Facebook Leftists Media Republicans Social Media Trump Truth Twitter

How The Left Could Erase Republicans In The 2020 Election

Rod Thomson

The Orwellian dystopia found in 1984 is our future if the trendline continues. And a startling pathway to that future is beginning to congeal before us.

George Orwell presciently wrote “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” This was accomplished in the novel through a device called the Memory Hole.

Protagonist Winston Smith’s job, along with innumerable other workers, was to search the news archives for any stories, phrases or even people who did not line up with the current official worldview and history as dictated by Big Brother. If he found an instance, he dropped it down a literal Memory Hole and it was erased from ever having happened. People’s entire lives disappeared, completely erased as though they never happened. Wars and movements and ideologies never happened and were replaced by a newly re-written history that aligned with Big Brother.

The internal operations of the Memory Hole were never described by Orwell. That was not important, it simply functioned as a metaphor for what Communism was doing around the world in 1948.

But today we are seeing how such a Memory Hole could practically function. No metaphors. Simple reality. And it could happen faster than we think. And like Communism, it comes entirely from the left.

It is the unholy union of the leftwing mainstream media, the leftwing social media giants, leftwing Google and leftwing website and platform hosts. These are virtually all of the avenues for information outside of old-school radio and TV. Talk radio is already dominated by conservatives, but it also does not reach many people in the middle. Ditto for Fox News. 

For elections, communicating to voters in the middle, those who swing elections, is critical. Talk radio and Fox News largely do not do that. There is a conservative media such as the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Newsmax and so on. But they are in the same category of reaching and informing conservatives, who by definition are not swing voters. This dynamic holds for openly progressive media, such as the Huffington Post, Slate, Buzzfeed, Salon, etc.

Let’s walk through how the Memory Hole is beginning to come together. We’ll start with the mainstream media.

The legacy media of newspapers and network television and CNN has long been dominated by leftwing reporters, editors and producers. It has become more obvious over recent decades, increasing sharply in the non-coverage of Obama-era scandals and now being completely unmasked in the age of Trump. So that is in place now.

Google has been outed repeatedly, most recently by Veritas, which interviewed whistleblowers at Google who leaked documents showing that Google is intent on not letting another Trump or Trump-type election ever happen again. They’ve been placing their thumbs on the scales for awhile, but this is a new level and it is now not just fellow travelers at the same company, it is coordinated from the top. That means it will be quite effective.

The result already is that searches for things that were readily available even a year ago, are almost impossible to find now. News stories from “trusted sources” get top play. And of course Google trusts only the mainstream and even outwardly leftists sources. I am reminded of this daily. I googled Tropical Storm Humberto and just today. is a top 300 website. Yet the first two hits were for CNN and then NBC before getting to — even when I included the specific URL.

In this way, Google employees have become a little army of coding Winston Smiths to develop their part of the Memory Hole.

The social media giants of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube (owned by Google), Instagram, Pinterest and even the giant aggregator Reddit are run and dominated by leftwing executives and operatives. This is a crucial component, because social media was one of the few places where right, left and center could see everything if they wanted to. Everyone could post and link and be as political or nonpolitical as they desired. Since it was a social and familial gathering place, it allowed for the possibilities of seeing a real variety of views, even crazy ones. I described it as the Wild West and considered it a great step forward.

But alas, as the modern left has an instinct for censorship and shutting down discussion, debate and alternative views, so the social media giants are doing all those. From shadow-banning and demonetizing to de-platforming and outright banning, they are all creating what they call “community standards” that is simply leftwing ideology. So by definition, things that are overtly conservative are regularly running into the censor.

It’s not just whackadoodles like Alex Jones. It ranges from conservative comedians like Steven Crowder, who was actually trying to follow all of Youtube’s rules, to the mainstream pro-life outfit Live Action. But when the conservatively doctrinaire PragerU has large numbers of their videos hidden, you know the digital noose is tightening. 

And finally, there are the website hosts and platforms such as Godaddy, WordPress, Weebly and so on that are also run by leftists. They have the ability to simply shut down original websites if they deem those have violated their standards. So far, it has only been done with the most egregious sites, such as the white nationalist, Holocaust-denying,  neo-Nazi website Stormfront.  

But the line has been crossed. 

When you combine the mainstream media, Google, the social media sites, and the website hosts as all leftists, anti-Republican and virulently anti-Trump, they could act in concert — without ever holding a meeting — to scrub the conservative or pro-Trump message from most of the Web — and all the places where swing voters might be exposed.

This includes both organic reach of conservatives and promoted reach. Facebook, Youtube and Twitter can decide that Republican or Pro-Trump ads are violating their community standards and refuse them. This, too, has already happened. This would mean that the GOP would have virtually no pathway for reaching swing voters other than expensive and much less effective direct mail. 

Played in unison, these elements substantially become a Memory Hole.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Elections Leftists Truth

What Happens On November 4, 2020?

Rod Thomson

I asked this question on social media, where I interact with people across the political spectrum: What happens on Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the election?

It’s a legitimate worry. Based on what happened after November 2016, the day after this next election will tell us where our democracy stands. Because we’re setting the stage where whichever side loses they may feel justified in claiming it was rigged or illegal, and the 2020 winner is illegitimate. 

This is hardly unfounded considering both what we know and what we are seeing coming. First, on the Left.

Given that the Left and most Democrats have lived at Defcon One since the day after the 2016 election; given that they have called Trump a white supremacist, a racist, a Russian agent, an existential threat to the Republic, and have run from the beginning with the hashtag NotMyPresident; given that Antifa is allowed to grow and even control at times a major U.S. city and other violence has been common; given that Russia will interfere again (which can be assumed because they have for generations); then what can we expect on the day after the election if Trump is victorious?

Will the Left’s fury just be spent and they will attempt an inward evaluation of the Democratic Party as the GOP did in 2012? That doesn’t seem to be the tenor of the revolutionaries and those playing to them.

It seems more likely that there could well be a far worse response from the Left than there has been since 2016. Maybe not just mass demonstrations, but actual riots. After all, four more years of an existential threat, a foreign agent in the White House? Many would feel fully justified in taking extreme actions.

How about on the right?

If over the next 16 months the media continues to act in a blatantly partisan way; if social media increasingly bans, de-platforms and generally cuts off access to Republicans (under the guise of hate speech) while tilting the field to Democrats; if tech companies take conservative websites offline (not just the extremist fringe sites); if Democrats in Congress, no less, continue to dox and put a physical target on the back of Trump and GOP donors; if mainstream media outlets block effective Republican advertisements (essentially, the left greatly reducing Trump and Republicans’ ability to communicate with voters); and then Trump loses, how will the right respond? 

There may be a sense of justification for extreme action. It seems less likely, because generally, other than the rather subdued Tea Party movement, conservatives rarely take to the streets and never refuse to accept election results. (Remember, Democrats already have twice this century.)

But we are in somewhat uncharted water. There would arise a fringe element on the right that could react in extra-legal ways. The frustration level would be sky-high if most of the above conditions are in place.

If neither side will accept 2020, then we actually do have an existential threat. 

This situation is even more dangerous than a socialist winning the presidency, as horrible as that would  be. We have seen over and over how the Framers’ genius has spared us from terrible leadership. However, if the American public does not accept election results, that genius is for naught. 

Democrats were right in saying ahead of 2016 — when they were sure Hillary would win — that Republicans and Trump need to accept the results (which was always going to happen) but then unfortunately those Democrats chose not to accept them when Hillary lost. Remember, Hillary still travels around saying she won, just as Democrat Stacey Abrams does after losing the Georgia governor’s race by a handy amount.)

On my social media, everyone on the right said they would accept the results, but almost none of them thought that Democrats would. Most on the left, but given that my connections are not the radical side of the Democratic Party, said they would essentially cry all night and move on. They were not so sure what the right and Trump supporters would do.

My guess, and it is only that, is that if Sen. Kamala Harris or Sen. Elizabeth Warren win the election, the right will essentially accept it, even with all those elements stacked against us. But it’s only a guess.

On the other side, I can barely imagine what the left and Democrats will do if Trump is re-elected, because I could never have imagined the hysteria and violence that has followed his initial election.

What happens Nov. 4, 2020 will tell us where our democracy stands.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Democrats Leftists Race Race relations Truth

Trayvon Martin Hate Hoax Created Modern Identity Politics

Rod Thomson

The final take-away from what follows is that America is a pretty frickin’ amazing country when it comes to racism and bigotry.

It’s so good, in fact, that a small but booming industry has sprung up creating hoaxes to perpetuate the illusion of a bigoted country when the fact that there are so many hoaxes is one of the strong proofs of how little there is in reality.

The Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax — he paid Nigerians to pretend to attack him, pour bleach on him and put a noose around his neck — is just the latest. It follows in a long line of hate crime hoaxes being perpetrated by the left, Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, creating an industry that was super fueled by the Trayvon Martin race hoax.

But Trayvon was only the start. Fuel was added in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. And all of the straight up hoaxes or race-baiting misrepresentations and grew into wildfires with the belching bellows of a credulous, fellow-traveling media.

This running annual survey by Gallup Poll on race relations shows the damage done by a series of hate crime hoaxes starting in 2013.

What happened in 2013? It’s what happened in 2012 that led to 2013. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, after Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground. It was self defense. That was the initial State’s Attorney decision after interviews with witnesses and examining all of the physical evidence. No charges.

But 2012, you may recall, was an election year. Barack Obama was in the midst of his re-election campaign and had already shown himself more than willing to stoke racial tensions — both purposely and incidentally — for his own purposes. The national media, and we all understand they are aligned with Democratic politicians and were major allies of Obama, ginned up the story of outrage that a white man had killed a young black teen in cold blood and was walking away scot free. Pictures of Trayvon in the media were from when he was 13 and pretty young and innocent looking.

The problem was that Trayvon was 18 and a filled out man. His social media accounts showed a full-size young man brooding in a hoodie or giving us all the finger — pictures the media refused to run, sticking with the five-year-old photo of a skinny kid. The other problem: Zimmerman was not white. He was Hispanic.

The photo the media ran most often:

Photos of the young man who actually attacked Zimmerman:

No matter. The narrative was set. This is not to say it was OK to shoot him because of the photos. His actions apparently dictated that.

It is to say that the media was particularly egregious on this hoax, actively participating in it. Beyond just absurd credulity and using the wrong photo, CNN and NBC News were both caught manipulating Zimmerman’s 911 tape to twist him into a racist by badly taking things out of context and warping some of the words. ABC News actually airbrushed a photo of Zimmerman’s bloodied scalp to remove the wounds he received from Martin.

The narrative whipping up the public, prosecutors ended up charging Zimmerman with murder — a wild overreach that was doomed from the beginning. It went to trial and Zimmerman was duly acquitted after a full-fledged circus because while the race-inflaming industry had changed the narrative and the charges, the evidence itself had not changed.

But the damage was done. Florida was branded again as racist. America was racist. Black men were being gunned down on the streets. And the racial tensions that had been finally healing were cut back open again because it benefitted Obama and the Democratic, race-hustling machine let by Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

Gallup’s poll showed a plunge in American attitudes on race relations the following year when it was taken. All based on a hate crime hoax.

It got worse. In 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a black community, part of the St. Louis metro area, a black teen named Michael Brown was shot by a white cop and killed, his body laying in the street until paramedics arrived. The race-baiting industry, led by the media megaphone portion, went into high gear, including reporting that Brown had put his hands up and said don’t shoot. “Hands up don’t shoot” became the mantra of activists and many in the media. Riots ensued. The police officer went into hiding and Black Lives Matter was birthed.

But this too was a hate crime hoax. It turns out, when the investigation was done and all the evidence in, even Obama’s race-driven Justice Department found no cause against the police officer because “hands up don’t shoot” never happened. What actually took place was that Brown, always called a teen despite being a nearly 300-pound 19-year-old man, had just robbed a Korean grocery store and threatened the owner. It’s on tape.

Support the fight for truth

When the officer responding to the call saw him walking down the street, he told him to stop. Brown ultimately ended up attacking the officer, punched him in the face and tried to take his gun. The officer shot Brown multiple times and killed him. There’s no disputing this as even Obama’s team had to admit this is what happened.

But the burning, looting and rioting that resulted from the irresponsible (at best) media hoax reporting had done more damage to American race relations. In 2014 and 2015, Gallup’s poll fell further. It leveled out at a much worse place by 2016 and has actually stayed steady at that point through 2018. So six years ago, the number of blacks who thought race relations between blacks and white was bad nearly doubled, from 29 percent in 2012 to 53 percent by 2015. It actually dropped a little by 2018 to 47 percent, but still very high. Whites track that trajectory.   

Hoax hate crimes are nothing really new. They’ve been used to further the left’s agenda for decades. In 1987, Al Sharpton created the Tawana Brawley hoax, which claimed that four white men raped a black girl. It never happened, it finally came out. But riots and at least one actual death stemmed from the hoax.

Sharpton has been well-rewarded for lying and creating hysteria over the hoax. He got national recognition and displaced Jesse Jackson as the ultimate race hustler. He made millions of dollars, was given a television show, a talk radio show and even ran for president in 2004. Oh, and he was invited to Obama’s White House 82 times — to advise on matters of race. Frankly, it appears Obama took his advice.

The Daily Caller has compiled a list of 21 of the most egregious hate crime hoaxes just during the Trump administration. (Other sites have the total, including small ones, at nearly 400.) There are many more, but these are a few that stand out. They range from racist hate crime hoaxes to anti-gay hate crime hoaxes to anti-Muslim hate crime hoaxes. Basically, the full panoply of the left.

Note, that these all disappeared from the news immediately upon being determined by authorities to be hoaxes. But the media continues to jump on the next one. Remember way back to the Covington school boys hate crime hoax, before the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax?

Of course, unless you file a false police report, and the police decide to actually charge you with that — there is no downside to hoaxing and a lot of upside potential. The cost-benefit analysis for the hoaxer is very positive.

There will be more, and the media will leap to believe them. And American race relations and divisions will either remain bad or get deeper.

Wait, here’s one new hot off the presses. Two days ago, The Detroit Free Press reported that a transgender, gay-rights activist who had fought for a local anti-discrimination ordinance in Jackson, Michigan, and had his house burned down in 2017, blamed haters, was just charged with arson for setting the fire himself. It’s like clockwork.

Notice that the hate crime hoaxes are not just regarding blacks, although they are an important part of intersectional politics of the left. It is also gays, Muslims and so on. This has helped fuel intersectional politics, continuing the broad hoax that America is a racist, bigoted place.

The really ironic part is that progressive Democrats have to continually keep making up these hoaxes, because there is so little racism and bigotry left in the United States. Yet the perceptions are wildly different. We know why, and we know who benefits.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Journalism Leftists Liberalism Media Truth

How The Media Can Fix Itself. And…CNN Is?

Rod Thomson

I can’t even pretend to know what CNN is really thinking by hiring as political editor for their 2020 election coverage Sarah Isgur Flores, a former spokeswoman for the Trump Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions and campaign operative for Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz.

Of course, the DoJ has been one of the leakier Deep State departments undermining Trump. There is that. So for the conspiracists, she might already have a close relationship there. And if you like your conspiracies really toasty warm, you might suspect that she’s told CNN that she just has a lot of dirt from her time in connection with the Mueller investigation and knows how to get information out of the DoJ.

But I can say that if the media were serious about actually fixing itself, it would be doing a lot more hiring of conservatives. A LOT.

While recently seeing some modest increases, CNN suffered serious, almost debilitating ratings declines in the two years following President Trump’s election. They fell well behind known liberal network MSNBC and out-of-sight behind well-known conservative network Fox News. They had long wanted themselves to be seen as the most trusted name in news, but consistently ranked below Fox News and sometimes behind MSNBC.

Of course, they jettisoned all that talk of being trusted in the age of Trump and went full-bore partisan hack, often sprinting over to outright propaganda machine.

But if they really want to regain broad-based trust, CNN like every other mainstream media organization, needs to trash diversity based on skin color and gender — which leads to a rainbow of RightThink liberals and horribly partisan content — and seek a diversity of worldview.

Here’s how it could work.

First and foremost, approach it at the start like an addiction — in this case, an addiction to one worldview that supposes it is the one really true truth and all others are fake news.

Admit you have a problem.

Between 85-90 percent of the working media admit to being registered Democrat. I suspect the number of left-of-center journalists is actually higher than based on my own 25 years of experience in newspaper newsrooms.

Admit that because of human nature, that reality causes a deep leftist bias in the resulting product. No waving around the magic wand of “we’re professionals” makes that bias go away. Everyone has these biases, which is why diversity of worldview is critical.

Admit also that since Trump’s presidency, the bias has become blatant and damaging to credibility and driven many Americans to turn off the media for good.

In President Trump’s recent State of the Union speech, there was an amazing diversity of coverage and headlines — but one hundred percent predictable if you align them with worldviews and politics. Here are a few next day headlines of the speech that garnered 76 percent positive response from those who watched it:

➔ (conservative reporters) Washington Examiner: With pitch for unity, Trump urges Congress to ‘choose greatness’

➔ (conservative reporters) NY Post: Congresswomen clad in ‘suffragette white’ give Trump a standing ovation

➔ (“mainstream” reporters) Washington Post: In dissonant speech, Trump seeks unity while depicting ruin

➔ (“mainstream reporters) New York Times head: Trump Presses Hard Line on Immigration in State of the Union Speech

So the mainstream media, filled with leftists reporters and editors puts out leftist content and everyone not a leftist distrusts them — and they think it is because they get facts wrong, or conservatives just don’t like the truth. This is what they tell themselves.

This is not a new development under Trump; it’s been going on for decades. CNN was referred to as the Clinton News Network in the 1990s because of course its reporters were sympathetic to the Democrat President — because virtually all of them voted for him and supported his agenda.

That completely explains what opened the door for Fox News, which when it launched tapped into the biases obvious by the 1990s. Fox News started with the slogan Fair and Balanced and then moved on to We Report You Decide. Now it runs with Most Watched, Most Trusted — because it is both in many polls.

Meanwhile, oblivious to what they were openly communicating 64 million American who voted Trump into office and saw hope for a brighter America without the Clinton corruption machine in power again, the Washington Post changed their slogan to the dark, ominous and utterly self-absorbed “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Well, they are totally in the dark about their problems, sitting right there in their newsroom. About 90 percent of all news coverage regarding President Trump has been negative. No wonder they are mostly only getting anti-Trump and liberal consumers — and losing everyone else.

But WaPo and CNN are simply representative of virtually all newspapers aside from a few small, newer conservative ones, and all networks except Fox News.

If the media actually wants to reform itself, it must admit to the problem and the solution: fill newsrooms with reporters and editors that mirror the worldview of Americans. This is easily the biggest key to their trustworthiness is journalists, and why so many of us don’t trust them.

They cannot have every shade of only one worldview and expect balance and fairness — or expect that Americans will turn back to them. They will remain discredited and end up just being shrunken leftist silo media organs while the right has its own silo of media organs.

It might be too late. I’ve been blowing this horn for decades to no avail. But it might not be. And if it is not, then what CNN has done by hiring the conservative Flores — not just as a commentator people can ignore but as a news decision-maker — is the only way out of the silo.

It just needs to be repeated dozens, and then hundreds of times, until there is balance among those creating the content.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Leftists Truth

The Grossly Immoral World Proposed By Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

At an event in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr., on Monday, Social Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued to espouse her contemptible views on economics and social order when she was asked if a world that allowed for the existence of billionaires was moral.

“No, it’s not,” said the 29-year-old freshman Congresswoman. She then explained that the billionaires themselves were not the ones who were immoral. “I don’t think that necessarily means all billionaires are immoral. It’s not to say someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral people.” She continued, “I’m not saying that, but I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong.”

So, let’s get this straight, in the strange and ominous world of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the one who seeks billions is okay, but the fact that he or she is allowed to amass billions is not. Therefore, in Ocasio-Cortez’s world, the billionaires are to be eliminated. She doesn’t say how, whether it’s by termination or taxation, but the end result is they are to be regulated out of existence.

The irony is that regardless of which method is chosen to correct the error, both the outcome and solution are even more immoral than the problem Ocasio-Cortez has arbitrarily and capriciously chosen to create. If the former is selected, then the state will be in the business of ending the lives of individuals who have engaged in the sin of amassing more than a randomly defined amount of money. If the latter, which is obviously more likely, then it is their property we are going to steal.

If those comments weren’t sufficient, Ocasio-Cortez then went on to suggest that even those companies she does not like ought to be placed under the crosshairs of government: “I think it’s wrong that corporations like Wal-Mart and Amazon can get paid.” So now, companies engaged in the good faith enterprise in the free market should not get paid for the incredible work they do and for the benefits they bring to society.

The fact is that all of the interventions which Ocasio-Cortez proposes have been previously tried, and we know exactly what the systems for which she espouses look like. History will tell the oppressiveness of collectivist states and their failures. Estimates are that more than 115 million people have been slaughtered in the name of socialism, communism, or fascism; never mind the countless other atrocities that have been realized.

But amidst the nonsense, there is one little phrase the Representative threw that gives us a clue as to the direction the American left is trying to take their tyrannical agenda. “I think that it’s wrong,” she said, “that a vast majority of the country does not make a living-great wage.”

Take note. For the American left, it is no longer sufficient to argue, in addition to the eradication of billionaires and nationalization of Wal-Mart and Amazon, for the implementation of a living wage. The concept is now for the implementation of a “living-great wage.” Whatever that means, it’s bound to end in dystopic future.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Islam Leftists Truth

The Rising Power Of Muslims In America

The smirk by Chuck Schumer spoke volumes, and the full-blown identity politicians showing their true colors remind one of Abraham Lincoln’s potent lines when on March 4, 1865 he penned the following:
“While the inaugural address was being delivered … devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war – seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”
We are not in a hot civil war at this time, but, as Charles R. Kelser has written, “cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.”
Consider Nikki Randhawa, a Sikh who represented the very best of America when she was the United States ambassador to the United Nations.  Most of us know her as Nikki Haley. Her marriage to Michael Haley was a “measure of respect for their individual backgrounds – the colorful Sikh ritual was followed by the Methodist ceremony.” Her husband is an officer in the South Carolina National Guard. She was a governor of South Carolina – clearly two proud Americans who serve their country with distinction.
Reflect now on the newly elected Democratic Muslim women who embody the creeping sharia that is enveloping the world. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minnesota, used American immigration law to her advantage by marrying her brother in 2009. The “motivation for the marriage points to possible immigration fraud and student loan fraud. That’s more she swore to apparent falsehoods in court.”
Tashida Tlaib (Michigan) has vociferously called for the impeachment of Donald Trump. According to Tlaib “President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country.” She asserts that “[o]n an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country. His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now.”
The Democrats can always be counted on to project what they are actually engaging in.
It is they who are creating the constitutional crisis, not the other way around. In addition, both these women show their absolute animus for Israel.
Omar has “long been a harsh critic of Israel. On Nov. 16, 2012 – just a few days after Gaza-based Hamas terrorists had launched more than 150 deadly rockets into the Jewish state, prompting an Israeli military response – she tweeted that ‘the apartheid Israeli regime’ had ‘hypnotized the world’ in order to conceal its own ‘evil doings.'”

Help Our Fight For American Values

Tlaib was the Arab-American coordinator for Obama’s 2008 campaign in Michigan. In addition, she has ties to the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Then, “[i]n 2013-14, she received numerous financial donations from individuals affiliated with CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).”  Moreover, “[i]n an October 2015 tweet, Tlaib linked to an article in The Nation lauding Black Lives Matter activists in Chicago for supporting ‘a Palestinian woman threatened with deportation.’  The woman in question was Rasmea Odeh, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist who had played a central role in a deadly 1969 terrorist bombing in Jerusalem, and had committed felonious immigration fraud in the U.S. years later.”

Tlaib and Omar have insinuated themselves into American politics. They personify the anti-freedom, Jew-hatred, sharia intolerance that is integral to the tenets of the Quran, the very book that Tlaib rested her hand on when she was sworn in! Tlaib and Omar are symptomatic of the leftist-Islamic (Red-Green) anti-American connection that keeps gaining traction in the country. The left (Progressives) believe in the notion of a “living Constitution” and work to create “administrative agencies” that circumvent the limitations that the original Constitution set in place. Likewise, Muslims wish to substitute sharia law for the Constitution, making the absurd claim that they are similar. If so, why change the law in the first place?

Then there is the “prevailing liberal doctrine of rights [which] traces individual rights to membership in various groups – racial, ethnic, gender, class-based … which are undergoing a continual process of consciousness-raising and empowerment.”

Consequently, Omar, with the help of the “useful idiot” Nancy Pelosi, wore a hijab despite a 181-year congressional headwear ban. Hats have “been banned from the House chamber of the Capitol [but] … under a new proposal from Democrats, the rule would be relaxed to allow religious headwear, like a hijab[.] The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.”

Leftists – now known as the Democratic Party – count on people’s ignorance of what these two women actually believe and want to enact. It is how Americans will be duped.

The Muslim Brotherhood has made the Islamic cause abundantly clear. Consequently, America is in the throes of “an even more toxic danger than jihad warfare – a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls ‘civilization jihad.'”

No matter how many news outlets turn this into a fashion moment, no matter how many babies they hold while in the chambers of Congress, these two women are the tip of the iceberg of this seditious campaign. This is not diversity; it is transformation leading to the slow destruction of these United States – just as Barack Hussein Obama asserted not too long ago.

Like us on Facebook

Like their leftist counterparts, Muslims in the Islamic world are “interested in transforming free speech into what they call equal speech.” Thus, they favor the “narrowing of the First Amendment for the sake of redistribution of speech rights from the rich to the poor.” The Muslim world has already shown that any criticism about Islam is tantamount to a crime, and punishment will ensue. Why would things be different in America as Islam gains ascendancy?

Josef Zboril writes, “The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – made up of 57 mostly Muslim-majority states (56 plus “Palestine”) wants to … “[h]old the media accountable for perpetuating hate speech and extremism.” The OIC’s Media Strategy in Countering Islamophobia and its Implementation Mechanisms describes one part of its strategy as a “call [to] media professionals to develop, articulate and implement voluntary codes of conduct to counter Islamophobia.”

But “[u]nfortunately, many in the Western media have been acceding to such demands, either because they agree that being critical of radical Muslims constitutes ‘Islamophobia,’ or out of fear of being accused of it. The social media giant, Facebook, for example, often uses a selective definition of ‘hate speech’ to justify censoring certain pages and posts.”

Once again, the left partners with the Islamic world to effectively criminalize the most cherished of American freedoms: the freedom of speech and press. Connecting the dots, remember that Tlaib has cultivated noteworthy ties to a number of Islamist organizations such as the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations, praising its “invaluable and vital advocacy.” Who would be so naïve as to think she does not advocate the silencing of critics?

In Gaza (emphasis mine), “the freedom of expression is unacceptable … as Hamas intimidates and imprisons writers.” Now recall that “in 2015, Tlaib noted approvingly that the head of Islamic Relief USA – a branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide, – … designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates – had come to Detroit to discuss ‘water relief from Gaza to Detroit.'”

Brigitte Gabriel, speaking of Muslim Saba Ahmed, who ran for Congress in 2012, stated, “We must recognize figures like Ahmed for what they are: Islamists who spout patriotic platitudes, but who justify acts of Islamic terrorism, and whose intent is nothing less than a worldwide caliphate that would undo America from within, with Sharia formally established as the standard for Muslims.”

If we are to preserve the Union, it is incumbent upon us to boldly expose these new representatives and their ilk.

(This article was originally published in the American Thinker. Republished with permission.)

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Immigration Judges Leftists Truth

Reversing ‘Obama Judge’ Ruling On Asylum Seekers

Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred — in direction contradiction to both the immigration law and to the Supreme Court’s ruling this year.

In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.

Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution to be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country. 

There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself. The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.

For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” [emphasis added.]

That is exactly what the President did.

What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate. Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.  

To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country.

Help Us Further The Truth  

So, where are we in this situation?  

Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs. The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.

First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste. The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.  

The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Leftists Progressives Race Truth

Sammy Davis, Jr. — Like Kanye — Was Viciously Attacked For Hugging A GOP President

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

If you ever wondered what would happen when you put Kanye West and Donald Trump in the Oval Office together, last week undoubtedly gave you an indication. Their meeting was one of the most colorful displays of contrasting styles, differing perspectives, and looseness of association in recent memory — ending with a flamboyant hug behind the Resolute Desk, sealed with Kanye’s proclamation of, “I love this guy!”

Predictably, Kanye’s hug was the talk of the nation, and it wasn’t all positive.

CNN’s Don Lemon saw it as a moment when Kanye West was exploited and used by a white president. And the African American rapper, T.I., lashed out at West, exclaiming via social media, “This is the most repulsive, disgraceful, embarrassing act of desperation & auctioning off of one’s soul to gain power I’ve ever seen. . . I feel compelled to slap the f***k outta you bro for the people!”

This abusive relationship between independent black men and the Democratic Party left has a long history.

Things were not good between Richard Nixon and the African-American community back in 1971. First, he was a Republican, and the Democrats had just passed the Civil Rights Act that had been originally pushed by Republicans. The view of the Republican Party as the Grand Ol’ Civil Rights Party was abandoned as African-Americans flocked to Lyndon B. Johnson and his War on Poverty.

What’s worse, Nixon was an awkward, white man. He had no spunk and had this awful tendency to accumulate sweat above his upper lip. His performance in front of the camera was so bad that a decade earlier, during his debate with John F. Kennedy, those who heard the event on radio called him the clear winner while those who saw it on television almost universally sided with Kennedy.  

Also, African-Americans were not impressed with Nixon’s first term as President. For starters, he had nominated two Southern judges to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was confirmed by the Senate. Second, unlike Lyndon B. Johnson with his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Weaver, Nixon did not appoint any African-Americans to his cabinet.

More Original Content On Patreon

And then there was the issue of the growing welfare state and Nixon’s intent of cutting programs initiated by Johnson. In fact, in 1971, the animus towards Nixon was so intense that the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted his State of the Union address.

Nixon recognized he needed an ally from the black community. He had been seen a few times with James Brown, but Brown was not a politically active individual.

Sammy Davis Junior, on the other hand, was a “Cool Cat.” He was an African-American Jew and flaunted it. He had one fake eye and was proud of it. And he was the sole black member of the famously infamous Rat Pack!

Besides, Sammy Davis, Jr. was The Candy Man! Who could ever dislike the man that could take the sunrise and sprinkle it with dew; and cover it with chocolate and a miracle or two?

Astutely, Nixon asked Davis to be on his National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity. Davis, of course, was thrilled at the prospect. From his standpoint, he was being tasked to serve on a Committee by the President of the United States! What greater honor could there be for any American, particularly an African-American Jew! Davis gladly met with the President at the White House to accept his position, a photo op for both men.  

Then Nixon asked Davis to appear in Vietnam before the troops, which he did, and then came to the White House to report to the President. Another photo op.

Next thing he knew Sammy Davis, Jr. was appearing at Republican fundraisers, and singing!

Get More Truth On Our Facebook Page

So, in the 1972, it was natural for Davis to be asked to participate in the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach. Davis enthusiastically accepted and that’s how he found himself on stage before the Republican Youth Rally at the Playboy Hotel in Miami as the President of the United States arrived in the middle of his performance!  

Seeing Nixon walk on stage, Davis was naturally overwhelmed. He stopped, warmly introduced Nixon, and then, in the joy of the moment, gave the President a welcoming, warm, sideways hug!

Immediately, the cameras blazed, inscribing in black and white one of the 20th century’s most impactful, interracial photographic moments. The picture, angled from the men’s front-right, captured a stooped over Sammy Davis, Jr. with his left arm around the President and his right hand gripping Nixon’s right forearm. The smiles on the two men’s faces were genuine and beaming even though their poses — Davis’s ever cool and Nixon’s ever stiff — bespoke their differences.

Although the moment was genuine, the reaction from the left was vicious. The hatred towards Sammy Davis, Jr. was palpable as African-Americans from all over the nation condemned him for so praising the President. He was accused of being used and manipulated by white people.

In short, the left, despicably, turned Sammy Davis, Jr. into a traitor to his race. Sounds pretty familiar.

Recognizing the vitriol, Davis’s PR team went on offense. Sy Marsh, Davis’s PR director, immediately reached out to one of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement and one of the most respected African-American leaders in the country at the time: Jesse Jackson.  Remember, Jackson was at the balcony of the Lorraine Motel when Martin Luther King was brutally shot. The cameras would capture him as one of the men standing next to a dying King desperately pointing in the direction of the gunshots.

Of course Jackson could salvage Davis’s image! Or at least Marsh thought. 

At the time, Jackson was involved in an organization he developed, People United to Save Humanity (PUSH), and if Davis could bring $15,000.00 to the upcoming PUSH fundraiser in Chicago, Jackson would be happy to have Davis join him on stage.

Try Our Youtube Channel

Marsh quickly scrounged up the money from the people who recurrently bailed Sammy Davis, Jr. from financial peril stemming from his drinking and drug use; the casino owners. The payment arranged, Davis showed up as planned, and here is how Wil Haygood, author of a 2003 Washington Post article named the “The Hug” describes it:

And there [Davis] stood, preparing to join Jackson on that Chicago stage and navigate the swinging bridge of black-white relations that defined the ’60s. “Sammy walks out,” recalls Marsh, “and they booed him. Sammy is in a state of shock.” Davis swung his head from side to side of the building, looking for the anger, the source of the boos. “It struck me as with physical force, knocking the wind out of me,” Davis would recall. “It grew louder.” Jackson seemed momentarily startled. He quickly flung his muscular arm around Davis. Jackson’s ferocious embrace was so full of on-the-spot love it seemed to weaken Davis. He seemed to be shrinking inside his denim jacket. The boos and catcalls rained on.

“Brothers,” Jackson said, waving his arm for quiet, “if it wasn’t for people like Sammy Davis, you wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t have PUSH today. Now, I expected some foolish people were going to react like this because the man hugged the president of the United States. So what? Look at what this gigantic little man has committed himself to over all these years.”

As the boos erupted anew, Jackson realized he had underestimated the anger. Davis’s body began twisting. He wanted to bolt. Jackson could feel his angst, and only held Davis tighter. Then he asked Davis to sing something, and suggested “I’ve Gotta Be Me.” Given the circumstances, it was a request both funny and meaningful — and perhaps Freudian. Davis had no time to ponder the meaning; he simply began singing. Words caught in his throat; there was snickering. Marsh felt terrible. “Sammy sang a song, came off, said, ‘. . . They don’t want me. I don’t want them.’ He got blind drunk that night, and cried.

What happened to Sammy Davis, Jr. is emblematic of the bullying tactics so characteristically employed by the left against anyone who dares to disagree with its position or who strolls outside of the confines of its stable. Sammy Davis, Jr. dared to venture outside of his predefined confines, and he paid for it dearly. Forever after, he was called a whitey, and he was never acknowledged as the incredible credit he was to his race and to his country despite his many personality flaws.

Now, 46 years later, Kanye West stands at the threshold of the same precipice. Hopefully, his treatment will be a lot gentler, but as we’re witnessing from the conduct of the new left bullies like Don Lemon and T.I., probably not.

(The author acknowledges Wil Haygood, “The Hug” The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2003, from which much of the factual content is obtained.)

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Leftists Truth Violence

Conservative Patience With Leftist Violence Is Not Infinite

Rod Thomson

This is an article I never anticipated writing. It is so deeply violative of American values. But given the growing nature of the American, or un-American, leftist violence, it’s impossible to avoid.

The disruption, violence and intimidation tactics of the left have been increasing dramatically since the American people chose Donald Trump as President. And they’ve jumped forward again in the Kavanaugh character assassination hearings.

It’s imperative to remember the level of violence and disruption by leftists since November 2016 (although it began before that with Trump supporters being pummelled and chased and bloodied repeatedly.) I won’t reiterate all of the examples now, but there are several sites devoted to tracking the near-daily flood of leftist attacks and support for such attacks, including in the media. Breitbart News keeps a rolling list here, currently at 583 and counting. Catholic Online has another extensive list here. And here’s a Youtube channel that has a partial list of filmed attacks. (These lists document attacks the mainstream media ignores, dismisses or at the very best, downplays.)

But the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and the 11th hour accusations that ended up being baseless, sent things further overboard. And it’s telling that someone like Kavanaugh was the target. Other than graduating at the top of his class at Yale and being a Supreme Court nominee (and now confirmed) Kavanaugh is a pretty normal American guy. He goes to church every week or more often. He volunteers for charities. He coaches his kids’ teams. He likes a beer.

Not really the epitome of an evil gang rapist who must be stopped at all costs. Nonetheless, the Democrats went all in with the aid of an irresponsible, compliant, allied media that breathlessly reported every nonsensical, lurid whisper against Kavanaugh as though the concept of news judgment was never heard of.

The attacks started with pre-planned protests in the hearings themselves, where leftist protesters invited in by Democratic Senators jumped up and began shouting. Within the first hour, Kavanaugh’s wife and children — in what should have been a proud moment — had to be escorted from the chamber because it was no longer considered safe or an appropriate environment for the girls. Just shameful.

Of course, it all went gravely downhill with the uncorroborated accusations by Christine Blasey Ford, and even more baseless others. Democrats and their allies sullied Kavanaugh in every way, led by the disgraceful Sen. Dianne Feinstein not only concealing the Ford accusations for weeks and then outing Ford when the woman wanted anonymity, but also actually asking Kavanaugh about the gang rape accusations — which were obvious fiction through a porn star lawyer.

More American Insights On Patreon

And the ongoing, endless leftist demonstrations, protests and attacks. For the first time, United States Senators (Republicans, anyway) needed security escorts when walking between offices within the Capitol building. So much shame.

The reality that has been sinking in well outside very conservative, or very Trumpian circles, is that the vile assault on Kavanaugh was an assault on every conservative, every Republican, every Trumpian — everyone not on the woke progressive plantation of anti-Americanism that is driving the left and the Democratic Party.

The attacks on Trump cabinet members, on U.S. Senators, on judicial nominees, on kids in a fast-food joint with a MAGA hat…are also attacks on all the rest of us.

At the political level, conservatives fought back. For many, it was gratifying to see.

First, of course, came Kavanaugh’s spirited, full-throated defense of himself that heartened many conservatives watching it. Then came Sen. Lindsey Graham, long a frustrating moderate to conservatives, who unleashed a totally accurate tirade against his Democrat colleagues the likes of which is rarely if ever seen in the Senate. For a moment, he became conservatives’ favorite Republican.

But the expansion is continuing to grow. Even arch never-Trumpers such as Bret Stephens are warming to the idea that Republicans, and even Trump, are not actually the problem and may be the only defensive line against the tyranny of the left.

The middle of the country was repulsed at the spectacle wrought by Democrats, revealed in a crushing wave of new polls showing the Democratic Party in a free fall. What is further heartening is that these polls across the spectrum show that Americans are unwilling to accept such vile behavior.

Get More On Facebook

But alas, and totally predictably, the left is turning to violence again after the Kavanaugh vote over the weekend. Not really “turning” because they never really stopped. Here’s just a tiny taste of the ongoing disruption and violence that exists almost solely on the left over the past few days:

  • Two people were hospitalized after exposure to a powdery substance suspected of being ricin at Cruz’s Houston campaign office.
  • A group of “protesters” following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell out of a restaurant in Kentucky shouted “we know where you live, bitch.”
  • Republican Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland was assaulted by protesters after they busted through his Capitol office.
  • Antifa (which certainly acts like a domestic terrorist organization) has taken over streets of Portland and chased down people who don’t obey their traffic directions. Portland police just watched, obviously under orders.
  • A liberal Minneapolis teacher Tweeted: “So who’s gonna take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?”

A search for any sort of list from any sites that counter this narrative comes up empty. There apparently are just so few attacks on the left from the right that a list does not make sense.

The question is, however: For how long? How long will conservatives and Trump supporters stand around and be abused, attacked, vilified and doxxed before there is an in-kind response? I oppose any in-kind responses on the lowest level of violence and doxxing, of physically endangering anyone.

Frankly, the principles that make conservatives conservative tend to restrain us more than the bitter anger and drive for power that propels modern progressives, particularly modern feminists.

But human nature being what it is, eventually it could overtake the better nature of our principles. I don’t want it, and I don’t know what it might look like. It would be obvious if it ever starts happening, because those attacks and disruptions would receive enormous media coverage. Eventually, without a course change by Democrats, it will happen. Leftist Democrats can’t keep attacking people and expect them to just take it forever.

As the old quote goes (paraphrased): “I don’t like him. When he’s attacked, he defends himself.”

But let our defense be using the weapons of our ideas, our “noble words, rather than worthless ones” — as God called on Jeremiah to use — our principles, our appreciation of America. We should take these concepts and be engaged where we are: in family, in our neighborhood, at work. Personal relationships matter and are far more persuasive than Twitter or Facebook or protests.

Last but not least, we vote! Truly, if conservatives and Republicans will get out and vote — and we do vote in much higher percentages — then we will have better leadership at every level. It may trigger more leftist violence from the left if things go south for Democrats in November, but that will further sharpen the differences for Americans to see.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Kavanaugh Leftists Truth

The Destruction Of Presumed Innocence Invites Societal Chaos

By Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

The American left accelerated its attack on every precept of civil society this month by arguing that the presumption of innocence, as the leftists would say, “isn’t really a thing.”

The context for this latest assault is that, in its unquenchable zeal for power, the left is willing to dismiss principles that have guided human interaction for centuries just so they may have a chance at preserving a more liberal court. Specifically, their latest claim is that Judge Brett Kavanaugh need not be presumed innocent until proven guilty during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee because those hearings are not a trial. In point of fact, the left’s contention, once again, is patently false.

The fact is that in every facet of human interaction an individual is presumed to be innocent. Consider what would happen if this were not the case. Under such circumstances it would be totally appropriate for one to randomly beat up any person with whom he or she comes into contact because the recipient of the punishment is presumed to be guilty of whatever it is that he is suspected of doing.

For example, if the left’s contention that presumed innocence is only true in trials then it would be perfectly appropriate for me to walk up to a man that I presumed to be guilty of sleeping with my wife and beat him up. Or if you want to be more formal about it, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to call the police, merely tell them that the accused had slept with my wife and have the police apply the appropriate statutorily prescribed punishment upon my wife and him for adultery.

Indeed, if it were not for everyone’s presumption of innocence in every facet of life, then there would be no room for formal society since we would all be involved in an endless and random maze of revenges and counter-revenges against each other because everyone around us would be presumed guilty of whatever we want; a hopeless and absurd situation indeed.  

But such is the world of the left.

The fact is, and what the left is trying to make us forget, is that everyone around us starts with a presumption of innocence. If you call your plumber to work on your home, you do not interact with him under the presumption of shoddy workmanship. You believe he or she will do a good job, or at least is capable of it. If you go to the drugstore, you presume that the pharmacist is going to give you the correct tablets and that the pharmaceutical company placed the correct chemicals in the tablets. We do this because of the presumption of innocence under which everyone is held consciously, or subconsciously.

Join Our Fight For American Values! 

To be sure, trial proceedings are much more formal affairs and much different than what takes place in extra-judicial human interactions, but the differences lie not in the presumption of innocence. The differences lie in how we prove guilt and the safeguards with which to prove it. In short, there are only two things that vary between the ruminations of a court and public interactions: 1) the evidence we are allowed to consider; and 2) the amount of evidence required in order to arrive at the conclusion.

Let us first consider the evidence we are allowed to consider. In court, particularly in criminal courts, there are a myriad of rules that determine what evidence may be used against the defendant. The reason for this is that the courts want to only allow the most reliable pieces of evidence into the fray because the consequence of making a wrong decision can potentially be that an innocent woman gets sent to jail.

In the arena of human interaction, anything the individual wishes to consider may be taken into account. For example, if John’s mother tells John that Steve said that his wife, Mary, had been sleeping with Charles, John is free to consider that piece of evidence in passing judgment upon Mary’s and Charles’s conducts. But you will never be able to introduce that hearsay comment into a court of law to establish the fact that Mary is sleeping with Charles.  

Why the difference? Well because the consequence of the information laid upon John is potentially to upset him and cause him to act on that information. The same information given to a court can have much broader implications as the court carries with it the power of the state in enacting penalties.

Like Us On Facebook

Then we consider the amount of evidence required to make the point. Again, in the forum of personal interactions, the standard is whatever the recipient wants it to be…in other words; anything goes. In our example, John is free to personally act against his wife based only on the information his mother gave him. However, if John does that sufficiently frequently, then he will quickly learn the consequences of making false accusations and of running on unsubstantiated or uncorroborated evidence because, sooner rather than later, his information is going to lead him to the wrong conclusions and his life will be thrown into chaos.  

In legal proceedings, the amount of evidence required varies. For example, to begin many proceedings all that may be needed is a scintilla of evidence, or “just the smell of evidence.” So, a person appearing before a committee to say that someone raped someone 35 years prior absent any other evidence may be enough for that committee to look into it, but it is certainly insufficient for the committee to reach any conclusion against the nominee, or take any action against him or her.  

Usually, the lowest burden of proof with which to take actions is the more likely than not standard. Here, the amount of evidence presented would be so strong so as to make an impartial mind conclude that it was more likely than not that the accusation is true, or that the event took place. I can tell you that absent any other corroborating evidence there is no situation where the mere accusation by one person of an event that took place 35 years earlier would ever reach the more likely than not standard. Doing so would be equivalent to adopting the presumption of guilt standard, which I laid out at the opening of this article and society could not have ever developed.

For a criminal trial, the level of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt, or as legal scholars describe it, at least 95% sure. This is the highest level of proof employed and a burden that is admittedly too strict for either the court of public opinion or a hearing.

For a hearing, the more appropriate level is either more likely than not, or a preponderance of the evidence (at least 80% sure). Either way, the burden of proof is much higher than that required to merely consider an allegation. 

Subscribe To Us On Youtube

It is clear that the stakes in the fight against leftist policies have now increased from the regression to socialism or the intrusion of government onto our civil liberties to a defense of the very foundational steeples of our society.

According to the left, it is now okay for women to divorce their husbands merely because the husbands are Republicans. It is okay to harass a President merely because he won. It is okay to call someone guilty and permanently ruin him or her. And it is okay to equate a vote based on a certain set of facts with a globally broad statement applicable to a whole class of people who have no knowledge or personal association with the established facts upon which the vote is made.

This is the world according to the left. It is a world permissive of totalitarian dictatorships, a world that allows blacks to be enslaved or mercilessly discriminated against, and a world where justice does not exist except for those who are part of the ruling class.  

If this is sounding very close to the realities that existed in Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and Mao’s China — and those called for in Antifa’s, MeToo’s, and Black Lives Matters’ America — that’s because it is. Each of those systems is all too willing to cast away presumptions of innocence, burdens of proof, and evidentiary requirements before imparting upon an individual the full wrath of government.

Let’s hope that in today’s America, there are still enough of us who are willing to stand up for our civil liberties and for the absolute right to be presumed innocent until and unless we are proven guilty. Ordered society depends on it.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS