The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘politics’

Delusional Attempt to Impeach Trump Already Underway


For those of you pining for the sturm und drang of Donald Trump’s first term, I’m the bearer of good news: The first attempt to impeach the newly minted president is already underway.

Sure, as political pseudoevents go, it’s about as anticlimactic, low profile, and ill-conceived as a Limp Bizkit reunion album. But #TheResistance 2.0 has to begin somewhere, and it’s apparently beginning with leftist interest group Free Speech For People.

The group — whose website looks like it dates from the era where Daily Kos’ site interface looked positively cutting edge — bills itself as a “non-partisan campaign, but is focused on a bevy of leftist issues, including stopping “voter suppression” (read: preventing anti-voter fraud initiatives), eliminating dark money in politics (unless it comes from George Soros, one assumes), and tackling “corporate abuse of power.”

It’s perhaps best known for its opposition to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled independent campaign expenditures counted as free speech. (Floyd Brown, founder of The Western Journal, was also the founder of Citizens United, the plaintiff in that case.)

But now, the group has a more important mission. Free Speech For People — which apparently knows about as much about what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are as it does about using definite articles to make their organization’s name sound less awkward — began a campaign to impeach Trump on the day he was inaugurated.

The group’s petition is “calling on the U.S. Congress to initiate an immediate impeachment investigation into Donald Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clauses and into his unlawful, corrupt campaign practices.”

“Trump’s return to the White House poses an unprecedented threat to our democracy,” says John Bonifaz, organization president.

“During his campaign and in the months before his inauguration, Donald Trump engaged in unlawful, unconstitutional conduct and threatened more. He has once more positioned himself to abuse the office for personal profit and power in violation of clear constitutional commands and at the expense of our democratic institutions, constitutional precedent, and the safety of our country’s most vulnerable.”

The petition refers to two sections of the U.S. Constitution Free Speech For People believes Trump has violated: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7.

The first clause they believe is impeachment-worthy: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The second: “The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

By the way, in case you’ve forgotten from the last go-around, “emolument” means “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.”

Sorry to insult the intelligence of most of our readership but I’d wager there’s probably some “White Dudes for Harris” straggler reading this in the dark as he munches his Beyond Meat chicken tendies in his faded pink, unwashed knit p**** cap, thinking to himself: “Hot diggity! So you’re saying there’s still a chance! But, uh, what’s an ’emmermonumment’?”

This, by the way, is the same bovine effluence the left tried to make stick the last time before James Coney, Robert Muller, and Alexander Vindman gave them shinier objects to gaze upon — and, one assumes, it’ll have even shorter legs this time.

“Trump has refused to sell his ownership stake in companies through which he is assured to receive substantial payments from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause,” the group’s statement said.

“At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.”

If you want a good laugh, try doing a Google search for “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden Burisma” or “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden CEFC.” See how many hissy fits the organization had about those emolument-looking arrangements when they happened. For gambling types, I’m setting the over-under on relevant search results at 0. Anyone who picked the over can just give me your money now.

And, by the way, there’s a huge difference between the Trump family and the Biden family. Trump came to the presidency after a career in the private sector — and a successful one at that. Of course he had assets — especially real estate — and of course the wealthy were drawn to the Trump name before and after he became president. That’s not an emolument, that’s business as usual.

Joe Biden, meanwhile, has spent four of the last 52 years in the private sector — and he spent it writing a book which he improperly retained classified documents to complete. Hunter, meanwhile, mysteriously began getting well-remunerated roles with companies in countries like Ukraine and China in fields which he had no experience in, and while he was in the throes of a drug, alcohol, and sex addiction that would make Hunter S. Thompson and Charlie Sheen blush. His father claims that he had no knowledge of or discussions about his son’s overseas dealings, which is why he took numerous photos with his son’s foreign business contacts, a trove of which were released as Uncle Joe was exiting the White House:

Oh, and it’s not just the emoluments clauses! “The campaign lists additional impeachable offenses committed during Trump’s 2024 election campaign and leading up to the inauguration, including: threatening physical violence, including murder, against political opponents, journalists, and protestors; using racist, xenophobic rhetoric that has endangered immigrant communities; and violating campaign finance laws by offering benefits in exchange for campaign contributions,” the release reads.

Unlike their fulmination over alleged violations of the emoluments clauses, however, there’s absolutely no supporting evidence of this given — and there’s also no impeachable offense in there once you reduce the febrile rhetoric to what it is, which is positions Trump and his supporters have taken that they disagree with.

If this is what they think will produce the third impeachment of Trump, it’s practically adorable. I doubt that Free Speech For People will be the last organization advocating for this kind of futile opposition to The Donald’s second term. It’ll be hard to top them for sheer unintentional humor value, however.

Morons just never, ever learn. Einstein’s definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Congressional Obstruction And The Case For Adjournment


Moments of extraordinary peril have demanded extraordinary action. Today, as the nation teeters on the precipice of economic turmoil and national insecurity, President Trump finds himself facing an adversary not foreign but domestic: a Congress shackled by obstructionism. The Democrats’ calculated stonewalling of key cabinet nominations, including CIA nominee John Ratcliffe and DOJ nominee Pam Bondi, has left federal agencies rudderless, vulnerable and infiltrated by what can only be described as the Deep State. Trump’s power to adjourn Congress—a constitutional provision buried in the seldom-visited corridors of Article II, Section 3—may be the nation’s best hope for restoring order and ensuring competent leadership at the helm of our government.

The Framers of the Constitution, wise to the capricious nature of politics, granted the president the power to adjourn Congress “in extraordinary occasions” when the House and Senate fail to agree on adjournment. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 70, extolled the virtues of a decisive executive, arguing that energy in the executive is “a leading character in the definition of good government.” While this power has never been exercised in the nation’s history, its inclusion underscores the Framers’ recognition that paralysis within the legislative branch can imperil the republic.

Indeed, Justice Joseph Story’s commentaries on the Constitution describe the adjournment clause as a safeguard against legislative dysfunction. The current congressional deadlock, with Democrats weaponizing procedure to undermine executive appointments, exemplifies the very “extraordinary occasions” that justify invoking this power.

The stakes could not be higher. With the CIA and DOJ operating under interim leadership, their ability to counteract threats—both foreign and domestic—is severely hampered. Ratcliffe’s delay ensures that the CIA remains a playground for DEI zealots and entrenched bureaucrats. Similarly, without Pam Bondi’s confirmation, the DOJ continues to sidestep Trump’s mandate to root out ideological rot. Recent revelations of agencies rebranding DEI positions to evade detection highlight the Deep State’s subversive ingenuity—a direct challenge to Trump’s executive orders banning such programs. The message is clear: without Trump appointees in key positions, federal agencies will remain unaccountable fortresses of woke orthodoxy.

Historically, periods of executive action have often followed legislative gridlock in times of crisis. Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s aggressive New Deal measures illustrate that decisive action, while controversial, is sometimes necessary to preserve the nation’s integrity. The present crisis, though less visible, is no less existential. National security cannot afford to be a casualty of political gamesmanship.

The economic ramifications of congressional obstruction extend beyond the Beltway. With inflation persisting, global markets jittery and outgoing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warning that the government will run out of money this week, the United States faces a dire emergency. Yellen’s suggestion for the incoming treasury secretary to implement extraordinary measures underscores the urgency. Without Trump’s treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, at the helm, who is running the show—a second-string quarterback? Treasury, commerce and energy, among others, require Trump-aligned leadership to implement policies that restore fiscal discipline and energy independence, ensuring America’s financial stability during this critical moment.

Consider the contrast: during the Reagan administration, swift executive appointments enabled the rapid implementation of supply-side economics, catalyzing a historic economic boom. Conversely, today’s delays have left markets uncertain and businesses hesitant, awaiting clarity from an administration hamstrung by partisan brinkmanship. By adjourning Congress and making recess appointments, Trump can bypass the stalemate and restore confidence in America’s economic stewardship.

Critics may balk at the unprecedented nature of adjourning Congress, invoking fears of executive overreach. Yet such criticisms ignore the reality that precedent is not destiny. When Ronald Reagan fired air traffic controllers during the PATCO strike, he faced similar accusations of authoritarianism. History, however, vindicated him as a leader who prioritized national interest over fleeting norms.

Furthermore, the Constitution’s silence on the length of adjournment grants Trump significant discretion. As the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning clarified, a recess of 10 days is sufficient to activate the Recess Appointments Clause. By adjourning Congress over a weekend, Trump can legally appoint his cabinet, ensuring that Senate deliberations proceed without jeopardizing national security or economic stability.

The specter of the Deep State looms large. Recent investigative reports reveal an entrenched bureaucracy—particularly within intelligence and law enforcement—dedicated to undermining Trump’s agenda. These unelected officials have exploited vacancies to shield their machinations, from rebranding DEI departments to slow-walking compliance with executive orders. By filling these vacancies, Trump can dismantle this unelected cabal and restore accountability to the executive branch.

How it Would Work

The president could trigger the adjournment clause with the help of either the House or Senate through a specific series of events. First, one chamber, say the Senate, led by Majority Leader John Thune, would need to pass a resolution to adjourn for a period of more than three days. This could be done with a simple majority vote, as a motion to adjourn cannot be filibustered according to Senate Rule XXII(1). Next, the House, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, would need to either actively reject the Senate’s adjournment resolution or fail to act on it before the proposed adjournment date. Given the Republican majority, the Senate could lose up to three votes, while the House could lose up to five votes, and still pass the resolution. This lack of agreement between the chambers would then allow the president to step in and formally adjourn Congress to a time of his choosing. This scenario highlights how the president could use the adjournment clause, with the cooperation of one chamber of Congress, to potentially create a recess and make recess appointments.

The time for half-measures has passed. In this moment of crisis, Trump must wield the constitutional tools at his disposal to adjourn Congress and make recess appointments. The stakes—national security, economic stability and the integrity of federal agencies—are too high to allow congressional obstruction to persist. Just as Lincoln’s bold actions preserved the Union, Trump’s decisive use of the Adjournment Clause can ensure that the republic remains secure, prosperous and true to its constitutional principles. To paraphrase Reagan, history will remember not the critics who howled but the leader who acted.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

House Report Discloses New Information on Unsolved J6 Pipe Bomber


House Republicans reveal stonewalling, major security lapses, and misrepresentations by top law enforcement officials related to the still at-large J6 pipe bomber, ‘aka’ the fake deep state alternate plan ready to go on a moment’s notice had J6 never happened.

Four years after what the FBI describes as an act of domestic terror–the protest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021–federal authorities have not yet solved the most consequential crime of that day: the presence of two explosive devices within blocks of the U.S. Capitol.

A report issued today by Representatives Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky), chairmen of House subcommittees examining the events of January 6 and the work of the January 6 Select Committee, details how the FBI investigation into the so-called pipe bomber went cold by early 2021 despite dedicating significant resources into finding the suspect and initially identifying several “persons of interest.”

The FBI originally claimed an individual wearing a hoodie planted the devices near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and outside the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee on January 5, 2021 between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. The devices were not discovered until 17 hours later, coincidentally, around the same time the Joint Session of Congress convened at 1:00 p.m. on January 6 to debate the results of the 2020 presidential election. A woman doing her laundry found a pipe bomb in an alleyway near the RNC headquarters at around 12:40 p.m.; a plainclothes Capitol Police officer discovered a similar device outside the DNC headquarters at 1:05 p.m.

The latter situation posed an extreme danger to incoming Vice President Kamala Harris, who left the Capitol at 11:25 a.m. and inexplicably went to the DNC, where she remained until around 1:15 p.m. As I have reported, several officers including numerous Secret Service agents and a bomb-sniffing canine failed to detect the device sitting just steps away from the building’s entrance.

News of the devices prompted the evacuation of nearby buildings and set off the first wave of panic that afternoon. Some top law enforcement officials including former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund believe the devices were a diversionary tactic. “[While] law enforcement has not identified the suspect responsible for planting both pipe bombs, the explosive devices played a critical role in how the events of that day unfolded. Whether intended to or not, both pipe bombs acted as diversions, forcing law enforcement to draw resources away from the Capitol,” the report states. The first exterior breach of Capitol grounds occurred at 12:53 p.m.

But no one has been arrested despite a $500,000 reward offered by the FBI. Further, the failure to locate the J6 pipe bomber doesn’t add up considering the extensive investigative tools still being used by the FBI to track down and arrest J6 protesters, a caseload now approaching 1,600 individuals.

Footdragging, Stonewalling, and Non-Interest by J6 Truth Seekers

Not only did the trail go cold, either intentionally or organically, the same political leaders and government officials who promised to expose the “truth” about the events of January 6 oddly are uninterested in the pipe bomb threat and not cooperating with Republicans in their separate attempts to find the bomber. The report discloses extensive stonewalling by federal and local agencies including the FBI, the ATF, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Metropolitan (DC) Police Department related to House Republicans’ requests for documents and interviews to help better understand the failed pipe bomb investigation.

“[The] FBI has failed to provide any responsive documents. On December 12, 2023, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Matthew Foder briefed the Committee on the status of the FBI’s pipe bomb investigation. Deputy Assistant Director Foder’s briefing failed to satisfy even the Committee’s most basic informational needs and dealt exclusively with information already in the public domain.”

The former head of the Washington FBI field office, Steven D’Antuono, who led the pipe bomb investigation for nearly two years, also appears to have misled Congress by claiming some of the cell phone files obtained by the FBI were “corrupted,” which impeded their investigation. But according to today’s report, “the major cell carriers confirmed that they did not provide corrupted data to the FBI and that the FBI never notified them of any issues with accessing the cellular data.”

Further, despite promises to fully investigate every aspect of January 6, the January 6 Select Committee ignored what represented the biggest threat to public safety and the safety of top elected officials including Harris and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“A thorough review of almost three terabytes of data turned over by the Select Committee yielded shockingly few results regarding the pipe bombs— emphasizing how the Select Committee failed to thoroughly investigate the security and operational failures surrounding the events of January 6,” the report reveals. Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of the now defunct committee, told Massie in 2023 that his committee did not look into the pipe bomb matter. The committee’s final 845-page report devoted less than three pages to the pipe bomb incidents and relegated it to the appendix.

Even after the devices were detected on Jan 6, security perimeters established around both locations insufficiently protected the public, commuters, and nearby Congressional buildings, the report confirms. A motorcade carrying Pelosi drove past the device after it was detected but before it was detonated. “Prior to Speaker Pelosi’s motorcade driving by the DNC pipe bomb, federal law enforcement had allowed more than fifteen vehicles to drive past the DNC pipe bomb despite repeated calls over the radio for law enforcement units to stop all traffic passing by the explosive device. The breakdown in command and control around the DNC pipe bomb and the failure to correct the breaches of the security perimeter culminated in law enforcement risking the safety of congressional leadership.”

Plenty of Leads, No Answers

The subcommittees’ report describes a full throttle investigation into the pipe bombs early on.

In the immediate aftermath of January 6, the FBI’s case team worked aggressively to cultivate and pursue leads toward apprehending the pipe bomb suspect. As of January 2021, the FBI’s investigation consisted of over fifty investigators, including special agents, data analysts, Task Force officers, and support staff. Of those more than fifty investigators, thirty were special agents assigned to the case. The investigation also comprised of a range of investigative support teams such as the Cellular Analysis Survey Team, the Computer Analysis Response Team, and the Digital Imaging and Video Recovery Team. As a result, by April 2021, the FBI had collected over 105,000,000 data points in connection with the investigation.

In February 2021, the FBI identified 186 phone numbers of interest; 36 numbers were assigned to agents for interviews, 98 required additional investigative steps. Fifty-one were categorized as “not needing further action” because the phones “belong[ed] to law enforcement officers or persons on the exclusion list.”

By using another sophisticated investigative technique–tracking advertising data–the FBI case team, according to the report, “identified one [individual] whose movements matched the suspect’s movements as outlined by the video the FBI released tracking the suspect’s whereabouts.” But the result of that “significant lead…remains unclear,” the report states.

More Unanswered Questions

How is it possible the pipe bomber remains at large given the extensive resources first expended by the FBI and at their disposal to this day? Why did the J6 Select Committee avoid looking into the threat, particularly since it posed a mortal danger to both the incoming vice president and the Speaker of the House, who created the committee? Why did Kamala Harris never discuss her near-assassination attempt on the campaign trail? Why did D’Antuono mislead Congress about the condition of cell phone data? Why has the media stopped covering the pipe bombs?

This is why scumbags Wray and others have jumped ship early and Pelosi’s out of country in Europe for supposed surgery.

The good news for now is that House Republicans are not backing down. The key to permanently unraveling the entire Jan 6 narrative is tied to the mystery pipe bomber—and once that missing puzzle piece is found, the public will find more shocking revelations.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Wall Street Journal’s Shameful J6 Propagandizing


From promoting the lie about Brian Sicknick’s death to swooning over the J6 Select Committee while ignoring new findings about the events of Jan 6, the WSJ is soiling its once-solid reputation.

The January 6 narrative continues to crumble amid near-daily revelations related to, among other things, the shady circumstances surrounding the Jan 6 “pipe bomber,” the corruption of the January 6 Select Committee, and evidence directly contradicting the carefully fabricated storyline including who was responsible for delaying the deployment of National Guardsmen that afternoon. (Hint: Not Donald Trump.)

A few news and opinion outlets, however, remain stubbornly loyal to the regime-established Jan 6 propaganda mill. After years of investing ink and clicks to promote the most outlandish and in some instances debunked angles of the so-called “insurrection,” these outlets refuse to entertain the idea, now being considered by millions of Americans, that maybe they were snookered into believing one of the most destructive political hoaxes in U.S. history.

The Wall Street Journal is chief among them.

Once regarded a “conservative” paper with a news section largely devoted to the business sector and an editorial page section largely devoted to supporting conservative political causes, the WSJ currently rivals MSNBC and the Washington Post as the most hysterical J6 propagandists on record.

On Christmas Eve, the paper published a report authored by four WSJ reporters that named several companies who had pledged to withhold financial support for Trump and Republican lawmakers after the Capitol protest that now are donating to the president’s inaugural committee. Describing the events of January 6 as an “invasion” of the Capitol, the reporters lamented how “many of those pledges are a thing of the past.”

After Trump supporters invaded the Capitol in 2021 to protest the results of the presidential election, dozens of companies vowed to rethink their political contributions going forward. Some paused all donations. Others suspended donations to any lawmaker who voted against certifying the 2020 electoral college results. Some simply promised to factor integrity into their donation decisions going forward.

Now, as corporate executives hurry to make inroads with an incoming president whose agenda will have sweeping ramifications for the business world, many of those pledges are a thing of the past.

This latest installation of the WSJ’s “insurrection” chronicles follows a long arc of reporting and pontificating that began the day after the Capitol protest.

Lies About Cops and Lying Cops

On January 7, 2021, as the country knew few details about what actually happened, the WSJ’s editorial board called for President Trump to resign or face impeachment. “This was an assault on the constitutional process of transferring power after an election. It was also an assault on the legislature from an executive sworn to uphold the laws of the United States. This goes beyond merely refusing to concede defeat. In our view it crosses a constitutional line that Mr. Trump hasn’t previously crossed. It is impeachable,” the board, led by longtime “conservative” commentator Paul Gigot, wrote.

The next day, the paper helped fuel the lie that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters with a fire extinguisher, a falsehood first reported by the New York Times. The original WSJ article remains intact with a one-sentence correction from April 2021 admitting the D.C. coroner had concluded Sicknick died of natural causes. Nonetheless, the paper continued to describe Sicknick as a “slain” police officer.

A few months later, WSJ contributor Karl Rove—need I say more?—called the testimony of four police officers featured during the first televised hearing of the January 6 Select Committee “riveting” and how they “demolished claims by some Republicans that the assault on Congress wasn’t very different from a ‘normal tourist visit’ or a peaceful protest.”

But video evidence unearthed since that July 2021 hearing contradicts the accounts offered by all four officers under oath; some testimony could result in perjury charges. This appears to be of no interest to Rove or the WSJ in general.

Pelosi/Cheney Partner in Crime

To be fair, the WSJ criticized former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s heavy-handedness in creating the January 6 Select Committee, a body the WSJ supported in order to “get to the bottom of it all.” However, editors and columnists proceeded to fully participate in the committee’s media echo chamber. The evidence presented during the committee’s professionally scripted televised performances, the WSJ editorial board agreed in June 2022, represented “a reminder of the violence and how Trump betrayed his supporters.”

The following month, the paper’s editorial board regurgitated now-debunked accusations that Trump “stood still” and did nothing to prevent or halt the chaos on January 6. “No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump’s conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help,” WSJ editors wrote in July 2022. Never mind the fact the president had urged the deployment of National Guardsmen days before the certification vote then posted tweets and a personal video asking for calm within the scope of a few hours that day.

WSJ Hearts Cassidy

But perhaps nothing can top the WSJ’s swooning over Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide considered the committee’s star witness. Her June 2022 testimony, the editorial board insisted in a cringe-worthy rant, represented the committee’s “accumulating evidence of [Trump’s] conduct” on January 6. “Republicans should [not[ look away from the considerable evidence it is producing about Mr. Trump’s behavior that would surely be relevant to voters if he runs in 2024.”

Former Reagan speechwriter and Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer Peggy Noonan completely humiliated herself with a lengthy ode to Hutchinson, whom Noonan claimed was the sort of courageous gal that “can upend empires.” The young aide, Noonan continued, “showed more guts than any of Trump’s men. Her testimony strengthens the case for prosecution.”

Doubts over her testimony should be challenged, Noonan argued. “If she lied I see no motive. Any who know otherwise, who can rebut what she said, should come forward and, like her, testify under oath.”

Which is precisely what happened. In the months following Hutchinson’s testimony, several individuals directly refuted under oath her accounts of Trump’s behavior. Transcripts recently obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating the J6 committee and events of January 6, show that several witnesses including the driver of the presidential limousine told committee investigators and former Rep. Liz Cheney, Hutchinson’s hand holder, that Hutchinson’s allegations were untrue particularly related to an alleged physical confrontation inside the vehicle.

No Interest in Covering the Unraveling J6 Narrative

But unfortunately, the WSJ does not share the same interest in Loudermilk’s committee as it did in the Jan 6 select committee. Despite uncovering shocking proof of malfeasance and potential crimes committed by members of the Jan 6 select committee, including Cheney, Loudermilk hasn’t received any coverage in the WSJ.

The paper appears to have ignored a separate report issued earlier this month by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirming the presence of at least 26 FBI informants in Washington on January 6. Nor is the paper interested in the ever-changing story about the “pipe bombs” allegedly planted near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on January 5, 2021; the last time the WSJ published anything about the explosives was more than 2 ½ years ago.

Even more inexcusable is the paper’s selective ignorance on the abusive treatment of January 6 protesters. One would be hard pressed to find any mention of how the Biden DOJ weaponized federal law to criminalize political protest or how the FBI has conducted hundreds of predawn armed raids for even nonviolent offenders or how federal prosecutors seek excessive prison time including “terror enhancements” for J6ers.

Instead, some WSJ writers now oppose Trump’s plans to pardon the wrongly accused and victims of a double standard of justice. Issuing pardons of J6ers, political columnist William Galston recently opined, would represent a “misread[ing]” of Trump’s decisive victory. “Two-thirds of Americans polled by the Washington Post would oppose issuing pardons for people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol,” Galston wrote, as if public opinion should dictate how the inarguable abuse of the legal and judicial system must be resolved.

Another shameful example of the WSJ excusing away the government’s political persecution of Trump supporters while continuing to promote nonsensical aspects of January 6. What a fall from grace.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Madison’s Tragedy: How Policies Failed Our Schools Again


In a quiet classroom at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, the unspeakable happened once again: two dead, six wounded and an entire community shattered. The shooter, a 15-year-old, turned a study hall into a scene of terror before taking her own life. Predictably, political rhetoric came swiftly, as did the tired solutions that follow every school shooting.

President Biden spoke of “prayers” and “unacceptable” violence, sentiments as sterile as they are predictable. Vice President Harris decried the “senseless gun violence” while the drive-by media spun inflated statistics—650 mass shootings a year, they claim, as if this carnage occurs on every street corner. It doesn’t. But that’s the problem. Public massacres, like the one in Madison, occur in places that we’ve willfully left defenseless.

Gun-Free Zones

The very words drip with irony. There is nothing safe about disarming the law-abiding while leaving criminals emboldened. A gun-free zone is a target—an irresistible siren call to those who want to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Nearly 94% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones, according to research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which analyzed data on mass shootings in the U.S. over the last several decades. Why? Because murderers are cowards, not crusaders. They seek defenseless victims, not resistance.

The Failed Logic of Gun-Free Zones

The Madison shooter chose her venue deliberately, just as the Covenant School shooter did last year in Tennessee. The Covenant shooter explicitly avoided a secondary location because of “too much security,” according to police reports. This cowardice is consistent: the Buffalo supermarket shooter in 2022 admitted in his manifesto that he targeted an area where concealed carry permits were outlawed.

Yet the politicians and pundits pretend ignorance. Instead of addressing the root of the problem—defenseless soft targets—they tout gun-free zones as virtuous policies. It’s worth asking President Biden why he feels safe behind armed guards and fences at the White House but thinks schoolchildren can be protected by nothing more than a “No Guns Allowed” sign.

If “Gun-Free Zone” signs worked, the U.S. Capitol wouldn’t need security. Yet politicians rely on armed protection for themselves because they know such measures are essential. Their refusal to apply the same logic to schools speaks to a deeper hypocrisy: they prioritize their own safety while ignoring the vulnerability of America’s children. It’s not ignorance; it’s political convenience. Replace those guards with placards declaring the building weaponless and watch how quickly Congress demands action. Of course, they know better. They protect themselves, but leave our children vulnerable.

The Data We Ignore

  • Since 1998, 82% of mass shootings occurred in places where firearms were banned.
  • Schools that permit concealed carry for staff have seen zero mass shootings during school hours. Zero.
  • States like Utah and New Hampshire allow any teacher with a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm on campus. In 19 other states, local districts make that call. Yet where such policies exist, the grim scenes we saw in Madison simply do not happen.

To this day, critics raise alarmist fears about “armed teachers snapping” or students grabbing weapons, but these scenarios have never materialized. Not once. Instead, the data reveal an uncomfortable truth: gun-free zones work only for killers. The law-abiding comply, the criminals rejoice.

A Return to Common Sense

The solution to Madison’s tragedy—and others like it—is not complicated. First, abolish gun-free zones in schools. Replace them with policies that deter attackers and protect students. Allow teachers and staff—volunteers who are trained and licensed—to carry concealed weapons. This doesn’t mean turning schools into fortresses but turning classrooms into deterrents.

Sheriff Kurt Hoffman of Sarasota County, Florida, put it plainly:

“A deputy in uniform… may as well be holding up a neon sign saying, ‘Shoot me first.’”

Hoffman’s point underscores the need for tactical discretion. Uniformed guards, while a visible deterrent, can inadvertently become the first targets. Schools should adopt the strategies used in aviation security, where plainclothes air marshals blend in seamlessly. Similarly, plainclothes or covertly armed staff can provide critical protection without drawing attention to themselves. This element of unpredictability forces attackers to reconsider their plans, knowing that resistance could come from anywhere.

He’s right. Security must be strategic, not theatrical. This is why air marshals on planes don’t wear uniforms. Schools could adopt similar measures: armed staff members concealed among their colleagues, indistinguishable from any other teacher. Let potential attackers wonder who might shoot back.

Dispelling the Misleading Narrative

Much of this debate has been hijacked by misleading claims. President Biden’s “650 mass shootings” figure comes from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a gun control advocacy group that classifies even nonfatal injuries in domestic disputes as “mass shootings.” Yet there is a reason Uvalde and Madison dominate the headlines: the horror of indiscriminate public slaughter is unique, and rare. Inflating the numbers undermines genuine solutions.

The FBI focuses on public shootings—those where attackers seek out undefended targets. Under that definition, mass public shootings are increasing, but still average only 3.9 attacks per year since 1998. This isn’t about “daily gun violence”; it’s about ensuring that when evil strikes, it meets resistance.

The Costs of Willful Naïveté

Gun-free zones persist because they are politically convenient. They offer the illusion of safety, not the reality. They allow politicians to feel like they’ve acted, even as they make the next Madison inevitable. If you doubt this, consider California: the state with the strictest gun laws also has the highest per capita rate of mass public shootings since 2000—far above the national average. Why? Because laws disarm the innocent and embolden the guilty.

The Moral Responsibility to Act

Parents send their children to school believing it is a place of learning and growth. They should not have to wonder if it will be their child’s last day. Abundant Life Christian School, like too many before it, learned this lesson at a terrible cost.

But Madison does not have to become just another tragic name. It should be a call to action. We must abolish gun-free zones and replace hollow virtue-signaling with policies that work: trained, armed and concealed staff. We must admit what the attackers already know—soft targets invite slaughter.

It is time to defend our schools the way we defend our ‘leaders’. (‘leaders’: God, I absolutely abhor that term) Anything less is a failure of moral responsibility.

“If you want peace, prepare for war,” the Roman author Vegetius wrote.

Schools do not need to become battlegrounds, but they do need to be fortified. Because when the next coward comes seeking defenseless victims, let him find resistance instead.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Selective Justice: How FARA Became A Tool To Target Republicans


There is a cruel irony in how a statute born to counteract Nazi propaganda in the late 1930s has been exhumed from its bureaucratic tomb to serve as a weapon of political warfare nearly a century later. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), originally a dusty relic collecting mothballs in the annals of American law, was suddenly thrust into the limelight at the dawn of Donald Trump‘s presidency—not as an impartial instrument of justice but as a cudgel against his allies. Before Trump’s rise, FARA enforcement was so rare it could be likened to a curiosity better suited to a museum than a courtroom. Between 1966 and 2016, the Justice Department invoked FARA a mere seven times, yielding just three prison sentences. Then Trump happened, and with him came a political reckoning, as the DOJ turned a disused statute into a partisan sword.

FARA: A Law Designed for Sunlight, Not Punishment

To understand this cynical reanimation, one must return to the law’s origins. Passed in 1938, FARA (22 U.S.C. §§611-621) was intended to expose Nazi propaganda efforts by requiring agents of foreign interests to disclose their activities. It was never about outlawing foreign influence outright—transparency, not criminalization, was the aim. Like the sunlight exposing the grime in a neglected house, FARA presumed that openness alone would disinfect.

For decades, the law remained more of a warning sign than a hammer. Its definitions were notoriously ambiguous, its enforcement selective to the point of obsolescence. As long as lobbyists checked the right bureaucratic boxes—retroactively, if necessary—FARA became an administrative afterthought.

But when Trump stormed into Washington with his promise to drain the swamp, the Department of Justice suddenly rediscovered its appetite for enforcement—albeit with a particular taste for Republicans. Between 2017 and 2021, FARA prosecutions surged to over 20 cases, a sharp contrast to the mere seven between 1966 and 2016. Notable names included Paul Manafort (Republican), who received 7.5 years in prison for unregistered Ukrainian lobbying and Samuel Patten (Republican), who pleaded guilty for failing to disclose his work with a Ukrainian political party. Bijan Rafiekian (Republican), Michael Flynn’s associate, was convicted for lobbying on behalf of Turkey, though his conviction was later vacated on appeal. In contrast, prominent Democratic figures like Gregory Craig escaped prosecution when an all-Democrat jury swiftly acquitted him.

These cases illustrate the selective application of FARA—a law ignored for decades until it became politically expedient to wield it against Trump’s allies.

Manafort: The Poster Child of Political Selectivity

The case of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, is the most glaring indictment of this selective weaponization. In 2018, Manafort was prosecuted for failing to register under FARA for his lobbying work on behalf of Ukrainian interests—a charge born from Robert Mueller‘s sprawling investigation into alleged Russian collusion. That the Mueller probe ultimately yielded no evidence of collusion was irrelevant; the damage was already done. Manafort became the sacrificial offering for a narrative that demanded blood.

Here lies the outrage: prior to Trump, FARA violations were routinely resolved administratively. Retroactive filings were the norm, not handcuffs and prison cells. Indeed, Manafort’s lawyers were actively working with the DOJ to resolve any filing discrepancies—until Mueller’s team appeared. Suddenly, the same grace afforded to countless others evaporated, replaced with the cold steel of aggressive prosecution. Manafort was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison, his life shattered as collateral damage in the left’s desperate fishing expedition.

This selective enforcement becomes even more glaring when viewed in contrast to figures like Tony Podesta—whose Ukrainian lobbying work closely mirrored Manafort’s. While Manafort faced prosecution and prison, Podesta simply retroactively filed, as was customary, and the DOJ shrugged. Manafort was imprisoned; Podesta merely updated paperwork. The contrast is not merely striking but damning.

Justice or Theater?

Manafort’s ordeal reveals FARA’s true utility in the age of Trump: not as a safeguard of transparency but as leverage. Prosecutors wielded it like a rack, hoping to squeeze incriminating evidence from Manafort that might ensnare Trump himself. But despite the pressure, despite the draconian sentence, no such evidence materialized. Manafort’s prosecution became a grotesque spectacle—a reminder that when justice becomes political, fairness is the first casualty.

And what of the Democrats? Consider Gregory Craig, a former White House counsel under Barack Obama, who faced similar FARA-related charges. Unlike Manafort, Craig enjoyed the privilege of an all-Democrat jury and walked free after a swift acquittal. Samuel Patten, Elliott Broidy and others within Trump’s orbit were not so lucky, their livelihoods sacrificed to the gods of political vengeance.

The Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Bidens

While Manafort languished, Hunter and James Biden operated with impunity. As former DOJ prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has observed, the selective enforcement of FARA undermines its stated purpose: “The law is meant to ensure transparency, not to serve as a bludgeon against political opponents.” Hunter Biden‘s dealings with Burisma and Chinese firms met the same legal criteria as Manafort’s work, yet the DOJ chose to look the other way, exposing a glaring double standard in its application. Hunter’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm, and BHR Partners, a Chinese-backed investment fund, practically screamed for FARA scrutiny. By any reasonable standard, these activities should have triggered registration requirements. Yet the DOJ remained conspicuously silent, shielding the Bidens from the legal entanglements so eagerly imposed on Trump’s allies.

Legal experts have pointed out the hypocrisy: if Paul Manafort’s Ukrainian ties constituted a crime, Hunter Biden’s ventures were open-and-shut FARA violations. The difference, of course, is not legal but political. Some surnames, it seems, are more equal than others.

A Pandora’s Box

The DOJ’s politicized enforcement of FARA has had unintended consequences. Republicans, long skeptical of the law’s ambiguity, now see it as an opportunity to turn the tables. Cases like Senator Robert Menendez’s 2024 conviction for acting as an unregistered agent of Egypt, or Linda Sun’s conviction for representing Chinese Communist Party interests, suggest the pendulum is swinging—but at what cost? FARA’s resurrection, once intended as a partisan tool, has begun to ensnare dissenting Democrats as well.

Even so, glaring omissions remain. Hunter Biden’s immunity from scrutiny remains the starkest example of DOJ inconsistency. The agency’s newfound enthusiasm for enforcement appears curiously targeted, like a spotlight that illuminates selectively while leaving politically favored actors in the shadows. This is not justice; it is theater.

The saga of FARA enforcement is a cautionary tale for any nation claiming to uphold equal justice under the law. It exposes how a law, when selectively applied, can morph into a tool of political vengeance—undermining public trust in institutions and corroding the very foundation of the republic. Justice weaponized is justice denied. Once a dormant statute born to combat Nazi influence, FARA has become a political cudgel in the hands of a system that is anything but blind. The persecution of Paul Manafort and the exoneration of figures like Tony Podesta and Hunter Biden reveal a chilling truth: the machinery of justice, when wielded selectively, ceases to be justice at all.

The harm done here is not merely to individuals like Manafort but to the very concept of justice itself. A republic cannot endure when the law becomes a weapon of partisan vengeance. If FARA remains a tool for political warfare rather than transparency, then we have not upheld the integrity of the republic—we have betrayed it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Wray Slayer


With Donald Trump’s nomination of Kash Patel, the FBI appears to be in panic mode. Chris Wray is the first to fall but not before giving a fantastical account of his seven-year stint as FBI director.

Confirming reports he planned to step down before Donald Trump’s inauguration next month, FBI Director Christopher Wray today announced he will retire at the official end of the Biden administration. Wray, appointed by then-President Trump in 2017, delivered the news during an all-hands-on-deck virtual meeting of more than 38,000 FBI employees.

In typical oleaginous fashion, Wray touted the bureau’s alleged achievements under his leadership—fighting the trafficking of illegal drugs, protecting children from predators, thwarting cybercrime, blah blah—by “abiding by the rule of law and adhering to our core values.” Whatever that means.

The FBI, Wray claimed, is immune to the whimsy of American politics: “Unfortunately, all too often in today’s world, people’s standard for whether something was fair or objective—a Supreme Court decision, a verdict in a high-profile case, the investigation we brought, or the one we didn’t bring—is whether they liked the result, whether their side won or lost. But that’s not how independence and objectivity work. We’re not on any one side. We’re on the American people’s side, the Constitution’s side.”

That, of course, is not true; in fact, it is demonstrably false. While former FBI Director James Comey initiated the partisan weaponization of the FBI against Trump in 2016 with the opening of “Crossfire Hurricane,” Wray accelerated the effort while expanding the FBI’s political hit list. The “side” Wray chose time and again was the side of the Democratic Party—the Bidens in particular—while subjecting Trump supporters and other conservatives to the crushing boot of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world.

What, No Bragging About Jan 6 and Whitmer Kidnapping Plot?

For example, one day before Wray’s “we don’t take no sides” speech, agents with the FBI Counterterrorism Task Force arrested a man from Florida for his participation in the events of January 6 as the caseload for the FBI’s biggest criminal investigation in history reaches 1,600 total defendants. Wray’s FBI continues to execute military-style SWAT raids of J6 protesters; the FBI just issued a “Most Wanted” poster for a 60-ish man from California who fled his home right before a pre-dawn armed raid on October 17.

Oddly, however, Wray did not brag about the J6 investigation during his scripted remarks today. He did not boast about how the FBI saved America from the threat of Indiana meemaws or decorated veterans pissed off about a rigged presidential election. Wray omitted mentioning the FBI’s extensive use of geofence warrants for cell data and subpoenas for banking records and Amazon purchases and the interrogation of family members and co-workers to hunt down J6 trespassers.

Why so humble all of a sudden, Mr. Wray?

He also failed to mention the greatest unsolved crime related to a day Wray himself designated an act of domestic terror: the identity of the J6 pipe bomber. Wray’s FBI still offers a $500,000 reward for anyone who helps nab the individual who allegedly planted explosives—devices Wray’s FBI insist were “viable” and “lethal”—outside the headquarters of the RNC and DNC the night of January 5. Surely the fact the MAGA bomber, who almost assassinated Kamala Harris that day, is still on the loose must keep Wray up at night. Isn’t that open case something Wray would want to encourage his presumed successor, Kash Patel, to pursue?

Wray also overlooked the FBI’s “success” in foiling the plot to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, which was considered the FBI’s biggest domestic terror investigation prior to January 6. Why didn’t Wray take credit for saving Whitmer from the guy living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop in a Grand Rapids strip mall?

Which leads to one reason why Wray may have abruptly announced his resignation today: the long-awaited release of an internal DOJ investigation into the FBI’s role in January 6, which could happen by the end of the week. As I reported here, the report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to at least partially confirm the number of FBI confidential human sources, commonly known as informants, before and on January 6.

In many ways, the Whitmer fednapping hoax—which involved dozens of FBI informants, undercover employees, and handling agents working out of numerous FBI field offices—represented a dress rehearsal for January 6.

And Wray’s Congressional testimony over the past few years related to his knowledge about the presence of informants may contradict the official findings, possibly prompting perjury charges against him after he vacates the J. Edgar Hoover building next month.

Watch his shifting testimony here:

At the same time Wray’s FBI concocted the Whitmer fednapping hoax to make it appear that rightwing gun crazies wanted to take out one of Trump’s biggest political foes in 2020, Wray’s FBI created a coverup operation for Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop. Despite possessing the device, loaded with proof that the “Big Guy” was directly involved in his addicted son’s international racket, since 2019, Wray’s FBI refused to launch an investigation.

To the contrary, Wray’s FBI colluded with Big Tech to ban reporting of the laptop’s contents just weeks before Election Day 2020. Photos, emails, and other correspondence directly contradicted Joe Biden’s public denials of his knowledge about Hunter Biden’s “business” deals, facts that could have swayed the already rigged election results.

One Armed Raid, One Voluntary Search

But nothing comes close to the disparity between the FBI’s handling of Trump’s alleged possession of so-called classified documents versus Joe Biden’s longtime hoarding of similar files. Wray’s FBI, over the objection of lower-level FBI officials, executed a search warrant of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022. At least 30 armed FBI agents from two field offices rummaged through Trump’s residence for nine hours. The private suite of Melania Trump and bedroom of Barron Trump were ransacked despite no evidence classified papers were hidden in either place. The FBI raid plan included the bureau’s “use of lethal force” policy.

But the FBI’s search for classified files at the Biden home did not require armed agents with authorization to shoot-to-kill if necessary. Two “voluntary” searches yielded national security documents, material Biden was never authorized to take as vice president. And while Trump faced a 40-count federal criminal indictment in southern Florida, Biden’s condition as an “elderly man with a poor memory” allowed him to evade prosecution.

There are of course many other examples of Wray’s brazen politicking: arresting pro-life activists, spying on parents protesting woke policies at school board meetings, abusing warrantless surveillance tools for partisan purposes.

This represents the shameful legacy of Christopher Wray. A recent Gallup poll showed the FBI has the lowest approval rating in history; less than one-quarter of Republicans trust the FBI, a stunning figure from the party of law and order.

And all of the self-aggrandizing bloviating in the world can’t cover Wray’s disgraceful performance as director of the FBI. I hope the Cretin burns in eternal rotting hell.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Time To Dump Europe


Events over the past months have exposed a very stark divide between the globalist, collectivist, “woke” authorities of Europe and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) patriot movement here in the United States. To be frank, it is almost as if the snide, effete elitists who control the nations of the European continent want to rub our noses in their horror show. 

Let’s be frank.  Europe would be a total basket case without American taxpayers, American troops, and American subservience to their ever more bizarre “culture.” Since Woodrow Wilson first fell for the globalist-line that somehow “the better people” could build a world government free of popular input, the citizens of the United States have been played as fools. Churchill’s constant pushing and cajoling led to the so-called “special relationship” that has come to mean Uncle Sucker picks up the tab, does the dirty work and then allows others to make decisions.

And today, the outdated, “ticking time bomb without a mission” called NATO has become an anchor around the necks of the American people that can only draw us into a war that serves the territorial interests of European elites, not that of the United States.

All of this was made clear when a recent article by Giovanna De Maio and Célia Belin in the publication, Foreign Affairs, appeared entitled Europe’s America Problem. To set the record straight, the magazine is owned and operated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CFR has been the leading voice for globalist ambitions since its founding in 1921. It is the voice of the very people the MAGA movement has identified as those working to destroy American sovereignty and submerge us into a swamp.

Europe as advanced by the globalists at CRF, NATO, the Atlantic Council and the European Union (EU) is unalterably opposed to the core principles of the United States.  Even a cursory review shows them to outright enemies of liberty.

  • The suppression of free speech is now rampant.  People in Britain are being jailed for prayer, at least Christian prayer. The government of Germany is moving to outlaw the second largest party in the country in order to eliminate competition, exactly as the Nazis and the Communists did in the not so distant past. 
  • The EU is claiming the right to prosecute citizens outside their nations — the United States or any other non-European country — if that individual publishes something the thought police in Brussels oppose. National laws and sovereignty mean nothing to them.
  • We are admonished that steps to defend and protect the U.S. economy will be regarded as hostile and that efforts at retaliation will be considered.
  • As evidence mounts that the so-called “climate crisis” is at best not true — and more likely will eventually be exposed as a total fraud — Europe is demanding that the United States continue to surrender all its advantages to “international cooperation.” What this means is that the United States refrains from developing the massive energy resources that would give our manufacturing and development a clear advantage so that energy-starved Europe can “compete.” The Foreign Affairs article is blunt — “Europe will need to define its collective interests in the transatlantic partnership, deciding what it wants to protect and what it expects from the United States.” [emphasis added]

“What it expects” from the United States? To paraphrase one of their prominent green-freaks, “How dare they?”

  • Why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars we do not have to defend the borders of Ukraine when we should be defending our own borders? Why? Because Europe couldn’t last a week in combat and demand that we continue to defend them like we have for nearly 80 years. Why should we be afraid of Russia? 

From the end of World War II the entire game for the Europeans has been to soak America. Get us to pay for their defense. Get us to subsidize their economies. Get us to incur the wrath of newly formed nations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East — have them direct their righteous rage at us instead of the Imperial masters who continue to this day to loot the former colonies.

The entire model was stated clearly by the first Secretary-General of NATO in 1952 when Lord Hastings “Pug” Ismay (1887-1965), outlined the entity’s strategic objectives with his famous tripartite formula: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” No better description of British foreign policy has ever been written for the past 100 years.

A cold-eyed review shows that Europe has near-zero natural resources that America needs. On the other hand, Latin America and Africa are rich in them, they just need to be developed. China has proven to be a less than reliable partner for these nations. We should make the advance.

Europe supplies next to nothing in a military sense. Yes, we have great bases in Italy and Germany. But we only need them to defend Europe. If we could walk away from billions in weapons and a state-of-the-art air base in Afghanistan, why not do it in Europe? Just hand those bases over and let the Europeans fight over them.                      

Politically, who really cares if we get “their votes” at the United Nations or any of the other globalist’ strait jackets. Better to tell those entities to fend for themselves, make our annual blackmail payments contingent on not making us angry, and at the first appropriate moment walk away entirely.

On the “net zero” suicide pact, they need to be told to forget it. The U.S. is going to drill and refine all we can as nuclear plants are built. What they do is up to them but finding sources of energy should be their top priority. Winters can get very cold in much of Europe.

Finally, the perverse culture that has infected us from Europe needs to be returned to sender. The “critical theory” treason of Michel Foucault and his cohorts in academia need to be excised like a tumor. We need nothing of their totalitarian poison. The dedication to family and community so valued in Africa and Latin America are far more vital to the U.S. than anything from the smut-dens of Berlin or Paris.

It is time for renewal in America, a restoration of our values and principles of self-reliance and independence. All we can get from Europe is a drain on our resources and resolve. The rest of the world wants our leadership — not through force of arms as latter-day colonial powers but from a commitment to enduring principles of liberty, a liberty not found anywhere in Europe today. It is time to move on and dump Europe. They are leeches sucking America dry. Time to cut them off.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

CHANGE THE DEBATE AND TAKE BACK LIBERTY LOCALLY


Most Americans tend to think of private property simply as a home – the place where the family resides, stores their belongings, and finds shelter and safety from the elements. It’s where you live. It’s yours because you pay the mortgage and the taxes. Most people don’t give property ownership much more thought than that.
 

There was a time when property ownership was considered to be much more. Property, and the ability to own and control it, was life itself. 
 

John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” 
 

The great economist John Locke, whose writings and ideas had a major influence on the nation’s founders, believed that “life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.”
 

Locke warned that human civilization would be reduced to the level of a pack of wolves and cease to exist because lack of control over your own actions caused fear and insecurity. Private property ownership, Locke argued, brought stability and wealth to individuals, leading to a prosperous society of man. That’s because legal ownership of property is the key to productive development. 
 

Private property ownership is the reason the United States became the wealthiest nation on earth almost overnight. Free individuals, using their own land to create commerce and build personal wealth through the equity of their property, are the root of American success. Sixty percent of early American businesses were financed through the equity of property ownership. And sixty percent of American jobs were created through those successful businesses. That’s how a free-market economy is built. Private property ownership is the source of personal individual wealth for the average American.
 

John Locke advocated that if property rights did not exist, then the incentive for an industrious person to develop and improve property would be destroyed; that the industrious person would be deprived of the fruits of his labor; that marauding bands would confiscate, by force, the goods produced by others; and that mankind would be compelled to remain on a bare-subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because the accumulation of anything of value would invite attack.
 

One must only look to the example of the former Soviet Union to see clearly what happens to society when an outlaw government exercises brute force to take control of private property. Under that tyrannical government, each of Locke’s predictions came true. Throughout its history, the Soviet government excused its every action under the banner of equality for all. There were no property rights, no freedom of enterprise, and no protections for individual actions. Instead, the Soviet government enforced redistribution of wealth schemes, confiscating homes from the rich and middle class. Shelves were bare, freedom of choice was non-existent, and personal misery ruled the day.
 

The same basic redistribution schemes of the Soviets were later used by Zimbabwe’s former dictator, Robert Mugabe, to destroy that agriculturally rich African nation. Mugabe confiscated farmland owned by white farmers and gave it to friends of his corrupt government – most of whom had never even seen a farm. The result was economic disaster, widespread poverty, and hunger in a land that had once fed the continent. The nation of South Africa is now following in the murderous footsteps of Robert Mugabe as it attacks white farmers, taking their property and again putting it in the hands of those who know nothing about running a farm.
 

Clearly, John Locke’s warnings have been vindicated. Private property ownership is much more than a house. It is the root of a prosperous, healthy, human society based on the individual’s freedom to live a life of his own, gaining from the fruits of his own labor. Take that option away, and people will always react the same way. They stop producing.
 

THE LOST DEFINITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
 

In the 1990s, an all-out assault on property rights was well underway, led by a radical environmental movement, resulting in massive federal land grabs in the name of conservation. As one can imagine, courts across the nation were flooded with cases of people attempting to defend their property rights from government takings. 
 

In the state of Washington, one of the major targets for such programs, the state Supreme Court realized it didn’t have an adequate definition of property rights to use in considering such cases. That’s when State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders wrote a “Fifth Amendment Treatise”, which included the following definition of property rights:
 

“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated, and ownership is rendered a barren right.”
 

“Use” of the land is the key. Using the land in a productive way that is beneficial to the owner is what gives the land value. According to Justice Sanders, paying the taxes and mortgage while some undefined government entity can rule and regulate how the property is used, is a “barren right” that annihilates its value.
 

When you purchase property, how much of the land do you own? What is the depth of the soil? Do you own the water on the land? Do you own the air above it? As property rights expert Dr. Timothy Ball wrote, “All these questions speak to political issues that transcend private, regional, and national boundaries. Nationally and internationally, lack of this knowledge is being exploited by those who seek control…”
 

HOW TO FIGHT BACK?
 

For several decades, the radical Left has been dedicated in its efforts to organize at every level of government while advocates of limited government failed to do the required “dirty work” of local organization and activism to protect our freedoms. We gave the Left a pretty clear playing field to organize and seize control, and now we are suffering under the result.
 

For the dedicated Left, no position is too small. No appointed board is ignored. When was the last time local Conservative activists cared about positions like City Attorney? Yet these are the very officials who enforced the COVID-19 lockdown policies. Local government is now infested with Planners, NGOs, and federal agencies dictating policies. And the only reason they have power and influence now is because the Left fought to elect representatives who then gave it to them.
 

Today, too many elected officials, even the honest ones, fail to understand the roots and goals of the “Sustainable” policies they are enforcing. In their ignorance they respond to critics, saying, “well, that’s just the way it’s done.” As they surrender their elective powers to appointed boards, do they even think of asking themselves, “Who do they actually represent – the voters or the NGOs and appointed boards?”
 

The threat of man-made climate change is the center of the Deep State’s hold on power. That’s the unrelenting fear tactic that claims the earth will become uninhabitable in ten years unless massive government power controls every human action. Power for the state!
 

Yet there is ample scientific proof that such claims about man’s effect on the environment are basically non-existent. However, many leaders of the freedom movement wrongly assume that all we need to do to counter the misinformation from the climate alarmists is to simply write a scholarly paper disproving it and set the record straight. It doesn’t work because few will understand it, fewer still will ever attempt to read it. In short, we badly overestimate the knowledge, intelligence and attention span of the average citizen and government official whom we are trying to convince. Emotions tend to decide debates rather than facts.
 

The first step in fighting back is to stop depending on one person, one icon, one president to lead us forward. We must take responsibility ourselves to ensure that the government does not move forward unattended. We need to be directly involved at every level, especially on the local level.
 

Change the debate to attack anti-freedom policies and expose non-governmental (NGO) carpetbaggers hiding in the shadows dictating policy. You can change the debate by making private property protection the key to your local fight. Sustainable policy cannot be enforced if private property is protected. Challenge local elected officials to stand with you in protection of private property. If they refuse – expose them. Force elected officials to be personally responsible for their actions.
 

Picture how different our nation would be if we dug in to elect a majority of governors across the nation who understood and operated under the Tenth Amendment, which acknowledges the States’ power to stand against Federal overreach. What if you had a county commission that refused to participate in non-elected regional government? How would your life change if your city council was made up of individuals who guided your community under the three pillars of freedom, including protection of private property, encouragement and support for local businesses, and the lifting of rules and regulations that stifled personal choices in your individual life? How do we make all of that a reality? 
 

Set a goal to turn your local community into a Freedom Pod. Simply focus on making these goals a reality in your community and if successful, as prosperity spreads, the idea will certainly spread to a neighboring community and then to the next. The challenge is to create a successful blueprint and a cadre of dedicated elected representatives that will begin to move from the local to the state level of government. 
 

That will set the stage for effecting a federal government as conceived by our forefathers. The result will be the growth of Freedom Pods across the nation. Here is the end game for the forces of freedom. No matter who is president, we must take control of our cities, counties, state legislatures, and governors. Only then can we stand up to the potential tyranny from Washington, DC. To live your life as YOU choose, start right there in your community – build that Freedom Pod. Act Local and Stop Global!
 

How do you do that? The American Policy Center (APC) is now working with organizations nationwide to train and motivate local residents to take action in their own communities to push back and restore American freedom. APC has created a Local Activists Handbook and a Tool Kit with all the details you need to start organizing, training, and improving communications between activists and organizations, to share tactics, ideas, and successes. Learn more at www.americanpolicy.org.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Xi Jinping’s Calculated Red Lines: A Weak Biden And The Threat Of A Strong Trump


For the first time in history, a Chinese president has openly delivered clear red lines to an American president, delineating Beijing’s non-negotiable core interests. When Chinese President Xi Jinping met with President Joe Biden at the 31st APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Lima, Peru, the world’s attention was drawn to Xi’s blunt articulation of China‘s “four red lines.” Unlike previous APEC meetings, which often emphasized cooperative economic growth, this meeting was starkly different in tone, as Xi chose to lay down firm boundaries. Xi delivered these red lines with a strategic calculation: he saw Biden as weak—a perfect target for asserting China’s boundaries—preferring to establish these limits before Donald Trump, a leader with a much stronger and more combative stance on China, takes office again in January. These red lines were issued as a stark warning to Washington: do not cross boundaries concerning Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China’s path and system and its rights to economic development. Xi’s delivery of these red lines marks a critical turning point in global power dynamics, reflective of an increasingly confident China testing the resolve of a U.S. president they perceived as pliable.

The Four Red Lines: Setting Ground Rules for Engagement

Xi Jinping’s decision to articulate these red lines at the presidential level marked a significant departure from the traditionally indirect and often veiled language used by Beijing in diplomatic settings. The core components of these red lines reflect the deep sensitivities China has about its sovereignty, ideological integrity and developmental trajectory:

  1. Taiwan: Beijing sees Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory. Xi emphasized that any U.S. support for Taiwanese independence or actions that embolden the island’s efforts to solidify its separation from China would be unacceptable. The language was a firm reminder that Washington’s increased engagements with Taiwan would be seen as a direct challenge to China’s national unity.
  2. Democracy and Human Rights: China demanded an end to external interference concerning human rights and democracy, both of which Beijing deems to be domestic matters. U.S. criticism over China’s treatment of Uyghurs and actions in Hong Kong has been seen by China as interference designed to undermine the ruling Communist Party.
  3. China’s Path and System: Xi underscored that the United States must respect China’s governance and its chosen socialist path. Any attempts to influence or undermine the authority of the Communist Party would be viewed as an existential threat.
  4. Rights to Development: Finally, China asserted its right to pursue economic development and technological advancement without external obstruction. Restrictions on trade, technology transfers, or economic development would be seen as direct infringements on China’s core rights.

These four areas define what China perceives as fundamental to its sovereignty, stability and growth. Their articulation marks a new era in U.S.-China relations—one where Beijing is not just reacting to American actions but also preemptively setting boundaries for what it considers unacceptable.

Trump and Biden: A Tale of Policy Overlaps and Red Line Violations

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have adopted policies that, in various ways, challenge China’s new red lines. However, while there are some commonalities between their approaches, there are also notable differences in tone, methods and strategic emphasis.

Trump’s Policies: A Bold Stand Against China

Donald Trump’s first term was marked by a courageous and unapologetic stance against China, emphasizing economic measures and national security concerns. His administration launched a trade war, imposing significant tariffs on Chinese goods—a move that crossed China’s “right to development” red line but was absolutely necessary to correct decades of unfair trade practices and reduce American reliance on Chinese manufacturing. This marked a significant departure from previous U.S. administrations’ approaches to China, such as Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy, which aimed to contain China’s influence through diplomatic and military alliances, or the Nixon-era opening to China, which sought engagement to balance Soviet power. Trump’s approach, in contrast, was more confrontational and focused on economic decoupling and direct confrontation. While Beijing saw it as a deliberate attempt to stymie China’s economic rise, Trump saw it as a means to protect American jobs and secure economic independence.

Trump’s unwavering support for Taiwan also crossed Beijing’s sensitivities, but it sent a powerful message of American resolve. The Trump administration sold billions in arms to Taiwan, fostered increased diplomatic engagements and openly spoke about Taiwan as a partner, which was interpreted by Beijing as support for Taiwanese separatism—a direct challenge to its sovereignty. This support was built on the foundation of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which committed the United States to assist Taiwan in maintaining its defense capabilities. The Taiwan Relations Act was a significant turning point that ensured continued U.S. support for Taiwan after formal diplomatic ties were severed in favor of China. Yet, Trump’s policy took this support further, demonstrating his commitment to defending democracies against authoritarian expansion.

In the arena of human rights, Trump did not shy away from challenging China. He sanctioned Chinese officials involved in abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, directly confronting China’s demands for non-interference. His administration’s labeling of China’s actions in Xinjiang as genocide represented a principled stand for human dignity and freedom, a rare boldness in modern American foreign policy. Trump’s actions demonstrated a consistent willingness to confront injustice head-on, setting a precedent that Biden has struggled to follow.

Biden’s Policies: Weakness Disguised as Diplomacy

President Biden has largely maintained a confrontational stance toward China, but his approach lacks the clear resolve and strength that defined Trump’s policies. Biden continued the tariffs and expanded on export controls, particularly targeting high-tech sectors that China views as critical to its future growth. While this could have been a positive continuation of Trump’s policy of economic decoupling, Biden’s implementation has been lackluster and hesitant, failing to bring about significant leverage against Beijing’s ambitions. Xi Jinping saw in Biden an opportunity—a chance to confront an administration that might talk tough but lacks the backbone to deliver.

On Taiwan, Biden’s actions have been somewhat more ambiguous and inconsistent, sending mixed signals to both Taiwan and China. His administration has allowed additional arms sales to Taiwan and fostered stronger diplomatic ties, but his off-the-cuff remarks suggesting a U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense have lacked the clarity and decisiveness needed in such a critical area. Unlike Trump, who openly supported Taiwan with strength and conviction, Biden’s approach has been marred by ambiguity, undermining the potential deterrent effect. This vacillation has done little to reassure allies and only emboldened adversaries.

Biden has also been vocal about human rights abuses in China, but his actions have often been more about rhetoric than substance. His administration has called for international alliances to pressure Beijing, emphasizing democracy and human rights, but this coalition-building approach lacks the teeth of Trump’s direct sanctions and blunt confrontations. Biden’s multilateralism has often resulted in diluted measures that fail to produce tangible consequences for Beijing’s actions. For Xi Jinping, Biden’s focus on diplomacy over direct action was a welcome reprieve, allowing China greater latitude to assert its global ambitions without fear of real repercussions.

Compare and Contrast: Trump vs. Biden on China’s Red Lines

總統府, CC BY 2.0 

While Trump and Biden both crossed China’s newly defined red lines, their approaches reflect starkly different philosophies and tactics. Trump’s method was characterized by unilateral action, economic leverage and a willingness to escalate tensions openly. His trade war, strong public rhetoric and transactional foreign policy painted U.S.-China relations in clear, adversarial terms. Trump crossed China’s red lines in dramatic and overt ways, making it clear that he was willing to challenge Beijing directly on all fronts, including trade, technology and military engagement with Taiwan. This directness was precisely what the U.S. needed to counterbalance an increasingly aggressive China.

In contrast, Biden’s approach has focused on coalition-building, aligning allies to confront China collectively rather than through unilateral actions. However, this has often resulted in weaker responses and a lack of coherent strategy. Although Biden’s actions have largely continued to cross China’s red lines—particularly regarding Taiwan, human rights and technology—his diplomatic channels and international alliances have often been more about appearances than genuine pressure. Biden’s emphasis on the ideological battle between democracy and authoritarianism lacks the concrete actions that Trump took, and his attempts at diplomacy have often been interpreted as a sign of weakness by Beijing. In this scenario, Xi Jinping saw an opportunity to deliver these red lines directly to Biden, sensing a lack of the firm resolve that had characterized Trump’s tenure.

Conclusion: A Need for Strength in Navigating Red Lines

The clear articulation of red lines by Xi Jinping to Joe Biden has set a new tone in U.S.-China relations, one that is based on Beijing’s growing assertiveness and willingness to define its boundaries openly. Xi chose to deliver these red lines to Biden, seeing him as a weaker and more malleable target, preferring to establish these limits before Trump, a leader unafraid to challenge Beijing, takes office in January. Both Trump and Biden have ignored these lines in their own ways—Trump with his boldness and economic confrontation, and Biden with his indecisive coalition-building and lackluster diplomatic approach. The difference, however, lies in the impact: Trump’s policies were aimed at decisively countering China and protecting American interests, while Biden’s approach has often resulted in mixed signals and ineffective pressure.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Biggest Loser in DOJ History Takes a Final Loss on His Way Out the Door


Special Counsel Jack Smith moves to dismiss his four-count criminal indictment against President Trump related to January 6, adding to his long list of failures at the DOJ.

Pour one out for Jack Smith.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

After two years of fawning press coverage and promises that the international war-crimes prosecutor would finally put Donald Trump behind bars, the special counsel today hammered the final nail in his own battered coffin by dropping his four-count J6-related indictment in Washington against the incoming president.

The move represents yet another failure by the Democratic apparatchik who once ran the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit under the Obama administration. Since then, Smith has been on a losing streak unmatched in DOJ history, suffering one loss after another before the Supreme Court and trial courts; in 2016, SCOTUS unanimously overturned the bribery conviction of Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia, a case Smith brought in 2014. Smith also failed to secure convictions in his prosecutions of former Senator John Edwards in 2012 and former Senator Robert Menendez in 2015.

This year, the highest court rebuked Smith on three separate occasions. First, the court rejected Smith’s rarely-used and desperate request to bypass the D.C. appellate court in considering the presidential immunity question and decide the matter quickly in an attempt to get the J6 case to trial before the election. The court a few months later reversed how the DOJ applied 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the post-Enron document destruction statute that represented two of the four counts in the J6 indictment against Trump. And on July 1, the court issued its landmark opinion in Trump v US, which gutted the J6 case by concluding most of the conduct cited in the indictment represented official acts protected by presidential immunity.

If the DOJ had a Hall of Shame, it would be named after Jack Smith.

But being the dirty Democratic operative that he is, Smith had to take a few parting shots at the man who defeated him both in court and at the ballot box. Smith asked Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to dismiss the indictment “without prejudice,” suggesting the matter could be reconsidered once Trump leaves the White House. The case needed to be dropped for now, Smith argued, based on two Office of Legal Counsel opinions—one related to President Richard Nixon and one related to President Bill Clinton—determining a sitting president cannot be prosecuted under separation of powers provisions in the Constitution.

“And although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice,” Smith wrote in his six-page motion. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

That, of course, is another lie. Even if Trump had lost the election, the J6 indictment would not have survived another immunity test before the Supreme Court, which criticized Chutkan and the D.C. appellate court for fast-tracking the denial of presidential immunity without first conducting necessary due diligence.

Chutkan, like Smith, hasn’t demonstrated an ounce of contrition since the smackdown by SCOTUS. And remaining true to form, Chutkan in her order this afternoon granting Smith’s motion to dismiss also warned the case could be revisited in four years. “Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” Chutkan wrote.

Bye bitch.

Smith also filed a closing brief in the classified documents case, which was tossed by Judge Aileen Cannon in July after concluding Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution. The DOJ appealed her order; Smith today dismissed the appeal in the charges against Trump but not his two co-defendants, Mar-a-Lago employees Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. One must safely assume Trump’s attorney general will move quickly to dismiss those charges as well.

Republican lawmakers flocked to social media to celebrate Smith’s demise. “The Jack Smith cases will be remembered as a dark chapter of weaponization,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote. “They never should have been brought. Our elections are decided by voters–not by fanatical, deranged liberal lawyers like Jack Smith.”

“This lawfare was always politically-motivated. And this lawfare MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN,” Rep. Byron Donalds posted.

But the time for tough talk is over and the time for tough action is now. With control of the executive branch, House, and Senate, Republicans must now exercise political power in the same way Democrats do: open investigations, hold public hearings, and pursue criminal charges where appropriate.

After all, plenty of evidence exists to support conspiracy charges against Smith and his team, particularly in the classified documents case which revealed collaboration between the National Archives, the DOJ, and the Biden White House to concoct a documents crime against Trump as early as spring of 2021. Court proceedings in Florida also disclosed examples of evidence tampering, destruction of evidence, and witness intimidation not to mention the selective nature of bringing a documents case against a former president for the first time in history while at the same time other public officials including Joe Biden and Mike Pence were found to have unlawfully kept classified files after leaving office.

The armed raid of Mar-a-Lago alone is worth a separate investigation.

So, it remains to be seen if social media bravado translates into real accountability. But for now, a moment of celebration is in order.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Emotional Aftershock: How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
The Emotional Aftershock How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election
The Emotional Aftershock How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election

In the wake of the 2024 election, many leftists are so distraught that they anticipate leaving the country. Never at a loss for a catchphrase, some in the media call it the “Great Trump Diaspora.”

Capitalizing on the demand for leaving, International Living (IL), without mentioning Mr. Trump, sent a promotional offer to the readers of the leftist site Mother Jones. The company says the Caribbean, Thailand, Ireland, Italy, Greece and others lie open to Jacobin readers, even those of limited means.

Escaping the Craziness

Thus, IL throws in the idea that, for some, may be the clincher. “If you’re dreading the craziness of this election season… if you’re thinking: What if I could just get away (even if only for a while)… we have the solutions you need.”

Paul Starobin in Business Insider, himself the recent purchaser of a home in Italy, points out that this tendency is nothing new.

“Every four years, as Americans gird themselves to choose a president, there’s talk, mainly among Democrats, of leaving the country. I’m off for Canada if unacceptable candidate X wins! And every four years, the promised exodus fails to materialize. It’s mostly just therapeutic venting.”

But, Mr. Starobin assures his current readers, “This time is different.”

“This Dystopian Country”

Such sentiments echo throughout the mainstream press and many Internet news sources.

Eternal and Natural Law: The Foundation of Morals and Law

Yahoo Finance reports, “Immigration attorneys report a surge in relocation inquiries following Donald Trump’s presidential victory.”

About a week after the polls closed, The Hill shared the ruminations of actress Eva Longoria. She has already left but “says she’s anxious and nervous for Americans who can’t ‘escape’ their ‘dystopian country’ following President-elect Trump’s White House win.”

However, Miss Longoria showed her compassion by adding, “I get to escape and go somewhere. Most Americans aren’t so lucky. They’re going to be stuck in this dystopian country, and my anxiety and sadness is for them.”

Ever accommodating, the folks at Newsweek provided a “Full List of Celebrities Moving Abroad.” Their “Senior Pop Culture and Entertainment Reporter” explained that “Donald Trump’s presidential election win over Kamala Harris has sparked ire among a host of celebrities, with some going as far as to declare they will leave the U.S. rather than live under his rule for the next four years.”

Its “full list” was amazingly short, only including Barbra Streisand, Cher and Sharon Stone.

Frustrations, Fears and Disappointments

The same day Newsweek published its list, Reuters provided statistics. “Google searches for ‘move to Canada’ surged 1,270% in the 24 hours after U.S. East Coast polls closed on Tuesday, company data shows. Similar searches about moving to New Zealand climbed nearly 2,000% while those for Australia jumped 820%.”

Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times

Some of this speculation has been going on for months. On March 9, the financial site Benzinga posited that “Americans are increasingly considering relocation to escape the potential re-election of former President Donald Trump.”

In early September, The New York Times said, “Thousands of readers shared frustrations, fears and disappointments with American politics, and how they are able to live and work in another country.”

A Tale of Woe

CNBC noted four days before election day, “A growing number of wealthy Americans are making plans to leave the country in the run-up to Tuesday’s election, with many fearing political and social unrest regardless of who wins, according to immigration attorneys.”

Perhaps the most poignant tales of woe came from one-time cable news giant CNN. Opinion writer David Andelman poured out his laments.

“We were never really forced to make a choice whether [France] should become our home, permanently. Now, along with hordes of our fellow Americans, we are considering just such a move. In a growing number of cases, that reason can be traced to one proximate source—former President Donald Trump. Or, more precisely—how he has torn apart America and our democracy that, for my nearly 80 years on this planet, I have cherished.”

Mr. Andelman is no recent journalism school graduate with lots of opinions and no experience. Indeed, he has quite an impressive biography. He served as The New York Times bureau chief in Europe and Asia. He was CBS’s man in Paris—back when networks could still afford such luxuries. He was made a chevalier of the French Legion of Honor. For an American, that is no small feat.

Protecting the Left’s Victory

Leftists present Mr. Trump’s comeback election as an unparalleled disaster. In many minds, he is so evil that their only option is to leave the country.

They believe the election will mean the destruction of the causes to which they have dedicated themselves: wokism, the socialist economic policies (that provoked inflation), immigration, the LGBTQ agenda and similar issues.

They do not feel they can live in traditional settings where even slightly Christian values are affirmed.

Thus, many leftists are not taking any chances. One of the most basic physiological reactions is the “fight or flight” response. When in danger, animals—including humans—reach a point where they can only see two options: to flee from the threat or confront it. Ironically, many leftists are fleeing to a kind of reverse Benedict Option offered by companies like International Living. In these comfortable settings, they think they can ride out the storm.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: