Rep. Jim Jordan: ‘For Sure, The Votes Are There’ to Launch Cheney

Photo Credit: Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) had some good news for those of us who would like to see Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) removed from her position as the House Republican Conference Chair.

Jordan appeared on Fox News’ “Primetime” on Wednesday night. After a lively discussion with host Pete Hegseth and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich about why Cheney must go, he was asked, “Exit question, real quick, Representative Jordan, do you have the votes? Will it happen?”

“Yeah, I think that for sure, the votes are there,” Jordan replied. “And I think it will happen most likely next Wednesday.”

“You can’t have a Republican conference chair reciting Democrat talking points,” Jordan said. “You can’t have a Republican conference chair taking a position that 90 percent of the party disagrees with, and you can’t have a Republican party chair consistently speaking out against the individual who 74 million Americans voted for.”

“You can’t be the conference chair when you consistently speak out against the leader of our party and you consistently speak out against the positions that the vast, vast, vast majority of our party and our country, I think, holds.”

Gingrich said that Cheney “had every right to vote her conscience [for former President Donald Trump’s impeachment]. She had no right to use the chairmanship of the conference to exploit her position when, in fact, the conference  by about 200 to 10 – that’s 20 to 1 – was on the other side. That’s why I think from an internal legislative standpoint, she simply can’t be chairman of a conference that she refuses to listen to.”

Hegseth played a clip of President Joe Biden weighing in on the push to oust Cheney earlier on Wednesday. Responding ever so slowly, he responded, “It seems as though the Republican Party is trying to identify what it stands for. And they’re in the midst of, a, significant, uh, sort of a mini-revolution going on in the Republican Party.”

Republications held a secret ballot vote to oust Cheney in February which she obviously survived. The result was 145 to 61. At that time, she had the support of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

According to The Wall Street Journal, following the vote, “McCarthy gave a rousing speech supporting her as a party leader.”

However, “their relationship has gone downhill ever since.”

On Tuesday, Axios obtained a recording of McCarthy (R-CA) on a hot mic telling Fox & Friends’ co-host Steve Doocy that he’s “lost confidence” in Cheney.

On the tape, McCarthy can be heard saying, “I think she’s got real problems. I’ve had it with … I’ve had it with her. You know, I’ve lost confidence. … Well, someone just has to bring a motion, but I assume that will probably take place.” I posted about this here.

Who will replace Cheney if, as now expected, she is removed from her position. On Wednesday, House GOP Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) publicly endorsed Rep.  Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Stefanik is seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. She was especially strong in her defense of then-President Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Lauren Fine, a spokeswoman for Scalise, issued a statement which said, “House Republicans need to be solely focused on taking back the House in 2022 and fighting against Speaker Pelosi and President Biden’s radical socialist agenda, and Elise Stefanik is strongly committed to doing that.”

GOP Rep. Crenshaw Will Take Leave From Congress Following Surgery on the ‘Good’ Eye

Photo Credit: Image by Hebi B. from Pixabay

Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican, announced on Saturday he will take a one month leave from his congressional duties to recover from surgery to his eye. He noted that he will be “effectively blind” for a month.

Crenshaw’s statement said, “This is a terrifying prognosis for someone with one eye, and the nature of the injuries that I sustained in Afghanistan. Anyone who knows the history of my injuries knows that I don’t have a ‘good eye,’ but half a good eye. The blast from 2012 caused a cataract, excessive tissue damage, and extensive damage to my retina. It was always a possibility that the effects of the damage to my retina would resurface, and it appears that is exactly what has happened.”

He continued, “The surgery went well, but I will be effectively blind for about a month. During the surgery they put a gas bubble in my eye, which acts as a bandage for my retina. This means I have to be face-down for the next week or so, unable to see anything.”

“I have gotten through worse before, and I will get through this.”

The former Navy SEAL certainly has been through worse. Crenshaw lost his right eye in an IED attack while deployed to Afghanistan’s Helmand Province in 2012.

According to a report in The Washington Post, “On June 15, 2012, when Crenshaw was 28, he and his platoon helicoptered into Helmand province on a last-minute mission to support a Marine Special Operations unit. At the time, Helmand was littered with improvised explosive devices. Bombs were so present in some areas that it was safer to crouch in place during oncoming fire — and wager on a sniper’s uncertain aim — than to dive for cover onto uncertain ground.”

The report said, “While Crenshaw’s platoon moved to secure a compound, an Afghan interpreter named Raqman, who wanted to become a Navy SEAL himself, responded to a call and crossed in front of Crenshaw. Raqman stepped on a pressure plate, triggering 15 pounds of explosives and suffering fatal injuries. Crenshaw, who was a couple of paces back, said he felt like he was hit by a truck while a firing squad shot at him. He was on the ground and his eyes were numb. The rest of his body screamed like it had been scratched open and doused in Tabasco. He reached down and felt his legs. Good sign. He had no vision, but assumed his eyes were just filled with dirt.”

While a medic was assessing the his injuries, Crenshaw said, “Dude, don’t ever get blown up. It really sucks.”

Considered a rising star in the Republican Party, Crenshaw first won his seat representing Texas’ 2nd congressional district in November 2018. He defeated seven opponents during the Republican primary, “then squashed a state legislator in a runoff.” Crenshaw won a second term in November.

Shortly before Election Day in 2018, Crenshaw’s grace endeared him to a nation.

Saturday Night Live’s Pete Davidson held up a photo of Crenshaw wearing an eyepatch and joked, “You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hit-man in a porno movie. I’m sorry, I know he lost his eye in war or whatever.”

The show’s creator, Lorne Michaels, called Crenshaw afterward to apologize and to invite him to come on the next show which he did, reluctantly.

Sitting next to Davidson the following weekend, he told viewers, “But, seriously, there’s a lot of lessons to learn here. Not just that the left and right can still agree on some things but also this: Americans can forgive one another. We can remember what brings us together as a country.”

Crenshaw told Americans that rather thanking a member of the military for their service, say “Never forget.”

About Those Sex Trafficking Allegations Swirling Around Rep. Matt Gaetz, We Would Be Wise to Reserve Judgment

Photo Credit: Image by jorgophotography from Pixabay

An otherwise quiet Tuesday night news cycle was rocked when The New York Times broke the bombshell story that Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican, is under investigation by the DOJ for the possible violation of federal sex trafficking laws. They are looking into whether he may have engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her to travel with him. It is illegal, the Times informed its readers, “to induce someone under 18 to travel over state lines to engage in sex in exchange for money or something of value.” The encounters are said to have occurred about two years ago.

The Times also wrote that Gaetz is a subject, rather than the target, of the investigation. Their sources are identified as “three people briefed on the matter.”

So, what’s behind the MOAB the Times dropped on Matt Gaetz?

As it turns out, the DOJ is investigating the congressman. But, we’ve been around the block a time or two and know that Democrats have made a sport out of opening bogus investigations into Republicans for political expediency. Considering the fact that Gaetz has fiercely, openly and repeatedly defended former President Donald Trump against the treasure trove of false allegations Democrats leveled at him, we would be wise to reserve judgment.

The target of the investigation is a Gaetz associate named Joel Greenberg. According to the Times, Greenberg “was indicted last summer on an array of charges, including sex trafficking of a child and financially supporting people in exchange for sex, at least one of whom was an underage girl.” Prior to Greenberg’s indictment, he served as the Seminole County tax collector.

Anyway, after the story broke last night, Gaetz in his inimitable style, came out swinging. He appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson’s show to vehemently deny the allegations which were swirling around him. Gaetz claimed that a former DOJ official, David McGee, is attempting to extort $25 million from he and his family to make this story “go away.” A video of the segment is provided below, along with a transcript.

He demanded that the “DOJ and the FBI release the audio recordings that were made under their supervision and at their direction” which he said will prove his innocence.

One has to admit that a guilty person might hesitate before turning to the FBI if they were being extorted for a crime they did commit.

He told Carlson:

What is happening is an extortion of me and my family involving a former Department of Justice official. On March 16th, my father got a text message demanding a meeting, wherein a person demanded $25 million in exchange for making horrible sex trafficking allegations against me go away. Our family was so troubled by that we went to the local FBI. And the FBI and the Department of Justice were so concerned about this attempted extortion of a member of Congress that they asked my dad to wear a wire, which he did with the former Department of Justice official. Tonight I am demanding that the Department of Justice and the FBI release the audio recordings that were made under their supervision and at their direction, which will prove my innocence.

And that will show that these allegations aren’t true. They’re merely intended to try to bleed my family out of money. And this former Department of Justice official tomorrow was supposed to be contacted by my father, so that specific instructions could be given regarding the wiring of $4.5 million as a down payment on this bribe. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that tonight, somehow the New York Times is leaking this information, smearing me and ruining the investigation that would likely result in one of the former colleagues of the current DOJ being brought to justice for trying to extort me and my family.

And he identified the official:

His name is David McGee. He was a top official in the leadership in the Northern district of Florida as a prosecutor. He currently works at the Beggs & Lane law firm. As a matter of fact, one of the recordings that was made at the FBI and Department of Justice request occurred at that law firm and the money that was supposed to be paid today, that would have shown even more evidence of David McGee’s work in this extortion scheme. That was foiled by the New York Times story and I believe that’s why this horrible information and these terrible allegations have been used this evening.

Gaetz won his seat in Congress in 2016 at the age of 33. He is an extremely ambitious young man, a lawyer and in my opinion, he appears to be quite savvy. Although he was new to Washington, he comes from a political family. He had also served three terms as a representative in the Florida State Legislature.

Due to his firebrand personality and outspokenness, it didn’t take long for Gaetz to become one of the most recognizable members of Congress. Add to that his bachelor status at the time, and it’s inconceivable that he did not have more than his share of female attention.

He was well aware that, as part of Trump’s preferred circle of trusted House Republicans, he would be under close scrutiny by Democrats.

Considering all of these factors, I just cannot imagine that he would take a chance on cratering his future by associating with an underage woman.

These types of bombshells also tend to take place when the Democrats want to deflect attention from their own vulnerabilities.

The reason Hillary Clinton conjured up the Trump dossier was to distract voters from focusing on her email scandal.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has come under intense fire after nine women have accused him of sexual harassment. Wouldn’t now be an opportune time to break a story about sex trafficking allegations against a prominent Republican?

I might be very wrong about Matt Gaetz. However, before he is convicted by the media, why don’t we let him defend himself.


Here is a transcript of the interview (via

Tucker Carlson:
Just a couple of hours ago, late this afternoon, the New York Times ran a story saying that Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is under federal investigation for playing some role in sex trafficking and potentially having a relationship with a 17 year old girl. There are very few details in major news outlets tonight about this story. We have no background on at all and not even any very informed questions. Instead, we’ve invited Congressman Gaetz on the show to respond to these stories and give us his view of them. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate it. So, this is obviously a serious allegation. Tell us what the truth is from your perspective.

Matt Gaetz:
It is a horrible allegation and it is a lie. The New York Times is running a story that I have traveled with a 17 year old woman and that is verifiably false. People can look at my travel records and see that that is not the case. What is happening is an extortion of me and my family involving a former Department of Justice official. On March 16th my father got a text message demanding a meeting, wherein a person demanded $25 million in exchange for making horrible sex trafficking allegations against me go away. Our family was so troubled by that we went to the local FBI and the FBI and the Department of Justice were so concerned about this attempted extortion of a member of Congress that they asked my dad to wear a wire, which he did with the former Department of Justice official. Tonight I am demanding that the Department of Justice and the FBI release the audio recordings that were made under their supervision and at their direction, which will prove my innocence.

And that will show that these allegations aren’t true. They’re merely intended to try to bleed my family out of money. And this former Department of Justice official tomorrow was supposed to be contacted by my father, so that specific instructions could be given regarding the wiring of $4.5 million as a down payment on this bribe. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that tonight, somehow the New York Times is leaking this information, smearing me and ruining the investigation that would likely result in one of the former colleagues of the current DOJ being brought to justice for trying to extort me and my family.

Tucker Carlson:
So, a couple of obvious questions that come to mind. And again, just to restate this just happened. Don’t have any other information beyond what we’ve already said and you have said. First of all, who is this Department of Justice former employee who’s trying to extort the money from you, you say?

Matt Gaetz:
His name is David McGee. He was a top official in the leadership in the Northern district of Florida as a prosecutor. He currently works at the Beggs & Lane law firm. As a matter of fact, one of the recordings that was made at the FBI and Department of Justice request occurred at that law firm and the money that was supposed to be paid today, that would have shown even more evidence of David McGee’s work in this extortion scheme. That was foiled by the New York Times story and I believe that’s why this horrible information and these terrible allegations have been used this evening.

Tucker Carlson:
So, I’ll get the investigation in a sec, but you’re saying that David McGee was motivated by greed. He was trying to extort money from your family. That’s his motivation you’re saying.

Matt Gaetz:
I know that there was a demand for money in exchange for a commitment that he could make this investigation go away along with his co-conspirators. They even claim to have specific connections inside the Biden white house. Now, I don’t know if that’s true. They were promising that Joe Biden would pardon me. Obviously I don’t need a pardon. I’m not seeking a pardon. I’ve not done anything improper or wrong, but what I am troubled by is the real motivation for all of this. Just tonight Ted Lieu, a Democrat, is calling on me to be removed from the house judiciary committee. And I believe we are in an era of our politics now Tucker, where people are smeared to try to take them out of the conversation.

Matt Gaetz:
I’m not the only person on screen right now who has been falsely accused of a terrible sex act. You were accused of something that you did not do. And so, you know what this feels like, the pain that can bring to your family and you know how it just puts people on defense when you’re accused of something, so salacious and awful. But it did not happen. It is not true. And the fact that it is the basis of this attempt to extort my family, tells a lot. And if the FBI and Department of Justice will release the tapes that they are in possession of, the American people will see what is really going on.

Tucker Carlson:
You just referred to a mentally ill viewer who accused me of a sex crime 20 years ago. And of course it was not true, I’d never met the person. But I do agree with you that being accused falsely is one of the worst things that can happen. And you do see it a lot. Let’s go back to the investigation. You say that it was or is underway, there was an investigation. What is the basis of that investigation? What is the allegation? That really not very clear from these news stories?

Matt Gaetz:
Yeah. Again I only know what I’ve read in the New York Times. I can say that actually you and I went to dinner about two years ago, your wife was there and I brought a friend of mine. You’ll remember her. And she was actually threatened by the FBI, told that if she wouldn’t cop to the fact that somehow I was involved in some pay for play scheme, that she could face trouble. And so, I do believe that there are people at the Department of Justice who are trying to smear me. Providing for flights and hotel rooms for people that you’re dating who are of legal age is not a crime. And I’m just troubled that the lack of any sort of legitimate investigation into me would then permute would then convert into this extortion attempt.

Tucker Carlson:
I don’t remember the woman you’re speaking of or the context at all, honestly, but I would like to know who… So, they’re saying there is a 17 year old girl who you had a relationship with. Is that true? And who is this girl? What are they talking about the New York Times?

Matt Gaetz:
The person doesn’t exist. I have not had a relationship with a 17 year old. That is totally false. The allegation I read in the New York Times is that I’ve traveled with some 17 year old in some relationship. That is false and records will bear that out to be false.

Tucker Carlson:
How long has this investigation been going on? Do you know?

Matt Gaetz:
I don’t know.

Tucker Carlson:
When were you first informed of it?

Matt Gaetz:
Again, I really saw this as a deeply troubling challenge for my family on March 16th when people were talking about a minor and that there were pictures of me with child prostitutes. That’s obviously false. There will be no such pictures because no such thing happened. But really on March 16th was when this got going from the extortion standpoint.

Tucker Carlson:
So, what happens next? I mean you can see there is this investigation, I guess a criminal investigation. I’m not quite sure what the sex trafficking part comes in. I don’t again for the fifth time, I don’t really understand this story very well. But where does it go from here? I mean you’ve made an allegation against someone by name on the air and accused him of trying to extort millions of dollars from your family. What what happens tomorrow?

Matt Gaetz:
Well what was supposed to happen was the transfer of this money that would have implicated the former colleague of these current DOJ officials. But that’s obviously not going to happen tomorrow because the New York Times story was leaked in order to quell that investigative effort. So, here’s what needs to happen next. The FBI and the Department of Justice must release the tapes that are in their possession, that were done at their direction. Those tapes will show that I am innocent and that the whole concept of sex charges against me was really just a way to try to bleed my family out of money and probably smear my name because I am a well-known outspoken, conservative, and I guess that’s out of style in a lot of parts of the country right now.

Tucker Carlson:
Matt Gaetz, I appreciate your coming on tonight.

Matt Gaetz:
Thanks for giving me the chance to tell the truth. I appreciate it.

Tucker Carlson:
It’s a more interesting and complicated story than that I knew from reading about it. Thank you very much. Matt Gaetz interview, that was one of the weirdest interviews I’ve ever conducted. That story just appeared in the news a couple of hours ago and on the certainty that there’s always more than you read in the newspaper we immediately called Matt Gaetz and asked him to come on and tell us more, which is you saw he did. I don’t think that clarified much but it certainly showed this as a deeply interesting story and we’ll be following it. Don’t quite understand it but we’ll bring you more when we find out.

Pelosi Weighs Decision to Steal Iowa House Seat: It’s My Right to Seat or Unseat Any Member of Congress

Photo Credit: Image by David Mark from Pixabay

The race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, the lead changed hands several times in a statewide recount until finally the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30.

“Hart’s team alleges that there are 22 ballots that should have been counted in the election and that if they had, she would have won by nine votes. Hart’s campaign has cited examples including five absentee ballots cast in her favor that were not counted because they were not properly sealed,” according to NPR.

Rather than going through traditional channels, which would have meant an appeal through Iowa’s court system, Hart’s team went on to file a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee seeking to overturn the results.

The House committee voted along party lines to review Hart’s challenge and “attorneys for the two candidates submitted initial legal briefs … on Monday. In a terse 23-page brief, Miller-Meeks’ counsel broadly denied Hart’s claims and said the burden was on Hart to prove that a state-certified election should be overturned,” NPR reported.

Miller-Meeks was provisionally sworn in in January.

Asked about this case at a press conference, Pelosi replied, “If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa, because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, ‘You’re not seated,’ and that would have been my right as Speaker to do.”

Actually, the Speaker’s job is to seat the lawmakers whom the states have certified as the winners.

This woman seems to lack any sense of right and wrong.

Reportedly, even many House Democrats are balking at the thought  of overturning a state-certified election.

From The Wall Street Journal:

More House Democrats are expressing concern over potentially having to vote later this year on whether to overturn a Republican congresswoman’s razor-thin victory in Iowa.

The House Administration Committee opted on party lines earlier this month to review a challenge from Democratic candidate Rita Hart disputing her loss by six votes to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. The Iowa State Board of Canvassers certified Ms. Miller-Meeks’s narrow win following a recount of the full district. But the legal team of Ms. Hart, who is challenging the results under the Federal Contested Elections Act, said there are 22 valid ballots that were never counted, which could reverse the outcome.

Some House Democrats have recently shared their concerns with Democratic leaders over having to potentially vote to overturn a state-certified election in Iowa and conveyed to them that they might not have enough votes to prevail, according to lawmakers and aides. Democrats currently hold a narrow 219-211 majority and can lose no more than three votes on measures opposed by all Republicans.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday it was Ms. Hart’s right to contest her narrow loss.

“If you had lost a race by six votes, wouldn’t you like to say ‘there must be some way that we can count this?’” she said to reporters. “We are obligated under federal law to follow the process and the facts.”

Last month, Politico reported that Hart “has made the experiences of these voters central to her post-campaign messaging: They have taped videos and called into virtual campaign events to express their disappointment at being disenfranchised. One voter accidentally ripped her ballot envelope while sealing it but was told it would count anyway. Another received an absentee ballot that was already sealed and was told to reopen it and then tape it shut.”

Hart’s lead attorney is Marc Elias of the Perkins, Coie law firm in Washington, D.C. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it was Elias who laundered funds from Hillary Clinton and the DNC through his firm to pay Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm owned by Glenn Simpson, to produce the infamous Steele dossier.

Elias also represented New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi’s recent (and fortunately unsuccessful) effort to overturn his loss to Republican Claudia Tenney in the state’s 22nd Congressional District race. Brindisi conceded to Tenney last month.

Ironically, Elias argued, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi. … In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”

Then why was it ridiculous when Trump’s attorneys made the same argument? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question. We know why.

In addition, according to The Washington Times, Elias “led a team of President Biden attorneys successfully fighting Trump challenges in over 50 courts.”

“The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair,” Politico reported. “After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey.”

“A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.”

It looks like the House might be headed for yet another acrimonious affair.

TX GOP Candidate Knows ‘How to Handle Nancy Pelosi and Stop Her Bullsh**’

Photo Credit: Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

A former professional wrestler from Las Vegas has thrown his hat into the very large ring of candidates vying for the vacant seat of the late Republican Texas Rep. Ron Wright.

The Daily Caller reports that six-foot-seven Dan Rodimer entered the race at the last minute. “The special election has 22 other candidates including Wright’s widow.” The former WWE wrestler is a father of six, and a law school graduate.

In his campaign ad below, “Big Dan” tells voters, “Texas has big problems. We need a big fighter to solve those problems.” Here are some of the highlights:

The commies in D.C. are ruining America. We have a big problems … I know how to handle Nancy Pelosi and stop her bullsh**.

(Steps into a pile of manure) I’ll put a boot right in her socialist platform.

Men in women’s bathrooms, boys in girls’ sports, higher taxes, higher gas prices. They’re building a wall around D.C., but they’re not protecting our borders. They’re laughing at us. Now they’re going to try to take away our guns. (Sound of a gun being cocked.) Oh, hell no.

I moved my family of seven back to Texas because I want to raise my kids in Constitution friendly state. Here in Texas, we are free. We live free.

“The communists in D.C. want to shut down our churches, close our businesses, indoctrinate our children, communism in our classrooms, make our daughters unsafe in sports and school, destroy American borders and our American history. We must stop them.”

“Hire me to represent you and I’ll go to D.C. and kick some left-wing a**.”

Rodimer is brash and a bit over-the-top, but this is what we need in Washington. Although their personalities are different, his “in your face” manner would ruffle liberals feathers in a big way.

The problem in D.C. is that Republicans are too timid. For some, that may be politeness, but for others, it looks like fear. Democrats need to be called out and utterly humiliated for the actions they’ve taken over the last few months.

Republicans would be wise to take a lesson from the Biden Administration’s absolute mortification in Alaska at the hands of the Chinese. Rather than being cowed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s (accurate) accusations, top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi gave as good as he got. He shot right back with a list of America’s shortcomings. When it was Yang’s turn to speak, Blinken inexplicably dismissed the press. This prompted Yang to embarrass him by asking why did that. After all, Yang chided, America was a democracy. In a recent post about these talks, I wrote that Yang had neither fear, nor respect for Blinken or anyone else in the Biden Administration.

We need strong politicians to fight back against the Democrats’ massive power grab.

If I lived in Texas, Rodimer would have my vote.


Here are a few posts from Rodimer’s Twitter page:

20 States Send Letter to Congressional Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes


Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers have been undisguised power grabs.

Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the result of the election, party leaders decided to make these changes permanent. The result was the passage of H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2021,” (the Act), by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

Noting the gross overreach by the federal government in the bill, the attorneys general of 20 states penned a letter to Congressional leadership which can be viewed here.

This group of top law enforcement officers write that “it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.” They make the case that H.R. 1 strips the state legislatures of their constitutionally granted authority to determine how elections will be held in their states.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the leader of this group and the first signer of the letter, issued a statement to Fox News which read in part, “This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box. As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

The letter begins: “As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials. Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal — and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.”

It states further that “the Act regulates ‘election for Federal office,’ defined to include ‘election for the office of President or Vice President.’ The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords ‘Each State’ the power to ‘appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,’ the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.’  That exclusive division of power for setting the ‘manner’ and ‘time’ of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place, and manner’ of congressional elections.”

“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” the group maintains. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”

They cite a Supreme Court ruling in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) in which the court upheld “a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.” The court “observed that the Electors Clause ‘convey[s] the broadest power of determination’ and ‘leaves it to the [state] legislature exclusively to define the method’ of appointment of electors.”

“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors,” write the attorneys general, “means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.”

The group notes the Act’s “regulation of congressional elections” which includes “mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions [gerrymandering], also faces severe constitutional hurdles.” Rather than “acting as a check,” Congress is “seizing the role of principal election regulator.”

The letter excoriates the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate voter ID laws which the group writes is “perhaps” the “most egregious” feature of the bill. It also cites the Act’s attempt to put limitations on how states can purge voter rolls of those who have left the state.

“The Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to “attest [ ] to the individual’s identity and . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.” This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are.”

Identification is required for everything in modern life. I went to a Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles facility several months ago to renew my driver’s license. In Connecticut, a trip to the DMV requires several hours. Finally working my way to the front of the line, I presented my passport, social security card, even my birth certificate – complete with a raised seal. I had forgotten, however, to bring two pieces of mail from my address of the last 27 years, so I would not be allowed to receive a “REAL ID,” one that could be used to board an airplane. Unless I wanted to do all of this over again, I would be issued a “standard” license that stated “Not for Federal Identification” on its face. Deciding that I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than repeat this exercise anytime soon, I opted for the standard license.

Voting is one of the most sacred privileges of a U.S. citizen. There is only one reason for waiving the voter ID requirement. And that is because it facilitates voter fraud. It’s that simple.

The attorneys general conclude with the following message. “Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust — problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

In their quest for absolute power, Democrats have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional federal republic. Our government “is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers.” (Emphasis added.)

Finally, “‘federal’ means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states.” Under the federal system of government, state legislatures are granted the power to determine election laws in the state.

Blinded by their lust for power, Democrats are ignoring the Constitution and showing complete disregard for the rule of law. The fact that 20 attorneys general have come forward to threaten “legal remedies” to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens,” if this bill becomes law, speaks volumes.

The National Constitution Center, a left-leaning think tank, provides the weak counter-argument to the belief that states have the right to set their own regulations concerning elections. They claim that the Elections Clause “vests ultimate power in Congress.” They write that the Framers “were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress.”

The NCC website states: “Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.”

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the opposite is true, that the Framers were more concerned with endowing the states with sovereignty.

A final decision on this case may ultimately require an interpretation of the Tenth and Eleventh amendments by the Supreme Court.

So far, however, perhaps because they feel vulnerable over Democrats’ threats to pack the court, the justices have repeatedly rejected attempts to get pulled into political disputes. Rather than being mere “political disputes,” I see them as questions requiring constitutional interpretation. And isn’t that why we have a Supreme Court?

This bill may never need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will fail in the Senate. In March 2019, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked an earlier version of the “For the People Act.”

(Note: After the new version was introduced in January, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson addressed the features of this proposed legislation on his show. He concluded that if H.R. 1 were to become law, it would “enshrine fraud.” A video of Carlson’s excellent analysis can be viewed here.)

House Passes Bill that Would encourage police officers to adopt ‘quotas’ based on gender and race


The Biden Administration has endorsed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, a sweeping police reform bill intended to fight “systemic racism” in police departments. H.R. 1280, introduced by California Democratic Rep. Karen Bass, was passed by the House on Wednesday.

The House passed a similar version of this bill last year, however, it stalled in the Senate. The new bill is likely to fail in the Senate as well.

This proposed legislation was named after the black man who died in police custody last May after an officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes. Floyd’s death triggered the deadly riots which spread throughout the U.S. last summer.

Washington lawyer Hans Bader analyzed H.R. 1280 in an article published on legal blog Liberty Unyielding.

Bader believes it “could lead to more racial and sexual profiling, such as gender-based stops of female motorists. … [It] could actually cause systematic racism and sexism.” (emphasis mine)

According to Bader, this bill “encourages police departments to adopt quotas based on gender and race for ‘traffic stops,’ ‘pedestrian stops,’ and ‘interviews.’ The practical effect would be to encourage police departments to stop innocent women, Asians, and whites, just to meet quotas based on gender and race. If police departments don’t meet these quotas, they could be sued by the Justice Department or individuals they stop.”

Sound fair? Moreover:

Section 311 of the Act forbids what it calls ‘racial profiling.’ This is defined to include not just race, but also ‘gender’ in Section 302(a)(6) of the bill. But it defines ‘profiling’ in such a crudely-mechanical way that it actually encourages profiling, rather than outlawing it.

Under the bill, what matters is numbers and racial bean-counting, not actual racism or sexism. ‘Disparate impact’ in police stops or interviews based on race or gender — for example, stopping more men than women, or interviewing more blacks than Asians or whites — is defined as ‘prima facie evidence’ of a ‘violation.’ That means that numbers alone are enough for a judge to find a police department in violation of the Act. Prima facie evidence is a legal term meaning that the person suing has provided enough evidence to prove something, in the absence of proof to the contrary by the entity being sued, which bears the burden of proving itself innocent.”

Bader provides examples in layman’s terms for us non-lawyers. Statistically, men commit more crimes than women. They also speed and violate traffic laws more often.

Asians, on average, commit fewer crimes than whites. Both generally commit fewer crimes than blacks.

Even so, if a police officer stopped more men or more blacks, than women or whites or Asians, they may be found to have violated the terms of this Act.

How many police officers would be found to be in violation if they merely stopped motorists whom they believed were violating the law – speeding, driving recklessly, erratically, etc? Or if they pursued only those individuals they thought had committed a crime?

Answer: Most.

They would be guilty of sexual profiling and or racial profiling.

In order to be in compliance with this law, an officer would have to stop women at the same rate as men even if they weren’t violating the law and Asians and whites as often as blacks.

Bader cites U.S. v. Armstrong, in which the Supreme Court determined that “crime rates differ by race. That’s why arrest rates differ by race, as a recent federal study of violent crime shows. Yet the bill treats stopping fewer Asians than whites, or fewer whites than blacks, as suspicious.”

Naturally, “all police departments everywhere are presumptively guilty under the bill.”

And this would result in real world consequences. Bader cites what officers might expect were this bill to become law.

The bill doesn’t explain how they can possibly rebut this presumption of guilt or prove themselves innocent. So if they wish to avoid being sued, and avoid being forced to pay the attorneys fees and expert-witness costs of the person suing them, police departments will have an incentive under the bill to stop only as many men as women — even if more men are speeding or committing crimes — and to adopt racial quotas in police stops.

That could undermine road safety by encouraging police to ignore speeding or other violations just because they were committed by members of a particular gender or race.

Further, Bader points out that “it is unconstitutional to have racial quotas in punishment or arrests.”

It’s hard enough to be a police officer. Adding these senseless conditions would waste the time of both the officer and the woman, the Asian or the white person who is not suspected of wrongdoing, but who must be stopped so a police officer can satisfy the requirements of this misguided piece of legislation.

If an officer observes someone violating the law, they should be stopped regardless of sex or race.

Law enforcement isn’t a game. Making sure that one has a perfectly proportional number of encounters is irrational.

A lot of good officers left law enforcement last year as a result of the Democrats’ “defund the police” campaign. If H.R. 1280 were to become law, we would lose more and no individual with an ounce of common sense would agree to subject themselves to this pointless and nonsensical code of conduct.

Here’s The Good News About the House’s Passage of The Biggest Democratic Power Grab in History


Before shuttering the Capitol building on Wednesday night due to threats of “danger” from unhinged Trump supporters on Thursday (sarcasm), the House passed H.R. 1, the ironically named “For the People Act,” by a vote of 220-210. It is impossible to overstate the damage this legislation, if it were to pass the Senate, would do to this once-great nation.

The stated purpose of H.R. 1 is:  “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.” The full text of H.R. 1 can be viewed here.

The real purpose of the bill is to make permanent many of the changes made to state voting systems and procedures ostensibly to facilitate voting in the age of COVID-19.

One of the most notable features of H.R. 1 is that it strips states of the right to set their own standards for how elections are to be conducted. Election laws would be determined at the federal level.

Under this bill, states would be required to promote the use of mail-in voting, to offer online applications for voter registration, and to provide automatic and even same-day voter registration.

H.R. 1 would all but eliminate voter ID laws. It would prohibit states from “requiring identification as a condition of obtaining a ballot.”

Another provision, Section 1621, would require the “uniform availability of absentee voting to all voters.” Every voter will have the option of casting an absentee ballot by mail. A state may not attach any conditions to this right.

In addition, “ballot harvesting” would be allowed in every state.

In other words, all of the practices that handed victory to the Democrats in the 2020 election would become law.

If this legislation passes, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to ever win another election.

Suffice it to say, the passage of H.R. 1 would radically change the way the U.S. conducts elections. The implementation of these practices will be a recipe for massive fraud.

Election fraud, as we’ve learned the hard way over the past several months, is relatively easy to perpetrate, but difficult to prove.

I said there would be some good news and there is indeed!

Unless the Senate votes to abolish the filibuster, 60 votes would be required for this bill to pass the upper chamber. That would mean that ten Republicans would have to vote for it – which is not going to happen.

I don’t even think Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) or Susan Collins (R-ME) would go for this.

Oddly, ending the legislative filibuster would only require a simple majority, or 51 votes, to pass. There are currently 50 Democratic senators in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris who would be available to cast the deciding vote.

(Note: Please scroll down for an explanation of the filibuster.)

The extremely good news is that two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have both publicly and unequivocally stated their opposition to ending the legislative filibuster.

Shortly after H.R.1 was introduced in the House, 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.”

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 (on the same day Sinema’s spokesperson made the announcement above) 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 came as welcome news to all of us who have feared the radical agenda now being promoted by the left.

Sinema’s and Manchin’s opposition to abolishing the filibuster will not save us from the Democrats’ entire agenda, but it should stop the most radical parts of it.

Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy. If H.R. 1 were to become law, voter fraud will become easier than ever and the U.S. may never hold an honest election again. This bill represents a clear and present danger to the integrity of U.S. elections.

Brief Explanation of the Filibuster:

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.

Capitol Police Announce Plans to Boost Security Based on New Threats; Legitimate or Gaslighting?


U.S. Capitol Police announced plans to boost security on Tuesday evening after receiving “concerning information and intelligence pertaining to March 4th.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram explained that March 4 was the original day on which the U.S. inaugurated presidents.

QAnon loyalists to former President Trump believe that the 45th commander in chief is slated to rally and return to the scene to be sworn in on March 4. … This alternative mythology is pushed by the sovereign citizen movement. Many don’t recognize American laws nor federal currency. There is also some chatter about March 20, the day the Republican party came to life in 1834. And, there’s even some noise about April 15: federal income tax day.

A memo obtained by Fox News from acting House Sergeant at Arms Timothy Blodgett indicates that some threat for March 4 has diminished.

In the tweet below, the agency wrote: “Based on the intelligence that we have, the Department has taken immediate steps to enhance our security posture and staffing for a number of days, to include March 4th.”

“Two sources” told FOX 5 that the Capitol Police “received an intelligence bulletin warning of a militia plot to breach the Capitol this Thursday, March 4…[I]t specifically names the militia group the Three Percenters. Members of the group are accused in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.”

Additionally, there is “some chatter about March 20, the day the Republican party came to life in 1834. And, there’s even some noise about April 15: federal income tax day.”

So, what’s this all about? Are these concerns legitimate or are Democrats trying to feed the narrative that Trump supporters are domestic terrorists who must be monitored?

This is coming from the same people who brought you the Russian collusion hoax and Ukrainegate.

Coincidentally, it also comes on the day that Rep. Mike Campbell (D-CA) reintroduced a gun control bill that would require background checks on all purchases of firearms. This bill passed the House in February 2019, but failed in the Senate.

And on Monday, Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) reintroduced a bill intended to “close what has become known as the ‘Charleston loophole.’ That loophole allowed Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who killed nine people in 2015 at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., to buy a handgun even though he should have been barred from purchasing the weapon. In a statement, Clyburn said that the House is expected to vote on that legislation next week.”

Remember that days before former President Trump’s second impeachment trial began, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arranged for Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died from as yet undisclosed injuries sustained on Jan. 6, to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

Tuesday’s announcement follows recent testimony from acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman. Last Thursday, she warned members of the House Appropriations Committee that militias tied to the Jan. 6 incursion “have stated their desire to blow up the Capitol” and kill as many people as possible when Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union Address.

She told lawmakers:

We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union – which we know that date has not been identified. So based on the information, we think that it’s prudent that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security posture until we address those vulnerabilities moving forward.

If only law enforcement officials had been this vigilant prior to Jan. 6. But I suppose they didn’t have to justify the presence of a large number of National Guard troops or an eight-foot-tall, three-mile-long security fence complete with coils of concertina wire.

Suffice it to say, the latest warning from the Capitol Police is all about Pelosi fostering her latest narrative. It’s about optics. It always is.


Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!

Rep. Jerry Nadler: ‘God’s Will is No Concern of This Congress’


During debate over “The Equality Act” in the House of Representatives on Friday, Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) said:

When men or women claim to be able to choose their own sexual identity, they are making a statement that God did not know what he was doing when he created them.

The gender confusion that exists in our culture today is a clear rejection of God’s good design. Whenever a nation’s laws no longer reflect the standards of God, that nation is in rebellion against him and will inevitably bear the consequences. We are seeing the consequences of rejecting God here in our country today.

The repellent Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) stood up and told his colleague, “What any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress.”

I wonder if Nadler would have been as dismissive if say, Ilhan Omar, had been speaking about Muhammad’s will.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think Muhammad would have been on board with transgenderism either.


Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!