The Border Wall: Why Dems Say “No!”

I have struggled with this for some time. I remember when many well known Democrats verbally excoriated the fact that illegals were entering the U.S. through our southern border:

Bill Clinton

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

President Obama

But even with leading Democrats on record blasting what seems to have evolved into an “open border” policy during Barack Obama’s Administration, Democrats (and some Republicans) still refuse to demand adherence to American immigration laws. Who can forget the embarrassing surprise video from the Oval Office in which Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  were shocked President Trump invited the media to look-in live at the meeting that was to somehow resolve the differences and get resolution on funding for the border wall? Pelosi and Schumer were ill-prepared for what happened: they were exposed for their hypocrisy regarding the funding of the border wall. Both Pelosi and Schumer had previously supported such a measure to stem the flow of illegals.

But even in the wake of such an embarrassing exposure of their hypocrisy, still, there is NO consensus from Democrats to support what almost all of them previously supported: funding as necessary for a wall, fencing, and other security measures to stop mass illegal migration into the United States. Why is that?

Today we are going to dispel any questions you may have had for the hesitance of any and all from the Left to support a southern border wall.

The Rest of the Story

What could really be going on? What was it that happened to not only alter the opinions of those Dems shown and heard above but to alter their opinions by 180 degrees! Something or some-things dramatically turned them around. What could it be?

Could it be that Democrats in leadership in Congress found they really had hearts — that they cared so deeply for the plights of Central American and Mexican people that they threw their previous political and personal opinions on illegalities of criminals entering the U.S. at the southern border?

Could it be that the Democrat base that cared not for the criminality of those entering the U.S. illegally primarily for work decided it was smart to not only allow but to encourage illegal migrants to sneak into the country to take blue collar jobs away from those Americans who worked in the agriculture, food and beverage, and construction sectors?

Or could there be some other reason or reasons?

I choose the latter.

What could their reasoning be?


Every educated American voter realizes that political might means control. And that control comes from party support: primarily Republican and Democrat. What does that look like?

Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration; in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. Among the party registration states are some of the nation’s most populous: California, New York, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts.

The basic facts: In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million.

Still, Republican Donald Trump found a route to victory in 2016 that went through the party registration states. He scored a near sweep of those where there were more Republicans than Democrats, winning 11 of the 12, while also taking six of the 19 states where there were more Democrats than Republicans — a group that included the pivotal battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

At this point, it might be wise to pause and ask the question: Why do these numbers matter, either individually or in the aggregate?

Certainly, there are facts that argue that they should be taken with a grain or two of salt. Most party registration states are found in more Democratic terrain: the Northeast (11 states plus the District of Columbia) and the West (10 states), followed by the South (six states) and the Midwest (four states), all of the latter rural states west of the Mississippi River.

To be sure, there are a number of major states that do not register voters by parties, such as Texas, Georgia, Washington, and the keystones of the industrial Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If they did register by party, Texas, Georgia, and Indiana would almost certainly add to the Republican total; the industrial states probably less so.

And there is some sentiment that a voter’s party identification may mean less than it once did, as the number of individuals who register as “Independent” (or “No Party Preference,” “Unaffiliated,” or whatever other voter label the individual states prefer) steadily grows. At the beginning of this century, barely 20% of all voters in party registration states were independents. Nowadays, that total is approaching 30%.

Altogether, there are 10 states with more registered independents than either Democrats or Republicans. These states are mainly in the Northeast, with a cluster also in the West. By comparison, there are Democratic pluralities of registered voters in 13 states plus the District of Columbia and eight other states with Republicans ahead of both Democrats and independents. In addition, there are six states where there is an independent plurality but Democrats outnumber Republicans, and four states where independents are on top of the registration totals but Republicans outnumber Democrats. That produces the 19 to 12 state registration advantage for the Democrats mentioned earlier.

With the growth in independents, many voters seem to be saying to the two major parties: “a pox on both your houses.”

Yet it also can be argued that registering Democratic or Republican is far more of a statement than it once was. In the current age of sharp-edged partisanship, there is far more than a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties, so registering as a Democrat or Republican is a very intentional act of differentiation.

And that makes the party registration figures worth looking at. A comparison of party registration totals on the eve of the 2016 presidential election with the actual voting in November shows a noticeable correlation between party registration and the state by state election outcomes. Twenty-four of the 31 party registration states were won by the nominee whose party had more registered voters (discounting independents for this particular comparison). That is a 77% correlation rate between party registration advantage and a winning electoral outcome. The percentage goes up to 88% if one removes the South, the one area of the country where party registration is a lagging indicator of the fortunes of the two major parties.

You can obviously see the decline in both Democrat (blue) and Republican (red) registrations with the corresponding increase (green) of Independents.


These facts prove something that has become more and more important: policies, over experience with parties, and adherence to campaign promises.

And each of the above — election by election, state by state, and party by party — show voters are now more than ever abandoning their voting habits proven again and again through generations of American voters and are now more than ever voting based on principles.

Of the 31 party registration states, 24 were carried in the 2016 presidential election by the party with the most registered voters in it. Donald Trump swept 11 of the 12 states with a Republican registration advantage, while Hillary Clinton won 13 of the 19 states (plus the District of Columbia) which had more registered Democrats than Republicans. Four of the Democratic registration states that Trump took were in the South, led by Florida and North Carolina. He also overcame Democratic registration advantages in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to win both. The only state with more registered Republicans than Democrats that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 was New Hampshire, where the outcome was very close.

Putting it bluntly: more Democrats abandoned their candidate in the 2016 Presidential race than did Republicans their candidate. Why would voters do that? “Facts and Believability.” Obviously, more voters (based on state by state totals — therefore electoral votes) believed Donald Trump than did Hillary Clinton — enough to tilt the electoral college to the G.O.P.

Tie it Up

We still need to answer the question: Why did Democrats in leadership change their policies on illegal migration?

The answer is simple: political posturing.

Whether justified or not, Democrat Party leadership have weighed all the data listed above, the temperament of their party members, and their tremendous losses over the past decade in Congressional seats, governorships, and state house seats. Adding those to the mass migration AWAY from the Democrat Party by way of movements like “#Walkaway” as documented on Facebook, Democrats have seen the handwriting on the wall. Their conclusion: “The Democrat Party is doomed without a tremendous and immediate influx of new party-line voters.” Their answer: Illegal migrant voter registration.

But if they are not citizens, they cannot vote, right? For federal elections, that is a fact. But who reading this story or listening to this podcast does not believe there were illegals that voted in the 2018 midterms? States like California who have registered illegals to vote in local and state elections operated their 2018 elections just as they have for decades: one voting poll, one set of voting machines, one onsite registration process, and voting for local, state, and federal offices happening simultaneously.

Call me a doubter, but a process structured like that certainly was the perfect spot to “bend the rules.” And we all know most Californians want ALL inhabitants of the state to vote in every election.

No, illegals cannot “legally” vote in federal elections today. But getting them here in some legal fashion is a start — for Democrats. No, it is not certain that illegal migrants would vote Democrat in every instance. But Democrat Party leaders have shown for decades that by “teaching” minorities that they owe the Democrat Party their allegiance AND their votes is a virtual certainty. How do we know that? Take a look at the African American vote.

Democrats have convinced millions of black voters through decades that the Democrat Party is THE party in total support of all things important to the African American community. More importantly, Dems has convinced blacks that Republicans are — on the most part — racists that look at African Americans as unworthy of equal treatment in the U.S. Obviously, facts, in this case, do not matter. Facts show that:

  • Democrats did not fight the Civil War to free slaves. Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party took that action;
  • Democrats did not pass the Amendment to give Blacks the right to vote, Republicans did;
  • Democrats did not pass legislation to allow Blacks to serve in American Armed Forces, Republican Dwight Eisenhower did;
  • Democrats did not take action to integrate public schools, Republicans did.


Here’s the “Skinny:” The Democrat Party has NO party platform, has NO fundamental principles on which to stand, and NO policies that belong to them exclusively that were used in the 2018 midterm elections, and NONE for the 2020 election. They have NO way to attract new party members.

Their only plan: get a disenfranchised group of migrants into the U.S. that Dems will certainly be able to convince they are obligated to the Democrat Party, which means those migrants will certainly vote for Democrats.

Do I know that for a fact? Facts listed above and the 180-degree departure from their age-old insistence on the perpetuation of the Rule of Law regarding immigration pretty much make that assumption a factual one.

But if you don’t agree, please tell me why they have abandoned the only government fundamental that separates the United States from every other country on Earth.

I’m waiting…….




Trump’s Campaign Finance Fraud

Everyone has heard about it. Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, under specific direction of Candidate Donald Trump, paid hush money to two adult porn stars with which Trump allegedly had affairs. That money was Campaign money. How do we know that? The Media said so, of course. And Democrats make the same claims. So what happens now?

Let’s dig down into the nitty-gritty of all this:

  • Did Trump actually have affairs with the two women? President Trump says he did not. Of course, his saying so means nothing to Leftists. Anything he is accused of is factual in their eyes. Nevertheless, he was accused. Then why did Cohen under Trump’s direction pay the money? Remember this: Trump was running for President. Both of those women apparently came forward at a critical time in the campaign cycle. Having “bimbo leaks” at that particular time would be deadly to any campaign. Stopping their stories from hitting the news was critical.
  • We don’t know that Donald Trump actually had those affairs. He says he didn’t — they both say he did. To my knowledge, no evidence has been presented proving either had any involvement with Donald Trump. But even if he did, he did so prior to being a candidate for any office, and therefore his doing so would have been purely a personal matter. But the President maintains there were NO affairs with either woman.
  • Why would they both say it happened if it really didn’t happen? Come on! Both proved by the way they came forward at the time they came forward their purposes in doing so: MONEY and FAME. Democrats and their media puppets all took the bait and have incessantly beat the drum of “bimbo payoff” since the revelations. And with the Cohen admission of making the payoffs as campaign funds payout — which if true would be illegal — just stoked the liberal fires again.
  • The payoffs DID happen. Confirmation of that is not in dispute. However, were campaign funds used? Apparently, Michael Cohen provided no hard documentation showing the payoff methods and their details. But it is surely certain that if the Trump Campaign wrote checks or wired money, the Federal Election Commission would have stepped forward with that information. Cohen actually initially stated that he paid both women himself. As Trump’s personal attorney, Cohen was on a monthly retainer for legal services. It is commonplace for people of financial substance to have attorneys and accountants under contracts in that exact fashion. They pay for the operating expenses of their clients and bill clients for services provided above what those retainers cover. In that manner, Cohen’s paying them was normal.
  • Those women were paid hush money to keep their stories from impacting the 2016 election results. The public would have NOT voted for Trump if they knew. Therefore, the payoffs were campaign fund violations.” That’s the story being passed around by Democrats. But their story doesn’t stop there. “Experts” are actually all over Mainstream Media outlets stating that this rises to the level of an impeachable offense. But there is precedence and irony here. And both past such events point to these payments — IF they were made to coverup Trump sexual impropriety and not just to thwart blackmail, which is what they seem to have been — are NOT criminal and probably were not at all improper.

Let’s examine those two precedents.

Senator John Edwards

John Edwards is a former United States Senator from North Carolina and a Democratic Party vice-presidential and presidential candidate who, in August 2008, admitted to having had an extramarital affair. The affair was initially reported in late-2007 by The National Enquirer but was given little attention outside the tabloid press and political blogosphere. The Enquirer cited claims from an anonymous source that Edwards had engaged in an affair with Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker hired to work for his presidential campaign, and that Hunter had a child from the relationship.

Edwards vehemently denied the affair and that Hunter’s child was his. But after much media pressure, on January 21, 2010, Edwards issued a statement admitting the affair and that he was the father of Hunter’s child.

On June 3, 2011, Edwards was indicted by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges. The charges? They came from Edwards’ use of campaign funds to cover up the affair and the subsequent birth of the child. (Sound familiar?) Edwards faced a maximum sentence of thirty years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, or a USD $250,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment per charge. The indictment came after the failure of intensive negotiations for a plea bargain agreement that would have required Edwards’ guilty plea to the misuse of campaign funds.

After delays, due to John Edwards’ medical condition, jury selection for the trial began on April 12, 2012. Opening arguments began on April 23, 2012.  A verdict (not guilty on one count and a mistrial on the remaining five) to the trial was reached on May 31, 2012.

As Democrats, (who are about to take control of the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment proceedings would begin) mull over the constant cries of many Congressional Democrats and also from many big campaign donors to impeach President Trump, they have something much bigger than John Edwards’ conundrum with Rielle Hunter to deal with. “IF” they push forward with impeachment, they must deal with the 900-pound gorilla that lives in “their” house: a Congressional Sexual Settlement Hush Fund.

The “Hush” Fund

You may have heard whispers about this fund. You may have at the time you heard of it wondered who in Congress was involved, how long the fund has existed, who was paid out of the fund and for what, and what was the source of dollars IN the hush fund.

If you wondered those things then — two years ago — you STILL wonder about all of those! NOTHING HAS BEEN RELEASED.

Here are the details:

If you’re a victim of sexual harassment and you work for Congress, you can’t complain to the human resources department.

You can’t file a lawsuit, either — at least not until you’ve gone through months of mandatory counseling and mediation designed to keep such complaints out of court. And out of the public eye.

That’s all spelled out in the laughably named Congressional Accountability Act, a special set of rules designed to protect the people who wrote them.

Instead of HR, claims are handled by the congressional Office of Compliance. It receives allegations of sexual harassment, salary discrimination, and other workplace issues, and pays out settlements — with money supplied by the U.S. Treasury — if the parties reach an agreement. Since 1997, taxpayers have shelled out $15.2 million.

Think of it as the Taxpayer Hush Money Fund. You pay, and the complaints go away. Those records aren’t subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act. The compliance office doesn’t disclose the names of congressmen or their aides who reach settlements with their accusers. A case becomes public only if mediation fails and the victim later wins a favorable ruling in federal court or through an administrative process.

So, in the midst of such an outrageous and egregious system in place in Congress, who is responsible for it? And who funds it? The answers: it is part of a bill that Congress passed itself. Who pays for it? WE DO — EVERY DIME! Taxpayer money in — sexual harassment by members of Congress committed — victims get paid by those taxpayer dollars WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Surely there is some member of Congress who saw the horrors of this process and the outcry that would certainly come from Americans if revealed. Surely some member of Congress would blow the whistle and take action to expose this law and shine the light of revelation on all the wrongdoers who had wasted taxpayers dollars to pay off their sex victims. Well, there WAS such a lawmaker: Florida Governor-elect, Ron DeSantis.


I have pasted the bill above. It is not really lengthy, but it is too long to post here. Click on it to read.

The bill was NOT intended to do away with the fund, but rather to force total transparency for Americans to see not only who in Congress were guilty of using unapproved taxpayer funds to pay off those abused by members of Congress, but to chronicle the dollars of every incident going forward.

The bill was introduced in Committee in the Fall of 2017 by DeSantis. It’s current status? More than one year later it is still in Committee: no hearings, no amendments, no discussion. Basically, it is dead.


Democrats in the House have a tall hill to climb if they choose to take the Trump “Bimbo Eruption” to the door of Impeachment. First, there’s the precedent set by federal courts in the John Edwards campaign funds charges in which that court determined Edwards was not guilty of campaign violations.

Then, Democrats would be forced to throw open the doors of sexual improprieties of dozens (if not hundreds) of current and past members of Congress. Why would they do that? Think about the current allegations against Trump in the Cohen revelations in federal court: he paid two women who accused then “private citizen” Trump of having affairs AND paid them with campaign funds. If any federal court went against the Edwards precedent and ruled against the President, that would mean the Congressional Hush fund and those who benefitted from hush payouts from the fund would be guilty of the same wrongdoing Trump is accused of! Every member of Congress who benefited from those hush fund dollars would have had them paid from — by the definition of “campaign fund disbursement rules” as determined and published by the Federal Election Commission — campaign funds paid out for personal purposes. The reasoning for THEIR payouts could only be to hide their personal wrongdoing to thwart the possible negative impact of the news of their wrongdoing IN THEIR CAMPAIGNS. Members of Congress run every two years for election and re-election — they are always campaigning.

Let’s face it: Democrats are simply posturing for political purposes. Their lapdog messaging merchants — the Mainstream Media — simply parrot those claims over and over. They hope an American public that is growing weary of all the political posturing and the necessity to fact-check every bit of news seen or heard, simply turn a deaf ear to this entire process and simply cave to the hollow and false allegations by Democrats and fall in line — their line — against the President.

Democrats and the Media are praying that facts will be forgotten, emotions will rule, and Trump will be driven from office.

They really, really pray that Robert Mueller will miraculously uncover Russian collusion on the part of Trump and that Trump criminality will do the dirty work for them!

Donald Trump is guilty of one thing for sure: his policies have made everything he has tackled politically better — much better — than as he found them.

Will that be enough to keep him in the White House for two more years and possibly six? The truth has worked in the past. Most Americans hope the truth will work this time, too.



“Q Anon Part II”

The following was posted July 22, 2018, regarding the phenomenon in today’s “news” and “intelligence” called “Q,” or “QAnon. Please read this again to begin this conversation.

“In keeping with our promise to always provide the opinions of others who may be different from ours, today we introduce you to ‘Q,’ sometimes called ‘QAnon,’ or ‘QAnonymous.’ But before you watch this video, you need to understand some things:

  • QAnon’s identity is unknown. Whoever QAnon is — whether person or a group of people — has access to much information regarding extremely sensitive U.S. government and political information. Some claim QAnon is an inside military intelligence group. Others say QAnon is a former CIA operative. Whoever QAnon is, TIME Magazine just included QAnon on the list of ‘25 Most Influential People on the Internet.’ Heads are turning;
  • QAnon shares via internet posts many questions, predictions, and conclusions about political persons and events. Many of those predictions have been shown to be true with others still pending; QAnon alerted all to the now approximate 40,000 (now up to 65,000+) federal sealed indictments that have all been issued since late October of 2017. Every federal district court has issued at least one of those sealed indictments. By way of comparison, in U.S. history the most sealed federal indictments issued during any calendar year is less than 3000. Heads are turning.”

Fast forward now to today.

A couple of questions come to mind when discussing this topic:

  • Is this “Q” person real? If he is, who is he and where does he get his information?
  • Why doesn’t the Mainstream Media even talk about Q? Since they do not, does that mean the information Q puts out is not real or not true?

I am right there with you! But in the last few years, I have learned an important lesson about the Media: today’s Media is NOT the Media of the 1960s and 1970s. If you question that, reference the non-stop coverage of the President George H.W. Bush funeral. I was shocked to see network anchors continually make fun of President Trump EVEN WHEN THE GRANDSON OF PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH HAD JUST FINISHED A EULOGY FOR HIS GRANDFATHER! Nothing matters to 95% of the Media other than garnering approval from their fawning public. And for many reasons, the American public in large part have simply determined that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, and CNBC are the sources they will always turn to for “news in sound bytes.” And their “news” is no longer just facts. Their interpretive narrative is painted as truth — and on the most part, it is not. It’s simply THEIR narrative.

Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans have discovered Q and are simply listening to what Q is saying as a perspective. I personally shudder to think any of what is coming from Q might be true.

But since July 22, 2018 — the date I first introduced you to Q — much of what has been given to us has materialized or has been confirmed by other news sources. And nothing published by Q has been found to NOT be true.

That tends to make one listen.

Listen we will. “At we never tell you what to think. We simply give you Truth to think about.”

To that end, here’s another message from “Q.” Please take a look and/or listen. At its completion, we’ll chat in Summary.



There are so many things happening daily — especially in American politics, — that cannot be reasonably explained. There are far too many things that do not have reasonable or realistic explanations. It seems to me that something or some”things” are going on in the shadows that are instigating those unexplainable things. Is this a new instigator of world events on a world stage? Or is this something that has been going on in the shadows and we just did not see or hear about them? I’m beginning to think the latter is more believable than the former. We had Walter Cronkite, Roger Mudd, Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, and Peter Jennings for those decades of the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s. It is true we did not have satellite television, the internet, Facebook or Twitter. But those guys brought us the news, didn’t they? Or did they? To believe that back then the news was really the “truth” in news would mean everything that is being uncovered today just began to happen. But it is difficult to believe that all of the obvious corruption, lies, deceit, misrepresentations, coverups, and even murders just began to happen a few years ago.

Is it not more realistic to accept that all those things — though maybe to a lesser degree — were going on all along and we just didn’t know about them? Does it not make more sense to believe that Cronkite and Company knew about all or much of these things but did not report them for the purpose of making certain the American public was in the dark about them?

Enter the internet, satellite television, and talk radio.

No matter what others think, this journalist is pretty certain that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Breitbart News, and the host of other conservative journalists did not and do not have daily conference calls each morning to discuss the conservative conspiracy stories of the day. It is far more realistic to believe that evil has been and is alive in America that is simply being uncovered for the first time in our lifetimes. I am certain what has begun to be exposed almost daily has been there — maybe just bubbling under the surface — for a long time but has been disguised, hidden, and maybe even kept secret so Americans will not go crazy when seeing and hearing the truth about the garbage that has been buried in Washington D.C. by those who took an oath to serve and protect us.

Here is the bottom line: we DON’T really know. And we have two choices: one is to continue walking down a road, ignoring the road signs posted in front of us as we go about our merry ways. Or, two, we can listen, watch, dig into those things we see and hear, and make decisions about truth armed with all the possible answers.

At TruthNewsNet, I don’t think there’s an option. We are virtually certain there is much going on we do not see and therefore do not understand. That is NOT because we are stupid or blind or uncaring. And if it is because we do not want to learn the truth, we probably should not look at videos like that above (or listen to audio versions of such videos). Why? Because all they will do is scare us. But if we live as our parents taught us to live, we should push through the shadows of unknown certainties that are right in front of us, we with facts we will be able to investigate, discern what they mean, and what to do about them.

I promise you that I am not sure about Q. I promise you that Q asks questions that I cannot answer. But I am committed to seeking answers to all those things and others that I do not know or understand today as they are revealed. I owe that to my family, my friends, and I certainly owe it to you.

We may disagree on the “probabilities” I deduce and share. We may disagree on hypotheticals that come up in our continued search for the truth. But for certain, we will look at all the possibilities we can garner to get the answers to the toughest questions in our lives.

Not knowing answers does not mean one is stupid. Not knowing answers and then doing nothing to find those answers means one is stupid.

There’s NO stupid here!


What Now, Congress?

Americans are waiting with many questions about what and how Congress will act regarding legislation — what Congress is designed to do. That comes as control of the House of Representatives crosses the aisle to the Democrat Party in January 2019. Though the GOP picked up several Senate seats that increased their Senate majority, all “fiscal” matters — matters driven by government funding — must come from the House.

Yes, it is true that for the first two years of the Trump presidency Republicans controlled both houses. But because of rules put in place — rules passed by each house of Congress that are NOT Constitutional mandate –, restrictions regarding even taking up measures for floor debate and what can and cannot be done in the House and Senate lie entirely at the feet of members of Congress. Why?

Congressional Identity Politics

Americans look on as Congress continually defeats completion of legislation for extremely important matters. examples: each year the Constitution requires Congress to prepare, pass, and the President to sign into law a fiscal budget. And each fiscal year the budget that controls government spending expires the same time. Yet each year, Congress waits until the last minute, delaying even a vote on a budget bill, passing temporary spending resolutions, due exclusively to partisan wrangling that seldom has anything substantive to do with the overall budget. Most often those delays are direct results of the current “legislative hotspot item of the week.” The repair of illegal immigration, funding healthcare, and building a southern border wall are the latest hot spots that have delayed a new budget. Of course, stop-gap resolutions for temporary spending have to be put in place to prevent a government shutdown. But even the threat of a shutdown is turned into a political football everytime one is rumored: either Democrats or Republicans hold out wanting this legislation or that legislation included or excluded, and it’s always “the other Party’s fault.”

In the past, members of Congress were really concerned about how Americans felt about Congress and the job they do. Their approval ratings among the public were important. But in past years Americans watch as Congress demonstrates, again and again, their lack of concern for the will of Americans in legislation. Their approval ratings as a result of their lack of concern for the will of Americans hover around just 10%. And they don’t care.

With that in mind, and with Democrats reclaiming control of the financial mothership in Congress — the House of Representatives — don’t you think Congress would want to get back to work and diligently move legislation for Americans and government operations forward? One would think that. And one would be wrong.

What legislative matters do you think Congress should be concentrating on? Let’s name a few: Further tax relief for the middle class; meaningful comprehensive immigration reform; sealing both U.S. borders to stop the rampant influx of illegals from the north and south; revision of healthcare financing and regulation to make it affordable for all Americans without tampering with healthcare’s effectiveness; taking control of runaway U.S. government federal deficit spending. There certainly are others. But I feel almost all Americans would be tickled if Congress would make at least honest efforts on these during the next two years. But it won’t happen. Even with a fresh start with a new House of Representatives, NOTHING substantive will be accomplished in the next Congress — nothing but passing a budget after several spending resolutions are passed at the last minute. The cycle of Congressional lunacy just rolls over — again, and again, and again, and again.

Did you notice as I did the lack of party platform promotion in the 2018 midterm campaigns by either Party? There were none. All the campaigning were against those running on the other side. Voters heard very little from either Democrats or Republicans about any ideas to fix any of the broken government process mentioned in the last paragraph. In fact, the election conversation was driven primarily by just one thing: Donald Trump. And seldom did you hear at campaign rallies or in television, radio, or print ads “new” ideas from either Party’s candidates. They each simply drew a line in the sand: either for or against President Trump.

Hardly anyone spoke about the amazing accomplishments in the nation on his watch in just his first two short years. (I won’t list them here, but we all know about most) Regardless of the claims made by his predecessor for initiating all of those successes, most Americans are smart enough to look at their payroll deposits and see deposits for corporate bonuses, pay increases, and more net pay because of the reduced federal income tax deductions. They see their 401K values have risen rather than leaking away as under the last President. Americans also saw their neighbors who had previously struggled to find work get not just jobs, but jobs in sectors that not only had completely stopped hiring were moving operations to foreign countries. Americans know Obama promised exactly opposite, telling Americans that manufacturing would never come back to the U.S.

It happened because Donald Trump changed the way people at the top in Washington think. Let’s call it “Trump Change.”

But, wait: not EVERYONE in Washington changed — or wanted “Trump Change.” Enter members of the Deep State — inhabitants of the Swamp. They didn’t want “Trump Change.” They still don’t.

With new House control by Democrats, one would think Democrat Party leadership would be excited about looking ahead at new ways to build on existing successes and find new ways to initiate new ones. But that’s not happening. Want to know what Democrat Party upcoming House leadership and committee leaders are planning?

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign. “There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Schiff’s premise has NO basis in fact, rather relies totally on information contained in Robert Mueller’s memo released Friday, December 9th. Specifically, Schiff’s comments were based on allegations contained in that memo stating Cohen lied to Mueller and his investigators. According to the memo, Cohen admitted that he had lied to Congress about when he stopped pursuing a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow — which was June 2016 instead of January 2016, and about other statements he had made. It said he also offered new information to the special counsel’s office. The memo said Cohen admitted he lied to Congress to “minimize links between the Moscow Project” and Trump, and to “give a false impression” that the Moscow Project had ended before the Iowa caucus and the first presidential primaries, in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations being conducted by Congress and the special counsel’s office.

Cohen also said he had lied to Congress about a 2015 radio interview, in which he suggested that Trump meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in New York City during his visit for the United Nations General Assembly. Cohen had told Congress that his comments were not discussed within the campaign, but later said that he had “conferred” with Trump about contacting the Russian government to gauge interest in such a meeting.

Congressman Schiff disclosed that Democrats are in talks with counsel for former Trump attorney Michael Cohen to “bring him back” for further testimony, less than two weeks after Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2017.  Schiff suggested Cohen will return voluntarily. If Schiff becomes the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats retake the House in January, as expected, he would have the power to subpoena Cohen to testify and provide documents — but Cohen would retain the option of pleading his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed Friday, December 7th that he will end the Republican-led probe into decisions made by the FBI and Department of Justice during the 2016 presidential election. “Yes, [I will end it] because it is a waste of time to start with,” Nadler told reporters after momentarily stepping outside the closed-door hearing of fired FBI Director James Comey. He branded the probe a political stunt designed to divert attention from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election. “The entire purpose of this investigation is to be a diversion of the real investigation, which is Mueller. There is no evidence of bias at the FBI and this other nonsense they are talking about,” the Democrat claimed.
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), promised the following legislation to be taken up if she retakes the gavel as Speaker of the House: a package for campaign finance reform as Dems’ first bill of the 116th Congress; Democrats will pursue reducing drug prices, something the Trump Administration is doing successfully already. Then, they will make an effort to work with Republicans on a bill on background checks for gun purchases, as well as address protecting “Dreamers.” That refers to young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. “I don’t see any of us voting for wall funding,” referring to President Donald Trump’s plan for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. In addition, Pelosi said she would like Democrats to make sure there is integrity in the U.S. voting system.
  • And then there’s Maxine Waters (D-CA). Throughout the campaign and since she speaks about nothing but impeachment. I am not for sure, but I believer her ardent supporters from her California district would rather she work with all those in D.C. to reduce illegal immigration that has resulted in lost jobs for those voters and others, further reduce taxes and help find ways to fix healthcare finance, stemming the flood of ever-increasing federal spending that is driving our national debt far beyond any hope of repayment, and the constant logjam in Congress due exclusively to partisanship from both sides of the aisle. Yet, Ms. Waters still chants in rallies and meetings, “Impeach 45, Impeach 45!”


There’s very little any non-elected American can do to right this ship. At best we can continue to communicate with our elected federal officials and encourage them to take care of the enforcement of existing laws, pass new laws to fix bad laws, to cut runaway spending, close our borders to illegals, and take care of American citizens before spending billions on illegals who invade our country.

Regarding the likes of Schiff and Nadler and Pelosi and others who hail from the Democrat Party far left, they still hold the belief that their political false narrative has captured the minds of most Americans. I laugh every time I hear Nadler or Schiff or Pelosi or Waters in interviews spouting their talking points. Remember this: Schiff is the one that on numerous occasions has stated he “factually” knows and has evidence that proves that President Trump colluded with Russia to help get him elected in 2016. Nadler knows that everything he said that I quoted above about the current House investigation into Department of Justice and FBI wrongdoing and even illegal actions during the 2016 election is not only legitimate, but it is also necessary to simply hold government officials accountable for partisanship that has led to unbelievable illegal activities that put Watergate to shame!

Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and even Waters are oblivious to this one fact that cannot be forgotten or ignored: all Americans are not drinking from the trough of Political Elitism from which Democrat Party leadership live by. Americans understand things in D.C. are not right. And most Americans — even proven in polling results — want the process in D.C. fixed and those responsible for wrongdoing to be held accountable.

In all of this, don’t be dismayed: the Sheriff that took charge in 2016 is far from working alone in his so-far successful quest to clean out the Swamp. Schiff and Company want to intimidate the Sheriff into believing he has no hope and that they’re “gonna’ get him!” He doesn’t care. He came to D.C. a very successful entrepreneur. He’ll leave D.C. the same.

And Americans will still be in control of the United States of America!




Mueller: “I Will Take President Trump Down!”

It’s on. Clearly, in the aftermath of the Friday release of Mueller’s reports of at least his partial finding against Paul Manafort and the President’s former attorney Michael Cohen, it is now clear: Special Counsel Robert Mueller has one and only one person in his sights: President Donald Trump.

Today instead of getting down in the dirt with nitty-gritty details contained in those reports and what they mean, we’ll “bullet point” details of those documents and will — in the Summary — give you our observations. Let’s get right to it:

Robert Mueller

  • Mueller has now made it clear to all, his target is the President himself. Many wondered why he so viciously attacked Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort in the investigation and with the serious charges made against both that could put Manafort in jail for the rest of his life and Cohen for quite a few years. Mueller in Friday’s releases did, however, through a heavily redacted portion of the Cohen report, make it clear that he is looking for more from Cohen. The redactions of specific information could be for one thing and one thing only: Mueller did NOT want Cohen to see what the Mueller team has on him that they have not yet used. That means they still have those at their disposal to get more from Cohen to allow them to hit the bullseye: the President.
  • Russian Collusion? It looks like there is “no there-there.” Although Mueller is still pressuring Manafort and Cohen for facts about Trump team members to tie the President and/or his campaign to the Russians, the fact that nothing about that was included in the reports leads me to believe he has not put anything together implicating the Trump Organization in Russian collusion. However, he left that door open.
  • I would be remiss if I did not point out the obvious conflicts of interest held by Mueller in this entire case. The day before accepting appointment by President Trump to be the Special Counsel, Mueller along with Rod Rosenstein sat in the Oval Office purportedly to interview with the President for fired FBI Director James Comey’s job. But the most obvious Mueller conflicts that (according to the Special Counsel statute) disqualify him from service in any government investigative capacity are the multiple personal relationships with those either acting as witnesses or active participants in the investigation — like James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and many others.

Rod Rosenstein

  • Rosenstein drafted and sent a letter to the President and to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommending the firing of James Comey for a multitude of infractions committed while FBI Director. There are numerous questions that Rosenstein’s actions bring to this discussion: Why would Rosenstein join Mueller to petition the President to hire Mueller? Mueller had already termed-out as FBI Director and was ineligible. And then why would he a day later appoint Mueller to serve as Special Counsel? Why hasn’t Rosenstein recused himself for conflicts he certainly holds?
  • Talk about conflict of interest: Conflicts? Rosenstein — because of conflicts — should not have even appointed Mueller. Why? Rosenstein is Mueller’s boss in this entire thing. And Rosenstein previously worked for Mueller AND Comey! Rosenstein certainly should have immediately recused himself from the Deputy Attorney General post and should not have even considered the Mueller appointment because of conflict. Think of all the witnesses that the Mueller team has used in this proge. Almost all worked with or for Rosenstein at some point. And he’s the one who wrote the letter advising the President to fire Comey in which he in detail listed the reasons for Comey’s termination.
  • Remember Rosenstein’s letter sent to Mueller with the terms of his role and what he should and was allowed to do as Special Counsel? It was specifically to investigate alleged collusion between the Russians and the Trump Campaign for the specific purpose to impact the results of the 2016 election for Trump’s benefit. But — with no fanfare, press release, or public notice and after Mueller launched his probe into Trump obstruction of justice — that letter from Rosenstein to Mueller was amended. The “new” version includes the phrase to include authorization for Mueller to investigate any possible illegal actions which were discovered in the collusion investigation. If court tested, much of the Mueller investigation will probably be thrown out because it was initiated BEFORE authorization from the DOJ was given. (We’ll watch that closely)

Paul Manaforte

  • Manafort cut several deals with the Mueller team to get a better deal. But consistently Mueller has piled on charge after charge, stiffening Manafort’s recommended sentences for lack of cooperation and even taking action for Manafort to be held in jail without bail during this entire mess. Why is that?

     Paul Manafort
  • Mueller — even though cutting deals with Manafort — is apparently angry that Manafort has not given Mueller what he wants. There is something else Mueller is looking for, and he’s certain Manafort has it but is holding it back. That’s why Mueller has added more and more in the way of charges, trying to ratchet up pressure on the former campaign manager.
  • Mueller feels strongly whatever the missing piece or pieces in the puzzle to unmask Trump wrongdoing is in the possession of Paul Manafort. Mueller still has the door open for Manafort, which means there’s something else he wants or needs and will continue to work on Manafort until he gets it from him. Stay tuned for that.
  • Mueller also knows that Manafort is at the front of the line for a presidential pardon. Recently, President Trump when asked by reporters said a Manafort pardon is “still on the table.” That may have been stated by the President as a message to Manafort being dangled like an apple: a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Michael Cohen

  • Ever wonder why Mueller turned over his case for prosecution of Michael Cohen to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York? His reasoning is now crystal clear. Mueller messed up with Manafort. All of the actions the Mueller team has taken and will take against Paul Manafort have and will be made at the federal level. Cohen’s are too, but the criminal actions allegedly committed by Cohen happened in New York state and broke identical or similar New York state laws. Though state charges have not been filed, it is clear that should President Trump pardon Cohen, such a pardon would apply only to the federal crimes to which Cohen has pleaded. After such a pardon, it is likely that New York state’s attorney general would then file state charges for the infractions already admitted to by Cohen. No presidential pardon would be available regarding any state charges.
  • It seems that the Mueller case against Cohen is incomplete. Yet Mueller keeps cranking on Cohen, apparently trying to obtain more evidence of Trump wrongdoing. If that was not true, why would the court categorically deny Cohen’s plea for his sentencing to include no jail time? What could that “evidence” be Mueller is looking for? In the report released on Friday, Mueller accused Cohen of being a “non-cooperative” witness, even though Cohen has provided a multitude of information to the Mueller team. What’s left that Cohen could provide? The Mueller team needs Cohen to validate their belief that President Trump aggressively pursued obstruction of justice. Think about it: the Friday report stated Cohen alleged the President not only knew about the payoff Cohen made to the two porn stars who claimed they had affairs with Donald Trump, Cohen claimed the President asked him to hide the fact that he knew. If that Cohen claim is valid, it could possibly implicate the President for obstruction of justice.
  • Cohen is a liar. Mueller and his team have caught Cohen in numerous lies retracted later when confronted with facts. How will that factor into this entire case? (See details in the Summary below)


Where is this investigation going? What will be the end result? Who is “in the weeds” driving this attack on President Trump? Why hasn’t Congress stepped in to impact this charade underway at the expense of the American people?

If it is true that the Department of Justice and everyone in that department who work in the Executive Branch — one of the three branches of U.S. government authorized in the Constitution — doesn’t the Deputy Attorney General (Rod Rosenstein) and the Special Counsel (Robert Mueller) work for the DOJ and therefore work at the behest of the head of the Executive Branch? Who is the head of the Executive Branch? President Donald Trump.

If it is true that all departments in the government created by the Constitution are required to divulge details of all of their operations to the U.S. Congress, why has Congress not stepped in to control this runaway Special Counsel investigation that is full of conflicts of interest, illegal activities by employees, and multiple examples of obstruction of justice?

There is much to still be learned about what Mueller is doing and why. But it is becoming crystal clear: Mueller’s target is President Trump. But who would want to take down this President with the amazing accomplishments the nation has witnessed during just the first year plus of his administration? Economically the country is zooming forward, employment, new corporate investment, the greatest tax revenue in U.S. history even AFTER the middle class tax cuts, foreign leaders standing in line to meet with and negotiate international trade deals with our president, and the first legitimate presidential push to secure our nation’s borders to keep terrorists out and also those who want to enter the country illegally strictly for government assistance for life. How is any of that worthy to open a door for kicking Mr. Trump out of the White House?

Let’s be clear: none of this has anything to do with Donald Trump! He just happens to, unfortunately, be the guy who beat “THEIR” candidate for president — Hillary Rodham Clinton. The fact is that there really is a Deep State comprised of foreigners, American politicians, political contributors, lobbyists, and others who have created and perpetrated their operations for decades to control every aspect of American life. And President Trump is a “fly in their ointment.” He spoiled their party. They are committed to doing ANYTHING to regain the control they lost with the Trump presidency.

You see, he is independent of the special interests that have run the government for decades. He is politically obligated to no one. They are in a frenzy.

How to get rid of him? Find or create dirt sufficient to run him out of office.

They are wailing and gnashing their teeth in the realization that THERE’S NO LEGITIMATE DIRT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP! So what do they do? Create something — anything — to use to justify sending him packing.

Enter Robert Mueller.

I will not waste your time listing the people formerly in government, currently, in government, those fired or forced to retire, titans in industry and corporate giants who are implicated as part of this now front-and-center task to rid themselves of this president who refuses to become a pawn of the Deep State.

So here’s how this will all play out in coming days:

  1. Mueller will probably sometime in January 2019 issue his “official” report to the Attorney General and to Congress, detailing the first part of his findings in this probe. In spite of what many have said, I believe strongly the Mueller probe will continue for some time after that. Mueller will exhaust every resource given to him by the American people in this probe — unlimited dollars — to find or create sufficient “evidence” to destroy President Trump.
  2. Mueller and his team will continue to increase their pressure on Cohen and Manafort to push them to provide either actual facts against Trump or even create some. It is so ridiculous how rabid Mueller is at this point, it is believable that he can and will force Cohen and Manafort to actually create fake evidence sufficient to implicate the President, members of his campaign, but especially his family members. Mueller has already shown it matters not whose life is destroyed in his quest. He has already ruined the life of a 30-year military servant and General — Michael Flynn — who had to sell his home just to pay his legal bills. That purportedly occurred after Mueller offered Flynn an “either-or” deal, threatening action against Flynn’s son if Flynn did not plead guilty.
  3. When the new House of Representatives takes control in January, Democrats then in the majority have already promised to launch a massive offensive against the White House and the President. Their goal? Impeach President Trump. They will NOT relent on that path and will settle for nothing less than driving the President out of office. They will bury the White House legal office with subpoenas for documents, other evidence, and testimony before various committees and the full House regarding matters in the Mueller probe.
  4. On Friday, James Comey showed just how powerful the Deep State is by (in a classified session not open to the public) refuse to answer questions regarding his previous actions and testimony at the instructions of attorneys from the Department of Justice! Think about that: the DOJ and its attorneys work for the President yet still advised Comey to obstruct. Don’t forget: Comey has been proven to lie under oath, to commit felonies by mishandling classified information, by illegally giving classified documents to the media, and NOTHING has happened to him. That all comes because of the power of the Deep State.
  5. Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, former AG’s Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch, Mueller himself, and many others have all been implicated in the same ways. It is likely NONE will pay any price for their illegal activities. Why? Again, the Deep State.
  6. What about the Clintons? Americans will be happy to know that the Jim Huber investigation (using 470 DOJ investigators that answer only to him) has started letting the subpoenas fly in the investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Thursday a bank that had been accused of laundering money for the Foundation was subpoenaed. And that is just a start. 2019 will certainly be a bad year for the Clintons as their wrongdoing will be finally front and center.

What about impeachment? Here’s how that process works: the House can file articles of impeachment. With a Democrat majority in the House, they can probably garner enough votes to take that action. The Senate would then take the evidence from the House, investigate and literally conduct a trial based on the purported wrongdoing of the President that rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” — what the Constitution requires for impeachment. The GOP actually in the 2018 election created a larger majority in the Senate. Unless something really shocking is found by Mueller, it is doubtful a two-thirds majority in the Senate would vote that the President is guilty. At that point, Democrats hope President Trump will have tired of the fight and simply resigned, or we will be approaching the 2020 election and they will be able to run Trump out of Washington.

My prediction: the House will probably impeach President Trump. The Senate will not convict him.

Then what?

Americans need to go to their knees. It’s anyone’s guess as what path Americans will choose to allow the country to go down. here’s the problem: there is a generation of 30-year-olds who came through this socialist-driven education system that have been convinced Socialism is viable, is attractive, and is necessary. My fear is that those of this generation who have been raised on the internet, who get their news via the net in soundbites and rely only on the news sources to which their educators referred them, will continue to NOT think for themselves. Instead, they rely on that news — almost 100% Leftist inspired — to make their political decisions. God help the U.S. if that happens. The only path for us is the one toward full-blown Socialism with a hint of Totalitarianism added.

The problem with that that this generation does not see: in that political scenario, Capitalism dies, entrepreneurship dies, and all those who are wealthy who are tagged to pay for all of this walk away from doing so and the nation collapses.

“That can’t happen to the United State,” you say. Well, it happened in Venezuela. It happened in Cuba. It is happening in Brazil. And it surely is happening in France.

TruthNewsNet is watching closely. Stay close: we’ll have almost daily if NOT daily updates on this. And this is the most important political process in your lifetime. Make certain you stay tuned in to hear and read the Truth.



Trump or a Democrat in 2020: Who Will It Be? Part Three

When I was much younger and “who should be the next President?” discussions began among my parents’ friends, their consensus pick was always the candidate who — in their collective opinion — was the most qualified for the job. The “qualification” qualifier seems is still important, but, in many cases, that qualifier no longer simply political prowess, knowledge, and life history that proves the capability of a candidate to be President. Now it seems presidential choices must be weighted — weighted toward women over men, toward people of color over white candidates, those who are pro-abortion as contrasted to those opposed to abortion, etc. And it seems the list of litmus tests for determination of who is qualified to serve seems to be getting longer and longer.

It seems to many that 2020 may be the year for someone who fits one of the “preferred” classes from that list to go to the White House. And to that end, the Senator from New York might just be the most qualified from that list to head to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

If one watches the very public actions of Leftists — like various cause demonstrations, midterm election campaign appearances, rallies for liberal causes — seeing Kirsten Gillibrand is going to happen often. She is forceful, consistent, and dogmatic about the liberal political agenda: Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, all of the “-ists” and “-phobias,” Open Borders, Women’s Rights, and hiking taxes on the wealthy. And she is demonstrative with her malice for President Trump. In today’s divisive political America, Kirsten Gillibrand may just be the perfect “Poster Girl” for Democrats. (Oops! I said Poster “Girl.” That’s sexist of me!)

Who Is She?

Kirsten Gillibrand (born December 9, 1966) is an American attorney and politician serving as the junior United States Senator from New York since January 2009. She previously held the position of U.S. Representative for New York’s 20th congressional district from 2007 until her Senate appointment. In December 2008, President-elect Barack Obama nominated second-term incumbent U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton as United States Secretary of State, leaving an empty seat in the Senate. New York Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to fill the vacancy, and she was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on January 26, 2009. Gillibrand was required to run in a special election in 2010 to keep her seat, and she won the election with 63% of the vote. She was reelected to a full six-year term in 2012 with 72% of the vote, receiving a higher percentage of the vote than any other statewide candidate in New York. In 2018, she received 67% of the vote.

During her Senate tenure, Gillibrand has been outspoken on issues like sexual assault in the military and sexual harassment.

Early Life

Kirsten Elizabeth Rutnik was born in Albany, New York, on December 9, 1966. Both her parents are attorneys, and her father has also worked as a lobbyist. Her parents divorced in the late 1980s. She has an older brother and a younger sister. Her maternal grandmother is Dorothea “Polly” Noonan, a founder of the Albany Democratic Women’s Club.

During her childhood and college years, Gillibrand used the nickname “Tina.” She began using her birth name of Kirsten a few years after law school. In 1984, she graduated from Emma Willard School, an all women’s private school located in Troy, New York, and then enrolled at Dartmouth College. Gillibrand majored in Asian Studies, studying in both Beijing and Taiwan. Gillibrand graduated magna cum laude in 1988. During college, Gillibrand interned at Republican U.S. Senator Alfonse D’Amato’s Albany office. Gillibrand received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law and passed the bar exam in 1991.

Legal Career

In 1991, Gillibrand joined the Manhattan-based law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell as an associate. In 1992, she took a leave from Davis Polk to serve as a law clerk to Judge Roger Miner on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Albany.

Gillibrand’s tenure at Davis Polk is best known for her work as a defense attorney for Philip Morris during major litigation, including both civil lawsuits and U.S. Justice Department criminal and civil racketeering probes. She became a senior associate while working on Philip Morris litigation. 

Following her time at Davis Polk, Gillibrand served as Special Counsel to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Andrew Cuomo during the last year of the Clinton administration.

In 1999, Gillibrand began working on Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign, focusing on campaigning to young women and encouraging them to join the effort. Many of those women later worked on Gillibrand’s campaigns. Gillibrand and Clinton became close during the election, with Clinton becoming something of a mentor to the young attorney. Gillibrand donated more than $12,000 to Clinton’s Senate campaigns.

Early Politics

Gillibrand considered running for office in 2004, in New York’s 20th congressional district, against the three-term Republican incumbent John E. Sweeney. However, Hillary Clinton believed circumstances would be more favorable in 2006 and advised her to wait until then.

The 2006 election campaign against Sweeney was very contentious. Scandals on the part of the Republican doomed his re-election bid and Gillibrand won the congressional seat with 53% of the vote. She won her 2008 re-election with 60% of the vote defeating the former NY Secretary of State.

Gillibrand in D.C. quickly joined the Blue Dog Coalition — a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. She served on numerous House committees until after 1 year of her second term in the House she moved across the hall to the Senate after Hillary’s departure to become Obama’s Secretary of State.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in Current Politics

She’s a firebrand. Gillibrand has taken the approach to attack almost every Trump Administration agenda item put forward. Unfortunately for many of her supporters, her consternation with the President and his ideas has turned personal. The presumption for her doing so goes back several years when the two had some very public interaction. It was reported that before his run for President, Gillibrand made frequent attempts to meet with Trump for the purpose of securing his support for her political campaigns. Neither has spoken about the specifics of any of those meetings.

The New York Senator has become an aggressive supporter on the campaign trail for women’s’ rights and to fight sexual misconduct. Gillibrand also recently said she thought Bill Clinton should have resigned in the face of his own sexual misconduct allegations, and she was the first senator to call for fellow Democratic Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) to step down.

Early on in the Trump Administration, Gillibrand joined other Democrats that had decided to go after the President on many fronts to find ways to discredit his presidency and push him out of office. She publicly on numerous occasions suggested he resign. After one such instance, he tweeted that as a New York senator she “would do anything for” campaign contributions — which many took to be sexually suggestive. It’s difficult to imagine a bigger gift when it comes to raising Gillibrand’s profile in advance of a 2020 run for the Democratic nomination.

Many Democrats in Washington have begun to accept her as something of a spokesperson for women’s’ causes. In the opinions of many political pundits, she in her support of these causes is building a base for a 2020 run for the White House. She has begun to even discuss Democrat Party messaging to potential voters, even talking about Trump messaging methods that were successful for him in 2016:

Her principle target in almost all of her appearances seems to be “Dump Trump.”

In addition to the normal roadblocks that come with running for President, Gillibrand because of her demonstrative voice in the Democrat Party, is watched very closely in HER messaging. And she sometimes tends to be a bit of a loose cannon in some things she says. In a recent speech, she cited a string of inaccurate economic statistics in an attempt to cast doubt on the health of the economy during a speech at the National Action Network Conference. Gillibrand told the gathered audience several statistics about the unemployment rates for African-American men and women, but a Washington Post fact check found all three statistics she cited were incorrect.

“When they declare victory at 4 percent unemployment, it is not good enough,” Gillibrand said. “Because 4 percent unemployment means an 8 or 9 percent unemployment in some cities for black women. It means a 16 percent unemployment rate for black men. It means young veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, a 20 percent unemployment rate. So our work really isn’t done.”

As of October, the unemployment rate was at 3.7 percent, the lowest it has been since December of 1969. This is lower than the rounded-up figure of 4 percent cited by Gillibrand, but the main issue arises from her citation of statistics on black unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found, in October, that the unemployment rate for black men was 6.2 percent, not 16 percent like Gillibrand claimed. That same study of unemployment rates found that the unemployment rate for black women was 4.9 percent, not 8 or 9 percent.

When asked about these statistics, Gillibrand’s spokesperson, Alex Phillips, said that Gillibrand accidentally dropped “young” from her speech and meant to refer to the unemployment rates of young black men and women.

On the issue of veterans, Gillibrand’s statistic also missed the mark. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that “young veterans” between the ages of 18 and 24 had an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent, lower than Gillibrand’s claim of 20 percent. Veterans between the age of 25 and 34 reported an unemployment rate of 1.9 percent. Phillips claimed Gillibrand “misspoke the stat off the cuff.”

When fact-checking her use of these statistics, the Washington Post concluded, “Somehow, Gillibrand managed to mangle three statistics in three consecutive sentences before a large audience. If you are trying to make the case that you can provide better economic stewardship, you need to get the numbers right first.”

Will Gillibrand Run?

In the context of a large number of those who are rumored to be “considering” a 2020 run for the White House, it is at least six months premature to make a call on a possible Gillibrand run. As uncanny as it may sound, she seems totally immersed in serious consideration to doing so, primarily because of her not too subtle feud with Donald Trump. If that is really what is driving her plans regarding a run, she may find herself running up against a brick wall: Donald Trump is very proficient at creating and perpetuating pretty nasty conflict with anyone. His “Queens messaging” can be pretty crude. It would be tough for Gillibrand to take over the process that the President has seemed to have perfected: using social media to bypass traditional news methods of reaching Americans. Gillibrand has already attempted a number of times to subtly play the victim card in her conflicts with Mr. Trump, and that has not worked very effectively for her. But she has proven to be astute in navigating through the Potomac political environment so far. Only time and an actual run in the primaries will show if she can maintain such a quest.

When asked by Stephen Colbert about the rumors she would run for president in 2020, Gillibrand said, “I believe it is a moral question for me … And as I’ve traveled across my state, across this country for all these candidates, I’ve seen the hatred and division that President Trump has put out into our country and it has called me to fight as hard as I possibly can to restore the moral compass of this country … so I will promise you I will give it a long, hard thought of consideration.”

My gut suggests that Gillibrand may (at least at this point) be a little too passionate AGAINST political issues while not yet offering political positions to CHANGE current policies. She also seems to freely offer facts (as in the statistics she in error quoted show above) that are not really facts. One would expect the Media to take a potential presidential candidate to task for committing such a faux pas, BUT she is a Democrat and she is a “she.” For those, a candidate is often given a pass by the Media.

Presidential campaign seasons seem to get longer and longer every four years. Could Gillibrand survive such grueling several years? Only time will tell if Gillibrand has the heart and fortitude for doing so. The last New York Senator to tackle that task was beat up pretty bad. Hillary Clinton as the most widely known female politician was an odds-on favorite to win the presidency in 2016. Hillary failed to live in the White House as President because of 3 losses in her bids for the presidency. Certainly, those losses are weighing heavily into any decision by Gillibrand to take that step.

Only time will tell.


To Whom does Robert Mueller Answer?

Outgoing Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is fulfilling his promise to stop (or slow down) Senate confirmations of Trump nominated judges IF the Senate does not pass a bill Flake has introduced to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being fired IF President Trump so chooses. Following the objection to Flake’s motion for unanimous consent to consider the bill, Flake joined Senate Democrats in voting against the confirmation of Thomas Farr to serve on the federal bench for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Flake’s move forced Vice President Pence (as President of the Senate) to break the 50-50 tie for Farr’s confirmation as federal judge.

Flake’s action ignited a firestorm surrounding Robert Mueller: who does the Special Counsel work for?  Who has the authority to hold a Special Counsel — ANY Special Counsel — accountable for his/her job performance and adherence to the rules in the law that established that position? Let’s look how all this pertains to Mueller’s current position.

The History of Special Counsels

A Special Counsel is different from Independent Counsels who investigated high-profile matters in the past.

In the Watergate investigation, the Justice Department appointed Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was eventually dismissed by President Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre. In the aftermath, President Nixon appointed Leon Jaworski to replace Cox with the protection that Jaworski could only be fired with the consent of a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

◊In 1978, as part of the Ethics in Government Act, the Attorney General was authorized to seek a special independent prosecutor to investigate executive branch officials, and assigned a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia the authority to appoint and monitor the independent counsel’s activities. From 1978 to 1982, three special prosecutors were assigned under the Ethics in Government law.

◊The law was authorized for a period of five years and expired in 1983. Congress modified the law in 1983 to address concerns as to the broad coverage of the law. Despite opposition from the Reagan Administration, the law was reauthorized for five more years. Seven independent counsel investigations occurred during the Reagan Administration, including the massive Iran-Contra investigation conducted by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh.

◊In 1988, after the law was reauthorized again, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel law. Justice Scalia was the sole negative vote arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

◊In 1992, the independent counsel law expired. President Clinton reauthorized the law in 1994. By mid-1998 — and to Clinton’s dismay — seven separate investigations of the Clinton Administration were underway, including the infamous investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr. The law expired again in 1999.

◊In its place, the Justice Department crafted Special Counsel procedures and regulations. The Justice Department appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald during the Bush Administration to investigate the Valerie Plame affair that resulted in the conviction of Scooter Libby.

Special Counsel Mueller

Under the Deputy Attorney General’s Order, Special Counsel Mueller is:

  • Authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. The reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 600.4(a) authorizes Special Counsel Mueller to investigate and prosecute “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”
  • Required to comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices, and policies of the Department of Justice, but he/she shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. 28 C.F.R. Section 600.7(a) and (b). The Attorney General, then Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein when Attorney General Session was recused, and now Acting Attorney General Michael Whitaker, “may conclude that [a Special Counsel] action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Department practices that it should not be pursued.”  If the Acting Attorney General conducts such a review, he shall give the Special Counsel’s view great weight, and shall notify Congress if he reaches such a determination. 28 C.F.R. Section 600.7(b).
  • Answer to the Acting Attorney General, who retains authority to remove the Special Counsel for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.” 28 C.F.R. Section 600.7 (d).
  • Required to comply with the fact that under the Special Counsel regulations, the Attorney General has the theoretical authority to restrict the Special Counsel’s activities, and in the end, can even dismiss the Special Counsel.  Given the surrounding controversy and need for independence, it would be a rare situation for the president to order the Attorney General to terminate the Special Counsel, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.  However, as history has shown, such unforeseen events can occur.

The very appointment by President Trump of Michael Whitaker to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been under fire from Democrats since it occurred. Their reasoning is based on the Appointments Clause in the Constitution.

The Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. However, it often happens that cabinet members leave and their replacement’s confirmation delay can leave cabinet positions vacant for an extended period of time.

Many Democrats emphatically hold to the belief that President Trump violated Article II of the Constitution by appointing Whitaker to fill the seat of Jeff Sessions as AG without the consent of the Senate. For the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, in 1998, Congress resolved this problem by passing The Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which states the president can appoint a temporary, high-ranking official until a permanent official is vetted by the Senate and put in place. Trump appointed Whitaker under this act, as Whitaker was Sessions’ chief of staff. However, Democrats state flatly the job should have fallen to Sessions’ number 2  — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But the circumstances surrounding Rosenstein’s ascent to the Attorney General spot along with his several alleged conflicts of interest in the Mueller probe prompted the President to appoint Whitaker instead.

What Happened in the Senate?

In a discussion on the floor about Senator Flake’s motion for unanimous consent, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) stood in opposition and gave an amazing explanation of the danger such action would initiate in the United States. Lee cited the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s minority opinion in Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court case that upheld the process of appointing an independent counsel under a bill passed forty years ago. (That law’s authority has expired)

“As Justice Scalia explains, we cannot convert an office like this one, an office like the previously existing office of independent counsel, without creating a de facto fourth branch of government fundamentally undermining the principles of the separation of powers that is so core to our liberty,” Lee said.

A concise and specific question to ask in light of Lee’s statement is this: Flake and others want a law passed to prevent President Trump from firing Robert Mueller. Doing so, according to Lee, would literally create a fourth branch of government, making members of that fourth branch (in this case Robert Mueller as Special Counsel) immune to accountability for any actions — regardless of how egregious they might be. In the current structure, Mueller is a de facto member of the Department of Justice and works for the Attorney General. Democrat’s beef is that with Michael Whitaker as “Acting AG,” the President could require Whitaker to terminate Mueller for any reason. Trump opponents want to prevent that situation from even being possibility.

But if such a bill passed and was signed into law, who would the Special Counsel answer to? The answer is simple: No One In Government! In fact, doing so would require amending the U.S. Constitution.

Mitigating Factors

There are applicable considerations that in large are being ignored by those screaming for Mueller’s protection from termination by the President:

  • President Trump has for 18 months stated over and over he has NO intent to fire Mueller, that he wants the Mueller probe to be completed, be thorough, and be finalized;
  • The President literally screams at reporters when he is questioned about Mueller’s “pending” firing that he will NOT fire Mueller because there was no Trump Campaign collusion with Russia;
  • The White House has provided the dozens of witnesses requested by the Mueller team to testify along with several million requested documents, and President Trump submitted answers in writing to Mueller’s questions of him: compliance with Mueller in every way;
  • Frankly, there is absolutely NO legal basis for a law that could guarantee such protection to Mueller’s position WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. And that is NOT going to happen.

What do Americans think about the Mueller probe?

While 58% of Americans believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia is harming the country, 35% say it should continue “indefinitely,” a new Harvard-Harris poll finds:

  • Helping the country: 42%
  • Hurting the country: 58%
  • He should stop immediately: 31%
  • Another month: 9%
  • 2 to 3 months: 12%
  • 3 to 6 months: 6%
  • 6 months to a year: 7%
  • Indefinitely: 35%

Only 37% believe Mueller has uncovered any “actual evidence” of collusion with Russia:

  • Found: 37%
  • Not found: 40%
  • Don’t know: 23%

More than half of Americans say anti-Trump bias “played a role in launching” the probe:

  • Bias played a role: 54%
  • Bias did not play a role: 46%

Two-thirds of Americans think the public should see the evidence the FBI and Justice Department have “to clear the air about any potential wrongdoings in starting the investigation:”

  • It’s important to publicly release the evidence used by the FBI and the Justice Department to clear the air about any possible wrongdoing in starting the Trump-Russia investigation: 67%
  • The administration should not publicly release the evidence to avoid interfering with sources and methods of interviewing: 33%

And, nearly two-thirds of Americans want a special counsel to look into the way the investigation was initiated and how it has been handled:

  • Favor: 62%
  • Oppose: 38%

But, two-thirds of Americans say Special Counsel Mueller should not be fired:

  • Fired: 32%
  • Not fired: 68%


Prediction: Robert Mueller continues the probe to its completion. Mueller’s staff attorneys — especially Andrew Weismann — push harder and harder, continuing to make offers to witnesses of “deals that cannot be refused” to confirm negative allegations made against members of the Trump team and the President himself. Several Mueller targets have refused to comply with these Mueller terms and have actually initiated legal action against Mueller for taking these steps, in some cases charging Mueller with criminality in doing so.

The bottom line in the Mueller probe is simple: Mueller is obviously diligently trying to uncover wrongdoing by members of the Trump Campaign and by the President himself. It is obvious that so far Mueller has come up empty. Every indictment in the probe so far alleges NO wrongdoing tied to the Campaign or the President. That lack of discovered wrongdoing seems to be pushing Mueller to find things and people he can use to “get” the President.

It is apparent that Mueller desperately wants to attack with substance President Trump. But It is apparent that Mueller has been able to find nothing of substance to use against Mr. Trump.

Is Mueller so desperate in his quest to “get” Trump that he is doing exactly what Mueller’s target, Jerome Cosi, alleges the Special Counsel is doing: offering witnesses a plea to plead guilty to lying? All they are doing is refusing to lie to confirm claims against the Trump team. And Cosi is ready to present evidence of that to a court. And hopefully, that practice being exposed will jolt Mueller into abandoning those attempts to thwart the spirit of the Law.

Most think the Special Counsel should take whatever legal actions are necessary to get the truth, but SHOULD NOT manufacture any evidence or extort witnesses into making specific testimony.

I doubt it will be much longer until all the good and bad of the Robert Mueller probe will be revealed to all. Not until that happens will Americans’ suspicions about President Trump, the Trump Campaign, and Robert Mueller be resolved.

Oh, this too: if Mueller or any of his prosecutors’ are found to have acted illegally in any way, they should each be prosecuted for THEIR wrongdoing.

And, Mueller will NOT be fired!



Trump or a Democrat in 2020: Who Will It Be? Part Two

First, it was Michael Bloomberg — a possible candidate for the Democrat Party nomination for President. We continue today listing who is likely to run and then looking at their past. Today, we take a look at former U.S. Senator and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

“Uncle Joe” has run for President before. Biden ran for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination, formally declaring his candidacy on June 9, 1987. He was attempting to become the youngest president since John F. Kennedy. When the campaign began, he was considered a potentially strong candidate because of his moderate image, his speaking ability on the stump, his appeal to Baby Boomers, his high-profile position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the upcoming Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination hearings, and his fundraising appeal. He raised $1.7 million in the first quarter of 1987, more than any other candidate. By August 1987, Biden’s campaign, whose messaging was confused due to staff rivalries, had begun to lag behind those of Michael Dukakis and Dick Gephardt, although he had still raised more funds than all candidates but Dukakis, and was seeing an upturn in Iowa polls. In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech that had been made earlier that year by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party. Plagiarizing allegations came up again regarding an incident that allegedly occurred when Biden was in law school. He withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by “the exaggerated shadow” of his past mistakes.

He served as the 47th Vice President of the United States from 2009 to 2017 under Barack Obama. A member of the Democratic Party, he represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1942, and lived there for ten years before moving with his family to Delaware. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was re-elected to the upper house of Congress six times and was the fourth most senior senator when he resigned to assume the Vice Presidency in 2009. Biden was a long-time member and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Joe Biden Politically

Biden was a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He chaired it from 1987 until 1995 and he served as the ranking minority member on it from 1981 until 1987 and again from 1995 until 1997.

While chairman, Biden presided over the two most contentious U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings in history (at least until that of now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh), those for Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. In the Bork hearings, he stated his opposition to Bork soon after the nomination, reversing an approval in an interview of a hypothetical Bork nomination he had made the previous year and angering conservatives who thought he could not conduct the hearings dispassionately. At the close, he won praise for conducting the proceedings fairly and with good humor and courage, as his 1988 presidential campaign collapsed in the middle of the hearings. Rejecting some of the less intellectually honest arguments that other Bork opponents were making, Biden framed his discussion around the belief that the U.S. Constitution provides rights to liberty and privacy that extend beyond those explicitly enumerated in the text, and that Bork’s strong originalism was ideologically incompatible with that view. (This is important to note in that recent Supreme Court nomination hearings have centered around nominees opinion on that same matter) Bork’s nomination was rejected in the committee by a 9–5 vote and then rejected in the full Senate by a 58–42 margin.

In the Thomas hearings, Biden’s questions on constitutional issues were often long and convoluted, sometimes such that Thomas forgot the question being asked. Viewers of the high-profile hearings were often annoyed by Biden’s style. Thomas later wrote that despite earlier private assurances from the senator, Biden’s questions had been akin to a beanball. The nomination came out of the committee without a recommendation, with Biden opposed. In part due to his own bad experiences in 1987 with his presidential campaign, Biden was reluctant to let personal matters enter into the hearings. Biden initially shared with the committee, but not the public, Anita Hill’s sexual harassment charges, on the grounds she was not yet willing to testify. After she did, Biden did not permit other witnesses to testify further on her behalf, such as Angela Wright (who made a similar charge) and experts on harassment. Biden said he was striving to preserve Thomas’s right to privacy and the decency of the hearings. The nomination was approved by a 52–48 vote in the full Senate, with Biden again opposed. During and afterward, Biden was strongly criticized by liberal legal groups and women’s groups for having mishandled the hearings and having not done enough to support Hill. Biden subsequently sought out women to serve on the Judiciary Committee and emphasized women’s issues in the committee’s legislative agenda.

Biden was involved in crafting many federal crime laws. He spearheaded the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Biden Crime Law, which included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004 after its ten-year sunset period and was not renewed. It also included the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence.

Biden was critical of the actions of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the 1990s Whitewater controversy and Lewinsky scandal investigations and said “it’s going to be a cold day in hell” before another Independent Counsel is granted the same powers. Biden voted to acquit on both charges during the impeachment of President Clinton.

As chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus, Biden wrote the laws that created the U.S. “Drug Czar”, who oversees and coordinates national drug control policy. In April 2003, he introduced the controversial Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act. He continued to work to stop the spread of “date rape drugs,” and drugs such as Ecstasy and Ketamine. In 2004, he worked to pass a bill outlawing steroids used by many baseball players and other athletes.

Biden’s “Kids 2000” legislation established a public/private partnership to provide computer centers, teachers, Internet access, and technical training to young people, particularly to low-income and at-risk youth.

Biden on Foreign Policy

Biden was also a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1997, he became the ranking minority member and chaired the committee in January 2001 and from June 2001 through 2003. When Democrats re-took control of the Senate following the 2006 elections, Biden again assumed the top spot on the committee in 2007. Biden was generally a liberal internationalist in foreign policy. He collaborated effectively with important Republican Senate figures such as Richard Lugar and Jesse Helms and sometimes went against elements of his own party. Biden was also co-chairman of the NATO Observer Group in the Senate. A partial list covering this time showed Biden meeting with some 150 leaders from nearly 60 countries and international organizations.

Biden had voted against authorization for the Gulf War in 1991,  siding with 45 of the 55 Democratic senators; he said the U.S. was bearing almost all the burden in the anti-Iraq coalition. Biden was a strong supporter of the 2001 war in Afghanistan, saying “Whatever it takes, we should do it.” Regarding Iraq, Biden stated in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security and that there was no option but to eliminate that threat. In October 2002, Biden voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, justifying the Iraq War. While he soon became a critic of the war and viewed his vote as a “mistake”, he did not push to require a U.S. withdrawal. He supported the appropriations to pay for the occupation but argued repeatedly that the war should be internationalized, that more soldiers were needed, and that the Bush administration should “level with the American people” about the cost and length of the conflict.

Joe Biden Economically

Of course, as Vice President Biden participated in the crafting and pushing through Congress the economic policies of President Obama. He supported deficit spending on fiscal stimulus in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the increased infrastructure spending proposed by the Obama administration; mass transit, including Amtrak, bus, and subway subsidies; the reduced military spending proposed in the Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget. He supported tax increases and fought any suggestions of decreasing taxes while in the U.S. Senate and as Vice President.

Social Issues

On April 14, 2017, Biden released a statement both denouncing Chechnya authorities for their rounding up, torturing, and murdering of “individuals who are believed to be gay” and stating his hope that the Trump administration honor a prior pledge to advance human rights by confronting Russian leaders over “these egregious violations of human rights.” On June 21, during a speech at a Democratic National Committee LGBT gala in New York City, Biden said, “Hold President Trump accountable for his pledge to be your friend.”On July 26, after Trump announced a ban of transgender people serving in the military, Biden tweeted, “Every patriotic American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to serve. Full stop.” He also supports same-sex marriage.

During an appearance at the Brainstorm Health Conference in San Diego, California on May 2, 2017, Biden said the public “has moved ahead of the administration [on science].” On May 31, Biden tweeted that climate change was an “existential threat to our future” and remaining in the Paris Agreement was “the best way to protect our children and global leadership.” The following day, after President Trump announced his withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement, Biden tweeted that the choice “imperils US security and our ability to own the clean energy future.” While appearing at the Concordia Europe Summit in Athens, Greece on June 7, Biden said, referring to the Paris Agreement, “The vast majority of the American people do not agree with the decision the president made.

Immigration Matters

Joe Biden as VP fully supported President Obama’s actions on illegal immigration. The Obama Administration downsized Homeland Security by cutting funding, minimized southern border enforcement, and actually separated illegal adults from their children in compliance with a federal court ruling. The pictures of illegal immigrant children in cages widely circulated in 2018 in the press as children separated from their parents at the border under President Trump were actually children separated in 2014 under President Obama.

On September 5, 2017, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump Administration is rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Biden tweeted, “Brought by parents, these children had no choice in coming here. Now they’ll be sent to countries they’ve never known. Cruel. Not America.”


Is it politically IN-correct to mention that if elected, Joe Biden would be 79 years old when inaugurated? My first question is: Why would any 79-year-old want to start such a stressful job as U.S. President? Secondly, could any 79-year-old endure the 24/7 rigors of the requirements to fulfill the role of CEO of the largest company on Earth? “If” Joe runs, his doing so will signal his belief he can do the job and that he wants it. I know that he did when he was quite a bit younger. At 79, life circumstances and abilities diminish for us all.

Mr. Biden is a very likable guy — thus his moniker “Uncle Joe.” Yes, there are many documented circumstances and dozens and dozens of associated pictures of the former vice president getting a little too cozy with young women, often to their obvious dismay. But I have not heard of any claim of sexual harassment or of any sexual misconduct on his part.

Regarding the politics of the job: as U.S. Senator Biden, he was known for reaching out objectively to those Republican lawmakers, working together to write and pass meaningful legislation. That ability is sadly missing in Congress today. He might be able to facilitate building bridges between the two Parties to break the constant legislative logjam in Congress.

Will he run? And if he runs, can he win the Democrat Party nomination? More importantly, could a Candidate Joe Biden beat an incumbent President Donald Trump or some other Republican contender? Only time will give us those answers. Biden would bring much experience to such a race along with some credible legislative achievements. But he also would be held accountable for many of the Obama actions that many in America summarily reject.

A Biden run for President would be dicey.



Trump or a Democrat in 2020: Who Will It Be? Part One

One thing is certain: NOTHING is certain about 2020 as far as electing the next President. Certainly, incumbents always seem to have an edge. But that applies to past U.S. elections. The United States presidential elections are no longer “like” past elections. Example: Donald Trump.

One thing IS certain: the landscape and operations of national elections is anything but similar to the past. Civility is gone; issue-only debates are gone; political party unity is gone. All of these past elements that controlled national elections have been forgotten, and have been replaced by Divisiveness. There can be NO question that America is completely divided. Whether one wishes to term the divisions as Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, Partisan and Non-Partisan, the rift is there. Even not yet having an exact name, we know that political rift is wide, deep, and VERY strong. That rift will determine the winners in 2020 and every national election in the foreseeable future.

Seldom does an incumbent President not run for a successive term. President Trump announced early into his presidency his plans to run for re-election. Many feel there will be at least one challenger from the Republican Party. Several have made some noise about that as a possibility, but to this point in the ramp-up process, no one has confirmed a run. But what IS certain is that Democrats galore are considering — and some have already indicated a “go” — to throw their hat into the ring. And a “ring” it will be: probably a circus ring!

As a guide for this series of stories about Democrat candidates and the ultimate prediction by TruthNewsNet of who will face a Republican challenger in 2020, we will in each chapter of this series introduce you to one or two potential Democrat candidates. Our final chapter will introduce you to the person we are fairly certain at this point will be the Democrat Party’s choice. As we name each, we will give you inside information about them, bullet-point for you their positives and negatives, and rate their chances to be the Dems’ pick to run. In each, we will disclose their views on United States politics, social issues, Immigration, Foreign Policy, and Economics.

As you certainly know, there are quite a few who have been singled out as possible contenders. We’ll narrow the field for you, but not until we give you the scoop on each. So, let’s get started.

Here today is a look and analysis of our first “possible” 2020 candidate for the Democrat Party nomination for President:

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Rubens Bloomberg is an American businessman, politician, author, and philanthropist. As of June 2018, his net worth was estimated at $51.8 billion, making him the 8th-richest person in the United States and the 11th richest person in the world. He has joined The Giving Pledge, whereby billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their wealth. Bloomberg is the founder, CEO, and owner of Bloomberg L.P., a global financial services, mass media, and software company that bears his name, and is notable for its Bloomberg Terminal, a computer software system providing financial data widely used in the global financial services industry. He began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers, before forming his own company in 1981 and spending the next twenty years as its chairman and CEO. Bloomberg also served as chairman of the board of trustees at his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, from 1996 to 2002.


Bloomberg Politics

Michael Bloomberg as a politician served as the 108th Mayor of New York City, holding office for three consecutive terms, beginning with his first election in 2001. A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later. Bloomberg campaigned to change the city’s term limits law and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an Independent candidate on the Republican ballot line. In 2018, Bloomberg re-registered as a Democrat.

Bloomberg is a Democrat for most of his life. He is socially liberal or progressive, supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, strict gun control measures, environmentalism and citizenship for illegal immigrants, for example. On economics, foreign, and domestic issues, Bloomberg tends to be conservative or moderate. He opposed a timeline for withdrawal from the Iraq War and criticized those who favored one. Economically, he supports government involvement in issues such as public welfare, while being strongly in favor of free trade, pro-business, and describing himself as a fiscal conservative because he balanced the city’s budget. He is concerned about climate change and has touted his mayoral efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. Bloomberg has been cited for not allowing many emergency officials who responded to the September 11, 2001, attacks to attend the tenth-anniversary observation of that day. He was also at odds with many around the U.S. for not inviting any clergy to the ceremony marking the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Bloomberg on Social issues

Bloomberg supports abortion rights, stating, “Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right and we can never take it for granted. On this issue, you’re either with us or against us.” He has criticized “pro-choice” politicians who support “pro-life” candidates.

Bloomberg supports governmental funding for embryonic stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue “insanity”. He supports same-sex marriage with the rationale that “government shouldn’t tell you whom to marry.”

Bloomberg supports the strict drug laws of New York City. He has stated that he smoked marijuana in the past, and was quoted in a 2001 interview as saying “You bet I did. I enjoyed it.” This led to a reported $500,000 advertising campaign by NORML, featuring his image and the quote. Bloomberg stated in a 2002 interview that he regrets the remark and does not believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.

Bloomberg on Immigration

On issues of domestic and homeland security, Bloomberg has attacked social conservatives on immigration, calling their stance unrealistic: “We’re not going to deport 12 million people, so let’s stop this fiction. Let’s give them permanent status.”[109] He supports a federal ID database that uses DNA and fingerprint technology to keep track of all citizens and to verify their legal status. Bloomberg has held that illegal immigrants should be offered legalization and supported the congressional efforts of the late John McCain and the late Ted Kennedy in their attempt at immigration reform in 2007. Regarding border security, he compared it to the tide, stating, “It’s as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand… and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well as sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in. As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that ‘all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country.” In 2006, Bloomberg stated on his weekly WABC radio show that illegal immigration does not strain the financial resources of New York City since many immigrants are hard working and “do not avail themselves of services until their situation is dire.”

Bloomberg on Foreign Policy

As mayor, Bloomberg made trips to Mexico, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Israel in the first four months of 2007. In late 2007 he conducted an Asia trip that brought him to China, where he called for greater freedom of information to promote innovation. He attended the United Nations Climate Conference in Bali. Initially, Bloomberg strongly supported the war in Iraq and the rationale for going in. He stated, “Don’t forget that the war started not very many blocks from here,” alluding to Ground Zero. In regard to the Global War on Terrorism including Iraq, he said, “It’s not only to protect Americans. It’s America’s responsibility to protect people around the world who want to be free.” During the 2004 presidential election campaign, New York City hosted the Republican National Convention at which Bloomberg endorsed President George W. Bush for President of the United States.

Bloomberg Economics

Bloomberg characterizes himself as a fiscal conservative for turning the city’s $6-billion deficit into a $3-billion surplus; however, conservative PAC Club for Growth has criticized him because he increased property taxes and spending while doing so.

Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It’s about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too – but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them. To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can’t afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don’t squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we’ve got one coming.
— Michael Bloomberg, speech to UK Conservative Party, September 30, 2007

Bloomberg has expressed a distaste of taxes, stating, “Taxes are not good things, but if you want services, somebody’s got to pay for them, so they’re a necessary evil.”


The question most should ask is whether or not Bloomberg will actually run. He has indicated several times an interest to run for president in the past, but those runs never materialized. Maybe, just maybe his ongoing dislike for President Trump and many Trump policies may spur him to enter the race. The two have much history. And remember this: what does every billionaire on Earth have? Answer: pretty much everything they want. However, this billionaire — Michael Bloomberg — can make only one political accomplishment claim: that of being New York City mayor — three times. You may find it hard to believe that a guy worth $50+ Billion would want the daily horrors of U.S. politics in his lap 24/7. When pondering that, however, just remember that Michael Bloomberg looks at the world from a bit different perspective than do all but 100 or so people on Earth. Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire who is accustomed to having and doing anything he wants. United States President is probably on Michael Bloomberg’s bucket list. And why not? He like Trump has been very successful in private business and Bloomberg at his personal sojourn into politics as New York City Mayor.

Not unlike almost every other politician, after their time in office, they can point to wins and losses, accomplishments and failures, and can (and often do) point to other people and circumstances that played roles in those wins and losses that are often more substantial than their own. Bloomberg as not just a politician, but a billionaire politician, must deal with the negative trappings that come with having lots of dollars. But on a positive note about dollars, Bloomberg was able to spend approximately a quarter of a billion of his personal dollars on were costs included in his three successful campaigns for New York City Mayor. Advertising in New York is pretty costly!

Whatever he does next, Bloomberg said, when he looks back on his three terms as mayor he is content to know that he defied special interests. “Yes, it’s nice to have everybody love you,” he said. “And, yes, I don’t like the question ‘Why is your polling down?’ But the truth of the matter is that if fifty to sixty percent of the people still think you’re doing a good job after twelve years in office—that’s pretty good. It’s like skiing. If you tell me you don’t fall, you’re not skiing the double black diamonds.”

Daniel Doctoroff, a deputy mayor in Bloomberg’s administration from 2002 to 2008 and now the president and C.E.O. of Bloomberg L.P., said, “Mike is not afraid to be criticized or to be wrong. He cares much less about how people think of him than anyone I’ve ever known. He’s comfortable with himself. He’s highly self-confident. Yet he doesn’t have a big ego.”

What will determine if a Michael Bloomberg run for the Democrat Party nomination for President will happen? It certainly will NOT be based on money. If Bloomberg was willing to personally shell-out $250 Million for the New York City Mayor’s job, what would it be worth personally to run for President? Add his money to what the DNC would throw in, and a Bloomberg campaign would certainly enter the 2020 race way ahead of any Republican candidate in dollars and cents.

But will rank and file Democrats support a billionaire from the East Coast? Hillary saw Middle America reject a coastal elite in 2016, choosing another billionaire. The question is: could Bloomberg copy Trump’s ability to fully engage the Middle Class sufficient to win?

As American voters, we will not know if Bloomberg will give it a go for a couple of years. And we certainly will not know if he can grab that win until that November evening that is just two short years ahead. Until then, we will push ahead, looking at other Democrats who may be ready for a run.



What, Who, Why? The “Answers”

What’s going on in our nation? Who is responsible for all of what’s happening? Why are they doing it?

We are tackling these questions with their answers. I’m beyond concerned about D.C. — ALL Americans are beyond concerned. Fear, anger, disbelief, even hatred have overtaken the normal American emotions regarding their government: caution and concern. Buckle-up for this conversation. Your will and temperament will be challenged.

What’s Going On?


Let’s face it: there’s no way an entity with hundreds of thousands (or more) of employees with several trillion dollars with which to operate annually is not attacked with constant attempts of corruption from without and within. You may ask, “How many federal employees could there possibly be?” This will blow your mind!

  • Executive Department Civilian — 2,674,353
  • Department of Defense — 1,352,081
  • Homeland Security — 41,460
  • EPA — 7060
  • Uniformed Military — 1,400,601
  • Legislative Branch — 33,530
  • Judicial Branch — 33,541

TOTAL U.S. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: 4,142,025* (2018 numbers from the Office of Personnel Management OPM)

◊ How much money is spent on and by these 4.142 federal employees?  $4.4 Trillion per the 2019 fiscal year official federal budget

◊ How much money is collected from all sources by the federal government? $3.4 Trillion per the 2019 fiscal year official federal budget

Any way you add it up, this government is at worst destined for non-stop corruption which always opens doors to blackmail, criminal activities of every kind, malfeasance, and political mischief. It’s happened and IS happening every day.


We’ll “stipulate” there are U.S. government financial evils of unfathomable proportions and talk about something else that is often left unmentioned: purposeful waste. Ever hear of earmarks and government pork projects?

The Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018 was approved on February 8, 2018.  This legislation obliterated the spending caps set in the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) and increased spending by $143 billion, or 13.4 percent, in FY 2018 compared to FY 2017.

Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 2018 Congressional Pig Book exposes 232 earmarks in FY 2018, an increase of 42.3 percent from the 163 in FY 2017.  The cost of earmarks in FY 2018 is $14.7 billion, an increase of 116.2 percent from the $6.8 billion in FY 2017, or nearly nine times greater than the increase in discretionary spending.  The only other time the cost has at least doubled was FYs 1992-1993.  Since FY 1991, CAGW has identified 110,861 earmarks costing $344.5 billion.

Just imagine what could be done with all that waste if put to public use. After all: every dollar listed above lost in waste is a dollar that came from U.S. taxpayers.


We just completed another round of really contentious midterm elections. Can you remember a time in your life when there were so much hate and anger surrounding every part of our elections? Campaigning has become an industry unto itself with several billion dollars of contributions at stake every election cycle. Think for a moment of the ancillary support that goes into a national election: transportation, advertising, and promotion, hotel/motel services, printing, food and beverage, entertainment, broadcasting, etc. And even that list is not complete.

For decades from every election cycle, there are reports of election fraud. But political pundits continue to denounce those who claim election cheating — until today. It has been revealed (and election charges have been issued ) that California election fraud was real. Election proponents were caught red-handed paying street vagrants to fraudulently sign election ballots. A sting operation verified it.

And there are rampant “probabilities” of fraud in numerous other elections: candidates receiving tens of thousands of votes more in one election than did a member of their same party in the same statewide election, making the vote totals in each of these races far outside the numbers possibility. That happened in multiple races in multiple states.

Remember this: President Obama famously denounced then-candidate, Donald Trump, for warning Americans to be wary during the 2016 election, predicting possible and probable election fraud. Obama stated that “no reasonable person could possibly believe anyone could tamper with a United States election or in anyway impact the results.” Obama said that following his being told by the FBI and CIA that the Russians indeed for years had made credible attempts to hack into U.S. elections and were certainly going to continue attempting U.S. election hacks.

We know (almost with certainty) that elections have included people voting illegally. Several states have started giving voting rights to non-citizens. Supposedly those voters are to vote in only state and local elections. But who feels that — at least in some cases — those non-citizens are “accidentally” allowed to vote in federal elections? Most elections include local, state, and federal voting. Who realistically thinks that polling officials segregate ballots in advance of voting to assure illegal voting in these cases does not occur?

Justice Department

Where to begin the discussion about the DOJ? Let’s start at the top: Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch is set to testify before Congress about multiple “improprieties” that occurred in the DOJ on her watch. James Comey — former FBI Director — has rejected a subpoena from Congress to appear and testify in a closed session.  Former Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe was fired and faces criminal charges for felonies regarding classified information mishandling. And the list of terminated DOJ officials goes on and on.

Americans shudder to think that the once premier law enforcement agency in the world is in shambles. The Acting Attorney General — Rod Rosenstein — is himself embroiled in multiple scandals. He is accused of wrongdoing in the Mueller probe — even in his appointment of Mueller as Special Investigator. One major pending investigation underway is regarding possible illegal representations made by Rosenstein and Comey in the initial FISA application and subsequent renewals made to the FISA court to obtain a warrant to approve FBI surveillance of Trump Campaign officials to uncover alleged collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has issued one scathing report of FBI wrongdoing and mishandling of investigations. A second report from an additional Horowitz investigation is expected at any time.

All told, more than 20 top-level FBI and DOJ officials have either been fired, determined to retire rather than face charges, or have been demoted as misdeed after misdeed are revealed. The Obama Department of Justice will almost certainly go down as the most corrupt DOJ in any presidential administration.

Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation

Who needs to hear more about Hillary’s “EmailGate?” I certainly don’t need to discuss it here, although it is important to note that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions authorized federal prosecutor Jim Huber to reopen the Clinton email investigation, using any resources necessary to ferret out the truth. It is anticipated findings of the Huber investigation are pending and that indictments are probable.

It is likely that Clinton Foundation wrongdoing in soliciting foundation contributions will be exposed. This wrongdoing is likely to include millions of dollars taken from multiple foreign countries and entities, illegal co-mingling of foundation gifts with Hillary Clinton Campaign funds, and a purported “pay-for-play” scheme perpetrated to obtain huge contributions for the Foundation with promises of access to Ms. Clinton once she was elected President.

The Mueller Probe

We all know the almost certain unethical appointment of Mueller to investigate the Trump Campaign. Rosenstein in the Mueller appointment violated multiple contingencies detailed in the Special Investigator law, chiefly related to his personal conflicts of interest. That is just the beginning. Many more have been added to the list of issues of the probe. (No need for us to detail them here…they’re trumpeted almost daily in national news)


Even as I write this, we face an imminent international conflict at our southern border. That first  Central American “caravan” has arrived, demanding entry to the United States. No one has yet to successfully explain the continued allowance of these and other illegals entry into the U.S. “Illegal” is the applicable term for this conversation.

Federal immigration laws are clear: there are specific steps all foreigners must take in immigration to achieve authorization to enter the U.S. No one today has any real concept of the actual number of illegals that have entered the U.S. Add to that the numbers of those who initially obtained legal status but who have overstayed their visas and remain here illegally. Estimates on the low side start at 10 million. Many immigration experts put that number closer to 30 million. The number though material is irrelevant to our conversation today. ALL of them are here illegally. Kudos to those approximate 12 million immigrants who spent the time, effort, and money to follow the processes in the law to obtain and maintain legal status in the United States.

Mainstream Media

Who can now argue that the MSM is complicit in the battles playing out daily throughout the American political system? Never before in my lifetime has the American media been so involved in NOT reporting the news, but INTERPRETING the news in specific political agenda fashion. It is obvious to most that the MSM has weaponized itself to attack non-stop the conservative agenda of the Trump Administration. And the attacks are relentless.

Media outlets of broadcast, print, and online are entrenched in 24/7  militant efforts to undermine President Trump. They demean his every action and proposed action, denigrate him personally along with every member of his family as well as any and all who participate in any role in the Trump Administration.

The MSM has literally abandoned all semblance of reporting and has now unofficially become a weaponized arm of the Democrat Party. Yes, there are those that take issue with me. But doing so at this point is pure hypocrisy. No reasonable person can argue that the non-partisan analysis of mainstream news reporting about the President and his administration is 90-95% negative. That fact is undeniable.

The Judiciary

As evidenced by the overturn of 68% of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judiciary is in large part “in the tank” for the Deep State. Federal judges have insulated themselves from the realities of the law through unrealistic interpretations, not of the laws, but of the “state of mind” held by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Doing so is ridiculous, and only for political purposes.


There MUST be an agenda. And that agenda MUST be purpose-driven. It has become virtually crystal clear that the purpose is the reinstatement and permanent maintenance of the Deep State control of the U.S. Government.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. But facts always bear the truth. If you still question the legitimacy of the Deep State, read former Congressman Jason Chavitz’ book The Deep State. In it, he chronicles specific proof for all of the incidents of Deep State intrusion into American government he dealt with while in Congressional leadership during the Obama Administration. The examples and their proof are hair-raising.

The “Why” answer for all of the above is simple: the Deep State was foiled in their certain attempt to perpetuate their power agenda initiated with the election of Obama and extended with his second term. There was certainty it would not only survive eight more years under Hillary Clinton but would reset the heretofore representative republic form of American Government to the only reasonable political system with which they identify: Totalitarianism disguised as Socialism. Obama started it — Hillary was to expand it.

The “Why” is not a quest for money, but a quest for power. With power, all things are attainable. Simply walk through the possibilities for all of the “What” items detailed above. After considering each individually, ask yourself “Why?” You will certainly understand the obvious answer is “Power.” With ultimate and overall power of government, ANYTHING becomes possible.

Deep State Members are literally consumed in their quest for power. And one can see in this explanation why so much chaos and anger and hatred is continuously vomited onto every American by the purveyors whose very breath tomorrow is dependent on regaining pure power in America.


Let’s get right to the point in our summary: who or what could possibly be at the root of this Deep State quest for power? Is it a person, a group, a company, a branch of government? The explanations for Who have been explosive and have included names from Barack Obama to George Soros, from Bill Clinton to Vladimir Putin, from Nancy Pelosi to Jeff Bezos.

But to puzzle to the answer, ask yourself THIS question: Who currently has the power to initiate and fulfill the process to control ALL? Taking all power requires the ability to impact and change the law, control elections, tell the Mainstream Media what to say and what not to say, control the military to prevent a possible coup in a government overthrow, and to garner benign approval for doing all of the above from the American people.

Figured it out yet?

The United States Congress!

The Congress is the only entity or individuals that can:

  • Pass laws to make processes needed to make such changes legal;
  • Fund any and all necessary spending for these changes;
  • Elect leadership across party lines to facilitate taking permanent power and maintaining it in perpetuity;
  • Prosecute those who stand against these objectives using all the necessary resources to do so;
  • Through prosecutions easily destroy their opponents through exhaustive and never-ending litigation — both civil and criminal;
  • Dismantle all treaties and foreign agreements to ease the Deep State’s ability to maximize its power over foreign foes;
  • Create new treaties and foreign agreements to enhance domination in foreign markets and to control world trade;
  • Abolish all immigration laws and open both American borders to mass immigration, which would initiate the dismantling of the federal election system. That would allow Deep State members to — in perpetuity — control every part of governing;
  • Create a Ruling Class of Americans to control every aspect of all Americans’ lives;
  • Establish a state of existence in which Government owns all, controls all, and punishes all who disagree with whatever the Government finds necessary to maintain its desired status, doing so in total disregard of the law;
  • Speaking of laws: terminate the U.S. Constitution with all of its protections for Americans’ rights.

What is becoming more and more evident is that this process — which is the truest form of Anarchy — has already been seeded through our political, economic, social, and educational systems. How else could the American public devolved so rapidly from true capitalists who depend on the Rule of Law to a nation of self- labeled “progressives” who care for nothing but total domination? That seeded ground is fertile. And it is rapidly producing its fruit.

We are witnessing the demise of the most powerful nation on Earth and in World history.