More Gun Laws or Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

If you’d like to listen to the audio version of this story rather than read it, scroll to the bottom of the story, click on the audio link, and you’ll get the story in total. Thanks for listening in!

Short answer: Neither.

In the wake of the “mass” shootings in recent past years, many Americans are once again clamoring for gun control. Their cries are chiefly the result of emotional angst and are principally based on that anger, fear, and shock rather than reason.What needs to be done? Who needs to do it? What will it look like if a way is found to stop similar shootings? And is some type of gun control the answer? If so, can it be done, what needs to be done, and who needs to do it?

We will first discuss the specific areas of concern and potential “fixes” in the gun control conversation. At the end of this, we will summarize with the answer: OUR answer.

Background Checks

Most will agree there are holes in the gun purchase background check system that has allowed many to slip through the cracks. The process could simply be made more efficient, more timely, broader in obtaining more information on each applicant, and could be expanded to include the legal private sale of guns and even sales at gun shows.

Mental Health issues are a consideration that should be part of the background checks process, and MUST be an intricate piece of the gun purchasing process that includes the direct involvement of mental health professionals and law enforcement experts. But what changes should be made to the application process for this to be included? Remember: the HIPPA law protects the privacy of the medical records of all Americans. A HIPPA release would be required with each application if any health circumstances would be included in the gun purchase application.

New Gun Laws

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S. — especially a school shooting — gun control advocates repeat their demands for new gun laws — sometimes even gun confiscation. We have heard their justifications for new laws over and over again, but even with massive demonstrations, nothing legally ever gets done to address these shootings. Why is that?

There are MANY gun laws in force at the federal, state, and local levels that are obviously ineffective. Why pass new ones? Which ones would work if passed?

For the sake of this conversation, consider how many gun laws there are today. For many years, gun advocates have spouted the number 20,000 gun laws at federal, state, and local levels combined. Even President Reagan used that number. There is NO verification anywhere of that number or ANY number of the combination of federal, state, and local gun laws. What we DO know is there are many.

Alan Korwin, who co-wrote “Gun Laws of America” with Michael P. Anthony, has added up 271 federal gun statutes, but says all of these numbers are fairly meaningless. He has written an essay on his Web site addressing the question of how many gun laws exist, and whether this is even the proper metric in the first place. “If the goal of the laws is to outlaw crime, then there are enough, because all these luridly promoted acts of infamy involve many laws being violently broken…. Ask if there is sufficient ‘crime control,’ and everyone seems to agree there is not,” Korwin wrote.

If one assumes there are several hundred more gun laws today at state and local levels to add to these 271 Korwin stated (even if THAT number is accurate), there could easily be 600 gun laws in effect in the U.S. You can bet that all those laws on the books comprehensively include just about any gun issue one could imagine, and in total should with their enforcement regulate in every way ownership and use of every type of gun.

There are 30,000 reported deaths annually in the U.S. from gunshots. Here’s the breakdown of those 30,000 as reported by the FBI for 2016. (And the Center for Disease Control states that number is 33,000+, not 30,000):

• 65% of those deaths were by suicide (19,500);
• 15% were by law enforcement in the line of duty and deemed “justified;” (4,500)
• 17% were through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons; (5,100)
• 3% were from accidental gun discharge. (900)

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

Total Gun Confiscation or of Certain Types of Guns

Gun confiscation will never happen in the U.S. as long as our government is in its present form. There are too many legal protections against that occurring. But there are many from the Left that would love nothing better than for the government to take away all guns from American citizens and abolish private gun ownership. Their justifications for doing so are primarily these:

  1. We have law enforcement protection. No individual needs to have personal guns;
  2. Too many guns means it’s too easy to access guns to kill people;
  3. No one is safe as long as someone else has legal access to guns that might be used to kill;
  4. Do away with guns and that will do away with mass shootings.

I will not take the time to counter each of the above arguments. I will just say American gun confiscation will never happen.

But what about laws to prohibit certain types of guns  — like “assault rifles?’

First, let’s make one thing clear: the most popular rifle termed by the Left as an “assault rifle” is an AR-15. “No one needs a military style fully automatic rifle,” gun control advocates maintain. “No one can hunt with those. Why should they be legal?” Here are answers for those:

  1. ALL fully automatic weapons were removed from legal private gun ownership decades ago with rare exceptions. The AR-15 and similar styled rifle or a typical handgun to be legal, that gun must require the shooter to squeeze the trigger once to fire one shell. To fire again the trigger must be pulled again. That’s “semi-automatic.” A fully automatic weapon — like a machine gun — allows the shooter to pull the trigger one time, hold it down, which allows the gun to fire continuously until the trigger is released or the gun magazine that holds bullets is emptied. THIS STYLE OF GUN HAS BEEN ILLEGAL FOR SOMETIME FOR USE AND/OR OWNERSHIP BY ALL BUT THE MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND IN RARE CASES SOME GUN COLLECTORS AND MUSEUMS.
  2. An AR-15 is semi-automatic. It is NOT an “assault rifle.” That term actually applies to the military version of the AR-15 used only by the military and law enforcement. That version is a M-4 rifle;
  3. Most handguns are actually semi-automatics. Far more gun murders are committed with a semi-automatic handgun than with an AR-15;
  4. “What is the purpose of private use of hi-capacity magazines that hold sometimes several dozen bullets? Surely those could be used only for mass shootings.” Imagine a police officer in a gun battle with one or several criminals. Seldom is the setting of such a situation where each stands perfectly still out in the open at a distance of 5-10 yards while any shooting takes place. Seldom are the parties involved in such shootings calm and collected and steady when they aim and shoot. For self defense, military, or law enforcement use of semi-automatic guns does the first or second, third or fourth, and sometime subsequent rounds hit the mark, stop the perpetrator, and protect the shooter. Being able to fire as many as 10-15 times if necessary in such a situation is the purpose for the production of hi-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons.


How can we legitimately curb the gun violence including mass shootings? Let’s include the following:

Background Checks most assuredly should be toughened and broadened. There MUST be inclusion of mental health information of the applicant that MUST have a mechanism for FBI application processors to be able to quickly access those health records for applicants. Private and gun show gun sales should also require the same background check. How successful would this be? There’s no way to tell for certain, but several mass shooting perpetrators of the last few would have been prevented from gun purchases if such a system existed.

New Gun Laws No new gun laws — federal, state, or local — need to be passed and enacted. We need to begin to enforce EVERY CURRENT GUN LAW! Let’s face it: criminals don’t care about gun laws and will never abide by them. But immediately enacting on every law enforcement level a mandatory enforcement of every gun law would accomplish several things: 1) initiate a real deterrent for criminals, for they would experience real consequences for their illegal acts. If every gang-banger, drug lord, and drug dealer in Chicago knew for certain that if caught with an illegal gun they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, the huge number of violations would certainly decrease;  2) by aggressively pursuing, capturing, and prosecuting all those who break gun laws will remove a large number of people from the streets. That in itself is a very successful way to stop gun crimes; 3) Fear of consequences for criminal gun law breaking that is currently non-existent would immediately impact the social sub-cultures that are primarily responsible for a large majority of gun crimes. This would destroy that sub-culture.

The point is that there are — insert number here — laws on the books that address anything illegal that anyone can do with a firearm. Having that number of laws, plus one, isn’t going to make anyone safer. What will make everyone safer is if we enforce the laws that we have on the books now.

Gun Confiscation That cannot legally happen. Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens recently suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment that gives Americans the right to “hold and bear arms.” Doing so would require a two-thirds vote of Congress plus 38 States to formally approve any such action.

George Washington added his personal thoughts to the importance of the 2nd Amendment with this: “A free people ought not only be armed ad disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” Americans for the foreseeable future will retain the right to own guns.

How do we stop senseless gun violence? It will take a combination of things: broaden gun ownership applications and make private and gun show sales applications mandatory; Mandate all law enforcement professionals aggressively attack criminal gun activity of every type — including maximum sentences for convicted violators; stop the senseless media lies about types of gun crimes, Media use of weapon terminology that is misleading to the American people, and maybe most importantly, instead of demonizing groups like the NRA, embrace and expand their educational programs that have taught millions of Americans the responsibilities of owning and using firearms, how to shoot, and personal defense. AND STOP THE FOOLISHNESS OF “GUN FREE ZONES!” Almost all mass gun shootings have taken place in gun free zones. Criminals love gun free zones, because they know they will face no opposition no one else will have a gun in those zones!

But the most important two things that MUST be done to curb this violence is for EVERYONE to begin to speak “to” each other and not “at” each other. Listening and really hearing those with opposite views on this matter and finding ways to bridge any gaps to find commonalities that all can work together to accomplish is critical. ALL must stop the politicization for political advantage: Democrats AND Republicans. A Mom or Dad who just buried their high school junior who was shot at school doesn’t care about political party affiliation or any political narrative desired by any class of gun control or gun advocate.

All that matters is creating an American environment to protect innocents while stopping illegal possession and use of firearms of every kind. We must stop threatening actions that will never be taken. And we must stop the hypocritical threats of such actions only when there’s another mass shooting.

“If” we together don’t work with ALL of the above elements to attack this horror that now is repeating itself more and more, we are doomed to repeat our history again and again. Who will pay that price? Primarily innocent children.

Enough is Enough!












Intelligence Corruption: The Final Chapter

If you’d like to listen to the audio version of this story instead of reading it, scroll to the bottom of the story and click on the audio link. Enjoy!

No doubt we could probably go on and on with “new” chapters about corruption in Intelligence agencies in our government. But let’s wind this series down with a look at James Clapper, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers. I warn you: this “look at” is pretty sleezy.

Susan Rice

Rice served as the 24th United States National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017. She was formerly a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She served on the staff of the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Bill Clinton’s second term. She was confirmed as UN ambassador by the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent on January 22, 2009.

                Susan Rice

Ms. Rice is probably best known for two scandals during her NSA tenure in the Obama Administration: she appeared on every Sunday morning news talk show immediately following the Benghazi attack that resulted in 4 American deaths, including that of American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stephens. It was obvious to all her appearances that Sunday were to trot out an Obama Administration narrative that led Americans to believe the Benghazi attack was prompted solely by an internet movie that originated in the U.S. that was anti-Muslim. That story was not only debunked, but it was learned that Rice knew before making those appearances that the story was false.

The second known incident of corruption Rice participated in was at the end of Obama’s second term. In the Fall of the 2016 election and President Trump’s January 2017 inauguration, Rice as National Security Advisor requested the unmasking of American citizens by the NSA, purportedly for security reasons other than for political purposes. (Unmasking of Americans caught inadvertently in NSA surveillance of foreign persons is illegal for political purposes) In multiple interviews and stories, Rice steadfastly denied  she even had any Americans unmasked, then changed her story to say she never had any unmasked “for political purposes.” It was later learned she lied in both of those situations.

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) stated the following in an interview: “I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were at least monitored,” the House intelligence chairman said at the time. “It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the president-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.” Nunes went on to claim that the information was spread across a number of agencies and had “little or no apparent intelligence value.”

On that same day, Rice in an interview with PBS’s Judy Woodruff:

Woodruff: We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, and after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?

Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

Rice lied.

James Clapper

Clapper is a retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is the former Director of National Intelligence. A career intelligence officer, Clapper has held several key positions within the U.S. Intelligence Community. He served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from 1992 until 1995. He was the first director of defense intelligence within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and simultaneously the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. He served as the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) from September 2001 until June 2006.

             James Clapper

Clapper probably was best known for lying to Congress and getting caught. There is stiff Congressional insistence that he face charges for an admittedly false statement he made to Congress in March 2013, when he responded, “No, sir” and “not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans. About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the answer was untruthful and that the NSA was in fact collecting (in bulk) domestic call records, along with various internet communications. In an apology letter to lawmakers, however, Clapper said he gave the “clearly erroneous” answer because he “simply didn’t think of” the call-record collection. Numerous lawmakers insist charges be leveled against him: “No one is above the law. Officials who commit perjury or lie to Congress should be held accountable,” Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold told U.S. News by email.

The former head of the DNI has since leaving that office turned into a very public and very insistent anti-Trumpster. In doing so he is the darling of Leftist Media outlets because of his open disdain for the President.  “I lived through Watergate; I was on    active duty then in the Air Force; I was a young officer — it was a scary time,” said Clapper. “I have to say, though, that I think if you compare the two, that Watergate pales, really in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now.” Clapper said the “egregious and inexcusable” manner in which the Trump Administration removed James Comey from office reflected a complete disregard for the independence and autonomy of the FBI. “I am very concerned about the assault on our institutions coming from both an external source — Russia — and an internal source — the President himself,” he said.

He wasn’t through there. Clapper does not attack just the President, but members of Congress who in his mind in any way support the President. Enter Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) when Nunes released the famous memo his committee compiled showing intelligence abuses by the Obama FBI. Clapper called the memo a “hit job” designed to attack the FBI and the Justice Department.

“Well I think this is a hit job, more or less, to attack the FBI, attack the Department of Justice and inferentially, or by extension, the Mueller investigation,” Clapper told CNN. “I think the whole point here was to discredit all this.”

Clapper characterized the memo release as a “drive-by shooting in the interest of defending” President Trump, and said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), is acting as an “agent of the White House.”

Samantha Power

Power is an Irish-born American academic, author, political critic, and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017. She in her career as a journalist won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for her book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

She was a senior adviser to Senator Barack Obama until March 2008, when she resigned from his presidential campaign after apologizing for referring to then-Senator Hillary Clinton as “a monster.” Power joined the Obama State Department transition team in late November 2008. She served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Council from January 2009 to February 2013 before her appointment as UN Ambassador.

            Samantha Power

Power in 2016 was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News. Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of her testimony before Congress on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing intense scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In that October 2017 testimony to the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors,  she claimed others in the intelligence community used her name obtain this unprecedented unmasking. According to the Committee Chairman Representative Trey Gowdy, her only defense was “It’s not me it’s my subordinates.”


Why would Susan Rice make those television appearances with the same story on the same day that were untrue? Why did James Clapper lie to Congress, and why is he still long after resigning from his position attacking on a political level AND personal level the President over and over? Why would Samantha Power serving as U.N. Ambassador even NEED to have any American unmasked — and to have HUNDREDS of Americans unmasked?!?!

The answers to those 3 questions is not 1 answer, but several. And NO answer is that “It was part of my job and duty when serving the American people.” Most feel these 3 people are just a few of a myriad of individuals from the Obama Administration that have stealthily carried out a hit campaign to not only denigrate this President, but lay enough negative groundwork to create a perception of corruption of this President to lead to an impeachment or to push him to resign from the exhausting onslaught of attacks that never stop.

I will close this series of some of the Obama Administration corruption (and we have barely scratched the surface) with this: why hasn’t the current Attorney General filed any charges against any of these three for their obvious and blatant and serious actions that violated multiple federal laws? You can be certain that if any one of these 3 was Republican, they would already be in jail, convicted of multiple federal crimes. A.G. Sessions, where are you?

One last thing: you can bet in the coming days there will be numerous new revelations of massive corruption from the 8 years of government before the Trump inauguration. How do I know? There are 19,000 sealed indictments that have been obtained in federal district courts around the U.S. against undisclosed individuals and entities with undisclosed charges JUST SINCE OCTOBER 31, 2017! What are their details? They are sealed indictments — no public disclosure of any details are allowed.

Oh: if any of these indictments were against Trump, the Trump Campaign, or government conservatives, you can bet there would have been immediate and thorough leaks to the press and the press would be all over them on air and in writing.

Who do you think are the charged in these sealed indictments?

I can’t wait!



Civil War

Often we have our own opinions about things that directly impact our lives — often wrong opinions in which are contained “facts” that are not really facts. Ever wonder about how close this nation is to our seeing people lining opposite sides of city streets in preparations for actual attacks on those with opposite opinions standing across the street? Many think the U.S. is very, very close to seeing something similar to that happening.

Daniel Greenfield just painted that picture for us in vivid detail in a speech in Myrtle Beach. It was shared with me and I’m sharing it with you. For reading this, consciously adopt a politically neutral and non-confrontational perspective. It might just change your life.


This is A Civil War

“There aren’t any soldiers marching on Charleston… or Myrtle Beach. Nobody’s getting shot in the streets. Except in Chicago… and Baltimore, Detroit and Washington D.C.  But that’s not a civil war. It’s just what happens when Democrats run a city into the ground. And then they dig a hole in the ground so they can bury it even deeper. If you look deep enough into that great big Democrat hole, you might even see where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

But it’s not guns that make a civil war. It’s politics.  Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.

How do civil wars happen? Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

I know you’re all thinking about President Trump. He won and the Establishment, the Media, and the Democrats, rejected the results. They came up with a whole bunch of conspiracy theories to explain why he didn’t really win. It was the Russians…..and the FBI….and sexism, Obama, Bernie Sanders and white people. It’s easier to make a list of the things that Hillary Clinton doesn’t blame for losing the election. It’s going to be a short list. A really short list: Herself.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this.

The first time a Republican President was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here. Trump didn’t really win the election. Bush didn’t really win the election. Every time a Republican won a presidential election this century, the Democrats insist he didn’t really win.

Now say a third Republican president wins an election in say, 2024. What are the odds that they’ll say that he didn’t really win? Right now, it looks like 100 percent. What do sure odds of the Dems rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That’s a civil war. There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election, when you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship — your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country — according to the Left — is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The attacks on Trump show that elections don’t matter to the Left. Republicans can win an election, but they have a major flaw. They’re not Leftists. That’s what the Leftist dictatorship looks like. The Left lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without the judge’s say-so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the Constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Left’s system is that any part of government that IT runs gets total and unlimited power over the country. If it’s in the White House, then the President can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.

But when Republicans win the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has “discretion” to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the “discretion” to reverse him.

That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run.

  • When Democrats control the Senate, then Harry Reid and his boys and girls are the sane, wise heads that keep the crazy guys in the House in check. But when Republicans control the Senate, then it’s an outmoded body inspired by racism.
  • When Democrats run the Supreme Court, then it has the power to decide everything in the country. But when Republicans control the Supreme Court, it’s a dangerous body that no one should pay attention to.
  • When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws.
  • Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the Left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a “moving dictatorship.” There isn’t one guy in a room somewhere issuing the orders. Instead there’s a network of them. And the network moves around.

If the guys and girls in the network win elections, they can do it from the White House. If they lose the White House, they’ll do it from Congress. If they don’t have either one, they’ll use the Supreme Court. If they don’t have either the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court, they’re screwed. Right? Nope. They just go on issuing them through circuit courts and the bureaucracy. State governments announce that they’re independent republics. Corporations begin threatening and suing the government. There’s no consistent legal standard. Only a political one.

  • Under Obama, states weren’t allowed to enforce immigration laws. That was the job of the Federal government. And the states weren’t allowed to interfere with the job that the Feds weren’t doing. Okay.
  • Now Trump comes into office and starts enforcing immigration laws again. And California announces it’s a sanctuary state and passes a law punishing businesses that cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. So what do we have here?
  • It’s illegal for states to enforce immigration law because that’s the province of the Federal government. But it’s legal for states to ban the Federal government from enforcing immigration law. The only consistent pattern here is that the Left decided to make it illegal to enforce immigration law. It may do that sometimes under the guise of Federal power or states rights. But those are just fronts. The only consistent thing is that Leftist policies are mandatory and opposing them is illegal. Everything else is just a song and dance routine.

That’s how it works. It’s the “moving dictatorship.” It’s the tyranny of the network. You can’t pin it down. There’s no one office or one guy. It’s a network of them. It’s an ideological dictatorship. Some people call it the Deep State. But that doesn’t even begin to capture what it is. To understand it, you have to think about things like the Cold War and Communist infiltration.

A better term than Deep State is Shadow Government. Parts of the Shadow Government aren’t even in the government. They are wherever the Left holds power. It can be in the non-profit sector and among major corporations. Power gets moved around like a New York City shell game. Where’s the quarter? Nope, it’s not there anymore. The Shadow Government is an ideological network. These days it calls itself by a hashtag #Resistance. Under any name, it runs the country. Most of the time we don’t realize that. When things are normal, when there’s a Democrat in the White House or a bunch of Democrats in Congress, it’s business as usual.

Even with most Republican presidents, you didn’t notice anything too out of the ordinary. Sure, the Democrats got their way most of the time. But that’s how the game is usually played. It’s only when someone came on the scene who didn’t play the game by the same rules, that the network exposed itself. The shadow government emerged out of hiding and came for Trump.

And that’s the civil war.

This is a war over who runs the country. Do the people who vote run the country or does this network that can lose an election, but still get its agenda through, run the country? We’ve been having this fight for a while. But this century things have escalated. They escalated a whole lot after Trump’s win because the network isn’t pretending anymore. It sees the opportunity to de-legitimize the whole idea of elections. Now the network isn’t running the country from cover. It’s actually out here trying to overturn the results of an election and remove the President from office.

It’s rejected the victories of two Republican presidents this century. And if we don’t stand up and confront it, and expose it for what it is, it’s going to go on doing it in every election. And eventually federal judges are going to gain enough power that they really will overturn elections. It happens in other countries. If you think it can’t happen here, you haven’t been paying attention to the Left.

Right now, Federal judges are declaring that President Trump isn’t allowed to govern because his Tweets show he’s a racist. How long until they say that a president isn’t even allowed to take office because they don’t like his views? That’s where we’re headed.

Civil wars swing around a very basic question. The most basic question of them all. Who runs the country? Is it me? Is it you? Is it Grandma? Or is it bunch of people who made running the government into their career?

America was founded on getting away from professional government. The British monarchy was a professional government. Like all professional governments, it was hereditary. Professional classes eventually decide to pass down their privileges to their kids.

America was different. We had a volunteer government. That’s what the Founding Fathers built. This is a civil war between volunteer governments elected by the people and professional governments elected by… well… uh… themselves.

‘Of the Establishment, by the Establishment and for the Establishment’

The Establishment: You know, the people who always say they know better, no matter how many times they screw up, because they’re the professionals. They’ve been in Washington D.C. politics since they were in diapers.

Freedom can only exist under a volunteer government. Because everyone is in charge. Power belongs to the people. A professional government is going to have to stamp out freedom sooner or later. Freedom under a professional government can only be a fiction. Whenever the people disagree with the professionals, they’re going to have to get put down. That’s just how it is. No matter how it’s disguised, a professional government is tyranny. Ours is really well disguised, but if it walks like a duck and locks you up like a duck, it’s a tyranny.

Now, what’s the Left? Forget all the deep answers. The “eft is a professional government. It’s whole idea is that everything needs to be controlled by a big central government to make society just. That means everything from your soda sizes to whether you can mow your lawn needs to be decided in Washington D.C. Volunteer governments are unjust. Professional governments are fair. That’s the credo of the Left.

Its network — the one we were just discussing — it takes over professional governments because it shares their basic ideas. Professional governments, no matter who runs them, are convinced that everything should run through the professionals. And the professionals are usually Lefties. If they aren’t, they will be. Just ask Mueller and establishment guys like him.

What infuriates professional government more than anything else? An amateur, someone like President Trump who didn’t spend his entire adult life practicing to be president, taking over the job. President Trump is what volunteer government is all about.When you’re a government professional, you’re invested in keeping the system going. But when you’re a volunteer, you can do all the things that the experts tell you can’t be done. You can look at the mess we’re in with fresh eyes and do the common sense things that President Trump is doing. And common sense is the enemy of government professionals. It’s why Trump is such a threat.

A Republican government professional would be bad enough. But a Republican government volunteer does that thing you’re not supposed to do in government… think differently. Professional government is a guild — like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals, or if you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.

Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That’s not a free country.

  • It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an “insurance policy” against Trump winning the election.
  • It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition.
  • It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media.
  • It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win, won.

We’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and leftist professional government. The pros have made it clear that they’re not going to accept election results anymore. They’re just going to make us do whatever they want. They’re in charge and we better do what they say. That’s the war we’re in. And it’s important that we understand that. Because this isn’t a shooting war………yet. And I don’t want to see it become one.

And before the shooting starts, civil wars are fought with arguments. To win, you have to understand what the big picture argument is. It’s easy to get bogged down in arguments that don’t matter or won’t really change anything.

This is the argument that changes everything: Do we have a government of the people and by the people? Or do we have a tyranny of the professionals? The Democrats try to dress up this argument in Leftist social justice babble. Those fights are worth having. But sometimes we need to pull back the curtain on what this is really about. They’ve tried to rig the system. They’ve done it by gerrymandering, by changing the demographics of entire states through immigration, by abusing the judiciary and by a thousand different tricks.

But civil wars come down to an easy question. Who runs the country? They’ve given us their answer and we need to give them our answer. Both sides talk about taking back the country. But who are they taking it back for?

The Left uses identity politics. It puts supposed representatives of entire identity groups up front. We’re taking the country back for women and for black people, and so on and so forth…But nobody elected their representatives.

Identity groups don’t vote for leaders. All the black people in the country never voted to make Shaun King al Al Sharpton their representative. And women sure as hell didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.

What we have in America is a representative government. A representative government makes freedom possible because it actually represents people, instead of representing ideas. The Left’s identity politics only represents ideas. Nobody gets to vote on them. Instead, the Left puts out representatives from different identity politics groups: there’s a gay guy, there’s three women, there’s a black man, as fronts for their professional government system.

When they’re taking back the country, it’s always for professional government. It’s never for the people. When conservatives fight to take back the country, it’s for the people. It’s for volunteer government the way that the Founding Fathers wanted it to be.

This is a civil war over whether the American people are going to govern themselves. Or are they going to be governed. Are we going to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people… or are we going to have a the kind of government that most countries have where a few special people decide what’s best for everyone. We tried that kind of government under the British monarchy. And we had a revolution because we didn’t like it.

But that revolution was met with a counterrevolution by the Left. The Left wants a monarchy. It wants King Obama or Queen Oprah. It wants to end government of the people, by the people and for the people. That’s what they’re fighting for. That’s what we’re fighting against. The stakes are as big as they’re ever going to get. Do elections matter anymore?

I live in the state of Ronald Reagan. I can go visit the Ronald Reagan Library any time I want to. But today California has one party elections. There are lots of elections and propositions. There’s all the theater of democracy, but none of the substance. Its political system is as free and open as the Soviet Union. And that can be America.

The Trump years are going to decide if America survives. When his time in office is done, we’re either going to be California or a free nation once again.

The civil war is out in the open now and we need to fight the good fight. And we must fight to win.

(This speech given by Daniel Greenfield delivered to the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention in Myrtle Beach.)

An “Omnibus Letter to the President”

If you’d like to listen to this letter to President Trump rather than read it, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the “Audio” link. We are posting this in written form so it can be shared as wished. Enjoy!

My Letter to President Trump

“Mr. President:

Today is a sad day in American history: partially because you signed into law a bill that will increase the budget deficit one more trillion dollars in your first 2 years as President,  (that’s a total so far of $2 Trillion) partially because of broken promises to Americans by GOP members of Congress during their 2016 campaigns, and partially because in doing so, the American government has confirmed long-held suspicions of many Americans. For quite some time most in the U.S. have felt that Congress does NOT represent the will of the People, but rather represents their own personal selfish ambitions fulfillment.

The Senate under Mitch McConnell scoffed at following through on the terminating of Obamacare as each GOP candidate campaigning in 2016 promised. (You too promised the “repeal and replace” of Obamacare) Most promised to stop Planned Parenthood funding. On your watch, promises were made to take legal steps to stop Sanctuary Cities’ prevention of federal prosecution of illegals. Your #1 campaign promise (and message to Congress since your inauguration) has been “do not bring me any spending bill that does not include full funding for the border wall.”

Each of these promises was either forgotten or ignored today.

Mr. President, blame can certainly be laid at the feet of GOP members of Congress. But you as a CEO of multiple international companies have known and have practiced “the” fundamental principle of corporate management: responsibility for bad choices, bad policies, and bad outcomes lies solely at the feet of who allowed these things to occur. Americans have only one place at which to aim their blame for today’s legislative financial boondoggle: the White House. You, Sir, are America’s CEO, America’s consummate deal-maker, by your own words a great negotiator. Today you failed in all those.

The World watched as you struggled to get through today’s press conference in which you announced signing the Omnibus bill into law. You valiantly tried to explain the reasons for its implementation. But those explanations rang hollow to most Americans. Mr. Trump, most of us who live between the west and east coasts in 2015 and 2016 heard your campaign promises, believed your commitment to their fulfillment, and gleefully watched in the early months of your presidency as you pushed through on many. You stood strong in the face of Democrat leaders Schumer and Pelosi. You hit home runs in the games of foreign policy, massive job creation in the U.S., bringing billions of dollars in corporate profits from offshore back to the U.S., slashing crippling regulations, getting Neil Gorsuch a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, and putting ISIS on the run. In less than a year in office, you had given long missing hope back to Americans that under your guidance and leadership we could together really “Make America Great Again.” Today’s Omnibus law dashed that hope in most all of us.

I have long distrusted Congress and the White House inhabitants of the last few Administrations. Everything in government had been structured to guarantee that all federal actions were for the benefit of those in government at the cost of Americans NOT in government. Very little legislatively made business sense. As an entrepreneur and creator of a company that is 26 years old, I recognized the gleam in your eye when you first made your declaration to run. After all, you know how it feels to struggle to make payroll, to calm an angry client or customer, to meet deadlines, to lose high level corporate managers and need to replace them, how to balance a budget, and how unfair the American tax system has been to individuals and small businesses. You know how to work a room, negotiate a deal, and to close a massive real estate purchase or sale. In my mind and heart, you were certainly “The Guy.” I believed that so much that in August of 2015 — just 60 days after your formal announcement of your White House run — I wrote and posted a story declaring that you would win the White House in November 2016. And I was laughed at for that prediction.

Mr. President, today I am no longer certain that the trust and confidence I put in you was not misplaced. I could easily jump on my high-horse and say something stupid like, “I’d never do that…I’d never go back on my word…” No one knows exactly what circumstances led to your decision today. I hurt for you as you tried to explain your reasons for signing the bill into law. I’ve seen similar anguish many times in my company — never in good situations. This is a bad one. And it might be a fatal one.

I am not sure you will be able to recover politically for what tens of millions of Americans feel was your betrayal of their confidence and support — their belief in you and your promises. I have watched, listened, and read all day as Americans from every walk in life (including some from Congress) expressed their shock, horror, and disbelief that you would turn away from most of those things for which you received their support.

I cannot, just like no one else can, say you will be unable to recover from this. I can just speak for myself:

As a lifelong Christian who prays daily, I have each day of your presidency prayed for you personally. I will continue that practice. I have steadfastly supported you in the face of massive criticism for my support. I have continued that support in the face of some things you have said, tweeted and done that have been personally offensive to me. I certainly care about my President’s past, but only as that pertains to his leadership today. And after all, who among us hasn’t made mistakes?

Sir, I will continue my prayers, support, and hope for your success. However, your success that I hope for is NOT for you personally, but for you as our nation’s leader and the leader of the Free World.

In the balance of your service and residence in the White House, I pray you will find and implement demonstrative measures to right the wrongs that were levied on Americans with this law today. We need hope for the future you promised to bring to the United States.

May God bless You, and May God Bless the United States of America.”


Postponement Of Chapter of “Corruption” to Discuss Congressional Corruption Seen Today!

If you’d like to skip the written story here scroll to the bottom and simply click on the Podcast link and hear the story instead. Enjoy!

Apologies to all our members. This is supposed to be an installment detailing Intelligence Department corruption. Today’s chapter (which will be published tomorrow instead) talks about the NSA, DNI, individuals like former Obama White House National Security Director and UN Ambassador Samantha Powers.

The “Latest” Congressional Boondoggle

Today we need to weigh in on the pending boondoggle in D.C. that is the largest financial boondoggle in U.S. History: they are calling it “The Omnibus.” What does that mean? Instead of each House of Congress separately over a period of time creating a budget template, debating specifics, presenting and debating amendments, talking with voting constituents to get ideas, then reaching consensus in the respective chambers and reconciling the House and the Senate versions into an exhaustively researched and debated budget, these Congressional members simply sent 4 leaders into a room — 2 from the House and 2 from the Senate — to discuss a MASTER bill that included EVERYTHING! There was NO individual introductory, debate, discussion, or individual Congressional input. These 4 developed a 2200 page bill that they showed to NO ONE until 6:00 Wednesday night! There is no way a single member had time to even read the massive legislative bill yet alone understand any part of it. And just 12 hours after seeing it for the very first time, the House was forced to vote on it Thursday morning. The Senate must pass it before Friday night so as to have the President sign it into law before — guess what — THE GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN!

Let me ask you, our faithful readers a few questions:

  • There are 535 members of Congress. How is it reasonable in any scenario for 4 of the 535 elected Congressional members to determine what should and what should not go into a $1.3 Trillion bill? (By the way, that bill if signed into law will last only until the Fall, will create by itself an additional $1 Trillion deficit increase in these few months?
  • How many of you are OK with just a few of the elements that we know so far that include fully funding (with our federal tax dollars) of Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary cities, building a tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey, and allocating just a bit over $1 Billion to start the border wall when $25 Billion was DEMANDED by the President for his willingness to sign any budget deal?
  • Are you comfortable with Congressional leadership forcing votes on this incredible expensive bill just 12 hours after first showing it to anyone? That sounds a bit like Pelosi’s famous “We must pass this law before we can find out what’s in the law” statement about Obamacare.
  • Are you a tad upset with the President who first maintained he would veto any budget bill sent to him that funded Planned Parenthood, funded Sanctuary cities, and did NOT include money for increased southern border security AND fully funded the border wall? House Speaker Paul Ryan visited the White House on Wednesday and reportedly talked the President into accepting this spending monstrosity.
  • Does it bother you that just 90 of the Republicans part of the GOP controlled House of Representatives voted against the measure on Thursday while 145 voted for the Bill? (In the interest of informing our readers from around the nation and around the World, click on the following link to see the complete detail of the vote of every member of the House on House Bill 1625)
  • Does the hypocrisy of the GOP House members who voted “Yay” on this bill shock you at all — especially in light of the fact that virtually NONE of them when campaigning for the 2016 election/re-election to their Congressional seat gave even passive support of Planned Parenthood, voting against the border wall, fully funding Sanctuary cities, and doing so without even taking time to read the content of the 2200 page bill. I can honestly say that I doubt if ANY GOP House member stated support of any of these when campaigning. In fact, virtually ALL campaigned in total support of President Trump’s promises. And probably ALL of these 145 promised to support de-funding of Planned Parenthood, to never fund Sanctuary cities, and to pass a sensible budget that would either cut government spending or stop its growth.

So where does your district’s Congressional Representative weigh in on this vote?

Very early this morning I sent a text to my Congressman expressing my horror at what was happening: “Mike: Dan Newman here. I encourage you to vote against the Omnibus Bill. I know you are FOR the common sense process of budgeting and Leadership in the Senate is ramming this spending boondoggle down our throats. They continue to use the “shutdown” as a threat. IT MUST STOP! Please continue to demand realistic spending planning. Thanks!” (“Mike” is Mike Johnson (R-LA), a freshman Representative) His reply was, “Thanks, Dan. The omni is an OUTRAGEOUS betrayal of our people and our principles, and I am a DEFINITE NO!”

Only 89 other Republicans voted against the bill. Here’s what those 145 Republicans who voted for the bill said to American Conservatives:

“Na NaNa Boo Boo!” We fooled you. You thought we were honest, hard-working, cared for you and our Country. You believed we would vote for conservative ideals that included smaller government, protecting our borders to keep our nation safe, and stop senseless spending, like sending your tax dollars to slaughter another million or so babies at Planned Parenthood. Sanctuary Cities — who cares? We certainly don’t. You were stupid to believe we would expend any real efforts to ebb the flow of illegals into our country and cutoff sending your tax dollars to those cities that refuse to handover those criminal illegals to ICE agents. Boy, we sure got you!”


Can you tell I’m a little ticked off? Honestly, this surely is the most tragic event regarding dollars to happen in American history, IF the Senate passes this tomorrow. How ticked off am I? Before the House passed the measure I posted this in social media:

“If the Omnibus Bill passes and is signed into law, in November Democrats will regain control of the House and Senate AND the White House in 2020. It fully funds Planned Parenthood, regulates 2nd Amendment gun rights, funds Sanctuary Cities, AND no money for the border wall: all things that Congress committed in 2016 campaigns. Oh, it funds a Schumer pork project to build a tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey INSTEAD OF THE WALL!

I should not be shocked because we know how corrupt Congress is. Personal deal making. “Why,” you ask? No one leaves Congress poor. Their pockets are filled with your hard earned money they confiscate through taxes for their gifts to special interests.

Fund Planned Parenthood? Another million babies will be sacrificed at the altar of D.C. greed.”

If President Trump who spent his entire campaign in many cases nastily lashing out against ALL of these elements in the Omnibus Bill, lashing out against the corruption in Congress that allows such things to happen, signs this bill into law — HE IS DONE!

And he should be……


Intelligence Corruption

(If you prefer to listen to this rather than read it, scroll to the bottom and click on the Podcast Audio Link)

It’s hard to even say “Intelligence Corruption.” American Intelligence agencies have for decades been the most effective, most successful, most scandal-free of World Intelligence Agencies and have on the most part kept America safe. But in the last few years Americans are to their horror discovering that American Intelligence may not be so successful, may not be so effective, and certainly are NOT the most scandal-free of Intelligence Agencies across the Globe. For Americans, that is an unsettling thought — just one more thing about our government for which to be concerned.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

Let’s start with the George H.W. Bush C.I.A. at a time when foreign intelligence information was purposely hidden from Americans — and not just the general public. Even members of Congress knew nothing or very little about operations in the Bush C.I.A. Bush (before he was “Bush 41”) ran an apparent corrupt C.I.A., rife with graft and corruption that included the funding of foreign militias and insurgents in countries around the world that smiled on drug smuggling, torture and murder used by these thugs to prop up their “worthy” causes, and even the overthrow of governments. How did you think the Bush family members obtained such close relationships with members of the Saudi Royal Family that are still in place even to this day? Bush protection and promotion of oil markets for the Saudi royals and, of course, “quid pro quo.”

Under Reagan it was the Iran Contra scandal that resulted in very public Congressional hearings, Reagan being caught in a “little white lie,” and Lt. Colonel Oliver North being convicted in the Contra Rebel scandal with guns from Iran.

Bill Clinton’s C.I.A. gave the President the opportunity to “do away” with Osama Bin Laden immediately following the first World Trade Center bombing. But Clinton passed on Bin Laden’s elimination. But the C.I.A. under Clinton experienced a horrendous scandal because of the exposure of a double agent. Aldrich Hazen Ames is a former C.I.A. officer turned KGB mole, who was convicted of espionage in 1994. He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana. Ames was formerly a 31-year C.I.A. counterintelligence analyst who committed espionage against the U.S. by spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. At the time of his arrest, Ames had compromised more C.I.A. assets than any other mole in history.

It started getting worse at the C.I.A. in the George W. Bush (Bush “43”) White House. For four years, according to C.I.A. records, no one from the agency ever came to the Oval Office to give President Bush a full briefing on what was happening in the dark dungeons of Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. For four years, interrogators stripped, slammed and soaked their prisoners without the president’s being told exactly what was going on. By the time the C.I.A. director came in April 2006 to give Mr. Bush the agency’s first briefing about the interrogation techniques it had been using since 2002, more than three dozen prisoners had already been subjected to them. And when told about one detainee being chained to the ceiling of his cell, clothed in a diaper and forced to urinate and defecate on himself, even a president known for his dead-or-alive swagger “expressed discomfort,” according to a report released later.

“The C.I.A. repeatedly provided incomplete and inaccurate information to the White House,” a Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded. Not only did the agency overstate the effectiveness of the interrogations in obtaining meaningful intelligence that could not be gained elsewhere,  but specific questions posed by White House officials “were not answered truthfully or fully.” Even to the extent that the President and his advisers understood the program, they kept other top administration figures out of the loop, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. An internal C.I.A. email from July 2003 said that the White House was “extremely concerned Powell would blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what’s been going on.”

In the Obama years, the big foreign intelligence occurrence was the “dismissal” by C.I.A. operatives of Osama Bin Laden. A handful of documents — some of which came from Bin Laden’s house — where released to the public by the Obama White House. That partial release was not a scandal at all, because those documents contained just a small trove of information. The real scandal was how Obama and his C.I.A. heads Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, John Brennan, and acting head Mike Morell released only what upheld and affirmed Obama’s theories about Iran. Had the U.S. public known about the Iranian leadership’s outreach and association with al Qaeda, even Democratic Congressmen might have been far less willing to tolerate the trust which Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry placed in their Iranian counterparts. After all, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the coordinating body for Iran’s security and defense policy, at a time when Iran was developing its al Qaeda outreach. Mike Pompeo when named C.I.A .Director released the additional documents previously kept hidden by Obama that revealed the damaging information about Obama and his minions. Let’s not forget the Edward Snowden scandal. Snowden today lives in exile in Russia after providing thousands of classified documents to Julian Asange who published for all the world to see.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Where to begin: J. Edgar Hoover’s reported extreme racist activities with his FBI’s intense surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or his hatred for the Kennedy brothers — JFK and Robert — that began just because of their Catholic faith? For sake of time and space, let’s fast forward a bit.

Richard Nixon The FBI scandal during Nixon’s presidency was not one of the Bureau itself, but was uncovered by the number 2 man at the FBI — W. Mark Felt. He smelled a rat in the Nixon campaign and found a young reporter at the Washington Post to pass that information along to: Bob Woodward. Watergate was birthed and railroaded the Nixon presidency.

Ronald Reagan William Sessions, a former federal judge who took the FBI Director job under President Ronald Reagan in 1987 focused on white-collar crimes. Mr Sessions, however, violated bureau procedures and federal law by using FBI resources for personal trips and home improvements. After an in-depth internal ethics investigation, he sternly resisted six months of White House demands for his resignation. Sessions was retained until President Bill Clinton personally telephoned Sessions and fired him in July 1993.

George W. Bush Bush “43” appointed Robert Mueller as FBI Director in July of 2001 after his being Deputy Attorney General under Bush. Mueller received unanimous confirmation from the U.S. Senate. His service at FBI was remarkably without any serious scandals, although after the Boston Marathon bombing he admitted the FBI had received information about potential threats of terrorist violence from the older of the two brothers who activated the bombs.

Barack Obama retained Mueller’s services at the FBI. Amazingly, there were no reported real FBI scandals during those years. Mueller when he resigned as FBI Director gave Obama the strongest of recommendations to hire James Comey as his replacement. Obama did so. Comey served through the 2nd Obama term and into the first year of the Trump Administration. Then the “Scandal Bomb” at the FBI exploded.

  • James Comey  On July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced the bureau’s recommendation that the United States Department of Justice file no criminal charges relating to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. During an unusual 15 minute press conference in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, Comey called Secretary Clinton’s and her top aides’ behavior “extremely careless,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” On October 28, 2016, less than two weeks before the presidential election, Director Comey, a long-time Republican, announced in a letter to Congress that additional emails potentially related to the Clinton email controversy had been found and that the FBI will investigate “to determine whether they contain classified information as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” At the time Comey sent his letter to Congress, the FBI had still not obtained a warrant to review any of the e-mails in question and was not aware of the content of any of the e-mails in question.  After Comey’s letter to Congress, commentator Paul Callan of CNN and Niall O’Dowd of Irish Central compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover in attempting to influence and manipulate elections. On November 6, 2016, in the face of constant pressure from both Republicans and Democrats, Comey conceded in a second letter to Congress that through the FBI’s review of the new e-mails, there was no wrongdoing by Clinton. On November 12, 2016, unsuccessful presidential candidate Hillary Clinton directly attributed her election loss to FBI Director James Comey.[To quote many historians, political pundits, and many current and former intelligence officials, “we have just scratched the surface of FBI corruption under Obama.”
  • On February 2, 2018, a four-page confidential memo by Republican House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, was released after being signed by President Trump. According to the memo, a dossier by Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was utilized by DOJ and FBI officials for FISA warrants to surveil Trump’s campaign member Carter Page. Additionally, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who resigned before the release of the memo, stated that the FISA warrant wouldn’t have been obtained without the information in the Steele dossier. It has been revealed that the Democrat National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign paid through a D.C. law firm for the Steele dossier. And in NONE of the 4 FISA applications was the Clinton relationship with the production of the dossier revealed. All four FISA applications were signed by McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, and former FBI Director James Comey.

Let’s summarize this latest FBI corruption with a summary list of James Comey lies:

  1. Comey stated under oath he did not make the exoneration decision for Hillary’s transmission of classified information on that server until after she was questioned. Later it was proven he wrote the exoneration speech long before her interview;
  2. Comey released some of his memos to a professor friend for that friend to release them to the Media. Comey stated none of the memos content was classified. That was later confirmed to be untrue;
  3. There’s the claim Comey made when he issued his statement exonerating Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” That, too, was not true. As we noted in earlier writings here, “career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged;”
  4. Comey testified that he briefed Trump about the salacious “dossier” before Trump was inaugurated because he’d learned that the media were about to report on it. But it was later proven that Comey briefed Trump for the express purpose of getting its embarrassing content out into the public. Since, as soon as that meeting was over, it leaked to the press;
  5. In his Senate hearing, Comey was asked two questions by Senator Grassley: “Did you leak any FBI information to anyone in the press,” and “Did you authorize anyone to give information to the press.” To each Comey replied “No.” He lied under oath…..twice here. He gave his memos to his professor friend to leak to the Press. And Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe stated after he was fired that he (McCabe) was authorized to give information to the media and the he had done so. He further stated that Comey knew about his doing so and had approved — another lie.


For the sake of time, I will not detail any additional FBI corruption. But we all are aware of many more instances than these. But I am certain you get the message: the C.I.A. and the FBI have histories of corruption. Who pays the price for it all? The American people AND the Nation! For purely political purposes, leadership at both agencies have put themselves and that political purpose ahead of doing the right thing — which they committed to do in all circumstances while in office — which is to strictly serve the American people and keep bad people from hurting Americans and the Nation.

Both of these agencies are literally “in the tank.” I am not certain they can survive what we have seen in the last 2 years and what is certainly ahead as these current instances of corruption are dealt with. And apparently many more remain hidden still! No doubt there is more to come.

Regarding “more to come,” tomorrow we will look closely at a few other agency “players” and corruption there: the NSA, the DNI, the DOJ, Susan Rice, former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, and even former Obama UN Ambassador Samantha Powers.

Stay tuned….there’s a lot more to come in the coming days. And remember this: Candidate Donald Trump promised if elected, his job #1 was to “Drain the Swamp.”

It’s a big swamp with a bunch of bad creatures. His work is cut out for him.





Corruption: Rampant in the Judicial System

If you’d like to take advantage of the audio version of this story, scroll to the bottom of the page. There’s a link that when clicked will begin the podcast of this article. Going forward every time there is a new story that goes live here it will have an attached podcast. Enjoy!


NOTE: If nothing else positive occurred during the first part of the Trump Presidency, the almost daily revelations of corruption throughout the Washington D.C. political landscape have been positive for the American People. How so? Many have for years felt there is an “underground” government that has allowed and often facilitated power and unscrupulous and sometimes illegal financial activities among those who serve in every capacity in the federal government. What else could possibly explain how over and over again, elected politicians go to D.C. as average middle class Americans but years later leave office worth tens of millions of dollars?

With the public investigations of Hillary Clinton’s illegal private email server use during the 2016 campaign, other Clinton irregularities in operations of the Clinton Foundation, probable quid pro quo foreign contributions to it, the substance of all the elements of the Mueller investigation regarding Russian election collusion with the Trump campaign, evidence verifying these “irregularities” throughout Washington keep piling up while confirming suspicions of this “underground” or “parallel” system of government operations. Americans can only speculate as to who is running this system. But its existence is no longer in doubt. What remains to discover is exactly how powerful it is and how far into America it reaches. It’s called the “Deep State.”

Chief in this Deep State operations scenario is the morphing of the institution that for 200 years has set the U.S. apart from other countries: the Justice System. It has long been known that the system of Justice established at the Nation’s founding has enabled the country to remain the World leader because of its fairness, independence, and impartiality: “Freedom and Justice for all.” That fundamental of American democracy is now being challenged daily by those from the Deep State.

During the next few days we at will break-down the American Justice System and examine how each segment of the DOJ and Intelligence agencies has been and still is under attack. These attacks have led to corruption at the highest levels of government. This corruption machine has apparently been in operation for a decade or longer, but has remained purposely hidden by Deep State purveyors. Donald Trump who entered his presidency as the most independent elected official in recent memory has in his brash and no-nonsense manner shown us just the tip of the Deep State and its danger to our Democracy.

In this chapter we will discuss the federal Court System and how the Deep State has corrupted many of those in it to purposely impact political operations for the benefit of those in the Deep State. Next we we will look at the American Intelligence Community and later the federal political system and how their interactions with each other has already dramatically changed our nation.

Today, “The Federal Court System.”

I hate the term “weaponization.” Events of the past 6 months or so have illustrated that suspicions of the political use of the DOJ and Intelligence agencies are NOT suspicions. It has happened.

The Birth of Weaponization

Intelligence/DOJ weaponization did not begin at the FBI or CIA. It began when the former Constitutional Law Professor took his first oath of office. On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform the United States of America. After nearly eight years as president, he has delivered on one front: he immediately began appointing liberal judges to federal courts to quickly and quietly begin reshaping the federal judiciary.

Weaponization of the Judiciary

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade. That 329 lifetime federal judge appointments represents 40% of the total number of judges serving.

In terms of Article I courts, Obama made 8 appointments to the United States Tax Court, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Federal Claims, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 2 appointments to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and 2 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He also elevated two chief judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

On the Article IV territorial courts, he made two appointments and elevated one judge to the position of chief judge.

  • Article III courts (also called Article III tribunals) are the U.S. Supreme Court and the inferior courts of the United States established by the Congress, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals, the 91 United States district courts (including the districts of D.C. and Puerto Rico, but excluding three other territorial district courts), and the U.S. Court of International Trade.
  • Article I tribunals include Article I courts (also called legislative courts) set up by Congress to review agency decisions, military courts-martial appeal courts, ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges, or administrative agencies and administrative law judges (ALJs).

When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities took control of nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent. Outside of legal circles the transformation of the influential federal appeals courts went largely unnoticed, though.

“The Supreme Court grabs the spotlight, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said, “while the 13 federal courts of appeals handle about 35,000.” More than one-third of the 179 judges on federal appeals courts owe their seat to Obama, Willett told The Daily Signal. “That’s a legacy with a capital L.”

Obama also left his mark on the U.S. District Courts, which are the lower federal courts, successfully appointing 268 judges—seven more than President George W. Bush.

Obama didn’t push federal courts to the left by himself, though, since the Senate must confirm a president’s judicial appointments. And some conservatives complained that Senate Republicans handed over the keys to the judiciary without a fight. “These nominees can’t be characterized as anything but radical liberals, and the senators knew that when they were voting,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia who is now president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee. While there’s “no singular explanation” for how the majority of federal appeals judges flipped, Cuccinelli told The Daily Signal, Senate Republicans adopted a strategy of “knee-jerk surrender” on nominees.

Republican leadership balked at that characterization, arguing that they spent most of their time engaging in guerilla-style campaigns against an entrenched, determined Democrat majority. “A Democrat president was in office for eight years, most of that with a Democrat Senate, including several years of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority,” a spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Daily Signal.

But there is no doubt that President Trump inherited a decisively liberal federal judiciary. That fact was driven home with the court fights over the new President’s temporary bans on immigration from certain countries implemented by executive order. Appeals of those executive orders flooded appeals courts stacked with Obama appointed judges — primarily the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. Their actions exhibit exactly what a liberal weaponized judiciary can do — and DID do. Though numerous Constitutional scholars declare that Presidential executive orders regarding immigration are Constitutionally authorized for use by a President for the safety of the Country as these were, liberal judges circumvented their Constitutional authority in issuing stays. (Decisions made by the 9th Circuit that find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court are overturned almost all the time) The former President knew this would happen under any conservative President, thus he stacked federal courts as a liberal cause “safety stop.”

How can This Judiciary “Stacking” be Changed?

Quite honestly, there is no wholesale possible cure. 329 Obama appointed judges received lifetime appointments. Short of a Congressional impeachment process, their death or retirement, they are on the bench for quite a while. The only way to make significant change to move the federal courts back to the middle (where our forefathers felt they would consistently be) is for Presidential appointments as seats in various courts become available.

It is important to note that just because a judge holds liberal or conservative views does not necessarily make them a bad judge. The significant problem with any judge whether conservative or liberal is if/when they begin to from the bench become legislators instead of judges. “Activist judges” are those who feel their judicial obligation is to not necessarily devise laws as various legislation entities are charged to do, but in the frequent absence of clear explanations for specifics within those laws make legislative interpretations of laws themselves rather than interpreting federal laws as they pertain to the U.S. Constitution. That is what liberal judges who now sit in these courts around the nation when hearing cases are prone to do. Examples of this practice are very visible today as we have seen liberal judges usurp previous SCOTUS determinations of the power of a President through executive order determine policies that are not already in law.

Judge Neil Gorsuch in 2017 during his SCOTUS confirmation hearing when asked a specific question about a specific law by a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee chided that Senator by stating that legislators would better serve the voters in America by making laws that include specific terms, conditions, and policies that are clearly understandable. Doing so would stop much of the angst that results when cases from those vague laws end up in appeals courts.


It is doubtful that many felt like a Trump presidency was going to be easy going. And it has not been easy going so far. One thing regarding judicial appointments by this President is clear: he has so far and is expected to continue during his presidency to appoint justices to various courts based on a rigid interpretation of the Constitution WITHOUT referencing their own personal ideas or ideals in rendering decisions. “Originalists” is the term used to describe such judges. The federal judiciary has certainly begun a slow swing back to the Center politically, but it may be a generation before the Obama major shift to the Left can be righted.

Pundits will say that the U.S. is more liberal than conservative. There is NO absolute way to make such a determination. But what we saw in the 2016 should be a fair comparison in determining how Americans feel politically: both east and west coast are comprised primarily of liberals while the balance of the nation is decisively conservative.

Knowing that the nation is close to evenly split in political thinking, wouldn’t it make sense to work to keep federal courts headed by judges similarly split?

It is absolutely un-American for a President to try to use the courts to push a political agenda. That’s done in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and in other totalitarian nations — NOT in the United States.

NOTE: Our next chapter will analyze the current failures and corruption in the top Intelligence Agencies. You will not want to miss it. Again a reminder: if you’d like to receive email notification of the posting of any new article at, you can scroll to the bottom right of the site home page, enter your name and email address, and you will immediately begin receiving such notifications with a link to each story. We NEVER give anyone your email address. We NEVER run ads on our site. We NEVER sell anything on our site either. Your email and personal information always remains safe.

NOTE #2: A new feature is coming with the next story. We will begin to post along with each story a audio podcast of the story as well with a link those of you who would rather listen than read — especially if you’re driving — will be able to easily access for each story. The audio podcast links will appear directly adjacent to the written version of each story.

Thanks for looking in!



Criminal Justice Goes All Wrong

“Soft on Crime.” That was heard loudly from many in law enforcement describing the Obama Justice Department, especially as it pertains to severe and lengthy sentences. It did not seem to matter the seriousness of crimes nor the horrendous results of the actions of those who committed crimes. The bottom line was, “American jails are too full of primarily minorities. We must reverse that trend.”

“Reverse that trend” took hold, especially in Obama’s second term. Liberal judges and criminal justice bureaucrats began to find ways to arbitrarily determine which criminals “deserved” to be released from their sentences that often had been determined by juries. That policy has carried over into the first year of the Trump presidency.

Trump campaigned on tough criminal justice in the U.S. And his first-year policies support that, although no laws have been passed to reverse the trend to go soft on criminals that began under Obama. That will take time. The Trump DOJ has rolled out very tough stances on gangs and gang violence, pedophilia and drug trafficking, and serious drug offenses like drug trafficking.

The absurdity of the “new” criminal justice policy of early release of serious felons was illustrated no better than in the following story:


Shawangunk, NY – A violent member of the Black Revolutionary Army (BRA), who brutally murdered three police officers in two separate incidents, has been granted parole. The BRA, a radical, violent offshoot of the Black Panthers, attacked and murdered police officers indiscriminately in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page.

They were responsible for the murders of at least 10 officers, and launched nationwide attacks that injured many more. Herman Bell, 70, was one of three murderers who used a bogus 911 call to lure New York Police Department (NYPD) Officers Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini into an ambush in 1971, the New York Post reported. Officer Jones was shot in the head, and died instantly, according to the New York Daily News. Bell and his fellow BRA cohorts, Anthony Bottom and Albert Washington, ruthlessly tortured Officer Piagentini as he told his assailants that he had a wife and two children, and begged for his life. The trio shot Officer Piagentini 22 times. Bell used the officer’s duty weapon to fire the fatal round, FOX News reported.

             Herman Bell when arrested

According to the San Francisco Gate, the men then traveled to California, where Bell, Herman, and five other BRA members carried out an attack on the Ingleside District Police (IDP) station. The men entered the station, shoved a shotgun barrel through an opening that separated the waiting area from the rest of the office, and fired between five and 10 rounds, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page. IDP Sergeant John Young was murdered in the attack, and a civilian employee was injured. Bell and Herman fled the scene.

Bottom later told investigators that he had planned the attack, but that he was not able to participate, because he had been arrested the day prior as he attempted to murder San Francisco Police Sergeant George Kowalski, the San Francisco Gate reported. Sgt. Kowalski’s life was spared only because Bottom’s weapon jammed. Bell was apprehended in 1973 in relation to the officers’ murders.

In 1975, charges leveraged against him in Sgt. Young’s murder were dropped, after evidence indicated that Bell’s confession may have been the result of torture, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page. Bell was convicted for the murders of Officer Jones and Officer Piagentini in 1979, and was sentenced to life in prison. In 2009, after new forensic evidence surfaced in Sgt. Young’s murder, Bell was convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter.

For decades, Bell insisted that he was a political prisoner, and that he had been framed for the officers’ murders, the New York Post reported. His requests for parole had been denied by the board on seven occasions since 2004, on the grounds that his release would “deprecate the severity of this crime,” according to the New York Post.

Bell’s eighth attempt was successful, however.

Officer Piagentini’s widow, Diane, learned of the board’s decision after the fact.

“We are angered and sickened that this horrible person, who was devoid of any human compassion or empathy when he continued to shoot my already wounded husband, Joseph, while he pleaded for his life for the sake of his family, will now be free to walk out of prison,” she told the New York Daily News.

New York Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan demanded that Governor Andrew Cuomo remove the members of the parole board who authorized Bell’s release. “Herman Bell is a callous and depraved cop-killer who took the lives of two police officers just because they wore the uniform,” Flanagan told the New York Post. “He has forfeited his ability to live outside of the four walls of a prison cell.

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association president Pat Lynch expressed similar outrage in a statement to the New York Post. “There are no words to express our anger and disgust that they have granted release to a cold-blooded cop killer who successfully gamed the system in two states to win his freedom,” Lynch declared. “Herman Bell, who committed the most barbarous and heinous crimes in killing three police officers and who showed absolutely no compassion to Joe Piagentini, who pleaded for his life saying he had two small daughters, should have never been granted parole,” he continued. “We are disgusted, offended and extremely angry with this parole board’s decision,” Lynch added.

Former Parole Board Chairman Bob Dennison, who led the panel from 2004 until 2007, said that the board made a “bad decision.” “I’m shocked,” said Dennison, who currently advocates for inmates. “A cop killer like this should never be released. This was a cold-blooded killing of a uniformed officer.”

Bell’s lawyer, Robert Boyle, argued that the cop-killer had earned his freedom. “He has satisfied all the criteria for parole, he has expressed remorse, he has an unblemished prison record and he’s been extremely involved in helping others inside,” Boyle told the New York Daily News. “It is only correct that the Parole Board apply the law in this controversial case and granted him parole and we are gratified they did so.”

Bell said he would not make a statement about his parole “out of respect for the victims and their families,” Boyle added.

The cop killer is expected to walk out of prison in April.


In my state of Louisiana, Governor Jon Bell Edwards (D) released 1400 prisoners November 1, 2017 under what is termed “The Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Act.” Those 1400 supposedly were non-violent offenders and non-sex offenders. That sounds rather benign until one understands the history of arrest charges and the process for applying those when it comes to trials, plea bargaining, and actual sentences.

It is customary in felony arrests for there to be multiple charges. As an example: when someone robs a convenience store with a gun, that person is charged with armed robbery, illegal possession of a firearm, holding someone against their will, theft, and if there is any violence, assault or assault and battery. In such cases when it is time for resolution and sentencing, plea deals result in dismissal of most of the charges. The perpetrator then pleads guilty to say illegal possession of a firearm and theft. That does not mean they were not guilty of all of the charges but will serve a sentence based solely on the charges pled to.

How many of those 1400 Governor Edwards sent packing were arrested for possession of Schedule 1 narcotics, intent to distribute, possession of a firearm illegally, use of a firearm during the committing of a felony, etc., who then plead to possession of Schedule 2 or 3 narcotics with the other charges dropped? There’s quite a difference between a guy smoking a joint at a party and another guy possessing a pound of uncut heroine that he intends to sell to a fleet of drug pushers who will then cut the narcotic and sell to hundreds of junkies. Under the Governor’s plan, that guy was released!

Yes, it is true that the U.S. Criminal Justice system needs reform. But it does NOT need reform at the expense of those that felons kill, injure, or harm in any way. Fines and sentences need to be overhauled so as to be fair to all concerned.

The purpose for criminal prosecutions is two-fold: first, to punish an offender so as to encourage by that punishment the offender to turn from the circumstances that allowed the wrong in the first place; secondly to discourage all others from committing the same or similar acts against others to prevent similar punishment.

Let’s rework the system so the punishment fits the crime. But let’s punish ALL crimes per the law and not rely on arbitrary enforcement. That’s fair to everyone.


How Evil is John Brennan?

The former CIA Director has certainly put himself front-and-center in all things Intelligence Community related in the multiple investigations by the FBI, DOJ, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the last year. He just “spanked” the President in the latest Intelligence Community bombshell dropped on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Here’s the Twitter bomb Brennan dropped on the President today:

“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America…America will triumph over you.”

The obvious response to “Brennan’s Venom” revealed in his tweet is that President Trump did NOT fire McCabe. His firing was initiated by evidence uncovered during the ongoing massive Justice Department investigation underway conducted by the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz,  assigned to the Justice Department. That IG position was created at the insistence of Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and other Congressional Democrats to “ferret out wrongdoing in the Justice Department.” Both the Justice Department inspector general and the FBI office that handles discipline had found “that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor — including under oath — on multiple occasions.” “Candor” in this case is the “soft” term for “lying under oath.” McCabe lied during testimony which is not only grounds for immediate termination of an FBI operative, but is criminal. Remember General Michael Flynn’s wrongdoing for which he plead guilty to a criminal charge? Lying to an FBI agent when he was not even sworn. McCabe lied under oath.

The “Woes” of John Brennan

Brennan confirmed he unmasked the identities of Americans in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. Upon questioning from Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R- SC) Brennan acknowledged he requested for U.S. citizen’s name to be unmasked and said that he did not unmask anyone on his last day at work, January 20. When asked if ambassadors requested names to be unmasked Brennan said that it may have “rang a vague bell,” but that he “could not answer with any confidence.” There is growing evidence the agency he oversaw has become one of the largest consumers of unmasked intelligence about Americans even though its charter prohibits it from spying on U.S. citizens.

Unmasking is the process used for the release of the names of American citizens who are caught-up in communications with foreigners captured by the NSA. There must be evidence to support the necessity of the unmasking of those Americans. Government Intelligence offices (under Obama)  in 2016 alone asked the NSA to unmask Americans’ names in intelligence reports more than 1,900 times and asked the NSA to do more than 35,000 searches of intercepted data for information on U.S. persons or their actual  intercepted conversations, according to data released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Almost all of those unmasking requests came from……John Brennan’s CIA. That was 3 times the number of requests from just 3 years earlier.

In March of 2014, at the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA Director John Brennan was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers “to thwart an investigation by the committee into” the agency’s past interrogation techniques. The accusation had been made earlier that day by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said the CIA had “violated the separation-of-powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution.”

Brennan answered: “As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s — that’s just beyond the — you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.  And, you know, when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.” When he said that, Brennan lied KNOWINGLY.

Brennan later apologized to leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee after an agency investigation determined that its employees improperly searched computers used by committee staff to review classified files on interrogations of prisoners. A statement released by the CIA acknowledged that agency employees had searched areas of that computer network that were supposed to be accessible only to committee investigators. Agency employees were attempting to discover how congressional aides had obtained a secret CIA internal report on the interrogation program.

An apology and an internal review board might suffice if this were Brennan or intelligence leaders’ first offense, but the track record is far from spotless. In 2011, Brennan claimed that dozens of U.S. drone strikes on overseas targets had not killed a single civilian. This remarkable success rate was not only disputed at the time by news reports — even supporters of the drone program called it “absurd” — but as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the New York Times both reported later, President Obama received reports from the very beginning of his presidency about drone strikes killing numerous civilians.

But wait: after issuing an apology for lying, Brennan actually withdrew his apology and doubled down on his lie! Facing questions at an industry trade conference, Brennan carefully parsed his earlier statement, insisting that he had only been denying the parts of NBC’s Andrea Mitchell’s question that involved accusations of hacking with the intent to thwart the investigation. “Thwart the investigation? Hacking in? We did not,” Brennan said. Brennan had also publicly called the charges “spurious allegations that are wholly unsupported by facts.”

In his May 2017 testimony before the House intelligence panel, Brennan emphatically denied that the Steel Dossier factored into the intelligence community’s publicly released conclusion last year that Russia meddled in the 2016 election “to help Trump’s chances of victory.” Brennan also swore that he did not know who commissioned the anti-Trump research document, even though senior national security and counterintelligence officials at the Justice Department and FBI knew the previous year that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Last week, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) released a declassified memo exposing surveillance “abuses” by the Obama DOJ and FBI in their investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. It said the agencies relied heavily on the uncorroborated dossier to take out a warrant to secretly surveil a Trump adviser in the heat of the 2016 presidential election, even though they were aware the underlying “intelligence” supporting the wiretap order was political opposition research funded by Clinton allies — a material fact they concealed from FISA court judges in four separate applications.

Is it even slightly plausible that the Director of the CIA did not know the sourcing of the Steele Dossier? Highly unlikely that Brennan did not lie again.


Why would such a formerly powerful political figure from the U.S. Intelligence community say the things he said about President Trump today? In my opinion it can be for only one of two possible reasons: the first option is that he is just a plain bully. Brennan may be a bully. If he is not a bully he is certainly showing tendencies to bully. He had on numerous occasions lashed out at the President even though he never served in the Trump Administration. Many bullies because of personal emotional and/or psychological disadvantages use bullying as a crutch to deflect the attention of others from their inadequacies. However, bullying this President is probably not the smart thing for Brennan to try. Trump has proven that even though he is not a bully, he is quick to flip his bullying switch very quickly whenever needed. I don’t think Brennan wants to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

The second option is that Brennan needs to distract attention from some thing or things that has done wrong. So he makes a bunch of noise about the President to distract Americans away from things he has done wrong.

I honestly think the latter is the case. I have absolutely no doubt that Brennan’s hands are dirty and that Inspector General Horowitz has unearthed some evidence that proves that point. I think Brennan’s tweet blasting the President is the precursor to the initiation of a smear campaign designed by Brennan and probably others with dirty hands to discredit the results of the IG’s investigation as it pertains to them. Brennan knows he’s been found out. And I am pretty sure what Brennan has been guilty of is serious enough to cause him great panic — and his actions may cost him his freedom.

Whichever it is, Horowitz will be releasing his report in the next few weeks. He has carefully protected its contents. Get ready for the “tell-all of the decade.” It certainly is going to be worthy to be a best-selling spy novel.


Democrats Release Tax INCREASE Plan for Americans

That’s right: Congressional Democrats have quietly released their tax increase plan they intend to implement “IF” American voters give them majority control in Congress in November.

Think about that: Americans just months ago received the largest tax cuts in recent history that — in spite of the untrue rhetoric from the Left — have reduced income taxes for 90+ percent of Americans. Never before in U.S. history have we seen such dramatic, immediate, and positive results from federal tax cuts.

Trump Tax Cuts

Until these recent tax cuts, the U.S. had the highest corporate income tax rates on Earth among all developed countries. Why is that important? International trade has for many years been almost totally based on tax consequences corporations must deal with when locating operations in various countries. What advantage was there for corporations to relocate headquarters or even place portions of their operations in the U.S. when profits tax implications were so ghastly? That was the primary reason for international companies departure from the U.S. during the decades leading up to the Trump election taking with them their dollars and their jobs AND the taxes they paid to federal, state, and local authorities.

The Trump tax cuts initiated an instant change in that thinking. Immediately when signed into law, international companies began announcing relocation to the U.S., massive expansion in their existing U.S. operations, AND the re-patriation of hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate cash from operational offshore profits that for years had been held overseas to keep from paying unfair corporate taxes in the U.S. This has already meant several hundred billion dollars in added domestic product in the U.S., including new tax revenue for the federal government.

In spite of claims from the Left, every middle class American and almost all financial classes others are seeing their net income increase under these tax cuts. Results of these cuts have positively impacted every part of the financial structure of the nation: for individuals, small business owners and employees, large corporations and their employees, AND stockholders, most of who are those whose retirement savings are invested in 401K and IRA retirement funds on the Stock Exchange. All those amazing increases in stock prices/values in the markets are owned primarily by Americans who are watching their net worth increase dramatically.

In the face of all these successes, Democrats plan to raise taxes……again.

Democrat Tax Increase Plan

  1. Increase the top marginal income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent. This nearly 3 percentage point increase in the top personal rate is not only a hike in the top bracket levy, but it’s also a direct tax increase on small and mid-sized businesses. The 30 million companies which are organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, Subchapter-S corporations, and LLC’s pay their business taxes on their owners’ 1040 personal tax returns. Hiking the top tax rate is a small business tax increase. Thanks to the new IRS withholding tables, in February of this year over 90 percent of workers saw higher take home pay in the form of fatter direct deposits. They will continue to see those bigger paydays for as long as the tax rates in law remain in effect. This higher take-home pay is a down payment on a lower tax liability. Typical families of four should see their federal income tax decline from $2000 to $4000, depending on their income level and number of children.
  2. Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 25 percent. Up until this year, the United States labored under the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. As a result, jobs and capital were fleeing America for more normal tax rates that could be found in tax havens like France and China. Finally, after many years of bipartisan consensus that the U.S. corporate rate had become a roadblock to attracting new jobs and investment, Congress cut the rate all the way from 35 to 21 percent. Even doing that only puts us in the middle of the pack of developed nations, but that’s a heck of a lot better than dead last.
  3. Bring back the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 4 million families. Up until this year, 4 million upper middle class families had to calculate their income taxes two different ways, and then pay the higher result. This was due to a provision of the law known as the “alternative minimum tax” or AMT. Millions more had to at least pay a tax preparer to run the calculation, even if they didn’t end up paying the AMT. The new tax law all but repealed the AMT for 99 percent of these families thanks to a higher AMT “standard deduction.” Congressional Democrats would bring back the dreaded AMT, which especially hit hard two-income white collar families with kids in New York, New Jersey, and California.
  4. Cut the “death tax” standard deduction in half. Over the past few decades, no tax has proven more unpopular in every single poll than the death tax, the federal tax on estates. 60 to 70 percent of poll respondents consistently call for its full repeal. The new tax law didn’t repeal the death tax, but it did the next best thing–it doubled the death tax’s “standard deduction” from $5.5 million to $11 million (and twice that for surviving spouses). As a result, far fewer family businesses and farms will be subject to the death tax, and many smaller firms can shed the costly insurance, legal, and actuarial costs of avoiding the death tax. Like the top personal rate, the death tax is not something that really affects the rich, who have plenty of resources to avoid the levy. Rather, it hits hardest those companies profitable enough to worry about it but not profitable enough to not worry about, if you catch my meaning. Democrats have never understood this, which is why it’s not surprising they want to reduce the death tax’s standard deduction back down to what it was before.


Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like or a proposed tax they wouldn’t support. Why? Those on the Left know for certain they can better take care of Americans and all they need than Americans can for themselves. How to do that? “Confiscate” Americans’ money through taxes and spend it “for” those Americans. That process is called “Socialism” — a term Democrats run from because of its negative connotation but in reality is exactly what they want to implement in America.

Remember what I have stated for more than a year: Leftist no longer are driven by their lust for money. Their plan is to accumulate POWER with which they control every aspect of the lives of Americans, including money.

Watch the run-up to the November 2018 mid-terms. Democrats will shortly begin a concerted call to their base for the need for tax increases. To do so they will re-institute their cries of class warfare against the American middle class trying to disguise their attacks as attacks on the American wealthy.

Don’t be fooled. Doing so by the Dems is the same song, second verse.


(Ryan Ellis contributed to this story)