Tag Archive for: Republicans

‘Super Expensive’: NRCC Drops Video Targeting Dems For Thanksgiving Food Price Hikes

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) released a video Wednesday, first shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation, seeking to hold Democrats responsible for Thanksgiving food price increases ahead of 2024.

The online advertisement, titled “Thanksgiving in Biden’s America” and launched by the House GOP’s campaign arm, depicts how some of the feast’s staples “are more expensive again this year,” arguing that “you can thank Democrats” for the price increases. Local prices for canned cranberries, canned pumpkins and russet potatoes are all up 60%, 30% and 14%, respectively, since 2022, according to the NRCC.

“It’s super expensive and I’m sharing the cost with some of my siblings,” a grocery shopper can be heard saying in the video.

“Definitely more conscious about what we purchase,” another said.

WATCH:

Inflation has spiked under the Biden administration, which has been attributed by critics to record levels of government spending approved by Democrats. Biden signed the American Rescue Plan in 2021 authorizing $1.9 trillion in new funding for COVID-19 relief, as well as the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which added $750 billion to the deficit and sought to advance the president’s green energy agenda.

“Unsatisfied with their war on Christmas, extreme Democrats launched a war on Thanksgiving. That’s why your Thanksgiving meal costs skyrocketed,” Ben Smith, NRCC rapid response director, told the DCNF in a statement.

While the average cost for a Thanksgiving table of ten has decreased by 4.5% since 2022, the price is still up by 25% at $61.17 since 2019, according to a report from the American Farm Bureau Federation released Nov. 15. Last year’s average Thanksgiving feast saw a record-high price of $64.05 compared to $48.91 from before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The NRCC is seeking to expand its majority in the House by targeting 37 seats held by vulnerable Democrats, including several that will now be open in 2024 following a wave of departures in Michigan, Virginia and California.

AUTHOR

MARY LOU MASTERS

Contributor.

POST ON X:

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: NRCC To Release Ad Calling Dem Inaction On Debt Crisis ‘Disgusting’ And ‘Extreme’

Iowa Candidate’s Wife Convicted On 52 Counts For Voter Fraud Scheme Involving Vietnamese Immigrants

‘Did They Actually Know?’: Vivek Ramaswamy Blasts Biden Admin’s ‘Callous Mistake’ On Trans Remembrance Honoree

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

House GOP Is About To Drop A Massive Report Alleging That Biden’s DHS Chief Broke The Law

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green is set to release a lengthy report detailing his initial findings of his probe into Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that details ways he believes he broke the law, he told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an exclusive interview.

Green launched a probe into Mayorkas on June 14 with the initial phase focusing on the DHS secretary’s alleged “dereliction of duty.” Green says the more than 100 pages of findings from the first phase of his ongoing probe will be released within the next couple of weeks.

“The list of everything that we’ve learned so far in phase one, the dereliction of duty phase will be published here very shortly. In fact, I’m proofing the final document, which is like 111 pages, but laws that have been violated. In some cases, we believe that Mayorkas has broken the law himself,” Green told the DCNF.

Green cited several instances where he believes Mayorkas has committed “intentional” and “willful dereliction of duty,” he said, referring to DHS’ use of the CBP One phone application to allow tens of thousands of migrants to enter the country each month through ports of entry at the southern border. He also believes Mayorkas lied to Congress when he asserted that DHS had “operational control” of the U.S.-Mexico border.

“There’s the lying to Congress, there’s the CBP One app, which is just this big shell game to produce automatic mass parole in violation of the laws passed by Congress. It is a wanton disregard for the separation of powers and the Constitution of the United States,” Green said.

“There’s also sort of negligent dereliction of duty. He admitted in the Senate that he didn’t understand the cartel strategy despite the fact that Merrick Garland very clearly understood it when he testified. If you’re the guy who’s in charge of homeland security and protecting the borders and going against the cartels, you probably ought to understand the major strategies of the drug cartels,” Green said, referring to Mayorkas seemingly not knowing about cartel wristbands used to track migrants crossing the southern border when previously pressed by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

WATCH:

Despite some House Republicans already having filed articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, Green stopped short of calling for such action until his investigation concludes.

Green said the final phase of the probe will include information from anonymous U.S. officials who have been speaking with the committee that he hopes will become whistleblowers and testify publicly. He told the DCNF in May that he was speaking with the officials and that they had shared evidence of “potential fraud” Mayorkas committed.

“Ideally, they would become whistleblowers, get protection and testify. They have reluctance to do so because of what’s happened at the DOJ with the guys who came clean there and then got bullied by the leadership,” Green said.

“So they’re obviously very concerned. I mean this administration has no concept of law and order and so these people are very concerned. We just have to figure out a way to make sure we can guarantee the protection because some of these people they have their retirements on the line,” Green added.

The second phase of Green’s investigation into Mayorkas will begin with a subcommittee hearing entitled “Biden and Mayorkas’ Open Border: Advancing Cartel Crime in America” Wednesday that will spotlight the fentanyl crisis, the DCNF first reported. It will be followed by a full committee hearing on July 19 “to examine how this administration’s reckless open-border policies have empowered cartels in Mexico to seize operational control of the Southwest border,” a committee spokesperson told the DCNF.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top GOP Rep Says There’s Evidence The Biden Admin Released Migrants With Chinese Military Ties Into The U.S.

China’s Massive ‘Terracotta Army’ Invasion of the U.S.A.

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


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

American Support For Same-Sex Relations Sees Biggest Decline Ever Recorded

Support for same-sex relations has plummeted among Americans over the past year, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.

Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll found that 64% of Americans believe same-sex relations are acceptable in 2023, compared to 71% in 2022. The 7-point drop in views of gay and lesbian relations represents the steepest decline of all polled social issues. Moral acceptance of same-sex relations has fallen to its lowest level since 2019, a year in which 63% of respondents said they found gay relationships “morally acceptable.” 

Still, the poll shows that same-sex relations are still viewed much more favorably than in past decades. In 2012, 54% of Americans found gay and lesbian relationships acceptable. In 2002, 38% of Americans found them acceptable. Likewise, a record-high 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a June 5 Gallup poll.

The backslide in acceptance same-sex relations comes mainly from Republicans, according to Gallup. Only 41% of Republicans reported finding same-sex relations morally acceptable, a sharp drop from the record-high of 56% in 2022. The 41% figure represents the lowest level of support same-sex for relations in nearly a decade. In 2014, 39% of Republicans found gay and lesbian relationships “morally acceptable,” according to the poll.

Support for gay relationships among Democrats slightly declined from 85% in 2022 to 79% in 2023. Independents saw a slight uptick, with support increasing from 72% to 73%.

The decline of same-sex relationship acceptance comes amid a broader backlash against the LGBT movement over the past year, with many Republican state legislatures moving to ban sex changes for children and explicit books featuring gay sex from school libraries. Conservatives expressed outrage against Bud Light and Target over the alleged promotion of transgender ideology, which has resulted in declining sales and stock prices for each entity, respectively.

Some have questioned if the political packaging of homosexuals with gender ideologues would result in a backlash against the gay and lesbian community.

“But when you examine the other issues at stake — public schools teaching the concepts of queer and gender theory to kindergartners on up, sex changes for children before puberty, the housing of biological males with women in prisons and rape shelters, and biological males competing with women in sports — you realize we are far beyond what the gay rights movement once stood for. It’s these initiatives from the far left that are new; and the backlash is quite obviously a reaction to the capture of the gay rights movement by queer social justice activists,” gay rights activist and public intellectual Andrew Sullivan wrote in a May blog post.

AUTHOR

COREY WALKER

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Uprising: Families Clash With Schools Over LGBTQ Propaganda

Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Transgender Ideology: POLL

Fox News Encourages Employees To Read ‘Gay Erotica,’ Support Pro-Child Castration Groups, In Leaked Docs

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

Speaker McCarthy, Leaders Gather for Prayer and Repentance

On a snowy Wednesday morning in Washington, D.C., hundreds of people made their way to the Museum of the Bible for a unique event: the National Gathering of Prayer and Repentance. Before dawn had even broken across the city, almost 60 speakers from different nations, organizations, political districts, and backgrounds responded to God’s call to humble themselves and seek His face.

“What you’re about to see,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, “is something you won’t see on MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox — that is, members of Congress who are praying and crying out to God. … Know that God is answering your prayers, America,” Perkins urged, “by raising up leaders who love Him and fear Him.” Led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (La.), 16 Republicans from across the country — Mary Miller (Ill.), Brian Babin (Texas), Rick Allen (Ga.), Michael Cloud (Texas), Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Tracey Mann (Kan.), Burgess Owens (Utah), Michelle Steel (Calif.), Gary Palmer (Ala.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Randy Weber (Texas), Brandon Williams (N.Y.), Diana Harshbarger (Tenn.), Dan Bishop (N.C.), Nathaniel Moran (Texas), and Mike Johnson (La.) — took turns confessing sin and asking for God’s wisdom in the days ahead.

“We have lost our way,” Congresswoman Miller admitted, “because we have rejected you as Creator, Lord, and Savior. Now we are adrift and foolish, calling evil good and good evil. …We most humbly ask you to intervene, deliver us here in Congress and in our country from going our own way and thinking our own thoughts. Please, Heavenly Father, take the scales off our eyes. Help us to acknowledge our need of You. Our need to weep and mourn over our pride, our immorality, child abuse, and idolatry. Draw us back to you and to your word.”

Rep. Bishop asked forgiveness for a nation that has failed to understand “our dependence on You — for imagining that our blessings have come by virtue of our merit, our entitlement, our intellect, our effort.” We repent, he continued, “for acquiescing in the status quo. Forgive us for our lack of courage, our resignation, our cynicism, our hopelessness, our narrow self-interest, and ambition. Forgive us for making our government an idol and then for turning a blind eye as its instrumentalities have accumulated power and turned it against the humanity, the dignity, and the rights with which you have endowed the people. You ask who will go for me and whom will I send? Lord, send me. Forgive us, Jesus, King of all nations.”

After Leader Scalise read Psalm 33, Speaker McCarthy turned to the audience and said he was also asked to share a Scripture, but decided he’d like to “pray and read, if that’d be all right.” He started by thanking God that “we can still honor Your word, study Your word, and teach the next generation.” He asked for the Lord’s blessing on the leaders of Congress who joined him on stage and those who weren’t there today. “I want you to open their hearts. I want you to help them be bold.”

Then, knowing the difficult debates facing both parties, the speaker prayed for the president. “Father, you know I will meet with him today. Father, I ask that you open both of our hearts … that our meeting [would seek] your truth and help for this nation. … [W]e continue to seek your guidance. We ask that you give us the patience of Job. We ask that you give us the intellect, the leadership that you gave David.”

Perkins, who co-hosted the event along with Pastor Jim Garlow, also welcomed Anne Graham Lotz, Ambassador Sam Brownback, Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, former congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Pastor Carter Conlon, and 19-year-old Jacob Kersey, who recently resigned from his Georgia police department when he came under fire for posting a Bible verse about marriage.

Kersey pointed out how much we take for granted the privilege of coming before God in prayer. He lifted up the 800,000 “brave men and women serving in law enforcement,” many of whom are “excellent examples of strength, fortitude, character, and integrity.” “But Father,” he admitted, “we have problems too. We’re sinful human beings. And the events in Memphis and Minneapolis shed light on our brokenness and sin. … We need the Prince of Peace, Jesus. We need you.”

Too many believers, Brunson said — “many teachers of the church” — “have become ashamed of the clear teachings of Jesus Christ. Many care too much about maintaining respectability and social standing and … are not willing to stand against the mainstream of our society, to go against the current. There are all kinds of ways to rationalize compromise. We need to repent and love the truth.”

Luke wrote that “there would be times of distress with perplexities,” Bachmann explained, “meaning that the days would become so difficult that the problems would be humanly impossible to solve. That is our day,” she insisted. “And so it is altogether fitting and proper that we come to our Father with prayers and repentance. It is the only way. It is the best way. It is the right way. It is the healing way. It is the life giving way.”

To watch the National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance, click here.

AUTHOR

TWS Staff Report

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Republicans Win Control Of The House

Republicans gained control of the United State House of Representatives, edging out a narrow victory in the tightly-contested midterm elections.

The GOP currently holds 218 seats after mail-in ballots caused over a week of delays in results, The Associated Press reported, though that number may grow as the last few remaining races wrap up. The elections were far closer than pre-midterm projections, with most pollsters predicting Republicans would take between 225 and 255 seats. 

“There was a widespread anticipation that [election night] was going to be a bad night for Democrats. But, you know, the question is like, How bad would it be? It was very likely that the House would flip, and by definition, that’s a bad night by any standard, but it’s a lot less bad for Democrats than I think we thought,” Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Though final results were below initial predictions, Republicans picked up key seats in Florida, taking 21 of 28 House districts, according to the Associated Press. In New York, Republicans flipped four traditionally blue Democrat seats, taking 10 of the 26 seats.

In Virginia, Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger was reelected, leading Democrats to take one more seat than Republicans, 6 to 5, according to the Associated Press. In Rhode Island, Democrat Seth Magaziner won his seat, despite pre-election predictions that the seats would turn red, according to The Washington Post.

In Georgia, where Republican Herschel Walker and Democrat Sen. Raphael Warnock are heading to a runoff, Republicans took 9 seats and Democrats took 5, according to the Associated Press.

“Here’s what we do know: While the press and the pundits are predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen,” Biden said in a news conference following the Nov. 8 midterm elections, according to The Washington Post. “[Voters] sent a clear, unmistakable message that they want to preserve our democracy and protect the right to choose in this country.”

AUTHOR

BRONSON WINSLOW

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Hopes Dashed On The Rocks

Chris Wray is Smacked Down for Dodging Question on ‘FBI Informants Dressed as Trump Supporters’ on January 6

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden’s Rhetoric is a Threat to the Republic

This isn’t just pandering to the base.


The only good thing about this speech is that it didn’t have a color scheme out of V for Vendetta and didn’t feature Marines in the background. Whoever runs these things at least learned from that attempt at looking like Biden was about to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus and make everyone read Gender Queer and How To Be An Anti-Racist at gunpoint in a gulag.

The bad news is no one cared about that speech except conservatives. They care even less about this one.

With the countdown underway, voters have made it clear that they care about the economy and crime. Anyone who finds the “threat to democracy” routine persuasive is already a solid blue voter and ActBlue donor who probably showed up for at least one D.C. protest.

This isn’t just pandering to the base, it’s pandering to the Elizabeth Warren base.

Biden’s call to “vote knowing what’s at stake and not just the policy of the moment, but institutions that have held us together as we’ve sought a more perfect union are also at stake” is an admission that his faction has lost the policy argument and doesn’t have anything else to work with.

While the delivery is laughable, the premise isn’t. Biden’s speeches may not interest voters, but they continue to push the totalitarian message that “democracy” is embodied by Democrats and threatened by Republicans, that if Dems fail to win, then the result will be the end of America.

That kind of rhetoric is typical, but under Obama and Biden, it’s been backed up by arrests, investigations, surveillance, raids, imprisonment, censorship and the whole banana republic gamut.

The same speech delivered by the leader of a free country and say Vladimir Putin or Xi sound very different because they have really different implications. Biden, once again declaring that the opposition is a collection of “dark force” that “thirst for power” and will destroy democracy is election rhetoric, but it’s also become an actionable item for the DOJ, the FBI and Big Tech firms.

Biden’s rhetoric is a threat to the republic, not because words are scary, but because his allies have shown that they employ such rhetoric as cover for imposing totalitarian realities.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

McCarthy, GOP Poised To Pounce In ’23. Here’s Their ‘Number One Promise’

ANTONI: Here Are Five Prime Examples Of Biden Gaslighting Conservatives

Biden Blames Republicans For Attack On Paul Pelosi

Dem Pollster Claims Party Doesn’t Acknowledge People’s ‘Legitimate Concerns’

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

The Floodgates Just Opened For A Red Tsunami, Analysis Finds

Republicans could win another 12 to 25 seats in the House of Representatives in a massive sweep this November, a new analysis from Cook Political Report predicted.

The predictions present an even more optimistic situation for Republicans than Cook’s last analysis, which predicted 10-20 seat gains for the GOP. Seats with Democratic incumbents were moved from “likely D” to “toss up” in four races, and two races with Democratic incumbents were moved from “toss up” to “likely R” in this week’s analysis.

“Enthusiasm is on our side, as evidenced by historic turnout from Republicans in primaries and early voting,” a GOP spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Americans are rejecting Democrats’ failures from high prices to out-of-control crime to their woke agenda. Democrats are hemorrhaging support amongst voters across every state, district, and demographic.”

Republicans are beating Democrats in voter enthusiasm with a 78%-69% edge, strengthening their September lead but still not matching their lead prior to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, according to Cook. Democrats are generally performing worst in blue states that swung heavily for Biden in 2020 including New York, Oregon and Connecticut; Cook attributes this to voters in red and purple states fearing abortion restrictions.

The House is currently controlled by Democrats by an eight-seat margin, but the results predicted by Cook would give the GOP a four-to-17 seat edge. Republicans have maintained a consistent lead in midterm polls, with voters primarily concerned about inflation and the economy and rating the GOP as more trustworthy in handling those issues.

Republicans are beating Democrats in voter enthusiasm with a 78%-69% edge, strengthening their September lead but still not matching their lead prior to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, according to Cook. Democrats are generally performing worst in blue states that swung heavily for Biden in 2020 including New York, Oregon and Connecticut; Cook attributes this to voters in red and purple states fearing abortion restrictions.

The House is currently controlled by Democrats by an eight-seat margin, but the results predicted by Cook would give the GOP a four-to-17 seat edge. Republicans have maintained a consistent lead in midterm polls, with voters primarily concerned about inflation and the economy and rating the GOP as more trustworthy in handling those issues.

The Democratic National Committee did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

LAUREL DUGGAN

Social and cultural reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: New Poll Smothers Dems’ Hopes That Abortion Can Thwart A Red Wave

Alaska GOP Declares War On Mitch McConnell For Backing Lisa Murkowski

GOP Challenger Overtakes Dem Governor In Final Stretch: POLL

Fox News Hosts Press Charlie Crist On DeSantis Garnering More Hispanic Support Than Him

Dems Backpedal On Filibuster Threats In The Face Of Likely Midterm Defeat

EWTN/RealClear Poll: As Midterms Approach, Catholics in Key Battleground States Are Focused on the Economy

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Blake Masters: ‘We’re Remaking the Republican Party’ Because the ‘Establishment’ is ‘Out Of Touch’

Republican Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters said the GOP is out of touch with ordinary Americans and described how he’s breaking from some “establishment” norms in an exclusive interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Masters said Republicans, including himself, were in agreement about many key issues such as low taxes and low regulations, but that he’s more skeptical of foreign intervention and more vocal about crime and immigration than some of his counterparts. He spoke with the DCNF at the National Conservatism conference in Miami Sunday.

“I think I’m speaking more boldly about the southern border and issues of crime than a lot of establishment Republicans,” he told the DCNF. “I’m running on this America First agenda, that’s what I believe in, and I think we’re remaking the Republican Party to really implement that America first agenda. I think that the Republican party that Paul Ryan wants, that’s not the Republican party the American people want.”

Masters is running against Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, who is leading him by 47 to 45 percentage points roughly two months ahead of election day, according to a Sept. 9 Emerson College poll. The race has been labeled a “toss-up,” according to the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

The “America First” agenda, according to Masters, prioritizes the needs of ordinary Americans, and that means focusing more on domestic issues and less on foreign intervention. He also said establishment Republicans tend to grow disconnected from normal Americans during their time in office, which he said was driving growing support for populist strains of conservatism.

“Establishment Republicans tend to be a little bit too disconnected from the people. I see this especially in the Senate,” he said. “You stack a few six-year terms and suddenly you’re too disconnected from American life and what working class and middle class people are feeling. They live in a bubble, and the America first groundswell happened because establishment Republicans are out of touch.”

One key area were he’s distancing himself from the Republican establishment is foreign policy; he said he is a non-interventionist by default and believe the U.S. government should avoid military intervention when it’s not strictly necessary.

“I’ve been much more skeptical, for instance, about sending $40 billion to Ukraine,” he told the DCNF. “I would’ve voted no, I don’t think we should be doing that, and I think the Republican establishment is still more hawkish on that.”

The comments come amid an apparent rift between Masters and the GOP: the Senatorial Republican Super PAC, which is affiliated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, pulled millions of dollars in ad buys for Masters in Arizona in August.

Masters didn’t directly comment on whether the funds were being withheld due to the perceived conflict between him and the Republican establishment, but said he was confident that necessary funds would come in from Washington, Silicon Valley and Arizona in apparent references to McConnell and tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel.

“This race is too close, it’s too crucial and it’s too winnable. I don’t know when the dam breaks but I think we’re gonna have all the resources we need,” he said.

McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

LAUREL DUGGAN

Social issues and culture reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former Trump, Stefanik Staffer Karoline Leavitt Wins New Hampshire House Primary

Blake Masters Wins Arizona Republican Senate Primary

MCKENNA: Talking Heads Are Trotting Out One Indicator To Predict Key Elections. Here’s What To Actually Pay Attention To…

‘What Is A Semi-Fasicst?’: Chuck Todd Presses Kamala Harris Uniting The Country While Attacking ‘MAGA Republicans’

Janet Yellen Warns High Gas Prices May Be Right Around The Corner

Kamala Harris Claims The Border Is ‘Secure’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Republicans Snag Over 1 Million Voters From Dems In Past Year: AP

Over 1 million U.S. voters in 43 states have fled the Democratic Party since 2021 and registered as Republicans, according to a new report.

Republicans have gained major ground in suburban counties, according to the voter registration data examined by The Associated Press, as well as “in virtually every region of the country.” The findings come almost four months before the midterm elections in November, which a bipartisan swath of pundits has deemed a probable “red wave” in part due to messaging failures among the left.

“While Democrats may see a slight enthusiasm bump following the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to sustain that for the next five months,” Andy Surabian, a Republican strategist, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Data for roughly 1.7 million voters who switched political parties was analyzed by the AP. The data, which according to the outlet comes from the political firm L2, reportedly shows that around two-thirds of the 1.7 million voters became Republicans — while only about 630,000 voters became Democrats.

Biden’s support in the suburbs has been widely credited as the reason for his success in the 2020 presidential election. While these areas “have tended to show a net advantage to Republicans,” Biden “registered a net Democratic advantage for the first time since Barack Obama’s victory in 2008,” Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank, said in a November 2020 report.

However, suburban counties near large cities like Denver, Atlanta and Pittsburgh, as well as near smaller cities like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Des Moines, Iowa, have garnered Republican support, the AP reported.

“Biden and Democrats are woefully out of touch with the American people, and that’s why voters are flocking to the Republican Party in droves,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel told the AP.

The data showing more registered Republicans comes after Democrats lost in droves across states last fall. In Virginia, Republicans swept statewide, notably taking the gubernatorial race with the election of Glenn Youngkin.

Republicans also won big recently in Texas, where Mayra Flores flipped a blue district in June with the support of Latino voters. The Democratic National Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter. 

RELATED ARTICLE: ANALYSIS: We Just Got The Latest Indication Red Waves In Blue Cities Could Become A Reality

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Takes ‘Death to America’ Terrorists Off Terror List, Replaces Them With Republicans

Democrats say Muslim terrorists aren’t terrorists, but their political opponents are.

The Biden administration responded to protests against its stolen election by embedding a domestic extremism office into the National Security Council. The man in charge of making it happen, Joshua Geltzer, had previously denied that Black Lives Matter was a terrorist threat and had attacked the Trump administration’s response to Antifa and BLM violence in Portland.

That means that the only domestic extremists the NSC will be fighting are Republicans.

Even while the Biden administration is preparing to double down on Obama’s abuse of the national security state to target his political opponents, it’s also giving real terrorists a pass.

Joe Biden, whose biggest bundlers included the Iran Lobby, announced he was ending support for American allies fighting the Houthis, and then went even further by preparing to remove the terrorist organization whose motto is, “Death to America”, which took American hostages and tried to kill American sailors, from the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The motto of Iran’s Houthi Jihadis is, “Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam.” The Houthis took over parts of Yemen as a result of the chaos unleashed by Obama’s pro-Islamist Arab Spring. Since then they’ve been engaged in a protracted war while causing a local famine by confiscating food from the local population.

Last year, the Trump administration had finally secured the release of three American hostages, Sandra Loli, an American aid worker who had been held for 3 years, another American who had been held for a year, and the body of a third American, in exchange for 240 Houthis, including three dozen Islamic terrorists who had been trained in the use of missiles and drones by Iran.

Like those launched at the USS Mason.

The Houthis lived up to their “Death to America” slogan by repeatedly launching cruise missiles at the USS Mason which had been protecting shipping in the area. And they lived up to the second half of their slogan by ethnically cleansing the remaining local Jewish population, locking them up, and confiscating their homes and land. Local reports stated that the Houthis were “cutting off water & electricity to Jewish homes and preventing Jews from purchasing food.”

“No Jew would be allowed to stay here,” one of the Jewish refugees said.

The Iran-backed Islamic terrorists fight using 18,000 child soldiers. The soldiers, many abducted, some as young as 10, are taught to hate America and to kill enemies of Iran.

None of this stopped Biden’s State Department from taking the Houthis off the terror list.

“Secretary Blinken has been clear about undertaking an expeditious review of the designations of Ansarallah,” the State Department claimed. “After a comprehensive review, we can confirm that the Secretary intends to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist designations of Ansarallah.”

‘Ansarallah’ or ‘Defenders of Allah’ is what the Houthis call themselves. Blinken had only been confirmed on Tuesday. By next Friday, he had already somehow completed the “comprehensive review”, amid all the other minor business like China, Russia, and a global pandemic, and decided that the Islamic terrorists whose motto is “Death to America” aren’t really terrorists.

How can the Biden administration deny that Islamic Jihadis backed by Iran who attacked Americans are terrorists? The State Department claimed that this, “has nothing to do with our view of the Houthis and their reprehensible conduct, including attacks against civilians and the kidnapping of American citizens.” Not to mention the attacks on the USS Mason.

But the Biden administration isn’t even going to pretend to care about attacks on our military.

The Bidenites are claiming that they’re taking the Houthis, whom they don’t deny are terrorists, off the list of designated terrorist groups because of the “humanitarian consequences”.

That’s a lie, no matter how often you hear it in the media, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would be providing licenses to “humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen and to certain transactions and activities related to exports to Yemen of critical commodities like food and medicine.”

That’s despite the fact that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen was caused by the Houthis.

Nevertheless the media, echoing propaganda from the Iran Lobby and Qatar, a close terrorist ally of Iran, has falsely claimed that the Houthis are the victims of the Yemen famine. A number of politicians, mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, as well as various aid groups, have pushed this same disinformation campaign about the causes of the Yemen famine.

America and its allies have spent billions providing food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid to Yemen. That aid has been seized by the Houthis who have used it for their own troops or to resell on the black market. This is a familiar problem from Syria to Somalia, and aid groups have refused to honestly address their complicity in aiding the terrorists who caused the crisis.

There’s no money in admitting that the aid an organization is providing is being seized by the terrorists, prolonging the conflict and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Some aid organizations share the same goal as the Houthis of worsening the crisis because it boosts their donations.

That’s why international aid organizations don’t want to talk about the Houthis taking their food donations, or about their use of child soldiers. “It’s a taboo,” an anonymous aid official had said.

When Secretary Pompeo announced that the United States was finally designating the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, the United Nations took the lead in claiming that it would cause a humanitarian crisis. But the UN’s World Food Program had already admitted that its food shipments weren’t getting to the starving people because the Houthis were intercepting them.

The Middle East director for UNICEF also admitted that the Houthis were seizing food.

An Associated Press investigation found entire stores seling “cooking oil and flour displaying the U.N. food program’s WFP logo.” The former Houthi education minister said that 15,000 food baskets that were supposed to go to hungry families instead went to the Houthi terrorists whom the Biden administration is defending. Massive amounts of aid have been pumped into Yemen, and the famine has only grown worse because the Houthis have used starvation as a weapon.

The only way to end the famine is to end Iran’s grip on Yemen through its Houthi terrorists.

That’s obviously not what Biden or the Democrats have in mind. The loudest Democrat voices against designating the Houthis as a terrorist group have a troubling history with Iran.

“Reversing the designation is an important decision that will save lives and, combined with the appointment of a Special Envoy, offers hope that President Biden is committed to bringing the war to an end,” Senator Chris Murphy tweeted.

Murphy had been among the loudest voices against the designation.

And Murphy had met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last year. That same year, he had advocated lowering sanctions on Iran for “humanitarian reasons”. Biden had also joined the push to use the pandemic as a pretext for reducing sanctions on the terror state.

That same year, the Left succeeded in forcing out Rep. Elliot Engel, one of the few remaining pro-Israel Democrats, and replaced him with the militantly anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose election was backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her antisemitic ‘Squad’.

Engel, who had served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was replaced by Rep. Gregory Meeks, a strong backer of the Iran Deal. Meeks’ position was cheered by Iran Lobby groups. As far back as 2009, Meeks had declared at a hearing, “I have developed a tremendous appreciation for the work of the National Iranian American Council. I am pleased that we will hear the perspective of NIAC’s President, Mr. Trita Parsi.”

Emails released allegedly showed Parsi telling Iran’s Foreign Minister, “I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between the parliamentarians.”

Speaking to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the official state news agency of the Islamic terrorist state, Chairman Meeks allegedly stated that he was willing to travel to Iran and had been engaged in dialogue with Iranian legislators.

Meeks took the lead in attacking the designation of the Houthi Islamic terrorists as terrorists, arguing that, “No solution in Yemen will be sustainable unless the Houthis are involved.”

And that gets at the real reason why Biden and Democrats oppose the designation.

It’s not about humanitarian aid, which would have kept on going anyway, only to be stolen by the Houthis. It’s about supporting Iran’s bid to take over parts of Yemen in order to control shipping and tighten the grip of the Islamic terrorist regime over the entire region.

The ‘diplomatic’ solution advocated by Biden and the Democrats would finalize Iran’s grip over parts of Yemen. Designating the Houthis as terrorists would get in the way of another in a series of Islamist dirty deals with Iran that began with Obama and that will continue on under Biden.

Even while the Democrats insist loudly that the Houthis must be part of the solution in Yemen, they just as vocally cry that the Republicans must be isolated and eliminated in America.

The Democrats militarized D.C. with an armed occupation and are criminalizing political dissent. They have claimed that one riot, after a year full of them by their own activist wing, requires a permanent state of emergency that will be run through the National Security Council.

The Biden administration is not only taking the Houthis, and likely other Islamic terrorist groups, off the terror list, it’s putting the domestic political opposition on its terror list. This is an extension of the same Obama policy that illegally shipped foreign cash to Iran even while it was using the NSA to spy on pro-Israel members of Congress and on the Trump campaign.

The Democrats are happy to fight terrorism by designating their domestic political opponents as terrorists while removing the “Death to America” Houthis who have kidnapped and killed Americans, who fired on the USS Mason, and ethnically cleansed Jews, from the terror list.

And what do the Houthis plan to do with their newfound support from the Biden administration?

In addition to sanctioning the Houthis, the Trump administration sanctioned three of their leaders, beginning with Abdul Malik al-Houthi. The Houthi leader has made it clear that he intends to build up the same missile program that was used to attack the USS Mason.

“To have rockets that could reach far beyond Riyadh, this is a great achievement,” he said, referring to the Saudi capital.

He also promised to send terrorists to fight against Israel.

“Many of Yemen’s tribesmen are ambitious to fight against Israel, and they are looking for the day to participate along with the freemen of the Islamic nation against the Israeli enemy,”

This is the terrorist group that the Biden administration and the Democrats are bailing out even while they’re criminalizing the Republican political opposition as terrorists.

“Death to America” is something that the Houthis and their Democrat supporters can agree on.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ilhan Omar named Vice-Chair of House subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights

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

VIDEO: How the 2020 Election was Presented to Us vs. How It Really Was

A demonstrator stands with supporters of President Donald Trump outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center where votes are being counted, on Nov. 6, 2020, in Philadelphia.

WATCH: How the election was presented to us vs. how it was.

RELATED ARTICLE: POLL: 78% Of Republicans Believe Presidential Election Was Fraudulent

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog entry was posted in Leftist election rigging by Eeyore. ©All rights reserved.

DEFEND THE ELECTION: President Trump’s Fight to Protect Every American’s ‘Legal’ Vote [Video]

“If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.” – President Donald J. Trump


UPDATE:

TRANSCRIPT:

Donald Trump: (00:02)
Thank you very much. Thank you.

Donald Trump: (00:08)
Good evening. I’d like to provide the American people with an update on our efforts to protect the integrity of our very important 2020 election. If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us. If you count the votes that came in late, we’re looking to them very strongly, but a lot of votes came in late.

Donald Trump: (00:36)
I’ve already decisively won many critical states, including massive victories in Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, to name just a few. We won these and many other victories despite historic election interference from big media, big money, and big tech. As everybody saw, we won by historic numbers, and the pollsters got it knowingly wrong. They got it knowingly wrong. We had polls that were so ridiculous and everybody knew it at the time.

Donald Trump: (01:06)
There was no blue wave that they predicted. They thought there was going to be a big blue wave. That was false. That was done for suppression reasons. But instead there was a big red wave, and it’s been properly acknowledged actually by the media. They were, I think, very impressed, but that was after the fact. That doesn’t do us any good.

Donald Trump: (01:26)
We kept the Senate despite having twice as many seats to defend as Democrats, and in a really much more competitive states. We did a fantastic job with the Senate. I think we’re very proud of what’s happened there. We had many more seats to defend. They spent almost $200 million on Senate races in South Carolina and Kentucky alone, two races, and hundreds of millions of dollars overall against us.

Donald Trump: (01:57)
At the national level, our opponents major donors were Wall Street bankers and special interests. Our major donors were police officers, farmers, everyday citizens. Yet for the first time ever, we lost zero races in the House. I was talking to Kevin McCarthy today. He said he couldn’t believe it. Zero races, very unusual thing, zero, and actually won many new seats with, I think, many more on the way.

Donald Trump: (02:24)
This was also the year of the Republican woman. More Republican women were elected to Congress than ever before. That’s a great achievement. I won the largest share of non-white voters of any Republican in 60 years, including historic numbers of Latino, African American, Asian American, and Native American voters. The largest ever in our history. We grew our party by 4 million voters. The greatest turnout in Republican Party history.

Donald Trump: (03:00)
Democrats are the party of the big donors. The big media, the big tech, it seems, and Republicans have become the party of the American worker, and that’s what’s happened. And we’re also, I believe the party of inclusion. As everyone now recognizes, media polling was election interference in the truest sense of that word, by powerful special interests.

Donald Trump: (03:25)
These really phony polls, I have to call them phony polls, fake polls, were designed to keep our voters at home, create the illusion of momentum for Mr. Biden and diminish Republican’s ability to raise funds. They were what’s called suppression polls, everyone knows that now, and it’s never been used to the extent that it’s been used on this last election.

Donald Trump: (03:51)
To highlight just a few examples, the day before election, Quinnipiac, which was wrong on every occasion that I know of, had Joe Biden up by five points in Florida, and they were off by 8.4 points and I won Florida easily, easily. So they had me losing Florida by a lot and I ended up winning Florida by a lot. Other than that, they were very accurate.

Donald Trump: (04:22)
They had him up four points in Ohio and they were off by 12.2 points, and I also won Ohio, great state of Ohio very easily. And the Washington Post said, “Biden up 17 points in Wisconsin,” and it was basically even. They were off by about 17 points, and they knew that, they’re not stupid people. They knew that. Suppression.

Donald Trump: (04:49)
There are now only a few states yet to be decided in the presidential race. The voting apparatus of those states are run in all cases by Democrats. We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually, and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret and they wouldn’t allow legally permissible observers.

Donald Trump: (05:15)
We went to court in a couple of instances and we were able to get the observers put in. And when the observers got there, they wanted them 60, 70 feet away, 80 feet, 100 feet away or outside the building to observe people inside the building. And we won a case, a big case, and we have others happening.

Donald Trump: (05:33)
There are lots of litigation, even beyond our litigation. There’s a tremendous amount of litigation generally because of how unfair this process was, and I predicted that. I’ve been talking about mail-in voting for a long time. It’s really destroyed our system. It’s a corrupt system and it makes people corrupt, even if they aren’t by nature, but they become corrupt. It’s too easy. They want to find out how many votes they need, and then they seem to be able to find them. They wait and wait, and then they find them, and you see that on Election Night.

Donald Trump: (06:09)
We were ahead in vote in North Carolina by a lot, a tremendous number of votes, and we’re still ahead by a lot, but not as many because they’re finding ballots all of a sudden. “Oh, we have some mail-in ballots.” It’s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided too. I know that it’s supposed to be to the advantage of the Democrats, but in all cases they’re so one-sided.

Donald Trump: (06:34)
We were up by nearly 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania. I won Pennsylvania by a lot. And that gets whittled down to, I think they said now we’re up by 90,000 votes and they’ll keep coming and coming and coming. They find them all over and they don’t want us to have any observers. Although we won a court case, the judge said, “You have to have observers.” Likewise in Georgia … And they’re appealing, actually they’re appealing. We want a case that we want people to watch and we want to observers and they’re actually appealing, which is sort of interesting. I wonder why they’d appeal? All we want to do is have people watch as they do the vote tabulations.

Donald Trump: (07:16)
Likewise in Georgia, I won by a lot, a lot, with a lead of over getting close to 300,000 votes on Election Night in Georgia. And by the way, got whittled down and now it’s getting to be to a point where I’ll go from winning by a lot to perhaps being even down a little bit.

Donald Trump: (07:37)
In Georgia, a pipe burst in a far away location, totally unrelated to the location of what was happening and they stopped counting for four hours. And a lot of things happened. The election apparatus in Georgia is run by Democrats. We also had margins of 300,000 in Michigan. We were way up in Michigan, won the state. And in Wisconsin, we did likewise fantastically well, and that got whittled down. In every case, they got whittled down.

Donald Trump: (08:12)
Today, we’re on track to win Arizona. We only need to carry, I guess, 55% of the remaining vote, 55% margins, and that’s a margin that we’ve significantly exceeded. So we’ll see what happens with that, but we’re on track to do okay in Arizona. Our goal is to defend the integrity of the election. We’ll not allow the corruption to steal such an important election, or any election for that manner. And we can’t allow silence, anybody to silence our voters and manufacture results.

Donald Trump: (08:46)
I’ve never had, I’ve been doing a lot of public things for a long time, I’ve never had anything that’s been as inspirational by people calling, talking, sending things to us. I’ve never seen such love and such affection and such spirit as I’ve seen for this. People know what’s happening and they see what’s happening and just before their eyes, and there are many instances which will be reported very shortly.

Donald Trump: (09:16)
There’s tremendous litigation going on, and this is a case where they’re trying to steal an election. They’re trying to rig an election and we can’t let that happen. Detroit and Philadelphia, known as two of the most corrupt political places anywhere in our country easily, cannot be responsible for engineering the outcome of a presidential race, a very important presidential race.

Donald Trump: (09:39)
In Pennsylvania, Democrats have gone to the State Supreme Court to try and ban our election observers and very strongly. Now we won the case, but they’re going forward. They don’t want anybody in there. They don’t want anybody watching them as they count the ballots, and I can’t imagine why. There’s absolutely no legitimate reason why they would not want to have people watching this process, because if it’s straight, they should be proud of it. Instead, they’re trying obviously to commit fraud. There’s no question about that.

Donald Trump: (10:20)
In Philadelphia, observers have been kept far away, very far away. So far that people are using binoculars to try and see, and there’s been tremendous problems caused. They put a paper on all of the windows so you can’t see in, and the people that are banned are very unhappy and become somewhat violent.

Donald Trump: (10:41)
The Eleventh Circuit ruled that in Georgia, the votes have been in by Election Day, that they should be in by Election Day, and they weren’t. Votes are coming in after Election Day. And they had a ruling already that you have to have the votes in by Election Day. To the best of my knowledge, votes should be in by Election Day, and they didn’t do that. Democrat officials never believed they could win this election honestly, I really believe that. That’s why they did the mail-in ballots, where there’s tremendous corruption and fraud going on.

Donald Trump: (11:15)
That’s why they mailed out tens of millions of unsolicited ballots without any verification measures whatsoever, and I’ve told everybody that these things would happen because I’ve seen it happen. I watched a lot of different elections before they decided to go with this big, massive election with tens of millions of ballots going out to everybody. In many cases, totally unsolicited.

Donald Trump: (11:43)
This was unprecedented in American history. This was by design. Despite years of claiming to care about the election security, they refuse to include any requirement to verify signatures, identities, or even determined whether they’re eligible or ineligible to vote. People are walking in there, they have no idea. They just take in the numbers. They’re writing down things, the workers, and doing a lot of bad things. And we have a lot of information coming and litigation that you’ll see that will shake even you people up, and you’ve seen it all.

Donald Trump: (12:16)
The officials overseeing the counting in Pennsylvania and other key states are all part of a corrupt Democrat machine that you’ve written about. And for a long time, you’ve been writing about the corrupt Democrat machine. I went to school there and I know a lot about it. It hasn’t changed since a long time ago and hasn’t changed. It has gotten worse.

Donald Trump: (12:36)
In Pennsylvania, partisan Democrats have allowed ballots in the state to be received three days after the election, and we think much more than that, and they’re counting those without even postmarks or any identification whatsoever. So you don’t have postmarks, you don’t have identification.

Donald Trump: (12:56)
There have been a number of disturbing irregularities across the nation. Our campaign has been denied access to observe any counting in Detroit. Detroit is another place, and I wouldn’t say has the best reputation for election integrity. Poll workers in Michigan were duplicating ballots. But when our observers attempted to challenge the activity, those poll workers jumped in front of the volunteers to block their views so that they couldn’t see what they were doing and it became a little bit dangerous.

Donald Trump: (13:32)
One major hub for counting ballots in Detroit covered up the windows again with large pieces of cardboard, and so they wanted to protect and block the counting area. They didn’t want anybody seeing the counting, even though these were observers who were legal observers that were supposed to be there.

Donald Trump: (13:49)
In Detroit, there were hours of unexplained delay in delivering many of the votes for counting. The final batch did not arrive until 4:00 in the morning. And even though the polls closed at 8:00 o’clock, so they brought it in and the batches came in and nobody knew where they came from.

Donald Trump: (14:06)
We’ve also been denied access to observe in critical places in Georgia. In multiple swing states, counting was halted for hours and hours on Election Night. With results withheld from major Democrat run locations only to appear later, and they certainly appeared and they all had the name Biden on them, or just about all. I think almost all. They all had the name Biden on them, which is a little strange.

Donald Trump: (14:34)
I challenge Joe and every Democrat to clarify that they only want legal votes because they talk about votes and I think they should use the word legal, legal votes. We want every legal vote counted, and I want every legal vote counted. We want openness and transparency, no secret count rooms, no mystery ballots, no illegal votes being cast after Election Day. You have Election Day and the laws are very strong on that. You have an Election Day and they don’t want votes cast after Election Day and they want the process to be an honest one. It’s so important.

Donald Trump: (15:09)
We want an honest election and we want an honest count and we want honest people working back there because it’s a very important job. So that’s the way this country is going to win. That’s the way the United States will win, and we think we will win the election very easily. We think there’s going to be a lot of litigation because we have so much evidence, so much proof, and it’s going to end up perhaps at the highest court in the land, we’ll see. But we think there’ll be a lot of litigation because we can’t have an election stolen by like this.

Donald Trump: (15:43)
And I tell you, He trum Small elections were a disaster. Small, very easy to handle elections were disastrous. This is a large scale version, and it’s getting worse and worse every day. We’re hearing stories that are horror stories, absolute horror stories, and we can’t let that happen to the United States of America.

Donald Trump: (16:11)
It’s not a question of who wins, Republican, Democrat, Joe, myself. We can’t let that happen to our country. We can’t be disgraced by having something like this happen. So it will be hopefully cleared up. Maybe soon, I hope soon, but it’ll probably go through a process, a legal process. And as you know, I’ve claimed certain states and he’s claiming states and we can both claim the States, but ultimately I have a feeling judges are going to have to rule. But there’s been a lot of shenanigans and we can’t stand for that in our country. Thank you very much.

‘Natural Inheritor of Justice Scalia’s Legacy,’ Conservatives Say of Barrett

The first day of confirmation hearings for federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court showed clearly how conservative women are treated differently than their liberal counterparts, Sen. Marsha Blackburn said Monday.

“You know there is a double standard when it comes to how the left and the media treat conservative women, as opposed to how they treat liberal women,” Blackburn, R-Tenn., a conservative  member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said after the hearing at a virtual press conference sponsored by Heritage Action for America.

“You’ve had 164 American citizens who have stood before that committee to be a Supreme Court justice. That’s throughout our nation’s entire history,” Blackburn said. “Today was only the fifth time that an American citizen has been a female judge.”

“Look at how they are treating her,” she added. “Just as the media treats conservative women differently, they are doing the same thing to Judge Barrett. They want to send a signal, if you are pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business, pro-military, they do not think your voice counts, because you are not in agreement with what the left says should be ‘women’s issues.’”


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Blackburn was joined by other members of Congress, along with a number of conservative leaders.

President Donald Trump nominated Barrett, now a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for the high court on Sept. 26  to fill the vacancy of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had died eight days earlier.

Blackburn also noted that Barrett, if confirmed, would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the high court.

Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, expressed appreciation for Blackburn’s point.

“For all working moms, this means so much for us today,” Anderson said at the virtual press conference. “She represents so many of us that have children and are also pursuing a career.”

Anderson went on to note her strong “incredible, impeccable record” as a jurist.

“She is an originalist, a constitutionalist, and we are all eager to see her move forward, first with the Senate judiciary and second to the Senate floor,” Anderson said.

Since then, some Democrats and some in the media have attacked Barrett’s Catholic faith.

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said opponents of Barrett are embracing a risky strategy with what she called their “bigoted ‘handmaid’ claims.”

Some Democrats and liberal commentators likened Barrett’s membership in a Christian organization to women being handmaids similar to the Margaret Atwood novel and Hulu TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian tale in which women are property of their husbands.

“We believe it is time for a woman of faith, for a working mom to be on the court and represent our perspective,” Nance said. “I’m reminded that Ruth Bader Ginsburg felt very strongly that women were to serve on juries because she thought correctly that for us to be able to judge other women, that our perspective was needed. I will say that as well about the Supreme Court. There has never been a conservative constitutionalist woman on the Supreme Court. We are, as conservative women, an underrepresented group on the court and in government.”

Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., chairman of the conserative Republican Study Committee in the House, said he had previously suggested Trump nominate Barrett because she is “the natural inheritor of Justice [Antonin] Scalia’s legacy.”

Barrett clerked for Scalia, who was known for his originalism and served on the high court from 1986 until his death in 2016.

“I’ve spoken to the president on multiple occasions over the past couple of years that she should indeed be the nominee for the next vacancy on the court,” Johnson said.

“When I had a few minutes to talk to him about Amy Coney Barrett over the last couple of years, I said, ‘You know, Mr. President, she is the natural inheritor of Justice Scalia’s legacy.’ President Trump had committed to the American people that he would nominate someone like Scalia,” Johnson said. “I said, ‘Mr. President, you can’t find a better person because she clerked for him. She studied the Constitution under him, the great master that we all revere him to be. She’s cut out of the same mold. You know exactly what you will get with this jurist. She will be an originalist. She will adhere to the original intent.’”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

9 Takeaways From Day 1 of Barrett Confirmation Hearings

Opening Day: Sens. Blackburn, Ernst on Barrett Hearing

What to Watch for During Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Confirmation Hearings

4 Women Who Clerked or Studied Under Her Share How They View Amy Coney Barrett


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


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

Replacing RBG with ACB – Delinquent Democrats Deserve No Quarter

There is a bitter & infuriating irony in the fact that it was the Democrats themselves, who committed the very transgressions they endeavored to attribute to their Republican adversaries.


… it is necessary for a prince, wishing to hold his own, to know how to do wrong…he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity –Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), The Prince, Ch. XV.

Politics is the art of the possibleA statesman…must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events; then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment.– Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898).


Prologue

As this is a significantly longer essay than my usual “INTO THE FRAY” column, I have decided to provide a list of the sections headings as a brief “overview” guide for the readers. Accordingly, this rather lengthy—and extensively researched—piece will be composed of the following 200-300 word sections).

1.     The pot calling the kettle black 10.   The pot calling the kettle black …once again?
2.     “Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility…” 11.  Chaotic kaleidoscope of corruption
3.     Dubious deals & corrupt contributions? 12.  Down the rabbit hole?
4.     The dubious & the corrupt (cont.) 13.  Rabbit hole? (cont.)
5.     “No reasonable prosecutor…” Really?? 14.  A withering Senate report
6.     The need to condemn but not convict 15.  Visceral, vicious and vindictive
7.     When “extreme carelessness” is not “gross negligence” 16.  “…a terrible & profoundly immoral dirty trick”
8.     An iniquitous impeachment over invented infractions 17.  “Nothing is off the table…”
9.     Impeaching the unimpeachable?  

As the end of September approached, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who passed away just a week earlier, to the US Supreme Court.

The pot calling the kettle black

The nomination sparked an eruption of apoplectic protest and incandescent rage from Trump’s political rivals in the Democratic party—particularly as near the end of the Obama incumbency, the GOP prevented the confirmation of then-Democratic nominee, Merrick Garland, as a Supreme Court justice.

There is no doubt that several reasoned arguments can be raised against the Trump administration exploiting the opportunity that the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has created, to advance a Trump nomination to replace her on the bench of the US Supreme Court.

They all should—indeed, must—be ignored!

After all, in light of the long, loathsome litany of vile, venomous villainy that has characterized the (mis)conduct of the Democratic Party over last half-decade and more, its members have little moral right to expect any quarter from their GOP adversaries. Indeed, their sustained malice and misdeeds have left an abysmal trail of needlessly ruined lives, tarnished reputations and squandered public resources.

Indeed, there is a bitter—and infuriating—irony in the fact that it was the Democrats themselves who, irrefutably and incontrovertibly committed the very transgressions they endeavored to attribute, with such blatant disingenuity to their political opponents in the Republican Party. (This sense of rage—and outrage—is intensified by the stunning news involving recently declassified documents showing profound complicity of the previous administration and sympathetic senior CIA and FBI officials, to undermine the Trump campaign and subsequent administration.)

“Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility…”

Take for example, the allegations of collusion with Russia, something Trump and his associates have been accused of, virtually from the time he first announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential elections. Yet, years previously (March, 2012), while attending the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Democratic President Barack Obama, was overheard inadvertently in conversation with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, assuring him of enhanced coordination—read “cooperation”, read “collusion”—on an array of issues in dispute between the two countries.

Thus, Obama pledged “greater flexibility” on these topics—particularly regarding a planned NATO missile defense system in Europe, which had been a sticking point in relations between the two nations for some time, and to which Russia was strongly opposed.

The widely reported conversation, which took place shortly before the reelected Vladimir Putin was to take over the presidency from Medvedev, went as follows:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: “… I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].”

Clearly, it is hard to interpret this exchange as anything but an expression by Obama of his far-reaching willingness to accommodate Russia’s concerns—despite those of NATO allies—once he was no longer answerable to the American voter and constrained by the US electorate.

Unsurprisingly, publication of the Obama-Medvedev exchange sparked sharp criticism from political rivals in the Republican Party, but perhaps the most telling came from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who mused: “I’m curious: how many other countries has the president promised that he’d have a lot more flexibility the morning he doesn’t have to answer to the American people?”

Dubious deals & corrupt contributions?

Indeed, when it comes to collaboration with the Russians, the conduct of the Democrats is far more substantive, substantial—and questionable—than that of the Trump team.

After all, while Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State (2009-2013), the Clinton Foundation received around 150 million dollars in donations, while Bill Clinton himself received a half-million dollar fee for a Moscow lecture—just prior to the US government confirmation of a sale (December 2010) entailing transfer of control of around 20% of US uranium resources to Uranium One, a subsidiary of a State owned Russian company, Rosatom. (Also see Cash flowed to Clinton-Foundation as Russians pressed for control of uranium company, New York Times, April 23, 2015.)

Although an FBI investigation of the events surrounding this incident, known as the “Uranium One Episode”, did not result in any criminal indictments, numerous troubling questions continue to enshroud the affair.

These questions were aptly catalogued by The Wall Street Journal editorial board member, Holman W. Jenkins Jr., in a 2018 piece, Uranium One Is A Curious Case. He writes: “…it [is] interesting that the FBI, under its then-chief Robert Mueller, appears to have sat on the case—only getting around quietly to announcing a plea deal with the Russian executive five years later, in 2015…The FBI handled the Uranium One matter in a manner that avoided making immediate trouble for the policy and political interests of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” 

The dubious & the corrupt (cont.)

He asks acerbically: “What if it had been known that the FBI was sitting on a case involving demonstrable malfeasance (bribery and kickbacks) by the Russian company’s U.S. arm? What if an eyewitness who had helped crack the case told the FBI (as he now claims he did) that Russian uranium executives had spoken openly of currying favor with the Clinton Foundation to advance their U.S. business?”

In the same caustic tone, he continues: “Would it have been embarrassing for the Obama policy if it were known that the uranium assets the Russian government sought to buy had been accumulated by…entrepreneurs working closely with Bill Clinton? That the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledged contributions from people associated with these transactions? That Mr. Clinton had been paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow?

His unequivocal answer was: “Yes. It would have raised political difficulties for Mr. Obama’s Russia policy. It would have harmed the reputation of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.” 

Expressing his skepticism as to the efficacy of the FBI investigation, he remarks in reference to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: “…if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to [sic].”

“No reasonable prosecutor…” Really??

Of course, there are solid grounds for Jenkins’s cynicism regarding the performance of the FBI—particularly with regard to the Clinton email scandal.

Indeed, any fair-minded observer of the then-FBI Director, James Comey, in his testimony before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on this matter, would almost certainly be astonished by the stunning contradiction between the substance of his testimony and his recommendation not to file criminal charges against anyone involved in the affair.

Nowhere was this more evident than when Comey was questioned by then-South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy. Gowdy pressed Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.

During the exchange, Comey was repeatedly forced to admit that Clinton has lied as to the handling of her emails, which in effect constituted “false exculpatory statements”. By his own admission, Comey conceded that such statements are generally used “Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.”

Gauged against these responses of his, Comey’s earlier almost oxymoronic public statement is—to be charitable–profoundly mystifying: “Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” 

The need to condemn but not convict 

Accordingly, it is not difficult to understand Gowdy’s exasperation and frustration in his closing statement: “So you have a rogue email system set up before she [Clinton]took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time.…And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent.”

All this brings us back to Holden Jenkin’s previously cited assessment: “…if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to.” 

Solid corroboration for this assertion comes from a report by CNN—hardly a bed of Rightwing conspiracy theories. The report, citing a well-placed source, stated that “Comey and his FBI colleagues were ‘playing with the language throughout’ the process”, and believed that they “needed to condemn Clinton’s handling of classified information while asserting they would not bring charges.” 

Thus, again contrary to his admission in the exchange with Gowdy, Comey claimed: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” 

When “extreme carelessness” is not “gross negligence” 

Significantly, the CNN report explains why Comey insisted on using the term “extremely careless” while studiously avoiding use of the term “grossly negligent”, which was dropped after appearing in an earlier draft of Comey’s memo on the Clinton email affair.

According to the CNN report: “‘Grossly negligent,’ the language dropped from the draft, is a term that carries with it legal ramifications. ‘Extremely careless,’ the term Comey ended up using, does not [sic].” Indeed, as “The Hill” points out “…federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time…

All this prompted Gowdy’s stern reproach of Comey: “…my real fear is this…[the] double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to…[to] understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be.”

An iniquitous impeachment over invented infractions

The same unscrupulous and unprincipled ruthlessness was reflected in the Democrats doomed attempt to impeach Trump over invented infractions—the very infractions that that irrefutably were committed by the former Democratic Vice-President and present Democratic candidate for President, Joe Biden. (See here min 02.31.)

Without delving into the depth of the details surrounding the episode, readers will recall that the impeachment initiative was launched on the basis of two purportedly incriminating telephone calls between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.

According to an unidentified whistleblower(s), reportedly employed in the intelligence community, the calls provided evidence that Trump threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine as leverage to induce the Ukrainian government to provide incriminating material on Joe Biden, a political rival, and on Biden’s son, Hunter—who, shortly after having been discharged from the Navy, after testing positive for cocaine use, was appointed to the board of a large Ukrainian energy company, Burisma—despite having no obvious experience for the job or the lucrative payments it entailed… and a long record of previous drug and drink addiction.

For transcripts of the Trump-Zelensky talks, declassified and released by the White House, see here & here.

Personally, I would be intrigued to learn how any remotely impeachable act could be gleaned from the contents of the transcripts and would be grateful for any persuasive guidance in this regard.

Impeaching the unimpeachable?

Indeed, the Democrats impeachment initiative raises several troubling questions.

For instance, are the Democratic instigators seriously suggesting that the US President should not be concerned as to conditions of governance in a country that is the recipient of US aid? If he should, then surely nothing could be more appropriate than to inquire as to those conditions and seek to investigate whether or not US citizens are, in anyway, playing a detrimental role in them.

Accordingly, then, should Biden snr. and his family members be immune to such investigation just because, at the time, he happened to be a possible candidate in an upcoming presidential race?? For if so, would the request for an investigation be unimpeachable (pardon the pun), if it related to someone who is not a political rival of the President—leaving his rivals free to engage in whatever nefarious activity they may choose?

The pot calling the kettle black…once again?

Of course, the jaw-dropping truth is that Joe Biden himself engaged, by his own admission, in precisely the act for which Trump was impeached: Using foreign aid as a lever for furthering personal interests.

Thus, in December 2015, Joe Biden, then-U.S. Vice President, warned Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President that, if he did not fire Viktor Shokin, then Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, he would block the transfer of a billion dollars of US aid to the country. Biden snr. boasted openly about getting Shokin fired. During a 2018 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, he proudly proclaimed he withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine in order to force the government to address the problem with its top prosecutor. (Also see here min. 52.30-53.15.)

In Biden snr’s own words: “I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said…I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Chaotic kaleidoscope of corruption

Interestingly, the individual that Biden snr. referred to as “solid”, was Yuriy Lutsenko , who several years previously was sentenced to four years in prison for embezzlement and abuse of office (with confiscation of his property).

Of course in the chaotic, kinetic kaleidoscope of corruption that is Ukrainian politics, it is difficult to know when, and if, the state organs of law and order have been exploited to settle political scores—and Lutsenko’s conviction was criticized by many as political persecution. Thus, despite doubts in this regard, it is interesting to note that the liberal/left leaning “New Yorker” commented: “Lutsenko, sometimes referred to simply as “the corrupt prosecutor general” of Ukraine, has been portrayed, hardly without reason, as an unscrupulous politician prone to telling lies to further his personal ambitions.” A similar assessment was expressed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, a central witness in the impeachment process against Trump, in a closed-door deposition, describing Lutsenko as an “opportunist” who “will ally himself, sometimes simultaneously, with whatever political or economic forces he believes will suit his interests best at the time.

This characterization of Lutsenko appears rather accurate.

Indeed, there is a bitter irony in the fact that it was Lutsenko, who reportedly fed damaging information to Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani—which in itself seems to raise doubt as to judgement of the former vice-president, in view of his earlier characterization of Lutsenko as “solid”.

Down the rabbit hole?

The revelation of Biden snr’s use of US aid to coerce the Ukrainians over conduct of the investigation of corruption in the country, including into a company of whose board Biden jnr. was a member, sent the Democrats scrambling to concoct unlikely unconvincing accounts as to the real motivation behind the then-Vice-President’s strongarm tactics.

According to this version, the purpose of Biden snr’s demand to replace the then-Ukrainian prosecutor was to beef up investigation into corruption including into Burisma—thus exposing Biden jnr. to greater scrutiny, rather than covering for him.

For example, James Risen of “The Intercept” wrote: Joe Biden …was not trying to protect his son — quite the reverse. The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.

There are good reasons for treating this version with a healthy dose of skepticism.

On the one hand, as Pulitzer laureate Adam Entous reveals in Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?, members of Biden’s staff found him highly sensitive—even intimidating—with regard to any criticism of his family. A former Biden adviser told Entous, “Everyone who works for him has been screamed at”, and a business associate remarked that having difficult conversations with Biden about his family seemed like “…really touching a very fragile part of him.”

On the other hand, as Entous writes elsewhere: “Hunter, who had long struggled with severe drug and alcohol problems, had almost no expertise in the region or in energy, and many U.S. and Ukrainian officials suspected that Zlochevsky [Burisma’s founder /owner] had put Hunter on the [Burisma]board in the hope of protecting himself from prosecution.”

Rabbit hole? (cont.)

According to Entous: “Some White House and State Department officials disapproved of Hunter’s role at Burisma, concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest, but they mostly avoided discussing the matter with Joe Biden. The Vice-President had an unwritten “Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy when it came to his family members’ business decisions. The issue seemed too sensitive to raise…”

Accordingly, given: (a) Joe Biden’s extreme sensitivity regarding any adverse criticism of members of his family and their business dealings; (b) the fact the Burisma and its founder were the focus of ongoing corruption investigations; (c) the concern voiced both in Washington and Kiev over Hunter Biden’s presence on the Burisma board; the record of Hunter Biden’s “problematic past”, to which option would an unbiased adjudicator attribute greater credence:

  • That which maintains that the purpose of Joe Biden’s strongarm action was to protect his son from greater scrutiny by the Ukrainian authorities; or
  • That which maintains that the purpose of Joe Biden’s threats of punitive action was to expose his son to greater scrutiny by the Ukrainian investigators?

Clearly, under the specified circumstances, there seems very little reason to believe that the wish to institute greater scrutiny was a more plausible motive than the desire to protect—and every reason to believe the converse.

Accordingly, the latter should be assumed to be the true version of events–i.e. the US foreign aid was used to further personal interest—precisely the purported foundation for the Democrats impeachment initiative against Trump…on the basis of far more tenuous grounds.

A withering Senate report

Indeed, in September 2020, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs published a withering report into the allegations of corruption against Hunter Biden in Ukraine vis-à-vis his dealings with Burisma.

This official US Senate Report strongly underpins the validity of the notion that Biden snr. would have been very loath to expose Biden jnr. to enhanced scrutiny (See for example “Key Findings pp. 4-6).

A few selected citations from the almost 90-page document will illustrate the point.

In the executive summary (p.3), we read: “On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer [recently convicted for securities fraud and conspiracy], at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the ‘public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.’

The report continues: “The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.”

The BBC cites from the reports, noting: “Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine… Biden relatives ‘cashed in on Joe Biden’s vice presidency’ ..‘Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board cast a shadow over the work of those advancing anticorruption reforms in Ukraine…creating criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns’”. 

The report ends with the following disturbing statement: “The…investigation has faced many obstacles from the [Democratic] minority and from executive agencies that have failed to comply with document requests. Accordingly, there remains much work to be done.

Visceral, vicious and vindictive

The malevolent malfeasance of the Democrats was on stark display in mid-2018 with the nomination, and later appointment, of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice.

As readers will recall, Democrats endeavored to derail Kavanaugh’s conformation by raising flimsy allegations regarding a purported over-amorous teenage episode, involving one, Christine Blasey Ford, today a psychology professor, which supposedly took place almost 40 years in the past, when both were minors—as if that had any bearing on Kavanaugh’s attitude, aptitude and/or acumen as a full-grown adult…almost four decades later. In their fervor to block Kavanagh’s appointment, the Democrats showed they would baulk at nothing, however underhand and meanspirited, and that they had no compunction in trying to destroy his good name, and professional standing, regardless of the cost on his family.

Significantly, although Blasy Ford claimed to recall the alleged attack itself in some detail, she somehow could not remember any other potentially corroborative details—such as where the incident supposedly took place, how she got there and how she got back home. Moreover, no corroborating witnesses could be located and those named as such by Blasy-Ford, such as Leland Ingham Keyser, did not substantiate her accusations—even claiming to have been pressured by Blasy-Ford sympathizers to falsely implicate Kavanaugh.

“…a terrible & profoundly immoral dirty trick”

It is thus difficult to disagree with David French, who referred to the Democratic initiative as “a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick”.

He writes: “What Dianne Feinstein [the Democratic Senator whom Blasy-Ford initially contacted] has done to Brett Kavanaugh is unconscionable. She sat on a vague, anonymous accusation for months, refused to question Kavanaugh about it, refused to demand further substantiation, and then actually had the audacity to publicly refer it to law enforcement without providing a single shred of evidence that the referral was warranted. This is character assassination on a grand scale.”

It was hardly surprising, therefore, that Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who chaired the Judiciary Committee during Kavanaugh’s bitter confirmation process, voiced grave disapproval at the shameful tactics adopted by the Democrats and the motley collection of Kavanaugh accusers that emerged in their wake, several of whom he referred for criminal investigation by the Dept. of Justice. He commented: “When individuals intentionally mislead the committee, they divert important committee resources during time sensitive investigations and materially impede its work. Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations.”

Grassley also expressed his concern for future judicial confirmation hearings, warning that false allegations simply bog down the committee and squander its resources.

He urged: “The next Supreme Court nominee should not have to defend himself or herself against baseless and fabricated allegations, and committee staff should not have to spend valuable time investigating them”, which brings us back full circle to the issue with which we began this essay—the upcoming confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s replacement on the bench of the Supreme court—Amy Cony-Barrett.

“Nothing is off the table…”

The placement of Supreme Court justices is arguably one of the most impactful and indelible actions an incumbent president can perform. It is precisely because of this reason that the Democrats oppose it with such vehement passion.

Thus, even before Trump had nominated Cony Barrett, the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D., NY), warned that if the confirmation procedure goes ahead “nothing is off the table”. He underscored: “Our No. 1 goal must be to communicate the stakes of this Supreme Court fight to the American people,”—which is, of course, exactly why the Republicans must press on regardless.

Indeed, in light of the long—yet far from exhaustive—litany of loathsome conduct of the Democratic Party, showing scant regard for personal lives of political adversaries or respect for national institutions, the Republicans must be relentless in pushing forward with the upcoming confirmation hearing of Amy Cony Barrett.

In this regard, they must unequivocally show that “everything, indeed, is on the table”.

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: It’s No Longer Just Left vs. Right

My father always liked to tell me: “Politics, a truly filthy business. But my, is it interesting.”

And he was right.

For those of us who live and work in the “swamp,” we get daily reminders of that reality. It’s easy to fall into a belief that politics is just a cycle.

For four or eight years, one side is in ascendance. One side influences the course of the nation and American lives, and then it’s the other side’s turn.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Not anymore.

To understand how things have changed, you need to understand what real life and death issues beneath the surface of American life compelled many Americans, for the first time since the Revolutionary War, to check the box in 2016 for someone who had nothing to do with Washington, D.C., or our political class.

The choice seemed unusual at the time—instead of a governor, general, senator, or congressman, a construction magnate with 14 seasons of a reality TV show behind him somehow had garnered 304 votes in the Electoral College, not to mention almost 63 million votes, in his first run for the White House.

But why?

To answer that, you need to read the autobiography of a man whose experience is crucial to understanding why voters felt compelled to make that kind of choice.

That man is J.D. Vance and the book is “Hillbilly Elegy.”

I don’t read biographies, auto- or otherwise, as I just don’t have the patience. But thanks to the recommendation of someone in the White House, I made an exception and read Vance’s story over one Thanksgiving weekend and it changed everything.

Why? Because Vance’s book fully explained the life and death issues that made such a choice even possible.

Ostensibly, the work was about Vance’s growing up in Ohio, a member of a working-class family from the Appalachian region of Kentucky in an environment of dashed dreams, drug abuse, and broken human beings.

For the full story, read Vance’s book. The deeper conclusion is that America became a land of opportunity and the world’s sole superpower because a promise was made and kept between its citizens and the political class. That promise was based upon a common belief: America is the freest and greatest nation on God’s Earth.

Both groups—citizens and the political class—believed in our being the “great experiment in democracy.” That if you worked hard, you would prosper. That you would be represented by a political class that would protect that prosperity and keep your family safe.

But then the compact was broken. Year after year, those who had built America were systematically betrayed. Jobs disappeared. Factories closed.

Our enemies and competitors—namely China—were given favorable deals. Drugs like fentanyl were “imported,” ravaging our communities. In exchange, more and more of the “elite” in Washington subscribed to an inexorable “managed decline” for America.

We have been able to surmount some of these issues in the time since then with a roaring economy until COVID-19 hit, jobs returning to America, and foreign policy successes such as smashing the ISIS caliphate.

But our political clashes now go much deeper and are more existential. They are rooted in issues that those who occupy the commanding heights of our media and our traditional political class have no interest in addressing.

These issues strike deeply at our social compact—the shared commitment to Anglo-American values, norms, customs, and traditions, available to Americans of any background—that give us common ground and make a modicum of a free, orderly, decent, and healthy political order even possible.

These same panjandrums of our media and political class, and the street thugs they have enabled, the rabble-rousers performing this dangerous political street theater in tearing down our statues and history, no longer are practicing politics as usual. They have been captured by the radicalism that has been bubbling under the surface of left-wing politics for decades.

That is how a rising generation of Americans subscribes to the most extreme policies, including:

  • Amnesty and citizenship for 11 million illegal aliens.
  • An aggressively unconstitutional and anti-Second Amendment confiscatory gun platform.
  • Open borders.
  • Nationalization of medicine and abolition of private health insurance.
  • Destruction not only of statues, but America’s history, customs, norms, and tradition.
  • Sanctioned harassment of fellow citizens until they publicly manifest agreement.
  • Erasure of America’s history as a force for good in the world, replacing it with a civics education mired in the 1619 Project narrative of America as founded on slavery.
  • Defunding our police or doing away with the idea of law enforcement altogether.

These policies will lead to anarchy and further loss of liberty in the freest country the world has ever seen.

We should keep this in mind if America is to remain America.

COMMENTARY BY

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., is former deputy assistant for strategy to President Trump, host of the nationally syndicated “America First,” and senior fellow for strategic affairs with Liberty University’s Falkirk Center. His latest book is “The War for America’s Soul.” Twitter: .

RELATED VIDEO: Trump: ‘Press Is Fueling the Riots More Than Biden’ — Joe ‘Doesn’t Know He’s Alive’ [Watch]

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Pledges Millions to Rebuild Kenosha After Looting, Arson

Liberal Media Alternate Between Denying and Excusing Rioters, Looters

What You Need to Know About Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Kenosha Violence


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


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