Communist Coup d'Etat Attempt Is in Progress on Many Fronts

By Eddie Howell

The Communist Party is like the multi-headed hydra of myth. It appears in many guises and under many names – the party itself, their close allies the Democratic Socialists of America, their front groups, their donors, their labor unions (they control the AFL-CIO), their entertainment industry contacts, MSM people, people in academia, and many useful idiots. Since they have people at the levers of power, a relatively small number of people wield great influence in American society. Few Americans understand that we have a serious threat on our hands.

Then there's the Robert Mueller investigation, which has the leftists salivating and hoping for an outcome of impeachment or worse.

Besides the above-mentioned, we have the thugs of Antifa and Black lives Matter, and the communists running much of the states of California and Minnesota. In America, organized socialists and communists are basically the same thing, and include most “Progressive” and “Liberal” Democrat politicians. Right now they are working to bring down Donald Trump, and America, by creating chaos in America through street rioting, encouraging radical Muslim jihad, and numerous other efforts.

Having gotten a good start under communist President Barack Obama, whose administration still has its socialist fingerprints on much of our government, the “Resistance” is quite active, and has been fairly successful in recruiting ignorant young people into its fold. The following are a few facts about these problems:

1. George Soros, a major donor to communist causes, recently allocated $18 billion of his fortune to his “charitable” foundations and political organizations, to use for such things as paying rioters and protesters and financing voter fraud, etc. (It's also a tax shelter.)
2. The Hollywood elites continue to accuse Donald Trump and his supporters of being racists, bigots, etc. The Golden Globes Oprah-fest speeches were mostly about the sexual predators, but Robert De Niro managed to work in a profanity-laced tirade against the president.
3. The Democratic Party is home to many communists and socialists among its politicians and bureaucrats, who cannot support our Constitution because socialism is unconstitutional, and they are therefore in violation of their oath of office, not to mention the fact that their loyalty to the United States is at best extremely questionable.
4. The Communist Party USA, despite its denials, was controlled by and loyal to the Soviet Union, and heavily involved in Soviet espionage from the the 1930s through World War II (when the Soviets were our allies), and the Cold War. Communists in the U.S. government were influential enough to make sure that the communists took control of China after the war. They guided the details, although FDR and Eisenhower, unlike Churchill, were anxious to please Stalin because of Russia's participation in the war. American Soviet agent Alger Hiss was part of the American delegation to the Yalta Conference as an adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.* Later, Hiss participated in the founding of the United Nations and was its first Secretary-General.
5. Especially since the Obama Administration, most of the major news media has become the propaganda arm of the leftists, pretty much killing traditional American journalism. It's doubtful it can be brought back.
6. And now, one of the fronts the communist-guided leftists are working on is raising questions about Donald Trump's mental health (which seems considerably better than their own), with psychiatrists unethically diagnosing trouble where they haven't examined the patient. Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz, a principled man who isn't part of this charade, recognizes the seriousness of the problems this can cause and speaks eloquently against it on Fox News Channels “Fox and Friends” program:

The solution to this is not simple and certainly not easy, but it is possible, and, I believe, would include the following things, among others:

1. Get the Justice Department to look into dealing with disloyal organizations and violent “protesters.”
2. Promote a plan to get back, as much as we can, to the founding principles of America. We have strayed quite a lot from them and are paying the price for it. I think the best readable book I've seen that explains what these principles are, what they're based on, and how they have been used, is W. Cleon Skousen's excellent The Five Thousand Year Leap: Twenty-Eight Ideas That Are Changing the World.
3. Educate people on our Constitution.
4. Require background checks for federal legislators to serve on committees of Congress.
5. Declare the Muslim Brotherhood and Antifa terrorist organizations.
6. Pray for a strong spiritual awakening in America. The ultimate answer to our situation is to get our nation right with God. This does not mean we should be a theocracy. But the Founders knew that a successful republic requires a religious and virtuous people.
7. Stop government promotion of social experimentation and gender confusion.
8. Control the border and fix illegal immigration. Send “refugees” back home if possible.
9. Firmly reinforce law and order. There should be no sharia law in the U.S. and there should not be any “no-go” zones. Violent demonstrators and rioters must be dealt with firmly. Give law enforcement adequate support and protection to do their jobs.
10. Try to keep an optimistic and cheerful attitude, and don't lose your sense of humor. This isn't over yet!

*Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000,  Kindle edition, 135-137.

Can and Should Trump End Mueller's Witch Hunt Now?

By Eddie Howell

Will President Trump fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller? Can he? There are plenty of opinions being currently published addressing these questions. What would be the results of firing Mueller? Or the results of not firing him?

My own thoughts on this begin with the fact, as I believe it is a fact, that the Mueller investigation is a sham, a charade, and a witch hunt designed to destroy Donald Trump. It is an investigation in search of a crime. It is entirely unfair to the president and harmful to America. It is a drain on American taxpayers' money and resources which should be used to go after actual criminals.

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz has interesting comments on the problems of special counsel investigations and prosecutors going too far in looking for a crime in violation of the rights of people they are investigating. (YouTube video dated 07/22/2017)

Peter Beinart at The Atlantic thinks that the Trump team may regard firing Mueller as a good move, and I think that's probably correct. An article by Doyle McManus in The Los Angeles Times says, as do others, that if Trump moved to fire Mueller, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. A New York Times article headline says “Trump Can't Just Fire Mueller,”

It's in the interest of the Anti-Trump Witch Hunt to say that Trump can't fire Mueller and that if he did (or tried), it would bring on dire consequences. The Swamp seems to think the Trump presidency could not survive an attempt to fire Mueller, and hopes that if he doesn't fire the special counsel, Mueller will dig up enough dirt, real or imagined, to force Trump out and destroy his life as much as possible.

So, as Trump understands, regarding the Mueller investigation, he (Trump) is between a rock and a hard place. Should he suffer the consequences of removing Mueller now, or wait until Mueller announces his findings, which, whatever the facts may be, will be designed to damage Trump as much as possible. Trump, in making a decision to fire or not to fire, must choose between those two alternatives. Or so it seems to me.

I do not accept the statement that Trump cannot legally fire Mueller. His army of lawyers can figure out how to manipulate and exploit the regulations to accomplish Mueller's firing legally and effectively. The president has authority concerning regulations and their enforcement. He is head of the Executive Branch of government. Mueller is under the authority of the Executive Branch. The legal niceties can certainly be dealt with and the firing accomplished if the president decides to do it. What Mr. Trump must be concerned about is which choice is the better in terms of risk of damage to himself and America. Most of his voters still support him strongly. GOP members of Congress may speak against firing Mueller, but most Republican voters would support it, understanding that Mueller's role is simply part of the Swamp's hysterical hate campaign to destroy Trump, facts or no facts.

A Politico article by Matthew Nussbaum lists ways Trump could fire Mueller. It is not true that Trump can't fire Mueller. The article also suggests that if he did, Congress could bring back an independent counsel statute and bring back Mueller to continue, beyond Trump's grasp.

Congress would have to have a veto-proof majority for that to happen.

Another idea for Trump, if he wants to fire Mueller, might be to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself and fire Mueller. Then shut down the FBI Russia investigation.

The globalists and establishment denizens of the Swamp are determined to get rid of Trump, and they very well may yet do it whether Trump fires Mueller or not. But they may also be making a very big mistake if they think they can defeat Trump easily.

I would like see Mueller shown the exit. I think Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should be fired as well. I hope he won't fire Sessions. But the only one who can or should make a final decision about firing Mueller is President Trump. It's not a question of whether he can do it, but, for the sake of his presidency and America, whether he should.

Obama Orders Changes in National Security Vocabulary

It may be yesterday’s news, but some items need a certain amount of reflection and consideration of what their consequences might be, or just how developments might fit into overall trends.

As Noam Amdurski at Matzav.com points out, President Barack Obama has ordered a significant change “in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: ‘The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.’” [1]

This conflict, previously considered to be so great, now cannot even be described as what it actually is against, “militant Islamic radicalism.”

This change is supposed to reassure Muslims that America doesn’t view them primarily as terrorist threats. But why is it necessary to change national security documents? To achieve a little positive PR that will not in any way change or ameliorate the actual threat? Well, we don’t want Muslims mad at us, but why would they care about such a document that only factually describes a situation, and should not be seen as offensive to anyone, except maybe actual terrorists.

The President has received criticism about this change. Just one example:

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech. [2]

Of course, the White House dismisses such criticism, as they dismiss most criticism. But the professor’s point is valid, and his opinion is probably shared by most Americans familiar with the situation.

But some people live to be offended, and if they speak up (certain politically-favored ones, particularly), then everything must stop and be changed to appease them.

It may seem laudable that the President is taking steps to avoid offense, but, in fact, he is taking steps to prevent effective communication. In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother saw to it that the Newspeak Dictionary was revised at intervals, and always by the removal of words the regime didn’t like. He knew that words are the building blocks of thoughts, so making certain words unavailable (soon to be forgotten, it was hoped), would stop people from having thoughts offensive to the regime.

Apparently, it is offensive to Obama to refer to militant Islamic radicals in those terms, although that is the most accurate way to refer to them.

Obama’s revision of official vocabulary put FBI Director Robert Mueller in the awkward position of communicating the Islamist terrorist threat without using the prohibited words:

In Senate testimony, Robert Meuller does everything he can to suggest that he is talking about Islamic extremists. He cites Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers at Fort Hood. He cites Mumbai attacks planner David Headley. [3]

How long before the government tries to mandate that everyone follow Obama’s example, such as schools receiving government aid, other agencies, etc.?

Front Page Magazine online had the following comments:

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote….

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation…. [4]

The article reports that the French ambassador, while prefacing his remarks with kind words for the resolution, pointed out that “human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems.” [5]

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms. [6]

Fortunately, the United States voted against the 2010 UN resolution on “defamation of religion,” promoted by the 57-nation OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference).
The non-binding resolution did pass 20-17 in the UN Human Rights Commission, with eight nations abstaining.

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that any effort that could lead to the criminalization of the defamation of religion is ‘a false solution, that exchanges one wrong for another….’” [7] An accurate comment.

Atheists were concerned over the resolution, since they want to be free to criticize religion and don’t want government surveillance and control over religious or anti-religious views. [8] Under the resolution, if implemented, any negative comments about a religion could be regarded as offensive.

What seems to be desired by the proponents of this resolution is something like Canada’s ill-named “Human Rights Commission,” which has resulted in taxpayer-funded prosecutions simply on someone’s complaint of being offended. Defendants are given no legal help, and lack the rights of a criminal defendant, yet are subject to heavy fines, lifetime speech bans, etc., and truth is no defense. More information here.


The proponents want to get this resolution added to international law, so that any criticism of Islam can be criminalized. We should not move any further in that direction, but Obama is a little too inclined to follow the lead of Britain and Canada.

The unstated secret is that going to great lengths to avoid associating terrorism with Islam, and further, also making strong efforts to accommodate Muslim demands, is finally based on fear. Some Muslims have shown that they are willing to react violently when they perceive an insult. Everyone is supposed to understand this and agree that it’s justified. But it isn’t. It’s a culture clash of sorts, but freedoms deserves protection and illegal violence deserves punishment.

I certainly advocate respecting, not insulting religions, but that leaves room for criticism, even strong criticism. I advocate protecting the God-given right to free speech, which includes saying or printing things some might find offensive. If ideas have merit, they don’t need the government to protect them from competition, and if not, they don’t need the government to suppress them.

Punish illegal actions, not opinions and words. When words are suppressed, thought is impaired, as Big Brother knew well. The deterioration of language is a significant aspect of the “dumbing down” phenomenon of recent decades. And without free exchange of ideas, we don’t know who thinks what, or how to truly engage in debate or discussion.


[1] Noam Amdurski, “Obama Bans Terms ‘Islam’ and ‘Jihad’ from U.S. Security Document,” 04/07/10, Matzav.com.


[2] Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, “‘Islamic Radicalism’ Phrase to Be Removed from Obama’s National Security Documents,” 04/07/2010, at CNS News.


[3 ] Alec Rawls, “FBI Director Tries To Warn About Home Grown Islamic Terrorists, Without Mentioning ‘Islam’ [Reader Post],” 04/17/2010, Flopping Aces, republished (found) at InfidelsAreCool.com, which identifies itself as an anti-jihad site.

[4] Deborah Weiss, “Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss,” 10/16/2009, Front Page Magazine, republished (found) at The International Free Press Society.


[5] AND [6] Ibid.

[7] Editorial, reflecting the views of the United States Government, “Defamation of Religion Resolution,” VOANews.com.


[8] American Atheists, “Atheists Concerned over UN Defamation of Religions Resolution,” Opposing Views.

Photo: Dreamstime.com