How Much Hatred Does the NY TIMES Have For Trump? A Bunch!

So much so that their leading columnist — David Leonhardt — wrote an actual article purportedly that was published the day AFTER Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to Elizabeth Warren!

I’m not kidding folks. “Trump Derangement” of which the world has heard incessantly manifested from the entire journalist staff at the New York Times for 2.5 years is now planning — and apparently even dreaming about — what THEY can write to gleefully report details of the Trump defeat. There’s no better way to prove just how much they hate this president than to publish the Leonhardt “fake” story for you right now!

Get ready…you’re going to love this!

“How Trump Lost the 2020 Election”

NYTimes David Leonhardt

In the end, it was a lot simpler than it often seemed.

Donald J. Trump, who spent much of the past four years as a historically unpopular president, lost his bid for re-election Tuesday. His approval rating hasn’t approached 50 percent since he took office, and neither did his share of the vote this year.

In an era of deep national anxiety — with stagnant wages, rickety health insurance and aggressive challenges from China and Russia — voters punished an incumbent president who failed on his central promise: “I alone can fix it.”

Since he rode down the Trump Tower escalator to announce his candidacy five years ago, Trump has frequently looked like a man for whom the normal rules of politics did not apply. He won a shocking upset in 2016, which lent him an aura of invincibility. Pundits started to doubt much of what they had previously believed.

But as Trump seethed — and tweeted — in defeat late Tuesday and President-elect Elizabeth Warren celebrated, the arc of the Trump story is starting to make more sense than it has for much of his chaotic presidency: The normal rules of politics do apply to Donald Trump, after all.

Four years ago, he became the fifth man to win the presidency while losing the popular vote. Now he becomes the fourth of those five — along with John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Benjamin Harrison — to serve only a single term and to be unpopular during most of it. The exception is George W. Bush, who benefited from being a wartime president.

In hindsight, the extraordinary nature of the circumstances that propelled Trump in 2016 has become obvious: the unpopularity of his opponent, Hillary Clinton; the help from Russia; the late involvement of James Comey, the then-F.B.I. director who now hosts an ABC talk show; and Trump’s razor-thin victories in several states. Without that good fortune this year, Trump still won roughly 90 percent of self-identified Republicans and Republican-leaning voters. Yet it was not nearly enough.

“Trump said he was going to fix things, and he didn’t,” said Kevin O’Reilly, 54, of Manchester, N.H., who voted for Barack Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016 and Warren this year. “I don’t think he really cares about the middle class. He cares about himself.”

Exit polls showed disillusionment across the swing states that Trump won four years ago and lost this year, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In a sign of the country’s changing political map, he held on to Ohio and Iowa, two relatively old and white states — but became the first Republican since 1992 to lose Georgia.

Huge margins among women were central to the victory of Warren, who will become the country’s first female president. “I’m just tired of him,” said Jennifer Diaz, a 47-year-old from Cobb County, Ga., outside Atlanta.

Heading into the campaign, Trump’s advisers believed they had two major advantages: the economic growth of the past four years and the undeniable liberalism of Warren and her running mate, former Attorney General Eric Holder. Neither panned out as the Trump campaign had hoped.
For one thing, solid G.D.P. growth — similar to the rate during Obama’s second term — has not translated into middle-class income gains. Average income growth, post-inflation, has hovered near zero since early 2018.

(In August, Trump became the first president since Richard Nixon to force out the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, accusing the agency of releasing “fake news” on wages. Outside economists said the charge was false.)

Warren’s liberalism, meanwhile, did make some voters anxious, exit polls showed. But most swing voters do not follow the minutiae of policy debates, and many simply decided that she understood their problems better than Trump. She and Holder consciously borrowed from the populist strategy of Obama’s 2012 campaign against Mitt Romney. Rather than emphasize Trump’s personal behavior, as the 2016 Clinton campaign did, they cast him as a greedy billionaire who corruptly used the presidency to enrich himself further. They also largely ignored Trump’s repeated criticisms of the ongoing N.F.L. national anthem protests.

The Democrats paired their message with broadly popular economic proposals: tax increases on the rich, expanded Medicare and childcare, free community college and — highlighting an unfulfilled Trump promise — an infrastructure program. Budget watchdogs said the Warren agenda would increase the deficit. Many voters, evidently, did not care.

A final vote tally will not be available for weeks, but The New York Times’s “election needle” currently projects Trump to win 46.1 percent of the popular vote. If that holds, it would be nearly identical to his share in 2016. This year, however, third-party candidates won fewer votes, and Warren is on pace to clear 50 percent.

From the start of Trump’s meteoric political career to the end, he never enjoyed the support of most Americans.


Can you believe that a journalist at one of the nation’s largest and most reputable newspapers would be so ditsy as to create a story — a column — celebrating a Donald Trump loss in 2020 at the hands of Elizabeth Warren! This speaks a lot to just how much hate and anguish there is from the Left for this Donald Trump presidency.

I have mentioned numerous times how distasteful the columns written by David Leonhardt of the New York Time are. Now you can see for yourself how lost this guy is. He hates the President so much that he meticulously created and shared every detail of Warren’s “dream” victory in the upcoming general election!

But, after all, very few these days consider the New York Times a premier newspaper. It and its buddy-paper in D.C., The Washington Post, have long been in the tank for Democrats and abandoned real journalism years ago. I thought the Britts had mastered the rights to and therefore had a monopoly on tabloid journalism. But I guess Leonhardt and the Times negotiated a license to denigrate real news just as the Britts have done for years.

One thing is for sure: I doubt President Trump will lose that election. But even if he does, it certainly will not be to the Native American wannabe Elizabeth Warren. That would certainly not be a dream — it’d be a nightmare!


The Ideology of Racism

There certainly is real Racism in the World. Everywhere we look we see and hear someone using the term “Racism.” It’s used so often that most Americans have actually become numb to it. But we shouldn’t: the word represents the worst kinds of hatred formed in the hearts and minds of people — “some” people. Most of those who so loosely sling the word about do so to demean whoever is their target. Sometimes it fits, but most often it is nothing more than name-calling. It’s similar to that schoolyard bully most knew in elementary school who tried to bully everyone by calling them names.

Sadly, it seems that some Americans in our politics have created a new ideological political system — and a new theoretical political party. They do so by bullying those with whom they disagree putting those people in that party. It’s called “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

What Is It?

Let’s start with a foundational understanding. Members of this ideology or party are forced there by others based not on facts but on assumptions. For the most part, they are NOT Racists acting out Racism. The racist tag is assigned to them solely for political purposes. And, sadly, that label often sticks. It’s important to remember this: Just because someone thinks someone IS a racist does not mean that person really IS a racist.

Racism comes directly from a person’s heart. Few if any know what’s in another’s heart. But that doesn’t stop those from assuming things about others to put people in a group: something like Hillary did with her basket of “deplorables.”

Let’s start with the real definition of racism:

  1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race;
  2. a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles;
  3. a political or social system founded on racism.

Keeping these three definitions of racism in mind, watch and listen closely to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) speaking at a recent press conference. Notice her calling the President “racist” and that he practices “racism,” putting her use of those words in the context of what racism by definition actually is:

At the core of Rep. Omar’s retaliatory attack on President Trump is her allegation that President Trump is racist and promotes racism. Specifically, she does so as a response to three tweets from the President published last week in which he spoke of Rep. Omar (D-MN), Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rep. Tlaib (D-MI) regarding their disdain and perceived hatred for the United States and our country’s values. The three Representatives along with Rep. Pressley (D-MA) set the world on fire with outrage over his tweets. Thus, their unanimous cries of his racism.

Let’s look at his tweets. Here are the three rolled into one paragraph:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

Since those Congresswomen have taken this matter to the world wrapped in the certainty that Donald Trump is a racist and practices continuous racism while serving as U.S. President, let’s identify the racism in these tweets for which the U.S. Congress under the guidance of Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed a reprimand for racism against President Trump. Let’s look specifically at his racist remarks contained in those tweets. Here they are:

There aren’t any!

Of the three definitions from Websters for racism (all listed above) NONE of the President’s tweets contain any measure or even a hint of racism and are certainly not racist in their verbiage or certainly not even in their tone.

This is an example of just how Leftists have commandeered and taken ownership of the use of the two words “racism” and “racist.” The expectation of the Left, led by the communications arm of the Democrat Party — the American media — is that whoever any of their members determines and labels as a racist is automatically assumed by all as a member of the “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

Who decides? The Rules of Racism are controlled solely by the Left as is the determination of exactly who is a member of “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

So who are the members of the Ideological Racism Party? Whoever the Left names no matter who they label. And there’s no rhyme or understandable meaning they use to determine membership.

Example: Former Congressman Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the 1940s recruited 150 of his close friends to start with him a Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia. He never formally renounced his affiliation with the KKK or his membership in the Klan. Yet even at his death, he was the darling of Democrats in the House, the Senate, and even President Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton in her eulogy of Byrd at his funeral declared “He was my mentor.” Yet, Robert Byrd was NOT a member of the “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).” Why not? Because Democrat Party leaders did not choose for him to be enrolled! According to THEIR rule at the time, he was not qualified as being racist.

How It’s Happening

There IS a purpose for the frivolous use by the media of the term “racism.” I’m not certain who in the media developed the idea of its continual use in labeling any conservative in politics. But whoever did so had a specific purpose in mind. And that purpose certainly has been fulfilled.

Its use in the news is specifically to denigrate the person or group it targets in the minds of the reader, listener, or viewer of that story. THEY created that ideological party. THEY with their magical power to do so can cast anyone with whom they disagree into it.

You have certainly heard left-leaning politicians use of the term “dog whistle” accusing conservatives for using it. Actually, when used by the media, the words “racism” and “racist” are THE dog whistles of the Left to formally announce attacks on conservatives who they have thrown into “The Racism Ideology Party (RIP).”

Proof of Their Ownership

It seems today than anyone who is bold enough to stand on a national stage or has a large audience of followers and calls-out someone Democrats despise as a racist is automatically qualified to do so, just because they did! Take for example the fourth member of that group from Congress that has been named “The Squad,” Ayanna Pressley. Watch and listen to her do exactly that:

 “We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”

Are her statements in which SHE labels those with brown or black faces, Muslims and queers (her word, not mine) OK? She qualifies her allegations by saying “IF” they do not agree with the Leftist propaganda policies of the day, they are less worthy than those in HER group who think like HER, who believe like HER less than she and those who feel the same as she feels.

What a paradox. These Leftists are destroying the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution with their cries against fellow Americans. They are smarter than others, better than others, more in tune with what things are important than are others, and therefore are more honorable and more worthy to lead the nation than others.


Do you know the real reason for the use of the allegation of Racism 99% of the time it is used? It is simply a deferral — a deferral of a conversation in which people honestly and objectively could discuss and explain their differences about specific policies which impact different groups in different ways. Calling someone a racist is a copout. It’s too much work to consider other’s ideas, so they’ll just stick to their own!

Here’s the thought process:

“I don’t want to take the time to try to convince him or her that their opinions of me, my capabilities, and my intentions are accurate. I don’t want to take the time to explain what my capabilities and intentions are. They are not worthy of the effort for me to do so. Also, I’m afraid that if I DO explain to them and they counter with an opinion that rings true and mine is not true. I will not allow that to happen. So I’ll just shut them up by telling everyone they are a racist. They can say NOTHING then!”

For conservatives who see and hear this anger and vitriol flooding the news, don’t worry or fret. I’ll say this again: Americans are NOT stupid. Americans in the districts of these four Congresswomen are seeing and hearing what they are saying. And voters also see and know personally the personal results of President Trump’s actions in governing the first 2.5 years of his presidency. The 2020 election will show the determination in the minds of voters who IS racist and practices Racism and who is NOT racist and who does NOT practice racism. Those Americans will vote based on their knowledge. Political rancor and the creation of the “Racism Ideological Party (RIP)” in which to throw those with whom some disagree will NOT distract knowledgable voters.

Here’s the bottom line: even with all the distractions, anger, and vitriol thrown the President’s way and watched by Americans all over the nation, voters in 2020 will return Donald Trump to the White House.

And at least a couple of the members of The Squad will be sent packing by their constituents.


Illegal Immigrants’ REAL Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted long ago that those from outside the U.S. who are NOT U.S. citizens when stepping foot on U.S. soil are given the rights of all U.S. citizens “under the Law.” This includes all those illegal immigrants who sneak into the country through our southern border. If you’ve ever wondered what is their reasoning for sneaking in and taking such great risk in doing so, now you know. Once here, the path to citizenship is not nearly so simple nor easy. It takes a long time and it’s intense. Americans are comfortable that it should take a long time and should be intense. After all, these immigrants are all desirous of living in the greatest country on Earth. And “anything worth having is worth hurting for.” (a country song was written by my brother)

Sadly though, most of these illegals that find there way into the United States have no desire to emigrate to America legally — this in spite of the fact that one million come to the U.S. legally each year. They are actually enticed to come to the U.S. outside of the legal process to do so! There are Mexican cartels very willing to accommodate their travels and sneak them into the U.S., though at a hefty price. And then there are those in Washington who are willing to do just about anything to facilitate their easy entry and permanent status when arriving.

“Round Them Up”

President Trump promised in his 2016 campaign when elected he would fix the illegal immigration problem in America. But his hands are tied. Congress makes all the laws. Even a President cannot do that. He can (and does) issue executive orders, which every president in history has done, but they are not comprehensive and as enforceable as laws. And Congress simply refuses to pass new or repair OLD immigration laws sufficient to stop the flood of illegals into the South.

For two weeks President Trump has publicly warned that ICE agents would be canvassing several large U.S. cities to find and arrest illegals who have had deportation orders issued by an immigration court and have ignored those orders to remain in the U.S. illegally. When the news came out, Democrats went stark raving crazy! The Leftist mantra damning this president skyrocketed. You have certainly read and seen the media pundits going after Trump for doing this. And they ALL ignore one fact — and the MOST important fact of this immigration situation: THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!

But that makes no difference to elitists.

A few heavyweights have even got into the fray regarding these Trump/ICE roundups:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) each gave detailed instructions to illegals in the U.S. on how to avoid deportation. This was a direct result of pending ICE roundups of illegals who have defied deportation orders from immigration judges and have remained illegally in the U.S. Pelosi said this, “If agents come to your house with an ICE immigration warrant, you do not have to answer the door. They cannot search your home without a judicial warrant signed by a judge authorizing a search.” AOC stated the exact same thing. Even Hillary Clinton weighed in with similar advice on Twitter: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in on Twitter, urging people to share Spanish-language guidelines such as ‘toma fotos y videos’ – meaning take photos and videos. ‘Por favor comparte,’ Clinton wrote, or please share.”

Please keep in mind the following: two of these are currently serving members of Congress one of whom is the Speaker of the House and one was a U.S. Senator and a candidate for the U.S. presidency. And they are advising non-citizens on how to circumvent the law!

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

All three took the above oath of office with one hand on a Bible and the other in the air to affirm their sworn oath to the Nation. Is it not something of a paradox that all three are instructing illegals how to evade U.S. immigration law — a law that was passed by the United States Congress?

Some will say that all of those illegals these three are speaking to are NOT criminals — they just came here illegally. Saying that is absolutely wrong. Regardless of what has been said in national media reports, those who are being sought in these ICE processes are not just illegals who recently crossed over our border. The Trump Administration is going after illegals who came to the United States and were detained, were then found by a court of law to have committed some offense that warrants deportation. They have each been through that entire process — including appeals for immigration court findings against them — and have been ordered by the court to be deported! These are NOT innocent immigrants as Pelosi, Cortez, and Clinton want Americans to believe. These are those who U.S. courts have given the full remedies of U.S. law to prove the innocence of charges made against them and have been adjudicated to be guilty and sentenced to deportation.

How Should Illegals Seek Assylum the Right and Legal Way?

U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).
There is a common misconception that U.S. embassies and consulates are basically the same as U.S. soil. It is true that international law protects national embassies and consulates from being destroyed, entered, or searched (without permission) by the government of the country where they are located (the host country). However, this does not give those embassies or consulates the full status of being part of their home nation’s territory. Therefore, U.S. law does not consider asylum seekers at U.S. embassies and consulates to be “physically present in the United States” (or at a U.S. border or point of entry).
However, this does not mean that embassy personnel cannot offer any help at all to people who are in danger and seek their protection. In extreme or exceptional circumstances, U.S. embassies and consulates may offer alternative forms of protection, including (in most countries) temporary refuge, a referral to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or a request for parole to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

A foreign national who seeks asylum in the United States may do so either affirmatively or defensively. An affirmative asylum seeker is physically present in the United States. This person must apply for asylum within one year of his arrival in the United States. He may be undocumented, living in the United States without status, or may have entered the U.S. on a visa which will soon expire.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services reviews affirmative asylum claims through a non-adversarial interview with an asylum officer at one of eight offices nationwide. The affirmative asylum seeker requests asylum by completing an I-589 Application, which asks for personal information about the seeker and her family and for the grounds of asylum, whether she has ever experienced “harm or mistreatment or threats,” whether she “fears harm or mistreatment” if forced to return home, whether she’s been imprisoned or detained in countries outside of the United States and other questions. By answering these questions, the asylum seeker can demonstrate that she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in the immigration laws.
After interviewing the applicant, the asylum officer may grant the asylum status or refer the applicant to immigration court for removal proceedings, where she may pursue the application for asylum before an immigration judge.
A defensive asylum applicant is a person who is apprehended after entering the United States at a border and applies for asylum while the threat of removal by the Department of Homeland Security looms. An applicant must be in removal proceedings in immigration court to request asylum in this manner. The application is the same, but the asylum seeker must file his application with the immigration court with jurisdiction over the applicant’s case. The applicant must show that persecution is more probable than not if he is forced to return home.
What does an asylum seeker have to prove?
Those seeking asylum must prove that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum, having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.
Though the first three bases are self-explanatory, persecution due to political opinion and membership in a social group are less clear. Persecution based on political opinion means that the asylum seeker holds political views that his homeland’s government doesn’t tolerate. An asylum seeker must provide evidence that his expressed political views have opposed those of his government. He can achieve this by providing evidence of speaking publicly in opposition to the government, publishing opposition literature, taking part in political activities on an opposing side, or joining an opposition political party.
Persecution due to membership in a social group is even more difficult to define and prove. Judges and asylum officers analyzing social group-based claims play close attention to societal perceptions of the group to which the asylum seeker belongs. As such, the social group can vary in definition and interpretation. In one case, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a particular social group as “a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.”Additionally, the group must be “particular” and “socially distinct.”

The Four “HorseWOMEN” of the Apocalypse

There will be some who term me as a racist or sexist for referring to Rep. Ilan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Rashid Tlaib (D-MI), and Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-MA) as the “Four HorseWOMEN of the Apocalypse” that comes from the book of Revelation in the Bible. My doing so is neither racist nor sexist for those Bible character’s sex is unknown. The point is, whenever these four appear before a crowd with microphones, it seems they are there to discuss only gloom and doom — very similar to an apocalypse.

After the weekend tweets about them from President Trump, in their responses on Monday, it is apparent those on the Left to whom these four speak support those untrue characterizations of the President, his policies, but more importantly, they support the ignoring of the Rule of Law. Their speeches and attacks on the President are NOT to inform the public but to spread a political ideology that is NOT truthful. There is NO mass incarceration at the southern border. There is NO unilateral action being taken by Border Patrol agents regarding detainees or their incarceration. Border Patrol and ICE agents are simply enforcing United States law.

Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, AOC, Tliab, Omar, and Presley each not only support law-breaking, but they also stomp on the U.S. Constitution, the Rule of Law and the rights of every American who look-on as Democrats in Congress refuse to honor their Oaths of Office while aiding those who systematically break the law daily.

They ignore the fundamentals of America, though they each muttered a few sentences from the Constitution while ignoring THE principles upon which this nation was founded and the most important characteristic of this nation that led them here: “The Rule of Law.” None even mentioned the truth about those being deported. Is that surprising to you?

It’s also fair to mention that as they railed against the Trump Administration for “inhumane conditions for immigrants at the southern border while keeping children in cages,” they forgot to mention THEY WERE THE ONLY 4 DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED “NO” FOR THE $4.4 BILLION BILL CONGRESS PASSED LAST WEEK TO FINALLY GIVE BORDER PATROL AND ICE THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO BUY BEDDING, FOOD AND CLOTHING, MEDICAL CARE, AND TO ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR ILLEGALS WHILE THEY ARE PROCESSED.

Talk about hypocrisy!

Yes, sadly there are those who hang on their every word. After all, in this social media America, many get their news ONLY from social media and scarcely seek facts on their own.

Sadly, it doesn’t get much better looking around either of the Democrat Party debate stages: all the 2020 candidates seem to be of the same ilk. When asked who among them supports doing away with criminal charges for those illegals who cross into the U.S., all but one raised a hand.

In closing, remember this: without borders, there is NO nation. And a nation without laws and laws that are enforced, those nations become banana republics with mob rule: sort of like Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and even Mexico to some extent.



Who Is Going to be the 2020 Presidential Democrat Nominee? Part II

In Part I of this story we eliminated most of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates and revealed who we think will represent Democrats in the 2020 race for President: Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). I probably don’t need to say this, but I will: we don’t “know” she will be the pick. But based on our investigations of her personally, her political and private records, and her actions in her campaigning so far and the public’s reception of her and her ideals, she seems to be the cookie-cutter perfect choice for Democrats.

None of what we do here will be politically partisan. All know that TruthNewsNetwork is NOT representative of the Republican Party. I am NOT a registered Republican. Both TruthNewsNetwork collectively and I personally am conservative. Our representations in our writings and podcasts show that political perspective: sometimes I actually agree with some thoughts of those less conservative than I and relate those here. And, certainly, I don’t represent the political positions for anyone other than me. I just know many share the same thoughts and positions. Most importantly, they must, like me, have discovered over the last decade or so that few in the sector someone termed “Mainstream” present similar thoughts, ideas, and political positions as those with which I identify. That applies to many TruthNewsNetwork partners.

Today and in subsequent offerings here, we will give you truths about Senator Harris’ stances on particular issues that HAVE impacted Americans in dramatic ways in her political past and certainly WILL impact Americans going forward should she win the 2020 Democrat Party primary and the general election. Please note: there are MANY alarming things about the Senator. She’s been before the public in numerous settings in numerous ways for years now. She has a record. Fortunately, her record is much more readily available than some other candidates for us to examination. Examine her record we have — exhaustively — for months.

Let’s get right to the second ten (numbers 11 – 20) of the top issues surrounding the past of Senator Harris when serving in various capacities in her home state: California. Then join me for the summary to follow and thoughts about the race going forward.

Senator Kamala Harris: Her Past

11. Some have asked tough questions about whether Harris, as San Francisco district attorney, did everything she could to root out abuse in the local Catholic churches. Prosecutors had obtained personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco dealing with sexual abuse going back decades. But her office did not prosecute any priests, and she argued that those records were not subject to public-records laws:

In 2005, while she was San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris rebuffed a public-records request by SF Weekly to release personnel files from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. (Her predecessor had planned to make them public after prosecuting criminal priests, but the California Supreme Court stopped those cases when it declared unconstitutional a 2002 law that lifted the criminal statute of limitations.) Similar archives in Boston had exposed the scope of the scandal there. “We’re not interested in selling out our victims to look good in the paper,” Harris told SF Weekly in a statement — this, even though many of those victims pleaded with her to release the documents.

12. In 2004, San Francisco Police officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed by David Hill, a young gang member with an AK-47. Hill also shot another officer in the leg. Days after Hill’s arrest, then-district attorney Harris announced that her office would not seek the death penalty. This prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein to declare while speaking at Espinoza’s funeral, “This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death-penalty law.” The comment drew a standing ovation from the crowd of mostly police. Hill was ultimately sentenced to life without parole. Feinstein later told reporters that if she’d known Harris was against the death penalty, she probably wouldn’t have endorsed her for D.A. in the first place.

In 2009, Harris again received criticism for refusing to pursue the death penalty against Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant, and member of MS-13 who gunned down a father and two sons. As a teenager, Ramos twice served probation for violent crimes but was not deported. Ramos was sentenced to 183-years-to-life without parole.

13. Harris’s most financially significant decision as state attorney general came in 2012 when she negotiated a $25 billion settlement deal with the nation’s five largest mortgage companies (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, CitiFinancial, GMAC/Ally Financial, and Wells Fargo) after the companies were accused of improper foreclosure practices.

By 2013, the state reported that California homeowners had received $18.4 billion in mortgage relief from the deal. When all was said and done, roughly 33,000 homeowners received an average reduction of $137,280 on their first mortgage. That sounds like a lot until one looks at the scale of the problem: More than 600,000 Californians received a foreclosure notice in 2009, and in 2012, when the agreement was struck, more than 30 percent of California homeowners with mortgages owed more than their houses were worth.

14. One bank that was not part of Harris’s settlement was California-based OneWest. A 2013 internal memo from the California attorney general’s office, first published by The Intercept, alleged that OneWest and its CEO, Steven Mnuchin, violated state foreclosure laws and recommended filing charges against him. Prosecutors claimed they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” and “identified over a thousand legal violations.” But Harris, the state attorney general, did not pursue charges. She later told The Hill, “We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made. We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.” In 2016, Mnuchin — who would soon be President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of the treasury — donated $2,000 to Harris’s Senate campaign. She voted against his confirmation anyway.

15. For nearly ninety years, California state law prohibited images of handguns from being used in signs for gun stores. In 2014, after Harris’s office cited several gun shops, they sued, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment. Harris’s office argued that the law was needed to prevent handgun-related crime and suicide. Last year a federal judge ruled “the government has provided no evidence directly linking [the law] to reduced handgun suicide or crime,” concluded that the law was a “highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech,” and declared it “unconstitutional on its face.”

16. Starting in 1993, Harris began dating Willie Brown, then the speaker of the California Assembly and later a candidate for mayor of San Francisco — a relationship that brought her in contact with many of the city’s political and financial movers and shakers. Early in 1994, Brown named her as his appointee to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a job that paid $97,088 a year. Six months later, he named her to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a post which paid $72,000 a year.

In 1994, press accounts described Harris as Brown’s girlfriend. He was still married, and in his early 60s; she had just turned 30. The relationship had a surprising and tumultuous end, as James Richardson describes in Willie Brown: A Biography:

Columnist Herb Caen all but predicted two days after the election that Brown would wed Kamala Harris, his constant companion throughout the campaign. “Keep an eye on these two,” Caen wrote. No mention was made of what Brown would do about Blanche, to whom he was still married. But the day after Christmas, Brown stunned his friends by announcing that he was breaking up with Kamala. Brown invited Blanche to appear with him on stage for his swearing-in and to hold the Bible. A television reporter from KPIX caught up to Blanche, who had kept a low profile throughout the campaign, and asked her what it was like to live with the future mayor.

“Difficult,” was her one-word answer.

17. Late last year, Los Angeles city officials asked why “armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events.” LAPD officers traveled with Harris to San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, and San Diego. Los Angeles taxpayers covered about $28,000 of the cost for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals in an arrangement that retired law enforcement officers called “unprecedented.”

18. In 2009 and 2010, Harris contributed to the liberal blog Daily Kos, where she characterized the opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as “bigotry and narrow-mindedness,” warned that Texas oil companies were “invading” California by funding efforts to repeal an initiative requiring reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and opposed Arizona’s since-struck-down immigration law, declaring that we “can’t afford to divert scarce local law-enforcement resources to enforcing federal immigration laws.” 

19. Harris has proposed a sweeping tax reform that would create a refundable tax credit for all workers, peaking at $3,000 for single adults and $6,000 for married couples — meaning that taxpayers could collect cash even if they don’t actually owe any taxes. The worth of the credit would decline the higher a taxpayer’s income, eventually reaching zero for childless single adults making more than $50,000 a year, single adults with children making more than $80,000 a year, and married couples with children making more than $100,000 a year. The plan would repeal all of the 2017 tax cuts for earners making more than $100,000, would cost roughly $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion over ten years, would constitute a serious marriage penalty, according to experts.

20. In April, Harris made an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, where the hostess asked, “If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?” Harris replied, “Does one of us have to come out alive?”


Partisanship and identity politics may be sufficient to propel a candidate to a win in a party primary today. But will it be sufficient to score a victory in a general election? Obviously, the heavyweights at the Democrat National Committee think they can be successful with that philosophy. So far, EVERY candidate on both Democrat debate stages has espoused the most radical views on all-things American of any previous group of Democrat presidential candidates.

We have all heard “Democrats must campaign further left to win their primaries. Once named the Democrat Party nominee, they move to the center for the general election.” Doesn’t that seem quite hypocritical? What message do they send to Democrat primary voters? “I’m going to give free everything to everybody: healthcare, college tuition, reparations to descendants of American slaves, and a guaranteed income,” only to tell voters in the general election “I was just kidding. Everyone knows if elected, I’ll govern from the center to center-left?”

God forbid that in America, truth and actual policy issues as supported or rejected by candidates would mean less than talking points and political mantra from candidates for office. Democrats simply don’t get it: Americans are NOT stupid. We all watch, read, and listen to what candidates say and promise during primary AND general election seasons!

Or do these Democrat candidates think Americans — especially those in their own party — ARE stupid? That’s one WE cannot answer.

What do you think? Weigh-in by dropping me an email to I’d like to hear your opinion.

A closing VERY important note: tomorrow we are sharing a critical analysis of what is REALLY going on regarding illegal immigration. I say “critical” because we now have a responsibility to make sure everyone in our circles of influence understands exactly what is happening regarding illegal immigration and exactly what and how Democrats are doing (or NOT doing) about it. You may have seen or heard the caustic remarks, derisive statements, and the outright lies that the 4 freshmen far-left Democrat Congresswomen had to say in their press conference regarding their stances on immigration while simultaneously denigrating President Trump. Much more about that tomorrow.

This is a shout-out to the nearly 1000 Russian students who are reading and listening to this story right now and today’s podcast as required by the Department Head of International Political Science at Moscow University. Tomorrow you can hear and read a genuine and specific analysis of the TRUTH of U.S. immigration. For everyone else, make sure to come back and read or listen (or both). You will want to share the story AND the podcast with those you know who may still be sitting on that “party fence” between Republican and Democrat parties. This is NOT a party election: it is an AMERICAN election.

You can download both the story and podcast for free and share as you like.

I’ll see you tomorrow!


Who Is Going to be the 2020 Presidential Democrat Nominee? Part I

It’s REALLY early to make such a prediction. Their party convention is still a year away. But it’s NOT too early to begin the elimination process of those 2-dozen declared Democrats who long ago began the feeding frenzy that is American politics. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) was the first to drop out of the race. But there is plenty of room on the “ex-candidate” roll. But after it’s all said and done, the convention floor has been swept clean of all the confetti and helium-depleted balloons, after half-a-thousand delegates have formally nominated their candidate to run on the 2020 Democrat ticket for President, who will be the last man (or woman) standing?

The Process

Isn’t it crazy to watch the polls as they are released almost daily for the 2020 race? Let’s be honest: NO ONE has any real idea at this point who will win the Democrat Party nomination. Certainly, no one has any idea who’ll win the election. After all, it’s not an absolute certainty that President Trump will even be in the race though he has declared. But in this political climate, nothing surprises anyone!


Conventional wisdom early on was that Beto O’Rourke would probably land the Democrat bid for the White House. That was based on the extremely close race he ran against Senator Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate in 2016. It was shocking that he almost upset the incumbent which catapulted him into the 2020 race. And those Texas race results garnered him millions of dollars early on for a presidential bid.

But times change.

Uncle Joe

Everyone waited breathlessly to see what Joe Biden was going to do. He waited until late to put his toe in the water. Not surprisingly when he did enter, he zoomed to the top. Though he has lost some ground in large part due to his own campaign trail gaffs and previous clouds left from numerous incidents in his ages-long Washington political career, he’s still slightly in the lead in the polls. But many don’t expect that lead to last.

Bernie and Liz

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both have that liberal star power and the history of being front and center on the Democrat national stage. That history and their name recognition has kept them close. But the pair seem to move further and further to the left. It seems that their doing so is eating away at whatever chances they may have had to represent Dems next November.

Mayor Pete

“Mayor Pete” hit with a splash — mostly because he is a new fresh face with no national political baggage. His being gay with a husband certainly gave him instant support from the LGBTQ community. But his early success has also slowly eroded. He started with a big pot of cash. But as his popularity dwindles, so does his staying ability. I imagine the people of South Bend will be dealing with Mayor Pete on the local level against after the 2020 election.


Cory Booker had a good shot in the race for two reasons: he’s an African American Senator, and he’s been in the national political spotlight for some time. But several things have tripped him up: the first was his Spartacus moment when he falsely volunteered to be expelled from the Senate for his release of some confidential Senate documents during the Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings when before his Spartacus speech those documents had already been released. Secondly, the New Jersey Senator exhibits a propensity for grandstanding on racial issues and seems to jump on every identity politics tidbit as they show-up seeming to be looking for an edge — any edge — to give him credibility with a dwindling group of American supporters.

Who’s Left?

At this point based on debates, speeches, legislation (for those in Congress) and specific political positions, I simply put the remaining candidates in an “other” basket. I think none of those left have a real chance to upset President Trump. The Democrat National Committee knows it is senseless to spend the money that a 2020 race will cost, (reportedly $1 Billion or even more) to try to elect a candidate that simply has little or no chance to send Donald Trump packing. I think after these above, there’s just a bunch of “also-rans,” except one.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)

The cat’s out of the bag at TruthNewsNetwork. Our pick to carry the Democrat banner in the 2020 Presidential election is Kamala Harris. Why is that?

  • Democrats are in a tough spot looking for their candidate. All of their candidates espouse pretty much all of the liberal ideas. There aren’t great differences among them — at least policy differences. Whoever they nominate MUST be able to defeat Donald Trump.
  • Harris is hardcore, confrontational, never hesitates to take on any and all opponents, and despises Donald Trump. Dems feel she will not back down from the President and can go toe-to-toe with him on pretty much every issue.
  • She toes the Democrat Party line. While many who are running differ with the party on one issue here and there, Senator Harris is right in line on pretty much ALL Democrat Party issues.
  • She’s mixed race, which is proving to be a plus for candidates more and more. Her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. While she’s not African-American, she certainly is a woman of color which gives her an ethnic benefit over the “Old white guy.”
  • She’s an excellent speaker. And she’s delivered almost uncountable speeches while an attorney, a state politician (California Attorney General), and a U.S. Senator. That will help her tremendously on the national stage.
  • She’s a woman. That linked with her race and legal background and communication skills fit well with her Party’s plans.
  • She has the Obama Machine in her corner. No, the Obamas have not come out in support of any candidate yet. But there are details already leaked that they are in support of Harris and are prepared to put that significant machine behind the Senator. In a bitter political race that this certainly will be, having the financial, political, and fully resourced organization that shocked the world twice sending Barack to the White House twice has twice been insurmountable. The Obamas will be a significant source for Harris.
  • She’s a she. That cannot be minimized. There are numerous Americans — especially women — who feel the nation owes its people a female President. Female voters outnumber male voters. That cannot be minimized in this race.

Let’s Bullet-Point 10 things you may or may not know about the Senator

1. As both a district attorney and state attorney general, Harris pushed for a new statewide law that lets prosecutors charge parents with misdemeanors if their children are chronically truant. “We are putting parents on notice,” she declared. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”

3. Harris also has been a strong advocate of civil asset forfeiture. She supported a bill in California that would have allowed prosecutors to seize assets before initiating criminal proceedings — a power now available only at the federal level — if there were a “substantial probability” they would eventually initiate such proceedings. Besides cases involving violent crimes, the legislation allowed seizures in cases involving such crimes as bribery, gambling, and trafficking endangered species. Harris endorsed the bill after then-attorney general Eric Holder sharply limited civil asset forfeiture among federal prosecutors. She argued that the practice gave local and state law-enforcement officials “more tools to target the illicit profits [of transnational criminal groups] and dismantle these dangerous organizations.”

4. As San Francisco district attorney, Harris created “Back on Track,” an anti-recidivism program that she expanded as state attorney general. The program received $750,000 in federal funding and quite a bit of praise from crime-policy experts. But it faced criticism early in its history, when illegal immigrant Alexander Izaguirre, who had pleaded guilty to selling drugs, was selected and graduated, only to later grab a woman’s purse and run her down in an SUV, severely injuring her.

As the Los Angeles Times put it, “Harris’ office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.” Harris said she had been unaware that Back on Track had been training illegal immigrants and that they would no longer be eligible for the program.

5. In 2012, she submitted a brief supporting an illegal immigrant’s application for a law license. In 2014, the California Supreme Court ruled in the immigrant’s favor, even though the California State Bar’s rules state that it is disqualifying professional misconduct to commit a criminal act.

6. In her first speech on the Senate floor, Harris declared, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.” She later avowed the belief that illegal immigration is “a civil violation, not a crime.”

This classification applies to only a portion of those in the country without permission. First, entering the country illegally has criminal penalties. Overstaying a visa is considered a civil violation, not a criminal one, with deportation as the appropriate penalty. But reentry without permission after deportation is a crime, as is, in most cases, working in the United States without legal residency, since it almost always involves some falsification of documents or lying on work forms under penalty of perjury.

7. Harris’s reputation as a tough prosecutor has played a key part in her political rise, and she continues to tout the high rate of felony convictions on her watch. But in 2010, SF Weekly reviewed the work of her office and concluded that “felony convictions for cases that actually go to trial and reach a jury verdict — a comparatively small group that nevertheless includes some of a district attorney’s most violent and emotionally charged cases — have declined significantly over the past two years.” The review found that in 2009, San Francisco prosecutors “won a lower percentage of their felony jury trials than their counterparts at district attorneys’ offices covering the 10 largest cities in California,” and San Francisco’s rate dropped further in the first quarter of 2010. Harris’s 71 percent conviction rate on felony cases had been boosted by a significant increase in pre-trial plea agreements.

8. In October 2017, Harris declared that she would rather shut down the government than vote for a spending bill that did not address the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and ensure those covered by the program would not be deported. “I will not vote for an end-of-year spending bill until we are clear about what we are going to do to protect and take care of our DACA young people in this country,” she said. And she has kept her word, at least so far.

9. In April 2018, Harris urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to “reduce funding for beds in the federal immigration system,” reject calls to hire more Border Patrol personnel, and “reduce funding for the administration’s reckless immigration enforcement operations.”

10. In 2010, a California Superior Court judge declared that as San Francisco district attorney, Harris had violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug-lab technician and was indifferent to demands that the lab account for its failings. The crime-lab technician had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2008; district attorneys are obligated to hand over to the defense information about prosecution witnesses that could be used to challenge their credibility. Prosecutors’ failure to disclose the information about the technician led to the dismissal of more than 600 drug cases.


There are many more things America needs to know about Senator Harris. In Part II of this story, TNN will give you 10 more things about Harris few know and that are very important as the Democrat race tightens and candidates begin to take a bow.

Back at the 10,000-foot level, we all need to understand that without question, the 2020 presidential election may be the most important election of this century. It will speak volumes to this generation and several to come about whether the greatest country on Earth will abandon the foundation that allowed the creation and perpetuation of that title for 200+ years and become an also-ran Socialist model of some combination of that from several European countries. Many scoff at this idea, but we must not make that mistake. A generation or two of our nation’s educators have filled the minds of corresponding in age young Americans with untruths about capitalism and our representative republic. That explains why so many are marching FOR Free Speech while demonstrating and rioting AGAINST actual proponents who attempt to trumpet the values and benefits of the First Amendment. The paradox of that very chapter in American history illustrates how our teenagers and young adults are acting on what they have been taught and summarily reject the tenets of our social, economic, and judicial foundation.

It’s scary, folks. And there’s more! Make sure to come back tomorrow. We’ll give you those other 10 facts about Senator Harris that most don’t know and we’ll discuss in detail some of her political policies she’s trumpeting that probably will take many aback.



Nobody says “I’m wrong” anymore. Heck, maybe that’s been an “eternity” truth! It’s fair to say very few if any “enjoy” saying “I’m wrong.” But most of us at least occasionally say that. It applies to most Americans — except politicians! There must be a creed for politicians, a handbook, a rule book, or maybe it’s just understood that politicians are not required by law, by their oath of office, nor by integrity (which few have anyway) to say “I’m wrong.”

Let’s take the most recent and certainly the ugliest “non-admittances of incorrectness” uttered by several of America’s well-known members of “Politica” — that new political fraternity/sorority:

President Donald Trump: “We have a crisis at our southern border.”

Responses from Democrats:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “We have no crisis at our southern border. It’s just another Trump talking-point.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “There’s no crisis. All Trump says that for is to ramp up the hatred in those in his base against all immigrants.”

 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., broke from the earlier party line last week, and said conditions on the border have been so abhorrent, they rose to the level of Nazi concentration camps. She saw women being forced to drink from toilets, babies forced to sleep on concrete floors, and Border Patrol agents following her while making threats against her during her visit to one detainment center. “The Trump Administration must give these immigrant families humane treatment, good food, healthcare, and stop treating them like criminals!”

CNN host Don Lemon described the Trump administration’s immigration policy as an act of desperation this past January on “CNN Tonight” and asked if the American people were buying it. Lemon’s fellow network anchor Chris Cuomo weighed in and said if the crisis were real, CNN already would have investigated the matter and reported on it. MSNBC’S Eddie Glaude Jr. also used the word manufactured to describe the chaos in January on “Morning Joe” and said, “This is a manufactured crisis. At the heart of this whole thing are a whole bunch of lies.” Steve Schmidt, a former adviser to the late Sen. John McCain, accused Trump of going on TV to “lie and lie and lie” to promote a fake catastrophe.

The Truth about our southern border immigration crisis:

“Media pundits and anchors seemingly switched gears in recent weeks and now consider the immigration problems at the southern border a ‘crisis,’ after months of downplaying the issue and blaming President Trump. Recent reporting on the southern border has shown overcrowding of federal facilities, outbreaks of disease, issues with migrant children and general chaos — raising questions of ethics and legality regarding immigrant detention and processing. Grabien News published a media montage earlier this week of various news figures and commentators from major networks minimizing the crisis and accusing Trump of being untruthful. Trump and Border Patrol Officials proposed a $4.4 Billion bill to Congress for emergency border funding for food, clothing, medical care, and facilities for temporary housing of illegals. The funding is additionally to hire a large number of immigration judges and staffing to hurry legal proceedings to process these asylum requests.”

Responses from Democrats:

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: “Finally the House and Senate have united and pushed the Trump Administration to agree to commit $4.4 Billion of new funding approved by Congress to assist the

poor immigrants living in deporable and inhumane conditions Border Patrol agents force on immigrant families simply seeking assylum.”

AOC: “I have joined with three other members of the House of Representatives and voted NO on the proposed $4.4 Billion bill the Trump Administration has black-mailed House leadership to pass. None of that money is dedicated for exclusive use for immigrants at our border and we cannot trust the Trump Administration to use it for immigrants the way this bill is written.”

Here’s the bottom line: No Congressional leaders — who were ALL wrong in their assessments about the border crisis — admitted they were wrong. Chuck and Nancy tried to take credit for the funding bill that had been begged for by the Border Patrol from Congress for months! And AOC just a couple of days after her visit in which she screamed about the Trump Administration refusing to care for illegal immigrants voted to not give the funding for all of those needs she herself claimed were necessary! (By the way, there were only 4 “No” votes in the House of that bill.)

I paraphrased a little in some of the quotes above. But you get it — you understand. In context, Democrats refuse to accept anything and everything from this White House and perpetuate stories of every sort of wrongdoing they can possibly imagine supposedly happening under Donald Trump. When confronted with the truth, THEY NEVER ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG!

The Bigger Story

Let’s face it: politicians don’t have an exclusive on never being wrong. Everyday Americans are just as guilty. We all know some guy at work who is intolerable to work with. The guy that says stuff all the time, is corrected, and either argues about the correction or just doesn’t say anything. Of course, he never admits he was wrong.

It happens at home, too. Phone charging cables constantly disappear. The wife just grabs any one she can find whenever hers disappears. That happened at OUR house today.

I’m meticulous with my “stuff” — especially electronics. I keep a charging cable for my Ipad, a separate one for my iPhone, another for my iPad’s wireless keyboard: 1 of each in my briefcase and 1 of each on my bedside table.

Today we came home from a two-day trip to a 7-on-7 football tournament. I brought my briefcase in from the car that had all my “travel” cables neatly rolled up and in their places in my briefcase. She confronted me about one of the cables I have kept in my briefcase for over a year. “You have my charging cable in your briefcase. I put it on the console in the car when we left the hotel.” I didn’t bring any cables in other than the ones that had been in my briefcase the whole time. And I told her that. She then repeated her story, only 3 times louder. I reminded her that any cable that came into the house in someone’s hand came in HER hand, not mine. My 3 travel cables were zippered up in my briefcase. As you can imagine, the story wasn’t over!

This time she played the “Well, OK. I guess I’m stupid and left mine somewhere.” But, of course, she didn’t stop there: “But I KNOW I put my cable on the console in the car and it’s that one in your briefcase.”

One more time I wanted to make sure she “heard me” and repeated my story to her. She continued, and I had enough. I opened my zippered briefcase, pulled all three cables out and laid them in front of her. I held each up and showed her that 1 was for my iPad connectors on it, 1 was for my iPhone and had connectors on it, the 3rd — the one she knew for certain was hers — was for my iPad keyboard and had a USB2 connector on it.

I turned around and walked away just as she muttered something really low. Knowing her pretty well, I turned around and asked, “What did you say?” She almost screamed as she said, “THAT CABLE DOESN’T FIT MY CHARGER!”

I knew it didn’t and had already pointed that out to her.

I bit my tongue and said absolutely nothing — as hard as that was. But as I walked outside and calmly slammed my fist through the windshield of her car, (I’m just joking!) I thought of something: She admitted she was wrong, even if it was in a roundabout way. But she didn’t apologize. And it hit me: Admitting we are wrong is a really good thing. And for many of us, we seldom if ever go beyond that: we don’t follow “I’m wrong” with “And I’m sorry.”


Almost all of us know what the word “repentance” means. In the context of Christianity, defined, repentance is “to turn and walk away from.” Follow along with me:

When we do something wrong — commit a sin — as Christians, we are to in prayer ask God for forgiveness for that sin. But according to the Biblical instructions, we are supposed to “repent,” or “turn and walk away from that wrong.”

Could that possibly combined be the same thing as saying “I’m wrong,” or “To turn away,” and then the follow-up “And I’m sorry,” meaning “To walk away from?”

Relationships are essential to living a good and happy life. Families require relationships not to just exist, but to thrive and grow. We all know those that seem totally dysfunctional that makes us wonder how in the world they have lasted. We certainly do not want our family to exist in that way.

We also know that each of us is certainly wrong — usually more often than we care to admit. Hopefully, we are mature enough to understand when we’re wrong that it’s better for our fellow workers, friends, and certainly applicable family members to hear us admit we were wrong. And it’s good for us when we do that, too.

But in the act of forgiveness, turning from that sin is just part of the process. Walking away from that sin seals the deal.

I really believe that the two go hand in hand just as in a difference with others: admitting wrong is just half of the deal. The other half is to say loud enough for the other to hear,” I’m sorry!”

I know today’s story is shorter than normal. But I have to hurry downstairs. I’ve got to go find my wife — she needs to talk to me. Why? SHE DIDN’T SAY I’M SORRY!”


The Perfect Funeral

There are two specific events which I despise: weddings and funerals. I’m not a hermit and I really love people. But weddings and funerals have always been a problem for me. But no longer. Here’s the story:

I’m a keyboard guy. When I was young I was something of a piano prodigy. My father pastored a really small church in south Louisiana. I started piano at age 7, and by the time I reached 12, I could do a fairly good job playing in church. That was all it took! For every wedding and every funeral at our church, I was automatically “in” as the accompanist.

Just imagine how many Saturdays and Sundays a 12-year-old kid was “coerced” into giving up an afternoon and evening to play for people who I often did not know as they married someone else I didn’t know. Of course, I was stuck losing Friday nights too because there was always the wedding rehearsal I had to attend to get the next day’s plan in place.

And then there were those horrible experiences of sitting at the keyboard looking over at a stranger dressed to the nines lying in a coffin. It’s bad enough to be AT a funeral of someone you did not know, (and even for those who you really DID know) but having to play sad songs for sad people while listening to family members crying their eyes out is horrible.

Funerals were the worst.

Through all of these years and final get-togethers, I’ve heard several hundred funeral messages. Some of those messages have been pretty good, but far more have been less than “good.” Finding a minister with the confidence that he will do a good job at helping the family say their final goodbyes to the deceased is a daunting task. Why is that?

Two reasons: first is that just like in conducting weddings, the deceased more often than not was not a member of the minister’s church. Burying a parishioner is bad, but burying a stranger is a nightmare. Secondly, it’s true that the eulogy and obituary (which are usually read at funerals) are easy enough, delivering a message in a funeral is a tough task. There simply are not an abundance of topics with which a minister can set the family of the deceased at ease about their loss. So ministers often tell personal stories with personal examples of the minister’s relationship and interactions with the deceased. That is seldom consoling to family members. And other funeral attendees are simply lost in that process.

A few days ago, I attended a funeral that in my opinion was the best funeral service of my countless funeral experiences. The minister proved that funeral services can be more than simply sad and tearful send-offs. He has discovered how to draw every funeral attendee through the inherent sorrow and angst to a place of real peace. After all, isn’t that what those who have suffered the tragic loss of a close friend or relative really need?

How does he do that?

Gary Hinton was a quiet family guy. He started and operated a very successful national commercial construction company, employed many, and had a pristine reputation in the construction industry and in our community. Everyone loved Gary. Gary’s pastor conducted the service. Another pastor read the obituary. A tearful eulogy was given by a nephew. The music was extraordinary: great songs and really good singers. Then Gary’s Pastor gave the funeral message.

The pastor, Denny Duron, knew Gary well. I’m certain Pastor Denny had dozens of personal stories he could have shared about events from Gary’s life that included him. But he didn’t tell even ONE such story. But he did tell many stories about Gary — stories about Gary told to him by Gary’s siblings, his children, his grandchildren, and Gary’s wife.  

Pastor Denny had spent hours preparing for the funeral. But his preparations were different from that of most ministers preparing for funerals. His prep is what made this the “best” funeral ever in my lifetime. What’s his secret? Face-to-face conversations with members of Gary’s family in which he draws from them pictures from Gary’s life — Gary’s life with them — individually.

“What was the best moment you can remember with your Dad?” He asked one of Gary’s sons. “What did Gary like to do most,” or “Tell me what Gary said at the Christmas dinner table last Christmas,” or similar questions were asked and answered in those chats with Gary’s family members. Pastor Denny knew that everyone in that family had countless personal interactions with their Dad, Uncle, Grandfather, and Husband. He looked for the special ones — the memorable moments they would never forget with Gary. He wanted to hear those so he could share with us in the audience so we could not just know about Gary, but could really KNOW Gary. And it worked!

How did we get there? By hearing the stories of the personal and intimate experiences these children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews, brothers and sisters, and wife had with Gary. It put his family in a peaceful place. It put all of us in the chapel in a peaceful place. And isn’t that what funeral messages should all be about?


I hope Pastor Denny is still around when I leave this planet. I certainly want him to conduct my funeral. My children, grandchildren, and other family members will certainly be there to say goodbyes. They each have known me well. But somehow hearing their stories from a Pastor will certainly give them a sense of peace and finality at a normally gut-wrenching time.

If it ends up happening that way, I’m certain Pastor Denny will not build his message around his personal interactions with me. I’m certain he’ll instead tell those in whatever crowd assembles for my send-off the stories Kimbi, Kori, Kaleb, Mary Ann, and my six grandchildren will have told him. I hope he does.

But he COULD tell a whole bunch of personal stories about me — He’s my older brother.


Socialism or Capitalism: “The Truth of Each”

 It is true that the United States is the champion of Capitalism in the World. The United Kingdom and other European countries are the success models of Socialism. But before one can make a determination of the good or evil of either, one must understand the fundamentals of both. We hear much today in the political sphere about taking sides in the arguments for and against both. But, “Truth Matters.” Let’s get some facts.


Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

(Both definitions came from the same source: Websters Dictionary)

Let’s try to stay out of the weeds in this discussion: no throwing insults or insinuations. We will first ferret out the facts in practice today in countries that embrace either Capitalism or Socialism. Then we will close with an amazing enlightening 3-minute video in which Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez — one of today’s leading proponents of Socialism — shares the prevailing concept espoused today by those who have chosen to name it Democratic Socialism. In the video, following each piece AOC uses to promote Democratic Socialism, you will see the explanation of the fallacy in her arguments.

There are “facts” that we can honestly and sincerely find that speak to the good and bad of both of these economic systems. While we’re discussing this today, keep this in mind: There are NO examples on Earth today of countries that are 100% Capitalistic or 100% Socialistic.

Let’s look at the pluses and minuses of both Capitalism and Socialism.

1) Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is superior to capitalism in one primary way: It offers more security. It’s almost like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but ensures that if worse comes to worst, you won’t drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you’re lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It’s just as Winston Churchill once noted, “The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

2) Capitalism encourages entrepreneurship while socialism discourages it: A government in a capitalist economy can quite easily give everyone equality of opportunity with a few basic laws and regulations, but socialism strives to create equality of results. This should frighten people who value their freedom because ultimately, as F.A. Hayek has noted, “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.” You can see this happening in America as our efforts to reduce “inequality” have led to an ever-expanding government and a vast regulatory tangle that is almost unexplainable despite the fact that it is certainly enforceable. Capitalism encourages people to start a business and build a better life for themselves while socialism lays in wait with IRS agents, nooses made of red tape and meddling bureaucrats looking for businesses to control and loot.

3) Capitalism leads to innovation: Coming up with new products is often time-consuming, expensive and hit or miss. Nine ideas may fail before that tenth one takes off. The less the creative people behind these ideas are allowed to benefit, the less time, money and effort they’ll put into developing new concepts and inventions. Put another way, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward has to be to convince people to take it. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers makers only a parade of bureaucratic leeches who want to take advantage of their “good fortune.”

4) Capitalism produces more economic growth: Capitalism produces considerably more economic growth than socialism and as John Kennedy said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” A fast-growing economy produces more jobs, more wealth and helps everyone. Many people assume that capitalism isn’t working if there are still poor people, but that misses the point. In many parts of the world, poverty means living in a hut with a dirt floor while in America, most poor Americans have TVs, refrigerators and cell phones. The rich may take home a larger share of the pie in capitalism, but the poor also benefit tremendously from living in a growing, thriving economy.

5) Socialism is too slow to adapt: Capitalism is extremely good at allocating capital to where it’s most valued. It has to be. Either you give people what they are willing to pay for or someone else will. On the other hand, socialism is slow and stupid for a variety of reasons. Because the government is spending someone else’s money, it doesn’t get particularly concerned about losing money. Political concerns about appearances often trump the effectiveness of a program. Moreover, even if politicians and bureaucrats are intelligent and competent, which are big “ifs,” they’re simply not going to have the specific knowledge needed to make decisions that may impact thousands of different industries. This is why capitalism may have its share of troubles, but when there are really colossal economic screw-ups, you’ll always find the government neck deep in the whole mess.

6) Socialism is inherently wasteful: Milton Friedman once said, “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own.” This is very true and it means that the more capital that is taken out of the economy and distributed, the more of it that will be wasted. The market does a considerably better job of allocating resources than the government because there are harsh penalties for failure. A company that makes products no one wants will go out of business. A poorly performing government program that wastes a hundred times more money will probably receive a bigger budget the next year.

7) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it: Ayn Rand said it well, “America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way,” but Adam Smith said it better, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest.” A man will work much harder to take care of himself, his family and his friends than he will to make money for the state, which will then waste most of it before redistributing it to people who aren’t working as hard as the man who earned it in the first place.

In closing, watch or listen to this 3-minute explanation of the good and evil of both Capitalism and Socialism:

Feel free to share this as you wish. You can download the entire post or even just the video.

Thanks for looking in!



I looked on in sadness to watch the American Women’s Soccer Team take the field in the World Cup semi-finals in Paris. The sadness came as the “Star Spangled Banner” played and U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe knelt, refusing to stand to honor our country. I shook my head, once again questioning what is going on in the minds of those who are choosing this one place, this one instance, in which to display their angst for whatever while living in the greatest country on Earth.

For professional athletes (and also for innumerable amateur athletes) former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick started the “trend” of athletes kneeling during the National Anthem. What could possibly be the impetus for doing so? Rather than dismissing those who participate in this as being deranged or simply disrespectful, I began to look for real answers. I for one could NEVER do or say anything negative during or about the playing or singing of the Anthem before any event. To me it has always been a moment of honor for the Nation, but, more importantly, honor and respect for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who fought to give us the freedom to say anything — even things that others do not accept. Why would Rapinoe and Kaepernick feel no sense of patriotism and gratitude for all their success that came as a direct result of the things that the “Star Spangled Banner” represents? I struggled for that answer. And then it hit me.

There are two American generations that have never personally seen War of any kind. Oh, there have been wars and skirmishes in the last couple of decades. But there’s been no wars such as World War II, the Korean conflict, or Vietnam. To those in these two generations, war exists only in movies that — as far as they are concerned — are fictional representations of some mythical events that may or may not have actually happened. And certainly, those types of things could never happen today — not in THIS America.

Operation Desert Shield began in 1990 under President H.W. Bush, Desert Storm one year later. The invasion of Iraq did not happen until 2003 under President George W. Bush. For a person to have a real firsthand understanding of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, that person would have had to be born before 1980. That eliminates a large number of those counted from two generations. For a person to have a real firsthand understanding of the Bush 43 invasion of Iraq, that person would have had to be born before 1995. The only Americans who were old enough to have real memories and understanding of both of the last two wars in which the United States was a major participant would have to be 39-40 years old or older today.

Let’s be honest: much has changed in how history is being viewed in America today — and especially by those 24 to 40 year-old Americans. Educators have changed American History that they taught to the last two generations of our American children. We see the results of that every day: historical statues being systematically removed because of “bad” memories they represent; Institutions of all kinds are changing their names, removing the names of U.S. founding fathers because of their being involved in slavery, even changing street names.

In our schools, Capitalism, the Rule of Law, equal justice under the law, a democratic Republic and many of the tenets from the U.S. Constitution itself are not simply being removed from classrooms, they are being attacked by our educators as being evil.

As we saw this very week, the United States flag is under constant attack itself. NIKE — for political purposes — was “forced” to recall a new shoe that bore the image of the “Betsy Ross” flag because Colin Kaepernick notified NIKE that flag was a symbol of slavery and was offensive to many. The Betsy Ross flag represents slavery — really?

Do you know what these Millennials  and Generation X-ers don’t get? None of these actions would be tolerated in almost every other country on Earth. Socialist and Communist countries’ governments would jail if not execute citizens who denigrated their government, its flag, or its leaders. But what is most amazing is to watch and listen to members of the American government who themselves are immigrants that came to the United States to flee the tyranny of the governments of their native nations. They came HERE because of the freedoms we have that are bestowed equally by law to every person on our shores. Yet they attack the very institution that gave us all the freedoms and liberties they came here for. And in doing so they cry for the SAME THINGS IN AMERICA FROM WHICH THEY FLED!

Freedom is not free. It’s not free to obtain, and it’s certainly not free to keep. Often there are brutal prices paid by many for both. Someone’s required to pay that price.

I wonder if Megan Rapinoe and Colin Kaepernick would continue to kneel in their rejection of what the U.S. flag stands for if they had watched a flag-draped coffin of their own brother, sister, aunt, uncle, father or mother came home from a war in which their relative had volunteered to fight so that Megan and Colin and every other American could have the right to kneel at a football or soccer game when the “Star Bangled Banner” was being played?

Final Thoughts

John Quincy Adams, one of the youngest of the founding Fathers and later 6th President of United States, was invited as keynote speaker at a large patriotic celebration in Newburyport, MA on July 4, 1837 (61st Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence). Adams was personally involved in the founding of our nation. Here is part of his speech:

“Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [on the Fourth of July?] Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of a nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”

According to John Quincy Adams, on the 4th of July, 1776, the Founding Fathers had taken the principles that came into the world through the birth of Christ and used those principles to birth the nation, thus joining Christian principles and civil government in what he called an “indissoluble bond.”

Adams was also known as “the Hellhound of Slavery,” because of his lifelong fight against slavery. He is the only president to serve in Congress after his presidency. He spent those years fighting for the freedom of all slaves. He never saw the freedom he fought for occur, but his efforts had profound effects on the future.

One of the pallbearers at his funeral was a young man name Abraham Lincoln.

With all of these thoughts in mind, watch and listen to this presentation of a really simple concept:



Reagan or Trump: Flip a Coin

Trump and Kim Jung Un have now been together face-to-face three times. The third meeting was a bit strange, certainly unconventional, and absolutely showed the World that the North Korean leader is pretty desperate to continue down the path of “getting along” with the leader of the United States — in this case, Donald Trump.

Trump detractors’ heads have been spinning, they’ve all been spewing green vomit, and their non-stop attacks of the President are escalating every day. Their crushing crescendo has drowned out any tidbits of good that might have resulted from that short back-slapping get together between those two leaders. Trump adversaries don’t care at all about facts. Their cries are NOT founded on facts, but are directly tied to their one and only political perspective: “Trump is Evil.”

This all reminds me of the press and political treatment of President Ronald Reagan. In fact, Reagan’s treatment by politicians (both Democrat and Republican) and by members of the press are eerily similar.

  • Reagan could do NOTHING right;
  • Reagan did EVERYTHING wrong;
  • Reagan HATED the poor and American minorities;
  • Reagan cared only about the Rich;
  • Reagan was a stupid politician;
  • Reagan was a cowboy that spurned conventional governing.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Reagan and the Press

They hated him, pure and simple.

Journalists — TRUE journalists — are politically neutral in their reporting and take pride in keeping readers, viewers, and listeners from ever knowing what their political persuasions are. Honestly, before 1980 (when Reagan was elected) journalists were fairly successful at hiding their politics. But with the election of the movie star/governor from California, all that journalist independence and integrity in reporting was immediately in the trash.

Want some examples?

“I used to say I thought if you were down on your luck and you got through the Secret Service, got in the Oval Office and said, Mr. President, ‘I’m down on my luck,’ he would literally give you the shirt off his back. And then he’d sit down in his undershirt and he’d sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare.”
— ABC’s Sam Donaldson, who covered the White House during the 1980s, on Good Morning America, June 11, 2004.

“All of us who covered the Reagans agreed that President Reagan was personable and charming, but I’m not so certain he was nice. It’s hard for me to think of anyone as nice when I hear him say ‘The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.’ To my mind, a President should care about all people, and he didn’t, which is why I will always feel Reagan lacked soul.”
UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas in the July 1993 Good Housekeeping.

“At the end of his presidency, a great many people thought he’d made the wealthy wealthier and had not improved life particularly for the middle class.”
— Peter Jennings talking to co-host Charles Gibson on ABC’s Good Morning America, June 10, 2004.

“Despite the accolades lavished upon Reagan since his death — for ending the Cold War, for restoring the nation’s optimism — his many detractors remember him as a right-wing ideologue beholden to monied interests and insensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable Americans.”

“Elected on a promise to slash taxes and crack down on freeloading ‘welfare queens,’ Reagan depicted government as wasteful and minimized its capacity to help people, ideas that survive today. Reagan also dealt a blow to organized labor by firing the striking air traffic controllers, and appointed Antonin Scalia, still the Supreme Court’s most conservative jurist.”

“Reagan’s weakening of the social safety net by dismantling longtime Democratic ‘Great Society’ programs arguably vexes his critics the most. By persuading Congress to approve sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing welfare benefits and other social services like the federal housing assistance program, Reagan was blamed for a huge surge in the nation’s poor and homeless population.”
— Beth Fouhy in an AP story headlined: “Many Still Troubled by Reagan’s Legacy,” June 9, 2004.

CBS’s Morley Safer: “You talk about a vision, and it’s some kind of abstract, vague idea. Did his [Ronald Reagan’s] vision include extraordinary deficits? Did his vision include cutting of the budgets for education and a back of the hand in terms of public education?”
Larry King: “History will not be kind to him?”
Safer: “No, I don’t think history particularly will be kind…I don’t think history has any reason to be kind to him.”
— CNN’s Larry King Live, June 14, 2004.

“After eight years of what many saw as the Reagan administration’s benign neglect of the poor and studied indifference to civil rights, a lot of those who lived through this week in Overtown seemed to think the best thing about George Bush is that he is not Ronald Reagan…There is an Overtown in every big city in America. Pockets of misery made even meaner and more desperate in the past eight years.”
— ABC’s Richard Threlkeld reporting from a section of Miami where there had been riots, on World News Tonight, January 20, 1989.

“Senator, don’t you believe, a lot of people do think that the ‘80s were an excess, which a lot of people got richer and people got poorer, and it’s now fair to redress that balance?”
— Sam Donaldson to Robert Dole on This Week with David Brinkley, Feb. 21, 1993.

“In the greedy excesses of the Reagan years, the mean income of the average physician nearly doubled, from $88,000 to $170,000. Was that warranted?”
— Bryant Gumbel to Dr. Richard Corlin of the American Medical Association, March 31, 1993, Today.


Reagan inherited a pretty nasty foreign policy mess in several countries — none bigger than that of the U.S./Soviet Union nuclear weapons arms race. Reagan — though no foreign policy expert — knew that Soviet Russia was the biggest danger the U.S. faced. He immediately set out to try to find a way to make peace with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They held three historical meetings: the first in Geneva, the second in Reykjavik, Iceland, and the third in Washington D.C. I will not give you the U.S. media reports that followed each of the Gorbachev-Reagan meetings for the sake of your time. But know this for certain: the media excoriated Reagan for everything he did and didn’t do in planning for and his actions at each meeting. Reagan could do NOTHING right! (Exactly like Trump/Kim meetings as portrayed in today’s media)

In preparation for the Reykjavik meeting, unknown to the Americans Gorbachev prepared and presented a series of nuclear proposals regarding denuclearization by both Russia and the U.S. He did so because he wanted to catch Reagan by surprise. It worked. The Americans were planning intense meetings to find common ground, but not nearly the same common ground as the Russian contingency offered.

Gorbachev feared Reagan’s “Star Wars” plan called “SDI,” or “Strategic Defense Initiative.” The Soviets felt that if “Star Wars” was implemented, it would give the U.S. total defensive nuclear dominance over the Soviet Union both domestically and in Europe. Gorbachev insisted that “if” the U.S. completed and implemented the SDI, it would NOT be activated for the next 10 years. Reagan refused to accept those terms and abruptly left Iceland without any meaningful agreement with Gorbachev nor any future plans to meet again. (Trump took similar action leaving Vietnam abruptly from his meeting with Kim)

Of course, the rest of that story is historical. Gorbachev came to Washington later to continue negotiations. Finally, President Reagan made a trip to Germany and made this historical speech in which he sent a direct message to Gorbachev:

Not long after Reagan’s nuclear negotiations with Gorbachev and this speech in Berlin, the demise of the Soviet Union began, and the Berlin Wall came down.

The U.S. Media Weigh-In with Politicians, Too

No doubt the similarities between Reagan and Gorbachev’s relationship have been compared to that of Trump and Kim Jung Un. That’s not saying that Gorbachev and Kim have personal similarities, but the conditions surrounding U.S. presidential meetings with a foreign leader over nuclear arms issues are VERY similar in nature.

Also, Trump in Vietnam walked out of his second meeting with Kim in a similar fashion as did Reagan in Iceland.

What other similarities are there? Democrats and The Media!

  • A spokesman for leading Democratic candidate and former vice president Joe Biden blasted Trump for “coddling” Kim “at the expense of American national security and interests.”
  • Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who enjoys the second strongest following among the 2020 presidential aspirants, said the president was “squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters” with Kim.
  • Senator Bernie Sanders, almost next in popularity to Warren, said the move had “weakened the State Department.”
  • Samantha Vinograd, who served on the national security council under President Obama: “By shaking hands with Kim Jong Un at the DMZ with no preconditions attached, he’s really signaling that his metric for success at this point is the status quo, which is no long-range missile tests and no nuclear tests, but North Korea keeping its nuclear arsenal,” she said. Then she stated, “Kim has no reason to denuclearize, but every reason to push Trump for what he’s wanted all along, phased sanctions relief. North Korea under Trump is a normalized, nuclear power.”
  • Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter that while Trump and Kim met, “North Korea continues to build nuclear weapons. Another typical Trump ‘show.’”
  • Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said “We’ve seen a history here,” she said. “Donald Trump announces these summits and nothing really comes out of it.”
  • Despite the fact that there were four North Korean nuclear tests under President Obama and only one under President Trump, (none in almost 2 years) and Obama gave everything away to Cuba for nothing, Sunday’s editions of ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Sunday Today rushed to declare Trump’s historic meeting with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ to be nothing more than just a photo op. “[T]his was the dramatic headline, the dramatic photo that the President wanted. He’s a great showman. He pulled it off. There’s just no question about that,” proclaimed ABC chief anchor and Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos argued that there were no political or substantive outcomes from Trump’s previous talks with the North Korean dictator.
  • There was an echo on NBC where host Willie Geist asked political director Chuck Todd: “Is there a plan from the Trump administration or was it a photo op?” Todd hinted at it being just that, noting: “The last two ended up looking as if they were photo ops in the end. We thought they could lead to something, but they didn’t.”


Here’s the question that everyone in the media is afraid to ask or answer: Is Donald Trump another Ronald Reagan? You know what: he just might be. Trump really liked Reagan. The two met several times and got along well. But that was long before Donald Trump ever became a politician. It’s humorous that both ended up with entertainment careers immediately prior to becoming politicians: Reagan as California governor after a Hollywood acting career, Trump as U.S. President after a short but very successful television stint.

Do the similarities stop there?

It’s fairly obvious that the Socialist Democrat Party and their communication arm — the Media — hope the current Reagan/Trump comparisons are short-lived. They cannot bear to think that Donald Trump might just pull-off a successful political career! His doing so would certainly complete the self-destruction of the floundering Trump-hating sycophants at MSNBC and CNN. There’s just too much money behind the Washington Post and the New York Times for them to disintegrate. But that’s NOT the Trump objective.

Donald Trump sincerely wants only an American success story full of wins for the American people!

He has NO political agenda other than that. And it drives the Left insane.

Here’s one last comparison of the two: Ronald Reagan’s most famous speech took place in front of a wall in Berlin in which he cried, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Democrats and their media henchmen cringe at the thought of Donald Trump ever being able to in McAllen, Texas or San Diego, California stand before network television cameras and say, “What do you think about this recently completed border wall between Mexico and the United States?”

Uncanny similarities between Reagan and Trump, don’t you think?