Thomas Calls on Conservatives to Continue the Work of Scalia


The following comes to us courtesy of the Tribune News services:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called on fellow conservatives Thursday to continue the work of the late Justice Antonin Scalia to keep the power of the courts and other branches of government in check.

Thomas told 1,700 people at a dinner in honor of Scalia that the Supreme Court has too often granted rights to people that are not found in the Constitution. He cited the decision in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal across the country.

Thomas said he and his longtime friend and colleague formed an “odd couple” of a white New Yorker and a black man from Georgia.

He paraphrased Lincoln’s Gettysburg address to exhort the audience to “be dedicated to the unfinished business for which Justice Scalia gave his last full measure of devotion.”


The conference of conservatism’s leading legal lights took on a new air of importance with Trump’s victory, and included a list of judges the president-elect has named as candidates to fill the vacancy created by Scalia’s death last February.

President-elect Trump called the late Antonin Scalia a “great judge”, saying that he would look to appoint justices in his mold. With GOP control of both the White House and the Senate we are indeed likely to see the appointment of strict constructionists to the Supreme Court and other federal courts over the next four years.

In many ways, this was the real victory for conservatism on November 8th. And more importantly, for the country.

We Need Congressional Hearings to Investigate Media Bias


With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, and control of both the Senate and the House, Republicans are no doubt anxious to begin implementing their agenda within the new administration’s first 100 days. From repealing Obamacare, to securing the southern border, to nominating a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 2017 promises to be a whirlwind of activity on Capitol Hill. After 8 years of Obama there is much that needs to be done.

What we also need are Congressional hearings into the ongoing and blatant bias of the television news media. 

A recent poll showed that trust in the media has dropped to an all time low, with only 6% of those surveyed having “a lot of confidence” in the press. What’s more, Gallup has demonstrated how that mistrust mirrors party affiliation, with both Republican voters and Independents significantly more skeptical of the media than Democrats.


Throughout the campaign media bias was on full display, often with little effort made to even fake impartiality. The “traditional” news media (CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times) unabashedly employed advocacy journalism in place of objective reporting.

Thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks we learned of the collaboration between the media and the Democratic National Committee. From emails back and forth between the DNC and reporters such as Chuck Todd of NBC and Jake Tapper of CNN, to long time Democratic operative and CNN analyst Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign in advance, Americans discovered that the press wasn’t playing fair.

However, the bias isn’t simply limited to these high profile examples of collusion, but also impacts the very stories covered by the news media, and how they portray the candidates themselves. As one media watchdog group reported last month:

“In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

“In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.”

That Congressional hearings are needed to investigate this media bias is based on the basic premise that the public trust has been betrayed. A breech of that public trust requires a public response.

In many ways we can look back to the infamous television quiz show scandals of the 1950’s for a similar instance requiring government investigation. The House Committee on Legislative Oversight used congressional hearings to reveal the very depth of the scandal at that time. Due to the nature of the FCC’s role in regulating television broadcasting, the ongoing betrayal of trust and excessive partisanship displayed by the news media warrants investigation now.

In other words, let’s give the American people the powerful visual of the presidents of the various news networks and news divisions appearing before congress for questioning:

  • With all the cameras.
  • With all of the hours upon hours of video evidence of biased reporting.
  • With study after study demonstrating the skewed coverage favoring one party and candidate over the other.
  • With WikiLeak emails read aloud and the offending parties summoned to answer.

Anyone old enough to recall the congressional hearings held regarding the tobacco industry in the 1990’s remembers the power of this visual.


Just in the short time since Donald Trump won the election we have already seen that the shameless media isn’t going to change their ways. It’s in their nature. It’s their politics.

The public trust has been betrayed. The public airwaves have been misused. The fourth estate has shown itself (largely) incapable of impartiality.

They must be investigated by Congress or nothing will change.

This Dancing Trump VIDEO is Downright Addicting!


While several versions of this dancing Trump video have been floating around the Internet for months, I only recently came across it. Let’s just say it’s downright addicting. And weird. But weirdly fun.

Campaign 2016 was like no other. It was the year in which the traditional media grew ever more irrelevant (thank goodness), and alternative media gained an ever larger audience (think Breitbart).

The Internet also became the means by which an increasing number of voters engaged the political process. While many consider Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection to have been the first social media presidential campaign, it pales in comparison to the grassroots effort seen this year in support of Donald Trump.

2016 was the year of Twitter, Facebook and Reddit. Particularly Reddit. It was the year of memes and political postings which brought humor and irreverence to the electoral process. While some voters were frustrated by the candidates and angered by the tone, many were having a blast. And after all was said and done, they gave us this.

Well done Internet.

This is What a Godless Generation Looks Like


Millennials are triggered. Thousands are in the streets protesting the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. While some of the demonstrators are no doubt paid operatives of the Left, many are simply members of America’s self-entitlement generation. And they are throwing a major league temper tantrum.

Since when do Americans protest and riot against the results of a FAIR election? Hasn’t anyone taught them how adults are supposed to behave when their candidate loses? Instead we have to hear nonsense about younger voters being “wounded” by Mr. Trump’s electoral victory. Describing the psyche of student protestors, Berkley High Principal Sam Pasarow told NBC News:

“They’re angry. They’re crying and they feel unsafe. There’s a great amount of solidarity.”

Fear. Anger. Unsafe. Despair. These are the emotions, the feelings, that reportedly are fueling the unrest. That seems to be the consensus of the Left, the Right, and the media.

I would like to suggest that there is another significant factor at play here: Hopelessness. We are seeing what a godless generation looks like. These demonstrations are the actions of a group of Americans who look to the state and to political causes to provide meaning and purpose.

Millennials (b. 1980-1995) were raised without the traditional, cultural, constructs of organized religion. As the Pew Research Center discovered with their 2014 Religuous Landscape Survey:

“Millennials – especially the youngest Millennials, who have entered adulthood since the first Landscape Study was conducted – are far less religious than their elders. For example, only 27% of Millennials say they attend religious services on a weekly basis, compared with 51% of adults in the Silent generation…Only about half of Millennials say they believe in God with absolute certainty, compared with seven-in-ten Americans in the Silent and Baby Boom cohorts. And only about four-in-ten Millennials say religion is very important in their lives, compared with more than half in the older generational cohorts.”

This is the generation of unaffiliation and unbelief. A staggering 25 percent of Americans born after 1980 are not religious, with half of those either atheist or agnostic at best.

While I’m not a fan of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), he made a salient point when running for the Republican nomination in 2000, one very applicable here. Sen. McCain often said that young people want to belong to something bigger than just themselves. The Millennials are no different, except (instead of a cause) they were handed an empty box by their parents. The very same boomers and Gen X parents complaining the loudest about these pampered protestors in the streets actually raised this godless generation! Even worse, they handed over the ideological formation of their children to college professors and Hollywood elites. The Left was happy to fill the void.

It’s a sad day when a generation looks to Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Hillary Clinton for their hope. It’s a scary time for a nation when a generation looks to politics for their purpose. The manifestation of this generational experiment of removing God and religion from the public square can be seen in the violence and destruction taking place today.

God help us.

[Photo Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images]

Trump’s Selection of Priebus Reminiscent of Reagan


In a political move reminiscent of Reagan, President-Elect Donald Trump has selected Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to serve as his White House Chief of Staff. Stephen K. Bannon, former head of Breitbart News and Trump campaign CEO,  will share strategic and policy responsibility with Priebus as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president.

With these appointments Trump illustrates both his sense of loyalty and business acumen. Priebus gets the job (with the title), but Bannon will equally share in the responsibility and influence. Simply put, this is a smart move politically, and one Trump is obviously very comfortable with.

More importantly for the potential success of Trump administration, the appointments of Priebus and Bannon in their respective roles strikes a political balance reminiscent of another Washington outsider, Ronald Reagan, while avoiding the strategic blunder made by another anti-establishment president, Jimmy Carter.

Let’s not forget that Reagan also brought his team from California with him into the White House. Long time aides and confidants such as Ed Meese and Mike Deaver formed integral pieces of Reagan’s inner circle. However, the early legislative success of Reagan’s first term was made a reality by the third member of the “Big Three” (or the presidential troika as they were called), White House Chief of Staff James Baker.

Few remember today that Baker had ran both President Gerald Ford’s failed re-election bid in 1976, as well as George H. W. Bush’s primary campaign against Reagan. Many in the upstart conservative wing of the party were not pleased with his prominent role in the Reagan administration. Of course, it was his very presence and  influence with the party and Congress that provided balance to Deaver and Meese. The result of their partnership was the Reagan Revolution.

Contrast this with the disaster of the Carter administration. The dark horse candidate who, in the wake of Watergate, rode an anti-establishment wave all the way to the White House in 1976, failed miserably due in part to his personnel moves and overall arrogance. Choosing to simply install various members of his “Georgia Mafia” (as the press had dubbed them), Carter demonstrated an immediate us vs. them theme to his presidency.

Confidant and eventual chief of staff Hamilton Jordan, along with press secretary Jody Powell, were the key members of Carter’s crew. While refusing to bring a Washington insider onto the team might have scored Carter points with the voters and folks back home, it also ensured that Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill and the Democrats weren’t going to collaborate as willingly with the condescending Carter.

For those quick to question or even condemn the selection of either Priebus or Bannon for their new roles, they would do well to recall the success of Reagan and the failure of Carter, and to recognize that President-Elect Trump has chosen the better of these two paths.

Political Unity is Impossible, and That’s Okay


Following Donald Trump’s historic upset on Tuesday, many in the media (yes, THAT discredited mainstream media) are asking how the president-elect will unify the country. Even in his own victory speech early Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump said:

“Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, we have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.
“It is time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be President for all of Americans, and this is so important to me. For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people, I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.”

Trump’s tone was no doubt necessary after waging such a hard-fought campaign against Hillary Clinton. While the sight of shocked media elites and crying millennial snowflakes made for damn good television, the moment still required reassurance and humility from Mr. Trump.

Let’s be clear about something, however: political unity is now, and will continue to be, an impossibility. And that’s okay.   For the second time in the last five elections the winner will have lost the popular vote. Additionally, the country is literally divided down the middle with each candidate winning just under 60 million votes each. And while the Republicans control both the House and Senate, their margins are thin.

Politically we are two nations. We are divided. And this is why we should temper talk of political unity. Recently, veteran journalist Tom Brokaw noted, “I’ve been at this a fair amount of time. I have never seen the country so fractured.”  Of course, this fracture is the fruit of modern liberalism.

After years of nationalizing every possible issue, the Left has fostered the very disunity that they now claim is so dangerous. Let us hope that neither Trump, nor the Republican majority in Congress, play this game.

Political unity is an impossibility for the simple fact that New York isn’t North Carolina, and California isn’t Texas. Look at the map from Election Night. There are Red state values and Blue state priorities, and often the two shall not meet.

The genius of the Founding Fathers and our Constitution was to prevent the disunity caused by nationalizing that which belongs to the states, or more often, the individual.

From abortion, to marriage, to education, and healthcare, as the Left has insisted that these are constitutional rights, the ability to achieve unity, let alone compromise, becomes impossible.

What type of unity can one find on an issue like abortion? If one side recognizes it to be the killing of an innocent, and the other sees it as a right incapable of being restricted, then unity is simply a pipedream.  At the state level, as things were prior to the judicial activism found in Roe v. Wade (1973), the battle was local, reflective of the values of the citizenry. Take it nationally and you will forever have division, particularly when the coercive power of the federal government is used and abused to defend such a practice.

So please Mr. Trump, do not seek political unity as some type of noble objective. It is not. It is an impossibility. The Left defines unity as victory. The cultural revolution (think Alinsky and Soros) wants capitulation, not compromise.

The only way to achieve some semblance of unity going forward is to dismantle much of the federal apparatus. Return matters such as the culture wars to the states. Unashamedly recognize that all politics are local; and often, so are values.

I wish that were not the case, but it is.

Listen to Chachi: Blow it Up.


Let it be noted that 2016 was the year Republican voters wanted to “blow up” the establishment.  This has been at the core of the Trump insurgency from the beginning.  It is the raison d’etre for his candidacy.  And in case anyone was still unaware of it, Chachi just reminded us again this past weekend.

That’s right, as actor Scott Baio of Happy Days and Charles in Charge fame explained to Fox News:

“It’s very simple, because when he speaks I understand him…He speaks like I speak, he communicates with people very well. I want him, as any one person can do, to go into Washington and blow it up.”

Baio’s sentiment is shared by millions of voters as well. Primary after primary has illustrated just how frustrated and angry the Republican base is with the party elites.

Exit polling conducted by NBC News on Super Tuesday shows the current mood of the masses:


The same exit polling reported that half of those who voted for Trump were angry with how the government in Washington is working.  In other words…or actually in Chachi’s words…”blow it up.”

Much like television anchorman Howard Beale in the classic movie Network, the voters are indeed “mad as hell” and they’re “not going to take it anymore.”

Make no mistake about it, the blow it up vote is just as legitimate as any other policy consideration this election year. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Historically the Republican party understands nothing less than revolution.  Peaceful transfers of power might be fine for presidential inaugurations, but not for GOP primaries.

Ronald Reagan had to blow it up in 1976 when he challenged the incumbent Gerald Ford and lost.  He had to blow it up again when the establishment still resisted the Revolution in 1980, preferring either Gerald Ford or George H.W. Bush to Reagan the outsider.  

The party elite will always give the voters a Ford, or a Bush, or a Dole, or a Romney.  Anti-establishment candidates like Pat Buchanan or Donald Trump are the Cousin Eddie of the Republican party.

The difference this time is that the voters aren’t having it; they’ve been burned too many times.

Listen to Chachi.  Blow it up.