As we watch the Kafkaesque proceedings unfold in Democrat Adam Schiff’s hearing room just remember, when and where Democrats are in charge it is not just Donald Trump who is subject to secret proceedings and secret witnesses, you too can and will be stripped of your rights and barred from defending yourself if Democrats decide they don’t like you.

We urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Representative and Senators (the toll-free Capitol Switchboard is 1-866-220-0044), tell your Representative and Senators that you will no longer countenance trillion-dollar deficits and that your vote in the 2020 election depends on their vote against more spending and for fiscal responsibility.

The media is excited about the prospect of a Michael Bloomberg “white knight” presidential candidacy, but no one else -- including Democrats -- is. The former NYC mayor is too old, too rich and too out-of-touch to be taken seriously in the big picture. If Bloomberg tries it, it’ll only result in one more reputation ruined by national politics.

We think the only way that this outrage against constitutional government is going to end is if Democrats are made to understand that they are going to pay at the ballot box for trying to overturn the 2016 election, and our friends at the Club for Growth have stepped up to start to make that happen.

Senator Bernie Sanders said a mandatory gun buyback is essentially confiscation, which he says is unconstitutional. However, lest you be fooled into thinking that the old Socialist warhorse has suddenly revealed a newfound affection for private property you’d be wrong, because, while Sen. Sanders may be opposed to confiscation of your firearms, he still wants your money.

By no stretch of the imagination is Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren anything like President Donald Trump. Democrats could only hope their presidential choice would engender the types of political qualities and talents Trump possesses. The harder they search the more they realize it’s a monumental task.

CHQ Exclusives

As we watch the Kafkaesque proceedings unfold in Democrat Adam Schiff’s hearing room just remember, when and where Democrats are in charge it is not just Donald Trump who is subject to secret proceedings and secret witnesses, you too can and will be stripped of your rights and barred from defending yourself if Democrats decide they don’t like you.

We urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Representative and Senators (the toll-free Capitol Switchboard is 1-866-220-0044), tell your Representative and Senators that you will no longer countenance trillion-dollar deficits and that your vote in the 2020 election depends on their vote against more spending and for fiscal responsibility.

The media is excited about the prospect of a Michael Bloomberg “white knight” presidential candidacy, but no one else -- including Democrats -- is. The former NYC mayor is too old, too rich and too out-of-touch to be taken seriously in the big picture. If Bloomberg tries it, it’ll only result in one more reputation ruined by national politics.

We think the only way that this outrage against constitutional government is going to end is if Democrats are made to understand that they are going to pay at the ballot box for trying to overturn the 2016 election, and our friends at the Club for Growth have stepped up to start to make that happen.

Senator Bernie Sanders said a mandatory gun buyback is essentially confiscation, which he says is unconstitutional. However, lest you be fooled into thinking that the old Socialist warhorse has suddenly revealed a newfound affection for private property you’d be wrong, because, while Sen. Sanders may be opposed to confiscation of your firearms, he still wants your money.

By no stretch of the imagination is Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren anything like President Donald Trump. Democrats could only hope their presidential choice would engender the types of political qualities and talents Trump possesses. The harder they search the more they realize it’s a monumental task.

By Richard A Viguerie, CHQ Chairman
The news that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has decided “his” platform will not accept political advertising for the 2020 election cycle may be the final signal to conservatives that the internet is no longer a space where liberty reigns supreme, but there is one media that the Left doesn't control and can't censor.

The Democrats’ show trial of President Trump begins tomorrow (Wednesday, November 13, 2019) with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Democrat Representative Adam Schiff playing the role of Roland Freisler, the raving Nazi judge in whose court your trial had a 90% chance of ending in either life imprisonment or death.

Democrats haven’t been honest with the American public and they’ve especially misled the people who put them in power in 2018 to unclog the legislative logjam of recent times. Instead of working with Trump and Republicans to pass positive laws, they’ve obstructed and obfuscated at every turn. It will catch up with them… but when?

This year as we recognize our veterans on Veterans Day let us take a look back at the original purposes Americans had in establishing a day commemorating veterans and remind ourselves that it was not war, but its cost, that was being commemorated, and that just maybe President Trump had it right when he said: “Great nations do not fight endless wars.”

A successful businesswoman and mother of a five-year-old Pennsylvania boy is just one of the many Christians to be wrongfully imprisoned in the Middle East. Marsha Lazareva spent 474 days in a Kuwait prison, accused of crimes she did not commit before her conviction was overturned. Now she needs your help to return to America with her son.

Like the old saying suggests, bad news does travel fast. By now, Democrats must’ve received word that President Trump is more than competitive with them in many of the states they’d need to win next year. Trump will be on offense, Democrats on defense. Which candidate will hold the line?

Front Page Headlines

  • R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., The American Spectator

    Who is it that the Democrats are going to focus on? In 2020, what voting group will form the most stable, reliable bloc for them? I think they will go with the core voters they have gone with year in and year out for the last 20 years. They won the election for them in 2008 and again in 2012. They will go for the voters whom I have been calling for years the Moron Vote: that is to say, the voters who believe things that are clearly unbelievable to normal citizens. In fact, I would say they believe in things that more and more Americans believe are clearly preposterous. I believe the Democrats are going to lose in 2020. There just are not enough Morons out there.

  • Michael Van Der Galien, PJ Media

    On his extremely popular radio talk show, Mark Levin lashed out at Ann Coulter, The Drudge Report, Anthony Scaramucci, Democrats, and the mainstream media for their relentless war on President Trump and now their collective call for his impeachment. Just in case those "sellouts" think they can get back in conservatives' good graces after a while, Levin warned them. "We have long memories here, don't we, Levinites? Long memories." Coulter, Scaramucci, Drudge and all the others who became "rich and famous" for being professional conservatives, are wise to pay attention. If they think they can turn against Trump now and get away with it, they're sorely mistaken.

  • Byron York, Washington Examiner

    Bloomberg’s move is a symptom of Democratic anxiety. We’ve seen it before, in both parties. At the beginning of a primary season, with a big field of candidates starting the race, the party faithful say, “Isn’t this great? We have so many good candidates — almost an embarrassment of riches!” Then, after several months of campaigning, they say, “Can’t somebody enter this race and save us?” The answer is no. The Democratic field is what it is. One of the candidates in the race right now will win the nomination, go on to face Trump, and have a chance to become the next president. There’s no savior waiting to rescue Democrats, and that includes Michael Bloomberg.

  • Rich Lowry, National Review

    Once we are talking about an improper use of lawful powers, then things are less lurid and more complicated than a mafia-land crime. And once you factor in that the Ukrainians ultimately got their funding without investigating anyone or announcing an investigation into anyone, the picture is even less clear. Impeachment and removal of a president requires a national consensus to get the two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate. This is why the Democrats need more than wrong and troubling and worthy of congressional investigation, a standard they’ve amply met; they need shocking to the conscience, which they aren’t going to meet on anything like the current universe of facts.

  • Joseph Curl, Washington Times

    Gallup released a poll last week that showed just 66% of Democrats said they’re enthusiastic about the upcoming election. For the Republicans, the number is 65%. Here’s what that means: Voters in the party not currently in the White House are usually far more enthusiastic than the incumbent’s supporters. “History would suggest that Democrats would be more keyed up to vote than Republicans, but that isn’t the case,” Gallup said. Mr. Biden. Ms. Warren. Mr. Sanders. Mr. Bloomberg. Mrs. Clinton. That’s who the Democrats have this time around. The collective age of that pathetic lineup is 366 years old, an average of more than 73. Not exactly the “new blood” the party promised.

  • Ben Weingarten, The Federalist

    If the media admitted to being the Democratic Party’s communications arm, would it act any differently? The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the motives of every person involved in this impeachment process — particularly when it stems from someone’s opinion of what Trump believed in his own mind, reflected in a complaint based on hearsay, from a Biden-tied Russiagate player who was reportedly thrown out of the Trump NSC for suspected leaking, regarding a single phone call alleging a quid pro quo that never materialized and that would have never qualified as a high crime and misdemeanor had it ever been executed.

  • Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

    Sanders’ proposal is a surrender to the reality that a leftist regime lacks the conviction or will to stop an endless stream of people from migrating here. Americans troubled over what is happening on the Syrian-Turkish border, or Ukrainian-Crimean border, might take a closer look at what will happen at our own border, and to our own country, if Democrats win the presidency and throw open the doors to unrestricted immigration. Politically, so massive a migration of peoples who, once they become citizens, vote 70%-90% Democratic means an end of the GOP as a truly national party. If we open the borders, how do we stop the drugs from coming in? How do we stop the cartels?

  • Victor Davis Hanson, American Greatness

    The furor that Trump has incurred, and the radical antithesis to his agenda and first term, have redefined the looming election. It is becoming a stark choice between a revolutionary future versus American traditionalism. The personality quirks of a Trump or an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders will become mostly irrelevant given the existential choice between two quite antithetical ideas of future America. In 2020 we will witness the penultimate manifestation of what radical progressivism has in store for us all—and the furious, often desperate, and unfettered pushback against it. The choice between the two sides in the 2020 election is that simple.

  • William Murchison, The American Spectator

    The task the Democrats have assigned themselves well-nigh impossible. So what’s the point? What’s the good to be achieved? And if no conspicuous good is to be achieved, why are we doing this? What are we trying to do here? Is this show worth the candle, when the House, whether joined by the Senate or not, could simply vote to censure the president’s Ukrainian foray? Impeachment is a proceeding so disproportionate to the imputed offense that these little congressional Ahabs, bearing down in a little boat upon the great orange whale, bring to mind an ancient observation: Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make just a little bit screwy, don’t you know?

  • Kurt Schlichter, Townhall

    Bloomberg is the kind of pursed-lipped, uptight scold the Normals are saluting with a single digit. You get the distinct impression that he spends a lot of his time being very, very upset that we are choosing to live our lives without his approval, and that it grates on him. Electing him president would be like electing your kindergarten teacher POTUS, if your kindergarten teacher was tiny, 77, and jetted away for every weekend to Bermuda in her Gulfstream after lecturing you on how you can’t have chocolate because of global warming. His ego trip is going to cause amazing, glorious disruption within the Democratic race and help Donald Trump immeasurably.

  • Charles Hurt, Washington Times

    The only intelligent thing about Mr. Bloomberg running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency is what it says about the present crop of Democrats running for the nomination. They’re a hopeless bunch of losers who would rather destroy America than lose another election to President Trump. And the only reason his candidacy is being pushed at the moment is that supposed Democrat “front-runner” Joseph R. Biden has defecated in his own bed and his son has wound up being perhaps the only criminal actor in the Democrats’ whole Ukraine impeachment crusade. Please, can you imagine Little Michael Bloomberg filling an arena in Milwaukee with thousands and thousands of screaming fans?

  • Walter E. Williams, CNS News

    A recent survey conducted by the Victims of Communism and polled by YouGov, a research and data firm, found that 70% of millennials are likely to vote socialist and that one in three millennials saw communism as "favorable." Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from that of past tyrants. They should keep in mind that the origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the result of a long evolution of ideas leading to a consolidation of power in the central government in the quest for "social justice."

  • David Catron, The American Spectator

    Schiff knows that if Republicans question the whistleblower under oath what remains of his party’s credibility will be shot. All this began when the so-called whistleblower was coached by Adam Schiff’s Intel Committee concerning how best to deploy his complaint. Then Nancy Pelosi justified the House impeachment inquiry by repeatedly citing that complaint. Chairman Schiff accused Trump administration officials of refusing to allow the whistleblower to testify. But when the Republicans requested his testimony, Schiff refused to permit it. He now tells us he doesn’t need the whistleblower. This really does seem a lot like a grainy old movie with bad lines and worse acting.

  • Daniel Oliver, Washington Examiner

    In current antitrust law, a small degree of market power (which is not the same as monopoly power) is very common and understood not to warrant antitrust intervention. But even a trivial skewing of the marketplace of ideas by one of the giant tech information companies could have made the difference between “President Trump” and “President Clinton.” It’s time to revisit antitrust law. People who believe in competition, especially in the marketplace of ideas, shouldn’t let tech CEOs stop the clock there. Like Oliver Wendell Holmes (who switched his opinion on free speech rights in the landmark case of Abrams v. United States), we should be willing to change our minds.

  • Byron York, Washington Examiner

    Vindman testified repeatedly that he "thought it was wrong" for Trump to bring up the 2016 election. The Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions. In short, Vindman's testimony was not the slam-dunk hit Democrats portrayed it to be. How it will play when Vindman goes before the world in a public impeachment hearing?