Search Results

I have been reading a fascinating book -- Final Verdict by Adela Rogers St. Johns. It is a memoir about her father, Earl Rogers, a California superstar defense attorney in the early part of the 20th century. St Johns was a highly successful and wonderful writer, screenwriter and journalist. What really sets this 1962 book apart from anything I have read before is her unique perspective on her protagonist -- her brilliant, charming, but, of course, flawed father. She didn't come to know her father as most children do; after work, on weekends, and so on, a child gradually pulling a father into focus along the way to maturity. As a very young girl -- her feet still didn't touch the floor under her chair -- Adela Rogers became what is best described as her father's professional confidante. While her peers were in classrooms, she was very often in court rooms and her father's law offices. Earl Rogers valued her "child sight"; she could not have been happier with her place by his side, none of which struck her as all that unusual at the time. I was moved to write about the book because of two pages that interrupt a series of chapters devoted to Earl's cases and the complex Rogers family story. Taking a pause to set the historical scene, circa 1909 in Los Angeles, California, St. Johns writes of an America that is not just unrecognizable today in terms of technology and other unimaginable changes that have taken place since, but she also writes of a space, an opportunity, for the development of an American personality that no longer exists. It was a space the state had not yet invaded. At this time, public interest in national politics, affairs and activities was so small I have difficulty believing it myself. Most of us knew most of the time who was President but I can't say we cared much. Days -- weeks -- could go by without a story from Washington on the front page of any California paper or any mention of the President's name. When William Howard Taft beat William Jennings Bryan [1908], and Eugene Debs got 402,000 votes as the Socialist candidate, California had ten electoral votes, way out there beyond the Rockies, and nobody paid much attention to her. We probably knew who our congressman was because we wrote to him for seeds and sometimes got them, and our senators on account of their being orators on the Fourth of July. The federal government, as a great centralized power running all forty-six states, hadn't occurred to any of us. There had been no big wars, only Remember the Maine and Dewey Has Captured Manila, which were storybook affairs, fought by the regular Army and a few hotheaded volunteers with less than four thousand casualties. Nobody would have believed a draft or military service or millions our casualty lists. War really had nothing to do with us. As De Toqueville said in his Democratie en Amerique, a book my father knew by heart, this was the true place for the first real experiment in democracy because, protected by our vast oceans, we didn't need any other foreign policy than the Monroe Doctrine, which simply said the American states were never to suffer the Old World to interfere in the affairs of the New. The only thing De Toqueville was wrong about was the vast-ocean theory -- he did not foresee nor did anyone else that the oceans would soon become a few hours' wide. No wars, no draft, no income tax. Our main knowledge of Washington concerned high or low tariff, which was always the main item in a party platform. While tariffs ring a bell due to the unexpected resurrection of "fair trade" / "America First" by Donald Trump in 2016, the world St. Johns has described seems much farther away than the early 20th century. In fact, I am quite amazed such a world still existed that late in time, and would never deny its appeal, especially now. It's not just peacefulness and quietness that St. Johns conjures; above all, it's the glorious freedom from the state. One hundred ten years later, we have no such freedom. The state is deep inside our daily lives, our families, our minds, our future. With mask mandates, it is present with every breath we take. Here is more of St. Johns' America, the beautiful: Our daily lives were tied into and affected by state, county, and city politics; the distances had not been bridged with the rest of the country in either transportation or communication. If you got a telegram you asked a friend to stand by while you opened it. A long-distance telephone call was almost impossible. No radio or TV or even movies seen by all of us bound us together as, for instance, Mary Pickford did when she became America's Sweetheart. No air mail of course -- a letter to Washington or New York took at least a week -- to Europe a month. No chain stores. We had our own Emporium in San Francisco and Hamburger's in Los Angeles until Woolworth wove the country together with the five-and-ten. Though we flocked to see Ethel Barrymore in Captain Kinks of the Horse Marines and Southern and Marlowe in If I Were King, our own stock theaters were more important to us, week after week, than those road companies. If New York had its Weber and Fields, we had our Kolb and Dill. Only vaudeville, to which Papa and I went every Monday, was national. Our own writers, Jack London, Frank Norris, Ambrose Bierce, George Sterling, Mary Austin, interested us most. Above all, Henry Ford, who changed the map, customs, habits and character of the United States more than any other man who ever lived in it, had only just begun to manufacture the Model T and put America on wheels. In my teens, there wasn't a foot of paved road in California. On the whole we stayed home a good deal. A land where independence of mind was not only possible but likely. Ninety per cent of the news in locals papers was local news. Ninety-five per cent of the pictures were home-town figures. We had no syndicated columns of any kind. With no movie or TV stars, no glamour boys in Washington, no real tie with New York, we created local idols. Easterners would have called this provincial. And so it was, by definition. But imagine the infinite possibilities in a land of such riches and such sunshine, with liberty protected by the Constitution, and where the notion of the federal government "as a great centralized power running all forty-six states hadn't occurred to any of us." Hadn't occurred. The psyche refreshes. St. Johns goes on to describes how her own father, the legal virtuoso, thrived in this same world. Earl Rogers as political boss, courtroom star of sensational murder trials, was a bigger popular favorite than one man could be today in any city of state. Known by sight to more people than a Vice President or Attorney General, whose names we had probably never heard and whose pictures we had certainly never seen. When, on a night of a big fight, he walked down the aisle of Uncle Tom McCareys' Vernon Arena, dressed to kill, they started to cheer him the moment they saw him and kept it up after he was in his rignside seat. Always he had a court wherever he went, an entourage of his own, and also groups of admirers, hangers-on, hero worshippers, and while autographs hadn't come in then they "just wanted to shake your hand, Mr. Rogers." He divided the pedestal as No. 1 Matinee Idol with Lewis K. Stone, who was leading man at the Belasco, and once with an unknown young actor, Miss Barymore's little brother John. All this was heady stuff for any man. In my book, freedom from the central state, from its repressive diktats and noxious personalities, from the collective culture encased in an amniotic sac of technology, is heady stuff for anyone. It seems clear the tyranny, rioting and flames engulfing our country nearing Election Day are calculated to destroy all vestiges of it. Here are some pictures of what my home town of Los Angeles looked like circa 1910-1919. To read more of Diana West’s work or to order one of her must read books go to http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx 2020 Election Diana West COVID-19 mask mandates freedom liberty Los Angeles

Democrats lie to two friends, then the media repeats it to two friends, and so on and so on… It’s what a lot of people are talking about lately -- that being, how does a lie truly spread? Fans of classic advertising campaigns will certainly recall the Faberge Organics Shampoo commercial from the early 80’s. Come on, you remember it, right? In the spot, a very young Heather Locklear said, “When I first tried Faberge Organics Shampoo with genuine wheat germ oil and honey, I told two friends about it, and they told two friends, and so on and so on and so on…” In the days before computer generated graphics, the screen split into boxes showing multiples of people supposedly converting to the wonders of the shampoo which Locklear professed would guarantee super fine, super body and super fresh smelling hair! No one’s arguing that the Faberge boast wasn’t accurate… though the company did go out of business in 1984. Maybe not enough women took Locklear’s advice and tried it -- and then told two friends and had them tell two friends… and so on, and so on and so on… How does this chain of gossip relate to 2020 politics? Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has been launching a boatload of whoppers lately to anyone who would listen. But the back slappin’, hair sniffin’ (Faberge?), shoulders massagin’, child repellin’, nude swimmin’, sexual assault denyin’ and plagiarism pushin’ great guy from Scranton (PA) doesn’t even need to bother telling two friends and have them do the same, since he has the media in his pocket -- and they’ll do the fib disseminating for him! It goes without saying Biden’s been promising a lot of stuff to a lot of voter groups if he’s elected in November, and he’s counting on favorable economic conditions to allow him to keep his pledge to squeeze goodies like shampoo from a Faberge bottle on new converts. Nihal Krishan reported at The Washington Examiner, “The Biden administration will have greater scope to spend on programs even despite the recent spike in federal debt, a top campaign economist said, because of falling interest rates… “Biden plans to spend almost $7 trillion over the next decade on areas such as climate change, infrastructure, healthcare, and higher education. He has said he will pay for these ambitious initiatives with approximately $4 trillion in tax increases on the wealthy, on corporations, and on certain investments. Furthermore, Biden has signaled that he will continue the historic levels of governmental relief spending that started in March in response to the coronavirus pandemic and its ensuing economic shutdowns. “Lower interest rates for paying off federal debt would allow Biden to borrow more money and give his administration greater flexibility to implement his agenda with fewer worries about the debt growing too quickly and having an economy that is expanding at a rate that is unsustainable.” Sure, Joe. Just add another trillion or two to the national debt and shove the resolution to the issue even further down the road when your grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren will still be paying on it (assuming the on-the-verge-of-civil-war U.S. lasts that long). But at Biden’s advanced age, he probably doesn’t worry about trivial things because to dwell on such a huge fiscal downer would negate any chance he has to be president! And the most pressing concern for Joe and his ilk is to make sure the current Oval Office occupant doesn’t get four more years to cut taxes, slash regulations, or spur on private investment in job creating industries like energy production, etc. Biden’s and the Democrats’ tax plan is just one of the lies that grows ever larger without anyone in the media questioning it. Grampa Joe’s gargantuan tax increases won’t produce anywhere near the $4 trillion he’s projected to raise. As has been demonstrated over and over (and so on and so on?) again, removing incentive from the productive class to generate that extra marginal dollar ensures that no effort will be expended to do it. Why work harder to fund the government, especially when it’s controlled by idiots like Biden and Nancy Pelosi and “Chucky” Schumer who simply want to procure power with it? If “the rich” or other people with means aren’t constantly working to make themselves richer, then average folks won’t get jobs either. And if no one’s making money, they won’t be paying taxes. If you don’t believe it, ask business owners in New York City what they think of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s job performance of late. And let’s not forget, future Congresses aren’t about to just shut off the spending spigot. If politicians depend on keeping the federal gravy train rolling down its increasingly worn and shaky tracks for their own job security, they’ll grease their campaigns with assurances that the federal treasury will still be sending out checks. If Democrats get their way, the U.S. Post Office will survive in perpetuity to deliver them, too. Maybe not always on time, but the recipients will wait! Democrats are playing politics with next year’s budget as well, debating on whether to go along with Republicans’ temporary budget extension (until after the election) or to wait it out and hopefully enjoy greater leverage when the real post-election tug-of-war begins. Look at the people they have calling the shots and devising the strategy… and it’s not hard to see why nothing ever gets done in Congress. They hate Trump so much that no other issue is of greater importance than ridding themselves of the orange menace. And yet polls still show people “trusting” Democrats more on most issues. Are they insane or just really, really, misinformed? To be fair, the spending addiction is shared by both parties. President Trump, for all his multitude of good points, isn’t exactly frugal either. Federal deficits have climbed under his watch, and this was before the huge boost in outlays approved by Congress to combat the ill effects of the Chinese Communist Party (or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus pandemic. There were countless billions devoted to battling the virus and trillions more to keeping citizens’ heads above water when their businesses and livelihoods were yanked out from under them. All that money borrowed and spent and some polls still say Americans disapprove of Trump’s virus response by sizeable majorities. Democrats propagate the lie that the president didn’t do enough to prevent the pandemic, and it looks like the media tells two friends and so on, and so on, and so on… Both parties go back and forth on the wisdom of locking down the economy in the first place. But the damage is done and there’s no going back, especially when the powers-that-be estimate the debt will be north of $3 trillion this year. If Democrats had their way, they’d add another couple trillion (at least) to the total -- why not increase (in your own mind) your chances of being granted governing power by bribing the masses with more borrowed cash? It’s much simpler and probably more effective to purchase votes with Uncle Sam’s credit card than it is to change minds through traditional political methods… and common sense. Who’s going to do something about spending and debt? Anyone? Anyone? President Trump has promised to address the spending and debt problem in a second term, and one would surmise, based on his proven track record of keeping all his other pledges, he’d make good on it. Under its current leadership, however, Congress won’t go along with any kind of major spending cuts. Republicans gave it the ol’ establishment try about a decade ago with keen slogans like “cut, cap and balance” and the parties hammered out budget sequesters that they eventually abandoned. History repeats itself time and again. Both parties swear they’ll get their act together if handed a large enough congressional majority to exclude the other party’s wish list from appropriations bills. Republicans enjoy slightly higher credibility on the issue, though they only seem to care about spending and debt when Democrats hold the White House. And if Democrats care -- at all -- about spending and deficits, they’re doing a very good job of disguising it. So what about Joe’s plan? Is he correct that the nation can withstand another big spending boom if he's the one signing the bills into law? The argument that the nation can afford more government spending because interest rates are low is pure fallacy. From my old college economics classes, interest is the “cost” of borrowing money. The “price” of money may be low now, but the government is still on the hook for the principal amount borrowed down the road. Plus, if interest rates are at rock bottom, who’s going to lend money with no chance to get anything in return for it? The problem with government accumulation of debt versus private accumulation of debt is easily explained through the concept of utility. If you take out a loan to buy a car, for example, you commit to paying the bank every month and you still get to use the vehicle to perform necessities such as getting to work or going to the grocery store. It has value, and slowly depreciates. Similarly, when you pay your mortgage, you get to live in your house (and receive tax write-offs). The house typically adds value/equity as well. The government “invests” in things like buildings and military jets and other assorted “stuff” that will hold value. But it also makes transfer payments to people through entitlement programs, pay checks and pensions for employees and, in probably the most glaring example, healthcare expenditures. That’s money that’s spent once and won’t benefit anyone except the recipients -- and they’ll be expecting another check next month, too. Add in the vast amount of waste, fraud and abuse that plague government at all levels and there’s no rhyme nor reason for government to spend more, particularly with Biden and the Democrats at the helm. Does anyone seriously believe the federal government will get good value for its money on bureaucratic programs to combat “climate change” -- or to provide daycare for everyone who wants it? Does society win when government pays for universal college education? Where’s the return on investment? Then there are Biden’s proposals to impose a mandatory $15-an-hour minimum wage, a policy that will gut restaurants and small businesses that provide start-up jobs for teenagers or those entering the workforce. What business owner would pay someone that kind of wage to sweep floors or take food orders when you can automate and write the equipment off your taxes? The non-monetary benefits derived from teaching people to work and be productive aren’t quantifiable. Just ask Senator Tim Scott how a business owner mentor can change your life. But not in Democrat-land, where there’s a politician waiting around every corner with a bag full of Monopoly money ready to distribute to those with outstretched hands. There’s no justifying Joe Biden’s spending plans no matter how low interest rates go. You won’t see it on the news, but Bernie Sanders is pushing Biden hard to the left It's no secret that the establishment media is bending over backwards -- and sideways and upside down -- to portray Grampa Joe Biden as a “moderate.” Anyone who believes that, well, probably still tells two friends about the greatness of Faberge shampoo. At any rate, lefty loon Bernie Sanders thinks Biden’s losing his grip on the kook fringe base of the Democrat party and needs to pander more to his goodie-grabbing socialist followers. Tal Axelrod reported at The Hill, “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is pushing Joe Biden’s presidential campaign to expand its appeal to liberal voters and boost its focus on kitchen table issues in the final sprint to Election Day. “Sanders, a progressive leader and former 2020 presidential candidate, has been advocating for Biden to put a greater emphasis on issues such as workers' wages and health care coverage, a former campaign aide says. “The Vermont senator ‘is working as hard as he can to help Joe Biden win the most important election in modern American history’ but has said there are areas he thinks the former vice president's campaign can ‘continue to improve upon,’ Faiz Shakir, the senator’s former campaign manager, said in a statement.” Well, it seems clear to any rational observer that Biden has already promised the kitchen sink to pretty much everyone. The Bern’s simply trying to get Biden to come out and concede that he’s as liberal/leftist as the rest of ‘em. Axelrod’s report rather humorously suggested some Democrats think he needs to embrace Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to bring more Bernie bros into the fold. Who knows? The Democrat base is pretty busy these days. They’re out on the streets with megaphones “protesting” racial injustice and “raising awareness” of something or other. Clearly they’ve been telling two friends about their plans, and they tell two friends, and so on, and so on, and so on… Joe Biden just needs to promise the moon to get them to march with him. 2020 Election Joe Biden Media Donald Trump Kamala Harris Economy COVID-19 coronavirus Trump administration response Bernie Sanders

Sen. Ted Cruz has launched a devastating new video series – titled “The Biden Express is Headed Left” – highlighting the true driving forces behind the top of the Democrat ticket this year. As Sen. Cruz recently said: “If the Democrats win, you are looking at Bernie in ascension. You’re looking at AOC. Mark my words, Elizabeth Warren as Treasury Secretary. Bernie might be Secretary of State. These are radicals and that’s where the Democratic party is. I don’t think that’s where the American people are.” "The Democrats today are the party of the rich. They're the party of coastal elites. They're the party of Manhattan and San Francisco. Kamala Harris was a bold move to lock down the vote in San Francisco. And that's who they are trying to appeal to, is the radical left. When it comes to working men and women, when it comes to union members, when it comes to the Ohio steelworker, they were nowhere to be found." The first edition of the new series exposes on some of the deeply controversial and Socialist positions of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a potential pick for Secretary of State by the former Vice President. WATCH: The Biden Express is Headed Left—Bernie Sanders for Secretary of State in Joe Biden’s Cabinet There are few Cabinet posts more consequential than Secretary of State. Since Bernie Sanders has made his radical foreign policy a hallmark of his presidential runs, he would undoubtedly bring his Socialist sympathies to Foggy Bottom. Not only would a Sanders State Department praise brutal dictators and decline to recognize legitimate leaders in nations like Venezuela, it would also be hostile towards our ally, Israel. Earlier this year, Sanders received an endorsement from the anti-Israeli-occupation group “IfNotNow” and told the New York Times he would condition aid to Israel. He also stated that he would not tighten sanctions on North Korea and criticized the killing of Iranian Terror leader Qassim Suleimani, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. On China, Bernie Sanders has claimed that Mao’s China had “democracy ‘on the local level,’” and recently stated that the current Chinese regime has, “made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they’ve done a lot of things for their people.” Bottom Line: Bernie Sanders as an emboldened Secretary of State in a Biden administration would have very real consequences for American national security and the security of our allies. With adversaries around the world seeking to undermine the United States, placing Bernie Sanders at the helm of foreign policy would reverse course on the significant progress made under President Trump, abandoning our allies while empowering our enemies. "Every four years people say this is the most important election of our lifetime. I've never seen an election like this. I think our country has gone, too many people in our country, have gone crazy. To see rioting in the streets, to see 51 million people having lost their jobs. I think if the Democrats win, if we wake up in January with a Biden, Schumer, Pelosi government, the damage they will do to this country in two years will exceed everything done by Barack Obama in eight years,” Senator Cruz recently told Laura Ingraham, and he was right. Be on the lookout for more Cruz videos on Joe Biden’s radical Cabinet contenders in the weeks ahead. 2020 Election Ted Cruz Video Series The Biden Express is Headed Left Joe Biden Kamala Harris Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Secretary of State Israel

Anyone who follows the growing evidence that Democrats and the Far Left plan an insurrection, not an election, will eventually come across a post on social media that says something like, “bring it on, conservatives and MAGA supporters have all the guns.” And while it is true that there’s plenty of evidence that the vast majority of gun owners support President Trump, and the traditional American view of constitutional liberty under God’s laws, it is certainly not true that “conservatives have all the guns.” Leftist gun clubs have been on the rise, and organizations like the Socialist Rifle Association, Huey P. Newton Gun Club, Trigger Warning Queer & Trans Gun Club, Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club and other chapters of the John Brown Gun Club have successfully trained and armed radical Leftists. According to the Daily Beast, in Seattle, John Brown Gun Club members have generally been showing up on an individual basis, rather than as part of a coordinated campaign. However, the group was tapped to provide a security escort for “some very prominent black voices” who were doing speeches at the now defunct Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. And these armed Leftists are not just limited to the radical urban areas of the west coast. Mawa Iqbal, reporting for flatlandkc.org, says the mid-Missouri chapter of the John Brown Gun Club, which styles itself as an armed, left-leaning social justice group is based in Columbia, Missouri. Unlike most left-leaning groups, though, gun ownership is central to its strategy. The mid-Missouri chapter of the John Brown Gun Club was founded in August 2017 in response to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, and long-predates the 2020 riots. The Russell, Kansas John Brown Gun Club went live in late June of 2020 and now counts 33 members. They have since co-organized a Black Lives Matter rally with about 75 people in attendance and organized multiple range days for members to practice using their firearms. But all of this testosterone-fueled firearms talk on the Far Left belies the reality of how Democrats and their Far Left allies plan to oust President Donald Trump when he wins reelection. In his “It’s the Ballgame” memo to the conservative movement, CHQ Chairman Richard A Viguerie made the case that the future of our constitutional republic hangs in the balance in the 2020 election. In his article “America Slides into a New Civil War” David Franke reviewed today’s political situation and made the case that a pent-up political bubble has burst and revolution in the form of civil war has come to America, and in “Unconventional Warfare – The Democrat Plan To Oust Trump” we outlined the likely initial Phase Lines and tactics the Left will use in that civil war. None of those articles suggest that the Left is going to shoot it out in the streets with the US military or conservative defenders of the existing constitutional order. As we see it, the Left will use extra-constitutional assaults on the election process and massive civil unrest to intimidate weak decisionmakers, like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, into bending to their will. “Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide” from our friends at www.unconstrainedanalytics.org assembles information from experienced and proven analysts on intelligence, crime, politics, revolutionary warfare, history, survival, and trauma medicine to provide citizens with information on how to assess and mitigate their risk during the violence expected in the aftermath of Election Day. “Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide” will equip you with many important tools for the work and dangers ahead, but perhaps the book’s most important contribution to surviving and defeating the coming revolutionary unrest is in the Chapter 2 analysis of the current situation which explains who constitutes the enemy in this civil war. As the authors explain, it is not just BLM, ANTIFA or criminal gangs, we are under attack by an ‘insurgency syndicate’ employing unconventional warfare tactics. And this North American Insurgency Syndicate (NAIS) is currently gaining strength and they are on the offensive. You can read a first hand account of the effectiveness of NAIS command and control through this link. You can also read a first hand account of how it was operationalized against a conservative citizen journalist in the recent BLM action in Georgetown, DC through this link. The point of this chapter-length analysis is to increase your “situational awareness.” The book describes the current situation in the United States – that we are at a critical point where the NAIS is successfully exploiting a national emergency to rapidly gain strength. The authors provide a synopsis of the various and disparate insurgent organizations and movements that are involved in direct-action violence, harassment, agitation, and social media attacks. Then the authors explore the syndicate structure. At the tactical level, the NAIS relies upon self-organizing groups of insurgents united for insurrection. The syndicate, waging unconventional warfare with new and innovative tactics, intends to change or overthrow the government. Once one absorbs all this information, the armed patriot is left with this troubling question: Who is there to fight? If you are in Portland, Seattle, LA or one of the other cancerous lesions on our polity governed by Democrats you might certainly find it necessary to defend your life, your family or your home. But what if the Left turns out a million people to riot in front of the Supreme Court, and you live in East Overshoe, Ohio where everything is absolutely normal the day after the election? Conservatives, MAGA patriots and people who just want to maintain the existing constitutional order may have the vast majority of the guns, but what is inescapably apparent is that the Left’s ‘insurgency syndicate’ has an effective system of command and control of their forces, and patriots have little to none. Leaving us to ask our fellow armed patriots, who is in charge of the counter-revolution, and how do you plan to get in touch with them? CHQ Editor George Rasley is a certified rifle and pistol instructor, a Glock ® certified pistol armorer and a veteran of over 300 political campaigns, including every Republican presidential campaign from 1976 to 2008. He served as lead advance representative for Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 and has served as a staff member, consultant, or advance representative for some of America's most recognized conservative Republican political figures, including President Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. He served in policy and communications positions on the House and Senate staff, and during the George H.W. Bush administration he served on the White House staff of Vice President Dan Quayle. 2020 Election insurrection gun owners Second Amendment Socialist Rifle Association Huey P. Newton Gun Club Trigger Warning Queer & Trans Gun Club Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club Black Lives Matter Antifa civil war North American Insurgency Syndicate (NAIS)

According to the Washington Post, failed billionaire Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who spent hundreds of millions on his failed 2020 Democratic presidential bid before dropping out, plans to spend at least $100 million in Florida to help Democrat Joe Biden's campaign against President Donald Trump. Reports Sunday from multiple media outlets say the failed Democrat presidential candidate made his decision last week after news reports that President Trump was considering spending up to $100 million of his own cash in his adopted state, the newspaper said. "Voting starts on Sept. 24 in Florida so the need to inject real capital in that state quickly is an urgent need," Bloomberg adviser Kevin Sheekey told the Post. "Mike believes that by investing in Florida it will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states, in particular the state of Pennsylvania." The New York Times last week reported that Trump’s initial financial supremacy over former Vice President Biden earlier this year had evaporated, and that of the $1.1 billion his campaign and the party raised from the beginning of 2019 through July, more than $800 million already had been spent. According to the latest NBC News/Marist poll President Trump and Biden are deadlocked in the battleground of Florida, with ballots being mailed to state voters later this month. Trump and Biden both get the support of 48 percent of likely voters, with the president ahead among Latinos in the state, and Biden doing better with seniors than Hillary Clinton did four years ago. Among a wider universe of all registered voters, it’s Trump 48 percent, Biden 47 percent. A new AARP public opinion survey also shows Joe Biden and President Donald Trump are locked in a tight contest among likely Florida voters in Florida. While Biden leads Trump 48 percent to 46 percent among all Sunshine State voters, Trump has opened a 50 percent to 47 percent margin over Biden among voters age 50 and older, the crucial demographic in Florida. The survey also found that the majority of Floridians (63 percent) will cast their ballot either by mail or by voting early in person. One-third of those polled said they will go to a polling place on Election Day. The AARP is not particularly friendly to Republicans, so overall, the AARP poll is good news for the Trump campaign and the future of constitutional liberty, but there is reason for great concern as well. The survey also found that the majority of Floridians (63 percent) will cast their ballot either by mail or by voting early in person and at present the Democrats hold a huge advantage in Florida mail-in ballots. Jacob Ogles, reporting for Florida Politics, says Democrats in Florida are ahead of Republicans by over 700,000 mail ballot requests for the November 3 presidential election. The Florida Democratic Party announced Friday that more than 2.22 million Democrats registered to vote by mail. That expands their enrollment advantage to 717,000 over Republicans. The gap between Democrat and Republican requests grew substantially in August reported Mr. Ogles. The state party announced at the end of July it enjoyed an edge of half a million voter enrollments. The gap over Republicans has grown roughly 40% in the intervening weeks. Of course, noted Mr. Ogles, requesting ballots isn’t the same as voting. In 2016, more Democrats asked for ballots than GOP voters and Republican Donald Trump won Florida over Democrat Hillary Clinton by almost 113,000 votes. That enrollment lead, though, was far more modest, with only around 8,800 more Democrats requesting ballots than Republicans. Florida Democrats enjoyed a greater advantage in 2018, with around 50,000 more enrollments, but still narrowly lost statewide races for Senate and Governor observed Mr. Ogles. Democrats see the exponentially higher number of mail enrollments as a solid sign in the battle to win Florida’s 29 electoral votes for Democrat Joe Biden in November. “Democrats saw significant increases in vote by mail turnout in the August primary and we are ready to keep our foot on the gas going into November,” Terrie Rizzo, Florida Democratic Party chair said according to Mr. Ogles reporting. “Democrats are committed to getting out the vote and electing Joe Biden and Democrats all across Florida this election.” The significant difference in mail ballot requests less than 60 days from the election is of great concern, given the results of the AARP poll which indicates 63 percent of Florida voters will vote absentee and the potential impact of Bloomberg’s $100 million commitment to boost Biden’s campaign in Florida. Click this link to learn more about the Republican Party of Florida's campaign activities. 2020 Election Michael Bloomberg Florida Pennsylvania mail-in ballots early voting ballot requests GOTV

Trump Supreme Court nominee list could play crucial role -- again -- in the 2020 election If there’s one thing that could potentially rival the nastiness of the leftist freak-out (regardless of outcome) after this year’s presidential election, it’s the confirmation proceedings for the next Supreme Court nominee. Or should I qualify it -- if that person is appointed by President Donald J. Trump. Assuming that everything stays the same until Election Day passes and Inauguration Day 2021 arrives, the next president will likely face a monumental choice early in his term. Much has been made of President Trump’s recent release of additional names he would consider for a high-court appointment, bolstering an already impressive list of Constitution-revering jurists that the then-candidate introduced to much fanfare in 2016. Exit polls revealed that Trump’s willingness to specify beforehand who he would select -- and then keep his promise during his two vacancies -- is likely to carry a great deal of weight again this year. Liberals are more energized on the topic than they were four years ago, though in all honesty, what issue are they not animated about when it comes to defeating Trump this year? Both parties are maneuvering to make judicial appointments a key decider in people’s minds, though the Biden camp isn’t producing its own schedule of contenders. Susan Crabtree reported at Real Clear Politics, “Four years ago, Trump took the unusual step of pledging to choose his Supreme Court nominees from a roster vetted and compiled by Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to the campaign on the courts while he was on leave from the Federalist Society. The move assured Republicans wary of how Trump would govern that a vote for him would help tilt the court to the right. The move was risky and unprecedented, but 2016 Election Day exit polls showed it paid off, with one out of every five voters saying that the makeup of the Supreme Court was their top issue. Trump ended up winning 57% of those voters. “The president’s expanded list includes three sitting GOP senators – Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri — as well as several lawyers who have worked in the current administration and for previous Republican presidents, including former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco and fellow former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who worked under President George W. Bush.” Seeing as I’m unfamiliar with most of the names on Trump’s list, it’s best to start with the senators the president highlighted. All three are either rising stars (Cotton and Hawley) or veterans (Cruz, Mike Lee) that the conservative grassroots would instantly recognize and back without hesitation. It should be noted that Hawley immediately took his name out of consideration by saying he intended to stay in the upper chamber. Cotton tweeted it was time for Roe v. Wade to go, a statement that will certainly be brought up if the Arkansan is indeed nominated at some point. Both Hawley and Cotton are often mentioned as probable 2024 GOP presidential candidates, so it was surprising to see Trump single them out as possibilities ahead of time. Hawley could change his mind, though perhaps he prefers politics to the solitary life of a Supreme Court justice. It’s always strange to see how nominees become the center of intense national scrutiny for a month or two during the senate’s deliberations on their qualifications… and everything else in their lives… but then virtually disappear from public view once they don the black robe. Brett Kavanaugh became a household name two years ago this time, largely because Democrat senators went so over-the-top in trying to derail his nomination. The list of liberal inquisitors was long, including Biden running mate Kamala Harris. The freshman California senator confirmed many folks’ speculation that she was basically using the process and exposure as a launch platform for her political ambitions. Joining Harris in making a spectacle of herself were senators and 2020 candidates Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar. All three made no pretense of even considering voting yes on Kavanaugh’s nomination. It was a total farce. Democrats spewed all sorts of venom about “believing survivors” and “character counts,” even when the allegations (from Christine Blasey Ford) were the result of foggy memories, no corroborating witnesses and liberal lawyers pressing the woman to take her story public. Senator Lindsey Graham ingratiated himself with conservatives with his impassioned defense of Kavanaugh. Considering Graham’s career-long wishy-washy reputation, he became a hero to many in an instant. As far as Ted Cruz -- and Mike Lee -- are concerned, it’s hard to imagine Trump going with the former. Cruz is imminently qualified for the position and would likely go down in history as an Antonin Scalia-like defender of originalism and the plain language of the Constitution (which I believe he’s memorized word-for-word), but he’d also be a lightning rod for controversy during his confirmation -- and afterwards. Perhaps equaled only by Trump himself, Cruz is a conservative that liberals love to hate. It’s easy to envision the Texas senator battling every single Democrat on the panel. The TV fireworks show would be fun to watch but I’m not sure it would be good for the country. Needless to say, Democrats would milk Trump’s nickname for Cruz (Lyin’ Ted) for all it’s worth, as well as Cruz’s end-of-campaign comments about the president himself. They’d try to make it more about Trump than examining cases and controversies and interpreting the Constitution. I don’t think Trump would choose this avenue. For a long time I’ve thought that Senator Mike Lee is Trump’s Supreme Court wildcard, the one human being in existence who might be able to earn a Democrat confirmation vote or two because of his years and relationships in the senate. It’s hard to remember now, but Lee was a tepid at best Trump supporter in the lead-up to the 2016 election, so no Democrat could legitimately argue he’d be in the president’s pocket. Further, Lee’s mild-mannered everyman personality would be very difficult to assail as lacking the “temperament” to be a justice (this would be a major bone of contention if Cruz were at issue). In addition, Lee has never hinted at desiring to run for president, so it’s probable he’d view a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court as the culmination of his career. His legislative record is solidly conservative and he’s even earned a reputation for “bipartisanship” that would counteract the more offensive attempts at ideological character assassination. For these reasons, Lee could be the only one who’d have a chance to be confirmed in an environment that would prove impossible to navigate for any “normal” candidate. Here’s thinking Trump is saving a Lee nomination for if/when 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or 82-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer steps down (or if a vacancy is created by other means). Ginsburg and Breyer are hardcore liberals and losing their vote in key cases would definitely tip the court’s ideological balance. Even if Lee were narrowly confirmed, his opponents would be less likely to permanently besmirch his reputation. Who knows, they might even spare his family from a public undressing. Should 72-year-old Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito decide to leave the Court, Trump could fill their openings with someone considered a little more “controversial,” since it would be replacing a conservative with another conservative. Leading candidates from Trump’s “old” list are Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Barrett in particular seems to be the next in line since she was widely rumored to be a finalist for Kavanaugh’s seat. Democrats tried desperately to stop her nomination (to the 7th Circuit) in mid-2017, primarily because of her Catholic faith (and therefore an enemy of Roe v. Wade, right?) and the fact she’s not a crusading liberal academic who judges constitutionality based on her feelings or what day of the week it is. Senator Dianne Feinstein said of Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern.” To whom, DiFi? For those reasons and others -- like the fact Barrett appears to be the polar opposite of bra burning, traditional gender role rejecting, abortion on demand crusading feminists -- she probably could not be confirmed with a Democrat majority (if it happens). Maybe not even with a 50-50 tie and Vice President Mike Pence casting the tie-breaking vote. We’ll have to see on this one. Where’s your potential Supreme Court nominee list, Grampa Joe? At the same time the media was picking over President Trump’s latest potential Justice-to-be(s), many were wondering where Democrat nominee Joe Biden’s list is found. According to Crabtree’s article, the Biden campaign didn’t respond to requests to elaborate. Which means one, there is no such list, or two, the document does exist but the Democrats are terrified of releasing it. While the first explanation is certainly plausible, the second one is the more likely one. Grampa Joe’s handlers probably figure their candidate wouldn’t be able to remember the person’s name much less where he or she is from, his or her qualifications and what the appointee stands for. Liberals are so simple in this respect; all they need to do is pick someone who loves abortion and making up rights from the bench and they’re in! During the primary campaign Biden mentioned that he absolutely would use protecting abortion as a “litmus test” for his nominees, a hypocritical contention if there ever was one. Liberals expect conservatives to tuck their personal views beneath the seat cushion of their office chairs but they won’t shrink from asking any “progressive” candidate under review whether they’ll prejudge an abortion case! Joe: “Hello, candidate z, I’ve only got one thing to ask you. Can you assure me that the 60-million and counting babies aborted since Roe will increase under your watch?” Candidate z: “Oh yes, Joe! I totally believe in a woman’s right to abort up until -- and maybe after -- the moment of birth. I personally loved it when Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said that a woman and her doctor would have a ‘conversation’ deciding the infant’s fate if an abortion goes wrong. The kid would be kept comfortable, right? I don’t find it ghoulish at all! Send me before the senate -- they’ll love me! Believe all women! Rah! Rah! Rah!” It could happen. But here’s also speculating that Biden promised a Supreme Court seat to Amy Klobuchar for her early endorsement after the Minnesotan left the primary race or for gracefully bowing out of his veepstakes when it became apparent to everyone that he couldn’t choose a female with pale skin in today’s all-racism-all-the-time environment. Or it could be he’s saving the appointment for a black woman -- we all know how race conscious he is. Can someone get Maxine Waters on speed dial? Kamala Harris takes the lead as the public face for the Biden/Harris ticket It's certainly no surprise that Joe Biden hasn’t released his completed judge nominee assignment because he’s still cowering in his basement for the most part. Despite reassuring people that he would conduct a rigorous post Labor Day campaign, the Democrat standard bearer is leaving it up to sidekick Kamala Harris to bear most of the load. Naomi Lim reported at The Washington Examiner, “When Biden, the two-term vice president, named Harris as his understudy in August, she was set to model her role on Vice President Mike Pence's in President Trump's reelection bid, traveling the country more widely than the top of the ticket. “Yet after Biden, unburdened by the demands of the White House, promised to build more trips into his public itinerary post-Labor Day, parallels will now be drawn between not only Trump but Harris. “For Democratic strategist Mike Nellis, a senior adviser to Harris during the primary, Biden's 77 years of age was an issue, explaining Delaware's 36-year senator's reliance on the six-year California state attorney general, 55, particularly for minority outreach.” There they go again, the overt play to identity politics. It’s the worst kept secret in the whole world that Harris was chosen because of what she is rather than who she is. The obnoxious Kavanaugh-bashing California senator was much more acceptable to wokesters than pale-as-a-ghost Liz “Pocahontas” Warren would’ve been -- though they’re both equally ferocious -- so there never was any real indecision there. If you think about it, Harris probably had her choice of Biden appointments. If she didn’t want the veep slot she could’ve held out for being his first Supreme Court nominee, right? Or who knows, she endorsed Joe pretty early, too -- maybe she was promised the Secretary of State’s position on the spot! Talk about punching your own ticket! Kamala knows how to get favors from older men, doesn’t she? What’s Willie Brown doing these days? Having Harris do the in-person campaigning will almost certainly backfire on poor ol’ Grampa Joe. Democrat primary voters didn’t like her, remember? She dropped out of the race two months before the Iowa caucuses. If she’s such a great campaigner, then… isn’t anyone going to ask the question? President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee list -- and Joe Biden’s lack of one -- will definitely impact this year’s election, just as it did in 2016. Trump knows he’s got plenty of qualified candidates to select from, while Biden cowers from naming someone who might aggravate one of his interest groups. It’s hard being a Democrat -- you can’t pacify everyone. Joe Biden Donald Trump 2020 Election Supreme Court nominee list 2016 Election Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Sen. Tom Cotton Sen. Josh Hawley Sen. Ted Cruz Sen. Mike Lee Senate Confirmation 2020 polls Kamala Harris campaigning Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer

The New York Post's Ebony Bowden reminded us in an article you read through this link just what a despicable piece of human trash Joe Biden really is. And how the establishment media has covered for him with the “that’s just Joe” smokescreen. As Ms. Bowden documented in her article, Biden for years falsely claimed in interviews that he predicted the 9/11 terror attacks and a possible strike on the White House in a speech delivered the day before terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers. On Sept. 10, 2001, the then-senator from Delaware gave a foreign policy speech at Washington, DC’s National Press Club in which he complained about the Bush administration’s spending on a missile defense system, warning that an anthrax or other biological attack was more likely. “The real threat comes to this country in the hold of a ship, the belly of a plane, or smuggled into a city in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack,” Biden said. But when al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four planes the following morning and killed 2,977 Americans, Biden began claiming he predicted the attack. He did no such thing, wrote Ms. Bowden. During the hour-long speech, Biden mentioned terrorism only three times — twice in reference to biological terrorism. But in an interview with ABC News just hours after the Twin Towers fell, Biden, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he warned that planes could be hijacked and flown into buildings like the White House. “Literally as recently as yesterday, I spoke to the National Press Club and talked about the fact that it is just as easy to fly from National Airport into the White House as it is to, you know, do the same thing in New York,” Biden said. He repeated this claim for years, boasting that he “warned about a massive attack on the United States of America from terrorists,” and that he “wasn’t clairvoyant” but “knew what everybody else knew.” And as Ms. Bowden documented Biden even repeated the disgusting self-promotional lie in remarks on the Senate floor delivered in 2006. Not only was Biden lying about predicting 9/11, but post 9/11 he has never identified who the “terrorists” are and what ideology motivated them, indeed he has consistently opposed naming Islamism as the reason for 9/11 and run cover for Islamists here in America and Islamist regimes abroad, such as 9/11 coconspirator Iran. Moreover, Biden has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and other Muslim terrorist apologists and promoted the fallacious narrative that immigration from Jihadist hotspots carries no threat to the United States. "I will end the Muslim ban on day one," Biden told attendees of the Million Muslim Votes Summit, an online conference hosted by the nation's largest Muslim-American political group. "Day one. And I will work with Congress to pass hate crimes legislation like the Jabara-Heyer No Hate Act and the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act." "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said of Biden. And just like Biden isn’t done lying about his prediction of 9/11 attack, and excusing and covering for the many Muslim plots and attacks perpetrated here since, he isn’t done being wrong about the foreign policy and national security threat Islamism presents to constitutional liberty and Western Civilization. As events since 9/11/2001 have shown, the war isn’t over there, it is right here, and it shows no sign of abating because politicians like Joe Biden continue to bring its soldiers into our country. Since September 11, 2001 more than 3 million Muslims have been allowed into our country and the number of radicalizing mosques and Islamist Imams – many funded by the Islamist sympathizing governments of Turkey, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia – has risen accordingly. Democrat politicians like Joe Biden refuse to acknowledge that Islamism – not “terrorism” – is the ideology behind 9/11, and establishment Republicans cower under their desks when anyone speaks the truth about Islamism, lest they be accused of Islamophobia. The only national leader who has consistently shown that he understands that the war Islam declared on the West is still hot is President Donald J. Trump. There is only one candidate in this election who will protect our homeland from another 9/11 level Islamist attack – vote Donald J. Trump for President. George Rasley, editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com,has lived, worked and traveled extensively throughout the Muslim world.A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for Rep. Mac Thornberry former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He was at his desk in the Cannon House Office building when the U.S. Capitol complex was evacuated on September 11, 2001. 2020 Election 9/11 Attacks Joe Biden Muslim terrorists national security Islamism jihad President Donald Trump travel ban media biological terrorism Muslim Brotherhood CAIR immigration Million Muslim Votes Summit Jabara-Heyer No Hate Act End Racial and Religious Profiling Act

Nothing quite sums up the danger presented by today’s concentration of power in a few social media platforms and the search engine Google than a recent statement by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that “If one of the candidates, in any of the races, claims victory before there’s a consensus result, then we’re going to add some informational context to that post directly, saying that there’s no consensus result yet.” We’ve been around politics a long time and we’ve never heard the term “consensus result” before – either your candidate has the most votes and is the winner or he or she is the loser, that’s the whole point of an election. Zuckerberg seems to think that math – that is counting – is something subject to media company consensus; does two and two equal four? “Let me poll my colleagues in the media on that” says Zuckerberg for all intents and purposes. But the scariest thing Zuckerberg said in his soliloquy on Axios on HBO was this, “One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people… That there’s nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted, in fact, that may be important to be sure that this is a legitimate and fair election.” CHQ translation: Zuckerberg is preparing the information battlespace for the Democrats’ plan to litigate their way into the White House, even if they lose the count of the legal ballots cast by legally registered voters. Zuckerberg went on to say that “civil unrest” may occur between the time voting ends and the election is decided, or even after the official results are announced. “I think that this is important because there is unfortunately, I think a heightened risk of civil unrest in the period between voting and a result being called or after that,” Zuckerberg observed. “I just think that we need to be doing everything we can to reduce the chances of violence or civil unrest in the wake of this election.” Zuckerberg went on to explain, “We’re trying to make sure that we do our part that none of this is organized on Facebook, we want to make sure none of that stuff is happening on our services… But you know, the country is very charged right now, so I think regardless of what we do, there’s some chance that this happens across the country.” What Zuckerberg might define as “civil unrest” after the election is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for sure, it will not be interpreted to prohibit the Far Left from organizing riots when Donald Trump wins a second term. And his statement is even more interesting given that Mr. Zuckerberg and his company have done next to nothing to curb the violence generated by ANTIFA, that began in Portland, Oregon the day after the 2016 election and has been going on for almost four years, and the violence generated by BLM, that has broken out with regularity ever since the Michael Brown shooting in 2014, both terrorist organizations maintain a robust presence on Facebook. In a blog post reported by Wired, Zuckerberg went even further in outlining his plans to manipulate the 2020 election, which include a new Voting Information Center and plans to censor candidate communications in the last week of the election. According to Gilad Edelman, Wired's politics writer, Zuckerberg claims the censorship is justified because “in the final days of an election there may not be enough time to contest new claims.” The move drew howls from campaign operatives across the political spectrum, Edelman reported. They complained that political ads are in fact their best tool for contesting false information online. The ban on new ads, they argue, will keep them from responding to any fresh organic disinformation put out on the platform right before the election. Eric Wilson, a Republican digital strategist, said that in 2017 he was working for a primary campaign and complained to Facebook about false information being spread by the opponent. “Their advice to us was, ‘Run ads to tell your side of the story,’” he said. “That’s what’s so infuriating about this. Disinformation spreads farther and faster than the facts. And so paid advertising is the only way to counteract that effect and supplement the reach.” Loren Merchan, a Democratic strategist, said that the problem is particularly acute for lower-profile campaigns. “Trump might get coverage when he attacks a down-ballot candidate because he’s Trump, but then the down-ballot candidate and their counter-information doesn’t get the same coverage,” she said. The way we see it Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance on Axios and his blog post are the two best reasons we have seen for a lawsuit by a campaign or the government claiming that Facebook has pierced the veil of Section 230 and has become a de facto publisher and should forfeit the liability protections afforded to “platforms.”We urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Senators to urge them to co-sponsor Sen. Josh Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” and the “Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act.” The toll-free Capitol switchboard is (1-866-220-0044), call today. 2020 Election Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Political ads civil unrest censorship lawsuits Google consensus result riots Donald Trump Antifa Black Lives Matter Voting Information Center disinformation Section 230 publishers Josh Hawley Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act

Soul searching to rediscover the real America post 9/11. Is it still out there? Are you better off than you were nineteen years ago? It's a question you don’t hear much from politicians these days, especially those solely preoccupied with turning the current Chinese Communist Party (CCP, or Wuhan, if you prefer) virus pandemic into an all-consuming enemy that threatens to bring down the nation unless every last ounce of America’s full faith and credit is expended to combat the invisible menace. Of course, nineteen years ago today our country was attacked by a different kind of silent killer that few foresaw or thought to combat. And the country has never been the same since. It's difficult to pinpoint the exact moment where American’s proverbial train jumped its track. Liberals would no doubt place the blame for today’s gaping divide on Donald Trump, Republicans, conservatives and anyone else who’s thus far resisted the “woke” totalitarian thought dictates of recent history. It’s hard to remember back to September 10, 2001 and recall a nation that was still recovering from the contentious and angry 2000 election. George W. Bush took the oath of office earlier that year but it’s safe to say many remained ticked off that the Supreme Court declared that the boundless Florida recount must conclude. To this day there are probably millions of Democrats who believe Al Gore was legitimately elected back then, and, if this were the case, America would be a different place today. Gore’s obsession with all-things-climate-change (or global warming, as it was referred to at the time) certainly would’ve resulted in much more environmental regulatory restrictions. And would the Iraq War have taken place on Gore’s watch? Would Barack Obama have risen to prominence? Or Donald Trump? We can only speculate. For now, America is reeling from months of cultural impacts potentially more destructive than those that destroyed the World Trade Center’s twin towers and one section of the Pentagon on that fateful day nineteen years ago. Not even the jihadis who hijacked the four airliners could’ve predicted the events of 2020. The minions of al Qaeda managed to end the lives of a few thousand innocents on 9/11/01 and inflict billions in physical property damage. But the challenges we face today are potentially much more harmful, because they imperil the belief system and institutions that made America what it is… or was. Everywhere you look we see Americans surrendering to the notion that our country has always been racist and based on a lie -- and that citizens need to be reeducated to expunge the bias and “hate” they never realized they harbored. The plague has reached deep into corporate America, and we’re not talking about the CCP virus here. Roger L. Simon wrote at The Epoch Times, “Despite being so overt, with the help of the mainstream media and other conscious/unconscious fellow travelers, BLM, almost in the communist front tradition of the 1930s, has succeeded in obfuscating their goals beneath a welter of self-satisfied moral narcissism. “But Marxism, of course, aims to overthrow the capitalist system. That would naturally include companies like American Airlines and Delta Airlines, which apparently is preparing a similar lapel pin. Indeed, BLM has been welcomed throughout corporate America whose leadership is terrified of being branded as racist. It’s almost as if they wished for their own demise. “And corporate America is, as we know, not alone. BLM and its allies, including the mega-violent antifa, have done a brilliant job of hiding the football (how appropriate), enlisting many sports stars and entertainment celebrities in their support.” In his piece, Simon referred to a recent decision by American Airlines management to permit its employees to wear pins showing support for Black Lives Matter. Just when a lot of folks figured they could escape the thought-controllers by turning off major professional sports or antagonistic media, now if you take a flight on the above mentioned airlines, there could easily be more paraphernalia reminding you that the Marxist indoctrinators are coming for you. Of course it doesn’t end there. The other day ESPN ran an interview with Houston Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson where the African-American signal caller indicated he is “done holding back” and said he and other black players at the position were singled out for special scrutiny and condemnation because of their race. This coming after a black quarterback was named league MVP last season (Lamar Jackson) and another one (Patrick Mahomes) piloted his team to a Super Bowl win. Meanwhile, Watson just signed a contract extension worth $160 million over four years. Sheesh. These guys are sure being discriminated against, aren’t they? Should pale passer Tom Brady apologize for his skin color after winning what, six league titles? Hollywood celebrities can tweet nonsense about systemic racism and college football TV commentators can blubber like babies in front of the whole world concerning anecdotal stories they hear from colleagues but otherwise know nothing about, but it doesn’t necessarily force anyone to sit there and endure their misguided rantings. Simply get up and walk across the room or go out and do yardwork and the problem is temporarily solved. If you’re stuck in a flying pressurized tube at 38000 feet and the flight crew is right in front of you with Black Lives Matter masks and pins, however, there’s no avoiding it. And it’s not exactly as though you can rebook your flight or choose another less-politically correct carrier. And these BLM promoters won’t stop until you raise your fist and bow down. Or declare your “support” in other ways. Back in June there was “Blackout Day,” which Wikipedia described as an ongoing thing. “Blackout Day is a social media-promoted event in which all supporters of the Black Lives Matter Movement are encouraged to not spend any money for a full day in hopes of attaining attention and resolve to end police brutality and racism towards Black people. It encourages the posting of content that was created by and features black creators. “Specific tags (e.g. #TheBlackout and #BlackoutDay2020) are used to connect users to that content and to increase the visibility of that content. Blackout Day launched on March 6, 2015, and after December 21, 2015, is scheduled to be held on the seventh day of every third month, starting with March 6, 2016.” Seeing as Monday was the seventh day of the third month after June, my kids said they saw lots of “blackout” references on social media. I didn’t know what it was… is this ignorance? No matter, the revolution continues! It’s a one-sided revolution. Imagine the uproar if corporate gurus permitted their workers to sport QAnon symbols or to shave their heads in a manner reminiscent of radical white supremacists. Or put on an arm band similar to the Nazis of twentieth century infamy. How about if conservative airline employees banded together to promote “MAGA” gear? Would half of the plane’s passengers stage a mini-revolt and demand a refund mid-flight? Perhaps the employees would be better off voicing support for the Venezuelan regime or saying nice things about Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin. That is acceptable! Sometimes you just wish these people would look in the mirror and ask themselves, “Do you understand what you’re doing to yourself? Do you seriously expect ‘speaking out’ on this topic to bring you or your community positive results?Are you willing to sacrifice your livelihood to spread the notion that every cop is a racial incident waiting to happen and that every iota of your life’s experience has been wrong? Do you like being told what’s acceptable by people you don’t even know?” What a collection of mind-numbed zombies, cult members who don’t dare defy the orders of their leader. Again, think back to the tragic day on September 11, 2001. After the initial shock and horror subsided a bit, Americans came together under the proud banner of the stars and stripes and vowed to not allow foreign terrorists to dampen the nation’s spirit. As I recall, the authorities ordered planes grounded for a few days and some travelers were effectively trapped in their destinations until “normal” resumed, but no one felt afraid to board a jet bound for someplace within the confines of the U.S.A. Culture felt it, too. The NFL and college football powers-that-be called off the weekend’s games, major league baseball similarly took a brief break as a nod to national mourning and golf’s Ryder Cup competition was postponed for a year. The players felt it wouldn’t be appropriate to carry on with the matches while the nation and world’s mood was focused on something more salient. There was another word to describe what everyone was feeling: unity. Apparently no one remembers now, but there wasn’t a dry eye in the stadium when the New York Yankees took the field after 9/11 and the nation honored the fallen first-responders of the NYPD and NYFD. Or how about Lee Greenwood singing “God Bless the U.S.A.” at the memorial service on September 23, 2001? If you need a visual on what it was like, click on this link. What about when George W. Bush threw the ceremonial first pitch at the World Series that year? Where did the colorblind national gratitude go? What happened to feeling thankful for men and women who would run into burning hundred-story buildings to save you? Or who would willingly face bullets to rescue your children during a break-in? Or would literally give their lives to enforce the law? My kids’ former school was named after Officer Philip Michael Pennington, who gave his life in the line of duty. Are future schools destined to be named after LeBron James? Or any stupid athlete wearing a Black Lives Matter slogan of support? Perhaps the executive at American Airlines who allowed his (or her) employees to visibly support BLM? George Floyd? Rodney King? Jacob Blake? Colin Kaepernick? Michael Brown? Trayvon Martin? Maybe in Joe Biden’s America this would be the new norm. Are we better off than we were nineteen years ago? No chance. I liked it better when everyone loved the country and saluted the flag. That’s what unity is/was made of. Close observers see more than one way to win… for Donald Trump People who long for the post-9/11 unified America can take heart. The presidential candidate who best represents the sensibilities of patriots is on the ballot in November (hint: it’s not the one talking about “systemic racism” and championing the stupid protesters). Supporters see many paths to victory for President Donald Trump. Dave Boyer reported at The Washington Times, “With eight weeks until Election Day, [Trump campaign manager Bill] Stepien and two other top campaign officials offered multiple scenarios for the president to win reelection, based on polling trends. “They range from the landslide projection, in which the president would carry 12 battleground states, to the ‘Southwest strength’ scenario, in which Mr. Trump wins Arizona and Nevada but loses the ‘Rust Belt’ states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. In the latter example, Mr. Trump would win the necessary 270 electoral votes; Mr. Biden would get 268. “There’s also a scenario in which Democrats’ ‘Blue Wall’ collapses, and Mr. Trump would win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, while losing Florida. That projected outcome also would have the president winning 270 electoral votes to Mr. Biden’s 268.” There are probably more than seven scenarios, but it’s great to see the Trump brains planning for every contingency. A landslide would be preferable as it’s probably the only way the left might actually give up on Election Night, though even this is in doubt. Democrats have whipped themselves and their backers into a frenzy with all sorts of conspiracy theories. A razor-thin margin would almost certainly lead to chaos. As is common knowledge by now, Hillary Clinton advised Joe Biden to refuse to concede no matter what. If Trump’s margin of victory is wide, how long would Grampa Joe hover in his basement before giving up the ghost? Would he be akin to a post-WW II Japanese soldier who simply wouldn’t ever accept surrender? If that’s the case, then the Supreme Court might have another crack at determining the outcome. Only this time, even a 9/11/01 type attack wouldn’t unite the country. The left has gone over the cliff. No one in America will look back on September 11, 2001 with fondness, though it’s safe to say many folks long for the good feelings that surfaced after the heinous terrorist attack. With flag burnings, looting, rioting and ongoing leftist Black Lives Matter tributes and protests, unity is virtually unattainable these days. Who can make us a better off in November? Donald Trump 2016 election Democrats Republicans 2020 Election Mike Pence establishment Republicans conservatives 2020 election Joe Biden #BlackLives Matter riots monument defacing defund the police 2020 campaign George Floyd police brutality police reform

In his “It’s the Ballgame” memo to the conservative movement, CHQ Chairman Richard A Viguerie made the case that the future of our constitutional republic hangs in the balance in the 2020 election. In his article “America Slides into a New Civil War” David Franke reviewed today’s political situation and made the case that a pent-up political bubble has burst and revolution in the form of civil war has come to America, and in “Unconventional Warfare – The Democrat Plan To Oust Trump” we outlined the likely initial Phase Lines and tactics the Left will use in that civil war. If those analyses are accurate – and we wouldn’t post them and put our names on them if we didn’t think they are – then what can you, the patriotic American who believes in constitutional liberty and the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do to protect yourself, your family and our country? One answer to that complex question is to download and read “Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide” from our friends at www.unconstrainedanalytics.org and then follow the advice they have assembled from experienced and proven analysts on intelligence, crime, politics, revolutionary warfare, history, survival, and trauma medicine. “Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide” will equip you with many important tools for the work and dangers ahead, but perhaps the book’s most important contribution to surviving and defeating the coming revolutionary unrest is in the Chapter 2 analysis of the current situation which explains who constitutes the enemy in this civil war. As the authors explain, it is not just BLM, ANTIFA or criminal gangs, we are under attack by an ‘insurgency syndicate’ employing unconventional warfare tactics. And this North American Insurgency Syndicate (NAIS) is currently gaining strength and they are on the offensive. The point of this chapter-length analysis is to increase your “situational awareness.” The book describes the current situation in the United States – that we are at a critical point where the NAIS is successfully exploiting a national emergency to rapidly gain strength. The authors provide a synopsis of the various and disparate insurgent organizations and movements that are involved in direct-action violence, harassment, agitation, and social media attacks. Then the authors explore the syndicate structure. At the tactical level, the NAIS relies upon self-organizing groups of insurgents united for insurrection. The syndicate, waging unconventional warfare with new and innovative tactics, intends to change or overthrow the government. At the strategic level, the authors make the case that a clandestine organization has formed. It has built a hidden infrastructure with a shadow government, financial structure, political operations, media outreach, and international engagement. They have infiltrated counter-state, underground operatives into most federal, state and local government institutions. The NAIS is using a determined and effective strategy with a tactical ground fight, unrestricted political warfare, and unmatched information operations. The authors also discuss the support that is required for the NAIS to be successful, and the support they are now receiving. Non-profit, charitable, and other entities are used to distribute funds to the NAIS. This is accomplished by washing money through multiple layers of numerous, geographically dispersed, and legitimate organizations. In addition to domestic funding, the authors also demonstrate that the NAIS is receiving international support. Both China and Russia are involved because they directly benefit from U.S. instability. Even if you disagree with the assessment of the situation presented in Chapter 2 of the book, stay the course; and take a close look at Chapters 3 and 4, you will find valuable information designed to keep you and your loved ones safe and in Chapter 5 is a valuable list of resources to help equip you to navigate the days ahead. You may be tempted to ask yourself if this is real, or just another conspiracy theory. “Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide” lays out the facts and analysis that unmask the insurgency groups – some following communist ideology, some socialist, some anarchy, and some a confusing cocktail of all three ideologies. And the authors explain why this is different from the 1960s student uprisings and why it poses a significantly greater danger. History provides many examples of past insurgent organizations with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology where they fully or partially achieved their end state. These revolutions either overthrew the government, pushed leaders out of office, or forced the government to the negotiation table. In all of those cases, the existing government and its underlying institutions and structure were significantly or fundamentally altered. This is the goal of Democrats and their NAIS allies, and the November 3, 2020 election is merely a Phase Line in that insurrection. This book by Unconstrained Analytics is a guide for all citizens that are concerned with the chaos and violence occurring on the streets of America, regardless of political outlook. Though much of the violence clearly has political intent and purpose, “Insurrection and Violence - A Citizen’s Guide” is not a political tract. The goal of the book is to explain the violence, who is perpetrating it, and give readers information on how to avoid becoming a victim. 2020 Election anarchists anti-government antifa Communists crime Department of Homeland Security Department of Justice Federal Protection Service history Homeland Security Intelligence Million Muslim Votes summit Muslim Brotherhood North American Insurgency Syndicate (NAIS) politics Rep. Karen Bass Revolutionary Communist Party revolutionary warfare Secretary Chad Wolf survival trauma medicine

You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you By show of hands, how many of you took the weekend off from politics? Don’t fudge it, did you intentionally avoid watching any of the news channels during those three days? Only the politically disengaged would truthfully raise their arm towards the heavens -- if indeed there are any such creatures left anymore. In today’s social media interconnected world there’s no escape from the thoughts and opinions of others any longer. While many folks enjoyed the extra day off to go to the beach, play golf and give the backyard grill a good workout, no doubt many others were just as glued to their TVs and the internet as they would be on any normal 24-hour period. As Americans now move past Labor Day and inch ever closer to the fateful 2020 presidential election, some folks continue to struggle with the choice of whether to vote with their heart or their head in the upcoming election. Only a fool would contend that the last four years were full of unity and bliss. Truthfully, those weeks and months have felt more like a never-ending family squabble at the Thanksgiving dinner table, and there’s no way to be excused or simply relocate to another room. The arguments go back-and-forth as people renew their efforts to convince the other side that their candidate is the better one. The hodgepodge wayward Republican conglomeration otherwise known as #NeverTrump has maintained their obstinance during Trump’s four years. Their contentions are old and tired -- and pretty thoroughly disproved -- yet still they insist on pursuing the delusion. Former Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder recently offered his own attempt to steer people away from this year’s GOP presidential candidate. In and op-ed for the USA Today, Snyder wrote, “A great leader treats people with respect even when they present different opinions. Without a variety of views and opinions, we would have no innovation or creativity in our nation. Being a bully and being strong are not the same thing. Being strong is standing up for your convictions. Being a bully is trying to intimidate those who are perceived to be weaker or a threat. As a proud nerd, I had to deal with bullies over many years; it is tragedy watching our world suffer from one.” Hmpf. Maybe the 62-year-old self-confessed “proud nerd” should stop making excuses for his inability to stand up to bullies from his childhood days and get with current reality. The “bully” accusation has followed Trump from the earliest days of his political career (and needless to say, his celebrity one as well). Bolstered by random testimonials from disgruntled former Trump employees (including dispatched White House aides) -- and then beauty queen Alicia Machado in 2016 -- the media fanned the furor over the president’s personality, making him out to be a mean guy who mistreats everyone within shouting distance and carries grudges with practically the entire world. This patently simple -- and false -- explanation belies the fact most of Trump’s “bullying” isn’t persecuting at all. When there’s someone picking a fight with you, there’s no reason anyone should have to sit back and take it. Trump may have a massive ego but he isn’t aggressively antagonistic. A more accurate way to describe his temperament is he’s a counter-puncher. The lifelong real estate developer doesn’t go searching out fights but he doesn’t shrink from them either. In his piece, Snyder mentioned he attended Trump’s inaugural address in 2017, and that “I heard a speech directed at how he would help the people who supported him. And sadly, that is how President Trump continues to govern.” What? I was in Washington that day as well, and I heard Trump promise to battle the entrenched establishment and always put Americans First. The relatively short (in terms of Trump orations) speech reaffirmed many of the points he’d made during the campaign and included the phrase “I will never, ever let you down.” Does this sound like a bully? Trump backers have grown weary of #NeverTrump losers like Snyder, John Kasich and media commentators distorting the truth for their own purposes. Bullying is in the eye of the beholder. And if these waifs have problems with it, go see a school guidance counselor. As has been stated innumerable times, this election isn’t a personality contest -- or at least it shouldn’t be -- and the candidates aren’t competing for the title of Mr. Congeniality. Trump is who he is and based on the accounts of many people at this year’s Republican convention, there are a multitude of Americans willing to stand up for the president and vouch for his character. Besides, do we want a fighter or a flamingo leading the country during these most challenging of days? If you’re involved in a lawsuit with an opposition party bent on taking everything you have based on a bogus complaint or a purposely perverted interpretation of the facts, what qualities would you seek in counsel to represent and defend you? Would you hire an old-boy attorney who made partner fifty years ago solely on his legendary ability to foster relationships and therefore bring clients into the firm? Or would you want someone who’s newer to the scene, smarter than heck and aggressively advances your case? Every morning we’re greeted with a new bout of partisan rancor. Both parties are guilty of excesses and oversteps. No one is willing to say “I’m sorry” much less concede an inch of ground in the battle over the future of the country. Republicans accuse Democrats of seeking to trash traditional America and install a utopian socialistic society where everyone thinks the same and it’s okay to express a divergent view as long as it’s sufficiently pro-big government and adheres to the new “woke” social realities like wearing Black Lives Matter garb and kneeling for the national anthem. Establishment Republicans like Snyder long for the old days where party politicians got along with their adversaries and won occasional victories, typically involving reducing the size of the Democrats’ demands to expand bureaucracy and impose new “rights” on a country that weren’t legislated into law (see abortion, same-sex marriage and amnesty for “DREAMERS” (DACA), among others). As was amply demonstrated by Trump’s acceptance speech two weeks ago, there’s a distinct difference in worldviews represented in this year’s election. If #NeverTrumpers insist on the nicer guy to handle these problems, our country has a lot to worry about. Is “civility” in politics even possible? Or are we engaged in an un-civil war? Political observers note there’ve been a number of politicians in recent years pounding the notion of “civility,” “bipartisanship” and “cooperation” in order to achieve “unity.” In one of the late John McCain’s final senate floor appearances (it might’ve been his last one, I don’t recall), the “maverick” campaign finance reform touting 2008 Republican presidential nominee argued that the way forward must include a return to “regular order.” Yes, in an ideal world, the legislative process would include committee hearings, tons of witnesses, bill mark-ups and lots and lots of amendments being voted on. In principle, McCain was right. But this isn’t a parallel universe where everyone gets along, respects others’ opinions and tucks their own views away in their desk drawers at the end of the session like they were required to do in grade school before being dismissed. To this observer, the “civility” problem didn’t arise with Trump and will still be around when the outsider president is gone in either a few months or hopefully, after four more years. Both parties are at fault, but one side is clearly more culpable. “Civility” only exists -- or is possible -- when the partisan politicians are willing to budge. People like Snyder live in a fantasy world. “For years, I mentioned in most of my speeches the need to bring back civility to our nation. We will not continue to be the greatest nation in the world if we can’t get along among ourselves. We have only become more divided over the past four years. We need a leader who believes in civility and bringing Americans closer together.” It's almost like Snyder is one of the disengaged-from-politics people who didn’t switch on the TV over the weekend. In his case, it’s more like he’s existed in a bubble the past forty to fifty years. What “civility” was there in the 60’s? How about Watergate? Were people nicer to each other when Jimmy Carter was elected president? Was the former Georgia peanut farmer being “civil” when he suggested America’s best days were behind it? Did Democrats relent when Ronald Reagan was president? How about George H.W. Bush? Did Bill Clinton usher in a new era of good feelings only to be spoiled by Monica-gate? Were Democrats “civil” when they suggested Newt Gingrich was being petty for complaining about not getting to speak with Big Bubba Bill on Air Force One? Was (former Democrat senate leader) Tom Daschle civil? How about Nancy Pelosi? Teddy Kennedy? Paul Wellstone? “Chucky” Schumer? Where are the days when everyone just laughed off their very real issue differences and went out and dined together after the day’s business was concluded? Should Republicans be more “civil” when Democrats constantly accuse Trump and the rest of us of being racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc.? Was Barack Obama being “civil” when he said rural Americans “cling to guns and religion” and are reluctant to accept a black man for president merely because he looks different? Ever notice how Joe Biden raises his voice to a low roar, points his finger and grits his teeth to emphasize his points? Is that civil… being shouted at? Snyder claims he’s still a Republican and will publicly support party candidates at the local, state and federal level -- but not Trump. To him and others of his thought-pattern, Joe Biden is the answer to the nation’s enormous challenges because he’ll be the good guy in chief, right? He’ll be “civil” as he signs bills passed by a Democrat Congress requiring religious institutions to cover birth control and abortifacients in their health plans. Grampa Joe will be beaming from ear-to-ear as he brags about banning energy production and imposing the Green New Deal. He'll sniff some woman’s coiffure at a photo op commemorating the rejoining of the Paris Climate Accord and receive praise from the Iranian mullahs for reinstating the one-sided Iran nuclear deal, too. America will go down the tubes. But to people like Snyder, it’s okay because the new president of the United States will only call certain Republicans racists and gender oppressors. And his Supreme Court nominees will cement every liberal dream into law, never to be reversed. If this is “civility”, I’d rather have a bully any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Bring it on. Obama-supporting independent voter endorses Trump. Where’re the media accolades? In their analyses of how Donald Trump pulled off the most unlikely of all political upsets in 2016, the experts cited the Republican candidate’s ability to win over a healthy number of folks who’d voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Can he hold onto this group this year? One independent voter thinks yes. Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec wrote at The Hill last week, “Mr. Trump’s manner of presentation certainly is not one of humility, and it can mislead one to think he lacks empathy. He doesn’t. He is just more interested in empathy of action rather than of word. For example, it is hardly uncaring when Trump advocates school choice for all families, or seeks to control the pandemic while simultaneously urging that jobs be restored, seeking fair trade with diplomatic friends and cautioning the proponents of terror to stand down — or, lest we forget, his keeping our military well-equipped and trained, at home, as a corollary to moderating the temptation to intervene internationally without a well-thought-out purpose and a realistic means to achieve it… “The president’s greatest temptation is to repay the rudeness and disparagement of major-media outlets. That repayment, as a matter of justice, may be warranted. Yet, his response should not be to match it but to ignore it. In this, Michelle Obama’s advice to go high when others go low is a good one to follow. “So, President Trump has this independent’s endorsement to make the world great again — again. Note carefully that the charge is to make the world great, not just our beloved America...” There you have it. Not exactly a ringing endorsement but a very fair one. Like Snyder above, Kmiec clearly isn’t a huge fan of Trump’s personal style and wishes he would tone it down to promote more good feelings among Americans. But taken as a whole, Trump’s leadership and advocacy for superior policies governed Kmiec’s choice. The American political system was designed for a well-educated voting public choosing between platforms and proposals. In the days before in-person campaigning, it wasn’t about who is the more “civil” one or who can “bring people together.” They didn’t care about that stuff. The Founding Fathers didn’t declare independence simply because they disliked their king (though at the end it was very personal). The Declaration itself contains their reasons for leaving. One can only hope Americans weigh the candidates and their policies -- like Kmiec did -- and make their selection. We already know the people at CNN don’t like Trump. What else is new? If you asked the average person whether he or she would rather have a president who validates their political views or dwells on “civility” and getting along with the opposition at the expense of good policy, the majority would choose the former. In November, Americans will choose the candidate with accomplishments and leave the niceties to someone else. #BlackLives Matter 2016 election 2020 campaign 2020 Election Bernie Sanders CHAZ CHOP Conservatives defund the police Democrats Donald Trump Drain the swamp Elizabeth Warren Establishment Republicans George Floyd Hillary Clinton Joe Biden Kellyanne Conway Mike Pence monument defacing police brutality police reform Republicans riots Tim Scott Trump administration violence

Our friends at the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) have just released briefs detailing the massive level of vote fraud in the past two elections – especially in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions. PILF has filed two court briefs documenting that double voting by the thousands happened in 2016-2018 in Georgia and North Carolina. PILF picked North Carolina and Georgia, where lawsuits are pending, to request a huge amount of voter data and then file two court briefs. In North Carolina, auditors found nearly 20,000 voters who appeared to have voted twice in the 2016 and 2018 elections. “This is a widespread concern in North Carolina,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said after filing a court brief in July. “We should be talking about how to strengthen our systems against misdeeds done out of the sight of election officials in 2020 instead of defending an imperfect system from total ruin. The plaintiffs are only raising the threat of worsening the settled fact that voter fraud is most common in the mail.” In Georgia, PILF not only found more than 4,000 dead people on the rolls but also calculated that about 10,000 registrants voted twice in 2016 and 2018. “It is paramount that Georgia’s election officials investigate and confirm the registrations PILF flagged and further examine Georgia’s voter rolls for other duplicate entries prior to the entry of any injunctive relief that would exacerbate these defects,” the group’s brief said, welcoming state officials to fact-check its audit. PILF has been a fearless and effective advocate for cleaning up voter rolls, preventing vote fraud and election integrity. Back in 2015 the first case in the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s efforts to clean corrupted voter rolls around the nation ahead of the 2016 Presidential election was filed in Mississippi.  The Obama Justice Department had shut down enforcement of Section 8 of the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) and thus allowed voters rolls around the nation to remain corrupted and filled with ineligible registrations. PILF filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Clarke County Election Commission in Mississippi because it had more voters on the rolls than living citizens. The lawsuit alleged a violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in that the Clarke County Election Commission failed to reasonably maintain voter rolls. The plaintiff in the case is the American Civil Rights Union.  The plaintiff originally sent the defendant a notice letter in June 2014 describing potential violations of federal election law, asking to review election records, and seeking a cure.  The defendant never replied to the letter. The complaint stated: “Voter rolls maintained by the Defendant for Clarke County contain more voters registered to vote than citizens eligible to vote. In March 2015 . . . Clarke County, Mississippi had 12,646 registered voters, despite having a voting age population of only 12,549 according to the United States Census. More than 100 percent of living citizens old enough to vote were registered to vote in Clarke County in 2015.” This has been going on for years in Democrat jurisdictions like Clarke County, Mississippi.  According to PILF, “During the 2010 federal general election, over 101 percent of living citizens eligible to vote in Clarke County were registered to vote.” In Virginia, in a study of just eight counties, PILF found 1,046 alien non-citizens successfully registered to vote. Mind you, these are just the aliens who were accidentally caught because when they renewed their driver’s license, they told the truth they were a non-citizen. Mind you that’s only eight counties out of Virginia’s 95 counties and 38 independent cities (that are considered county-equivalents for census purposes) because a Soros-trained Democrat state election official directed county election officers not to cooperate with the study. To read more on the Soros-funded Virginia voter fraud and the cover-up by Virginia election officials see J. Christian Adams “Yes Virginia, Aliens Are Registered or Voting…” for PJ Media. Lawlessness in elections is a precursor for lawlessness across our government and culture. The response of law enforcement officials to both single instances of voter fraud and the hundreds of examples documented in the PILF reports should be the same: swift, sure and unwavering. No excuses should be made for the lawless who taint the electoral process. We urge conservatives to support the Public Interest Legal Foundation and to follow their efforts to clean-up voter roles in North Carolina, Georgia and elsewhere. 2020 Election ballot security Clark County cleaning voter rolls Donald Trump Double voting George Soros Georgia J. Christian Adams Joe Biden Kamala Harris mail-in voting North Carolina PILF Post office Public Interest Legal Foundation vote fraud Voter ID Laws