Democrat Attack: The Rule of Law

Americans are growing numb to the Trump attacks at the hands of Congressional Democrats. That numbness we are experiencing is real, but its impact is lessening everyday because its use by Dems is incessant and just morphs into a newer version almost daily. That is a dangerous thing: it’s much like the frog and the pot of boiling water. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and the frog quickly jumps to safety. Put that frog in a pot of cold water and slowly increase the water’s heat and the frog will stay in the pot until it’s too late. For Americans, the pot contained cold water at the beginning of the Trump Administration, but Dems have steadily turned up the heat.  Their attacks are obviously all aimed at Mr. Trump. But in doing so, we are watching a planned and coordinated attack against the Rule of Law. And conservative Americans are ALL in their sights with the President.

What is The Rule of Law?

The rule of law is a framework of laws and institutions that embody four universal principles:

1. Accountability
The government, as well as private actors, are accountable under the law.

2. Just Laws
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons, contract and property rights, and certain core human rights.

3. Open Government
The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient.

4. Accessible & Impartial Dispute Resolution
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are accessible, have adequate resources and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Before we move forward in this conversation, it is important for us to break-down the specifics of Law so we can relate them directly to today’s United States legal operations by our government and exactly what House Democrats are really up to.

  • Constraints on Governments Powers measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable under the law. It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent press. Governmental checks take many forms; they do not operate solely in systems marked by a formal separation of powers, nor are they necessarily codified in law. What is essential, however, is that authority is distributed, whether by formal rules or by convention, in a manner that ensures that no single organ of government has the practical ability to exercise unchecked power.
  • The absence of Corruption measures the absence of corruption in a number of government agencies. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three forms of corruption are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military and police, and the legislature, and encompass a wide range of possible situations in which corruption – from petty bribery to major kinds of fraud – can occur.
  • Open Government measures open government defined as a government that shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. The factor measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicized, and evaluates the quality of information published by the government. It also measures whether requests for information held by a government agency are properly granted.
  • Fundamental Rights measures the protection of fundamental human rights in the United States. It recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under the U.S. Constitution is at best “rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a “rule of law” system.
  • Order and Security measures how well society assures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule of law society and a fundamental function of the state. It is also critical in the realization of the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance.
  • Regulatory Enforcement measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Regulations, both legal and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. Strong rule of law requires that these regulations and administrative provisions are enforced effectively and are applied and enforced without improper influence by public officials or private interests.
  • Civil Justice measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. The delivery of effective civil justice requires that the system be accessible and affordable, free of discrimination, free of corruption, and without improper influence by public officials.
  • Criminal Justice evaluates the criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring an action against individuals for offenses against society. Effective criminal justice systems are capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offenses successfully and in a timely manner, through a system that is impartial and non-discriminatory and is free of corruption and improper government influence.

Clear Enough?

It certainly should be. Each area detailed in the above simple explanation of the Rule of Law is critical for the process of government that sets the U.S. apart from every other country on Earth is critical and MUST exist in tandem with the others. Without each and every one of them in force and adhered to in every area of government, NO government can truly be a democratic republic that promises “equal justice under the law.” 

Folks, we’re not in danger of losing that justice, IT’S ALREADY GONE!

How can I say that? It hasn’t been hidden very well. Its demise began decades ago while we benignly sat by and allowed it. We turned our eyes away from day-to-day government operations in D.C. We trusted our lawmakers to do the right things. As we watched, a seedy group of unscrupulous politicrats (Who together invented the perpetuity in positions of power that they solely control) quietly enacted a “new” legal system totally controlled by that group of elites. And it is in full operation.

Have you wondered how the FBI senior staff could almost en masse collude to perpetrate a coup against this sitting President who was duly elected? And they did it with impunity! Have you wondered why it has been so difficult for the “white hats” in Congress to obtain — even through subpoenas — documents, testimony, and other evidence of the “alleged” wrongdoing by many of those elites? How have people like Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, and dozens and dozens of others skated through the most egregious non-military takeover of the American government while we Americans simply slept while they did it? And that doesn’t even take into account the “leaders” of that coup — the only ones that could have originated the idea, built the operation, put it in motion and managed it to its end: Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. THEY ARE IN THIS THING UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS!

Summary

Our only hope is that enough of the 60+ million Americans who were awakened during the Trump campaign, had their eyes opened (at least to some small degree) to the horrors and illegalities that were underway right before our eyes and voted to keep that “cartel” from completing the government takeover began by the Clintons during their 8 years, and put in full gear during Obama’s 8, are still watching this horror as it is revealed one page at a time. (Yes there was a momentary pause in their plan during Bush 43)

Is there still time? I believe there is. But I’m not certain of that. Fortunately, Americans are in large part still a creative lot. There are enough free-thinkers that refuse to swallow the Leftist Koolaid of Socialism being peddled by the Democrat Party to right the ship, IF the “white hats” (the “good guys”) are allowed to continue the digging up and exposing those wrongdoers.

What can go wrong? Plenty! If this Democrat Party has its way, their attempted coup which is with total impunity attacking EVERY part of the Rule of Law we detailed above will take this country down. Even right now — today — the U.S. has lost a large part of its freedom. And they want to steal the balance. How?

  • Democrat hypocrisy in governing. Remember their glorification of their “savior” Robert Mueller? They even attempted to pass legislation to keep Trump from interfering with or even firing Robert Mueller. Then his report (though we haven’t seen it yet) apparently exonerates President Trump. And now those same Dems want Mueller’s head!
  • They seriously intend to force President Trump to release his tax returns. There is absolutely NO law that allows them to do that! Can you imagine a United States in which someone — ANYONE — can petition the IRS to release YOUR tax returns? Yet these Democrats are doing just that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez actually tweeted a threat to the President today about that, saying “We didn’t ASK you to release your returns.” In other words, she was saying they TOLD the President to do so. As if Congress has such authority!
  • They are more and more loudly shouting and demanding the release of the FULL, unredacted Mueller report, saying they will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. They do that when it is already clear: there IS American law contained within the Special Counsel statute THAT PROHIBITS DOING SO! It is imperative to protect the hundreds of Americans whose grand jury testimony could potentially damage the reputations of those who were NOT indicted in that investigation. Remember: 500 witnesses testified; only 37 people were indicted. But Democrats don’t care!

If these attacks and Democrats intentions are allowed to be carried out, privacy of working class Americans will be gone: FOREVER! Once that liberty is taken by Big Brother, he will NEVER give it back.

There are enough guys who wear the “white hats” to take this on who are willing to “take one for the team” if necessary. Chief among them is Donald Trump. Let’s face it: I cannot think of one other Republican who ran that if elected, would have had the staying power this President has. It is simply amazing to watch how he refuses to cave even with the non-stop harassment he and his family sustain every day.

Encourage all you know to ferret out the truth in everything they hear spewed by each arm of the Democrat Party: The House of Representatives, and the Mainstream Media. Every conservative needs to turn up the volume in conversations with those with whom they interface when discussing these political matters. Remaining silent will allow the Rule of Law to be killed — permanently.

”Pray for all those who are in authority over you.” That is NOT instructions from TruthNewsNetwork. That’s from the Bible. I encourage all to make that a daily practice — including EVERYONE in authority. You cannot skip those with whom you disagree when you pray. In doing so, hold on to this:

”The effective and continual prayer of my people will bring to pass what is asked for in those prayers.”

Still Fighting

I have hated missing the heat of the D.C. noise this week. But this flu has eaten my lunch, and still is. I’ve never had it before and certainly hope to never see it again. I’ve lost 12 pounds since Tuesday! A pound or two would be on thing, but 12?

One thing is good about the week: looks like we may finally put the Mueller investigation behind us….FINALLY! So what’s ahead? Just sit back and watch as Democrats try to salvage some 2020 talking points to find something — anything — on which they can hang their hats. They surely don’t have any legislative or policies to tout as reasoning to vote for one of their socialist candidates.

I’ll be back in the saddle shortly. Thanks for the prayers and well-wishes. I do have a favor to ask: many of you know me. I’d appreciate your prayers to lick this stuff. Thanks in advance.

DN

California Death Penalty: Gone

California’s governor has given life to more than 700 inmates already convicted for TAKING the lives of innocent Californians. Gov. Gavin Newsom took that action using executive action. In doing so, he spared the lives of a quarter of ALL the death row inmates in the United States. Let’s be clear here: the governor’s stay of execution for those approximate 700 death row inmates is NOT necessarily permanent. These are not pardons. The stay is technically good only during HIS tenure as governor.
But here’s the important point of this story that most will miss: His action thwarts the will of California voters who 3 years ago rejected an initiative to end the death penalty. But Californians did NOT stop there: they passed a measure to speed up executions!
The governor’s justification for taking this action? Newsom claims the death penalty system in his state has discriminated against “people of color and mentally ill defendants.” He then throws in the claim ALL death penalty opponents use as their principle excuse for banning the process, that death sentences and the process waste taxpayer money.
(Click on the link for news report about Gavin’s actions)
But HERE is what has really happened as a result of the California governor’s unilateral action regarding death sentences:
  1. He’s ignored the will of California voters;
  2. He’s superseded the California legislators who passed laws implementing and maintaining the death penalty;
  3. He’s spit in the faces of the family members of the victims of those 700 “excused” murderers;
  4. He’s laughed at the Rule of Law in his own state.

All that sounds like just another day at the California governor’s mansion in Sacramento!

At first blush, many will be tempted to say the very good looking and young newly-elected California governor is just testing his authority early in his administration. Others might say he’s from the “new” school of liberal American voters who simply don’t know better. But anyone saying either of those would be sadly mistaken. Gavin Newsom although young, is a very smart young man, especially in “all things Californian.” But who is Gavin Newsom?

Gavin Newsom’s Connections

The Governor is no political newbie. He is the 40th governor of California. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 49th lieutenant governor of California from 2011 to 2019 and as the 42nd mayor of San Francisco.

He attended high school in Marin County — just north of the Golden Gate Bridge outside San Francisco and a very expensive zip code. He graduated from Santa Clara College.

In 2003, Newsom was elected the 42nd mayor of San Francisco, becoming the city’s youngest mayor in a century. Newsom was re-elected in 2007 with 72 percent of the vote. He was elected Lieutenant Governor of California in 2010 as the running mate of Jerry Brown and was re-elected in 2014. In February 2015, Newsom announced his candidacy for Governor of California in the 2018 election. On June 5, 2018, he finished in the top two of the non-partisan blanket primary. Newsom defeated Republican John H. Cox in the general election on November 6.

You just received the “short version” of Newsom’s story. He since birth has actually been part of an unofficial “power group” comprised of 4 California families: the Newsom, Getty, Pelosi, and Brown families. They are all very wealthy, heavy political hitters, and VERY liberal.

Newsom’s parents divorced when he was young. He lived with his Mom who was a working-class Californian. His father was wealthy himself, and though Gavin did not live with him, he opened all the important California political doors for his son.

Gavin was the “unofficial” adopted son of the Getty’s (yes, J. Paul Getty, claimed by many as the richest American in history), and Pat Brown and his son Jerry (both past governors) were part of that circle. Speaker Pelosi’s husband was equal in the power group — and still is. Politics for them all is just a natural part of who they are. And, of course, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! But even more than money, what so visibly consumed (and still does) every member of that political clan is power. They more than most fully understand that with power, comes everything one desires. The Gettys, Browns, Newsoms, and Pelosi’s have made the accumulation and maintenance of as much power in as many different areas of life — not just politics — their #1 objective. And they have done that and still are.

(as an aside, Governor Gavin Newsom was married for several years to another Californian who shared a lot of camera and microphone time: Kimberly Guilfoyle. Kimberly you may remember was a regular at FOX News and before that Court TV. She left FOX in 2017 to assume a so-far unnamed position in the Trump Re-election Campaign. And she is dating Donald Trump, Jr.)

Newsom Politically

Most American may be familiar with the Newsom name, but few know much about the Governor. Politically, it is safe to say he is hard-core Leftist. Newsom was a major proponent of Proposition 64, the 2016 measure that legalized recreational sales and use of marijuana in California. He characterized it as primarily a social justice issue, arguing drug charges lead disproportionately to the incarceration of poor people and minorities.

“I believe in second chances. I believe that people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and grow and, in many respects, become better people,” Newsom said. “I like to think I’m a better person, and I like to think that a lot of people have made mistakes, we just don’t read about them,” he said.

He didn’t stop there. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first act as governor was to propose state-funded health coverage for 138,000 young people in the country illegally and a reinstatement of a mandate that everyone buys insurance or face fines.

He also proposed giving subsidies to middle-class families that make too much to qualify them under former President Barack Obama’s health care law. He signed an order giving the state more bargaining power in negotiating prescription drug prices and sent a letter to President Donald Trump and congressional leaders seeking more authority over federal health care dollars.

Healthcare was his fundamental campaign project. Giving state-funded healthcare coverage to those illegal young people mentioned above is just the beginning of his socialistic style economic policies.

Many are confident that Newsom is simply running a “pre-campaign” for a presidential campaign in 2024. Pundits feel strongly that he is diligently working to position himself somewhere to the left of the currently declared Democrat Party candidates. It’s hard to believe there’s even any room left of Bernie and Elizabeth Warren! But apparently, Newsom feels there is and that he fits in that spot.

Campaign Philosophy

Certainly, if Newsom’s target is the presidency, his history of the family and business close ties with wealthy people inside and outside of California is important for him. And the typical organizations and individuals supported “candidate” Newsom in a big way.

  • Labor unions, housing developers and wealthy entrepreneurs are among the thousands of people and groups who gave money to help elect Newsom, according to the final disclosure reports filed by his campaign. Labor unions spent millions on independent efforts supporting Newsom, allowing them to avoid donation limits as long as they didn’t coordinate with his campaign. More than two dozen representing a range of professions – from health care workers to construction crews – also gave the legal maximum amount of $58,400 directly to Newsom’s campaign.
  • Various branches of the Service Employees International Union spent more than $2.7 million. The union has applauded Newsom’s efforts to boost funding for the state’s early education programs and his proposal to expand paid family leave, policies the union says will help working families.
  • The California Correctional Peace Officers Association also spent big to help elect Newsom, dropping $2.8 million.
  • The California Nurses Association spent more than $700,000 on independent efforts to elect Newsom and gave the maximum contribution allowed to his campaign. The group wants Newsom and the Legislature to create a government-funded universal health care system, often called a “single-payer” system. But the health care groups backing Newsom don’t all agree on what they want. Private health insurance companies, which could cease to exist under a single-payer system, generally oppose the idea. Blue Shield of California, for example, spent about $1 million supporting Newsom. The group was one of the insurers who opposed a bill in the Legislature’s last session that would have created a single-payer system in California.
  • California teachers unions spent more than $1.3 million supporting Newsom and gave the most they could directly to his campaign. They’ve applauded his commitment to making charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run, more transparent about how they spend their money and his call for more state oversight.
  • Newsom also became the preferred candidate for some prominent charter school backers, who often oppose the teacher’s unions in California politics. Charter schools, for example, were a major point of contention during the teacher’s strike last month in Los Angeles. As part of the deal to end the strike, the school district agreed to the union’s demand to consider a cap on charters.

Summary

Gavin Newsom is the cookie-cutter version of the perfect Leftist in today’s U.S. political landscape. He believes and supports all the standard causes of the left: gun control, marijuana legalization, open borders, free healthcare for all, massive tax increases, free college tuition, and everything and everyone who is anti-conservative. His personal history is one of entitlement, even though his single mother basically raised him in a working-class home. But he always had connections with the rich and famous and used them all from a very young age. He knows how to run successfully for office — at least in California.

How will he govern? His administration is just several months old, so it’s hard to judge at this point. But, so far, he has governed exactly as he ran for governor.

Most Americans struggle to comprehend the mindset of today’s far-left Democrat Party: increased abortion options, massive gun control, runaway taxes linked with runaway government spending, free everything, and open borders. And now Newsom with impunity has thumbed his nose at California law while ignoring those who were killed — in many cases actually slaughtered — by 700 individuals who under California law were found guilty for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Death sentence haters are actually questioning that the Governor did not simply go ahead and pardon those people. I wonder the same thing myself. Actually, I think he probably wanted to do that very thing but was advised by those who have his ear that doing so would certainly alienate Middle America voters in a run for the White House.

I am glad he did not use the power of the pardon. But in typical Leftist fashion, he apparently ignored his conscience regarding the unfairness of the death penalty instead pulling lever B: “Do everything you do in office to smooth any potential ripples that might appear in your “next” run for your “next” office.

Look for Gavin Newsom to turn harder and harder and further Left. After all, he’s in California. And for everything in California regarding politics to be successful, the purveyor MUST bow before the god of Liberalism in every policy decision they make.

And one more thing: you can bet Gavin Newsom has his sights set on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We just don’t know how long he’ll wait.

Play

“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