12 Year Old Girl prompts Twitter War

Strange headline, right?  Believe it or not the Left media have resorted to Twitter to take on the gender war….in the bathroom.  CNN’s top news show anchor Chris Cuomo went nuts last week at President Trump for rescinding the Obama “bathroom executive order” which mandated that bathroom use eligibility be regulated not by sex but by the sex the user “identifies” with.  Remember the horror of this picture was the possibility of a 40-year-old-man in a bathroom stall next to a 12-year-old little girl.  (Formerly that 40-year-old man would have been branded a pedophile and would have most certainly faced criminal charges for that “pee” session)

“Cuomo went nuts” is a gross understatement.  Chris Cuomo has assumed the self appointed role of “Protector of all things transgender” for the national media.  Therefore his role demanded his violent reaction to the President’s undoing of that executive order.  Cuomo along with CNN morning show’s Alysn Camerota (formerly a “Fox & Friends” weekend co-host) have become two of the most antagonistic media Leftists regarding all things conservative and all things Donald Trump, the least of which is NOT transgender rights and privileges.

CNN Morning Show’s Chris Cuomo

Before I discuss the particulars of Cuomo’s issues on the matter, let me state a few things:  the label “transgender” is an illegitimate one.  Quite honestly, it matters not what surgery has occurred or what hormones have been used, the “transgender” person will remain the biological sex they were born.  Surgery nor hormonal treatment will change DNA, which is the ultimate source used for scientific sex determination.    Secondly, Constitutionally “transgender” persons have always been guaranteed “equal protection under the law” and are entitled to all the privileges afforded to any and all United States citizens….period.  Most legal authorities feel that President Obama’s executive order was an unnecessary over-reach and did nothing but muddy the water in the court of public opinion about the subject.  The only thing for which the federal government has standing in transgender issues is to guarantee that no federal or state agency abridge any of those rights as guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

To the heart of the matter:  Cuomo initiated a Twitter war on the subject of transgenderism that resulted in this tweet from a man:  “What do you tell a 12 year old girl who doesn’t want to see a penis in the locker room?”  You would think Chris Cuomo — the father of two young girls — would relate to this question as a father and would immediately see the potential horror if the subject of this Tweet actually happened and therefore humbly respond in that manner.  Here’s Cuomo’s tweet in response:  “I wonder if she is the problem or her overprotective and intolerant dad? teach tolerance.”  (That is EXACTLY what his Twitter tweet said — no editing.)

I understand that for most New Yorkers (like Cuomo) and other east-coasters and probably most west-coasters his reply was appropriate.  I think my assumption is probably correct.  But what I know for certain is that for the overwhelming majority of Americans who do NOT live in the East or West but somewhere in between, his response was at best nauseating and at worst an incitement for a few fathers and grandfathers to head to their child’s school bathroom or locker room…..ARMED!

Alisyn Camerota from CNN

Cuomo’s actions in this matter are the best illustration of Political Correctness run amuck in America.  How can a father of two daughters not see the horror of the possibility illustrated in the man’s tweet?  How can any father actually feel that the little girl could be “the” problem if a man of any age actually shows his plumbing to anyone (yet alone a 12-year-old girl) in a locker room or restroom?  The answer to those two questions can only be one of (and not both) of the following — your choice:  either Cuomo is consumed by his personal political and politically correct ideas and agenda he is blinded to the reality already faced by many from Obama’s executive order, or he actually leans to the same side of the spectrum as the gaggle of European sex fiends who are fighting for their governments to legalize pedophilia.  Cuomo’s reasoning and thought process in this must be one or the other.  In either case,     Cuomo has lost it.

The scarier part of this story is that it IS a story at all, and that this story was actually initiated by a morning news anchor of one of the major television news networks in the United States.  How is it possible that even a Leftist network would allow any of its on air personalities — yet alone a morning anchor — to promote such bizarre ideas as he included in his tweet?  This is NOT about sex identity or protection of human rights, it is strictly a vivid illustration of the Liberal Left’s war on all things conservative, including families with parents of a traditional heterosexual marriage, Christianity and all Christians whom they view with glaring disdain.  The Left actually hate all those who do not with open arms embrace Americans who either live in or promote LGBTQ lifestyles as the preferred life choices ALL should opt into.  Cuomo’s is a graphic confirmation of the blatant and total disregard of traditional American ideals and values.

CNN Morning Show Team

The only thing in this story that really matters is lost in Cuomo’s PC statements in his tweets.  That one thing that matters?  The possibility of that 12-year-old — ANY 12-year-old girl — being put in a situation that might allow this to actually happen.  Imagine if your little girl came home after she saw some guy’s “stuff” in the locker room at school.  You can’t….having that happen to anyone in any family is unimaginable.  And any government that would actually allow this as a possibility with a policy that not only allows it to happen but by order mandates the environment for it to happen is incorrigible.  I shudder to think that my government and former President actually issued an executive order like this.  God forbid it should ever happen in any setting but especially under the direction of the President.

Oh, one more thought:  where did transgender people use the bathroom in the past when they left their homes?  I simply can’t believe they all could hold it THAT long!


From Russia with Love

Will the screaming about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election or Russian ties with Donald Trump and his presidential campaign ever stop?  Apparently not.  California Congressman Darrell Issa speaking to HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday said for an investigation into Russian ties neither Attorney General Jeff Sessions nor a deputy AG, who would both be Trump appointees, should handle such a probe.  There should be a special prosecutor appointed.  Issa said, “Openness and transparency are the best way.”

There are multiple Congressional investigations underway into Russian interference in our government.  The U.S. intelligence committee has concluded that Russia meddled in the 2016 White House race, in which Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton whose campaign was the target of email hacking.  Trump and his campaign staffers have consistently denied any communication at all with any Russian officials.  The President denied a connection of any kind to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At first blush, most conservative voters probably are incensed at the haughtiness of the California lawmaker and his suggestion.  But wait:  his reasoning for it are not what you think.  And if/when you Google Rep. Issa’s conversation with Bill Mahr you’ll read in every story what I related above.  But what is NOT included in any is the exact reason why Darrell Issa made those comments to the HBO host.  It’s not because of any distrust of the President or belief there was wrongdoing by the him or his campaign staff.  His reason?  “I want this Administration to start off by being without distraction by any outlandish and unsubstantiated claims against it, “he said.  “The previous Administration refused any type of transparency for any of its actions and never allowed any independent investigation into any action of any of its member(s), employees, or appointees.  Under President Obama there was no willingness to allow the American people to get any comfort of the Administration’s honesty or fair dealing.”

Do you wonder why the Media is not reporting that part of Darrell Issa’s statement?  Simple:  that statement by the Congressman does not fit the news landscape they have painted of THIS Administration.  The “Left” Media prefers for Americans to believe there is gross anger and mistrust among all Republicans — those in Congress and those in the Heartland — for President Trump.

At first when I read the Issa story I was angry.  After all, Congressman Darrell Issa had been known as a straight shooter, defender of the Truth as the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee from 2011 to 2015.  He angrily as Chairman attacked all those from the Obama Administration called to testify on multiple issues during those eight years:  issues like government alleged misdeeds at Benghazi and the IRS targeting of Conservative groups in far greater numbers than Liberal groups.  You may remember it was the testimony of IRS Director Lois Lerner before his committee that led to the rash of bad press for the Internal Revenue Service.  His was the most pointed, angry, and demanding cry for Ms. Lerner to resign because of her actions.

But I remember the feelings I dealt with during some of those scandals.  I often wished that President Obama would have set aside his political agenda and picked up the scale of Justice and appointed an independent prosecutor to investigate some of this.  Doing so would have certainly answered all the questions, stopped all the wondering about integrity (or the lack of), charges of dishonesty, lawbreaking, favoritism, and cronyism in the Obama Administration.  And when it did NOT happen, my first thought was, “There must be something there to hide.”  If there was nothing wrong, nothing illegal, no payback by anyone in the Administration, why would they not want that to be known by all?

And so I have changed by mind about an independent prosecutor.  It probably would be wise to begin this Administration with a clean slate.  Yes, there is some evidence (even though we haven’t seen it) that the Russians tried to affect the November election.  But they have been doing so in elections for numerous elections in numerous countries for years –– and may have been doing it in previous U.S. elections.  But there yet is no evidence of their achieving any success in impacting the election.  And even the NY TIMES in their article a week ago claiming there were ties between the Trump Administration/Campaign and the Russians, buried in the article a disclaimer stating there is NO evidence to back up that story.  (I know:  their release of the story without hard evidence of their allegation is simply a journalistic lie, or as President Trump calls it “Fake News.”)

Even though I doubt President Trump can do anything to quell the anger of the Liberal Left Media against him and everything he stands for, appointing an independent prosecutor to look into the charges that there was collusion by his Administration with the Russians would remove an arrow or two from their quiver.  Even if he is exonerated  they will find some or reason for attack — more “Fake News.”  You may remember I warned you several weeks ago that these attacks against the President will last as long as he is in office.

Nothing he can do will stop them or prevent all the Liberal pundits from mounting attack after attack to attempt to de-legitimize his Administration.  But you know what?  That’s part of the job.  Being President has never been easy.  Fortunately for Americans this president was not looking for nor expecting an easy job.  And his professional history is of fighting against foes of every kind every day and never backing away from a challenge.

So I say, “Let ’em have it, Mr. President.  Appoint that independent prosecutor (but let’s call that person an independent ‘investigator’ since there’s been no unlawful acts to investigate) and empower that investigator to take any and all actions necessary to get all the facts about the alleged Russian improprieties.”

“Darkness has only one enemy:  the Light.  And when the Light shines on the Darkness, Darkness disappears.  Shine the Light on this Darkess, Mr. President.  Most Americans want it to disappear.”

I’d like to hear your opinion on this issue.  Please take a few moments and let us all know your thoughts below.  Thanks!

Words: Epilogue

Yesterday we talked about the power of our words and how our intentions get lost in the way we use our words.  We are dangerously close to letting the intelligent use of words that for so many generations have successfully painted our thoughts, feelings, ideas, and ideals slip away into a world of sound bytes.

Today’s political environment gives us numerous examples of this.  President Trump has in just a few short weeks shown the World his words have meaning and of course consequences too.  And today’s media have proven the premise in this conversation again and again by manipulating his words to establish and perpetuate a political agenda — an agenda of “fake news.”  Remember recently when virtually every news outlet maintained again and again that President Trump tweeted that “The media is the enemy of the people?”  I Googled that and I stopped counting at 173 different stories that quoted that Presidential tweet.  THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TWEETED!

The ramifications of those stories?  Tens of thousands if not millions of people heard and read — “words” — in which the U.S. President called the media the enemies of the people.  So most of them believed it.  He didn’t say it!  Here’s what he said:  “The FAKE NEWS media (failing NYTimes, NBC News, ABC, CBS, CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” (tweeted 2/17/17 at 3:48 PM)

Do you see the danger in this precedent?  Multiple news sources are obviously using THEIR words to push their political agendas at the cost of THE TRUTH.  They are crying that the President is showing traits of historical despots and dictators.  But what is really happening is that purveyors of fake news are marketing a world in which all that is right, wrong, good for the People, necessary, and righteous is defined by — guess who — THE MEDIA!  American politics has with the election of Donald Trump become an entity that the American media as a whole feel they should control.

For many years that bastion of neutrality in television news — FOX News — has almost always held true to their mantra “Fair and Balanced:  We report, You decide.”  Now there are Fox reporters and show hosts that have put on the media mantle of Fake News, choosing to join their fellow journalists in attacking the President for his constant attacks of the news media.  They too are now parroting the lie that Mr. Trump called the media the “enemy of the people.”

After Friday’s CPAC  speech by the President, Chris Wallace guest hosted the Bill O’Reilly show and had Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg discuss his thoughts on the President’s speech.  Goldberg said, “This isn’t Donald Trump shooting from the lip,” he said, “this is a coordinated, calculated war on the media. The goal is to try and bring them down, to delegitimize them, and try to take away what little credibility they have left. Steve Bannon and Donald Trump want to bring what they call the ‘fake media’ down before the media brings them down.”  Goldberg criticized the president for demanding that the media no longer use anonymous sources when reporting stories.   “Donald Trump says reporters should not be able to use any sources without attaching names to them, but if that were the case we would not know what was going on in the White House during Watergate. Some reporters would like to see Donald Trump destroyed, but bias is not ‘fake news.’ Donald Trump will have to realize that all news he doesn’t like is not fake.”  Really?  Did Goldberg listen to the President’s CPAC speech or did he get his cues from “fake news” sources?  Here’s what the President said at CPAC:

” In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people — the fake news. They dropped off the word ‘fake.’ And all of a sudden the story became the media is the enemy. They take the word ‘fake’ out. And now I’m saying, oh, no, this is no good. But that’s the way they are. So I’m not against the media, I’m not against the press. I don’t mind bad stories if I deserve them, and I tell you, I love good stories, but we won’t talk — I don’t get too many of them. But I am only against the fake news media or press. Fake. Fake. They have to leave that word.”

That’s what the President “said.”  He repeated at CPAC what his Februrary 17th tweet that started this firestorm actually said.  Now he’s said at least twice he doesn’t think that ALL the media are enemies of the people — just FAKE news media.  I’m sorry Bernie; there is no WAR on the media from Donald Trump.  He has gone to war with the FAKE news media.   And he’s defined who they are and the way they work.

Does it bother you to hear and read stories that quote “anonymous sources?”  Who are these people and why can’t they just report facts that have been verified?  One of the fundamentals of journalism is all story sources are verified before stories are published.   But how can the public trust the voracity of a story that comes from “anonymous” sources?  There’s not way to trust the story because the source is unknown.   But the media again and again release stories confirmed by “anonymous” sources only for those stories to again and again be debunked as false.  There are only a few reasons for these sources to be anonymous:  the source is not authorized to give the information; the information is classified and therefore is not to even be released at all; the information is UNTRUE.  There are NO other reasons for anonymity.  So, Bernie, President Trump got it right:  STOP QUOTING ANONYMOUS SOURCES FOR NEWS!

And this morning, FOX News’ Geraldo Rivera is asking for ALL news media to “stand together” against the White House position against fake news.  Why?  Because in the Obama Administration, the “fake news” outlets stood with FOX News when Obama railed against Fox.  He did so not because of incorrect or false news content, but for reporting news that dissented with him and his policies in any way.   Do they not see the difference?  “Negative” news reports are not the same as “Fake” news reports.  And of course Geraldo never misses an opportunity to gripe about prosecution and/or deportation of illegal immigrants as the President has begun — for convicted felons ONLY!  These are not dreamers or peaceful, hard working immigrants who are in the legal immigration process.  They are convicted of committing felonies.

I’m afraid FOX News is in the tank.  That’s unfortunate.  But it just makes it tougher for Americans to find the truth in news.  I do not think this will stop people from acting on their hunger for facts.  Americans are smarter than that.  Keep digging….keep vetting….keep asking questions.  “The truth will out.”  Don’t simply believe what you hear on television news or read online.  Don’t rest until you find facts (that don’t come from “anonymous” sources)

Remember:  “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”


“Words have consequences.”  I’m certain you’ve heard that before.  Most memorable to me was former POTUS Barack Obama when he said that.  In the same conversation he said, “Elections have consequences.”  Both quotes are right-on.  Our words do have the unique ability to mean life or death to whom they are spoken.  The Bible says “from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”  More often than not whatever we actually speak in words is not all we mean.  It is what is behind the words we actually utter that sometimes cause more difficulty and confusion than our words alone: consequences.

We all can quickly recall words we have heard from others that have become indelible memories — both good and bad.  We guys are typically in a world of hurt when it comes to our words.  We get in trouble all the time!  Often with our spouses it really doesn’t matter WHAT we say, it will probably be wrong.  You know what I mean.  “Honey, does this dress make my butt look too big?”  Hmm….what’s the correct response?  If I say, “No it doesn’t,”  she’ll respond,  “So you’re saying my butt IS big just not TOO big?”  But if you said that first she’d probably attack you for not saying, “Your butt is perfect:  not too big, not too small, just perfect.”  Words always have meaning, and sometime the actual meaning is not what the hearer “hears.” No matter what the listener thinks was said and what the speaker meant, there will always be consequences for those words.

Cultures change social norms from time to time.  Millennials speak using words and phrases Baby Boomers cannot understand.  That not understanding probably causes more strife, angst, anger, and incorrect decisions in every way in our lives simply because words result in responses.  Sometimes we respond in anger, hurt, disappointment, joy, excitement, acceptance or rejection, love or hate — but our responses are often NOT accurate in light of the words spoken that prompt our responses.

The World has been graced with amazing “wordsmiths” in every generation — those who have a knack for expression of written and spoken word unparalleled in history.  William Shakespeare is one of the best known.  Not only are his plays intellectually challenging, some of his written life commentary is mind boggling.  Abraham Lincoln made statements that still make us think, as did John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa. Who can ever forget Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his life changing speeches.  (see their comments, statements, and even some humor below their pictures)


“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” (Albert Einstein)
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” (Abraham Lincoln)
“Love begins by taking care of the closest ones – the ones at home.” (Mother Teresa)
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” (William Shakespeare)












Unfortunately the World is void of the guidance of speeches, writings, quotes, and exhortations like those seen in the past from the heroes quoted above and others.  Words today — maybe because of the influence of the internet, satellite communication, YouTube, and the abundance of “instant” news — our “communication culture” is no longer one of accepting  words from important people at face value.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” (John F. Kennedy)

Our culture has morphed into one of doubt and disbelief.  Maybe that is due chiefly to our “instant” news society, but there are many contributing factors.  We do not read like in the past.  Electronic media have replaced the written word in our lives.  And to exacerbate the fallout from that is that even when we read, we skim books and stories rather than digest and analyze full content of what is there.  Even television news is offered in sound bytes today.  Often is heard “I just want the executive summary;”  or “Give me the ’30-thousand foot’ perspective.”  Because of that changing culture in our world of words, we talk in sound bytes too.

I’m not a shrink, but I do know words can injure others — especially those closest to us.  How many times in your life have you made these or similar statements or asked similar questions to those you love:  “You make me mad;” or “Are you stupid?”  You might have said when you child tells you of something from school, “I can’t believe you are so dumb you believe that,” or “That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”  Words have consequences.

So what price do we pay?  Obviously with family members and close friends the costs can be very high.  However, friends and family members are more forgiving than others.  Outside of this group — at work, extended acquaintances, social groups, etc. — words like those above can destroy personal and business relationships plus reputations.  And it’s really hard to put the word-genie “back in the bottle.”  Remember this old saying, “I’m careful today of the words I speak.  I keep them soft and sweet.  I never know which of those words tomorrow I may have to eat.”

Why is this getting worse and worse?  It is because of the social and community environment today from which we are blanketed with instant news from hundreds of sources 24/7.  That in itself is not bad, but what poisons the water is that news is no longer news.  Almost without fail, the words in every news story — electronic or print — is not the “pure” news but rather is “interpreted” to the World by the presenter.  And the presenter always has a vested interest in making that “news” bigger than it is, uglier than it is, and more horrific than it is.  Why?  Words that grab the attention of an audience become quotable, distributable, and that turns into print circulation and broadcast ratings, which turns into advertising dollars.  It’s about the money.  That entire mindset has transitioned into the non-news workplace, social meeting places, religious communities, and at home.  Our communication with each and the words we use no longer are well thought out but rather extemporaneous, and immediate.  Subsequently our words cut to the hearts of those we know and love whether truthful or just emotional.

Unfortunately I cannot see this getting any better.  In communication the World is at a tipping point.  World conflicts begin with actions.  But often those actions are initiated by the understanding (or lack of understanding) of the words spoken by countries’ leaders.  Often statements are interpreted as threats.  Human nature dictates decisions are made in direct response to the hearer’s interpretation of the meaning of the speaker.  Think about that:  what happens if the hearer interpreted a statement as a threat and subsequently takes actions that lead to all out war?  And what if that statement was MIS-interpreted and that the speaker’s intent was far from what the hearer’s interpretation was?  In this sound byte world, it is very reasonable to believe this could happen.

Clearing our use of words properly cannot be legislated.  The only way to a “cure” is for each of us to personally tackle this issue in our own lives.  If we effectively make the changes in our lives and teach it to our children, we can begin a word communication healing process that hopefully will spread generationally.  That will take time and hard work.  But we must aggressively move in that direction.

Make certain you read tomorrow’s Epilogue of this story at dnewman.org.  In it I will call out FOX News, something I thought I would never do.  In this environment of having problems with words, FOX has typically been as their slug line says:  “Fair and Balanced,” until now.  You don’t want to miss it.  And at the homepage of the blog site dnewman.org, you can enter your name and email address to receive an email notice everytime a new story is posted.  Thanks for reading!

Funny of the Week

Words Not Yet In The Dictionary

ACCORDIONATED (ah kor’ de on ay tid) adj. Being able to drive and refold a road map at the same time.

AQUADEXTROUS (ak wa deks’ trus) adj. Possessing the ability to turn the bathtub faucet on and off with your toes.

AQUALIBRIUM (ak wa lib’ re um) n. The point where the stream of drinking fountain water is at its perfect height, thus relieving the drinker from having to (a) suck the nozzle, or (b) squirting himself in the eye.

BURGACIDE (burg’ uh side) n. When a hamburger can’t take any more torture and hurls itself through the grill into the coals.

BUZZACKS (buz’ aks) n. People in phone marts who walk around picking up display phones and listening for dial tones even when they know the phones are not connected.

CARPERPETUATION (kar’ pur pet u a shun) n. The act, when vacuuming, of running over a string or a piece of lint at least a dozen times, reaching over and picking it up, examining it, then putting it back down to give the vacuum one more chance.

DIMP (dimp) n. A person who insults you in a cheap department store by asking, “Do you work here?”

DISCONFECT (dis kon fekt’) v. To sterilize the piece of candy you dropped on the floor by blowing on it, somehow assuming this will ‘remove’ all the germs.

ECNALUBMA (ek na lub’ ma) n. A rescue vehicle which can only be seen in the rearview mirror.

EIFFELITES (eye’ ful eyetz) n. Gangly people sitting in front of you at the movies who, no matter what direction you lean in, follow suit

“Symbolism over Substance”

The first time I heard this phrase it was used by Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio show.  I can’t remember the specific context of his use, but it probably occurred during the first Clinton presidential term in the 90’s.  It intrigued me because until hearing it I had struggled with grasping the reasoning for the rollout of much of the Clinton policy — most did not make sense to me.  (Apparently I was not the only one)  And since that day with Limbaugh’s explanation for this phrase I have been able to understand the purpose of many liberal policies:  “Symbolism over Substance.”

Through both Obama terms it was common to hear allegations made as fact, explanations given as certainties rather than possibilities, promises made never intended to be kept (which ultimately were not), lies spoken many of which were blatantly false even as they were uttered.  If it had not been for Limbaugh’s clarifying statement from the 90’s I would have continued to grapple with understanding what these things meant and why they were said, committed, and promised.  They were put out by the liberal White House to tickle the ears of liberals everywhere while actually meaning nothing.  They were symbolic at best.

Even though we now have a conservative in the White House, the Liberal Left continues to make the same type of allegations against conservatives and this practice has become their “new” normal.  (as compared to their “old” normal)  Misquoting conservative politicians in news, editorial comments, statements made on talk shows and at public meetings, and making “factual” statements that are anything but factual have all become normal and therefore passe.  And as ridiculous as this may seem to conservatives, it seems that for liberals to make false statements in public along with allegations against the President and other conservatives is quite all right.  Why?  I can only surmise that they have very little if any regard for their own integrity or they have total contempt for the liberal followers they wish to affect with their claims.  In other words they feel their liberal followers are so stupid they cannot determine which statements are lies and which are not.

Examples?  There are several in my blog post titled “Fake news….(or is it?)”  Read there where Dan Rather — former CBS News anchor — purposely misquoted Trump’s charge that fake news media are not his enemies, but the enemies of the American people.  Rather failed to include the word “fake” in Trump’s statement about the media.  The media seem to make it mandatory to state anything they can find (or make up) about President Trump.  Reports of Trump’s alleged misconduct long before becoming a presidential candidate are still being bandied about:

Nancy Sinatra: “These Boots are Made for Walking”

There was a report by one news agency that Ru Paul stated Donald Trump made unwanted advances to him years ago.  But it had “good” liberal intent — “Symbolism over Substance,” the alleged substance being that Donald Trump is a misogynist.

On the day of Trump’s inauguration, CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” with the fact that the president and first lady’s inaugural dance would be to the tune of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way.” The problem? Nancy Sinatra had never said any such thing. CNN later updated the article without explaining the mistake they had made.  The alleged substance of the story was that the new President was so audacious as to dance to one of her father’s biggest hits and was going to do so knowing how much music stars disapproved of him.

But the most outlandish, most unbelievable, most absurd acts and statements that illustrate “Symbolism over Substance” are reserved for politicians.  And there are many.  Where do we begin?  Hmm………..  We could not illustrate any of these uttered by politicians without first quoting former POTUS Barack Obama — and his are many!  Let’s begin with these  declarations about his “legacy” legislation, Obamacare:

“After implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 129 million people who could have otherwise been denied or faced discrimination now have access to coverage.”  That was his Symbolic statement.  The Substance? there is no proof that 1/3 of America’s population with the ACA now have access to health insurance that did NOT before the ACA.

“Under the Affordable Care Act if you want to keep your health plan, you can keep it.”  That was his Symbolic Statement.  The Substance?  Millions of Americans have had their health plans cancelled, some more than once. And the Obama administration knew this would happen.

“If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” That was his Symbolic Statement.  The Substance?  As a result of Obamacare’s narrow provider networks, millions of Americans are unable to see their own doctor.

“The Affordable Care Act will reduce premiums $2500 a year for the average family.”  That was his Symbolic claim.  The Substance? Millions of families have seen their premiums increase by double-digits every year since the law passed.

In his two presidential campaigns, Obama made quite a few outlandish and symbolic statements.

Regarding Mitt Romney:  “Mitt Romney would deny the right for gay people to adopt children.”  That was his Symbolic Statement.  The Substance?  Romney in his own words stated he thought everything regarding gay rights should be relegated to the States INCLUDING adoption laws governing adoption and also gay marriage.

These actions are not politically exclusive to Obama.  U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin joined the fray.  Baldwin declared: “It’s the constitutional duty of the president to select a Supreme Court nominee, and the Senate has a responsibility to give that nominee a fair consideration with a timely hearing and a timely vote.”  Those were her words after Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.   Those were her words of Symbolism.  President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Court.  Two days later, Baldwin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she would support a filibuster to block the Gorsuch nomination, would vote against the Senate action required to block a filibuster and would vote against Gorsuch if he made it to a final vote.  That retort was her statement of Substance.

While not liberal, President Trump has participated in this travesty as well.  Remember then Candidate Trump stated he watched thousands of Muslims partying in the streets after the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11?  That was Symbolism.  The Substance of his statement?  There was worldwide joy among some Muslims and others who considered the U.S. their enemy and were glad to see the horror in lower Manhattan.  And there WAS a news report released that stated partying did occur by some Muslims in the U.S.  But….President Trump did not see them as he stated.

Here’s the bottom line:  we all have experienced “Symbolism over Substance” in our lives many times in many different ways.  No matter “we” have experienced it, most Americans are uncomfortable at seeing the practice becoming almost commonplace among elected officials.  It is becoming more and more difficult to separate “Symbolic” statements from pure lies.

And isn’t it ironic that our elected officials are actually comfortable forcing Americans to pull out our b___s___t meters to check every statement every politician makes?  That question was NOT Symbolic — pure Substance!

Two Party System: May Be Dangerous

Most conservatives have watched, often choking back laughter at the antics of the Democrats post-presidential election.  Many still do not accept the Trump victory over Clinton.  I will never forget the shock on the faces of Hillary followers in New York expecting there to be a coronation of the first female President.  Instead they got slapped in the face with their first dose of flyover American reality as Donald Trump rolled to victory due in large part to voters from Middle America who the Democrat Party largely ignored.  From the top down in the Democrat Party the consensus for months was that not only would Hillary win the election, but estimates of her winning margin were from 4 to 10 points over Trump.

The shock and awe of the huge loss has engulfed all Democrats who find themselves looking for direction and answers while waiting for someone to step up to take leadership of the party.  The last two DNC heads have left in disgrace.  The party is in total disarray.

While the G.O.P. is still basking in election victory, the thrill of snatching that win from the jaws of defeat is waxing thin as the realities of the political war have made chest thumping and nose thumbing of Democrats passe.  Republicans vs. Democrats:  some things never change.

But 30 days after the inauguration, and as both parties fight to learn how and why the Democrats lost and the Republicans swore in their guy, I have begun to wonder if having two parties is even necessary.  The two party system has been around for a long time.  But has it worn out its welcome?  Do we really need two parties?  The Constitution does not require two.  There are no federal laws that require two.  So why do have two?

Proponents are quick to say having at least two parties allows voters to hear, see, and understand through debate the differences between candidates running for office and their political ideals.  That is an admirable idea that was principle in the original two party establishment.  But unfortunately for Americans, denizens in party politics have turned that wonderful ideal into a slug fest.  And during the fight the “discovery of ideals” principle is pretty much lost at the hand of the major task of parties:  raising money.

Before television, politicians were forced to sway voters through newspaper stories and interviews and personal appearances.  There was no internet, no television or radio, so in-person meetings were critical to attract voters.  With the advent of electronic media, speaking to voters became much easier and much more effective.  In fact many politicians spend more time and money finding ways to impact voters through media than meeting with voters face to face.  Would these processes change if there was one party or NO party at all? Candidates would be forced to stand on their own and to sway voting opinion based solely on their principles, ideals, and presentation of those to voters.  I think so.  Why?

In the last 20 years, elections have become angrier, more contentious, and more hateful in election than previously. Partisan political issues are seldom discussed or are actually debated by candidates less and less.  Candidates instead opt to allow their parties raise tens of millions of dollars much, of which is spent to dig up dirt to turn into vicious radio, print, internet, and television ads attacking opponents.  Instead of having civil debates on issues, these non-stop attacks force opponents to respond in kind.  There is no time and no longer any desire for civil debate.  Instead in the two party system the drive is to find a man or woman who parties can push to victory in each election.

In this atmosphere of non-stop rancor, we watch in horror as peaceful demonstrations that 40 years ago would end with speeches now turn into full scale riots.  Anarchy is actually now on the U.S. political horizon.  Many feel that totally doing away with two or more political parties will immediately stop this.

It is at times like this we all turn back the pages of time, scavenging for scraps of speeches and writings of our forefathers to get their perspectives on all things political.  What about the two party system?

George Washington said this:  “I have intimated to you the danger of parties of the State. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of REVENGE natural to party dissension, which in different countries and ages has perpetuated the most horrid of enormities, is itself a frightful despotism!  And this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.  The disorders and miseries of what results causes the minds of men to SEEK SECURITY AND REPOSE IN THE ABSOLUTE POWER OF AN INDIVIDUAL….and sooner or later a chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more   fortunate than his competitors turns this disposition toward the purpose of his own elevation….on the ruins of public liberty.”

No matter what your personal feelings about Washington, you must agree he was concerned as evidenced in this writing about the danger of abuse of power and the escalation of individual power, hate, and control in the party system.  It is almost like he was looking ahead a couple of hundred years and spoke to us prophetically.  Were Washington’s concerns valid?

I think they were.  And as we watch and listen to the vitriol from both parties in this post election cycle, it is apparent that little that has been or will be accomplished during the Trump Administration will be effective because of the public fighting about each from both parties.  What would the landscape be if there was just one party?

Getting elected would require effective and thorough communication of ideals and principles by candidates to voters.  Instead of today’s preferred method of converting voters — intimidation — voters would hear and see real debate in a public forum, something our forefathers established.  Certainly there would be angry words, outlandish allegations, and raucous debates.  But in actual debates, allegations made can be confronted, discussed, and resolved.  In today’s endless news cycle, news never dies.  It only turns a page at midnight.

I have no idea if moving to a single party would work in the U.S. or would even be possible.  I suppose Congress could pass such a law (if there was a consensus for it) and with a presidential signature make it happen.  I’m not sure it would be successful.  Maybe we are too far gone.  Maybe there are not enough Americans who would agree with it.  But one thing is certain:  the U.S. election process is full of cracks that must be addressed and repaired.  It will take hard work and consensus of those 535 folks who work in the Capitol Building.  And it will take a President who will set aside personal feelings to promote the common good of America.  I think we should give it a chance.  To quote then candidate Trump,”What is there to lose?”

Fake News……(or is it?)

“Fake News:”  that term is actually an oxymoron, because as American journalism goes, if it is news it is NOT fake.  Boy is that fact changing!  During the run-up to the 2016 election we heard that term used by just about everyone, including news journalists, candidates, campaign officials, and politicians.  Then candidate Donald Trump made it front and center in his numerous campaign stops which caused many Americans to scoff — especially those in the media.  But now as the evidence of the existence of fake news piles up, the scoffing by most credible news outlets and politicians has slowed down if not stopped altogether.  What we face now however is how to determine what IS and what IS NOT fake news.  Wow…is that a job!

Before we go any further, let me say there is ZERO doubt fake news exists, that it comes from all over the World, it abounds in the U.S. from U.S. and foreign sources, and is well documented.  Before we continue, please click on the link below and read some of the actually confirmed fake news sources and some of their stories.  These are ONLY from U.S. sources:


I know some will say Wikipedia.org is not a reliable source.  Sometimes it is not.  But in this case read the page and checkout the links to some of the sources for this page.  It proves my point.  (Just for grins when you have some extra time, go to THIS page and see how much more numerous the verified world fake news sources are:


Let’s look at some of the “Fake News” network headlines of note from recent days.  The first, from the NY TIMES:

“WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.  American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.”

Oh, I forgot to include the tag line to that story from the very end:  “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”  Subsequent to this story being published, intelligence community officials have told White House staff and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee “there is no evidence at all supporting the content of this story.”

This from CNN:

“(CNN)High-level advisers close to then-presidential nominee Donald Trump were in constant communication during the campaign with Russians known to US intelligence, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials tell CNN.  President-elect Trump and then-President Barack Obama were both briefed on details of the extensive communications between suspected Russian operatives and people associated with the Trump campaign and the Trump business, according to US officials familiar with the matter.Both the frequency of the communications during early summer and the proximity to Trump of those involved “raised a red flag” with US intelligence and law enforcement, according to these officials. The communications were intercepted during routine intelligence collection targeting Russian officials and other Russian nationals known to US intelligence.  Among several senior Trump advisers regularly communicating with Russian nationals were then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and then-adviser Michael Flynn.  Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual. However, these communications stood out to investigators due to the frequency and the level of the Trump advisers involved. Investigators have not reached a judgment on the intent of those conversations.  Adding to US investigators’ concerns were intercepted communications between Russian officials before and after the election discussing their belief that they had special access to Trump, two law enforcement officials tell CNN. These officials cautioned the Russians could have been exaggerating their access.”  This of course was refuted by members of three intelligence agencies stating there was NO evidence to confirm any of this story being true.


February 18th at 8:39 AM, former CBS news anchor Dan Rather posted this on his Facebook page:

“I have resisted commenting on President Trump’s outrageous attack on the press with his tweet calling the media “the enemy of the American people.” It is a sentiment that is a deep betrayal of our national history. The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that to choose any one example is to play into the alternate reality Mr. Trump is seeking to exploit for his cynical political purposes.  My message is not for he who will not listen. Instead I wish to address his enablers, specifically those in the Republican Party who by their silence on this travesty normalize a behavior that is antithetical to our Constitutional principles. Future generations will not look kindly on profiles in cowardice.  And to my fellow journalists, I know you will not be bullied or intimidated. Keep doing your job. Your country depends on your service. Courage.”

You may remember that Dan Rather was dumped by CBS News in part because of his “creation” of fake news, reporting it as fact on their network, and ultimately losing all credibility in his reporting.  Obviously Mr. Rather has NOT allowed his firing to change his reporting methods.  Donald Trump never said “the media is the enemy of the American people.”  Here’s the actual tweet Rather “edited” and misquoted in his Facebook post:

Please note that in his tweet, President Trump stated “The FAKE NEWS media……is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!”  It doesn’t take a real journalist to know the difference.  Mr. Rather purposely miss quoted the President deleting in his quote the words “FAKE NEWS” and stating Mr. Trump stated “ALL NEWS” media and not just “FAKE NEWS” media.  He lied!  200,000+ liked Mr. Rather’s Facebook post and it was shared 62,100 times.  I have no idea how many people read it.

I could keep posting and posting and posting fake news stories that have been debunked by numerous credible sources, but I would be wasting your time.  It is obvious there is plenty of fake news in the U.S. news marketplace.  Having this garbage out there is bad enough.  But with it comes a plethora of issues that I believe are planned and structured (along with their release timing), orchestrated by someone or some entity, and purposeful by the denizens of Liberal Land to attack all things conservative and the Trump Administration.  And implementing this avenue of attack is brilliant!  How so?  The authors of these fake news stories know that simply “being” a national news outlets gives whatever story they release some credibility — regardless of its content or accuracy.  Adding to that fact is that in news, “First is Best,” meaning whenever a story is released on television, in print, or via the internet, even if rebuffed later with factual information, the original story will always be more widely seen and more widely accepted as being  factual than any rebuttal.

That’s the major with Fake News.  Much of the damage it causes is permanent.  Its creators are well aware of that.  I do not necessarily feel that the networks and newspapers are all initiators of this fake news.  But they are most certainly complicit for publishing news for which they have not vetted and/or verified from actual sources the validity of what they publish with these and numerous other stories.  In American journalistic history, news sources that were partisan identified themselves as such.  This gave Americans the comfort of knowing when they digested news from each source they could rely on what they saw, read, or heard being from a particular type of news source.  This new 90 degree turn in the international news industry away from always accurate, vetted, and sourced news is very scary to many Americans.

This past weekend speaking to news media in Europe Senator John McCain actually compared the President’s charges against fake news sources as similar to what dictators do.  The fact that a ranking member from the Senate who is well respected by many Democrats as well as members of his own party would even mention any similarity between this President and any historical dictators is horrifying to me.  I expect such from the Liberal Left but not from a GOP leader.  No doubt the Arizona Senator and the President have sparred with each other.  But Senator McCain’s attack has crossed a line:  especially saying this in an interview to foreign media on foreign soil.

Americans had better awaken to the fact that the media is full of real “Fake News” and that it is coming from all news sources.  Americans had better take the time to get facts for themselves rather than relying on previously honest (even when partial) news sources.  American media members now more than ever in U.S. history seem to all possess political agendas.  Mr. Trump as President should worry about the dangers of fake news.  He will not be President forever.  As an American voter he like the rest of us will be forced to get factual information about all things news related no longer able to rely on the News.  Let’s hope the exposure of the reality of fake news will be sufficient to force the media to turn off the faucet of fake news and get back to the business of real journalism.

Bonus Funny

With the ridiculousness in D.C. this week and as nearly every member of the radical Left finds their hair on fire, we all need as is said in Louisiana some “lagniappe.”  (lagniappe is the 13th doughnut in a Baker’s dozen — something you get but don’t pay for)  Enjoy!

Heads are Spinning…

I enjoyed watching the President conduct his own press conference Thursday from the White House.  Anyone who thought he was afraid, intimidated, or unsure about facing the press himself under the present whirlwind of controversy in D.C. quickly discovered that the White House is his and that he IS the boss.  Oh, and he’s far from intimidated or afraid.  He made certain everyone in the White House press pool who wanted to ask a question was heard in the approximate 90 minute get together.  And he did not mince words when he “schooled” the press on why their approval rating among American voters has now dropped below that of members of Congress.  Americans do not like “fake news.”  And Americans blame fake news on the media, of course — or as the President calls them, “fake media.”

Interestingly enough the heads of all the Intelligence agencies yesterday stated that none of the agencies were withholding intelligence information from the President, contradicting a “news” story that permeated national political headlines at every news outlet early Thursday printed first by the NY TIMES.  (more “fake news”)  After reading the Sperry story I posted Friday in the Epilogue of my Attack series, I wonder now which reporters are on the payroll of the OFA — the Organizing for Action not-for-profit former President Obama is using in part to fund his behind-the-scenes political operations to preserve all his “good” policies and keep Mr. Trump from reversing them?  There are many carryover Intelligence agency employees that are loyal to the former community organizer and who subscribe to his many socialist ideals.  One or several of them must be those leaking that fake news to the liberal media.

As President Trump’s approval rating continues to climb nationally, (Rasmussen clocked it yesterday at 55% which is higher than Ronald Reagan’s approval at this point in his presidency) the President reminded the press pool their approval rating is in the tank.  And he reminded them why that is so.

Here’s what is about to happen:  all television revenue (including news) is driven by ratings.  Television ratings are driven by programming.  Programming is driven by news directors and producers.  The guys who sit upstairs at the networks read reports daily and make corporate decisions based on those reports.  Those reports contain ratings and ad revenue numbers.  As the CEO’s of ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and FOX News watch their numbers, one of them will be the first to call their news producers/directors and say this, “News ratings are down so our news advertising revenue is down.  Stop whatever you’re doing on-air and get back to the basics of news: reporting.  And stop all this anti-conservative on-air editorial rhetoric.  Americans don’t like it.”  I promise you, this WILL happen.  Which network will be the first?  We will see before the end of March.

I come from a Journalism background and have spent quite a bit of time in broadcasting, although not in news.  Most news people are VERY opinionated and VERY stubborn about what should and should not be reported and how news should be delivered.  They do not like to be told what to do on-air.  There will be much resistance when this edict comes down from the network bosses.  And no network is immune.  FOX News on air, although know for some time as being “Fair and Balanced,” has several personalities who during the 2016 campaign and since the election have become negative about the Trump Administration, President Trump, and things that have been said and done of which they disapprove.  Megyn Kelly left before network executives reigned her in (which was imminent), Shepard Smith is now the most belligerent and negative on-air personality about this Administration, and even Chris Wallace who I think (in the mode of his deceased father Mike Wallace from CBS “Sixty Minutes”) has been the most impartial political interviewer in network news…..until lately.  Even Chris gets somewhat abrasive and negative about Trump actions since taking office.

It is obvious to most Americans that these national broadcast and print personalities and writers live in rooms full of mirrors.  All reporters report what they see, driven by the feelings they get from looking at what they see.  When you live in a room of mirrors, what do you see?  That’s simple:  you see only yourself.  So all YOUR thoughts and opinions are what you put in your news stories.  Those stories on the most part do not reflect the thoughts, ideas, opinions, or life circumstances of the members of their audience.  President Trump gets that even though the media do not……YET.  And the “getting that” is about to start happening to news media operations beginning with the guys upstairs who write the checks.