If They Said So, It Must be So

We watch it all the time: a news story quotes “unnamed sources” that claim that the President “might” be a Russian agent. Never mind McCabe is a proven liar. Never mind he is personally under investigation awaiting certain prosecution for committing at least one felony, never mind he is alleging major wrong against a sitting president. Never mind that McCabe and his fired mentor James Comey used that “might be a Russian agent” as a basis to begin the FBI probe of Trump that morphed into the Mueller probe. All that matters is they “think” there “might be” evidence that proves that. Those allegations, or “suspicions” — not “evidence” — were used to get the FISA court to authorize electronic surveillance of the Trump Organization. Providing “fake” and unproven evidence in a FISA application is a felony!

Then there’s this: a Supreme Court nominee was accused by a woman of sexual assault at a party 30 years ago that caused her irreparable harm and psychological damage while proving the nominee unfit to serve. None of the witnesses she stated would testify on her behalf to prove those allegations would do so. No evidence….no witnesses….her testimony nearly destroyed the life of a now seated United States Supreme Court Justice.

Both of these are examples of exactly what Americans face daily in the instant 24/7 news environment in which we live. And the questions that arise from such stories seem to be unending: Who do we believe? Were the allegations true? If not all, which ones are true and which are false? And almost every time we face such questions, we must make a decision to believe or disbelieve all or portions of what we hear.

But if we cannot be certain about elements of these and other stories, how can we make good, logical and informed decisions? And such decisions are often monumental! Decisions of this magnitude can determine outcomes of national elections, who the President of the United States is, our Governors, Mayors, U.S. Senators, and Congressmen. We MUST get it right.

Unfortunately for Americans, we have no legal requirements that force absolute and accurate information from these national news sources, or from any one individual or group. The First Amendment “absolutely” protects all individuals, corporations, and groups from liabilities associated with disseminating incorrect information. And it seems that the legal protection mentioned here encompasses EVERYTHING and that there is NO requirement for the truth and NO penalty for untruth.

Wait a minute: there are libel laws, right? There certainly are. But, obviously, they are on the most part ineffective — so much so that most of such laws that have actual “teeth” in them are at the state level. And protection under the First Amendment gives illegitimate individuals and organizations a “free pass” for lying most of the time. One would think defamation could best be handled in a uniform and universal way at the federal level so that truthfulness would be a news and information requirement with stiff penalties for NOT being as portrayed. Alas, legal precedence regarding existing laws does NOT favor the truth.

So let’s get some legislation passed that puts teeth into forcing truthfulness from our media! Oops…the First Amendment. Stories like this one are out there aplenty:

“In the latest in a long line of attacks on freedom of the press, President Trump has once again threatened today to change libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations, publishers, and others after the publication of an unflattering book. “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Trump said.

Fortunately, there are two strong obstacles standing in his way. Chief among them is the First Amendment, which clearly protects freedom of the press. But the other main barrier is the inconvenient fact that there is no federal libel law for President Trump to bully Congress to change. Libel cases are based on state laws, which neither the president nor Congress has control over because of our nation’s federalist system.”

We’ll give you some specific thoughts on all this. But first, let’s take a quick look at the “legal” history of defamation, how we got to where we are, and what defamation regarding truthfulness really is today.

History of Defamation Laws

The origins of the United States’ defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established a precedent that “The Truth” is an absolute defense against charges of libel. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional “Common Law” of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

The First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press provide defendants in the United States significantly more protection than the countries of the Commonwealth and Europe. Some variation exists among the several states to the extent the state’s legislature has passed statutes or its courts have handed down decisions affecting some elements inherited from the common law. Some states connect what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws.

Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being “fair comment and criticism,” though neither of these is absolute on the US constitution. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, meaning true statements cannot be defamatory.
Most states recognize that some categories of false statements are considered to be defamatory. People making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

John Peter Zenger

In one of the most famous cases, New York City publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for 8 months in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case and was acquitted by a jury in 1735 under the counsel of Andrew Hamilton. Governor Morris, a major contributor in the framing of the U.S. Constitution said, “The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America.” Zenger’s case also established that libel cases, though they were civil rather than criminal cases, could be heard by a jury, which would have the authority to rule on the allegations and to set the amount of monetary damages awarded.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press. However, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.

People v. Croswell

The Zenger case did not, however, establish a precedent. In 1804 Harry Croswell lost a libel suit in People v. Croswell when the Supreme Court of New York refused to accept truth as a defense. The following year the New York State Legislature changed the law to allow truth as a defense against a libel charge, breaking with English precedent under which the truthfulness of the statements alone is not a defense. Other states and the federal government followed suit.

New York Times v. Sullivan

In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate “actual malice” on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, “actual malice” was defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” This decision was later extended to cover “public figures,” although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions stick to a theory that every publication of defamation gives rise to a separate claim so that defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, a thorough discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states. Some states join what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted. Washington State has held its criminal libel statute unconstitutional applying the state and federal constitutions to the question.

Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. In no state can a defamation claim be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally protects from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of stopping all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined.

All states except Arizona, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.
Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:

  • Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”
  • Allegations or imputations of “loathsome disease” (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
  • Allegations or imputations of “unchastity” (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
  • Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[12][13]

On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, 23 states and 2 territories have criminal defamation/libel/slander laws on the books, along with 1 state (Iowa) establishing defamation/libel as a criminal offense through case law (without statutorily defined crime)

Those 23 states and territories are: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.


The U.S. is one of the only countries on Earth where harm that results from untruths stated or printed carry no consequences for those who initiate those. Don’t get me wrong: protection under the First Amendment is of the utmost importance to us all. It was crafted because those in the British Commonwealth could not say anything about the government or governmental wrongdoing without paying a horrible price. But the unfettered ability to say or print pretty much anything about others with absolutely no accountability for those thing being truthful is devastating. And it’s pretty unrealistic.

We see the horrors from such every day. What’s that old saying, “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” or “you can’t take back what you said.” Those are both true.

But is it realistic to such things as the circus of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination and confirmation in which multiple people publicly defamed him with apparent lies? He could have missed the opportunity of a lifetime for which he and thousands of other Americans study for, practice for, and aspire to achieve: a seat on the United States Supreme Court. It is unimaginable to think that such action could legally occur simply because someone or some people — for the purposes of stopping another from such an achievement — could lie, fabricate false circumstances and make unsubstantiated claims against someone, and can do so with no recourse whatsoever for what they said and what their saying those things do to the person or persons they are attacking?

I doubt our forefathers had that in mind.

What can we do?

The states listed above have acted on the fact that the federal government has done virtually nothing to protect Americans in this regard. Unfortunately, those protections are not the same from state to state and on the federal level are unenforceable.

Why hasn’t Congress done something about it? Could it be they are afraid that any such federal legislation would be struck down at the Supreme Court? Are all the members of Congress so callous they don’t care? Or is it because they are afraid they (who most of are attorneys) are incapable of crafting legislation that would 1) protect innocent Americans from reprehensible talk, written or electronic allegations from those who don’t have the truth, or have the truth and will not give it, or simply make up defamatory stories to hurt others?

No doubt Freedom of Speech is guaranteed. But there is no prevention in the First Amendment of holding those who unjustly bear “false witness” against another American that is severely damaging in its untruth. Our extremely intelligent legislators could surely craft a law that would pass muster. Why haven’t they?

I think for political purposes, they like it open-ended just like it is. Politics have become so dirty, so nasty, and so divisive that maintaining the unfettered legal permission to go after one’s political opponents in any way felt necessary is something they want to protect. Shame on them for that!

It’s time to have the ability to protect our integrity from lies, misrepresentations, and innuendo. Let’s protect the truth and encourage its use in a public and open environment. While doing that, let’s send a message that we encourage all to tell the truth all the time. But when you don’t, there will be a price to pay.

The warning with this is: Know for certain that if you lie about someone, there WILL be a price to pay. If it’s true, feel free to tell it. If it’s not, know there’s a price to pay if you DO say it.



“In Full Disclosure…” Part 2

President Trump’s most recent public campaign against the US Justice Department and US intelligence community has stunned current and former intelligence officials. “He’s doing the enemy’s job for them,” one FBI agent said. Another agent compared Trump’s unwillingness to accept intelligence assessments that contradict his beliefs to the behavior of a toddler. “It’s like when my son threw temper tantrums when I told him he couldn’t do something or if I said something he didn’t like. Of course, my son was three years old at the time and wasn’t sitting in the Oval Office with the nuclear button,” the second agent stated. As a result of Trump’s actions, intelligence officers are “more vulnerable to approaches by foreign intelligence services — and more vulnerable to accepting those approaches — than any other time in US history,” Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, described. “For decades, the Soviet Union and, more recently, Russia, have denigrated the CIA and our intelligence professionals, attempting to de-legitimize US intelligence in the process,” another intelligence veteran, Ned Price, said. “Now our adversaries have a helper who sits in the Oval Office.”

This is the narrative being spun in the protection of the US intelligence community and the US Department of Justice. Meanwhile, at the top of several of the “alphabet” agencies and the DOJ, stories of wrongdoing, collusion, lying, even possible treason and acts of subversion are surfacing daily.

American Justice as our forefathers established it is long-gone — at the hands of political elitists who today control most of the senior positions, not just in Justice and Intelligence, but in most of ALL  of the leadership in American government.

The Department of Justice — where equal justice under the law, the “rule of law,” “innocent until proven guilty,” honesty and integrity have resided for 250 years — is now nothing more than a shadow of its former self.

Corruption lives and is thriving at the DOJ.

Whose Hands are Dirty?

You probably cannot read the information next to the pictures of those shown here who have been fired at the DOJ, but by now they are well-known. In previous stories, we have listed the names of these and others who have (for various reasons) been fired, forced to retire, or those who have resigned during the Trump presidency. It has become so common that announcements of a “new” firing or resignation from the DOJ are greeted with a simple “Ho-Hum” from most Americans. They’re no big deal — just “another day at Justice.”

That should alarm every American!

Never before in American history has anything even similar to this bloodbath of management happened in one department in the U.S. government! Why now?

The answer to that question is simple: Accountability.

For the last 20 years, senior positions in the Justice Department have become exclusively political appointments for which many in government lust for and fight to get for themselves. Why? They’re cush jobs. They come with amazing perks and special “opportunities” for those who hold them to garner power second only to those in the upper tier in the Executive Branch, but come also with amazing financial opportunities — while in office and promises of financial windfall when leaving. Those who have held these positions during the last 2 decades have crafted mechanisms to amass personal gain while perpetuating an environment of cronyism that protects them all from ALL accountability. By loading the top-tier of management  at the DOJ with those who have “obligations” to those who appointed or hired them, they assure their safety from accountability. The cost for this bureaucratic layer of those who have unilateral control over how federal law is enforced makes them bullet-proof. And the use of that power has obliterated the DOJ of Washington and Jefferson.


There are now at least 2 tiers of American justice: 1 for the politically connected and 1 for everyone else. Impartiality in justice is gone — Lady Liberty is no longer blind.

A former federal prosecutor by the name of Sidney Powell has blown the whistle. January 27, 2019, Ms. Powell dispelled the illusion that our justice system is fair and impartial.

Powell, author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, in a television interview described a system consisting of out-of-control prosecutors who will do anything to get a conviction. She accused the Justice Department of a broad range of offenses. Some of those include:

• False charges brought by overzealous prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (Robert Mueller’s right-hand man) in the case against leading accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Although the conviction was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, Andersen was completely destroyed, its 85,000 employees lost their jobs, and the assets of untold investors were wiped out. Weissmann was promoted by the DOJ.

• Destruction of the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives. Before they could appeal their fake convictions, they were sent to prison with the toughest criminals in the country. “They did the worst things they could possibly do to these men,” says Powell. The defendants were eventually exonerated on appeal, but it was only after one of them served eight months in solitary confinement.

• Frequent failure by the DOJ to disclose evidence favorable to defendants as required by law.

• Using the phony Steele dossier, the DOJ and FBI unlawfully obtained FISA warrants for the surveillance of the Trump election campaign. The dossier was then used to justify creation of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion. After two years, that investigation is nothing more than a witch-hunt against Trump supporters.

• Leaking at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ in the midst of criminal investigations.

• Unwillingness of federal judges to discipline the DOJ for its transgressions.

Taking it one step further, these top-level DOJ bureaucrats simply weaponized various departments and agencies to for their own benefit get rid of enemies either by their destruction or through intimidation.

How? Investigate; Harrass; Prosecute

  • An early Trump supporter targeted by the DOJ right before the 2018 midterm elections was Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY). Normally, letters and other contact from the SEC are initiated regarding perceived violations and a deal is worked out, fine paid, etc., just as happened with Tesla’s Elon Musk. Instead, the DOJ initiated an investigation into Collins that has/will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  • In another example of selective justice: If you steal a credit card and charge over $100,000, and the DOJ handles the case, you can be charged with credit card fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and theft through deception. You would be facing 50-80 years in federal prison. Or, you can alternatively be given a penalty of community service and two years’ probation. That’s what you get when you are Joe Biden’s niece. And that’s what Joe’s niece got.
  • On the other hand, look at former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX). The donations at issue in his prosecution case were less than just Hillary’s travel costs – a mere $915,000 in four checks written to two nonprofit organizations. Neither of the donors in Stockman’s case complained. Instead, the DOJ sought out the donors. If there was real guilt there, such a small case should have taken only about six months to investigate. Instead, it took DOJ and Lois Lerner’s former nonprofit division four years, four grand juries, and an estimated $20 million to create a believable story in order to bring charges against Stockman. They really wanted him. Why? In the 1990s, he served on the Whitewater House committee that investigated Clinton wrongdoing. In his most recent term in Congress, Stockman threatened to consider articles of impeachment against President Obama, called out Hillary Clinton for breaking the Iran sanctions, and busted Obama for giving money to the Haqqani terrorist network. And apparently “the straw that broke the camel’s back” was when Stockman filed a House resolution calling for the arrest of Lois Lerner for being in contempt of Congress. He had the audacity to stand up to the same hit team now going after Trump. The government wants life in prison for Stockman.
  • Former Attorney General under Barack Obama, Eric Holder, identified and placed sympathetic ideologues in key departments of the DOJ and FBI. They were also placed in the FEC and the IRS. This all combined to form a “Red Team” that would target, isolate and destroy opponents of Obama or his legacy. Reportedly, both Democrats and Republicans were on the list, but the majority were conservative leaders. They mapped out weak targets, then the IRS, SEC or FEC would research them deeply, looking for any mistakes or missteps. Once information was gathered that would spark interest, it was leaked to friendlies in the press, politicians or sympathetic nonprofits such as the Sunlight Foundation. By doing, so they covered their tracks to avoid the charge of targeting. Multiple sources in Congress stated that the DOJ would then hijack these administrative agencies’ actions, bringing these investigations “in-house” and handling them as felony investigations. The targeted list (enemies list) was developed and fleshed out by the Red Team (or “hit squad”). Once the DOJ took a case, it moved without interference, using broad powers to issue subpoenas and charges in federal criminal indictments.
  • Republicans are treated differently than Democrats. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), an early Trump supporter, received a publicized complaint about a potential FEC problem. When the same thing happened to Obama, Obama simply received FEC warning letters and a notice to correct the problem. He was instructed to pay a $375,000 fine and the matter was over. Notably, the money in question was a larger amount than Hunter was even accused of. But Hunter didn’t receive warning letters or the opportunity to pay a fine. Instead, the complaint went to the DOJ and Obama sympathizers’ Red Team – the “hit squad.” The bomb was dropped in a press release right before the 2018 midterm elections, designed to sink Hunter’s campaign and defeat him. And it worked.

The “Fix” is in

The Feds have made the justice system “good” for them — bad for those charged. Equal justice under the law is now only a “story” that kids talk about in Political Science class about the way the justice system worked “a long time ago.” Innocence until guilt is proven is long gone when federal law enforcement gets involved in a case. If the feds want to come get someone, they always get somebody. The process they now use is NOT to examine a crime that was committed and then put evidence together that shows who committed the crime, their purpose, and how it was committed. They now use broad criminal statutes that make it easier than ever for federal authorities to get their way against everyday people. And the feds have many tools.

Federal prosecutors frequently bring conspiracy charges. Conspiracy is a broad crime that can sweep up many kinds of conduct.

  • Conspiracy charges are challenging to defend. A federal criminal defense attorney who has a client who is charged with conspiracy has to be very diligent in investigating the government’s evidence and what role the government thinks each person had in the conspiracy.
  • A conspiracy to commit a federal crime happens whenever there is an agreement to commit a specific federal crime between two or more people, and at least one of those people makes some overt act to further the conspiracy.
  • The government doesn’t have to prove that there was a written agreement between the co-conspirators; instead, the prosecutor can prove a conspiracy just by proving that the people it says were involved in the conspiracy were working together to do some crime.
  • The general federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute criminalizes both conspiracies to defraud the United States as well as conspiracies to violate any other provision of federal law. By the text of that provision you can see how the two elements work. The statute says that it is a crime, [i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.
  • The United States Code contains other specific conspiracy provisions. For example, 21 U.S.C. § 846 makes it illegal to commit a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. Eighteen U.S.C. § 1951 – which prohibits committing a robbery of any article in interstate commerce – contains its own conspiracy provision. So section 1951 makes it a crime both to commit a robbery and to conspire to commit a robbery.
  • Courts have held that a person can be in a conspiracy with another person, even if the two people never meet or interact – as long as they knew the other person was doing something to further the conspiracy. This is most common in a larger sprawling conspiracy where a central person, or a group of people, is coordinating the work of many others.
  • Conspiracy charges have the potential to be abused by the government, and taken to absurd consequences – in theory, a conspiracy offense could be committed, and prosecuted in federal court, merely by having two people agree that they would rob a bank together and then buy a ski mask to wear in the bank robbery.

It boils down to this: pretty much when federal law enforcement authorities want to get someone for something, they can easily find a way to do it.


It would be useless to name more names, list wrongs done or illustrate further travesties experienced by Americans who come face-to-face with the Department of Justice. It simply boils down to this: the DOJ became a weaponized arm of Deep State operatives at the top of the U.S. Government during the Obama Administration. Those operatives created an atmosphere that used an armed FBI, CIA, and Justice Department to conduct each and every “hit job” deemed necessary by the Bosses.

In perfecting this process, they needed a military arm to paint the one-sided narrative to legitimize this method of operations to the American people. That messaging arm? The Mainstream Media. Every day, all day, “agents” at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, New York Times, all spin the stories that impact all our lives with the political elitists’ version of every story. They’re pretty good sales people too. But in fairness to Americans, when “news people” almost in unison give every story with the same details and perspective as those at other networks and newspapers who give the same story, Americans just accept the story as true. “If everyone of the news outlets give every story the exact same way, the story must be true.”

Thankfully, the truth is somehow getting around the barriers erected by the Media. And Americans have begun to ask the right questions, question what they are reading, seeing, and hearing from the media, and seeking the truth.

There’s hope, folks. And this President began the “Swamp drain” in January of 2017. It IS draining, however slowly. Thankfully the truth rings true to most Americans.

There’s still hope!


“In Full Disclosure…” Part I

Do you have all this stuff figured out in D.C.? On one hand, we have what seems like 80% of Congress pushing-back on everything this President wants to do that requires legislation. They end up passing into law a boondoggle of a bill that is full of pork and gratuitous spending provisions that are hidden from citizens. All the while, they simply refuse to enforce the southern border: period.

But the logjam and misanthropy on the part of leftists for Donald Trump does not just extend into the legislative branch of government. The Judicial Branch is full of it as well. We knew of the corruption in the Department of Justice. We watched as the Obama DOJ initiated some of the most incorrigible and illegal programs and acts the resulted in the deaths of a number of Americans. But what is worse is than we thought. Any accountability by the perpetrators of those acts and programs (which reach as far as the Obama White House) were just summarily dismissed by almost everyone in government!

Until today, we have seen just a scant fraction of those unspeakable acts exposed. And every day, more new atrocities at the hands of Congress and the DOJ show their ugly heads.

They’ve been hidden for too long. The reckoning is here: at least the first part of it –“In Full Disclosure…”

“Full Disclosure” is here!

Today, in Part I of “In Full Disclosure…” we will reveal the Congressional villainy that has plagued America’s lawmaking process for so long and costs American taxpayers trillions of dollars. We will disclose the attitude of entitlement that is nowhere else more obvious than among members of Congress who with impunity year after year literally “steal” billions from us in the name of doing what’s best for Americans.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives now controlled by Democrats feel that the power their majority gives them is a permission slip to intervene at any time in any way they so choose in the government funding process to reward their minions while penalizing their opponents with the power of money. Nowhere else is this illustrated better and in a more timely fashion than the funding bill, “Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2019 (H.R. 648)” President Trump just signed into law to keep the government open. But that bill does MUCH more than just that. It includes multiple examples of the graft and corruption that literally fuels Washington D.C.

In Part II of this story, we will together peel back the layers of the onion called “Corruption” in the Department of Justice. Part II comes tomorrow.

Folks, this expose’ has been fun to research and put together for you. Even though we knew we have horrible issues in Washington, it has been unnerving to uncover them and to learn just how far-reaching into the dark corners of government they have been.

This ride will certainly be unsettling for you.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 648): America’s “Current” Boondoggle

Nobody could wait for this bill to be passed by each house of Congress, be signed into law by the President, and start the erection of that southern border wall while protecting government employees from another work stoppage when government funding expired. It passed just in the nick of time! Of course, everybody got everything they wanted, right? WRONG! But they got a lot — an 1169 page bill full of $$$$$ — OUR dollars and cents.

You haven’t read it yet? I cannot believe that! Everybody should have read the bill — especially those who passed the bill: members of Congress. But, as usual, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAD READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING! They each received copies of the bill — all 1169 pages — at midnight the night before the vote. It was impossible for any one of them to read and understand everything it includes. But as usual, Congress followed the Nancy Pelosi instructions that accompanied Obamacare: “We must pass the bill so that we can know what’s in the bill.” They passed it; it’s law.

Certainly, by now, you’ve read the bill, right? You haven’t yet? Here’s your chance: here it is:


It’s lengthy, it’s verbose, it continuously refers one back to the Omnibus bill from 2018, so let’s just summarize its contents for you.

Border Security

Obviously, the linchpin in this bill was funding of “Trump’s” border wall. It is amazing to me that in discussions of a bill that funds the entire federal government with about $1 trillion through September of this year, the only item that receives discussion is a tiny segment of a barrier that constitutes less than $2 billion — the “wall.” But Congress had to address it to prevent another government partial shutdown. It did. And it was a pittance.

What you have NOT heard and will NOT hear anyplace but here is this:

The bill provides a de facto amnesty pipeline for all illegal alien household members of MS-13 gang members who arrive in the United States as “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UACs). As part of a bipartisan “compromise” spending package, lawmakers included provisions that prevent federal immigration officials from deporting anyone who has close contact with UACs who are readily resettled throughout the U.S. with so-called “sponsors” after being trafficked across the southern border. These sponsors are often times illegal alien relatives, in many cases parents, of UACs. Federal officials have repeatedly noted how the UAC program has been widely used by the MS-13 gang to import more gang members into the country.

Last year, New York City Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official Angel Melendez said there are roughly 22,000 UAC “potential recruits” who are resettled across the country every year out of about 40,000 total UACs. These are mostly young men trafficked across the southern border from Central America, especially El Salvador.

But we can put up with that little “oops” in the bill, right? We’re getting a big chunk of border wall/barrier out of this. But wait, there’s more:

The new law mandates that the White House have approval from left-wing Starr County, Texas officials before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can begin building a wall at the region’s U.S.-Mexico border.
Slipped into this funding bill that provides about $1.3 billion for 55 miles of border wall construction is a provision that prevents the Trump administration from constructing the barrier until DHS officials seek input from Starr County, Texas locals and city officials. The spending bill mandates that Trump must “seek to reach a mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers” with Starr County “local elected officials,” including those from:

  • Roma, Texas
  • Rio Grande City, Texas
  • Escobares, Texas
  • La Grulla, Texas
  • Salineno, Texas

The deal demands Trump’s DHS to continue “such consultations” with local elected officials about the border wall until September, or until an agreement is reached. In the meantime, the spending bill stipulates that the administration cannot build any barriers “while consultations are continuing” with local elected officials.

But there’s still more. I know you may find this hard to believe, but there are a bunch of “gimmicks” included in the almost 1200 page monstrosity that, only now, are showing their ugly little heads.

(You need to follow this line of explanation very closely. Congressional members love making it difficult for everyday Americans — most of us — to understand what they are really doing when they craft and pass spending bills.)


Changes in Mandatory Programs are one of the most commonly used gimmicks in the appropriations process. On paper, mandatory spending is delayed, creating new savings that can be put toward unrelated discretionary spending. In reality, the vast majority of the delayed funding would never have been spent in the first place and generated no real savings. Each year, billions of dollars in new spending is enabled through Changes in Mandatory Programs.

The largest change each year is delayed spending from the Department of Justice’s Crime Victims Fund. The bill caps spending from the Crime Victims Fund at $3.35 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2019. However, that fund consistently carries a balance of around $13 billion, meaning that any unobligated balance above $3.35 billion can now be captured as savings and used to circumvent the Budget Control Act caps. And the Crime Victims Fund is not the only Change in Mandatory Programs. In the fiscal year 2018, changes with no real savings increased spending by nearly $18 billion.

The area of the bill with the most potential for harm is in the critical areas of immigration enforcement, particularly detention beds. As the number of caravans, children, families, and asylum seekers has drastically risen, the administration has been handcuffed by loopholes and prevented from quickly removing many illegal immigrants. The result is that many illegal border crossers or asylum seekers are “caught and released,” and many will disappear into the public and never be seen again. The Trump administration has attempted to limit catch and release, both at the border but also in the interior, by expanding the number of detention beds.

In this bill, Democratic efforts to set a hard cap on immigration detention were stopped, but the bill does try to push the administration to reduce the number of detention beds by limiting funding. That said, the administration is allowed to transfer or reprogram funds to expand detention, but does so at the expense of other homeland security programs. In essence, the bill forces the Department of Homeland Security to steal from other important security and preparedness missions in order to fulfill the immigration enforcement mission.

Critically, the bill fails to address the key loopholes in U.S. immigration law that have encouraged the drastic increases in asylum claims and families and children coming to the border. Without fixes to these loopholes and other immigration enforcement tools, border security is only a superficial fix and detention beds will always be too few.

More “Hidden”

  • The omnibus includes a 1.9 percent pay raise for federal employees, costing roughly $3.3 billion in 2019, and more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. This overturns a December 2018 executive order from President Donald Trump freezing federal pay. And, for more than half of federal workers, it serves as their second pay raise in 2019 because federal workers receive both cost-of-living increases as well as step increases based on tenure. On average, federal employees receive $121,000 in total compensation, compared to average private-sector total compensation of $69,000. Part of this differential stems from the fact that federal workers have more education and experience, on average, but studies consistently find that federal employees receive a significant compensation premium.
  • The text of the 1,169-page compromise bill was released just before midnight on Wednesday, February 13, 2019. Both houses of Congress had to debate and vote on it. It was already law two days later.
    Once again, Congress is ignoring its own budget rules. The House requires that text of legislation be available for at least 72 hours before a vote is held. This is not the way the process is supposed to work. It leaves no time for lawmakers to even read the bill, let alone have a chance to debate and offer amendments to improve the legislation. That’s just a symptom of the larger problem. The fiscal year is already more than four months old and Congress still hasn’t finalized funding. If lawmakers were doing their job and passing budget and appropriations bills on time, continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, and government shutdowns could become obsolete, or at least the exception rather than the rule.

State of Emergency

Democrat after Democrat from both sides of the aisle have taken to the airways and declared how unjust, un-American, and illegal is the declaration of a national emergency and the subsequent plan of the President to divert funds to pay for the construction of the border barrier. Even several Republicans are against the wall! It’s purely partisan and in no way reflects any actions contemplated or taken against the previous 61 such declarations made by this and other presidents. Politics at its worse.

We won’t waste a bunch of time, but Nancy always chimes in with a quote of remarkability when it comes to Congressional matters of historical nature. At a news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi railed against Trump declaring a national emergency, saying Republicans “should have some dismay to the door that they opened, the threshold they crossed.” She continued, “The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans and, of course, we will respond accordingly,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said an emergency declaration opens the door for other presidents to do an end run around Congress. “Just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,” Pelosi added. She didn’t say specifically how Democrats will respond but said that they would “review our options.”

Summary: “Full Disclosure”

This action in Congress had NOTHING to do with southern border security. They don’t want better border security:

  • Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and six other House Democrats who chair subcommittees of the judiciary panel signed a letter to the president, writing that “we believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system.”
  • Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, called the reallocation of funds “utterly disrespectful of U.S. national security and the needs of our men and women in uniform, and it further undermines his credibility in requesting the upcoming defense budget.”
  • And it’s not just Democrats. Centrist Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election in 2020, called Trump’s planned move a “mistake” in a statement Thursday. Collins also argued that the National Emergencies Act was only “intended to apply to major natural disasters or catastrophic events, such as the attacks on our country.”
  • Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, whose districts covers about 800 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, said on The View that the declaration was “unnecessary” and expressed concerns about the land seizures that would have to take place in order to build the wall.

The corruption in Congress is unfathomable — until now. Let’s be perfectly clear and honest: on the most part, those who serve in either house of Congress face every bill presented for their consideration, not from the perspective of “how do we need to process this measure to maximize all our resources to best facilitate meeting the needs of American citizens?”  Their almost unilateral perspective — Democrat AND Republican — is “how can I get what I need out of this bill: money, power, and favorability among voters in my district.” Their perspectives blow as the political winds in D.C. blow on the particular day of their considerations.

The bottom line is this: truthful consideration of the resources we give to them, the needs that WE have, and the rule of law are GONE in Congress.

In conclusion, here’s what they have almost entirely missed: the American electorate in sufficient numbers walked away from “business-as-usual” in Washington and voted for the one person who entered the race for the presidency that voters felt could and would fulfill campaign promises to fix legal immigration while stopping illegal immigration at our southern border. And in doing so, those same members of the electorate sent a message to Congress that “We are done with status quo, identity politics perpetrated by the elitists in D.C. that want nothing but control over all of us Americans.”

Have members of Congress gotten that message? With the spending bill passed simply to temporarily pacify the President with the pittance allocated for the border barrier, apparently Congress still has not gotten it.

And here’s the look “down the road” current members of Congress and those who want in better see and understand: Congressional hypocrisy is being exposed in greater measure than ever day after day. And Americans in seeing the corruption is being summarily rejected. Sending those members home is just part of the equation. Prosecution for wrongdoing is pending. There WILL be a price to pay.

They have underestimated this President. He’s not stupid — far from it. His validity resonates far greater with Americans than the abomination being unearthed in the midst of today’s lawmakers.

And it’s not just in Congress: it’s in the Department of Justice. Tomorrow come back for “In Full Disclosure…Part II.” The DOJ is front and center. You think you know all the corruption there is there? Get ready: there’s far more than you know today!


State of Emergency Chaos

The noise is deafening. One Democrat operative declared in a televised interview, “This President didn’t get his way on his border wall, threw a temper-tantrum, and is declaring a national emergency and then heading to the golf course. There IS no national emergency,” she said. 

Nancy Pelosi said this about a proposed Trump National Emergency declaration: “That’s an option and we will review our options. But it’s important to note that when the President declares this emergency, first of all it’s not an emergency what’s happening at the border — It’s a humanitarian challenge to us … putting that aside, just in terms of the President making an end-run around Congress. Here he said, let us respect what the committee will do and then walks away from it. The President is doing an end-run around Congress.”

It is important to note that national security declarations and subsequent actions are NOT unique. In fact, since Congress gave the U.S. President pretty much unilateral power to implement such measures, there have been 58 such declarations made. President Trump has already issued 3. President Obama made his fair share. Let’s take a look at the history of National Security actions.

There are a lot of national emergencies going on. In fact, there are 31 active national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act. Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times. President Trump has only used it three times so far. 11 of Obama-made declarations are still in force.

Sorry Democrats, this “national emergency” business is not quite the work of “dictators.”

Of Obama’s 11 continuing national emergencies, nine of them were focused exclusively on foreign nations, while only one seemed focused on protecting America — a declaration aimed at punishing individuals “engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.” All of the rest of Obama’s national emergencies were focused on blocking property or prohibiting transactions/travel for individuals engaged in various activities in — by order of the date of enactment — Somalia, Libya, transnational criminal organizations, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, and Burundi.

Burundi? Come on: are the citizens of Burundi storming our borders, shipping millions of pounds of illegal drugs across our border, operating human and sex trafficking here that created the necessity for Obama to declare a national emergency regarding Burundi?

Here’s what the “Burundi Threat” was and is to the U.S.:

“On November 22, 2015, by Executive Order 13712, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in Burundi, which has been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, the incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatens the peace, security, and stability of Burundi and the region.”

The “Burundi” action taken (and most all of the other such actions taken by previous presidents) were initiated not because of any direct, physical threat of any kind to the United States. They in total were preventive actions taken in places and in circumstances to make certain no actual threats against the United States could be initiated.

Even with that knowledge together with the plethora of statistical data and actual specifics of the costs of illegalities at and from our southern border, those on the Left in the U.S. STILL maintain “there is no emergency at the border,” “there is no humanitarian crisis at the border,” and that President Trump is pushing such action to simply fulfill a campaign promise.

What’s Really Their Reasoning?

No doubt about this one thing: the insanity of Leftist cries against the closure of our southern border are for purely political purposes.

It’s hard to say what I’m about to say, but it is necessary for all Americans to understand: American Leftists who rail against stopping illegal immigration into the U.S. do so with NO regard for the price Americans have and will pay if we do NOT close the border.

In the wake of the conservative media listing of names, showing pictures of murdered and tortured Americans at the hands of illegals, states giving details of the human and economic losses they sustain as a direct result of current open border political policies, Leftists maintain that there is no crisis!

CNN’s Jim Acosta — CNN’s lead White House correspondent and the most obnoxious reporter in D.C. — today badgered the President in the Rose Garden, calling out Mr. Trump for his “in-error” reporting of illegal crime statistics. Mr. Acosta referenced an Associated Press report that stated: “multiple studies have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born U.S. citizens.” That indeed WAS in the AP report. But there was significant error in that report that has been pointed out and clarified with factual information after the fact. Of course, the “truth” clarification of the Associated Press story is rarely discussed, and by Acosta’s reference of the report’s inaccurate and misleading information, few if any of the members of the Mainstream Media even care about accuracy in their reports.

As it turns out, the Associated Press claim is quite misleading, because the “multiple studies” on crimes committed by “immigrants” —  including a 2014 study by a professor from the University of Massachusetts, which is the only one cited in the article —  combine the crime rates of both citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal.

The General Accounting Office released a report that gives far more accurate statistics than quoted by Mr. Acosta and the AP. The GAO report (GAO-05-646R) looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegal in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during the fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien. Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft, and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

Is it my imagination or are Democrats and members of the Mainstream Media and other leftists ignoring the tragedies perpetrated on legal Americans by illegal aliens? Do they not even care that little boys and girls are being kidnapped, tortured, raped, sold into slavery by some of these illegals? Is it not important to them to stop the senseless drug overdose deaths that are direct results of the massive amounts of opioids and other murderous drugs trafficked into the U.S. through the southern border?


I must be honest: I am scared. I in my wildest imagination cannot picture a group of Americans who accept crimes committed against anyone as “acceptable.” And apparently, that is what we are dealing with today.

The only explanation I can muster that even though plausible is horrifying is that those thousands and thousands of leftists who continue the open border mantra consider the felonies committed in the hundreds of thousands by illegals against Americans a justifiable price to pay so that Democrats can stack the population of the U.S. with future voters who will be obligated to vote for Democrats. Why would they want that? To maintain power and control.

Can you think of….is there any other explanation?


Every politician who does not vocally and outwardly fight against illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, the forcing of local, state, and federal entities to support illegals in every way need to be confronted by American citizens with this one question:

“How many American deaths at the hands of illegals are acceptable to you before you will begin to honor your oath of office in which you swore to uphold the laws of the United States?”

Honestly, we all should get in the faces of each of our lawmakers and demand a formal response to that question.

Folks, illegal immigrants, and illegal immigration really ARE desperate problems in the United States. And politicians of any ilk CANNOT explain that fact away. Here are just several more examples:

In closing, simply consider this one final thought:

“Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place.”

How many legal Americans will be killed, raped, robbed or stabbed before YOU will say “Enough is Enough?”



Today’s the day: D-Day. Once again the U.S. government faces the dilemma of running out of money to operate itself. That by itself is almost comical. How does somebody or some entity that has the total control of how much money it has, how much it can spend, AND what it spends it on run out of money? But it will — at midnight tonight.

Does anybody but me think that 535 paid politicians in Washington let the government get to this spot, again and again, is insane? It blows my mind to think that these several hundred government “experts” cannot (or “do not”) craft a budget, get it passed in the House and Senate, and signed into law in time to fund government operations the way they are supposed to. But it happens over and over. And it’s happened again.

What seems to be the problem?

The answer to that has been hidden for some time. Maybe that’s wrong — maybe what should be said is that the “accurate” answer to that has been hidden. There have been lots of opinions — explanations — for what’s been happening and why. But the truth is out. Let’s get to “the truth.”

The Reason

Honestly, it should have been easy for Americans to see why these Continuing Resolutions have been put in place by Congress and the President regarding government spending on a short-term basis only. Many have suspected why, but now it’s pretty clear. It’s not about the Democrat or Republican parties. It’s not about dollars and cents. And it’s certainly not because those 535 people cannot figure out the best way to spend American tax dollars — OUR tax dollars. It’s because most of those 535 have had a secret purpose for a long time in controlling government spending and where those dollars go. Their purpose? To remove the borders of the United States.

I hope you didn’t spit coffee when you read/heard that last line. But it’s true. Why else would every month or two we find ourselves at a drop-dead day and hour to put not a federal budget in place, but just a Continuing Resolution for short-term spending? Because that group (let’s call them “Open Borders Incorporated”) sense their power slipping away. It’s been happening for years and it’s a secret no more.

So just for a moment, let’s answer your obvious question: “Why and who would want that?” We’ll answer it by asking and answering some “Why Else?” questions.

Why Else Would….

  • U.S. Mainstream Media (purportedly “in the tank” for the Democrat Party) denigrate everything to do with border security, ICE, and alleged mistreatment of illegals in captivity?
  • That same Media downgrade the real numbers of illegals now in the U.S.?
  • No one in the Media beat the public over the head with videos and pictures of illegals crossing the border?
  • None of those constantly quoted “experts” ever appear on news shows — radio or television — to legitimize their “expert” status regarding the “non-crisis” on the southern border?
  • None of the mainstream media will give the public the names of those quoted experts that say “there’s no need for a wall,” and that “walls don’t work.”
  • Nobody get government officials on the air or in print from any of the other 161 countries who have border walls that work?
  • No media outlet — absolutely NOT ONE — will either on television, radio, or in print give the actual names of people who have been robbed, stabbed or shot, raped, or are victims of break-ins or other violent crimes at the hands of illegals so that Americans can see first-hand the realities of crimes committed by many of those illegals?
  • No media outlet — absolutely NOT ONE — will not persistently present border patrol agents, ICE agents, or other immigration officials who are consistent in their declarations that a border wall/barrier would dramatically lessen crime committed by illegal immigrants who cross into the U.S.?
  • Politicians and their media lapdogs continue to create and perpetuate the perception that there is no reason for a border wall and only agree that “border security” needs to be improved?
  • Politicians refuse to speak out against the influx of illegals?
  • Politicians continue to allow ANY immigrants into the U.S. that are ILLEGAL? Think about that: THEY’RE ILLEGALS WHEN THEY STEP FOOT IN THE U.S.
  • Politicians — ANY politicians — not loudly and consistently demand diligent arrest and prosecution of ALL illegals for their crimes?
  • Members of Congress not vote for any and all necessary funding to add immigration judges and support staff necessary to initiate and complete the legal process for ALL pending immigration cases that now number approximately 900,000?
  • Has NO One in this Administration or previous ones issued a hard and non-negotiable demand that ALL Central American countries AND Mexico stop ALL illegal immigrant attempts to breach the U.S. border coming from those countries?

No Budget, No Immigration Reform, No Wall. The Reason?

Simple answer: Open Borders. And in spite of what most feel, the cry for open borders may come loudest from Democrats, but it is NOT exclusive to those from the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

While Democrats heatedly deny being in favor of open borders, their actions and even their own words say otherwise. Much the same could be said about many Republicans.  Both parties want an unrestricted flood of immigrants to America, but for different reasons.

Democrats want a permanent underclass that reliably votes Democrat. Establishment Republicans want cheap labor to keep their Chamber of Commerce donors happy. Neither party acknowledges any negative consequences of the current open borders policy, allowing far more than voters and workers to enter our country.

Ignored are the contagious diseases, still uncommon in America, being brought across the borders. Or the criminals we read about daily in the news, raping and killing Americans. Not to mention potential terrorists.

How does this play out?

What if there weren’t a President Trump working to build a wall and to insert other measures to seal the southern border? Instead, suppose we had a president named Jeb or Marco, happy to grant amnesty to the 10 to 20 million illegals already in the country, a number which would double as soon as amnesty was proposed.

Gallup tells us that 147 million adults would move to the US if given the chance. That’s almost half the current US population. How many of these adults have children? If you assume one child per adult, you have just doubled this number. Don’t forget grandma and grandpa. Pretty soon we’ve more than doubled the US population. That means more people with no increase in the necessary infrastructure to support such a population increase. As a country, we can’t even maintain our infrastructure with our current population. Look at the subway stations or airports in New York City. Or the bridges over Western Pennsylvania rivers. Or the potholed streets of Chicago.

Who in Washington DC, among our elected leadership, sees a problem with unrestricted immigration? Among the ranks of those who have the power and authority to make a difference on the subject, there are few besides President Trump. I’m not saying he’s flying solo. But his Boeing 757 still has a number of empty seats.

There is certainly no similar sentiment from the leadership across the aisle. According to Nancy Pelosi, “Our view of the law is that it — if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is no reason for deportation.” She’s not alone. Hillary Clinton, fortunately not in power, instead only coughing in half-filled lecture halls, shares Pelosi’s views, “Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported.”

Chuck Schumer joined the chorus declaring that President Trump will not get the U.S.-Mexico border wall “in any form.”

Republicans are hardly any better. Despite control of both houses of Congress for the past two years, with a president firmly in favor of shutting the open border, Republicans could not find a way to fund a wall. Funding Planned Parenthood, despite campaign promises to the contrary, was easy for Paul Ryan to push through. And Republicans wonder why they did so poorly during the midterm elections?

When America can’t support her existing population, why add more to the mix? Too many Americans are homeless, going without adequate food and healthcare. Many attend crumbling schools, drive on third-world roadways, fly through decrepit airports, and look at a federal budget constantly running in the red. The “law of holes” states that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. America is in a big hole in so many ways, yet the smart set in Washington, D.C. wants to keep digging deeper. An open border is just one more way of digging America into a deeper hole.


Make no mistake about this: “If” the autocrats in Washington — Democrats AND Republicans — wanted to seal the southern border, the southern border would already be sealed: NO one would get in. That statement is identical to the one that answers the question asked by millions of Americans, “If it is against Federal law to possess and use marijuana (other than prescribed medically) in the United States, why do multiple states allow it to happen and the feds refuse to enforce the U.S. laws that make it illegal?

Here’s the “skinny” in this conversation: many in Congress WANT border barriers gone. Numbered among those are Democrats, plenty of Republicans, and a bunch of Independents. They all have reasons; they all have excuses. And they justify those reasons and excuses with a plethora of explanations. But what is common among ALL of them is this: They have each justified to themselves and others their active allowance and even support of immigration fraud and illegalities with total disregard for the laws of the United States and the enforcement of those laws. They ignore the personal, corporate, and national costs of ignoring those and even other federal laws. And somehow, that’s OK with them.

But the most important thing they ignore in their complicity in immigration lawbreaking is this: there is only ONE fundamental difference between the United States of America and the nation of Russia. Oh, there are many differences, but really just one big one: the Rule of Law. Now there are plenty of laws in use in Russia just as there are in the U.S. But in Russia, there is an autocratic group of political elites who have given themselves and a selected few to simply ignore the laws of Russia. Why would they do that? Because what drives their boat are the things that THEY want and that THEY don’t want in total disregard of other Russians, and what Russian laws state.

That being said, know this is an absolute factual certainty as you lay your head on your pillow tonight after tucking your precious children into bed: there is a group of political elites in Washington D.C. that have claimed and have assumed the authority to do the same thing in the United States as those Russian autocrats have been doing for decades in Russia: ignoring laws for the benefits of an entitled few.

Is that the America you want for those babies you just tucked into bed for the night?



I don’t sleep a lot. No, I’m not sick. I don’t have insomnia. There are no “things” going bad in my life that keep me up stuck in worry and stress. It just doesn’t take a lot of sleep to keep me going.

What I do when I don’t sleep much at night is think. I think a lot. I think about family, about grandchildren, and about growing old, It’s easy to think about growing old — I am old.

Thinking has become highly underrated. I find myself so busy today, my life seems fuller than ever with “stuff” that keeps me from thinking. My iPhone seems to never stop dinging with voicemails, emails, texts, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter notifications. Add to that the IOS upgrades, app upgrades, and calendar notifications, and I find myself sometimes too busy to think.

But in the last few years — since having my 60th and now 65th birthdays — I’ve learned to welcome thinking that keeps me from sleeping. It’s been a gift that even though it’s been a part of my life all along, I have simply missed it. Maybe I missed it because of being so busy, so preoccupied, so torn by dealing with “stuff.” But, no matter, I’ve simply really missed it. And missing it has cost me a bunch of years.

At some point during the last decade or so, lightning struck me with the realization that more of my life is behind me than is in front of me. Funny how that realization changes the way we think. No doubt, my past has been really good to me. But obviously, that’s no guarantee of what’s ahead. And if I am caught in projecting what’s left of my life based on my life up until this point, I could just stop thinking and coast along, knowing things are going to be pretty good. Because things HAVE been pretty good.

No matter what the gurus of positive thinking say — like making things happen by being positive, rejecting negative thoughts, always claiming the glass is half-full, rejecting superstition, and reaping what we sow — at some point I’ve simply got to stop planning and worrying and let thinking take over.

And I think I’m just about there.

At 65 it’s kind of late for me to fret and worry about all the mistakes I’ve made. Sure, every mistake has made an impact on the course of my life. That’s part of living and growing and making a life. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. And some of those mistakes have cost me dearly. I’d have loved to be able to brush those all away, but sometimes mistakes just happen. But I’ve learned to deal with them: think them through and learn from them all.

My old friend Andrae Crouch wrote a song titled “Through it All.” It’s one of the best songs ever written. It contains what has been the most impactful line of any song I’ve ever heard: “If I never had a problem I’d never know that God could solve them, I’d never know what faith in God can do.”  I think Andrae was in his early 30’s when he penned that. But he sure nailed what thinking through and making choices in life is really all about.

During my “mid-life crisis,” (I guess that’s why I don’t sleep much) there is no way I could have survived without having the assurance that when I got to the end of that ordinarily traumatic period of my life, things would really be OK. And they are. In fact, things are not just OK, they’re pretty darn good.

Will you indulge me for just a few minutes? I’d like to — while I’m not asleep and thinking at 3:56 AM today — analyze those “pretty darn good” things:

  • I’ve got good health. Yes, there’s a heart attack in the mix, removal of two kidneys (don’t go bonkers — I was born with 3), two heart stints, both thumbs now have artificial thumb joints, and there were a handful of minor surgeries. But I’ve lost over 100 pounds in the last 5 years — the right way: eating right and daily pretty aggressive exercise. In fact, I’m back at my college weight — and maintaining it!
  • I’ve had a good marriage, although in no way a perfect one. Ours has in fact imitated what life is all about: being happy, having problems, working through problems, and being happy again. Thank God there’s been a bunch of “happy again’s!”
  • I’ve started 4 companies in my life, the latest turned out pretty good.
  • We have 3 wonderful children — now all grown. All are married, doing well, and have given us 6 amazing grandchildren. I learned quickly that grandchildren are much more fun than children were, although I loved fathering our amazing 3. We spoil the grandchildren rotten by always saying “Yes.” Then we send them home!
  • On the bad side of a parental divorce — when I just knew my life at 16 was pretty much permanently trashed — God moved me 200 miles north and into a family that through the last 50+ years have proven to me again and again that family and relationships are what life is really all about. And family is the model with which God put in place His perfect plan for us to use to “make it.”

Along the way at very strategic moments, I’ve met very specific people who each made major impacts on my life. The first was Sister Green who taught Children’s Church which I attended in Lafayette, Louisiana. Sister Green had somewhere in her life captured the reality of relationship with God. She masterfully simplified that process so that a 5-year-old little Cajun boy could understand who God is and how to have a relationship with God Himself. She was simply amazing.

Rodger Robinson befriended me as my high school freshman Speech teacher. He walked on crutches because of polio at a young age. But you forgot about any handicap there because of the way he lived his life for and with others. He never saw me as just a 14-year-old kid. He saw something in me that I didn’t know was there. Without telling me what he was doing while he was doing it, he put me on a path toward success that molded my life with readiness for all of the hills and valleys that lay ahead. And when the hills came, I adjusted almost automatically. I did the same when the valleys came. Rodger taught me how to lower the mountaintops a bit and to make the valleys shallower than they really were by just rejecting that old success killer: “Somebody owes me something.” He taught me to simply push through, put the bad stuff behind and keep walking.

Rodney and Francis Duron opened their home and hearts to a 16-year-old boy who had lost a big chunk of confidence in his parent’s nasty divorce. When I moved in, they moved all-in with their love and lives. Though never formally adopted, I was always treated as a true son — and still am. Dad Duron went to Heaven 6 years ago after giving his life away every day he breathed. He was the epitome of giving one’s life to others. He loved people — everybody. He pastored the entire city of Shreveport, Louisiana. And his life showed just that. At his wake, mourners lined up for 4 hours to pay their respects to the most honest, God-fearing, committed-to-others man I’ve ever known. It was fitting he met Jesus on March 16th — “3-16:” “For God so loved the World He gave His only son that whoever believed in Him would not experience eternal death but have life forever.” That’s from John 3:16. Dad Duron shared that with people every day.

Their only son and my brother, Denny Duron, too took me in too. For 50+ years he has loved me, poured his life into mine, shared literally everything in his life with me, including his family, friends, contacts, resources, and his magnanimous giftings. I’ve never known anyone like him and probably never will. He just took what Mom and Dad Duron lived and expanded it to a larger group of people. I am proud to say he’s a world-changer and teaches all those around him what a personal relationship with God and other people does for you. He’s no different than everyone else in this respect: he has been hurt, taken advantage of, disappointed, fought some health issues, while having a glorious life in high school, college, and professional football, and as the founder of one of the most successful high school football programs in the nation. All the while, he has pastored the finest church in America — Shreveport Community Church — fulfilling what his father did HIS entire life: show people in Shreveport and around the World that God really cares. Denny loves everybody! And I get to live in that amazing environment daily.

As I sit and write this, I realized something: I’ve been guilty in that during a large part of my life I have taken the good things that happened to me for granted. I guess that in my “thinking cycle” that dawned on me. I’ve made a bunch of choices: some good, some bad. But in every choice, no matter good or bad, I’ve come through each feeling stronger on the back side for going through them. The good choice results are obvious. Unfortunately the bad choice results are too.

Here’s my conclusion: I don’t know of anyone in history that didn’t face hurt, betrayal, abuse of many kinds, and personal loss. I know of many who let some or all of those wrongs destroy them. But I know of some who took them in stride using the results of THOSE things to seed the ground in their lives to become good.

Farmers have it figured out: when they plant soybeans, soybeans are going to grow. It makes no difference if they didn’t have soybean seed to plant and put pumpkin seeds in the ground, nothing those farmers do will make soybeans grow. They “harvest what they plant.” Realization of that “God” fundamental has really impacted my thinking. I’m not concentrating on those bad seeds I’ve planted that have grown into bad stuff. Sure, I dealt with the bad fruit that grew. There’s no way around that. But I’ve planted far more good seeds — some of which have already been harvested, some still in the ground. But I’m ecstatic that almost ALL the seeds that have been planted in my life by me and others I have already seen their fruit, and the products of the other seeds are on the way.

Oh… and “The Best Is Yet to Come.” (Pastor Rodney Duron)

I Can’t Wait!




Google: What Are YOU Hiding?

NOTICE TO ALL: Google Analytics reached out to me several months ago to do some independent research work for them. I have contracted to investigate the histories of each of the 535 voting members of Congress. The seriousness of and the depth of these investigations have given me unfettered access to Google’s massive database containing all public and private (and even confidential) details of these politicians’ lives, all the way back to their youth.

Google’s purpose for this is to catalog all those events, circumstances, statements made, claims of various natures of those being investigated, that would someday in any currently unforeseen circumstances need to be accessed for Google’s purposes.

You can imagine the magnitude of this project for me and my staff. We launched it on February 1. And I must say, the capability of Google and their reach into the secret corners of our individual worlds is breathtaking.  I’m shocked and horrified every minute I’m in this process to discover just how much of these people’s lives are purposely hidden, and that even that there are some life details they have made no efforts to cover! It’s uncanny to see and hear the things they say in public while knowing the truths of their lives that are kept hidden away.

Obviously, we here all had to sign massive non-disclosure agreements for this project — agreements which contain penalties that run the gamut from LARGE dollars and cents to possible criminal prosecution for any disclosures. I will NOT be able to share any specific details in our writings for obvious reasons. 

I’m saying all that to say this, anything that we ever say, write, record, email, text, post, tweet, Snapchat, etc. that finds its way to the internet is certainly contained in this database and will exist on the Net in perpetuity. That’s scary. But we all should have known and expected that. And Google has access to it all.

For my friends, I am saying this for information purposes only. For those who do not know me, please know this: I either now or in the very near future will probably know you better than you know yourself.

By the way: you may just want to forward this to your members of Congress: just for a “heads-up” — not that there’s anything they can do about it. Everything we find is within the public domain. Whatever “it” is, if they already did”it”, it’s out there.

The “Story”

Obviously, all this above is NOT true. There is NO contract with Google Analytics. I am NOT under contract to investigate the past of members of Congress. Whatever they have said or done is (as far as I am concerned) between them, their families, and their voting constituents, although, as federal employees, I and any other American have the right to make certain they do not hold themselves above the law.

So what is this all about?

Americans from many walks of life are falling by the wayside at the hands of scandals — scandals that develop from things they have said, from things they have done, attempted to do, or maybe just have been accused of doing in their pasts. The most obvious of those (and probably the most unforgivable) have happened in the area of sexual intimidation, harassment, and in some cases, sexual assault. But these scandals don’t stop there. They tend to devolve in nature.

Example: Just a few hours after Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam opened the door to Pro-Life cries for his resignation as governor for his statements in a radio interview about late-term abortions, a second scandal erupted when the governor was exposed posing in a medical school yearbook picture with a friend. The friend was dressed in a Ku Klux Klan robe while the governor wore blackface. Members of his own party at the state and federal level immediately joined the existing attacks against the governor for his statements on late-term abortion because of his obvious racism revealed by blackface.

But the Virginia political scandal had just begun.

Democratic Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, 39, who is black and would succeed Northam were he to step down, is in hot water himself. Immediately following the calls for Northam’s resignation, a woman accused Fairfax of sexually assaulting her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Fairfax vehemently denies the allegations and in a press release claimed that the sexual assault charges were actually made to the Washington Post several years previously. The release stated that the Post investigated, and refused to run the story because they found it to be untrue. However, the Washington Post immediately published a story denying the claim made by Fairfax, saying they investigated the claim when made but chose not to run the story because they could find no one to corroborate the allegations by the woman, but there was no corroboration of the denial of Fairfax either.

The Virginia scandal gets wilder!

If Governor Northam resigns and Lt. Governor Fairfax is forced to resign his office, who would then assume the spot as Virginia Governor? The line of succession names the state Attorney General to be next up. Attorney General Mark Herring, 57, who has expressed gubernatorial ambitions and called four days ago for Northam to resign, admitted in a statement he donned black face paint at a party in 1980 to impersonate a rapper.

How about all this for political drama!

So What is Happening?

On Fox News today, a panel of experts were discussing the debacle playing out in Virginia three-way scandal detailed above. In that panel discussion, the moderator asked this question, “Is blackface from 30-years ago really racist or is it just racially insensitivity?” Moderator Bill Hemmer asked the question in a discussion to determine what is actually racist.

Jessica Tarlov, Democrat Party operative, immediately replied to Hemmer’s question, saying, “Blackface is clearly racism and not simply racially insensitive.” Her statement opens Pandora’s box of Identity Politics, which Democrats have unilaterally commanded the control of.

How so? Tarlov said, “Blackface is CLEARLY racist.” She (Tarlov) obviously believes that is a fact. And she bases that “fact” on what? HER OPINION. Without really knowing that really is a fact, Tarlov assumed — at least in this conversation — she KNOWS what’s true regarding blackface and that everyone should simply accept her premise as fact, just because SHE said it. After all: she’s a Democrat Party operative. And the Democrat Party has total control over every aspect of Identity Politics.

Let’s discuss THEIR rules regarding racism. Oh, I forgot: there’s only ONE RULE. I researched for months to put together the Racism Rule Book. My staff spent several thousand research hours. And here’s what we came up with: There IS one! And everybody has a copy already. And the one I have is the only REAL one in existence.

Where did it come from? Who developed it? What are the rules? The easy answer to all of these questions: The Political Elites wrote the book, add to it and subtract from it all the racism rules they choose, and they edit at will any of those that remain.

Wait a minute: I’m not a Political Elitist. Do I have access to a copy of the book? Hmmm…. The answer to that question is pretty simple: you must find someone who self-identifies as being Politically Elite. And then you must ask them to authorize your receiving a copy of “The Book.” If they in their unilateral desire to do so, they can start the process of getting the book to you.

But it may take a while for you to receive it. Why is that?

Their editors are rewriting the book….today. And they’re rewriting the book….tomorrow. They NEVER STOP REWRITING THE BOOK! It’s in constant “development.” Why? The rules keep changing! And those Political Elitists are who have total control over the determination of what is and what is not racist.

Let’s look at two examples of Elitists prerogative at allowing some to commit blackface crime. We all know Jimmy Kimmel has become a nighttime darling of the Left. He can do NO wrong in their sight — not even racial wrong. If he slipped up and made a mistake in dealing with racial issues, he would automatically be forgiven simply because he’s an Elite himself. So if Kimmel does blackface, it’s OK. Like here, in blackface on the air making fun of a friend of mine: former NBA star from my university, Karl Malone.

But Kimmel is not the only Political Elite to get the blackface pass. How about the “other” acceptable nighttime comedian, Jimmy Fallon making fun of Chris Rock:

What the Heck Can Be Done to Stop This Insanity?

It’s got to stop. It’s not about blackface. It’s not about race. It’s about Political Superiority and those who use every gimmick possible against others for political advantage. Those Political Elites caught-up in this know without a doubt there was no racial intention on the part of the Virginia governor, the Virginia attorney general, Jimmy Fallon or Jimmy Kimmel. These were for humorous purposes only.

The sexual assault allegation against Lt. Governor Fairfax is of a different nature. However, even in that case, allegations are just that unless and until those are turned into facts, a prosecution in whatever way is appropriate should be withheld.

This practice of doing nothing more than shouting obscenities at each other, making outrageous claims of horrible things about others is quickly and dramatically ripping at the fabric of what America is all about: “Liberty and Justice for All.”  But that promise of justice is now being controlled by Political Elitists. And many of those are ruining the lives of Americans without even a hint of the OTHER promise of our founding fathers to us all: “we are all innocent until proven guilty.”

This story began with another story — one about Google Analytics. Yes, that was a made-up story. But are we not far from the possibility and even probability that story could be a true one? Is it too far-fetched to imagine a world where someone who simply makes an agreement with a company, a government, a political entity, or even a totalitarian tyrant to surreptitiously craft ways to undermine the lives of others using made-up stories to destroy those they hate, simply to destroy a foe without using basic decency and the truth?


What is the answer? Simple: Someone with credibility, integrity, and honesty to step up to the plate to knock this out of the park. This blackface argument has gone nuts. No matter if one is black or white, it is simply outrageous to allow a group of people to craft a racial rule that when used destroys the lives of others.

Who could that be? Who could step into the fray of all this and resolve it?

Some may laugh, but I think the obvious person to champion the battle regarding this “perceived” racism that really is not racism is Barack Obama. You may not have liked him. You may have disagreed with his politics and his methods. But one thing he did that really struck me as something only a true peacemaker in the U.S. racial devastation could pull-off. Did you know that President Obama gave the eulogy at the funeral of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd? Byrd was a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan — a true racist in every sense of the word.  But Byrd turned and walked away from the KKK and all it stood for. In the last half of his life, he committed to right the wrongs he had committed while not just a member, but when a leader in that racist organization that begat only hatred for minorities.

As a black man and leader, if President Obama would step onto the stage of Racial Reconciliation and use blackface as a tool to bring us together, I think it might work. Why not give it a try? Honestly, you surely agree that it cannot get much worse than it is today. And the way it is today is unsustainable. America is quickly losing its foundation on true equality and acceptance.

We can all take everything to the extreme. And we all do that at times. But in the America in which we live, we all need to instead of finding and highlighting the faults of others, and doing so for our own personal benefits, we should instead offer a hand of acceptance, a nod of understanding, and a willingness to find commonalities in which to work together as Americans for the common good of all Americans. That’s what we all really are. And in this writer’s opinion, that’s the only way we will ever truly again be “One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.”


“Experts Say”…Part II

Experts run roughshod throughout every department of the federal government. Anytime there’s a question about any issue — security, foreign policy, the economy, elections, border walls, you name it — there’s an expert somewhere who factually knows the answer to any question about any of these. Today we will look at a few of those, specifically U.S. Intelligence Agencies.

You may have noticed the heads of the leading U.S. Intelligence Agencies just testified before Congress about the current status of the U.S. regarding all intelligence matters domestically and around the World. Before we look at a few of their findings, let’s look at a few findings of previous intelligence officials — “experts” — and compare those to todays.

Intelligence Expert Findings

There’s no better place to start than with the President of the United States. Remember when then-candidate Trump was griping that Russians were influencing the 2016 election in favor of his opponent? Everyone in D.C. laughed at Trump about those allegations, even President Obama — so much so that he went to the press to denigrate Mr. Trump for claiming U.S. elections could possibly be rigged:

We all “know” that the Russians did everything they could to impact the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton and for her opponent: Donald Trump. After all, Vladimir Putin knew Russia would do better with his good buddy in the White House instead of that brazen bastion of truthfulness and justice as president — Hillary Clinton. After all, Trump promised in his campaign to take the U.S. back to its former prominence as having the strongest and most powerful military on Earth, to force Russia to get out of Ukraine, and to stay out of the Middle East. Hillary, on the other hand, had just supervised the sale of massive amounts of U.S. uranium to a Russian company owned by Russia and did so through a Canadian company to “launder” the transaction.

“Russia preferred Trump to Hillary.” Poppycock!”

In July of 2017, TruthNewsNetwork published a story about this very thing. Here’s just a portion of that story:

“There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections…There is no evidence that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time…So I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining.”Barack Obama, October 2016

One of two things is apparent: either Barack Obama ignored the “real” news he had received from the Intelligence Community two months before saying the above, or the “real” news was not real at all, but “fake news.” Stating either one of those two to be correct would be pure speculation on my part. But one thing is certain: RussiaGate is alive and kicking. Whether “real” or “fake,” it has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars as multiple investigations by Congress, the FBI, and now Special Counsel Robert Mueller are engaged and all aggressively pursuing any evidence of collusion by anyone affiliated with Donald Trump or even the President himself with the Russians.

I have asked this question before, but its significance bears its repeating: with the most elaborate, most well equipped, most proficient intelligence gathering capabilities on the face of the Earth, is it plausible to believe at this point almost a year into RussiaGate not a single shred of evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump Organization has been leaked to and/or unearthed by the Press? Certainly in this 24/7 news cycle in which we live (that has turned into the 24/7 “Leak” cycle), if there was any evidence of collusion, we would certainly know about it. Further, I hear every day this statement from multiple news sources: “Every Intelligence Agency has confirmed the Russians tried to hack the 2016 Presidential election.” THAT IS NOT TRUE! Even the NY Times corrected that fake story by stating that just 2 of the 16 intelligence agencies had participated in the preparation of a report that was then given to the Department of National Intelligence (DNI) about Russian hacking. Later it was revealed that 13 handpicked intelligence employees prepared that report. No big deal? Normally when such a report is prepared, several HUNDRED intelligence specialists are involved!

Even if their conclusion was legitimate and accurate, where is the evidence? When I ask that question to people in a position of authority, all I am told is that “the evidence of Russian election interference is classified since it’s part of an ongoing investigation.” Really? Are we expected to believe that ANY evidence at all of ANYTHING illegal in the political world of Washington D.C. can possibly remain secret — no matter if classified? Don’t tell the news media that — they’d go out business not having any “fake news” from “anonymous source leaks” to report.

Based on simple logic, I have over this past weekend — in the midst of numerous hours of exhaustive investigation looking for Russian election hacking evidence — made a blockbuster conclusion: there was NO Russian attempts to hack into the 2016 election that had not been attempted in previous American elections over and over again. And the Obama Administration knew about them for years and did nothing about them.

My conclusion about President Obama’s “expert” opinion? Either his experts were incorrect, politically motivated, or HE purposely misstated the truth. You decide.

The U.S. Intelligence: Past

It’s doubtful that few Americans (if any) feel really confident in the reliability and veracity of the intelligence that is given to us from the leadership of U.S. intelligence agencies. Through the last two years, time and time again we hear, see and read reports of leadership in the FBI, CIA, DNI, and NSA give Americans “expert” opinions based on information provided them that is always classified. It seems that when they couch that presentation with the term “classified,” we are intrigued to hear what they say — like it’s a secret that they shouldn’t tell us, but because we’re Americans they’ll push the envelope and go ahead and tell us.

Intelligence agency heads have been falling to the wayside during the Trump Administration.  These experts have been fired or forced to resign just from the FBI:

  1. James Comey, director (fired)
  2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
  3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
  4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
  5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
  6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
  7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
  8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
  9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
  10. Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

Then there are these from the Department of Justice (non-FBI):

  1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
  2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
  3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
  4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
  5. Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
  6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
  7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
  9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to the deputy attorney general (resigned)
  10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
  11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

And there are several others since these. I wonder why that is?

It seems that these experts have been caught up in some very nefarious activities. (In the written story on our website you can see the reason for these experts’ departures explained next to their names in the list)

The U.S. Intelligence: Today

Congress invited the current heads of U.S. intelligence agencies to sit and discuss the state of intelligence in today’s Trump Administration. In that meeting, various members of Congress asked those intelligence officials to respond to specific intelligence and foreign policy positions taken publicly by President Trump. (Remember: these folks are the bulwark of American Intelligence) The topics were Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Isis. (Note: pay close attention to their disagreement with the President almost across the board)

On Afghanistan

What Trump tweeted

“Negotiations are proceeding well in Afghanistan after 18 years of fighting. … Fighting continues but the people of Afghanistan want peace in this never ending war. We will soon see if talks will be successful.”

What Coats said

“We assess neither the Afghan government nor the Taliban will be able to gain a strategic advantage in the Afghan war in the coming war year, even if coalition support remains at current levels. However, current efforts to achieve an agreement with the Taliban and decisions on a possible withdrawal of U.S. troops could play a key role in shaping the direction of the country in the coming years.”

On Iran

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s Ministry of Defence has published a video purportedly showing the launch of a new cruise missile, saying it has a 1,350-kilometre (840-mile) range. In the 37-second video on the ministry website, the launch was shown from different angles with the projectile finally hitting somewhere in the desert. Iran has missile capability of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles), far enough to reach archenemy Israel and U.S. military bases in the region.

What Trump tweeted

“The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but … a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. Their economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

What King and Haspel said

King: “But since our departure from the deal they have abided by the terms.

Haspel: “Yes, they are making some preparations that would increase their ability to take a step back if they make that decision. So at the moment technically they are in compliance.

On North Korea

What Trump tweeted

“North Korea relationship is best it has ever been with the U.S. No testing, getting remains, hostages returned. Decent chance of Denuclearization. … Time will tell what will happen with North Korea, but at the end of the previous administration, the relationship was horrendous and very bad things were about to happen. Now a whole different story. I look forward to seeing Kim Jong Un shortly. Progress being made – a big difference!”

What Coats said

“Regarding North Korea, the regime has halted its provocative behavior related to its (weapons of mass destruction) program. North Korea has not conducted any nuclear-capable missile or nuclear tests in more than a year and it has dismantled some of its nuclear infrastructure. As well, Kim Jong Un continues to demonstrate openness to the denuclearization and of the Korean Peninsula.

“Having said that, we currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival. Our assessment is bolstered by our observations of some activity that is inconsistent with full denuclearization.

“While we assess that sanctions and exports have been effective and largely maintained, North Korea seeks to mitigate the effects of the U.S.-led pressure campaign through diplomatic engagement, counter pressure against the sanction’s regime, and direct sanctions evasion.”

On Isis

What Trump tweeted

“When I became President, ISIS was out of control in Syria & running rampant. Since then tremendous progress made, especially over the last 5 weeks. Caliphate will soon be destroyed, unthinkable two years ago.”

What Coats said

“While ISIS is nearing territorial defeat in Iraq and Syria, the group has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide. ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria. …

“While we have defeated the caliphate with a couple of little villages left, we should not underestimate the ability of terrorist groups, particularly ISIS and affiliated groups with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, that they are operating not simply on what takes place on the battlefield that gives them strength or weakness, but they are operating on the basis of a theocracy, a theology, an ideology that we will continue to see for perhaps years ahead in various places of the world. …

“ISIS will continue to be a threat to the United States, and we’re going to have to continue, as Director Haspel said, to keep our eyes on that and our interest in the realization that this terrorist threat is going to continue for some time.”


I would love for American intelligence to be motivated by just one thing: THE TRUTH. Unfortunately, it has become clearer and clearer that former and current intelligence agency heads are not necessarily driven by that one thing. In today’s Washington, it is apparent that much of what we see and hear is driven at least in part by political motivation.

Fired FBI Director James Comey illustrates how intelligence experts are polluted by political and personal agenda. Comey totally botched the email server investigation of Candidate Clinton, violated FBI and DOJ protocol in multiple ways, and then committed multiple felony violations of his OWN mishandling of classified information and documents.

John Brennan was caught lying under oath to Congress. James Clapper took the Steele Dossier to CNN (where he had just signed on as a “contributing expert” even though he knew its sourcing was funded in part by the Clinton Campaign and that most of it was unverified), and in doing so violated multiple regulations and DOJ operating procedures.

We could go on and on and on. But let’s just cap this off by making this position statement: Americans not only “Want” the best intelligence apparatus in the world, Americans “Deserve” the best intelligence apparatus in the world. And Americans no longer believe that we have that!

It’s because of a combination of things. But all of those “things” boil down to this: People. Intelligence operatives are people. And people are each different from other people. But in Washington D.C., we have  made it abundantly clear, the driving force of most there are power and all that power can bring to them personally.

No, everyone in intelligence is not dishonest, self-serving, and politically driven. But many are. And because of that, Congress and the White House are going to have to in unity re-create the way American Intelligence operates, and not from the top down. As this president has said over and over again, the workers in Intelligence are rock solid on the most part. The tragedy that strikes again and again always seems to originate at the top of each of these agencies: the “experts.” Many of those have been exposed and have been eliminated. But what remains in their wakes are all those processes that allowed them to weave their webs of deceit. Those must be eliminated.

So, President Trump, many Americans hope you have 6 years to correct these problems. But you may have just two more years to tackle them. I doubt I need to say this, but you just need to roll your sleeves up and get at it.

And one more thing: you have smartly from afar allowed Special Counsel Robert Mueller the distance and freedom to run his traps trying to trap you. That has been a great decision for you. I encourage you to let it play out. It is fairly obvious that he’s on a dead-end street. Let him crash.

Democrats will NEVER accept that he — an “expert” does not and will not find any collusion between your organization and Russia regarding the 2016 election. In their “looking,” his group is trying to create some process crimes with which they can charge those in your organization and possibly even you. Let them look. They’re only thinning your air and spending millions of OUR dollars in their doing so!

It’s worth it to us just to watch them continue to run in circles. That seems to be what today’s “experts” do!



“Experts Say….” Part I

What “Experts?”

We hear it every day: “Experts say……” I have stated again and again that I am going to start counting how many times each day I see or hear media reports that draw conclusions based on what “experts say.” This doesn’t come from just political issues, but every issue that is important to Americans: anything that the media covers.

Remember when news reports in print, television, and radio, “experts” really meant something? When reports quoted a president, a governor, a member of Congress or of the President’s cabinet, and listed that source as an “expert,” it meant something. Americans could put stock in the fact that whoever that expert was really knew something that the reader, listener or viewer was not privy to. Not so today.

What Are Experts? “One with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject”

Here’s what I wonder: why hasn’t someone in the media taken on that challenge that is front-and-center in most Americans’ minds today: WHO IS THE EXPERT? I promise you, there’s a juicy story there. For that reason, it is hard for this journalist to believe no other journalist has found it sufficient to justify a story.

That alone IS sufficient for a story — an investigative story. So you get one today with a follow-up Part II tomorrow!


They’re everywhere! Seldom do we read or hear a story in which that story itself gives credit to its credibility because of an “expert” who sourced the information in that story. But seldom does the story give the identity of that expert. I wonder why that is?

In no other setting has there been so many experts than in the area of border walls: what they specifically are, their cost, their feasibility on the World stage, their effectiveness in other places, their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness at the U.S. southern border, and the predictions of everything to do with them — all from “experts,” of course!

It’s strange to me that so many Wall experts could have such diverse opinions about the subject, especially since they’re all experts!

The other area in today’s America in which we find so many experts is in government Intelligence. Nearly any story written, seen or heard is sourced from an “expert.” Who are they? What are their credentials? Who tagged them as an “expert.”

We are going to do a two-part study of these “experts.” Today we will look at the experts regarding border walls. Then tomorrow we will introduce you to all those Intelligence experts that have shaped the foreign and domestic intelligence processes for the United States.

Let’s dig in.

Border Wall “Experts”

PENNSYLVANIA U.S. SENATOR BOB CASEY: “The president said he would be ‘proud’ to shut down the government and now he’s doing just that,” Casey’s statement read. “Instead of creating chaos, President Trump should support the bipartisan funding bill that the U.S. Senate passed unanimously. It provides over $1 billion for border security funding, but not a wall that security experts say won’t work.”

Becoming American Initiative “There’s not a crisis at the border,” said Jordan Bruneau, an expert senior policy analyst for the conservative-leaning Becoming American Initiative. “A border wall is a Band-Aid solution to the situation of illegal immigrants wanting to come to the country.”

HUFFINGTON POST “While Trump is characterizing the barrier as a non-negotiable tenet of border security, immigrant experts told HuffPost it’s an ineffective solution that will endanger migrant families. Advocates say the wall could force people to take dangerous journeys to cross the border or threaten parents and children’s health by making them languish in unsanitary shelters near ports of entry. Experts are especially concerned about the well-being of migrant kids after a boy and a girl recently died in Border Patrol custody. “Fortifying the border is just going to lead to more deaths,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who teaches a clinic for immigrant families. “[It’s] giving business to sophisticated smugglers who are going to be taking migrants through more perilous and life-threatening circumstances.”

BUSINESS INSIDER.comExperts say there is no crisis and that the problems that do exist at the border can’t be solved with a wall.”

VOX. “Trump’s statistics here are generally correct. But according to experts, he’s wrong that the wall would do much to stop the flow of illegal drugs.”

TIME Magazine: “But if he follows through on a threat to declare a national emergency in order to build a border wall, experts say he’s going to have to rely on facts and legal arguments.”

Polytechnic.org: “Most experts say that physical fencing would not drastically decrease the number of illegal immigrants entering the country.”

Cato Institute: Alex Nowrasteh, a senior expert analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute who has researched the issue, said that Trump was trying to whip up fear among Americans about a problem that has statistical significance. “They absolutely should not be as frightened as he thinks they should be,” he told INSIDER. Trump “beat to death the notion that immigrants are coming here to kill us, to murder us, to rape us, to rob from us,” Nowrasteh said. “And the evidence simply does not support that. It is untrue. It has been repeated ad nauseam. And I don’t think the American public believes it. Out of any large population like that, there’s going to be some bad apples, of course. And some immigrants have done horrible things and committed terrible crimes,” he said. “But that’s no reason to punish the immigrants who haven’t done anything. And when we take a look at the evidence, they are less likely to commit homicides, they are less likely to commit crimes, they are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.”

“Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work”

These Historians — “experts” — point to border wall failures, like Berlin, WW II in Germany, and the U.S. Southern border wall! Those historians did not mention any of the other 160 border walls standing now in countries around the world that are effectively deterring those whose border violations caused their building. Afghanistan is right now building a border wall with Pakistan that runs the entire length of their border — through mountains!

“Real Experts”

In the summary below, we’ll talk about the specifics of how the media use the term “Experts,” and why they do. But first, let’s look at some information delivered by “REAL” experts. Why are these “real experts?” Because they are named and they know what they’re talking about!

Israel and Hungary. As President Trump seeks to fulfill his promise to build a wall on the southern border, he is getting support from leaders in countries that have erected their own border barriers — and who hail those projects as critical to battling illegal immigration. Trump, too, has cited countries like Israel — which has a network of walls and fences on its borders — as proof that barriers work as he seeks to convince Congress to fund a wall or steel barrier to the tune of $5.7 billion.

Democrats in Congress have refused to entertain his proposal, calling a wall both “immoral” and ineffective, and only agreeing to $1.3 billion in more general border security funding. That led to a month-long shutdown, which temporarily ended last week. Funding is set to expire again on Feb. 15, and Trump has warned that he is prepared to declare a national emergency if no wall funding is agreed to. The president said Friday there’s a good chance he’ll take that step while saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “hurting this country so badly” with her stance on the wall.

But despite claims that such barriers are ineffective, in countries such as Israel and Hungary, top officials say they are a key mechanism in keeping a border secure and illegal migration flows down.

“Since we built a fence, and since the police and army have been there, we basically have no illegal migrants on the territory of the country,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told Fox News in an interview last week. “There are constant attempts to break through, but the infrastructure itself, namely the fence, and police and the army, make it impossible to get in. So that’s a success,” he said.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government built a wall in the West Bank as a counter-terrorism measure, as well as a “smart fence” on the southern border with Egypt — Israel’s longest border — to prevent migration from Africa. Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said that the border once had a “flimsy wire fence” that allowed smugglers and traffickers in the Sinai Peninsula to enter Israel, but that was changed in 2010. “From 2010-2013, we built a system of two layers of fencing, with advanced surveillance equipment,” he said. “And the results speak for themselves: border crossings dropped by over 99 percent, from 9,570 in the first half of 2012 to 34 in the first half of 2013.” Netanyahu has repeatedly hailed the success of the border. In 2017, he said, “President Trump is right.” Netanyahu continued, “I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea,” he tweeted.

Recently, responding to the viral 10-year challenge meme, he posted side-by-side pictures of the fence on the Egyptian border in 2009 and 2019.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said, “Look, we have a much shorter border than what you have with Mexico, of course. But without the fence it would be impossible to protect almost 500 kilometers of land border,” he said. “It would be impossible because otherwise how would you make it? So if you don’t have a physical infrastructure you cannot seal off the green border.”

He also dismissed the difference between a fence and a wall as a “technical question.” “It’s an infrastructure which physically makes it impossible for people to cross,” he said.

THE TEXAS TRIBUNE. But if the wall comes, will it help stop the drug smugglers the president says are pouring into the country virtually unfettered? Manuel Padilla says it will. Padilla, chief of the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector, which stretches for 320 river miles from the Gulf of Mexico to Falcon Lake, says the Valley has become smugglers’ favorite crossing point in part because it still lacks the barriers erected at one-time hot spots like San Diego and El Paso. “If you look at the technology and infrastructure … this is the only place where you do not have it at those levels,” he added. “Really, this is the last stand.”

NBC NEWS. “When President Trump argues that the United States needs a wall along the southern border, he likes to point to San Diego’s success. There, double and triple barriers fortify the westernmost stretch of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border as U.S. Border Patrol agents drive SUVs along frontage roads and hover overhead in helicopters. The militarized border touching the communities of Imperial Beach, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa contributed to a 75 percent decline in crossings in the years immediately after fencing was installed in the 1990s, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

BORDER PATROL OFFICIALS. “National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd, who served as a Border Patrol agent for 21 years. He stressed how important physical barriers are on the border. “I can personally tell you, from the work that I have done on the southwest border, that physical barriers, that walls actually work,” Judd said. “You hear a lot of talk that there are experts that say that walls don’t work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work. I worked in Naco, Arizona, for 10 years. We didn’t have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration and drug smuggling were absolutely out of control. We built those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially. Anywhere that you look, where we have built walls, they have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for Border Patrol agents in securing the border,” he said.

“We need those physical barriers, and we appreciate President Trump and all of his efforts in getting us those physical barriers. There’s also a lot of talk on this shutdown, that federal employees do not agree with the shutdown. I will tell you that’s not true,” Judd said.

Art Del Cueto, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, also a longtime Border Patrol agent out of the Tucson Sector, said he and his colleagues are all affected by the shutdown and they fully support the president and all his efforts to secure the nation’s borders.

“We have skin in the game. However, it comes down to border security, and we are extremely grateful to President Trump, and we fully support what he is doing to take care of our nation’s borders, to take care of the future of this United States. It has nothing to do with political parties,” he said. Cueto said, “You all got to ask yourself this question: If I come to your home, do you want me to knock on the front door, or do you want me to climb through that window?”

NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL. Hector Garza, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, who is also a Border Patrol agent on the Texas border, thanked Trump for advocating for Border Patrol agents and called on Congress to fund border security and the wall. “I just want to talk about some of those criminals that Border Patrol agents apprehend on a daily basis. We’re talking about murderers, rapists, people that commit very serious crimes in this country. ICE has been doing an amazing job in deporting a lot of these people back to their countries,” Garza said. “Unfortunately, once we deport these people, these people will not stay in their country. These criminal aliens that have been released from jail, that have been deported, will come right back into the United States. However, if we had a physical barrier, if we had a wall, we would be able to stop that,” he said.


Let’s face it: most of the Border Wall “experts” are not experts about anything! They are simply political pundits who have a pre-determined political agenda they wish to give credence to by referencing themselves or others as experts.”

And let’s be totally honest: most of the “experts” quoted in the media are fake! When confronted for the identities of those “experts,” IF the media will identify them, (which is seldom) it is discovered they are not in any way an “expert.” Then to make matters worse, when someone is quoted in one media as being an “expert,” other media sources pick up on that and report in THEIR story, saying “Experts say……..” And the expert they reference is simply the other media outlet quoting their sham expert!

Fellow Americans, it is time for all of us to force a stop to the gross misrepresentation by Democrat controlled media. We need to demand ALL media outlets stop “telling” us their source is an “expert.” GIVE US THE NAME OF THE SOURCE OR SOURCES AND LET US VERIFY TO OUR OWN SATISFACTION THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS FACT OR FICTION! It’s a simple task: just give us the expert’s name. In each story where you reveal the expert, do so with a link to the expert’s biography so those who care about expert verification can do a little research.

“Research and Investigation.” Gee: isn’t that a novel idea!

Tomorrow it gets really dicey here as we tackle another modern-day disinformation debacle: the Intelligence Agencies. You don’t want to miss as TruthNewsNetwork calls them out with FACTS!


The National Emergency Act

It’s time to stop kidding ourselves: rank-and-file Democrats in Congress in large part “individually” feel physical barriers are needed across our southern border. It’s Democrat Congressional leaders who have made the decision to in no way allow through Congressional action the funding of a border wall. Why do you think they call it “Donald Trump’s wall?”

In their doing so, they are showing Americans that they really DON’T support border security in any way. Besides the stories documented and shared previously on TruthNewsNetwork, Democrat leaders stoically cling to their unwillingness to protect Americans from foreign intruders. Without real security and commitment to stop the horrors caused by millions of pounds of illegal drugs flooding across the border, the unknown numbers of unwanted criminals from Mexico and Central American countries that have already committed hundreds of thousands of criminal acts against legal Americans, and the hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to support illegals who are draining U.S. infrastructure, all of these atrocities will simply continue. 

Democrat leaders look at this international disaster myopically: they only see it in one way. Allowing the continued flow of illegals into our country perpetuates the life of the Democrat Party by bringing obligated “potential” Democrat voters into the U.S. Secondly, (and likely just as important as getting “new” voters in) keeping wall/barrier funding away from Donald Trump fulfills a campaign promise Dems made to their hard-left “constituents.” Their excuse? Trump wants it only because HE beat the “border wall drum” continuously during HIS presidential campaign. Many say it was the chief reason for which they voted from Trump.

This bi-partisan committee named to sit down and work out a southern border protection policy suitable to both parties has been revealed to be nothing but a sham. Even knowing the February 15th deadline to reach a negotiated agreement, this “Superstar” committee has met just one time. The bottom line: PELOSI AND SCHUMER HAVE NO INTENTION TO PUT EVEN ONE DOLLAR ON THE TABLE FOR SUCH A WALL OR STEEL BARRIER. They are perfectly comfortable to maintain the status quo on the border while untold thousands of innocents are summarily being brutalized at the hand of the criminal element numbered among the illegals. For Dems, this issue is certainly not about the safety of Americans. It is about one thing only: PREVENT PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING ANY BORDER WALL OR FENCING WITH CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING…PERIOD.

Politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — forget about the ability to recall promises made and promises broken: like Pelosi on negotiating with the President if he reopened the government.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she would not negotiate on funding for the southern border wall, going back on her promise to negotiate with President Donald Trump if he agreed to end the partial government shutdown.

“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi told reporters on Jan. 31, reported The Associated Press.

Democrats for decades have cried loudly for the critical nature of and the People’s mandate to stop illegal immigration and Democrats wholehearted support for stopping illegals from getting in. Yet today, those same Dems cry just as loudly that building the same wall/barrier they previously were all-in for is immoral, wasteful, ineffective, unnecessary, and too costly.


Look and listen for yourself:

What Do We Do: Declare a National Emergency?

Some scholars of presidential emergency powers say there is next to nothing, at least procedurally, that Capitol Hill could do to stop Trump from exercising what lawmakers of all stripes agree is his right to declare a national emergency.

“Congress chose not to put any substantial — or really any — barriers on the president’s ability to declare a national emergency,” says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.

“So if he can really just sign his name to a piece of paper, whether it is a real emergency or not,” she adds, “that creates a state of emergency that gives him access to these special powers that are contained in more than 100 different provisions of law that Congress has passed over the years.”

Trump has already invoked national emergency powers on three occasions, adding to the 28 earlier national emergency measures that remain in effect.

Almost all of them, including those signed by Trump, was invoked to freeze foreign nationals’ assets in the U.S. The longest-standing decree dates to November 1979, when President Jimmy Carter froze Iran’s U.S.-held assets.

It requires not only that the president formally declares a national emergency but also that he or she cite the specific statutory authority the president sought to use. An emergency declaration would lapse after one year unless formally renewed by the president.

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

“The way that Congress set it up,” says Vladeck, “was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president’s approval.”

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress’ response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

“Congress has never voted once in the last 40 years — since the National Emergencies Act has been in effect — to terminate a state of emergency,” says Goitein. “At no point either before the court’s decision or after has Congress ever attempted to exercise this check.”

That may be, at least in part, because lawmakers trusted the National Emergencies Act was being invoked in good faith. “The assumption is that presidents are going to be relatively responsible in using those authorities and resources,” says UT’s Vladeck, “and are not going to just create some kind of pretext to allow them to go through a back door when Congress is denying them the front door.”


Is it any wonder that the favorability rating by Americans of members of Congress for years has hovered around high single digits? One would think that if our elected representatives really cared about the public’s collective and individual opinions about their job performance, we’d do something about it. We really DO care, and we have only sparingly done something about it at the voting booth. Yet term after term, Americans send those U.S. Senators and House Representatives back to D.C. to keep on doing the same old things. In a way, this mess in D.C. (and their 7-10% favorability rating) is OUR fault: we keep voting them back into office!

They are not stupid: they read voter support and re-election of Congressional representatives and approval for what they do while there. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Here is the truth of the matter: Americans have become too busy, too preoccupied, too caught-up in “instant everything” to even notice. The internet, social media, instant this and instant that have created a generation of “Instant-everything” Americans.

The current generation literally wants NO responsibility, NO accountability, and NO commitments. Those apply to home and auto ownership, job titles and management slots because of personal and employee accountability and pressure required to be successful. And personal and social relationship commitments are long ago out the window.

“I want a great job with great pay, lots of paid-time-off, all-in job retirement benefits paid 100% by the employer, and nothing more than 9-5 work hours Monday through Friday, and certainly NO weekend commitments.”

How about “knowledge?”

They’re not interested in reading, investigating, time obligations and financial commitments are necessary to obtain knowledge. And if it’s not on the front page of their favorite internet news channel, Twitter, Instagram, or Snap Chat, forget about it! It ain’t happening.

All that is scary. But here’s the tragedy: Washington D.C. and its minions KNOW all this. It’s what perpetuates their consuming power for their own personal benefit at American taxpayer expense that comes with NO ACCOUNTABILITY! Voters just keep sending them back to D.C. to do the same selfish acts again and again — WITH NO PRICE TO PAY FOR THEIR SELFISH ACTS.

The irony of this is the “new” leftists in the Democrat Party have beat the Socialist drum louder and louder. “We want to make American government Socialist. Capitalism is evil. Capitalists are tools of Satan. We want to be like European and South American nations!”

And not one can tell you anything about the horrors Socialism wreaked on every one of those nations. Venezuela — once one of the richest countries on Earth because of its oil holdings — cannot even provide toilet paper to their citizens who have on average lost 30 pounds during the last year because of the unavailability to basic food.

The Democrat leftists want open borders, “Just like Europe.” They don’t read and their favorite leftist media site does not carry the true stories of immigrant horrors in those European countries — countries who all are currently desperately trying to find ways to not just stop further immigration, but to RETURN THOSE IMMIGRANTS TO THE COUNTRIES FROM WHICH THEY CAME! Rape, break-ins, murders, theft, armed robberies, assault of every type, are saturating European countries like The Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland.

In the cases of these Leftists in America: “Ignorance is Bliss.” At least that’s what Democrat Party leaders promote so as to maintain their political might and power over these mind-numbed robots that refuse to find and embrace real truths.

I’ll close with this: the current U.S. President is terrifying to Democrat Party leaders and Establishment Republicans alike. Why? Because he refuses to play the political games as planned by those in both parties. He is unpredictable, totally driven by his commitments to Americans, and, most scary, he is undeterred by the constant threats from the left. They are not accustomed to someone in power from the opposite power not caving and not afraid. They have met their match in Donald Trump.

Let me put it simply and cut to the chase: Regardless of how dishonest, uncaring, politically deliberate and mean Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are, they have met their match.

With or without a declaration of a National Emergency, Donald Trump WILL build a southern border wall. It may be steel, it may be concrete, but probably both together. But you know what the REAL victory will be? Not that in doing so he wins a battle with the opposition. The only victory that matters is that for the American people: stopping illegal immigration and all that comes with it.

Isn’t that what we vote for and send people to Washington to do? Why should anyone be surprised when someone in D.C. actually does what they promised to do?