Why Not Just Go Ahead with Dems Immigration Plans?

Everyone sees and hears the same thing day after day after day after day: “Why doesn’t President Trump just agree to one of the bills passed by the House of Representatives that fully funds the federal government and let government employees go back to work. The closing was strictly for political purposes — his border wall — which is a waste of $5 Billion taxpayer dollars, will not work, and is immoral. And those 800,000 federal employees are being penalized in the name of his stupid Wall.” Has anyone heard any or all of that? It’s EVERYWHERE!

Certainly, it would be much easier for a lot of folks if President Trump went ahead and caved to Pelosi and Schumer and did just that: call those workers back. But if he did, he would be betraying 63+ million Americans who he promised while campaigning that he would build that wall, close the southern border, and stop the flood of illegal immigrants from coming across that border. That would stop the flood of illegal drug, stop the sex traffickers, stop multiple felony offenders, and see to it that immigration laws in place are enforced until the portions of those laws that are outdated, unreasonable, and ineffective are terminated, fixed, or replaced with new legislation from Congress.

I am stepping aside of objectivity for just one moment and say this: Why would ANY American — member of Congress or anyone else for that matter — want so desperately for the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants that numbered among them are gang members, drug and human traffickers, and thousands of others that have already been deported for lawbreaking to be allowed into the United States illegally? They are willing for this to happen in spite of no one knowing who those illegals are, which are good people just looking for better lives, and which are illegals who prey on legal Americans by committing against them everything from petty larceny to rape and murder? Until someone in a position of authority is willing to explain their willingness to continue to allow that to happen, please stop the outrageously ridiculous cries to do so.

To kick off a real discussion about this today, let’s address the argument that is thrown in our faces almost daily: Ronald Reagan gave citizenship to millions of illegals in 1986. He was the Republican hero that all point to as the conservative example for all to follow. If he did that, what is wrong for doing it again?

Yes, that was 33 years ago — a LONG time ago. But that law and surrounding circumstances are worth taking a look at. So let’s (in brief) take a look:

Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Law

President Reagan had a heart for immigrants. As a former California governor, he knew first-hand the benefits that immigrants were to the California agriculture industry. He was pressured by most of the leaders in California’s agriculture industry to find a way to legalize all those workers that were necessary to California Agriculture operation. They made it clear that without those illegals available to work in their fields, vineyards, and on their farms, California’s leading economic industry was doomed. That was the place that Reagan birthed the idea of addressing the growing illegal migrant population in America.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) is the legal name of the law. In a very brief fashion, here were the immigration issues addressed in the law:

  • required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status;
  • made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
  • legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
  • legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt.
  • candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

At the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.

So what did the law actually do?

I’ll refer to an article from the Washington Post who better than I could list its provisions:

What did the 1986 immigration law do? Two big things. First, there was the “amnesty” bit. Any unauthorized immigrants who had already been living in the United States continuously since 1982 became eligible for temporary legal status, after paying a $185 fee and demonstrating “good moral character.” After 18 months, they could then become eligible for green cards, provided they learned to speak English.

Second, there was the enforcement bit. The law aimed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border against illegal crossings with new surveillance technology and a bigger staff. The bill also, for the first time in history, imposed penalties on businesses that knowingly hired or employed unauthorized immigrants.

How many immigrants took advantage of amnesty? The law awarded green cards to about 2.7 million immigrants, all told — including about 1 million farm workers. It was the largest legalization program in U.S. history.

When the bill passed, at the signing ceremony, President Reagan was obviously pleased with the accomplishments. Listen closely to the things he says at the signing:

Has it Worked?

  • The 1986 amnesty legalized approximately 2.7 million illegal immigrants, a much smaller number than the 11 million estimated today. Washington approved 90 percent of the 1.3 million agricultural workers who sought legal status despite detecting fraud in nearly a third of the applications.
  • The amnesty was supposed to be balanced with stronger enforcement measures, such as employer sanctions for those who hire illegal immigrants. This remains a major selling point of the “comprehensive” approach to immigration today.
  • This enforcement turned out to be a bait and switch, like when spending cuts are promised in exchange for tax increases. The amnesty happened and is irreversible. The enforcement has been spotty and in some cases never materialized.
  • What did materialize was more illegal immigration. By one estimate, illegal immigration increased by 44 percent between 1987 and 1989, from the start of amnesty to its peak. The Congressional Research Service reports that the illegal immigrant population swelled from 3.2 million in 1986 to 12.4 million in 2007, “before leveling off at 11.1 million in 2011.”
  • Some analysts believe the number of illegal immigrants reached as high as 20 million. The author of a Bear Stearns report arriving at the figure later told the Wall Street Journal, “The assumption that illegal people will fill out a census form is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard of.”
  • It’s also worth noting that four years after amnesty became law, President George H.W. Bush signed a bill increasing legal immigration by 40 percent. Legal immigration has also been higher than in the mid-1980s and illegal immigration still increased.

Many Republicans who want to repeat the Reagan amnesty hope this will improve the party’s standing among Hispanics. But the actual Republican Hispanic vote share decreased between 1984, before amnesty, and 1988, after. It is noteworthy that since December of 2018, the statistics showing support among Hispanics for President Trump’s stand against illegal migrants has climbed from 31% to 59%.

As illegal immigration increased, enforcement decreased. Audits of employers of illegal immigrants dropped 77 percent between fiscal years 1990 and 2003. Warnings fell 62 percent. Notices of intent to fine illegal employers plummeted 82 percent.


So here’s the answer to the question asked in the first paragraph above: The reason President Trump has not agreed to the immigration plans given to him by Democrats is illustrated perfectly by the Washington Post  — which few would disagree that doesn’t support the President in any way — the promises of Democrats that were even included in the law were NOT and still are NOT being kept in the wake of the blanket amnesty given to 2.7 million illegals. And the population of other illegals, as a result, has climbed to what the most recent non-partisan report states is now over 20 million.

How could any thinking, breathing human being expect this president — ANY president — to flatly agree to any promises made by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? Why shouldn’t he go ahead and open the government? If he does, several things will happen:

  • Obviously, all those federal workers go back on the job. That’s a good thing;
  • Nancy Pelosi said plainly in their last meeting when the President asked she and Chuck: “If I go ahead and re-open the government, will you agree to negotiate over the next 30-days to fund border protection measures that include the wall?” Nancy stated they would not;
  • In doing so, he would break a campaign promise that was the justification for millions of Americans to vote for him for President. For that, he certainly would lose the White House in 2020.

Let’s stipulate the wall, other types of border security, and closing the border WERE Trump campaign promises. But Americans should NOT have to argue in any way about the need for Congress and other parts of our government to enforce the laws of the United States! Not doing so accepts anarchy as a legitimate and acceptable government operation!

Here’s what I suggest: everytime you have a conversation with anyone who supports keeping immigration policies just as they are and wants the government open without making any commitments for real immigration law enforcement, ask them this question: “What is an acceptable number to you of legal Americans to be killed by illegal migrants before you would demand total illegal immigration law enforcement?”

And if they give you a number — any number — ask them this: “Are you O.K. if included in that number is your wife, husband, or child?”

That may seem harsh or cruel. But if we continue down this open-border road on which we are traveling, the odds of having an immediate family member having that happen become more and more real everyday.



Do you like me sometimes reach a moment of desperation? Have you ever looked at life’s circumstances as they pertain to you and think, “I do NOT understand what’s happening. I do NOT know why this is happening to me. I do NOT know what to do about all this.”

If you have ever felt this way (or feel that way right now) you are certainly not alone. In fact, if you NEVER felt that way, you certainly ARE alone! Let’s face facts: life circumstances that sometimes overwhelm not only are normal, for most it is usual. Experiences beyond our control that surface in our lives fairly often is a normal occurrence.


When do these uncontrollable circumstances morph into Desperation? Webster defines desperation as “loss of hope and surrender to despair.” OK, so what is “despair?” Webster defines “despair” as: “the utter loss of hope.”

This is getting a bit confusing! “Loss of hope” is the common denominator of these definitions. I’ll bite: What is “hope?”

Hope is (according to Webster) “to cherish a desire with anticipation: to want something to happen or be true.” Now we’re getting somewhere.

“Hope” is the first of these feelings — “desperation,” “despair,” “the utter loss of hope” — that WE control!


We’ve all heard the word “faith” used in multiple frames of reference in our lives: maybe in your wedding vows used this way — “faithful.” It may have been  about your favorite NFL team’s pending ballgame outcome: “I have faith the Saints will beat the Rams!”

We’ve all heard the word, we’ve all said the word. But what does the word “faith” mean? Let’s not go to Webster for the definition. Let’s go to the Bible.

(Wait a minute! We can’t talk religion in this story. How do you get away with that? BECAUSE IT’S MY BLOG!)


“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1, New International Version) The same verse from the King James version says this: “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things HOPED for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”

Now we’re getting somewhere.

In most instances, when we get desperate, we’ve lost faith in a situation getting better — we’ve given up. It may be a problem with a child that just seems to achieve no resolution no matter how hard we try. Maybe it’s in a relationship with a spouse, a friend or fellow worker. Sometimes desperation sets in when a close friend or family member with whom we have a close bond find themselves in circumstances that are too intense for them. And we are so close to them, we feel their desperation and make that feeling our own.

By way of clarity: I am not a medical mental health expert. But at my age, my life is full of experiences with many people from many places who have diverse life circumstances. Throughout my 6+ decades, I’ve seen much desperation surface with many different faces in some of those. One does not need to be a professional to see the differences of reactions by people to determine which “escapes” from desperation are successful and which fail. I’ve seen miraculous escapes from desperation from a multitude of common and strange circumstances, to examples of total failure and even suicide. But in certainty, we can say the results of actions taken by anyone to end desperation that result in DEEPER desperation are NEVER the correct ones.

It has been my almost universal experience with desperation that there is one way out and one way only: Faith — faith in an answer, faith in some source of that answer, and ultimately faith in God.

If you routinely attend church you certainly have heard messages about faith. But hearing messages about faith that one can turn into faith are two different things. To use faith to dump desperation, getting a grasp of what faith is and how to obtain it to use in those desperate circumstances, often create a conundrum.

So how do we get our arms around Faith?

There’s no magic in that process. There’s no secret formula for faith — seldom are there lightning flashes or thunder when faith shows up.

I don’t want to trivialize its importance. The Bible even makes it clear how critical faith is to our well being in Romans 14: “Everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

Don’t get confused: put the two verses together and you’ll be able to better understand what faith is and its importance. By its definition, it is just a little piece of what we hope for — whether literally if we’re looking for tangible and material results, or even if our desired results are intangible. What we are hoping for is NOT visible to us at that time. But we CAN get results when we trust that that “little piece” we see is, in fact, proof that we WILL see the final results.

Does that make sense?

Let’s try this example:

Bubba finds beautiful young Judy at high school and falls in love with her. She is gorgeous! And because of her beauty, every boy in school wants to date her. Bubba one day sheepishly runs into Judy in the hallway and he says “Hello.” To Bubba’s surprise, she smiles back. So, Bubba introduces himself. Judy immediately quips, “I know who you are. I’ve been watching you!”

Things begin to gel between the pair and they start dating. They become inseparable, together all the time each has from other responsibilities. It doesn’t take long for Bubba to determine that Judy’s the one for him for life.

After graduation, he decides to pop the big question. And to his surprise, Judy agrees to marry him! They are officially engaged. They set a wedding date 10 months down the road.

Judy is STILL beautiful, still desirous to other guys who want to date her, but she’s now engaged to Bubba. Judy “promised” to marry him. But Bubba must make a decision about their relationship: should he trust Judy’s commitment to spend the rest of her life with him, or should Bubba worry about “outside” influences? He wants her by his side for life. And he’s committed for life to her and only her. Though she made the same commitment to him, what should he do to make sure she fulfills her commitment?

The answer is simple: Bubba can go down that road of care and concern about Judy and her commitment. That ultimately leads to worry and concern, and sometimes that results in desperation. So that is obviously not the REAL answer Bubba needs.

There is an alternative: FAITH. You cannot see faith, you cannot touch faith. But it is necessary for us to make it through life’s circumstances of which we HAVE NO CONTROL. We MUST have faith to get to that wedding date in one piece.

How did Bubba do that? How do WE do that? FAITH.

Bubba’s faith came from the fact he nurtured a personal relationship with Judy during the one year. By knowing her, he received through that the “substance” of her commitment to a lifetime with him. The evidence of what Bubba was hoping for — marriage — the trust he garnered during that year from the relationship that developed during that year. That is an example of faith that we all should be able to grasp.

There’s actually a funny faith example that may seem ridiculous, but it also illustrates faith:

A couple had two sons, Billy and Tommy. Tommy was the eternal optimist. He seldom cried or even frowned. He stayed happy all the time. Billy seemed to be like all other children. One would think parents would be thrilled with a childlike Tommy, but both worried that he would not grow up knowing the harsh realities that life can bring. Billy seemed to be a realist, so their parents were not concerned about him.

One Christmas, the father had an idea: “We need to shock Tommy into reality. All we will give Tommy for Christmas is a bag of animal poop. That will teach him what reality is.” That’s what they did.

Christmas morning both boys joined their parents to open presents. Billy had 3 or 4 neat gifts that he unwrapped. Tommy waited until Billy was through and then opened his only gift: the bag of poop. The moment he saw the present’s contents, he jumped up and started running around the house from room to room, slamming doors, squealing all the while.

His Dad followed him, stopped him from running, and said this to son: “Tommy, you just got a bag of poop for Christmas and nothing else. Why would you possibly be so excited?” Tommy pushed past his Dad headed out to the garage and shouted to his Dad as he opened the garage door: “I got a bag of poop. I’m going to find my pony!”

You get it, don’t you? When Tommy saw the poop, he knew he held the evidence of what he hoped for. He wanted a pony and had dreamed of getting one for Christmas. That poop was the substance of the hoped-for pony and the evidence there was one, he just had to find it.


Every time we face a crisis in our lives, we have just two choices to make: do we take it head on, knowing that no matter how bad those circumstances are, sometimes bad things happen to good people? Do we in desperation fall to pieces crying “Woe is me,” or do we make the other choice, to believe that whatever the situation is, there is or are solutions to this crisis that will be available to me that I don’t know right now, but I WILL find them and get this taken care of.

Faith is critical for those circumstances in which we know we have no solution: serious illness, financial crisis, etc. We have those two choices and two only.

So when they show up at your house, I encourage you to turn away from the temptation to embrace desperation and opt for grabbing and holding on to faith to get through those happenings. It’s always a choice: our choice.

By the way: Bubba and Judy remain happily married 43 years later. Actually, on Valentines Day it will be 44 years. That’s a true story.

I’m Bubba!





Money, Money Money

Ever wonder what happens to the money illegal migrants make while working in the U.S.? It is common knowledge that, for decades, the primary reason for illegals entering the U.S. is to find better employment than that available to them in their home countries — especially Mexico. Having the ability to almost at will cross the U.S. southern border, it is common for illegals to find mostly blue collar jobs that pay far more than the available jobs in Mexico. Unfortunately, many employers in the U.S. find it tempting to take advantage of those workers AND U.S. law by paying those migrants lower than normal wages and paying many in cash. Doing so saves companies millions in required Medicare, Social Security, and federal unemployment employer matching fees. Cash payments allow migrants to get these jobs AND employers to bypass federal and state employment laws by not enrolling these workers in the system.

A large majority of these illegals send a portion of their earnings back to Mexico to family members. It is shocking to know how many U.S. dollars head to Mexico in this fashion every year. It’s BILLIONS!

How much is it?

Mexicans sent home $26.1 billion from January to November 2017, according to figures released Tuesday by the central bank of Mexico. That’s the most ever recorded and better than the $24.1 billion sent in 2016 over the same period. Most of the cash sent to Mexico by Mexicans living in the U.S. is transferred by “undocumented” workers. A survey by Inter-American Dialogue of remittances to Mexico found that 67 percent were sent by these individuals living in the U.S.

Of all of the remittances sent to 11 countries in Latin America from the U.S., Mexico received the largest share by far at 36 percent – four times more than the closest competitor, Guatemala, at 9 percent, the survey found.

Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), which exceed US$70 billion dollars, are playing a key role in the region’s economic development,” according to the institute’s recent “Remittances scorecard.”

The majority of remittances to Mexico, 88.2 percent, are sent using the services of companies like MoneyGram and Western Union, the institute found. It said the cash transfer industry has “expanded dramatically,” and now helps migrants in the U.S. pay their bills in Latin America.

But while services have expanded, the cost of sending money to Latin America and the Caribbean has dropped to below 5 percent of the transfer amount. Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, says the cash transfers reveal a “hidden cost of illegal immigration because you have millions of dollars being taken out of local communities.” “Remittances being sent out of the country represent a substantial economic impact on local communities because that money is not circulating in those communities,” Mehlman said. “On top of that, a lot of the people generating this money are working off the books and there are no payroll taxes being taken,” he added.

Data gathered by the Mexican government and BBVA Research shows nearly one-third (29.6 percent) of all of the remittances sent from the U.S. to Mexico originated in California. Just over 14 percent was sent from Texas, and 5.1 percent from Illinois. Recently obtained numbers show that remittances sent to Mexico totaled 2.3 percent of the country’s GDP. Forbes has reported that the money sent from the U.S. to Mexico by migrants “replaced oil revenues as Mexico’s number one source of foreign income.”

Some 90 percent of all remittances sent worldwide are in cash, rather than by electronic or bank transfer, according to Alix Murphy, director of mobile partnerships at the remittances company WorldRemit, which operates in 47 states of the U.S. She said the market for money transfer services in the U.S. was “very diversified.” “We’re talking hundreds of companies that are regulated by the states.” Individuals using cash transfer services are required to show identification, but not immigration status. Foreign-issued IDs, however, can be used, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

The Remittance Status Verification Act, introduced by then-Senator David Vitter (R-La.) in 2014 but never passed into law, would have fined senders of international cash transfers seven percent of the transfer amount if they could not show “proof of status under U.S. immigration laws.” If enacted, such a law could slow the flow of remittances considerably, according to David Landsman, executive director of the National Money Transmitters Association.

In remarks published in the “Remittance Industry Observatory” newsletter, Landsman said that “forcing remittance companies to be immigration enforcement agents would make remittance volumes plummet in the best of times. Their transactions would then go through more informal methods, and become completely opaque to law enforcement.”


We have known for years that most migrants slip into the U.S. illegally for job opportunities. Jobs that offer real futures to natives of Mexico are slim. And most Mexicans lack really good education because of dollars and cents. No reasonable person fails to understand the desperation that drives those from Mexico and all of Central America to the U.S. southern border. It’s all about income.

Additionally, it is unquestionable that the families of those illegals are dependent in part — and often totally dependent — on income sent back to Mexico from employed illegals in the U.S. That being said, those $26.1 billion taken out of the U.S. economy hurt the U.S. How?

No one knows an exact number if there is one, but experts state payroll dollars roll over 5 times in the markets where spent. As an example: Joe the Worker is married with 4 kids and makes $2000 a month. Joe takes home $1600 of that. Joe pays $600 rent, $100 in utilities, $400 in food, $200 for auto expense, $100 for clothing, $100 for prescription drugs, and $100 for miscellaneous expenses. Jose the worker is married with 4 kids and makes $2000 a month. Jose takes home $2000 in cash. Jose and his family share a house with his brother and they each pay $300 in rent. Jose pays $400 for food, shares the car with his brother and pays $100 for gas, $100 for clothing, $100 for drugs, and sends $1000 to his mother in Mexico.

Of Joe’s $2000, $400 is deducted for federal and state income tax and his share of Social Security and Medicare which are matched by his employer. Jose pays none of that. Both Joe and Jose’s rent money goes to their landlord as does cash for food, gas, and drugs. The federal and state government have $400 that goes to pay on government infrastructure for roads on which Joe drives, hospitals, and the schools which his children attend. The stores where he buys food and clothes and the utility company have money he pays them for THEM to spend paying their employees who in turn spend their checks in the town. Joe’s paycheck is spent 100% on goods and services from the federal and his state and local governments. Jose’s $2000 — with the exception of what he pays for rent, utilities, gas, and food — are paid to those in Mexico rather than being spent in his U.S. town. Just a small percentage of the portion of his local payments support government and public services he and his family use: roads, schools, medical facilities, etc. Yet he sends money home to Mexico that is paid into the economy there instead of the U.S.

If as economists claim payroll dollars roll over 5 times in the markets wherein employees work and live, Joe’s $2000 makes a $10,000 economic impact on his town and state. Of Jose’s $2000, only $1000 goes into that “rollover” cycle. The impact of his pay is just half of Joe’s, or $5000.

What’s wrong with that picture?

  • Being in the U.S. without permission is a crime. I struggle to even in conversation get beyond that point. And it is stupefying that such illegalities are even allowed to occur every day in the U.S.! But they are. Many in our federal government simply turn their backs on the rule of law in this instance purely for political purposes;
  • Illegals eat up the U.S. infrastructure with very little contribution for doing so while law-abiding Americans foot the bill. The two primary targets of their consumption without any (or very little) economic input on their part are medical facilities and public schools. The added weight of Spanish-speaking-only children in U.S. schools impacts how schools can even operate. It forces bilingual teachers to be provided which comes at additional taxpayer expense. And often children of illegals are significantly deficient in their level of education when enrolling in U.S. public schools. This forces schools to adjust curriculum and age/grade participation processes that impact U.S. children in major ways;
  • We cannot forget one major consideration in this issue: Jose takes a job that would be available for an American who is abiding by all the rules and whose income is spent totally in the United States. Yes, there are those who maintain that Mexican illegals perform in jobs that Americans will not. There is no factual basis for that premise though there certainly are some of those positions to which it is pertinent. But even if 50% of those jobs end up with illegals, 50% could have gone to legal American citizens.

What’s The Fix?

  1. Stop illegal immigration! There’s no substitute for that. Many conflate the issues purposely. It certainly is true that millions of people — not just from Mexico, but from almost every other country on Earth — want to live in the U.S., primarily for economic opportunity. The U.S. legally accepts 1 million immigrants annually into the U.S. legally. And that is more than do all the other countries on Earth combined! The U.S. really cares for the poor and needy. But the U.S. infrastructure cannot survive under the weight of those who soak up its resources with little if any economic contribution. That doesn’t even consider the social and criminal justice illegals bring to the U.S.
  2. Stop giving financial incentives to those who come here. U.S. employers are just as guilty in many cases as the illegals. If they would not hire workers that are illegal, the incentive for their coming would be severely limited. Many of those employers do so to dodge paying payroll taxes, (they are paid in tax) and they are able to hire illegals at a much lower wage than they pay legal immigrants and Americans. Why? Illegals are not in the U.S. system as are legal immigrants and Americans, sho those employers can get away with shortcuts at not only the government’s expense but by not paying into benefits for illegals as they do for legal workers.
  3. Minimize the massive amounts of dollars that leave the U.S. from these workers sending large portions of their pay back to Mexico. That could easily be accomplished by limiting the legal ways for them to do so. Several of those companies that process such payments internationally are listed above. Congress could easily pass legislation that would force these companies and all banking institutions to require full identity verification for all those who transfer money out of the U.S. AND could charge a percentage transfer fee for every transfer. Do the math: Of the $26 billion transferred each year, assess a 5% fee that would help make up the cost to America’s infrastructure used every day by these illegals that so far have been provided free. (Hey, that could even be applied to the cost of President Trump’s wall!)

This is all just a piece of the big problem America’s federal government keeps dancing around: illegal immigration. There’s no need for us to discuss details further. We all know them. But it certainly is time to right the ship of immigration and takes our country back to the rule of law. Everyone who lives and visits the U.S. should abide by EVERY law in place in every city, state, and anywhere in the U.S. And those who violate laws should pay the legal penalty for doing so.

Short of doing that, the U.S. is headed toward certain anarchy. How long will law-abiding American citizens continue to standby and watch our federal government allow illegal migrants to soak up our tax dollars and break our laws with impunity? We have not reached a tipping point yet. But in American history, there are examples of Americans saying, “Enough is enough!” and doing something about government wrongdoing.

Let’s don’t go there. Let’s fix the problem…NOW!



Let’s Make a Deal

Donald Trump as an entrepreneur was famous as a great negotiator of business deals. Obviously, he has many wins in his long career. Yes, he had some losses as do ALL entrepreneurs. But his wins far outnumbered his losses.

Donald Trump as U.S. President has in just two years put together an impressive list of deals he has negotiated that far exceed most if not every one of his predecessor. The difference is that the current media seldom give him credit for those negotiated deals: tax cuts, unemployment numbers, GDP numbers, massive increase in federal revenue, historical achievements in success in keeping businesses from leaving the U.S. and attracting those who left to return, etc. I saw not a single mention of his signing a bill yesterday that because of his efforts reduced the cost of prescription medications for Americans.

To that end, there is a question in the air about the current partial shutdown of the federal government. Could Donald Trump — the “President” and “Deal-Maker-in-Chief” — have instigated the shutdown for a specific reason other than the obvious one and the one so necessary: to fund a southern border wall and the enhancement of border security? 

A “Theory”

Has President Trump suckered Democrats and the Deep State into a trap that will enable a radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy?  In only five more days of the already “longest government shutdown in history” (25 days and counting, as of today), an obscure threshold will be reached, enabling permanent layoffs of bureaucrats furloughed 30 days or more.

Don’t believe me that federal bureaucrats can be laid off?  Well, in bureaucratese, a layoff is called a RIF – a Reduction in Force – and of course, it comes with a slew of civil service protections.  But, if the guidelines are followed, bureaucrats can be laid off – as in no more job.

A reduction in force is a thoughtful and systematic elimination of positions.  For all practical purposes, a government RIF is the same thing as a layoff. Organizations must stick to predetermined criteria when sorting out what happens to each employee. They must communicate with employees how and why decisions are made.

In deciding who stays and who goes, federal agencies must take four factors into account:

  1. Tenure
  2. Veteran status
  3. Total federal civilian and military service
  4. Performance

Agencies cannot use RIF procedures to fire bad employees.  A lot of procedures must be followed, and merit (“performance”) is the last consideration, but based on the criteria above, employees already furloughed can be laid off (“RIFed”) once they have been furloughed for 30 days or 22 work days:

  • When agencies furlough employees for more than 30 calendar days or 22 discontinuous work days, they must use RIF procedures.
  • An employee can be terminated or moved into an available position.

This seems to be what was referenced in this remarkable essay written by an “unidentified senior Trump official” published in the Daily Caller, which vouches for the authenticity of the author and explains that it is protecting him from adverse career consequences should the name become known. The purported senior official makes the case that devotion to “process” eats up most of the time of federal bureaucrats and is also used by enemies of President Trump’s initiatives to stymie the legitimate orders issued by his senior officials:

“On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country.  I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else.  But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results.  If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.

Why would they?  We can’t fire them.  They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position – some do this in the same position for more than a decade.

They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value.  That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands – administering, refining, following and collaborating on process.  “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves.  Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.”

Then the senior official notes what I have just called the “trap:”

Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda.  This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them.  Until the shutdown.

Those officials who waste time and stymie the president’s initiatives now are not present because they are not categorized as “essential.” Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. …

President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them.

Keep in mind that saboteurs cannot be individually identified and RIFed, but they can be included in the layoffs if they meet the criteria above in terms of seniority and service, and they must be given 60 days’ notice. But once they are gone, they are no longer free to obstruct using the “process” as their friend, because they are gone.

You can expect lawsuits on every conceivable point, and I suspect that the definition of “furlough” will be one matter of dispute.

If this was the plan all along, it would explain why President Trump goaded Chuck and Nancy in his televised meeting with them last year, boasting that he would claim credit for the shutdown.  How could they resist a prolonged shutdown when he made it so easy to blame him? President Trump has proven that he is a “disruptor” who changes the framework of thinking on major issues by refusing to accept the “givens” – the assumptions of how things always have been done and therefore always must be done.

So who is the “senior official?”  I don’t know, but I think Stephen Miller is the sort of bold thinker who might volunteer to telegraph the strategy just five days before the deadline.  Give Chuck and Nancy something to think about and probably reject as unthinkable.  Then they can’t complain that they weren’t warned once the trap is sprung.

Such a mass RIF would be the Trump version of Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers when they went on an illegal strike in 1981.  That was completely unexpected by his enemies, vehemently criticized, and successful.

Among other benefits, it taught the leaders of the USSR that Ronald Reagan was a man whose threats cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric.  If you think that Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel, and any other foreign leaders would not draw the same conclusion from a massive RIF, then you are kidding yourself.


There is no doubt that this shut-down negatively impacts millions in the nation, including the 800,000 workers that have been forced to the sidelines. But the question remains: how many of those 800,000 really need to be employed by the People? No one knows yet the correct answer to that question. There are certainly many opinions on the matter just as on all other political issues. But many of those opinions are based not on any factual justification other than their being filled by working Americans. And the dilemma created “if” those positions were eliminated as illustrated above is simply the creation of unemployed workers.

The economics of that hypothetical is far-reaching and uncertain. As the examples above disclose, it was made it clear that far too many federal workers are not really workers, but have cush jobs with little necessity for existing other than to find ways to perpetuate their jobs and retirements at taxpayer expense. What would those people do if “RIF’d?”

There’s no real all-in-one solution that immediately comes to mind. We have seen in the past the chaos for workers that have been kicked to the curb when large companies close-up shop in the U.S. headed for tax-friendly, employer-friendly foreign countries. The fix would not be an easy one. And we far too often have watched the devastating impact rising unemployment numbers have made in this country. And that’s not even considering the horrors for those out-of-work employees and their families.

But wait a minute: didn’t the U.S. Department of Labor issue a report several weeks ago that stated there are far more jobs available across the nation than there are people to fill them? 6.9 million, to  be exact, as of January 9, 2019. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to say “None of those furloughed federal workers will have trouble finding a job: there are 6.9 million to choose from!” Considerations like job type and location of those empty jobs, employee qualifications, compensation packages, etc., would certainly prevent a simple “walkover” for these former 800,000 federal employees. But this highlights a systemic problem that has epidemically grown the federal government into what it is today: a giant bureaucratic monster that devours everything in site — especially taxpayer dollars!

These numbers further illustrate the picture that entrepreneurs “see” and use in their pursuit of building new businesses or finding existing businesses they turn into profitable enterprises. The fruit of those enterprises is more revenue than the costs to operate those businesses.

While in this conversation we need to be certain to not lose sight of the specific and stated reason for this partial shut-down: the refusal of Democrat members of the House of Representatives to consider and provide funding for the same enhanced border security measures that these same Democrat House members voted for multiple times under previous presidents.

To that end and in closing: why has no member of this “great” American media interviewed Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to ask this question: “Ms. Speaker and Mr. Minority Leader, why do you not support a southern border wall or barrier today when in previous Congressional sessions you each vocally supported and voted for bills that would have taken the exact same measures? Ms. Pelosi, why is the currently proposed border wall immoral when the border walls you previously voted for were mandatory for the safety of Americans?”

It’s sad enough that they have taken this position solely to prevent this President from achieving another objective to move the country forward in total disregard of the safety of Americans. To totally ignore the lives of the Americans they each swore an oath to protect is a blight on the Democrat Party and other Democrats in Congress. The statistics that show the hundreds of thousands of serious crimes at the hands of illegals and Democrat leadership refusing to implement safety measures to sto it solely for political purposes is reprehensible.

I wonder why the national media ignores their flip-flops and will not question Pelosi or Schumer in a national forum? CNN might gain enough viewers to sneak back on top of MSNBC. It would take at least a few hundred more!


Many thanks to Robert Lifton



What If…

  • April 10, 2017, we posted a story titled “What If?” that asked questions about the oddities that surfaced in and about Hillary Clinton’s actions during her 2016 presidential bid and probable outcomes if she had taken different actions. Today, our approach is to really ask “What If?” questions, and ask you to consider for yourself some real differences in thinking, talking points, and actions. Let’s go!

What If?

  • What If… Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other Democrats would initiate or participate in a conversation (or debate) about the truth of border walls elsewhere in the world, their successes or failures, and discussed objectively the facts given by experts regarding circumstances at the southern border and what such a wall could do or could not do to address illegal immigration? They have both (as have most Democrats) acknowledged there is a problem there. But there have been no substantive discussions or debates with an honest intent to resolve the problem, nor have there been meaningful discussions about facts, for that matter.
  • What If… Leadership in the Democrat Party, instead of non-stop bashing of everything regarding governmental issues of all types offered by the President or other conservatives, present to all Americans THEIR suggested alternative policies, programs, and show the benefits of THEIR ideas that eclipse those of the opposite side? Honestly, such a suggestion goes to the fact that in Americans in great number have no idea what the Democrat Party offers Americans or what the Party supports, other than pro-abortion, anti-gun, and Medicare-for-all ideas.
  • What If… Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s physical condition and age result in either her recusal or retirement from the bench? It is pretty certain a conservative candidate would be nominated to take her place. If that happens, it is certain we would be destined for an even more Creetin war between political parties than we saw during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. What if opponents of this President’s Constitutional duty to appoint a SCOTUS replacement go so far as to make legal challenges against the President’s authority to do so?
  • What If… California voters knew that a group of California lawmakers took a trip to Hawaii with utility companies last year as wildfires wreaked havoc in their state? And that during the junket, representatives from utility companies discussed with lawmakers just how much responsibility they should bear for wildfires – even as Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) could be on the hook for several billions of dollars in damages for fires it caused over the past few years. The utility companies are pushing for a new state law that would raise electricity prices to offset costs incurred from wildfires.
  • What If… Rank-and-file Democrats knew what a “superdelegate” is and that those gave Hillary Clinton the Democrat Party 2016 presidential nomination to Hillary over Bernie Sanders? A Superdelegate is a Democrat Party delegate who is seated automatically and chooses for themselves for whom they vote. These Democratic Party superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the presidential nomination, regardless of the wishes of Democrats who voted for them strictly because of those delegates’ commitment to a specific candidate.
  • What If… Those same rank-and-file Democrats go all-in in 2020 for Socialist candidates and their agendas — like House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)? Doing so would obviously send the U.S. Government far to the left — farther than even some of those Socialist governments in Europe, like the U.K., Germany, France, and others are.
  • What If… Democrats joined Republicans to demand law enforcement from the Department of Justice top-down and begin the universal enforcement of ALL federal laws regardless of the laws or the offenders? If so, such enforcement would necessarily include lawbreakers like violators of immigration and federal drug laws.
  • What If… Congress would suspend the current policies regarding government spending that guarantee the continued ramping up of U.S. debt? What If they refused to pass any spending bill without Congressional Budget Office’s rating at budget neutral before voting up or down on the measure?
  • What If… Congress suspended the practice of taking favors of any kind from formal or informal lobbyists — PERIOD? That would require changing federal laws to ban such actions. It would need to be crafted to be “chat-proof,” for current laws contain multiple loopholes that allow lobbyists — even though forbidden for lawmakers — can provide lawmaker family members to receive lobbying goodies like college scholarships, cush jobs, and other secret benefits.
  • What If… Congress actually banned lobbying? Think about it: companies that fund lobbyists and their firms’ connections on the Hill to directly or indirectly impact bills under consideration to impact such consideration in the favor of those companies. Such companies would be forced to sell their products, services, and concepts only through conventional methods that would legally preclude any type of existing lobbying benefits given to members of Congress or others with which they are connected.

The above are thoughts about critical elements involving our government. But what is front and center today and cry for answers are “What Ifs” about this President and everything he stands for. Never before in recent history is there an example of such vitriolic hatred for any United State President. What is most troubling is the appearance that many on the left — led by a militarized Media — have NO intention to in any way have open, honest, and civil discourse with Donald Trump or those in his administration or even Congressional members of the other party. 

Let’s look at some President Trump “What If’s.”

  • What If… President Trump stopped tweeting?
  • What If… President Trump in a quest to stop ALL the noise regarding his involvement with Russia — now even of being a Russian spy — called the Democrat’s bluffs? What if he simply challenged them? Such a challenge could be really simple: “Release to the American public the evidence that exists that supports the claims of collusion by my 2016 campaign, release the evidence that the New York Times and Washington Post  used in their stories that alleged (without named sources) I was a Russian agent in one and that I ordered my interpreter from my meeting with Vladimir Putin to give me personally the notes of the meeting and to not discuss any meeting details with members of my senior staff. Either give Americans the hard facts that you have — the evidence — that support Democrat allegations OR RECANT! And if the allegations made in those stories are verified and factual, IMPEACH ME!”
  • What If… Congress subpoenaed Robert Mueller to (in closed session) testify under oath regarding details discovered in his investigation that prove the wrongdoing of President Trump regarding Russian collusion during the 2016 election cycle?
  • What If… President Trump did away with daily White House press briefings and instead started a White House YouTube channel? What if he weekly published a press briefing in which he spoke to Americans directly and contained in each would be answers to a bunch of questions submitted through the White House press office in advance of those broadcasts?
  • What If… The President ordered his Department of Justice to reopen the Hillary email investigation, had Hillary Clinton “officially and under oath” answer questions she should have been asked by Comey, and taking the same testimony from James Comey himself, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and former President Bill Clinton?
  • What If… The President requested the federal attorney for Washington D.C. to process the criminal referral made by Congress of former Attorney General Eric Holder for failure to appear when subpoenaed — the first AG in U.S. history to do so?
  • What If… President Trump insisted that the DOJ take criminal actions against all those who have violated federal laws regarding the unauthorized release of classified documents and information? What if those actions were taken against former President Obama who clearly broke those laws in his use of a secret Gmail email address he used in communication with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on that unsecured server that was not examined and authorized by Department of Justice IT specialists, which is required under law?


We could go on and on all day and begin numerous conversations with a bunch more “What If’s.” But doing so would probably be futile. Why? Nothing we can say, ask, or do at this point makes any difference in the madness that is escalating every day in Washington. The Left is simply out to get this President!

Don’t get me wrong: if President Trump or any member of his campaign or administration violated any laws in anyways, they should each be prosecuted for their crimes. That applies to ANY who have served in government — even former President Obama, Hillary Clinton, the disgraced former members of the DOJ and FBI, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and former U.N. Secretary Samantha Powers. No one is above the law: NO ONE!

I’m not a politician or a political expert. But what I am is an American citizen who as best as possible does and has always obeyed the law, paid taxes, owned a company with many employees who provided goods and services to other Americans, a husband, father, grandfather, and a Christian. To some, all those things I am are black marks against me. And the fact that such is true is simply a travesty.

Where has the simple goodness of being American, loving and respecting our country, obeying the law and expecting everyone else to do the same gone to? Are we no longer a nation of laws? Are we no more a nation with a government “of the People, by the People, and for the People?” Is the United States no longer the richest, strongest, and greatest country in World history? Is this country no longer where one is innocent until proven guilty? Do our laws no longer apply to everyone?

In the opinion of this writer, what we are watching is the frantic throes of frantic people who are angry for two reasons: one, they cannot believe a rich kid from Queens who is rough and brash and non-traditional and non-political could possibly run this country and be successful in doing so! They refuse to accept that the economic leaps the U.S. economy has made, the multiple victories in foreign trade and relationships with the leaders of foreign nations, the massive personal and corporate tax reductions, the tens of millions of new jobs, the lowest unemployment numbers in recorded history in every sector, and the most dollars ever collected by this government even with those tax cuts could be possibly due to that red-faced guy from New York who doesn’t act like a politician. Secondly, he beat the person that THEY had anointed to continue the policies of the first President in U.S. history to espouse “Socialism Lite” in his policies that summarily began the dismantling of the nation’s economy and infrastructure. HE BEAT HILLARY! And for that, HE MUST BURN!

Don’t be shocked if Donald Trump is impeached. Don’t be shocked to hear and see more unsubstantiated stories are released about alleged wrongdoing by Candidate and President Trump. The Washington Post and New York Times stories referenced above have already been debunked with facts. And neither of their stories gave the sources of the information reported!

And what probably is the greatest and unanswered “What If” still remains to be asked and answered: What if Americans have had enough and en masse and in many different ways send the message to Washington D.C. and to the Democrat Party controlled Media that “We aren’t going to take it anymore!”

Is It A National Emergency at the Mexico Border?

Jim Acosta of CNN embarrassed himself while at the southern border in McAllen, Texas as President Trump met with local and state officials and Border Security personnel to discuss illegal crossings in their region. Acosta, while standing next to an exact example of the type of border wall the President has agreed would be part of his border wall if funded, said the following:

“No immigrants storming the border and no imminent danger.” Acosta’s explanation of there being NO need for beefing up border security, especially including a border wall.

The irony of Mr. Acosta’s report is the obvious explanation for “why” there are no immigrants climbing across the wall: The Wall Works. When a Border Patrol official was asked about it, the explanation was simple: first, (and the most obvious) is the difficulty illegals experience to get through or over a wall like this, and secondly, during the middle of the day, illegals do not attempt illegal entry at that site because of the difficulty of getting across creates excessive amounts of time for them in trying. They would be exposed more easily there being in plain sight for agents to see than elsewhere along the border in more desolate border sections where different types of border barriers exist.

Acosta is not alone in attacking the notion of there being a border crisis currently. The Washington Post can’t seem to make up its mind on whether there is a crisis at the southern border, initially declaring the situation a “bona fide emergency” before backpedaling once President Trump emphasized that very point in his Oval Office address.

The Post published a story on January 5th, “After years of Trump’s dire warnings, a ‘crisis’ has hit the border but generates little urgency.” Two reporters gave the story — Nick Miroff and David Nakamura — in which they stated there is a real emergency at the border that is happening for one reason and one reason only: border agents cannot handle the volume of illegals there as “record numbers of migrant families are streaming into the United States.”

In that report, Miroff and Nakamura said, “There has been little bipartisan urgency to examine the relatively narrow set of legal and administrative changes that could potentially make a difference in slowing illegal migration or improving conditions for families who arrive at the border.”

They also termed it a “humanitarian crisis.” If there was NO crisis at the southern border, why would President Obama’s Homeland Security posted this sign at Arizona’s southern border?

It probably will come as no surprise to you that The Post changed its tune after the President’s Oval Office address on the issue. Their political correspondent Dan Balz wrote HIS explanation of the issue that was titled, “Trump used the Oval Office to try to create a border crisis.” He said the President in his address was simply creating a narrative in which he could justify fulfilling a campaign promise by building a border wall.

Make what you will about the media flip-flops regarding there being or not being a crisis down South. Believe or don’t believe the numbers provided — and always questioned by Mainstream Media — of the atrocities committed all across the U.S. by illegals. Remember this TNT.com mantra: “Just because you believe something’s right doesn’t mean it’s right.” We DO know there is a plethora of illegals crossing the border every day. We DO know there is also a plethora of illegals committing crimes across the nation. No, all of those here illegally are not committing felonious acts against American citizens. But some do.

National Emergencies Act (NEA)

In the wake of all this, President Trump has floated a trial balloon regarding his enacting the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which was passed by Congress to address U.S. national emergencies and how the United States can and should respond, and the ability of a U.S. President to initiate these responses without Congressional approval.

The Act authorized the President to activate emergency provisions of law via an emergency declaration on the conditions that the President specifies the provisions so activated and notifies Congress. An activation would expire if the President expressly terminated the emergency, or did not renew the emergency annually, or if each house of Congress passed a resolution terminating the emergency. After presidents objected to this “Congressional termination” provision on separation of powers grounds, it was replaced in 1985 with termination by an enacted joint resolution.

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Here’s a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies:

President Jimmy Carter

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

President Bill Clinton
  • Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.
  • Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.
  • March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.
  • October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.
  • March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba
  • November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.
President George W. Bush
  • June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia
  • Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.
  • Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
  • Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
  • March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.
  • May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
  • May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.
  • June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.
  • Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.
  • Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.
  • June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018, citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”
President Barack Obama
  • April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
  • February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
  • July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
  • May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
  • March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
  • April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
  • May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
  • March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
  • April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
  • Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
President Donald Trump
  • Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.
  • Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
  • Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Here’s the deal: it is doubtful that Democrats in Congress are going to in any way cooperate with funding for the building of a wall along with other types of meaningful technology efforts to stop illegals from entering the U.S. It is certain their reasoning has nothing to do with what’s best for the American people. So what’s an alternative — the BEST alternative?

At this point, the ONLY alternative I can see is for the President to declare a National Emergency action necessary for national security reasons. Before my liberal friends and other partners here blast me for saying this, stating the President has NO authority to do so, consider this:

  • The NEA (shown above) clearly states the basis for any president to do so;
  • 58 times since the law was enacted presidents have done so;
  • 31 of those declarations were never terminated AND ARE STILL IN FORCE (see those still active above);

Here’s the most amazing thing to me about the previous NEA’s implemented: NONE have anything to do with addressing a direct threat to the continental United States perpetrated or facilitated by its border neighbors!

What’s Going to Happen?

President Trump is going to get his wall

It will NOT be just a wall; it will NOT be a solid concrete wall; additional elements for security WILL be put in place.

How is that going to happen without Congress authorizing funds to take such actions? There’s only one other way, and that’s what we’ve mentioned above: President Trump, without approval from Congress for necessary funding, will invoke the National Emergency Act, find funding from somewhere else in the government, and initiate the wall and additional border security measures. Further, I feel the President will eventually do this. Why do I believe it will take the enactment of the National Emergencies Act (NEA)? Because Democrats in Congress flatly refuse to fund the border security detailed by the President in a report for one reason: the extreme left of the Democrat Party promised to vote for Pelosi as House Speaker because she promised she would NOT fund what President Trump wanted. And Schumer? Schumer simply cannot stand his fellow New Yorker who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. “Symbolism over Substance.” And who pays the price? Both 800,000 federal employees AND all those Americans who suffer wrongs at the hands of illegal criminals who infiltrate America. Oh, one more group will pay and IS paying: American taxpayers to the tune of $60-$100 billion a year.

Even if the President caved, approves the Democrat funding bill that does NOT fund new border security measures by Homeland Security, and get the government back to work, that would change nothing substantive at our southern border.

Let’s face it: political talking points aside, I doubt very seriously any on the left sincerely feel the lives of those murdered at the hands of illegals or “just” brutalized are not tragic. But what concerns me is that  when weighing the tragedies of those against the importance of the left winning political battles against the President and other conservatives,  they choose the political battles as their importance. In doing so they diminish the value of the lives of those killed and the rights of those brutalized by putting illegals first.

We can sum it up this way: “if” the left hold genuine concern for the health and well-being of American citizens above all others, and if their concerns center primarily on what’s best for the nation, they will back away from their open borders ideology and let President Trump do the right thing.

Unfortunately I think what matters most to Democrats and other leftists who are paying the debt they owe to their open borders constituents. It’s sad that would take the place of the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and the common decency to recognize and acknowledge the needs of Americans must come first. After all, we allow 1 million immigrants into the U.S. each year who pay the price to become U.S. citizens through the legal process.

Isn’t it ironic that any members of Congress would put breaking the law and those lawbreakers above those who live their lives legally?

But they are…



Altered Reality

It is apparent that many in Washington D.C. — most of which lean left — look at the world through a different prism than many others. It is incredulous to watch and listen to claims that are made, most of which are political, without any factual basis or that are “alternate” facts.

Don’t take me the wrong way: Democrats do not have an exclusive on stretching the truth or bending it a little. Republicans have their fair share of callouts for sometimes stating facts that are not quite exactly as described. And this propensity is not exclusive to D.C. either. Human nature alone finds us all tempted to stray away from hardline facts to embellishment.

Here’s the problem with that: most people don’t live in a world in which they make life and death decisions daily, especially when each decision directly impacts the lives of millions of people. Members of Congress ARE in that position: their decisions directly impact us all. One would think the weightiness of that revelation would cause those folks to spend much time, thought, and prayer in objective contemplation before raising their hand on any issue placed in front of them. Throw into that group the President and members of his administration and those appointed to head departments like FEMA, the FCC, CMS, Veterans Administration, the Military, federal courts, etc., and the importance of those decisions being objective and well-thought through are literally empirical in their requirements.

In most cases, I’m sure they do think through those choices. But what we are daily witnessing as a nation are many of these leaders that have misplaced the truth in and the necessity of making those life-changing choices based strictly on the will of the American people. What are the causes for America’s leaders to go in that direction? There certainly are many. But the one that is front and center now and best illustrates the problem is the Illegals coming to the U.S. at our southern border. And it is not just their illegal entry and presence here, it is the unfathomable costs to Americans — not just in dollars but in infrastructure and manpower, and the personal injuries and even deaths that a segment of these undocumented illegals cause.


Quite honestly, the messaging from the Left on this topic is outright shocking. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in 2006:

  • Americans don’t like illegal immigration
  • “Illegal immigration is wrong”
  • People illegally in the U.S. are “illegal aliens,” not “undocumented”
  • Border fence made the southern border “far more secure…created a significant barrier to illegal immigration”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

Nancy Pelosi said on March 21, 1996, “I agree with my colleagues that we must curb illegal immigration responsibly and effectively.”

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA 96”), originally the “Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995,” was signed into law by President Clinton on September 30, 1996, after the final conference bill passed the House 370-37 and the Senate by voice vote. How times have changed!

This bill essentially contained all the promises Trump has made, from the wall and clamping down on visa overstays to robust interior enforcement and expedited deportations, except that it was tailored for that time period. Many of the provisions failed because they were ignored by past presidents and state and local governments and twisted by the courts. This bill was designed to fulfill the wayward promise of the 1986 amnesty and to finally fulfill the pledge to protect Americans from the cost of illegal immigration. Those promises have not been met, and millions of illegals later, millions of pounds of drugs later, and trillions in costs later, these same politicians have no interest in rectifying the promise they helped break once again.

In this Republican-sponsored bill, one of their agenda items was to cut back on legal immigration, which was a failed promise of a 1990 bill. The other was to end illegal immigration – completely. It was the former goal that Democrats opposed, which is why Republicans originally attached their legal immigration cuts to the illegal immigration bill. Democrats gutted it. But they all broadly agreed on the goal of stopping illegal immigration. To be clear, Democrats weakened some provisions and only allowed for a ban on in-state tuition for illegals, not K-12 education per the original version of the bill, but they still all agreed on the core provisions of interior enforcement we are trying to implement today.

As the Washington Post explained at the time, “By shifting their focus to a crackdown on illegal aliens, the representatives seized an issue on which there is a broad agreement but did little to lower the overall influx of immigrants, most of whom come to the United States legally.”

To punctuate this point, don’t forget that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was signed just one month earlier and born out of the government shutdown the year before, explicitly barred illegal immigrants from accessing welfare. The bill contained language expressing the sentiment that it was a “compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.” The bill used the word “alien” 93 times.

Know what was in that bill?

  • It provided for funding of 5,000 border agents and a 14-mile triple-layer border fence in San Diego, which worked well for years. Section 102 also gave the attorney general (now the DHS secretary) a general mandate that he “shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.”
  • The bill called for an automated entry-exit control system within two years to clamp down on visa overstays.
  • The bill dramatically expanded deportations and explicitly stripped the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate many of these cases. For example, the bill stated, “No court can accept jurisdiction in most cases where persons assert an interest under legalization provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.” We are tragically paying for the results of courts ignoring these provisions to this very day.
  • Section 531(4) updated the public charge laws by directing adjudicators of green card applications to consider factors such as age, health, family status, financial resources, education, and skills. All relatives bringing in immigrants were forced to sign a legally enforceable affidavit promising to provide financial support if needed. Unfortunately, none of this has been followed until the Trump administration, but it is still the law, a law that Pelosi and Schumer supported. Only .00008 percent of applications between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011 were disqualified on the public charge basis, even though overwhelming majorities of immigrants from a number of top sending countries are on welfare.
  • The bill provided for new programs promoting employment verification. While E-Verify was developed from this bill, the intent of the law was never followed through. In fact, the IRS still explicitly invited illegals to work, file tax returns, and receive refundable tax credits, a violation both of this provision of IIRIRA and the welfare reform bill.
  • The bill tightened up asylum requirements and barred asylum to all those who have access to another safe country, which in today’s cases means Mexico. It also permanently barred those applying under frivolous pretenses from ever immigrating here. The intent and letter of this law have now been flipped on their heads by the courts.
  • The bill expanded the definition of “aggravated felony” as defined to trigger deportability of even legal immigrants. This is another provision that has been twisted by the courts. Congress also criminalized female genital mutilation, another provision that has been “struck down” by a wayward district judge.
  • The 287(g) program was created to allow states to work with the federal government to train local law enforcement in helping enforce immigration law. Obama gutted the program, and now many sanctuaries have pulled out of it.
  • It barred states from providing in-state tuition breaks to illegals. Nevertheless, this was never enforced, and at least 20 states were allowed to aid and abet illegal immigrants.

While Democrats opposed the idea of slashing legal immigration and some grumbled about increasing deportability of certain crimes for legal immigrants, none of them had the fortitude to side with illegal immigrants. Clinton’s chief of staff, Leon Panetta, who would later become Obama’s secretary of Defense and CIA director, best summed up the Democrat view at the time, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. “We all understand the problem of illegal immigrants. We’re all trying to ensure that we have additional enforcement to protect against illegal immigrants,” he said. “But I, for the life of me, do not understand why we need to penalize legal immigrants in that process.”

This is why Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn, Democrat leaders who were all in the House at the time, voted for the bill. Only 13 Democrats in the House voted no. In fact, more Republicans voted no because they were upset that the bill was gutted too much in conference and wasn’t strong enough.


Trying to understand the flip-flop moves of Democrats regarding illegals in our nation, and trying to reconcile their current messaging while comparing it to their messaging from some time ago, I have really struggled at how to deal with it. “I hate illegal immigration today,” and “Illegal aliens should never receive the same rights as Americans or legal immigrants,” and “We must fund necessary steps to stop illegal immigration,” ring constantly while listening to their “Politi-speak” today.

So instead of trying to comprehend their purposes, (although I’m certain it has to do with attracting illegals by the droves to give them votes to build the dying Democrat Party) I’ve decided to simply term “who” they are,”what” they say, and “what” they do regarding this issue with some new terms with their definitions. (I think some of you will probably adopt one or several of these):

  1. Demorality:  Dems have their own version of morality. It’s not the same as Webster’s or mine. So whenever Lefties use the term “morality” in their talking points, I just consider it — “their” version — as “Demorality.” That way I don’t get confused;
  2. Demotegrity: I honestly don’t think many Democrats understand the true meaning of “integrity.” Frankly, I do not remember in this discussion regarding immigration any of them ever using that word describing themselves — and they shouldn’t. Thus: their version of the word;
  3. Demotruth: Do I even need to explain here? Saying the things said years ago then today saying the exact opposite without explanation for the changes proves Democrat leaders have abandoned “truth.” When they speak, we hear “Demotruth,” not REAL truth;
  4. Demofact: Of course their facts often are not OUR facts or REAL facts. Nevertheless, they are important to know — even more important to understand. So, “their” facts are “Demofacts.” Maybe that way we can understand the differences in their minds.


You may have chuckled at the introduction of the above words. But isn’t it ludicrous that even needing to consider and create a Democrat reality about the words “morality,” “integrity,” “truth,” and “fact” as compared to the real meanings of those words is necessary?

Here’s the simple fact the meaning of which cannot be altered no matter what and no matter who tries: any person entering the United States without U.S. government approval is perpetrating a crime and therefore is a criminal. Sugarcoating the term as much as you want doesn’t change that fact. The only people that can change that fact into a REAL “NEW” fact are members of Congress.

The “Demorality” in which they live, the “Demotegrity” which they possess, the “Demotruths” they create for the media, and the “Demofacts” they throw out do not alter reality!

Actually, reality is absolute: what it is regarding everything is exactly that — “Reality.”

One more thing: Caring about Americans over illegal immigrants is not an idea invented by Trump. It was once a universal value until the elites completely betrayed us. That’s a reality!


Rampant Voter Fraud

Very few America voters believe in the sanctity of  the American election system. Think about it: in every American federal election, political pundits and candidates alike all over the country are claiming “This election’s results cannot be trusted because of voter fraud.”

But for every candidate who claims voter fraud there’s another who trumpets the system works continuously, ethically, and carefully, because those who operate elections make certain “every vote is counted” and that “no election fraud has occurred.”

But we continually see and hear reports like these during elections:

“The North Carolina Board of Elections has released affidavits from voters who told investigators of fraud allegations that a Republican campaign worker collected their absentee ballots in a U.S. congressional race in which the Democrat lost.

It is illegal in North Carolina for anyone except the voter or a near relative to deliver an absentee ballot in person.

Voters in Bladen County said McCrae Dowless, who worked for Mark Harris, the Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, collected their ballots and they did not know what he did with them, according to the affidavits, which were released on Sunday.

The Board of Elections voted last month to investigate claims of voter fraud and irregularities in Bladen County, declining to certify Harris as the winner in the race.

Christopher Eason of Bladenboro, North Carolina, said in an affidavit that Dowless came to his house and asked for his absentee ballot, which he handed over signed and unsealed.

“I signed the absentee ballot envelope but left the ballot completely blank. I did not make any selections in any of the contests on the ballot,” Eason wrote in the affidavit, provided to the Board of Elections by McCready’s lawyers.

Attorneys Jonathan Berkron and Marc Elias, who represent McCready, did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.”

California’s election operationa are constantly blamed for election wins and losses. Let’s face it: with California now giving illegals drivers licenses, it can be difficult if not possible for registrars of voting throughout the state to prove absolutely applicants for voting status are legally eligible to vote in federal elections. This as California before the 2018 midterm elections gave illegals the right to vote in local and certain state elections. It is not a far stretch to imagine voter fraud there. And in California, even lawsuits are common with abundant claims of voter fraud:

“California and Los Angeles County have agreed to purge as many as 1.5 million inactive voter registrations across the state as part of a court settlement finalized this week with Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog.

Judicial Watch sued the county and state voter-registration agencies, arguing that the California government was not complying with a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations that remain after two general elections, or two to four years.

Inactive voter registrations, for the most part, occur when voters move to another country or state or pass away but remain on the rolls. The lawsuit alleged that Los Angeles County, with its more than 10 million residents, has more voter registrations than it has citizens old enough to register with a registration rate of 112 percent of its adult citizen population.

The entire state of California had a registration rate of 101 percent of age-eligible citizens, the lawsuit said, citing data published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The settlement is a third statewide voter-registration legal agreement or court order reached between Judicial Watch and states; the others were reached with government entities in Ohio in 2014 and Kentucky last year.

“This settlement vindicates Judicial Watch’s groundbreaking lawsuits to clean up state voter rolls to help ensure cleaner elections,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.

Fitton said the California settlement would “clean up election rolls in Los Angeles County and California—and set a nationwide precedent to ensure that states take reasonable steps to ensure that dead and other ineligible voters are removed from the rolls.”

Secretary of State Alex Padilla said state officials “have and will continue to meet the goals of the National Voter Registration Act”—the federal law at issue in the case—in “maintaining the accuracy of voter rolls and increasing the number of eligible citizens who register and vote.”

Padilla tried to assure California voters that it would not lead to “unnecessary removal of active and eligible voters.”

“Safeguards remain in place to ensure voter-list maintenance procedures are followed before canceling any voter registration records,” Padilla said in a statement.

He also took a shot at Judicial Watch, arguing that the group’s statements about the settlement “conflates their unfounded claims with what was actually agreed upon in the settlement” but did not elaborate about what constituted an “unfounded claim” by the conservative group.

“The settlement is clear and simple: California will continue its work to adhere to modern list maintenance procedures under the [National Voter Registration Act],” he said. Padilla also hailed California as a leader in implementing election reforms to improve voter participation.

The California DMV’s new process of automatically registering people to vote, which began in late April of last year, was credited with boosting voter registration and turnout to historic highs. Nearly 1.5 million more people were registered to vote than were in the last midterm election in 2014, for a total of 19 million Californians, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.

That so-called motor-voter law also raised still-unanswered questions about the number of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens who may have voted in the June primary and November gubernatorial and congressional midterm election. California officials still cannot say whether non-citizens voted, the Sacramento Bee reported.

On Thursday, Padilla confirmed for the first time that his office is actively investigating whether illegal immigrants and other noncitizens voted last year because the DMV erroneously registered them to vote.”

Even President Obama did not escape allegations of voter fraud during his administration that was allowed (if not in fact encouraged) through his entire eight years. Claims that he even encouraged it are plentiful:

Public Interest Legal Foundation President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams worked in the civil rights division of the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration and the beginning of Obama’s first term. He was convinced that voter fraud is rampant.

“We know of election crimes that have gone on in the last seven years, one after another after another, that the federal government never prosecuted and never investigated, never did anything about and creating this Wild West atmosphere with voter fraudsters,” Adams said.

For examples, Adams cites Wendy Rosen, the 2012 congressional candidate in Maryland who also voted in Florida. He said there have been more than 1,000 non-citizens discovered voting in Virginia since 2011, and more than 800 others in Ohio. He said North Carolina found 41 ballots cast by non-citizens last year and Nevada found three.

Not only is the fraud not being investigated, in some cases it is celebrated.

“You have Melowese Richardson, a woman in Cincinnati, who said on camera that she voted six times for President Obama,” Adams said. “She was actually celebrated at an event that Al Sharpton was at. They treated her like a hero.”

Foreign Election Tampering

We are currently in the midst of multiple investigations into foreign intervention in U.S. elections. The Mueller investigation’s premise that initiated the probe was multiple claims of Russian collusion with members of the Trump Campaign  to impact the election in the favor of Donald Trump.

Former President Obama derided those who accused his administration of turning a blind eye to claims of election tampering. He demonstratively reprimanded Donald Trump for his claims of election meddling in the race to favor Hillary Clinton:

It is widely accepted that foreign actors continuously work to impact U.S. elections and those of other nations. Hackers often are working to somehow achieve election results for candidates perceived to be favorable for their governments.

It was confirmed that Russia indeed did impact the 2016 election through purchased ads on Facebook to prop up the candidacy of Donald Trump, even though Facebook officials vehemently denied those actions at first. Exactly what impact was made by those Russian measures are unclear. China has been rumored to attack multiple nations’ election processes to assist candidates favorable to their causes and to sow negative information about candidates perceived to be against China.


It seems that claims of election tampering throughout the country targets Democrats dramatically more than Republicans. Of course members of the Democrat Party discount such allegations. But multiple examples of Democrat operatives exposed in the midterm elections show there may be a concerted effort by Dems, almost with a sense of desperation.

It has been pointed out several times that the purported efforts by Democrats to “steal” elections (as they are sometimes accused of) are part of a larger process. Democrat Party membership has been slipping over the past years. That fact is illustrated most by not just losses in federal elections, but by the GOP domination in state and local elections in the last decade. Why is that?

It seems to be coordinated at the federal level. Many political experts claim it’s because Democrat Party leaders are in panic mode. What can they do to maintain and even gain more control of local, state, and federal offices? What could their reasoning be?

It seems their efforts are multi-fold, well-planned, and well thought out. Apparently their 180 degree turn regarding southern border control is part of their plan. It is no secret that their fight for open borders and getting illegals the ability to vote, is fundamental to their plan.

Finding ways to impact local, state, and federal elections in ”creative” ways is the second tier of this master plan. Attacking re-districting in courts is the third segment. And in the past few elections, that attack plan is helping, though Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was a definite setback.

The reason Dems have so dramatically pandered to minorities and now illegals has become more and more obvious: votes. Democrats feel confident that “if” illegals somehow obtain rights to vote in federal elections, those illegals will be obligated to Democrat candidates. Why? Dems will claim they unilaterally were responsible for not just voting rights, but the amazing benefits illegals receive from taxpayers even now. That sense of obligation is their hope to build their party — just like they have used black and Hispanic voters.

Will it work? The book is still out on that. Even though Pelosi and Company are consistent in their support of minorities and illegals, Americans are seeing and hearing more about this “plan” to build Democrat Party membership and realize what these methods can do to the country.

But, once again, Democrats have underestimated a huge segment of American voters. Remember: you can see and hear daily the disdain Democrats have for Conservatives. It’s as if they do not remember 2016 when Hillary’s “deplorables” actually took her sure win away from her.

I for one hope they continue down their present road; that their fragmented party continues to infight. That will only expose more and more about their methods to Americans.

We’ve said it over and over again: Democrats think they are smarter than Americans who are NOT Democrats. They take conservatives for granted.

Rep. Hank Johnson warned his constituents against creeping authoritarianism in an intense speech peppered with historical references, likening the political moment that brought President Donald Trump to power to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

“Our democracy teeters on the brink of failure,” the Georgia Democrat said at an event held by the Atlanta NAACP. “Americans elected an authoritarian, racist, anti-immigrant strongman to the nation’s highest office.”

Hitler “rode a wave of nationalism and anti-Semitism to power. Replace anti-Semitism with ‘all Latinos crossing our borders are rapists, drug dealers and murderers.’ Does that sound familiar?” Johnson asked, to a chorus of “yeses” from the crowd.

Congressman Johnson pretty much summed up the Democrat plan: divide Americans, embolden illegals, convince minorities they are eternally obligated to the only political party that cares about them.

Keep all this in mind and watch the political landscape closely this year. It’s always easier to make good decisions when you objectively view options, garnering truths from those options, then making educated decisions.

And making good choices in this intense negative atmosphere is critical.

Impeachment Acts: President is Caught Red-Handed

In the impeachment noise in D.C., many thought the President was bulletproof and would never face impeachment. But facts have finally surfaced that prove that the President committed treasonous acts and definite obstruction of justice. For such acts, impeachment is a certainty. What you are about to read and hear are facts as verified by multiple sources, including government agency operatives and media insiders. This will certainly answer any questions you have. It will certainly anger some and give others a sense of relief.

What did he Do: The Facts

The President’s administration covertly derailed a campaign by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that targeted the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist group in order to quietly protect the Iran nuclear accord, according to an investigative report.

According to the report, the campaign, called Project Cassandra, was launched after the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities. Their terrorist activities long suspected by previous administrations have been exposed and they are real.

Government agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations, and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies.

Hezbollah conducted hundreds of terror attacks against Israeli forces during the 1980s and 1990s and was responsible for the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut which left 305 people dead, including 241 American servicemen.

In 2006 Hezbollah carried out an unprovoked attack on IDF forces inside Israeli territory, killing three soldiers, and taking two captives. The attack sparked a month-long war between Israel and the terror group, which pounded northern Israel with missiles, rockets and mortar fire.

Hezbollah has also demonstrated a global reach, aiding the perpetrators of the 1992 suicide bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina which killed 29 people, and is widely suspected of carrying out the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people.

Hezbollah also funneled weapons to Muslim militias in the Balkans during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and killed six people, including five Israelis, in a bombing attack in Bulgaria in 2012.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Hezbollah has also operated inside Syria to strengthen the Assad regime, an ally of Iran.

After investigators amassed substantial evidence and sought approval for prosecution from the Justice Department and Treasury Department, those two agencies were unresponsive, the report said.

The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.

“This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision,” said David Asher, an analyst for the Department of Defense specializing in illicit finance who helped set up and run Project Cassandra. “They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”

Asher added that officials obstructed efforts to apprehend top Hezbollah operatives, including one of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s foremost weapons suppliers.

The President entered office promising to take and maintain stiff positions against Iran, saying his policies would inevitably improve relations with Muslim countries as part of a broader and “new” relationship.

One top counterintelligence official recommended that “the next president will have the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries” through not only a direct dialogue but “greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system.”

Ex-Obama officials said they sought to improve relations with Iran as part of a broad strategy to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Their efforts included the Iran nuclear accords.

“The world is a lot more complicated than viewed through the narrow lens of drug trafficking,” one former national security official said. “You’re not going to let CIA rule the roost, but you’re also certainly not going to let DEA do it either. Your approach to anything as complicated as Hezbollah is going to have to involve the interagency [process], because the State Department has a piece of the pie, the intelligence community does, Treasury does, DOD does.”

In a report, sources independent of Project Cassandra confirmed the allegations made by its team members.

In essence, this administration’s willingness to envision a new role for Hezbollah in the Middle East, combined with its desire for a negotiated settlement to Iran’s nuclear program, turned into a reluctance to move aggressively against the top Hezbollah operatives, according to Project Cassandra members and others.

A Treasury official in the administration, Katherine Bauer, who submitted classified testimony presented last February to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs acknowledging that “under the administration … these [Hezbollah-related] investigations were tamped down for fear of increasing the distrust Iran holds for the U.S.”

As a consequence, the report said that the U.S. government “lost insight” into not only Hezbollah’s drug trafficking operation, but other aspects of its vast criminal operations worldwide.

Project Cassandra had its origins in a series of investigations launched in the years after the 9/11 attacks (yes, that long ago) which all led, via their own twisted paths, to Hezbollah as a suspected global criminal enterprise.

As they pursued their investigations, the DEA agents found that Hezbollah was working urgently to raise cash, and lots of it, to rebuild its south Lebanon stronghold after a 2006 war against Israel had reduced it to rubble.

White House spokesman Kevin Lewis denied the allegations by officials from Project Cassandra.

“There has been a consistent pattern of actions taken against Hezbollah, both through tough sanctions and law enforcement actions before and after the Iran deal. This administration terminated the Iran deal.”


I know this is hard for most to believe. How could this exist so quietly?  Where has the media been in all this? With the current atmosphere of non-stop leaks everywhere in Washington, how could this horrific information about such corrupt acts committed by any administration not be trumpeted from the rooftops in every city in America?

Does this not blow the cover on the corruption that obviously permeates our government? Members of the Administration — the Department of Justice, the State Department, the CIA, and DEA — were all put on task for this job of breaking this $1 billion operation that trafficked weapons, drugs, and money laundering around the Globe, including in the U.S.!

Our president has spent much tv time promoting the horrors of the opioid crisis in the nation, how pervasive are drug deaths every week, and how he was aggressively tackling the drug prescription industry’s egregious practice of gouging the American public with their staggering drug prices. Apparently, his words have been a smokescreen.

Why would this multi-agency, well-coordinated operation be shut down exactly at the point where the indictments of seventeen high-ranking government officials from Iran, several countries in South America, and even some U.S. citizens were about to be issued? Answer: it has to be about dollars.

Most would say: “Presidents are all millionaires. Why would any U.S. President need more?” With the knowledge of the life “after” any presidency will live for life at the expense of U.S. taxpayers makes most Americans shocked that any president would instigate any such actions or allow them to happen on his/her watch. But it did happen. And apparently killing Project Cassandra at the time it was shut down made many in the administration — and apparently the President himself — a pocketful of money.

What could be left but impeachment? Certainly the President’s taking action to thwart a multi-million dollar investigation is an actual defining example of “high crimes and misdemeanors” — which is necessary Constitutionally to file articles of impeachment against a President in the House of Representatives and an impeachment trial of the President in the Senate.

That’s all that’s left here.

Now the “Real” Summary

Folks, this whole story really DID happen. Project Cassandra IS real. And Project Cassandra WAS terminated. And it WAS terminated with the intervention of the President and leaders in the Department of Justice. Dozens and dozens of those who were part of Cassandra for multiple federal agencies have come forward — some confidentially, some openly — and shared the details of the operations and how it was terminated by the Administration with no warning and no explanation other than that explanation given above.

There has been a concerted and presidential administration coordinated effort to keep this all quiet. It is obvious why: impeachment for this is inevitable.

To put the icing on this entire story, go back and read it or listen to the podcast from the top. Why?

None of this happened under President Trump. It all DID happen. But it happened under President Obama!

That’s correct. We did NOT hear or see anything about it. We didn’t hear or read anything about it from MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post or New York Times. We didn’t even hear about it from FOX News.

POLITICO did an amazing story chronicling the details. But even POLITICO doesn’t reach everyone. And apparently, no one picked up the story.

Think about this: our current Mainstream Media have a frequent practice of the way they give us “anonymous” source allegations against Trump and those from his administration and family. Their original version of a story NEVER gives sources, other than saying their sources were“anonymous and credible.” Then the other outlets pick up the story, beginning it by saying “We have credible sources that we have confirmed…..” You know who are those “credible” sources that confirmed the stories? THE OTHER MEDIA OUTLETS THAT REPORTED THEM! There are NO sources at all. The sources are made up and called “Anonymous!”

Know where we found our initial research details? In a small Israeli news outlet that credited POLITICO for the investigation and reporting. (At the end of this story, you will see the link to the POLITICO three-part revelation that when you have 30 minutes or so you need to read. It’s like a spy novel.)

Here’s the travesty in all this:

  1.  This all happened while President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were giving $100+ Billion to Iran.
  2. No criminal actions have been initiated against any of those implicated by the sworn testimony of many regarding the multiple illegal actions taken by many in our government.
  3. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions DID authorize the Trump DOJ to “take a look at Project Cassandra.” But to my knowledge, nothing resulted from that “look.”

I’ll close with this: what would be happening right now if Donald Trump or anyone in his administration had initiated, participated in, or allowed anything like this to happen? Realize this: thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries died because of the trafficked drugs and weapons that came out of shutdown of the Cassandra Project. Imagine where we’d be if this happened in the Trump Administration.

Sadly, everyone so far from the Obama Administration that committed illegal acts in this has not seen any retribution. And no one involved in Project Cassandra will likely pay any price for their actions.

Many if not all of Obama’s cabinet members and intelligence department heads knew about Cassandra, its details, and who was involved. Yet nothing was said or done. And, sadly, if anything ever comes of this regarding their prosecutions, I doubt any will say anything because of deals they have cut.

One more thing: Do you think we’d have heard about Project Cassandra if Hillary Clinton was our president today?

Sad narrative on the state of America, isn’t it?


Here’s the Link to the POLITICO three-part story:




Pelosi Power

“She’s Back!”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a return trip to the House podium to accept the gavel as the “old,” new Speaker of the House. The 78-year-old California Representative is and has been one of the most powerful members of the House. I don’t think anyone knows for certain exactly where that power comes from, other than she is extremely persuasive, is historically the best political campaign contributions fundraiser, and smoother and more effective at garnering and using Washington political might and power than most others in Congress. Some say “She knows where all the bodies are buried!” And there certainly are MANY bodies that were victims to D.C. political fallout she, is if not responsible for, witnessed most of the burials.

What Power does Speaker Have?

The Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the United States House of Representatives. Typically the head of the majority party in the House, the speaker outranks the Majority Leader. The salary of the Speaker is also higher than that of the Majority and Minority Leaders. The Speaker rarely presides over regular meetings of the full House, instead delegating that role to another representative. The Speaker does, however, typically preside over special joint sessions of Congress in which the House hosts the Senate.

The Speaker of the House serves as the presiding officer of the House. In this capacity, the Speaker:

  • Calls meetings of the House to order;
  • Administers the oath of office to new members;
  • Ensures that order and decorum are maintained on the floor of the House and in the visitor galleries;
  • Makes rulings on disputed House procedures and parliamentary issues.

As any other Representative, the Speaker may take part in debates and vote on legislation, but traditionally does so only in exceptional circumstances such as when his or her vote could decide very important issues such as resolutions declaring war or amending the Constitution.

The Speaker of the House also:

  • Appoints the chairpersons and members of standing House committees and select and special committees;
  • Appoints a majority of members to the important House Rules Committee;
  • Exerts power over the legislative process by setting the House legislative calendar determining when bills will be debated and voted on;
  • Often utilizes this power to help fulfill his or her responsibility of making sure bills supported by the majority party are passed by the House;
  • Serves as chair of the majority party’s House steering committee.

Perhaps most clearly indicating the importance of the position, the Speaker of the House stands second only to the Vice President of the United States in the line of presidential succession. Pelosi is the first person to serve a second term as Speaker in the last half-century.

What are Pelosi’s Already Known Power-Plays?

Seven Promises made by Pelosi for Congressional action “IF” she was returned to the House Speaker position:

1. More Investigations of Trump

2. Campaign Finance Reform

3. More LGBT Protections

4. Legal Status for ‘Dreamers,’ No Border Wall

5. Push for New Gun Laws

6. Changes to Obamacare

7. More Infrastructure Spending

Just keep these seven in the back of your mind while her agenda for the House is being rolled out. But while we’re watching and waiting, let’s revisit some things about the “stellar” past of the current Speaker:

Pelosi “Stuff”

Martha Stewart went to jail. Pelosi continues to walk the streets of Washington after making money on insider information—Congress gives itself a pass on the laws that apply to the rest of us. Newsmax noted:

  • “Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House. “
  • Pelosi’s brother-in-law got a sweetheart deal from the US Dept. of Energy when taxpayers coughed up more than $700 million to a firm where her brother-in-law is a partner.
  • Obamacare: Pelosi told Americans, “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.” Ilya Shapiro with Cato recently said more than 2,000 waivers have been given to organizations and companies across the country. Early on in the waiver process, however, of a sampler of 204 new Obamacare waivers, 38 were for restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in Pelosi’s Northern California district. Many of the remaining waivers went to labor unions and other Dem-affiliated groups.
  • Pelosi, hands down, is an open borders proponent. She wanted to include everyone, even foreign nationals who had no intention of seeking citizenship,  in ObamaCare—she didn’t come right out and say it, but if you want to cover anyone who’s in the country, we should take you at your word. Democrats in Congress did nothing about border security; they simply didn’t address the issue. Furthermore, if you’re an American who wants our borders secured, Pelosi says you’re ‘un-American.’
  • (TruthNewsNet.org published this 11/18/2018) “A report from the Washington Free Beacon revealed that Pelosi is alleged to have enriched herself and her husband, Paul, through her efforts to “steer taxpayer funds” to a San Francisco-area light rail project. Pelosi’s support for the project caused local real estate prices to escalate such that a large parcel of land owned by “high-dollar Democratic donor” Marc Benioff’s company received a huge profit upon selling it to the Golden State Warriors of the NBA. Pelosi’s husband is also a significant investor in the company. Pelosi pushed for taxpayer subsidies for the rail project for over ten years, and that project did much to boost the real estate market in the area, according to commercial real estate experts. The report says that “liberal billionaire hedge fund manager” Tom Steyer — best-known for funding millions of dollars for national television ads promoting the impeachment of President Trump — may also have been further enriched through Pelosi’s efforts to provide federal subsidies to the project.

Pelosi’s ethical lapses on oversight

  • Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) tax shenanigans are public knowledge. Despite that, Pelosi left him in charge of the committee that writes tax regulations. An average American would go to jail—Rangel kept his committee chair despite not reporting half his net worth among other lapses. Rangel wasn’t the only shady politician Pelosi tolerated—there’s a long list. Among the names, former Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.), the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), now imprisoned Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.)—there’s a very long list.
  • Nancy Pelosi is facing accusations of cronyism after a solar energy project, which her brother-in-law has a stake in, landed a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, despite the growing Solyndra scandal. The massive loan agreement is raising new concerns about the use of taxpayers’ money as vast sums are invested in technology similar to that of the doomed energy project. The investment has intensified the debate over the effectiveness of solar energy as a major power source. The SolarReserve project is backed by an energy investment fund where the Minority Leader’s brother-in-law Ronald Pelosi is second in command. PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC is listed as one of the investors in the project that has been given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra. Other investors include one of the major investors in Solyndra, which is run by one of the directors of Solyndra.

Although the following is not about corruption or legislative evil conducted by her, this is important to note:

  • As evidenced recently in a number of press conferences, Pelosi clearly seems to be losing it. She has often forgotten her train of thought, stumbled for words or names, slurred her comments, experienced pregnant pauses, etc. Something is not quite right. Last year, a Washington, D.C., pharmacist made a very disturbing revelation. He reported providing Alzheimer’s drugs for some members of Congress. In making this revelation, he stated the obvious concern we all should have, “They’re making the highest laws of the land and they might not even remember what happened yesterday.” While we do not know if Pelosi is among this pharmacist’s customers, at a time our nation is in such turmoil, we simply cannot afford to keep members of Congress in office who are suffering from mental health issues.
  • Then there’s “Pelosi-Speak: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had a different position on borders. In 2008 she said, “Because we do need to address the issue of immigration and the challenge we have of undocumented people in our country. We certainly do not want any more coming in.”


Many things concerning Speaker Pelosi’s past actions supported by American taxpayers concern me. We could spend hours discussing each. But let’s summarize it in this statement: Nancy Pelosi (as have many other members of Congress) found ways to — most-times within the law, maybe sometimes “skirting” the law — enrich herself, family members, Democrat donors, and others with opportunities discovered or created through her power that came from Congress. (Is that statement over-the-top to you?)

The “Power” problem was NOT invented by Pelosi. It has existed in Washington for many decades. Actually, it probably began in the early years of Washington D.C. when legislators discovered the power they had simply from representing voting constituents from their states and districts. Think about this: THEY write and pass laws; THEY determine what taxes to levy against Americans and American corporations; THEY determine what to pay themselves; THEY determine all their own personal benefits; THEY determine how much in “allowances” they are to receive just for being Congress members; THEY determine on which days they work and which days they do not. Members of Congress by giving themselves the ultimate power created the abilities to exert power over people from Washington.

Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian, famously made this statement: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Are there examples to which we can point that illustrate this premise? Absolutely! Choose any one of the examples given above (and also in the TruthNewsNet.org story published here 11/18/2018) to see the results of the power that emanates from Congress. You see: everything — yes EVERYTHING — that does or does not happen in Washington is the product of one and only one thing: POWER. “What’s best for the country,” “What voters want,” “What I committed to do or not to do during my campaign,” mean NOTHING! All that matters is what the power-brokers in Congress and elsewhere have placed on the political agenda for members of Congress to do.

Is Pelosi caught-up in this thirst for ultimate power? I have never heard her admit to that. But when suspicious things happen or suspicious things are said, people should at least stand at attention and watch closely so as to garner truths or lies being given. There are too many times and too many examples of Pelosi’s aberrations of her promises given and statements made to detail here. But there are many.

In my opinion, there are only a few things that Pelosi has committed would occur if she was named Speaker I’m certain will happen. And 6 of the 7 she gave that are listed above will she push for. The one “missing” will be Campaign Reform. Why not Campaign Reform? Oh, the House will pass a bill called Campaign Reform. But it will NOT be about meaningful or real reform. Think about it: why would they want reform when Hillary raised twice as much money as did Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election? What they will call “Campaign Reform” will be nothing more than an attempt to change existing law regarding voting (not campaigning) so as to give currently non-registered voters the ability to vote in federal elections. Additionally, any campaign measure they bring up will be an effort to handicap Republicans in elections.

What will happen in Congress? Hopefully in the Senate now with a larger Republican majority, nothing fundamentally structured to further hurt the nation or change the Constitution will be allowed to succeed. But I will guarantee this: the House will do everything possible to find a way to get rid of President Trump. And to do that, they must find some way to rid themselves of Vice President Pence, too. He would replace Trump. And Pence is even more conservative than is the President. What they may do to achieve their ultimate goal of regaining total control of the U.S. government is frightening. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, but the fact that the Left hates Trump for interrupting their united efforts to take the U.S. toward a totalitarianism system of government than they hate him personally. And I think everyone knows how much they personally disdain Mr. Trump.

I’ve said this to you before and say it here: “Buckle in. We’re in for a heckuva’ ride!”