Dems Leave Out Trump’s Call to ‘Peacefully and Patriotically Make Your Voices Heard’ During Impeachment Opening


(Originally posted on February 10, 2021 on The Western Journal at 10:03 a.m.)

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland kicked off the Senate trial of former President Donald Trump on Tuesday by promising that “our case is based on cold, hard facts. It’s all about the facts.”

Within minutes, however, his lack of veracity and the weakness of the Democrats’ case became obvious to all.

Raskin played a video montage of then-President Trump addressing his supporters on Jan. 6 in which the most material fact of all, that Trump had called on his backers to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” had been edited out.

(WARNING: The following video contains graphic language and violence that may be offensive to some readers.)

In the Democrats’ video of the events surrounding the Capitol incursion, Trump tells supporters, “We’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down … to the Capitol.” Coverage of Trump’s remarks stops.

Next, the video shows members of the crowd shouting, “Take the Capitol!” and “We are going to the Capitol where our problems are!”

Captions appear at various points in the video. One reads, “As President Trump continues his speech, a wave of supporters begins marching to the Capitol.”

The next says, “The crowd breaches the protective barricades of the Capitol as Congress meets to count the votes of the Electoral College.”

Trump supporters are shown pushing aside metal barricades that resemble bicycle racks. They are becoming more and more aggressive with police.

The video plays snippets of Trump’s remarks about his fight to expose the fraud that occurred during the election. Trump is saying, “We fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

A new caption tells viewers, “President Trump ends his speech and urges his mob to move toward the Capitol.”

Interspersed with scenes from the riot, Trump is heard telling supporters, “So we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give…our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try–going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

(A second, less important omission was made from this portion of Trump’s speech. Trump had said, “the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything.”)

A look at Trump’s Jan. 6 remarks without the omission changes the reality completely. Here is a transcript of Trump’s full remarks via Breitbart:

“Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol — and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.”

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

“Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four year period …

“So we are going to — we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try – give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here. This is incredible.”

In the Twitter post below, conservative media outlet RSBN notes that the Democrats had edited out Trump’s call for supporters to “patriotically and peacefully” make their voices heard.

Convenient that they left this out of the opening video montage at the sham impeachment trial.

“Patriotically and peacefully…”

— RSBN (@RSBNetwork) February 9, 2021

Newsweek, a left-leaning media outlet by anyone’s standards, fact-checked RSBN’s claim.

The magazine “ruled” that the statement was true, writing, “That portion of Trump’s speech is not found at any point during the video montage played before lawmakers at the trial Tuesday.”

Right out of the gate, the Democrats lied. And the omission of a material fact (a common anti-Trump tactic) is most definitely a lie.

In a recent article about new House rules adopted by the 117th Congress, The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Howell wrote: “When it comes to social media, Pelosi is taking a page out of Big Tech’s book: censor and punish. Members who share ‘manipulated media,’ defined as ‘any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with intent to mislead the public,’ will be subject to reprisal.”

I am definitely not a lawyer, but doesn’t Raskin’s video meet these criteria and shouldn’t he be subject to reprisal?

Except for the Left’s Mockery of OAN’s Disclaimer, Mike Lindell’s Documentary is Met with Bipartisan Radio Silence; It Shouldn’t Be


Prior to airing Mike Lindell’s controversial documentary on alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election on Friday, One America News Network issued a comprehensive “90 second” disclaimer, which given the seriousness of the allegations made in the film, strikes me as prudent.

The left collectively pounced on OAN’s statement, making it the takeaway in virtually every story.

Conservative outlets, for the most part, ignored it.

The film, entitled “Absolute Proof,” which was taken down by YouTube and Vimeo, can be viewed here.

The My Pillow CEO teased us earlier this week with claims he had found “absolute proof” the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump. And if the documents he presented in the two-hour film are authentic, he certainly delivered. 

Lindell starts with an overview of the fraud that allegedly occurred on the local level such as ballots cast by illegal aliens, underage and dead voters as well as individuals who also had voted in another state. 

In Nevada, Lindell claims that more than 42,000 residents voted twice. If true, that alone would be enough to overturn the results of the election.

Those of us who’ve listened to the testimonies of election observers have heard most of this information before. 

But fasten your seat belts because what comes next is stunning.

A spreadsheet is revealed that reportedly provides a forensic footprint of foreigners, including the Chinese and the Iranians, hacking into U.S. voting systems and manipulating results. (1:36 in the video.)

The data shows thousands of electronic “foreign intrusions” that occurred on and after Election Day and includes timestamps, the specific IP address of each source computer, the name of the network as well as the ID number of the specific computer used in the cyberattack. Likewise, it displays the IP address of the target computer, and the state and county of the target. It also indicates if the target was hacked through the use of credentials, by breaching a firewall or by both methods. And it shows whether or not a particular attempt was successful.

The final column shows the number of votes that were changed. The intelligence official tells us that over 66 percent of these intrusions came from China. 

This spreadsheet lists 2,995 intrusions in our election.

If this information is correct, and frankly, I don’t know why Lindell would risk his reputation by putting forth false documents, then I understand why the left spent so much energy drawing reader’s attention to the disclaimer and off of the story.

What would explain the lack of conservative media attention to the documentary? It might be the fear of being labeled as a conspiracy theorist. I thought twice before writing about it.

Having found Lindell’s evidence to be highly credible, I wanted others to see it. At the very least, I highly recommend going to 1:36 in the video and watching for ten minutes.

Kamala Harris Says There Will Be Job Creation Around ‘Reclaiming Abandoned Land Mines’


Team Biden is having a tough time with its messaging, especially when it comes to alternatives for energy workers who have lost their high-paying jobs because of the new administration’s war on the fossil fuel industry.

For example, in the video below, John Kerry, who is serving as the special presidential envoy for climate, suggested those workers “make solar panels.”

John Kerry—who flies in private jets, owned a 76-foot yacht and several mansions—has the carbon footprint of a small nation.

Yet he tells energy workers to “make solar panels” when the Biden administration kills their jobs.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) January 27, 2021

If possible, Vice President Kamala Harris sent an even more tone-deaf message during an interview with WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West Virginia, that aired Thursday night.

Her lack of concern for the workers in the coal mining industry whose livelihoods were abruptly lost was impossible to miss. So was her complete lack of familiarity with the topic.

Harris told the outlet that the workers’ skills could be transferred “to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines.”

Come on, you know, all those land mines strewn about the countryside in West Virginia.

.@KamalaHarris says there will be job creation around “reclaiming abandoned land mines” in West Virginia.

“All of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines.”

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 31, 2021

What better way to win friends in West Virginia? Political commentator Varad Mehta noted on Twitter that this “slip-up” was “sure to cause eye rolls in the state.”

“There’s the unparalleled political acumen Vice President Intersectionality is known for,” Mehta said.

One person responded, “They just keep underestimating her unpopularity, there’s a kind of reverse Trump effect in her polling. Maybe she’s a good politician behind the scenes but public facing, she’s not good.”

They just keep underestimating her unpopularity, there’s a kind of reverse Trump effect in her polling. Maybe she’s a good politician behind the scenes but public facing, she’s not good.

— EdAsante (@EdAsante77) January 31, 2021

No, she’s really not good.

Except for that one brief moment of glory during a Democratic presidential debate when Harris performed her well-rehearsed takedown of then-rival Joe Biden over busing and segregation, her numbers languished in the low single digits until she was forced to end her campaign.

Harris is unquestionably a bright, accomplished woman, but she is unlikable and appears completely out of touch with ordinary Americans.

Whether she doesn’t know what language to use when discussing mines or she was simply reading the words from a teleprompter, there is a larger point to consider.

This woman is the vice president, and what she says has consequences. The consequences, in this case, make it seem like she has no idea about what the people in the mining industry are facing and that it doesn’t even matter to her.

As the Biden administration continues erasing energy jobs at an alarming rate, it has shown a stunning indifference about the impact this is having on workers and their families.

Democrats used to be known as the party that cared about everyday Americans, while Republicans were painted as beholden to large corporations. These roles have been largely reversed.

Part of this shift can be explained by former President Donald Trump’s embrace of populism. The rest of it can be attributed to the Democrats’ increasing alignment with coastal liberal elites.

Their ebbing concern for working-class Americans became clear after remarks made by then-presidential candidate Barack Obama at a 2008 private fundraiser in San Francisco went public. Referring to voters from “small towns in Pennsylvania” and the Midwest, he famously said, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

His chief Democratic opponent in that race, Hillary Clinton, pounced on this statement, telling voters that it telegraphed Obama’s “elitism.”

But that is the direction the party has taken since that time.

Although Harris has been known to say or do whatever is necessary to achieve her goals, she was remarkably consistent throughout the campaign about her goal of eliminating the fossil fuel industry. She knows, after all, this is the favored position of the liberal elites.

Biden’s stance tended to waver, depending upon his audience.

Thousands of workers in the fossil fuel industry will lose their jobs in the near future. Thousands already have. The least that Harris and other Biden administration officials can do is to learn something about the industry they’re working so hard to kill. And maybe show some concern, even if they don’t mean it.

Dem Sen. Sinema Defies Party, May Have Just Saved the Country as We Know It


As the Democrats continue unimpeded in their quest to fundamentally transform the United States, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has run into an unexpected roadblock. A Democratic senator has said “no way” to the party’s dream of eliminating the filibuster — and it’s not Joe Manchin.

A representative of Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

She sounds pretty clear about that, doesn’t she?

For all the focus on Manchin being anti-nuke on filibuster, this is what a spokes for @kyrstensinema tells me + @mikedebonis:

“Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) January 25, 2021

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Currently, with a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why this is bad news for Democrats:

“It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.

“If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.”

Up until now, conservatives have been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

In the past, Manchin has expressed his opposition to ending the filibuster, but recent statements have left Republicans wondering.

However, Politico reported Monday that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Perhaps he had gotten wind of Sinema’s announcement by that time.

Either way, the Arizonan’s remarkable decision comes as welcome news to all of us who have feared the radical agenda now being promoted by the left.

Despite credible allegations of election irregularities in the state, President Joe Biden won Arizona’s 11 electoral votes.

In 2018, then-Rep. Sinema defeated Martha McSally, a GOP congresswoman and former fighter pilot, in the race for the state’s open Senate seat.

Shortly afterward, McSally was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by former Republican Sen. Jon Kyl. In November’s special election, McSally lost to Democrat Mark Kelly, an astronaut and the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords. So the once reliably red state now has two Democratic senators.

That said, Arizona has not turned blue, and there is no doubt that Sinema’s opposition to eliminating the filibuster will be applauded by many in the Grand Canyon State.

Protecting the filibuster is essential to protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Even with the filibuster in place, Democrats can do and have already done a lot of damage. But their major radical initiatives, such as granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico and stacking the Supreme Court, will be blocked by the Republicans.

Schumer and Sinema’s other Democratic colleagues must be seething with anger following her announcement.

We all recall the New York senator’s exuberance after the establishment media declared Biden the president-elect. Celebrating his party’s victory in the streets of New York City, Schumer famously told supporters, “Now we take Georgia, then we change the world. Now we take Georgia, then we change America.”

Well, unless one senator decides not to end the filibuster, that is.

(Originally Published January 26, 2021 by The Western Journal; 35K reactions)

Former White House Stenographer: Joe Biden Has Lost 50 Percent of His Cognitive Capabilities


Former White House stenographer Mike McCormick spent six years (2011-2017) at then-Vice President Joe Biden’s side as he met with world leaders, delivered speeches and interacted with members of the news media.

On Tuesday, McCormick, the author of “Joe Biden Unauthorized,” appeared on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast to discuss what he estimates to be a 50 percent decline in his former employer’s cognitive abilities over the past few years.

While 50 percent might be an exaggeration, it is clear that President Biden’s mental sharpness has deteriorated since he left the White House in January 2017.

McCormick and Bannon began by watching a clip from a 12-minute speech Biden had delivered earlier in the day in which he outlined his administration’s racial equity agenda. It is unmistakable that he was reading the words from a teleprompter. Afterward, he sat at a desk where four executive orders awaited his signature.

“What’s going on with him? How does he work a suit?” McCormick said as he watched the 78-year-old president try to take a pen out of his pocket, fumble awkwardly with it and finally put it back into a different pocket.

What in the name of sundowning is going on here?

The man can’t handle a pen.

— Media Kane (@MediaKane) January 26, 2021

Finally, after he signed the documents, he rose and walked out of the room as several reporters shouted questions at him. Don’t they understand by now that impromptu speaking is not allowed?

McCormick said, “It’s almost like he’s a Stepford President. He’s this robotic guy. He’s going through the motions.”

He said he thought the speech sounded as if it had been written by former President Barack Obama’s people for Obama. “And Biden was just reading it. And basically, he’s like the ventriloquist’s dummy of the administration,” McCormick said.

“You said earlier, if he has any of the personal flourishes, if he has any of the personal stories, if he goes off script and starts talking and it’ll take 45 minutes, then you know he’s all there,” Bannon said. “If it’s just on the glass, that shows you that he’s tightly controlled by the puppet masters beforehand. So you’re doubling down on that?”

“Yeah, absolutely. And you know, the thing is, he did have kind of a quip as he was leaving with the reporter. That’s kind of the Joe Biden that I remember,” McCormick replied. “But it was off mic and it was from a distance. You couldn’t really hear the reporter’s question clearly.”

“So to me, they’re really trying to restrict access of the press,” he added. “They’re trying to make it seem like he’s not vulnerable. He’s extremely vulnerable.”

McCormick appeared on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” in September to discuss Biden’s cognitive condition.

Host Laura Ingraham played a clip of Biden delivering a speech in March 2017. He was speaking without a teleprompter and came across as strong, vigorous and in command.

Next, she played several clips from his recent presidential campaign in which Biden appeared weak. He lost his train of thought and forgot words (“you know, the thing”), and at times his speech was slurred.

Also in September, McCormick was interviewed by The Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman and said Biden was completely different four years ago. He explained that Biden had “lost a step and he doesn’t seem to have the same mental acuity as he did four years ago. He doesn’t have the energy, he doesn’t have the pace of his speaking. He’s a different guy.”

“Back then,” McCormick told Goodman, Biden had a knack for “connecting with audiences” and “almost always veered off script” during his speeches.

“He’d just make a big joke out of it, and go straight from the hip. And notice, he’s not doing that anymore … it’s not Joe Biden anymore,” McCormick said. He added that the president “looks lost in interviews now.”

I’ve often wondered how his family and associates could allow the world to watch his decline, but I suspect the answer is that Jill Biden really, really wanted to be first lady and the Democrats needed to prevent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination.

Anyway, the world is most certainly watching, including Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, and what they see is weakness.

Even in his prime, Biden was never considered a formidable or even a particularly strong leader. McCormick recounted an incident in March 2011 during Biden’s first visit with the Russian leader.

McCormick said that during a joint news conference, Biden “launched into a soliloquy about his visits to Russia during the Cold War.” Suddenly, the vice president’s microphone was cut off. Then “the press lighting was switched off, and Putin’s aides ushered the media out of the room.”

Putin had “publicly humiliated” him.

“He basically got body-slammed by Putin, really. I mean, I don’t know how else to describe it,” McCormick told Goodman. “To me it was like, here’s our great foreign policy expert and he just got punk’d. And Vladimir Putin just had no fear or respect for him.”

Unsurprisingly, news of this very public, very deliberate indignity “never made it into media coverage of the trip.”

McCormick offered some background. Ahead of the meeting, Biden’s staffers had “made a big deal about how Putin really dominated the conversation [with] Obama” during his visit to Russia. They were sure that Biden, because of his “decades of Senate foreign policy experience,” would never allow that to happen.

Describing this moment in his book, McCormick wrote: “[Putin’s] message was unmistakable: I’m in charge of the room, I’m in charge of my country, and I’m in charge of the reset. As you might imagine, the vice president’s staffers were furious with the Russians. I was instructed to have the transcript reflect how the vice president had been cut off in mid sentence.”

The official White House transcript reads: “VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: There’s a reason, Mr. Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, I’ve been around a long time. The first time I was here — the second time I was here, I was meeting with President Brezhnev. We were trying to pass SALT II — END”

Biden was at the top of his game in 2011. Ten years later, he appears to be much diminished.

As much as his handlers try to control situations, there are certain presidential duties and occasions that can’t be scripted or micromanaged ahead of time. Many of these events take place on the national and even the international stage.

The president’s handlers can write his speeches and put them on a teleprompter, and they can keep the news media away to a certain extent. But there will be times when Biden will be forced to speak on his own.

Is he still capable of that?

(Originally Published January 28, 2021 by The Western Journal; 130K reactions)

Did You Spot the Message Ted Cruz Had on His Mask for Joe Biden?


It’s not a question of if, but when the Democrats will come after our guns. President Joe Biden himself has vowed to enact stricter gun policies. And those who surround him support more legislation to limit Americans’ access to firearms.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas who, along with GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, led the Senate effort to question the results of the Nov. 3 election, has gone out ahead of the inevitable gun grab.

Cruz was spotted at Biden’s inauguration ceremony wearing a mask adorned with Texas’ famed “Come and Take It” logo, a phrase made famous by the Battle of Gonzales, which “marked the first military fight of the Texas Revolution in 1835,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Sen. @TedCruz Sends Strong Message With Mask at Biden’s Inauguration

— NRA (@NRA) January 20, 2021

Speaking before members of the NRA in 2018, former President Donald Trump recounted the story of the Battle of Gonzales, Breitbart reported.

“In 1835, soldiers from General Santa Anna’s army marched into the little Texas town of Gonzales and ordered those Texans to surrender their small cannon that they relied on to protect their lives and protect their homes,” he said. “The Texans refused! They were not about to give up their only means of self-defense.

“In response, Santa Anna’s army returned with a large group of additional people. They had men all over the place … [but] this time, they were met by dozens of Texans … who had rushed to Gonzales to defend their rights and their freedom.

“As Santa Anna’s men watched from a distance, those brave Texans raised a flag for all to see. On the banner, they painted a cannon along with four words that echoed through the ages. It said, ‘Come and Take It.'”

One of the few memorable moments from any of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary debates occurred when then-candidate Beto O’Rourke was asked about his support for mandatory gun buybacks in September 2019. CNN reported that the former Texas congressman — reacting to a mass shooting at an El Paso, Texas, store the previous month — responded, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

Six months later, after O’Rourke had withdrawn from the race, Biden — fresh off his resurrection from the political graveyard — told supporters that O’Rourke will “be the one who leads” his gun control effort.

Joe Biden promises Beto O’Rourke, who pushed for gun confiscation for legal gun owners, will “be the one who leads” his gun control effort

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 3, 2020

The Biden campaign’s position on gun control is outlined in a comprehensive section on the campaign website. It begins by telling readers, “Joe Biden knows that gun violence is a public health epidemic.”

Among the site’s many proposals are plans to:

  • “Hold gun manufacturers accountable”
  • “Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines”
  • “Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities”
  • “[E]nact universal background check legislation and close other loopholes that allow people who should be prohibited from purchasing firearms from making those purchases”

In other words, the Biden administration wants to substantially diminish our Second Amendment rights.

According to the Beaumont Enterprise, the “Come and Take It” logo has come to be known as a symbol of defiance. The outlet noted that Cruz has worn this mask at least twice.

Cruz also donned the mask on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol when he voted to object to certifying Arizona and Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes for Biden.

We can count on Cruz to be one of the people standing between America and new gun laws. Wearing that mask was a brilliant yet subtle way to send a message to Biden that Republicans are not going to let him strip away gun rights without a fight.

(Originally Published January 21, 2021 by The Western Journal; 84K reactions)

Schumer Admits Reason for Vindictive Second Impeachment of Trump


(Originally Published January 21, 2021 at 8:59am by The Western Journal; 110K reactions)

OK, Democrats: As all Americans can agree, the deadly Capitol riot that occurred Jan. 6 was despicable, tragic and deeply disturbing. It never should have happened.

It was not, however, as many on the left proclaim, the darkest day in American history. In an appearance with Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show earlier this week, conservative commentator Jason Whitlock noted that lawmakers are acting as if they’ve been through Pearl Harbor.

Nor was it instigated by President Donald Trump (for reasons cited below).

So why are Democrats, and some Republicans, engaging in such hyperbole? The new Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, provided the reason in a speech delivered on the Senate floor on Tuesday. (Schumer’s full remarks can be read in full here and viewed below.)

“President Trump is a threat to our constitutional order, whether he is in or out of office,” the New York Democrat said.

The most critical sentence in his entire address is as follows (emphasis mine): “We need to set a precedent that the severest offense ever committed by a president will be met by the severest remedy provided by the Constitution — impeachment and conviction by this chamber, as well as disbarment from future office.

I repeat. “Disbarment from future office.”

Given that several Republicans in the Senate, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, say they are open to convicting Trump, a trial — and a guilty verdict — might be more likely than not.

If the Senate trial results in a guilty verdict, a second vote will be held to determine if Trump will be disqualified from seeking future public office.

According to an article by Michael J. Gerhardt, the Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina School of Law, “through a separate vote after he is convicted, Trump may be subject to the unique constitutional penalty of disqualification.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the goal.

The “Washington establishment,” a group that includes longtime Republicans as well as Democrats, is united in making sure that Trump is unable to seek the presidency ever again. McConnell, who won his Senate seat in 1984, belongs to this group of elites.

Speaking with the same overblown rhetoric we’ve grown accustomed to hearing from the Senator from New York, Schumer told his colleagues: “Rioters, insurrectionists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists tried to prevent the transfer of power. They were incited by none other than the president of the United States.”

This characterization is false. Period.

First, FBI documents from the day prior to the Capitol incursion, reviewed by media outlets such as The Washington Post, disprove this charge. I wrote about this here and here earlier this week.

Second, The Associated Press reported that three days prior to the riot, “the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.”

Additionally, a read of Trump’s remarks to his supporters at the rally that day shows he called upon them to march “peacefully and patriotically” to “make your voices heard.” In fact, the incursion had begun while he was still speaking.

Nevertheless, a flash impeachment took place on Jan. 13 in the House of Representatives, and, as Schumer explained to his peers, a post-presidency trial in the Senate is a priority.

In fact, it is the No. 1 priority of the first three “essential items of business” on Schumer’s agenda. It comes ahead of confirming Cabinet officials and providing COVID-19 relief to Americans who are suffering as a result of the lockdowns.

Here is what Schumer told lawmakers: “Over the next several weeks, the Senate must accomplish three essential items: a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the confirmation of President Biden’s Cabinet and other key officials, and legislation to provide much needed, almost desperately needed, COVID relief.”

“Again, that’s three essential items of business,” he emphasized.

“One, as mandated by law and Constitution, once the House of Representatives delivers articles of impeachment to the Senate, we will conduct and complete a trial of Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection against these United States.

“Two, the Senate will confirm key members of soon-to-be President Biden’s Cabinet. Those Cabinet officials in charge of national security must be confirmed quickly, as well as those in charge of responding to the current health and economic crises.

“And three, the Senate will take up legislation to provide the country additional relief from the pandemic.”

Soon, Democrats will present their radical agenda to the American people. But first, they must vanquish their greatest enemy, Donald Trump, completely and forever.

They may accomplish this, but as Trump vowed in his farewell address, “We will be back in some form.” Trump may be defeated, but the movement he began is not.

New Video of Trump Supporter at Capitol Riot Completely Defies Media’s Narrative


(Originally Published January 20, 2021 at 8:36am by The Western Journal; 51K reactions)

Democratic politicians and their enforcers, the legacy media, have gone into overdrive to establish the narrative that former President Donald Trump’s speech, delivered at a rally shortly before a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, incited the Jan. 6 riot.

The concerted effort to tar the outgoing president triggered a hasty impeachment for “incitement of an insurrection” in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives exactly one week later and, according to many liberal pundits, destroyed Trump’s legacy overnight.

FBI reports that the breach of the Capitol was preplanned by a small group of extremists and the filing of a charging document against three alleged perpetrators Tuesday have done nothing to quell the specious claims.

Now a new video has emerged of a Trump supporter begging police officers in riot gear at the Capitol to call for backup after the incursion began that day. Of course, because it completely defies the establishment media’s narrative that all of the Trump supporters at the Capitol were violent, they will ignore it.

In the clip, a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap approached a police officer and shouted, “Why are you letting this happen? Why haven’t you called for backup? Where is your backup?”

Pointing to the building, he continued, “This is our damn Capitol building and you all are letting it get destroyed on your watch. F— all of you. Call for backup. Get some help down here.”

He turned away, then added, “And if they don’t want to give you f—ing backup, they obviously don’t give a s— about you. These people want blood.”

This man was pleading with the police to take action. The point is that most of the tens of thousands of Trump supporters in Washington that day were probably like him. The video shows a crowd gathered outside the building. They can be seen peacefully protesting, an American tradition that is their constitutional right. Some were carrying U.S. flags, and shouts of “We the people” could be heard.

Clearly, the police were not prepared to face an event like this.

But why weren’t they?

Evidence shows the intelligence community had been warned that the planned protest could turn violent.

The Washington Post reported that on Jan. 5, “an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and ‘war.'”

According to The Post, “a situational information report approved for release the day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex’s tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.”

Here is an excerpt from the FBI report: “As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington. D.C. An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”

Trump has held countless rallies over the past five years, and violence has never been an issue. The protester appearing in the video above demanding that police take action to restore order is what we’ve come to expect among the outgoing president’s supporters.

But the crisis that unfolded at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was simply too irresistible for the Democrats not to exploit. It was a great gift that allowed them to realize many of their goals.

  • It immediately shut down debate over allegations of fraud in the Nov. 3 election.
  • It provided a vehicle through which they could turn the nation against Trump.
  • It offered them an opportunity for one final humiliation — a second impeachment — which they hope will prevent Trump from seeking the presidency in 2024.

The left has become very adept at both spotting and creating occasions that can be weaponized against Donald Trump.

But don’t count him out just yet.


Compare the Democrats’ five-year war on Trump to Wile E. Coyote’s perpetual pursuit of Roadrunner in the old Looney Tunes cartoons.

In every episode, Wile E. Coyote has a new idea for how he will finally catch that bird, but Roadrunner is simply too fast and too clever. And Wile E. Coyote never succeeds. His plans always backfire, leaving him wounded and angry. But that doesn’t stop him from trying again.

Those on the left hope the Capitol riot will be the event that allows them to vanquish Trump once and for all.

They believe they’ve finally gotten him, and as always, they’ve overreached, portraying the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump as domestic terrorists (who need to be “re-educated” or “cleansed”) and declaring war.

Hopefully, they will end up dumbfounded, resembling Wile E. Coyote as he once again slams into a wall, his flattened body sticking there for a moment before sliding to the ground.

Lindsey Graham Asks $64,000 Question: ‘Should We Impeach Barack Obama?’


(Originally Published January 17, 2021 at 11:51 am by The Western Journal; 200K reactions)

Joined by 10 Republicans, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted last week to impeach President Trump for a second time, a mere week before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.

The Senate trial for this politically motivated parting gift is slated to begin after Trump has left the White House. Wherever one stands on the role of Trump’s speech in inciting the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, the appropriateness of a post-presidency impeachment needs to be examined.

Aside from the fact that new evidence suggests the riot was pre-planned and according to a NPR report (and many others), that the former chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, said “security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard,” the Democrats have triggered an action that sets a dangerous precedent for both past and future U.S presidents.

On Wednesday night, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is opposed to the impeachment of a former president, appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity.” He said if the Senate chooses to go forward with the Democrats’ foolish gambit, it could lead to future impeachments of former presidents. Graham asked, “Should we impeach Barack Obama because, for 24 hours, he never lifted a finger to help those people under siege in Benghazi? Where does this stop?”

In the terms of the old TV show, it’s the $64,000 question, the question that trumps all others: Is there ever an end to a former president’s culpability of actions taken during his time in office?

The failure in September 2012 of then-President Obama himself, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials to first prevent Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia’s attack on the American diplomatic post in Benghazi, and once it began, to provide assistance to Americans defending the facilities, are well-known and documented.

House Republicans completed a long and formal investigation and issued an exhaustive report in 2016 that detailed the attack that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including a United States ambassador.

In January 2017, Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Anxious to get to work to “Make America Great Again,” the impeachment of the former president for his abdication of duty during the Benghazi assault was not part of their agenda.

Here’s what Graham told Sean Hannity: “We’ll play this out. We impeach the president today without any evidence. It’s just sheer hatred. If this becomes the norm, be careful what you wish for today. Under this theory, the radical left — if you can impeach a president after they’re out of office, why don’t we impeach George Washington? He owned slaves. Where does this stop? So, to my Republican colleagues, let’s stand firm for the idea — whether you like Donald Trump or not, he’s not above the law.”

“If he did something wrong, you know, you can face the consequences of the law. Impeachment is political. What we’re doing here is we’re impeaching the president without any evidence, without any witnesses and we’re going to have a trial after they are out of office. How do you survive as a president in the future? This will be an attack on the presidency in perpetuity.”

Our country is currently in crisis. First, COVID-19 has claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 Americans as of Sunday, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronvirus Resource Center. According to New York Times data, there have been about 23.8 million cases of the virus nationwide. This pandemic has devastated our economy and added trillions to the national debt.

Second, the U.S. must deal with a rising China whose ambition to dominate the planet is a clear and present danger.

Next, the majority of those who voted for Donald Trump believes that the Democrats stole the election through widespread fraud in six battleground states. The political divide in the U.S. is reaching pre-Civil War proportions.

Additionally, the mainstream media long ago lost any pretense of objectivity in reporting the news. It outlets, along with Big Tech, were instrumental in suppressing negative information about Biden and his family, and amplifying stories that were unfavorable to Trump.

The Democrats would rather make a spurious impeachment trial of a former president a major order of business instead of buckling down to address the multiple enormous crises we currently face. It really shows us who they are.

Graham is entirely correct when he said that “if this becomes the norm, be careful what you wish for today.”

Already, the newly minted Republican congresswoman from Georgia, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, has vowed to introduce articles of impeachment against Biden one day after he takes office. She argues Biden was abusing his power as vice president when, in 2015, he gave an ultimatum to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general who was investigating Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, which employed Biden’s son Hunter as a board member, or Ukraine would not receive $1 billion in U.S. aid

On January 21, 2021, I’ll be filing Articles of Impeachment against Joe Biden for abuse of power.#ImpeachBiden #QuidProJoe#BidenCrimeFamilly

— Marjorie Taylor Greene (@mtgreenee) January 14, 2021

Taylor Greene is correct that Biden’s threat, which he boasted about at a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event, represented a quid pro quo, but do we really want to go down this road?

Do we intend to diminish the gravity of impeachment to such a point where it is used casually and frequently by one party against the other for political gain?

No serious deliberation took place in the House on Wednesday. Democrats delivered reckless and hyperbolic remarks on the House floor without providing any evidence that Trump instigated a riot.

Canadian commentator Conrad Black, as he always does, eloquently explained the Democrats’ folly in pursuing this baseless impeachment in a piece published Saturday.

“The article of impeachment that was passed this week is one third press clippings and contains no plausible legal charge,” he wrote. “Trump is accused of inciting an insurrection, which is a violent uprising against the government; this was what President Lincoln declared when 11 southern states seceded in 1861, starting a Civil War in which 750,000 Americans died.”

Democrats “ignored the months of ‘peaceful protests’ across the country all summer that killed scores of people, injured 700 police, and did $2 billion of damage to mainly minority-owned businesses,” Black continued.

“And now, in the most fatuous exercise in American political history, the House Democrats have launched an impeachment of the president with no argument, no evidence, no witnesses, no due process of any kind, for a proposed trial to remove the president from office well after he will have departed that office at the expiry of his constitutionally fixed term and to do so for conduct that did not occur. This will be a total fiasco and Trump’s enemies in their frenzy are endangering the claim of the United States to be a democracy governed by the rule of law.”

Laughably, the theme for Biden’s forthcoming inauguration is “unity.” If the Democrats truly seek unity, Biden should lean on congressional leadership to end this frivolous action immediately.

Because it doesn’t appear he is doing so, Graham is right to ask, “Where does it stop?” Where indeed.

That’s the $64,000 question — and one Democrats and the mainstream media are unable to answer.