Tag Archives: Trump

Third Trimester Abortions are Common & the Democrats Love Them

By Rob Meyne

March 23, 2024
5-min read

It has been said you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Which brings us to probably America’s most contentious issue.

The facts on abortion have been challenged recently in these pages. That is understandable because the prevailing Democratic position on abortion is horrifying and indefensible.

Remember, I don’t ask people to just believe me; I want people to learn the facts. Most of us don’t go to the trouble. But we are a better, stronger nation when people know the truth. Plus, as I have often said, conservatives usually win when the people know the truth. The left usually wins when they don’t.

So, the following is the truth. I have even included a few references. If anyone wants to challenge me, please, buckle up. Let’s go. Do your best. But, please, those who keep just saying things like “no one supports third trimester abortions,” in spite of the reality that they do, just don’t talk about it anymore if you’re going to ignore reality.

The Democrats are today the extreme party on abortion. While members of both parties often have more varied opinions than their leaders, key Dem leadership supports abortion through nine months.
In his debate with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, California Gov. Gavin Newsom — a party star and disastrous governor — said it is just up to the woman and doctor, no matter how late in the pregnancy.

In a March campaign stop in Las Vegas, Biden said he had a message for Donald Trump: “Don’t mess with the women of America unless you want to get the benefit!” Whatever that means, in the same speech he said he supported abortion through three trimesters, but later argued that was not abortion on demand. Perhaps Biden thinks there is a fourth trimester. MSNBC reported on this as did many other outlets. In May, 2022, The Washington Post ran a piece showing that Democrat Tim Ryan and Bernie Sanders both support abortion through all nine months, and that, at the time, Biden’s press secretary wouldn’t provide a direct answer to the question.

When SCOTUS reversed Roe in 2022, Biden was asked directly if he thought there should be “any” restrictions on abortion. He said “no.” Such clarity is hard to ignore.
Most Republicans, including Trump, do not support a national ban. Trump has even criticized Ron DeSantis for Florida’s six-week limit being too severe. Trump said this past week, as reported by NBC News, that he favors a 15-week limit.
Most importantly, IF you opposed abortion through nine months, and were directly asked about it, you would say so. Biden and Harris refuse to, because they support it.
More telling, the entire Democratic U. S. Senate caucus (minus Joe Manchin) in 2022 voted for a bill that would have removed all gestational restrictions on abortion. Just one Democrat opposed it. (There are a ton of articles on this, including on Apnews.com. Axios news has also reported on this.) Planned Parenthood spent millions to support it.
The abortion opinions of most GOP leaders are closer to the American mainstream than the opinions of their Dem counterparts.
Abortions are routinely performed in dozens of states in the third trimester. Seven states have NO time limits on abortion. Another 12 allow it through the whole pregnancy if it is claimed the mental, emotional, or physical health of the woman (despite what the Biden Administration says, men still can’t have babies) is at risk. If a woman says she doesn’t think she can mentally or emotionally handle motherhood, her doctor can abort. (There are many sources, but this is from the World Population Review. Go ahead, check for yourself, but save time by using a search engine that is more objective than Google, like DuckDuckGo.)
The difference between an abortion in the 8th or 9th month is essentially just what you do with the healthy, viable child. For an abortion, if the mother doesn’t want it, it is killed. In Nevada, where you can abort through six months, an abortion is performed by the doctor inserting shears into the mother and cutting off the child’s arms, legs, and head. The pieces are then assembled on a tray to make sure they didn’t miss anything. If this makes you sick, it should. You must be a normal human.
A good question is where do Americans stand? This is from a May 2022 Gallup survey. “When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy, about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%), while support drops to 37% for the second trimester and 22% for the third. Majorities oppose abortion being legal in the second (55%) and third (70%) trimesters.” Dozens of surveys over the years reflect similar data.

Leftist propagandists and abortion fans want you to believe that every woman loves abortion and it is a genuine women’s rights issue. Nonsense. Some women promote abortion, some don’t, as is also true of men.

Perhaps the least defensible bromide repeatedly offered is that only the opinion of women should matter on the issue. Not to be too gentle, but that is bigoted, sexist crap. It takes a man and a woman to make a baby. They both should take responsibility for it, love it, care for it, and determine every important decision about it, including whether to kill it. There is no logical, reasonable, or ethical argument to be made for the suggestion that men should have no vote on whether a baby lives. This may be news to some, but millions of fathers, like me, love their children and wanted them very much. Men and women should be equal partners in this journey. It is indefensible to say that your opinion on whether your own child should live ONLY matters if you happen to have a vagina.

Like it or not, by the way, the issue with abortions is not, in any way, what a woman does with HER body. Support abortion or oppose it, the issue is completely about what happens to the separate body and life that is a developing human being. That person/fetus/baby/whatever term you prefer is a totally different living thing than the mother, with separate DNA. The “my body” line sounds good but doesn’t survive even cursory examination. With apologies for speaking so clearly, it is another life, not yours.

So, the real question is this: Which party more closely represents your views? Which is more extreme? Which is better for America, policies that represent a middle ground on the issue, or those that promote unrestricted abortion through nine months?

Please share!

Biden Makes It Clear:
He Doesn’t Like Us

By Rob Meyne

March 15, 2024
5-min read

For those keeping score at home… The “success” in Biden’s SOTU speech was that… wait for it… he didn’t fall down, soil himself (maybe he only does that when he is with the Pope), or stand for a half hour frozen without speaking. Those were the highlights.

It was not a presidential speech so much as a campaign event that revealed more than they probably intended. There may never have been a more hate-filled speech given in the well of the House. The loathing of huge swaths of Americans was palpable and hard to miss given that he yelled most of it.

If you want to give the most important and powerful job in the world to the crazy old man who lives down the street and keeps yelling at you to keep your dog off his lawn, you will have your chance this November.

Let’s add this caveat: if certain terms like “hate” offend you, or seem excessive, think of your own term. Whatever is the right word – and hate doesn’t seem too strong to me – it is clear Biden no longer even bothers to pretend he likes many of us. If he doesn’t use the word “hate,” find your own. What do you prefer? Loathes, despises, vilifies? Get out you thesaurus and have at it.

He brags about it. If you are Republican, Independent, Conservative Democrat, corporate leader, or advocate for peace or financial responsibility – just a partial list – he despises you and considers you the enemy.

The field is stripped. It could not be clearer.

It is odd to me, as a lifelong political hack and campaign communications trainer, to see the Dems rejecting a clear component of any effective speech: you want to be likable. This isn’t as sacrosanct, I suppose, as it was at one time. Most people don’t find Trump warm and cuddly. Maybe we are beyond all that. But at least Trump is clearly fond of average, run of the mill Americans. Biden makes it clear he is not.

The Republican nominee is an unlikely hero for those who love freedom. Like the Kennedys or the Roosevelts, he is a wealthy man who somehow still has a link to the common person. Sometimes a lifeline is thrown to us from an unexpected source. President Trump is spectacularly right: they are coming for you and me. They aren’t even subtle about it. Please, please be cognizant enough to realize it before it is too late.

Unless you’re a Democratic Socialist (which is like being a free slave; it isn’t possible) or just a brainless sycophant, you can’t name a major human cohort he didn’t attack. He slammed businesses and their owners, the Supreme Court, and anyone who doesn’t buy into open borders and his brand of bigotry.
Basically, if you like free speech, a secure America, or a society where we know what a woman is, Biden hates you. If you are not willing to support the racist policies they promote in the name of DEI, he hates you. If you aren’t in love with the idea of another long war, he hates you.

He did nothing to build bridges. A man who has claimed he wants to be president of all the people gave most of us a middle finger. Typically, even the most partisan presidents spend quite a bit of their speech claiming they want unity. Several years ago, it was even a key part of Biden’s address. But no more.

Today, he doesn’t even bother to make a pitch for unity. He did claim the border bill, which is dying a well-deserved death, is bipartisan, except that…. Well, it really isn’t. Mitch McConnell, who is thankfully stepping down as leader this year, and his hand-picked stooge agreed to the latest draft. It wasn’t bipartisan in any significant way, and even if it were, so what? It is a bad bill. The border bill doesn’t restrict illegal immigration, it enshrines it into law. The legislation would allow nearly two million illegals to enter the nation each year, without triggering any enforcement at all. If that is your idea of sealing the border, you belong in the open borders party. Maybe you can be the first person in America to put up a Biden sign.

This just in: having one or two GOP senators support a bill does not make it bipartisan in any meaningful sense. Bipartisanship is not a useful adjective unless it represents a sample from both parties that is sufficient to affect the process.

Continue reading →

Please share!

Pick A Lane:
America is At Risk, and We Can’t Afford the Luxury of Protest Votes

By Rob Meyne

Feb. 22, 2024
5-min read

If you’re like us, you’ve probably heard a lot of folks expressing the usual quadrennial complaint that “both candidates suck.” That may be a tad inelegant, but you get the point.

Many surveys show a huge majority of voters wish we had better choices.
You can count me among them. I’d love to be able to pick between Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. Let me know when we can work that out.

There is, however, this thing called “reality,” and it says that, barring a miracle, one of the two major party candidates will be elected president. The only relevant decision a person needs to make is this: under which of these two candidates can we reasonably expect the nation to be better off?

There is a lot of talk about the “lesser of two evils.” If one wants to look at politics in that way, be our guest. The question we would offer to inform the discussion a bit is this: in what part of life are we not faced with alternatives that are the “lesser of two evils?” Put another way, what part of your life is perfect? (My wife is perfect, and please tell her I said so.)

Most of human existence involves choosing from among two or more options, and they are never perfect. That is the nature of life, and certainly of human beings. As long as politics involves people, our choices among candidates will be imperfect. Get used to it, get over it, and next time support better candidates.

For today, let’s get back to reality.

For those who want to sit this one out – to note vote, or to vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning – you need to ask yourself whether the future of the country is more important than casting some kind of protest by way of a wasted vote?

If you don’t vote, no one sits and cries. No one will beg you to reconsider. No one will write it down and say, “Mr. Jones in Topeka didn’t like the candidates, so we need to do better next time.”

Continue reading →

Please share!

Is Hunter’s Middle Name “Diogenes?”

By Rob Meyne

Jan. 3, 2024
4-min read

If you turn on Netflix or even broadcast TV, you would likely see something that would have been startling twenty years ago. Nudity, profanity, and main characters that identify as transexuals or ficus trees are common.

A similar situation has evolved in American presidential politics. Every week, something happens that would have been a headline-generating event in our parent’s generation. The unusual has become usual. The uncommon has become common.

The search for a decent journalist makes Diogenes’s challenge seem like a piece of cake. (It is not at all certain Diogenes ever said he was looking for an “…honest man.” If he were, he could steer clear of Washington and not reduce his chances of finding one.)

Digoense, by the way, was a founder of stoicism, and would be considered weird even if he was hanging out with the bizarre crowd at a waterfront sunset in Key West. Diogenes was known for doing all manner of things in public that one normally does in private – defecating, fornicating – all in a crowd. He sounded like someone you’d want to party with. If he lived today, he would livestream himself in flagrante delicto. Basically, he’d be Hunter Biden without the influence peddling gig.

Biden and Trump are the two likely nominees, but people are lining up in droves to say they wish they had another choice – anyone – hog, dog, or frog. Both candidates have high negatives and their average age is “deceased.” Trump at least still exhibits signs of life and mental acuity. Biden would likely lose a political debate if he had the gonads to accept one, unless he debated a kumquat or three-toed sloth, in which case it would probably be a push.

Never has a major political candidate been indicted for a crime while he was running for office. Certainly, never has a sitting president indicted his opponent. Never have the political machinations of state, local, and federal governments been coordinated deliberately to try to put a candidate, for whom they have expressed great disdain, behind bars. Never have the courts been used to try to throw a candidate off the ballot by claiming they were part of an insurrection.

If memory serves, the only significant political figure to run for president from prison was four-time candidate Eugene V. Debs, with home I share a hometown, who ran as a socialist. His highest vote total – something shy of a million – was when he was in prison. Somehow the phrase “Vote for Inmate 3994739 never quite caught on as well as the ”Hey, look me over” song used by Birch Bayh (also from Terre Haute) in his first run for the Senate.

On the Democrat side, the evidence that Joe Biden is a crook increases faster than Hunter’s bar bill at the Chateau Marmont.

The problem, of course, is not just that Hunter is a piece of human dung, although that is irrefutable. The PROBLEM is that this particular piece of dung routinely paid his father directly, as did other family members, paid him exorbitant rent, and even paid many of his bills for him. That Joe benefited financially from Hunter’s influence peddling is undeniable. Plus, courts have held that a person can be enriched in a way that qualified as criminal even if the actual financial largesse accumulated only for his close family. If a wife or son is “paid off,” does anyone really believe the husband or father does not benefit?

So we have a massive case of influence peddling, money laundering, and plain old-fashioned bribery that is being ignored or slow walked by a very corrupt Attorney General. On the other side, we have a former president who has been indicted in two jurisdictions with spectacularly weak cases that will require juries to accept legal arguments that are literally unprecedented. Another case is civil because the paucity of evidence against Trump would not sustain an actual criminal indictment.

So you have two possible or even likely crooks competing for the votes of people who loathe them. You have a complacent, lapdog media where true journalists are as rare as an honest Biden, and you have the entire political structure of one of our two major political parties doing their best imitation of a banana republic. Oh, and you have a credible third-party candidate taking votes from both of the major candidates.

You’ve got an economy on the brink and war breaking out on TWO international fronts with our allies involved and a non-zero chance we’ll have American boots on the ground. A cyberattack, EMP, or global nuclear holocaust is also a non-zero possibility.

And those are just the GOOD things happening.

If one tries to take the positive approach, that can help, but coming up with a rational reason to think everything is going to work out fine is more difficult by the day.

For now, I have to go buy a kumquat and see if I can talk a three-toed sloth into running as an independent. I’ll get back with you.

Please share!

How Dark Money Could Harm Trump in 2024

By J Robert Smith

Nov. 21, 2023
2-min read

Pennsylvania just had off-year elections. They weren’t for high-profile offices. That made them un-sexy. But the results of those contests offer clear warning shots for Trump and Republicans in 2024.

A state supreme court seat was filled along slews of lesser judgeships. County offices and school boards in some places were filled, too.

The Democrats did well, too well. Much of that is attributable to “dark money.” That’s money from sources where the donors are generally anonymous. Dark money involves a lot of big dollar contributors (as in multimillionaires and billionaires) giving huge chunks of cash to national groups who, in turn, target contests in states. The money is used not only to boost Democrat – most often “progressive” – candidates, but to run negative campaigns against Republicans.

This November in Pennsylvania, dark money made significant differences in contests that most voters pay scant attention to. Yet, the mostly local offices targeted serve as building blocks for bigger offices. They’re foundational, so critical in their ways.

If Trump and Republicans aren’t fretting now about what dark money means in statewide and larger district races in 2024 (legislative, governorships, attorneys general, secretaries of state, state treasurers, Congress, and last but hardly least, the presidency), they better start fretting and figuring out ways to raise money to counter this onslaught of rich progressives across the country … accomplished people who don’t hesitate to stroke big checks that are funneled through progressive groups to win elections.

To that end, it’s best to read Matthew Brouillette’s article at Real Clear Wire, Democrat’s National Dark Money Machine Dominates PA Elections.

Even if you don’t live in PA or give much of a damn about what happens there, what is happening there is happening – or will happen – in your state.

Here’s one pull from Brouillette’s piece that sums up the danger. In the statewide contest for a seat on the PA Supreme Court:

The media howls about outside money or individual Pennsylvanians engaging on behalf of Republicans but largely turns a blind eye to special interests bankrolling Democrats. With final spending reports still coming in, nearly 95% of McCaffery’s [pro-abortion Democrat nominee] funding came from unions, trial lawyers, other special interests, and dark-money groups.

Dark money, along with tactics (put charitably) to identify and harvest ballots, made the difference in battleground states in 2020. Trump lost those states – including Pennsylvania – by razor thin margins.

History can repeat itself if Trump and Republicans fail to fully appreciate the dark money threat and put in place strong countermeasures today.

Please share!

If Trump is so bad, why lie about him?

By Rob Meyne

Nov. 6, 2023
4-min read

It is astonishing, but no longer surprising, how little connection exists between facts and the left’s weaponization of the media and judicial system against their political opposites. Many of the statements that are bandied about as facts simply do not hold up under even minor scrutiny.

A friend, who is a rabid anti-Trumper. He says this letter generally reflects how he feels.

The LTE (Letter to The Editor) includes many of the charges spewed millions of times every day in an attempt to portray Trump and his supporters as villains. Like so many things you hear when politics is the topic, the key charges are simply lies. And remember this: there are plenty of valid, factual things to criticize about both Biden and Trump. If you’re an anti-Trumper, you do not need to make things up. So why do you?

Consider:

The writer says there was an effort to establish Trump as dictator for life. There is precisely zero evidence of that. Have you seen evidence that Trump wants to be a dictator? Neither have I. Because there is none.
The writer also claims it was an attempt to overthrow the government. There was a riot on January 6, 2021, and people have gone to jail. But no one tried to overthrow the government.

Think logically for fifteen seconds and you will realize there was no effort to overthrow anything. The president was Donald Trump. Therefore, an attempt to overthrow the government would have been an attempt to remove Trump. An overthrow is precisely what the rioters did not seek.

By the same reasoning, there was no insurrection. An insurrection involves an effort to replace the people in power. The rioters supported Trump. They didn’t want to replace him.
One also hears January 6 was an attempt to interfere with the “peaceful transfer of power.” Yet, again, that isn’t even logical. The transfer of power DOES NOT take place on January 6. It happens on January 20. Power was not being transferred January 6, so the riot, factually, could not have been an attempt to interfere with it.
The letter mentions that at “least two people died that day.” The implication is, clearly, that rioters killed them. They did not. No one died at the hands of Trump supporters. Not. One. Person.

The only person killed during the riot itself was an unarmed woman shot in the face, without warning, by a Capitol Hill Police officer. Again, the description of the riots as “deadly” is an intentionally misleading statement. It is factually untrue.

There’s more:

The accusation that the crowd was “white supremacist goons” says nothing factual about them but does speak volumes about the bigotry and stupidity of the writer. The crowd supporting Donald Trump that day included people of all races, from all states, and represented hundreds of occupations. Anyone capable of coming up with the “white supremacist goon” line must have the knowledge and IQ of a random bag of vomit. Although that is a bit insulting to bags of vomit.
On a related note, we often hear the accusation that the riots on 1/6 were an effort to stop the counting of the electoral college votes. Again, there is not one shred of evidence of that. You’ve heard it but it just isn’t true.

The only specific action ANYONE advocated is the suggestion that a few select slates of state electors – where their accuracy or legitimacy was in question – be returned to their state legislatures for a final review and approval. That action would not have stopped the count or interfered in the process.

It is a FEATURE of the process, provided by law and the Constitution. It has been done before. It would have resulted in a higher degree of confidence in the results. It would not have prevented a vote count or impeded it. If you ask to get $100 out of the bank, and the teller has to confirm you have it in your account, is he or she impeding the process? Of course not. Anti-Trumpers are saying that Trump committed treason by trying to do something that is provided by law.

We also know that dozens, if not hundreds, of police officers and federal agents were in the crowd that day. Were they encouraging violence? We don’t know, because the FBI refuses to tell us even how many were there.
We also know that many police officers peacefully and politely let people into the Capitol that day. We have footage of it. The suggestion that every demonstrator entered violently or illegally is simply, again, a lie.
Finally, make note that President Trump has been accused of orchestrating the riot on January 6. Even after more than a year of the one-sided House committee investigation, they failed to find even a single piece of direct evidence that Trump wanted violence that day. Not. One. President Trump called for the protestors to be peaceful. So, they claim he wanted violence.

It is mind-numbing that anyone could agree with the drivel in the LTE, or the broader anti-Trump beliefs it represents, and think it is insightful, persuasive, or even factual. It is none of those things. The accusations in it are baseless, unhinged, and the product of bigotry and ignorance.

If you agree with those views, you should go back to wherever you attended school and demand your money back.

Please share!

Will Democrats False Flag Us into a War with Russia?

By J Robert Smith

Sept. 15, 2023
1-min read

Mention the Ukraine War to most Americans and their eyes glaze over. A lot of folks can’t locate Ukraine on a map. Yes, that’s partly the fault of our educational system.

Historically, though, if it ain’t happening here at home, it ain’t happening — until the Lusitania sinks or Pearl Harbor is bombed. Vietnam was peripheral until LBJ and the “military-industrial complex” took advantage of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Only then did Americans grab their Rand McNally’s to discover where Vietnam was. Then there was Iraq, Saddam, and “weapons of mass destruction.” But that was a short war and casualties were fewer. People barely had time to unfold maps.

The Ukraine war is still a blip on the radar. Fortunately, more people oppose sending billions to Zelinsky’s corrupt regime. They’re starting to wonder why Biden’s handlers and dazed and confused Mitch McConnell give more of a damn about Ukraine than Maui and East Palestine. But those radar blips may soon balloon. Speculation is afoot that Democrats may provoke a hot war with Russia. A diversion is necessary for 2024.

To read the article in its entirety, go to American Thinker.

Please share!

A Tragic Event in American History

By Rob Meyne

June 10, 2023
5-min read

One of the most important, and tragic, events in American history occurred this week: the indictment of a former president on federal charges. This is unprecedented. Whatever you may think of former President Donald Trump, it says as much about the forces determined to stop him as it does about Trump himself. In no sense is this a good thing for the country.

It is easier to make decisions on most issues based on emotion and your own biases (factually based or not) than to make them based on facts and objectivity. This is such a case.

While we like to say we are a nation of laws, most decisions regarding who to prosecute involve an overwhelming amount of subjectivity. If you believe most prosecutions are based on facts alone then, with respect, you don’t know much about our system. Nearly all prosecutorial choices involve opinion, bias, and preferences. It is called “prosecutorial discretion.” The DA who indicted Trump in New York, for example, immediately upon taking office, reduced the charges against thousands of people accused of violent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The facts had not changed, only the opinion of the DA.

I’ll go further and say that any lawyer who doesn’t recognize the decision to charge Trump is unjustifiable based on past actions in similar cases – and doesn’t say so – is at this point a hypocrite not deserving of membership in the bar. Any political observer who doesn’t admit this is an entirely unjustified prosecution is also either uninformed, corrupt, or lying. If that is too pointed or confrontational for you, my apologies, and maybe this piece isn’t your cup of tea. The stakes are high and the time for timidity is gone.

How is that for direct? 😊 You know who you are! With love and apologies all around, the time for being afraid to express your opinion is gone. We are in many ways losing our country, and if you don’t work to preserve it, you are part of the problem.

The decision to charge Trump is politically driven. Period.

From the political side, it is very likely, in my view, that leading Democrats are pushing for prosecution of Trump because they know it will inflame his base and make his nomination more likely. They WANT Trump to be the nominee because they think they can beat him. At the same time, they know moderates and non-partisans will be hesitant to vote for someone under indictment or convicted.

The political ramifications will be interesting, but the legal outline is clear.

Every executive in Washington must follow a complex system of requirements and procedures for record-keeping. It is rare for Washington’s denizens NOT to violate a procedure, either intentionally or inadvertently. In almost all such cases there is either no punishment or only minor fines. That is what makes the Trump indictment indefensible. None of his predecessors has been subject to the same level of investigation, scrutiny, or potential sanctions.

Be clear: the DOJ works for the president and is taking actions to affect his leading opponent and to impact the election. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that should just, candidly, go home and stay there on Election Day, because they are hopelessly naïve.

Memos and emails have already shown the White House was involved in the decision to search Mar-A-Lago, even though President Joe Biden claimed he didn’t even know it was going to happen. This White House spews more lies in a week than Pinocchio did in a lifetime, and they aren’t even particularly clever about it.

Continue reading →

Please share!

Biden is Hard at Work Trying to Steal the Midterms

By J Robert Smith

June 23, 2022
1 min read

Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist, has a must-read article posted today at The Federalist. The Biden administration has been hard at work for many months using federal programs and offices in the states to identify, register, and turnout voters for the midterms – their voters, meaning Democrats and Democrat-leaners. Or anyone receiving federal government handouts. This is illegal – or just skirts the law. The Democrats did practically the same thing in 2020 as part of a comprehensive campaign to steal the presidential election from Donald Trump.

Hemingway is author of the super analysis on the 2020 election theft, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. If you’re interested in one very important aspect of how Democrats foisted Joe Biden on the nation, read Mollie’s book. And also see Dinesh D’Souza’s eye-opening 2000 Mules documentary, which lays out the old fashioned way Democrats swiped the 2020 presidential contests: ballot box stuffing.

Charges Hemingway in her June 23 analysis:

When President Biden ordered all 600 federal agencies to “expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process” on March 7, 2021, Republican politicians, Constitutional scholars, and election integrity specialists began to worry exactly what was up his sleeve.

They had good reason. The 2020 election had suffered from widespread and coordinated efforts by Democrat activists and donors to run “Get Out The Vote” operations from inside state and local government election offices, predominantly in the Democrat-leaning areas of swing states. Independent researchers have shown the effect of this takeover of government election offices was extremely partisan and favored Democrats overwhelmingly.

The full article can be found at The Federalist. Follow this link to read it.

Please share!

April Musings

By Rob Meyne

April 4, 2022
2-min read

If you’re looking for an April Fool’s joke, you fill find him at the White House. In the meantime, here is random thought to ponder.

If the GOP wins the House, how about electing Donald Trump as Speaker? None of this is to suggest it is seriously being considered, and we wouldn’t know if it were. But… is it fair to say that would shake things up a bit?

The entire focus of Congress would be changed overnight. The House could begin investigating the scandals of the Democratic Party, the corruption of the intelligence community, the Biden Crime Family. And more.

How quickly would Adam Schiff need a clear pair of underwear if he heard Trump would be Speaker? Would Eric Swallwell’s former girlfriend/Communist Party of China spy make herself scarce? What would Bubba and the Hildebeast think of it all?

How about if Trump released the names of the Members of Congress who had paid sexual harassment settlements (with your tax dollars)? How about if he released all available information about people who traveled to Orgy Island with Jeffrey Epstein? (If his name is on the list, of course, we wouldn’t count on it being released.)

BTW, if this sounds odd, or unlikely, it is because it is. But for the record, the House can elect anyone they want as Speaker. It does not have to be a U. S. Representative. If they want to, they can elect Bozo the Clown (probably already running as a Democratic Socialist somewhere), Rumer Willis, or Elon Musk’s gardener. Yes, they could elect Trump.

There is a lot of time left, and the GOP has proven it is capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory. But as of today, things look grim for team Pelosi/AOC/Omar. It is fun to speculate.

The idea of Trump becoming speaker has been floated by some of his supporters, as well as those who would like to see someone else be the nominee in 2024. See CNNPolitics: Donald Trump for … speaker of the House? – and here Matt Gaetz says he will nominate Donald Trump for House speaker – CNNPolitics.

Would making Trump Speaker be a wise political move? Maybe not. But it would have the advantage of stopping the Democratic witch hunts in their tracks, guaranteeing the far-left Biden agenda would stall, and paving the way for someone else to run as a Republican for president. As Speaker, Trump wouldn’t have to campaign for anything and could become a central feature in a potential Republican lock on the federal government in 2025.

Everybody wins!

Please share!