Why Vote Tuesday by Larry Fedewa

The USA is facing again a mid-term election on Tuesday. This is being called the most important mid-term election in our lifetime. Why is it important?
This mid-term is important because it may be our last effort to save our Congress’ role in our government. The Congress is the second of our three branches of government. With the Executive Branch and the Judiciary, the Congress was designed to be a vital player in the checks and balances by which our republic is governed. The most important role of the Congress is to limit the ability of either of the other branches to institute laws or regulations which unduly limit the freedoms of the people. Every single Congressman and Senator is elected personally by the people.
This is not exactly the case of the other two branches. It is true that the President and Vice President are elected, but the rest of the vast bureaucracy which they oversee is not elected and is in fact too large and diverse for any two-person team to supervise. The Judiciary consists of Judges who have been appointed by the President with, in some cases, the consent of the Senate. Thus, the Congress is closest to the people.
Another effect of legislative paralysis is the rise of the third branch of government, the Judiciary. We have already seen recent examples of a single, obscure federal judge issuing edicts which curtail the executive power of the President. Or, a nationally enforced injunction by a federal appeals court restricting law enforcement of the United States. Even if these foolish opinions are eventually reversed by the Supreme Court (which thus has more power than ever), they have led to various tragic consequences in the meantime, as we have seen in the immigration crisis.
So, the efforts of the President to “nationalize” the current mid-term elections is extremely pertinent to the health, even the survival, of our republic. The Congress is the PEOPLE’S GUARDIAN of our freedom and our representative government. It must remain viable and aggressive in the ongoing, everlasting struggle of our people to remain free.
The standard to which all elected officials are to be held was stated in the Declaration of Independence many years ago. This is the pledge which the Congress is sworn to protect:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That is why we all need to vote, and vote thoughtfully, on Tuesday.
So, why the concern about the effectiveness of the Congress?
The reason is that the USA has had divided government for ten of the last eighteen years. Divided government – when the President and only one or neither House of Congress is of the same party – used to work most of the time. It certainly came apart in 1860 and led to a Civil War. But for most of the 20th century the nation survived the periods of divided government without serious consequences.
But those days are over.
During the past decade, the differences between the two major parties have grown so sharp in rhetoric and views of the role of government that we are faced with the inability of the Congress to pass important and needed legislation. In order to pass legislation in our system, both Houses of Congress as well as the President have to vote in favor.
But the traditional limitations which the Senate has imposed upon itself for specific situations, (e.g. sometimes a 60-vote majority is needed to halt a filibuster), it has traditionally taken 60 votes to assert complete control over legislation (called a “super majority”). The last two times one party held a super majority were 1977-1979 and 2009-2011 – both were held by Democrats.
The constraints on the Senate requiring a super (filibuster-proof) majority are gradually being reversed as the super majority becomes ever rarer (three times since WWII). These rules were originally adopted to enforce compromises on important issues. Recently, however, compromises have become rarer than super majorities, so the rules have to change or all activity – including the actual operation of the government itself – as has happened twice recently (i.e. 2013 and 2018).What has now become a fact of life is the power of one House of Congress – or the President himself – to bring the entire government to a halt.
In addition, party discipline has now enforced straight party line votes on selected issues. In previous eras, it was always possible for each member to act independently. No longer. These days, every member is expected to follow directions from the Leader or suffer severe consequences, including committee assignments and campaign funding.
That leaves two alternatives – either the nation must elect a government unified by one party holding both houses of Congress, including a super majority of the Senate, as well as the Presidency, or the Congress will in effect cease to govern except in extreme emergencies, such as an attack on the homeland or an economic collapse, both of which have occurred in recent years.
There are other dangerous effects of legislative paralysis as well. First is the gradual ascendance to greater and greater power of the federal bureaucracy. It will continue to function and to fill any vacuum left by an absent second branch of government. We have seen how the IRS and the Justice Department/intelligence agencies have attempted to impose the will of a few high-ranking officials on the selection and effectiveness of the duly elected President of the United States. This usurpation must be halted by aggressive oversight of the Congress.
(Larry Fedewa is the host of Dr. Larry Show, all rights belong to Larry Fedewa)

End is not Near by Tom Donelson

ultimate resource

In 1980, I had a debate with a fellow conservative who was 15 years older than about the future. He was pessimist and I mention to him “I am optimist because I have a child and I will fight for policy to ensure her future.”  In 1980, the Soviet Empire was on the march, we were suffering from double digit inflation, the Western civilization itself look like it was tottering toward the abyss.  We were told that our resources were running out and there were too many people on this planet.  It is not much different than today in which our culture appeared to be crumbling, our planet is warming and we are doomed to a overpopulated, over heated planet and our resources running out.

Today, my children are adults but still I am amazed how some of the right and many on the left are pessimist about the future.  In 1970’s, the threat was pollution, a new ice age approaching, over population and running out of resources.  Yet, today we are living better than ever.  More people in the world are escaping poverty, and overall standard of living has improved.

When I bring up these facts, I am amazed how many people simply don’t believe that this is the case.  Recently on twitter, I had some guy say I was wrong and where was the data to show this, so I began with four recent sources and told him I could easily flood with him with many more.  I doubt that this will make him happy as he certainly will find some pessimist who will be happy to share some data to prove himself right that the world will end soon but the evidence is in front of us

Over the last fifty years, I have read enough predictions, none of which came through. The book, “The Population Bomb” painted a dismal picture of the future but our population has doubled and the world is now feeding more people better than ever before.  The human mind proved to be the ultimate resource, as the late Julian Simon demonstrated in his book by the same name.  The 1972 club of Rome report stated that overpopulation will lead to depletion of resources.  It didn’t happen as resources seem to be proving more plentiful than before with more than double the population.  In the 1970’s, a new Ice Age was upon us, it didn’t happen and now global warming will kill us but for the past three decades, we have been told repeatedly that we have ten years left but then when decade comes and the world has not ended, we are then told ten more years are left before the end of humanity.  The number of failed predictions and new theories on the world end keeps coming and crashing.  Eventually I guess a astroid will hit this planet and the pessimist will prove to be right.  If you keep predicting the end of the world, eventually it will come but in the meantime,  our world keeps improving.

There is much left to accomplish but we have been cursed with a political class and elite that seems to want to believe the end is near and today, it is climate change that will kill us even though for million of years, we have seen climate change on our planet. It is a given fact that climate change, weather changes but what allows us to survive is our ultimate resource, the human mind.

To the guy I had twitter discussion, I concluded to him, “For the past fifty years, I have heard the end of the world is coming and yet it never does, so if you want to wallow in your pessimism, fine. Wallow in it.”  The poor fellow simply doesn’t comprehend that the very policy he wants enacted will only make his children future bleaker.  For me, I look to a better world and I go back to what I told my conservative friend in 1980, I am optimist because I have a child and I will fight for policy to ensure her future.”  My children are now adults and I still have life left to finish and I be damned if I allow the pessimist to destroy the future for my children and others.  The end is not near.

Jacobs Prevail by Tom Donelson

Danny Jacobs edge past former sparring mate and undefeated Sergiy Derevyanchenko for the IBF Middleweight title.  He won by a split decision as two judges had him winning 115-112 while Julie Lederman had Derevyanchenko winning 114-113, disagreeing with her father who had Jacobs winning by a wider margin that the judges. I had 116-111.


Both fighters knew each other after sparring over 300 rounds and while Derevyanchenko came in with a 12-0 record but he also had 20 plus fights in the World Series of Boxing that did not count in his professional record.  Derevyanchenko was noted for the being an aggressive fighter but over the first half of the fight, Derevyanchenko showed restraint in his attack and with good reason. Throughout the bout, Jacobs launched vicious body shot and it didn’t help Derevyanchenko that he went down on a flash knockdown on a Jacobs’clubbing right hand near the end of the first bout.  Derevyanchenko did manage a combination in the second round that shook Jacobs up but from that point, Jacobs showed overall better skills and ring generalship as he moved and gave himself angles to hit Derevyanchenko.  Derevyanchenko fought a competitive fight and many pundits had the fight closer than I had.  Each round was competitive including the first round until Derevyanchenko hit the canvas at the end of the round.

Danny Jacobs escaped from being trapped on the rope while keeping much of the bout in the center of the ring.  Derevyanchenko did not match Jacobs hand speed and nor did he cut off the ring as well as he could but then Jacobs mobility has much to do with that.

There were moments that Derevyanchenko got the better including a solid left hand and right hand combination in the tenth round and he took the final round but it was too little too late, at least on my card.  While Harold Lederman had this fight in favor of Jacobs, other of the HBO team including Roy Jones and Max Kellerman warned the audience that while Harold had it easily in Jacobs favor, the judges would have it closer. They did and Harold own daughter disagree with her father on who won.  Now Jacobs want Alvarez to unify the title.

HBO is now leaving the fight game and by the end of the year, there will be no HBO covering boxing.  For years, Showtime has surpassed HBO and other just as ESPN and Fox sports covered the sport.  HBO was the king of boxing coverage for over four decades and if there was a big fight, HBO had it.  Over 1100 fights were seen on HBO since 1973 but over the past few years, Top Rank and Premier boxing took their business elsewhere and many of the bigger stars moved to Showtime, leaving HBO with very few big fights.  Over the years some of the greatest performed on HBO including Lennox Lewis, Roy Jones, Oscar De La Hoya, Sugar Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns.  The last big stars left on HBO was Saul Alvarez and Gennady Golovkin, who will now be free agents.

For me, a decisive shift from HBO to Showtime was the Showtime Super Middleweight tournament and over a period of three years, Showtime had some of the best fighters in the 168 pound fighting each other and it was here that Andre Ward became a star as he won the tournament and became the king of the division.   HBO is no longer part of boxing but boxing may benefit from this as there are other who are willing to broadcast more matches.  My own bias is that covering Showtime boxing was more fun and their announcers were more accessible.  I remember covering a SHOBOX and I had the chance to interview the late Nick Charles and Steve Farhood, and found them both not just knowledgeable about the sport but down to earth.  I will miss Harold Lederman who often explained the nuance of scoring and hope he lands somewhere.  Jim Lampley is staying with HBO, so his career as play by play announcer is over but Max Kellerman may end up back at ESPN.   Boxing will survive and with Showtime, they have will a network that will promote the sport that HBO failed

Aren’t You Embarrassed? By Loredana Gasparotto

Recently for the very first time, I was harassed on Facebook. I ended up blocking that person. Later on, the same person managed to bother me again through two additional FB accounts, which I promptly deleted her from. I wonder why this person didn’t contact me through direct message instead of addressing her issues with me publicly.  Why didn’t she do that? If this was such a personal concern? Why involving strangers in a conversation they knew nothing about? What was her final goal? Was it to resolve and clarify the problem or just to complain and gain sympathy from others?


As a result of this event, I asked myself  “what prompt some people to splatter their personal problems or intimate secrets on social media or public platforms? Their issues range from being bothered by their boss, from sharing the name of their medications or any personal matters.


I began to research. I googled the topic, and I reflected on the personalities of the people I know that overshare on FB.  I found out that most of these people usually flag chronic anger,  resentment issues, and profound loneliness.  But what is more interesting is that they are not “dumb.” These characters are usually well educated and intelligent, but somehow they are incapable of self-analysis and introspection. They seem to fail to recognize that their stance toward others is the cause of their own troubles. Maybe it’s a question of humility. It’s difficult to admit that we are the cause of our misfortunes and it’s always more convenient to point the finger at the “others” who are insensitive, rude and selfish.


The Huffington Post states that the problem is originated in deep insecurity and need for attention. Probably true. But I personally believe is rooted in this lack of introspection and humility that develops into envy, self-pity, and inaction. And it is insane how far these people would go to seek revenge. All energies that could be spent in taking action to better their own lives. But maybe being pitied by others is more satisfying and easier to achieve than persevering toward a goal without complaining.


When I read or listen to the stuff these individuals post or speak about, I think “aren’t you embarrassed?” “Is the risk of being laughed at not enough to prevent you from revealing personal and embarrassing material?”


Like Sebastian Maniscalco says ” It’s the internet. The internet is bringing out people we didn’t even know existed. Thirty years ago these people wouldn’t even leave the house. They would be in the basement talking to themselves. But now with the internet, they have an outlet in the world. And where are people getting the time to do half of the stuff they do online? Writing reviews on restaurants they go to? You’ve got nothing going on in your life?  Arent’ you embarrassed?” Amen

Is There a Trump Master Plan to Eliminate the National Debt by Larry Fedewa

by Dr. Larry Fedewa (September 29, 2018)

The Threat

The greatest threat to the long-term security of the United States of America is the $21 trillion (and growing) national debt. There are many possible outcomes of an uncontrolled national debt – none of them good.

Gradual outcomes have already begun in the form of efforts to undermine the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The chief force behind this move is China, with serious support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which, with the support of the Obama administration, invented its Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s) as an alternative to the dollar for international trade. 

Further, the new international development bank called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), an economic coalition representing 41% of the world’s population and 23% of the global Gross National Product (GDP), has pledged to fund a one trillion-dollar development bank to rival the World Bank and the IMF. The rapidly increasing preferred currency of BRICS is the Chinese yuan. BRICS started as an economic coalition for mutual support but has already begun to branch out into nuclear security and similar fields of cooperation.

Some commentators, such as James Rickards, see this and similar efforts as genuine threats to the stability of the dollar. As long as the huge debt keeps growing and the proportion of the world gold supply held by the USA keeps dwindling, the USA stands to continue watching confidence in the dollar decrease apace. That path eventually leads the USA toward becoming a giant Greece or post-WWI Germany.

Another threat to the US currency is the rumor that twelve “blue” states, led by California, are set to begin circulating dollars backed by state banks (rather than the US Treasury) as legal tender to undercut federal control of the US economy, reverting to pre-Federal Reserve (1912) US practice. If true, this could have catastrophic consequences for USA solvency, perhaps the end of “King Dollar”.

Conservative Support for Donald Trump

One of the first reasons many conservatives supported Donald Trump for President was their expectation that the national debt was one of his main targets in making America great again. So far, there has been no movement in that direction other than his bargaining a lower price for the Jerusalem embassy and some similar economies. So, the question is, Does Mr. Trump have a long-term strategy for eliminating the national debt? Budget hawk Paul Ryan’s leaving his power position as Speaker of the House does not look like a good sign.

The Trump Strategy

There is a school of thought that maintains the following logic:

  • in order to have a chance at reducing federal spending, the USA has to have a thriving economy, because experience shows that a country cannot spend its way out of recession. The Obama administration tried that and contributed to the longest recession in history.
  • But neither can a country starve its way out of recession, because the population will not stand for it.
  • Therefore, the only time spending reductions can be made successfully is when the economy is booming. This was known even in biblical times, as in the story of Joseph and Egypt’s seven years of plenty followed by seven lean years.
  • It is also necessary in these times of international challenges to maintain the USA’s military preeminence in order to guard the peace. Starving the American military as the Obama administration did would work only in a world without enemies as imagined by Obama’s idealists.
  • A strong military and a strong economy are also necessary conditions for prevailing in a contest of wills over radical re-alignment of trading relationships.
  • In order to prepare the country for federal cost-cutting, therefore, these preparations are necessary.
  • Conclusion: We are still in the first stage of the Trump national strategy,
  • The next step will be a debt reduction phase.


The Cost Cutting Phase

It is clear that the key to reducing the national debt as well as securing the dollar is the so-called entitlements. We have already heard President Trump’s most basic approach to this issue. Namely, he has promised not to rescind the Government promises to those who have contributed all their working lives to Social Security. Speaker Ryan’s formula for dealing with this issue recognizes the Government’s moral obligation to honor its role as custodian of the contributors’ funds, but also saves significant money by gradually adjusting the timing: raising the eligibility age from 62 to a later date (which corresponds to changes in the workforce which have already occurred). There are also other minimally painful adjustments available in areas of other federal and state pension programs, such as, civilian, military and railroad employees. Another area of saving has already begun with the reduction regulations and the corresponding need for enforcement personnel. The key is not really the actual metrics; at this stage the keys are the will to do it and the adequacy of the  targets.


I cannot leave this topic without noting another possible advantage that may be emerging in defense of the dollar. That is the steady increase in America’s energy production. In the past, America’s major attractions to the rest of the world have been our nuclear shield and our huge retail markets. Our chief exports have been technology and the corresponding jobs it created.

The energy revolution adds a major new dimension to our export menu. With the investment and legal facilitation of more sources and more refineries, America can emerge from its status as a buyer of energy to a world exporter of energy. The transition holds enormous leverage for America’s international position in reversing the balance of international trade, reversing the outflow of petrodollars, enhancing our defense of Europe, and ultimately raising our cost of living. This monumental change in America’s international position might even influence the longevity of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency – replacing gold as guarantor.

Let’s hope President Trump is on the same wave length!

Larry Fedewa is the host of the Dr. Larry Show.

© 2017, Richfield Press. All rights reserved.

The Khashoggi Matter by Larry Fedewa

 Was he really one of the “bad guys”?
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (October 21, 2018)
British Journalist Melanie Phillips provides a different narrative of the final hours of Jamal Khashoggi in her Jewish News Service column (October 18, 2018).
Far from being the liberal Washington Post opponent of revisionist Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (called MBS for short) because MBS’ reforms are too little too late, Phillips asserts that he was in reality a double agent with ties to both the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi intelligence service. Of late, he had been straying off the beaten path by connecting with the Turkey/Qatar faction which opposes the Saudi/US/ Israel triad for leadership of Sunni Islam.
In fact, he visited the Saudi embassy on that fateful day to secure Saudi government permission to marry his Turkish fiancé, who is a Turkish diplomat and daughter of a former advisor to Turkish President Erdogan.
As a Saudi intelligence asset for twenty years, Phillips reports, Khashoggi possessed a wealth of secret information which it now appeared was available to the opposition. Not only did the Saudis not want to kill him, she says, they wanted him alive and talking, preferably in a Riyadh jail. That is why they sent a large “extraction team” rather than a lone assassin.
Apparently, what happened was an accident caused by his attempt to fight his way out of the trap. He was 60 years old and overweight with a heart condition. The whereabouts of the body is unknown as of this writing, but that fact has the earmark of a panicked reaction on the part of the team.
If this account is closer to the truth than the Turks’ account which has been leaked to the international press and which was the account first made public, then the American response will be different than assumed to date. In the first place, the victim is not the Washington Post hero we have been led to believe. Jamal Khashoggi may have been one of the “bad guys”. Secondly, the Saudis did not murder him; he died in a fight against his arrest by his government. Thirdly, while MBS probably was aware of the plan to arrest and transport the traitor, he is not responsible for Khashoggi’s death.
If this whole thing was an accident, then why the mass firings and suspensions of the team members and their leaders? That is a good question. The proper answer will become more obvious when we hear the punishment the King will determine. If there was an intentional murder, the punishment would likely be arrest and trial. If accidental death, the punishment for poor judgement, incompetent performance and inadequate planning would be substantially less, one would expect.
Unfortunately, the Saudi accounts of the incident have shifted from “he left the embassy alive” to “he was accidently killed in a fight” to “we haven’t found the corpse” – all of which have undermined the credibility of anything they will have to say. The assumption is that they are desperately trying to exonerate MBS. Calls from American observers for replacement of MBS by the King are growing.
In the final analysis, the American response must be proportionate to the facts (as we perceived them to be). The underlying considerations are two: 1) Saudi Arabia is a sovereign country with traditions and values far different than our own in matters of human rights and laws; and 2) the Kingdom is a vital ally in our contest with the Shiite Arabs, led by Iran and including Syria and Palestine.
The long-standing alliance between our two countries has recently been expanded with the commitments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the other Sunni Muslim countries to support not only US policies against terrorists, but also US support of Israel against the Palestinians.
These considerations must be protected in any American response to the Khashoggi matter. Our own interests must be placed ahead of calls of outrage because our government’s first priority is the protection of our own country. Not to mention the fact that America’s murder of another Saudi citizen named Osama Bin Laden was undertaken and applauded with nearly universal American support. While the context was different, the operation was executed with strikingly similar characteristics to that imputed to the Saudis by the Turks. The point being that America, like all other nations, tends to take extreme measures to advance its security.
America’s goal in the Middle East is a lasting peace – so that our own troops and bases can leave. at cannot happen unless there is a solution to the 1000-year old war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. The Trump administration has picked the Sunnis over the Obama choice of the Shiites – for better or worse.
When deciding the official response to the Khashoggi matter, it will be worthwhile to recall the picture of the American President addressing a roomful of Muslim heads- of- state for the first time in history during President Trump’s 2017 conference in Riyadh.
Larry Fedewa is the host of Dr. Larry Show.
© Richfield Press, 2018. All rights reserved.

Powerlineblog.com By Tom Donelson

Founded in 2002, Powerlineblog has consistently been one of the best conservative blogs and gained recognition for its role in covering Killian documents story related to George W. Bush service in Texas National Guard services which ended Dan Rather role with CBS as much of the data presented by CBS. Uncovered proved to be false.  Time Magazine named Powerline Blog

IMG_9929-e1442700557818Scott Johnson

The original writers were Minnesota lawyers, Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker plus Paul Mirengoff, Washington DC lawyer. Mirengoff left in 2011 and replaced by Steven Hayward but a year later, Mirengoff rejoined the staff to complete the present writer staff.

steven_hayward Steve Hayward

What makes Powerlineblog interesting is its sharp writing and the writers’ ability to write on a variety of issues. Pieces on climate change are some of the best journalism on the subject as they review the latest research and unlike a good portion of the MSM journalists writing on the subject, these gentlemen actually read the science and understand it.

height.182.no_border.width.320 Paul Mirengoff

Scott Johnson has been the first to warn America of the danger poised by Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison and detailed much of his early career that Minnesota media as well as much of the National media has ignored like his position on law enforcement, his support for open borders on immigration, his real relationship with Louis Farrakhan and reviewing charges against Ellison of sexual abuse.

Scott Johnson and former law partner John Hinderaker written on other issues including dealing with income inequality, tax reforms, affirmative action and welfare reform and both fellows of Claremont Institute. John Hinderaker is presently the President of Center for American Experiment.

johnh John Hinderaker

Steven Hayward is a scholar with a long lists of accomplishments including two excellent books on Reagan and Paul Mirengoff, like the others, often writes about a variety of subject and some of their best writings deals with sports including international soccer and historical sports moment featuring great moments in baseball.  They have occasion even written on boxing and it is evident that they understand the sport.

What Powerlineblog is not is boring and worth a daily viewing by any conservative.  And throughout the 2016 election, they took Trump serious as a candidate and unlike many conservatives, they didn’t automatically went Never Trumpers during the 2016 primary and while they may not always like the tone of Trump, they have defended his policies.

The most fun is the week in pictures in which Powerlineblog uses picture with memes to mocked the latest left craziness and always include a picture defending the second amendment.   Powerlineblog needs to be read by any concern conservatives.



Why I Love National Review by Tom Donelson

There are many great political journals and journalists on the right worth reading on a daily basis.  National Review and its online version NRO are my favorites and I have a few friends’ works there including senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru and John Fund.


Many Trump supporters view National Review with suspicion and that began with their December 2015 issue making the case against Trump.  Let put this in perspective. In December 2015, there were serious question about Trump, not the least that it wasn’t that earlier that Trump was a registered Democrat and funded a few Democrat campaigns.  In 2012, Trump was to the left of the “Gang of Eight” that attempted immigration reform in 2013 while National Review opposed the Gang of Eight.   Nor did he run like a typical conservative during the 2016 primary and he attacked much of the foreign policy of the Bush years.

There are many Trump supporters today who agreed with National Review in 2015 and at least one major populist/conservative pundit who write for The Gateway Pundit , Cassandra Fairbanks was a Bernie Sanders supporter.  I was a never Trumper in the primary before becoming a Never Hillary in the general election.  Back to National Review and while many on staff were Never Trumpers like David French and Jonah Goldberg, others like Conrad Black and Victor Davis Hanson defended Trump and made the case for his Presidency.


In one of the 2016 February issues, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru outline an agenda combining Trump populism and conservatism, an agenda that Trump has followed for the most part.  Trump policies dealing with immigration reform, tax reform, regulation reforms, and Supreme Court Picks resembled what National Review recommended as a course of action.

Even today, the Never Trumpers on the National Review staff support much of the Trump agenda nor have they called for Republican defeat in the midterms like Washington Never trumpers like Tom Nichols have called for.  And there are plenty of staff members who have supported Trump as they did in 2016 election. What National Review provides is an intellectual basis for the populist movement and anchoring it to conservatism.  Reagan provided a gateway to populism and conservatism in the 1970’s and 80’s, showing how a synergy between conservatism and populism can work.  So far, Trump has shown populism and conservatism can be merged.   Since 1955, National Review has helped defined and defend conservatism.


The first in a series on Conservative journals and website.

Poetry from Shell McClendon

(Poetry from Shell McClendon, you may recognize her as ZanneQuinn, her pen name)

shall come soon

the wind chimes wild

will sound with heavy their haunting bells

and I will wait by the window

peering through the frosted glass

for the pink blush of sky

sure sign of winter’s first snow

& I will dance in the falling

remembering the ghost of you