The House vs. Department of Justice: It’s WAR!

In keeping with our commitment that “If it’s Relevant, You Will Find it Here,” the Thursday testimonies by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray ARE relevant. To say that several Congressmen threw a shot across the bow of Wray and Rosenstein is being kind! There’s no better way to illustrate for you just how frustrated members of the House are at the constant resistance from the DOJ and FBI to turnover relevant documents to Congress regarding multiple investigations than to simply show you contentious confrontations between Wray, Rosenstein, and a couple of House members. If you’re reading this, see the video of the two below. If you’re listening via Podcast, coming up first is Trey Gowdy (R-SC) followed by Jim Jordan (R-OH):

Congressman Trey Gowdy takes on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein


Congressman Jim Jordan goes Postal on Rod Rosenstein

As you can see/hear, both of these Congressmen are having a really tough time with accepting what the Department of Justice and FBI are NOT doing in supplying Congressional committees with documents as requested by Congress. To make matters worse, several times in responses to Congressional requests for documents and information, DOJ and/or FBI DID provide a small number of requested documents. But those documents are so heavily redacted much their content is unintelligible. When Congress asks for explanations for the redactions, the DOJ and/or FBI respond the redactions are to protect classified information.

That in itself seems prudent today, especially in the case of protecting national security. The Mueller Russian Collusion investigation is NOT a criminal investigation, rather a “counter-intelligence” investigation. Because it is labeled as such, investigators are able to label certain information and documents “classified.”  Doing so allows those agencies to redact certain documents (or to simply not provide certain documents) and designate persons revealed in the documents with numbers rather than their names, all to justify hiding those to “protect identities of confidential informants, and to protect ongoing investigations.”

Clearer now? Well it darkens a bit. As committees in Congress have turned those requests for documents into subpoenas, and then to threats of potential impeachment of those who obstruct Congressional requests.

Some documents have been turned over to Congress. But in most of those, committees have discovered the real reasons for the FBI and DOJ to delay sharing many of those documents in the first place. Their reluctance was NOT for security reasons at all, but to protect each department from being embarrassed by the redacted information in documents provided.

Seeing now how Jordan and Gowdy go so angry and insistent to Rosenstein and Wray?


It’s pure politics! And it always has been.

I will not add portions of questions in this hearing asked by Democrat members. Let it suffice to say that every question I heard asked by Democrats of Rosenstein and Wray were softballs that were choreographed to make it easy for the two to slide right through today’s hearing unscathed with an assurance that Dems “have their backs.”

One Democrat made a demonstrative effort to illustrate just how ridiculous Republicans are for their insistence for documents and information from DOJ and FBI about an ongoing investigation, not allowing investigators to complete their work. One Democrat angrily noted that in any investigation, evidence obtained by prosecutors is never discussed with the subjects of that investigations or their lawyers. And he further denigrated all those in Congress that would expect such a ridiculous thing to happen was realistic. Such demands certainly verify that the G.O.P. is merely on its own witch hunt to give the President’s legal team ammunition to mount their defense against the certain pending Mueller indictments of the President and/or members of his campaign. Republican members should just trust the DOJ and FBI and let them finish!

It seems certain that Mueller WILL be allowed to finish the investigation — and at extreme cost to taxpayers. (Unofficial reports of expense so far are at $22 million)


It’s true, Democrats in Congress: Congressman Trey Gowdy and Congressman Jim Jordan (just like most Americans) don’t trust the FBI and DOJ to conduct a fair, thorough, and accurate investigation into these matters. Why?

Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Christopher Steele, Bruce Orr, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, The Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and all the others who have been caught in lies, massive political bias, manipulation of evidence to affect the 2016 election and to even to impeach President Trump — that’s why millions of Americans do not trust the Mueller investigation.

Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Wray: THEY DON’T TRUST YOU!

 A big “ditto” to what Trey Gowdy said in his remarks to Rod Rosenstein: it’s time for Mueller to bring forward the evidence against President Trump and/or members of his campaign for Russia collusion to impact the 2016 election results — not to give to the press, but to give to an empaneled Grand Jury to prosecute.

As Gowdy concluded, “You must do this. This is tearing our country apart.”

Final Note

Answer this question for yourself: Why the intense effort to hide information, documents, names, dates, meeting details, etc., if nothing was done wrong, against regulations, laws, or policies? And why are so many people obviously so afraid they will do anything to protect themselves?

Answer: there are many people in Washington D.C. that do not want the American people to know the truth about all of the “stuff” those people are hiding.

I am confident “The Truth will Out.”


Supreme Court Holocaust

Political Leftists cringed with the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Their horror heightened with the election of Donald Trump as President. Why? They knew with his certain appointment of a conservative replacement, the balance of power shifting to the right would certainly tip the scales of judicial renderings from SCOTUS to the right. And they apparently were correct. Listen for today’s Supreme Court Holocaust analysis.

The Court

Current Supreme Court justices and their political “leanings” are as follows:

Chief Justice:

John Roberts: Conservative

Associate Justices:

Anthony Kennedy: usually considered Conservative but as a “swing vote” that sometimes is Liberal

Clarence Thomas: Conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal

Stephen Breyer: Liberal

Samuel Alito: Conservative

Sonia Sotomayor: Liberal

Elena Kagan: Liberal

Neil Gorsuch: Conservative

What’s Happened Lately

Beginning with the outcomes of the current SCOTUS session, June 26th findings of the Court were released. These are the most notable AND most controversial:

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

President Trump lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), to issue Proclamation No. 9645, suspending the entry of aliens into the United States, and the Proclamation does not violate the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS upheld Trump travel ban on some countries that are primarily Muslim in a 5-4 Vote.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)

SCOTUS struck down California law that required Crisis Pregnancy Centers in their counseling of those pregnant to discuss with those women the availability of state funded abortions in addition to non-abortion pregnancy result options. VOTE: 5-4

Abbott v. Perez (2018)

Supreme Court rejects district court’s conclusion that a 2013 Texas redistricting plan was tainted by the bias of a previous legislature and that certain districts were invalid as having the effect of depriving Latinos of the equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. VOTE: 5-4

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (2018)

Phillips, the owner of a Colorado bakery, told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages (which Colorado did not then recognize) but that he would sell them other baked goods. The couple filed a charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public.” An ALJ ruled in the couple’s favor. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. VOTE: 5-4

Azar v. Garza (2018)

Doe, a minor was eight weeks pregnant when she unlawfully crossed the border into the U.S. She was detained by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in a federally-funded Texas shelter. Doe requested an abortion. Absent “emergency medical situations,” ORR policy prohibits shelter personnel from “taking any action that facilitates an abortion without direction and approval from the Director.” A minor may leave government custody by seeking voluntary departure, or by working with the government to identify a suitable sponsor” in the U.S., 8 U.S.C. 1229c. Garza, Doe’s guardian ad litem, filed a putative class action on behalf of Doe and “all other pregnant unaccompanied minors in ORR custody.” The district court ruled in Doe’s favor, Doe attended preabortion counseling, required by Texas law to occur at least 24 hours in advance with the same doctor who performs the abortion. The clinic she visited typically rotated physicians weekly. The next day, the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of the order. Four days later, that court, en banc, vacated the panel order and remanded. Garza obtained an amended order, requiring the government to make Doe available to obtain the counseling and abortion. Believing the abortion would not take place until after Doe repeated the counseling with a new doctor, the government informed opposing counsel and the Supreme Court that it would file a stay application on October 25. The doctor who had performed Doe’s earlier counseling became available at 4:15 a.m. At 10 a.m., Garza’s lawyers informed the government that Doe “had the abortion this morning.” The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for dismissal. Doe’s individual claim for injunctive relief—the only claim addressed by the D. C. Circuit—became moot after the abortion but the unique circumstances and the balance of equities weigh in favor of vacatur. The Court considered but did not decide the government’s allegations that opposing counsel made misrepresentations to thwart review. VOTE 5-4

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018)
Janus was an Illinois employee of a company and was not a member of the AFSCME union local at his employer. The case was filed on his behalf to confront alleged violation of his 1st Amendment rights by the Union paying a portion of the Union assessment he paid to/for political causes with which Janus disagrees. The Court ruled the Illinois law that forced non-union employees to pay such dues is not valid. VOTE: 5-4

The Meaning

It is very obvious with the SCOTUS rulings on these cases that the death of Antonin Scalia — a strict conservative Supreme Court justice — the sure results of Court rulings would end deadlocked — especially in controversial cases. And indeed that happened. Neil Gorsuch joining the Court has already made a dramatic difference. The 4-4 deadlock would have continued in most cases.

“What’s the damage with that?” partisans might ask. It’s simple: SCOTUS is NOT the place where cases start. Cases determined there are appealed from federal appeals courts around the nation. In SCOTUS 4-4 determinations on any cases results in the determination by the lower court that the appeal came from being confirmed. It is doubtful any of the above case results would have occurred in a 4-4 Supreme Court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Judge Anthony Kennedy

In a surprise move, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, giving President Trump a critical opportunity to move the Supreme Court more solidly to the right in what promises to be an epic confirmation fight.

The 81-year-old senior associate justice informed the White House in a letter of his intention to step down from the high court after 30 years, effective July 31. Rumors of another vacancy have reverberated across Washington in recent months, and it comes a year after Kennedy’s former law clerk Justice Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Arguably the most powerful member of the Supreme Court, Kennedy’s moderate-conservative views often left him the “swing” — or deciding — vote in hot-button cases ranging from abortion to gay rights to political campaign spending.  A Supreme Court vacancy will likely become a key issue in a midterm congressional election year, when control of the Senate is at stake. That body will consider Trump’s latest high court nominee, requiring only a simple majority for confirmation. GOP leaders changed the rules when Gorsuch was being considered, to get rid of the 60-vote procedural filibuster threshold. (FOX News Breaking Story)

What Next?

You can bet Democrats will NOT “go quietly into the night” on this issue. Democrats are likely to initiate a move during the replacement of Kennedy to make it a referendum on Donald Trump as President: his honesty, integrity, etc. Their options to do so are limited. Remember: the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion to aid Trump’s election victory in 2016 is running out of steam. What else could Dems use? Who knows. But you can bet they — “if” they go down — will go down swinging.

One thing Democrats missed in the SCOTUS findings on these cases is that the Supreme Court DID not and DOES not decide cases based on political bias or agenda. Their finding regarding President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from the countries involved was well within the President’s Constitutional authority. The justices made it clear that regardless of anything said by then Candidate Trump was immaterial to the law. The law give this President — and any OTHER President — clear authority to take executive action in such cases.

Democrats have a habit of forgetting about the law when dealing with controversial issues. Laws and substance often do not matter to Dems: politically correctness drives their boat.

Case in point: Keith Ellison (D-MN) said that the President “has his Supreme Court tailor-made to his ugly philosophy,” calling it a “partisan court.”He added that he does not believe Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed after congressional Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy late in his presidency, is on the court “properly.” “It just proves one thing, that if you steal and rip off a Supreme Court justice, then you can try to jam any kind of nasty, racist, ugly policy down the throat’s of the American people. But we’re not taking it,” Ellison said.

Yes, the Ellison view on the matter is the epitome of “Symbolism over Substance. “But where are the majority of Americans on these and other controversial issues?

After all: everything is NOT about politics.

Establishment Republicans are a Dying Breed

For a really long time, the G.O.P. was dominated by its own “ruling class” — now termed “Establishment Republicans.” Counted among their leadership were Bush 41, Bush 43, Jeb Bush, all the other Bush family surrogates, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Orin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and many others who have literally or just figuratively “gone away.” But things are changing!

The G.O.P. Today

Enter Donald Trump: a former Democrat, former liberal thinker turned Republican. But Trump is the antithesis to establishment Republican ideals.

Many Republicans thought he would NEVER be able to amass sufficient support to win even the G.O.P. nomination for President in 2016. They were wrong. Many of these same Republicans were certain he could never draw voter support to win the general election — certainly not against the darling of America, Hillary Clinton. They were wrong. But Establishment Republicans did NOT stop there: they knew for a fact Trump could NEVER get any of his campaign promises to affect real legislative accomplishments implemented if he somehow won in 2016. Wrong again.

Did you know that on the way to the White House, Trump defeated these “other” Republican candidates, most of whom were G.O.P. Establishment through and through?

  • Mike Huckabee
  • Rand Paul
  • Rick Santorum
  • Carly Fiorina
  • Chris Christie
  • Jim Gilmore
  • Jeb Bush
  • Ben Carson
  • Marco Rubio
  • Ted Cruz
  • John Kasich
  • George Pataki
  • Lindsey Graham
  • Bobby Jindahl
  • Scott Walker
  • Rick Perry

Oh, there were 5 more candidates you probably never heard of: Jack Fellure, Andy Martin, Dennis Lynch, Mark Everson, and Jimmy McMillan: President Trump beat 22 Republicans — most of who were longtime G.O.P. “possibilities and far more likely than Trump for the job — on his way to victory?

One would think by now, the G.O.P. dinosaurs would fade away. Instead, many of them have a death grip on the Party, refusing to step aside to for the will of Conservative Americans to move the G.O.P. away from the Establishment. Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and many others are hanging on for dear life. Why is that?

What Defines “Establishment Republicans?”

The answer to that question has been puzzling for many for years. The answer should certainly be based on the policy differences between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. But during the past few decades, that difference has dramatically blurred. If you write a list of major American policies and the positions on each taken by Conservatives and Liberals, you’ll see that until Donald Trump took the oath of office, the differences between the Establishment Democrat and Establishment Republican parties were slim (and in many cases) none.

Donald Trump gave conservative Americans who for years had watched the G.O.P. simply giveaway conservative policies, bowing more and more to the whims of their liberal counterparts in Congress, without any plausible explanations to Americans for doing so. Whether they were economical and tax issues, trade issues, immigration policy matters, foreign policy negotiations, healthcare (and the list goes on and on), the Establishment G.O.P. without notice of intent to do so simply walked away from conservatives. And until Trump walked onto the Conservative Stage in 2015, no Republican really knew for sure what had happened to the G.O.P.! 

Make no mistake about this: the Republican Party has changed — not away from its ORIGINAL structure and conservative ideals, (it had already morphed into a “Republican Lite” mode) but is now changing BACK TO those original Republican ideals. And the Establishment G.O.P. is struggling to survive in its quest to quietly keep the Grand Old Party slipping Left.

The Last Breath

When Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wi) announced he would not seek re-election this year and would therefore relinquish the House Speaker gavel, I wondered why he would make such an announcement without planning to go ahead and step aside to allow House members to elect a new Speaker. Doing so seemed really strange. But being a political cynic, it did not take me long to realize that by not stepping down as Speaker, he had a plan.

Then there’s Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Senate Majority Leader, who barely won re-election to his sixth term in the Senate in 2014. The G.O.P. primary in that race was pretty close. According to analysis by the University of Minnesota, this was the lowest voter support for a Kentucky U.S. Senator in a primary by either party since 1938. Yet McConnell won and now leads the Senate.

Like Ryan, knowing that in his home state and in the U.S. Senate he was growing less and less popular among the electorate and also among G.O.P. colleagues on the Hill, one would think McConnell would back away to allow other less controversial and better liked Senators to take the lead in the upper House. Yet McConnell maintained his death grip on the Senate leadership position. And since, he has kept the Senate on a  “lazy river of legislation” mode, slow-playing every meaningful nomination hearing, and delaying introduction of new legislation as promised by Republican Senate candidates and President Trump during their 2016 campaigns. McConnell in May of 2018 announced the Senate would not take up anymore “meaningful legislation” until after the November elections! He announced that with so many hot legislative topics on the minds of the majority of Americans.

Could the reason for these two Establishment G.O. P. leaders hanging around D.C. in their positions of power be for a reason other than to serve their voting constituents while leading the Republican Party in D.C.? If Paul Ryan was really concerned about making sure loose ends were tied up before his Speaker retirement and to maintain control of the House in the mid-term elections, it seems more logical for him to step down, immediately handing control of the House to his successor. Doing so would assure voters that whoever House Republicans elected to replace Ryan would be both capable and committed to continue and push forward with the Trump agenda. Remember: Almost all G.O.P. House members during THEIR 2016 election and re-election bids used the Trump agenda and groundswell of its acceptance by voters to win their House seats.

Who can forget the scene of G.O.P. Senator John McCain after casting the “death vote” that would have allowed debate on killing Obamacare to come to the Senate floor? Immediately following casting his vote, he was seen high-fiving House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) walking off the Senate floor. American Republicans en masse wanted (and still want) Obamacare done away with. What has the Senate done to heed that G.O.P. voter issue: to do away with Obamacare and replace it? Nothing — not even debating a bill.

And then there’s Mitt Romney. Former Michigan resident, Massachusetts governor, failed Republican Presidential candidate in 2012, is now an odds-on favorite to replace retiring Senator Orin Hatch as Utah Senator. Romney in his bid to unseat Barack Obama seemed to many conservatives to have Obama on the run — until the final month of the campaign. Romney all but disappeared — sort of like Hillary Clinton did a month before the 2016 election. To many it seemed that he just gave up that last month, giving Obama his second term.

Now Romney is taking another shot at winning an election. The longtime Senator he is replacing was not originally a Trump supporter. But Hatch after the 2016 election threw himself into the job of supporting conservative causes. And later as he saw the Trump accomplishments pile up, Hatch said that President Trump just might go down as the best U.S. President ever.

What about Romney and in his Utah Senatorial campaign his support for the Trump agenda?

“I have and will continue to speak out when the president says or does something which is divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions,” Romney wrote. “I do not make this a daily commentary; I express contrary views only when I believe it is a matter of substantial significance.”

That sounds to me much more like an Establishment Republican leaning Democrat statement than a Conservative statement of support.

Evidence of G.O.P. Establishment Dying

The proof that the G.O.P. Establishment is really dying and that Donald Trump has (with his election and policy leadership support among party members) at least exposed the move toward more traditional Conservatism in the Republican Party, is shown in a Pew Research Poll released today:

About half of conservative Republicans and leaners (52%) say Trump has changed the GOP for the better, 36% think he hasn’t changed the party much, and just 9% say he has changed the GOP for the worse.

♦Among moderate and liberal Republicans, a smaller share (34%) say Trump has changed the party for the better, while 49% say he hasn’t changed the party much (only 11% say he has changed the party for the worse).

♦Those who identify as Republican are more likely to view Trump’s impact on the party positively (53%) than to say he hasn’t changed the party much (34%).

♦By contrast, the balance of opinion is reversed among independents who lean toward the Republican Party: 51% say he hasn’t changed the party much, while a third say he has changed the GOP for the better. Only about one-in-ten in either group say he has changed the party for the worse.

Additionally, Donald Trump has higher approval ratings among all voters than did Barack Obama after his first 500 days in office. And one-by-one we’re watching as numerous political “left-leaners” quietly move toward the right — toward REAL conservative ideals.

Why should this be so shocking to G.O.P. leadership? It should not surprise them, but it does. It SHOULD prompt them to do as more than 60 million Americans have done: get on board.

It’s not so much about going all in for Donald Trump personally. It’s about what he has achieved for Americans. It’s about fulfilling campaign promises — which is rare for any Republican OR Democrat to do. It’s not about liking or agreeing with his messaging methods and verbiage. It’s about the United States of America, its economical and social turnaround that was totally transformed by his predecessor, away from the Greatness that had pushed the U.S. to the top of the pile of all the countries in the world.

Could Trump do things better? I really don’t know. I DO know that he could tamp down the rhetoric of those who constantly attack him by simply toning down the tone of his messaging. But if he did that, maybe American conservatives that have been ignored for so long by their Senators and Congressmen would not be in such full support of President Trump.

My summary of all this is simple: Establishment Republicans should open their eyes to the truth that the Old Republican Party really IS dead. One G.O.P. dinosaur called it perfectly last week. Former Republican House Speaker John Boehner said, “There is no more Republican Party. It’s now the Trump Party.” Boehner said that in a derogatory fashion. But you know what? I’m pretty sure he was right.




The Winds of Change are blowing at And change is coming!

As promised, I have news for for all of you today — exciting for us and I hope for you:

  1. We are no longer going to “label” our Podcast and Blog Posts “”
  2. Starting later this week, the “official” identity of will become (and will be called) “TNN: Truth News Network @”
  3. We have a new logo that will appear on the website and all visible production elements going forward:
  4. We are exploring live streaming daily programming of TNN podcasts (that would no longer BE podcasts, but live broadcasts), that would include audience telephone live interactions. More on that in the upcoming days.
  5. Beginning later this week, we will have various national politicians and others who work in D.C. FOR politicians on our podcasts. This has happened as a result of our growing audiences and the word of this venture being passed around person to person. (Remember: we don’t market ourselves here)



None of this is possible without YOU. We were NOT looking for something else to do, believe me. My hope and prayer is that in all of these efforts, conversations, stories, and interviews, you and others who look/listen in will be challenged to investigate, listen, and watch for truth instead of simply believing what is written and said just because it IS written and said. “You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free!”

A humble and hearty “Thanks” to all of you for looking/listening in. You probably have gathered I am a research junkie. That’s surprising to me because I have the attention span of a mosquito! None of this is for glory or recognition or praise. Coming from a background of Journalism in which honesty, truth, and non-partisanship were pillars of the Art, the shock and awe I experience watching, reading, and listening to today’s “Journalists” has challenged me beyond explanation. I cannot sit quietly while our friends, relatives, and fellow workers are daily bombarded with misrepresentations cloaked as “facts” and “News” that are anything but. I feel a responsibility to put REAL news out there so our readers and listeners have the ability to make informed decisions.

It’s funny that in doing this, discerning between fact and fiction in news reporting becomes easier the longer one takes the initiative to investigate!

Thanks for joining us, making suggestions, asking questions, and digging in. Remember in all this: THE BEST IS YET TO COME!



Insanity in the U.S.!

Mass Insanity is Here

Civility in America is dead…..or it’s certainly dying. The art of communication with each other is now ancient istory. Have you noticed how angry conversations almost always seem to explode between people with different ideas, ideals, political perspectives, religious and ethnic and racial identities, and nationalities? Whatever happened to what my Mom always said to me: “If you can’t say something nice to someone don’t say anything at all?” That’s now a lost art. The mantra of conversation now seems to be, “If you think it, say it. Don’t worry about who or how your words might hurt others. Just get it off your chest.” What drives this “new” art of communication? What changed?

There are no doubt dozens if not hundreds of things that shape the way we communicate with others. But there seems to be one driving factor in this process today: Meism. Meism is a personal characteristic that is always shows up in every society, but in most societies those who own this trait constitute just a small fraction of its population. But that percentage in America is today staggering – and growing everyday.

Me-ism defined is “Self-importance without any evidence that we (or our world view) actually matter.” Let me repeat that: Me-ism is “Self-importance without any evidence that we (or our world view) actually matter.” Everything is all about ME, to the exclusion of everyone else in the world. And the only “THINGS” that matter or the “THINGS” I deem important. What is really important in the world to Me-ists is totally irrelevant in the context of what Me-ists think.

Me-ism has always partnered with narcissism and selfishness. Those fit perfectly together and are interchangeable. If you know someone who is selfish or in your mind you’ve termed a narcissist, that person surely espouses Me-ism.

Unfortunately for us all, Me-ism steals its way through every sector of our lives. Its by-product is to always destroy personal and social relationships, work atmosphere with fellow employees, and even the most intrinsic and necessary values in the lives of every American – those values found for centuries on the wheel of democracy that has made America the greatest country in World history.

For a democracy to live and last, relationships among its people must also. Me-ism’s certain result in everyone who bears it and everyone IN those person’s lives is certain Death. Relational death is a certainty with Me-ism.

Front and center today in the U.S. is a particular deep and dark Me-ism that captured the hearts and minds of millions in our nation. It bleeds into every corner of American life, but is most visible in American politics. Government – which is what politics is all about – formerly was about being “of, by, and for the people.” But no longer. Me-ists have made government and all political rhetoric about “their” self-interests at the exclusion and regard for the interests of others. Political causes are no longer about facts. Me-ists disregard any fact that runs counter to their political perspective on the matter. In Me-ism remember that Me-ists think and feel about everything using as their basis in all thought that no one else and no one else’s opinion on any worldview matters.

Today’s political hot iron is illegal immigration, border interdiction that at least temporarily separates children who illegally enter the U.S. with adults – sometimes their parents — while immigration law processes are completed. In this political narrative, Me-ists and their minions must always have their victims and must always have their villains. Illegal immigration victims? Children. Illegal immigration villain? President Donald Trump.

Here’s the simple Leftist narrative that reeks of Me-ism and has painted illegal immigration’s story with “facts” that are NOT true. (Isn’t that an oxymoron? How can a “fact” not be true?) (NOTE: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE FOLLOWING AUDIO SEGMENTS CANNOT BE ACCESSED IN THIS FORMAT. THEY ARE ALL CERTAINLY AVAILABLE IN THE PODCAST IF UNAVAILABLE IN THIS WRITTEN BLOG POST. SORRY!)

Me-ist “Fact” #1 Donald Trump is the guilty party in separating children from their parents at the border. He started this zero policy action and it has no historical or legal precedent – or does it? (Listen to Bill Clinton)

Me-ist “Fact” #2 If Hillary Clinton was President, none of this would be happening. She agreed that illegal immigrant children should be allowed into the U.S. – or did she? (Listen to Hillary)

Me-ist Fact #3 According to CNN, MSNBC, and other news outlets, Barack Obama never separated illegal immigrant children at the southern border from their parents (Listen to at CBS report in 2014) (I apologize…his comments were recorded at a low volume)

Me-Ism Fact #3 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has always been an open borders supporter, Right? Wrong! (Listen to Schumer)

The Me-ists have taken this denigration of all things and all people who disagree with them to another level – a seriously scary sounding and even dangerous level – Especially the Mainstream. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, commentator Donny Deutsch had this to say Friday, June 22nd:

All of these samples simply give us a glimpse of exactly how Americans live dangerously close to seeing suddenly a country in which many actually embrace anarchy. Don’t laugh at my assertion because throughout history, anarchy in every country that has endured a social civil war that came from the inside NEVER saw it as a civil war or even as the results of anarchy until it was too late. Stealth and apathy are the primary tools that a narcissistic country of Me-ists need and use to initiate drastic political revolt among the electorate.

Oh, we say “This could never happen in America – there are too many red, white, and blue patriots, 2nd Amendment staunch supporters that would NEVER allow an overthrow of American democracy.” Think about that: we’ve turned away from civility, we’ve turned away from “equal justice under the law,” we’ve turned away from “liberty and justice for all,” and we’ve turned away from servanthood in the government that formerly worked for the People. But most importantly, we’ve turned away from God.

Say what you will, but our forefathers knew intimately the absolute necessity of having God in the United States. They separately wrote over and over again about God’s necessary inclusion in our government and in our lives. They revered God and His power and His love for humankind. Yet Me-ists have spent a couple of centuries pushing God out of school, government, and now even private businesses, letting human nature through Me-ism rule our land.


What will it take to get our attention? Honolulu was a sleepy little Pacific island town that Sunday morning in December 1942. In an instant, thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Japanese bombers and fighter planes that no one thought could ever take on our great nation. September 11, 2001 was just another busy day in the Big Apple until 2 airliners brought New York City to its knees as a 3rd commercial airline snatched more American lives at the Pentagon in D.C. All of these horrors certainly brought Americans to full attention – for a while. But time has a way of dulling our senses and putting us to sleep.

How many Americans today are honestly willing to as Patrick Henry 2 and ½ centuries ago did and proudly, loudly, and truthfully scream to fellow American patriots “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death!”

I pray another 9-11 or Pearl Harbor or some similar horror does not become THE necessary calling to awaken Americans again. I pray that instead we will turn from our selfishness and self, look at the U.S. around us where we live with millions of others just like us, and once more begin to seek commonality with our fellow citizens. We don’t all have to think the same or feel the same about anyone or any issue. What we must regain is the ability and desire to once again put ourselves last in the trio of God, Country, and me.

We’re at the brink and most do not recognize it. I hope your eyes are open. And I hope you like me are pushing to get outside of my little world into yours WITH you.



Illegal Immigration Family Separation: Mostly Media “NOISE”

I hate to spend any more space and/or time discussing the obvious partisan, Leftist, venomous, vitriolic lies being spewed by the Media regarding illegal alien interception at the southern border that have sometimes resulted in children being separated from adults who sometimes are those children’s parents but who sometimes child traffickers. Of course, everything wrong with this (according to the Leftist Media) lies at the feet of this President. After all, HE makes the laws, HE hates immigrants — especially children — and HE chose to purposely “rip babies out of the arms of their mothers” and “put immigrant children in cages.” Of course, everything I just said has been parroted again and again by the American “Truth-Sayers” who consider themselves to be the purveyors of all things righteous for the U.S. — ESPECIALLY regarding how to treat illegals who invade our borders.

The lunacy of the Leftist Media pundits is no better illustrated than by the cover picture of the new TIME Magazine — illustrated best by the picture of a really small girl.

Journalist Kevin Ryan said it best:

“There’s been quite the trend of misleading photos in the media lately. The viral photo of a child crying in a cage was not actually from a government detention facility, but was instead staged by protesters at a Dallas demonstration. The numerous pictures of kids crowded onto mattresses behind chain link fences WERE at a detention facility… during the Obama presidency.

And now the most iconic photo of the whole family separation controversy turns out not to be from a family separation at all. The photo of a little girl looking up and crying as her mother is apprehended by border patrol has been presented by nearly every major media outlet as an example of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, in which illegal immigrants are arrested at the border and sent to jail, separating them from their children.

The Washington Post: “By now, millions of people have seen a photo of a 2-year-old girl screaming while a U.S. border agent pats down her mother. Taken last Tuesday, the image has become a symbol of the Trump administration’s new ‘zero tolerance’ border policies, which have caused hundreds of children to be removed from the parents who brought them here.”

The New York Daily News, with a photo of the girl on its cover:

2,000 children ripped from parents at border in just 6 weeks.”

The New York Times featured the photo several times in stories about family separations, including on its front page.

And now Time magazine has put the photo on its cover, with the crying little girl depicted alone, separated from her mother, looking up at a heartless, uncaring President Trump. “Welcome to America” the caption reads. Except, according to her father, that little girl was not taken from her mother.

Denis Hernandez said his wife Sandra and daughter Yanela were never separated by border control agents and remain together, housed in a family residential center in Texas and are doing ‘fine.’

In fact Hernandez says his daughter was taken by his wife, against his wishes, leaving behind their three other children. He says his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a “better future” but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.

‘I didn’t support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that?’ said Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes.

Sandra took 2-year-old Yanela from their home in Honduras on June 3rd, for an 1,800 mile trek through treacherous desert and drug cartel-occupied territory, across the Rio Grande in the middle of a night on a rubber raft, and over the border, where they turned themselves in to the first U.S. agents they found. She paid $6,000 to a coyote – someone who smuggles people across the border.

That’s when John Moore, an award-winning photographer for Getty Images, took the now famous photo. Moore had been at the river, under an agreement with Border Patrol, for seven hours by then. And although he had taken many photos, he did not yet have the ‘one he needed.’

‘I still had no picture that conveyed the emotional impact of family separations,’ he said.

And technically, he still doesn’t, as Sandra and Yanela Hernandez were never actually separated.




DNC Platform for 2018 Midterms: What’s In It?

Many have questioned what Democrat Party candidates are going to use to court voters this fall to choose them over their Republican opponents. Besides the fact that no one knows who is the “Face” of the Democrat Party now that Barack Obama is out of office, Americans are struggling to know what issues Democrats can use in upcoming elections. Listen to today’s podcast for complete details. Thanks for joining in!

The DNC: Who’s In Charge?

A sitting President is always considered to be the head of his/her political party. In the last Administration the Democrat Party leader was obviously President Obama. Hillary Clinton was by most expected to receive the mantle of DNC leadership with her 2016 presidential victory. Of course that did not happen and the DNC leadership mantle did NOT fall to HRC.

Where did it go and to whom?

Conventional wisdom was that former labor secretary Thomas Perez who was elected the first Latino chair of the Democratic National Committee in February of 2017 as “chair” is that leader. In that election Perez narrowly defeating Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). In his acceptance speech, Perez gave Ellison the symbolic role of deputy party chair, and the Minnesota congressman gave a short speech asking his supporters to stay with the party. But since that day, neither Perez or Ellison has been accepted as the Democrat Party leader by rank and file Democrats.

After considering those two, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) would be the obvious “go-to’s” for that role. But neither has even attempted to pick up that responisibility though both are still very active in the Party in every way.

We are very close to the run-up to the 2018 mid-term elections — a critical time for any political party in any election. These mid-terms are critical for the Democrat Party. Almost always, the mid-terms under any new President result in control changes in Congress. Most of the time, the opposition party to that President picks up a bunch of House seats and usually some Senate seats — even if control of either House does not always change. 2018 is seen as the most critical mid-term election in many years for the Democrat Party. With the White House departure of Obama and the 2016 election loss by Hillary, the Democrat Party is facing a must-win election to keep the party alive.

Doing so takes a unifying message among party members. But what messaging is the DNC today sending to American voters?

What is the DNC 2018 Mid-term Message to Voters?

The DNC message to Americans is simple: “Dump Trump!” Never in my lifetime have I seen such animus for a U.S. President. Substance of any of his accomplishments is left in the “other room” when there are political discussions among Democrats. We see non-stop venom spewed by almost every Democrat win the world of entertainment, professional sports, the media, political class at local, state, and national level — all echoed  overseas by socialist heads of several foreign governments.

The reason for this non-stop vitriol from Democrats is certain AND obvious: they still have not recovered from Middle Americans sending the message in November 2016 that Democrats no longer represent the ideals that Middle Americans still embrace, even though Democrats for generations wore that badge of being the political party of average Americans.

The Democrat Party has always excelled at messaging. Their ability to reach the hearts and minds of Americans and make them believe in those messages has been lost on the GOP for decades. But in this election cycle and this presidential administration, Democrats AND Republicans have been taken to “messaging school” by former Candidate and now President Donald Trump. And Democrats are scrambling.

The best way I can illustrate this destructive slide by Dems into purely negative messaging is by telling you a story:

I’m from south Louisiana where crabbing is an art. If you’ve never been crabbing you probably have no idea how this applies to a political messaging story. But in this case they are the same.

A crab trap is a wire box with 6 sides and a hole in the top. To crab one drops bait through that hole — chicken necks or some other type of raw meat works best. Then put that crab trap down in the water below the surface several feet and wait. After a while, take that crab trap out of the water and set it on the ground (or in your boat if you’re off the southern coast of Louisiana). If your crabbing attempt is successful, there will be several crabs that crawled into that trap through the hole on top to get a fine chicken meal.

If you set that crab trap there and watch it long enough, you will almost always see several of the crabs trying to find a way out of the trap. Pretty soon you’ll probably see one of the crabs ascertain he (or she) can climb up the side of the wire crab trap, across the top to the hole, all to escape the trap. BUT THE CRAB NEVER MAKES THE ESCAPE GOOD! Why? Before the crab completes the “Great Escape,” one of the crabs still on the floor of the trap reaches up and with a claw pulls that crab back down into the trap with the others.

Democrats are scrambling for a message for the 2018 mid-term elections that they can use to tickle the fancy of American voters that will recapture Dems previous long control of the American political narrative. Their quest for the right message for voters is eerily similar to those crabs I just told you about. There are some crabs (Democrats) who see that meat in the trap, crawled in to get it, and see the way out of the trap. They struggle to get out, but seem to always get stuck in the trap because those below instead of following those up the side, across the top and out of the trap, reach up to pull those almost-successful crabs back into the trap with them.

The Democrat Party 2018 Platform

As Dems have scrambled since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, they have (for the first time in recent political history) failed to strike a happy medium within their party for their party platform. Without real leadership, there has been no one willing or capable to devise and implement a plan that the party can sell to the American people. However, Nancy Pelosi DID step forward after the election with a scenario in which she believes Americans will abandon the Make America Great Again mantra that successfully resulted in Trump’s election, and come home to the Democrat Party. What is it? THE REVERSE OF EVERYTHING DONALD TRUMP!

Think about it: Dems despise the tax cuts for individuals, saying again and again that those tax cuts favor the rich, even though the cuts made immediate impact on the pay checks of ALL Americans. Dems scream to America that Trump’s slashing of onerous regulations to benefit businesses are attacks on American individuals by giving corporations a free ride. Pelosi called the billions of dollars in bonuses passed out by corporations nothing more than “Crumbs,” even though it gave millions of Americans extra dollars for their households, and did so immediately. Democrats honestly think this President is incapable of having a meaningful and intelligent conversation with anyone, especially foreign leaders. They in horror screamed to America that President Trump was starting a nuclear war as a result of his verbal sparring with Kim Jong Un; Trump is incapable of negotiating trade deals with other countries and would lead America into an international trade holocaust; the leaders of foreign countries would no longer respect the U.S. nor would their citizens because of the buffoon in our White House. The news media — that is dominated by Democrats — laughed, screamed, demeaned, and constantly ridiculed the President for everything from his personal appearance, the way he talks, the things he says, his wife, his children, his intellect, integrity, and even his weight.

The Democrat 2018 Party Platform has no substance other than “All Things Not Trump.” And it’s not working. Americans — to the chagrin of Democrats and other Leftists — see through the attempted bait-and-switch by the Donkey Party. Democrats have for decades successfully fooled Americans — especially those who they have falsely championed, like Hispanics, lower income citizens, immigrants, and African Americans — into believing Democrats are the political party that has those peoples’ best interests at heart. Democrats have pandered to those people for one reason and only one: power that has allowed Democrats to “own” those Americans’ votes.

Democrats: Just Imagine “If”………

What would your party look like “IF” you simply in objective ways analyzed just the “results” of this Administration’s policies implemented in its short life:

(Here are some of those economic results. They are links to details for each if you care to look at them)

That’s just a few. That’s just economic successes that do not include education progress, foreign policy, trade, and political world stability.

Let’s be honest: how could any reasonable, duly elected Congressional leader denigrate in any way the progress so far of this presidential administration? The answer is simple: it’s for one purpose only — to diminish this President and each of his policy actions. The Democrat Party thinks their doing so creates a political platform. And it has!


Here’s a message to Pelosi-Schumer and Company: Go ahead and stay in the bottom of that crab trap with the chicken necks. Yep, you found some food….not enough to survive for long, but it will take care of hunger for a while. You can refuse to follow the other crab that realizes staying there will eventually result in your demise and works to get out of the trap.

Of course you’d be wise to look for ways to make things better — in this case find food for later. But if you decide to stay in the trap, why not just leave the crab alone that DOESN’T want to stay there, sees a way out and chooses to take. Instead of pulling him back down to your level, just let him go live his life to the best of his ability. He just might find some food he’d be willing to share with you.


Illegal Immigration Bullet Points


Immigration Law, Definitions, and Brief History in “Modern” USA

If you do not have a Visa, a Green Card or citizenship in the United States and are currently living in the country, you are subject to deportation. Getting deported is a very serious aspect of immigration law; it is the process of the United States government removing illegal immigrants from the country. Deportation may eliminate your ability to secure a visa in the future. The United States Government may deport you for the following reasons:

  • If you enter the United States while being deemed “legally inadmissible” by the immigration laws of the federal government
  • Entering the country without a legal visa
  • Failure to renew a conditional permanent residency visa
  • Aiding an illegal immigrant with entering the country
  • Conviction of a criminal offense
  • Endangering national or public security
  • Participating in a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of securing an immigrant visa

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, eliminated all race-based quotas, replacing them with purely nationality-based quotas.  The INA continues to influence the field of American immigration law.  To enforce the quotas, the INA created the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  The INS served as the federal agency that enforced these caps for remainder of the 20th century.

When Congress passed the INA, it defined an “alien” as any person lacking citizenship or status as a national of the United States. Different categories of aliens include resident and nonresident, immigrant and non-immigrant, and documented and undocumented (“illegal”). The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S.  Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit.  The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.

The need to curtail illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hired illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA by equalizing the allocation of visas across foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and encouraging worldwide immigration.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 revolutionized the process of alien entry into the United States.  The IIRIRA eliminated the term “entry,” replacing it with “admission.”  An application for admission occurs whenever an alien arrives in the U.S. regardless of whether the arrival occurs at a designated port-of-entry. Applicants at either designated ports or otherwise must submit to an inspection by U.S. customs, even if the applicant possesses an immigrant visa.  The IIRIRA also employs the term “arriving alien” to describe applicant aliens attempting to enter the U.S., regardless of whether they arrive at a designated port, a non-designated point on the border, or are located in U.S. waters and brought to shore.

Post-9/11 reform

On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security opened, replacing the INS.  The Bush Administration had designed the Department of Homeland Security to foster increased intelligence sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for responding to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and domestic terrorism.  Within the Department, three different agencies – U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement (CBE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – now handle the duties formerly held by the INS.  Currently, the CBE handles the INS’s border patrol duties, the USCIS handles the INS’s naturalization, asylum, and permanent residence functions, and the ICE handles the INS’s deportation, intelligence, and investigatory functions.

Refugee and asylum seekers

The Refugee Act of 1980 defines the U.S. laws relating to refugee immigrants.  Under the Refugee Act, the term “refugee” refers to aliens with a fear of persecution upon returning to their homelands, stemming from their religion, race, nationality, membership in certain social groups, or political opinions.  Anyone who delivers a missing American POW or MIA soldier receives refugee status from the United States.

The United States, however, denies refugee status to any alien who actively persecuted individuals of a certain race, political opinion, religion, nationality, or members of a certain social group.   As a matter of public policy, the government also typically refuses refugee applicants previously convicted of murderer.   For refugees who have “firmly resettled” in another country, the United States will deny a request for refugee admission.  The government considers refugees “firmly resettled” if the refugees have received an offer of citizenship, permanent residency, or some other permanent status from a foreign country.

Under international law, the Geneva Convention, or the laws of the United States, foreign citizens who have become disillusioned with their homeland cannot take temporary refuge within the United States.  The Refugee Act of 1980 specifically leaves out temporary refuge as a form of refugee status that the U.S. government will recognize.

To qualify for refugee status under the persecution provision, the refugee applicant must prove actual fear.  A proof of actual fear requires meeting both a subjective and an objective test.  The subjective test requires that the refugee actually have an honest and genuine fear of being persecuted for some immutable trait, such as religion, race, and nationality.  Seekers of asylum must show a fear that membership in a social or political group has caused past persecution or has caused a well-founded fear that persecution will occur upon returning.  The applicant meets the objective standard by showing credible and direct evidence that a reasonable possibility of persecution exists upon the applicant’s return to the homeland.

The President retains the ultimate decision making authority when determining the number of refugees to allow into the country during a given year.

Deferred Action (DACA/DAPA)

Deferred action is an administrative relief from deportation; DHS temporarily authorizes non-U.S. citizens to remain in the U.S.  Through deferred action, a non U.S. citizen may apply for employment authorization for the duration of the temporary stay.  Recipients of deferred action grants, however, cannot claim lawful status during that time, but they are considered lawfully present in the U.S.  In other words, they are not accruing unlawful presence, which could later render them inadmissible to the U.S. if and when they apply for permanent legal status.  DHS grants deferred action on a case-by-case basis.

In June 2012, the Obama administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  The program aimed to grant deferred action to those under 31 as of Jne 15, 2012, who entered the U.S. before their sixteenth birthday and continuously resided in the U.S> without lawful status since at least June 15, 2007.  The policy rationale was to prevent deportation of young adults and children, who grew up as Americans yet did not voluntarily enter the U.S. without lawful status.

In November 2014, President Obama announced a series of executive actions to address illegal immigration and to prioritize deporting felons not families.  The executive actions expanded the DACA program by extending the period from two to three years, removing the age requirement, and easing the continuous residency requirement (continuous residency since June 15, 2007 changed to January 1, 2010).  The executive actions also introduced the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.  The DAPA program permits parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents (LPR) to apply for deferred action if they have continuously resided in the U.S. since January 1, 2010 and had a U.S. citizen or LPR child as of November 20, 2014.

The expanded DACA and DAPA programs, however, are on hold due to a pending Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas.  USCIS is not currently accepting applications for the expanded DACA or DAPA programs.


“Some operations have taken place that have been focused on individuals, deporting individuals that have recently crossed the border. That is consistent with the kinds of enforcement priorities that the president and the secretary of homeland security discussed more than a year ago,” Earnest said at the daily briefing for reporters. “Certainly, people should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious about enforcing our immigration laws.”

Johnson said the batch of deportees were among immigrants who crossed the southern U.S. border illegally since May 2014. That’s when the U.S. began experiencing a surge of families and unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Officials say such crossings decreased by early last year, but began to pick up again in recent months.

Obama Administration officials expressed concern with the spike in the number of families and unaccompanied children apprehended at the southern border — particularly since illegal migration tends to slow down during colder months. In October and November 2015, just over 12,500 families were apprehended, compared with 4,577 during the same two months in 2014. Meanwhile, 10,588 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the southern border in October and November 2015, according to federal officials — more than double the number of minors who tried to cross into the United States during the same period in 2014.

The proposals to increase deportations appear to have stirred some dissent within the Obama administration. Just before Christmas, unnamed “people familiar with the operation” disclosed the plans to the Washington Post — a highly unusual leak about planned law enforcement actions. The disclosure of the planned raids drew immediate criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley condemned the planned actions, while front-runner Hillary Clinton issued a more muted statement through a spokeswoman, who said Clinton had “real concerns” about the plans. Word of the planned raids also highlight a political predicament for Clinton, who endorsed quick return of illegal immigrant children in 2014 but is also trying to court Latino voters.



Democrats LOVE Illegal Immigration

It appears to be true. But, hold on: it looks like some “Establishment Republicans” may be in the tank with Democrats. Two versions of comprehensive immigration bills are set to be introduced, debated, and voted on in the House of Representatives this week. Will they show up on the floor? Listen today to get the skinny!

DHS Secretary Nielsen details the truth of illegal immigration and the treatment of children by border agents. Watch this press briefing.



noun: “
an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses; an amnesty for political prisoners; an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.”

We will here this word often in the next month or two in combination with “Immigration Reform.” Accomplishing true immigration reform is critical to this Congress to complete before the mid-terms in November. Why? Listen today to find out what is at stake, what plans Congress has, and where our ongoing immigration dilemma actually lies today. Enjoy!