“Wiretapping” or Just “Listening In?”

As I stated earlier, it appears Trump may have been right, again.  Just a couple of days after FBI director Comey summarily rejected the President’s allegation that he was being wiretapped by then president Obama, it appears that President Trump may have been on the mark with that claim.  House Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes, told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community gathered information on members of President Trump’s transition team, (possibly including Trump himself) and the information was “widely disseminated” in intelligence reports.  Here’s exactly what Nunes said to reporters regarding his committee’s Russian investigation that has been ongoing:

Congressman Devin Nunes

“One of the focus points of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation is the U.S. government’s response to actions taken by Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign. As such, the Committee will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party’s campaign officials or surrogates, and we will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it.”  Nunes maintained that President Trump’s communications may have been monitored during the transition period as part of an “incidental collection.”  That means that those communications do not appear to be related to     the Russian investigation and that he feels thee intelligence collections were done legally.  For this writer, the book is “OUT” on whether or not those intelligence collections were actually “incidental.”

“I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition,” Nunes told those reporters.  “Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports.”   When reporters questioned the source of the information on the surveillance, Nunes responded that it came to him legally by “sources who thought we should know it.”  (I assume here that would be from “a” or “several” whistleblowers)

As scary as that information may be, Nunes said that “additional names” of officials from the Trump transition team had been unmasked in the intelligence reports.   He indicated that Trump’s communications may have been swept up.  The House Intel Chair said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected and he believes the information was legally collected.  Nunes said that the intelligence has nothing to do with Russia and that the collection occurred after the presidential election.

Congressman Nunes first briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the revelation and informed the White House later today.  He said it was unclear whether the information incidentally collected originated in Trump Tower.  Nunes in his revelation stated communications of Trump associates were also picked up but he did not give names.  Monitoring apparently occurred in November, December, and January.

SYNOPSIS:

In addition to the obvious horror of what is described above is the realization this actually happened in our government.  The Intelligence Agencies of the U.S. government have been empowered to undertake various methodologies to keep us safe.  Surveillance is a principle of that process.  However, these agencies have NOT been given blanket authority, but must operate under strict laws that regulate surveillance call FISA:  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Rogers UNDER OATH before a Congressional committee this week declared there was NO surveillance that involved Trump offices or of Trump or his staff or campaign.  Either they one or both lied, are incompetent, or were simply not kept in the loop, which in itself is devastating if actual.

The ramifications of this?  Following the Trump tweet in which he made the “wiretapping/surveillance” allegations and the Leftist Media went nuts at the idiocy of the President presenting this as fact, I wrote on this blog, “Don’t be surprised if in a few weeks Trump provides evidence of surveillance that occurred just as he stated.”  It wasn’t Donald Trump with the evidence — it was California Congressman Devin Nunes who has been skeptical of the President’s claims….until today.

The travesty of this?  Former President Barack Obama HAD to be complicit.  I doubt you’ll find his direct fingerprints, but I am willing to wager when this is exposed, we will discover he was deeply involved — even if at arms length — in this.  If so, that will make this an even greater national travesty than Watergate during the Nixon years.

NOTE:  please understand, according to Nunes, the surveillance WAS a FISA Court authorized operation.  Intelligence sources were apparently (under the FISA warrant) listening in on conversations of foreigners.  Apparently Trump staff were part of those conversations and were therefore part of the surveillance.  However, the illegal acts came when those Americans were identified in multiple intelligence reports that were spread throughout the government.  That is called “unmasking,” is a felony under federal law, and brings with it a large fine and up to 5 years in prison.  Someone will see a jail over this.

What has our nation come to?  What has our government come to?  Notice all the hoopla from the Left about Trump involvement with Russia and Putin?  Remember as a kid when someone broke wind quietly, just when someone else detected the “evidence,” the perpetrator would accuse someone else of the infraction?  It was described back then as “The first chicken to cackle was the one who laid the egg.”  I believe this is evidence of sorts that shows either Obama himself or those high in his Administration are guilty of orchestrating this illegality.  If that proves to be true, (and I’ll bet it will be) the nation and the World will finally see the true Barack Obama.

Wonder who he’ll say laid the egg?

Today’s Important, Too

Did you notice?  This week already we are at war in Congress over the reform of the Healthcare Law, From the NSA and FIB, Admiral Rodgers and Jim Comey both testified about wiretapping before Congress, and today was the second day of grueling hearings regarding Judge Neil Gorsuch before the Senate Judicial Committee regarding his pending confirmation as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  I do not remember 48 hours in Congressional history that so much work was done, except maybe for arguments over how long an adjournment should last for Congressional vacations.

In all this noise one event stands out as what may be the most important historical event of the next few decades:  the next

Judge Neil Gorsuch

SCOTUS Judge.  I am enamored at this process and this judge.  I know, I know:  I’m a political junkie.  But the political pieces of this process are not necessarily what has grabbed my attention.  It’s the historical implications of not just this confirmation, this judge, or the hearings.  It is that for the first time in my memory the deep divide between conservatives and liberals in D.C. were front and center all day on international live television.  And the differences are monumental.

I have always known there are stark contrasts between the two thinking types, but I never knew how drastic they are.  Regarding federal judges and their nomination/confirmation process, I have heard the rhetoric about whether or not they were “Originalists.”  Originalists are those jurists who feel the U.S. Constitution and its subsequent laws as amended through two centuries are a literal roadmap for ALL things regarding private and public life for Americans just as written.  The other side believes the Constitution is a living, breathing entity that is changing as America and Americans change through the years, and therefore interpretations of Constitutional laws should morph at the same time.  While I have heard those titles placed on two groups of judicial thinkers, until today I never knew just how different those are.  ( By the way, Neil Gorsuch is an Originalist)

In grueling testimony that lasted about 12 hours, Judge Gorsuch fielded about every legal question you could imagine a dozen or so Senators could throw at him.  And boy did he do a great job!  If you missed the hearings, let me fill you in.  Judicial Committee Dems led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) grilled the Judge on all things Constitutional.  Each expressed their version of what the framers of the Constitution intended before beginning their questioning.  Each Democrat in their 30 minute allotted time questioned the nominee about specific cases that came before him on the 10th Circuit Appeals Court in Colorado as to why he ruled the way he did and why he did NOT rule the other way.  Judge Gorsuch was simply amazing in his responses.  He could have easily gotten flapped and out of sorts, because (as you can imagine) those questions were not friendly, not kind or flattering in any way, and were designed to expose some judicial flaw or flaws in the nominee that would certainly disqualify him from service on the U.S. Supreme Court.

As you can imagine, questioning from the Conservative side of the room was much kinder, amicable, and, I am ashamed to say, more professional than was that from their liberal counterparts.  That is not to say they were soft on the nominee, but they each expressed their opinion of his 10 year service on the Federal Appeals Court, then asked substantive questions and allowed him to give complete and thorough answers.

It was glaringly obvious from the onset the Dems all used scripted talking points and were not seeking in any way to learn anything new about the nominee that might assist in their votes to confirm or not.  Not a Senator at the table that is liberal will vote for Gorsuch.  And that’s unfortunate.  He is probably the most qualified judge that has even been mentioned as a possible replacement for Judge Antonin Scalia.  He demonstrated today his understanding of U.S. and Constitutional Law, how that pertains to American individuals and companies, and what judicial responsibilities are and what courts and judges can and cannot do according to the law.  Democrats did NOT like that approach from the Judge.  Continually Democrats tried to pin him down, digging for answers to hypothetical cases that may appear in the Court after he begins serving.  Again and again he told the questioner he does not make judicial determinations in his courtroom based on his personal opinions or feelings, but always based totally on the law, AND that he could not discuss details of any potential case that might come before a court on which he served.

There were a couple of dramatic moments that vividly illustrated this vast divide between Democrats and Republicans as it pertains to Constitutional law and the Supreme Court.  The most dramatic was in a series of questions from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL).  He asked the nominee about details and thoughts the Judge used during his adjudication of several specific cases.  One specific case caught my attention.  It was about a truck driver who while driving was caught in a snow and ice storm which forced him to pull over in his truck with its trailer.  Temperatures during the storm were below freezing, so he left the truck and trailer there.  His company fired him for violating written company rules that prevented any driver from leaving his truck and trailer under any circumstances.  He sued the company in District Court who ruled for the company.  The driver appealed to Gorsuch’s Court.  He upheld the ruling against the driver.  Durbin berated Judge Gorsuch for in such a heartless way ruling “for” a big company against a “little” guy — the truck driver.  Judge Gorsuch in his response drew the picture in neon colors of the difference between how liberals and conservatives believe the Constitution should be viewed.

The nominee in his lengthy response to Senator Durbin explained that he and each judge involved in the case had no choice but to make a legal determination which excluded ANY personal feelings.  The company acted in good faith and made their decision based on written company policies that every employee read and agreed to work under at their time of initial employment.  Durbin interrupted Judge Gorsuch at this point in his response and said this:  “How could you — a judge — make such a harsh ruling against a truck driver who left his truck to keep from freezing to death?  Doing so was heartless, and illustrates a propensity to adjudicate in favor of corporations over people.”  The Judge’s response:  “Senator, I could not nor should any judge ever make any ruling based on personal beliefs or opinions, no matter how distasteful the details of a case may be.  I made that case decision based on one thing and one thing only:  the law.”  He continued, “Making laws is the job of this House, not the Courts.  Any law that would have prohibited the company from taking actions that it did should have been passed into law by this House.  That law wasn’t passed.  The company did nothing against the law and my finding was the only one I or any other judge could make.”

So there it is:  liberal politicians today want and expect federal judges to render decisions based on what they believe is the right thing to do regardless of what the law says.  Originalists (conservatives) feel that the judicial system is there for one purpose and one purpose only:  to interpret laws on the books.  Liberals want judges to render decisions on cases in their courts based on their personal political opinions of current issues regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says.  Judge Gorsuch to Senator Durbin:  “We don’t make laws.  You’re supposed to.”  The problem with that is Durbin and friends want all federal judges to do just that — write and rewrite laws to fit the liberal narrative of the day regarding the applicable political circumstances of each case.

That’s a scary and dangerous thought.  But it’s an important one.  As I said, this may be the most important next few weeks of the next few decades.  I encourage all to tune into C-SPAN or the national news network of your choice as you can tomorrow to watch the next round of questioning.  Neil Gorsuch should be easily confirmed.  But that’s another story.

Tomorrow:  Will the Nuclear Option be Necessary?

 

Privacy and/or Liberty

America was established in part to get “Big Brother” out of Americans’ lives.  The European way of governing had long been summarily rejected, so much so that thousands and thousands of Europeans fled to North America to escape the tyranny that accompanied a government’s unilateral rights to control almost everything in its citizens’ lives.  Government control in Europe was unbearable to the people.  In doing so the ruling classes in each country had assumed full authority for everything allowed or disallowed among its citizenry.  Lawmaking resided totally with that ruling class.  The centralized power in that government made it easy for the personal choices, likes and dislikes, and biases of all kinds to control day-to-day life for all European citizens.  Tyranny grew in every way.  Private life became a ghost as the government took greater and greater control with less and less concern for the non ruling class of the continent.

One fundamental concern for those Europeans that came to the New World was to ensure that governing totalitarian mindset did not cross the Atlantic with them.  American settlers established lives full of individual freedoms.  And their government was although similar in structure to European governments, on the most part was given limited powers to govern.  When the time came to formalize a national government, these settlers were desperate to guarantee that any new federal government had only limited power and that those powers were expressly and specifically given by the settlers.  That led eventually to the U.S. Constitution and its rights protections.

The U.S. Constitution was written for one purpose only:  to expressly detail all power and authority of the government and that any power and authority not specifically given to the government was retained by the people.  Those powers retained were defined largely as personal rights of the people.  Even with these protections, through the years many of those slipped away and the federal government picked those up, often simply by default.  Enter the federal courts — part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government, a co-equal branch of the Government.  The courts were to determine when those laws or any actions infringed upon rights of citizens as detailed in the Constitution.

Privacy rights for citizens was not much of an issue in the early going.  Through the years with development of communication capabilities never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution the need for court intervention grew in importance.  Lawmakers in a World with ever growing international dangers passed federal laws to enable the government to monitor threats to the livelihoods and welfare of Americans.  Sometimes those laws reached invasively into the lives of Americans.  Technology shrunk the World, and in doing so increased the likelihood of infringement upon individual rights.  An old enemy with a new face and that enemy’s propensity to use anything to takeover our freedoms led America to a new political frontier.   That enemy?  Hatred for the very things that created America more than two centuries ago .  Remember this:  “We have found our enemy and our enemy is us.”  It seems in the political landscape of America once dominated by like minded acceptance of diversity and freedom for all is now dominated by national entitlement on every front.  And with it came Big Brother we thought our forefathers left in Europe.

With Big Brother (or Big Government) back in control, its constituents know its survival relies on the elimination of the same resistance here it faced in Europe in the 15th century.  How?  By stamping out the individualism and self actualization that made America in the first place.  It has taken 200 years, but it is happening.  Each day as Americans cede more and more personal rights to Big Brother the landscape of freedom changes a little more.  The shiny coin that is marked by Lady Liberty doesn’t shine so much as the light of freedom dims .

However, the Fathers of this nation in its establishment foresaw the possibility of this enemy showing up again and gave us a piece of government that their parents did not have in Europe to beat back the tyranny there:  that co-equal branch of government — the Judiciary.  Most Americans have simply taken it for granted.  But it has forever been there, quietly about the business of protecting Americans.  But Big Brother has been quietly seeking ways to dismantle and take control of this last bastion of American freedom.  The Courts are all that stand between U.S. freedom and a socialist government of domination.  And we are watching Big Brother fighting for his life.

He expected the continuation of the last 8 years of American mediocrity.  And he expected with the death of Antonin Scalia his grip on the Supreme Court to tighten with confirmation of another Big Brother clone.  He did NOT expect Americans to awaken to the realization of his re-ascension to power.  And he did not expect Americans to do anything about it.  But they did.  Enter President Donald Trump who led the awakening.

With the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Big Brother’s quest for domination of Americans’ rights will at least be paused, if not stopped.  A Constitutional literalist on the Court rather than another justice committed to the ultimate establishment of Big Brother was the only way for Americans to right the ship.  And it may be the only thing to thwart the quest of Big Brother’s supporters to take America back to European ruling class domination.

In the next few days, watch and listen to the cries of anger and hatred for all things conservative as they take front and center in the confirmation process of Judge Gorsuch.  As you watch, know the desperation of the Left in their quest for control is the fuel for their desperation.  Their power over Americans is being ripped from their grasp as the Constitution is being used once again by those whose wishes for our Nation are simple:  “….one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice FOR ALL.”

Yes, Liberty and Justice was and is for ALL in the United States and is not to be defined or given to those and under the auspices of anyone but the People.  As long as the government of any nation is “by the People, of the People, and for the People,” those People have the opportunity to continually pursue that indivisible liberty and justice.  When Big Brother steps in, Liberty is headed out the door.

Budgeting

It’s that time of year when Congress gets to work to create a federal budget.  With a new President, all eyes will be watching to see how the Legislature responds to the proposed budget presented by President Trump.  The fur is already flying from the Left, so this week as the House gets down to crafting a budget it appears they will see different strategy for spending Americans’ tax dollars than has been normal in the past.

Almost all Americans watch in disbelief every year as the arguments escalate during the budget process, especially now that our federal debt is approaching $20 trillion, not counting unfunded liability, which many place as high as $75 trillion.  (that is comprised of Medicare, Social Security, government employee retirement benefits, etc.)   We all ask, “Why can’t the government treat their operating budget the same way we treat ours?”  Great question….never a good answer.  It is mystifying how any family, business, or government can possibly look favorably on a budget that always spends more money than  its total income, and does so purposely.  Yet every year Americans watch it happen.  Some economists have somehow found a way to endorse an annual budget deficit.  But all I can think about is how difficult deciding who to pay and who not to pay each month can be.  I guess the fact that Congress does not have to worry about running out of money allows them to sleep at night.  When the Treasury runs dry and they need some more money, they simply borrow some more.  After all, it’s no big deal to them — you and I will pay it back….along with our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

President Trump’s budget proposal when released last week was met with loud boos — certainly from Democrats but there were some Republicans who chimed in.  Why?  Spending government money has for a long time been the holy grail of federal public service.  The mantra is, “get elected, go to Washington, find money to spend whether we need to spend it or not.”  Government budget cuts are actually unheard of, except “fake cuts.”  “Fake cuts?”  You bet.  Haven’t you already heard that President Trump has “cut the budget” for 2017?  First, a President cannot cut or increase a budget.  Congress determines the budget.  The President simply offers a budget.  Yes, there are actual budget cuts in his proposal.  But some of his suggested cuts are not cuts at all.  In fact many are not.  How is that so?  Because of magical budgeting that our government has done for many years:  Baseline Budgeting.

Here’s how Baseline Budgeting works:  last year’s budget items are the starting point.  But for next year, each item has an automatic INCREASE built in.  The baseline budgeting increase is a formula based on this:  the last year’s amount for that particular item is multiplied by the annual inflation rate times that year’s U.S. population growth rate.  Let’s say the 2016 budget amount was $1.00.  For 2017, that same item’s budget amount would be $1.00 x 1.7% (inflation rate) x .73% (population increase amount), or about $1.01.  That doesn’t seem to be much of an increase, but just remember in normal financial years, the U.S. inflation rate runs 3-6%.  The point is in the budget, there is a built in increase for each budget item.  So when cries come complaining about budget cuts, they almost always are untrue, because the complaint is actually about a cut in the automatic INCREASE and not an actual cut from last year’s amount.  I will not accuse government officials of trying to hide money from us, but honestly that is the only explanation I have for using baseline budgeting.  Why not just use actual numbers unless they want to keep spending increases quiet?

In the budget noise every year have you ever heard anyone talking about spending less than our income so we can pay down the $20 trillion debt?  Me either.  One encouragement to me having Donald Trump in the White House is that as a businessman, he understands real budgeting and real cash flow.  He knows firsthand that you cannot borrow your way to financial success, and doing so will literally bankrupt you.  That hold trues for the U.S.  Our debt is not nearly as desirable to debt holders as in previous years.  Don’t be surprised as we begin to see the desire for U.S. Treasury bonds gets less and less.  The Chinese hold most of our debt.  And if/when they feel we will be unable to honor that debt repayment, they’ll head for the hills.  Then what happens:  Bankruptcy.

The Trump budget proposal makes some significant and serious cuts in various government departments and programs.  Without questions those cuts will affect many people.  And that is unfortunate.  While all the arguments fly on Capitol Hill in the next weeks remember that we need to hold our national politicians accountable for spending.  Real budgeting is necessary to get real numbers to enable those officials to make good decisions.  Cuts must happen in D.C. just like they must happen at your house and mine.  Can you see a way to spend about 20% more than you make every year?  The only way that could be sustainable is if there is a favorite uncle in your life that plugs that 20% hole for you.  There aren’t a lot of those uncles around.  And even though the U.S. has an uncle — “Uncle Sam” — all his money comes from your pockets and mine.  Somebody is going to have to pull in the horns and bite some bullets and stop spending.  And it’s got to start this year.

 

 

 

Peaches

“Peaches:”  probably one of the most important words in the English language.  And the word has nothing to do with politics.  (Isn’t that refreshing!)  Taking this Sunday off from politics is certainly a good thing on many levels.  But for me it allows me to think through other very important issues in my life without all of the frustrations and mixed feelings I get when discussing the state of U.S. politics.  And, believe it or not, there are many things that are not political that are important or even more important than politics:  like “Peaches.”  Curious yet?  Read on…

Mom and Dad were really good at impressing the importance of life’s fundamental principles on my brother and me, even when we were very young.  We were on the lower end of the middle class “scale,” and many of life’s economic privileges passed by the Newman home without stopping in.  But I do not remember there ever being financial tension or worry at home.  Dad worked hard.  Mom took care of us and the house like moms do, and never missed a school function or extracurricular activity in our lives.

Dad was a preacher.  He pioneered two small churches while working his real job every day.  The two in combination made family time for us pretty scarce, but both Mom and Dad worked hard to keep it all together.  It was in that environment that those fundamental principles played out in my life starting when I was really young.

I will never forget my father teaching me one of the basics of getting along with other people — my friends at school.  By the second grade I had discovered that we were lower middle class, that there were boys and girls in my grade that were from “upper” middle class and above, and that girls seemed to be partial to boys from those classes and also partial to good looking boys, which I was not.  That led me to work hard to find ways to get a leg up with the girls.  And trying to impress them seemed to keep me in trouble.  There are only so many things a second grader can do to impress girls in the right way.  Impressing them was the only thing that mattered.  And sometimes my choices of things to use to impress them crossed the line.

Dad when brought into those circumstances used them (after using his belt on my bottom) and made certain I understood the cost for my choices were much more than the spanking I received.  In other words he taught me how to look at things from a bigger picture perspective:  life was more than just today.  And my choices then and now (according to him) would not impact me only, but would impact the lives of others — even people I did not know at the time.

It wasn’t until later in life I grasped exactly what he was teaching me.  Of course as I got older and my interests changed, my personality changed, my circle of friends changed, I acted differently about most things.  Very childishly I thought for years that what he taught me then applied to only that part of my life.  Boy was I wrong!

I will not bore you with examples of the horrors I went through to learn all the applicable lessons from this teaching.  I imagine you have been through a few of your own.  But let me say this:  several years after my parents’ divorce (that was REALLY ugly), I began to understand the importance of relationships with others and that good relationships do not just happen.  They require work….and HARD work.  And everything that is said or done in a relationship matters, makes a difference, and has consequences.  But most of all, relationships come with responsibilities.

Enter a really important Scripture here:  The Flood had destroyed the Earth except for Noah, his family, and the animals that rode the Ark.  After that world changing event, God had a conversation with Noah.  In Genesis 8:21-22, God promised Noah that:  “While the Earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”  God’s promise:  just 4 simple things.

Notice as I did after the divorce that of these 4 elements in this promise, 3 are about sunlight, night and day, and cold and hot — things that we have no control over.  The other is about things that we actually DO:  plant seed and harvest crops.  Hmmm……

So today’s lesson for all of us goes like this:  we’ve pretty much heard this principle preached our entire lives, and not in church:  “What goes around comes around,”  “If you want something you have to work for it,” “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen,” etc.  But they all have two things in common:  they are NOT about things God (or Mother Nature) does;  they ARE about things we do.

Farmers know the principle well:  they invest their lives in growing crops.  And in doing so they quickly learn that if they want something to grow, somebody’s got to plant something so there’s something TO grow.  (There’s the correlation to the example given above, “If you want something you have to work for it”)  Farmers want crops.  Their work for crops?  They must plant seeds.

Too many in the U.S. want something but seem unable or unwilling to plant the seed necessary for it to grow into existence in their lives.  Our world is filled with ever growing apathy, complacency, laziness, self entitlement, and anger.  None of these traits are conducive to growing healthy crops.  Because many people — even though they desperately want good relationships, good business and personal and successful economics in their lives, happy and obedient children — are not willing to pay the price necessary to receive those things.  So they don’t.

Still others may understand the process and may even believe in it.  But they allow the process to control them rather than the other way around.  They want some of the same things.  And they may be willing to work.  But they are unwilling to do the work necessary to achieve the specific results they want.

So there’s the first part of the lesson:  if you want something to grow, you must first plant something from which it can/will grow.  The second part of the lesson is really the tough part:  if you expect peaches to grow, you MUST plant peach seeds!  You may be laughing now at my saying that.  But think about it:  how many times have you faced a decision in your life, knowing there are consequences that come with that decision.  Then, instead of planting a peach seed, you plant some other kind of seed.  You justify in your mind, “I planted a seed.  So why can’t I get that peach tree to grow?”  Simple:  you planted a watermelon seed!

I have a good friend that is a good man and very successful in business.  He has a great family:  wife and two children.  As often happens, he decided to look for romance on the side and allowed himself to become involved with a woman from a close by city.  Their affair lasted almost a decade.  Several times I felt led to and spoke to him about it, reminding him of the “reap and sow” principle.  I once asked him, “Don’t you know that everything we do in our lives causes other things to happen?  And having this affair will cost you in the end.  Are you willing to pay the price?”  His reply was sad but typical of many, “Oh, I know there’s a price I’ll pay.  I’ll have a bad year in business, mess up and get popped on my taxes, or something like that.”  As we often do, he rationalized his choices ignoring God’s promise.  His wife left him.  His children turned their backs on him.  He lost the dearest things in his life as the cost for his planted seed.

He knew there’d be a price to pay.  But he discounted the principle God started that day with Noah.  He planted watermelon seeds thinking he could get peaches.  Instead — just as God promised Noah — watermelons grew in his life.  Those watermelon seeds were EXACTLY what he planted!  He sowed infidelity and cheating on his wife and children.  His wife left him for another man.  And his children rejected him for devastating their mother.  He planted watermelon seeds and never saw the peaches he wanted.

Today’s lesson:  “Anything worth having is worth working for.”  When we’re farming in our lives (working), let’s stop thinking we’re going to get peaches if we plant watermelon seeds.  And let’s know for certain that whenever we plant watermelon seeds, we’re going to get watermelons everytime.  I prefer peaches!

Candidate Trump WAS Wiretapped!

Or wasn’t he?  That all depends on who you want to believe, because there are people on both sides of the issue.  And anytime there’s a story with two sides, almost always the truth lies somewhere in between.  Want some analysis and explanation?

First, who do YOU believe?  Bipartisan Congressional Intelligence Committee leaders say there is no evidence of an Obama wiretap of Trump Tower;  Intelligence Agency heads say “there is no evidence of Trump Tower wiretapping;”  As of today EVERY national news agency says in print and electronically there was no wiretapping;  White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says there was wiretapping;  President Trump said “in several weeks we (the White House) will be showing the evidence of electronic surveillance during the campaign at Trump Tower.”  So which is it?

I’m pretty sure to get the truth today we must read between the lines, because — as usual — the truth lies somewhere in between.  I am pretty sure there WAS electronic surveillance of Trump Campaign Headquarters during the campaign.  And I am certain President Obama knew about it — maybe indirectly — but he knew about it.  After all, does anyone really think that something so serious as wiretapping (or surveillance) during a presidential campaign would occur without the sitting President’s approval — either directly or indirectly?  If not with his approval, at least with his knowledge?  That’s doubtful.  How in spite of such emphatic guarantees from so many reliable sources that President Trump’s wiretapping tweet was invalid could anyone still believe it actually happened? Follow this reasoning:

First, forget about President Obama or ANY President being required to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil someone.  After all, the President is the most powerful person not just in the U.S. but on the Planet.  Any U.S. President with just a tiny amount of prompting could with a “for national security reasons” explanation influence someone to wiretap.  And many think that a Presidential wiretap under such circumstances would not only be believable but would be legal as well.  Does anyone besides me think that President Obama would actually take such action?  There’s no doubt in MY mind he’d do it if he felt it was in HIS best interest.  After all, by his actions during two terms as President I am certain he feels anything  in HIS best interest would automatically mean it was in the United States best interest.

Secondly, Donald Trump is not a stupid person.  There is NO evidence in his life of stupidity — insolence, pride, insulting at times — but not stupidity.  In fact he is actually brilliant in many ways.  His life shows that over and over.  So why would a brilliant person such as President Trump double and triple down as recently as this morning on his claim that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower…..IF IT WAS NOT TRUE?  Remember:  two of Mr. Trump’s negative traits are his arrogance and pride.  Usually a person with those traits facing certain public humiliation for something he claimed would grasp at any chance to shortcut any embarrassment from exposure of his being wrong.  Still President Trump maintains the truth of his wiretapping allegations.  Let me offer some clarity to what I think is probably going on here.

Barack Obama is brilliant too.  I doubt he would personally take wiretapping action against anyone, yet alone a presidential candidate.  However, I am certain that he would (in desperation if necessary) find a way to obtain negative information through any means necessary IF he felt he needed that info.  Surrounded as he was with such an experienced group of intelligence veterans, it would not be far-fetched for Obama to call in a favor or two from foreign intelligence sources to obtain Trump Tower information.  In doing so he could say (even under oath if it came to it) “Your honor, I have no personal knowledge of nor did I initiate or participate in any illegal surveillance activities of any kind against Donald Trump, his presidential campaign, or any members of his campaign staff.”  So what could such a plan look like?  It’s actually pretty simple.  Let’s bring the Russians back into this game:

We know President Obama with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a longing to develop the U.S. relationship with Russia and Russian officials.  Knowing those two were so hungry to cut diplomatic deals with U.S. foreign opponents, it is easy to believe as a favor to Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton a Trump surveillance program during the campaign.  Russia?  Well, remember that during his Presidency and Hillary’s stint at the State Department,  the Obama Administration (with her department’s approval) allowed the sale of 20% of the U.S.’s uranium to a Canadian company who then sold it to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin.  There were millions of dollars given during that time by the Canadian company principals to the Clinton Foundation and subsequent speaking engagements by Bill Clinton (with big fees) to Russian companies.  There probably for this uranium deal would have been a little bit of “favor” still due the Obama Administration by Putin and Company.  In the words of Dr. Hannibal Lector to FBI agent Clarice Starling in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS: “Quid pro quo, Clarice….quid pro quo!”  In this case though it would be, “Quid pro quo, Mr. Putin….quid pro quo!”  Russian intelligence tapping Trump Towers phones and/or computers could easily be Putin’s “quid pro quo” to Obama for the uranium deal that will net Russia hundreds of millions.  And no one could ever “legally” pin any wrong on the former President.

Far Fetched?  Probably.  Believable?  Definitely!  Barack Obama with his utter disdain and contempt for Donald Trump was likely to be a part of such a “deal.”   To be honest, Donald Trump humiliated Barack Obama: first denigrating Obama during his campaign and then by humiliating him in the election by upsetting Obama’s handpicked successor — HRC.  It is NOT far fetched to believe Obama was not/is not looking for as many ways as possible to get back at Trump.  Also, the previous POTUS wants desperately to maintain the legacy of his 8 years in office that President Trump is hell-bent on exposing and exploding.

Don’t be surprised when in a couple of weeks the White House distributes evidence of the incident described above or of some similar attempted “political coup” devised to derail a Trump presidency.  Will if/when divulged it formally implicate Mr. Obama?  Probably not.  Will it be evidence to prove there WAS electronic surveillance at Trump Tower during the campaign?  Almost certainly so.  Will it change the minds of Americans about this President and/or the former President?  It will put Trump voters more at ease about their “Tweeter in Chief,” will embolden his supporters even more-so than now, and will cast an uneasy shadow over former President Obama if there is even a hint of his involvement in such a morally deplorable action.

Want some closing irony?  Friday at the White House where German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with President Trump, when the subject of the possibility of the Obama wiretap of Trump Tower, the Chancellor had this to say to Mr. Trump:  “Talking about your being wiretapped by the previous U.S. Presidential Administration — at least we have something in common.”  Remember:  Obama hacked/wiretapped HER phone!

              German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Funny of the Week: Thinking about a divorce?

BEST DIVORCE LETTER EVER
Dear Wife,
I’m writing you this letter to tell you that I’m leaving you forever. I’ve been a good man to you for 7 years & I have nothing to show for it. These last 2 weeks have been hell. … Your boss called to tell me that you quit your job today & that was the last straw. Last week, you came home & didn’t even notice I had a new haircut, had cooked your favorite meal & even wore a brand new pair of silk boxers. You ate in 2 minutes, & went straight to sleep after watching all of your soaps. You don’t tell me you love me any more; you don’t want sex or anything that connects us as husband & wife. Either you’re cheating on me or you don’t love me any more; whatever the case, I’m gone.
Your EX-Husband
P.S. don’t try to find me. Your sister & I are moving away to West Virginia together! Have a great life!
Dear Ex-Husband,
Nothing has made my day more than receiving your letter. It’s true you & I have been married for 7 years, although a good man is a far cry from what you’ve been. I watch my soaps so much because they drown out your constant whining & griping Too bad that doesn’t work. I DID notice when you got a haircut last week, but the 1st thing that came to mind was ‘You look just like a girl!’ Since my mother raised me not to say anything if you can’t say something nice, I didn’t comment. And when you cooked my favorite meal, you must have gotten me confused with MY SISTER, because I stopped eating pork 7 years ago. About those new silk boxers: I turned away from you because the $49.99 price tag was still on them, & I prayed it was a coincidence that my sister had just borrowed $50 from me that morning. After all of this, I still loved you & felt we could work it out. So when I hit the lotto for 10 million dollars, I quit my job & bought us 2 tickets to Jamaica But when I got home you were gone.. Everything happens for a reason, I guess. I hope you have the fulfilling life you always wanted. My lawyer said that the letter you wrote ensures you won’t get a dime from me. So take care.
Signed, Your Ex-Wife, Rich As Hell & Free!
P.S. I don’t know if I ever told you this, but my sister Carla was born Carl. I hope that’s not a problem.

The Worst Leftover of the Obama Administration

            U.S. Supreme Court

No, it’s not Obamacare, although the behemoth is a multi-headed dollar eating dragon that is quickly crippling our economy and steadily eroding the quality of the greatest healthcare system in World history.  It is also not the constant bickering and name calling on Capitol Hill that seemed to if not start during his double term in office, certainly to escalate dramatically during his eight years.  It also is not the ever widening divides between races in our Country — growing at supersonic speed thanks to the political racist rhetoric designed to do just that.  And it is not the division that most thought would have been shuttered after the inauguration of America’s first non-white President.  In fact, with President Obama in office, all of these U.S. problems got worse and worse the older his administration became.  The worst leftover from the Obama Administration — as horrible as are the problems listed above — are the 329 federal judges appointed by the former POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, including two U.S. Supreme Court justices.  You can bet that each was fully vetted by the Administration and confirmed to be from “moderate” liberal to “hard left” liberal in their leanings before their nominations.  His purpose?  To fulfill to the best of his ability the promise he made again and again during his 2008 campaign:  to “fundamentally change America.”  His authority to do so?  Remember this:  “Elections have consequences.”  The number one consequence of his election and then re-election was his filling courts across the nation with Leftist judges who in many cases are making determinations in their courts not based on Constitutional principles where applicable or on actual content of federal laws, but on the judge’s personal interpretation of the intent of those who wrote each law.

I agree with you that this is a far-out basis on which any judge to render an opinion.  But they are doing it and doing it more and more every day.  It has never been more evident than the judgments rendered by the various federal judges who have weighed in formally on President Trump’s travel ban…twice now.  We have all read and re-read both versions of the ban.  I have read both several times.  They are plainly written with full explanation and quote existing law that authorizes a president to take such action.  Here’s the law that President Trump used to issue the two Executive Orders:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”  Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182

I don’t know about you, but that’s very plain and easy to take literally.  Based solely on the “letter” of the law, President Trump had every legal right to issue such an order.  And NO court had any legal right to issue a temporary stay of that order.  So where’s the rub?

     President Donald Trump

First let me tell you how and why the specific courts were called on to adjudicate the various appeals requested of this ban.  The process is called “forum shopping.”  That is, when a regulation, order, or law is passed in the United States with which someone disagrees, IF it has a federal basis, the “injured” party (or “alleged injured” party) can go to a federal court anywhere in the U.S. and file their appeal in THAT court.  So what happened is the “alleged injured” party representatives took their request for a temporary stay of President Trump’s travel ban to courts that are the most liberal in the nation.  In two cases the judges that heard  the appeals were vocally anti Trump!  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in northern California — in the land of “fruits and nuts” — and heard the appeal of the issuance of a temporary restraining order of the first travel ban executive order.  That court is full of liberal judges and is the most overturned Court by the U.S. Supreme Court — 70% of their rulings between 2010-2015 have been overturned at the U.S. Supreme Court.   Judge Watson — the federal judge in Hawaii who issued the stay of President Trump’s second travel ban — was appointed by Obama in 2012, and — probably not a coincidence — met with Barack Obama the day before he issued his travel ban Temporary Restraining Order.  Hmmm…..

President Obama — a constitutional lawyer — knew full well the importance of stacking the courts in America with like minded liberal judges during his 8 years in the White House.  Why?  He needed to find the best way to guarantee his socialist agenda would continue after his presidency ended.  He knew that legislatively Americans would at some point soon (even though he thought Hillary would have succeeded him as President) elect conservative legislators that would nix the liberal laws and regulations he put in place and who he felt any liberal successor would implement.  The Judicial system in America has always been the great equalizer in Government.  He knew to keep the move toward pure American Socialism alive, he had to tilt the judiciary toward the Left.  And boy, did he.

Because of Barack Obama, the Nation faces a quiet (but almost deafening in its silence) dilemma:  how to overcome the monstrous tilt toward socialism in the federal judiciary initiated by Obama.  Remember:  most federal judges are appointed for life.  That means the bulk of those 329 appointees of his are there for a long, long time.  Sure there is an impeachment process for removal.  But you can imagine how difficult that would be.  So what can we do?

         Judge Neil Gorsuch

The only sure way to cripple if not defeat the Left’s march toward socialism is to make certain that conservative judges — ONLY conservative judges — are confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, starting with Neil Gorsuch who has been appointed to replace staunch conservative judge Antonin Scalia after his untimely and mysterious death.  (That death alone makes one think of John Grisham’s novel THE PELICAN BRIEF)  With Gorsuch’s confirmation, that will put the SCOTUS at 5 conservative (or 5 who make conservative decisions “most” of the time) to 4 liberal judges who NEVER depart from a liberal perspective.  Remember:  the final determination and only way to overturn a decision for any case that comes out of one of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal is through the U.S. Supreme Court.  What they determine is the ultimate determination and cannot be changed.  If the SCOTUS goes liberal, American goes Socialist — you can bet your life on it.

What do we do?  We do everything we can do to get our U.S. Senators to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace Judge Scalia.  No, we don’t have a vote for that position.  But we do have votes for our U.S. Senators.  So we have a voice there.  And it needs to become a loud voice.  We need — through every communication vehicle we can amass — to let our Senators know we demand Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation.  We need to educate our friends and family members with the information you have just read — make sure they understand and push them hard to write, call, and/or email their U.S. Senators.

“If not us, then who……If not now, then when?”

 

Did You Pay Your Taxes?

I would be remiss if I did not mention President Trump’s “leaked” 2005 Tax Return — at least two pages of it.  Isn’t it odd that a little known former Pulitzer prize winning reporter who happens to hate Donald Trump mysteriously received in his mailbox that tax return from an unknown source?  Will wonders never cease!  And isn’t it ironic that he would choose to show the World those tax returns through the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC — a talk show host AND network that have spent most of their airtime during the Presidential campaign and subsequent Trump presidency discussing their “professional” and “impartial” journalistic analyses of all things Trump?  Ironies abound!

First things first:  it is illegal for a federal tax return to be printed or published by any persons or entities other than those authorized by the person (or authorized person(s) in the case of a corporate return):  “Illegal.”  (U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B› § 6103)

         Rachel Maddow

That means at least one law was broken.  Interesting that in the “Maddow Show,” the host in her introduction stated, “Our disclosure of Donald Trump’s 2005 Federal Income Tax Return is not illegal.  We are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.”  (she references the protections provided referred to as “Freedom of the Press”)  Unfortunately for Ms. Maddow, her premise is incorrect.  Her doing so was a violation of federal law.  U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 61 › Subchapter B› § 6103 says the following:  “It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information.  Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

Hmmm….wonder where the NBC big bosses are on this one?  I heard radio talk show host Laura Ingraham recommend that federal authorities seek out ALL  individuals who were party to the illegal release of that partial tax return, fully investigate their illegal sources, and prosecute the lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the law.  As provided in the above statute, “fullest extent” would be $5,000 in fines and 5 years in federal prison.  If you have a little time, Google the law referenced above and read it.  It is quite extensive and thorough.  You’ll note there is NO provision in it that authorizes a talk show host (or any other media person or entity) to release federal tax records FOR ANY REASON.  Contrary to Ms. Maddow’s show disclaimer, she broke the law.

But the ultimate irony in this is that then “citizen” Donald Trump paid $38 million to Uncle Sam!  That’s a tax rate of 25%.  I would think (and most would agree) that 25% is a fair tax rate and $38 million was a fair amount to pay.  Granted more recent returns would probably show different rates and payments based on financial circumstances for the applicable tax year (as it does for every taxpayer), but my guess today is that the man paid his taxes.  On a humorous note, the DNC actually insinuated that Trump may have released that partial return on his own to deflect attention away from the Russian investigation now underway.  They in fact indicated that the balance of the two-page partial return could actually show Trump business dealings with the Russians and that he owed the Russian government money!  My returns are certainly not as complicated and lengthy as President Trump’s, but I cannot recall any place on a business, partnership, or personal return an item to list amounts owed to others.  Maybe I’m wrong.  My returns all involved several zeroes less than his!

     Chris Matthews

Want to get a good laugh at the network that released the Trump tax return?  NINE of MSNBC’s current and past on-air personalities/anchors have or have had federal tax liens and legal tax action taken against them.  Among those are Al Sharpton, Craig Melvin, Chris Matthews, Joy-Ann Reid, Kristen Welker, Toure Neblett, and Melissa Harris-Perry.  Knowing that sheds a little light on the network’s obsession with President Trump’s tax returns.  Their anchors have a good handle on owing the IRS and seem to be adept at discussing it on air.  Sharpton alone still has a 7 figure outstanding tax liability.  Oddly enough, the man that NBC hates the most (who now lives in the White House) has no record of ever having a tax payment problem although has numerous times suffered through IRS audits.

Which begs this question:  if the self righteous on-air personalities at NBC wish to continually demand access to Donald Trump’s tax returns, (and especially in light of their willingness to obtain and report them illegally) should not those same anchors be forthcoming with their own personal returns for all to see — a sort of “quid pro quo?”  I understand that they are not federal employees nor running for political office.  But they ARE bastions of the watchdog media that are all self appointed protectors of all that is honest, good, and liberal in the U.S. government, and also appointed to keep conservatives at bay.  Holding up that banner means they too should prove their worthiness to shine the light of tax purity on others.  Ms. Maddow:  “Show us the Money!”

All kidding aside, are there not more important things to NBC than spending a huge portion of their considerable resources to seek dirt on President Trump?  Do they not understand Americans are weary of their incessant ranting on air about the President?  it boils down to this: they either don’t understand Americans don’t want to hear it anymore or they do not care.  They apparently are happy to feed the NBC/MSNBC/CNBC lapdog viewers who agree with all things Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews (who had a tingle go up his leg when interviewing Barack Obama).

Meanwhile the guys upstairs at NBC are still looking for the Trump tax returns to prove he is in cahoots with Vladimir Putin.  There’s desperation to find those returns on the part of Maddow and her viewing audience:  both viewers!

 

 

Give and Take

It was during a weekend.  We were driving downtown in our city and spotted a young couple with two small children standing on a street corner.  The homeless community here is plentiful, but it was obvious these were not part of it.  They had some issues.
We decided to make the block, stop and talk with them.  They were from south Louisiana, had lost their job, and were headed to Dallas to start a new job.  Their only vehicle had broken down on the Interstate and could not be repaired until the following week.  His new job started Monday morning.  They were stuck.  We decided to help them out.
That street corner was just two blocks from the Greyhound bus station.  We took them there, purchased them bus tickets to get to Dallas where family were located, would pick them up and get them ready for a new start.  The looks of relief on those two parents’ faces were rewarding.  I could only imagine when we were young with three small children and how I would have felt under similar conditions.  Fortunately theirs was a happy ending.  But not so much for many folks.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people.  And good people want a way out of bad circumstances.  But some people because of human nature find ways to take advantage of opportunities in the wrong way.  My question is are we approaching in the nation a tipping point where those who are using the system outnumber those who honestly create opportunities for the less fortunate?  That’s a dangerous place for a nation to be.  Thomas Jefferson (although this statement has never being absolutely confirmed as his) said :  “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”  One can easily see the glaring truth in the statement.  If/when in any democracy there becomes more taking than giving, that democracy immediately becomes unsustainable.  So are we a nation of givers or a nation of takers?

This brings up a BIG question:  do we owe every American citizen free (or subsidized) healthcare?  The Constitution does not guarantee it — it guarantees “fair and equal treatment under the law.”  That means “access to” if it actually applies at all to healthcare.  But there is NO constitutional mandate for government paid healthcare.  And before you go postal and bring up Medicare to me, Medicare is paid for by recipients by paying into the system for many years.  In many cases recipients pay more into the system than they will ever receive through medical procedures and/or treatment.  By definition, Medicare is NOT an entitlement — it’s a type of “savings account” as is Social Security.

Enter the Healthcare overhaul proposal of the GOP.  It overhauls what is essentially an entitlement health system. Why?  The current program, Obamacare, has its costs largely underwritten by taxpayers through massive subsidies that come from taxes and penalties.  Costs not covered by those are subsidized by inflated premiums forced upon others.  Obamacare is just one step away from the Nirvana of socialist Leftists — a single payer healthcare system with total government control — kinda like Canada, the UK, Germany, France, etc.

The GOP has introduced the American Health Care Act:  the proposed replacement for Obamacare.  I will not argue the point-by-point pros and cons — the book is still out and the arguments are underway on the Hill.  But what I WILL discuss is the substantive, fundamental differences between Obamacare and the AHCA — and they are significant.

A political premise that has stood for decades is that if the government gives Americans any entitlement, it can never be taken away.  Entitlements are “giveaway” programs by the government that are underwritten totally by taxpayers.  Examples are Welfare, Aid for Dependent Children, Medicaid, etc.  These and other similar programs are “one way” programs:  top down from government to citizen.  Could they ever be stopped?  Technically they could.  But realistically by the nature of human nature mentioned above, doing so would be devastating and would be soundly rejected by millions of Americans.  So….entitlements stay in place.

There are elements within Obamacare that are absolute entitlements just like in Welfare programs.  The horrendously escalating premiums for many are subsidized by the government — an entitlement.  Changing the program in any way is being targeted by Leftists as “cutting healthcare.”  Those claims are false, because in the AHCA, tax credits for those in every financial class makeup any shortfall there may be for premium payments.  The difference?  Tax credits are NOT entitlements.  Historically tax credits have been given, adjusted, increased, and even done away with from time to time.  Those subsidies are considered by recipients as being “mine” — money given to me that is owed to me by the government.  The recipient feels, “They give me that because I’m owed that,”  even though that is not so.  Remember:  perception IS reality among Americans.

Here’s the horror of what we are seeing play out on Capitol Hill.  It’s not yet a fight between Republicans and Democrats.  The new proposed law is still in committee hearings.  The fight is between Republicans!  You would think that with 7 years of promises by the GOP to Americans that “with the Congress and the White House we will repeal and replace Obamacare,” they would have written, hashed and re-hashed a replacement bill and would have simply with Donald Trump’s election put it on his desk to sign.  But……D.C. politics kicked in.  Today I saw one GOP Congressman say about the new proposed law, “It will not reduce premiums, it will not repeal taxes, and it will not take care of pre-existing conditions.”  Less than 30 minutes later another Republican Congressman was quoted as saying, “It will reduce premiums, reduce the budget deficit, do away with all taxes and will allow for pre-existing conditions.”  So what are Americans supposed to believe?  Add to all this “noise” is that of the CBO who issued their scoring of the new bill yesterday that contains very mixed reviews.  And even its results are being argued much in the same way among those in the White House and Congress.

There ARE some facts we need to concentrate on:  Obamacare is an utter failure. Everything we were promised by the previous POTUS about the program have been proven to be false:  under Obamacare Americans CANNOT keep their plan, their doctors, their premiums have NOT been reduced by $2500 per year per family.  The plan cost taxpayers $1 trillion more last year than what we were promised!  And, it is unsustainable.

With all this noise, we need to step back, let them scream at each other, and let the process play out.  After all, it is out of our hands as voters.  Remember:  Congress did not need us to pass Obamacare by the votes of ONLY Democrats in the House and Senate.  Those voters didn’t even read the plan before voting!  And they don’t need us to take the actions on healthcare that are pending now.

You know what I suggest they do?  Step back and let Obamacare implode — which is about to happen.  Within the next 12 months it will complete its death spiral.  And the truth of this debacle that devours 20% of the U.S. economy will be done….at the feet of the Democrats.  Then Congress can start again rebuilding what was the greatest healthcare system in the World!  If they had only left the original healthcare alone and made a few simple changes, we would be light years ahead of where we are.  Instead they have probably destroyed it because its success was and is dependent upon the private sector.  And insurance companies were forced as were we to accept the Obamacare lies without the ability to negotiate with Uncle Sam.

Let the Democrats continue to take credit for Obamacare.  We’ll let them take credit for its death.

By the way:  what do you think about their plan to “fix” Obamacare?  They don’t have one.