“In Full Disclosure…” Part 2

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

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

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

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

Corruption lives and is thriving at the DOJ.

Whose Hands are Dirty?

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

That should alarm every American!

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

The answer to that question is simple: Accountability.

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

How?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How? Investigate; Harrass; Prosecute

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

The “Fix” is in

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

There’s still hope!

Play

State of Emergency Chaos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s Really Their Reasoning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY DON’T THEY CARE?

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

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

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

GOD HELP US!

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

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

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

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

In closing, simply consider this one final thought:

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

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

Play

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

We haven’t forgotten about our continuing analysis of the “likely” 2020 Democrat Party presidential candidates. You must agree we’ve had some significant distractions from Washington D.C.! But let’s get back to working in the narrative about each. We began our analysis of Dem candidates several weeks ago. So far we’ve looked at Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Michael Bloomberg, and Joe Biden. (If you haven’t already, look back at those before reading today’s analysis)

Today we begin analysis of the “Outsiders,” or “Newcomers.” There are quite a few. We will NOT analyze all of them for you — just the candidates our analysts say have the best shot at getting the nod of the Democrat Party. Let’s get started:

“He’s a White Barack Obama”

Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democrat donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans. Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

O’Rourke — who raised a stunning $38 million in the third quarter of his race — is widely considered capable of raising millions of dollars quickly, according to interviews with multiple Democratic money bundlers and strategists, catapulting him into the upper echelons of the 2020 campaign. Mikal Watts, a San Antonio-based lawyer and major Democratic money bundler, said several donors and political operatives in Iowa, after hearing from other potential candidates in recent days, have called to ask if O’Rourke is running, a sign of his impact in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. “They’re not wanting to sign on to other presidential campaigns until they know whether Beto is going,” Watts said. “And if Beto is running, what good progressive Democrat wouldn’t want to work for Beto O’Rourke?” He said, “I can tell you that there has not been this kind of level of electric excitement about a candidate since Barack Obama ran in 2008.”

O’Rourke raised more than $70 million in total in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, mostly from small donors in a race that captured national attention. Though he fell short — losing 51 percent to 48 percent — his closer-than-expected performance in the largest red state on the map was credited with lifing at least two Democrats to victory over House Republican incumbents. A recent POLITICO/Morning Consult presidential primary poll put O’Rourke in third place among Democratic voters, behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

“He’s game-changing,” said Robert Wolf, an investment banker who helped raise Wall Street money for Obama in 2008 and 2012. “If he decides to run, he will be in the top five. You can’t deny the electricity and excitement around the guy.” While other prominent Democrats, including Biden, Sanders and Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have support networks of their own, Wolf said, “Beto comes out of [the midterm elections] saying, ‘Oh my God, if a guy can do well in Texas, he certainly can do well throughout the country as a Democrat.”
“I get the hype,” Wolf said. “I think there’s an incredible amount of excitement around Beto. A lot of people have comparisons around him and a Robert Kennedy or a Barack Obama. And the [Democratic] Party likes young, ambitious and aspirational.”

The ascent of O’Rourke, a three-term congressman from El Paso, reflects the volatility of a 2020 presidential primary that has bothered Democratic donors and activists for months. Many fundraisers who have exclusively supported a single candidate in previous years are expected to hedge their bets initially, spreading smaller amounts to several candidates. One major Democratic bundler on the West Coast told POLITICO he is advising donors against throwing in with one candidate, saying, “It’s naivete, it’s political suicide to do that.” O’Rourke is a major reason for donors’ uncertainty, the bundler said, having “brought a whole bunch of new people off the sidelines.” “That’s this cycle’s ‘Bernie army’ — it’s ‘Beto’s Army,’” he said, comparing O’Rourke’s Senate fundraising to the staggering number of small donors who propelled Sanders in his unsuccessful 2016 primary campaign. “All the guy would have to do is send out an email to his fundraising base … and he raises $30 million,” the bundler said. “That has totally changed the landscape for the Tier 1 guys, because now Bernie and Warren, now they have competition. It completely changes the game if Beto runs. And he should run … He’s Barack Obama, but white.”

O’Rourke said before the midterm elections that he would not run for president, promising to serve six years in the Senate if elected. When asked at a CNN town hall if he would run for president if he did not win the Senate race, O’Rourke responded, “If I don’t win, we’re back in El Paso.”
But Democrats have not taken O’Rourke’s comments as ruling out a run. “I think that’s a decision that he has to make as to whether or not he’s going to run for president,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said. “Everybody’s waiting to see what Beto’s going to do.”
Asked about a potential presidential run, O’Rourke told the website TMZ, “I haven’t made any decisions about anything.”

For Democratic strategists eager to advance a younger nominee contrasting with President Donald Trump, O’Rourke’s appeal rests on his perceived ability to bridge a gulf within the party — between Democratic contenders who are older but come with pre-existing donor networks, and Democrats who are younger but have not yet developed a substantial fundraising base. O’Rourke, at 46, has both.

“People across the country just fell in love with him,” said Christian Archer, a San Antonio-based Democratic strategist. “He was able to raise national-level money, and that’s just such a distinct advantage.” However, Archer said, “There’s a fuse on that, and the question is how long will that last if he doesn’t make a move within a window of time.” Archer said, “Right now, he’s on fire.”

If O’Rourke is giving donors any doubts, it is largely because his fundraising came in a Senate contest, not a presidential primary stuffed full of marquee Democrats. New York Republican Rick Lazio, who set a single-quarter fundraising record in his losing New York Senate bid against Hillary Clinton in 2000 — a record surpassed by O’Rourke — failed to translate energy from that campaign into a future political success. And in a lengthy presidential race, early stars can fade.

George Tsunis, the hotel magnate and Obama megadonor, said O’Rourke “performed very admirably” in the Senate race. But he was skeptical that O’Rourke could replicate his fundraising in a presidential race, saying many donors were likely motivated by anti-Cruz sentiment. Still, Tsunis acknowledged the donor universe remains wide open. “A lot of people that I’m talking to are in a quandary,” he said. “They may have a half a dozen friends that are looking to do this, and they are so unbelievably torn here.”

There isn’t much modern historical precedent for O’Rourke to draw on.

  • George H.W. Bush was a Texas congressman who won the presidency after an unsuccessful 1970 Senate bid. But his presidential run didn’t come until years later — and it took Bush two tries before winning the White House.
  • Abraham Lincoln ran for president — and won — after two losing campaigns for Senate.
  • But the last person to go from the House to the presidency was James Garfield in 1880.

“One thing that [O’Rourke] is going to have to overcome is that he did lose to Ted Cruz,” said Cappy McGarr, a Dallas-based investor, and Democratic fundraiser. “He is the real deal, though. He’s charismatic, he’s thoughtful, he’s able — he is one of the most exciting politicians I’ve seen since Barack Obama ran for president.” Like many donors, however, McGarr holds a favorable view of several potential contenders, including Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor and Obama Cabinet secretary. “I have a lot of friends who might be running for president, and I think the more the merrier,” McGarr said. “And I certainly wouldn’t preclude giving and raising monies for more than one candidate.”

Steve Westly, a former California state controller and a major bundler of campaign contributions for Obama, said O’Rourke “has a lot of the wow factor now, and one could easily say, ‘He didn’t win.’ But to get [close] in Texas, that suggests to me that if he were the national nominee running against a non-Texan, he might well pull that state … and he is charismatic as heck.” Westly said he does not “have complete conviction yet” about which candidate to support, with a primary field that appears “completely, totally different than anything I’ve seen in the last half-century.”

Still, as he begins to field calls from potential candidates, Westly said he believes Democratic voters are “looking for newer faces outside the traditional Northeast corridor” of typical Democratic politicians, mentioning Bloomberg and Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, among others, as credible potential candidates. Most years, Westly said, “Guys like me can say, ‘Hey, it’s going to be one or two people, it’s person A, B or C, here’s why. It’s a short discussion … it’s five minutes, we can narrow it down.”
In 2020, he said, “Here you have something fundamentally different … In terms of betting odds, it’s really hard to sort out.”

But Westley said O’Rourke could immediately narrow the field. “I don’t’ believe that 50-year-old guys like me and 60-year-old guys in Washington who are in an hourly form of political warfare understand how disillusioned that warfare has made the younger people of this country,” he said. “From that perspective, Beto’s unvarnished approach was both refreshing to me, but intoxicating to the younger generation.”
“If Bernie runs and Warren runs and Kamala runs and [Cory] Booker runs, I think they all wash each other out in a certain way,” he said. “Beto’s got the juice right now. If he goes, he’s going to suck a lot of the oxygen out of the room. A lot … and immediately.”

Summary

No doubt, we have a long way to go before the 2020 election. But our wait until candidates begin “active” campaigning is just a few months ahead.

With President Trump as the odds-on favorite to represent the Republican Party, (and he’s already announced his run) Democrats are trying to narrow their choices.

O’Rourke surprised many people in the 2018 Texas Senatorial race. But many feel winning a general election against Donald Trump is probably too much for Beto, who lost in the race against Texas incumbent Ted Cruz. And it’s tough to lose an election and then win a presidential election.

To the gang at TruthNewsNet.org, it seems too early for Beto to make such a run. However, it might be a good spot for Dems to tag the former Texas Congressman for the bottom of their ticket. That spot might do O’Rourke well in 2024.

No matter when, where, or how he may run, it is almost certain Beto is NOT through with national office. However, tackling the 2020 race with just the hopes of the VP spot or to cement his candidacy for 2024 seems unlikely. Candidates in the 2020 General Election will almost be required to raise $1 Billion! That’s a tall order for even the rising star from El Paso, even if he IS a “white Barack Obama.”

But make no mistake: Beto will be back.

 

 

 

David Siders contributed to this story

Play

The Senate 60 Vote Requirement

In this never-ending battle regarding shutting down the government amid the battle over the funding for a southern border wall, Democrats keep harping on the Senate 60-vote requirement. How could the framers of the Constitution be so short-sighted to think that 3/5ths of U.S. Senators would agree on any one issue?

But did the framers make that decision? NO!

Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison indicated in the Federalist Papers a clear belief in majority rule, with Hamilton saying that “the fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” Nonetheless, the Founders left the matter of House and Senate procedure undetermined in the Constitution, choosing instead to let Congress determine its own rules. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the Rules and Proceedings Clause, states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”

That is exactly what the Senate did. In fact, the original Senate rules placed no time limit on debate, but also allowed any Senator to make a motion “for the previous question,” which permitted a simple majority to halt debate on the pending question and bring the matter to an immediate vote. This motion for the previous question was eliminated in 1806 at the suggestion of Vice President Aaron Burr, largely because it was deemed superfluous.

Even with the elimination of the motion to end debate, filibusters were hardly a defining part of the Senate. Across the entire 19th century, there were only 23 filibusters. And from 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules to end a filibuster, until 1969, there were fewer than 50, less than one per year.

Eliminating the filibuster on some nominations will not change the basic nature of the Senate as a legislative body. In fact, it is largely a restorative move, returning the Senate to its historical norms, when Senate giants like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster carried the day through the force of their ideas, rather than by manipulating rarely used Senate rules that allowed a small minority to block the will of the people.

Nor has the “Nuclear Option” turned  the Senate into the House of Representatives, as some have charged. The Senate will continue to differ from the House in significant ways. Senators will continue to be elected very six years, rather than every two years as in the House of Representatives. Senators from the smallest states will continue to have the same power in the Senate as Senators from the largest states. And the Senate will continue to operate in most instances based on unanimous consent, unlike the House. In addition, the reforms enacted by the Senate pertain only to nominations, which are themselves solely the responsibility of the Senate.

That is not to say that I would not support changing the filibuster with respect to legislation as well. If the Senate were to take that step, however, it would be critical that the changes preserve the rights of the minority to offer relevant amendments and to have extended debate. That the minority should be provided certain rights within the Senate is without question. But the minority should not have the ability to block legislation. When this happens it creates a situation, says James Madison in the Federalist Papers, in which, “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.” And many feel the current vein of political elitism and anti-white male is already destroying the majority rule of the people.

The fact is that the filibuster is not, and never has been, the sacrosanct soul of the Senate that some are making it out to be. The framers never envisioned that a supermajority of 60 votes would be required to enact virtually any piece of legislation or to confirm nominees. Indeed, the Constitution was very clear about where a supermajority was needed. There were only five instances in the original Constitution: ratification of a treaty, override of a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of the Constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a member.

Reform of the filibuster stands squarely within a tradition of updating the Senate rules as needed to strengthen an effective government that can respond to the challenges of the day. The Senate has adopted rules to reform the filibuster in numerous circumstances, such as war powers and the budget. And prior to Former Nevada Senator Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option, since 1917, the Senate had passed only four other significant reforms concerning the filibuster.

A frequently repeated Republican talking point when Reid led the Senate back to the simple majority in the case of nominations is that Senate Democrats were “breaking the rules to change the rules.” This may be a catchy talking point, but that doesn’t make it true. The original Senate rules actually included a means to end debate by a simple majority. And the Constitution itself specifies that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” As Senator Robert Byrd, probably the greatest authority on Senate rules in American history, and himself a staunch opponent of filibuster reform said, “At any time that 51 Senators are determined to change the rule . . . that rule can be changed.” That is precisely what the Senate does whenever it invokes the nuclear option.

Some have argued that the rules change first seen in 2014 by the Senate was enacted simply so that Democrats could carry out their agenda. While this may have been true in the short-term, those with a longer view of history knew that, eventually, Republicans would come to power, and that Republicans would have the ability to carry out their own agenda. This is not only obvious, but appropriate. Democratic elections should have consequences. When the American people speak, whether they express a preference for Democrats or Republicans, those who win a majority at the ballot box should have the ability to carry out their agenda, and then be held accountable to the public.

The fact is that reform of the filibuster is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. At the heart of the debate is a single, simple question — do we believe in democracy? Do we believe that issues of public policy should be decided at the ballot box or by the manipulation of ancient Senate rules? Those who oppose any change to the filibuster rule, those who oppose the principle of majority rule, in reality are fearful that the people’s choices and wishes will be translated into action in Washington.

The Senate rules reform was not about a power grab or about the agenda of Senate Democrats. Rather, it was a vote of confidence in democracy and the good sense of the American people. Our union has remained successfully for more than two centuries because the American people have had the good sense to elect to Congress those whom they determine are most capable of carrying out their wishes, and to remove those who don’t. The American people do not fear democracy, and neither should their elected representatives in Congress.

Summary

There are some things regarding the Constitution that trouble me:

  1.  Originally Senators were appointed by governors and not elected. Why? Senators were to “represent the states.” My problem with the change is it throws the Senate into the popularity contest of elections rather than flying below the fray of having to campaign. Gubernatorial appointment makes much better sense to me.
  2. This 60-vote majority stuff is a hoax played on Americans. Yes, I understand the original intent when it was set was to force arduous and thorough debate without limits. But that was before America lived with “intstant everything.” US Senators today do not have the temperament or the stamina or sufficient fundamental knowledge of constitutional principles necessary to persuade opponents in debate. The current battle for border security is a case in point. Schumer — who is the supposed brainchild of Senate Democrats — made it quite clear why the 60-vote rule will not work: “President Trump, you will NEVER get your wall.” Decency, negotiation, compromise, nor what the American people want plays any role in this issue.

Some may claim that what we are experiencing now is exactly why we should have the cloture rule. I disagree. We’re in the middle of Bowl season with NFL playoffs about to start! And it’s Christmas!

Let’s just let Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, and Trump play a game of “Go Fish” with a winner-take-all finish. Finishing this circus that way may be the only way to shut-down the illegal migration slush-fund.

“Spartacus”

Before we begin today’s analysis, please note that tomorrow in both our story and in the podcast we are releasing some bombshell information that has nothing to do with this series to determine who will run against President Trump and who will win. Nevertheless, what we are bringing to you is staggering.

Be sure if you have not done so already log your email address below right so that anytime we post a new story or podcast you will NOT miss it. You will get an email with a link to that story/podcast each time. We don’t sell anything, we don’t make your email address available to anyone. It’s strictly for your purposes.

Now enjoy “Spartacus!”

Cory Booker (D-NJ) if not the most polarizing potential Democrat Party nominee to run against President Trump is at least one of the top 3. Booker seems to revel in controversy. More about that ahead. But first, let’s look at who Booker is.

Cory Booker

Cory Anthony Booker (born April 27, 1969) is serving as the junior United States Senator from New Jersey since 2013 and a member of the Democrat Party. The first African-American U.S. Senator from New Jersey, he was previously the 36th Mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. Before that Booker served on the Newark City Council for the Central Ward from 1998 to 2002.

He born in Washington, D.C. and raised in Harrington Park, New Jersey. He attended Stanford University where he received an undergraduate and master’s degree in 1991 and 1992, respectively. He studied abroad at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship before attending Yale Law School. He won an upset victory for a seat on the Municipal Council of Newark in 1998 where he staged a 10-day hunger strike and briefly lived in a tent to draw attention to urban development issues in the city. He ran for mayor in 2002, but lost to incumbent Sharpe James; he ran again in 2006 and won against deputy mayor Ronald Rice. His first term saw to the doubling of affordable housing under development and the reduction of the city budget deficit from $180 million to $73 million. He was re-elected in 2010. He ran against Steve Lonegan in the 2013 U.S. Senate special election and subsequently won reelection in 2014 against Jeff Bell.

As mayor, he was described as a New Democrat and as a political moderate, known for defending Bain Capital during the 2012 presidential election and for supporting school vouchers. As a senator, his voting record was measured as the third most liberal. Considered a social liberal, Booker supports women’s rights, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and single-payer healthcare. His age and political ideology have marked him as a potential member of multiple U.S. presidential tickets. When asked about his desire to run for executive roles in American government he has stated, “life is about purpose, not position,” neither confirming nor denying potential runs for President.  There were even rumors Clinton was considering him as a potential running mate in 2016 before she ultimately chose Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

The New Jersey senator has had star-power for many years, even during his time as mayor of Newark. While Booker does have ties to Wall Street, he has also been a major critic of President Trump and outspoken proponent of criminal justice reform. He also tackled declassifying marijuana as a scheduled substance on the federal level.

When asked in mid-March of 2018 about a possible 2020 run and the message Democrats need to send to voters, Booker seemed to hint at a possible strategy. “I’m saying this to Democrats who will listen to me—we can’t make our elections about being against Trump. They have to be about what we’re for,” Booker told the Atlantic.

In May of 2018, Booker was asked on The View about his 2020 aspirations but was non-committal. “I’m a contender for the 2018 midterms where I’m going to be fighting for every Democratic candidate,” he said. “This is the most important midterm election of our lifetime… for folks who are looking beyond that… don’t look beyond.”

Similarly, at a University of Chicago event in May, Booker seemed to think someone else would be at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2020. “In the mosh pit of all the names that are talked about, maybe there is going to be a person where you and I both will say ‘she is the one’ and let’s get involved in supporting them,” he said.

During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Booker also raised speculation about a White House bid when he grilled the nominee and released documents from the committee that were deemed “committee confidential.” It was during that hearing in which Booker won the moniker of “Spartacus” for jumping in the limelight in the hearing with his personal reference to “Spartacus:”

Senator Booker has received much criticism for was has been characterized as “showmanship” in this back-and-forth with the committee leadership. No doubt it was pure grandstanding for an appearance on national television to show a national Democrat base that he is willing to “fall on his sword” for a worthy liberal cause. The criticism came when moments after this charade, it was revealed that the documents that were the subject of this event had already been released to the public hours before the hearing.

Political Positions

  • He has been described as a liberal, and a moderate.
  • In a July 2013 Salon interview, Booker said that “there’s nothing in that realm of progressive politics where you won’t find me.”
  • In a September 2013 interview with The Grio, when asked if he considered himself a progressive, he stated that he is a Democrat and an American.
  • George Norcross III described Booker as “a new Democrat—a Democrat that’s fiscally conservative yet socially progressive.”
  • In May 2012, Booker defended Bain Capital’s record and criticized Obama’s attack on private equity. In response, the Republican National Committee created a petition called “I Stand With Cory Booker.”
  • Abortion: Booker opposes overturning Roe v. Wade.
  • Affirmative action: When asked if affirmative action in university admissions should be based on class or race or banned completely, Booker said both race and class should be considered and cited the 2003 US Supreme Court ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger.
  • Civil liberties: He has called for amending the Patriot Act and said he was “troubled” by the revelations of the scope of the National Security Agency’s secret spy programs, but has shied away from specifics. He voted for the USA Freedom Act which re-authorized certain provisions of the Patriot Act in modified form.
  • Climate change: Booker believes climate change is man-made and supports cap-and-trade or carbon tax approach in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. In September 2018, Booker was one of eight senators to sponsor the Climate Risk Disclosure Act, a bill described by cosponsor Elizabeth Warren as using “market forces to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy — reducing the odds of an environmental and financial disaster without spending a dime of taxpayer money.”
  • Confederate monuments: In August 2017, Booker announced his plan to create a bill ordering the removal of Confederate monuments and memorials from the Capitol Building after Labor Day of that year.
  • Gun rights: Booker has routinely defended the right of law-abiding citizens to own legal firearms and blames most shootings on criminals with illegal guns. He voted to prohibit people on terror watch lists from buying guns.
  • Healthcare: Booker has called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imperfect, said it needs to be improved and wants to control health care costs. He opposes cutting Medicare, he supports expanding the program, and he supports transitioning to a “Medicare-for-all”-style single-payer healthcare system. In September 2017, Booker joined Bernie Sanders and 14 other co-sponsors in submitting a single-payer health care plan to Congress called the “Medicare for All” bill. The plan also covers vision and dental care, not currently covered by Medicare.
  • Immigration Booker supports the passage of the DREAM Act. In July 2018, Booker was one of eleven senators to sign a letter requesting the agencies responsible for reuniting families provide weekly updates until every separated child was returned to their parents.
  • He is for same-sex marriage.
  • Booker opposes raising the age for qualification for Social Security benefits except for those 20 and under.
  • Marriage: Booker has never married. In spite of rumors of his being gay, he has frequently described himself as a “straight-male” that is looking for someone with whom to settle down with.

Summary

It is almost certain that “Spartacus” is already in the running — although not “officially” — as a candidate for the 2020 Democrat nomination for President. He has much going for him: he is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, a 2nd Amendment adherent, supports efforts that include military action if found to be necessary to keep nuclear proliferation from happening in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

Cory Booker seriously dislikes Donald Trump. Many think a race between the two would expose some really negative debating since both are prone to very dramatic personal expression in public forums. (In other words, Booker would certainly NOT be shy to respond “in-kind” to jabs the President takes against his opponents almost daily) That might make for a humorous “made-for-television” campaign cycle!

Could Booker win? He would be a formidable foe for Donald Trump in that he is more conservative than almost all other Democrats contemplating running. In other words, he is not “hard left,” which is a position missing so far from other Dems.

Will Booker run? No doubt he is building a platform, testing the water, and leaning toward running. It is no surprise that he loves politics, loves the political stage, and salivates at making the White House his political podium. I would imagine he is in conversations (and probably has been for some time) with Party leadership about running. But there is a gaggle of other potential 2020 Democrat candidates doing the same things as Booker.

I imagine by mid-April 2019 all will know the 2020 intentions of Cory Booker. But don’t be surprised to tune into MSNBC’s Morning Joe and see Spartacus on the set making an announcement to run. After all, Booker is STILL chasing his “Spartacus Moment!”

“You”

I received a note early today from my mentor and editor, Ron White, from his breathtaking retirement log cabin in North Carolina. It seems I had misspelled words in several spots in yesterday’s story about the Democrat Party and racism. I had an excuse — no, TWO excuses! I use the software program Grammarly to spellcheck my writings. I recently segued my writing to an iPad and yet have not downloaded Grammarly to my iPad. My “other” excuse is I’m lying in a hospital bed, I wrote later than normal yesterday because I couldn’t sleep, (I’m in a hospital bed) and I was writing in  the dark.

I’m not looking for pity: it’s a heart catheritization. After a mild heart attack 2.5 years ago, my doctor just wants to make sure everything’s OK. He in yesterday’s procedure found a glitch…or two, and is installing a couple of stints in small arteries today.

Enough about that. I’ve something important to share, and it’s personal:

It’s Christmas month. That and being a 65-year-old heart patient about to have a cardiovascular surgeon and a couple of his assistants in my chest gives pause to this old man. I’m thinking. And I’m dangerous when I’m thinking. I’ve got to put a few things right and a few others in proper perspective.

I don’t say “Thank you” enough. And I feel stupid in retrospect that I haven’t. It’s not because I’m not thankful, rather that I just haven’t taken the time to do so. TruthNewsNet is a “new” home to me with many old friends and many new friends joining in this venture. I may have said a benign “Thanks” a time or two. But it is incumbent upon me to share how I really feel.

YOU are an amazing gift to me for which I have done nothing to deserve. Even though nothing about any of this is really about me, (other than sharing with you what I think and how I feel) it’s about sharing with you. And you have chosen to share a part of your life with me and TruthNewsNet. Please accept my deep heartfelt thanks for your commitment and gift of time and support. You do not have to do so — you choose to do so. Thank you.

What’s really incredible is how so many of you look-in, not because you agree with or support all of what you see and hear, but because you simply want to know what is happening in our world from someone else’s vantage. You’ll surely agree, I’m sure, you get that “other” vantage here!

There are many much smarter and better educated than me about the facts of operations in our nation and the “what’s” and “why’s” of the U.S. Government. It’s a journey for me to get to the point of really seeing, hearing, and understanding all of those things. And I am in awe that you have joined me on this trip.

This time is a universal window for all to share gratitude with others: friends, family, co-workers, extended family members, and those much less fortunate than us. It’s a time of giving and being a gift.

For many, however, Christmas is a season of heartache, bad or sad memories of people we’ve lost, horrible personal experiences, and often regret for poor choices.

I encourage each of you to once each day this month, find one person in your life and give something to them. I’m not speaking of money or anything necessarily tangible. Speak “into” their life, each and everyone.

I know you are busy, especially this month. But we should never be too busy or too distracted with the important yet often too consuming circumstances we face to give something of ourselves to someone else. I guarantee from multiple personal experiences your doing so will not only change them, it will change you. And who among us cannot afford to change a little and change for the better.

By the way: tell your children today how much you love them. Not just, “I love you.” That’s important and priceless. But saying to your daughter or son, “I love you more than you’ll ever know and am really proud of you,” will almost always blow their minds. Try it. Hey, try it on your spouse, too.

Most importantly, before you head hits your pillow tonight, thank our Creator for your breath, your health, your spouse and family, for freedom and the opportunity to live in the freest country on Earth. Thank him for his Son and His gift to the World.

As I had just started this writing today, a sweet little lady walked into my room and introduced herself as Mary, the hospital chaplain. We shared pleasantries. And as hospital chaplains always do, she prodded me for details of my “visit.” And then she shocked me: she asked me to pray with her and asked me to pray. So I did.

Here’s the context of my prayer: “Lord, I thank you for giving Mary to those gravely ill in this facility to share their grief, pain, and fear, but to also share the peace and hope that comes in a relationship with you. I pray you will consume her with a new joy that will bubble over to everyone she meets today. Allow her to be YOUR messenger of this word to all of those she visits with, ‘The Best is Yet to Come.’”

I pray that same prayer for you today with this one thought: Don’t let where you are today determine WHO you are. It’s only one stop on WHERE you’re going. You’ll be WHO you are WHEREVER you end up.

Dan

 

 

 

Hello: My Name is “Corruption”

”I am certain you know who I am. I have been around for a really long time. If we haven’t met personally, certainly you’ve seen my handiwork.

I don’t remember a time when I didn’t exist. Honestly, I’m certain I’ve been around as long as you guys. The reason that many don’t recognize me when they see the results of my work is because I have a great attribute that only I can initiate: I make myself look just like anyone I want. I can look like anybody and I can act just like the wind. You really do not SEE the wind, but you see its results — you see what the wind does. When you see leaves on a tree blowing around, you know the wind is there. I can make myself just like that. You don’t necessarily see me; you see what I DO. And I do a lot!

So what do I do? What’s my ‘job?’ I have one goal in life: to get every human I can to blindly accept everything I show them is what they need, and then get them to do ALL of those things. What does that mean? Let me explain.

I find a way to exploit your weaknesses. I’m really good at finding them. Let’s face it: they usually are about sex, money, fame, or power. All I have to do is find which is your ‘poison.’ It’s easy for me to use it against you.

Alexander the Great was extremely insecure. As a boy, he just wanted to be liked. Kids his on age bullied him. All he ever wanted was to retaliate against them all. So I surrounded him with a bunch of guys that I had already made mine. They taught Alex how easy it is to be powerful and tower over others as those bullies had done to him. So he did it. He found ways to not only destroy people, but he also slaughtered tens of thousands of humans who stood in the way of his lust for power. The more death and destruction he initiated, the more he wanted. He was my favorite son…for a while.

Europe was easy for me. Stalin and Lenin were easy pawns. Their lust for power made it simple for me to dangle conquest in front of both. Their pride and greed consumed them and destroyed millions of good people. War was just a tool for them to use to spread their brutality. They both fed on all my ‘benefits:’ wealth, sexual perversion, fear, and the domination of their nations citizens’ lives — until those two were through with them. Those plebes were then marched to death camps, the Gulags, or simply executed.

Before the Russian pawns, I turned Hitler my way. Adolph was pretty easy. He was a shy German lad who hated the Jewish people. He deplored his own weaknesses. That made it easy for him to spot in others and flame in him the fires of hatred. I gave him tools that allowed him to easily convince people to follow him. He loved the military which he used to obliterate Jews that dared to call the Motherland theirs. He conned a large group of military leaders to ‘get rid’ of the Jews — first in Germany, then Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Austria. I gave him the idea of how to exterminate the ‘vermin,’ which he passed along to his minions. His military leaders fired up ovens, gas chambers. The Jews that escaped those were simply starved to death.

But America REALLY opened the door for me to expand my craft. There was a group of really strong and honest people who resisted me in the beginning. They set up a government that was designed to assure settlers in the New World the brutal dictatorships and monarchies they lived through in Europe would NEVER dominate America. That government was supposed to be ‘of the People, by the People, and for the People.’ It worked…for a while.

America’s becoming the most powerful, richest, and freest country on Earth made it a candy store for me. I’ve had a field day! When people get fat, content, and happy, Mr. Corruption has a much easier time breaking down those doors. Americans became so content and oblivious to the realities of life elsewhere, they all on the most part adopted an attitude of entitlement that became the easiest portal I’ve ever had to quietly invade a nation.

Do you think slavery just happened? Heck no! Men throughout history lusted for power over other humans. But I used Americans’ pride and laziness to push their thirst for control over others to the limits. Slaveowners took depravity to the lowest depths of humanity. Sex and human trafficking ran amuck. Forcing men, women, and children to play the humiliating role of nothing more than chattel property was one of my greatest achievements. Plantation owners treated slaves like farm animals with no regard for their health, welfare, families, or any role they played other that whatever role the slaveowner chose for them. And I instilled and maintained in all their minds that owning another human was just something they did. ‘Everybody does that!’ made it OK.

I hope you didn’t think when Americans adopted the attitude that government was nothing more than a tool for them to use for their personal enrichment that their doing so was just something that happened. I DID THAT! And it was pretty easy. After all, when men and women live every day of their lives thinking their desires are the only things that matter in their world, they ALWAYS find ways to make certain what they want is available — somehow. I dropped this question into a politician’s head one day: “Why not just use government to take care of all of this. When I control the political might, I control every person, every business, every law, and every dollar. That way, I can have everything I ever want!”

The first politicians I turned took it to some really way-out limits. So I made it clear to them that they needed to keep pushing forward with their political power-grabbing processes, but they needed to keep it quiet. There were always going to be men and women around who would reject me and my ideas and would stick to everything right, legal, and fair. We didn’t need those do-gooders talking to others about us. And it worked.

You may be saying, ‘All this is just a bit too far-fetched!’ Do you REALLY think that?

  • You don’t think I was there when John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln? Booth was one of my guys. Lincoln refused to drink the ‘Corruption Kool-Aid.’ I had to take him out. Booth was just the guy.
  • You don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald acted on his own? That conspiracy theory about ‘Who Shot Kennedy’ was about a real conspiracy. I couldn’t have a guy in power who was teaching Americans to live lives totally opposite to my teaching. He told them ‘Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.’ I couldn’t have this nation become one of people who cared for others!
  • You don’t believe that James Earl Ray shot Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because Ray was a racist? James Earl Ray was on a mission — for ME! My people needed African Americans to continue to be subservient to Caucasian Americans and live only to fulfill the whims of those ‘superior’ Americans. King was teaching those African Americans that they were really valuable, and were created as equal human beings in every way. I couldn’t allow that!
  • You don’t think those white Southern Democrats came up with those white sheets and the burning hunger to terrorize African Americans on their own? I planted those seeds in their minds. I had created racism! It was an amazing tool to pit one human against another, to perpetuate anger, bigotry, and hatred, and to perpetuate war — real or perceived — between people who are ‘different.’ I had to keep white Americans believing black Americans were unworthy of human dignity. I had to keep black Americans subservient and willing to accept they were less than human.
  • You don’t think that some guy just decided that he didn’t like women and he preferred other guys and some woman that she liked other women? Things regarding sex between men and women had rocked along too quietly for too long. I had to plant those thoughts and confuse those men and women. And I later used that confusion to create an entire political movement to instill and perpetuate some of the most amazing animus yet in America. And it’s still working!
  • I made politicians’ lust for power so consuming they accepted every thought I gave them as to how to build and perpetuate power while hiding their intentions, methods, and actions in accumulating all the power in the U.S. necessary to enslave the entire population without them even knowing it.
  • I created blackmail. I taught politicians how to use it to enslave their fellow legislators, forcing them to commit the most disgusting acts against others one can imagine. Politicians were forced to go along with horrific and heinous acts against American citizens in every way imaginable: confiscatory tax policies, theft of citizens’ rights and property, unfair criminal law and prosecution, personal enrichment through unimaginable schemes — all while opening the door to bigger and bigger government to allow an elite class of Americans to self-determine every aspect of life for every American with no regard for those Americans’ wishes.
  • I taught Elitists from that government to allow the evils created by Stalin, Hitler, Gerbel, Mao, and even King Herod stealthily creep back into American culture. Planned Parenthood has been given billions of dollars confiscated from Americans through taxpayers to summarily destroy millions of humans before birth, while those elitists hide that Planned Parenthood ‘refunds’ to those politicians millions of those tax dollars they’ve been given, calling them ‘campaign contributions.’ Politicians waste trillions of American dollars in scheme after scheme, pork project after pork project, passing out money to friends, relatives, companies owned by campaign supporters, all the while accepting billions of dollars and ‘contributions’ from supporters which are all payback. It is ridiculously funny that through the lust for power, money, and their pride, I have (with all of these tools) them so tied to me they cannot say one thing to anyone about any of this! If they do, they’ll all go down. And when one or two start thinking about ‘talking,’ all I have to do is send one of my lieutenants to remind them of what I can do, and they all shut up…or I shut them up!

All this stuff you see politicians do today that just doesn’t seem right? I’m the source of their doing so and their justification for doing it. Things like: picking and choosing which laws to enforce, which ones to forget about, and who can get away with breaking any laws without any penalty — that’s me! Their promoting open borders and illegal immigration — that’s me too! Allowing the unfettered funding of hate groups like ANTIFA and the White Supremacists who each promote nothing but racism, hatred, and anarchy — all of it I instigated. The death of morality and decency throughout the American populace, exploding violence and murder, rape, human trafficking of all kinds, pedophilia, incest, and even abortion — that’s all me. And it’s some of my finest work!

None of any of this is possible without people in power. There are many in government — too many for me to list for you here. (I wouldn’t do that anyway. I don’t want to give myself away anymore than I already have.) But you know them all by name. I won’t even talk about them individually.

God has done an amazing job in creating the world and creating humans. I sometimes slap myself thinking ‘Why did God even create me?!’ I wonder why God created evil, too. I’m not going to worry about that. I’ll just revel in that evil and continue to corrupt everyone I can. I’ve gotten really good at it and hiding it as well.  I’ll bet you never really thought much about me. See, I’ve done a pretty good job!

I’ll let you go with this one thought: people in America are not as stupid as they act. They see all of this along with all the good in the world. American people make choices about whether they are going to let me do through them what my name says I’m all about: corrupting them and leading them into the corruption of others. There are very few who actually speak up against me. Most people (like you) are NOT politicians. Those people (like you) willingly allow this all to happen.

I’m taking a chance coming forward and talking to you about this today. I’m pretty sure you could start talking about me, trying to convince others that I’m real and that you guys should do something to get rid of me. But I’m SO confident, SO sure, and SO good at what I do, I’m pretty sure those other people aren’t going to do something like that.

There is something that is certain: as long as I exist, and as long as men and women keep me around, I’m the one that is going to be in power. I’m the one that will run the show. And I KNOW all the ins and outs of human beings, and how to manipulate you all. Doing so is pretty easy — TOO EASY! And I plan to just keep right on doing what I do best: Corruption.

You could do something about me. You could talk about me to your family members, friends, relatives, and even politicians who are supposed to serve you. But you won’t do that. Why?

I KNOW WHO YOU ARE. I KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. I KNOW WHAT YOU’VE DONE!

You already knew that, didn’t you? Listen to this and remember this one thing: you’re being quiet about ME is the reason I exist, AND the reason I’m not going anywhere!

 

 

Play

“Real” Midterm Election Prediction: NOT Poll “Guesses”

Are you tired of the constant election polls analysis? Ever question how their results are determined? How can they vary so dramatically? Want a REAL solution with REAL answers? We have it!

Our research department found a real election analysis firm that doesn’t look at polls or campaign contributions or ads or speeches. They’re pretty good at the midterm numbers, too. They only analyze the House races: 435 in each election. How good are they? 

in 2012, 2014, and 2016 they projected each of the 435 House races in each election. In ALL 3 elections combined, they missed ONE SEAT! How?

See the “rest of the story” tomorrow morning right here. And it includes their analysis and expected results for these midterm elections.

 

 

 

Mueller Mania

“The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice, including some that investigators would not have learned of otherwise, according to a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter.

In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s fury toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Among them were Mr. Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and Mr. Trump’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it. Mr. McGahn was also centrally involved in Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which investigators might not have discovered without him.

For a lawyer to share so much with investigators scrutinizing his client is unusual. Lawyers are rarely so open with investigators, not only because they are advocating on behalf of their clients but also because their conversations with clients are potentially shielded by attorney-client privilege, and in the case of presidents, executive privilege.”

This bombshell story was released by the New York Times Sunday, August 19th. Don McGahn — White House Counsel — according to this report has spent 30 hours in private meetings with the Robert Mueller team answering questions about President Trump’s actions regarding all those things Mueller is investigating. And who knows what things that includes.

There are some significant things to note from this occurrence:

  1. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, as President Mr. Trump would have had to waive Executive Privilege for McGahn to meet with Mueller;
  2. For the counsel to the President to have such conversations, Mr. Trump would have had to waive his right to confidentiality between his attorney and himself;
  3. 30 Hours: Obviously this was a long time for a lawyer to meet with prosecutors to discuss anything — especially alleged wrongdoing by the President of the United States. Certainly MUCH was discussed, MUCH was asked of McGahn, and MUCH was answered;
  4. I’ll stretch way out there with this statement: It is almost certain McGahn’s discussions yielded absolutely nothing in the way of implicating President Trump on collusion (which is not a crime) or obstruction of justice. In fact, buried at the bottom of the New York Times story is this: “Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky.”

Mueller Leaks

  • June 3, 2017: The Associated Press revealed Mueller’s team had taken over a criminal probe of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
  • July 22, 2017: Two sources claiming direct knowledge told Reuters Mueller’s investigators were hoping to use evidence of money laundering or other financial crimes to pressure Manafort to cooperate in the collusion probe.
  • August 3, 2017: Citing “people familiar with the matter,” the Wall Street Journal reported a grand jury had been impaneled by Mueller. White House attorney Ty Cobb said at the time he was unaware of the grand jury’s existence.
  • August 9, 2017: The Washington Post reported FBI agents conducted a predawn raid of Manafort’s Virginia home on July 26 to seize documents and other materials related to Mueller’s investigation. According to the Post, people familiar with the search said a warrant sought financial records and the evidence collected included binders Manafort had prepared for his congressional testimony.
  • August 24, 2017: “A source close to the investigation” provided Fox News with new details of the raid of Manafort’s house and claimed it was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”
  • August 25, 2017: “People familiar with the matter” informed the Wall Street Journal that Mueller was investigating Flynn’s involvement in a private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton’s email from Russian hackers.
  • August 28, 2017: According to NBC News, three sources said Mueller’s investigators were focused on Trump’s role in writing a response to media reports about a meeting between campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016.
  • September 1, 2017: The Washington Post reported Mueller’s investigators had a copy of a draft letter prepared by Trump aide Stephen Miller to justify the firing of Comey in May 2017.
  • September 20, 2017: Emails reportedly turned over to Mueller’s team and Senate investigators leaked to the Washington Post revealed that Manafort offered to provide private briefings to a Russian billionaire with ties to the Kremlin during the 2016 campaign.
  • October 4, 2017: Reuters cited three “sources familiar with the investigation” saying that Mueller’s team had taken over the FBI’s inquiries into a dossier of allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. Two officials also reportedly told Reuters Mueller was looking into whether Manafort or others helped the Kremlin target hacking efforts and social media posts to influence the election.
  • October 27, 2017: “Sources briefed on the matter,” told CNN that the first charges in Mueller’s investigation had been filed under seal. The following Monday, charges were unsealed Manafort and campaign aide Robert Gates, as well as a guilty plea by former adviser George Papadopoulos.
  • November 5, 2017: NBC News reported multiple sources said Mueller had enough evidence to bring charges against Flynn and his son. According to NBC, the FBI was also investigating a possible effort by Flynn to extradite a Muslim cleric in the U.S. whom Turkish President Recep Erdogan blamed for a coup attempt.
  • November 16, 2017: The Wall Street Journal cited a “person familiar with the matter” reporting that Mueller’s team had subpoenaed Russia-related documents from Trump’s campaign, including documents and emails were written by several campaign officials.
  • December 2, 2017: Multiple “people familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post that former top counterintelligence official Peter Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team because of anti-Trump texts between him and an FBI attorney with whom he was having an affair. Details of many of those texts, which were under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office, have since been leaked to various media outlets.
  • January 2, 2018: A source detailed the physical characteristics, clothing, race, and gender of grand jury members to the New York Post and alleged that the grand jury room “looks like a Bernie Sanders rally.”
  • February 17, 2018: CNN cited anonymous sources stating that Gates was close to negotiating a plea deal with Mueller and that new charges against Manafort were being prepared. Less than a week later, Gates entered a guilty plea to conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and a superseding indictment was filed against Manafort.
  • February 27, 2018: CNN reported that three “people familiar with the matter” said Mueller had recently questioned witnesses about Trump’s business activities in Russia and negotiations surrounding a potential Trump Tower in Moscow.
  • February 28, 2018: An unnamed former Trump campaign aide told CNN Mueller’s team asked about comments former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made during her interview with investigators about possible contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.
  • March 2, 2018: Witnesses and others familiar with the investigation reportedly told NBC News Mueller’s team was asking questions about Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business ties. The following week, NBC cited “sources familiar with the matter” saying Qatari officials withheld damaging information about the United Arab Emirates’ influence on Kushner from Mueller.
  • March 3, 2018: According to the New York Times, Mueller was looking into attempts by the United Arab Emirates to buy political influence on Trump and the role of Lebanese-American businessman George Nader.
  • March 4, 2018: Axios obtained a copy of a subpoena sent to a former Trump campaign official by Mueller’s team. Sam Nunberg later confirmed he was the source and spoke extensively to the media about the investigation.
  • March 7, 2018: “People familiar with the matter,” told the Washington Post Mueller had evidence from a cooperating witness that a secret meeting in Seychelles between a Trump ally and a Russian official prior to the inauguration was an attempt to establish a back channel between the administration and the Kremlin.
  • March 15, 2018: The New York Times reported that Mueller had subpoenaed documents from the Trump Organization.
  • April 9, 2018: The New York Times learned federal investigators had raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room. Hours later, sources told the Washington Post Cohen was under investigation for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
  • April 30, 2018: The New York Times obtained a list of questions Mueller wanted to ask Trump. According to the Times, the list was prepared by Trump’s attorneys after speaking to investigators but it was not given to reporters by Trump’s legal team.
  • March 9, 2018: from POLITICO —“Special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors aren’t talking to the media, but still the leaks keep coming. In the past two weeks, anonymously sourced news reports have said the top federal Russia investigator is preparing to indict Russians for hacking Democratic emails in 2016; focusing on why one of President Donald Trump’s longtime lawyers was in talks about a Moscow real estate deal during the campaign; asking questions about Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner’s business dealings; and probing whether the United Arab Emirates improperly sought to influence Trump White House policy.”
  • Former federal prosecutor Seth Waxman has seen no evidence that these leaks—often sourced to people familiar with the investigation or briefed on it—have come directly from Mueller or his staff. When Mueller has spoken publicly, it has been through criminal complaints and indictments.

This list includes Mueller leaks only through March 9, 2018. How many others are there? How many more will there be?

What is Mueller’s Objective and How do Leaks Play into that?

I have an “informed” conclusion I have drawn from this and other evidence surrounding the Mueller Investigation. It’s pretty exhaustive and detailed. For the sake of time, let’s wait until tomorrow to have that entire discussion. There are enough important details in this explanation that we need to lay it all out in chronological order and with complete details. We’ll do that tomorrow.

Rest assured of one thing: there IS a master plan with a sinister under-girding in the Mueller probe. Many circumstances of this investigation are too stark and too related to things outside of the actual investigation to be random. This entire chapter of the Trump presidency was planned in advance and orchestrated.

Who, How, and What? Find out tomorrow at the Truth News Network!

Play

Really, Really Bad Foreign Policy

Whether it’s the trade dispute with China, his pushing North Korea to get rid of its nukes or his demand that NATO members ante up defense spending to bear more of the NATO burden, Mainstream Media march in step shouting from the rooftops how much danger the Trump foreign policy brings to the U.S. needlessly and how hated we are around the world — even by our allies.

In case “They” — the Media — haven’t noticed, we’re NOT at war and there’s not one pending, our NATO buddies have all promised to pay more of their obligation and some have already paid more, and many leaders of foreign countries have begun to publicly declare their respect for President Trump and in several cases have even complimented him on the American foreign policies he has made.

So how bad or how good is the Trump Foreign Policy? Let’s take a look:

We don’t have to look far. Numerous signs are popping up that the impact of Trump’s policies is far from the disastrous scenario the media predict. By wielding America’s power instead of apologizing for it, and by keeping his focus on jobs and national security, Trump is making progress in fixing the ruinous status quo he inherited.

America First, it turns out, is more than a slogan. It is a road map to reshaping America’s relationship with friend and foe alike.

China

Let’s start with China. Despite press accusations that Trump risks a global recession with tariffs on Chinese imports, reports are there is growing criticism among the Chinese over how President Xi Jinping is handling Trump. One professor published an essay citing “rising anxiety” and “a degree of panic” about Xi’s attitude toward the President and his traditional totalitarian ways he is using to handle the situation.

According to the New York Times and CNBC, China’s leaders should seriously consider Trump’s push for a balanced trading system. Why the sudden change in trade and trade tariffs with the U.S.? China’s leadership is second-guessing their aggressive stance on trade with the U.S., thinking Xi may be over-estimating the clout China has in trade with us.

I’ve heard for years now that “China in just a few years will surpass the U.S. as boasting the largest economy on Earth.” That has not happened. And it doesn’t appear likely — at least according to current economic trends in both countries.

Turkey

Turkey’s self-proclaimed leader of the Muslim world — Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — decided he would go toe-to-toe with President by seizing American pastor Andrew Brunson and refusing to release him. Trump’s response?  Sanctions on two Turkish cabinet members and doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum, which sent panic through currency markets. The Turkish lira lost 13 percent of its value against the dollar in one day and inflation stands at a ­estimated 85 percent.

How did Erdagon respond? He urged Turks to exchange gold and other valuables for the lira in hopes of stopping the rout. And the Turkish lira continues to plummet in value. As of a few minutes before the writing of this story, the Lira was trading 6 Liras to 1 US Dollar. That compares to 1 to 1 in 1991. Holders of Turkey’s debt are putting great pressure on Erdagon by demanding payment on that debt while interest rates skyrocket.

Iran

Time magazine’s scare claim that the withdrawal would bring instant worldwide upheaval and U.S. destruction (in the President’s words) “Fake News.” Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear accord and the imposition of sanctions aimed at the government and certain industries are adding to the economic pressure on the mullahs. Demonstrations and strikes have focused on inflation, water shortages, and unbelievable corruption. Social media shows everything these days. Some protesters criticize Iran’s involvement in Syria and its support of Hamas in Gaza while ignoring Iranian citizens and the horrible economic conditions at home.

Even before the sanctions, the Iranian rial lost 80 percent of its value against the US dollar and Forbes places Iran’s inflation rate above 200 percent.

Remember when President Obama lifted the Iranian sanctions? When Trump re-levied those sanctions, he said these are just the first step and that a bigger round starts in November. “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States,” he wrote. “I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!” The President made clear that he wants to talk to Iran’s leaders about a new nuclear deal. The deep and crippling sanctions along with the political upheaval with demonstrations and even some violence are putting severe pressure on the mullahs to come to the table.

And U.S. sanctions on Iran have had results from OTHER countries. Some European companies that rushed to do business in Iran after the nuclear deal was signed are pulling out because they fear being blacklisted by the US Treasury.

The Atlantic magazine said this when comparing Trump’s treatment of Iran to that of North Korea: “Saber rattling followed by summitry.”

U.S. Media went crazy when the President made his harsh demands on fellow NATO members regarding their lack of financial commitment to their stated obligations to be a NATO member. The media made the same charges against President Reagan when he took similar actions in calling out NATO members.

Let’s face facts: only a handful of the other 28 members meet the agreed goal of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Several European NATO leaders publicly took Trump to task for his demands. But he did not stop. Eventually, most have re-committed to get to their fair share.

As Mainstream reporters do, they ignored the fact that his criticism is bearing fruit. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg credited Trump for pushing a “clear message” that members need to speed up defense hikes. He said Trump’s effort led to higher spending this year.

“Abroad” at Large

One unidentified European Union ambassador told a London newspaper that Trump is “easier to negotiate with” than British Prime Minister Theresa May because Trump is focused on what he wants. You may remember that the British Prime Minister is under serious fire for her handling of Brexit and that the agreed to plan may fall apart. That official said “If this had been a rational discussion like we have with Trump on cars,” a deal might be finished.

Things are actually getting better between the U.S. and Mexico. The new Mexican president even said he hopes he can make things better in dealing with President Trump and that he expects agreements will be worked out on NAFTA and border security.

Things got even rosier between the people of Israel, Jewish people from all around the Globe, and the U.S. when President Trump announced (and then followed through on) the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Nobody may say this but me, but in doing so, President Trump sent a message to Arabs who — in large part because of the dishonesty of the previous administration — realized this President really will do what he says he is going to do. As an example, many previous U.S. presidents announced the need to move the embassy to Jerusalem and even committed to doing so. Trump is the only one that acted.

There are many countries whose leaders are watching the U.S. mid-terms elections closely, knowing that if the balance of power in the Congress shifts to Democrats, it will certainly affect the foreign policy of the Trump Administration. I’ll simply say this in addressing that issue: in the past that was probably true. But America has never had a president quite like Donald Trump. Even if Dems take back the House, I doubt President Trump will quietly fade away into the sunset regarding his governing. I feel strongly he will continue to implement his policies on every front — especially foreign policy — that he has already successfully implemented and that is working for the U.S. in demonstrative fashion.

Summary

So the Media are going to operate just like they operate today. Can you imagine how on every Monday morning, (and every other morning of the week) newspaper and magazine editors, directors of television morning talk shows, and even political leaders of both parties make certain their iPhones are charged and ready at 6:00 AM Eastern time? Why that time of day? President Trump usually distributes his first tweet of the day at that time. And always many more follow shortly after!

What’s so important about that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP SETS EVERY MORNING FROM HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT WHAT THE NEWS HEADLINES AND HOT STORIES OF THE DAY WILL BE! It is uncanny, unprecedented, and unbelievable that this business tycoon and tv series star sets the news tone for the nation and the world each day!

What would Morning Joe and Chris Cuomo and FOX and Friends have to talk about if it wasn’t the Trump “news of the day” topic? Don’t think that his few early morning tweets are not enough fodder for them to fill 3 hours of airtime. There’s usually plenty of ammo from his tweets. But in the unlikely event that he doesn’t feed the news narrative with enough early AM, there’s always plenty leftover from the day before to stoke the fires of liberalism, fake news, and REAL news every day.

And President Trump is just getting started! Mainstream Media and even many Republicans thought with the Russia investigation, horrible and negative oppressive non-stop news pounding, and the continual onslaught by Democrats against his proposed legislation and presidential appointments he would tire and simply throw in the towel. Surely no billionaire needs the constant stress and hatred that he is facing 24/7.

But the real estate tycoon from Queens has educated the MSM and the GOP Establishment crowd: he ain’t giving up! And their constant allegations, lies and misrepresentations serve to only further galvanize his commitment to stay in the White House working for the People to “Make America Great Again.”

You may not like his messaging; you may not like his language; you may not like his tweets, and you may even hate his policies. But what REAL Americans cannot do with any honesty is say he is not being successful on far more fronts than almost all Americans thought he could even do.

The most refreshing and exciting thing about his work processes at the White House is he is just getting started!

Play