U.S. Insurrection: It’s Happening Now

We all thought the U.S. was kept safe by our military, our intelligence agencies, our federal and state law enforcement agents and officers, and by the best judicial system on Earth. Since America’s establishment using the U.S. Constitution as the template for all legal actions, our political leaders have consistently worked with federal and state courts to make sure those small things in U.K. law from which our forefathers fled were guaranteed to never creep into U.S. law. And until now, they haven’t. But it appears it just might be happening now — though quietly and stealthily.

It was common in the United Kingdom for those of different social and economic statuses to be treated differently under the 1600s U.K. law. Theirs was a very “top-down” legal system that favored the wealthy and politically connected. Their laws were well planned and fair in their implementation, but enforcement became lax and unilateral. That atmosphere was a significant contributor to our founders’ decision to leave the British Empire for the New World.

In America, the Constitution very demonstrably guaranteed such arbitrary law enforcement as in Britain would not happen here. For 200+ years, it seemed to work well. It began to quietly change as the American populace began to withdraw from activism in government as social systems changed over the last few decades and we all just got too busy in our private lives. Where citizen involvement in government diminished, political control increased to fill the gaps. With that came extreme partisanship and arbitrary treatment in our justice system. That has evolved into similar treatment in the U.S. as in the British Empire in the 17th Century. And today, we see its results: almost unilateral law enforcement based on social, political, and economic class. That system is now front-and-center every day.

In the past two decades, we have recognized inequality in the Criminal Justice system. Court decisions regarding guilt and innocence and sentencing were (and in some cases still are) racially unfair. For example, in most drug arrests for possession of narcotics and distribution, statistics show African American offenders experience a much higher conviction rate and stiffer sentences than do White Americans. Why does that happen? After all, guilt or innocence and sentencing determined in the Justice system are to be racially blind. That’s a question that criminal justice experts and sociologists have investigated for decades. Study after study shows that racial bias permeates federal, state, and local law enforcement arrests, trials, and sentencing.

The purpose of pointing this out is to remind you that “Equal Justice under the Law” has been since 1776 an integral part of the protection for all Americans from inconsistent adjudication of penalties for crimes. Defendants’ rights are guaranteed Constitutionally. But that promise has been watered down year after year, in court after court, and now has found a foothold in civil proceedings just as in criminal cases. Politicians have watched as it happened and have slipped it into government operations at every level. It’s being used secretly in cases today where no crime has even been committed — like in impeachment.

I know, I know: impeachment is not a criminal matter. It’s a political matter. That fact has been stated over and over in the media during the last three years. Why not until now? Donald Trump wasn’t President. He is now, and most of the politicians who sit on the left side of the aisle don’t like his being President and want to find “a” way or “some” ways to drive him from office.

So why is the impeachment process, not a criminal operation? Because of the “Virginia Plan.”

The Virginia Plan

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 was full of heated debate over many issues of the Constitution. Those settlers had just escaped from the ruthless government of England’s King George III. Three Virginians together worked diligently to find a fair and equitable method to remove an American president (and other members of government) for specific wrongdoing. This was to guarantee Americans no monarch are despot could assume control of the government just because of being the nation’s leader. After considerable debate, those three Virginians agreed that a president should be impeached for “abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law.” Those three were James Madison, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph. Members had already determined the necessity of including “acts of treason and bribery” that have since been considered as “High crimes and misdemeanors.”

Purposely our forefathers drew a line between criminal and civil actions for removal through impeachment. Their purpose was to keep despots and factions in politics from usurping control of the American government. Impeachment was designed so that between presidential elections, a president who used his or her office to take advantage of citizens and institutions could be removed from office without waiting for the next election. This method worked effectively for more than 250 years primarily as a deterrent for those in office who might be tempted. But it’s no longer working in the Trump Administration

Presumption of Innocence

“Innocent until proven guilty” has been a staple of criminal justice since the beginning of America. Because of non-royals’ arbitrary treatment as “guilty until proven innocent” in Britain, America’s settlers demanded that to flip in criminal cases. It has always been a staple in U.S. criminal justice and has even found its way into many civil proceedings. But there’s a catch to that.

The presumption of innocence seems forgotten in the so-called “court of public opinion.” When high profile criminal cases capture media attention, the public opinion seems to sway towards presuming the person is guilty – before he even steps foot inside a courtroom to have a judge or jury determine whether or not he is guilty. This ‘presumption of guilt’ in the public’s opinion can be devastating to reputations; careers; families, and almost every other aspect of life. Even if eventually found “not guilty” in a court of law, recovering from a public smearing of one’s name and reputation may prove impossible.

The problem we face in this run up to what is now almost certain to be the impeachment of Donald Trump as Leftist politicians with glee point to the standard set by our forefathers that differentiate between civil and criminal treatment in impeachment. Impeachment is NOT a criminal process — it’s strictly a political matter only. That means a President facing impeachment cannot claim ownership of the presumption of innocence. And so this group of Democrats are foaming at the mouth to go after Mr. Trump. Ultimately their unified purpose is to not only impeach the President but to drive him out of office. They view this issue of criminal vs. political as the straw which they have grasped to move the needle in their favor. They are universally giddy that they feel certain this is their “AHA” moment. They do not have to give President Trump the presumption of innocence. They can destroy him politically with impunity!


The Left have gone crazy with their newfound power. Their quest to find small tidbits of allegation of wrongdoing by Mr. Trump adds fuel to the fire of hatred that drives their every move. Speaker Pelosi handed the keys of impeachment to her bulldog, Rep. Adam Schiff who in his political career has never waited for facts but mounts attacks against those he identifies as his foes with whatever he can use to denigrate them politically while demeaning them personally. He’s basking in his current quest to destroy the Trump presidency.

But here’s what is happening: Mob Rule. Various hate groups from the left like Antifa and other disguised hard-left political groups have joined Schiff and his gang to in organized fashion to foment hatred of not just the President, but of all those who have and still do support him. Truth no longer matters. The loophole our founding fathers left in their roadmap for impeachment that the presumption of innocence is not a necessary element are driving all of these to whip the mob into a frenzy that will only grow stronger as their lust for destruction seems to be within their grasp.

It does not matter if their ploy achieves success or not. The horse of insurrection is already out of the barn and is ripping at the fiber of the foundation of our nation. It’s now OK to ignore laws, promote lawbreaking, wink selectively at those who break the “appropriate” laws, and teach our children and grandchildren that federal law is old, unfair, arbitrary and outdated. Therefore, we have every right to simply ignore it.

Sadly, it appears we just a few days ahead of the complete abolition of our Constitutional structure that will be termed to “be in the best interest of the majority of Americans” when it happens. And many Americans are and will be fine with that process.

Regardless of outcome, be certain that if this insurrection is allowed to succeed with the impeachment of the President and the Media in tandem with the Democrat Party assume government power for the next 4 or 8 years, American social, political, and economic structures and social interactions have paved the way for this destructive White House issue.

What will our nation look like if this leftist project is allowed by American voters to prevail in its local establishment? No one knows for certain. But one thing that IS certain is that if the Left and their Media attack dogs successfully remove Donald Trump from office, America as the historical leader of freedom among all nations will immediately die. Any type of socialistic political process will fail miserably. The problem is those who could stop this debacle are those who have been brainwashed by our grade school and college professors and teachers.

Is it too late to stop it? The answer to that is way above my pay-grade. All we can do is continuously speak truths to the two generations behind us as often as we can. Be vocal about capitalism, a representative democracy, And the Rule of Law in all your interactions with those you know and love.

And we can pray: pray for “all those in leadership over us,” and pray that God will somehow regain their mental and emotional factors.

Best to You,



Dan E. Newman



The Barr Explosion

The guy (whose picture is to the left) is under a most vicious attack by Senate Democrats. Attorney General Barr testified for several hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He faced a barrage of professional and personal insults and verbal assaults from Democrat Committee members. The attacks and insults were no surprise at all. It was all a setup. The setup culprit? The Washington Post.

“Mueller complained to Barr about the memo on key findings.” That’s the banner headline at the top of the Washington Post’s website Wednesday. But when you click your way to the actual story, it turns out that the headline is not true. Special Counsel Mueller’s complaint, which targeted Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter explaining the report, is not about the “key findings.” It’s about the narrative of the March 24 letter and Barr’s public explanation made it clear: he had NO intent to summarize the Mueller Report at that time — he couldn’t in a simple statement or letter. But Barr wanted to get the Report released publicly ASAP: which he did.

It comes as no surprise that the day before the Attorney General is to testify, the Washington Post would invite reporters to come to their offices to “read” Mueller’s letter. They wouldn’t send reporters away with a copy of the letter! Why? It’s our opinion that The Post editorial staff was thinking ahead about possible prosecution for “leaking” classified documents to the media. 

Mueller’s complaint is that Barr “did not fully capture the context” of Mueller’s 400+ pages – the “nature and substance” of the report. Barr explained publicly why he COULD NOT in a summary discuss the report — THE REPORT IS TOO LARGE! And to that end, Barr (though he didn’t have to) released the full report just hours after that press statement to the public, as he promised.

This complaint was set forth in Mueller’s own letter, dated March 27. Here’s Mueller’s letter:

Dear Attorney General Barr:

I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel’s report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release—a process that our Office is working with you to complete—that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of the investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. 609(c) (“the Attorney General may determine that public release” of congressional notifications “would be in the public interest”).

Sincerely Yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

What is the Hoo-Ha From Democrats against Barr?

That question can best be answered by former Federal Prosecutor Andrew McCarthy who stated:

“The Democrats’ perjury/contempt/impeachment slander against Barr is based on the fact that, in prior congressional testimony, Barr was asked whether Mueller agreed with Barr’s conclusions about the report, including that there was insufficient evidence to charge obstruction. Barr replied that he did not know whether Mueller agreed. Democrats now contend that Barr must have known Mueller disagreed because he had Mueller’s letter. But Mueller’s letter doesn’t say he disagreed with Barr’s conclusion – it says he was unhappy with how his work was being perceived by the public.

Barr and Mueller spoke by phone the day after Mueller sent his letter. If you wade through the first 13 paragraphs of the Post’s story, you finally find the bottom line:

‘When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.’

So even Mueller conceded, through gritted teeth, that Barr’s letter was accurate. The diva was just worried about the media coverage.”

A Mueller Question or Two

  • Have you heard anyone state who actually wrote the Mueller Report? Certainly, the Special Counsel was involved in its preparation. But there is far too much political angling in it for it to be penned by him. Though as of today I have no evidence to confirm my thoughts on that, the Mueller Report seems eerily similar to the past writings of one of the worst federal prosecutors in U.S. History. Who is that? Andrew Weismann. Weismann is known to be a proverbial bulldog that will do anything to find justification for prosecution and conviction of everyone involved in every case on which he works. Not only does the verbiage and structure of the report reek of his methods, the pre-dawn raids with armed FBI SWAT agents at Manaforte and Roger Stone’s homes were certainly orchestrated by Weismann. Who is he?
  • Andrew Weismann, notoriously a “tough” prosecutor previously accused of “prosecutorial overreach,” has a less than stellar career after various courts reversed his prosecutions due to his questionable conduct and tactics. As director of the Enron Task Force, Weissmann shattered the Arthur Andersen LLP accounting firm and destroyed over 85,000 jobs. In 2005, the conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the only true crime in the case was the murderous destruction of 85,000 jobs and the lives they ruined. Weissman’s next conviction threw four Merrill Lynch executives into prison without bail for a year, only to be reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Weissman subsequently resigned from the Enron Task Force. A suspiciously timely move, as the public eye had just caught sight of his modus operandi. Additionally, Weissmann has unsightly political ties, having attended Clinton’s election- night celebration in New York City. He also sent an email to Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, praising her boldness on the night she was fired for refusing to enforce President Trump’s travel ban. President Trump was trying to enforce the law; Weismann was trying to enforce his bigotry against Trump and Republicans. Weismann was hired by Mueller — even with that shady history — to be the “aggressive” investigator/ prosecutor on his team. I guarantee he not only wrote the Mueller Report, but he also penned the Mueller letter we’re discussing today AND leaked it to the Washington Post THE NIGHT BEFORE BARR’S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS! TruthNewsNetwork researchers will NOT rest until we get firm answers to the question: who edited (if not wrote) both the Mueller Report and the final Mueller letter to Barr. Certainly, we will share out findings. I doubt we’ll be able to confirm who leaked it to the Washington Post.

It Gets Wilder!

Do Democrats really care about the truth, facts, and the 2-year, $25 million Mueller Investigation and its findings? That report in its classified and unredacted form that includes ALL that Democrats demanded from Mueller has been in a secure room in the Senate available for any member of Congress to examine in its entirety. There are 535 members of the House and Senate. Do you know how many have gone to that room and read the unredacted report? TWO! AND BOTH WERE REPUBLICANS! Can anyone say, “HYPOCRISY?’

Let’s just face facts: Congressional Democrats have NO regard for anyone who stands in support of this president — it’s that simple. Further, they have no regard for an Attorney General (or a Special Counsel, for that matter) who stands in support, not of a president, but “The Rule of Law.” That was best illustrated in that committee hearing by Hawaii’s U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono. We are showing the agonizing 7 minutes of her “questioning” of the A.G. in its entirety. The word “questioning” is in quotation marks because Hirono absolutely did NOT ask Mr. Barr any questions — she simply insulted his professional and personal integrity and his capability and qualifications to serve as Attorney General:

The Senator from Hawaii illustrated my reasoning for the first sentence of this story today. Further, the 3 Democrat 2020 presidential candidates on the committee did themselves NO favors with their questioning. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Corey Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) embarrassed the citizens of their respective states with their obviously coordinated drilling of the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I was embarrassed for the citizens of Minnesota, New Jersey, and California. The very carefully coordinated questions asked by those 3 showed how desperate Democrats are to take this president down. And, also, that hearing was another bit of confirmation for what we have stated again and again at TruthNewsNetwork: Congressional Democrats are dead-set on the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

No matter that Special Counsel Mueller found no Russian collusion and no specific grounds of Obstruction of Justice against President Trump. The truth, facts, evidence (or lack of), and the Rule of Law are lost on Senate Democrats.

I am ashamed at what we watched play out on national television as probably the smartest person in the hearing room embarrassed those Leftist Democrats with his answers in which he held close to facts and the Law. Isn’t it ironic that any American citizen — Me — would even have a thought that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would literally bend the truth, ignore facts, demean a career federal attorney now Attorney General simply because he works for Donald Trump — a president that each of those Senators hates?


Our final thoughts today are concise and very simple: It is obvious that Democrats in Congress are certainly headed for House Impeachment proceedings. There is NO doubt they are petrified of a Donald Trump second term as President. But it became very clear in that hearing that Congressional Democrats — at least Senate Democrats — are all-in for getting rid of Attorney General William Barr!

Think about that: he served once before as Attorney General. He is known by thousands of attorneys and judges through the U.S. — especially judges — as one of the top legal minds in U.S. Law. And he is a brilliant Constitutionalist. His record is impeccable. Yet a dozen or so Democrat Senators spent hours on Wednesday saying the vilest things making continual vicious unfounded allegations against Mr. Barr.

How did he respond? He NEVER raises his voice; he NEVER impugned any Senators for their questions, their attitudes, or their reasoning for their vitriolic demeanor during the hearing. I could never be as civil, controlled, and certainly compliant with their questioning under those circumstances.

Donald Trump made a brilliant move by appointing William Barr as Attorney General. And one thing more: certainly you have heard this, “The hen that clucks the loudest is almost always the one that lays the egg?” Based on the limited facts in the public about this AND what America saw and heard in that Senate Judiciary hearing, I would not be surprised if several of those Senators sitting on the Left side of that hearing table are the subject of several of those 70,000+ sealed federal indictments that many are waiting to watch start being executed.

Do you think maybe there was some “hen-clucking” going on in Congress during that hearing?


Senate Extreme “Xism”

Let me first be honest: there is NO one-word term used to demean specific religions that equally compare to the word “racism” as demeaning the ethnicity of others. Why don’t we develop our own word that we can begin using in conversations like this one today? And when we do, we’ll understand the substance better. After all, most of the current “ism” words are fairly young.

Why don’t we coin this word: “Xism?” And for those who share the thoughts and attitudes we will discuss today, we can term them “Xists.”

What the heck is “Xism?” There are several definitions of the word. But for this conversation, we will use this definition: “the exaggerated embodiment of certain aspects of religious activity.” So what can more fittingly apply than for two (or more) liberal federal politicians to target members of a centuries-old religious organization that has always been accepted by Americans as a viable religion, questioning a person who is a member of that religious organization is unfit to serve? After all, doesn’t the Constitution give Americans the religious freedom to exercise freely their religious beliefs?

What is happening now vividly illustrates the dangerous road on which we find ourselves in American politics today: a road to “Selective Elitist Political RELIGIOUS Correctness!” It’s here…and it’s real. It’s “Xism.”

“Xists” Practice “Xism”

Two Democratic senators are scrutinizing a federal judicial nominee over his membership in the Knights of Columbus  (a religious and social arm of the Catholic Church), drawing a stern rebuke from the Catholic organization. Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), raised concerns about Omaha-based lawyer Brian Buescher’s membership as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of his nomination by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, as first reported by the Catholic News Agency.

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

In a series of questions sent to Buescher, Hirono asked whether his membership in the Knights of Columbus would prevent him from hearing cases “fairly and impartially” and, if confirmed, whether he would end his membership in the Roman Catholic charitable organization. “The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono said in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

In his response, Buescher argued that the Knights of Columbus’ official positions on issues do not represent every one of the group’s members and said he would recuse himself from hearing cases where he saw a conflict of interest. “The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher wrote. “If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification.”

Harris, in her questions to the nominee, called the Knights of Columbus “an all-male society” and asked the Nebraska lawyer if he was aware that the group was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage when he joined. The California senator also referenced Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson’s statement that abortion amounted to “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with the statement. Buescher responded that his involvement in the group consisted mostly of charitable work and community events at his local Catholic parish. He indicated he would abide by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

Kathleen Blomquist, a spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, blasted the questions by Hirono and Harris as a throwback to past anti-Catholic rhetoric. “Our country’s sad history of anti-Catholic bigotry contributed to the founding of the Knights of Columbus, and we are proud of the many Catholics who overcame this hurdle to contribute so greatly to our country,” she told the CNA. Blomquist added: “We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus—a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings—would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age.”

The Knights of Columbus was founded in the U.S. in 1882 as a society for working-class and immigrant Catholics. It has since expanded to include charitable services, including war and disaster relief, and the promotion of Catholic education. The group, however, has come under controversy for some of its official stances on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as its political activity.

Kamala Harris (D-CA)

This is not the first time that one of Trump’s judicial nominees has faced questions tied to faith, either. In 2017, federal judicial nominee Amy Barrett — a professor at Notre Dame Law School and a devout Catholic — was questioned by Democratic senators about how her faith would influence her decisions from the bench. Barrett was eventually confirmed as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

No, this nomination is not for an empty spot on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the attacks by these two Democrats against Buscher brings that conversation around again regarding the religious affiliation of ALL federal judgeships and how that has been handled historically: especially regarding Supreme Court nominees. It would be safe to say that those involved in the Senate confirmation process of federal judges should expect the exact same process for the nominations and confirmations of any person for any federal judgeship, including SCOTUS nominees.

FOX News contributed to the report above. Also, please find the actual questionnaire sent to Buescher by the Senate along with his answer to each by clicking on this link: Buescher Responses to QFRs

Should Religious Affiliations Determine Federal Judge Nominations?

Seldom do Americans see confirmation hearings for federal district or appellate court judges. But we hear much about those nominated by presidents to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Shouldn’t all appointed federal judges be qualified on the same set of standards? Should those standards have any basis on religious affiliation? Or should Xism be invoked as a disqualifier for those judges and justices as Senator Hirono and Harris seem to believe in their attacks on nominee Buescher?

I think that qualifications to serve on all federal courts should be the same. And I’m certain the crafters of the Constitution felt the same way. How do I know that? Xism or its practices was not ever mentioned anywhere in the Consitution. Let’s look briefly at how SCOTUS justices have fared.

The demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States encompass the gender, ethnicity, and religious, geographic, and economic backgrounds of the 114 people who have been appointed and confirmed as justices to the Supreme Court. Some of these characteristics have been raised as an issue since the Court was established in 1789. For its first 180 years, justices were almost always white male Protestants.

Prior to the 20th century, a few Roman Catholics were appointed, but concerns about diversity of the Court were mainly in terms of geographic diversity, to represent all geographic regions of the country, as opposed to ethnic, religious, or gender diversity. The 20th century saw the first appointment of justices who were Jewish (Louis Brandeis, 1916), African-American (Thurgood Marshall, 1967), female (Sandra Day O’Connor, 1981), and Italian-American (Antonin Scalia, 1986). The 21st century saw the first appointment of a Hispanic justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009), if justice Benjamin Cardozo, who was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent and appointed in 1932, is excluded.

In spite of the interest in the Court’s demographics and the symbolism accompanying the inevitably political appointment process, and the views of some commentators that no demographic considerations should arise in the selection process, the gender, race, educational background or religious views of the justices have played a little-documented role in their jurisprudence. For example, the opinions of the two African-American justices have reflected radically different judicial philosophies; William Brennan and Antonin Scalia shared Catholic faith and a Harvard Law School education but shared little in the way of jurisprudential philosophies. The court’s first two female justices voted together no more often than with their male colleagues, and historian Thomas R. Marshall writes that no particular “female perspective” can be discerned from their opinions.

Should Xism Determine Judicial Qualification?

Think about the slippery road this practice has put us on. And it’s NOT just in confirmation of federal judges.

  • When a candidate makes any statement outside of the “current” mainstream of Leftist political thinking on matters of race, that person is immediately attacked as being racist;
  • When a candidate states anything that mentions the acts of terrorism that have been perpetrated by a Muslim, that candidate is immediately attacked as being Islamophobic;
  • When a candidate states anything that can even be remotely characterized as a negative toward homosexuality or same-sex marriage, that candidate is immediately attacked as being homophobic;
  • When a candidate makes any comment about the need for border security or a wall at the southern border or that Congress needs to take legislative action regarding any immigration matters, that candidate is immediately attacked as being xenophobic.

Americans seem to be growing weary at all of the phobias and isms floating around Washington D.C. I am often asked this questions: “Who has the authority to determine who is a member of any of these denigrated classes we mentioned above?” Honestly, there is only one group in America that has such “Legal” authority: members of the Judiciary who don the black robes and hear cases of those who violate United States laws, including the U.S. Constitution. And now two U.S. Senators have determined it is their right to question the qualifications of Brian Buescher to serve on a federal court in Omaha.

Let’s just go ahead and say it: Hirono and Harris are Xist for denigrating the nominee for being Catholic!


Those comparisons and examples of such political elitist classifications by those on the Left number in the tens of thousands. Once again that practice begs for the answer to this query: Who has the power and authority to make such determinations? And who gives that person or those people the authority to make them? The answer is simple: the power and authority for doing so are self-initiated and politically-determined. And those on the Left claim the universal authority to do so.

Face it: in today’s electric political climate driven by Identity Politics, someone MUST make the determinations of who wears what political identity. No, there are no books or dictionary that contain any absolute determinations or even illustrations that justify the practice of doing so. But today’s political landscape is riddled with the rules, the definitions, the determination of what every 21st-century moray is, who fits the mold and is qualified or unqualified for any job or position, and who and when someone steps outside the boundaries of those things that are deemed acceptable. And the Left “KNOW” their opinions and positions are the right ones — the ONLY right ones. Everything and everyone else is just plain wrong.

In the South, we call that practice “hypocrisy” and those who practice it “hypocrites.”

Case in point:

The first three that pop in my mind are those involving the two previous presidents and one candidate for President.

Barack Obama

Was he for or against same-sex marriage?

  • When running for the U.S. Senate, he called same-sex marriage “unstrategic, against his religious beliefs,” and something that “should be in the hands of churches rather than the government.”
  • In 2008 running for President, he said:  “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”
  • He later publicly gave his support to same-sex marriage stating “My feelings on the issue have evolved.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Were they for or against same-sex marriage?

  • Bill Clinton signed DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) DOMA was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states). He claimed that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage. He was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996. Clinton tells LGBT magazine The Advocate, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or considered.”
  • Then Bill Clinton urged for the legalization of gay marriage in his adopted home state of New York. In a statement made in 2011, he said: “For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York’s welcome must include marriage equality.”
  • Hillary Clinton: “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.” Hillary Clinton 2004.
  • Hillary Clinton, straight from the pages of her presidential election website addressing her position on LGBTQ rights: “Thanks to the hard work of generations of LGBT advocates and activists who fought to make it possible, our country won a landmark victory last June when the Supreme Court recognized that in America, LGBT couples—like everyone else—have the right to marry the person they love.”

These are just a few examples of the Xism that is alive and well in Washington and is being controlled by Leftists. They are getting bolder and bolder about their overall hypocrisy. And the issue of same-sex marriage (and the federal law passed) have emboldened the Left to reach further into personal rights guaranteed to every American in the Constitution, and yank the right to determine which of those are sacred and which are not.

Xism is alive and well.

Islam and Muslims are seeing freedoms in public schools, colleges, universities, and even government offices to practice Muslim theology while the same institutions are preventing those of other religious faiths from exercising the same or similar practices. There are actually municipalities in which choices regarding public policies of religious activities are making determinations that prohibit Christian practices and even in some cases make them illegal while allowing and often encouraging Muslim religious practices to happen.

Don’t forget: prayer in public school is disallowed. But have you heard of any school in America not allowing Muslim prayers during the day? In fact, many schools provide not only the time for Muslims for their prayers, but they also provide facilities for doing so.

Please do not misinterpret my thoughts in pointing these things out. I am a Constitutional Originalist: I feel that the Constitution guaranteed Americans to believe in any way they so choose, practice their religious faith in any way they so choose, and for the government to not inject itself to any religious practices. But what we have seen for decades now and are watching play out today in national politics is the brazen Xism of federal politicians to justify the practice of ignoring Constitutionally guaranteed rights simply because they feel they have the right to ignore the law.

Folks, Xism is alive and growing rapidly in America. Don’t be fooled: this practice has no favorites. Oh, today Islam is the “flavor of the day.” But as soon as politicians determine the Muslim community does not offer Leftists the power and authority to do what they want to do, Leftists will turn on those Muslims.

I remember when it was common in school for every student to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance and bow while the Principal said a prayer for the day — a Christian prayer! That happens no longer. The wind can and will surely blow from another direction.

But that happens only when the purveyors of Identity Politics and Political Elitists are allowed the control to make such ambiguous and arbitrary decisions about our lives — like Senators Harris and Hirono saying federal judge nominee Brian Buescher’s affiliation with the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus disqualify him.



Louisiana Congressman Mike Johnson

We normally take a Saturday break each week. This week we are taking a Friday break instead. Today we are meeting with Louisiana 4th District Congressman Mike Johnson. We’ll bring you that interview in it’s entirety tomorrow — Saturday, July 7th. 

Congressman Johnson is in his first term, serves on the House Judiciary Committee and has a lot to say to us all about the state of Congress, the G.O.P., and the Nation. Among other topics we’ll discuss are his opinions on the process and possible replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. You don’t want to miss him!

Supreme Court Holocaust

Political Leftists cringed with the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Their horror heightened with the election of Donald Trump as President. Why? They knew with his certain appointment of a conservative replacement, the balance of power shifting to the right would certainly tip the scales of judicial renderings from SCOTUS to the right. And they apparently were correct. Listen for today’s Supreme Court Holocaust analysis.

The Court

Current Supreme Court justices and their political “leanings” are as follows:

Chief Justice:

John Roberts: Conservative

Associate Justices:

Anthony Kennedy: usually considered Conservative but as a “swing vote” that sometimes is Liberal

Clarence Thomas: Conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal

Stephen Breyer: Liberal

Samuel Alito: Conservative

Sonia Sotomayor: Liberal

Elena Kagan: Liberal

Neil Gorsuch: Conservative

What’s Happened Lately

Beginning with the outcomes of the current SCOTUS session, June 26th findings of the Court were released. These are the most notable AND most controversial:

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

President Trump lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), to issue Proclamation No. 9645, suspending the entry of aliens into the United States, and the Proclamation does not violate the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS upheld Trump travel ban on some countries that are primarily Muslim in a 5-4 Vote.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)

SCOTUS struck down California law that required Crisis Pregnancy Centers in their counseling of those pregnant to discuss with those women the availability of state funded abortions in addition to non-abortion pregnancy result options. VOTE: 5-4

Abbott v. Perez (2018)

Supreme Court rejects district court’s conclusion that a 2013 Texas redistricting plan was tainted by the bias of a previous legislature and that certain districts were invalid as having the effect of depriving Latinos of the equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. VOTE: 5-4

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (2018)

Phillips, the owner of a Colorado bakery, told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages (which Colorado did not then recognize) but that he would sell them other baked goods. The couple filed a charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public.” An ALJ ruled in the couple’s favor. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. VOTE: 5-4

Azar v. Garza (2018)

Doe, a minor was eight weeks pregnant when she unlawfully crossed the border into the U.S. She was detained by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in a federally-funded Texas shelter. Doe requested an abortion. Absent “emergency medical situations,” ORR policy prohibits shelter personnel from “taking any action that facilitates an abortion without direction and approval from the Director.” A minor may leave government custody by seeking voluntary departure, or by working with the government to identify a suitable sponsor” in the U.S., 8 U.S.C. 1229c. Garza, Doe’s guardian ad litem, filed a putative class action on behalf of Doe and “all other pregnant unaccompanied minors in ORR custody.” The district court ruled in Doe’s favor, Doe attended preabortion counseling, required by Texas law to occur at least 24 hours in advance with the same doctor who performs the abortion. The clinic she visited typically rotated physicians weekly. The next day, the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of the order. Four days later, that court, en banc, vacated the panel order and remanded. Garza obtained an amended order, requiring the government to make Doe available to obtain the counseling and abortion. Believing the abortion would not take place until after Doe repeated the counseling with a new doctor, the government informed opposing counsel and the Supreme Court that it would file a stay application on October 25. The doctor who had performed Doe’s earlier counseling became available at 4:15 a.m. At 10 a.m., Garza’s lawyers informed the government that Doe “had the abortion this morning.” The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for dismissal. Doe’s individual claim for injunctive relief—the only claim addressed by the D. C. Circuit—became moot after the abortion but the unique circumstances and the balance of equities weigh in favor of vacatur. The Court considered but did not decide the government’s allegations that opposing counsel made misrepresentations to thwart review. VOTE 5-4

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018)
Janus was an Illinois employee of a company and was not a member of the AFSCME union local at his employer. The case was filed on his behalf to confront alleged violation of his 1st Amendment rights by the Union paying a portion of the Union assessment he paid to/for political causes with which Janus disagrees. The Court ruled the Illinois law that forced non-union employees to pay such dues is not valid. VOTE: 5-4

The Meaning

It is very obvious with the SCOTUS rulings on these cases that the death of Antonin Scalia — a strict conservative Supreme Court justice — the sure results of Court rulings would end deadlocked — especially in controversial cases. And indeed that happened. Neil Gorsuch joining the Court has already made a dramatic difference. The 4-4 deadlock would have continued in most cases.

“What’s the damage with that?” partisans might ask. It’s simple: SCOTUS is NOT the place where cases start. Cases determined there are appealed from federal appeals courts around the nation. In SCOTUS 4-4 determinations on any cases results in the determination by the lower court that the appeal came from being confirmed. It is doubtful any of the above case results would have occurred in a 4-4 Supreme Court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Judge Anthony Kennedy

In a surprise move, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.

The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy’s former law clerk Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy’s moderate-conservative views often left him the “swing” — or deciding — vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.  A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake. That body will consider Trump’s latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold. (FOX News Breaking Story)

What Next?

You can bet Democrats will NOT “go quietly into the night” on this issue. Democrats are likely to initiate a move during the replacement of Kennedy to make it a referendum on Donald Trump as President: his honesty, integrity, etc. Their options to do so are limited. Remember: the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion to aid Trump’s election victory in 2016 is running out of steam. What else could Dems use? Who knows. But you can bet they — “if” they go down — will go down swinging.

One thing Democrats missed in the SCOTUS findings on these cases is that the Supreme Court DID not and DOES not decide cases based on political bias or agenda. Their finding regarding President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from the countries involved was well within the President’s Constitutional authority. The justices made it clear that regardless of anything said by then Candidate Trump was immaterial to the law. The law give this President — and any OTHER President — clear authority to take executive action in such cases.

Democrats have a habit of forgetting about the law when dealing with controversial issues. Laws and substance often do not matter to Dems: politically correctness drives their boat.

Case in point: Keith Ellison (D-MN) said that the President “has his Supreme Court tailor-made to his ugly philosophy,” calling it a “partisan court.”He added that he does not believe Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed after congressional Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy late in his presidency, is on the court “properly.” “It just proves one thing, that if you steal and rip off a Supreme Court justice, then you can try to jam any kind of nasty, racist, ugly policy down the throat’s of the American people. But we’re not taking it,” Ellison said.

Yes, the Ellison view on the matter is the epitome of “Symbolism over Substance. “But where are the majority of Americans on these and other controversial issues?

After all: everything is NOT about politics.

Political Elite Attacked by the Justice System

It’s happened! Many conservatives felt betrayed by the Justice Department and the Judiciary because of the Mueller investigation details that have been leaked. But apparently there’s hope. Today we look at the court transcript from Friday, May 4th in which Paul Manafort’s legal team petitioned for bank fraud charges to be dropped. The judge in the case shocked the World! Listen in to see just how corrupt is the Mueller investigation today and probably has been for a year.

(listen to the broadcast then download the transcript of the Manafort hearing from last Friday. Feel free to share this transcript. It will shock you)

Manafort Hearing Transcript