The Dog Days of Summer are upon us, and the nation is embroiled in a sickening soap opera centered around the late pervert, Jeffrey Epstein.  Much as I am convinced that all the Epstein hand-wringing is a massive distraction, I felt compelled to comment on it, in hopes that this non-issue might soon disappear.

Jeffrey Epstein would have been a sinister character even had he not risen to infamy as a sexual predator of underage women.  Even Epstein’s occupation is shadowy and uncertain.  Now, I’m a lawyer.  You may be a police officer, a salesman, or a truck driver.  The point is, your occupation isn’t a secret.

Here’s the Wikipedia description of Jeffrey Epstein’s occupation. [NOTE – Normally I would not rely on Wikipedia as a trusted source, however when you’re dealing with a fake fraudster, a spurious source seemed appropriate].   “An American financier and child sex offender.”  It gets better.  We’re told he was a teacher at the Dalton School, (an Upper Eastside NY school where the current tuition exceeds $64,000 a year) “despite lacking a college degree.”

After leaving the teaching profession, he somehow embarked on a career in banking and finance, and was employed at Bear Stearns.  Epstein was an options trader, and rose to the level of limited partner, before leaving Bear Stearns due to a securities law violation.

Epstein then started a financial consulting firm, whose clients included Saudi Arabian arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi.  He allegedly specialized in recovering funds that had been stolen by fraud.  During this time, the Brooklyn born Epstein told people he was an intelligence agent, displaying an Austrian passport that listed his place of residence as Saudi Arabia.

Along the way, Epstein worked for Towers Financial Corp., which turned out to be a $450 million Ponzi scheme.  He was never charged for those crimes.  However, in addition to money, Epstein had a passion for girls, as young as 12.

Starting in 2005, he was investigated for trafficking young girls for sex.  Rumor had it that he blackmailed prominent men by recording their sex acts with minors.  No such evidence implicating the rich and powerful has ever come to light.

In 2006, he was indicted for solicitation of prostitution.  His lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz, negotiated a favorable deal for Epstein.  The U.S. Attorney claimed he had been told “Epstein was intelligence” and was warned to “leave it alone.”

Was it true that Epstein was working for U.S. or foreign intelligence?  It’s unlikely.  Dershowitz reasonably argues that, had it been true, Epstein would have so informed his lawyers to get a better deal.  He did not.  I believe Dershowitz.  People who really work for intelligence agencies don’t disclose that fact to anyone, much less boast about it.  Only scumbag, bullshit artist, fraudsters like Jeffrey Epstein do such things.

Epstein got 18 months, served 3, and was admitted to “work release” at his “Foundation,” which coincidentally “contributed” $128,000 to the office of the County Sheriff holding him.

The FBI then got in the act, arresting Epstein in 2019 on sex trafficking charges.  He died, reportedly by suicide, while in custody, in August 2019.  The allegations as to Epstein and well known political and business figures traveling to an island he owned to engage in sex with underage girls come from a series of civil suits, not from an FBI or DOJ investigation.

Records regarding people who flew on Epstein’s plane have been public since 2009.  Donald Trump flew once, with his then wife and daughter accompanying him.  Trump knew Epstein, who was at Mar a Lago until Trump learned he had propositioned a teenage female employee, and threw him out.  Bill Clinton flew 27 times.

Why all the Epstein recap (or is it recrap?).  Because the latest Democrat “let’s get Trump” scheme is the notion that, after promising to release “the Epstein file,” the AG reports there’s no client list in the DOJ file.  Democrats are screaming “coverup.”  Coverup of what?  They don’t say.  The implication is that Trump’s name is “on the list,” incriminating him in Epstein perversions.

This is, of course, pure horseshit, but as you know, Democrats are the leading U.S. distributors of horseshit.  The Epstein file, such as it is, has been  known to the DOJ for nearly 20 years.  Ask yourself, is it possible that the same DOJ that two years ago was trying to imprison Trump for life over made-up bullshit, would have neglected to release information implicating him in an underage sex ring in 2016, 2020, or 2024?  Not likely.

The problem is that a number of Republicans, and dare I say, MAGA supporters, are calling for the firing of Pam Bondi, alleging that she’s protecting men “on the list.”  Donald Trump is tangentially responsible for this himself.

Trump has succeeded in convincing a sizeable majority of the country that the government always lies to them, always hides the truth, and always protects shadowy conspiracies.  As Americans we love conspiracy theories.  Such theories revolve around virtually every major event and scandal in American history.

From UFO’s, to the JFK, Martin Luther King, and RFK assassinations, to the drones last December, to the Chinese spy balloon, to Watergate, to the Pearl Harbor attack, and all the way back to secret Freemason symbols and treasure troves hidden in the Capitol, we’re hooked on conspiracy theories.

And we come by it honestly.  You’re not paranoid just because you think little green men from Mars are trailing you.  The government has a habit of lying.  The rich and powerful do seem to get bailed out, while the little guy gets screwed.

Only this flap is getting out of hand because the Trump loyalists have gotten high on their own stash.  Kash Patel and Dan Bongino told everyone there was an Epstein client list.  I’m sure they believed that.  But now in office, guess what?  There’s no list to release.  Did one ever exist?  If so, Alan Dershowitz never saw one.

He was involved in some of the lawsuits.  Much of the 30 gigabytes of “materials” in the Epstein file (that’s a lot of stuff) consists of child pornography, downloaded by Epstein, who is dead.  Such material could never be released.  Two New York judges have ordered much material no to be released, so the DOJ can’t release it.

Yet, there is no joy in MAGAville.  Trump is a victim of his own success.  He’s convinced supporters that everything the government tells you is a lie, but he’s now the government.  And the point of all this is, this is a scandal over nothing.

One GOP Senator says, “release the evidence of the sex ring.”  What ring?  It was 20 years ago.  Epstein was guilty as Hell, and he’s now dead.  His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was tried, convicted, and is serving 20 years.

Most of the juicy stuff about public figures, including Prince Andrew, came from civil suits, not from the DOJ.  The names involved were disclosed years ago, and any details are bound up in non-disclosure agreements following settlements.  Simply put, there’s no one else to prosecute.

The worst position a criminal defendant can be in is being charged, and having no information to trade for a better deal.  The Trump officials said evidence was being hidden, and promised to release it.  Now that it’s clear there’s nothing to release, they find themselves without red meat to throw to the lions of the MAGA world, who are screaming for blood.

For his part, President Trump is trying to convince the public that the Epstein coverup theory is just one more Democrat hoax, being used to slow him down.  And so it is.  Trump rightly asks, “Why are people still talking about this guy, this creep?”  It’s a good question.  Writer Stephen King, no conservative he, had a better response.  “The list is real, and so is the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.”

Democrats were unable to do Trump in by tying him to a live woman, so now they’re trying to tie him to a dead pervert.  It won’t work.  Epstein was a crooked scumbag.  He’s dead.  That’s good.  Hopefully, the news cycle will move on to the next conspiracy theory.

I hate to say “I told you so,” but the fact is, since early in 2017, I have been writing on these pages (check the archive) that Il Duce Obama and key members of his Administration engaged in criminal activities designed to keep Donald Trump from being elected in 2016, and then to falsify evidence to be used to engineer what led to the Mueller Investigation and the impeachments.   Simply put, Obama, CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, and a host of others conducted a prolonged campaign to deny Trump election, and then to cripple him once he was elected.

I said as much in a series of Frank on Friday postings.  See, Fake News But a Real Coup (3/10/17); Who Were Those Unmasked Men? (3/24/17); Back to the U.S.S.R. (7/14/17); Who Plays the Russia Game? (11/3/17); and Witch Hunt 2.0 (3/8/19).

In a nutshell, these works explored the now thoroughly debunked notion that Trump colluded with Russia to win election.  What became the Russia Collusion Hoax was the brainchild of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.  They hired law firm Perkins Coie to commission a dossier containing wholly fictional claims of Trump/Russia collusion in the 2016 election.  Millions of dollars changed hands.  The dossier’s author was former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele.  He later testified under oath that he was unable to prove the veracity of any of its contents.

The CIA knew the dossier was fake, and likely took part in its creation.  The FBI knew that the dossier was underhanded opposition research from a political campaign.  No honest law enforcement official would go anywhere near such crap.  You remember what happened.  Because the Obama Administration’s top officials were thoroughly dishonest, they used the dossier to try to prevent Trump’s election, and then to overthrow his government.

Current CIA Director John Ratcliffe has uncovered and released information proving that Obama, Clapper, Brennan and Comey conspired to “to screw Trump,” by manipulating intelligence and silencing career professionals in the intel community.

Il Duce Obama’s fingerprints are all over this outrage.  Days before he left office in 2017, he authorized the release of raw intelligence to dozens of agencies, thus insuring the flood of leaks that plagued the Trump 45 Administration.  On January 5, 2017, Obama, Biden, Comey and Acting AG Sally Yates met to discuss how to handle the ongoing (fake) Russian Collusion investigation going forward.  Obama, who must have known that the dossier was fake, ordered Comey not to tell Trump, his incoming boss, about the investigation.  This is tantamount to ordering Comey to commit official misconduct.  Comey obliged him.

The Obama Administration issued an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in December of 2016.  CIA Director Brennan insisted on including the false information from the dossier in the ICA.  Career professionals at the CIA, including Analysis Director David Cohen, told him that including the dossier “did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards,” and that its inclusion would undermine the credibility of the report.  Brennan overruled them, and the dossier was featured prominently in the ICA.

FBI Director James Comey also insisted that the dossier be included.  This served two purposes.  Including the false information in the ICA imparted to the dossier credibility that it did not deserve by cloaking it as genuine classified intelligence data.  This enabled Comey to take what he knew was false evidence (by January 2017, the FBI had determined the information could not be corroborated), and use it to get three FISA court warrants to permit the wiretapping of Trump’s telephones before and after the election.

In those warrants, Comey disclosed that the information came from Christopher Steele, but neglected to mention that Steele, who had been a paid FBI source, had been terminated for misconduct, including lying.  Vouching for the credibility of a source who has provided what you know to be false information and who you know was unreliable in the past isn’t merely sloppy police work, it’s criminal.

And then we come to perjury.  John Brennan, you will recall, was the driving force in seeing that the Steele Dossier’s falsehoods were included in the December 2016 ICA.  The problem is that he testified before Congress on May 23, 2017, and swore under oath that “the dossier wasn’t in any way used as the basis for the ICA.”  It’s now clear that was a lie.

For his part, James Clapper has repeatedly maintained that he knew nothing of a Russian collusion investigation.  Ratcliffe’s revelations seemingly put the lie to that story.  Comey has criticized a House Intelligence Committee Report that found there was no evidence supporting a Russian collusion investigation.  He insists there was evidence, and he ought to know, because he created it out of thin air.

The recent information from Ratcliffe proves that the allegations made by me, and a number of other commentators who simply reviewed the facts known as early as 2017 and then applied common sense to those facts, were right on the money.  Donald Trump was the victim of election interference.  This interference wasn’t perpetrated by some shadowy foreign actor, but by the Obama Administration, namely the president, vice-president, the CIA, the FBI, and a number of intelligence agencies, in coordination with British Australian and other intelligence sources.

The conclusion is inescapable.  The very lying, cheating, stealing Democrat hypocrites who constantly lecture us about “threats to our democracy,” themselves perpetrated the single most outrageous and dangerous attack on our form of government since 1807, when Aaron Burr was accused of trying to set up his own new country in what are now the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi.

Much like the Burr conspiracy, the Obama conspiracy sought to overthrow the duly elected government.  18 United States Code section 371 comes to mind.  That law makes it a crime to conspire with others to defraud the United States government by impairing legitimate government operations.

That’s one of the crimes Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to pin on Trump.  In light of the recent Supreme Court decision on a president’s immunity for executive decisions, Obama might skate on that one.  Not so for Clapper, Brennan, and Comey.

Yet I’m not naive.  Aaron Burr beat the treason charge brought against him, and I have no doubt that these crooked pricks also will escape the noose.  The problem is that, until somebody’s ass is thrown in prison, they’re liable to pull the same crap again.

On March 28, 2025, in Attack of the Robes, I explored the problem of out-of-control federal District Judges, who, by issuing nationwide injunctions, have effectively vetoed President Trump’s Executive Orders, designed to implement the policies that voters endorsed in the 2024 election.  The blatant misconduct of the judges had gotten out of control.

Fancying themselves as super-executives, some of the 680 federal judges have stymied nearly every Trump order, by freezing executive action with nationwide injunctions, also known as universal injunctions.  What this means is, one person brings a lawsuit against the government in say, California.  The judge uses the filing of this single plaintiff to issue an injunction that prohibits the government from implementing its policy anywhere in the country.

Trump 47 Executive Orders were the subjects of more than 40 universal injunctions in five months.  85% of the injunctions came from California, Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts, and D.C., districts replete with berobed progressive ideologues masquerading as jurists.

As lawsuits and appeals take years to resolve, this practice effectively stopped the Chief Executive from governing.  Needless to say, this is not a consequence  intended by the Founders, and had it continued, our nation would have devolved into a judicial tyranny, turning democracy into judocracy, a term I had to make up because it never was intended to exist.

Last week, the Supreme Court finally remedied the situation  in Trump v. CASA, Inc.  Writing on behalf of herself, and the other five Justices on the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s    opinion drastically curtailed the issuance of universal injunctions.  The three liberal rubber stamps on the Court dissented.

I make the distinction between Justices and rubber stamps on this basis.  A judge or Justice says, “These are the facts, this is the law, therefore this is the judgment that must be reached.”  Rubber stamps, namely “Justices” Sotomayor, Kagin, and Jackson, employ a different methodology.  “Here is the result I must reach, so here’s the judgment.”  Simple, but hardly judicial.

In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett recounts that the use of universal injunctions was nearly unknown from the Founding until the 1960’s.  In the 21st Century, they have become more prevalent.

In a nutshell, the proper role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the question before them in terms of the original intent of the Founders who enacted the Constitution.  By this method, if a practice is not included in the Constitution, was not recognized by English Common Law at the time the Constitution was ratified, or was not granted to the Courts by Congress, then it is not authorized.

Nothing in the Constitution permits universal injunctions, nor was the practice part of English Common Law.  The only Court in the Constitution is the Supreme Court.  All other federal courts are created by Congress, which spells out the limits of their powers.  Congress never granted the right to issue universal injunctions.

Injunction is a remedy available to judges, but as Justice Sotomayor herself has noted, it is relief that may be afforded only to parties to a lawsuit, not to the public at large.

Justice Barrett devoted much of her opinion to a refutation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.  This practice in itself is routine.  However, the tone of the refutation was unusually blunt for a Supreme Court opinion.  Normally, when a Justice says something meant to convey the notion that his or her colleague’s position is a load of crap, it’s done in gentle language, such as, “my learned colleague is mistaken.”  Justice Barrett’s take down of the Jackson dissent was no less than a brutal slap down, and one which was well deserved.

Justice Jackson is a product of Harvard.  She served on the Board of Harvard Overseers.  (I thought “overseer” was a racist title).  Anyway, it’s now clear why Harvard is so screwed up.  As a District Court judge, she invalidated a number of Trump 45 Executive Orders, writing, “a President is not a King.”  This made her a perfect Biden appointment to the high Court, which Biden was seeking to “Trump proof.”

In her dissent, Justice Jackson says the real question before the Court wasn’t whether a District Court judge is authorized to issue a universal injunction, because that’s a “mind numbing technical query.”  According to her, the real question is, “may a federal court order an Executive to follow the law?”

Confirming her claim that she doesn’t know what a woman is, Jackson wrote, “those who birthed our nation limited the powers of government to protect freedom.”  (I guess she considers the Founders birthing persons).  Jackson fails to notice that the judiciary is part of the government.  Moreover, judicial tyranny is more dangerous than Executive or Congressional tyranny, because we get to vote for them.  Judges are installed for life.

Justice Barret minced no words, writing that Jackson’s dissent “is not tethered to statute or precedent, nor frankly to any doctrine whatsoever.”  Jackson recognizes really no limit to judicial power.  Justice Barrett writes, “she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”  Barrett added, the Jackson position “is at odds with two centuries of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” Ouch!

Jackson complains that the analysis of the majority of the Court “involves boring legalese.”  Her prescription?  Once a judge decides something is illegal, everyone, everywhere must comply.  This sort of applies the Left’s Anthony Fauci principle to the judiciary.  Fauci was “the science,” so when he spoke, rightly or wrongly, all were obliged to submit.  Judges are “the law,” so when they speak, “everyone from the President on down must follow the law.”

The Jackson opinion remarkably states that “the Majority is so caught up in the minutiae of the government’s self-serving arguments, that it misses the plot.”  Firstly, every party to a lawsuit makes self-serving arguments.  It’s their job.  And as Professor Jonathan Turley aptly notes the “minuitae” that Jackson complains of consists of things like the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1798.  Turley added, “It’s the minutiae that distinguishes  the rule of law from judicial impulse.  Simply put, if one can’t be bothered by such “minutiae,” then one ought to avoid a judicial career.

While Jackson sees the role of the judiciary as overseers of the Executive, Justice Barrett correctly points out that’s not the proper judicial role.  Judges may resolve cases and controversies affecting the particular plaintiffs and defendants before the court.  The judiciary is not a super-government.  Jackson’s overriding principle is “everyone from the President on down must follow the law.”  As Justice Barrett wisely reminds her, “that goes for judges too,” adding, “when a court concludes that the Executive has acted unlawfully, the correction is not for the court to exceed its power too.”

All in all, the majority opinion in this case returns District Court judges to their proper lane, while at the same time conveying the clear message that Justice Jackson doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  When one judge’s review of  another judge’s argument starts with the phrase, “As best we can tell,” the plain language translation is, “disregard that, it’s gibberish.”

Here’s hoping that, with the meddlesome judges out of the way, the Trump agenda can move forward.

As with most things, Winston Churchill said it best.  “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”  Churchill was referring to the fact that, strong leaders, who throughout history have been compared to high-flying eagles, often are confronted by chattering from the bottom feeding rabble of political life.

That sentiment probably didn’t originate with Churchill, but likely goes back to one of Aesop’s fables, The Eagle, The Jackdaw, and the Magpie.  Here again, the eagle is the ruler of the smaller birds.  In Aesop’s telling, the eagle’s solemn assemblies often were disrupted by impertinent conduct from the noisy chattering of the magpie and the jackdaw (a crow), who each sought precedence in the Eagle’s court.  The eagle decreed that “the greater fool of the two shall in future take precedence.”  The moral of the story, “only fools try to be self-important.”

I was reminded of these sentiments in the aftermath of last Saturday’s U.S. bombing of nuclear sites in Iran.  For many years, President Trump has vowed that Iran would not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.  That long has been a stated U.S. policy, but Trump is the first president to take real action.

In 1984, President Reagan named Iran a State sponsor of terrorism.  In 2002, President Bush included them in the Axis of Evil.  In 2003, evidence of the production of enriched uranium was found in Iran.  In 2013, Il Duce Obama and “Bolt Neck” John Kerry concocted “the Iran nuclear deal,” which was supposed to slow down the Iranian nuclear program.

The plan was a shameful ruse, which did nothing to end Iranian production of nuclear weapons, resulted in no inspections, and involved us sending pallets loaded with cash to Iran.  Iran used the money to continue enriching uranium, and to fund terrorist organizations.  Thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed by Improvised Explosive Devices supplied by Iran.  Trump ended the deal in his first term.

In recent weeks, evidence came to light suggesting that Iran was months away from producing 11 nuclear warheads to be mated to the short-range missiles and ICBM’s that Iran has been producing.  That prompted the Israelis to act.

President Trump devoted a good deal of time to attempts to end the war between Iran and Israel.  He offered to host talks.  The Iranians refused to participate.  Last Thursday, the President set a two week deadline for negotiations.  On Friday, the Iranian Foreign Minister declared that there was nothing to talk about.  The next day, the U.S. struck the nuclear sites.  As this is written, a shaky cease fire has ended the fighting between Israel and Iran.

Yet while the end of a Mideast war might seem to be a positive development, many of the jackdaws, magpies, and parrots who inhabit the Democrat Party are incensed to the extent that, this week, they tried for a third time to impeach President Trump.  They failed.  The vote was 344 to 79.

What’s their beef this time?  President Trump ordered the strike on Iran without first asking the Congress for its permission.  This is, to say the least, hyperbole.  It is to say the most, pure bullshit.

At issue is the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law, enacted over the veto of President Nixon.  The law, which never has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, is of questionable constitutionality.  Article I of the Constitution says the Congress shall declare war.  Article II makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military.

Legal or not, the War Powers Resolution makes clear that a President may order any military action he sees fit, including committing troops, for a period of 90 days without the need for any Congressional approval.

In the case of Iran, the Administration gave appropriate notice to Congressional leaders before the strikes.  The incursion stationed no troops overseas, and our forces were engaged for a matter of hours, and then withdrawn.  But that wasn’t good enough for the Trump-hating Democrats.

The reigning queen of the magpies, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Trump “has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.  It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”

Rep. Sean Casten called the bombing without the approval of Congress an “unambiguous impeachable offense.”  This imbecile added, “No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress.”  I guess the imminent production of nuclear weapons by people who continually chant “Death to America,” and who have killed thousands of Americans, doesn’t represent a threat.

The usual leftist suspects also chimed in.  Bernie Sanders called Trump’s strikes “grossly unconstitutional.”  Rep. Val Demings complained, “The President does not have the authority to start a war with Iran at the expense of the American people without congressional approval.”

Rep. Jim Himes, vied for the role of king of the jackdaws by carping that he did not have notice of the attacks as other members of Congress had.  “According to the Constitution, we are both sworn to defend.”  “My attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall.  Full stop.”

This is pure idiocy.  Consultation with 535 blabbermouths, half of whom are crazed practitioners of sedition, would turn a surprise attack into a suicide mission, destined to fail.

But by far, the sharpest comments came from that parrot princess from Texas, Jasmine Crockett.  “I am a black woman in America who just happens to be educated enough to know what the law is.”  “If you Google war and authority and Constitution, you’re gonna see Congress.  He could have hollered at us on Monday.”  Yeah, Jasmine.  Didn’t Trump know it was the weekend?  How dare he exceed the 40 hour work week just to prevent a nuclear war?

She must have Googled the wrong terms, because Crockett added, “I’m the one that’s supposed to make the fucking  decision” on bombing Iran.”  Somebody should “holla” at her to shut her piehole.

This Democrat jabbering is wrong, dangerous, and designed to give aid and comfort to our enemies.  And as with all things Democrat, it’s blatant hypocrisy.  A President (named Trump) needs Congressional approval to order a military action?  Really?

President Clinton sent troops to Haiti and Bosnia without approval.  Clinton also ordered airstrikes in Kosovo and Iraq, and he famously used missiles to destroy an aspirin factory in Sudan.  No Democrat complained.

President Biden bombed Yemen for eight months.  No Democrat complained.

Il Duce Obama takes the cake, however.  The recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize ordered 563 airstrikes on Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen without approval.  In Yemen, instead of hitting al Qaeda, he used cluster munitions to kill 55 people, including 33 women and children.  Obama ordered the Navy Seals to Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden without approval.  Obama committed troops to Jordan, Uganda and Turkey.  Obama bombed Syria, Somalia, and Yemen, and sent the Navy to the Straight of Hormuz, all without Congressional approval.  No Democrat complained.

The latest jabbering of the Democrat jackdaws, magpies and parrots must be attributed to their chronic Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Eagles cannot, and will not, be bothered by the endless chattering of these annoying scavengers and preening parrots.

Nightly, the various news channels tell us the Democrat Party needs to move to the political center to regain success.  The pundits keep talking, but clearly, the people running the Democrat Party aren’t listening.  They’re still clinging to the extreme Left.

In 1964, a right wing extremist, Barry Goldwater, famously proclaimed, ”Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  He was roundly condemned for what today sounds like a reasonable sentiment.  For the current day Democrat Party, the Goldwater quote might read, “Extremism in hopes of ending liberty is no vice, moderation in regard to any issue is prohibited.

And so, last weekend, as President Trump was presiding over a parade for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, the denizens of the Left were conducting what they called No Kings protests all over the country.

The No Kings movement, according to its organizers, calls for a National Day of defiance.  Here’s some stuff from their website, “They’ve defied our courts (lie), deported Americans (lie), disappeared people off the streets (lie), attacked our civil rights (lie), and slashed our services (lie).  The corruption has gone too far.  No thrones.  No crowns.  No kings.”

“We’re taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like.  The flag doesn’t belong to President Trump.  It belongs to us.”  I guess that’s so they can burn it.  “We’re inspired by the 3.5% principle: it only takes 3.5% of the population engaging in sustained, strategic protest against authoritarianism to achieve significant political change.”

The 3.5% principle, has been adopted by many climate change groups.  It comes from the writings of Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth.  The theory is that protest by 3.5% of the population of a country can topple a government.  Three examples cited by Professor Chenoweth are Georgia, the Philippines, Sudan, and Algeria.

If it worked there, it can work here, right?  Not so fast.  In Georgia, protests led to the resignation of President Eduard Shevardnadze, who had been installed by a military junta.  Likewise, in Sudan, it toppled a president installed after a military coup.  The 3.5% action in Algeria came after a civil war that killed 3 million people.  And in the Philippines, the protests toppled the government of dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who had declared martial law and suspended the constitution to stay in power.

Simply put, the 3.5% principle has never worked to topple a government installed after a free and fair election.  This is so because, places where free and fair elections are held don’t need revolutions to change the government.  You just go vote.

But this glaring flaw in the No Kings argument isn’t the sad part.  What is sad is that the dolts marching in the streets for this No Kings nonsense actually do believe that the Trump Administration is no different than a military dictatorship.

Here’s what it looked like –

I love that last one.  Fear of the law must be why he covered his face.

No Kings partners include a veritable Who’s Who of loony Leftist groups.  There are the usual suspects.  The ACLU;
Common Cause “Immigration enforcement is not law and order, it’s tyranny;” Bernie Sanders and his Political Revolution PAC; 50-50-1 also connected to Bernie, which  Newsweek calls “mostly peaceful;” Families Over Billionaires, which opposes tax cuts.  (Ironically it’s funded by Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss); Greenpeace; MayDayStrong, which supports  “workers over billionaires,” and is pro immigrant (cheap labor for Bernie’s oligarchs); Move On.org (Soros); Planned Parenthood;  350 Action (extremist climate change); and Don’t Frack Your Mother (an anti oil group).

Then there were the labor unions.  the AFT; American Federation of Government Employees (opposes government layoffs); Alliance to Reclaim our Schools (wants to spend more money on a failed educational system); CWA; Postal Workers Union (stamps are going to .78 next month); Care in Action Domestic Workers Union (promotes election of women of color, but not Winsome Sears); and SEIU.

According to the No Kings 3.5% principle, 3.5% of the population can change the government.  In the U.S., that would mean about 1.2 million people in the streets every day.  But not in all 50 States.  Texas and Florida, with 56 million people, or 16.2% of our population, aren’t playing this game.  In Florida, Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey eloquently summed up the situation, telling protestors to “protest all you want, but don’t use violence.”

“I’m gonna break it down for you, alright, and if somebody wants to know what I mean by turn violent.  This is what I mean.  If you resist lawful orders, you’re going to jail.  Let me be very clear about that.  If you block an intersection or a roadway in Brevard County, you are going to jail.  If you flee arrest, you’re gonna go to jail tired because we are going to run you down and put you in jail.  If you try to mob rule a car in Brevard County, gathering around it, refusing to let the driver leave in our county, you’re gonna get run over and dragged across the street.

If you spit on us, you are going to the hospital and then to jail. If you hit one of us, you’re going to the hospital and jail and likely will get bitten by one of our big, beautiful dogs we have here.  If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at.  Because we will kill you, graveyard dead.  We’re not going to play.”

So I guess Texas and Florida don’t count in the 3.5% equation.  In the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter anyway.  1.2 million, or 5 million, or 20 million people protesting the government won’t change the fact that Trump was elected with 77 million votes in a free and fair election.  The government won’t be changed until or unless the Democrats start wining elections again.  And that’s not going to happen if they keep supporting issues that 60 to 90% of the public oppose.

The Dems can stage all the Days of Defiance they want.  If they’re like this last one, they’re just digging their hole deeper.  Picture the contrast.  While the Leftist nuts were marching up and down chanting “No kings.  No crowns,” to combat imaginary government overreach, Trump was presiding over the U.S. Army’s 250th celebration, with a pageant of flyovers, parachutists, and soldiers in period uniforms, telling the true story of the fighting men and women who banished real Kings and crowns from America, and who have kept us free.

Did the Left learn anything from last week’s events?  Likely not.  When viewed through the distorted lens of the Left wing, the contributions of the Army don’t matter.  They marched against Kings and we have no King in America.  Hurray!  We won!  The inconvenient facts are irrelevant.

When asked if he thought he was a King, Donald Trump had the perfect reply.  “I don’t feel like a king.  I have to go through hell to get stuff approved, if I was a King, I wouldn’t be in court all the time.”

So to the motley crew of mindless No Kings marchers, I say, “No Kings?  No shit!