Connect with us


Lessons that must be relearned about 9/11



Lessons that must be relearned about 911

There will be Americans voting in the 2020 election who were not born before September 11, 2001. It marks the first such presidential election in which a large swath of voters were either not born yet or not old enough to understand what was happening in America during the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. It’s an election in which many voters have forgotten some of the tremendous lessons learned on that day and the weeks, months, and years following it.

But this isn’t about politics. For once, I am not going to be promoting Republicans or attacking Democrats. Let us focus on Americans as a whole, as a unified body of free people with the power to make a difference in our own lives. This is a power that is not shared by much of the world. It’s with this power that America was able to quickly rebound and rebuild following the tragedy.

There were things that happened that were not about rebuilding. Many of us thought they were at the time, but we can look at the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and the ongoing military presence in Afghanistan as “solutions” that didn’t quite align with the problems. We believed radical Islamic terrorism spearheaded by al Qaeda and engineered by Osama bin Laden was the greatest threat to our safety. In part, we were correct, and in part the solutions instituted by the Bush and Obama administration worked. We know this because there hasn’t been anything in America that has approached the death and destruction felt on 9/11.

We’ve enjoyed 18 years of general safety in the states. In Benghazi, Libya, four Americans learned safety on 9/11 did not always extend outside our borders. This is a lesson in itself as anyone stationed or living abroad must contend with the risks associated with being from a country that is generally hated by a large portion of the world.

Even as our own safety from terrorism has been mostly maintained, there have still been attacks. There have been near-misses. In fact, few people outside of the Pentagon and Department of Justice are fully aware of what attacks have been thwarted before carnage could ensue. We hear about some of them, but it’s standard operating procedure to keep details about failed terrorist activities under wraps if information can be gleaned from them. For all we know, there could have been dozens, even hundreds of attacks similar to 9/11 in scope and scale that have been prevented through the efforts of law enforcement, the guidance of our intelligence community, and the Grace of God.

We must remain diligent. We must know our enemies, some of whom could be living among us today. There are those who point to radical Islam as the sole source of these threats, but this is an incorrect assumption. Today, the threats of terrorism come from many different angles. Domestic terrorists come in all races, religions, sexes, and ideologies. They come from the left, right, and center. We should be just as fearful of Antifa, white supremacists, and any small group of people who have the incentive and resources to commit acts of terrorism as we were following 9/11 of radical jihadists.

These lessons were initially learned following the 2001 terrorist attacks and they’ve been honed over the years as we realize a sad reality: Today, the hatred towards America, its people, and what we represent has spread everywhere. It isn’t just coming from the caves of Afghanistan or a villa in Pakistan. It’s coming from China, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. It’s coming from places we wouldn’t normally expect as hatred towards America spreads across Europe, Asia, and Africa. It’s being brought to the surface domestically as more and more Americans use the freedoms they have to inject their hateful views about the United States into others willing to see their own nation as a source of evil in the world.

The biggest lesson we must relearn as a people is that our strength is in unity. Day-to-day, we live out battles as Democrats versus Republicans, Jews versus Muslims, progressives versus conservatives, men versus women, straight versus LGBTQ, Caucasian versus minority… the list of conflicts in religion, culture, and politics is endless. We have the right to fight these battles because we have the freedom to express our views as Americans. But we must remember that despite our differences, we are all Americans. There may be those among us who hate our nation, but there are enough people who love the United States that our biggest problems can be solved, or at least the damage from these problems can be mitigated.

On 9/11, let’s remember how fortunate we are to be Americans regardless of the intersectionality or ideology that supposedly separates us.

Today, there are more dangerous forces wanting to kill Americans than there were 18 years ago. Now is the time for American unity. It’s a time to remember our blessings, put politics aside, and fix our problems as One Nation Under God.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement




No, Sen. Schumer, gun confiscation talk is exactly the reason to stop ‘universal’ background checks




No Sen Schumer gun confiscation talk is exactly the reason to stop universal background checks

The national socialist left incessantly demands gun confiscation, all the more reason not to ‘go forward’ with its precursors.

Sometimes it’s easy to knock a lie from the left out of the park. This is certainly one of those times. As reported by the Times Union, everyone’s favorite Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently stated:

“I don’t know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O’Rourke, but it’s no excuse not to go forward.”

In the retail game, this is known as a two for one special, in this case two lies in one statement. Most leftists obsess over gun confiscation and this is the exact reason to oppose ‘universal’ background checks.

One only needs to consider that none of the other candidates objected to this stance, or that they have offered their own schemes to deprive the people of their inalienable human right of self-defense. Not to mention a quiet perusal of the admittedly outdated list of leftists demanding gun confiscation – Updated to Sep 2018. These facts prove the point that as we have stated numerous times, the left’s liberty grabbing agenda is nothing but gun confiscation or it’s precursor: ‘universal’ background checks.

‘Universal’ background checks have no other purpose than gun confiscation.

Most people understand that ‘universal’ background checks will do nothing to solve the societal violence problem since criminals don’t obey the law. Perhaps that’s a shocking revelation to those on the nation’s socialist left, but most intelligent people know this inherent truth. Thus layering on a new law on top of the old law will only burden the innocent.

Nevertheless, these measures are even worse than ineffective. They will fundamentally change the relation of the people and the government. UBC’s will set the precedence of the government having direct control of one’s private property. Your possessions will suddenly be under the collective purview of the government, subject to background checks, regulation and of course, taxation.

Background checks for keeping your property.

As reported in the Daily Camera, during last November’s certification push before the ‘assault weapon’ ban, each person undergoing this process would have a ‘background check’ run on them for property they already owned:

The police department then performs a background check and, if the owner is clear, issues two copies of a certificate with the owner’s name, date of birth and signature; the make, model and serial number of the gun, and the date of issue and issuer’s name.

[Emphasis added]

Isn’t that special? Not only are you required to get permission to keep what you already own, but you have to undergo a background check for the privilege.

‘Universal’ background checks: Unconstitutional to the core

The current system just barely passes constitutional muster under the much abused commerce clause. As pointed out by the Editors of National Review in their editorial: Against Universal Background Checks.

Upholding the Constitution is a task that falls to all of government’s branches, not solely to the Supreme Court. One cannot uphold the Constitution and pass “universal background checks.” By explicit design, the federal government is prohibited from acting outside of the limited set of powers that the Constitution has granted to it. None of those powers permit it to superintend private firearms transactions that take place between two residents of a single state. Because it limits its remit to the regulation of federally licensed businesses and of commerce between the states, the existing background-check system does not fall afoul of the limits that have been placed on Washington. Because they explode that remit, universal background checks absolutely do. If the federal government is able to control what two citizens of a state do with their already-manufactured and already-purchased property, the federal government’s power has no boundaries. Every election season, Republicans tell us that if they are awarded a majority they will keep the Leviathan at bay. This is a chance for them to prove it.

[Emphasis added]

The bottom line.

In many ways, it is extremely insulting that leftists have so little respect of the citizenry that they ‘serve’ that that would even try to pawn off such an outrageous lie. The authoritarian socialist left has been incessantly demanding gun confiscation in one form or another for years. For once it would be nice if they were to be honest about this obsession of theirs.

But then again, that would endanger all the incremental steps they have to put in place, beginning with ‘universal’ background checks, followed by gun registration. This is why try to downplay the obvious with a lie akin to trying to claim the sky is green.

Back when this was being done to formally free people in other nations, they solemnly promised that controls over civil liberties or registration would not be used to confiscate guns. Just as the left is doing now. Then of course, these were used to confiscate guns, but by then, it was too late. We have the advantage of knowing the tricks and deceptions of the left in depriving people of their inalienable human rights.

That is why we need to stop. That is why we have a resounding NO to these ‘compromise’ demands, no matter which side they are on.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Yes, the President has privilege regarding whistleblowers, too



Yes the President has privilege regarding whistleblowers too

The Constitution established a series of compromises between those who feared a king would be in charge of the executive branch and those who wanted the president to have enough power to do the will of the people. Among those protections that have been debated and codified over the centuries is the president’s power over classified information. That power is essentially endless, which is why even whistleblowers can’t just leak information to the press or expect Congress to have access to their complaints when it pertains to national security.

Such is the case with the recent reports that a whistleblower has come forward accusing President Trump of making inappropriate promises to foreign leaders.

Like it or not, Democrats are not going to get access to this information. When President Clinton signed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, he asserted, it “does not constrain my constitutional authority to review and, if appropriate, control disclosure of certain classified information to Congress.”

Whistleblower complaint involves Trump, foreign leader Litt, who served as general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, noted that Mr. Clinton asserted the right to executive privilege when he signed into law the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.

“The executive branch has always maintained that it does not consider the statutory language mandatory,” Mr. Litt wrote on the Lawfare blog. “In signing the original Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, President Clinton stated that it ‘does not constrain my constitutional authority to review and, if appropriate, control disclosure of certain classified information to Congress.’

“President Obama reiterated this limitation in 2010,” he said. “Congress no doubt disagrees with this interpretation, but the president’s ultimate control over classified information has been a consistent position of every administration.”

Some may say this is unfair, that it puts too much power in the president’s hands when it comes to dealing with foreign governments. But what critics fail to understand is the necessity of a strong executive branch when negotiating with foreign powers. We already have protections through which the fruits of negotiations require approval, including the ratification of treaties. To hamper the President into speaking too carefully with dignitaries because he’s worried about whistleblowers is an unnecessary burden.

Moreover, not allowing this privilege would open the doors for compromised individuals to spill too many secrets. The handling of classified information must be maintained at the highest level, and that means giving the President complete control.

Democrats can scream all they want, but their predecessors knew what was at stake. Whether it’s President Clinton, President Obama, or President Washington, they knew the importance of classified information. President Trump is no exception.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Are Democrats finally souring on impeachment?



Are Democrats finally souring on impeachment

For the last three years, there has been one narrative coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. It has had different variations – the Steele Dossier, the Mueller investigation, collusion, obstruction – but all have centered around one general theme: Removing President Trump from office as quickly as possible. If one watched progressive mainstream media during this period, they were probably led to believe that it wasn’t a question of if but when President Trump would be caught having committed so many dastardly deeds, his removal was necessary.

It didn’t happen. The Steele Dossier was quickly debunked. The Mueller investigation wasted two years and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to come to the conclusion that there was no collusion or legally demonstrable obstruction. The “collusion” mantra was replaced by the “obstruction” mantra, but again nothing has come from it. Not only is President Trump still in office, but a strong majority of Americans oppose the last-ditch efforts by Democrats to play their final card: Impeachment.

That case seems to be going nowhere. Despite the unhinged cries by lawmakers such as Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, they best they’ve been able to put forth is an inconsequential hearing with Robert Mueller and a debacle of a hearing to “launch” their impeachment push using former Trump campaign manager Cory Lewandowski. To make matters worse for impeachment-friendly Democrats, there are signs the schism between Nadler and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is boiling over to the rest of their caucus.

‘Feel free to leak this’: Inside the Pelosi-Nadler impeachment schism a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stunned lawmakers and aides with a swipe at Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee.

Pelosi criticized the panel’s handling of impeachment in harsh terms, complaining committee aides have advanced the push for ousting President Donald Trump far beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands. Democrats simply don’t have the votes on the floor to impeach Trump, Pelosi said.

“And you can feel free to leak this,” Pelosi added, according to multiple people in the room. Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the meeting.

But the divide within the party is greater than just “moderate” versus the growing radical progressive wing. They are on the verge of having a full year in control of the House of Representatives without a single significant piece of legislation under their belts. As poor of a job that her two most recent predecessors did (John Boehner and Paul Ryan), their ineffectiveness would pale in comparison. Boehner passed important legislation that President Obama signed and Ryan’s credits include the GOP tax cuts.

As for Pelosi, she has literally nothing of substance that has passed since her last run in the big seat when she passed Obamacare. That was nine years ago.

She and other Democratic lawmakers are feeling the heat with many pushing to actually do something other than failing to impeach President Trump.

Democrats say they want to prioritize legislation over impeachment. Here’s their chance Democratic leaders’ plan to release a top-priority prescription drug pricing bill on Thursday presents the caucus with an opportunity to refocus its messaging on legislating over investigating — one that many Democrats say is desperately needed.

Moderate Democrats in particular are concerned that the caucus’s policy work isn’t breaking through the impeachment cloud that has overshadowed the 116th Congress.

Nancy Pelosi realizes if all she has to her credit as Speaker is a failed Trump impeachment, her tenure will end abruptly following the 2020 election. Do Democrats even remember how to legislate or has TDS corrupted them completely?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading