselves enter only in groups. It’s a new kind of imperialism, where the conquerors enter not as armed invaders, but as economic migrants, then begin to live,  just as Western imperialists used to do, off the indigenous peoples in the countries they conquered. They do this without having to conquer others with weapons. Merely by being allowed to live in these Infidel lands in Europe, they find they can have every conceivable benefit lavished upon them: free or subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits, family allowances. The huge sums transferred to these Muslim migrants by the state can be seen as a new form of imperialism, where one people lives off of another, in a conquest that is conducted through non-violent means, perfected by those Muslims who have been allowed to settle deep behind what they have always been taught are enemy lines, the lines of Dar al-Harb. This Islamic imperialism is just as effective as imperialist conquest in the classic sense, and is all the more dangerous for not being recognized by its victims for what it is.

A few questions might be addressed to the self-assured Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who is so eager to fight alongside Bernie Sanders against “Western imperialism.”

Ms. Omar, can you give us examples of “Western imperialism” today that you think need to be addressed? Just to refresh your memory, the last American quasi-colony, the Philippines, received its full independence in 1946. Puerto Rica is a territory, not an exploited colony; it receives $21 billion in aid from the American government each year; in 2017, 97% of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood; that certainly suggests they do not feel exploited by the United States. The last two British colonies of any size, Southern Rhodesia and British Honduras (now Belize), received their independence in 1980 and 1981, respectively. The small city-state of Hong Kong that was by then the very last Crown Colony was turned over to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, much to the regret of its inhabitants. The last French colony to receive independence was Algeria, in 1962. A handful of tiny French islands – Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Pierre and Miquelon — are now politically fully part of France, sending delegates to the French Parliament. So we remain puzzled about your determination to fight a non-existent “Western Imperialism.” Please tell us what you had in mind.

Ilhan Omar might consider abandoning her attempt to find examples of that “Western Imperialism” that so concerns her and to consider other imperialisms, outside the West. She might look into the Muslim Arabs who have not only conquered many peoples outside of Arabia during the past 1,400 years, but have convinced those peoples to identify completely with their conquerors, the Arabs, even taking Arab names upon conversion, and in some cases, assuming the name “Sayyid”  in order to identify themselves as descendants of the tribe of the Prophet.

Does she recognize the conquest by Muslim Arabs of many lands and peoples as “imperialism,” or is that something that she insists pertains only to the Western powers?

She might be asked what she makes of Egypt, where the entire population consisted of Coptic Christians before the Arabs arrived. How did that country go from being nearly 100% Coptic to becoming  85% Muslim? Does Ilhan Omar have any comment on how the Coptic Christians who remain are treated by the majority Muslims? She might be asked, too, what happened to the Zoroastrians of Persia, who disappeared almost entirely when the Muslim Arabs conquered that land, save for a group that found refuge in India where, ever since, they have been known as the Parsees. She might be asked, too, to comment on the situation of those Berbers today in North Africa, that is,  those Berbers who have managed to withstand Arabization in Algeria and Morocco, who have had to fight hard to retain their Berber language, culture, and identity.

There are so many more questions she might be asked, but let’s end our inquiry with two final questions for the Congresswoman.

“Ms. Omar, the Muslim imperialists who conquered India murdered between 70 and 80 million Hindus over several centuries of Muslim rule. Would you care to tell us what you make of that fact? And even today, Muslim terrorists, some based in Pakistan, still target Hindus in India. Think of those who have attacked the Parliament Building in New Delhi or, in 2008, hit 10 different sites in Mumbai. What do you believe they are after? Much of Indian territory was in 1947 given over to the creation of Muslim Pakistan (then West Pakistan) and Muslim Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Yet Muslim terrorists continue to strike within India. Do they now want to conquer the rest of India? Does their Jihad against India’s Infidels have no end?

“And one last thing, Congresswoman.  The late scholar of Islam, Anwar Sheikh, who had grown up as a Muslim, famously wrote that ‘Islam is the vehicle for Arab supremacism.’ Would you care to discuss what he meant by that lapidary formulation?”

Raising these matters might just make Ms. Omar more hesitate to inveigh against “Western Imperialism” and possibly cause her to tiptoe very carefully around the subject of “imperialism” altogether, now that she realizes that others are ready and willing to discuss the Arab and Muslim varieties, that have been much more extensive, and have claimed many more victims, than anything done by “Western imperialists.” Should she choose, uncharacteristically, to shut up entirely about “imperialism,” that is an outcome devoutly to be wished.


Socialism Is Rising and Now So Is Soviet Revisionism

10-year-old boy in ISIS camp: “We’re going to kill you by slaughtering you. Turn to Allah with sincere repentance”

UK: Eight Muslims charged with raping and trafficking the same 15-year-old girl

France: Thousands march against “Islamophobia,” saying “Yes to criticism of religion, no to hatred of believers”

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

When Justice Isn’t

A letter written by a local elementary school teacher, I’ll call “Mrs. Krieg,” was brought to my attention by a mutual acquaintance.  In light of the notice that honor classes will be discontinued, she thoughtfully agreed that equity (defined as fairness and impartiality) in the schools should benefit all students.  Regrettably, she has been influenced by terminology that has been devalued and redefined to become a tool for social engineering among students.  Such revisionism has been applied to Equity, Diversity and Social Justice, and comes at the expense of freedom and true justice.

Honors classes were designed to challenge students academically.  The advanced work, faster pace, and higher course-credit weight have provided for smarter, happier, well-rounded children who had the opportunity to flourish according to their capabilities and not misbehave out of boredom.  But now, the authorities have determined it best to cancel the honor courses across the country because of a “lack of diversity” – that is, more Caucasian and Asian students were engaged than Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.  Instead of also providing honors classes that meet the interests of the low-energy students – perhaps music, theater, artisanal handicrafts – the Department of Education has decided to close the achievement gap by lowering the bar and expectations and discontinuing all incentives.  Mrs. Krieg did not foresee that by eliminating the incentives and opportunities, the resulting “equity” would be mediocrity and the loss of exceptional achievement.

Now the Department of Education will generate equity in boredom, discontent, resentment, truancy and delinquency.  Academia is not unaware of these inevitabilities.  Their purpose is not an improved education but the decline of achievement and the elimination of the exceptional. Former President Obama expressed a similar derogatory outlook when he denounced high-achieving Americans with, “You didn’t build that.”

Diversity in the schools no longer describes a richness of ideas, course studies, or specialty careers, but defines and categorizes the students themselves, by race, religion, ethnicity, financial status, sexual orientation, and however else the students choose to differentiate themselves.  As with the term “equity,” the meaning of “diversity” has been corrupted, as it now implies division, divisiveness, and discord, the opposite of E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, One.  These differences have led to a totalitarian-style monitoring and bullying – called Speech Control, necessitating “Diversity Officers” with doctoral degrees, credentials in counseling and inclusion techniques, and six-figure salaries reflected in higher tuition costs.  The officers’ mere presence confirms the growing disharmony, isolation, discrimination, harassment, and violence that characterize the socialist strategy.  These points are significant:

  • Many schools have implemented a policy of discouraging the bonding between classmates, beginning with Kindergarten, alleging that “best friends” keep the students from mingling with others.  This is false and destructive.  Best friends are a mutual support system, as they learn to agree, compromise, comfort, accommodate, and be reliable, traits needed throughout their adult lives.
  • Schools now place students at their computers for hours, removing eye contact and discussion opportunities with others, disallowing autonomy over time scheduling, reducing writing and penmanship with its inherent creativity. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris said she would increase daily school time by three hours, thereby seriously reducing home and family activities, personal growth, and individual achievement.
  • Academia has introduced “intersectionality” to diminish the self and encourage victimhood by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, family class; the more the classifications, the higher their status.  Instead of a unitedness with school and pride of citizenship in their own country, they are now tribalistic, divisive, and intolerant.
  • Bigotry against Jewish students and staff (antisemitism) is on the rise and spreading.  History has shown that Jews are always the first, but never the only ones, to be attacked.  There is growing hostility directed towards whites (white supremacy), extending to our founding and history, particularly by the socialists and Sharia-compliant; and towards boys (toxic masculinity), which works to diminish their self-worth and ambitions, and damage their God-given purpose of contributing to our nation’s growth and defense.  Boys must become men: marry and support their families, be strong fathers and teach morality to the next generation.
  • The removal of God from the schools and population’s psyche has produced a plethora of new definitions that facilitate a ruling class, convince the public to tolerate lawlessness over sovereign borders, and to submit to the measured demands of sharia made by the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates on campus and in the media.
  • The Common Core standards introduced new courses: intentionally convoluted math that prohibits parental participation; dystopian and uninspiring literature that offers limited creative vocabulary and replaces inspiration with fatalism; inaccurate and indoctrinating history lessons that misinform students about our growth and successes and secretes the truths about Islam; and social studies that support a political agenda.
  • With individuality stifled, the children are indoctrinated to think alike, falter alike, and expect equal return for widespread mediocrity.  This equity in communist countries has produced  stagnation in education, the economy and real income; slow improvement in everyday services and medical care; shortages of goods; rising criminality and corruption, along with an increase in alcoholism, particularly in Russia.  Socialism kills the spirit of personal endeavor.
  • The introduction of transgenderism is ruining the lives of many children, psychologically and physically, wrecking all opportunities for happiness in marriage and family, leading some to suicide.
  • The threat of climate change, perhaps the greatest hoax, is the extensive control over all life, which would bring a scarcity of energy, failing manufacturing firms and  retail operations, vilified consumerism, diminishing food supplies, curbed transportation for people and food distribution.  The environmentalists purposely falsify the data about climatic conditions in order to throttle human activity – which they hate – to produce their worshipped green planet.
  • In short, the goal of the left is to crush the human spirit.  Pride in accomplishment must be stifled, progress discouraged, and the dispirited population reminted into the globalists’ compliant working class.

Contrary to Mrs. Krieg’s understanding, the term “diversity” was invented to con the populace into accepting all incoming non-citizens.  Regardless of criminality, disease, or hatred for the American flag, they must be housed, fed, clothed, educated and medicated.  Multiculturalism is already the downfall of several European countries due to cultures that are too disparate for assimilation.  Muslims come to replace their hosts’ laws with their sharia and establish yet another oppressive totalitarian Islamic state.

Justice becomes injustice when the word needs a modifier.  “Social justice” means a revision of laws to accommodate a socialist agenda.  True justice is served only when the interests of Americans are considered, when Americans can, of their own volition and in their own time, partake of the promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The authoritarian government seeks total/totalitarian control over the masses to forcibly produce identical workers, taught and indoctrinated to comply with the needs of the regime.

The final outcome is not unknown to mankind.  We have seen countries fall to socialism, fascism, and Islam, and the vulnerable children are always the first to feel the effects of the increasing control.

Now is the time to act if we are to avoid Orwell’s dire warning: If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.

© All rights reserved.

AOC And Fellow Radicals: ‘We Are Bringing the Party Home’

Campaigning with aging Communist and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders in Iowa over the weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  dismissed concerns from establishment Democrats that radicals like herself and Sanders are moving the Democrat Party “too far left.” Instead, she claimed they are “bringing the party home.”

“When people try to accuse us of going too far left — we’re not pushing the party left,” Ocasio-Cortez, otherwise known as AOC, told a crowd in Coralville, Iowa. “We are bringing the party home.”

“Are you all ready for a revolution?” she added. “I sure am.” So are her fellow freshmen representatives known as “The Squad”: Ilhan OmarRashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley — extremists all. Not to mention older radicals like Sanders and his competitor Elizabeth Warren.

That’s because the Democrat Party has become the party of rebranded Communism. Their aim is the “fundamental transformation,” as Barack Obama notoriously put it, of the United States, including its economic transformation from capitalism to socialism.


Decrying Capitalism and America’s Racism & Environmental Policy

While speaking with Senator Bernie Sanders at a November 2019 “Climate Crisis” summit in Iowa, Ocasio-Cortez said:

“The reason we are in this crisis is because oil and gas has been one of the most profitable industries of the modern era and when we talk about fighting money in politics what we’re talking about is fighting big oil. We’re talking about fighting Wall Street. We’re talking about fighting big pharma.” Suggesting that the only way to get “get through this moment” [i.e., the Donald Trump presidency] was to “guarantee” health care to every American.”

She added:

“Here’s the thing, is that we can beat him but we have to vaccinate ourselves against something like this [Trump’s 2016 election victory] ever happening again, and the way we inoculate ourselves … from late-stage hyper capitalistic concentration of wealth among the very, very few is with a labor movement.”

Asserting also that “the way we inoculate ourselves from continuing to burn up our planet … is by honoring indigenous wisdom and allowing it to guide our climate policy,”

Ocasio-Cortez stated:

“The way that we preserve our systems is by transitioning to principles of universality. That means I want you clothed, I want you educated, I want you paid a living wage — no ifs, ands, or buts. And what that also means … is directly, consciously, combating white supremacy in the United States of America.”

To learn more about Ocasio-Cortez, click on the profile link here.

RELATED ARTICLE: AOC Links White Supremacy to Climate Change

A New Candidate for Confiscator-in-Chief

Former Texas Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke abandoned his run for President last week, once again leaving a void for the most strident anti-gun candidate seeking the Democrat nomination. Even before declaring his candidacy for President, California Representative Eric Swalwell raised the specter of banning AR-15s and similar firearms, forcing Americans to turn them in through a confiscation scheme mislabeled as a “mandatory buyback,” then “go[ing] after” resisters. He even famously “joked” about using nukes to enforce his scheme.

After Swalwell became the first candidate to bow out of the race when he failed to generate any noticeable poll numbers, O’Rourke stepped up to push the confiscation message.

Clearly, every Democrat that wants to run against Trump is anti-gun. The main difference among them, when it comes to semi-automatics, seems to be whether they want to ban their future production, ban them completely and confiscate them, or ban their future production and register those currently owned (presumably to make future confiscation easier).

Candidate O’Rourke staked out his strident position during the third Democrat Debate when he infamously declared, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….” The former Congressman even seemed to double-down on his ban and confiscate scheme. He said during the fourth debate that if a gun owner doesn’t turn in a lawfully acquired firearm, “…then that weapon will be taken from them,” as well as suggesting they may face “other consequences from law enforcement.” He also told Joe Scarborough during an interview the day after the fourth debate that if someone did not turn over a banned semi-auto, “there would be a visit by law enforcement.”

Last week, an Iowa high school student confronted O’Rourke about his plan to ban AR-15s, the rifle the teen uses for hunting deer. The candidate feigned ignorance over the notion that people use the rifle for hunting deer, even though it is commonly used for taking such game.

Later in the week, at an event in Newtown, Conn., that was closed to the public and organized by groups promoting gun control, O’Rourke was again confronted. This time, a Newtown resident accused the candidate of trying to exploit the tragedy her town experienced to promote his anti-gun agenda.

O’Rourke must have finally seen the writing on the wall. He faced harsh criticism over his anti-gun extremism, even in what he may have thought would be “friendly” environments. He burned through an estimated $14 million in campaign funds, while poll after poll saw him stagnating in the low-to-mid single digits. And don’t forget he spent around $80 million last year to lose his U.S. Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz.

If he could not win a statewide race with that kind of money, what hope did he have of winning a national election?

Last Friday, the Texan answered that question when he pulled the plug on his latest campaign. But with O’Rourke now out of the race, will any Democrat candidate don the mantle of wannabe Confiscator in Chief?

On Monday’s episode of The View, while the cast was doing a postmortem on O’Rourke’s failed campaign, host Joy Behar chastised the former Texas Representative for revealing exactly what NRA has been saying for years is the ultimate goal of anti-gun extremists.

Perhaps as a warning to the remaining Democrat candidates, Behar stated, “They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you are going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected and then take them away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”

For a party that claims to support transparency, it seems odd to hear a Democrat like Behar offer such advice. Perhaps more concerning, however, would be to consider what else Democrat candidates for President might have in store for law-abiding gun owners that they do not want to publicly reveal until after next year’s election.

Of course, it is likely Behar’s advice will be followed. The top three candidates seeking the Democrat nomination seem to be set at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Joe Biden, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been showing signs of gaining some traction. All have rejected O’Rourke’s call for confiscation, at least openly, and at least for now.

But, with multiple sources now reporting that anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg is once again considering throwing his name into the already crowded Democrat field, it’s likely that anti-gun extremists won’t have to wait long for a new champion of confiscation. After all, he’ll be the only candidate who can tout his experience as a firearm confiscator.


New Hampshire: Firearm Seizure Bill Headed to House Floor

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

Bloomberg’s Gun Control Apparatus Lies to Virginia’s Firearm Owners in Election Mailing

Strong Firearms Preemption Laws are More Important Than Ever

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Republicans Must Counter the Radical Socialist Democrats

“Socialism is when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  When a person gets hungry, that’s socialism too.  Some might say that it’s when the workers own the means of production, but this is all really an elaborate plot for us wealthy folks to keep bread for ourselves.” –  Karl Marx

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” –  Winston Churchill

“The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country.” – Lyn Nofziger (American journalist, conservative Republican political consultant and author)

Why, when socialists endorse the same collectivist ideas that have always led to tyranny, should we listen?  And why is the Republican party so weak in retaliating against it?  As I’ve stated time and again, the majority of Republicans are part of the same cabal as the Democrats.

Long ago old right conservative Republicans cherished both the U.S. Constitution and traditional morality, but those times have changed.  Most conservatives were led astray more than half a century ago.  They were deceived, not by overt liberalism/socialism, but by counterfeit conservatism which promoted liberal causes.  Many of them now support abortion, drugs, homosexuality, pornography, policing the world’s nations, the flagrant spending of tax dollars that has exponentially increased our debt, open borders and more.  They are part of the same globalist establishment as their counterparts in the Democratic Party.

As such, many republican officials at the highest levels of our federal government and Department of Justice breached the trust of the people in an attempt to undermine Trump’s presidency and remove him from office.

“Resistance” Began Early

The “destroy Trump coup” developed in the first 24 hours after the 2016 election following weeks of sometimes violent protests.  The anti-Trump movement realized that simply shouting and causing public nuisance and property damage wasn’t getting them what they wanted.  It didn’t take long for the members of the left to find impeachment was the best vehicle for their coup to drive the president from office.

Roughly five weeks before the presidential inauguration, Vanity Fair published an article by Emily Jane Fox headlined “Democrats are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.” They focused on the family business, the D.C. Trump hotel and possible personal financial improprieties which now includes his tax records for years before his presidency.

By the day of the inauguration, January 20, 2017, the impeachment hunger was great enough that the Washington Post headlined Matea Gold’s article “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.”  All of this disappeared after a few weeks when the fraudulent “Russian collusion” began, but now it’s back in full evil glory.

Schiff and Impeachment

The Democratic Party, now headed by House Intelligence Committee member, Adam Schiff, is running the “impeach Trump show” regarding the President’s legitimate and constitutional phone call to a foreign nation’s leader.  Can there be a more despicable two-faced liar than Adam Schiff, whether publicly reciting a transcript that he falsifies or even his cynical exploitation of his Congressional District’s large population of 70,000 Armenian-American voters whom he manipulates annually?

Schiff purposefully lied to the public about what President Trump said in the released transcript of his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky.  Schiff read an entirely different Trump conversation to the American public in which he created a false narrative about what was said and later claimed his “pretend conversation by Trump with Zelensky” was just a parody.  This was no parody, and his false statements were purveyed to the American public by the right arm of the Democratic Socialists, the mainstream media and their flunkies.

The CIA traitorous whistleblower, who never listened to the President’s conversation is being sheltered and hidden by the Democratic Socialists.

Senator Rand Paul told Bret Baier that according to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the sixth amendment guarantees anyone accused of a crime gets to face their accuser in court.  And the Fraternal Order of Police claim Congress is violating “one of the most basic rights afforded to American citizens” as they attempt a coup by using impeachment to remove President Trump. Link

Republicans Rise Up

Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) was the first to call out the attacks against our President by introducing a resolution to condemn and censor Rep. Adam Schiff.

Every House Republican signed onto Congressman Biggs’ resolution.  I was thrilled, and spoke with friends who all felt that Trump supporters wanted the Republicans to storm the secret meetings by Schiff being held in the basement and they did just that!  They all walked down to the basement and stormed an illegal and unconstitutional action by Schiff and his comrades who are still angry that their socialist candidate Hillary Clinton lost the election to outsider and populist American, Donald J. Trump.

Senator Rand Paul made us proud when he spoke at President Trump’s rally in Kentucky for pro-life Governor Matt Bevin.  Here’s what Senator Paul said,

President Trump has great courage, he faces down the fake media every day. But Congress needs to step up and have equal courage to defend the president.

Hunter Biden made $50K a month.  That’s the definition of corruption, and we know he got it only because of his family connections.

We also now know the name of the whistleblower.  The whistleblower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked with Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs.  I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name!

And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower!

And I say to my colleagues, if shifty Schiff will not let Hunter Biden come, and if he will not bring the whistleblower forward, every republican in congress should take a walk and say, “This is a farce.”

Trump supporters were pleased to see such actions, but more is needed to save the Republic from ultimate constitutional disaster and the continuous corruption by the Democratic Party.

Republican efforts are noted, but the recent elections spell trouble for 2020 as the Democrats are working overtime to make sure the country turns blue.

Kentucky Governor Bevin

Democratic money and dirty tricks were behind the recent election losses.  Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin was the only republican to lose in that state’s election.  Republicans won every other statewide race by a considerable margin.  Democrat Andy Beshear won the gubernatorial spot by a narrow margin of 4,000 votes.

Unfortunately, Governor Bevin was not only sabotaged by Libertarians, who won over 20,000 votes for candidate John Hicks, but by a failure of Republicans to vote for Bevin despite their straight line votes for every other Republican in the election. Governor Bevin was a strong pro-lifer, but it has been alleged that he was unpopular for a number of reasons.  People thought of him as a carpetbagger from Colorado and that he wasn’t really in tune with the culture of Kentucky.

Nevertheless, a look at the county-by-county map in Kentucky compared to an Electoral College map of the United States, looks like Bevin would have won Kentucky handily.  The blue liberal enclaves in the cities are where the democratic voter turnout was high and cost the Governor his second term.

Virginia Goes Blue

Former Attorney General Eric Holder has had his first electoral success for the democrats to dominate state legislatures.  They won both chambers of the legislature adding to the governor’s control.  After next year’s census, Virginia’s legislative district lines will be redrawn.  That redistricting will likely cement Democratic dominance for the next ten years.

Holder launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee which is committed to the domination of electoral map-making through the courts and legislatures.  They’ve won with litigation changing maps they didn’t like.  They plan on doing the same in another 11 states next year.  Previously Republicans had done the same thing after Obama was elected in 2008.

Holder’s campaign is “sue to blue” and has yielded major gains for Democrats.  Judges appointed by Democrats actually helped by striking down previous Republican maps.

In Virginia, Democrats spent at least $54 million, outspending Republicans by $12 million.  Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros and their organizations spent more than all outside Republican contributors combined.

Republicans must get involved in the state elections.  The Democrats are keeping them occupied with their unconstitutional impeachment inquiry against the President.  Holder and his gang intend to flip one chamber in each state, deadlocking Republicans and Democrats and throwing questions to the courts.  Republicans need to get state judges elected who refrain from meddling in the redistricting function which the U.S. Constitution assigns to the state legislatures.

Holder will face a harder task in Florida, Georgia and Texas, as Virginia was already trending blue, but the threat to the GOP is real.  If the Republicans don’t take up that challenge soon, they’re going to lose for another decade.  We certainly can’t afford that.

Soros has already launched a super pac for democrats according to paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission.  He has seeded the 2020 campaign fund with $5.1 million.

Here is Open Secrets list of the individuals who have dipped deepest into their own pockets for campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, political action committees, 527 organizations, and Carey committees. Only contributions to Democrats and Republicans or liberal and conservative outside groups are included in calculating the percentages the donor has given to either party.

Demonic Hatred

Yes, that’s what this is, demonic hatred not only of President Trump, and the fact that he was elected over the chosen corrupt Democratic candidate, but hatred of his supporters.  The attacks on this President have been endless, and here are just a few.

First was the spying by Obama’s henchmen and the creation of the phony dossier by Christopher Steele, paid for by the DNC and Hillary, then the immediate call for impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated.  In short order, the attack on General Michael Flynn by the partisan FBI agents successfully removed Trump’s perfect choice for National Security Advisor.

Ron Johnson, chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee made a study of Mr. Trump’s first 18 weeks in office.  He found the administration had faced 125 leaked stories, one leak each day containing information that is potentially damaging to national security.  Former FBI Director James Comey made sure before he was fired to leak confidential information and see to it that the Russia collusion hoax was started.

Rosenstein appointed Comey’s good friend, Robert Mueller to spend millions of tax dollars and over two years investigating our President knowing it was a criminal deception by the left.  Now we’re into the impeachment for a legal phone call to another head of state by President Trump.  Congressman Schiff is in charge of the impeachment inquiry circus to destroy President Trump’s chances of reelection in 2020.

Left and Right Join to Destroy Trump

Today we learned that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, is claiming two former cabinet members tried to recruit her to help undermine the president. In a recent interview, Haley said former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly confronted her in a closed-door meeting to enlist her in opposing President Trump.  She told them to speak directly to the President.

Haley will detail the alleged meeting in her soon to be released memoir, “With All Due Respect.”

The Washington Examiner reports that a group of medical experts who claim President Trump’s mental health makes him dangerous and unfit for office is seeking to testify during House impeachment proceedings.

The group, comprising four psychiatrists, a clinical neuropsychologist, a neurologist, and an internist, are planning to announce their availability next week to members of Congress and the media. They’ll also be available to consult privately with members of Congress, with 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, or with members of Trump’s cabinet.


Can we win?  I don’t know, but we surely need strong conservative Republican warriors and as I see it, there are only a handful…

© All rights reserved.

The Whistle-Blower Rule is Wrong

The impeachment inquiry of President Trump has taken center stage in the political campaign of 2020, even to the point of overshadowing press coverage of the Democrat presidential candidates. The inquiry focuses on a statement from an alleged whistle-blower who expressed concern regarding a telephone call the President had with the incoming President of the Ukraine. As of this writing, the whistle-blower’s identity remains anonymous. Frankly, we do not know if this is one person or several as the complaint appears to have been written by a team of lawyers. As a result, the President and his representatives cannot ask questions of his accuser.

I have tried to look at this from both sides, Republican and Democrat, and took the position; what if this was President Obama being impeached and not President Trump? Be it Republican or Democrat, I came to the same conclusions.

The protection of the whistle-blower’s anonymity could easily be construed as in conflict with Amendment 6 of the Constitution (Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions; the “Confrontation Clause”); to wit:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

This applies to criminal cases, not civil. I tend to see impeachment as a rather serious situation, after all it is reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is also something we have considered only a handful of times in our republic’s history, yet we have never removed a president from office.

Frankly, we all know it will not happen as the Senate will inevitably come to the president’s defense and dismiss the charges coming from the House. The question remains, is impeachment a criminal case or civil? In all examples over the years, it has been treated as a heinous crime, which leads me to believe it is criminal and the President is being prohibited from facing his accuser(s).

Our history is littered with stories of whistle-blowers, such as in 2013 Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who ignited the U.S. surveillance program scandal. There are also the whistle-blowers involved with the Benghazi scandal and the IRS intimidation program. Whistle-blowers have actually been with us a long time. In my life, it goes back to Daniel Ellsberg who in 1969 released the “Pentagon Papers” to the “New York Times,” detailing the military activity in Viet Nam under LBJ and Nixon. This, of course, ultimately triggered Watergate.

However, let’s go a little further back in time to 1925 when the Army instigated a court-martial against Colonel Billy Mitchell, an episode which has quickly been forgotten in history, but has an important bearing on the whistle-blowers of today.

Although Mitchell is primarily credited for building Air Power in this country, his military career goes as far back as the Spanish-American War where he served as the youngest Army officer (at age 18). Mitchell’s notoriety though began during “The Great War” (WWI) where, as Major, he became the first American officer to come under fire in the trenches of France. During the war, he earned several decorations and citations. More importantly, it was in France where he developed his fascination and passion for the airplane as a military weapon.

Mitchell understood the potential of the airplane. His superiors did not, and saw it as nothing more than a trivial instrument for observing enemy forces. They laughed at him when he claimed airplanes could sink a ship by dropping bombs on it. At the time, battleships were considered invincible. He finally got an opportunity to prove his claim and sank the German battleship “Ostfriesland” which was to be scuttled following the war. Nonetheless, the military was unimpressed. Following the war, in peacetime, there was an emphasis on shrinking the military. Even though Mitchell begged for money for research and development, he was ignored. He even urged the military to form a separate branch dedicated to an air service, but was denied. Consequently, American Air Power diminished almost to obscurity. The English, French, Italians, even the Germans had far superior airships than the Americans, and Mitchell made sure the newspapers knew about it.

Knowing Mitchell’s image was growing larger in the press, the military sent him on remote assignments in order to eliminate his exposure in the press. In 1924 he was sent to study military defenses in the Pacific. During this time, he visited Japan and witnessed firsthand how the Japanese were embracing Air Power and realized America was far behind their counterparts. Following his tour he produced an extensive 323 page report on his assessment of American defenses in the Pacific. It was in this prophetic report that he predicted how Japan would attack Pearl Harbor with remarkable accuracy. Even though the military dismissed his report as ridiculous, Mitchell’s predictions would come true 17 years later. Nonetheless, he was buried again by the military.

One year later, in 1925, the Navy dirigible “Shenandoah” was destroyed in a storm in Ohio, with a loss of thirteen lives. Mitchell was outraged as he knew the ship was archaic and denounced the Navy for its “almost treasonable” attitude towards aviation:

“As a patriotic American citizen, I can stand by no longer and see these disgusting performances…at the expense of the lives of our people and the delusion of the American public. We may all make mistakes but the criminal mistakes made by armies and navies, whenever they have been allowed to handle aeronautics, show their incompetence…This, then, is what I have to say on the subject, and I hope that every American will hear.”(1)

Although Mitchell became a hero to the American people for his bold statements, his superiors felt otherwise and court-martialed him for insubordination. Actually, the court-martial was what Mitchell was hoping for as he figured it was the best way to bring attention to the problem and create change. The case garnered a lot of attention in the press, and many notable proponents of Air Power testified on his behalf. In the end though, Mitchell was suspended from the Army for five years. Instead, Mitchell resigned in 1926 and spent the remainder of his life speaking on behalf of Air Power. He would die in 1936 never knowing how accurate his predictions would become in World War II. In 1942, President Roosevelt, recognized Mitchell’s contributions to Air Power by restoring his status and elevating him to the rank of Major General. In 1946, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, “in recognition of his outstanding pioneer service and foresight in the field of American military aviation”…10 years after his death. Today, this medal bears his likeness on it.

There are some similarities, as well as differences, between Billy Mitchell and today’s impeachment whistle-blower(s). Mitchell was a visionary who used his court-martial to draw public attention to the problems of Air Power. Today’s whistle-blower is not a visionary. He/She/They just stumbled on a problem and reported it. Whereas Mitchell stood and took his medicine as a military officer, thereby garnering the support of the American people, the impeachment whistle-blower(s) hid behind anonymity not wanting to suffer through a career ending court case as Mitchell did.

The big problem with becoming a whistle blower is that it doesn’t pay well. You might earn the admiration of the American people, but you must also face the wrath of the establishment. It takes someone with a lot of character to stand up and report a problem, whether it be in the corporate world or government. The prime difference between Billy Mitchell and today’s whistle-blower(s) is simple: Mitchell stood like a courageous man and took his medicine; the whistle-blower(s) has not. Understand this though, the American Air Power we know today can be directly attributed to the efforts of Billy Mitchell. Had he not spoken up when he did, our air defenses would have been primitive by the start of World War II. Mitchell knew what he was talking about and would not be intimidated by the powers in authority. This leads me to believe today’s impeachment whistle-bower(s) can be intimidated, and perhaps has been threatened by others.

In the end, the president is entitled to face his accuser, whatever his/her/their name is.

1-“The Billy Mitchell Story” by Burke Davis, page 102

Keep the Faith!

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

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

VIDEO: ‘Popular Vote’ Movement Would Shift Power to Big Cities, Experts Warn

The Electoral College is under threat from states looking to enact legislation that ignores local voters in favor of national election results, experts said during a panel Thursday at The Heritage Foundation.

Responding to a wave of 15 states that have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact since the 2016 election, they argued that the Founders instituted the Electoral College to ensure stability and representation to all states.

“We only got the Constitution because the Constitutional Convention persuaded the states to enter into a federation arrangement,” Allen Guelzo, a history professor at Gettysburg College, said. “Federalism is in the bones of our nation, and I would be concerned that we can’t start removing bones without the whole body collapsing.”

The panel, titled “The Fight to Preserve the Electoral College,” featured Guelzo as well as Trent England, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, and Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Heritage.

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a legislative partnership among states that agree to award all their electoral votes in future elections to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, disregarding the results of ballots cast in each individual state.

The compact would take effect only once enough states join to determine an election by awarding all 270 electoral votes needed to secure a presidential win.

So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact. Lobbyists actively are looking to expand the agreement to more states whose leaders were upset by the results of the 2016 election, when Republican Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the national popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Guelzo argued that the Electoral College slows down presidential elections by design, providing legitimacy to the presidency and combating voter fraud.

“The Electoral College embodies a fundamental instinct of the Founders, which is to say ‘slow down,’” he said, adding that “gridlock is not actually an accident.”

The history professor pushed back on objections to the Electoral College, including by some analysts who have argued that the current system violates the principle of one person, one vote.

“If one man, one vote is to be the rule, then as soon as a president loses popular support we ought to have another vote,” Guelzo said. “So we could have presidential elections every six months, three months, eight months—every time there’s an unpleasant tweet.”

England based his arguments on the 2000 election, when Republican George W. Bush lost the national vote to Democrat Al Gore and a recount in Florida for that state’s electoral vote threatened to decide who sits in the Oval Office.

“This is not just going on in blue states, this is going on across the country,” England said of the movement to bypass the electoral college. “This is a serious threat wherever you live. Red state, purple state, there are people there lobbying to hijack the Electoral College.”

England said the movement for states to bypass the Electoral College without going through the difficult process of amending the Constitution gained renewed strength after the 2016 election.

Grassroots activists and lobbying organizations, he said, are driving a message that misleads many voters about the facts of the current electoral system.

Von Spakovsky, manager of Heritage’s Election Law Reform Initiative, turned to voting numbers to argue that rural areas would be left behind if the Electoral College were abolished.

“The whole point of the Electoral College is to balance the states’ demands for greater representation and sovereignty against the risk of what James Madison liked to call the tyranny of the majority,” von Spakovsky said.

Looking again at the 2000 election, he warned that without the Electoral College, the chaos that voters and the nation at large experienced during the Florida recount would be extended to every state and county across the nation, as candidates demanded recounts in every region that potentially could sway an election in their favor.

As a result, von Spakovsky said, the decisions of the president would be seen as illegitimate by significant portions of the nation, and voter fraud would run rampant in areas unprepared to deal with it.

“What we’ve had for over 200 years with the Electoral College system is unbelievable stability,” he said.

“There is no reason to change it now.”


Aaron Credeur

Aaron Credeur is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


Here’s Why 97% Of Congress Get Re-Elected Each Year Even Though The American People Say They Are Doing A Bad Job

Obama, Clinton Alumni Serve At UN, Continuing Liberal Influence Over International Affairs During Trump Era

Meet 5 Young Black Leaders Who Fight for Conservative Values

We Need Steady Leadership, Not Fire-Starters, to Guide a Divided Nation

Justices Should Reject Criminal Alien’s Appeal of Deportation Order

VIDEO: Andy Ngo discusses the nature of ANTIFA in detail

Posted by Eeyore

Antifa’s Plan to Undermine Liberal Democracy

EDITORS NOTE: This Heritage Foundation video on the Vlad Tepes Blog is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Preparing for War


We are in the last phase now of the studio’s physical layout being finalized, with the desks being put into place and wired and all the computers and so forth being hooked up and all that electronic business being put into place.

The staff moved over from our South building last Friday afternoon into their new digs here in the North building and got settled into their new spaces. What remains is getting all the lights in place and the somewhat daunting task of getting all the cabling for cameras and audio wired back to the control room.

We haven’t officially measured it, but it’s probably a safe bet that there’s a couple hundred yards or more of wires and cables and cords and strings and ropes; they are all over the place. We also beefed up the security of the website to a tremendous degree, as well as the technical specs and operation of our internal communications systems.

Church Militant is, in short, poised to become the most sophisticated media operation in the Catholic world.

And while this new studio space is all cool and exciting and so forth, the reason for it is not. There is a cultural and theological war taking place, and without overstating it, it is a fight for the moral survival of the race. This coming year on the political front — the U.S. presidential elections will be a bloodbath, as the extremely unlikely champion (mostly) of God and country battles forces hellbent on a redefinition of humanity.

We have built this Catholic media center to be the heartbeat of authentic Catholicism, which must, as its very charter, fight against this darkness. Our Blessed Lord did not establish His Church — and yes, it is His— to go along with the world, but to convert it and to bring it salvation.

But there are forces, dark forces, as we have well documented, at work in the Church to pervert Her divine mandate. They’ve been in place for centuries, but they reached a critical mass this last half-century, and now is the time to go on the offensive against them. That is the entire reason for this newly revamped facility — to go to war with these demons who make use of human agents to bring ruination to mankind.

Some of these forces within the Church enjoy much celebrity and command large followings. They are false prophets and must be denounced. Whether destruction of the Church is a conscious motivation of theirs or they are just useful idiots in Hell’s plan no longer matters. The destruction they bring about through malice or cowardice must be confronted and defeated. They are present in every aspect of the Church and the life of the Church — in the hierarchy, the universities, the chanceries, parishes and so forth.

And if you think this sounds all crazy, then you don’t have a sufficient enough understanding of the activity of the diabolical.

If you believe in God, specifically the Holy Trinity, you therefore must believe that Lucifer refused to serve and fell from the celestial realms forever, driven out by St. Michael and his legions. Satan now unleashed his fury on the only beings he can — us. And his mission, what consumes him, is to deny to humanity what is everlastingly denied to him.

For this reason, the Eternal Logos incarnated saves us from a fate we would otherwise be powerless to fight off. He established a Church, one Church, His own mystical body on earth as a refuge, a means, the means, to salvation — the only means.

So, of course, Satan would wage war against the Church — it is the path of escape from him — and he seeks to destroy it. Think of the Church as a tunnel out of a slave labor camp, the only escape, and the commandant of the camp knows about the tunnel. He will do anything in his power to shut off that escape route.

Of course, God is more powerful than Satan so he will never defeat the Church as She is in Herself. But he can still destroy individuals. The Church will always be with us as Christ has promised. It will never be defeated.

So the Church will always be with us, but the question of whether we individually will always be with the Church is still an open question. And if we die apart from the Church, we lose — forever.

So Satan does everything he can to weaken the Church, leaving no stone unturned. That includes, even in a special way because of its power to influence, the media. It’s why we chose this arena to stand and fight.

No one in the Catholic world does media like Church Militant does.

We begin and end every day with prayer, including the Rosary, because no baptized Catholic can be Catholic without prayer. It is the very first weapon we have because it is supernatural. We combat directly the errors so common and profound throughout the Church, especially in the realm of so-called Catholic media.

These include liberal reporters like John Allen of Crux, Christopher Lamb of The Tablet, Austen Ivereigh and loads of others. It also includes the even more dangerous spiritual terrorists like James Martin, Bishops John Stowe and Robert McElroy, and the really poisonous characters like Cdls. Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin and Donald Wuerl. These men and their evil pronouncements and agendas are supported by, and advertised for, by untrustworthy and deceptive outfits and so-called journalists like the ones we named, and more.

They are all allied against the Church, attempting to present a different picture of Her true mission handed to Her by Christ Himself while He was personally present here on earth: the salvation of souls. They don’t believe that and have therefore disqualified themselves from being considered reliable. They are not.

The entire culture is at a crisis point precipitated by the crisis in the Church.

A hundred years ago, Communism understood that to create a world without God, where the state would become God, the Catholic Church would have to be destroyed. But where centuries of other attempts to destroy the Catholic Church had failed, Marxism decided to quietly invade and pervert from within.

We are here to draw the line in the sand. All good Catholics must now draw the line in the sand, and that begins with information, knowing the enemy and exposing his tactics, so the glories of the Faith may shine forth.

The whole reason for this extremely cool, all newly equipped and updated facility is to take the war to Satan and his deceptions.

When Our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail, that presents a picture of the Church attacking, not crouching down, hiding and cowering in some defensive posture.We have the Queen of Heaven, St. Michael, the truth of God Himself, all present in the Holy Catholic Church. It’s time for war.

Before we wrap up, we’d like to continue to express our gratitude to all of you who have donated to this cause and continue to donate.

We still have bills that are outstanding, and whatever you can keep giving to help is very much appreciated.

Thank you for the incredible amount of trust you have placed in us. This is your apostolate. We run it day-to-day, but this is the work of the Church, and we want to thank you for allowing us to not just continue the fight but to step it up.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.