A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.
It seems like every day Democrats and their cronies in the corrupt corporate media concoct a new, bogus “threat to democracy” that they use to intimidate Americans out of voting for their political opponents.
These “threats” aren’t just overused, they are overexaggerated in an effort to cover up Democrats’ hypocrisy, mask their incompetence, and justify the targeting of their ideological enemies. Meanwhile, it’s the blue party that’s working overtime to erode and replace the actual democratic processes responsible for keeping our nation running.
Here is a list of everything Democrats claim is “a threat to democracy.”
What could possibly be a bigger “threat to democracy” than Democrats’ top Trumpian foe? According to President Joe Biden, it is “MAGA Republicans.”
“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” Biden said during a doom-and-gloom speech in Philadelphia earlier this year.
Brookings, a left-leaning think tank, described Republican Sen. Ted Cruz as one of many “copycat candidates who parrot Trump’s moves and endorse his anti-democratic tactics” in a piece titled, “Trump is not the only threat to democracy.”
Josh Hawley
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley earned the same judgment from Brookings as Cruz. Additionally, when he objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results, he (along with Cruz and other GOP senators) was smeared by The Washington Post as one of “the Constitution’s most dangerous domestic enemies.”
Ron DeSantis
According to Democrats, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is a raging, extreme“threat to democracy” for simply governing as a Republican.
“Ron DeSantis Would Kill Democracy Slowly and Methodically,” one article in New York Magazine warned.
Dr. Oz
“An impaired Fetterman who does not pose a threat to our democracy is better than a polished Oz who does. Remember what’s at stake here,” a senior adviser at The Lincoln Project tweeted shortly after the political opponents’ debate.
Tudor Dixon
Tudor Dixon, the Republican woman brave enough to challenge Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, was classified as “a huge threat to our democracy” by her incumbent opponent for raising questions about election irregularities.
Election deniers pose a huge threat to our democracy — and Tudor Dixon is one of them. She spreads conspiracies and won’t even commit to accepting the results of this election.
For the crime of being an effective Republican lawmaker, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has also been deemed a “threat to democracy.”
Legitimately Conducted Elections
Speaking of Republicans, did you know that Americans choosing to elect GOP candidates is a threat to Democracy? That’s what several of the nation’s top propaganda publications want you to believe.
“American Democracy Can’t Survive Unless the Far Right Is Marginalized. Here’s How to Do It,” Time Magazine warned in 2021.
The push to classify GOP wins as threats especially expanded ahead of the 2022 midterms.
“Should [Republicans] win, they will certainly attempt to end democracy as we know it in their states,” MSNBC Opinion Columnist Ryan Cooper wrote three weeks before Election Day 2022. “The effort will probably look like an updated version of Jim Crow.”
Questioning Elections
Nevermind that Democrats are known for rejecting election results and objecting to every presidential Republican victory this century — anyone who dares mention that U.S. elections are not perfect is smeared with the ill-fitting term “election denier,” and considered a “threat to democracy.”
“What can happen in a representative democracy when politicians and a significant portion of the electorate question the legitimacy of elections?” the subtitle asks.
The Events of Jan. 6, 2021
Democrats say Americans’ actions on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, proved to be as big a “threat to democracy” as Pearl Harbor or 9/11, both of which resulted in thousands more deaths than the Capitol riot.
Not only was the Capitol riot an existential threat, leftists claim, but New York Magazine says “Americans’ Indifference About January 6 Is the Real Threat to Democracy.”
Election Security Legislation
The New York Times is also one of the manycorporatemediaoutlets and others that have expressed concern with Republicans’ voter integrity measures following the chaotic 2020 election.
“Many top Republican Party officials and lawmakers have spent the last two years striking back, and drawn the most attention for their efforts to pass ‘voter integrity’ laws that aim to make voting more onerous under the guise of preventing fraud. … These are pernicious laws, and they undermine Americans’ hard-won rights to vote. But just as important is the matter of who counts the votes, and who decides which votes count and which do not,” The New York Times editorial board wrote last month.
“The real threat to America’s electoral system is not posed by ineligible voters trying to cast ballots. It is coming from inside the system,” the board concluded. “All those who value democracy have a role to play in strengthening and supporting the electoral system that powers it, whatever their party. This involves, first, taking the threat posed by election deniers seriously and talking to friends and neighbors about it. It means paying attention to local elections — not just national ones — and supporting candidates who reject conspiracy theories and unfounded claims of fraud. It means getting involved in elections as canvassers or poll watchers or precinct officers.”
Poll Watchers
It’s ironic that The New York Times wants voters to be poll watchers — especially since corporate media recently deemed those who sign up to monitor ballot boxes as “threats to democracy.”
As documented by The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood, the propaganda press is repeatedly “hitting the panic button over Republican poll watchers legitimately overseeing the conduction of elections, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.”
Elon Musk
When Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced plans to acquire Twitter and welcome free speech back to the Big Tech platform, Twitter’s pampered employees, the corporate media, and pro-censorship politicians threw a fit.
“He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less,” The Washington Post’s Max Boot tweeted.
Not only is Musk’s purchase considered by the left a “threat to democracy,” Salon writer Matthew Rozsa said Musk’s “attempted takeover of Twitter is a threat to the free world.”
The pro-censorship party and its allies say “misinformation” and “disinformation,” which means any information about hot topics like Covid, elections, and biology that they deem inconvenient or contra the narrative they are trying to sell, is a threat to democracy.
Parents at School Board Meetings
If it wasn’t already clear that the National School Boards Association and Attorney General Merrick Garland think concerned parents are “domestic terrorists” who threaten our nation and deserve to be prosecuted, it was certainly made clear by members of the media.
“Attacks on school boards are a threat to democracy,” an opinion editorial in the Mercury News said.
Pro-Lifers
Garland also considers peaceful pro-life protesters to be a threat to the nation. That’s why his Department of Justice has publicly indicted 22 people who oppose killing babies in the womb instead of prosecuting the people responsible for the destruction, vandalism, and arson of dozens of pregnancy centers.
The U.S. Supreme Court
Democrats have long insisted that the Supreme Court’s decisions are the “law of the land” but when the court overturned Roe v. Wade earlier this year, that philosophy was quickly replaced with the left’s favorite excuse for hypocrisy.
“The US supreme court poses a real threat to Americans’ democracy,” one headline in The Guardian blared.
At one point, New York Magazine’s Eric Levitz threatened that “If the Court’s right-wing majority finds that it can continually push the boundaries of conservative judicial activism without undermining its own popular legitimacy, then the consequences for progressivism and popular democracy could be dire.”
Clarence and Ginni Thomas
The left believes that not only is the Supreme Court a “threat to democracy,” but so are Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife.
“Ginni and Clarence Thomas are the duo we wish we didn’t have to constantly talk about, but here we are. Their actions surrounding the insurrection are a threat to our democracy and the public’s trust in our courts,” Citizens for Ethics, a leftist watchdog group, tweeted.
The Electoral College
Our nation’s Electoral College was designed to best represent Americans no matter where they lived but the left says that constitutional design is a “threat to democracy.”
The left-leaning Aspen Institute blared that “The Electoral College Is a Threat to 21st Century Democracy,” adding that while “our founders felt we needed a brake against ‘mob rule,’ it is incompatible with our current national credo that every vote counts.”
Our Bicameral Legislature
According to Vox, though, the Electoral College “poses a smaller long-term threat to American democracy than the Senate,” because “the Senate undermines principles of equal democratic representation.”
“The Senate will continue to give small states, which tend to be rural and conservative, far more clout than their size deserves. That’s not just a problem for democracy in the abstract,” the Brennan Center’s Zachary Roth agrees.
Democracy Itself
As documented by The Federalist’s Elle Purnell, Democrats and the media also consider an elected majority in the U.S. Senate a threat to democracy.
This became very apparent when West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, “determined not to pass President Joe Biden’s Build Back Bankrupt plan.”
“Manchin is killing the Biden legislative agenda, and perhaps the future of American democracy too,” tweeted MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.
I came across this video this morning. It’s from Preger U and a great explanation of the difference between a Democracy (which we Are not), and a Republic, which we are.
The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic
If you ask Americans to name their country’s form of government, most of them will say they live in a democracy. However, the real answer is more complicated (and unexpected) than that. Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, explains.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.
President Joe Biden speaks about the soul of the nation, outside of Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 1, 2022. | JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
With two months to go until the midterm elections, President Joe Biden has declared that former President Donald Trump and many of his supporters are a threat to “the very foundations of our republic” in a speech that critics derided as an attack on American citizens.
In a speech Thursday evening at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Biden noted that the venue served as the location where “the United States Constitution was written and debated.” He noted that “this is where we set in motion the most extraordinary experiment of self-government the world has ever known,” creating a society based on “equality and democracy.”
Warning that “equality and democracy are under assault,” Biden declared that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” The term “MAGA” refers to Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”
“Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans,” he clarified. “Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.”
“I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans,” Biden continued. “But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”
“MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election.”
Biden warned that “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.” This portion of the speech indirectly refers to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ruled that the U.S. Constitution did not contain a right to abortion and thereby reversed the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide.
While the Dobbs decision itself outraged Democrats and pro-abortion activists, critics of the ruling also expressed concern about Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs describing the doctrine of substantive due process that underpinned the Roe decision as “demonstrably erroneous” and suggesting that the court should “reconsider” all rulings based on that principle. He specifically mentioned the rulings declaring rights to same-sex marriage and contraception as constitutional rights.
While Thomas expressed an openness to examine “whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives passed measures to codify the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception into federal law. The bills still await action in the U.S. Senate.
Biden continued his speech by contending that Trump and “MAGA Republicans” support “authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.” According to Biden, “They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.”
Biden argued that the “soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God” and that “all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect.” He also urged people to “vote, vote, vote” in the upcoming midterm elections, stressing that “we need everyone to do their part.”
Additionally, the president suggested that “if we do our duty in 2022 and beyond, then ages still to come will say we — all of us here — we kept the faith” and “preserved democracy.” The implication was that voting for Democrats in the midterms was necessary to preserve democracy.
“We just need to remember who we are. We are the United States of America. The United States of America,” he concluded. “May God protect our nation. And may God protect all those who stand watch over our democracy. God bless you all.”
The speech received much criticism from conservative commentators and Republican politicians, among them Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
“Angry man smears half of the people of the country he is supposed to lead & promised to unite,” tweeted Rubio, getting nearly 13,000 likes by Friday morning.
Angry man smears half of the people of the country he is supposed to lead & promised to unite pic.twitter.com/Bfa84JBamM
Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review objected to Biden’s inclusion of abortion opponents in his definition of MAGA Republicans, viewing it as pandering to pro-choice groups.
“If the president actually wanted to unite, he wouldn’t have attacked Americans who believe abortion is the civil-rights issue of our lives. He wouldn’t have mentioned contraception (no one is taking it away — it’s a scare tactic, and it’s a cynical, underhanded attack on the likes of the Little Sisters of the Poor, on conscience rights),” wrote Lopez.’
“I could have agreed with much that he said — about the election results, about division and anger and violence — if he hadn’t made sure to make Planned Parenthood happy during the speech. They are purveyors of violence and ought to be renamed UnParenthood.”
Franklin Graham, the president of the Christian charity Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, also condemned Biden’s speech in a lengthy Facebook post: “Tonight President Biden said that MAGA threatens the very foundation of our republic. Really? I want to see America great again. I want to see America as a leader, as a place for people who desire liberty and justice for all. I don’t want to see this country turned into a socialist country.”
“Does believing in freedom, justice, opportunity, less taxes, and smaller government make me an extremist? Absolutely not. The ones who are extremists are the ones who want to take that away from us!” he added. “President Biden is trying to vilify and demean conservative, freedom-loving Americans who do not support the failing and economically unsound policies of his administration. This is just further dividing our nation.”
Graham insisted that “America can only have true greatness through God,” adding “The blessings of this nation have come from the hand of God.” He maintained that “We need to turn to Him” because “We need His help, His direction, and His healing.”
Criticism of the speech extended beyond political opponents of the president. Brianna Keilar of CNN took issue with the optics of the Biden speech, specifically that he had U.S. Marines behind him as he spoke.
“Whatever you think of this speech the military is supposed to be apolitical. Positioning Marines in uniform behind President Biden for a political speech flies in the face of that. It’s wrong when Democrats do it. It’s wrong when Republicans do it,” she tweeted.
Whatever you think of this speech the military is supposed to be apolitical. Positioning Marines in uniform behind President Biden for a political speech flies in the face of that. It’s wrong when Democrats do it. It’s wrong when Republicans do it.
Biden’s speech in Philadelphia came 68 days before the 2022 midterm elections that will determine control of the U.S. Congress for the next two years. The president’s approval rating has been consistently underwater over the past year, although it has rose slightly in recent weeks. As of Friday morning, the RealClearPolitics average of polls measuring presidential approval showed that 42.0% of Americans approve of Bidens job performance compared to 54.8% who disapprove.
Since presidential approval often plays an outsized role in determining the outcome of midterm elections, political observers have expected Republicans to do well in the upcoming midterms. The FiveThirtyEight Deluxe Model, which predicts the outcome of elections based on “polls, fundraising, past voting patterns” as well as experts political analysis gives Republicans a 75% chance of taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives while giving Democrats a 68% chance of keeping control of the U.S. Senate as of Friday morning.
All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are on the ballot this year along with 35 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate. Democrats currently have a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a 50-50 majority in the U.S. Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Democrats.
Over the past several months, Republicans have consistently maintained a narrow lead on the generic ballot, which asks voters which party they would like to control Congress. However, the generic ballot has tightened over the summer and the RealClearPolitics average of polls asking voters for their preferences in the midterms shows Democrats with an extremely narrow 0.1% lead as of Friday morning.
1capitalized: a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing causealso: a public action having such an effect
The History of Propaganda
Propaganda is today most often used in reference to political statements, but the word comes to our language through its use in a religious context. The Congregatio de propaganda fide (“Congregation for propagating the faith”) was an organization established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV as a means of furthering Catholic missionary activity. The word propaganda is from the ablative singular feminine of propogandus, which is the gerundive of the Latin propagare, meaning “to propagate.” The first use of the word propaganda (without the rest of the Latin title) in English was in reference to this Catholic organization. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it began to be used as a term denoting ideas or information that are of questionable accuracy as a means of advancing a cause.
Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary Web Site
In the hands of gifted people, terminology can be used for good purposes, as well as deceptive purposes. Of course, you already knew that. It’s part of the bases for propaganda.
Public Office speech writers are expert in these areas. The command of the English Language seems to be found more with professional speech writers that America’s general population. Sad commentary.
Left alone, the rhetoric produced by political parties begin to create a populace that believe more lies than truth. In political terms, we are called “low information voters.” More accurately, we have become deluded citizens. Deluded to what is truth. Left unchecked, tyrannical slavery is just around the corner.
These facts make what prompted this article. The terminology in question is heard daily on any news program, especially cable news. That terminology is, “MAGA Republicans want to destroy (or tear down) our democracy.”
It began around the 2016 general election, and has been amplified to overwhelming proportions. This terminology is as dangerous as it is deliberately deceiving.
First of all, we are not now, nor have we ever been, a DEMOCRACY. The framers of our Constitution were deliberate in that decision. A democracy is mob rule. 51% of the population controlling/oppressing the 49%. That is why our Forefathers gave us a REPUBLIC, more accurately, a Representative Republic in order to ensure Americans are never oppressed by anyone, any political party or force. To further enhance, and guarantee the success of the REPUBLIC, they gave us the “Electoral College” in our national elections that ensures all states, regardless of size, has equal say, insuring every vote counts and matters.
President Biden’s speech writers use the term a lot. You heard it multiple times last night in the speech. In fact, we who have a differing set of opinions, are a threat to the democracy President Biden and the Left want in America: Totalitarian rule by mob. (Reference summer of 2020 leading up to November 8th. Multiple mobs of violent people burning down portions of America and threatening every American who disagreed with them).
I want to maintain our REPUBLIC. I want to do whatever I can, legally and morally correct, to stop all efforts to turn America into RULE BY MOB DEMOCRACY. How about you?
In preparation for the close of the year’s second economic quarter, the White House Council of Economic Advisers has already started the spin: We’re not in a recession if we just redefine what a recession is.
“While some maintain that two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP constitute a recession, that is neither the official definition nor the way economists evaluate the state of the business cycle,” the supposedly nonpartisan group said in a blog post on Thursday.
It’s doubtful the verbal smoke and mirrors will persuade the average Americans whose grocery bills keep growing as fast as their gas tanks empty. A recession is a sustained downturn in economic activity, and many Americans can feel it without knowing what the Q2 numbers are. But it’s far from the first concept the left has simply redefined to deflect the consequences of their failed policies and ideas.
One of their favorite words to redefine, apparently as “full and unchallenged political control,” is democracy. When actual democratic processes are at work — such as when an elected majority votes not to pass a pet piece of legislation, or when issues such as abortion law are left to elected representatives of the people at the state level — leftists scream their favorite catchphrase and call it a “threat to democracy.” They’ve levied that smear at everything from our bicameral legislature to the Supreme Court to the other party in our two-party system. It’s obvious they’re not really talking about democracy in any honest sense of the word. When democracy is a threat to their power, it simply gets redefined.
Another word that’s undergone a 180-degree redefinition is racism. No longer is it considered racist to treat someone differently based on his or her skin color, and not racist to value all human beings equally. Instead, if you’re not promoting theories that “remedy … past discrimination [with] present discrimination,” as critical race theorist Ibram X. Kendi suggests, you are clearly a racist according to the left’s new dictionary. Do you believe in meritocracy? Racist. Think people are responsible for their own choices, and it’s neither possible nor beneficial for the government to dole out equivalent outcomes to everyone by force? Doubly racist. The new liturgy says that true equality lies in teaching some children that they’re part of a hopelessly oppressive system and other children that they’re hopelessly oppressed.
On the subject of pitting people against each other, the term “vaccine” has been ridiculously redefined to cover for the incompetence of the people who profit from them. After the shot that was promised to protect people from Covid transmission and infection failed to ward off either, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention simply changed the definition of “vaccine” to fit the narrative. “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” was quietly altered to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Barely a week later, Merriam-Webster followed suit by changing the definition of “anti-vaxxer” from someone who opposes vaccines to someone who doesn’t believe the government should mandate Covid shots.
Just last week, as part of the trans-crazed campaign to redefine what a woman is, Merriam-Webster added“having a gender identity that is the opposite of male” to its definition of “female.” Categories such as “men” and “women” that are based in biological reality don’t suit the agenda that seeks to abolish those realities from minds and bodies. So rather than advocate their agenda within the bounds of reality, the left simply attempts to redefine reality itself. It’s apparent in the push to call women by the objectifying terms “pregnant persons,” “menstruating people,” etc. We saw it when then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson told Congress she couldn’t define what a woman is, and it’s obvious in the attempts to put confused men in women’s prisons, shelters, and bathrooms. The reality of womanhood is in the way, so it’s being redefined out of existence.
And while abortion advocates lately have been willing to defend the act of killing a baby in the womb even with the understanding that it takes a human life, for years they’ve pushed their agenda by redefining an unborn baby as a “clump of cells” or some other dehumanizing description.
On any of those topics and more, leftists and their allies in Big Tech also persistently redefine any dissenting opinions or perspectives as disinformation,using that disingenuous label to erase opposition from channels of discourse.
Of course, many people who hear them prattle about “disinformation,” “birthing persons,” “anti-racism,” “threats to democracy,” and their host of other buzzwords know those words are nonsense. We can tell, as George Orwell wrote in 1946, that “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”
But, as he noted, “the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender them.” The danger is in allowing these redefinitions of reality to be said, unchallenged, until enough people forget they could ever be challenged at all.
Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.
Democrats love to talk about democracy — mostly about how it’s under threat from Republicans and “Christian nationalists” and anyone who opposes their agenda. But at least on a rhetorical level, they seem to cherish democracy and rightly think that a government of the people, by the people is the surest safeguard against tyranny.
In practice, though, they hate democracy and will use every tool at their disposal to subvert and destroy it. Hardly a day goes by that Democrats don’t proclaim as much by their actions. Just look at their response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last month, which triggered laws in more than a dozen states banning or placing new restrictions on abortion. Voters in those states elected the people who passed these new laws, which in many cases are broadly popular. By overturning Roe, the court breathed new life into the democratic process, returning an issue to the American people that an earlier Supreme Court had snatched away from them.
But Democrats don’t really want democracy when it comes to abortion, which they consider sacrosanct. They have no qualms about protecting it from regulations by state lawmakers through the raw exercise of federal executive power, if need be. This week, Attorney General Merrick Garland threatened to sue states that have outlawed or restricted abortion since the end of Roe, and he also said the Justice Department would try to get a judge to toss a Texas lawsuit that would block newly issued rules from the Biden administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services forcing doctors to perform abortions in emergency rooms.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Garland’s DOJ said last week it had launched a special task force to “evaluate state laws that hinder women’s ability to seek abortions in other states where the procedure remains legal or that ban federally approved medication that terminates a pregnancy.” The task force will also “oppose state efforts to penalize federal employees” who perform abortions “authorized by federal law.”
What could that mean? Well, take a look at the lawsuit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just filed against HHS. The administration is trying to use the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to force ER doctors to perform abortions, even if it contravenes state laws outlawing the procedure. EMTALA was passed in 1986 as a way to prevent “patient dumping,” or turning away people who couldn’t pay, and it requires hospitals that receive Medicare money (which today is all of them) to treat people who show up at an ER in need of emergency treatment.
The Texas lawsuit argues the Biden administration is trying to “use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic,” and that “EMTALA does not authorize — and has never authorized — the federal government to compel healthcare providers to perform abortions.”
Garland and HHS claim that EMTALA preempts state law, but it’s unclear what that means in the context of the new HHS rules. If a state legislature passed a law saying that emergency rooms are prohibited from treating patients who have no health insurance, then yes, EMTALA would preempt that.
But as Paxton’s lawsuit rightly notes, the law says nothing about abortion, nor does it say anything about which specific treatments a hospital ER must administer. It only states that Medicare-participating hospitals have to provide “stabilizing treatment” for “emergency medical conditions,” and it specifically defines both of those terms in the statute.
For Democrats, though, laws passed by representatives of the people don’t carry as much weight as rule by administrative fiat. On July 11, the Biden administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued “guidance” purportedly reminding hospitals of their obligations under EMTALA. But the guidance was much more than a reminder, and it was accompanied by a letter from HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra that amounted to an abortion mandate for hospitals, asserting powers under EMTALA that simply don’t exist anywhere in federal law.
First, Becerra’s letter claims that if an ER doctor determines that “abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve [an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA], the physician must provide that treatment.”
But this is nothing more than a cheap word game. Abortion isn’t a “stabilizing treatment,” and nowhere in federal law is it construed as such. Becerra is conflating Democrats’ loose rhetoric about abortion — that it’s “reproductive healthcare” or “women’s health” — with the straightforward reality of the federal EMTALA statute, which says nothing about abortion and, to the contrary, specifically includes a mention of an “emergency medical condition” as one that threatens the life of an unborn child.
Second, Becerra’s false claim that EMTALA preempts state abortion laws is contradicted by the plain language of the law itself, which says it doesn’t preempt state law “except to the extent that the requirement directly conflicts with a requirement” of EMTALA. But abortion is not a requirement of EMTALA and doesn’t even fit the law’s definition of “stabilizing treatment” for an “emergency medical condition.”
In a decent country, Texas would easily win this lawsuit — and the Justice Department would never step in to try to get it thrown out. But Democrats are committed to subverting the democratic process at both the state and federal level in order to preserve some shred of their abortion regime. They’re trying to preempt state laws they don’t like by twisting the meaning of federal laws that don’t have anything to say about abortion.
Remember that the next time you hear President Biden or some other leading Democrat talk about “threats to democracy.” They don’t care about democracy, they care about power. And they will use every ounce of it they have to advance their policies — the will of the people be damned.
John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.
US-Hungarian Billionaire George Soros declared war on the US Supreme Court and the Republican Party in an Op-Ed on his propaganda site Project Syndicate, on July 4th, of all days.
“The American public has been alarmed and aroused by the US Supreme Court’s growing extremism“, Soros claimed. “But voters need to recognize the Court’s radical majority for what it is: part of a carefully laid plan to turn the US into a repressive regime.“
Ever since the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, George Soros has leveraged $32 billion in “donations” for his influence-peddling system called “Open Society Foundations” to manipulate governments and market prices in the ultimate insider trading deal. Working with the EU and USAID, Open Society wages war on conservative governments around the world with so-called Color Revolutions, and bears key responsibility for the current war in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, Soros has the chuzpah to claim that “democracy is now gravely endangered” by anyone who dares oppose him. While Soros correctly warns of the danger of autocratic regimes in Russia and China, his treasonous screed claims “the threat to the US from the domestic enemies of democracy is even greater.”
For the Hungarian-born naturalized citizen, these “domestic enemies” include the current Supreme Court, “which is dominated by far-right extremists, and Donald Trump’s Republican Party, which placed those extremists on the Court.”
Soros sees the danger from this “radicalized” Supreme Court in its strict Originalist approach to the Law: “Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the majority opinion, based his ruling on the assertion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights that were generally recognized in 1868, when the amendment was ratified. But this argument endangers many other rights that have been recognized since then, among them the right to contraception, same-sex marriage, and LGBTQ rights.”
Soros seems to acknowledge that many of the “Rights” claimed by activist courts, such as the “right to contraception, same-sex marriage, and LGBTQ rights”, are not actually to be found in the Constitution and would need to be passed by the legislature, not by activist judges.
“There is only one way to rein in the Supreme Court: throw the Republican Party out of office in a landslide”, Soros writes, while acknowledging it will not be easy:
“But when it comes to organizing a landslide victory against the radicalized Republicans, opponents face almost insuperable obstacles. Republicans have not only stacked the Supreme Court and many lower courts with extremist judges. In states such as Florida, Georgia, and Texas, they have enacted a raft of laws that make voting very difficult.’
While these laws focus on disenfranchising African-Americans, other minorities, and young voters generally, their ultimate goal is to help Republicans win elections. As a Florida federal judge recently wrote in striking down one of these laws, they were enacted “with the intent to restructure Florida’s election system in ways that favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party.”
“These laws would be bad enough if they only targeted who can vote. But Republicans are now going even further, by attacking the vote-counting and election-certification process. From changing the law to make subversion of the electoral system easier, to recruiting believers in Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him to oversee the process, we are watching Republicans attack our system of democracy from every angle. And here, too, the radical Supreme Court has done its part, gutting the federal Voting Rights Act and allowing naked partisan redistricting to weaken minority voting power.”
“We must do everything we can to prevent” the Republicans from gaining power in November 2022, Soros writes, seemingly opening the floodgates for another round of no-holds-barred Democrat cheating.
Fortunately, American patriots now know what is at stake, after the historic fraud of 2020, and are organizing in projects like the Precinct Strategy.
The same people who relentlessly insisted that Big Tech’s censorship campaign was totally fine are now screaming that a potential buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk poses a certified Threat to Democracy. But we’ve heard this absurd routine before, and it’s not really democracy they’re worried about. The Big Tech, big media, and big government cabal just whine about democracy being under siege when their own power conglomerate is threatened.
“I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes,” fretted The Washington Post’s Max Boot last week, after the Tesla and SpaceX CEO offered to buy the entirety of Twitter stock. “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”
Former New York Magazine writer Jesse Singal had the very intelligent take that even the possibility of Musk buying out Twitter was “America’s very first 9/11,” while Salon’s Matthew Rozsa blared that “Elon Musk’s attempted takeover of Twitter is a threat to the free world.”
The idea of losing some power to silence opposing viewpoints on social media is terrifying to these people — so terrifying that in their panic they don’t even realize they’ve admitted their own gluttony for control.
But this isn’t the first time the group of people in media, tech platforms, and politics who want to control what you think have seen pushback on their vise grip and gone ballistic. And a “threat to democracy” is their favorite label with which to smear anything that challenges their power.
The most obvious example is the systematic campaign to convince the country that a five-hour riot at the U.S. Capitol — which, contrary to media lies, did not cause the deaths of five people — was as bad as or worse than the terror attacks of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. You don’t have to defend the Jan. 6, 2021 riot to recognize that America’s own justice system indicates it was neither an “insurrection” nor a “terrorist attack,” despite the hysteria of the corporate press.
But that’s not the only instance. Just think back to when The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin cried “Democracy is hanging by a thread” when an elected majority in the U.S. Senate, including West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, determined not to pass President Joe Biden’s Build Back Bankrupt plan. For Rubin and others, actual democracy at work was just too much of a threat to … democracy.
Meanwhile, The Atlantic has called the entire Republican Party “a grave threat to American democracy,” with similar smears from Business Insider and the Chicago Sun-Times.
When concerned parents showed up to school board meetings to protest racist and radical sex ideology in their kids’ classrooms, they were labeled not just a threat to democracy but domestic terrorists, in a smear campaign that was revealed to be orchestrated by President Joe Biden’s own Department of Education.
New York Magazine’s Eric Levitz worried that the U.S. Supreme Court was too conservative, threatening that “the consequences for … popular democracy could be dire.”
Vox, among others, has declared that the constitutionally prescribed Electoral College “poses a … long-term threat to American democracy.” It has also claimed the constitutionally prescribed half of our bicameral legislature known as the U.S. Senate poses an even greater one.
And of course, nearly everyone on the left whined that questions about the rigging of the 2020 election were existential threats to democracy, after they spent years deriding President Donald Trump’s 2016 win as “illegitimate.”
It’s more than obvious by now that these people don’t truly want democracy or freedom, but power. When their control — over what laws are passed, who wins elections, what’s taught to kids in schools, or what you’re allowed to say on social media — is challenged, including by actual democratic processes like fair elections, free speech, or the will of a congressional majority, they’ll rush to call the challenger an enemy of democracy itself.
Just like Dr. Anthony Fauci equating himself with Science, these members of the ruling class want you to believe that an attack on their power is an attack on our entire political order. If they succeed in that, they can insulate themselves from all critique and silence the opposition, either via the power of cancel culture and self-censorship, or by simply locking the accounts of their critics.
But their propensity to fall back on that sham defense every time their rule is threatened has revealed just how desperate they are for control, and just how ridiculous they are willing to sound to maintain it. If they felt confident they could maintain power without smearing every opponent as the next big threat to the free world, there would be no need for such distracting theatrics. Instead, they’re so fragile that making any chink in their armor will get you labeled as America’s (next) “first 9/11.”
Next time you hear cries that something is a “threat to our very democracy itself, even graver than all the other, formerly-gravest threats to democracy,” it should be your first clue that that thing, good or bad, is making the censorship class quake in their silk slippers. Your second thought should be to expect them to exploit the “democracy” fearmongering for even more control — and your third thought should be to keep that the heck from happening.
Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.
On March 17, 2022, The New York Times stated it had verified the authenticity of a laptop and its data as belonging to the president’s son, Hunter Biden. This was the same laptop holding information that Twitter, Facebook, and other corporate media immediately suppressed when The New York Post, a right-leaning competitor of The New York Times, reported on it three weeks before the 2020 presidential election.
If they had known about one of the Biden family scandals, such as the Hunter Biden laptop information, 17 percent of Joe Biden’s voters wouldn’t have voted for him, found a 2020 post-election poll. This means big tech’s suppression of this story likely made enough difference to tip Joe Biden into his low-margin win in the Electoral College.
Back in October 2020, Twitter and Facebook immediately responded to The New York Post’s publication of information from Hunter Biden’s laptop by effectively banning it from their platforms that effectively monopolize public discussion. Twitter punished the Post for reporting the repeatedly authenticated laptop information by suspending its account for two weeks.
“What this means is that, in the crucial days leading up to the 2020 presidential election, most of the corporate media spread an absolute lie about The New York Post’s reporting in order to mislead and manipulate the American electorate,”commented independent investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald.
Major National Security Implications
That laptop provides evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter Biden’s pay-for-play schemes with foreign oligarchs, an obvious national security risk. Some of these corrupt deals involved Ukraine, a notoriously corrupt country that is currently petitioning the Biden administration to engage militarily with Russia on their behalf.
Russia also has blackmail material on Hunter Biden, according to videos from his laptop, and the FBI knew about this as early as 2019, according to Federalist reporting: “This explosive revelation establishes that either Joe Biden lied to the American public, or the intelligence community lied to him,”wrote Federalist Senior Contributor Margot Cleveland in 2021.
Other Hunter Biden business deals involved China, the United States’ top security threat. Texts between business partners indicate Joe Biden was financially involved in Hunter Biden’s China deals, contrary to Joe Biden’s public claims.
China also has blackmail material on Hunter Biden and possibly on Joe Biden. All of this means major conflicts of interest for the president’s foreign policy at a time of significant global instability. It also was deliberately hidden from the voting public by collusion between big tech companies and the Democrat Party.
Hiding Democrats’ Dangerous Scandals
The same presidential administration that benefitted from Big Tech hiding damning true information is openly colluding with Big Tech to maintain and expand these information operations. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in July 2021, “We’re flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Soon after, Psaki confirmed, “We’re in regular touch with social media platforms…about areas where we have concern.” You might call it a public-private partnership.
Democrats have demanded that the Biden administration create a task force to suppress “misinformation” and “disinformation.” What did corporate media and big tech call the laptop information they suppressed in 2020, only for The New York Times to confirm in 2022? That’s right: “Disinformation.” In fact, as Greenwald notes, intelligence operatives immediately enacted a real disinformation campaign against the New York Post reporting in 2020, pushing the false narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was “disinformation.”
That’s called projection, and you should assume that’s one of the things going on every time the media runs some wild news cycle—such as accusing the Republican president of treasonous collusion with Russia when it’s actually the Democrat presidential candidate who did that.
Reinforcing the Power Hierarchy
This New York Times article, after all the lies and manipulations about the Hunter Biden laptop, is also a chilling public affirmation that the ruling class believes Americans are helpless to choose their own government. They’re even bold enough to confirm their power openly.
Just like requiring only the hired help and those under the thumb of government agencies to wear masks while their masters wine and dine mask-free, The New York Times openly revealing that corporate media including itself, Twitter, and Facebook lied and got away with it is a hierarchy flex. It’s a display of their power. They are saying, “We can lie to Americans and get away with it.”
They’re also flexing their power to say things they won’t allow their political opponents to say. Again, Covid is another clear example, as when Trump advisors such as Scott Atlas faced vicious media smears for pointing out facts that The New York Times finally acknowledged months later, such as that kids don’t need to wear masks and it’s perfectly safe for them to go to school. In the intervening time, children needlessly suffered, but The New York Times doesn’t care. They owned the rubes, and that matters more to them than truth or children’s suffering.
People this corrupt don’t deserve to have media platforms, control of the presidency, or any power of any kind. At the very least, those who use their power this cynically should be respected by absolutely no one.
Big Tech Is a Threat to Democracy
Big Tech is also clearly manipulating public discourse for highly partisan ends. Social media has become what the “big three” cable news networks were decades ago: falsely “nonpartisan” manipulators of elections. Like ABC, CBS, and NBC, Twitter and Facebook’s ability to control culture and politics through brain drips feeding lies into millions of Americans’ minds needs to end, yesterday. This is not a pissing contest. It’s about our continued existence as a nation.
Greenwald notes the corporate press and big tech “all ratified and spread a coordinated disinformation campaign in order to elect Joe Biden and defeat Donald Trump.” That’s not a democracy, no matter how many slogans about that word propaganda outlets put out. It’s tyranny.
When elections are an elaborate charade and their outcomes are openly manipulated by giant special interests, we don’t have self-government, self-determination, democracy, constitutional government, representation, or any of the above. For those of us who love these things because we believe they are our God-given and precious rights and responsibilities, this is a dark reality to behold.
One might call this world the left wants to live in Chinese communism with American characteristics. Well, I don’t want to live in that world, and neither do at least 74 million other Americans. We’re not going to keep being abused by our own government quietly. And we’re not going to believe these liars, no matter what they say.
The top names on everyone’s mind when they hear the word “disinformation” ought to be The New York Times, Twitter, Facebook, The Atlantic, and all their corrupt, self-congratulating Aspen Institute friends. That’s something we can all work to help our neighbors see.
Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Sign up here to get early access to her next ebook, “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.
Vice President Kamala Harris said in a Sunday interview with CBS that one of the biggest security challenges facing the U.S. is the nation’s democracy.
During an episode of “Face The Nation” that aired Sunday, Harris and CBS News’ Margaret Brennan discussed the many policy challenges facing President Joe Biden’s administration toward the end of 2021. The topics included the rise in COVID-19 cases due to the Omicron variant, Biden’s bid to get Americans vaccinated, Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s opposition to the Build Back Better Act and election policies.
WATCH:
The duo also discussed national security, with Brennan asking Harris, “What do you see is the biggest national security challenge confronting the U.S.? What is the thing that worries you and keeps you up at night?” — to which Harris replied, “Frankly, one of them is our democracy. And that I can talk about because that’s not classified.”
“I think no question in the minds of people who are foreign policy experts that the year 2021 is not the year 2000,” the Vice President went on to say. “[W]e are embarking on a — a new era where the threats to our nation take many forms, including the threat of autocracies taking over and having outsized influence around the world. And so I go back to our — our point about the need to fight for the integrity of our democracy,” Harris said.
Earlier in the conversation, Harris had argued that 33 state laws were “making it difficult for the American people to vote,” allegedly representing a threat to “one of the most important pillars of a democracy, which is a free and fair election.”
Harris also championed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, which she believes would ensure that citizens have “unfettered access to their right to vote” and safeguard “the integrity of our democracy.”
The two bills, facing opposition from Congressional Republicans, seek to bring into effect automatic registration provisions for voting and make Election Day a national holiday, among other things.
Harris also said that “climate crisis” is another security issue the Biden administration prioritizes and is working on by seeking to “to re-enter … the Paris Agreement” and working with the U.S. allies in Europe.
The ruling of one liberal federal judge proves that America is no longer a republic and doubtful if it is even a democracy. What’s the difference?
A republic is what our Founding Fathers sacrificed so much to establish. It’s a government where the people elect leaders to do the will of the majority of the people.
A democracy is best described as a government where the people elect leaders to rule over them, regardless of the will of the people. So many people erroneously think America was a democracy but it was NEVER intended to be that way. Also notice that many communist or socialist countries use the term ‘democratic’ in their name – i.e. Democratic Republic of the Congo. Republic in this name just refers to a bordered nation and Democratic refers to the socialist government running it. When East Germany still existed, it was formally known as the German Democratic Republic and like the Congo, Republic only referred to the geographic borders and Democratic referred to the socialist-communist government.
Our Founding Fathers intended for the people to hold most of the power and influence and of the three branches of the federal government, the judiciary was to be the least powerful.However, lately, the judiciary has become the most powerful and influential branch of the federal government. They override the will of the people, the will of Congress and the orders of the President.
The majority of Texas voters elected Republicans to the state House and Senate with the mandate to defund Planned Parenthood. Currently, the Texas Senate has 20 republicans to only 11 Democrats and the House is 95 Republicans to only 55 Democrats. Greg Abbott, a staunchly conservative Christian Republican holds the governor’s office after faithfully serving as the state’s Attorney General for 13 years. Since 1987, Texas has only had 1 Democratic governor in Ann Richards who only lasted 4 years. She was followed in 1995 by George W. Bush who was then followed by Rick Perry, who was then followed by Greg Abbott.
Following the will of the people, the Texas legislature voted in 2015 to defund Planned Parenthood, since the voters said they didn’t want their tax dollars going to the abortion giant, regardless of what other services they claim to provide. After the bill to defund Planned Parenthood was signed into law by Gov. Abbott, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit, claiming the new law was unconstitutional.
In his agenda driven ruling, Judge Sparks, once thought to be a conservative who was appointed by President George W. Bush, overturned the law in favor of Planned Parenthood. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council commented about the ruling handed down by Judge Sparks:
“It may be your money, but that doesn’t mean you can decide how it’s spent!”That was the message from U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks to Texans who overwhelmingly voted to strip Planned Parenthood of its hefty Medicaid haul. In a 42-page opinion that read like it was written by Cecile Richards herself, Sparks took unusual offense to the law, insisting that the effort was all based on ‘a secretly recorded video, fake names, a grand jury indictment, [and] congressional investigations’ that sounded more like a ‘best-selling novel’ than a legitimate case’.”
“‘Yet, rather than a villain plotting to take over the world, the subject of this case is the State of Texas’s efforts to expel a group of health care providers from a social health care program for families and individuals with limited resources.’ Insisting that yanking funding for the scandal-plagued group would somehow cause ‘irreparable harm,’ Sparks seemed more concerned with his personal agenda than the facts. If the judge had bothered looking beyond his own bias, he would have realized that low-cost, publicly-funded health centers (where these dollars would be redirected) outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities 20 to one nationwide, care for 23 million Americans, and even provide more health services than the group he’s so desperate to defend. In fact, those community health centers serve 21.1 million individuals per year, nearly eight times more individuals than are served by Planned Parenthood centers.”
When one judge becomes President, Congress, Governor, state legislature and ruler of the people, it’s a clear sign that America is no longer the republic created and established by the Founding Fathers. It also sends out a signal that the majority of the American people no long have a say in their government or how the government spends their hard-earned tax dollars.
‘If African-Americans didn’t get out and vote for Hillary Clinton, they would be dissing him and his legacy.’ So warned President Barack Obama, in a speech at the Black Caucus Foundation in Washington DC, on September 17.
The woman whose election promises portend a war on whites, Walmart and the wealthy has nothing to fear. Obama’s political cant notwithstanding, there isn’t much of a chance blacks will side overwhelmingly with Hillary’s rival.
Like never before, the 2016 election has been characterized by “a muscular mobilization of a race-based community, coercive control of territory and appeals by powerful charismatic leaders.”
What do I mean by “coercive control of territory”? Consider what would transpire if Donald Trump were to campaign “big-league” in Birmingham (Alabama), Charlotte (North Carolina), or South Los Angeles. Riots would erupt. (Incidentally, the thing where private property is invaded and looted is not called a protest.)
As sure as night follows day, the American democracy is destined to resemble that of South Africa, where a ruling majority party is permanently entrenched, and where voting is characterized by what has become Barack Obama’s signature tactic, a “muscular mobilization of the race-based community.”
The last, twice-repeated reference is out of “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa.” In2011, the book used the tragic example of post-apartheid South Africa to forewarn Americans of the effects of a shift in their country’s founding political dispensation, a shift being achieved stateside through immigration central-planning.
America’s political class has been tinkering with the country’s historical demographic composition for decades. The consequence of the mass importation of poor, Third World immigrants is that America, like South Africa, is headed to dominant-party status, in which a permanent majority intractably hostile to the minority consolidates power, and in which voting along racial lines is the rule.
It used to be that the Democratic Party was this nascent majority’s political organ, offering a platform of preferential policies for a voting bloc whose “interests are viewed through the prism of racial affiliations.”Obama’s Dreams from America are for a country in which the historic majority is destined to become a marginalized minority, consigned to the status of spectator in the political bleachers. Ditto Clinton’s dreams. But, as election year 2016 has shown, the Republican Party is vying for a similar mantle.
That South Africa is riven by race is indisputable. Each election is “a racial census as far as whites and blacks are concerned.”In the much-ballyhooed, historic election of 1994, “only two to three percent of whites voted for historically black parties and perhaps five percent of blacks voted for historically white parties. The ANC relied for ninety-four percent of its vote on black support. The historically white parties had been barred from campaigning in the black townships.” Yet elections since 1994 have had the blessing of every liberal alive, and that includes many of the world’s self-styled conservatives.
“The rule of the people, demos, and the people’s ethnicity, ethnos” invariably clash, argued Michael Mann, “one of the leading historical sociologists of our time.” In “The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing” (2004), Mann contends that in the earlier, more formative stages of their development, democracies are prone to carrying out murderous ethnic cleansing, which in extreme forms can become genocidal.
“The growth of popular sovereignty, the institutionalization of universal citizenship, [and] the creation of mass society” have often seen “ethnic groups laying claim to the same territory resort to the use of force, and, when frustrated, to murderous ethnic cleansing and even genocide.”Examples of this phenomenon in modernity: the ethnic expulsions and massacres in the democratized former Yugoslavia and Rwanda during the 1990s, the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire under the Young Turks (particularly in 1915-1916), and the mechanized mass murder of the Jews in Nazi Germany. While the infant South-African democracy fits snugly within his thesis, democracy devotees [the writer is not one] have accused Mann of twisting like a Cirque du Soleil contortionist to stretch the definition of democracy in making his case.
Where Mann is at pains to prove the murderous nature of young democracies, the arguments against democracy for South Africa, which have been propounded by Duke University scholar Donald L. Horowitz, have considerable force. Finely attuned to “important currents in South African thought,”Horowitz offered up an excruciatingly detailed analysis of South Africa’s constitutional options.
In “A Democratic South Africa?: Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society” (1991), Horowitz concluded that democracy is, in general, unusual in Africa, and, in particular, rare in ethnically and racially divided societies, where majorities and minorities are rigidly predetermined.
Prone to seeing faces in the clouds, the new South Africa’s Anglo-American cheerleaders were impervious to such sobering pronouncements. It remained for students of democracy such as Horowitz to hope only that “the probability will … recede that one person, one vote, one value, and one state will degenerate into only one legal party and one last election.”
“Elections to be meaningful presuppose a certain level of political organization. … The primary problem is … the creation of a legitimate public order. Authority has to exist before it can be limited, and it is authority that is in scarce supply in the modernizing countries,” warned Samuel Huntington in “Political Order In Changing Societies.”Little did Huntington consider that, with enough tinkering by its ruling elites; a modern and mighty country like the U.S. could devolve into an atavistic and dangerous place.
Not nearly as hopeful as Horowitz was that “noted student of nationalism”Elie Kedourie. “If majority and minority are perpetual, then government ceases to have a mediatory or remedial function, and becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority,”concluded Kedourie. It was after a visit to South Africa that he wrote the following, in the November 1987 issue of the South Africa International:
The worst effects of the tyranny of the majority are seen when parliamentary government on the unalloyed Westminster model is introduced into countries divided by religion or language or race. Such for example was the case of Iraq … where an extremely heterogeneous society came to be endowed with constitutions which made no provision for diversity, and where the result was tyranny of one groups over the other groups in the society.
A prerequisite for a classical liberal democracyis that majority and minority status be interchangeable and fluid in politics; that a ruling majority party be as likely to become a minority party as the obverse. By contrast, in South Africa, the majority and the minorities are politically permanent, not temporary.
America’s Founding Fathers had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic.Every democratic theorist worth his salt—Robert Dahl and Elaine Spitz come to mind—has urged that the raw, ripe rule of the mob and its dominant, anointed party be severely curtailed under certain circumstances fast approaching in the United States of America. These are “whenever people of different languages, races, religions, or national origins, with no firm habits of political co-operation and mutual trust, are to unite in a single polity.”
Do you know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic? Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett wants to clear up any confusion.
Barnett, director of Georgetown’s Center for the Constitution, wrote the book “Our Republican Constitution” to explain what the founders really meant by “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution.
During a recent visit to The Heritage Foundation, we caught up with Barnett to talk about the book and why he’s pessimistic about the outlook of the U.S. Supreme Court following Antonin Scalia’s death and President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.
“There’s a lot at stake with the next Supreme Court justice, but I can already tell you, I believe that fight has been lost,”Barnett said. “We have to decide how we’re going to survive under a court that is hostile to how we think.”
Was Jeb Bush too busy watching telenovelas during his brother’s presidency to remember the Iraq War?
We went to war at such breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing the “rush to war.”
So I remember the arguments.
Contrary to the fairy tale the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America’s victory in Iraq, our argument wasn’t that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And the left’s argument certainly was not: “He doesn’t have any WMDs!”
Our argument was: There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.
Indeed, after Bush’s State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: “Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address …” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:
(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:
– The mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad less than a month after our invasion.)
– The terrorist who orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam’s Iraq. (Killed by U.S. forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)
– The one terrorist behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a prime-time show on MSNBC.)
– Czech intelligence reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, met with Iraqi agents in Prague shortly before the attack.
We’re not supposed to mention the Prague meeting on penalty of liberals yelling at us. Apparently, our CIA discounts that report. On the other hand, the CIA didn’t see the 1993 World Trade Center bombing coming, didn’t see 9/11 coming, didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre coming and didn’t see the Times Square bombing coming. No one tell liberals, but our CIA knows NOTHING — although they’re pretty sure something bad happened at Pearl Harbor a while back.
(2) Saddam had attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush’s father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)
(3) Saddam not only had WMDs, he had used them — far more prodigiously than Syria’s Bashar al-Assad did when Obama masterfully backed down from his “red line” threat if Assad ever used chemical weapons. (Assad’s WMDs killed about a thousand civilians — 350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours. Saddam’s WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That’s according to everyone — the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era ambassador Peter Galbraith.)
(4) We needed to smash some Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other — at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.
It worked: Moammar Gadhafi, terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in, gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.
(5) Saddam had committed atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis — removing their teeth with pliers, applying electric shocks to men’s genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped — as reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.
(6) Saddam was a dangerous and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?
(7) The Iraqi people were a relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler. Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual functioning Arab democracy — an Arab Israel.
That worked, too. In under two years, Iraqis were waving their purple fingers to symbolize having voted in their first democratic election. A few years after that, young Iranians were demanding their own democracy in another good people/bad rulers country.
But then an innocent 26-year-old girl, Neda, was gunned down in Tehran by the Iranian military. President Obama responded forcefully by going out for an ice cream cone. And thus ended the democratic movement in the Muslim world.
The least important reason to invade Iraq — the one that was tacked on for the sole purpose of taunting liberals over their goofy reverence for the United Nations — was that Saddam had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in, leaving the strong impression that Iraq was chock-a-bloc with WMDs. It was the equivalent of asking where the feminists were when we invaded Afghanistan — although technically, we didn’t invade because the Taliban were mean to women.
In fact, the only time The New York Times got testy with Saddam was after the “powerful case” made by Secretary of State Colin Powell, “that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions.” (Who cares?)
Liberals didn’t mind Saddam’s sheltering terrorists, using poison gas, invading his neighbors or attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president. But Saddam had disrespected the U.N.!
Far from claiming that estimates of Saddam’s WMDs were overblown, liberals cited those very WMDs to warn America that any invasion would result in catastrophe for the Great Satan. Thus, for example:
– The New York Times cautioned in an editorial that an invasion might create chaotic conditions, allowing “terrorists to grab biological or chemical weapons.” (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
– Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg predicted that Saddam would “use poison gas against U.S. troops.” (Jane Sutton, “Pentagon Papers’ Ellsberg Sees Deja Vu in Iraq,” Reuters, Nov. 25, 2002)
– In the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman warned: “Once American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, they may be bombarded with poison gas.” (Steve Chapman, “What Could Go Wrong in the War With Iraq,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17, 2002)
– The Times’ Nicholas Kristof wrote that if we invaded Iraq, “Saddam may well launch missiles with chemical warheads at Tel Aviv.” (Nicholas Kristof, “Flirting With Disaster,” Feb. 14, 2003)
This is why all six of Jeb Bush’s answers to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly — as well as Marco Rubio’s premeditated answer a week later — were ridiculous. It’s annoying enough having liberals invent these historical fantasies. Do our fearsome Republicans have to keep retelling them, too? If they don’t follow the news, can’t they read?
Kelly asked Bush: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”
The correct answer is:
Now that we know that a half-century of Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act would result in a country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then, purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from Iraq, nullifying America’s victory and plunging the entire region into chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make America safer.
Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away.
In 2000, George W. Bush won the election to the office of the presidency fair and square and completely in-line with the Constitution. Although he lost the popular vote by 0.5%, he won the electoral college votes by a margin of 271 to 266. Contrary to what many people believe, the election of the president and vice-president are both determined by votes from the electoral college. Still sulking from that loss, and perhaps looking for a back-up plan to their voter fraud methods, progressive left Democrats are ramping up their efforts to implement a new plan. They want to circumvent the Constitution by ditching the electoral college. Their movement is called theNational Popular Vote.(PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK AND READ THAT REPORT)
The attempt to ditch the Constitution, for what essentially amounts to mob rule, began long before the 2000 election. In 2006, Phyllis Schlafly wrote an article for the Eagle Forum onThe Subversive Plan to Ditch the Constitution. (PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK AND READ THAT REPORT)
A plot is afoot to change our constitutional form of government by ditching the Electoral College. John Anderson, Birch Bayh and John Buchanan, three losers who were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide, are scheming to change our Constitution without complying with the amendment process.
Our Constitution requires that a president be elected by a majority of votes in the Electoral College, with each state’s vote weighted based on its population. But some who took an oath to defend our Constitution are plotting to undermine its essential structure by a compact among as few as eleven of the most populous states.
She continued by explaining the negative impact such a change would have on the vote of every day Americans.
The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make irrelevant the votes of Americans in about 25 states because candidates would zero in on piling up votes in large-population states. Big-city machines would take over, and candidates from California or New York would enjoy a built-in advantage.
The Electoral College provides an essential safeguard against the democratic factionalism decried by James Madison in Federalist 10. The Electoral College ensures that no single faction or issue can elect a president because he must win many diverse states to be elected.
The NPV slogan “Every Vote Equal” is stunningly dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing and on changing the rules of presidential elections by a compact of as few as eleven states instead of the 38 states needed to amend the Constitution. NPV should be repudiated before it goes any further.
Not surprisingly, the states that have quietly worked to implement a plan to eliminate electoral college votes are all blue states.
The latest to join in on this ‘National Popular Vote compact’ is New York. According tosilive.com, the Empire State is joining with California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in an agreement to award their electoral votes based upon the winner of the national popular vote. With New York’s votes in the mix, the far-left progressive plan to go around the Constitution has 165 of the 270 votes needed to pull off such a devious scheme. The ramifications for such a change are huge.
According to FOX News digital politics editorChris Stirewaltthis plan is one that will impact rural America and ‘subvert the will of the Constitution and the founders.”
“This is disempowering to rural America and empowering to urban America,” he said, explaining that it amounts to a “hack” of the Constitution by people who don’t believe in the Electoral College.
Since there is not enough support in Congress to change the Constitution and officially end the Electoral College, this plan would allow popular vote advocates to work around it.
Stirewalt pointed out that this plan is part of a larger trend on the part of “frustrated” liberals who haven’t been able to bring about the changes they want.
“They are simply taking them. They are simply doing it and if people dissent and if people complain and if the stodgy, old Constitution gets in the way, if the fussy old Whigs in the Electoral College complain about it, too bad. Because they’re gonna hack the code and they’re gonna find a way to get what they want,” he said.
Remember the doozy of a lie that Obama told last week when he claimed ‘the Constitution is still intact.’With Barack Obama as president and the left so power hungry that they will demonize every day Americans and subvert the system of government set up by our Founders, the Constitution is not intact; it is under attack. The left has long worked pervert the history of America to make people believe that the United States was set up as a democracy. It was not. As Stirewalt said, “the United States is nota democracy. This is a [Representative] Republic.”
Everyone needs to remember that our Founders gave us a “Representative Republic”, NOT a “Democracy”. You need to research and have a clear understanding of the difference.
The reason our Founders gave us the “Electoral College”, was to eliminate what the Leftist want to establish. The Electoral College is there to ensure that the bigger States in the Union cannot conspire to elect every President. It gives EQUAL say to the smaller States in the election process.
What you are about to read is an attempt of the EXTREME Left to do away with the original purpose of the Electoral College and replace it with simple majority elections, the exact thing the Founders wanted to guard against.
WE MUST STOP THIS. WE CANNOT LET THIS STAND. Please fight with me to eradicate this from our country.
A plan, now stealthily making its way through state legislatures with astonishing speed, would junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote.
The plan involves an Interstate Compact where states would commit to select electors pledged to vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of how their own state voted. When enough states pass this law — sufficient to cast the Electoral College’s majority 270 votes — it will take effect.
The Electoral College will become a vestigial anachronism.
So far, nine states and the District of Columbia — casting 136 electoral votes — have joined moving half way to the 270 needed to put the compact into effect. The ratifying states are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, DC, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.
Both houses in New York have passed it and its on Governor Cuomo’s desk.
And, it has already passed one house in: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes . They need 270.
Who is pushing this?
All of those ratifying voted for Obama as did eight of the 10 one-house states.
The Movement is funded, in part, by the Center for Voting and Democracy, a George Soros-funded election group. (Is that enough reason for you to help stop this?)
Essentially, it is an end run around the regular constitutional amending process. Rather than get a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress and three-quarters of the states, this proposal would take effect when a simple majority approve it.
Why are Democrats pushing this plan?
Democrats usually see a smaller percentage of their people go to the polls than Republicans do.
Under the electoral vote system, they figure why beat the drums to get a high turnout in New York City when the state will go Democrat anyway? But, if its the popular vote that matters, the big city machines can do their thing — with devastating impact.
And think of the chances for voter fraud! Right now, the biggest cities, the ones most firmly in Democratic control (e.g. Washington DC, New York, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.) are all solidly in blue states. Not only does this make it unnecessary to maximize turnouts there, but it also makes it unnecessary to promote double voting, fraudulent voting, and all the other tricks of the trade at which Democrats excel.
But if the popular vote determines who will be the next president, we can bet that the machines will be out in force lining up voters, real and phony, to pad their statistics.
Some Republicans, particularly in non-swing states, are inclined to back the proposal simply so that they get their fair share of attention. They are tired of delegating to Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, et al the power to choose the president. And they can’t remember when a candidate for that office last favored their state with his presence.
But don’t let our “Attention Deficit Disorder” lead us to give away the store. The popular vote is what the Democrats do best. Fighting them on it is, in Winston Churchill’s words, “like going into the water to fight the shark.”
Republicans need to kill this proposal and they better get busy doing it. Some small states are backing it because they are tired of all the attention being focused on swing states. But Republicans must stand firm and not yield to the temptation to back it.
How can we stop the Democrats from ravaging our political system? The key battles are coming up in Arkansas and North Carolina. In both states, one house has passed the Compact. We need to stand firm in these two red states and block the Compact from taking effect. Republicans in Minnesota and Wisconsin, both blue states, need to stop ratification in their states.
And, Republicans should focus on stopping the second house from ratification in those states where only one house has acted.
Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio.
Largely unreported sections of an executive order signed last week by President Obama grant the U.S. government the right to seize property of American citizens determined to be undermining, even indirectly, the democratic processes or threatening the peace in Ukraine.
The executive order does not define which actions constitute a threat to Ukrainian democracy or peace.
It cites the National Emergencies Act, which subjects to revocation the constitutional right to habeas corpus, the requirement to bring an arrested individual before a judge or court.
A “”U.S. Person” is defined by the order as “any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.”
The order freezes property of “U.S. Persons” deemed by the treasury secretary in consultation with the secretary of state to have been “responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly” in the following:
Actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;
Actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or
Misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine.
It’s hardly the first time Obama has issued an executive order extending the National Emergencies Act. The act was cited in previous orders on Russian highly enriched uranium, Iran sanctions and national security threats by terrorists.
Much of the major news media coverage of last week’s executive order focused on the sections that seek to impose restrictions on Russia or foreign interests while scarcely mentioning U.S. citizens are impacted.
Reuters reported that “President Barack Obama on Thursday ordered sanctions on people responsible for Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula, including travel bans and freezing of their U.S. assets.”
CNN led the coverage by quoting senior administration officials telling reporters in a phone call the executive order means to “send a strong message that we intend to impose costs on Russia for this intervention.”
The second section of the order clamps down on “unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry” into the U.S. for those deemed to be undermining Ukraine’s democracy.
With additional research by Joshua Klein and Brenda J. Elliot
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
Family
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
Military
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Legal Insurrection
Legal Insurrection went live on October 12, 2008, originally at Google Blogger. We hit our one-millionth visit about 11.5 months later, our second million a few months after that, and since then readership and linkage from major websites have grown drama
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Apartheid South-Africa.
in which the historic majority is destined to become a marginalized minority, consigned to the status of spectator in the political bleachers. Ditto Clinton’s dreams. But, as election year 2016 has shown, the Republican Party is vying for a similar mantle.
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.