Omnibus Pork

It didn’t take long — it’s  been hidden quietly for a few weeks now. But it has now been exposed: Omnibus Pork.


On March 24, 2018, I published a letter I sent privately to President Trump expressing my belief that his signing the Omnibus Bill (legally named “The 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Act“) without drastic changes would probably insure his presidency would be just one term. Hundreds responded to me in social media and privately in disagreement, some in anger, some in shock that I would say something so sinister and foreboding to the President, and some simply encouraged me to not be discouraged.

Please know that I am NOT Chicken Little crying “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” But I am a realist. Any President who makes campaign promises — especially those regarding money — and does not follow those promises with actions to fulfill them is almost always doomed. Remember Bush 41? “Read my lips….no more taxes.” He broke that promise and signed tax increases into existence. In doing so he did NOT get a second term and gave Bill Clinton the White House. Americans have good memories when it comes to their dollars.

This Omnibus bill was a stark departure from Trump’s campaign promises. The reasons for his signing the bill were primarily to enable increased military spending. His military advisers apparently convinced him this bill was his only option to get that military funding that had been lacking for so long. He caved.

Now the details of who, what, how, and why from the Omnibus Bill are in the public domain for all of us to digest. No one tells the truth about government waste, pork tax dollar allocation for special interests, and Congressional spending hypocrisy better than Steve Hilton. He did so Sunday night April 8, 2018 on his show “The Next Revolution.” Before we go any further, here’s a 6 minute clip in which Hilton details the astounding pork and waste in the Omnibus bill. And HE EXPOSES POLITICAL CORRUPTION THAT RIDDLES THE LAW! All need to take 6 minutes and watch this so we can have a meaningful conversation about going forward:

My Takeaway

I seldom say, “I told you so.” But, “I told you so!”

To say President Trump got taken out to the woodshed on this one would  be an understatement. In fact, he may be still outside recovering from a Democrat Party/Establishment GOP group old fashioned whooping. They all together perpetrated an unexpected “Gotcha'” on the President — AND on the American people. Thoughts:

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky)

Regular Order  Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) has continuously cried for the Senate to go back to “Regular Order” for consideration of all spending legislation. “Regular Order” is a common sense method of handling proposed legislation, and it’s simple. Each proposed bill covers single and specific pieces of legislation. They are written, presented first to applicable committees whose members discuss, negotiate, amend, and then vote a final version to be included in a final bill comprised of ALL other appropriations created by this same process that are part of ONE SPENDING BILL. That makes sense, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, this omnibus shortcuts Regular Order and crams ALL appropriations matters into one bill. The individual pieces of that bill were NOT considered in committee, were NOT discussed or amended from negotiations, but were put into one bill that was presented to the full Senate for a simple up or down vote: NO DISCUSSIONS OR AMENDMENTS ALLOWED! And the Senate passed the bill as did the House.

It is pretty easy to see great possibilities of graft, corruption, tax revenue waste, pork projects, and quid pro quo political paybacks in this type of appropriations methodology. Watch Hilton’s expose again and calculate just how much money has been “stolen” from Americans through federal taxes to fuel this scam. The Alaska “Bridge to Nowhere” is nothing compared to this Omnibus bill.


What will fix this? Can it even be fixed?

Certainly President Trump since signing this into law has been hammered from pretty much all conservatives for doing so. He has openly been looking for ways to minimize the economic damage of this law so that he might take action to reverse some of the pending damage. Unfortunately for him and American taxpayers, very little can be done at this point. Congress certainly will NOT pass any serious changes to specific parts of this law. What incentive for them is there to do so?

The only way to make serious changes is NOT to this one bill, but to the PROCESS of lawmaking.

Florida Governor Rick Scott announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate in the Fall, which will pit him against longtime Democrat Senator Bill Nelson. The day after Scott’s announcement, he began revealing one at a time his campaign ideas and pledges. His first addresses the substantive issue we are dealing with today: how and why this “Omnibus” environment is allowed. “We shouldn’t be sending the same type of people to Washington,” Scott said in a sweaty warehouse, surrounded by wooden pallets and supporters fanning themselves with his campaign signs. “This concept of career politicians has got to stop.”

The simple concept Scott references is “term limits.” Let’s be honest: almost every state has term limits for governor, for state legislators, as do most cities regarding their mayors. Congressional term limit discussions are continual in almost every segment of American life. But those discussions have never resulted in meaningful consideration at the only place such discussions really matter: Congress. Why is that? No one on Capitol Hill wants their job to ever end!

Ever hear of ANYONE leaving the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate as a pauper? Ever hear of any Congressman or Senator leaving office not substantially better off than when they entered office in their first term? The only honest and believable answer to either question is “No.” Serving in Congress has morphed into the cushiest and most sought after white collar position in the United States: very little actual work, GREAT pay, amazingly liberal expense and office accounts — not to mention travel reimbursement — and lifetime health benefits and retirement income far above that of those who hold similar civilian positions. Add to that the ability to pad one’s net worth through legal but somewhat shady financial boondoggles setup by Congressional members for the benefit of extended family members, and what you have is a treasure trove of financial benefits fully funded by: TAXPAYERS.

Folks, the financial management of your tax dollars by these 535 elected Congressional officials is horrendous —  if it even IS managed! They primarily serve for power which then opens the door for everything they desire. Money? Not a problem. With power they through Congressional actions and benefits have pretty much all the money they will ever need.

You know what’s most amazing of all in this? It took a Brit — Steve Hilton — to tell Americans exactly how corrupt this Omnibus really is. “Watchdog American Media?” They’re pretty much all in the tank for Big Government which requires Big Spending.


We Enter a New Era

It’s right on top of us. In fact we have been in its beginnings for a year or so and did not realize it. But we now live in a new era in the U.S.

I detest the term “weaponization.” It is used far too frequently by those who wish to demonize somebody or some group who chooses demonstrative ways to argue with or complain about a person or group who has diverse opinions from theirs.

In today’s era of weaponization, the anger from those who choose such a course of action has risen to a never before seen level. That anger quickly turns to hate. And when hate “drives the boat,” very little reason is included — it’s all pure emotion. And when emotion is the basis for decisions, very seldom are such decisions good ones. Let me explain:


No, it is NOT just politics. But that is the obvious place we see most of the angst we are talking about. But political discussions, debate, and even conflict have never before in history existed at such a fever pitch on the U.S. All civility is gone. Whether it comes early in the morning from President Trump tweets, late nights from Jimmy Kimmel, or from Morning Joe on MSNBC or Chris Cuomo on CNN’s morning show, the calm discussions between educated and concerned people are out the window. What remains is anger and hatred.

There’s no specific ownership from the Left or Right. There’s plenty to go around.

The horror of this process is it is before our eyes being refined and shoved into the chamber of a “weaponization gun” to fire away at any who disagree, and to fire with abandon. It’s like using a shotgun. Shotgun shells contain a bunch of projectiles called bb’s that scatter when fired and purposely strike a much larger target than a single bullet. That collateral damage is pretty much the desired result of political weaponization we witness today. And it isn’t pretty.


I have 6 grandchildren all in school. Not in my lifetime has the educational system been so political, so liberal, and so biased. Certainly there have always been liberal and conservative teachers and administrators, but seldom did they espouse their various political ideologies to others as part of their work — especially not in classrooms. That has changed dramatically as the public school system almost as a whole has morphed into a political arm of the Democrat Party whose single objective is to attack the President, his policies, all those who serve in his administration, and now all those in the U.S. who number themselves as Trump supporters. Education weaponization has become so aggressive and outward that conservative educators are literally afraid for their political position to be known for fear of retribution from school administrators and even fellow teachers.

And the students….

Have we all not seen and heard students at all levels marching, carrying signs, (often nasty signs) attacking conservative ideals including the policies of the Trump Administration, Republicans in Congress, people who voted for conservatives at local, state, and national levels in 2016? We often excuse this or ignore it as simply being the exercise of free speech. Certainly a portion of it is. But the weaponization carries it to a much more serious level. And it is changing America — drastically and swiftly.

How is Weaponization Happening?

Here’s the most dangerous part of this. We can forget about the bitterness that develops between former close friends, family members, and fellow workers when this weaponization is actualized. Forget about it being a simple exercise in free speech.

NONE of it is random….NONE of it is positive….NONE of it has an objective to make things better for America and Americans. ALL of it is fueled by an intense hatred by a specific group from the Democrat Party who claim to be “Hard Left” and from some who are far left of Democrats.

The single objective of those who have refined the use of weaponization is to purposefully drive a much stronger, larger, and much more intense and specific divide between Americans who identify as conservative and those who consider themselves liberal. Their desired outcome? To turn the American political, social, economic, and educational system hard left, and dramatically away from Conservatism.

It is well planned, well funded, and well coordinated. It doesn’t take much to figure this out:

  • Riots in Portland. Wasn’t it odd to watch as masked young people who burned cars, torched businesses, demolished buildings and threatened people on the streets of Portland had advertised in local media for 2 weeks for “paid demonstrators” to apply for hundreds of “demonstration positions?” Wasn’t it odd that several blocks from downtown Portland, that night a reporter found a chain of chartered buses parked where many of these demonstrators dis-embarked to “go to work?”
  • Parkland, Florida. Just a couple of days after the mass shooting in Parkland, several chartered buses carried student protestors from Parkland to Tallahassee for those students to lobby the Florida legislature to pass “meaningful” gun control. Who paid for the buses? Who paid for the hotel rooms? Who paid for the food? Who paid for the printing of those thousands of professionally produced signs that bore the various attack slogans against gun advocates?
  • “March for our Lives.” Was organized by the new #NeverAgain movement – founded by survivors of the Florida school shooting – received a permit for half a million people in Washington D.C. to protest March 24, 2018, for “Commonsense Gun Control.” Related marches happened at several other major U.S. cities. Planning, organization, funding, coordinating with others took hundreds of thousands of dollars.

These are just a few of many examples we could relate of well planned, well funded, and well coordinated demonstrations of various kinds over the last year or so that are full of anger and hatred that often boils over. But weaponization never just “happens.” It only occurs in a controlled environment with specific targets and objectives.

The Purpose of Weaponization

You might be surprised to know (and ultimately believe) that a very large group of intellectuals, very famous and very wealthy individuals are participating in several large organizations and groups whose target is the quiet elimination of all things conservative. They are NOT gun control advocates. They are NOT free speech hawks. Thay are NOT about power to the people. In fact, their objective is exactly opposite. Their purpose is anarchy.

What is “Anarchy?”

1.  absence of government; a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority; eutopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2.  absence or denial of any authority or established order; absence of order

 Any of that ring a bell?

(Don’t call me a conspiracy theorist, please. Just put all the facts as you know them together. And if you can explain any of what we are watching unfold daily in any other reasonable way, please share your thoughts with us in the comments section below, or simply write your response and email to me at for publication here)

The fuel for these comes primarily from some of the richest Americans: George Soros has been reported to transfer tens of Billions of his dollars to various not-for-profit entities that he controls to fuel this enterprise. Other billionaires have quietly kicked in. Obama through his Foundation is involved in organization and structure, although not financially in any substantive way other than to funnel outside funds to various non-profit entities to use in this effort.

Oh, and this is NOT about Donald Trump. This certainly was to be initiated in a more peaceful and much quieter way with Trump’s opponent living in the White House. A Hillary presidency was just what the organizers of this preferred and were certain would happen. Trump is just a temporary nuisance to their cause. His departure is what they MUST have before too many more Americans awaken to the truth that American freedom is truly in jeopardy and our nation as it has existed for more than two centuries is facing certain dramatic change — from the inside.


What would this anti-political experiment look like? “If” this group gets their objective, we would see the dismantling of the current government: Congress, Judiciary, and of course the White House. The “People” would install a government that would purportedly be really FOR the people as compared to our current government. If history serves us as to how/who runs such a government, the people would choose leaders — although it is likely the power brokers have already determined who and what would happen in way of control.

All sound far fetched? It did in 19th century Russia and Spain. But both were torn apart by anarchy. Neither movement was totally successful to achieve their stated objectives. But what they succeeded in doing was tearing apart the existing governments of each country.

Could it happen here? I think it very well could and that it might — UNLESS Americans stand up and stop it. Waking to it as a possible if not eventual event that we could experience is a first step.

Look around your specific world. Watch the news — real news. Read, listen, and express yourselves. Making others aware of real truths and how you personally feel will go a long way in helping others understand the realities of today’s political system and the cost of a different form of government.

There’s a lot of venom being spewed in this weaponization we live in. No doubt the Leftist media have actually allowed themselves to be weaponized in many cases without even knowing it. What other explanation is there for the almost constant false news reports we read, see, and hear attacking conservatives and Conservatism? Fifty years ago, no such thing was allowed.

Remember Dan Rather? He was canned for simply manufacturing and reporting an untrue story of then President George W. Bush. That wasn’t very long ago. It ended his longtime stint at the top of broadcast journalism on a national stage.

How many “fake” Donald Trump news stories have you heard or seen that were eventually debunked as being pure fiction? There are many to choose from. NONE OF THOSE ISSUING SUCH REPORTS ARE CONFRONTED BY THEIR MANAGEMENT.

Why is that?

There’s surely an objective.



The Great Divide

Columbine, Sandy Hook, now Parkland: each of these tragic school mass shootings lit the fires of outrage across the U.S. The outrage was pointed at one thing and one thing only: guns.

Gun control/gun rights join illegal immigration as the most polarizing issues of the day — for both the Left and Right. These illustrate a great divide between Americans that is just 2 divides among dozens in the Country that are not only increasing daily in numbers, but are like a tsunami destroying much of the American moral and spiritual infrastructure that has survived attacks of all kinds for several centuries.

Like most, this latest divide regarding gun issues requires  fuel to perpetuate its existence by giving it nutrients necessary to grow. That fuel has been the controversies that pop up every time there is a school shooting, mass shooting, or cop shooting of a black man.

Leftists almost all think laws need to be changed to outlaw gun ownership overall or at least of guns they term “assault weapons,” which actually are anything but assault weapons. When that term in used, it references almost always the AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle that looks similar to the military fully automatic version of the AR-15: the M-4.

The truths that counter everyone of these emotional cries for strict gun control fall on deaf ears. The Left have even recruited massive numbers of school children, teachers, and administrative educators for demonstrations of all kinds against guns. It is ironic that those who live their lives in the education system to obtain truths and knowledge totally ignore any quest for finding the truth of this issue and rely on the purely emotional remedy: gun control.

We will not spend a lot of time to list for you all the facts about gun violence, gun deaths, gun ownership, or assault rifles. But it is important to consider the truth. And the truth of the matter can be boiled down to these simple truths:

  1. The 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow private ownership of handguns and long guns by Americans for personal security;
  2. AR-15’s are NOT automatic weapons. Fully automatic handguns and long guns have been illegal for private ownership for some time. To fire an AR-15 or any semi-automatic handgun, the trigger when pulled fires one bullet. The next shell is “automatically” loaded into the chamber for the next shot, but the trigger must be released and pulled again to fire that bullet. Any automatic weapon will fire multiple times with the pulling and holding the trigger;
  3. Almost all semi-automatic guns are handguns with magazines that hold an average of 9 shells that can be fired without reloading;
  4. Private gun ownership cannot be legally stopped or stripped away by any government entity without a repeal or re-structuring of the 2nd Amendment. The possibility of that happening is minute at best;
  5. Those local and state governments that have passed laws abridging the ownership or possession of legally obtained weapons are facing certain overturn by the U.S. Supreme Court as it has done so previously.

The Real Effect of Desired Gun Control/Confiscation

Consider for a moment “IF” the federal government passed laws restricting or terminating rights of Americans to own firearms and who it would impact the most. This citizen pointed out in a very emotional outburst before the Greensboro City Council just who would be impacted the most:


Let’s face it: this entire conversation is fueled primarily by the Left who are using gun violence and gun control along with immigration reform as the dog whistle to rally the troops — Democrat voters — to head to the polls in opposition to conservative candidates who support the 2nd Amendment. The hope of these Leftists? To fight until they see every privately-owned gun taken from the hands of private citizens after which the federal government (which would be under Democrat control) would determine the use of ALL guns and who would be eligible to possess and use them. It does not matter to the Left that the right of private gun ownership is allowed by the 2nd Amendment. The Left today live in a vacuum void of any consideration of the Nation’s laws. If Leftists like an idea, then it’s right and any counter opinion is wrong….period.

Why are the Dems so set on these 2 issues for the 2018 and 202o elections? They have NO substantive issues on which they can run! They voted unanimously against tax cuts for 90+ percent of Americans, they voted almost totally to keep Obamacare in place ignoring its skyrocketing costs to Americans and its almost unimaginable failure to deliver health insurance coverage and subsequent medical treatment in a cost-effective manner. Democrats under Obama could not deliver with a comprehensive immigration plan and still refuse to join President Trump and Republicans in revising the plan that has been on the table for about 6 months to in bi-partisan fashion fix the immigration problem. And then there’s gun control. After these purely emotional election issues, the Democrats have nothing they can even hint is “their” policy on any important American issue. Emotion is all they have.

Let’s look at the truth in these issues and possible plans to repair any problems. (Gee, that is a novel idea: to identify problems and work together to find and implement solutions!)

  • We don’t blame or confiscate the car when someone dies in a hit-and-run
  • We don’t don’t blame knives or confiscate knives used to kill in stabbings
  • We don’t blame matches or try to shut down match manufacturing companies when matches light fires as acts of arson
Then why do we….
  • Blame pharmaceutical companies when someone overdoses on prescription medication?
  • Blame guns that are used to commit shootings in which innocents are killed rather than blaming the person or persons who pulls the trigger?

Answer: the political correctness of the emotional cause is necessary for the Left to deflect the attention of American voters away from substantive issues of life for average Americans to make voting decisions based solely on emotion rather than on fact.

Let’s just hope Americans are smarter than Democrats think they are.

The “Wall”

Today everyone knows what you mean when you simply begin a conversation to talk about “The Wall” — that of course references the Wall President Trump has repeatedly promised to build between the U.S. and Mexico to eliminate most of illegal crossings into the U.S. from Mexico.

We are constantly bombarded by leftist talk show hosts, Democrat politicians, and even a few Republicans with an emphatic statement: “No wall on the U.S. southern border will stop illegals coming into the U.S. And thinking so is just plain lunacy.” Of course the “lunacy” reference is pointed directly at the President who some say is actually mentally deficient. (But that’s another story for another time.)

In all the talk and debate about “The Wall,” it seems important to take this discussion out of the political arena and find some facts that will either prove or disprove historically how such a wall (or one similar) has actually worked in either keeping people out or keeping people in. Believe it or not, there are quite a few historical examples. Let’s pull the plug on “The Wall” emotions and try to find some factual context on which to make a non-emotional decision: should we or should we not build “The Wall.”


The Biblical Wall of Jericho is one of the earliest examples of a defensive wall constructed by a community. Two sets of walls found in Jericho, and excavated by Ernest Sellin and Carl Watzinger, date back to anywhere between 1950 BC and 1550 BC. But the earliest evidence of a wall is believed to date to 7825 BC. The most famous Wall of Jericho, however, is the one mentioned in the Biblical account of the wall that the Israelites destroyed using the Ark of the Covenant (Book of Joshua). The wall is believed to have stood five feet thick, anywhere between 12 and 17 feet tall, surrounded by a 27-footwide and nine-foot deep ditch. It is hypothesized that the Wall of Jericho was constructed not only for defensive purposes, but also to protect the city from floods and for ceremonial usages. The Tower of Jericho may have been a means to draw individuals into the city. After the wall came tumbling down, according to biblical text, every man, woman, and child in the city of Jericho was put to the sword save for the family who harbored Israeli spies during the siege.

Hadrian’s Wall

Hadrian’s Wall, constructed between 122 AD and 128 AD for inspection by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, was a reaction to rebellions that Rome experienced by the provincial peoples of Britannia. The wall stood an impressive ten feet wide, 16 to 20 feet tall, and 73 miles long, following the course of the Tyne River. Historians disagree on the explicit purpose of Hadrian’s Wall, though it is widely considered to have been an attempt at curbing immigration as well as providing an opportunity to tax anyone crossing the wall. In this endeavor, Hadrian’s Wall was a success. Even when a different wall was constructed during the reign of Antoninus Pius farther north (the Antonine Wall), the Romans opted to permanently keep its legions along Hadrian’s Wall. Until the end of Roman rule in the province of Britannia, Hadrian’s Wall stood strong. When Rome lost its hold on the province, however, the wall was largely dismantled for parts by the “barbarian” populations against whom it had stood.

The Great Wall of China

The Great Wall of China was not always so great. It began as a series of independently constructed walls as long ago as the 7th century BC. Over time, they became connected into a single vast wall spanning a staggering 5,500 miles during the Ming Era. The wall’s military purpose was to defend China against the multitude of invaders that plagued the borderlands – primarily the Mongols and the Manchu. But the walls provided other economic and social benefits for China, allowing the Chinese to enforce economic duties along the Silk Road as well as decrease the number of immigrants from Central Asia. As a means of maintaining control over citizens of China and their trade, the Great Wall was quite successful. However, the wall failed to keep invaders out entirely. Genghis Khan and his Mongol warriors, the Liao, the Jin, and the Manchus all managed to invade and take territory across the wall. Though this wall has never been altogether destroyed, its maintenance was, and is, such a colossal undertaking that large sections of it have fallen into disrepair over time.

Moscow’s Kremlin Walls

When Moscow was founded in the 12th century it was fortified only by wooden fences and rudimentary walls. However, under Tsar Ivan I, Muscovy began a concerted project to construct a wall around the Kremlin made of oak (1339-1340). In 1365, these walls were razed and a new wall made of limestone was constructed under the reign of Dmitrii Donskoi in the late 14th century. These walls were never toppled though they were largely redone and renovated by Tsar Ivan III (or Ivan the Great) in the late 15th century. This version of the Kremlin wall, finished in 1495, was over a mile in length varied in height from 16 feet to over 60 feet and in thickness from 11 feet to over 20 feet. The Kremlin walls failed, however, to keep Batu Khan, the Poles, and Napoleon out of Moscow despite never being physically destroyed. While the Kremlin’s walls originally served a solely defensive purpose, they stand today as a powerful symbol of Russian national identity.

Wall Street’s Walls

I bet you never thought about THESE walls. In the seventeenth century, the wall on what is now Wall Street created a barrier between the Dutch and their Native American neighbors. The fortified wall stretched from Pearl Street, which was one shoreline of Manhattan at the time, to the other shoreline, modern day Trinity Place. During this period, Wall Street was also the marketplace where owners could hire out their slaves. The rampart was removed in 1699, but the corners of Pearl and Wall Street remained a location for trade and business. After the Buttonwood Agreement in 1792 that organized a traders’ association—which was the origin of the New York Stock Exchange—businesses slowly flocked to the area, pushing out residents in the nineteenth century, and the Wall Street of today was born.

Berlin Wall

Officially known on the East German side as the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart, this infamous wall is an extraordinary example of a society’s attempt to halt the movement of its own people, separating Germans (and often families) into two different worlds. The Soviet, eastern side of Germany had a vested interest in keeping out the ideals, culture, and economic models of the West during the Cold War. Upon completion, the wall stood 87 miles long with another wall running parallel to the original just 300 feet behind it. In its infancy the wall was primarily made of barbed wire but over time it evolved into an extremely formidable border. Concrete, barbed wire, and a no man’s land of empty space between the walls makes this barrier system one of the most daunting walls in human history. It was not to persist, however. In October of 1989, the East German government decided to allow some citizens to emigrate to West Germany, which resulted in a swarming of the wall checkpoints by thousands of citizens. And on November 9, the Berlin Wall was officially opened.

Korean Demilitarized Zone “Walls”

Snaking across the width of the Korean peninsula, this wall creates a 160-mile-long, two-and-a-half-mile-wide buffer zone between North and South Korea. The DMZ was constructed along the 38th Parallel and is considered to be the most heavily militarized border in the entire world. Incidents and incursions continue along the DMZ, although recent peace talks have begun ever so slightly to depressurize the border. The two countries have agreed to allow families divided between Northern and Southern halves of the border to reunite in a rare effort at cohabitation. Such efforts do not erase recent episodes of landmine explosions, cross-boundary rocket fire, and propaganda radio broadcasts, however, but may ease tensions along the political powder keg that is the DMZ. Since the Korean conflict ended in 1953 in a truce, the state of war between Seoul and Pyongyang continues to validate the existence of the world’s most heavily guarded border. This wall stands as perhaps the most effective anti-migrant fortification in all of human history. It has kept the populations of two independent nations almost entirely secluded from one another for over six decades.

West Bank Barrier

This monster of a wall currently runs along the 1949 Armistice Agreement Line (or the Green Line) that separates Israel from the territories of the West Bank. This barrier runs a staggering 330 feet in width at certain places and up to 26 feet high. The primary reasons for the construction of this barrier (which began in approximately 2000) are contentious. The Israeli government states that the wall is being built to protect Israeli citizens from suicide bombers and radical terrorist organizations. Opposition groups argue that the barrier is a land-grab disguised as a defensive perimeter. Though construction on the wall has not yet been completed, some reports indicate that there has been a marked decline in the number of suicide attacks within Israel.

The Pakistan Wall

Yep. Believe it or not, Pakistan is building a wall right now between their country and Afghanistan. After decades of unsuccessfully controlling the flow of terrorists and criminals who quietly slip back and forth across the porous 1,500-mile border between the two countries, evading capture, the Pakistan government chose to stop the illegal and deadly border crossings with a wall. The wall is not concrete, but consists of a comprehensive border system that includes two layers of 12-feet-tall barbed-wire fencing, surveillance cameras, solar lights, an intrusion detection system, and hundreds of manned forts and thousands of observation posts. It is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019.


Wow! Not a single detractor of President Trump’s wall even mentions a single historical wall that in most cases has been very successful at doing one of two things: keeping people in, or keeping people out. With the furor surrounding the funding and construction of “The Wall,” I thought it timely to simply ask a few questions for all to ponder as the historical walls above and their impact from their construction are being discussed. These questions all apply to not any wall but “The Wall:”

  1. If such walls have pretty much worked historically, why the fuss by many to not just fund “The Wall,” but to with all the energy that can be mustered actively campaign to stop its construction? Surely NO American thinks spending $25 Billion on a border wall even though very expensive is too much for the U.S. to spend. That’s about 2 hours worth of government spending today!
  2. If the amount of money to build “The Wall” is not really unreasonable, do these wall haters have ulterior motives for their hate? If so, what could those motives possibly be?
  3. Why do these detractors want so desperately to apparently keep the southern border open that allows millions of illegals into the U.S. whose presence here is many cases is dangerous but in EVERY case costs American taxpayers billions of dollars and millions of jobs?

I’ll let you answer these three questions for yourself. But a very smart man told me when there is ever a political conundrum that needs its reason to be ferreted out, you can always “follow the money.” And in today’s political world, one does not have to follow the money, just follow the power. Power brings with its accumulation EVERYTHING — including money.

My two cents? Democrats don’t want “The Wall” because they fancy all those Spanish speaking illegals becoming citizens, obtaining the right to vote, and claiming those millions of voters as part of “their” followers, thus getting all those votes.

Before you decide to slap me around for that negative opinion of Democrats, consider this: that mindset has certainly worked for them before. Remember: Democrats could NOT in Congress pass the Civil Rights Act. Republicans passed it! Democrats stood against giving blacks the right to vote in 1964. Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan. Democrats devised today’s Welfare Program to make it financially unfeasible for African American couples to marry and live together, thus creating broken single-parent black homes. All of this was to force African Americans to feel obligated to……DEMOCRATS.

You can bet Dems are counting on the same situation with these illegals. And Donald Trump is probably the first president to recognize it AND BE WILLING TO FIGHT TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING!

Virtually NO Real Communication

Have you found yourself watching and listening to the protestors, liberal talk show hosts and guests, politicians from the left, and even some from the right, and felt a bit uncomfortable at the anti-Independent, anti-Federalist, anti-American message that seems to be the common thread in pretty much all of what you see and hear from them?

A Generation of “Non-Thinkers”

What at the birth of pocket electronics our parents were warning us about is coming true: laptops, smartphones, video games, and public school teachers are in large part “dumbing-down” an entire generation of Americans. First it was video games: we’ve come a long way since Pong! Then the internet, laptops, Wifi, satellite communication, culminating (at least so far) with social media.

I have laughed at the television commercial now airing that shows a group of young adults sitting in a den around a coffee table on two facing sofas with two end chairs, all with their smart phones in their hands and none talking to each other. That scene would have never happened 30 years ago. Why? Besides the fact there were NO smart phones 30 years ago, social culture still dictated REAL communication as the norm among people. And without electronic communication available, Americans relied on broadcast radio and television, hard print newspapers, and don’t forget conversations! 30 years ago is NOT today. And today regarding communication is NOT 30 years ago. “We’ve come a long way, Baby!” (Who remembers that line from a television commercial?) Communication now depends on electronics and has pretty much eliminated face-to-face talks, real discussions, and certainly the verbal in-person conversations.

Social Media

I’m a Baby Boomer, so “the” social media that I am most accustomed to is Facebook. I know it wasn’t the first, but it is the first to be so easy for people worldwide to access for mostly anonymous communications with people everywhere. There are those who maintain Facebook and other social media sites have opened the world to our children to learn about other people, other countries, and other cultures. While that is definitely true, that good comes at a great price.

It almost seems to me that the hours we spend on social media — writing, browsing, reading — has repossessed our ability to truly communicate with each other. After all, isn’t it easier, quicker, and briefer than picking up the phone (or simply closing Facebook and dialing) and calling someone instead of a Facebook message or post? Those who disagree might rebut that by saying using social media gives one a chance to get ALL their thoughts on any given subject out without interruptions that require answers which result in watered down overall results. I say, “No way.”

The art of communication is lost. It has gotten so bad that even the old telephone calls have gone by the wayside. How so? Texting. Here’s an example:

Our 2 daughters live in the same town as us. We have 6 grandchildren between them that are involved in EVERYTHING: football, basketball, soccer, plays, etc. There is literally something happening 7 days a week that we “need” to attend. Being a fairly organized man, my method of coordinating attendance at these events is to make 2 phone calls: 1 to Kimbi (the oldest) and 1 to Kori (the youngest.) My wife, on the other hand, begins texting. An hour later she still is not sure who’s playing where, what play and who stars in it, and if, when, and who needs to be picked up at school. Wouldn’t a 2 minute phone call be easier? It is for me.

So why the anonymity of texting, emailing, or social media posts rather than speaking directly to whomever to get an accurate answer? My use of the word “anonymity” in the previous sentence is not accidental. In our helter skelter society, almost all of us would rather be as anonymous as possible in our communications. I’m no shrink, but my analysis of the “Why?” in that is this: direct communication requires at least 2 to participate. And direct communication participation requires question, response, commitment, and then the big bad one: ACCOUNTABILITY. That’s the one that drives this boat.

Coach Mickey Slaughter — former Denver Broncos quarterback, longtime Offensive Coordinator/Genius at Louisiana Tech — when commenting on anonymous posters on a college bulletin board tried to calm me down one day when I expressed my anger and disgust at some of the things those posters were saying that were untrue and very snarky. Coach Slaughter said, “Dan, don’t worry about those guys. They can say that stuff because they’re just drive-by shooters.” He hit the nail on the head: being anonymous has its virtues. Nobody knows who you are. Nobody can hold you accountable for what you say.

Social media posting is usually a little different: it’s not usually anonymous. But isn’t it easier to say something — especially when what is going to be said is not nice — without having to look the person being told in the face? No accountability.


No other media has given people from almost every country the ability to express themselves like Facebook. I’m sure you will agree that people certainly take advantage of that. Some of the most ignorant, outrageous, and ridiculous things I have read in my life appear on Facebook. I often just shake my head and scroll on.

The 2016 election brought the “anonymous-es” out of the woodwork. There was so much venom spewed at/about/to every presidential candidate I am surprised someone didn’t die of snake bite! But you must agree that Donald Trump received more than his fair share of Facebook posts and messages. And, yes, he was in a constant Twitter-storm, often of his own doing.

But that social media cycle brought the communication lunacy we live in to the forefront for all to see. It is true that many Americans especially are perfectly willing to express themselves on every social media platform as they should be able to do: the 1st Amendment. But using social media as their platform means they can (and do) say anything with no accountability. And sadly it seems that a far greater number of Americans than I expected joined those conversations while agreeing almost totally with everything they heard or read being posted. The truth of the abysmal state of communication in America was pushed to front-and-center in 2016.

Sadly though it’s still out there going strong. Internet sites like and PolitiFact make pretty good income by simply researching and supposedly correcting false information posted in news stories and in social media. Unfortunately those 2 sites and others in the same business are often as incorrect as the stories they endeavor to debunk.

The horror to me in all of this is how much untruth there is in the public domain and how much is accepted as fact by far too many. Because we now live in an “instant electronic information” world, it seems that everyone is far too willing to just take what they see or hear as fact. We don’t communicate which means we don’t question and we don’t hunger for the truth like we did formerly. And that’s scary.

I just gave-up trying to have reasonable political conversations with some of my best friends during the 2016 campaign. Rather than wage a war of words, I actually blocked several dozen and actually unfriended a dozen more.

Facebook literally fuels the communication method of “talking at” rather than “talking to” those with whom we wish to communicate. And because of this instant electronic atmosphere in which we live, when we speak to others in soundbytes rather than full sentences, there is far too much space between the words for others emotions to interpret exactly what those words meant instead of conversing to find out for certain.

So the slide into horror begins: we think they said something that hurt our feelings. What do we do? We don’t respond or communicate. We simply make a decision about them based on what we thought they meant. THEN we say something back to them based on that emotion we feel rather than on the fact upon which what they said was based. THEY then receive what we respond with, and because we did not “speak” to them, only “posted” our response, they get mad because of what they “think” we meant. See how ridiculous and how dangerous it gets and how emotionally it escalates like a fire?


So what do we do? Should we delete Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, and the other social media platforms? I am not certain that would be the right thing to do. But we SHOULD think through how individually we are impacted by social media — especially how it impacts how we communicate with others.

As for me, I am so worn out by being attacked on all sides for simply being a Conservative, I’ve made some decisions:

  • I’m going to accept my role as a Deplorable. After all, I’m a Southern “former” Republican;
  • I’m going to quit my job, apply for unemployment, move to California where I can easily draw welfare, MediCal, and subsidized housing;
  • Even though I’ve never tried marijuana, I think medically I probably could “prove” I need some. So I’ll give it a whirl;
  • I’m pretty certain I have some Native American blood in my veins. That’s gotta be worth a little extra for me;
  • I already changed my voter party affiliation to “Independent.” I’ll just go ahead and change it to “Democrat” so I’ll fit in.

I’ve been married for 43 years to the same woman. That of course is not politically correct. So I’m thinking about divorce. But that brings up a dilemma for me: (Remember I’m a Southerner, and we go to family reunions to get dates!)

If I divorce her, will she still be my sister?


Who is “Lisa?”

She has some pretty substantial credentials.

Lisa H. Barsoomian is a U.S. Attorney that graduated from Georgetown Law. She’s a protege of James Comey and Robert Mueller.

Barsoomian with her boss, R. Craig Lawrence, represented Bill Clinton in 1998.
Craig Lawrence also represented:
* Robert Mueller 3 times,
* James Comey 5 times,
* Barack Obama 45 times,
* Kathleen Sebelius 56 times,
* Bill Clinton 40 times, and
* Hillary Clinton 17 times between 1998 and 2017.
* Barsoomian herself represented the FBI at least five times.

You may be saying to yourself, okay who cares, who cares about the work history of this Barsoomian woman. Apparently someone does. Someone out there cares so much that they’ve purged all Barsoomian court documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in 1999 from the D.C. District and Appeals court dockets. Someone out there cares so much that the internet has been purged of all information pertaining to Barsoomian. Historically this indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative.

Additionally Lisa Barsoomian has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence community. And although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the D.C. Office of the U.S. Attorney her email address is Lisa The NIH stands for National Institutes of Health…a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an operative by using another government organization to shield their activities. It’s a cover, so big deal right? I mean, what does one more attorney with ties to the U.S. intelligence community really matter?

With Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uniparty unrelenting opposition to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization mix, and last but not least, Mueller’s never-ending investigation into collusion between the Trump team and the Russians — why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention?

BECAUSE: She is Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s WIFE !!!!

Barsoomian’s loyalties are obviously tainted. How could this NOT have influenced Rosenstein? This clearly violates the appearance of impropriety attorney’s rules regarding conflict of interest. Both owe their careers as U.S. attorneys to Mueller, Obama, Bush, and the Clintons.

Impartiality? That’s impossible.

Rod Rosenstein has no business involving himself in the Hillary Clinton-DNC funded Steel dossier, and the ongoing Russia investigation, much less the selection of his mentor and his wife’s mentor Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.

The Rules of ethics: funny how that does NOT exist in Washington D.C. Draw your own conclusions. As we often do at, here are links that verify all of the above information (and much more) about the obvious corruption in this entire Special Counsel process, Robert Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, and the management levels of almost ALL intelligence agencies.

I encourage you to access these to get the truth. Copy and paste each link into your browser to see each of these. I know it’s tedious, but it’s important for you to know.


Just imagine if all of this collusion, inappropriate interaction between investigative officials on multiple federal levels, with such blatant conflict of interest in a federal investigation of ANY Democrat in federal office or the Democrat Party, and the investigative members instigating and conducting this investigation were Republicans. Would the Mainstream Media be going nuts everyday? They have demonstrated their capabilities in going nuts daily on air and in print through this “Russia, Russia, Russia” investigation. Step on their toes and listen to the howling.

I’ve just about had enough.

Even Civil Liberties attorney and longtime Democrat Party supporter Alan Dershowitz said that he is fearful of the criminalization of political differences in today’s discourse and that he doesn’t think special counsels are the right way to approach criminal justice. Dershowitz spoke to CBS political reporter Jack Fink about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. “I think the investigation should end and I think the Congress should appoint a special non-partisan commission,” said Dershowitz. He said he thinks a Congressional committee would be too partisan.

Dershowitz said that citizens should fear the direction of this investigation for their own sake. He warned that today criminalization of political differences appears – now – to only affect presidents and political leaders. “Tomorrow it can affect you and me. If you give the prosecutor the ability to stretch the criminal law to fit a target, it’s very dangerous.”

Dershowitz said that special counsels are not the right way to approach criminal justice. “When you appoint a special counsel you give them targets and you say, ‘You better get that guy or the people around him…and we’re going to give you tens of millions of dollars. And if you come up empty handed you’re a failure.’”

Dershowitz said that if an ordinary prosecutor goes months without finding a crime then “that’s great, no… there have been no crimes committed.” He says not so with a special counsel. “Special Counsel always has the goal of ‘getting the people.’ They’re going to find crimes, or they’re going to manufacture crimes or they’re going to stretch the criminal law to fit the ‘crimes’ because they’re not going to come away empty handed.”

When is enough enough? 15 months of investigating this Russia collusion allegation with the greatest intelligence gathering organization and an unlimited budget to do so should definitely uncover any such collusion IF there’s any there. At this point, most Americans agree, “there ain’t no there there.”

Can’t we just get moving forward in Government to get the good things done that American voters overwhelmingly voted for? The ones that President Trump has set in motion — even with the amazing obstruction from Democrats and even members of his own party — have proven to be pretty good so far. Yet still the Left cries to tear down all the good that has been done and to prevent any further positive accomplishments by this President.

I’m a Southerner. Down here the cry is, “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”

It ain’t broken.

Many thanks to Dick Ivey for much of this information. Dick does a great job of investigative work.