Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Category Archives: History

Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Adopts “Originalist” Position on the Constitution

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 22, 2022: 

Joe Biden’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, knew she would be pressed hard for her views on the Constitution: Is it, in her opinion, a “living” document, subject to judicial “interpretation?” Or is it to be interpreted in light of what its authors intended at the time they wrote it?

So, she tried to head off the question by answering it in advance. In her opening statement to the Senate Judicial Committee as her confirmation hearing began on Monday, she said:

I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.

If she is confirmed she will take this oath:

 I, Ketanji Brown Jackson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.


So help me God.

On Tuesday, the second day of her confirmation hearing, Jackson reiterated her fealty to originalism:

The adherence to text is a constraint on my authority — trying to figure out what those words mean, as they were intended by the people who wrote them….


I’m not importing my personal views or policy preferences. The entire exercise is about trying to understand what those who created this policy or this law intended.

She expanded on her position by specifically rejecting the theory that the Constitution is a “living document” that must be adjusted to changing times and circumstances:

I do not believe that there is a living Constitution in the sense that it’s changing and it’s infused with my own policy perspective or the policy perspective of the day.


Instead, the Supreme Court has made clear when you’re interpreting the Constitution, you’re looking at the text at the time of the founding, and what the meaning was.

Perhaps this is a ploy, to disarm Senators ready to challenge her judicial philosophy. By answering the question before it is asked, it puts those Senators on the defensive. If they press the matter, Jackson is free to remind them that she already answered the question.

Is she really a conservative? A black conservative, in the mold of Justice Clarence Thomas? If so, then she will greatly disappoint the far-left liberal group Demand Justice, funded with dark money through the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which itself is funded in part by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. It was Demand Justice that provided Jackson’s name to Joe Biden and pushed him to nominate her over another equally qualified but more moderate candidate, Michelle Childs.

Jackson provided a clue in her opening remarks on Monday. She looked back fondly on her days as a law clerk for liberal Justice Stephen Breyer:

On the day of his Supreme Court nomination, Justice Breyer said: “What is Law supposed to do, seen as a whole?


“It is supposed to allow all people — all people — to live together in a society, where they have so many different views, so many different needs, to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better, so that they can work productively together.”

By contrast, French political philosopher and economist Frédéric Bastiat, author of The Law, first published in 1850, wrote:

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.

This should answer the question: Will Jackson, if confirmed, be another Stephen Breyer, as expected? Or will her term as justice on the high court surprise and anger those who thought she was in their liberal, “living constitution” camp?

One senator on the committee, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), isn’t persuaded. She has hinted that she will grill Jackson about her real agenda and her real judicial philosophy:

I can only wonder: What’s your hidden agenda? Is it to let violent criminals, cop-killers and child predators back to the streets? Is it to restrict parental rights and expand government’s reach into our schools and our private family decisions?


Is it to support the radical left’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court?… Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?


These are answers that the American people need to know.

Jackson’s confirmation hearing is likely to extend into the middle of April before the committee issues its vote to confirm, or not.

Liz Cheney Repeats Claim That Trump “Provoked January 6 Attack,” Must Suffer “Enhanced Criminal Penalties”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 21, 2022:  

Liz Cheney, co-chair of the infamous January 6 investigative committee, tried to breathe life into the dormant and essentially invisible effort to turn the event into a political tool Democrats can use in November. After months of investigation by the Democrat-controlled committee (also including two rabid Republican anti-Trumpers, Cheney and Adam Schiff), she breathlessly told Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday:

We’re looking at things like: do we need additional enhanced criminal penalties for the kind of supreme dereliction of duty that you saw with [President Donald] Trump when he refused to tell the mob to go home after he had provoked that attack on the Capitol?

After issuing 90 subpoenas and hearing testimony from almost 700 witnesses, this is all she could come up with: “There will be legislative recommendations, and there certainly will be new information.”

But she is sure that former President Trump is guilty of something:

I have not learned a single thing since I have been on this committee that has made me less concerned or less worried about the gravity of the situation and the actions that President Trump took and also refused to take while the attack was underway.

The Washington Post has exposed the sham and the fraud: The committee is nothing more than a political weapon to be used against Trump and his supporters in an attempt to influence the midterm elections in November. Wrote the Post: “They’ll attempt to do so this spring through public hearings, along with a potential interim report and a final report that will be published ahead of the November midterms — with the findings likely [to be] a key part of the Democrats’ midterm strategy.”

Daniel Oliver, chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute (ERI), writing in Human Events, agrees:

The Pelosi committee is just a tool: a tool with which the Democrats are attempting to discredit Republicans of all stripes and to win the 2022 election … and perhaps also cover up Pelosi’s own rejection of National Guard assistance on January 6….


The goal of her committee members is not to discover the truth; they don’t care about the truth any more than they cared about the truth of the now wholly debunked Trump-Russia collusion story, which we now know (we always surmised it) was a Hillary Clinton campaign dirty trick.


The immediate goal of the Pelosi cabal is just another dirty trick … poison the 2022 elections.

The only problem with that strategy is that the American people don’t care. They do care about high and increasing gas and grocery prices.  They do care about the increase in violent crime, they do care about the Russian attacks on Ukraine, they do care about the immigration flood overwhelming the nation’s southern border. What don’t they care about? The Cheney/Pelosi farce that is the only tool Democrats think they might have to avoid a cataclysmic, historic bashing in November.

The Cheney/Pelosi cabal will enlist the help of the compliant media. As The Washington Post explained:

[The January committee is] seeking to compile dramatic videos, texts and emails in a digital format that is easy to understand — and easy to share on social media.


And they want to put together blockbuster hearings that the public actually tunes into.

But even if they build it, people won’t come. They’ll be much more focused on the failures of the Biden administration and his Democratic enablers in the House and the Senate. And polls show that they’re prepared to do something historic come November: possibly so weaken the Democratic Party with such devastating losses that it will, for a time at least, cease to function as a credible political party.

Biden Enjoys Ukraine “Bounce” in Polls but Remains Underwater Everywhere Else

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 14, 2022:  

The results of the latest poll done by Ipsos for ABC News showed Joe Biden enjoying a “Ukraine bounce” in the polls, with 48 percent of the 622 adults polled approving of his performance. This is up seven percentage points from a dismal 41 percent in January.

With the exception of a bounce in how he’s handling the pandemic that’s all the good news Ipsos had to report. Everywhere else, from inflation to gas prices, from immigration to crime, Biden’s decline in the polls continues.

Biden’s attempt to blame the jump in gas prices on Russian dictator Vladimir Putin failed the smell test, as did White House Secretary Jan Psaki’s. On Friday Biden said, “Make no mistake. Inflation is largely the fault of Putin.” Earlier, Psaki tried to defect responsibility: “The reason why the price of gas is going up is not because of steps the president has taken. They are because President Putin is invading Ukraine, and that is creating a great deal of instability in the global marketplace.”

House Minority Leader Ken McCarthy scoffed at this: “These are not Putin gas prices. They are Biden gas prices.”

Indeed, gas prices were moving higher long before Putin initiated hostilities in Ukraine.

Other polls reflect the same dismal result for Biden: Polling done for the Wall Street Journal and released last Friday showed his approval at 42 percent, while results of a poll done by Schoen Cooperman Research that were released on Sunday showed Biden “9 points underwater, which marks a 4-point drop since our December poll,” according to the poll’s author Doug Schoen.

In an op-ed piece done for The Hill on Sunday, Schoen, a Democratic pollster, reported that “most voters (61 percent) agree that Biden and Democrats are out of touch with hardworking Americans” and “have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day-to-day concerns” such as “rising prices” and “combatting violent crime.”

He added:

Biden’s net approval rating is 9 points underwater (54 percent disapprove, 45 percent approve), which marks a 4-point drop since our December poll (51 percent disapprove, 46 percent approve). A plurality of voters (43 percent) also say that Biden has done worse as president than they expected, rather than better (19 percent)….


Biden’s approval rating on handling the nation’s economic recovery is 21 points underwater (59 percent disapprove, 38 percent approve). This marks a notable 17-point decline from our December polling, when Biden’s approval rating on the recovery was negative 4 points, 50 percent to 46 percent.


In addition to harboring negative views about the economy generally, two-thirds of voters (68 percent) blame the Biden administration’s policies for inflation either fully or partially.

Schoen summed up the results of his company’s latest poll:

Collectively, our data paints a picture of a Democratic Party that is unable to connect with voters on basic “kitchen table” issues, namely the economy and crime….


Ultimately, if Democrats do not embrace a strategic shift to the political center, they risk historic defeats — worse than 1994 or 2010 — in this year’s midterm elections.

For the record, Democrats lost 60 seats in the House and Senate in 1994, and 69 total seats — House and Senate — in 2010. At the time, those losses were considered catastrophic for the Democratic Party.

Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan Indicted

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 7, 2022:  

Michael Madigan, the longest-serving leader of any state legislature in history (50 years) is facing another possible 20 years — in prison. Last week he was indicted on 22 counts of conspiracy, racketeering, bribery, wire fraud, and attempted extortion. Following an investigation dating back to 2014, and ramped up over the last two years, U.S. Attorney John Lausch stated:

The indictment accuses Madigan of engaging in multiple schemes to reap the benefits of private legal work unlawfully steered to his law firm.… [he is charged with] racketeering conspiracy and individual counts of using interstate facilities in aid of bribery, wire fraud, and attempted extortion….


The indictment alleges a long-term, multi-faceted scheme to use public positions for unlawful private gain.

After reviewing the 109-page grand jury indictment, Crain’s Chicago Business journalist A.D. Quig called the scheme the “Madigan Enterprise,” which included co-conspirator and long-time political aide Mike McClain, along with the 13th Ward Democratic Organization and Madigan’s law firm, Madigan & Getzendanner. Madigan, claimed Lausch, used his considerable power accrued over five decades as House Speaker to reward his friends, ensure the cooperation of his allies, and generate income for various associates through these illegal activities. He “used threats, intimidation and extortion” to obtain the cooperation of his enemies.

There were so many enemies Madigan collected over the years that, according to Rich Miller, editor of the Illinois political newsletter the Capitol Fax, “The pile of political corpses outside Madigan’s statehouse door of those who tried to beat him one way or another is a mile high and a mile wide.”

Madigan is the latest in a long line of corrupt Illinois politicians that includes three governors (Rod Blagojevich, Otto Kerner, and George Ryan) and other state pols charged with corruption over the years.

Madigan is best known for his dictatorial control over members of the Illinois House, selecting which bills would receive a favorable hearing and which ones would disappear into the political woodwork. Those loyal received choice legislative assignments and campaign funds.

His former chief of staff, Timothy Mapes, was indicted last May for lying under oath to a federal grand jury that was investigating Consolidated Edison (ConEd) for seeking and receiving favorable benefits from Madigan. Although Madigan wasn’t indicted in that fraud, he was implicated in it, and ConEd ended up paying a $200 million fine.

In 2014, the Chicago Tribune found more than 400 current and retired state and local government employees who had “campaign ties” to Madigan’s machine. His daughter, Lisa, served as Illinois’ state attorney general for more than 15 years.

In 2016, the Illinois Policy Institute published a documentary about Madigan that almost didn’t get completed, thanks to pressure from the House Speaker. Titled “Madigan: Power, Privilege, Politics” and available for viewing here, the Institute said it was under pressure not to proceed from the beginning:

Making a documentary about the most powerful politician in Illinois is not for the faint of heart. Interviewees feared for their livelihoods. Three in-state production companies wouldn’t take the job, saying they couldn’t risk reprisal. The crew that decided to make the film received death threats.


This is Illinois’ political culture under House Speaker Mike Madigan’s reign.

Madigan is denying all charges: “It’s no secret that I have been the target of vicious attacks by people who sought to diminish my many achievements.… I [have] always act[ed] in the interest of the people of Illinois.”

Madigan’s longtime Republican counterpart in the House, Jim Durkin, responded to Madigan’s indictment: “This is another chapter in the sad story of corruption that has pervaded every corner of the state that was touched by Mike Madigan and his Democrat enablers, and has dismantled true democracy in Illinois.”

Illinois’ Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker tried to distance himself from Madigan, saying that his indictment “is a condemnation of a system infected with promises of pay-to-play.… The era of corruption and self-dealing among Illinois politicians must end,” adding,

The conduct alleged in this indictment is deplorable and a stark violation of the public’s trust. Michael Madigan must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Madigan resigned his position as House Speaker in February 2021 as he began to lose control of his reelection campaign for a 19th term. Rather than suffer the indignity of being relegated to that of a mere House member, he left the chamber that he had ruled with an iron fist for five decades.

The odor of corruption remains, and it will take more than just this indictment to rid Illinois politics of the vast array of dishonest, venal, and unprincipled politicians who owe their very political lives to the former speaker.

Ukrainian Resistance to Putin’s Invasion Is “Remarkable” as They Remember Holodomor

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 28, 2022:  

Ukrainian resistance to Putin’s invasion is “remarkable,” according to retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane. Speaking at Fox News Digital over the weekend, Keane said: “It is nothing short of remarkable what the Ukrainian military has accomplished … it is significant that not a single population center had been captured after five nights and four days [of fighting].”

Keane added that Putin has greatly overreached: “I believe Putin has strategically overreached and will suffer long-term consequences for this.”

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer agreed: “[Putin] miscalculated the amount of resistance [Ukrainians would put up] … he was going for a decapitation of the Ukrainian leadership. If you cut off the head, you don’t need to invade everywhere else.”

Putin was counting on the president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to fold, pack his bags, and disappear into the night at the first show of force. Instead, not only did Zelensky encourage his countrymen to fight back, he ordered his staff to provide weapons to citizens requesting them. In addition, he visited the front lines of the developing conflict to encourage the resistance to Putin’s aggression. Finally, he turned down Biden’s offer to help him evacuate the country, firing back that what he needed was ammunition and “not a ride.”

There are times when numbers don’t matter, and this is one of them. Putin mobilized an estimated 250,000 soldiers to decapitate the Ukrainian government, but they met a Ukrainian force of about 110,000 soldiers and citizens. Putin’s army of invaders is not nearly enough to take over the entire country.

Putin’s advantage over Ukraine is staggering in the number of additional troops — active and reserve — he has at the ready, along with huge advantages in tanks, heavy artillery, and air power.

But it doesn’t matter, because Ukrainians remember Holodomor.

Holodomor, in Ukrainian, means to “inflict death by hunger.” Historians call it genocide. An estimated 10 million Ukrainians were deliberately starved in the early 1930s as a result of the Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin’s intention to “teach [them] a lesson through famine.”

In 1928 Stalin mandated an agricultural “collectivization” of Ukraine, ordering farmers to leave their farms, give up their livestock and equipment, and join collective farms. Ukrainian farmers resisted, and Stalin starved them in retaliation.

From the Holodomor Resource Library:

1.5 million Ukrainians in the countryside fall victim to Stalin’s “dekulakization” [removing private farmers — kulaks — from their farms] policies. Over the extended period of collectivization, armed dekulakization brigades forcibly confiscate land, livestock, and other property, and evict entire families.


Close to half a million individuals in Ukraine are dragged from their homes, packed into freight trains, and shipped to remote, uninhabited areas such as Siberia where they are left, often without food or shelter.


A great many, especially children, die in transit or soon thereafter.


The remaining farmers are hounded to give up their land, livestock, and equipment and join the collective farms.


As the traditional structures of rural livelihood disintegrate, the religious clergy are demonized and arrested or deported, and their churches destroyed or repurposed for grain storage or other secular use.

Stalin used nearly incomprehensible draconian measures, including the arrest and execution of anyone — even children — found taking as little as a few stalks of wheat from the fields where they worked. Stalin’s brigades swept through villages, confiscating hidden grain and any other food items from their homes.

At the bottom of the collectivization and forced starvation period (from 1930 to 1932), 28,000 Ukrainians every day were dying from starvation.

Ukrainians remember. In November 2006, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a decree declaring that Holodomor was a deliberate “Act of Genocide,” keeping the horror in the front of the minds of the country’s citizens.

When Ukraine was released from the yoke of Soviet imperialism in the early 1990s, Putin felt betrayed, as Keith Lowe noted in HistoryExtra.com:

Russian-Ukrainian relations have never been the same since. Russian nationalists, including President Vladimir Putin, have always felt betrayed by Ukraine, which they still regard as “Little Russia.” Putin has often claimed that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people” and accused Ukrainian leaders of being little more than foreign puppets.

To Putin’s mind, all he is doing is restoring Russian control over territory Russia lost after the end of the Cold War.

All Ukrainians are doing is fighting back, remembering the days of the Holodomor under Putin’s predecessor, Joseph Stalin.

Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee Faces Uphill Confirmation Battle

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 25, 2022:  

Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, a federal judge currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the Supreme Court on Friday. If confirmed she would replace Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring in June.

A liberal judge replacing a liberal justice. Senate confirmation of her should be an afterthought. After all, the so-called “conservative advantage” on the high court would remain in place, 6-3.

The White House exulted:

President Biden sought a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law.


He also sought a nominee — much like Justice Breyer — who is wise, pragmatic, and has a deep understanding of the Constitution as an enduring charter of liberty.


And the President sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the Supreme Court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.

It confirmed that Jackson is a bonafide liberal with all the proper credentials:

She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.


After law school, Judge Jackson served in Justice Breyer’s chambers as a law clerk.

She is a social justice warrior:

Judge Jackson served as a federal public defender from 2005 to 2007, representing defendants on appeal who did not have the means to pay for a lawyer.

And she is a black woman, meaning that she falls into the category that Biden said he would draw from for his Supreme Court pick:

If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

In addition, she has written opinions savaging the Trump administration, including ruling in December denying President Donald Trump’s claim that executive privilege protected White House records from being handed over to the House’s January 6 witch-hunt committee.

The nomination is clearly political, designed to shore up sagging support among women, minorities, and soft Democrats.

Missing from the White House statement was any mention of the enormous hill her nomination must climb before she takes Breyer’s seat next October. First, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has announced all-out war against her confirmation. Said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel:

Maybe the only promise Joe Biden has kept is his pledge to nominate a liberal, activist judge to the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson is exactly that: a radical, left-wing activist who would rubberstamp Biden’s disastrous agenda.


By picking Jackson, Biden put far-left special interests ahead of defending Americans’ rights and liberties.


The Republican National Committee will make sure voters know just how radical Jackson is and remember at the ballot box in November.

That assumes Jackson gets that far. Her ties with Democrat “dark money” funding groups like Demand Justice are likely to provoke inquiry into that connection. Demand Justice is a left-of-center advocacy group that put her on their “select” list of potential nominees for Biden to consider. It applauded Biden’s selection on Friday, saying that “Jackson would bring more experience as a trial court judge than any sitting Supreme Court justice.”

Demand Justice, formed in 2018 and financed by “dark money” [money from unlisted and untraceable donors] from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, opposed the confirmations of Trump nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and advocates for court packing — adding additional seats to the high court to be filled by Demand Justice-approved nominees.

Sixteen Thirty Fund, which the liberal Atlantic calls “the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money,” is primarily funded by four billionaires, including George Soros through his Open Society Foundations.

Judge Jackson will certainly be asked if she plans to recuse herself when Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard arrives at the high court in October. As a current member of Harvard University’s Board of Overseers, she has direct and intimate ties to the defendant in that case. As National Review noted:

The Senate should … probe Jackson on her role in and approval of Harvard’s policy of race discrimination which has led to vastly disparate effects on the admission rates for Asian students compared to African-American students with comparable academic records…


The Senate will be wholly justified in grilling Jackson to find out whether she supported Harvard’s policy of race discrimination in her role on its Board of Overseers.


This is not a hypothetical question about a future case, which she could reasonably decline to answer; it is a question about her own record, and it goes to the core of whether she is committed to equal justice under the law for people of every race and ethnicity.

When Biden nominated her for her present position last spring three Senate Republicans jumped the fence and joined Democrats in confirming her. Provided with this additional evidence of racial discrimination by a justice “who,” according to the White House, “is committed to equal justice under the law,” those three, and any others considering confirming her to the high court, might just conclude that her confirmation has become too high a hurdle too to overcome during the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.

Democratic “Wipeout” Coming, Warn Bloomberg and Britain’s Spectator

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerica.com on Tuesday, February 22, 2022:  

Two recent articles, one from the Left and the other from the Right, predict a “wipeout” is coming for the Democratic Party in November.

Michael Bloomberg, the failed Democrat presidential candidate who spent nearly a billion dollars in 2020 and got almost nothing in return, wrote on Tuesday for his own mouthpiece Bloomberg News that his “party is headed for a wipeout in November, up and down the ballot.”

Editors of The Spectator, the conservative British weekly magazine, wrote on Sunday that “either the [Biden] administration faces reality and addresses real concerns — or it faces a wipeout in November.”

Bloomberg likened the 3:1 drubbing three school-board members took a week ago in San Francisco to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake that cost 3,000 people their lives and destroyed 80 percent of the city:

The political earthquake that just occurred in San Francisco should be a dire warning to the national Democratic Party, because the same fault line stretches across the country and the tremors are only increasing.

That fault line stretches all the way from New Jersey and Virginia to California, wrote Bloomberg:

Three months after Republicans scored major election upsets in Virginia and New Jersey, largely because of the frustration parents felt with Democratic officials who catered to teachers’ unions and culture warriors at the expense of children, voters in San Francisco recalled three school board members by margins of nearly three to one.


Coming from America’s most liberal city, those results should translate into a 7 to 8 on the Richter scale.

Disgusted with the school board’s removal of iconic names from 44 schools under their control instead of working to reopen those schools, parents took the three board members to the woodshed. Parents of students at Lowell High School, one of the highest-ranked public schools in the nation, were particularly incensed at the board’s move to change its admission policy based on grades and test scores to a public lottery. As Bloomberg accurately noted, “Lowering standards in the name of fairness only exacerbates injustice and inequality.”

Swing voters are leaving the Democrat Party as a result, added Bloomberg:

Swing voters will decide the 2022 midterm elections, and right now, polls show they are swinging away from Democrats. The earthquake that shook San Francisco needs to shake up our party, before voters do it themselves in November.

Editors at The Spectator agreed but took a different approach: They called out Joe Biden’s “failure to fill the office,” calling it “painful to see.” They wrote:

He boasts of the fastest rate of job creation and the lowest unemployment rate in American history. He claims credit for the rise of the Dow Jones index, the rollout of the vaccine and the revival of the economy….


President Biden is now touting his own good news but convincing no one.

To wit, they summarize the extraordinary collapse in his poll numbers:

In his first year, Biden’s poll numbers have collapsed more spectacularly than any president’s since Jimmy Carter — and then some.


The US economy grew by 5.7 percent in 2021 — the best gains, on paper, since 1984. Yet in January 2022, a Pew Research survey found that 78 percent of American were “dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today.”


The percentage of Democrats who liked how things were going fell from 47 percent to 29 percent over the course of Biden’s first year in office.

The editors lay the blame at the feet of the Biden administration:

There is nothing normal, let alone acceptable, about an administration that is both deaf to the voters’ needs and unable to contrive an alternative fix.


This administration is exquisitely sensitive on cosmic issues like the future of the planet — so sensitive that it has chosen to undo the US’s energy independence without creating a serious alternative — yet it is resolutely tin-eared about the everyday basics such as the prices of gasoline and beef or the notion, radical in some quarters, that education should be conducted in person.


No wonder the public doesn’t share in the president’s joy.

A quick perusal of polling at RealClear Politics confirms the extent of voter unhappiness. The latest RCP reading on Biden’s job approval shows a negative spread of 11.5 points (52.9 percent disapproving versus just 41.4 percent approving). That’s actually better than it was just two weeks ago, when the negative spread hit an appalling 14.6 points.

As for Congress, RCP’s reporting on the 2022 “generic” congressional vote shows Republicans leading Democrats, based on the five most recent polls, by 6.2 percent.

Just how bad could the predicted “wipeout” be in November? American voters revolted against ObamaCare being crammed down their throats in 2010 by turning out 63 Democrats from the House of Representatives.

American voters in 2022 have even more reason to revolt, including the invasion occurring on the nation’s southern border, high gas prices thanks to the administration’s move away from fossil fuels, and inflation due to government spending far beyond its means.

Barring an extraordinary (and unlikely) turn away from present policies by the Biden administration before the midterms, the “wipeout” of the Democratic Party in November predicted by both Bloomberg and The Spectator could in fact be epic.

House Leader McCarthy Endorses Liz Cheney’s Opponent Harriet Hageman

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 21, 2022:  

On Thursday, Kevin McCarthy, presently the House minority leader and likely to become speaker of the House (assuming Republicans take back the House in November), endorsed Harriet Hageman over Republican Liz Cheney for Wyoming’s House seat.

McCarthy said:

The most successful Representatives in Congress focus on the needs of their constituents, and throughout her career, Harriet has championed America’s natural resources and helped the people of Wyoming reject burdensome and onerous government overreach.


I look forward [as house speaker] to welcoming Harriet to a Republican majority next Congress, where together, we will hold the Biden administration accountable and deliver much-needed solutions for the American people.

He never mentioned Cheney by name, nor did he remind readers that the Wyoming Republican Party no longer considers her to be a Republican. He didn’t mention the censure she received last week from the Republican National Committee over her selling out to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the Democrats’ continuing witch hunt against former President Donald Trump.

However, talking with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, he did expand on the reasons he endorsed Hageman:

Wyoming deserves to have a representative who will deliver the accountability against this Biden administration. Not a representative they have today that works closer with Nancy Pelosi, going after Republicans….

McCarthy’s endorsement came on the heels of an endorsement of Hageman from another prominent Republican, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who presently serves as chair of the House Republican Conference. In a press release, Stefanik said:

I’m proud to endorse Harriet Hageman in her race to unseat Liz Cheney.…


Liz Cheney abandoned her constituents to become a Far-Left Pelosi puppet. Liz sadly belongs in an MSNBC or CNN news chair, not in Congress representing Wyoming — a state that voted for President Trump by over forty points.


Harriet is a true America First patriot who will restore the people of Wyoming’s voice that has been long forgotten by Liz Cheney.

Hageman also received endorsements from two of her opponents in the primary, Bryan Miller and Darin Smith, both of whom dropped out immediately after learning of Trump’s endorsement of Hageman back in September.

Since 2016 Cheney has counted on Wyoming voters to give her a free ride into the House, winning consistently two out of every three votes in the primaries and the general elections. In 2020, before she revealed her true colors by turning against Trump as one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him, she won the general election by 68.6 percent of the vote.

Now, however, Wyoming voters have awakened from their slumber, and less than one-fourth currently support her.

At the moment, Cheney’s campaign war chest exceeds Hageman’s by a factor of ten — she has more than $4 million in the bank while Hageman, at last count, has scarcely $400,000. But, as Chris Cillizza, a writer for CNN, lamented: “What’s … uncertain is whether all this money can save Cheney from paying the price for her willingness to vote to impeach Trump.”

“All this money” could further exacerbate Cheney’s slide into oblivion: Every ad her campaign runs will continue to remind Wyoming voters how she fooled them into thinking she was a Republican and a supporter of the Republican president.

Stefanik is right. Once the primary is behind her, removing her from contention as Wyoming’s member of the House, Cheney will more than likely wind up as the “respectable Republican conservative” offering her establishment viewpoints on the issues of the day at MSNBC or CNN.

Remington’s Insurance Carriers Forced Remington to Settle With Sandy Hook Victims’ Families, Paying Them $73 Million

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 16, 2022:  

The announcement on Tuesday that Remington Arms had finally settled (some used the words “claimed liability” for) the seven-year-old lawsuit filed by parents of children lost in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 was portrayed as a major breakthrough by the anti-gun major media. The settlement, wrote the New York Times, “is a significant setback to the firearms industry.”

No, it is not. The Times explained why: “The lawsuit worked around the federal law [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA] protecting gun companies from litigation by arguing that the manufacturer’s marketing of the weapon had violated Connecticut consumer law.”

That’s why the lawsuit has meandered through the court system for seven long years: the plaintiffs had no case. It was the Supreme Court that refused to hear the case on appeal from Connecticut’s Supreme Court, thus allowing the case to proceed. Finally, in exhaustion and not admission of guilt, the settlement was made.

Originally the parents wanted $225 million. But Remington was in bankruptcy and the only asset it had was its insurance coverage from four different insurance companies, which just happened to be the amount of the $73 million settlement.

The Connecticut law involved in the “workaround” is the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Its meaning had to be expanded to include marketing practices that the left-wing state Supreme Court considered illegal: Remington pointed its ads to young men, its most profitable target market. Some of those young men included mentally unbalanced people such as Adam Lanza who saturated his mind with video games that involved firearms.

As John Lott, head of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote in USA Today: “There is no evidence that the ads influenced the actions of the Sandy Hook killer.” In fact, Lanza didn’t even purchase the firearms used in the shooting: he stole them from his mother.

Added Lott:

The [Connecticut] state Supreme Court decision [that the Supreme Court refused to hear on appeal] significantly expands the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. For the first time, the court has allowed the act to be used in cases where there was no “commercial relationship.” The shooter did not buy the gun he used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School; his mother did.

It’s clear who the ruling is targeting, and it’s not mentally unstable young men such as Adam Lanza: It’s the gun manufacturers. Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel for the rabid anti-gun group Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“Brady”), clearly stated:

This is an important win for victims of gun violence and the movement to hold the gun industry accountable. It sends a powerful message to these executives — even with your special protections, you can and will be held accountable for gun violence.

Not according to Timothy Lytton, professor of law and expert on the firearms industry at Georgia State University: “Most of the country — or at least half the country — is not looking for ways to liberalize or open the door to litigation. They’re looking for ways to expand gun rights and clamp down on anything that would restrict supply.”

The only state to pass a copycat law like Connecticut’s is New York, which is already notoriously anti-gun. A similar bill has been introduced in anti-gun California, and anti-gun legislators in New Jersey is considering similar legislation.

As crime rises in big cities across the land, the demand isn’t for more restrictions on the right to keep, bear and use firearms, but the contrary. Brady and its sycophants in the media celebrating the “big win” on Tuesday are pushing their agenda uphill against an increasingly informed electorate who know who is threatening their rights.

CNN Poll: Democrats Say Anybody but Biden for President in 2024

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 14, 2022:  

Poor Joe Biden. He can’t catch a break. Each poll shows him losing to the American people as his failed and destructive policies take hold: reducing the standard of living of the middle class, issuing mandates where none are necessary (or constitutional), scaring people with an incomprehensibly large national debt they know will never be paid off, and presenting himself as an aged and increasingly inept leader of the free world.

The latest poll from CNN, of all places, confirms and even amplifies his troubles: nearly three out of every four Democrats — Democrats! — want someone other than old Joe to run in 2024.

It gets worse. Those polled by SSRS for CNN, which released the results on Sunday, don’t really care who Democrats run in 2024, so long as it isn’t Biden!

Bernie Sanders got five percent support, while Michelle Obama received four percent. Kamala Harris received a nearly invisible two percent from those even willing to offer an alternative to Joe. Most of those polled couldn’t come up with a viable alternative. Falling into the “virtually invisible” category to replace him were Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Oprah, Cory Booker, Stacey Adams, and Amy Klobuchar.

When pressed by SSRS, the 1,500-plus respondents didn’t think Biden could run successfully against whomever the Republicans run. A third said he was too old (he’s 79 now and will turn 82 in November 2024), while the rest of them couldn’t come up with a good reason — they just want him gone.

It gets worse: Republicans can hardly wait for 2024 to rid themselves of the Democratic disaster — according to SSRS, more than eight out of 10 Republicans were looking forward to 2024, while barely four out of 10 Democrats were.


Democrats know the shellacking they are likely to take. If the midterms shape up the way current polls are showing, 2024 could be an utter and complete disaster for them and their party.


Under Trump Americans saw a glimpse of how great America could become, given the right policies while following the Constitution. They can hardly wait for the chance to rid themselves of the fallout of failed Democratic policies and put the nation back on the path to greatness.

Ed Morrissey, writing for Hot Air, called the opposition to Biden exposed by CNN “dead weight”:

If you’re a Democrat running in the midterms, what does this tell you — besides “retire”? These negative numbers within their own base [portend] a turnout nightmare for Democratic incumbents. The dead weight of that level of opposition to Biden makes a red wave in both chambers of Congress all but certain if something doesn’t improve quickly. But with Biden’s legislation stalled out, inflation increasing, and the White House refusing to read the room on COVID restrictions, there’s no path for this to improve … and still room for it to get worse.

About the only thing that could turn the Democrats’ ship around would be a shooting war in Europe. Most Americans, regardless of their extreme distaste for the present occupant of the White House, would likely rally around him if American soldiers were committed in some phony, fake, trumped-up excuse to meddle in someone else’s business overseas.

Ukraine might just fit that bill.

White House: J. Michelle Childs Being Considered to Replace Justice Breyer

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 31, 2022:  

The White House confirmed on Thursday that one of the nominees being considered to replace Justice Stephen Breyer is present U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs. Childs was nominated to her current position by then-President Barack Obama in 2009 and then nominated by Joe Biden to move to the U.S. Court of Appeals last December.

Biden said he’d been studying the backgrounds of a number of candidates, provided that each of them first fulfill his campaign promise that they be female and black:

While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decision except one: the person I will nominate will be someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity, and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.

Nothing was said about how she might view the Constitution of the United States, or the historic (and controversial) decision made in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison what the high court’s primary responsibility is, in the words of then-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall:

The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged.

Nothing was said about any “law repugnant to the Constitution is void” when she responded in 2010 to then-Senator Jeff Sessions’ question during her nomination hearings as to how she would “ensure the fair administration of justice”:

The “fair administration of justice” requires that judges act as fair and impartial arbiters, treat all litigants courteously, assess the particular facts and evidence presented in individual cases, make deliberate and well-reasoned decisions based on established legal precedent, and abide by the judicial canons and ethical standards of conduct.

So, by that light, her decision in Bradacs v. Haley in 2014 was bereft of any concern over the Constitution or its 10th Amendment. Instead, in the lawsuit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted South Carolina to recognize their marriage in the state, she ruled that “valid marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other states or jurisdictions [they were “married” in the District of Columbia in 2013] meet the prerequisites for marriage in the State of South Carolina,” completely ignoring the right of the state, under the 10th Amendment, to make its own such rules and establish its own “prerequisites.”

When the Supreme Court ruled in June 2015 that the case of “marriage” of same-sex couples was now a federal matter and not of the states, then-Justice Antonin Scalia voiced his dissent:

Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.


The opinion … is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.

The best any Senator could produce following Biden’s racist and discriminatory selection of Childs as one of the “black and female only” selections he is considering for the high court position was this from Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who called it “affirmative action”:

The irony is that the Supreme Court is at [this] very time hearing cases about this sort of affirmative action racial discrimination while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota.

No matter whom Biden selects, he will further enrage the electorate. The latest poll from ABC News/Ipsos finds that his decision to use race and gender as primary qualifiers for the high post is opposed by more than three out of four of those polled.

Rasmussen: Majority of Americans See Mainstream Media as “Enemy of the People”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, January 26, 2022:  

When Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 likely U.S. voters earlier this month, it asked three questions:

  1. Do you trust the political news you are getting?
  2. How serious of a problem is “fake news” in the media?
  3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The media are “truly the enemy of the people”?

The results should be greatly comforting to those involved in the freedom fight: 580 of those polled agreed that the members of the mainstream media (i.e., The New York TimesThe Washington PostTime magazine, ABC News, CNN, etc.) are in fact enemies of the people.

Half the battle is knowing who the enemy is. Or, as Sun Tzu expressed it, “If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.”

Noam Chomsky, a media researcher and a specialist in propaganda tactics used by media, provided insight into the enemy camp in his 1997 article “What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream?”

He wrote:

The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says, “Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page.”


The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is….


These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow.

Just who are the “elite media”? Chomsky answers:

What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example.


Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on.

Is every writer, every journalist, every news channel host in on the scam? Chomsky replies:

When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis [a former Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times] or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, “Nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure.”


Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing.

In his book, “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda,” Chomsky describes how the public is deliberately and intentionally manipulated and controlled; how the mass media is the primary vehicle for delivering propaganda in the United States. He reveals how the mainstream media focuses on “controlling the public mind” and not on informing it.

He leaves open, however, the question of just who sets the agenda. One of the primary “agenda setters” in the United States has been the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Established in 1921 following the failure of the League of Nations, the CFR’s purpose is to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities.” It has succeeded by infiltrating the mass media, think tanks, universities — every part of the culture that controls the conversation.

Richard Harwood, a former senior editor for the Washington Post, wrote back in 1993 that the CFR is “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.” He explained:

The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class.


They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.

The tentacles of the CFR, and its sister groups the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, are exposed here. Members include Bill Moyers, Tom Brokaw, George Stephanopoulos, and Dianne Sawyer. Major newspapers infiltrated by the CFR include, in addition to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Associated Press, Reuters, and the L.A. Times.

Mainstream magazines also hawking the official line include TimeNewsweekU.S. News and World ReportReader’s DigestAtlantic Monthly, and Forbes. Publishing houses also caught in the CFR web include MacMillan, Random House, Simon & Shuster, and McGraw-Hill.

The CFR has also insinuated its members into the Brookings Institution, the RAND Corporation, the Foreign Policy Association, the Hudson Institute, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the United Nations Association.

Nor is it surprising that the CFR has enormous influence of the nation’s banking system, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. It also has influence in the insurance industry as well, including the Equitable, New York Life, Metropolitan, and Prudential.

If, as Sun Tzu said, half the battle is knowing your enemy, the other half is enlisting in the fight. See jbs.org for details on joining the John Birch Society in its epic 60-year educational effort to expose the enemy, rout him, and then begin the process of restoring the American republic to its former glory.

After all, if Rasmussen is right, then more than half of likely voters are open to the invitation now that they have been awakened.

Pew Research: Biden Suffering From “Diminished Public Support” in Latest poll

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, January 25, 2022:  

In its latest poll on President Biden’s job performance, Pew Research cannot find a single ray of sunshine: “Joe Biden … starts his second year with diminished job approval and majorities expressing little or no confidence in him.”

His overall job performance has cratered since last April (59 percent) to 44 percent in September and now down to 41 percent among the 5,100 U.S. adults surveyed earlier this month.

Among Democrats, Biden’s support is melting away like an ice cube on a sidewalk in Atlanta in August: In March, party loyalists were enthralled, giving him a 95-percent approval rating. Ten months later that thrall has evaporated to just 76 percent.

Among those polled who “lean Democratic,” the disaster is even more pronounced: 88 percent approved last March. Today, their support has dwindled to just 56 percent. Say it out loud: Among voters who say they tend to lean Democratic, a third of them have turned against him.

But the worst news comes from the voting bloc Biden and the Democrats need the most: black voters. Long a dependable demographic, often voting Democratic in national presidential elections by up to 95 percent, they now look askance at Biden, with the latest AP/NORC poll reporting that just 60 percent approve of his job in the Oval Office. Six months earlier, his approval among blacks voters was in the 90s.

The latest Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shows Biden’s job performance falling nationally to 39 percent, down a staggering six percentage points just since November. As Biden’s job-approval ratings descend from obscurity to oblivion, former Democrat pollster Mark Penn (who, it should be remembered, supported Trump in 2016, calling the media attack on his presidency a “deep state” conspiracy) said:

This is a new low for … Biden as he struggles to solve a myriad of issues from the pandemic and the economy to immigration and crime that trouble the public.

RealClear Politics updates the results of the Biden disaster daily, with every one of the last nine polls it tracks showing his job disapproval rating in the 50s, with three of them crowding 60-percent disapproval.

When Pew tried to pin down exactly why Biden’s polling numbers are so low and going lower, they asked about eight separate issues, perhaps hoping to find a ray of light somewhere for him. There was none to be found. On every specific issue, voters are recording dissatisfaction with Biden’s performance. From how he is handling the pandemic to the economy, from foreign affairs to crime, from Congressional cooperation to immigration, from dealing with China to drawing the country closer together, he is failing.

The final nail in his political coffin, however, has to be his failure to keep black voters in the Democrat Party’s camp. Based on the latest polling, led by Pew, Biden is on track to be the least-successful president in recent memory, and that includes such worthies as Barack Obama, George Bush, and Bill Clinton.

Biden to Celebrate First Year in Oval Office With Lowest Poll Numbers Ever

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 17, 2022:  

The latest polling by Quinnipiac University published last Thursday revealed that among the 1,500 likely voters interviewed, just 35 percent approve of Joe Biden’s job performance, while 54 percent disapprove. This generated a response from the White House — Biden’s deputy chief of staff Jen O’Malley Dillon said the poll “is very likely an outlier … [that] is drastically different from other recent polls.”

A closer look at those “recent polls” reveals that Dillon’s response is more wishful thinking than reality. Writers at the Biden-friendly news site Axios had a hard time painting the poll results as anything less than a continuation of the rolling political disenchantment engulfing the Biden administration. In its article titled “Biden’s epic failures,” Axios noted: “By almost every measure [Biden has] bombed big time on the things that matter most.… [He] has never been less popular nationally.”

Averaging the latest seven polls tracked by RealClearPolitics reveals that less than 42 percent of those polled approve of Biden’s performance, while more than 52 percent disapprove. Rasmussen Reports joins Quinnipiac as another “outlier” (from the White House perspective): 60 percent disapprove, with just 38 percent approving Biden’s performance.

Axios lamented that Biden has no one to blame but himself (and his minders):

The Supreme Court yesterday blocked Biden’s vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers.


The Afghanistan pullout played out about as poorly as it could have.


Russia is messing with him: Biden’s warnings haven’t deterred Vladimir Putin from continuing to build toward a Ukraine invasion.


Inflation is soaring: It’s the worst in 39 years.


Empty grocery shelves get network-news coverage. It’s partly the weather, partly COVID, partly the supply chain — but makes a handy visual shorthand for national pessimism.

Axios failed to mention the flood of illegals pouring into the United States over its southern border, or the utter lack of confidence Americans have in Vice President Kamala Harris.

It’s too soon for the White House to respond to a poll done by one of its own, CBS/YouGov. Writers at CBS had as much trouble as those at Axios in trying to put lipstick on this pig:

The story of President Biden’s first year is a simple one: Americans feel worse about the pandemic and [the] economy than they did earlier in his term, and his ratings have suffered for it.…


The story of his first year evokes emotions too: although most like Mr. Biden personally, words like “frustrated” and “disappointed” top people’s descriptions of things, along with the feeling that he’s “distracted” and not focusing on what they care about.

The CBS/YouGov poll revealed that “only 26% of Americans think things in the country are going well … [Biden’s] rating for handling the economy today is a mere 38% … his job rating on handling COVID is down to the lowest point in his presidency … and [while just] 25% say he’s making the economy better … half say [he’s] making it worse.”

Loss of support from Independents and young voters is cataclysmic, report the CBS/YouGov pollsters: “Among independents who voted for him [in 2020], approval has decreased by a whopping 31 points.” And among voters under age 30 who voted for Biden in 2020, “his approval rating … has dropped from 70% in February to just 42% now — double the size of the decline among other age groups.”

How is this precipitous decline likely to impact the midterm elections? Sean Trende, a senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, developed an election projection model in 2014 with remarkable results. Based on three factors, his model predicted outcomes within a single seat in each of the four elections since then.

Trende says that “the single most determinative factor in midterm outcomes is the president’s job approval [rating].… At 42% [approval rating for Biden, my] model envisions virtually no chance for Democrats to hold the Senate and predicts a loss of four seats as the most likely outcome.”

Regarding the House, other commentators and modelers are suggesting a blowout loss for Democrats, forecasting anywhere from 20 to 60 seats moving from Democrats to Republicans in November.

The latest Quinnipiac poll is not, as the White House wishes, an “outlier,” but a reflection of the increasing disenchantment Americans are suffering with the present resident of the Oval Office. He is the true outlier, and the midterms appear likely to rectify the error, in spades.

Rep. Jim Jordan Is Second House Member to Refuse January 6 Committee’s Request to Testify

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 10, 2022:  

Ohio’s Republican Representative Jim Jordan responded on Sunday to the January 6 “Select” committee’s request to testify before the committee. His response reminded one of American General Anthony McAuliffe’s answer to the German demand that he surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge during World War II. Responded McAuliffe: “Nuts!”

Responded Jordan:

The American people are tired of Democrats’ nonstop investigations and partisan witch hunts.


Your letter of December 22, 2021, unfortunately continues this Democrat obsession. It amounts to an unprecedented and inappropriate demand….


This request is far outside the bounds of any legitimate inquiry, violates core Constitutional principles, and would serve to further erode legislative norms.

The first House member, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), to receive such an “invitation” back in December responded similarly:

I stand with immense respect for our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Americans I represent who know that this entity is illegitimate. [It is] not duly constituted under the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.


I decline this entity’s request and will continue to fight the failures of the radical Left who desperately seek distraction from their abject failures of crushing inflation, a humiliating surrender in Afghanistan, and the horrendous crisis they created at our border.

In its desperate search for evidence of any kind to prove that former President Donald Trump somehow engineered the so-called “insurrection” at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, the committee has turned itself into a witch hunt. It has subpoenaed hundreds of individuals whom the committee suspects might be able to provide it with a smoking gun.

So far, they have come up with nothing. When the committee subpoenaed General Michael Flynn, former Trump advisor Stephen Bannon, and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, each acerbically declined.

The committee is illegitimate. Consider these facts:

• The committee refuses to subpoena any Democrat who might have had a hand in allowing the event to get out of hand, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Administration Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren.

• Pelosi refused to seat two Republicans on the committee who she said were biased in favor of Trump: Representatives Jim Jorden and Jim Banks (R-Ind.). Pelosi said their “statements and actions” would have impacted negatively “the integrity of the investigation.”

• A member of the committee, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), doctored a conversation between former White House Chief of Staff Meadows and Jorden to make it appear they were colluding in the incident. The breach of ethics was so outrageous that the committee was forced to apologize.

Most tellingly, the committee refuses to admit the reality of the January 6 incident, which fades into insignificance when compared to the riots committed by Black Lives Matter last year which they should be investigating:


• There were more than 500 riots across the country inspired and instigated by members of BLM, lasting seven months, resulting in more than 20 murders and the destruction of hundreds of small businesses.

• More than 150 federal buildings were damaged or destroyed, resulting in more than $1 billion in damage. More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted while protestors were bailed out by left-wing District Attorneys (many with financial ties to George Soros).

• The riots were encouraged by the mainstream media, which in their reporting minimized the damage to both lives and property wrought by the riots.

On the other hand:

The January 6 incident lasted a couple of hours, resulting in one murder — that of an unarmed protestor by a Capitol police officer, no businesses were destroyed, one federal building suffered damage estimated at about $1.5 million, 140 officers were assaulted, and hundreds of protesters were arrested with many still being held in solitary confinement awaiting trial.

The witch hunt will continue as part of the Democrats’ partisan agenda to sully former President Trump and his supporters. It will likely continue right up until November when Republicans are expected to clean the House of many of the radicals making up the committee.

Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene Raise Questions About January 6 “Insurrection”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, January 7, 2022:  

At a press conference held on Thursday, the anniversary of the January 6 “Capitol breach” by protestors, House members Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) raised serious questions about that breach.

Gaetz explained the reason for the press conference:

Congresswoman Greene and I are not here to celebrate January 6. We are not here to obsess about it, but we are here to expose the truth, to ask key questions….


It’s very important for the Republican voice to be heard today, because it’s the Republican voice, and the Trump supporter, that has been smeared constantly over this past year.


We are here to expose the truth, to ask key questions about what happened on January 6, who animated the violence, the extent to which the federal government may have been involved.


We know this: January 6 last year wasn’t an insurrection. No one has been charged with insurrection. No one has been charged with treason.


But it may very well have been a “fed-surrection.”

The pair presented evidence that there were numerous individuals involved — some on video that have surfaced on YouTube — who were not indicted, and others who were initially on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list and then inexplicably removed.

Specifically, there were three individuals initially placed on that list: “#GingerGun, #HarleyJacketBatonMan, and Ray Epps. The Washington Examiner provided the details:

#GingerGun was captured on camera with a crowd of rioters under a Capitol scaffolding on Jan. 6 while he attempted to conceal what appeared to be a beige handgun on his left hip.


Later during the riot, #GingerGun was filmed with a white bandanna over his face and an earpiece on his left ear.

The second, #HarleyJacketBatonMan, wrote the Examiner,

was filmed partaking in a brawl between rioters and Capitol police on Jan. 6, 2021. At one point, the man beat police officers with a baton, after which he was pictured bleeding above his left eyebrow.


The FBI added a headshot of #HarleyJacketBatonMan bleeding from above his left eyebrow and another picture of him swinging a baton at police officers to its most wanted list in early February as suspect 164. The FBI said the man was wanted for assaulting a federal law enforcement officer during the riot.

The third man, Ray Epps,

was filmed in the hours leading up to the riot urging Trump supporters to enter the Capitol to stop the certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.


Epps has not been arrested or charged for his actions. His unexplained removal from the FBI’s most wanted list on July 1 has fueled speculation from a member of the House Judiciary Committee that Epps may have agitated people to storm the Capitol at the behest of the FBI.

For readers who have not seen the incriminating YouTube video, it is here. For readers who want only the essence, Epps can be clearly heard yelling to the crowd of spectators: “OK, folks, spread the word. As soon as the president is done speaking, we go to the Capitol, where our problems are.”

Chants of “Fed, Fed, Fed!” can also be heard as bystanders saw Epps as a federal official trying to inflame the crowd and instigate the riot.

Epps, as the Examiner noted, “went to work corralling people toward the Capitol. He was also part of the first group of rioters to break through a police barrier on Capitol grounds.”

What’s peculiar is that the FBI originally put Ray Epps’ face on its Capitol Violence “Most Wanted List” on January 8, 2021, just two days after the breach. It offered a cash reward for information leading to his arrest.

But although Internet “sleuths” had almost immediately identified him as living in Arizona, he was not arrested or charged, and no reward was paid. Instead, on July 1, his face was suddenly deleted from the FBI’s list with no explanation.

As Revolver News noted:

Out of all of the thousands of January 6’s protesters, and the thousands of hours of publicly available footage from that fateful day, Ray Epps has turned out to be perhaps the only person nailed dead to rights confessing on camera to plotting a pre-planned attack on the Capitol.


On both January 5 and January 6, Epps announced multiple times, at multiple locations, his upcoming plot to breach the US Capitol.


He then spent hours attempting to recruit hundreds of others to join him. On top of it all, Epps was seen leading key people and managing key aspects of the initial breach of the Capitol grounds himself.

As Gaetz noted in his joint press conference with Greene,

We’re worried there are a lot of folks who don’t understand the severity of what happened. Particularly, if it was so severe that it was animated and encouraged by assets of the federal government.


That would be a far greater scandal than anything the Democrats have talked about.

Gaetz suggested the answer: Once Republicans take the House in November, keep the faux January 6 investigating committee but put Representative Greene in charge:

I wouldn’t disband it. I would take it over. I would throw off the tyrants who are on that committee now. I would make Marjorie Taylor Greene the Chair … and then we would get the truth in front of the American people.

If by some miracle the committee were to be headed by Greene after the November elections put Republicans back in control of the House in January of 2023, then we might finally get answers to many of these key questions.

Nearly 200 Members of Congress Join Lawsuit Against Biden’s OSHA Virus Mandates, Declaring Them Unconstitutional

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Saturday, January 1, 2022:  

More than 180 members of Congress filed a friendly brief to the Supreme Court on Thursday as the high court prepares to hear arguments against the Biden administration’s virus mandates issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). What’s reassuring is that so many members not only understand that the Constitution is the final bulwark against tyranny, but that they were willing to say so publicly by signing onto that brief.

At issue is one of the primary guards against tyranny: the separation of powers. The founders determined that powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution should not only be limited, but that those limited powers should be separated into three parts: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. By competing against one another the chances of government overreaching its authority would be greatly reduced.

From the brief:

The separation of powers has long been known to be a defense against tyranny…. And so [quoting a previous Supreme Court ruling] it “remains a basic principle of our constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another.”

The brief quoted from another Supreme Court ruling from 1983: “The principle of separation of powers was not simply an abstract generalization in the minds of the Framers: it was woven into the documents that they drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.”

From another high court decision, the brief said: “To the Framers, the separation of powers and checks and balances were more than just theories. They were practical and real protections for individual liberty in the new Constitution.”

When Congress passed the legislation creating OSHA, which was signed into law by then-President Richard Nixon in 1970, it violated that doctrine. In 1989 the high court ruled (Mistretta v. United States) that Congress could violate the Constitution as long as it placed restrictions and limitations on those powers it delegated to federal agencies. Justice Anton Scalia dissented, but he was in the minority.

Back to the brief:

When an executive agency overreaches the boundaries of its authority [granted by Congress] … it undermines both the vertical [states versus the federal government] and the horizontal [the three branches of the federal government] separation of powers that protect the people.

Forty-seven senators and 136 members of the House signed onto the brief, including many widely known as supporters of their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution: Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy, Mike less, Rand Paul, Ben Sasse, Tim Scott, Andy Barr, Andy Biggs, Dan Crenshaw, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louis Gohmert, Darrell Issa, Jim Jordan, Thomas Massie, Burgess Owens, and Chip Roy.

Others with less stellar voting records added their names to the brief as well, perhaps for political rather than constitutional reasons: John Cornyn, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Elise Stefanik, Steve Scalise, Doug Lamborn, and Joe Wilson.

They said they were “concerned with the executive overreach seen in the current administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. [We] have an interest in the powers [we] delegate to agencies not being abused…. In this case, the promulgation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of a sweeping, nationwide vaccine mandate on businesses intrudes into an area of legislative concern far beyond the authority [we delegated to] the agency.”

The brief made much of the so-called “workaround” that OSHA officials used in an attempt to avoid drawing attention to its illegal mandate. The New American drew attention to that illegal maneuver back in November:

Judge Engelhardt [a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals] also blew the cover on just why OSHA was picked to do the dirty work of the Biden mandate:


After the President voiced his displeasure with the country’s vaccination rate in September, the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a “work-around,” for imposing a national vaccine mandate.


The vehicle it landed on was an OSHA ETS.


The judge footnoted the source backing up his claim:


On September 9, 2021, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle’s tweet that stated, “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.”

This is why the Founders labored mightily for months in stifling heat in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787: to keep the powers being granted to the federal government from being abused by power-hungry politicians.

The brief made clear that the threat was real. Unless restrained OSHA would continue go rogue:

To allow OSHA the authority to control [individuals’ own health decisions] would remove any semblance of an intelligible principle in the delegated authority that Congress has given the agency….


The sudden “discovery” of authority under the OSH Act confirms that it was never intended to displace state authority in this area.

It’s gratifying that so many members of both houses of Congress are willing to support this brief, in many levels. It might help recalcitrant “conservative” justices on the high court grow a backbone and declare the entire OSHA sham a fraud and a deceit upon the American people. It might help those running nervously to retain their seats come November to show their constituents that they really are conservative constitutionalists after all.

But those signing onto the brief for constitutional reasons — to stuff the OSHA genie back into the bottle — should be congratulated for recognizing that the Constitution of the United States is not dead nor even dying. It remains, as it must, the final bulwark against tyranny.

Cook Political Report: Republicans Likely to Capture House in November Midterms

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, December 31, 2021:  

At first blush the latest political analysis from the Cook Political Report (CPR) shows a tight race for control of the House in the November midterms. The self-proclaimed “independent and nonpartisan” online pollster shows 215 of the 435 races to be decided on Tuesday, November 8 already in the bag: 110 implacably Democrat-held and 105 seats firmly held by a Republican.

Of the remaining 220 seats, Cook estimates that 29 of them are in their “likely/lean” category: considered to be competitive but with one party having an advantage. 18 of those seats favor retention by a Democrat while just 11 appear to give a Republican the advantage.

There are, according to Cook’s analysis, 20 other seats that it rates as “toss-up or worse”, meaning they are the “most competitive” with either party having a good chance of winning them. At the moment Cook says that Democrats have a 13-7 advantage over Republicans in this category.

But a closer look reveals a different conclusion. First of all, Cook was silent on the other 171 races to be decided in November. And, as John Rigolizzo wrote at The Daily Wire after reviewing the Cook report in detail:

The new ratings show that Republicans are ahead in enough competitive races, with enough toss-up districts, that they have a significant chance to flip the House in 2022.


Republicans are on pace to flip five House districts [while] Democrats, on the other hand, are likely to flip only one seat…


Republicans need to win a net gain of five seats in the House, and while the GOP only has comfortable leads in enough races to net them a pickup of four seats [in November], the CPR shows that Democrats are defending eight toss-up seats to Republicans’ six toss-ups.


If Republicans hold all their toss-up seats, they would need to flip just one of the toss-ups in Cook’s modeling to take the majority.

As Dave Wasserman, the U.S. House Editor for Cook, noted, “[We’re] still a long way to go, but Republicans [are] clear favorites for control.”

Although Cook touts itself as nonpartisan the group missed its predictions in 2020. Republicans won five seats in the “lean Democrat” column as well as two seats in the “likely Democrat” column. Republicans also won every seat in the “lean/likely” column and “likely Republican” column, along with every “toss-up” race. If Cook again misreads the electorate in 2022, the Republicans could win control by far more than the five seats presently needed.

That’s what Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy is counting on. The day after Virginia voters surprisingly replaced an incumbent Democrat governor with a Republican nobody in November, he warned: “If you’re a Democrat and Biden won your seat by 16 points, you’re in a competitive race next year. You are no longer safe.”

McCarthy added:

It’ll be more than 70 races that will be competitive. There are many that are going to lose their races based upon [those Democrats] walking off a cliff [that] Nancy Pelosi is pushing them [over].


She may not care if she loses. She lost 63 the last time she was Speaker, moving policy that the country didn’t care for.

Cook was silent on the nearly two dozen Democrats who have conveniently decided to retire from the House as Pelosi’s “cliff” edges ever closer.

Cook just shifted three Senate races from “lean Democrat” to “toss-up”: Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. These are states where Biden allegedly won the presidency by the slimmest of margins and, noted Cook, “if there is a sizeable partisan swing [toward Republicans] come next November, it’s easy to see how these races get swept away” to Republican candidates. That would give control of the Senate to the Republicans as well.

The Cook report echoes what Doug Schoen predicted two weeks ago. Schoen, a Democrat pollster, said his party “is finding itself in an increasingly unelectable and unsustainable position,” adding:

Our firm’s survey among likely 2022 midterm election voters finds that the Democrats’ political prospects are significantly deteriorating. If the Democratic Party continues down its current ill-fated path of embracing progressive policies while overlooking manifest political realities, we will almost certainly see a landslide G.O.P. victory in 2022….


Without … a course correction, Democrats are almost certain to be brought down by Republicans in 2022 and 2024 and may find themselves the minority in Congress for years to come.

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Dead at 82

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 29, 2021:  

Active in politics for nearly 50 years, Nevada’s former Democrat Senator Harry Reid passed away from pancreatic cancer on Tuesday. He left a legacy of violating the Constitution resulting in a much larger, more expensive, and more intrusive government for the rest of us.

And Democrats were only too happy to kiss the ring over his departure.

Current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called Reid “my leader, my mentor, one of my dearest friends. He’s gone but [he] will walk by the sides of many of us in the Senate every day.”

President Joe Biden effused: “I’ve had the honor of serving with some of the all-time great Senate Majority Leaders in our history. Harry Reid was one of them.”

Former President Barack Obama joined the chorus: “The world is better because of what you’ve done.”

Even Senator Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell kissed the ring:

Nevada and our nation are mourning [the passing of] a dedicated public servant and a truly one-of-a-kind U.S. Senator, my former colleague Harry Reid.… he will rightly go down in history as a crucial, pivotal figure in the development and history of his beloved home state [Nevada].

Reid’s career spanned nearly five decades, starting when he served in the Nevada Assembly in 1969. He then served as Nevada’s lieutenant governor, and moved to represent the state in the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1987. He served five six-year terms, including as Senator Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015.

Two weeks before his passing, the state changed the name of its airport from McCarran International Airport to the Harry Reid International Airport.

Reid was completely a man of the world. He lauded his friends and abused his enemies. He called Republican President George W. Bush a “liar” and a “loser,” and on the Senate floor called President Donald Trump a “human leech,” and attacked Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for being what he called a “poster boy for Republican spinelessness.” He even disparaged Obama as a “light-skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

In 2012, Reid accused Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes. Although PolitiFact awarded Reid’s canard its “Pants on Fire” designation, Reid refused to apologize. When challenged over the blatant lie by CNN’s Dana Bash, Reid justified it by saying, “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

He ignored his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, earning a lifetime Freedom Index rating from The New American of just 17 out of 100. He was instrumental in passing the $787 billion 2009 Recovery Act. He pushed through ObamaCare in the Senate and the infamous Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act under which investors and Wall Street still suffer today.

He was never averse to violating the Constitution or the rules of the Senate. As majority leader he knew that ObamaCare wouldn’t pass the Senate the regular way, so he used the controversial budget maneuver known as “reconciliation” to avoid a Republican filibuster.

He still needed all 60 Senate Democrats to pass the bill, but Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska balked. So Reid bought them off. In a deal known as “The Louisiana Purchase,” Reid arranged for $300 million in extra federal funds to be funneled to her state. In what is known as “The Cornhusker Kickback,” Reid arranged for special treatment that would shield Nelson’s Nebraska from having to pay for the newly eligible Medicaid enrollees that ObamaCare would create.

All of this violated the Constitution, which demands that all spending and budget bills must originate in the House of Representatives and not the Senate.

Reid enriched himself and his family along the way and, although his shady real-estate deals were frequently exposed publicly, he never suffered the indignity of prison time. All he was doing was taking advantage of a situation, just like Tammany Hall politician George Washington Plunkitt:

Everybody is talkin‘ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin‘ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. There’s all the difference in the world between the two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. I have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in for dishonest graft — blackmailin’ gamblers, saloonkeepers, disorderly people, etc. — and neither has any of the men who have made big fortunes in politics.


There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin‘: “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”


Just let me explain by examples. My party’s in power in the city, and it’s goin’ to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain place.


I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before.


Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft. Or supposin‘ it’s a new bridge they’re goin’ to build. I get tipped off and I buy as much property as I can that has to be taken for approaches. I sell at my own price later on and drop some more money in the bank.


Wouldn’t you? It’s just like lookin‘ ahead in Wall Street or in the coffee or cotton market. It’s honest graft, and I’m lookin’ for it every day in the year. I will tell you frankly that I’ve got a good lot of it, too.

Now Reid has moved on to his eternal reward, and his deeds during this life are between him and his maker.

The Staggering Irony of the Launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on Christmas Morning

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 27, 2021:  

The launch of the James Webb Space Telescope from the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) launch site in French Guiana on Christmas morning was breathtaking. A joint venture involving NASA, ESA, and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), it was the culmination of decades of work and the investment of billions of dollars.

The irony of the launch on the day when Christians celebrated the birth of their Savior, Jesus Christ, was also breathtaking. But NASA and the media covering the launch missed the connection altogether.

Bill Nelson, NASA’s administrator exulted:

The James Webb Space Telescope represents the ambition that NASA and our partners maintain to propel us forward into the future.


The promise of Webb is not what we know we will discover; it’s what we don’t yet understand or can’t yet fathom about our universe….


It’s a time machine. It’s going to take us back to the very beginnings of the universe. We are going to discover incredible things we never imagined.

The telescope, riding on the Ariane 5 rocket, is headed nearly a million miles into space. Its destination is L2, the “second Lagrange Point,” which is described as “a wonderful accident of gravity and orbital mechanics … the perfect place to park the Webb telescope in space.” It’s one of six such known “accidents,” where gravity from the sun and the Earth will allow it to stay in a fixed position, requiring a minimal amount of energy to keep it stable for at least the next 10 years.

CBS News said the telescope “will attempt to capture starlight from the first galaxies to be born in the fiery crucible of the Big Bang.” It added:

The telescope is optimized to capture images of the first stars and galaxies to begin shining in the aftermath of the Big Bang, light that has been stretched into the infrared portion of the spectrum by the expansion of space itself over the past 13.8 billion years.


That light can’t be seen by the iconic Hubble, which Webb will eventually replace. Hubble was designed to study visible light wavelengths but even so, it has detected galaxies dating back to within a half billion years of the Big Bang.


Webb should be able to push several hundred million years beyond that, detecting light that began heading out when the universe was just 200 million years or so old. That’s the era when the cosmos first emerged from the hydrogen fog of birth and starlight began traveling freely through space.


The long hoped-for baby pictures of the universe are expected to shed revolutionary light on the formation and evolution of galaxies, the supermassive black holes that lurk at their hearts and the life cycles of stars, from birth to the titanic supernova blasts that cooked up most of the elements in the periodic table.

NASA itself described the mission:

  • To search for light from the first stars and galaxies that formed in the Universe after the Big Bang;
  • To study the formation and the evolution of galaxies;
  • To understand the formation of stars and planetary systems;
  • To study planetary systems and the origins of life.

Dr. Wernher von Braun, the chief architect for the Apollo Saturn V rocket for NASA, had a vastly different view of what the Webb telescope might find. In a letter he wrote to the California state Board of Education in 1972, he said:

In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the “Case for Design” as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.


For me, the idea of creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all.


In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate.


And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower.


The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all its harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.


While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design.


To be forced to believe only one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself.


Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

In his new book, The Biblical Structure of History, Dr. Gary North notes that humanists now rule the world of science:

They do not believe in the sovereignty of God. They have constructed a narrative of the history of the universe that explicitly denies any purpose whatsoever.


Cosmic evolution is purposeless. It has no design. Out of the cosmos came life about 4.5 billion years ago, we are assured. Then came mankind about 2.5 million years ago….


Humanists have substituted their doctrine of the sovereignty of man for the Bible’s doctrines of the sovereignty of God. This underlies all of their historical narratives.


There are major conflicting humanistic historical narratives, but they all agree on this point: man proposes, and man disposes.

They are without excuse, says the Apostle Paul. Writing to Christians in Rome, he said:

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.


For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

It will take six months for the Webb telescope to become fully operational, revealing more and more of the wonders of God’s creations that the Hubble telescope has already revealed. One wonders just how long it will take for the Bill Nelsons of NASA, ESA, and CSA to discover that while in the process of looking for the beginning of the universe, they are stumbling over it.

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann