Search Results

Hard as it is to believe, it’s almost been a week since Joe Biden took his oath of office. As everyone knows (having seen his inaugural address live or bits and pieces on the news), the new president didn’t exactly paint a rosy portrait of the country he now leads in his twenty-plus minute talk last Wednesday and his statements -- and executive orders -- ever since. His message has been a study in contradictions, leaving Americans confused and in the dark as to the direction the country will take now. On an inauguration video, the nation’s former presidents sounded equally dumbfounded regarding the citizenry’s mood. W. James Antle III wrote at The Washington Examiner: "The fraternity of ex-presidents on hand for Biden’s speech did not appear to disagree entirely with [Biden’s] dire view of the state of the union. While Bush spoke of a 'generous country, people of great hearts,' he also said, 'I think if Americans love their neighbor like they would like to be loved themselves, a lot of division in our society would end.' “'We’ve got to not just listen to folks we agree with but listen to folks we don’t,' former President Barack Obama exhorted the public in the same inaugural video. 'We are both trying to come back to normalcy, deal with totally abnormal challenges, and do what we do best, which is try to make a more perfect union,' said former President Bill Clinton, who added, 'everybody needs to get off their high horse and reach out to their friends and neighbors.'" Establishment politicians sure talk a good game when the occasion (like a non-Trump inauguration) calls for it, but forget all about the nastiness of the campaign just concluded. It’s awful difficult to see the sun shine through the clouds when one side is gushing and gloating about “now it’s time for unity” while the other seethes with anger at the unfair treatment they’re still forced to endure from the media talkers and political opponents. Put another way, Democrats set the table, now let them dine at it. And they’d better be consistent about wearing their masks and bathing themselves in sanitizer before picking up their forks, too. Liberals blew up the all-encompassing hysteria over the CCP virus. Anyone feeling good these days about the way the issue is being treated? The fact is, Democrats made a major blunder by blaming the pandemic solely on Donald Trump, and they’re suffering the consequences now that Trump-hate isn’t the focus of every single establishment news segment or story. Both sides of the partisan spectrum understand that it’s much easier to loft bombs from afar rather than being the first to give credit where it’s due and then work towards a common goal. Having seen all of the Democrats’ presidential primary debates and many of their other forum-type events, each of the candidates grasped early on that their only true path to electability was to sling as much mud at Trump as possible and hope that something stuck to his coat of armor. Otherwise, he could simply talk about the burgeoning economy, near historic low in the unemployment rate (in every category), boosting America’s energy production to number one position in the world, the reworking of several trade pacts with our partners and rivals (or is enemies a better way to put it?), the absence of any new military entanglements and, perhaps most astonishing of all, the prospect for real peace in the Middle East. Yeah, that’s right, Donald Trump did all those things. No president -- including Trump -- deserves full credit or blame for a strong or weak economy, but there’s no doubt that the 45th president set policies to guarantee conditions that would allow private businesses to grow and prosper. Happy business owners don’t fire their employees for no reason. They put up “Help Wanted” signs and hike wages for the most productive workers lest they go to some other employer who will pay them what they’re worth. The pandemic changed everything. It didn’t have a huge bearing on the Democrat primary race (I don’t think it altered the coronation of Joe Biden one bit -- everyone became terrified of Bernie Sanders winning the nod), but it did instantly heal any leftover bitterness between the leftists and party establishment. After the South Carolina primary, the campaign became a giant love-in session where the Bernie Bros and bodacious Biden bums (sorry, couldn’t think of a better moniker) got together, forgot about the microscopic differences in their socialistic healthcare plans and united in blaming Trump for the mounting coronavirus death toll. Meanwhile, the nation suffered from the less visible effects of the poorly defined lockdowns. Kids weren’t in schools, which forced parents to alter or give up their work routines. School and recreational sports were curtailed or cancelled. Frustration with the flaws in a hastily thrown-together “remote learning” environment reached a boiling point. Citizens were angry. And then there were the riots -- again, attributed by the media to Trump and his “tone”. How much of what we saw last summer was merely an offshoot of boredom? It defies logic to think that all the “peaceful protesters” and violent thugs (granted, a lesser subset of the “protest” crowd) decided at once that they had a vendetta against history and couldn’t resist dragging down statues and monuments. These lost miscreants probably weren’t working or going to school. A social cause must’ve seemed appealing if it would get them out of the house or apartment. Telling decent Americans to forget the vitriol, finger-pointing and downright spitefulness of the last decade is a little much to ask these days. Unity doesn’t exist and the actions of the new administration in its first week won’t help things. Add the upcoming impeachment show trial and it'll only get worse. Joe Biden’s initial approval ratings aren’t exactly stellar. The media can’t make the half-century swamp dwelling pol into a hero no matter how hard they try. People aren’t dumb. They recognize a snow job when they see one. And no amount of climate change will melt the tensions away. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Biden administration Donald Trump social media censorship Washington swamp Washington establishment Biden COVID plan riots insurrection

On his first day in office, Joe Biden unilaterally promulgated an unscientific, unfair, and illegal attempt to misdirect federal funds that will allow boys to participate in girls’ sports. Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Biden gutted women's sports in high school on his first day in office. He issued an executive order which forced any school that receives federal funding to allow transgendered students into the bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams of their preferred gender. We’re calling on Congress to do the right thing immediately and enact legislation to stop this unfair treatment of young girls. Sign the petition hosted by our friends at the American Principles Project and help us fight for a level playing field for girls in sports! Conservatives in Congress have already put forward legislation to correct this patently illegal executive power grab by introducing the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act to prohibit men from unfairly competing against women in sports. Sponsored by Rep. Greg Steube (FL-17) this legislation ensures that women and girls are allowed a fair playing field in competitive sports by ensuring that school athletics comply with the Title IX recognition of a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth. “By forcing biological female athletes to compete against biological male athletes in competitive sports, we are taking away women’s opportunities on and off the field,” Steube said. “These unfair policies discount the hard work and determination put in by our female athletes and give biological male athletes an unfair advantage in joining teams, setting records and earning scholarships.” Steube introduced this legislation in the 116th Congress and received overwhelming support from organizations such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Original cosponsors of this legislation include U.S. Representatives Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), Rick Allen (R-Ga.), Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Barry Moore (R-Ala.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Bob Good (R-Va.), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), and Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.). Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell your Representative and Senators women’s sports should not be a partisan issue and that Joe Biden’s executive order discounts the hard work and determination put in by female athletes and gives biological male athletes an unfair advantage in joining teams, setting records and earning scholarships. Urge them to cosponsor and vote for the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. Womens sports Joe Biden Transgender athletes Biden executive order federal funding bathrooms locker rooms gender identity biological males Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act

Trump-deranged Democrats and establishment Republicans and their allies in the media have relentlessly promoted the deceit that in his January 6, 2021 speech to supporters then-President Trump incited an insurrection against the United States, and thus merits impeachment. That Democrats were already talking about impeaching President Trump for availing himself of last-ditch constitutional measures to preserve his presidency in the face of well-documented evidence of election fraud is a strong tell that they intended to lash Donald Trump out of Washington no matter what happened on January 6. But let’s assume for a moment that this second impeachment of President Trump was not a political vendetta and examine the evidence to see if there really is a case as stated in the House-passed Articles of Impeachment. The charge is that Mr. Trump incited the crowd at his January 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal Rally” to engage in an insurrection against the government of the United States, so the charge must therefore stand upon his actual words at the rally. A fair reading of the transcript of his remarks reveals no such incitement, “We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” was Mr. Trump’s direction to the crowd. In fact, the Washington Post reported that the riot at the Capitol began at least 20 minutes before Mr. Trump finished speaking, begging the question how his remarks could have “incited” people who were unlikely to have heard them and were already brawling with police. What’s more, the authorities have revealed that extremists on both the Right and the Left had been making threats and organizing for violence for weeks leading up to the brawl at the Capitol. The massive security failure in the face of a known and publicized threat hardly constitutes an “insurrection” and the almost universal use of the term during and after the January 6 riot suggests more of a political narrative than a legal analysis. So, what is an “insurrection”? 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. There is no specific definition setting forth the elements of the crime of “insurrection” in the U.S. Code, unless one uses the “know it when we see it” standard one is forced to rely upon the similar crime of “Seditious conspiracy” for guidance and that is defined as acts to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them.” The plain meaning of Mr. Trump’s remarks on January 6, 2021 could in no way be construed as encouraging others to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them.” Far from encouraging the overthrow of the government, Mr. Trump was asking that every constitutional measure be used to preserve his presidency. This is nothing more than any of us should be entitled to expect – that the Constitution’s limits be vigorously explored in a quest to protect our rights. What’s more, on January 6, 2021 Donald Trump was still President of the United States – without some overt act of violence the head of the government and chief executive officer of the Government of the United States can’t very well be charged with inciting an insurrection against his own government. It seems that for the charge of mounting an insurrection to hold Mr. Trump would have had to call for armed resistance to the incoming administration – which at that time hadn’t even been confirmed yet. If then-President Trump had conjured-up some rogue elements of the military to maintain him in power that would have been a clear act of insurrection, but he did no such thing. Indeed, the violence on January 6, 2021, such as it was, was not directed at the government of the United States in general, or even Joe Biden, it was directed at Congress. And Congress is not the government of the United States, but merely one element of it, and in disputes with the executive Congress can hardly be allowed to claim that perfectly constitutional acts by which the executive attempts to preserve its continuity constitute “insurrection.” So, if Mr. Trump did not incite the riot at the Capitol, and if he was exercising his constitutional rights to ask for Electoral votes he believed to be tainted to be rejected, and if he undertook no armed effort to the overthrow the government that at that time he actually headed, how can he be charged with inciting an “insurrection” against the government of the United States? The answer is he can’t be, unless of course “insurrection” is now a political matter as opposed to criminal matter. The Framers of the Constitution were well-aware of the legislative excesses of the English Civil War where a faction of the Legislature, the Rump Parliament, claimed all power to itself, including the right to try and execute whom they pleased among those who had the temerity to defy them. This second political impeachment trial of Donald Trump is the ultimate test of whether our constitutional safeguards hold or whether we are about to embark on a new era of bills of attainder and persecution of domestic enemies designated by the legislature. Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell Republican Senators that there is no jurisdiction for the Senate to try a citizen of the United States and that they must vote against the continued persecution of Donald Trump. House impeachment Donald Trump MAGA movement incitement unconstitutional incitement of insurrection Joe Biden election fraud obstruction ex post facto laws bills of attainder

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday impeached President Donald Trump for a second time, saying his behavior before the U.S. Capitol riots last week amounts to “incitement of insurrection.” The House quickly approved the impeachment article, but a Senate trial isn’t expected to be as speedy. The Senate is unlikely to begin a trial before returning to session Jan. 19, a day before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden. That means that the trial would drag on after Trump leaves office. Legal experts are divided on the constitutionality of a Senate trial after Trump leaves office, which could prevent Trump from holding office in the future, wrote Debra Cassens Weiss for the ABA Journal online. Some argue that constitutional impeachment clauses don’t envision a late trial, while others say the Constitution doesn’t specifically address timing and doesn’t ban a late trial, noted Ms. Cassens Weiss. The House impeached Trump by a vote of 232-197, with 10 Republicans voting to impeach, according to a count by the New York Times. The article of impeachment, in its final version, makes the case that Trump’s false statements about election fraud and his address to supporters Jan. 6 foreseeably resulted in the crowd’s lawless action at the Capitol. His statements to the crowd included, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” The impeachment article also says Trump tried to obstruct the election results, partly by a call in which he asked Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” the votes that Trump needed to win the state. Among the most persuasive advocates on the anti-post-service impeachment side is former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig, who made the case against a Senate trial after Trump leaves office in an op-ed for the Washington Post, cited by Ms. Cassens Weiss. “Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him—even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment,” Luttig wrote in the Washington Post. Luttig argued that the Constitution’s impeachment clauses presuppose that impeachment and removal of a president happen while in office. As an example, he cited Article II, Section 4, which reads, “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” He also cited Article I, Section 3, which reads in part: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” We find Judge Luttig’s argument persuasive, especially in light of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution which states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” The Framers of the Constitution were well aware of acts of the British Parliament that deprived those who were politically out of favor of life and property. J. Story in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), defined Bills of attainder as such special acts of the legislature, “as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.” The Supreme Court, in Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 323 (1867); and United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 441–442 (1965) held the phrase “bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of § 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. Further the Court held in United States v. Brown, that the prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, which would violate the separation of powers. And in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946), the Supreme Court held the clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial…” In short, it is our view, a view well-founded in history and constitutional law, that Congress may impeach President Donald Trump, but when he leaves office he becomes Citizen Donald Trump, and Congress cannot through its legislative power, deprive Citizen Donald Trump of his rights or property, including the right to run for and hold public office. Hat tips to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute and constitutioncenter.org House impeachment Donald Trump MAGA movement incitement unconstitutional incitement of insurrection Joe Biden election fraud obstruction January 20 ex post facto laws bills of attainder

President Donald J. Trump’s term officially ended on Wednesday, January 20, 2021 when President Joe Biden was sworn in. Whether or not a former president can be impeached has been hotly debated since the article of impeachment was filed against Trump earlier this month. The Constitution does not have any specific language detailing whether this action would be allowed, although the language specifying removal from office as the punishment implies only a sitting President may be impeached. As we explained in our article “A Senate Trial After Trump Leaves Office Would Be Unconstitutional,” among the most persuasive advocates on the anti-post-service impeachment side is former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig, who made the case against a Senate trial after Trump leaves office in an op-ed for the Washington Post. “Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him—even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment,” Luttig wrote in the Washington Post. Luttig argued that the Constitution’s impeachment clauses presuppose that impeachment and removal of a president happen while in office. As an example, he cited Article II, Section 4, which reads, “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” He also cited Article I, Section 3, which reads in part: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” Now, distinguished law professor and lifelong liberal Alan M. Dershowitz has added his voice to those asserting that impeaching private citizen Donald J Trump would be unconstitutional. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Prof. Dershowitz wrote: When the Constitution was written, several states allowed impeachment of former officials. The Framers could easily have included that provision, but they didn’t. They also explicitly chose to prohibit the British practice of trial by legislature—excepting only impeachment—and “bill of attainder,” any punitive legislative act against a specific person. The courts have held that the punishments prohibited by the Bill of Attainder Clause include disqualification from holding office. Moreover, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside “when the president of the United States is tried.” We find Prof. Dershowitz’s argument that such an “impeachment” would amount to an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder quite persuasive – indeed it undergirded our analysis as well. The Framers of the Constitution well-understood the dangers of allowing legislatures to deprive citizens of life, liberty and property arbitrarily and capriciously, because they had the lessons of English history before them. Jack Lynch, writing for the Colonial Williamsburg Journal observed, even though Bills of Attainder were used in America during the Revolutionary War, no constitutional delegate argued for bills of attainder to be allowed in the new Nation’s Constitution. Alexander Hamilton agitated against attainder and in January 1784 railed at “the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement and banishment by acts of legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest.” He said that it could lead to “an aristocracy or an oligarchy,” in which “no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction.” Sound familiar? When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 took up the question, all agreed attainder had to go, noted Mr. Lynch. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, is explicit: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Section 10 expands the scope of the prohibition to state governments. While there was a divided vote on the prohibition against ex post facto laws, the clause on attainder, sailed through nemine contradicente-—with no objection. These clauses appear in the body of Constitution, not in the appended Bill of Rights. The need of a fundamental safeguard against bills of attainder was plainer to the delegates than the bans on self-incrimination and illegal search and seizure forced on them by the states during ratification. It is our view, a view well-founded in history and constitutional law, that Congress may impeach President Donald Trump, but when he leaves office, he becomes Citizen Donald Trump, and Congress cannot through its legislative power, deprive Citizen Donald Trump of his rights or property, including the right to run for and hold public office. Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell Republican Senators that there is no jurisdiction for the Senate to try a citizen of the United States and that they must vote against the continued persecution of Donald Trump. House impeachment Donald Trump MAGA movement incitement unconstitutional incitement of insurrection Joe Biden election fraud obstruction ex post facto laws bills of attainder

The first bill Democrats introduced in their new slimmed-down House majority was H.R. 1, which, as we explained in our article “Democrats Move To Consolidate Power” is a bill intended to put into federal law all the nefarious practices they used to steal the 2020 presidential election and the January 5, 2021 Georgia Senate runoffs. As our friend election law attorney J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation observed, “Democrats in Congress have announced their top legislative priority, and it isn’t health care, immigration, or taxes. Instead, they want to centralize power over elections in Washington, D.C. H.R. 1 is number one on the legislative agenda because it is the number one priority of House Democrats, leftist groups, deep-pocketed dark money, and those who use election process rules to help win elections — or at least to cause chaos.” As per usual, the Washington, DC Republican establishment is in a state of confusion over what to do about H.R. 1, fortunately, conservative state legislative leaders are not. Legislators in Arizona, led by principled limited government constitutional conservative State Representative Jake Hoffman, are organizing opposition – the first step being the introduction of HCR 2023, a resolution opposing H.R.1, that was introduced with an impressive 37 cosponsors. The Arizona Resolution declares that H.R. 1 would obliterate the Constitutional arrangement between the states and the government of the United States by usurping the Constitutional power of states to manage, control and administer state elections by prohibiting various practices and mandating others such as forcing state to conduct an election over an extended period of time, prohibiting states from maintaining voter rolls free from error and obsolete information, forcing states to accept an elector who does not register to vote in advance, mandates related to mail voting, prohibitions against regulating ballot harvesting and scores of other intrusions into the power of this state to manage, control and administer Arizona elections. The Arizona Resolution also recommits Arizona to the arrangement that gave rise to this nation, namely that states are sovereign and free from interference and the intrusion of power from the government of the United States absent clear Constitutional authorization. If the Democrats’ power grab is to be stopped, and their march to create a one-party state is to be thwarted, then states, particularly states with Republican-controlled state legislatures must be at the forefront of the battle. We urge CHQ readers and friends to contact their Republican state legislators. Tell them that if Congress enacts H.R.1 that is the first step in the creation of a one-party state, with Democrats in control of the federal government in perpetuity. Urge them to be prepared to fight this Democrat power grab by passing their own version of Arizona’s HCR 2023 opposing H.R. 1. Below is a model version that can be tailored by legislative counsel to fit the individual state’s drafting conventions: BE it RESOLVED; Whereas, the Constitution of the United States vests power with the states to manage, control and administer the state’s own election laws; and, Whereas, this power was preserved in the states in the Constitution and not delegated to them by the federal government; and, Whereas, rare exceptions in the Constitution such as the Elections Clause, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, Twenty Fourth Amendment and Twenty Sixth Amendment do not extinguish the Constitutional presumption that states have the Constitutional power to set the terms of administering the election, designating electors, and establishing other laws and protocols related to the election; and, Whereas, the Elections Clause of the Constitution was intended to prevent the states from suffocating the existence of the government of the United States and no such contemplated effort has occurred; and, Whereas, the Elections Clause was to be sparingly used to intrude on state power to manage, control and administer state elections; and, Whereas, H.R. 1, a bill introduced in Congress would obliterate the Constitutional arrangement between the states and the government of the United States by usurping the Constitutional power of states to manage, control and administer state elections by prohibiting various practices and mandating others such as forcing state to conduct an election over an extended period of time, prohibiting states from maintaining voter rolls free from error and obsolete information, forcing states to accept an elector who does not register to vote in advance, mandates related to mail voting, prohibitions against regulating ballot harvesting and scores of other intrusions into the power of this state to manage, control and administer Arizona elections; and, Whereas, H.R. 1 strikes at the very heart of the arrangement that gave rise to this nation, namely that states are sovereign and free from interference and the intrusion of power from the government of the United States absent clear Constitutional authorization; Be It Resolved, that the Arizona State Legislature does inform Congress of the deep and zealous opposition to H.R. 1 and similar intrusions into the power of this state to manage and control Arizona elections free from federal mandates that nullify the powers of this state to govern itself and do hereby inform the Congress of our permanent and thorough opposition to this Bill and any subsequent enactment of the terms of this proposal, and do hereby direct and implore Members of Congress and the United States Senate to oppose the same. Kelli Ward Arizona GOP H.R. 1 one-party rule mail-in balloting elections integrity Voter ID Arizona HCR 2023 ballot harvesting state sovereignty

One of many curious things we observed last week was the seemingly emboldened clique of know-it-all establishment Republicans emerging from their forced isolation (during the Trump years, at least) to suggest that it would be a good thing for party senators to join with the certain-to-be unanimous Democrats in their upcoming (?) impeachment trial to vote to convict former President Donald Trump of inciting an insurrection. These shortsighted pontificators maintained that it would do the GOP well to legally and permanently remove the horribly divisive (to them) Trump from the possibility of running again in 2024 or beyond. Among the small but recognizable contingent of the dump-Trump movement was Kyle Smith at National Review. In a piece titled, “Rand Paul Misreads the Politics of Trump’s Senate Trial,” Smith wrote: [I]f Senator Paul has his way, apparently, Trump will suffer no consequences whatsoever and reenter private life as the heavy favorite to be the next Republican presidential nominee. This is madness. Abraham Lincoln’s party was fine without Trump for 150 years and it will long survive him. The parties being largely ruled from the ground up, it’s not feasible to eject Trump from a GOP he seized control of in 2015 and has since disgraced, but it is possible for 17 Republican senators to convict and disqualify him from holding any future high office in the United States. This is the right thing to do and it’s also the prudent thing to do, for the sake of the party as well as the country. The GOP cannot afford to spend the next four years trying to explain away Trump’s indefensible actions. It has to move on, and there is only one way to do that. There’s so much here to disagree with it’s almost hard to figure where to begin. To start, I should point out that the once reliably conservative publication, National Review, might as well be re-coined “Establishment Review.” The magazine’s slide started years ago but accelerated in the lead-up to the 2016 election when writers Kevin Williamson and Jonah Goldberg in particular allowed their personal Trump hatred to cloud their judgment to the extent they were no longer readable due to their bias. The former is still with NRO after briefly having left to toil for The Atlantic, only to be unceremoniously canned by the liberal rag’s editors for expressing opinions contrary to their readership’s intolerant sensitivities after a month. Goldberg is now laboring at The Dispatch, a collection of #NeverTrumpers (National Review’s David French and The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes are there too) funded by big donors who don’t care whether anyone reads their rubbish as long as its fragrance is in compliance with the hate-Trump-and-his-voters-all-the-time attitude. It should be noted that Williamson, Goldberg, Smith, the formerly patently reliable Andrew McCarthy and the always suspicious Rich Lowry (among others) aren’t exactly big Joe Biden fans either, but who can trust what they say when they’re so mired in establishment worship post Trump? Principled conservatives they’re not. So be it. But aside from his background, Smith is flat-out wrong. The GOP would not be better off by Mitch McConnell opening up the gates of you-know-where to allow the contingent of RINOs to charge through to dance and trample on Trump’s proverbial political grave. Rand Paul was right -- if roughly one-third of the Republican senators powwow with “Chucky” Schumer and his merry band of liberal extremists to ban and humiliate the former president, the party is finished. Of course there are rumors Trump plans to start his own faction -- called The Patriot Party -- but he also realizes it would be a major undertaking that might not get off the ground, would be tremendously expensive and almost certainly would lead to Democrats controlling the levers of power for at least a decade if not more. Trump was amazingly successful at bringing his style of politics to the GOP, but it’s highly doubtful even he could single-handedly swing a competitive third party. Aside from this, there’s precedent for Republicans to stay away from antagonizing the grassroots. Rep. Liz Cheney led a group of ten party outcasts in voting to impeach Trump and now she’s reaping what she sowed in her native Wyoming. Primary challenges await any politician from a conservative state or district that publicly drinks the Kool-Aid and impeaches the most successful conservative politician in decades. The voters Paul was talking about are the ones only marginally loyal to the Republican Party as it is. These are the “forgotten Americans” who reflexively punched ballots for Democrat all their lives and were drawn to Trump’s populist/conservative platform. They’re unlikely to continue with the GOP if it reverts to running candidates in the mold of John McCain or Mitt Romney. They voted for down ballot party runners this time when it was seen as beneficial to furthering Trump’s mission. If you banish Trump, good luck convincing anyone that the Republican Party is representative of the working man and woman again. Trump has only been off the job for a few days and it’s far from certain what his next step will be. Any potential 2024 campaign would meet fierce opposition from many, many conservatives who loved what Trump did in the policy arena but grew wary of always needing to defend his personality excesses and talent for courting controversy. For now, it’s best for everyone to take a step back, investigate the election irregularities (might even be aided by an impeachment trial) and not speculate on what’s going to happen in the 2024 campaign. The Kyle Smiths of the world should play the long game, not give in to the hysteria of the moment. Envision plastering the Minority Leader’s face on a future campaign poster and covering-up the last vestiges of Trump/Pence 2020, and then watching as the people run -- in the other direction. A political army is nothing without its soldiers, and seeing the Republicans’ so-called leaders throwing-in with Democrats is about the dumbest thing anyone could ever do. Instead of being known as “The Stupid Party,” the GOP might just as well be called “The Suicidal Party”. Maybe Mitch McConnell’s silhouette could be the new symbol. Biden administration 2020 election election fraud Donald Trump social media censorship Washington swamp Washington establishment conservative resistance Nancy Pelosi Mitch McConnell Chuck Schumer

Yesterday, the New York Times posted what it claims is a complete list of President Trump’s Twitter insults. Conservatives should archive this article from the New York Times before the typists the Democrat National Committee assigned the Grey Lady recognize the irony inherent in the article and take it down. Some items on the list hardly qualify as “insults,” unless stating in truth is an insult. So, Mr. Trump’s criticism of the Obama-era cost overruns on Air Force One made the list: New 747 Air Force One “costs are out of control,” “Cancel order!” As did the cost overruns for the F-35 fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35 program “out of control” But all that was just padding to make the list longer, because Donald Trump’s real “insults” were reserved for his media and political antagonists; and Mr. Trump hurled well-earned invective at Republicans and Democrats alike. Oddly, while the networks had lengthy lists of insults, several of Mr. Trump’s fiercest critics had few citations, leaving us wondering if the New York Times’ list wasn’t shading things a bit. CNN correspondent Brian Stelter earned just one well-aimed cite: “just a poor man’s lapdog” While perennial Trump antagonist CNN’s White House correspondent Jim Acosta earned just two: “a Fake reporter!” “Crazy” Former alleged Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan earned a much longer list of citations: # Paul D. Ryan “RINO,” “Lame Duck Speaker,” “almost killed the Republican Party,” “Weak ineffective & stupid,” “had the Majority& blew it away with his poor leadership and bad timing,” “record of achievement was atrocious,” “a long running lame duck failure,” “leaving his Party in the lurch,” “quit Congress because he didn’t know how to Win,” “should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing about!” “always fighting the Republican nominee!” “doesn't know how to win,” “does zilch!” “very weak,” “ineffective,” “disloyal” Nebraska’s allegedly Republican Senator Ben Sasse also earned a solid citation: Ben Sasse “rather stupid and obnoxious,” “Little Ben,” “a liability to the Republican Party,” “an embarrassment to the Great State of Nebraska,” “The least effective of our 53 Republican Senators,” “a person who truly doesn’t have what it takes to be great,” “Little Ben,” “a RINO,” “Little Ben,” “RINO,” “foolish,” “Really sad,” “totally ineffective,” “looks more like a gym rat than a U.S. Senator,” “how the hell did he ever get elected?” Among Republicans Utah’s Senator Mitt Romney may have earned the longest entry, and certainly one of our favorites – he “choked like a dog.” Mitt Romney “RINO,” “a man with very little talent or political skill,” “RINO,” “a terrible presidential candidate and an even worse U.S. Senator,” “grandstander”,” “No clue,” “failed presidential candidate,” “sanctimonious,” “The Democrats are lucky that they don’t have any Mitt Romney types,” “Somebody please wake up Mitt Romney,” “he choked!” “never knew how to win,” “a pompous “ass” who has been fighting me from the beginning so bad for R’s,” “Pompous,” “a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats,” “If @MittRomney spent the same energy fighting Barack Obama as he does fighting Donald Trump, he could have won the race (maybe)!” “is he a Flake?” “I won big, and he didn’t,” “Really sad,” “choked like a dog,” “Failed presidential candidate,” “the man who ‘choked’ and let us all down,” “Failed,” “a mixed up man who doesn't have a clue. No wonder he lost!” “let us all down in the last presidential race,” “a disaster candidate who had no guts and choked,” “a total joke, and everyone knows it!” “doesn't know how to win,” “Why did Mitt Romney BEG me for my endorsement four years ago?” “Failed Presidential Candidate,” “desperate move by the man who should have easily beaten Barrack Obama,” “didn't show his tax return until SEPTEMBER 21, 2012, and then only after being humiliated by Harry R,” “bad messenger for estab!” “failed,” “one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics,” “so awkward and goofy,” “terrible 'choke' loss to Obama,” “blew an election that should have never been lost,” “I don't need his angry advice,” “he choked!” “why would anybody listen to @MittRomney?” “lost an election that should have easily been won” However, the longest individual entry in the list must belong to Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, the corrupt serial liar who heads the House Intelligence Committee. # Adam Schiff “Shifty,” “Shifty Schiff,” “LEAK information to the Fake News,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty,” “a crooked politician,” “corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff,” “should not have access to Intelligence, he is a corrupt pol,” “Shifty Schiff,” “incompetent & corrupt,” “Adam “Shifty” Schiff,” “Corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff,” “Corrupt politician Schif,” “a corrupt pol,” “he is mentally deranged!” “Shifty,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man,” “conman , Shifty,” “lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schif,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty Schiff,” “presentation to the Senate was loaded with lies,” “Shifty Schiff,” “corrupt pol Shifty Schiff,” “Corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff,” “Adam “Shifty” Schiff,” “corrupt politician Shifty Schiff,” “corrupt politician,” “Shifty Schiff,” “corrupt politician Adam Shifty Schiff,” “corrupt politician Adam “Shifty” Schiff,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty Schiff,” “a totally corrupt politician, made up a horrible and fraudulent statement,” “a corrupt politician and a criminal,” “Shifty,” “Great corruption & dishonesty by Schiff,” “Corrupt politician ,lies are growing by the day,” “the most dishonest man in politics,” “a Corrupt Politician,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty!” “corrupt,” “Corrupt politician Schiff should be investigared for fraud,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “fabricated my phone call,” “Corrupt politician Adam Schiff,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “a corrupt politician,” “Shifty,” “a proven liar, leaker & freak who is really the one who should be impeached,” “corrupt politician Schiff,” “Corrupt Adam,” “a corrupt politician,” “Corrupt politician,” “corrupt,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “corrupt politician Shifty Adam Schiff,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “Shifty,” “should be Impeached, and worse,” “Shifty Schiff,” “a corrupt politician,” “a corrupt politician,” “Shifty Adam Schiff, the biggest leaker in D.C., and a corrupt politician,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “a Corrupt Politician,” “Corrupt Adam Schiff,” “Corrupt Adam Schiff,” “Corrupt Adam Schiff,” “Shifty Schiff,” “He is a fraud,” “Corrupt Congressman Adam Schiff, A very dishonest sleazebag,” “Shifty Schiff is Corrupt,” “Corrupt Adam Schiff,” “totally phony,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “Shifty,” “should be impeached for fraud,” “Shifty Schiff,” “Shifty Schiff,” “fraud,” “fabricated phone call, a crime,” “Impeach Schiff for FRAUD,” “a disgrace to our Country,” “Shifty Adam Schiff,” “Liddle’ Adam Schiff,” “Shifty,” “SHIFTY SCHIFF,” “lost all credibility,” “Adam Schiffty Schiff,” “LYIN’ SHIFTY SCHIFF,” “has also committed a crime, perhaps treason,” “a sick puppy,” “a lying disaster for our Country,” “should resign,” “a lowlife who should resign (at least!),” “should resign,” “He is sick,” “a lowlife,” “completely fabricated my words and read them to Congress as though they were said by me,” “Liddle’ Adam Schiff,” “very dishonest and bad,” “illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement Arrest for Treason?” “read a made up and totally fraudulent statement,” “Sick!” “made up what I actually said by lying to Congress,” “His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber,” “Liddle’ Adam Schiff,” “fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & twisted words into my call with the Ukrainian President,” “He must resign,” “Corrupt Congressman Liddle’ Adam Schiff,” “fraudulently read to Congress,” “HE WAS DESPERATE,” “lied to Congress,” “fraud!” “HE WAS DESPERATE AND HE GOT CAUGHT,” “lied to Congress and attempted to defraud the American Public,” “totally made up my conversation with Ukraine President,” “a sick man,” “has zero credibility,” “Liddle’ Adam Schiff,” “has worked unsuccessfully for 3 years to hurt the Republican Party and President,” “Little Adam Schiff,” “#ShiftySchiff - an Embarrassment to our Country!” “spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking,” “should be forced to resign from Congress!” “gone stone cold CRAZY,” “little Adam Schitt,” “Liddle Adam Schiff,” “the leakin' monster of no control,” “Little,” “desperate to run for higher office,” “one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington,” “leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information,” “Must be stopped!” “Sleazy,” “totally biased,” “spends all of his time on television pushing the Dem loss excuse!” And, while Far Left environmentalist and Democrat presidential contender Tom Steyer didn’t earn a long citation, he did earn one with some of the more colorful entries: Tom Steyer “wacky,” “spent more dollars for NOTHING than any candidate in history,” “a disaster,” “setting records in $’s per vote,” “Impeachment King,” “something is just plain missing,” “a major loser,” “Just doesn’t get it,” “running low on cash,” “Nobody knows him,” “Weirdo,” “still trying to remain relevant by putting himself on ads begging for impeachment,” “Weirdo,” “doesn’t have the ”guts” or money to run for President,” “He’s all talk!” “Wacky,” “comes off as a crazed & stumbling lunatic,” “should be running out of money pretty soon,” “Wacky,” “totally unhinged,” “has been fighting me and my Make America Great Again agenda from beginning,” “never wins elections!” Donald Trump’s Twitter insults and bragging were only outside the “norms” for today’s effete urban elite – they were appreciated and savored in every working guy’s bar and would have been understood and appreciated on the American frontier, or even among the ancient warriors of the Iliad, were insulting the enemy and vaunting over his defeat were key elements of the battle. Sarpedon, counsel-bearer of the Lycians, what must you cower here? You are a man unlearned in battle. They’re lying when they say that you are the offspring of aegis-bearing Zeus, since you fall far short of those men who were born from Zeus in the times of earlier people. But what a man do they say the might of Heracles was! He was my father, stout-hearted. He had the soul of a lion. When he came here for Laomedon’s horses with only six ships and few men, he sacked the city of Troy and widowed its streets. But your soul is cowardly, and the people perish. And I think that you will never be a bulwark for the Trojans, even though you came from Lycia, not even if you are very strong. No, I think that you will be tamed by me and will pass through Hades’ gates. Donald Trump Twitter insults New York Times Republican establishment Adam Schiff Mitt Romney Paul Ryan

Yesterday I talked a little bit about President Joe Biden’s inauguration and how Democrats are sure to be relieved that they no longer have to worry about an hour-by-hour dose of Donald Trump. In essence, their severe cases of “derangement syndrome” should theoretically subside or disappear completely. What about the GOP? Biden’s loyal opponents find themselves rudderless today. David M. Drucker wrote at The Washington Examiner: Republican strategists say the party is not facing any problem that cannot be fixed by overreaching Democrats. Biden is proposing to regularize illegal immigrants, raise the federal, hourly minimum wage to $15, hike income taxes for people earning more than $400,000 annually, and cancel the Keystone XL oil pipeline. That liberal agenda could go a long way toward coalescing congressional Republicans divided over Trump and quelling the frustrations of a voting base that believes the GOP establishment did not fight hard enough to support his unfounded claims that the November election was stolen. Unfounded? Unfounded? We all know there was plenty of foundation for the claims if they’d only been thoroughly investigated and litigated. The Trump-less GOP establishment is doing everything in its power to extinguish all vestiges of Trump. Despite this, today, grassroots conservatives and Republicans remain a mostly united lot, but still they’re unlikely to develop a case of “derangement syndrome” like Democrats are so prone to doing, having freaked out in convulsive rage during the presidencies of both George W. Bush and Trump, though the two were light years apart in temperament and effectiveness in gaining ground on Making America Great Again. Nevertheless, sane people should be on the lookout for possible signs of the sickness. Probably the most obvious indicator is to accuse Joe Biden of some wild conspiracy theory involving the election. In doing so, we’d be no better off than Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi vowing to discover whether Donald Trump worked with Vladimir Putin to spark an “insurrection” at the Capitol on January 6. Crooked Hillary and San Fran Nan are just two examples of advanced Derangement Syndrome that’s infiltrated the craniums of Democrats (assuming most of them actually have brains) and stolen every last ounce of credibility with “normal” folks who just want to know what happened in November. Our best bet is to ignore the conspiracy stuff and just stick to the mountains of evidence that something odd and potentially (likely?) illegal happened during the morning hours of November 4, when Trump’s significant lead in key swing states disappeared before our eyes. Let’s get to the bottom of it and systematically prove our case. Pelosi and Hill will be on the outside looking in, all the while wondering why those people look so shocked and concerned. Don’t be deranged. Be coldly calculating and arm yourself with the irrefutable (except to the truly deranged) facts. Next, don’t ascribe some sort of super human powers to Grampa Joe Biden. Whenever you feel yourself slipping into an establishment media induced coma, remember that Democrats aren’t competent enough to fool everyone forever. True, they are the “evil” party and Republicans are the “stupid” party, but not all GOPers lack the wherewithal to fight back against the forces of darkness. I personally don’t believe Joe Biden is adept enough to deduce and plan a complicated plot and then pick the right talent to carry it out. Ditto for Kamala Harris. If either of them possesses some kind of extraordinary faculties that haven’t been evident from the moment they entered politics, please instruct me. Grampa Joe is the living embodiment of Forrest Gump (some might say he’s Joe Biden Gump), a guy who’s been in the right place at the right time his whole life. And Kamala Harris? She’s the epitome of an opportunist who dated her way to a promising political career and then maneuvered from there, bolstered by the left’s fixation on her skin color and gender. The last thing to do to avoid Biden Derangement Syndrome is to get involved, advocate and participate, but don’t forget that life is short and there are other things to do besides obsess over politics (granted, there’s a lot less to do with COVID-19 dominating our daily existence). There are lots of ways to remain entrenched in politics that are much superior to memorizing the daily line-up of Fox News hosts and planning your 24-hour period around who’s talking when and about what. Local political organizations always welcome new members and there’s strength in numbers. Many conservative leaders have observed that running for and serving as your local Republican Party precinct captain is a terrific way to affect change and ensure that conservative candidates are proffered by the state and national party. The stakes in every election have elevated dramatically in recent times. As several George Soros-funded District Attorneys have amply demonstrated, which suspects ultimately get prosecuted -- or not prosecuted -- depends on who fills the seat. Too many voters only pay attention to the headlining races while completely ignoring the political offices that will arguably affect their day-to-day quality of life more than who is in charge of the Department of Energy. These are people you can actually meet with and talk to one-to-one if you so choose. With the national political scene being as convoluted and hopeless as it now appears to be, local and state political contests take on even more importance. Gridlock at the federal level is the most likely scenario after the 2020 election, but they’ll be busy making real policy close to home. Only a fool would ignore it to go to emotional pieces over what Grampa Joe Biden does or says. It's doubtful that myself or anyone I know will develop a severe case of Biden Derangement Syndrome. Today’s political issues are far too important and there’s too much at stake to lose it over one man (or even Kamala Harris), and there’s too much work to be done in fighting back against the establishment to lose focus. Get going on the next phase. You’ll be happier for it. Click here for Part One of “The best way to beat Biden Derangement Syndrome is not to catch it" Joe Biden Kamala Harris Biden administration 2020 election election fraud Donald Trump social media censorship Washington swamp Washington establishment conservative resistance Nancy Pelosi Mitch McConnell Chuck Schumer

Well, that didn’t take long. Joe Biden, on his first day in office took sweeping executive action signaling that he will stop the development of fossil fuel infrastructure and block further domestic oil exploration. Those actions include rejecting a presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline; placing a moratorium on oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and directing federal agencies to review more than a dozen regulations and other actions by the Trump administration aimed at increasing fossil fuel production, reported Inside Climate News. Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute, said Biden's decision is not grounded in science and will put thousands of Americans out of work, "The pipeline — the most studied infrastructure project in American history — is already under construction and has cleared countless legal and environmental hurdles," Durbin said in a statement. "Halting construction will also impede the safe and efficient transport of oil, and unfairly single out production from one of our closest and most important allies.” Keystone XL chief Richard Prior immediately announced the permit denial will force the company to cut 1,000 jobs. According to reporting by the UK’s Sun, Mr. Pryor said: "Over 1,000 positions will be eliminated in the coming weeks, the majority of these unionized workers representing the building trades." "Environmental ideologues have now prevailed, and over a thousand union men and women have been terminated from employment on the project," North America’s Building Trades Unions said in a statement following Biden's action reported by Fox Business News. According to a letter Montana’s Republican Senator Steve Daines wrote to Biden, cancellation of the project will cost America 11,000 direct high-paying jobs and 60,000 indirect jobs. Senator Daines also pointed out that, “Keystone XL construction will also induce significant spending and revenue at the local level, with hundreds of millions of dollars going to small businesses and major tax revenue increases for local schools and public safety. Some of the most rural areas in the country will now be able to invest further in new schools, new roads, and other public works projects that will bring about a higher standard of living.” But jobs and a higher standard of living for their fellow Americans are not priorities for Biden, or for his nominee for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg spouted this example of his signature meaningless nonsense during his confirmation hearing, "I believe that the president's climate vision will create more jobs on that… And I think it's going to be very important to work with him and work with Congress to make sure that we can deliver on that promise too. That on that, more good-paying union jobs will be created in the context of the climate and infrastructure work that we have before us than has been impacted by other decisions.” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Buttigieg on what that actually meant. “So for those workers, the answer is somebody else will get a job?” Cruz asked. “The answer is we are very eager to see those workers continue to be employed in good-paying union jobs, even if they might be different ones," Buttigieg said according to reporting by Fox Business. Buttigieg’s answer was a very revealing “tell” that what the Biden administration plans to do is completely abandon America and Americans first and return to the globalist, econometric model policies of the Obama – Paul Ryan era where American workers were merely pawns for the government to move around the chessboard to fill-in the jobs it wants created at the places it wants to create them. If you are living and working in Montana or Minnesota and the government takes away your good-paying job there, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden think you should just pick-up house and family and move to wherever they decide to subsidize the next Solyndra, Ener 1, Amonix, Abound Solar or other green energy scam that will enrich Democrat-connected investors, go broke and devastate the workers whose real jobs in the real world of energy production were destroyed. Call the toll-free Capitol Switchboard (1-866-220-0044), tell Republican Senators Pete Buttigieg has clearly disqualified himself from confirmation as Secretary of Transportation, and they should vote NO when his confirmation comes before them. Biden inauguration national unity constitutional rights Second Amendment Pete Buttigieg Transportation Secretary Energy production ANWAR Keystone pipeline

Donald Trump is no longer president. It’s a realization that a lot of people woke up to this morning. The tens of millions of American anti-Trump voters must’ve slept comfortably through the night, probably having fallen asleep to replays of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s inauguration extravaganza from yesterday afternoon. At noon EDT the 78-year-old career swamp dweller gingerly placed his hand on his family’s enormous Bible that “Dr.” Jill Biden held for him and repeated the words fed to his brain by a very patient (considering the recipient) Chief Justice John Roberts. The who’s who of the Washington ruling class was (allegedly) there. I didn’t watch it, doing my darndest to avoid any and all coverage of the low point in recent American history. But in this electronic age you can run, but you can’t fully hide from what our overlords want you to see. Open your eyes! Open your eyes! Meanwhile, today, Donald Trump’s 74-million-plus voters are dealing with a different mindset (akin to a hangover?), the multitude convinced that the election’s results smelled bad and still stinging under the oppression of a government and media that judges them before they take a step in the morning. The presence of an armed cordon of National Guard troops on Wednesday was the ultimate insult, as if a relative handful of rabblerousers on January 6th permanently branded all MAGA folks with a scarlet “V” (for violent) label on their chests. (Note: It’s a proven fact that there were leftists among the capitol assaulting throng two weeks ago. To be consistent, the powers-that-be better keep an eye on Antifa and Black Lives Matter as insurrectionists in addition to scrutinizing the unjustly accused.) The anti-Trumpers are just glad it’s over, their five-plus-year nightmare of Trump one-liners, multitudes of Tweets and staring down the likes of Nancy Pelosi and “Chucky” Schumer; it all supposedly vanished in an instant. Before there’s too much celebration, however, perhaps they’d better figure on the enormity of the task ahead. Patrick J. Buchanan wrote this week at CNS News: Now, Democrats must decide whether to proceed with the impeachment trial of Trump for inciting a riot that began on the Capitol steps as he was speaking a mile away, a riot planned long before the rally on the Mall. Now, Democrats can choose whether they will forego extracting their pound of flesh as the first order of business in the Senate and let Nancy Pelosi sit a while on her impeachment resolution. Now, Democrats have it all. If they wish, they can abolish the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, make D.C. and Puerto Rico states, forgive all student debt, and vote for slavery reparations. One reads that a caravan of thousands is forming up in Honduras to pass through Guatemala in the hope of reaching and crossing the U.S. border when Biden becomes president. That, too, is Joe's party's problem now. On Buchanan’s last point, The Washington Times’ Charles Hurt wonders whether the caravan participants will be required to wear masks or test for COVID before being allowed onto U.S. soil by the Biden administration. How audacious to even ask such a thing? Can’t we all see that Grampa Joe is here to help people? Besides, now that Donald Trump and his insistence on enforcing America’s borders is located somewhere other than the DC swamp, will Mexico’s governing authorities continue with their agreed upon cooperation in cracking down on crossings on their own southern border? Or will they throw open the doors and do everything feasible to ensure the mob of humanity reaches the United States unencumbered? What to do, Joe? Reading Buchanan’s words, I harkened back to last year’s campaign, with Trump constantly defending himself (not always effectively) and his administration’s actions on COVID-19. It was like crawling on your hands and knees in a dark room searching for a needle on the floor, hoping to stumble across it before the barb lodges in your palm or kneecap. The Chinese induced plague was a mystery novel without an ending or a puzzle missing most of its pieces. Grampa Joe sat hunkered down in his Delaware basement hiding from scrutiny and issuing press releases on how well he would’ve handled the crisis and boasted about the number of people who’d still be walking the earth if he’d been president instead of Trump. People who cower in glass basements shouldn’t cast stones. But Biden’s a little too intellectually challenged to understand the difference. Similarly, he can’t take cover behind 99 other senators any longer like he did in the U.S. Senate. The sun is looking awful bright now that there are no walls or human shields to disguise his flaws. As Buchanan further indicated, Biden can’t shrink from view. And perhaps just as importantly, Democrats can’t retreat to their default position of making outlandish statements about Trump, his purported incompetence, racism, divisiveness, unseriousness, golfing hobby, penchant for showmanship or the manner in which he communicated (via Twitter, mostly). All those things are gone with the former chief executive. Like COVID-19, Trump Derangement Syndrome was a condition without a natural treatment. It tore at the internal organs of those afflicted and we’ll soon discover whether it’s a fatal malady for those who suffered with it through four Trump State of the Union speeches (the first being deemed an address to the joint session of Congress), or if they’ll remain in remission until the next Republican president. Democrats know they can’t win on the issues so their only hope is to demonize the figurehead of the conservative issue platform. Donald Trump wasn’t a principled conservative but he came to symbolize the movement because he was the only one strong enough to withstand the waves of vitriol coming from the establishment and his political enemies. Who will follow his example? Is it possible for the GOP’s opposition to avoid becoming deranged? Will there be “Pence Derangement Syndrome” or “Hawley Derangement Syndrome” when the time comes, too? Here's to getting better sleep tonight and being ready to resist tomorrow and all the days after that. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Biden administration 2020 election election fraud Donald Trump social media censorship Washington swamp Washington establishment conservative resistance Nancy Pelosi Mitch McConnell Chuck Schumer

The last time our Nation was so divided we had passed the tipping point where we hang today into a civil war. In his two Inaugural Addresses that provided the bookends to that great conflict, President Abraham Lincoln gave two of the most important speeches in the canon of American political rhetoric. President Lincoln, in First Inaugural Address, began his administration by offering the olive branch to his opponents: I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. We looked for it, but we found no appeal to the better angels of our nature in Mr. Biden’s address, no appeal to friendship and certainly to commitment that the constitutional rights of conservatives who opposed Mr. Biden would be respected. Instead, there was admonition after admonition that we “must” do this or that – sometimes those hectoring demands were for Americans to reject the policies of his predecessor, sometimes those hectoring demands were for his opponents to put aside their principles and embrace his. Lincoln said, “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.” Critics of this article will no doubt seize on the fact that Lincoln was speaking of the abhorrent practice of slavery, but the principle of his commitment to respect the constitutional rights of his opponents still holds. Slavery was abhorrent, but it was constitutional. Where was Joe Biden’s commitment to respect the constitutional rights today’s Democrats find abhorrent? The right to keep and bear arms. The right to religious liberty. Freedom of speech and the press. Property rights Lincoln pled his case for unity and a peaceful resolution of sectional differences by referring to his previous speeches: Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. Joe Biden could not make a similar commitment, because his speeches are full of threats and commitments to deprive gun owners, landowners and businessowners of their rights, property, and livelihoods. At the close of the Civil War Lincoln delivered an Inaugural Address of astonishing power that molded our politics for generations. One of the unnoticed gems in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was this: Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. And Lincoln was right – when he offered the olive branch to his opponents in 1861, no one foresaw that the rejection of his fair and conciliatory words would precipitate a civil war of four-years duration and as many as 750,000 casualties. And we see in the smug “elections have consequences” attitude that Mr. Biden and his team display that they have no idea where their plans could lead and no idea their plans may result in a conflict more fundamental and astounding than it appears to them today. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address closed with these immortal words: With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. Joe Biden’s Inaugural Address included no commitment to bind-up the Nation’s wounds or to strive for a lasting peace among ourselves. Instead, Mr. Biden studiously avoided any commitment to turndown the heat of today’s politics in favor of a demand that we all come together on his terms. Such a start to the Biden administration can only bode ill for the future. Biden inaugural address Biden inauguration national unity constitutional rights Second Amendment