Photo of an "Impeach Trump" billboard

Motive Behind the Left’s Impeachment Attempts

I am not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, generally speaking. However, I find her reaction to the release of the transcript to the call President Trump made to Ukrainian President Zelensky to be spot-on:

“I think when you step outside of the bubble here in Washington and you get to where most folks are … I think most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016.

“And instead what I think most people will see is, ‘Hey, this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump,’ further deepening the already hyperpartisan divides that we have in this country.”

Ms. Gabbard, of course, is an extremely liberal congresswoman who referred to the president in the same interview as “corrupt” and “unfit to serve our country as president” She is also attempting to persuade Democratic voters to allow her to replace President Trump. It is unlikely she is politically motivated to defend Donald Trump.

Nor is Charlie Cook, publisher of [i] The Cook Political Report [/i], who tweeted “I don’t Tweet very much but reading transcript has moved me to comment.  I was totally underwhelmed by the transcript. After the build-up, it was not much more inappropriate said than we hear from him in a typical week.  This will not move malleable voters.”

Yet, Democrats would have one believe that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense by asking President Zelensky for “a favor” by looking into possible corruption involving Hillary Clinton’s server and Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was investigating Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

As Congresswoman Gabbard pointed out, it strains belief to think that most Americans would find anything President Trump has done in this regard as impeachable. Nor, I would add, does it seem credible to believe that every Democrat see anything here or in past impeachment attempts that rise to the level of “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors”, despite what they say to the contrary.

The reason for my speculation is that these attempts to impeach the president have so far been nothing but a steady stream of BS.

There was, for example, an attempt to impeach President Trump for firing James Comey in May of 2017. However, only months earlier both Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer expressed a lack of confidence in Mr. Comey’s ability to continue to lead the FBI.

There was the attempt to impeach President Trump for obstructing the Mueller Report. This effort continued even after Robert Mueller testified before Congress that his investigation was not “curtailed, stopped, or hindered.”  In other words, there was no obstruction.

There is this current attempt to impeach President Trump for pushing President Zelensky into investigating Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden although President Zelensky himself says he was not pushed into anything.

There was even an argument that the president, whose net worth is reportedly about $3B, should be impeached for violating the Emolument Clause and profiting from his office by having Vice-President Pence stayed at a Trump golf resort.

I do not take seriously the notion that so many Democrats — many of whom possess enviable academic and legal credentials, so they can’t all be considered dunces — actually ever believed they had a legitimate case for impeachment against President Trump any more so than they ever thought that Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist.

The reasons given most often for why Democrats continue to put forth charges that they themselves do not believe are that they want to appease their increasingly Stalinistic base who want socialism now at all costs, or that they want to disrupt Trump’s reelection efforts.

Both are true. As Representative Al Green, a Democrat, said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”

But perhaps there is another motivating factor behind these efforts to impeach the president.  It is likely, in my opinion, that these efforts are part of a larger pattern we are witnessing — to an increasingly alarming degree — an effort to intimidate political opposition.

Recently Debra Katz, who represented Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh debacle, stated:

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

We have also seen attempts to blacklist those in the entertainment industry for attending a Trump fundraiser, a conservative student was punched on a Berkley campus for “encouraging violence,’ and Facebook joining forces with Twitter and Pinterest in their campaign against pro-life group Live Action.

Not far from where I live, an 81-year old man was beaten in a supermarket for wearing a MAGA cap. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd declared that those who are “climate change deniers” will not be allowed to express their views on his show “Meet The Press.” And, various college groups are still voting to ban conservative speakers, conservative groups, and Chick-fil-A restaurants from campus.

One final example: Joaquin Castro, brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, recently tweeted the names and business addresses of Trump donors, for no other apparent reason other than to have these donors harassed or otherwise punished for not supporting the Progressive agenda.

I could list enough examples of the left’s assault (often physical assault) on conservatives to fill several more pages, but, hopefully, I’ve provided enough that the reader gets the gist.

There is a pattern to repress conservatism that goes beyond winning debates and winning elections. This pattern includes expelling conservatives from academia, entertainment, and certain social circles. At the very least it is a pattern to make Republican supporters feel wary about expressing their ideology, for this expression could easily lead to negative consequences for them.

This pattern reaches all the way to the top with the harassment of President Trump in the form of impeachment attempts, but it affects our lives as well.

— DK

Photo credit: Mike Fritcher on Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC

Fact Check: Hillary, Champion of Women

Hillary-ClintonYesterday, while stumping in Ohio, Hillary Clinton “champion of women,” stated that her GOP rivals for the presidency of the United States hold “extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States. Yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back.”

I would find this laughable, if it wasn’t tragic on so many levels:

First, this is a woman who has shamelessly taken millions upon millions of dollars from countries that truly “hold extreme views about women,” and “espouse out of date, out of touch policies” through her “charitable” Foundation. These are countries that condone “honor” killings, force children into marriages with grown men, do not let women drive or go out of the home without a male relative escort, and stone women. Have I missed anything, Madame Secretary?

Secondly, Hillary Clinton has not been shy about her admiration for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger. And, if you want to talk about “out of date, out of touch views,” look no further than avowed racist and eugenicist, Margaret Sanger! Let’s just look at a few of her quotes, to underscore the point, and hold up this “shining beacon” that Mrs. Clinton admires so much:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” 1

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” 2

Further, Secretary Clinton is the proud recipient of the Margaret Sanger award, and though she says she “deplores” the racist statements, she still admires the woman, her work (which was the extermination of “undesirables”), and accepts the award!

And, lastly, Hillary supports abortion on demand. She may think that abortion foes are “backward thinkers,” but as recent events have shown (something pro-life supporters have known all along), abortion is the brutal murder of innocent life. What can be more horrific, more hostile to living and pre-born women than the barbaric practice of abortion? That life for “body parts” could be so casually dismissed over Chianti and salad, while discussing lavish purchases with literal “blood money,” is acceptable, and pro-lifers are “backward” and “out-of-touch?” If so, I gladly plead guilty to being “backward” for the sake of human life, rather than “enlightened” with “hands swift to shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17).

Hillary paints herself as the “champion of women,” while embroiled in “a little ethics snafu” that should cost her the bid for the highest office in the land; with the blood of four American citizens on her hands and on her watch; and the past defense of a child rapist while painting the preteen female victim as the villain . . . none of which make her a champ, but only paint those (p)sycophants who would still vote for her in a heartbeat, as chumps.

— Marie Stroughter


Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12. 

Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Hear me wax more poetically on this subject on our 4/14/15 radio show, during our end segment, #MarieRants

Black and White Lives Matter

StraightOuttaSomewhereThe #BlackLivesMatter movement has a message. It is a message they are so desperate for you to hear that they have recently shutdown an anniversary celebration of Medicare and Social Security for you to hear it, even if that meant physically bullying 73-year old Bernie Sanders off the stage. Their message is, primarily, that the police are a threat to the African American community

It is not a new message, of course. As Marco Rubio said, “It is a fact that in the African-American community around this country, there has been for a number of years now a growing resentment toward how the law enforcement and criminal justice system interacts with the community.”

As a member of that African American community, I am well aware of this resentment and of the tension between my community and the police. In fact, I am reminded of a conversation with a friend, an African-born NJ college professor, who told me of an informal experiment he likes to conduct. He would have a White student lay in the backseat of his Audi while he drove through one of NJ’s very wealthy neighborhoods. He said he would do so to show how inevitably and how quickly a police officer would find a reason to pull him over for questioning. According to him, this experiment has never failed to produce the predicted results. This experiment is never conducted with a Black student because there would be little point. Blacks almost always already assume that even a well-dressed Black in a nice car driving through a wealthy neighborhood would be stopped by the police.

Along with this resignation, and largely because of it, there is an anti-police sentiment within the African American community, further poisoning the relationship between police officers and African Americans. Our very culture helps cultivates this hostility. Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example, recently recounted that growing up he saw the police as just another force “with no real moral difference from the crews and the gangs and the packs of folks who dispensed violence throughout the neighborhood.” And Mychal Denzel Smith even argues that the police should be abolished, thinking that, “a world without police” would result in “less dead Black people.”

In fact, the most popular movie in the U.S. as I write this is Straight Outta Compton, based on the release of the album of the same name, by rap group NWA. In one of the hit songs on the album, F*** Tha Police, the group, or at least the personas the group created to appeal to their audience, complains about harassment from the Los Angeles police department because of their skin color. Ice Cube states, “F*** the police coming straight from the underground. A young n*gger got it bad cause I’m brown. And not the other color so police think they have the authority to kill a minority.”

Yet in the titular song of the album they – in their personas – boast of such things as using a sawed-off shotgun, “jack moves,” and having “a crime record like Charles Manson.” Based on that it seems as though NWA is pointing out very strongly that they have reason to have it bad from the LAPD based on much more than their skin color.

It is not a new message, of course. As Marco Rubio said, “It is a fact that in the African-American community around this country, there has been for a number of years now a growing resentment toward how the law enforcement and criminal justice system interacts with the community.”

Racism alone can not be used to explain the often tense relationship between the police and the largely African American inner city community, not when three of the police officers charged with the death of Freddie Gray are themselves Black, or when even Jesse Jackson himself stated, “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

People like NJ Senator Cory Booker often complain about “a prison system that is 61 percent African-American even though our state is just 13 percent black.” But rarely, if ever, do they mention the reason that African Americans are in prison at such high percentages is because African Americans commit a higher percentage of crimes. Despite being just roughly 14% percent of the population, Blacks are responsible for 52% of homicides overall, and 66% of drug-related homicides.

Furthermore, rarely, if ever, will those who bemoan such things as the percentage of Blacks incarcerated mention that almost all of the crimes committed by these prisoners were against other Black people. Despite the impression one would get from reading Conservative blogs, with their incessant postings about “Black thugs,” Black crime — like all crime — is nearly exclusively intraracial. 93% of the Black murderers imprisoned murdered other Blacks, 74.8% of the Black rapists rape Black women. And 68.3% of the Blacks robbed are robbed by Blacks as well.

There are many times when the police overstep badly in their interactions with the African American community. It is for this reason that I am a strong supporter of dash-cams, body cams, and any other measure to monitor and temper those interactions. As John Adams once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Police officers are not angels.

However, when I read the demands of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, which say “we will advocate for a decrease in law-enforcement spending at the local, state and federal levels” and “that the federal government discontinue its supply of military weaponry and equipment to local law enforcement,” it puzzles me. If the vast majority of crime is intraracial, if the overwhelmingly majority of Black crime victims are victimized by Blacks, then who are activists seeking to protect by demanding softer law enforcement against Blacks? If Black lives matter, then Blacks need more and better policing so that Black lives can be protected from the Black predators that would otherwise prey upon them.

— DK

Blood On Their Hands

According to a recent Gallup poll “the percentage of Americans naming ‘race relations’ or ‘racism’ as the most important problem in the U.S. has climbed dramatically to 13%”.

This is the highest figure Gallup has recorded on this question since 1992, when the nation was responding to the Rodney King verdict that originally acquitted four police officers on charges of the use of excessive force and assault with a deadly weapon, despite a widely circulated videotape of police officers using excessive force and assaulting Mr. King with deadly weapons.

Interestingly, this December 2014 poll spike, from 1% in November 2014, is the result of another  court verdict and videotape. This one involves the lack of indictment of police officer Daniel Pantaleo for his actions in the death of Eric Garner and a widely circulated videotape of Officer Panteleo using a controversial hold on Mr. Garner that lead to his death.

Also interesting is that while the 1992 spike happened at the beginning of the administration of Bill Clinton, who some called ‘the first Black president’, this recent spike is occurring during the middle of the second term of Barack Obama, the actual Black president. One would think such spikes would have occurred during the administrations of Clinton’s and Obama’s successors. George H.W. Bush after all was widely accused to exploiting racism to get elected because of the Willie Horton ads by the NAACP, and George W. Bush was widely accused of being racist during his election by the NAACP for not signing into law hate-crime legislation during his tenure as Texas governor. Yet American concern about race relations remained low during both Bush administrations.

There are interesting differences as well. While President Clinton had as little to do with the beating of Rodney King as President Obama did with the killing of Eric Garner, Obama is not as divorced from responsibility of the resulting uptick in perception of racial tension.

President Obama’s administration has been marked by an agenda that seemed deliberately designed to increase racial tensions almost exactly from the start. One of the first official actions of the Obama administration was to refuse to prosecute the New Black Panther members who stood at a Philadelphia polling station with billy clubs to attempt to intimidate voters into voting for Barack Obama. Given this administrations’ accusation of voter intimidation against those who would require voters show a valid ID, Obama’s refusal to charge the weapon-wielding Panthers with voter intimidation struck many — especially non-Blacks — as discriminatory.

This perception of a pro-Black Obama Department of Justice was bolstered by the book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams which accused Eric Holder of refusing to prosecute civil rights cases in which the violators of civil rights were African American.  Our interview with Adams can be found by clicking here.

President Obama further exacerbated racial tensions by assuming the Cambridge police officer for ‘behaving stupidly’ in temporarily arresting Professor Henry Louis Gates, after Gates’ breaking into what turned out to be his own home.  Obama’s comment, that “there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately” may have been true, but given that the police were only responding to a neighbor’s call, and that Gates likely would not have been arrested at all if Gates did not insult one of the officer’s mother, insulting the police was unnecessarily provocative.

Later, when some reacted (overreacted?) angrily to Obama’s comment following the Trayvon Martin case that ‘if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,’ the perception that there were “Two Americas” with one being Blacks as a special protected class was palpable, and racial resentment was an undeniable problem.

Although it did not cause the Gallup poll spike the Gardner case did, the Martin case may be remembered as more significant catalyst for racial tensions during the Obama administration. To some, Martin was an unarmed and innocent teenager, who was accosted and eventually shot by an overzealous and racist neighborhood watchman.  To these, Martin became a symbol of Black persecution. To others, Martin was a typical Black thug, casing homes while on his way somewhere to get high, who thought nothing of bashing a stranger’s head against cement for following him. To these, Martin became a symbol of Black prosecution.

Whatever the truth of the case may be, there was a clear line drawn, as some protested Martin’s killer George Zimmerman’s acquittal, while others lined up for Zimmerman’s autograph at gun shows.

A similar pattern followed after the Michael Brown shooting.  Despite the unlikelihood that someone would charge a gun that was firing at him, especially if only to avoid being arrested on a minor robbery charge; and the conflicting testimony of witnesses – some of whom testified that Brown had his hands up in surrender, while one bipolar witness with a history of racism was allowed to testify to the grand jury that Brown was charging at the office “like a football player” even though the prosecutor knew beforehand that she was “clearly not telling the truth” and not even present at the time of the shooting — the case was not deemed worthy of trial

The rising anger by the Black community and against the Black community also became especially evident on the Internet during this period. Progressive sites became filled with exaggerated stories of police brutality against Blacks (so that their audience could complain against police racism) while Conservative sites decided it was conservative to post almost daily examples of Black ‘thuggery’ (so that their commentators could ‘wish they would go back to Africa with the rest of the gorillas’).  These websites got lots of hits, but it is easy to see how they helped inflame racial tension as well.

Obama’s most visible response to the recent racial tensions has been to make Al Sharpton his unofficial Secretary of Race Relations. Poor choice. Sharpton’s entire career – from the Brawley hoax (which led to the suicide of an innocent cop), to the Freddie Fashion Mart protest (which led to the death of eight), and to the Crown Heights riots (which led to the stabbing death of a rabbinical student) –  has shown “Rev. Al” to be less a Man of God than an Angel of Death. Sharpton did not earn his pay from bringing the races together – as Obama surely recognizes.  That Obama has reportedly met with Sharpton 84 times and has given him such status calls into question who sincerely Obama wishes to bring the races together as well.

As an African American, I have known what it is like to be a victim of racism. I have had Whites call me “n****r,” had employers deny me jobs because of my skin color, and have been stopped by police and security guards for ‘looking suspicious.’ I once even had a landlord try to evict me from an apartment because a neighbor complained about a Black person living in the neighborhood.

Yet I do not complain about my racial experiences because I always remembered my father telling me that when he was growing up he was not allowed to eat at the Woolworth’s where he was employed — not where he would be visible to the White only customers, at least — and how he and most other Blacks had to step off the sidewalk when a White man was coming. Or of my grandfather’s experiences, which involved facing burning crosses, lynchings, and knowing men and women who were born into slavery.

My assumption based on my experience then, is that the country was largely coming together.  After all, our president was Black. And the teens I see making far too much noise at the local library where I used to go to read free stuff all seem to think as little about race than they do about me having enough peace and quiet to concentrate.

Yet only days ago two minority police officers who were assigned to protect minorities from other minorities in a largely minority community were assassinated by a deranged Black gunman, inspired perhaps by chants of “What do we want? Dead cops!” from Garner protestors and a mayor telling audiences how he had to warn his biracial son to fear the police.