Government Media Politics Truth

9 Predictions That Will Come True. Guaranteed.

By Rod Thomson

If there’s anything we learned from 2016 it’s that we simply cannot predict the future in such uncertain times. With that, The Revolutionary Act now predicts the future.

OK, actually these are more extrapolations of the surreal reality we have been living in for decades. No guesswork. No crystal ball. No polling. Much of what will happen in 2017 is an extension of precisely what has been slapping us in the face for a long time.


Honey, I shrunk the media

The media will continue to march toward diminishing significance in American life, dwindling in both influence and numbers. This endless march of self-inflicted decline won’t ever actually end the mainstream media as liberals and activist Democrats will continue to imbibe it heartily and think it the only true and faithful way of honest information. But the industry’s unwillingness to confront the overt worldview biases that have long infiltrated its ranks and pervade journalism will spell its ultimate minimization.


To the walls!

Democrats will be more obstructionist, more hyperbolic, more shrill and faster to Hitler than ever. And the party will be less effective than ever. They will be cheered on by their core base, and hysteria will be amplified by a fellow-traveling media, with whom they are joined at the hip. But it will actually hurt Democrats. Voters who went over to Trump will not be moved by post-election histrionics when they were not by pre-election ones. They will get sick of it and tune them out. The “boy who cried wolf” saying will be replaced by the “Democrats who cried Hitler” saying. This will accrue to the harm of Democrats and the media.


Unceasing and unacceptable

The radical left will unrelentingly push the LGBTQIAetc agenda, again with an approving media that itself is overly represented by LGBTQIAetc journalists, and continue to strongarm reasonable Americans far beyond where they are willing to go. We saw this in 2016 with the transgender bathroom issue.

Despite the blowback on that, activists will continue to march and push, apply economic pressure and get spineless PC organizations in professional sports and some corporations to go along, legitimizing increasingly bizarre and dangerous behavior. The media will write one-off stories about a little boy who felt like a girl his whole life, thereby enabling what has always been and is still understood by most professionals to be a mental condition. Side note here: psychiatrists and their related associations will too quickly cave to the will of LGBTQIAetc activists and re-label the conditions as lifestyle choices. And untold young people will be damaged for life.


When narcissism is just not self-absorbed enough

Mark it down, self marrying will become a thing. It sounds absurd — and, of course, it is — but there are no boundaries to absurdity when it comes to the American progressive left.

There are “solo wedding” packages that include a wedding gown of your choice, bouquet, hairstylist, limousine service, a hotel stay and a commemorative photo album all for $2,500. There’s even the option to rent a “decorative” man — not groom. The stated goal of these (besides obviously making money) is to encourage “positive feelings” for single “brides.” Interestingly, only women seem to be interested in these.

This probably won’t fall under the LGBTQIAetc agenda because this does not include any sex weirdness, or threats to others. But who knows in our up-is-down culture.


The omnipresent President

President Obama will go nowhere. He is setting up camp in Washington, D.C. to continue hounding the Trump administration after doing everything in his power to ensure the bumpiest transition possible. He will look for cheering college kids still buying his personable but failed shtik. The end result will be relatively strong approval ratings for Obama personally — because Americans find him likable and don’t want to be seen as disapproving the first black president — but the continued abatement of the Democrat Party if its leaders follow his rhetoric. Which, see above, it will.


The things that never change

The rallying cries of the left will be: racism! sexism! rich people! white males! This is the same slam-dunk prediction every year. Every. Single. Year. There are simply very few rhetorical tools in the Democrat toolbox because it is a tired, worn-out party. I mean, a disheveled 75-year-old was its change agent.


And the old will become new again

Back to the media, because it can drive so much; After lying largely dormant since the Bush years, the media will suddenly rediscover:

  • the homeless ‘crisis’
  • the replacement of full-time jobs with part-time jobs
  • the health care ‘crisis’ of the uninsured and costs of health care
  • the national deficit and dire threat that it is
  • the Iranian threat


Obamacare-free zone

The ridiculously named Affordable Care Act will be repealed and replaced with some hodge-podge of needed changes and political expediencies. But hair-on-fire leaders in California will create their own CaliforniaCare, or some such bankrupting silliness. It will include mandates and require illegals be covered and set the stage for one of two eventualities: the financial collapse of the state or the election of Republicans to fix things. My money is on the collapse option. But it will also ensure that illegals continue to vote Democrat in California, and that’s what really matters.


Easiest prediction of all

Islamist terrorists will maim and murder innocent people around the world by the thousands. They will quote the Koran, call on the name of Allah, be supported by a small but real minority of Muslims and be funded in part by Muslim-run nations. Meanwhile, the media and Democrats will tell us the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. Those of us who make that connection will be labeled bigots.

Happy New Year!


A Response to Media Biases Against Restoring Checks and Balances

NOTE: Several liberal Florida newspaper columnists responded without research or thought to Rep. Julio Gonzalez’s proposal to create judicial accountability and restore governmental balance of powers. They were predictably snide and shallow. Some were just factually wrong. Here is Gonzalez’s response to one specific column— which they could have had if any had even called him for an interview.

By Representative Julio Gonzalez

This morning, I awoke to the displeasure of reading Tom Lyons’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune piece on my proposal for a legislative override of a judicial opinion, otherwise known as a Notwithstanding Clause. 

I was displeased, not at learning that Lyons disagreed with my proposal, as a robust discussion representing all sides of such an important matter is of central importance to the continued existence of a vibrant republic, but because of the shear negligence, disingenuousness, and ignorance displayed in Mr. Lyons article. 

For starters, Lyons purposely fails to inform his readers that it was not I who first identified this problem, but Thomas Jefferson. 

Looking to Jefferson

In 1820, Jefferson wrote a letter to Jarvis Williams regarding a series of essays Williams wrote where he mentioned the judiciary’s role in overturning laws it found to be unconstitutional.  Perfectly on point, Jefferson said, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Moreover, Jefferson pointed out that the situation was made even more dangerous, “as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.  

As with so many other issues, Jefferson’s thoughts on this matter were prescient.

Lyons also neglected sharing that Canada has such a provision in its Constitution that has been working seamlessly since 1982. 

This information and so much more was available to Lyons, but he failed to disclose it to his readers. Fortunately, the facts he did not present are available in an article I wrote and published at and in my book, The Federalist Pages.

The fact is that Americans have been concerned over the courts’ plenary authority when speaking on constitutional issues for decades. They recognize that in a system characterized by checks and balances, there is no check on the Supreme Court. Contrary to Lyons’s ill-informed opinion, any serious constitutional law observer will tell you of the courts’ increasing activism over the past 100+ years. And it is an issue that was discussed at length in law school.

Recognizing the threat that giving plenary authority on any matter to a branch of government represents to a republic, Canada enacted a solution. And other variations exist in England, Israel, and Australia, among others, none of which are mentioned by Lyons. 

It’s time we have the same discussion about our own system.

Whether Florida, and indeed our nation, ought to implement a judicial override is a very serious matter, and if it is in anyway forehead-slap-worthy as Lyons states, it’s in the astonishment that it fell upon the physician/lawyer son of a Cuban immigrant who haphazardly landed in his state’s legislature to suggest it nearly 200 years after the problem was first identified. 

Let a thoughtful debate begin 

The Notwithstanding Clause is not a radical proposal, as Lyons calls it, nor is it the result of partisan strife as his article feeblemindedly suggests.  

No. The Nothwithstanding Clause is a serious proposal designed to address a quintessential threat to our American system of government and a loophole in the system of checks and balances the Framers built. And once again, I cannot take credit for identifying the threat, as George Washington spoke about it in his farewell address. He called such an intrusion into another branch’s function usurpation and said, “though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

I hope Floridians, and Americans in general, shut out the sophomoric rants from irresponsible and under informed pseudopundents like Lyons and learn more about this very important topic. Doing so will place them on a path of discovering more about our great foundational documents and of the people who proposed them. Once they do, I bet more than 60% of the people will agree with Jefferson, Washington, and countless others on the necessity and wisdom of an American Notwithstanding Clause.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon, lawyer and State Representative for South Sarasota County, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages, available at or at Amazon.  He is available for speaking engagements and can be reached at [email protected].

Constitution Government Truth

House Joint Resolution 121: Amending Florida’s Constitution to Restore the Balance of Power

By Representative Julio Gonzalez

Today, I introduced House Joint Resolution 121 calling for the submission of a proposed constitutional amendment to Florida’s voters that would allow the Legislature, within a period of five years, to override a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.  I am also filing an accompanying communication to Congress that asks that a similar proposed amendment for the United States Constitution be passed. The necessity for such a provision, both at the state and national levels, is obvious.


Acknowledging the humanity and fallibility of judges

At its implementation, our system of government was truly exceptional on the world stage because, among other reasons, its power was vested on the will of the people. Key to the protection of this reliance was the separation of power into three separate and coequal branches of government restricted by a robust system of checks and balances.

Specifically not in the Constitution was an assignment to the judiciary of serving as the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of laws. And although the Legislature could always revamp a law the judiciary interpreted as meaning something different from what the legislature intended, there was no provision that would allow the Legislature to override a ruling where the court voids a law as unconstitutional.

With what most of us are taught about our government and our nation’s history, it is difficult to conceive that the Supreme Court would not have such plenary authority in determining what is constitutional and what is not. After all, the members of the highest court are learned individuals inhabiting positions designed to insulate them from the world of politics and partisanship.

However, the fact is that these men and women, learned in the nuances of law as they may be, are neither insulated from the world of politics nor free of partisanship. One need only recall the consistent apportionment of Republican and Democrat justices on issues of gun control, redistricting, abortion, school choice, religious liberties, the scope of federal power, states rights, and religious education to realize that these predictable divisions amongst the various factions of the courts represent more than mere differences in legal opinion. In fact, Thomas Jefferson foresaw this harsh reality back in 1820 when he wrote,


Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.  They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. 

(Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)


Indeed, we have seen these encroachments play out on countless occasions. Supreme Court rulings have mandated that religious symbols be taken down from public places or be replaced with others. They have placed prohibitions on prayer in public schools, commencement ceremonies, and athletic events. Negations of laws prohibiting the desecration of the American flag have made the unconscionable legally acceptable, and judicial prohibitions on federal term limits have overturned the will of the people of a state, even if that will is enshrined in the affected state’s constitution. And recurrently, the distributions of votes in these opinions largely mirror the party affiliations of its members.

And let us recall that these members are generally appointed to their positions without oversight by the electorate and generally remain there for the rest of their lives.


The finality of a Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of constitutionality

But an even greater threat than the inherent shortcomings of any court or its members is the finality of a supreme court’s decision on constitutional matters.

When a supreme court writes an opinion on the issue of constitutionality, its decision has the same effect as if its author had written a note upon the face of the document, permanently changing its meaning, and in certain instances, its intent.  Upon doing this, there is nothing the legislature, chief executive, or the electorate can do to reverse course other than to undertake the daunting task of amending the affected constitution. Needless to say, this is a Herculean endeavor, which is overwhelming in scope for most court-enacted constitutional changes. Consequently, the effects of court rulings on matters of constitutionality stand unchallenged, permanently changing the supreme law of the land, and by extension, the society which it governs.

In light of these considerations, shouldn’t a court’s opinion be subject to affirmative checks and balances just like the actions of any other branch of government?

The answer, of course, is yes. And the Framers would have agreed!

First, consider that the Framers never expressly gave the Supreme Court final authority on determining a law’s constitutionality. Article III of the United Sates Constitution gave the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the Laws of the United States and the Constitution. However, it does not say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution.

The federal Supreme Court’s plenary authority in deciding issues of constitutionality was actually imposed upon it by its own actions. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, one of America’s sentinel cases, John Marshall singlehandedly declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Consequently, any act of the legislature the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will become void.

And with that, the Supreme Court of the United States gained the absolute power to overrule the legislature in issues of constitutionality.

But who overrules the Supreme Court?

The people? No, not unless they can mount a massive amendment process that we have already seen is excessive to the task.

The executive? No, except by the ability to replace justices as their positions become vacant through death, retirement, or impeachment (and add term limits-or advanced age in the cases of some state supreme courts).

The legislature? Absolutely not. Like a game of rock-paper-scissors, John Marshall said the court beats the legislature.  Period!

Then what?


But this answer is not only inconsistent with the system of checks and balances the Framers developed for our government, it appears that such a conclusion was not what the Framers envisioned. The most direct commentary on the matter comes from Thomas Jefferson himself when commenting to William Jarvis on a book of essays Jarvis had written and sent to Jefferson for his consideration. In it, Jarvis wrote of the importance of the American judiciary to nullify a law it found to be unconstitutional. Jefferson took umbrage with that observation, writing, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Further, he warned, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

George Washington also warned of the dangers of relying on the courts to modify and craft the policies of government in no lesser instance than in his Farewell Address:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Clearly, allowing the judiciary to act without direct restrictions is not only contrary to the visions the Framers had for our fledgling nation, but carries with it a real danger of encroachment upon the authorities of the other branches of government and ultimately upon the power of the people to control their own destinies.

The only remaining question then, is what can be done to remedy this situation?


Correcting a deficiency

Many corrections can be designed to address the issue of judicial overreach, but perhaps the most direct and effective of these is one that should have been instituted at the very inception of our nation’s Constitution and inscribed into that of each state: the existence of a legislative override of a Supreme Court opinion.

Indeed, Canada already instituted such a provision. Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom amended onto the Canadian Constitution in 1982 allows, among other authorities, for the legislature or Parliament to declare an act operational notwithstanding the opinion of the court. In other words, if a sufficient proportion of a Canadian legislative body should find the opinion of the court inconsistent with the views of the electorate, the legislature could override or nullify the court’s ruling.

It is such a provision, modified and tailored to the state of Florida and to our national government, that I propose be presented to the people as amendments to their respective constitutions.


For Florida, such an amendment would read:

Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the supreme court, district court of appeal, circuit court, or county court of this state may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by the legislature pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote of each house within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final. Such a joint resolution is exempt from section 8 of this article and shall take effect immediately upon passage.


And for the United States Constitution, it would read:

Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States or any District Court of Appeal may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by the legislature pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a sixty percent vote of each chamber within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final.  Such a joint resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.


It is my concerted view that such provisions, if enacted by the people would curtail the tendency of activist judges to manipulate the law to suit their political views and agendas. Equally as importantly, this would force the people to engage the legislature in enacting rectifications to current laws that they see as objectionable or flawed, restoring the natural relationship between the people and their legislative bodies. This would also force the electorate to more carefully look at their candidates and their actions during times of reelection.


Three counterpoints countered

The defense of an American Notwithstanding Clause would be deficient if it did not address some foreseeable objections, which include: 1) the effects this provision would have on America’s historic civil rights rulings; 2) the effect of a notwithstanding clause upon the separation of powers; and 3) the ability of the public to use the judiciary to overturn laws they presume to encroach upon the rights of free Americans.

First, to the issue of civil rights. Without question, the greatest stain in our nation’s fabric is the tragic tolerance of slavery in the United States Constitution. As we know, it took a calamitous Civil War pitting brethren against brethren to rectify this gross travesty of justice. Moreover, equally as unconscionable is the persistence of legal hurdles to the equal standing of the various members of our American society throughout the latter nineteenth century and into the twentieth century.  Indisputably, Supreme Court cases like the Brown decisions were instrumental in reversing the persistence of the racial injustices that gripped our nation. Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement either would not have survived or would have been greatly hampered were it not for the necessary interventions of the courts.

To help ensure that such decisions are never touched by an aggressive legislature, the provision I propose carries with it a reach back limit of five years. In other words, the legislature may only invoke a notwithstanding declaration within five years of the court’s ruling. In this way none of the sentinel cases of American jurisprudence already in existence can be touched by the various legislatures. Five years also gives the people the opportunity to change the electorate in the hopes of overriding a recent opinion.

The concern regarding an encroachment unto the separation of powers is equally as spurious, first because of the five-year reach back limitation that has already been discussed, and second because of the supermajority requirement imposed on the legislature in reversing a court’s decision. The reversal of a ruling would require such a high consensus that it would rarely be employed. Indeed, the Canadian experience has been one of rare impositions of the legislatures’ wills upon the judiciaries, and I expect it would be the same for the United States and its jurisdictions.

Moreover, the argument that the Legislature’s newly acquired authority would encroach upon the judiciary’s powers actually turns reality upon its head as presently, it is the judiciary that is improperly encroaching upon the people and their legislatures, and it is that encroachment that this amendment is designed to correct. Enactment of the Notwithstanding Clause would not intrude upon the power of the judiciary, but rather, it would act to restore the natural balance between the two coequal branches of government as originally envisioned by the Framers.

Finally, regarding the court’s abilities to protect our rights as Americans and free members of society, for the reasons previously outlined, I suspect the law will have no effect on cases where clear violations of rights have taken place. Where the Notwithstanding Clause will exert its effects is in those situations where parties misguidedly wish to invoke their will upon the people by bypassing the legislature through the manipulations of an activist court. Such actions are the usurpations of which President Washington spoke in his Farewell Address. It is my impression that once again, the Notwithstanding Clause will have a salutatory effect upon our nation and upon our countenance.

Our nation’s exceptional nature is based on, among other pillars, our government’s respect for the will of the people, our reliance on a robust system of checks and balances to preserve our separations of powers, and upon the reliance on generalized debate in deciding our nation’s future direction.

It is clear that with regard to our judiciary, our system has strayed away from this original framework and must be corrected. It is with this intent that I introduce the Notwithstanding Clause, initially for the legislature’s consideration, but ultimately for the people’s. I am excited about the conversation this provision will elicit and am hopeful for its ratification and for the beneficial effects it will have upon our Republic.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon, lawyer and State Representative for South Sarasota County, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages, available at or at Amazon.  He is available for speaking engagements and can be reached at [email protected].



You Will Comply: The Regulatory Menace vs. America

By Rod Thomson

The regulatory hive centered in Washington, D.C., buzzes with a power and reach that even the Caesars never imagined. And they were considered gods.

Federal regulators can bankrupt companies, distort markets and shut down entire industries with their decrees — the rules that implement Congressional laws. They can also move or slow entire economies and prop up or undermine Presidents.

Not good.

Here’s how it works.

Laws are often and by necessity general. The rule-writing and rule enforcement is where the power is. Regulators, lifelong employees with little accountability to the people, write the rules and enforce the rules. If you as a private citizen or a business person have the misfortune of running awry of the regulators, you have virtually no recourse.

They are all powerful. Like gods of an industry. And like all people, they are given to ideology, partisanship and self-interest.

So here is the dynamic: Ideological, partisan, all-powerful regulators write and enforce rules and are unaccountable to the people. This is why so many conservatives want deregulation, in addition to the job-creating economic boost.

Their power is really stunning. Because of that, we have the armies of lobbyists. People mistakenly think the lobbyists are only interested in persuading the politicians. Actually what they are looking for is language that will help their industry or hurt their competitors — when the regulators write the rules. They can also lobby — unofficially — the regulators themselves.

What we have seen in spurts with FDR and Nixon was a corrupting of certain federal regulators. But what we have seen in recent years is a wholesale corrupting of regulatory agencies along ideological and partisan lines. Here’s a few.

  • The U.S. Department of Justice selectively enforcing laws
  • The IRS in blocking the non-profit status of tea party and conservative organizations, thus eliminating their influence
  • The Environmental Protection Agency used on multiple levels to achieve political aims
  • The Department of Homeland Security body-patting grandma while allowing burka-covered Muslim women through in the name of multicultural correctness
  • The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency that refuses to enforce immigration laws and allows millions of people to come and live here illegally
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture targeting of small farmers and closing down “undesirable” farmers and ranchers


Abuse by the EPA undermine Trump

And so now we come to this moment. The EPA regulators have changed the agency’s report on fracking in groundwater contamination to make it more difficult for future approvals.

In last year’s draft version, the EPA reported that there were no “widespread systematic impacts on drinking water.” That report said the number of contaminated sites was quite small compared to the number of fracking sites and concluded the impact to be minimal. Good for the fracking industry, jobs, energy costs and energy independence.

However, that did not make the anti-fracking environmentalists happy, and those conclusions are now gone from the final report that just came out — one month before the new president is sworn in. Now the same EPA — based on the same data — reports that there is not enough evidence to dismiss the water contamination threat and says more vaguely that fracking activities “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.”

This is regulatory abuse at its clearest, because it is supposedly relying on scientific evidence to tweak the wording. But what it does is empower regulators to deny permits, allow stronger legal challenges to fracking and, probably most specifically, undermines Trump’s stated desire to open up more fracking to create American jobs and energy independence.


Abuse by the Fed undermine Trump

The Federal Reserve manipulates interest rates to spur the economy or try to slow it. The supposedly politically independent organization has kept interest rates at record lows for almost the entire Obama presidency. Obviously the economy needed all the help it could get, and it still wasn’t enough.

But interestingly, right before Trump takes office the Fed is planning a rapid series of rate increases. Either the Fed leadership knows exactly which policies goose the economy (Trump’s, not Obama’s) or they are actively trying to undermine a Trump recovery.

We never know what is going on inside of the secretive Fed, but given that Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellin chaired Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors and was appointed to the Fed’s top seat by Obama, who appoints fellow ideologues, it seems likely that it is not suddenly a clear view of what is good for the economy. If that is right, then this is another abuse of one of the most powerful and unaccountable of regulators.

This will not be the end of the Regulatory State’s attempts to undermine Trump at every turn. We saw this regularly in the Bush Administration, particularly in the State Department.

Americans should not have to fear the federal government and whatever local regulators show up at the door. But many do. And virtually all businesses do. Now, Republican presidents also must deal with the menace.

This needs to stop. But that will be a Herculean task, requiring a commitment to substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government through agency elimination and deep funding cuts.


Christmas Culture Truth

Slicing Through the “Real Meaning” of Christmas Nonsense

by Rod Thomson

Two things happen culturally every Christmas nowadays.

  • We are treated to a parade of cultural insights on the “real meaning” of Christmas
  • We get lectured by the smart set about how Christmas is an amalgam of pagan holidays just overlayed with Christianity and isn’t even the right time of year for Jesus’s birth!

Yes, we get it. Christians are toothless Neanderthals to the elite coastals and wannabes. Turns out, we actually know the history of Christmas, and the timing, which is why we talk about it being the time of year we celebrate Jesus’ birth. Enough with the smug condescension already. Thank you.

As to the real meaning of Christmas, it easy to understand why Charlie Brown was confused. There is ton of effort to call it everything except what it is. Christmas’ real meaning is usually postulated along the vague lines of being thoughtful, giving gifts, family togetherness, a general benevolence. Each one is dramatically stated to be the real meaning of Christmas. These are all wonderful, but no, they are not the real meaning.

Frankly, it’s kind of a lot of effort to go through when the actual reason for Christmas just stares slap in the face. So let’s just swing the scythe through all the dense overgrowth of weedy nonsense and get to the actual “real meaning of Christmas.”


Unparallel-able act of love

The bottom line: Christmas is a celebration of the one true God leaving eternity and tucking himself into the flesh of a man to save all mankind — an act of sacrificial love both unparalleled and unparallel-able.

Why? God is defined as always having been and always will be. No beginning. No end. He existed before material creation (where did that infinitely dense mass that exploded at the Big Bang exist if all of time and matter consisted within it?) and he will exist after material creation in whatever iterations there may be.

God, consisting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is spirit by biblical description. He is often described as abiding in the spiritual realm, but I rather more think he is the spiritual realm.

Mankind screwed up creation with unending torrents of sin. Still do. Christmas celebrates the moment at which the world began to inexorably change forever. Eternally. The birth of Christ began the chain of events that included his perfect, sinless life, his teaching of the kingdom of God, his unjust crucifixion and his ultimately striking down death by rising from the grave to return to the spiritual.

Christ built the bridge over an uncrossable chasm. The construction launched with his birth and it is eminently worth celebrating with great joy and hope.

So as we all watch and see and hear the platitudes about the real meaning of Christmas, remember there is only one right answer. The remembrance and celebration of God changing history through the greatest of all acts of sacrificial love.

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Luke 2:8-14


Media Politics Truth

Fake News by the Fake Mainstream Media

So the media and the Left are all appalled, dismayed, horrified and aghast at fake news allegedly created and distributed by hubs in Eastern Europe and Russia — and that it may have influenced the presidential election.

This, as opposed to the fake news created by the traditional media in hubs in New York and D.C. Because mainstream media journalists, about 90 percent of whom are to the left of the American political center, get to define what is good journalism, they also get to decide what is fake news and more importantly, what is real news.

And then they most definitely do influence elections with their “journalistic” decisions.

For some evidence, here are five examples of completely fake news by the same mainstream media now lamenting fake news as something new and abhorrent.


➠ Hands up, don’t shoot 

Maybe the most egregious and damaging of mainstream media fake news was the coverage of the 2014 Ferguson, Mo. police shooting of Michael Brown.

The initial coverage, and for days and weeks afterward, was that teenager Brown, who was black, was gunned down in cold blood by a white police officer. It was reported, because someone made it up, that Brown was trying to surrender and said his hands were up, don’t shoot.

Rather than wait for any verification, the media in lockstep ran with it 24/7 until race relations were deeply inflamed, riots had started and the professional protester class had descended on the community. It was easy. It fit a left-of-center world view of a racist America and racist cops and it became a rallying cry for activists and journalists.



Fake journalists on a fake story.


The problem is, nothing like that actually happened. Brown, who was always called a teen or a boy, but who in reality was a giant man weighing more than 300 pounds, had just robbed a convenience store and threatened the Korean clerk. It’s on camera. Then in the confrontation with the police officer, Brown attacked him, bloodied the cop, and tried to take his gun. Brown was walking away, but then turned back and was charging the cop — who was more than a 100 pounds smaller. Only then did the officer shoot and kill Brown.

Even the deeply racial Obama Justice Department could not find problems with the officer’s actions, finding them justified.

But the damage was done. Black Lives Matter was birthed. Ferguson was burned. The cop’s life was ruined. And it was all based on fake news as fake as anything allegedly out of Eastern Europe.


➠ Dan Rathergate 

CBS ran a story in the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry that purported to show that Bush’s Texas Air National Guard duty was scandalous.

Lead anchorman Dan Rather relied on a mentally unstable man with a grudge against George Bush to give CBS “copies” of documents that he claimed were received from a person who apparently never existed. Further, the documents were supposedly typed on a military typewriter in the early ‘70s, but were coincidentally the exact same font as Microsoft Word, which was on half the computers in America in 2004 and not used on typewriters. Further, the documents even used the wrong acronym for the name of the report!

In other words, these were obvious, amateurish fakes. But Dan Rather and CBS apparently wanted Bush to lose so badly that they eagerly swallowed the childish scam. It was even featured on a 60 Minutes segment.

Eventually, Rather retired and CBS issued a “we regret” sort of take-back of the story.

Then last year, Hollywood — being a fellow-traveler of the Left with the media — made a film about the scandal; not the real-life Rather/CBS scandal, the made-up Bush part.

And Rather is still venerated as one of the great journalists in American history.


➠ Doctoring the tapes

During the salacious, media sensationalized, racially charged George Zimmerman murder trial in Orlando, NBC doctored the 911 phone call Zimmerman made while following Trayvon Martin. In fact, as was later revealed, they edited the call to make Zimmerman into a despicable racist.

ABC played this from the call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

But here’s everything Zimmerman did say:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

That was atrocious and when caught, NBC had to apologize and claim it was just for length.


But CNN kept trying to keep the flame of racism alive in the story. Weeks after NBC apologized for doctoring the 911 call, on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, a CNN audio expert digitally enhanced the audio and thought Zimmerman used a racial slur, ‘f—ing coon.’ CNN reporter Gary Tuchman readily chimed in: ‘It certainly sounds like that word to me.’

Turns out, Zimmerman said it was ‘f—king cold.’

Streams of “mistakes” such as these only ever happen one direction.


➠ Koran flushing

Newsweek ran a story in 2005, citing famed “sources” that military interrogators at Guantanamo had put Korans in the toilet and in one case flushed one down. Within the week, Newsweek had backtracked and apologized for the story, but the damage was done as rioting and violence broke out throughout the Muslim world as the fake news report spread.

How could this happen? Many on the Left have an instinctive distrust of the military and a fault-finding mentality regarding America. This thinly sourced story fit that mindset to a tee and made it all the easier to accept and run with.

Just like the Ferguson cop being a cold-blooded racist killer, just like Rather’s story on Bush, just like Zimmerman being a racist.


➠ Fake fact-checkers 

This has become a somewhat comedic part of mainstream media fake news. Pretty much no conservatives put trust in it.

The formula is this: Pick the most egregious and obviously wrong or mis-interpretable statements by Republicans and slam them. Then pick the most obvious statements by Democrats — Hillary Clinton said the sun will rise in the east tomorrow — and give her a smiley pat on the back for accuracy.

Remember when Trump claimed that President Obama founded ISIS. No? Well he didn’t really. It was in the context of Obama’s lousy foreign policy in the Middle East. Trump claimed, with some legitimacy, that Obama’s policies led to the birth of ISIS. Even though he did not say “policies,” it was obvious what he was saying to any rational, mildly objective person.

But not to the fake fact-checkers.

They took the sentence literally, without any surrounding context, as if Trump was saying that Obama Skyped in with the nascent terrorist network to strategize its start. Just laughable.


➠ Fake Journalists

This is an entirely different category operating on the exact same premise. Democrat operatives and activists get media jobs, and vice versa. It’s like the politician-lobbyist revolving door in D.C. — you just don’t hear about this one.

George Stephanopoulos may be the most infamous of these. Stephanopoulos was a senior advisor in the Bill Clinton campaign of 1992 and Clinton White House Communications Director. In 1996 he stepped down to…go to work for ABC News and later took over the once-prominent This Week Sunday morning talk show. He’s also now on Good Morning America and Chief Anchor at ABC News. Wikipedia refers to him first as “an American journalist.”

Here are a couple more practicing fake journalists.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank reached out to Democratic National Committee Eric Walker while writing a piece entitled “Passover-themed 10 plagues of Trump.” Trolling for dirt.

New York Times/CNBC reporter and Republican debate moderator John Harwood contacted John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair!) for some gotcha questions he could ask Jeb Bush during a sit-down interview.

And then there are those who just switch back and forth between being journalists and working for Democrat administrations, including:

  • Jay Carney: Time magazine correspondent turned White House Press Secretary
  • Warren Bass: Former deputy editor of the Washington Post’s Sunday Outlook section turned aide to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice
  • Geoff Morrell: ABC News reporter turned spokesman for Obama Defense Department.
  • Linda Douglas: CBS Congressional correspondent turned Obama healthcare media chief.
  • Beverley Lumpkin: Formerly of ABC and CBS turned Obama’s Justice Department employee
  • Rosa Brooks: L.A. Times columnist turned DoD employee.
  • David Hoff: Reporter for Education Week turned communications staffer at the Department of of Education
  • Peter Gosselin: L.A. Times reporter turned Treasury Secretary employee
  • Rick Weiss: Washington Post reporter turned White House employee
  • Jill Zuckman: Chicago Tribune writer turned Department of Transportation

You get the idea. In addition to fake news that has been long established in the media, there are fake journalists, too. Yes, there are a few solid, middle-of-the-road journos out there — more often than not at local, community outlets — but they are run over in content and influence by the mass unable or unwilling to see that their bias creates fake news at times.

There’s just nothing new about the fake news hyperventilating, except that it looks different now and isn’t being done only by traditional news outlets.

Race relations Truth Welfare

Why Poverty MUST Be About Racism, Not Marriage

By Rod Thomson

Virtually every Trump voter, reluctant Trump voter or defender of any policy or appointment of Trump, is being hit with one or more of the following personal accusations: racist, misogynist, bigot, homophobe.

Or maybe you exist as the trifecta. In many people’s minds, the three-part combo of white and male and Christian has become the bane of all that is wrong with society — the real cause of the nation’s problems.

Like most things we tackle at The Revolutionary Act, this is not just wrong thinking. It is irrational, emotion-based and anecdote-reliant, driven by a cultural misinformation machine and ultimately dangerous to the people they claim to want to be helping.

For instance, a recent Facebook debate on poverty focused almost exclusively on racism in the United States. We interjected data definitively showing that the strongest links to poverty are single moms, not graduating from high school and not taking a job, according to the moderate Brookings Institute.

These factors apply to whites, blacks, Hispanics and surely all of the rest of humanity. So the solution is not blaming entrenched institutional racism — which has now become a tiny rump of what it once was — but to tackle the ultimate causes. The solution is connecting personal choices to outcomes.

Now, try posting that on Facebook. The responses are irrational, emotion-based and anecdote-reliant. A recent fad is to be labeled a “scold.” Anything except the actual merits of the point.

> Irrational: “What about the men who get these single moms pregnant!?!?! This hatred of women is why Hill lost.”

> Emotional: “I’m a single mom and the proud daughter of a single mom! Quit telling me I’m the problem!!!”

> Anecdote-reliant: “Plenty of kids succeed coming from single-parent households. Look at Ben Carson.”

There you have it. Toss out the scientific data — actual facts — and fall back on irrational charges, emotional defenses and Ben Carson.


This is why we cannot make any headway against poverty despite our enormous wealth and mind-boggling wealth transfers.


The welfare failure

We’ve transferred $22 trillion to poorer Americans since launching the war on poverty in 1964, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis. And yet official poverty numbers have hardly budged at all.

Robert Rector, one of the authors of the NCPA study, wrote: “If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.” Got that? We could write a check to each poor person annually to get them out of poverty — five times over!

OK, so this just must to be excruciatingly clear: the 80 government welfare programs (which does not include Social Security and Medicare) are definitive failures in doing anything to affect poverty. There can be no argument about that. Doing more of what has failed for 50 years is doomed to further failure.

So why do we keep doing it?


The problem of marriage morals

Because to actually fix the problem we would have to declare certain things as true and proclaim the necessary ownership of personal choices.

First, out-of-wedlock births are first-line causes of poverty (as is divorce — and that is stepping on a lot of toes) and that leads to pre-marital sex being at the very least a risky step toward poverty. As that is often conducted unprotected and in the heat of passion, particularly with young people, it is better to not have sex outside of marriage.

Well that’s starting to sound an awful lot like some puritanical Bible-thumping — and the culture drivers in our country simply cannot abide by such a thing. In fact work and personal responsibility also have a bit of a biblical ring to them.

After spending much of the 20th century trying to break down Judeo-Christian moral sexual norms — and we are now all the way up to gay marriage and transvestite men using the women’s room — no one is willing to talk about the need for sexual self-control and fidelity. And certainly no one wants to talk about sex outside marriage being wrong. Watch any TV show or movie. The opposite is glorified, and the image painted is that everyone does it.

But if we did talk about sex only in marriage, and promoted it like we promote the ongoing sexual “revolution,” we would take a huge step toward defeating a lot of poverty. At least, that’s what the actual facts suggest.

But we won’t. Because we don’t want to. So we blame racism because it is cheap, easy and available and makes many feel morally superior.

And poverty remains as it has ever been. Transferring $22 trillion changed nothing. And another $22 trillion won’t, either.

Elections Politics Truth

2016 Election Reaction Identical to 2012 — Except Where it is the Opposite

By Rod Thomson

In some eerie ways, this election mirrors the 2012 election by response. And in a few startling ways, the response is dramatically different.

The way conservatives and Republicans felt after 2012 is amazingly akin to how liberals and Democrats feel now. Their actions were different, but they had the same gut-punch sense in the loss.

Let’s go through the list:

  • In 2012, Republicans were pretty sure Romney was going to win, given the terrible state of the economy and foreign affairs and the erosion of the American dream. But Obama won with plenty of margin. There was a head-shaking depression on the right and a lot of people saying, “I don’t know my country anymore. I guess we are a socialist nation.”
  • In 2016, Democrats are practically quoting Republicans from four years earlier on an inability to understand the country and electorate. I’ve heard Democrats say and write the exact same thing I was saying and writing four years ago.
  • In 2012, Republicans saw “commies” behind every bush. Obama was a commie, or maybe a jihadi, and the supporters who put him over the top were in those groups, too.
  • In 2016, Democrats see the alt right and white nationalists behind every bush and they are the wicked Americans who pushed Trump over the top. It’s basically a plug and play switch-out, insert alt right and nationalists for commies and jihadis.
  • In 2012, Republicans thought that the election outcome may be the end of the country as we knew it. We were sure the United States would not last in any recoverable way after another four years under Obama.
  • In 2016, the Democrats see the country under an existential threat from the presidency of Trump, and wonder if it will ever be the same.

Alas, most liberals I know actually cannot see these similarities. They are utterly convinced that there has never been a time like this. Ever! Let’s hope this is not the new norm for post-presidential elections from whichever side loses.

However, importantly there are a few stark and telling differences in the responses between conservatives and liberals.


Stark differences

First, in 2012, Republicans did not blame black people for voting virtually as one for the black president again. Or Hispanics for continuing to vote heavily Democrat. Conservatives did not charge racism and hatred of whites by blacks.

Democrats’ response in 2016 has been to blame white people. In fact the tirades on Twitter and elsewhere by celebrities and media members have been fairly jaw-dropping. Here are a few of the cleaner examples posted the day after the election on Twitter.

  • Our country hates Jews, muslims, women, black people, LGBTQ, and women. That’s the only takeaway from tonight. — Timothy Simons (@timothycsimons) Actor
  • world will never be the same. I feel Sad for the young.?will never be more than the toilet, I’ve used as a symbol 4 Him. U Can’t Polish ?  — Cher (@cher)
  • I was wrong. I thought America couldn’t possibly disappoint me more than it already had. But, I was wrong. RIP America. — Talib Kweli Greene @TalibKweli Music Artist
  • I didn’t quite understand how much white people hated us, or could at least live with that hate. Now I do. — Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) @Slate Chief Political Correspondent. @CBSNews Political Analyst.  
  • If trump wins I don’t want to hear another f***ing single person tell me what the white supremacist patriarchy doesn’t exist — Anne Thériault (@anne_theriault) Popular blogger
  • This is how much our country hates women. I have never been sadder for us. — Julieanne Smolinski (@BoobsRadley) TV writer
  • Eight years of black president followed by a female president was too much of a threat to white male authority. — Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) Writer. Lawyer. Author of the The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.
  • how do we explain this to our kids? — Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) Meteorologist, host of @ourwarmregards podcast

The Nation magazine, one of the long-time standard-bearers of American liberalism, published an essay entitled: “This Is What White Supremacy Looks Like. Don’t be confused. Trump’s voters didn’t vote against their own interests, they voted for the preservation of white privilege — their paramount interest.

Slate published an article entitled, “White Won.” (This despite the fact that Trump actually got a smaller percentage of the white vote than Romney did.)

This response appears to head-in-the-ground groupthink rooted in emotional irrationalism.

The facts are that whites routinely split their votes between parties every election far more evenly than do blacks or Hispanics — and voted heavily for a black president twice. That is, whites tend not to vote as a racial group or use identity politics to achieve power. Actually, just factually speaking both blacks and Hispanics do that much more and every election. Yet, the bogeyman behind Trump’s election is racist whites voting as whites — while Trump got a smaller share of the white vote than Romney.

Emotional irrationalism.


More stark differences

Republicans did not riot in the streets following the depressing re-election of Obama. Actually Republicans and conservatives virtually never riot. That is entirely a function of liberals in this country. Republicans did not block streets, set fire to buildings and generally throw a public temper tantrum at not getting their way.

Republicans did not speciously claim that their candidate was cheated and refuse to accept the results. There were no hashtags #hesnotmypresident. We accepted the gut-wrenching results. Conservatives were downcast about the future, but virtually no one suggested Obama was not our president.

Republicans did not rage against any race or blame the election process. We did not vandalize national memorials as was done in Richmond to the Jefferson Memorial.

And we most certainly did not advocate disrupting the inauguration of the new president — in 2008 or 2012 — as many are doing now, including the reliably repulsive Michael Moore.

Our opposition to Obama and depression at his victory was based on his policies, which we believed then and still do now were detrimental to the well-being of the United States.

But don’t think for a moment that conservatives were not slump-shouldered and depressed for weeks and months after the 2012 re-election of Obama.

We just accepted the defeat as responsible Americans. This reaction reflects the difference in a worldview that looks to personal responsibility, family and church first, as opposed to government first.

The photo with this post is the defacing of the Jefferson Memorial in Richmond after the election of Donald Trump.

Politics Truth Violence

The Real Source of Political Violence and Hate

violence-against-trump-supporter trump-protest-tackle3-640x480

A Trump supporter being chased down and beaten by violent Democrat protestors


By Rod Thomson

The Left’s Culture Machine consisting of the fellow-traveling media, Hollywood, academia, and pop music has drilled deep into the American psyche.

But there comes a time to combine William F. Buckley and Gandalf and stand athwart this torrent of distortions and deceits and shout “This far and no further!”

Against a deluge of evidence flowing around and over the one-way media filter, the Culture Machine has determined that Donald Trump and his deplorable supporters are the source of all political violence. This violence not only is caused by Trump’s incendiary language, but reflects his violent, racist supporters.

An eddy in this torrent demands that Christians such as myself “speak out” against every act of political violence, perceived political violence and “KKK-like” actions that Trump has “empowered.”

But come on, everyone knows Trump has inspired racists and ultra nationalists, violence and shutting down “others.” Right? I mean look at the alt right. Terrifying! And this is unprecedented in modern American history. Right? It’s obvious from the violence at his campaign rallies. Right?

Absolutely, positively…wrong. That’s the Orwellian rewriting of history by the Culture Machine, which starts with dishonest media reporting and is amplified through bubble-gum popping celebrities.

Here’s how it works, via a few examples.

chnusaxwgaaleva lat-trumpsj-wre0038852369-20160602

More Trump supporters who could not get away from violent Democrat protestors, including eggings


Trump the racist

David Duke, always irrelevant but now more than ever with no source of support anywhere and a total pariah, sought another 15 minutes of fame by endorsing Donald Trump and the media squeezed as many news cycles out of that non-event as possible. Far worse, the KKK — all six of them or whatever rump is left of that rumpy group (it’s a few thousand, nationally) — endorsed Donald Trump and the hysteria is full-blown over the resurgent rise of white racism. This explains the violence!


Is there white racism? Duh. Stupid question. Is there black racism? Duh. Hispanic racism? Asian racism? Duh. Duh.

Just stop it with the hyperventilating chase after a white racist behind every Trump voter.

That was not and is not Trump’s support base because there just aren’t that many of them. The truth is that racism in the United States is pretty minimal, particularly considering our unique amount of racial diversity — unlike any other country. Despite our problems, compared to most all of the world and all of world history — not some utopian fantasy — we’ve actually done pretty well moving forward.

Until recently.

If the media wants to look at a rise of racism in the United States, it should not be looking at the election of Trump, but the election of Barak Obama. Race relations have undeniably deteriorated in the past eight years. Every metric shows it. But the media continued to report root causes of the increase in militant black racism as part of Black Lives Matters and others, which utterly swamp the rumpy KKK in numbers and mainstream support. But the media never pinned it on Obama, despite the president’s penchant for repeatedly jumping to racialist conclusions that were later shown to be in error.

Of course, the media could also report that the California KKK, probably about three idiots, endorsed Hillary Clinton. Youtube it. But they did not report it. Filters.

trumpsupporter cj_4gebuuaatxie


And more Trump supporters attacked by violent Democrat protestors

Trump the violent

And political violence? Trump said once he’d like to punch some of the rabble rousers in the face. OK, that’s totally inappropriate. Understandable when someone is being a Class A jerk, but still in no way acceptable or presidential. Oh, and there is video of a man shouting during a Trump rally getting punched.

But that is so heavily filtered as to essentially represent a falsity — not in specific details but in context.

Here’s the real story — Orwell’s revolutionary act of telling the truth, if you will.

Youtube is filled with videos of Trump supporters being beaten by blacks in a parking garage, Hispanics in Hollywood, and whites in the general thuggish mob-like actions of gangs. It’s disgusting. And it is all emanating from the Left. Of course, this has been the case for many years.

In fact, there has been plenty of spontaneous violence by the Left against Trump. For instance, the Daily Wire reported on one Trump rally in California:

“On Thursday night, leftist protesters at a Donald Trump rally in San Jose, California, chased down Donald Trump supporters and beat them bloody, spit in their faces, pelted a female Trump supporter with eggs, hurled rocks at police horses, and broke down metal barriers – all while burning American flags and screaming slogans like “America Was Never Great!” and “Make America Mexico Again!”

There’s a laundry list of other examples. Now note the origin of that story. Not the mainstream media, but the new media slowly but surely supplanting the dinosauric media that has let us all down with one-sided, agenda-driven reporting.


Campuses are not safe places for conservatives or Trump supporters


Trump the victim

In this election cycle not everything was spontaneous from the Left. It turns out that Democrat operatives were running an active, funded campaign to instigate violence at Trump rallies. We do not know this because of any mainstream media investigation — because that was simply never going to happen — but because James O’Keefe secretly videotaped top Democrats bragging about it.

The Democrat operatives hired union members, the homeless and the mentally ill, paying them out of Democrat funds to start violence at Trump rallies — which the fellow-traveling media dutifully attached to Trump’s rhetoric. That fed the rest of the Culture Machine so that the history books are now being written to explain how Trump incited political violence when largely it was the Left and Democrat operatives that did so.

Of course, a quick look at the past half century shows just how much political violence has come from the Left. It is the historic source of the majority of political violence in our country — something never reported and rarely taught in schools. Here’s just a smattering.

  • The 1960s featured the Weathermen and Black Panther domestic terrorists of the Left. (Remember, Barak Obama’s close ties to Bill Ayers, a leader of the Weathermen.) The Left gave us “Days of Rage” in the ‘60s.
  • In the 1970s, we had the Symbionese Liberation Army and many other groups with their kidnappings and assassinations. The Jonestown massacre came from a Marxist.
  • In the 1980s, we had the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN, which was also self-described as Marxist.
  • In the 1990s, the Communist and anarchist riots against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle and elsewhere revealed more political violence from the Left.
  • And the Left marched on with open violence and threats into this century, including left-wing New York playwrights writing and staging a play about killing President Bush and so much more.
  • That brings us to today’s spontaneous and pre-planned leftist violence against Trump supporters and conservatives in general. The North Carolina Republican headquarters was firebombed. And while the local Democrat Party actually helped with the repairs (excellent!) the media notably focused on the tenor set by the Trump campaign — hewing to the deception that is now set like cement in many minds.

It just goes on and on. But according to the Culture Machine, it’s Trump who is the source of political violence and hatred. That’s just wrong.

The Left has cultivated, fomented and paid for political violence for at least 50 years in this country.

And yet, 94 percent of the time the media portion of the Culture Machine blamed Trump for violence during the campaign when all the evidence is now showing that most of what was Democrat and liberal-instigated. It was an appalling display.

An apology for that errant reporting will not be forthcoming.

Democrats and the rest of the Left should stop pretending Trump has started something new here and own their movement’s disgraceful actions associated with political violence in the United States both historically and to this very day.

Below are a few more scenes of Democrat supporters outside Trump rallies during the campaign. This is not the truth that the media-driven Culture Machine wants you to see.






Elections Politics Truth

The Immorality of Changing the Rules After an Election

By Rod Thomson

Some bad ideas just won’t die. Most recently, the continuing effort by those who lost the Presidential election to retrospectively change the rules continues to plow on — naturally enough courtesy of the friendly mainstream media megaphone.

Electors should not vote for the candidate who won their state, as the rules call for, but for the candidate who won the national vote, argues Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig in the Washington Post. “The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor” Lessig wrote.

Essentially, he argues that there is nothing in the Constitution that overtly requires electors to vote for the candidate who won their state. Therefore they are free to, and ought to, vote for the candidate who won the popular vote. Of course, he does not mention electors are required to follow the rules of the various states in which they are elected.

But aside from an attempt to re-write our long-term understanding of elections, this is a deeply disingenuous article.

First on the general merits, he is promulgating a pure democracy — something the Founders cringed at. Pure democracy is often and aptly compared to two wolves and one sheep deciding on what’s for dinner. The Electoral College as a representative balance between the people’s popular vote and states’ rights was brilliant and on purpose by the Founders and is critical to keep. On the other hand, pure democracy has a long and ignoble history, which is precisely why ours is not that.

In the Federalist Papers #10, James Madison wrote: “…Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

But the professor, and many Democrats today, want pure democracy…now.

It’s the cheating of scoundrels

But the most disingenuous element in this line of thought is to change the rules retrospectively.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both ran their campaigns based on the known rules: Who wins the most electors wins the White House. They created their strategies around winning key states. If it was a popular vote, both campaigns would have been run differently and we do not know what those results would have been. Changing the rules after the outcome to change the outcome is just abhorrent thinking.

If the good professor was not too blinkered by ideology, he would know that.

Let’s drive this home with some strong analogies.

Let’s say a football game finished where one team wins 24-10 — a solid win. But the losing team argues afterwards that the game should be decided by total yards gained, because the losing team had 400 yards compared to 250 yards for the other team — a solid advantage. But those were not the rules by which both teams were playing. Strategies would have changed. That sounds absurd, but insert the Electoral College for the game score, and the popular vote for yards gained, and the analogy is sound. But we rightly would never consider that.

Or again, consider if the loser of a seven-game World Series argues afterwards that the champion should be decided by total runs instead of the number of games won, because the loser scored more total runs — which has happened several times. But those weren’t the rules. Again, strategies would have changed.

Or again, consider if you are driving 45 mph in a 45 mph speed limit zone, but the next day the speed limit is changed to 30 mph and you are retroactively ticketed for speeding. That’s absurd! That’s not fair! You would have driven slower! Exactly. It is absurd.

This is the precise principle that applies to those who want to change the elections rules now, for this past election. If you want to change them going forward, that is a discussion to have (and which I would oppose doing) but changing the rules retrospectively is simply wrong.