THE BIG LIE: If we just pass one more law everything will be fine!

Have you noticed that politicians, especially those in Washington, D.C., believe that if they can just get one more bill or law or resolution passed they can save the world from certain destruction? Daily I get emails from Democrats, Independents and Republicans calling for a new law to fix something that either isn’t broken or to further their bonafides that they are doing something.

Since 1973 until today the U.S. Congresses have passed 311,831 laws and resolutions. That is an average of 13, 577 laws and resolutions each Congress.

How much is too much? Presidents have vetoed 236 laws. In addition to laws there are more than 170,000 pages of federal regulations that implement these laws.

Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater wrote this in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative“:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Perhaps it is time for Congress to stop passing new laws? Perhaps it is time for Congress to repeal unneeded old laws? has published the following chart of enacted laws, resolutions and bills passed by the U.S. Congress since 1973:

Bills by Final Status

This table breaks down the bills and resolutions introduced in each two-year Congress by their final status. Note that the current Congress is not yet finished.

Counts & Percents | Counts Only | Percents Only

Congress Enacted




Got A









Jan 3, 2019

Jan 3, 2017
-Jan 3, 2019

Jan 6, 2015
-Jan 3, 2017

Jan 3, 2013
-Jan 2, 2015

Jan 5, 2011
-Jan 3, 2013

Jan 6, 2009
-Dec 22, 2010

Jan 4, 2007
-Jan 3, 2009

Jan 4, 2005
-Dec 9, 2006

Jan 7, 2003
-Dec 9, 2004

Jan 3, 2001
-Nov 22, 2002

Jan 6, 1999
-Dec 15, 2000

Jan 7, 1997
-Dec 19, 1998

Jan 4, 1995
-Oct 4, 1996

Jan 5, 1993
-Dec 1, 1994

Jan 3, 1991
-Oct 9, 1992

Jan 3, 1989
-Oct 28, 1990

Jan 6, 1987
-Oct 22, 1988

Jan 3, 1985
-Oct 18, 1986

Jan 3, 1983
-Oct 12, 1984

Jan 5, 1981
-Dec 23, 1982

Jan 15, 1979
-Dec 16, 1980

Jan 4, 1977
-Oct 15, 1978

Jan 14, 1975
-Oct 1, 1976

Jan 3, 1973
-Dec 20, 1974

Here is what we mean in each column:

  • Enacted Laws: Enacted bills and joint resolutions (both bills and joint resolutions can be enacted as law)
  • Passed Resolutions: Passed resolutions (for joint and concurrent resolutions, this means passed both chambers)
  • Got A Vote: Bills and joint/concurrent resolutions that had a significant vote in one chamber
  • Failed Legislation: Bills and resolutions that failed a vote on passage or failed a significant vote such as cloture, passage under suspension, or resolving differences
  • Vetoed Bills (w/o Override): Bills that were vetoed and the veto was not overridden by Congress
  • Other Legislation: Bills and resolutions that were introduced, referred to committee, or reported by committee but had no further action

Kids Aren’t Born Transgender, So Don’t Let Advocates Bamboozle You

People who pursue a cross-sex identity aren’t born that way, and children should not be encouraged to “transition” to the opposite sex, according to a reference work endorsed by the American Psychological Association.

Yet every day I hear from another parent who tells me that a child’s therapist, after an appointment or two, strongly recommends that the parent allow the child to change his or her name and personal pronouns, live as the opposite sex, and get on the track toward irreversible medical interventions.

Laura Haynes, a licensed psychologist in California, recently reviewed the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and highlighted its research findings about transgender children.

Among those findings, cited on page 744 of Volume 1:

  • “In no more than about one in four children does gender dysphoria persist from childhood to adolescence or adulthood,” with the majority of affected boys later identifying as gay, not transgender, and up to half of affected girls identifying as lesbian, not transgender.
  • “Early social transition (i.e., change of gender role, such as registering a birth-assigned boy in school as a girl) should be approached with caution to avoid foreclosing this stage of gender identity development.”
  • “Early social transition may be necessary for some; however, the stress associated with possible reversal of this decision has been shown to be substantial.”

Yet we all have been bamboozled by distorted claims to the contrary from sex-change advocates, who insist the science is settled.

They say people who identify as the opposite sex will never change their mind, the cross-sex identity is fixed and the earlier the child, teen, or adult is affirmed as the opposite sex and makes the transition, the better off he or she will be.

In fact, however, the American Psychological Association and the weight of historical evidence both challenge society’s affirmation of cross-sex identities.

The preface to the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, published in 2014, says it is endorsed and approved by the American Psychological Association, which describes itself as “the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and the largest association of psychologists in the world.”

underwent my own “sex change” in April 1983. I had no idea then that I would be here today talking about the subject, or that the evidence against “born that way” had started oozing out as early as 1979, four years before I was mutilated.

In 1979 an endocrinologist, Dr. Charles L. Ihlenfeld, sounded a warning on using hormones and surgery on the transgender population in remarks to a group of clinicians. Ihlenfeld had administered hormone therapy for six years to a large sample of 500 trans-identified adults.

Ihlenfeld, who is gay, told the clinicians that “80 percent of the people who want to change their sex shouldn’t do it.” Desires to change sex, he said, “most likely stem from powerful psychological factors—likely from the experiences of the first 18 months of life.”

Ihlenfeld’s comments 40 years ago foreshadowed the evidence provided in the APA Handbook, where page 743 of Volume 1 says that identifying as the opposite sex is “most likely the result of a complex interaction between biological and environmental factors.”

“Research on the influence of family of origin dynamics,” it adds, “has found some support for separation anxiety among gender-nonconforming boys and psychopathology among mothers.”

Ihlenfeld and the APA, generations apart in time, came to a similar conclusion: The desire to change sex most likely stems from early life experiences and psychological factors.

As to the wisdom and effectiveness of using cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgery to treat gender dysphoria, the evidence does not exist.

Above:  The author, Walt Heyer, takes part in a related panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation. His remarks begin at 47:30 in the video.

In the United Kingdom, the University of Birmingham’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility conducted a review in 2004 of 100 international medical studies of “post-operative transsexuals.” It found “no conclusive evidence [that] sex-change operations improve the lives of transsexuals.”

Additionally, the evidence showed that the transsexual person, after undergoing reassignment surgery, “remains severely distressed to the point of suicide.”

A professor at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan, is one recent voice questioning cross-sex hormone use in children and adolescents. Heneghan is editor-in-chief of a respected British medical journal, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

On Feb. 25, Heneghan and a fellow researcher reported significant problemswith how evidence is collected and analyzed, concluding:

Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility, adverse events, long-term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition.

So the negative findings stack up, and alarms are raised about the lack of proof concerning effectiveness and safety. But administering unnecessary hormones and rearranging healthy body parts with sex-change surgeries continue undaunted by a deaf medical community.

I feel like I’m standing alongside the road shouting to warn approaching drivers: “The bridge is out! The bridge is out!”

Because I know—I drove off that cliff, and I’m still affected 35 years later.

The APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, again, says that transgender people are not born that way, that cross-sex identification can change, and that the majority of children grow out of a desire to change sex if they don’t engage in social transition.

Strangely, the medical and psychological community doesn’t follow its own evidence and seems oblivious to the experiment they’re conducting on real lives, especially those of children.

The sex-change cheerleaders falsely claim, “Affirmation is the only solution.” They use distorted doctrine to lobby for laws that punish counselors and parents who say otherwise, laws that take away the rights of patients to choose their own therapy goals.

Organizations such as The Trevor Project are lobbying in all 50 states to outlaw any therapy that suggests interest in cross-sex transition can change.

Meanwhile, accounts such as these of families and lives being ripped to shreds by sex change appear in my inbox daily. I have compiled 30 of the stories I’ve received, along with recent research, in my own book “Trans Life Survivors.”

We must wake up and use the evidence provided in the APA Handbook to counter those who say transgender people are born that way.

Instead, we must fight loudly for the rights of patients to choose their counseling goals and against laws that legislate affirmation as the only therapy allowed.


Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website,, and his blog,, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLE: My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail.

Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Unmasking the Corruption Behind San Francisco’s Cycle of Homelessness

“Talking to the people that I’ve talked to, I realized that there is a petri dish of ideologies that a lot of people have, and they run the spectrum from complete anarchy to complete socialism. And because I don’t think it’s sustainable, one thing is going to happen: It’s just going to collapse on itself.”

From the filth on the streets to the filth in city hall, Colion Noir pulls the mask off the city of San Francisco, exposing the real reasons behind a homelessness epidemic that’s only getting worse.

“It’s startling how much degeneracy and homelessness and open drug use exist in what is supposed to be a shining beacon of a city… Overwhelmingly, I just could not help but get this feeling that there’s a lot of enabling going on.”

Liberal policies in San Francisco have created a parasitic population of vagrants who thrive off the system, which, in turn, fills the pocket books and bolsters the power of the elites living within the city.

EDITORS NOTE: These NRA-ILA videos with commentary are republished with permission.

The Senate’s Nuclear War over Confirmations

President Trump may be halfway through his first term, but he still has jobs to fill. Unfortunately for him, hiring hasn’t exactly been the easiest thing in a Senate full of Democrats desperately trying to run out the clock on his presidency.

It’s not a new problem, but it’s certainly an exacerbating one. Presidents throughout modern history have had to deal with the minority party’s shenanigans to confirm everyone from U.S. ambassadors to executive branch bureaucrats. As usual, though, Donald Trump seems to bring out the worst in liberals, who’ve been engaged in record-setting obstruction to stop the White House from getting its personnel in place. “If we don’t stop this behavior now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned, “it will become the norm.”

Apart from the lightning-fast pace of judicial nominees, Senate Republicans have had a devil of a time getting lower-rung nominees through Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) party. Even after a cloture vote, Democrats have been forcing another 30 hours of debate on the chamber for every nominee — not because it affected the outcome, but because it made the process as painful as possible for Republicans. By prolonging the vote, Democrats had the satisfaction of watching the GOP business grind to a halt.

Senators James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) were tired of the games and wanted to cut down the debate to just two hours, especially since the chamber would have already voted on whether or not to proceed with a name. “Just imagine if Democrats’ behavior over the past two years becomes the norm,” Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters. “Presidents could be waiting years to adequately staff their administrations, and the Senate would be perpetually tied up on unnecessary cloture votes, leaving less and less ti[m]e to actually do the business of governing.”

What’s been especially frustrating, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pointed out, is that these delays have nothing to do with the nominees themselves. They’re just a protest vote against the president. “Over the past two years, some in this body have decided that they will oppose any nominee suggested by President Trump,” he argued.

On Wednesday, McConnell used what some call the “nuclear option” to change the Senate precedent. By a vote of 51-48, Republicans agreed to pick up the pace on Trump’s hires on everyone but cabinet, Supreme Court, and circuit court nominees. From now on, Democrats will only be able to slow things down for two extra hours — not 30. But not every Republican was a fan of the idea, as Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.) made quite clear. The Senate, Lee argued, needs “to serve its deliberative function in our constitutional system… The current rules can work for the American people; they simply require us to do the same.”

For all of the worries that this will come back to bite Republicans, McConnell seemed well aware of the risks. Still, he said, this is about making the environment better for everyone. “… [A]bsent a change, these [delaying] tactics seem guaranteed to become standard practice for Senate minorities on both sides. I don’t think any of us want that in the future.”

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


Congress Gets in Line, New Ad Draws One

A Badger of Honor

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Liberal Complacency With Democratic Antisemitism

The Democratic Party clearly has an anti-Semitism problem, but too many Jewish Democrats have been restrained in their responses.

Anti-Semitism is reaching epidemic levels in the United States, enabled by progressives who disparage traditional values, misrepresent Jewish history, and delegitimize Israel.  They also tend to secularize Jewish identity and interpret the Jewish experience as a universal metaphor devoid of substantive religious or cultural content. In so doing, they often trivialize what it means to be Jewish.  The result is an identity detached from heritage and defined by a progressive political allegiance that blinds many to the anti-Semitism that has infected the Democratic Party, but which has done little to shake partisan loyalty.

As many Democrats embrace the BDS movement, anti-Zionism, and global conspiracy theories, as feminist leaders honor Louis Farrakhan and purge Jews from their ranks, and as progressive universities tolerate anti-Jewish hostility on campus, liberals often misdirect by blaming conservatives and Republicans. However, the forums where anti-Semitism flourishes today (e.g., college campuses, BDS programs, internet websites) are overwhelmingly progressive and far less tolerant of conservative thought than Jew-hatred.

The 2018 midterm elections demonstrated how inured liberals have become to progressive extremism.  Among the new Democrats representatives in Congress are Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose words and actions have raised concerns for many Jews, though apparently not so much within the party.

In a Twitter message in January, Rep. Tlaib suggested that members of Congress who voiced support for a pro-Israel Senate bill “forgot what country they represent,” which implicitly raised the old canard of divided Jewish loyalties. In addition, she supports BDS, has written for Farrakhan’s “The Final Call,” and seems quite appealing to anti-Israel activists and radicals.  Though some Democrats have expressed concern, there has been no real demand for discipline or restraint by the party hierarchy.  Instead, she was given a position on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.

Rep. Omar made similar waves with a tweet implying that AIPAC uses money to influence government Mideast policy saying, “it’s all about the Benjamins, baby.”  This time, there was criticism from some Democrats, though there was much wider outrage from Congressional Republicans, who tend to be more pro-Israel and mindful of anti-Semitism than their liberal counterparts. Democratic criticism was not unanimous, however, and the sincerity of those who did speak up was questionable considering their failure to do so last November – despite her public statements against Israel.

It was commonly known, for example, that during the war instigated by Hamas in 2012, Omar had stated on Twitter that “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  Republicans were aware of this comment and deemed it anti-Semitic, but Democrats seemed to ignore it – even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed her to the prestigious Foreign Affairs Committee. Although Omar issued an apology for this comment, it was qualified and did not renounce her disparagement of Israel – and she was thereafter portrayed as the victim of a hate campaign perpetrated by those who took offense to her remarks.

Incredibly, some Jewish progressives came to her defense, although fallacious claims of Jewish “hypnosis” and financial influence echo hoary themes as old as the blood libel.  Others displayed cognitive dissonance, as evidenced by a tweet from the ADL stating, in relevant part: “[H]ats off to Rep Omar for her honest apology & commitment to a more just world. Open & respectful conversations will help us achieve this goal.”  But her apology failed to disavow claims of Israeli “evil”; and party leaders were subsequently reluctant to describe repeated comments as anti-Semitic.  In contrast, the Zionist Organization of America described her attempted conciliation as a “non-apology.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another freshman Democrat whose conduct has raised concerns among Jews.  In a television interview during the campaign, for example, she intoned the revisionist myth that Israel was occupying “Palestine,” a country that never existed, before demurring that she was not a geopolitical expert. In other forums, she would not condemn Jew-hatred within the women’s movement, was evasive about her stance on BDS, and engaged in a fawning dialogue with British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is widely regarded as anti-Semitic.

Despite such comments and actions (or perhaps because of them), Ocasio-Cortez asserted claims of Jewish ancestry last Hanukkah in an apparent effort to ingratiate herself to New York’s Jewish community.  Whether she truly has any Jewish blood is irrelevant, however, because attenuated ancestry neither confers Jewishness nor absolves one of bias. Facile assertions of common descent should be as grating to Jewish ears as the lame statement that “some of my best friends are Jewish.”

Progressive extremism is clearly influencing the Democratic mainstream, as illustrated by: Senator Elizabeth Warren’s public failure to deny that Israel is an apartheid state; the refusal of twenty-three Democratic senators to support the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act,” which inter alia condemns BDS; the snubbing of AIPAC by all declared Democratic presidential hopefuls; and the refusal to single out anti-Semitism for condemnation.

The Democratic Party clearly has an anti-Semitism problem, but too many Jewish Democrats have been restrained in their responses.  Many were reluctant, at least initially, to call for serious reprimand of Tlaib, Omar or Ocasio-Cortez, or to characterize their comments as biased.  And liberals who did speak out seemed more concerned that the representatives’ comments “could be interpreted” as bigoted, not that they were inherently so.  It is no coincidence that so many defended Barack Obama against charges of anti-Semitism in 2015, when White House mouthpieces implied that critics of his Iran nuclear had divided loyalties or wielded disproportionate influence.

Liberal hypocrisy comes into sharper focus when compared to the excoriation of Rep. Steven King (R. Iowa) for comments deemed racist and supportive of white supremacism.  After his comments became known, King was upbraided by Democrats and Republicans alike and stripped of his Congressional committee assignments, and liberal groups like the ADL called for his censure.  But if outrage against King was justified based on the tenor of his statements, why have relatively few liberals chastised the Democratic Party’s rising stars with similar indignation? The Democrats’ reaction has been woefully inadequate, falling well short of demands for censure.  Moreover, their Congressional resolution against hate – which was occasioned by Omar’s remarks – was diluted to avoid focusing on anti-Semitism or mentioning her use of abhorrent stereotypes.

In contrast, Republicans have been consistently proactive regarding both Democratic anti-Semitism and charges of racism against members of their own party.

The tendency of liberals to ignore progressive anti-Semitism goes hand-in-hand with the impulse to misrepresent Jewish history to validate their political agenda.  They debase the meaning of the Holocaust by analogizing it to the illegal immigration crisis or using it as a catchall metaphor for any generic hatred.  But the plight of Jews trying to escape Nazi genocide has nothing in common with today’s migrants seeking better economic opportunity or political stability.  And anti-Semitic genocide – whether during the Holocaust, the pogroms, the Crusades, the Khmelnytsky rebellion, or the Muslim conquests – is simply not comparable to prejudice against racial, ethnic, religious or sexual minorities that were never targeted for extermination as the Jews have been for two millennia.

Hatred of Jews today can be ugly and crass or it can masquerade as political discourse, but is identifiable regardless of packaging.  Disproportionate criticism and delegitimization of Israel are forms of anti-Semitism. So are anti-Zionism and the elevation of a Palestinian narrative lacking historicity over documented Jewish history that is corroborated by the historical, archeological, and literary records.  These modern manifestations of the oldest hatred are no different from the ancient libels that inspired massacres and pogroms – and which are enthusiastically embraced by the left today.

Though secular liberals may be loath to admit it, Jewish authenticity cannot be imputed to lifestyles that are largely devoid of traditional values and observance.  Some define Jewishness as purely cultural and others by adherence to political beliefs that actually conflict with Jewish law and tradition. But what these secularized identities all have in common is their drastic deviation from historically-normative Judaism, their focus on universalism instead of cultural self-preservation, and the failure to acknowledge G-d’s influence in the lives of Jews individually and collectively.

The alarming incidence of assimilation and anti-Israel rejectionism among Jewish progressives suggests that many of them have little or no connection to their tradition or history.  And it is this detachment that enables so many to ignore anti-Semitism within their political ranks, remain silent when confronted with it, or justify it based on blind partisan allegiance.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israeli Attitudes Towards American Jews

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission.

A TALE OF TWO CITIES, A TALE OF TWO MURDERS: Reflections on, and Ramifications of, the Khashoqji Affair.

The first city, obviously is Istanbul, and the “murder,” if that is what is really was, was that of Jamal Khashoqji.

The second city is Buenos Aires, and that murder will be exposed later in this essay.

The purpose of this essay will not be to determine the right or wrong of what happened in Istanbul in October of 2018, nor is it to justify murder and assassinations of any sort–especially not those conducted in an embassy or consulate which should be considered sanctified places of safety for all citizens of the country that owns the facility.

Rather, the purpose of his essay is to examine motivations and point out winners and losers from this event so that readers may better understand the large-scale geostrategic ramifications of the Khashoqji affair.


Remember that old burger ad where the old lady asks “where’s the beef?”  Well, in the Khashoqji case we all have to ask “where’s the beef, or body?”

Y’know, when you sit down to read a murder mystery novel, the first thing you see (read about) is a dead body.  Then you spend the rest of the novel trying to figure out “who dun it” as you pick up clues along the way.  Real murders are solved in much the same way.

But, in the Khoshoqji case everything is turned on its head.  We had the crime (murder) identified, and the perp (Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman) identified from the very first day–without there being any actual evidence of a crime.  There was no body, and there still isn’t any body.  Yet, we know who “did” it.  Now isn’t that funny?


One thing that made me very, very suspicious from the very beginning about this whole affair was that everything we learned about the case, every shred of intelligence, was provided by Turkish intelligence and police entities.

Since Turkey is a “loyal” NATO “ally,” everyone in Washington from our senators down to the dregs inhabiting the Washington Post building believed every word that the Turks said.  However, those who are familiar with the history and the current events of the Middle East (in terms of who hates whom, who is allied to whom) had to take every word coming out of Turkey with a huge train load of salt.

Not that the Saudis are all that trustworthy.  I ordinarily wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them–but I trust the Turks far less.  Not only has loyal NATO ally Turkey become the planet’s #1 state sponsor of terrorism (sorry Iran, you’ve been demoted), which renders everything they say or do suspect, but, you see, there is an historical enmity between Saudi Arabia and the Turks that goes back centuries which plays a role in their current actions and opinions of each other.  Unfortunately all of our policy makers, and opinion makers (the media), seem to be ignorant of that history, which in turn leads to misjudgments on far too many critical issues.


Another thing that made me very suspicious about this whole issue was the excessive hullabaloo over it.  I’m not saying that killing people is a nice thing to do, but dictators snuff out journalists all the time with nary a whimper of protest from the media figures making such a fuss like they did over this one.  This essay, by design, is more about double standards than it is about the rights or wrongs of assassinations.

Considering that all of the fuss was being generated by Erdogan’s Turkey made me doubly suspicious.  No one on the planet has been as abusive of journalist than has NATO “ally” Erdogan.  For example Hrant Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian descent who had been very critical of Erdogan was gunned down in a drive by shooting as he left his place of employment on 19 January 2007.  Of course, Turkish authorities were able to determine years later that the perp was . . . (drum roll, please) . . . one of those dastardly Kurds.  Since then Erdogan has had hundreds of journalists jailed, tortured, and probably worse–without the slightest whimper of protest from the same media entities making such a big deal about the Khashoqji affair.  Funny, huh?

As if all of that wasn’t enough, the Arabic language satellite TV channel al-Jazeera was devoting nearly all of their programming to the Khashoqji affair 24/7 regurgitating every single word coming out of Turkey as gospel, while adding much of their own anti-Saudi propaganda to sweeten the pie.  Why?

Why in the H%$# does al-Jazeera care so much about a controversial Saudi Journalist who went missing in Istanbul?  Because al-Jazeera is based in Qatar, and Qatar has been declared a supporter and a financier of terrorism by Saudi Arabia who had Qatar kicked out of the Gulf Cooperation Council based on those charges.  Because, in fact, Qatar does support terrorism in Libya and elsewhere, and supports and hosts the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the fountainhead of all Sunni terrorism–and Khashoqji was a key member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  And, al-Jazeera is a pro-Brotherhood channel.

Erdogan’s ruling AKP is a clone of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Turkey supports the Brotherhood’s efforts worldwide, including 24/7 efforts to topple Egypt, a key ally of Saudi Arabia.  And, oh, BTW, as soon as the Kingedom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its allies kicked Qatar out of the GCC, Qatar alligned itself with Iran and fellow MB supporter Turkey.  Turkey now has military bases in Qatar with about 10,000 troops.


Before we get into Khashoqji’s relationship with the Washington Post, and why U.S. politicians are so obsessed with punishing the alleged perp Muhammad bin Salman (MBS), we should take a quick look at Khashoqji’s profile.

Khashoqji was a high school buddy of Usama bin Laden.  They both joined the Muslim Brotherhood together and had the same goals of establishing a “true” Islamic State as a prelude to reviving the Caliphate.  However, they took different pathways to accomplish those goals.  Khashoqji thought he could help bring it about through subterfuge, via the pen and “bait and switch” techniques.  Usama bin Laden was more honest.  He believed that revolution and violence was best and quickest way.  In fact, before pulling the 9/11 incident, he openly declared war on the United States not once, but twice.

Khashoqji, BTW, blamed the Jews for 9/11 so as to deflect blame from his old buddy, then he admitted to crying when bin Laden was finally killed.

(The above section taken from The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright which in turn was based on the author’s interviews with Khashoqji himself).


American media made much hay about Khashoqji being a journalist for the Washington Post.  In fact, he was only a stringer, contributing an occasional Muslim Brotherhood propaganda piece disguised as journalism.  He spent as much, or more, of his time in Istanbul where he contributed articles to several Turkish news entities.  Turkey, remember, is essentially a Muslim Brotherhood-run country that helped ISIS get started, and continued to finance them during their rampages across Syria and Iraq.  Turkey, of course, continues to finance and supply arms for terror groups across the Middle East as well as conducting its own “ethnic cleansing” operations in Iraq and Syria.

This puts the lie to the American media and politicians eulogizing this individual as some great champion of free speech and a free press.  He was no such thing.

Yes, I know, the media will defend their position by saying that Khashoqji founded an organization called DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now), which sounds to touchy-feely sweet to naïve western ears (because they think that it proves that he was a champion of Democracy and the free press and freedom of speech that the moniker   implies).  Problem is, to the MB “Democracy” is just a tool that they can use to gain power, after which they can jettison it like the Mursi regime was doing in Egypt before they were deposed.

Khashoqji’s hero, Turkey’s president Erdogan, once said that “Democracy is a train.  We will ride that train until it takes us to where we want to go, then we’ll get off that train.”

It would be foolish to think that Khashoqji’s world view was any different.


Another element of this affair that did not add up was the Fiance Khashoqji was supposed to marry.  The Arabic website posted a picture of Khashoqji’s wife in Saudi Arabia whom he was dumping so he could marry the Turkish Khadija.  The Saudi wife not only had born him two sons, but she holds a PhD and is beautiful to look at.

As for the Turkish fiance, the kindest thing one could say about her is that Islamic clothing becomes her.  As a guy, I can say that there is no way he is dumping this Saudi woman for that Turkish woman . . . unless . . .

What the Turkish “fiance” does have is connections.  She is part of Erdogan’s inner circle.  Some say she was a high-level intelligence figure.


Now we get to answer the question as to why Qatar and its satellite TV channel were so interested in the alleged assassination of an individual who was not a Qatari citizen and who (on the surface), did not work for any Qatari entity.

We mentioned before Khashoqji’s association with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).  By default he had essentially become the head of the Saudi branch of the MB.

Qatar is the major financier of the Brotherhood, with Turkey being #two.  The Saudi Crown Prince’s alleged assassination of the head of the Saudi branch of the MB was a huge blow to both Qatar’s and Turkey’s geostrategic plans for the Middle East.

In addition, there was current hostility between Qatar and Saudi Arabia over Qatar’s being evicted from the Gulf Cooperation Council, as mentioned above.

But the connection goes even deeper.

Maggi Salem of the Qatar Foundation International (a Clone of the Clinton Foundation with close connections to the Qatari government) wrote the guidelines for Khashoqji’s Washington Post articles.  Translation:  The Qatari government was essentially dictating to Khashiqji what he should write.  He was essentially an agent for the Qatari government, in addition to being an agent for the Muslim Brotherhood.  Through his Turkish “fiance” he was also likely an agent for Turkey’s intelligence unit MIT, and there is speculation that he was not just a “double” agent, or a “triple” agent, but that he was a “quadruple” agent working on behalf of elements within America’s CIA.  These would be “Deep State” Obama holdovers who hold the same world view as the Obama administration and its clients in Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood.


One of the things that struck me early on, and raised my “suspicions” antenna was the way the U.S. media was regurgitating al-Jazeera’s propaganda almost word for word (after translation from the Arabic).  It was as if the Washington Post, CNN, and the others were taking dictation from Qatar in their reporting on the Khashoqji affair.

A prime example of this occurred the day after the alleged event.  A Mr. Fuqara’, who is the head of the al-Jazeera Washington office held a “love-fest” with the “journalists” from the Washington Post, allowing them to vent their anger over the dastardliness of the Saudi Regime, and MBS in particular, for this gruesome murder.  This event was not held in al-Jazeera’s DC offices, nor was it held inside the WAPO building.  No, they staged it (and I mean staged) directly in front of the WAPO building so that the Washington Post signage on the building above the entrance would be the backdrop for these champions of Democracy journalists–thus ensuring that it would be blasted to the world via al-Jazeera’s satellite technology so as to lend the full “authority” of the Post to Post to al-Jazeera’s propaganda.

Oh, there is one more link between this case and American media.  CNN has a franchise in Turkey:  CNN Turk.  So, all the Turkish propaganda could be funneled through that franchise to CNN America and broadcast to the American public and politicians, while WAPO and its other allies in America’s leftist media were doing the same with Qatari propaganda.


If you want to assassinate someone, say a pesky journalist . . . there are a number of ways to do it.  You can have a single agent follow them into a restaurant, pretend to be a regular customer, then when the target is not looking drop certain biological or chemical properties into their soup, or drink.  Or, you have an agent run them over with a vehicle, or you arrange for an auto accident.  All of these methods require only one agent to do the job.  A simple drive by shooting requires only two people, a driver and one agent to do the shooting.

The one thing you don’t want to do is to send in 15 guys who all fly in on only two jets (charter jets at that), and who all arrive on the same day into the major city of a country that has hated your guts for hundreds of years.  Then they all 15 stay at the same hotel, and they all leave on the same day after the alleged killing.  That is so obvious it is like hiring a skywriter to blazen across the sky “we did it.”

So, either the Saudis were extremely stupid, or MBS wanted the world to know so as to send a message to other dissidents, or something else is going on.

True, the Israelis sent 26 agents into the U.A.E. in 2010 to take out Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, leader of a Hamas military cell–but, not all of these people were killers.  Some were just trackers, others to provide intel, and yet others just to act as decoys.  The main point, however, is that all 26 arrived at different times on different regular civilian airlines, and from numerous different countries and carried passports from all the different countries.  And, they all departed at different times, on different airlines, heading for different countries.  Everybody “knows” that the Mossad did it, but there is no “proof” because the Israelis left no trail.


Now we need to discuss the issue of whether or not Khashoqji was actually murdered, and if so, whether or not MBS is the culprit.

First we’ll discuss the possibility of whether or not this might have been a “false flag” operation aimed at discrediting MBS, or to even bring him down.  So, let’s look at the facts, that is, what do we actually know for sure.

As for the tapes that the Turks claim they have recording Khashoqji being killed, they would have been credible had the Turks presented them right away.  But, since they did not come to light for a full month, or more, this certainly gave the Turks plenty of time to manufacture anything they wanted to.  With today’s technologies it is not too difficult to make an audio tape, or a video recording, do what ever you want it to do.  Just ask the two rogue Russian cyber geeks who manufactured the salacious tapes that went into the Trump dossier.   Had the Turks loaned these tapes to America’s NSA the geeks there could have determined whether or not they were legit, or had been tampered with.  Instead, the Turks refused to hand over the tapes to anybody’s intelligence agency for examination.

There is video evidence of Khashoqji entering the Saudi consulate 02 October 2018 via the front entrance.  These videos are likely legit because they were presented the very day of Khashoqji’s disappearance.   There is no video evidence of him leaving the consulate.

Of course, any competent intelligence agency could easily hack into the consulate’s systems and turn off the cameras.  So, that was a ho hum.

Based on this flimsy evidence, Turkish authorities immediately began their propaganda campaign that Khashoqji had been murdered inside the consulate.  Turkey’s allies in Qatar immediately began regurgitating the Turkish propaganda without any expressions of doubt 24/7.  U.S. media followed suit.

The Turks invented all sorts of scenarios to explain what happened:  Khashoqji was strangled.  Then he was sawed up into little pieces and hidden somewhere.  They were just sure that his body, or parts of it, were in a wooded area some distance away from the consulate.  So they sent sniffer dogs there along with crew to dig the place up–and a camera crew to take the pictures of them “trying” to find Khashoqji.  Or, at least, made a big scene of doing so.  Of course, nothing.  Then they said they were sure that the body was in the trunk of a car parked in an Istanbul parking garage.  Again, a big scene on al-Jazeera of Turkish officers opening up car trunks.  Nope.  Nothing there.  Oh, then the body, or pieces of it, must be buried either on the Consulate grounds somewhere, or in the yard of the Saudi Consul’s home.  Nope, not there either.

Then the Turks came up with the fanciful idea that the 15-member MBS team used some sort of acid to completely dissolve Khashoqji’s body.  They finally ended up with the theory that the body was cut up into pieces, then transported in suitcases to the airport where it was taken out of the country.  This forces the Turks to then claim that while they inspected one of the Saudi chartered aircraft, they had failed to check the other one.  So all the evidence must have been on that other aircraft.

Okay.  Perhaps.  Maybe the Saudis are hiding the body fragments somewhere in the Rub’ al-Khali (the great Empty Quarter).

As I review this section on 04 March, I see on al-Jazeera TV that the Turks now claim that they have found an “oven” on the property of the Saudi Consul’s home in Istanbul.  This “oven” is fairly large.  It is of the type that potters use to fire their pots.  It is basically a kiln, based on the photos shown on al-Jazeera.  But, of course, there is no evidence from these photos of the “oven” being on the property of anyone, much less the Saudi consul.  Turkish authorities had searched the property of the consul’s home twice previously, including once shortly after the alleged murder.  Funny that it took them six months to discover this oven.

But there is one other little tidbit that came up early, and that has been completely forgotten.


Several news entities reported that the day of Khashoqji’s alleged murder, a “double” wearing Khashoqji’s clothes was seen exiting the rear of the consulate.  People in nearby buildings had apparently witnessed this.  This alleged “double” was also reportedly seen at various places around Istanbul–then inexplicably “disappeared.”

Turkey and Qatar’s al-Jazeera dismissed this as a ruse pulled by the Saudis so as to make people think that Khashoqji was still alive and well somewhere in Istanbul.  Perhaps it was.  But, what if?  What if that really was Khashoqji?  That would certainly explain why  no evidence of a body has ever been found.

However, the Saudis later, under a great deal of pressure from the international community (thanks to Turkish and Qatari constant propaganda), admitted that Khashoqji was killed inside the consulate, however they don’t know where the body is.


The allegations are that certain individuals close to MBS were the ones who carried out the operation.  However, the video evidence that the Turks provided of the alleged suspects entering and departing the airport was so blurry that you could not make out any of their features.  But, even if so, there are still valid doubts that MBS is responsible.

When Anwar as-Sadat, a former president of Egypt, was assassinated in 1981, he was assassinated by members of his own military.  The moral to that is that just because individuals close to a world leader commit a crime, does not mean that the leader is responsible.  Sadat most certainly did not order his own soldiers to execute him.

If this were true, this begs the question of why?  Why would security officials close to MBS commit a crime that would make their boss look real bad and possibly lead to his dismissal?

MBS has made a lot of enemies with his reforms.  Granting women the right to drive did not sit very well with a lot of the fundamentalists in the magic kingdom.  Nor did his partial opening of the country to kafir tourism.  His hinting that someday Christian churches could be built in Saudi Arabia had to give the Wahhabis heart attacks.  But it was something else that may have set off a plot against MBS.

Why was Anwar as-Sadat killed?  Because he visited Israel and gave a speech before the Israeli Knesset.  In the fall of 2017 MBS made a secret visit to Israel.  True, it was secret and he did not speak before the Knesset, but al-Jazeera found out about it and broadcast it to Arabic speakers everywhere.

So, why not just assassinate MBS, instead of some journalist who is on the side of the radicals anyway?  Perhaps MBS was too well guarded.  So, they chose an action that would embarrass him and perhaps bring him down.  Perhaps.  But that does not make a lot of sense.  Why would the fundamentalists kill not just one of their own, but one of the important cogs in their plan to recreate the real Caliphate.  Which takes us once again back to:


Assuming that the “double” was not a double, but Khashoqji himself pulling a fast one so as to create a “false flag” operation, he would have needed a support group of some sort in order to spirit him away and keep him hidden for a while.  That support group could have come from the Muslim Brotherhood who had every reason in the world to want to harm MBS.  Or, the support could have come from Turkish intelligence itself.

If this seems far-fetched, and into political thriller territory, let us remember that this is the Middle East.  And, all factions, Iranians, Turks, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc., are operating on the assumption that we are living in the last days.

The Iranians believe that they have been selected by Allah to lead the Muslims, Sunni and Shi’a alike, in that prophesied great war against rum (Western Civilization) in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ and the final judgment day.  The Palestinians believe that they have been selected by Allah to be the spearhead of that great army from Khorasan that is to retake Jerusalem in the Latter Days.

And, Turkey’s Erdogan believes that he has been selected by Allah to recreate the Ottoman Empire Caliphate in preparation for that great last war against Western Civilization.  One of the goals of Erdogan’s policies to achieve this reunited Caliphate is to dethrone all of the existing secular Arab governments and replace them with MB governments which would then join with Turkey (whose ruling AKP party is a clone of the MB) in reconstituting the real Caliphate.  This is why Turkey has been supporting terrorism throughout the Arab Middle East.

Coincidentally, the Muslim Brotherhood is more than willing to “give its power unto the beast.”  MB spiritual leader, the Qatar-based Yusuf al-Qaradhawi has stated that Erdogan is the “Muslim’s best hope,” and has done everything except publically declare him to be the Caliph.


The Shi’a have a prophecy about the return of the “hidden Imam.”  The Sunni have prophecies about the appearance of a figure called the mahdi, or, “the guided one.”

So, what if Khashoqji was just spirited away somewhere to be “resurrected” at some critical point in the future as both “the hidden Imam,” and the mahdi? 

Can you imagine what a tool that would be for Erdogan to unite the entire Islamic world into a new, gigantic Caliphate with him as its Caliph?  Erdogan, BTW, possesses exactly that fantasy.

Far fetched?  Unlikely.  Maybe.  But I will bet you that MBS thought that something of the sort was in the works.  Here is why:

All together six countries in the world have declared the MB to be a terrorist organization: Russia, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Bahrain, Egypt, and Israel, with the KSA doing so in 2010.  This made Khashoqji, automatically, an enemy of the state of the KSA.  Nonetheless, they tolerated him for awhile–until MBS’s crackdowns in 2017.

Jamal Khashoqji then became essentially the de-facto leader of the Saudi branch of the MB (after most of the others had been jailed or killed). His proposed marriage to a high-level Turkish intelligence figure, and part of Erdogan’s inner circle (which made no sense for any other reason) would represent a symbolic wedding of the Muslim Brotherhood with Turkey.  And, in the Middle East symbolism is everything.

So, if Khashoqji really was killed, and if MBS really was the instigator, he certainly had good reason to fear what Khashoqji and the Turks were up to.

Let me finish this portion of the essay with several quotes from a Middle East-based female reformer:

“There is an increased fear, and rightly so, about the free expression of extreme religious ideas and opinions that are polluting our social, cultural, economic, and political orders in the Arab world, which is why Jamal Khashoqji stands as an enemy to free thinkers–Muslims and (regional) states that turned against politics disguised as religion.

“Khashoqji’s assassination was not an attack on Western values . . . His first loyalty was not to American citizens, but . . . to spread the ideas of his Muslim Brotherhood” (Aliya al-Ganis, A War to Achieve Modernity, posted on on 18 January 2019).

“There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it” (Khashoqhi, as quoted by Aliya al-Ganis above).

“Because Khashoqji wanted an uprising against the Saudi royal family, the Prince was facing fears and possibly the threats of being assassinated by those opposing his reforms. (Alia al-Ganis).

“Therefore, when a religious extremist such as Khashoqji is lost on the front line, my thought to him is:  You got what you deserved” (Alia Ganis, A War to Achieve Modernity, posted on on 19 January 2019).

So, this is the great champion of “democracy” that our media and politicians have gushed their false sympathy for, and virtually deified.  Time’s “man of the year.”

And, this is the man whose “disappearance” the Democrats are using as a bludgeon with which to beat Trump, since their “Russia, Russia” hoax has petered out.

Keep this hypocrisy in mind as we turn now to that other murder in that other city.


The pertinent murder here was that of Argentine public prosecutor Alberto Nisman.  Following is the background to the case.

In 1992 a suicide bomber in a pick-up blew up the Israeli embassy with collateral damage to a nearby Catholic church.  29 civilians were killed, and 242 wounded (most of them Argentine citizens, including some children).  A group calling itself “The Islamic Jihad” claimed responsibility.  The group came out of the terrorist triangle of the tri-border area and was linked to Hezbollah and Iran.  NSA intercepts proved that Iran had prior knowledge of the attack.  This attack occurred in the midst of negotiations between Iran and Argentina for the purpose of the former purchasing nuclear fuel from the latter, which consequently fell through.

In 1994 an Iranian-linked terrorist from the terrorism triangle blew up a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires killing 85 people and wounding dozens more.

In 2003 Israeli intelligence discovered that one Ibrahim Hussein Berro has an honorary plaque in Hezbollah-held territory in Lebanon for driving the explosives laden van into the Jewish center.

After years of foot dragging and cover-ups so blatant, obvious, and corrupt that they’d make an Obama administration blush . . . just kidding (actually they would, and did, applaud the cover-up efforts as we shall see), the Argentine government finally got around to appointing Alberto Nisman in 2006 to investigate not only Iran’s role in the operation, but the cover-up.  This appointment was made only after tremendous public pressure was applied.

Mr. Nisman, who was Jewish by the way, went right to work . . . and ran dab smack into one brick wall after another.  Argentine government and security authorities erected every road bock in front of him that they could think of.


When Obama began running for president in 2008, he began colluding and collaborating with the Iranians (a declared enemy of the United States).  He let them know that he was most eager to obtain a nuclear agreement from them.  The Iranians responded by saying that they would consider some sort of a deal–providing a third party could provide them with nuclear fuel for their “peaceful” reactors.

In  2010 Argentine President Kirchner, in a speech before the UN, claimed that in 2010 Obama official Gary Simone ordered her to provide nuclear fuel to Iran in turn for oil.

Other sources have claimed that Argentina was also supposed to provide grain to Iran for the oil.

Another of Iran’s first demands to Obama was that the Nisman investigation had to be dropped.  Otherwise, no deal.

Western diplomatic sources have claimed that the Obama administration, on several occasions, did urge Argentina to halt, or limit, Nisman’s investigation.

However, in spite of the pressure, Alberto Nisman plugged on, and after years of hard work, harassment, and death threats, he finally was able to begin to compile a portfolio of evidence linking, not only just Hezbollah, but Iran to the 1994 bombing.

As the nuclear negotiations with Iran dragged on, and the Obama administration got increasingly desperate to obtain some sort of deal, any deal, with the Iranians before his administration was over, the Iranians, smelling the weakness, applied increasing pressure on Obama to get the Nisman investigation halted, and to get Argentina to supply grain and nuclear fuel to Iran in turn for oil.  Do that, or no deal.

In late 2014 rumors swirled that Nisman had nearly concluded his investigations.  He was thus scheduled to testify before the Argentine Congress on 19 January 2015.

In December of 2014 an Obama administration official visited Argentina.  An unofficial report has Obama basically ordering Argentina to halt the Nisman investigation.

On 18 January 2019, one day before he was to testify before the Argentine Congress, Alberto Nisman’s mother found him dead in his apartment.

A pistol owned by Nisman was found beside him.  Argentine security personnel declared the death to be suicide.  But the Argentine public would not have it.  They demanded a full investigation into Nisman’s death, because Nisman had purchased the pistol out of fear that his life was in danger.

Due to the corruption of Argentine’s security services the public, and the Argentine Congress, demanded that the investigation be turned over to another entity not associated with Buenos Aires politics and corruption.  So the Argentine border security forces were enlisted.  Their investigation has recently (2018) determined that Nisman’s death, was, in fact a murder and not a suicide as originally reported.

So, who did it?  Was it the Iranians, in order to ensure that the Nuclear deal (that they were to benefit from immensely) went through?  Was it the Obama administration, so desperate for some sort of legacy, any legacy, that they would do anything to obtain it?  Or, was it the Kirchner government hoping to hide their role in the cover-ups?

All three of these entities profited from the Iranian nuclear deal.


Even if  Obama was not directly involved in Nisman’s murder, he certainly had to be pleased by it, because now the nuc deal could go through.  Yet, our media has been virtually silent about this murder, and the resultant investigation.

The media, of course, are expected to be dishonest and guided by double standards.  But where were our Republican senators and Congresspersons?  These swamp critters who are weeping and moaning the loudest over the death of a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist, each trying to outdo the other in showing their false outrage, are shamefully silent about the entire Nisman cause.

So, let’s keep these double standards in mind as we now turn to the:


Who were the winners?  And who were the losers?

The winners, are Iran, Turkey, Qatar, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The losers are Saudi Arabia, MBS in particular, Israel, Egypt, and the Trump Administration


The fact that Trump was rightfully hesitant to excommunicate Saudi Arabia from the community of nations, has given the Democrats a tool with which to beat him.  The Democrats have been able to exploit the bi-partisan fake revulsion over the murder of a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist to paint a picture of Trump as being “too friendly to tyrants.”  The hypocrisy of that effort is farcical coming from the political party that strove to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran (both of whom are declared enemies of the United States, and are totalitarian systems) when they were in power.

Does Saudi Arabia have an atrocious human rights record over all?  Of course, but their critics in that area give Turkey and Iran a free pass though their human rights records are equally repugnant.

Saudi Arabia was also to play a key role in the Trump administration’s “Deal of the Century” to solve the Israeli-Palestinian deal.  Excommunicating the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) effectively kills those efforts.


Iran is a winner because ostracizing Saudi Arabia removes from the table any chance of a serious U.S. attempt at regime change.  Were the U.S. to launch a serious effort to bring down the Iranian regime, they would need the KSA as an ally, and as the launching pad for assembling forces.

Iran is a winner because the Khashoqji affair has given impetus to international pressure, including in the U.S., to halt all arms shipments to Saudi Arabia over its alleged human rights abuses in Yemen.  If the Saudis are forced to abandon their war against the Iranian-supported Houthi rebellion in neighboring Yemen, then Shi’a Iran gets a client state on Sunni Saudi Arabia’s doorstep.  Even if Saudi Arabia somehow continues the war, but with fewer resources, that will only prolong the suffering of the Yemeni people.

Iran is also using this crisis to drum up support for the fake Nuclear deal among the Europeans and Trump’s political enemies in the U.S.


Turkey is a winner because while it is directing the world’s attention to the alleged Saudi complicity in the Khashoqji murder, no one is looking at their wholesale extermination of Christians, Kurds, and Yazidis in Northern Syria.

Turkey can also use this crisis to gain standing in the Islamic world at Saudi Arabia’s expense, and to further its goal of establishing a renewed Caliphate under its leadership.


Israel and Egypt lose whenever Saudi Arabia is weakened.  They both also lose anytime the positions of Iran and/or Turkey are strengthened, and they lose when hopes of an Israeli/Palestinian deal fade.


Just as the western powers are excommunicating Saudi Arabia, ostracizing MBS, and banning arms sales to KSA, along with other goods, MBS was making a trip east with stops in Pakistan, India, and China.  He signed some massive economic deals with these Asian giants, and, it is rumored, secured a promise from Pakistan to station thousands of troops in KSA as a deterrent to Iranian ambitions.  There are rumors that the deals with Pakistan also include help in developing a KSA nuclear program.  As an historical note, there have always been rumors of a secret Saudi site (manned by Pakistani scientists) underground near the remote southern city of as-Sulayyil

MBS’s deals with China included, for the first time, a program for the teaching of the Chinese language in Saudi schools.  Think about that for a moment.  For the past 150 years English has been the primary foreign language taught in Saudi schools, and the KSA’s foreign policy has always been tied more closely to England and America than any other countries.  What if that umbilical chord is cut by those wanting to exploit the Khashoqji affair for cheap political gains, and the result is that the KSA turns to sucking at the Chinese teat, instead of the Western one?  Think in terms of seismic shifts in the geostrategic balances of power in the Middle East-Far East region.

Perhaps some of our Politicians really do understand some of these issues, but feel that the greater good is that they have to make some sort of a strong statement about the importance of human rights.  However, given their double standards and hypocrisies over similar political murders as discussed in this essay, that line of reasoning holds no water.  Before our illustrious senators and congresspersons talk them selves into a frenzy of doing something really stupid that will not only destroy America’s geostrategic interests in the Middle East, but set human rights performances in the KSA back decades, if not centuries . . . I ask them to think . . .

Whatever minuscule advances in human rights Saudi Arabia has made at whatever glacial pace over the past half century or so, has been entirely because of the effects of western influence on it.  So, stop and think for a moment what is going to happen to those human rights advances already achieved, much less that impetus for moving forward on more human rights if the KSA is forced to hook up with countries that have zero interests in human rights?

China has been making great inroads into Africa and the Middle East by telling countries “We don’t care what religion you are, we don’t care what your state ideology is, we don’t care what your human rights record is, all we want is to do business with you–no strings attached.”

Thus, it is extremely painful to watch on TV as our senators and congresspersons of both parties insist upon prostrating themselves in abject submission before the dictates of

al-Jazeera, the MB, and terror sponsor Turkey, as they quake in fear over what the Washington Post might say about them if they don’t.


All of this could have been avoided had the Trump administration declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization the very first day that the Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and the White House.

Had that been done, Khashoqji would have never been allowed inside the United States when he declared asylum status in the summer of 2017.  Banning Khashoqji for terrorist MB connections would have forced him to seek residency elsewhere, in a Muslim Brotherhood-friendly country like Turkey or Qatar.  His murder would then not have been an American issue, the media and Democrats would have been less likely to pick it up and run with it as a political tool–for fear it could backfire on them for being supporters of terrorism.

American failure to declare the MB to be a terrorist organization has not only damaged the Trump administration on this issue, but has also allowed two MB sympathizers to be admitted to Congress.  This issue will lead to many more American tragedies as long as the MB and its affiliates are allowed to operate freely in the United States.

Pennsylvanian Supreme Court Justice Horrified by Anti-Semitism In America

An erudite Judge speaks out on Antisemitism. He sees it as a growing threat in America.  Interesting!   Definitely worth reading.

Justice Wecht Breaks Judicial Silence on Anti-Semitism

A sitting American justice from the state of the Pittsburgh massacre speaks out on First Amendment rights, Christchurch, and the dangers of a pivotal moment in our history

By Joel Cohen

Rarely, if ever, has a sitting American judge spoken out publicly on the threat of anti-Semitism in America. However, here, Justice David N. Wecht, a judge serving on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the highest court in the state and the oldest Supreme Court in the nation, has chosen to speak out boldly and firmly about what he perceives to be a national crisis.

The Honorable David N. Wecht was elected by the citizens of Pennsylvania to a 10-year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2015.  His father’s parents ran a grocery store not far from where Justice Wecht was sworn in. Before his election to the state’s Supreme Court, he served four years on the Pennsylvania Superior Court (the state’s intermediate appellate court). He attended Yale University and Yale Law School, where he served as notes editor of the Yale Law Journal, and then clerked for Judge George MacKinnon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Justice Wecht and his wife were married at the Tree of Life synagogue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh, where he grew up. Tree of Life was the site of the Oct. 27, 2018, attack in which 11 Jews were murdered by a white supremacist.

I interviewed Justice Wecht in March of this year.

Read the full interview.

Florida Is Ground Zero In Fight Against Sanctuary Cities

Banning sanctuary cities has a very real chance of passing in Florida this year — and that’s creating an emotion-driven battle with Democrats and the open-borders lobby.

The sanctuary bill sponsored by Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters — who is also Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida — has become the most contentious issue of the year in the seemingly always-contentious Florida Legislature.

While such legislation has not gone anywhere in past sessions, it is fast-tracked this year with the Republican leadership structure all onboard. Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose popularity has swelled since his narrow election in November, is a major supporter of President Trump’s immigration and border security policies while former Gov. Rick Scott’s support on the issue was somewhat tepid.

So legislators in the GOP-controlled Legislature are pushing legislation that would clearly define what constitutes sanctuary policies — one of the problems plaguing the issue — and would prohibit any state or local governments from adopting such policies, formally or informally.

Of course the importance of Florida in national elections as the largest swing state in the nation is well-known. But it can also be a bellwether state as far as what is acceptable to the broader American electorate. With its huge population of immigrated Midwesterners, Southerners and Northeasterners, no state is more representative of America than Florida.

If a strong sanctuary city ban can be passed in Florida, then it may have the politically broad support that it seems to have in the polls. And that makes it a winner in 2020 for Republicans.

All of which is bringing out the long knives of the Democrat Left.

First came the press conferences with the most sympathetic representatives opposing a ban on sanctuary cities — young adults who were brought illegally as young children and are now allowed to stay here legally through DACA…but their parents are not. These people tell the stories of how hard it was growing up and not being able to travel freely or do some of the other things that legal American children could do because their families were not supposed to be here — although they are allowed to do all those things now. (Speakers included Florida State University students, so not suffering too badly.) Gratitude is not usually much a part of these dog-and-pony shows.

Second, the slime machine known as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is slowly but steadily being discredited even in parts of the media, is still used by too many gullible or biased reporters as a legitimate source. And so the SPLC launched an attack on the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Gruters, by trying to tie him to what they describe as a hate group — the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR.

Here’s how Zac Anderson, the political reporter for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune put it, acting as a gullible tool for the SPLC as he has in the past against Republicans:

“Several people associated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform — an organization branded by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group” — provided input to Sarasota state Sen. Joe Gruters and his staff as they worked to advance so-called “sanctuary city” immigration enforcement legislation.

An email obtained by the Herald-Tribune shows that David Jaroslav, the state and local legislative manager for FAIR, worked with Floridians for Immigration Enforcement to offer advice for Gruters’ staff on how to the defend the sanctuary bill against critics. Jaroslav emailed comments to Floridians for Immigration Enforcement President Kenneth Morrow Jr., who passed the comments on to Gruters’ staff.”

Notice the tenuousness of the connections. A person or people connected to FAIR (not a hate group) sent Gruter’s staff emails on how to defend against critics. But here’s the headline: “Members of alleged hate group linked to Sarasota legislator’s immigration bill.” Well that sounds a whole lot worse than was actually backed up in the article, which itself is a sham because it rests on the SPLC’s increasingly discredited hate list.

Of course, the branding of FAIR as a hate group when their policies are not hateful and their web site is very specifically opposed to any form of discrimination, is absurd. The SPLC takes two or three comments of the founder from 25-40 years ago, without context, and labels the group hateful to this day — exactly like they would never do with the far more extensive hateful and blatantly racist writings of, say, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

There continues to be this symbiotic relationship between the SPLC and willing dupes in the media. The SPLC has used both the Trump presidency to promote the misinformation that hate crimes are on the rise, and also success in media coverage hammering conservatives, as leverage for record amounts of fundraising — doubling funding since 2015. This, even while Politico, the Atlantic and others are increasingly questioning the SPLC’s legitimacy.

The bill’s definition of sanctuary cities is important. The primary reason there are officially no sanctuary cities or counties in Florida is because there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a sanctuary policy. But there are some communities who do not particularly cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials when the agency issues an immigration detainer asking police to hold someone who is suspected of being in the country illegally, along with other cooperative issues.

Expect more dirt and media complicity in the fight for the rule of law, and of order, in Florida — reflecting the rest of the country. And the front line of that fight is sanctuary cities.

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll: 67% Of Likely Voters Say Illegal Immigration Is A Serious Problem, Most Believe Democrats Don’t Want To Stop It 

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

The Abby Johnson Story

One day, about a decade ago, a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director saw something at her own clinic—and it made her instantly pro-life.

Her name is Abby Johnson, and she was the director of the Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic, which was affiliated with the greater Houston area Planned Parenthood—one of the largest markets for America’s largest abortion-provider. In 2008, Abby had been voted as Planned Parenthood’s Employee of the Year. She was on a fast-track for further promotion within Planned Parenthood.

I interviewed Abby Johnson on the radio a few years ago. She told me about something that happened that made her question how good Planned Parenthood really was: “I had been instructed to increase the abortion quota at our facility, which was strange to me because I really got involved with Planned Parenthood, believing that abortion was something we were trying to eradicate, [to] make unnecessary through various education programs.”

I said, “Safe, legal, and rare?” She said, “Sure, that’s what we said to the media, and that’s what I believed.” She naively thought abortion (as a last resort) was helpful to women.

Abby said in a television interview for D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM):

“Planned Parenthood says that they offer options counseling, but that’s not true….they don’t really know how to effectively counsel on anything but abortion. I was great at selling abortion. I was a very, very good salesperson. I could sell an abortion to anybody. It’s so easy when you get a woman into your office, and she is vulnerable and she’s unsure.”

But on September 26, 2009, at the request of a visiting doctor who insisted on sonogram-assisted abortions, Abby ran the sonogram machine and saw from a different perspective what her life’s work (up to that time) was really all about.

In her book, The Walls Are Talking (with Kristin Detrow, 2016), Abby writes, “As I stood watching, a thirteen-week-old unborn child struggled and lost its life within its mother’s womb, finally crumpling and disappearing into the cannula, a hollow plastic tube attached to the suction machine by a flexible hose.”

She described it this way in the DJKM television interview,

“I was just in shock. I couldn’t believe what I was watching. And the baby was actually making some progress. It was moving further and further away from the instrument, so much so the doctor had to reposition the cannula. And he finally got everything in place, and he asked the technician to turn on the suction, and she did.”

Abby continues, “In just, a few moments, I saw the child’s body begin to go through that tube.

For those few moments I was watching this child fight hard for its life. It didn’t have a chance. We had all those instruments and all that technology, and that little baby didn’t have a fighting change, and it did fight.”

Abby adds: “I walked out of the room that day just realizing, ‘I’ve got to make a change. Never again. I’m never going to participate in this again.’”

Today, Abby’s story can be seen on the big screen. Unplanned, based on her best-selling book of the same title (with Cindy Lambert, 2010), opened this past weekend and was a surprise hit. It came in number five at the box office, which is quite an accomplishment for an independent pro-life movie that virtually all of Hollywood does not want you to see. I saw it on its opening weekend and highly recommend it.

Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, told me:

“The depiction of abortion in Unplanned is something that every pro-life person should see—and every pro-choice person.”

Today, one of Abby Johnson’s central goals is to assist abortion clinic workers who want to leave the abortion industry. Her organization, And Then There Were None, is directly geared toward this.

In an online video for that outreach, Abby says,

“Our vision statement for And Then There Were None is ‘No abortion clinic workers, no abortion clinics, no abortions’—it starts with the workers. We see ourselves as being part of a pro-love movement…we want to love these workers out of the clinics. We want to love them to a path of healing, and we want to love them…into a relationship with Jesus Christ.”

So far, they have been able to help 500 people leave the abortion clinics.

In her book, The Walls Are Talking, Abby says she relates to Mary Magdalene:

“I have also done my fair share of sinning. And I have also been forgiven much more than I deserve. I abused and betrayed women in the worst possible way. I convinced them to kill their children….It was Christ who changed me.”

If you haven’t seen the movie yet, make your plans to go see Unplanned.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Left Keeps Me Religious

RELATED VIDEO: ‘Unplanned’: How Twitter Promoted a Pro-Life Film.

VIDEO: Yes, Judicial Watch is Investigating the Jussie Smollett Scandal


On January 29, 2019 at approximately 2:30 AM, TV actor Jussie Smollett called the Chicago Police Department to claim that two while males wearing MAGA-like hats and using a racial and homophobic slur had assaulted him, poured bleach on him, and put a noose around his neck. The Chicago Police launched a massive investigation involving more than two dozen investigators.

On Feb. 13, the police raided the home of two brothers of Nigerian descent. There, they recovered a check that Smollett had paid the brothers for $3,500. Using financial records and surveillance tapes, the police discovered that the brothers had purchased bleach, rope for the noose, and MAGA-like hats the weekend before the “attack” on Smollett.

Under questioning, the brothers admitted to police that Smollett had paid them to stage the hate-crime attack.

On Feb. 19, rather than charging Smollett with a crime, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx announced that she was “recusing” herself from the investigation and prosecution. Before recusing herself, Foxx exchanged numerous texts with Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Tina Tchen, a close friend of the Smollett family.

Nonetheless, on March 8, a grand jury indicted Smollett on 16 felony counts of “false report of offense” related to the fake assault. On March 26, all charges against Smollett were suddenly dropped and his court record was sealed. Smollett was then let off with just 16 hours of community service and the forfeiture of a $10,000 bond. Judicial Watch is determined to get to the truth about what happened–because NO ONE is above the law!

An Overwhelmed Immigration System Endangers America: 9/11 Commission warned “Border security is national security.”

The 9/11 Commission staff authored an official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, that focused specifically on the ability of the 9/11 terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and embed themselves here as they went about their preparations to carry out a deadly attack.

The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

On March 29, 2019 Real Clear Politics posted three videos concerning the immigration crisis. To begin with, they posted a video of President Trump explaining his plan to completely shut down the U.S./Mexican border if Mexico continues to permit “migrant caravans” of aliens from Central America to travel through Mexico with the ultimate goal of entering the United States even though they have no visas to be lawfully admitted.

The second video was a segment of a CNN interview with Robert Perez, the Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. Border Patrol, posted under the title, “CBP Deputy Commissioner: ‘We Are Beyond The Breaking Point’ At Southern Border.”  During the brief video clip Perez made an important point, and one I could not agree with more: not only is the Border Patrol being overwhelmed along the dangerous U.S./Mexican border, but the entire immigration system is being overwhelmed to the breaking point.

Finally, Real Clear Politics posted a video of the former Secretary of Homeland Security under the clear and unambiguous title, “Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson: “We Are Truly In A Crisis” On Southern Border.”

Along with the video of Johnson’s statement was a brief synopsis that included this quote:

On Tuesday, there were 4,000 apprehensions. I know that a thousand overwhelms the system. I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like, so we are truly in a crisis.

My mom wisely taught me that “one-sided relationships are not relationships.”

President Trump correctly noted that Mexico has a huge trade advantage with the United States in which they and their companies reap far greater rewards and, to add injury to insult, the Mexican government is facilitating the human tsunami of aliens from Central America, enabling them to transit easily through the entire length of Mexico in organized caravans that deposit them directly on America’s doorstep.

There are many reasons why this is happening and that was the topic of my article, “Caravan Of ‘Migrants’ – A Crisis Decades In The Making“; however, first and foremost it must be understood that the United States does not have four border states but fifty border states. (Any state that lies along our norther and southern borders is a border state, as are those states that have access to America’s 95,000 miles of coastline, as are those that have international airports.)

Aliens who enter the United States without inspection don’t remain near the border for long. Unlike our astronauts who traveled to the moon to plant a flag, grab some lunar rocks and, after a brief visit, return to earth, illegal aliens quickly head to towns and cities across the United States, most often to “Sanctuary Cities.”

President Trump noted that the United States lacks the ability to detain these aliens and so “catch & release” now plagues the overwhelmed immigration system. “Catch & release” is not limited to the borders of the United States but undermines efforts to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the U.S. as well.

In fact, many factors hobble interior enforcement, beginning, first and foremost, with an abject lack of ICE agents who number about 6,000 and not only investigate and enforce violations of immigration laws but also investigate violations of a wide array of other laws that have absolutely nothing to do with immigration law violations.

It has been said that you get only one opportunity to make a first impression. People who seek to to enter the United States first encounter our immigration laws. Sanctuary cities and statements of political “leaders” who vilify immigration law enforcement officers, and those members of Congress who promise to pass “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” to legalize unknown millions of aliens from around the world broadcast the unmistakable message that violations of our laws are not only tolerated but will be rewarded! That creates one hell of a first impression!

The utter lack of interior enforcement of the immigration laws further emboldens aliens from around the world to enter the U.S. by any means, knowing that they will likely get away with violating our laws.

Aliens who engage in marriage fraud and identity theft will likely acquire the benefits they seek having easily gamed the immigration system, making a mockery of the entire system.

Thus alien law violators are not only undeterred by our laws but are encouraged to join those caravans parading up through Mexico or to find some other way to get here.

Nearly half of all illegal aliens don’t enter the United States without inspection but enter through ports of entry and then disappear. This creates yet another nightmare scenario.

On March 25, 2019 the Conservative Review published a truly disconcerting article, “Over 50,000 illegal aliens from terror-prone countries remain despite final deportation orders” which noted that an additional 60,000 such aliens are currently appealing their cases.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 there was no shortage of politicians who eagerly stood before the television cameras and demanded to know why no one connected the dots before the attacks.

After a string of congressional hearings and after additional terror attacks conducted by alien terrorists in the United States, the dots have been thoroughly connected. Yet even as more people fall victim to heroin and other narcotics overdoses and more innocent victims are killed by transnational gangs, neither political party supports the construction of a barrier along our porous borders or the hiring of more ICE agents.

Today’s summation will be provided by remembering Sir Winston Churchill’s remarks delivered before the House of Commons on May 2, 1935, when he voiced his frustration and consternation about missed opportunities and failures to learn from history, as the storm clouds of war were gathering on the horizon:

When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.

Can Honest Journalism Ever Make a Comeback?

I recently visited the studio of political talk-show host Chris Ingram of WWBA-AM 820 Tampa. We talked on a wide range of topics regarding current events, but he said something interesting that caught my attention, namely, “There is still journalism in this country, but no HONEST journalism,” meaning our news media is more interested in sensationalism than in facts.

In the last few months alone, the press has shot themselves in the foot on more than one occasion:

First, there was the Covington Catholic incident in Washington, DC where a student wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat was falsely accused by the media of trying to provoke a fight with a Native American activist. This resulted in a $250-million lawsuit against the media by the student.

Then there was attorney Michael Avenatti who represented adult-film star Stormy Daniels in a lawsuit against President Trump, which she lost and was forced to pay the president’s legal expenses. This suit elevated the attorney’s exposure and he became the darling of the main stream media where he was given an enormous amount of television coverage to bash the president, which the media relished. There was even talk of having him run against President Trump in the 2020 election as the candidate for the Democrats. Recently though, Mr. Avenatti was accused of trying to extort $15-25 million from Nike, suddenly making him persona non grata with television journalists, and quickly torpedoing his political career.

Finally, we have the conclusion of the Mueller Investigation. For nearly two years, the main stream media was preoccupied with reporting leaks and innuendos from the probe and publicly insisted President Trump was guilty of collusion. When the investigation was finally concluded, and the president was found innocent of such charges, the media and the Democrats refused to believe it and continued to insist he was guilty.

In none of these three high-profile instances, has the press come clean and issued an apology for misleading the public. Instead, they insist their actions were correct. To illustrate, as Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” tweeted on March 26th (@morningmika), “The President and his corrupt team continues to spread lies — we will continue to follow the truth.” This typifies the media’s response to the Mueller report by the press. Instead of being happy the president was found innocent, they continue to condemn him, and this will go on regardless of the details contained in the full report.

The Washington Times reports 90% of the media’s coverage of the president is still negative (and 88% negative of Republicans in general). This means the president is not getting a fair shake from the news media. This is supported by a recent report by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz claiming he was banned by CNN as he didn’t push the network’s contention of Trump-Russia collusion.

The media would ultimately like to see “Russia Gate” go on forever as sensationalism is good for selling advertising. So, No, do not expect the media to apologize for their actions any time soon. They will continue to defy and push back in order to defend their position. There is just one problem with this though, they have lost the trust of the American public. They simply will not learn how damaging their position is, not just to the country, but to their profession as well.

Gallup/Knight Foundation survey on “Trust, Media and Democracy” found, “that most Americans believe it is now harder to be well-informed and to determine which news is accurate. They increasingly perceive the media as biased and struggle to identify objective news sources.”

There are many eye-opening conclusions in the report, but among them:

  • 1 percent overall “trust all news organizations”; 0 percent of Republicans, 0 percent of independents and 2 percent of Democrats agree.
  • A majority of U.S. adults consider “fake news” a very serious threat to our democracy.
  • Less than half of Americans, 44%, say they can think of a news source that reports the news objectively. Republicans who can name an accurate source overwhelmingly mention Fox News, while Democrat responses are more varied.

As to this last point, this explains why Fox News continues to dominate cable television. Following the release of the Mueller report, AdWeek reported:

Basic Cable Top 10 – Total Viewers (Prime Time)

1. Fox News (2,473,000)
2. TBS (1,947,000)
3. TNT (1,722,000)
4. MSNBC (1,721,000)
5. HGTV (1,298,000)
6. History (1,208,000)
7. USA (1,186,000)
8. Investigation Discovery (1,048,000)
9. truTV (1,046,000)
10. Discovery (1,020,000)
(13. CNN)

Such a commanding lead by Fox News may suggest the chances of President Trump’s re-election in 2020 is very good.

The Achilles’ Heel of the news media is their belief they are somehow smarter than everyone else. This is reflected in their smarminess on camera and their sophomoric witticism’s which the far-Left may find amusing, but the rest of America does not. In other words, they lack the professional discipline of their predecessors, such as Edward R. MurrowChet HuntleyDavid BrinkleyHoward K. SmithJohn ChancellorWalter CronkiteRoger Mudd, and the like. There is simply no comparison between this crowd and today’s class of biased anchors.

Not surprisingly, this is why President Trump is at odds with the main stream media. As he tweeted on March 26th (@realDonaldTrump):

“The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE. For two years they pushed the Russian Collusion Delusion when they always knew there was No Collusion. They truly are the Enemy of the People and the Real Opposition Party!”

People are plain and simply tired of the feud, but tend to blame the news media more than the President as evidenced by their sagging ratings.

So, can honest journalism ever make a come back in this country? Certainly, but it begins with instituting journalist ethics, integrity and discipline. They must remember people follow the news to be informed, not to be entertained, which is something news executives have difficulty grasping, and explains why the public no longer trusts the news.

Unfortunately, I’m betting they will continue in their ways, thereby trying to stir up political intrigue in order to sell advertising. However, they better make their money while they can. As CNN’s ratings indicate, the end may not be far away.

Keep the Faith!

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

VIDEO: How Obama’s Supreme Court Bankrupted the Morality of the Boy Scouts

In The Federalist column “The Boy Scouts’ Bankruptcy Is Not Just Financial. It’s Moral” Alfred Siewers writes:

What’s left of the Boy Scouts of America (now operating as Scouts BSA) is on the brink of declaring bankruptcy, according to recent news reports. With estimated assets of more than $1 billion, Scouting’s problems go beyond the financial, deep into the problems with America’s civil culture today.

[ … ]

The old American Boy Scouts might as well be filing for moral bankruptcy, having lost both its base and elite cultural capital. What used to be an organization designed to help boys become men has now been re-fashioned in line with the new gnosticism of American culture, accepting LGTBQIA ideology, while abandoning its traditional ascetic position about sex and its opposition to atheism.

Read more.

Christmas for boys from Xcluded on Vimeo.

Plastic Bag Bans Won’t Help the Environment, But They’ll Cause More Foodborne Illnesses

Plastic bags are less than one percent of all litter.

New York lawmakers have followed California’s lead and decided to ban grocery stores from giving customers plastic bags. They hope shoppers will use their own cloth bags instead. This ban on plastic bags will harm shoppers in multiple ways.

As Daniel Frank sarcastically notes, “Reusable tote bags” can “cause food poisoning but at least they’re worse for the environment than plastic bags.” He cites Jon Passantino of BuzzFeed News, who observes, “Those cotton tote bags that are so trendy right now have to be used *131 times* before it has a smaller climate impact than a plastic bag used only once.” Yet, there are progressives who want to ban plastic grocery bags in favor of reusable cloth bags.

Plastic bags are less than one percent of all litter. Moreover, alternatives like cloth and paper bags are in many cases worse for the environment than plastic bags, and far worse for public health. That was illustrated by a 2011 legal settlement between plastic bag makers and an importer of reusable bags, ChicoBag. The plastic bag makers sued ChicoBag for its use of false claims about the recycling rate and environmental impacts of plastic grocery bags in its promotional materials. (Those false claims are also the basis for municipal bans and taxes on plastic bags.)

Under that settlement, ChicoBag was required to discontinue its use of its counterfeit EPA website and make corrections to its deceptive marketing claims, which had included sharing falsified government documents with schoolchildren. It was also required to disclose to consumers on its website that reusable bags, in fact, need to be washed.

Reusable bags “are a breeding ground for bacteria and pose public health risks — food poisoning, skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections,” noted a 2009 report.  Harmful bacteria like E. coli, salmonella, and fecal coliform thrive in reusable bags unless they are washed after each use, according to an August 2011 peer-reviewed study, “Assessment of the Potential for Cross-contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags.”

Among the inaccurate claims that ChicoBag could no longer make after the settlement is one that contrasted the environmental impact of plastic versus reusable bags. Contrary to ChicoBag’s previous claims, a study done for the U.K. Environmental Agency showed it would take 7.5 years of using the same cloth bag (393 uses, assuming one grocery trip per week) to make it a better option than a plastic bag reused three times. See “Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags,” Executive Summary, 2nd page.

As an earlier report on the subject noted (see p. 60):

[A]ny decision to ban traditional polyethylene plastic grocery bags in favor of bags made from alternative materials (compostable plastic or recycled paper) will be counterproductive and result in a significant increase in environmental impacts across a number of categories from global warming effects to the use of precious potable water resources. … [T]he standard polyethylene grocery bag has significantly lower environmental impacts than a 30% recycled content paper bag and a compostable plastic bag.

cotton bag has a greater [harmful environmental] impact than the conventional [plastic] bag in seven of the nine impact categories even when used 173 times. … The impact was considerably larger in categories such as acidification and aquatic & terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the energy used to produce cotton yarn and the fertilisers used during the growth of the cotton (see p. 60).


Starch-polyester blend bags have a higher global warming potential and abiotic depletion than conventional polymer bags, due both to the increased weight of material in a bag and higher material production impacts (see Executive Summary).

As Environmental Protection noted in 2010:

Reusable grocery bags can serve as a breeding ground for dangerous food-borne bacteria and pose a serious risk to public health, according to a joint food safety research report issued by researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University. The study — which randomly tested reusable grocery bags carried by shoppers in the Los Angeles area, San Francisco, and Tucson, Ariz. — also found consumers were almost completely unaware of the need to regularly wash their bags.

“Our findings suggest a serious threat to public health, especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli, which were detected in half the bags sampled,” said Charles Gerba, Ph.D., a University of Arizona environmental microbiology professor and co-author of the study. “Furthermore, consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags after every use.” The bacteria levels found in reusable bags were significant enough to cause a wide range of serious health problems and even lead to death — a particular danger for young children, who are especially vulnerable to food-borne illnesses, he said.

The study also found that awareness of potential risks was very low. A full 97 percent of those interviewed have never washed or bleached their reusable bags, said Gerba, who added that thorough washing kills nearly all bacteria that accumulate in reusable bags.

Plastic bags are “less than 0.5% of the litter stream,” according to the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. That low percentage is confirmed by EPA data. (See, e.g., EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures, p. 53, showing that the entire category of plastic sacks, wraps, and bags—including trash bags as well as grocery bags—together account for only a little over one percent of all municipal solid waste, and only a small fraction of overall plastics.)

This article is republished with permission from Liberty Unyielding. 


EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission.

Who Is Your Doctor?

In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: the mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her two-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office.

People used to know who their doctor was. His name and phone number were on the wall or the refrigerator next to the telephone. He was there for you and could manage most of your problems.

When I was about 13, my mom took me to our pediatrician for belly pain. He was on his way out the door, but he stopped to take care of me. He diagnosed appendicitis based on history and physical examination. He called his favorite surgeon (“Billy,” a Tucson legend), who came from the golf course to meet me in the emergency room. Within hours, my red-hot appendix was in a jar. My parents paid the hospital bill ($150—10 days’ pay for a construction laborer) as I was discharged a few days later.

Today, the patient with abdominal pain could wait for hours to see the ER provider—possibly a nurse practitioner or physician assistant who had never seen a case of acute appendicitis. She’ll probably get a CT scan, after another wait. Eventually, Dr. On-call may take her to the operating room, hopefully before the appendix ruptures. And the bill will be beyond the means of ordinary people.

I used to be able to direct-admit patients from my office and send them with a set of orders to the hospital admitting office. For years, this has been impossible. The hospital is decidedly unfriendly to independent doctors. There’s now a gatekeeper in the emergency room, and most patients are under the control of a hospitalist.

This hospital, still Catholic at least in name, is now owned by a huge national conglomerate. Recently, it thwarted all efforts to keep it from dehydrating a patient to death despite lack of an advance directive or permission from next of kin. The patient’s mother disputed the diagnosis of brain death. The gastroenterologist of her choice was willing and able to place a feeding tube, needed in order to transfer the patient to a skilled nursing facility, but the hospital would not permit it. An outside physician whom the mother had called on was removed from the patient’s room by security, when she was merely praying with the mother. The mother could not get a phone call returned from an attending physician. Who was the doctor? Apparently, the hospital system.

Recently, a physician called me about her mother, who was seemingly a captive in a world-renowned hospital. She was concerned about her mother’s nutritional status and falling oxygen level. She could not speak to the attending physician. “They play musical doctors.”

Largely driven by government policy, the System is increasingly in control. A new level of intrusion is being proposed in California in a bill (SB 276) that would outlaw all medical exemptions for vaccines, unless a public health officer approves each one, based on the very narrow list of contraindications accepted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Doctors traditionally swore an oath not to harm patients, and are liable if they do. But government officials are immune from liability, even if they overrule a physician’s judgment that a particular patient faces an unacceptable risk of harm from a vaccine.

If you disagree with your private doctor, you can fire him or simply decline to follow his advice. But what if the government is your doctor?

In Arizona, law enforcement officers in tactical gear broke down the door to a home where children were sleeping, entered with guns drawn, and took three little children away from their parents. The stated reason: the mother had decided not to follow a doctor’s advice to take her two-year-old to the emergency room for a fever, because the fever broke and the child got much better soon after leaving the office. The main concern seemed to be that the child was not vaccinated.

Americans need to defend their right to have an independent physician, to choose their physician and type of care, and to give or withhold informed consent to medical treatments. Otherwise, their “doctor” will be a protocol in a system staffed by interchangeable automatons. Treatments will be inaccessible or required, tailored to meet the needs and beliefs of the system.

If the government is the ultimate authority on your “health care,” remember that its tools for checking whether a child has a life-threatening disease such as meningitis include battering rams and assault rifles.