Puerto Rico “Death-tistics”

Looks like we coined a new word: “Death-tistics.” The furor that has escalated about the number of deaths attributable to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico begs some explanation. Pretty much every news organization has — just as they always do — created the stories about the death-tistics, re-buffed the original “official” report of deaths from the hurricane that  were given by the Puerto Rican government, and launched a crazy string of “new” reports stating a much higher number of Maria-related deaths, Breitbart News weighed in with “The Rest of Story.” Let’s look-in:

(Breitbart News) On Thursday morning, President Trump pushed back on Twitter, alleging that Democrats had inflated the death toll “in order to make me look as bad as possible.” That led to more criticism, with the Associated Press accusing Trump of making claims “without evidence.”

But Trump is correct.

His opponents — including the media — have strained for more than a year to turn Hurricane Maria into his version of Hurricane Katrina, the devastating 2005 storm that prompted criticism of President George W. Bush’s response — even though state and local authorities had been far worse — and foreshadowed a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. Leading the charge was CNN, which made a special effort to link Hurricane Maria in 2017 to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and made a temporary media sensation of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, who accused the Trump administration of neglect.

However, the media’s effort at the time was frustrated by several factors.

  • First, experts praised the federal government’s response to Hurricane Maria, which posed special challenges because Puerto Rico is so far from the mainland U.S.
  • Second, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló himself praised the federal government’s response: “The president and the administration, every time we’ve asked them to execute, they’ve executed quickly,” he told Fox News in September 2017.
  • Third, Puerto Rico was already something of a disaster before the hurricane hit, thanks to mismanagement by the territory’s government that led to a debt crisis in recent years. (Mayor Cruz herself is reportedly under FBI investigation for corruption.)

However, Trump’s critics did not give up. Over the past several months, they have attempted to cite several new studies that created new estimates of the “real” death toll of Hurricane Maria — based on statistical models, not on actual death counts.

Many studies addressed a real concern that the Puerto Rican government lacked the competence to do an accurate death count, but much of the media hype around the results were clearly motivated by the attempt to damage the Trump administration. The Washington Post noted just some of the studies as of June 2018 (original links):

  • The New York Times calculated 1,052 deaths through October.
  • The Center for Investigative Reporting calculated 985 through October.
  • University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez professors calculated 822, with a 95 percent confidence range that the total was somewhere between 605 and 1,039.
  • Pennsylvania State University professors calculated excess deaths of about 500 in September, or a total of 1,085 if the same pattern held in October. That estimate was based on six weeks of mortality records.
  • A Latino USA analysis, using updated data from Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, calculated 1,194 excess deaths in September and October.
  • The Washington Post noted that the new estimates hovered around the 1,000 mark.

Then, in June, a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated the number of deaths from Hurricane Maria at 4,645 instead of the official figure of 64. The researchers had conducted a survey and extrapolated the results — an extremely sloppy methodology. The number was highly inflammatory. Puerto Rican opponents of the president cited it to accuse him of “genocide.” Much of the media hyped those claims: the caption that accompanies a Getty/AFP photograph reads: “Hurricane Maria, which pummeled Puerto Rico in September 2017, is likely responsible for the deaths of more than 4,600 people, some 70 times more than official estimates, US researchers said Tuesday.”

Even the Washington Post was skeptical of the absurdly high estimate: “This is not a verified number, unlike body counts in wars. The Harvard study offers only an estimate – a midpoint along a broad range of possibilities. It is not based on death records, only estimates of deaths from people who were interviewed in a survey.”

Last month, a new study was produced by George Washington University that estimated the “excess mortality” from Hurricane Maria over a six-month period at 2,975 within a 95% confidence interval of 2,658-3,290 “excess” deaths. This was the second-highest estimate after the faulty Harvard study and was based on a statistical model that subtracted the number of people who theoretically should have died over the same period from the number of people who actually died during that time. It is also a rather useless way of comparing death tolls, because, in order to evaluate the relative scale of Hurricane Maria, the same method would have to be used to measure other natural disasters, likely increasing their estimated death tolls as well.

The media reported the new estimate as if it were an actually confirmed death toll — with CNN taking care to note that the new number was released near the anniversary of Katrina. The Puerto Rican governor, under heavy political pressure due to the slow pace of the island’s recovery, officially revised the death toll to match the estimate. That gave the media an excuse to throw out science and statistics, and to report the 2.975 number as an established fact — even though it was just an estimate based on a statistical model, and three times higher than all but one of the previous estimates.

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that “3,000 people died in Puerto Rico” in Hurricane Maria — as if it were a proven fact. It did not indicate that the number was simply one estimate among many and that its evidence was a controversial statistical model.

On Thursday, the AP — with a touch of chutzpah — accused the president of stating “without evidence” that the “Puerto Rico hurricane death count is a plot by Democrats to make him look bad.”

(Update: National Public Radio weighed in to accuse Trump of “falsely” claiming Democrats had inflated the numbers.)

Setting aside the AP’s odd effort to “fact-check” an opinion, the evidence is ample that the Democrats — and much of the media — did exactly what Trump accused them of doing. Their goal, and the goal of Democrats who are hyping probable outliers as established facts are to take down the Republican Party in the 2018 midterm elections by linking Trump with Bush’s alleged failures in Hurricane Katrina.

Actual Puerto Rico “Death-tistics” in 2017

The graph below shows actual total Puerto Rican deaths from 2010 through 2017, as computed by the Puerto Rico government. Take a look:












This graph shows the “official” statistics of total deaths during September, October, November, and December in Puerto Rico by year from 2010 through 2017. These are important comparison numbers when discussing Puertican deaths directly attributable to Hurricane Maria, for it hit Puerto Rico September 17, 2017. By any realistic comparison of deaths, directly and indirectly, attributable to Maria, AND ancillary deaths during the 3 months following the hurricane, (which is what the purveyors of the death-tistics number of 3000-4000 are doing) there were 326 more total deaths in Puerto Rico during those 4 months in 2017 than in 2016. Even assuming every one of those increased deaths to Maria, there is no way to “factually” state there were several thousand deaths in Puerto Rico from Maria, and certainly, no way to claim those were because of Trump’s mismanagement of the disaster.

So What’s Going on Here?

Have you ever seen in recent history any scenario where Democrats and others on the Left do not find ways to blame President Trump for everything wrong and/or bad in America — and, for that matter, any bad thing anywhere in the World? Brexit was his fault, immigrants overrunning Europe was his fault, separation of babies from illegal immigrant parents during processing in 2014 was his fault, icebergs are his fault, every hurricane for the balance of World history will be his fault because he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, MS-13 is his fault, etc.

It is safe to say the insanity in New York and Washington D.C. among the liberal news media has reached epic proportions. I have stated before many times that it exists and will escalate — especially heading into the mid-term elections. The truth is insignificant and irrelative when it comes to political narrative. And the only political narrative that matters is this: Destroy Donald Trump.


Have you stopped to consider exactly why this lunacy not only exists but continues to ramp-up? Is there any other plausible explanation for it other than to do and say anything and everything to 1) win back the House of Representatives, and 2) set the stage for a Trump re-election White House bid upset in 2020? I don’t think there is.

Nevertheless, I feel strongly that even if the House turns blue and the U.S. Senate turns bluer, it will only make Trump’s message to the public during the next two years stronger, easier to understand, and much more obvious that the truth means nothing to Dems and other liberals. They will try to ram meaningless legislation through the House that all will attack President Trump and his agenda, take back those tax cuts, reinstall regulations, and will do everything within their power to do away with immigration as we know to open our borders.

If and when that happens, it is my opinion that it will open the eyes of more and more Americans to the horrors conservatives have been warning about. That will make the 2020 elections nationally and on the state and local levels a red bloodbath.

Americans are not stupid. Americans understand that Mainstream media does not present factual and unadulterated news to the American people. The Hurricane Maria deathtoll reports in Puerto Rico are prime examples of how corrupt the MSM is and will continue to be. And that’s all right. Americans understand that the truth is out there — somewhere. More and more Americans are spending the time necessary to find the truth and put it in place of the current political agenda being crammed down their throats by the lies of the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Associated Press (AP) and others.

It’s just a matter of time!


Obama’s Department of Justice: Corruption at its Worst

Notice the total absence of those former arguments about the “alleged” corruption in the Obama Department of Justice? I honestly believe there may be two reasons for the current lack of anger about those: people grew tired of the repetitious news coverage of pieces of evidence of corruption and just “turned off;” and/or the Media has purposely ratcheted up their already deafening attacks on President Trump in an effort to make Americans forget.

But with the daily revelations of MORE Obama DOJ corruption, it seems to be appropriate for us to simply remind everyone of just a few of instances of Obama Department of Justice corruption as it appears to have been even deeper and more widespread than first thought:

Obama Era DOJ Corruption Before Trump

  • Eric Holder was the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt of Congress when he stonewalled committee probes of the Fast and Furious investigation. Fast and Furious itself was a scandal, involving the government’s reckless abuse of investigative powers for the purpose of fabricating an anti-gun narrative. Instead, its “gun walking” resulted in the killing of a federal agent, among other violent crimes.
  • Attorney General Holder made misleading representations about both Fast and Furious and the investigation of Fox News journalist James Rosen.
  • The IRS’s intimidation and abuse of President Obama’s political opponents, and the cover-up thereof resulted in no charges and little apparent investigation.
  • There were politicized prosecutions against Dinesh D’Souza (an Obama critic whose minor campaign-finance infraction was treated as a major felony when more-serious violations are typically disposed of by administrative fine), and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (the anti-Muslim video producer scapegoated by the Obama administration for the Benghazi massacre).
  • Recall the misrepresentations by Justice Department lawyers to a federal court in the litigation over Obama’s lawless immigration non-enforcement programs (DACA and DAPA) — lies the judge found to be “intentional, serious and material.”
  • The Department of Justice reportedly refused to impanel a grand jury in either the e-mail case or in connection with the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations. “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury impaneled, and the reason they never had a grand jury impaneled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.” Further, the Department of Justice reportedly refused to allow the FBI to issue subpoenas to gather more evidence in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play allegations.
  • Then there were the Justice Department’s outrageous misconduct and serial lies in a prosecution of New Orleans police, which a federal judge variously described as “bizarre,” “appalling,” and “grotesque” — conclusions upheld by the Fifth Circuit appeals court.
  • And, of course, the Clinton e-mails investigation, featuring: Justice Department collusion with Clinton-camp lawyers; inexplicable immunity deals; suspects who received immunity permitted to appear as lawyers for other suspects; no prosecutions despite significant evidence, several immunity grants, and patently misleading statements during FBI interviews; a furtive tarmac tête-à-tête between the attorney general and the main suspect’s husband (the former U.S. president who just happened to have launched the attorney general into public prominence, and who was positioned to influence whether the attorney general got to keep her job in an anticipated Hillary Clinton administration) just days before it was announced — surprise! — that there would be no indictment of Hillary Clinton; and startling public commentary by the FBI regarding an uncharged case that bore heavily on a presidential election.
  • Subsequent to that “chat” aboard Clinton’s jet in Arizona, it was learned that Attorney General Lynch was conducting official DOJ business via an alias name and email address: “Elizabeth Carlisle, ecarlisle@jmd.usdoj.gov.” Why would an Attorney General use an alias and communicate via a secret email address other than to hide from the public certain actions taken if those actions were legal and above-board?

Obama Era DOJ Corruption Carryover to Trump Administration

How many and who in the DOJ that were Obama “carryovers” have resigned, retired, been demoted, or fired since the Obama Administration? (We formerly shared from this list, but the names have been added to)

Department of Justice (Non-FBI):

  • John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – announced resignation on September 27, 2016, after filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on September 26, 2016. The filing does not disclose known FISA Abuses. Carlin is aware NSA Rogers is conducting a compliance review which will uncover the FISA Abuse. Trump surveillance originated under Carlin’s tenure.
  • Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General (replacing Loretta Lynch – 10 days) – fired January 30, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division (replacing John Carlin) – announced resignation on April 17, 2017 – Left on May 11, 2017. Complicit in Flynn Surveillance and surveillance of Trump Campaign.
  • Bruce Ohr – Associate Deputy Attorney General – demoted twice. Stripped of Associate Deputy Attorney General title on December 6, 2017. Removed as head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force January 8, 2018. Unofficial liaison between Fusion GPS and FBI/DOJ. Wife worked at Fusion. Long-standing ties to both Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.
  • David Laufman, DOJ National Security Division, Deputy Asst. Attorney General in charge of counterintelligence – resigned on February 7, 2018. Laufman “played a leading role in the Clinton email server and Russian hacking investigations.”
  • Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General – number three official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein – resigned February 9, 2018. Takes top legal position at Walmart. Brand “played a critical role in Congress’ re-authorization” of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned)
  • Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  • Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  • Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. attorneys)
  • Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  • Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  • Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)


  • James Comey, FBI Director – fired May 9, 2017. Oversaw all FBI operations – including exoneration of Clinton and Trump-Russia Investigation. Reported to AG Lynch.
  • Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s Counterintelligence – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to FBI’s Human Resources. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Strzok involved in all facets of Clinton exoneration. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Strozk was fired August 13, 2018.
  • Lisa Page, FBI/DOJ Lawyer – forced off Mueller’s team – demoted August 16, 2017, to parts unknown. IG Horowitz discovered texts July 27, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Baker, FBI General Counsel – demoted and reassigned on December 20, 2017. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group. Senior-most legal counsel at FBI. Resigned May 4, 2018.
  • James Rybicki, Chief of Staff to FBI Director James Comey & successor Chris Wray – resigned/forced out January 23, 2018. Working member of “Insurance Policy” group.
  • Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI Director – on December 23, 2017, announced retirement effective March 22, 2018. Forced to resign on January 29, 2018. Involved in all aspects. Reported to Comey.
  • Josh Campbell – Special Assistant to James Comey – resigned on February 2, 2018. Writes an op-ed in New York Times on why he is leaving but does not disclose in the op-ed that he was Special Assistant to Comey – or that he had been offered lucrative CNN job. Takes a job with CNN on February 5, 2018.
  • Michael Kortan, FBI Asst. Director of Public Affairs – resigned on February 8, 2018 – effective February 15, 2018. Kortan served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access.
  • Bill Priestap, Assistant Director – Head of FBI Counterintelligence – Holds the same position. Strzok’s former boss – reported directly to McCabe.
  • Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  • Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)
  • James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)

There are others that unofficially are being “watched” regarding the continuation of their employment with the DOJ.


We could spend the day discussing in detail all of the “known” investigations underway that include those above and others. But most of them and the details of their alleged wrongdoing are on already public knowledge. What remains unknown is just how deep and wide are the methods and the people who have been (and are) part of a concerted plan to destroy President Donald Trump and his administration, his implemented and pending policies, and to stall his appointments — including that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh who is almost surely a shoo-in as the replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

What is amazing to me is that everyone who plays any role in this coordinated effort to end the Trump White House actually felt that any and all of the illegal, unethical, and immoral acts they committed — and in some cases are still being committed — were/are justified because of the worthy goal of ridding the nation of President Trump.

What is MORE amazing to me is that everyone who played these roles honestly felt they were going to be successful in their quest to unseat a duly elected president and do it without the American public knowing about it! If any American is not incensed at the fact that appointed and hired individuals who work for the American people would participate in this “political coup,” you have no loyalty to your country.

You know what’s almost humorous? All those on the Left led by their media mouthpieces — those who have invented, implemented, and have maintained the bogus Russia collusion case — are actually guilty of the same crimes they invented and alleged perpetrated by the Trump Campaign. They were confident they would be successful getting rid of Donald Trump. There IS no Russia collusion. But there IS collusion. Let me explain:

The American public has yet to be shown the evidence that Intelligence Community individuals and several in Congress claim that verifies Russian attempted hacking of the 2016 election. Even if it does really exist, (and I have my doubts) there obviously was no involvement with the Trump Campaign. But there is verified collusion between the “other” campaign and the Russians: the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Hillary’s campaign funded the Steele Dossier knowing it was full of false information, had it promoted by James Clapper and James Comey to instigate the fake Russia collusion story and subsequent investigation of Donald Trump.

Further, more and more information leaks out daily showing just how “in the tank” members of senior FBI management were in the action to derail the Trump presidency. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page as more of their private texts and emails are revealed show there were intense actions initiated and managed by upper-level management members of both the FBI and DOJ to accomplish that objective.

What is going to happen and when? I have no idea. I have my suspicions, and they involved execution of a bunch of those 50,000+ sealed federal indictments on stand-by in federal district courts around the nation. I suspect Fall of 2018 is going to initiate the peeling of the onion of corruption that obviously dwarfs that ever witnessed in the United States government.

In the meantime: Donald Trump caused the hurricane headed for the Carolinas, Trump put those illegal immigrant children (in that picture that actually was taken during the Obama’s presidency), he single-handedly created global warming that will destroy Earth if he is not immediately kicked out of the Oval Office. To summarize it: EVERYTHING that is bad in the United States — and the World, for that matter — is the direct responsibility of President Trump.

Oh, one more thing: all of the good economic news in America is proof of the amazing accomplishments of Barack Obama. After all, nothing good could ever happen in America that wasn’t directly attributable to his knowledge, understanding, likability, and compassion!

What’s next?



Violence Runs Rampant

The Left is either there or going INSANE!

I knew some anti-Trumpsters in the G.O.P., members of the Democrat Party and Socialists further left than Dems, have turned into mind-bots bent on the destruction of President Trump and all he stands for. But what is playing out almost daily was unimaginable a couple of years ago. We are actually seeing violence — severe violence (if there is such a thing as “non-severe” violence!) — playing out on a national stage from Leftists not directly at Mr. Trump, but at those who work with and for him, visibly support his agenda, or are simply NOT Democrats. Sure, he won the election and many don’t like that. But is that a sufficient reason for people to morph into Apocalyptic zombies who attack anyone who supports this President?

Want a few examples?

Las Vegas, Nevada

A longtime College of Southern Nevada sociology professor is facing felony gun charges in connection with an on-campus shooting on the second day of classes. Mark J. Bird, 69, was charged last month with discharging a gun within a prohibited structure, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and possessing a dangerous weapon on school property, court records show. He was found bleeding from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his arm about 8:15 a.m. on Aug. 28 outside a bathroom in the Charleston campus K building. Inside the bathroom, campus police found a $100 bill taped to a mirror along with a note that said, “For the janitor,” according to Bird’s arrest report. On the floor of the restroom were a black-and-white, .22-caliber pistol and one spent shell casing. The sociology professor was hired Aug. 26, 1993, and was an emeritus faculty member at the time of the shooting, college spokesman Richard Lake said. Bird was not scheduled to teach any courses during the fall 2018 semester.

Northern California

A Castro Valley, California man shouting profanities about President Trump attacked a Republican congressional candidate who was working an election booth at a town festival, threatening him and trying to stab him with a switchblade, authorities and the candidate said Tuesday.
Farzad Vincent Fazeli, 35, was jailed after the alleged Sunday attack on Rudy Peters at the Castro Valley Fall Festival. Alameda County prosecutors charged Fazeli on Tuesday with a felony count of making criminal threats and misdemeanor counts of exhibiting a deadly weapon and possessing a switchblade.


(Los Angeles TIMES) There can be no justification for the violence perpetrated by a group of leftist protesters who attacked supporters of President Trump and others during an otherwise peaceful “rally against hate” in Berkeley.

Whether they are described as “black bloc” or anarchists — the nomenclature isn’t important — the masked, black-clad protesters are criminals, not the vanguard of a righteous resistance to fascism. They also are traitors to the thousands of peaceful demonstrators who gathered in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Park to counter a “No to Marxism in America” rally — a non-event that drew a relatively small contingent of right-wingers after its organizer, fearing violence, had urged supporters to stay home.

The punches black bloc protesters are throwing are injuring their own side.

This is thuggery, not activism. And it has become too familiar a phenomenon in Berkeley, belying its reputation as a citadel of free speech. In February, for example, 150 black-clad agitators caused $100,000 worth of damage when they smashed through the city protesting a planned UC Berkeley speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. The speech was canceled.

All Across America

Every day brings new examples of the supposedly open-minded, inclusive, tolerant, peace-loving Left threatening or attacking Trump administration officials or Trump supporters. Hatred and intolerance have been the standard operating procedure on the extreme Left. But thanks to enablers among Democrats and the press, it’s quickly becoming dangerously “mainstream.”

Here are some of the ways in just the past few days that the left has expressed its tolerance for those it disagrees with:

  • Martin Astrof went to the campaign headquarters of Rep. Lee Zeldin and then threatened to kill Zeldin and Trump supporters generally, according to news accounts of the incident. As he left, he nearly ran over a campaign staffer with his car.
  • An angry Trump critic allegedly punched a homeowner in Boynton Beach, Fla., for having a Trump flag in his front yard, and then dragged the homeowner 30 feet while driving away.
  • A bookstore owner in Richmond, Va., called the cops after a woman started harassing former Trump advisor Steven Bannon, who was browsing in the store. Former Clinton aide Philippe Reines later tweeted out the bookstore owner’s contact information, in a thinly veiled attempt to encourage attacks on the store. Reines defended the tweet, saying, “I’m providing a service.”
  • A group of “protesters” following Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell out of a restaurant in Kentucky shouted “vote you out” and “we know where you live, bitch.”
  • Brandon Straka — a gay former liberal who posted a video complaining that “the Left devolved into intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided, ill-informed, un-American, hypocritical, menacing, callous, ignorant, narrow-minded, and at times blatantly fascistic behavior and rhetoric” and sparked the #walkaway Twitter trend — says a local camera store refused to serve him. Thereby proving his point. “I’m shaking right now,” Straka tweeted Thursday. “I just went into a camera store to buy a camera and a light and mic, etc., and they recognized me from TV. I was refused service because they said it was for ‘alt-right’ purposes.”
  • Alan Dershowitz, once the darling of the liberal left until he started to question the merits of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, says that a woman at a party on Martha’s Vineyard was heard saying, “if Dershowitz were here tonight, I’d stab him through the heart.”
  • Horror novelist and reliable Trump-hater Steven King sent a tweet over July 4 encouraging progressives to “go find a Trump-supporting friend — the one you haven’t spoken to since November of 2016 — and give him or her a hug. Trumpies, find a ‘liberal snowflake’ friend and do the same. Just for today, let’s all be Americans.” The response was an outpouring of outrage at King, with one woman tweeting that it was “The scariest thing you’ve ever written.”
    A Fast-Growing List

Breitbart News recently started compiling what it characterizes as “acts of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump supporters.” The list is now up to 258 — and climbing fast. So far this month, Breitbart counts more than two dozen incidents of threats, intimidation, and violence against Trump officials and supporters, or mainstream journalists excusing such actions. That’s likely just scratching the surface since no doubt many cases of abuse go unreported.

Not Just Physical Violence

Is Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins being bribed to vote against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh? That’s what she and others are saying.

A Crowdpac crowdfunding campaign to encourage Collins to vote against Kavanaugh has the senator and others sounding the alarm. The conservative-leaning news site Newsmax reported on Monday that a prominent Republican elections lawyer is calling for an investigation into what it described as a more than $1 million “threat” hanging over Collins’s head, depending on her vote on Kavanaugh. In a statement to Newsmax, Collins said she believed there was an attempt to “bribe” her vote and said she wouldn’t be the target of “quid pro quo fundraising.”


Where did this all begin? When did it all begin?

Beginning with the Obama campaign ahead of the 2008 election, the division between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, began to ramp up. Obama represented drastic and dramatic changes for American voters to contemplate: and not just racially. He brought to the campaign radical new ideas that heretofore had never been a big part of any presidential campaign. There were socialist candidates and even Communist candidates on past ballots. But all past non-traditional political representatives drew sparse support among voters.

Obama represented something new and different for a new and different generation. For generations, Americans had experienced the same structured, starchy, tired political process in which pretty much old, pontificating politicians campaigned every two years with promises of the moon. When elected, all voters received were moonbeams and a bigger tax bill: Oh, and a smaller paycheck.

Obama was different. He had a fresh new way to package some historically old political principles that had been summarily rejected in the past. But he didn’t call his ideas Socialism or Communism. And his young, refreshing, and vibrant way of delivery made him an instant rockstar. He was amazingly effective selling a bottle of your grandmother’s rose water that had been repackaged and labeled “Excellante Parfume.”

The packaging was good enough to draw enough from the “past” generation to join those politically disenfranchised from the “new” generation to elect and then re-elect him.

After the 2012 election, Obama realized something: “You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig.” He re-packaged his politics, but he didn’t quite get the results he thought he should. But he was successful at turning the heads of a young generation of Americans who knew very little else politically other than his politics. He had sowed the seed of breaking away, of demanding change and going after it. He was the first president since Reagan to give Americans a new direction and then leading the country in that direction.

Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she could not maintain the cloud of optimism he created above Millennials — the sun burnt it away to reveal the truth. There were no jobs, no big salaries. College was expensive, and so was living on your own. Employers expected employees to work before “earning” paid vacations. Cell phones and cars and house rent or house payments cost a lot. The “Obama-phone” and “Cash for Clunkers” and Billion Dollar government handouts to Solyndra and those shovel-ready jobs were never really there or never worked. People became angry because the gravy-train was either gone or it never existed.

Enter Donald Trump.

There were enough of those who remembered the old “reap and sow” principle upon which America was founded: “You get out of life equal to what you put in,” there are NO free rides, everyone has to work to eat, to not just listen to his campaign speeches, but to believe he could and would do what he promised if elected.

Many didn’t like that: after all, it was an unpopular truth he talked about.  And when they went to get answers, those Mainstream news outlets that they had turned to gave them reinforcement for their anger at things not being what was promised. Things like this:


President Donald Trump’s relentless attacks on the media as the “enemy of the people” are close to sparking violence that could lead to journalists being attacked around the world, the outgoing United Nations human rights commissioner said, according to a report Monday.
“We began to see a campaign against the media … that could have potentially, and still can, set in motion a chain of events which could quite easily lead to harm being inflicted on journalists just going about their work and potentially some self-censorship,” Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said, the Guardian reported.
“And in that context, it’s getting very close to incitement to violence,” he said.


Three people who were pushed and shoved while protesting at a 2016 Donald Trump campaign rally cannot sue the President for inciting the crowd, a federal appeals court has ruled. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously Tuesday in favor of the President, saying that Trump saying “Get ’em out of here” during the rally in Louisville, Kentucky, was not a valid claim of “incitement to riot,” which is a misdemeanor under Kentucky law.

Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau attended a rally for Trump on March 1, 2016, to “peacefully protest” the then-candidate. Nwanguma was carrying a sign with Trump’s head on a pig’s body, according to multiple news reports.

After Trump said “Get ’em out of here,” several members of the audience — including Matthew Heimbach, a representative of the white nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party, and Alvin Bamberger — began to attack the protesters, according to a judge’s ruling last year.

The three protesters accused Heimbach and Bamberger of assault and battery and pressed charges of incitement to riot, negligence, gross negligence and recklessness against the Trump campaign. The negligence claims arising from the plaintiffs’ allegations that Trump knew his supporters would attack protesters. In particular, the complaint says that Trump’s directive to eject Nwanguma, a black woman, was reckless, given the presence of a white nationalist group in the audience.

Where are We?

The Left defends such actions as justified because of Trump’s policies or his actions. The truth is, this is how extremists on the left always respond to politicians and policies they disagree with. They threaten, intimidate and try to shut them down. If you don’t think so, try attending a speech by a conservative speaker at any liberal college in the U.S. Yes, we know, there are haters on the Right. And Trump can be crude and abusive. But that’s the point. Even a whiff of hatred or intolerance on the Right always — and correctly — receives widespread condemnation, including by Republicans. The same is not true on the Left — not even close.

Instead, Democrats and their handmaidens in the press are busy normalizing violent, abusive, intolerant behavior … when not encouraging more of it. They seem to have forgotten that we live in a representative democracy, where we settle debates over public policies — peacefully — at the voting booth.

We have a chance to settle that dispute again in November. The Media will not accept anything else but a bloodbath at the expense of Republicans. But it seems that even that will not stop the anger and violence. That doesn’t all come from angry young Americans. Sure, much of it does come from those youngsters. But they’re joined by many 1960’s radicals that bear the mark of the last move of Anarchy in the U.S.: marches, bombings, riots, campus shootings, increases in violent crime.

There are only two ways to change the tide: vote and pray.

The prayer needs to start now — WAY before election day.

In fact, I surely hope it has already started.



Mueller Bullet Points: 10 Reasons to Dislike the Guy”

With the appointment as Special Counsel by his buddy Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller has become just about the most powerful man in the U.S., making him just about the most powerful man on Earth. With his convoluted appointment that violates all types of moral and legal ethics, breaks every rule regarding conflict of interest, and has given him and his group of legal henchmen an unlimited budget with no time restraints whatsoever, this Russia collusion hoax has morphed into what President Trump calls a Witch Hunt.

In this atmosphere, it is easy to see the political, social, moral, and cultural divide steadily widen as this probe forces most Americans to pick a side: Mueller or President Trump. Very few Americans have taken the time and given the effort to research who Mueller is, his political and legal history, and researched the actual basis for this investigation, which is unquestionably based on a false legal premise. For a Special Counsel to even be appointed, the process requires actual evidence of a crime to be present to justify such an appointment. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s named justification for the appoint was “collusion with Russians by members of the Trump Campaign to change the results of the 2016 election.”

Rosenstein was given NO evidence of any collusion that would justify Mueller’s appointment. And even if there was, there is no federal law regarding collusion except in Anti-Trust proceedings! And after 18 months, Mueller has turned up NO collusion with Russia.

Many Americans are steamed about this probe. In fact, a majority who have been polled say this investigation needs to end. And many Americans have negative feelings about Mueller and don’t appreciate what he’s doing.

Instead of our traditional “Bullet Points,” today we are going to look at “10 Reasons to Dislike Robert Mueller,” even if you don’t know him. Let’s get going:

1. The guy’s a leaker.

Breitbart says so. Sure, Mueller’s got a rep for rarely speaking in public or giving interviews. But behind the scenes he’s obviously spending day and night dishing dirt on Donald Trump and the president’s oh-so-honorable colleagues to any reporter who will listen. The deluge of daily stories disparaging President Trump, after all, began the day Mueller was appointed; before Mueller, Trump press coverage was constant sunshine and rainbows. Plus, it’s clearly to Mueller’s strategic advantage to have his investigative steps aired to the public in real time. Besides, who else would leak this kind of stuff? Only Mueller and his team have a motive. The White House isn’t a factionalist den of vipers; the president’s legal team is a well-oiled machine that never leaks; defense lawyers are paragons of virtue. Don’t even get us started on tight-lipped congressional staff — those guys never talk. The only logical explanation here is information about the investigation is coming from Mueller.

2. Mueller is a highly political actor.

Thank God, Newt Gingrich has seen through Mueller’s act. He tweeted recently that “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he has hired. (check FEC reports) Time to rethink.” It’s quite a rethink. Mueller is so political that he’s spent his entire career going back and forth between politicians. He worked in the first George H.W. Bush administration as an assistant attorney general, then he was a prosecutor on murder cases in Washington, D.C., after running the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and then he flip-flopped back to be a U.S. attorney in the Bill Clinton administration. Get this: He then goes on to run the FBI for both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (a bipartisan Congress even extended his term for two years at Obama’s request). The guy is so political he can’t even decide which side he’s on.

3. Mueller is too thorough and taking too long.

This thing is seriously taking forever. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke for all of us in saying that, “the president is frustrated by the continued witch hunt of the Russia investigation and he’d love for this to come to a full conclusion so that everyone can focus fully on the thing that he was elected to do.” You and me, both, friend. Could Mueller go any slower? It’s as if he’s a highly methodical actor systematically gathering strings on multiple broad areas simultaneously: Trump-Russia collusion, Trump Organization business dealings, misconduct in the Trump campaign, and obstruction of justice. He needs to hurry this thing along. Trump just wants to be cleared without the fuss of an investigation. Wouldn’t you? The president knows he is innocent and only wishes to spare us all the pain of this drawn-out ordeal. Of course, Trump recently told the New York Times that “I’m not under investigation. For what? I didn’t do anything wrong.” It’s completely reasonable of Trump to be frustrated that this investigation — which doesn’t exist — is taking so long and that Mueller is being so thorough about it.

4. Mueller is too aggressive and is moving too fast.

Slow down, buddy. The New York Times reported that “The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors” and their “shock-and-awe tactics.” When Mueller isn’t moving at a glacial pace, he’s being unprecedentedly aggressive. The Times reported clucking in the defense bar:

Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth that precedes — or substitutes for — grand jury testimony. They argue that the team’s more aggressive tactics might end up being counterproductive, especially if some grand jury witnesses turn out to be more guarded than they would have been in a more informal setting or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

This well-meaning concern among defense lawyers for the effectiveness of Mueller’s investigation is touching. When they aren’t overwhelmed with concern Mueller is moving too slowly, they’re worried sick that he’s going too fast for his own good.

5. He’s hiring bad people with conflicts of interest.

Trump warned us that Mueller’s staff comprises “some very bad and conflicted people.” Fact check: True. Some of Mueller’s staff attorneys have indeed committed the iniquitous crime of donating to Democratic candidates. This is what matters. Ignore their famed careers as prosecutors or appellate lawyers. Ignore the Supreme Court clerkships. Mueller’s staff actually are just human embodiments of contributions to Democratic candidates. No previous special prosecutor has ever employed people with political affiliations. We can’t recall any Republicans in sight for Kenneth Starr’s investigation, and Democrats absolutely fled from working for the Watergate special prosecutor and in the Iran-Contra investigation. If Mueller’s team isn’t wearing #MAGA t-shirts to work underneath their suits, the whole endeavor is hopelessly biased.

6. Mueller himself has conflicts of interest.

Mueller is the most conflicted one of all. Trump astutely pointed out that he’d even agreed to discuss becoming FBI director again following Comey’s dismissal: “He was up here and he wanted the job,” Trump told the New York Times. After he was named as special prosecutor, “I said, ‘What the hell is this all about?’ Talk about conflicts. But he was interviewing for the job.” Plus, Mueller’s old firm also had clients involved in the investigation. The Justice Department reviewed those and found no problem with Mueller’s current role, but what do those guys know anyway? And there’s even more! Trump told the Times that “There were many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.” When he does tell us, everyone is going to feel very foolish about trusting this Mueller guy.

7. Mueller keeps expanding his investigation.

The president warned Mueller that his investigation “is about Russia” and it would cross a red line if he strays into areas like Trump-family finances. And yet, the prosecutor keeps having the temerity to stray beyond the lines that Trump — the conduct of whose campaign and company is the investigation’s very subject — thinks he should be examining. It’s possible Mueller just got confused by his capacious mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which gives him authority not merely over “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” but also over “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any attempt obstruct the investigation. But clearly, Mueller is trampling the time-honored legal principle that the subjects of investigations get to say which parts the police are allowed to investigate.

8. Mueller is best friends with Comey.

A lot of people say this. Here’s Republican Rep. Trent Franks: “Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties. Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.” Here is blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a problem. He has a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding a large part of his work. It involves a choice between investigating or relying on former FBI director James Comey, a longtime close friend of Mueller’s.”

Sure, their actual premise is wrong and Comey and Mueller are not close friends. But never mind that. If we say it enough times, it will become true.

Mueller and Comey certainly know each other. They ran the same federal law enforcement agency in sequence. They worked together when one of them was deputy attorney general and the other was running the FBI. And they appear to have a mutually respectful relationship. They’ve probably even had lunch. And just as all of us maintain intimate personal friendships and unfailing loyalty towards all our former co-workers, so too is Mueller in the tank for Comey and incapable of remaining objective about President Trump.

9. Mueller is a problem because he was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who is a problem because he appointed Mueller.

No less a figure than the estimable Sean Hannity made this decidedly sensible — and certainly not circular — argument by way of arguing both that Mueller’s probe has gone on too long and that it was exceeding its jurisdictional boundaries, both points discussed above. Rosenstein, you see, is suspect because, among other things, “Rosenstein is … the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn’t know or didn’t care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director’s job.” Mueller, thus, is suspect because his investigation is being overseen by the guy who is suspect for having appointed him. “You can’t make this up,” Hannity writes.

Indeed you cannot.

10. Mueller is respected and admired at the FBI, and the FBI is the depths of the Deep State.

Do you need a better reason to dislike him than that?


I don’t think anyone knows for certain how this Mueller thing is going to play out — even Mueller himself. But in the midst of the strangest and most obviously evil federal investigation I know of in American history, something certainly IS about to happen. Only time will tell what it is.

Regardless of its outcome, one thing has been lighted like Rockefeller Center during Christmas holidays: there is a large number of evil folks in our government in D.C. And there is a very large volume of evil that needs to be identified, rooted out, and “turned” out — whether it’s laws, policies, government employees or elected legislators. The bad stuff and people must go.

If this Mueller probe does nothing more than simply shine a light on all of this wrongdoing, isn’t that enough? The light is on in the kitchen and the roaches are scrambling for cover. This is not a political thing. This is a good vs. evil thing. And the war has just begun.

This American for one hopes the guys wearing the white hats win this one.


Tuesday Bullet Points


NOTE: There is no podcast for today’s chapter. I am dealing with lung issues that turned my voice into Fat Albert’s! I hope it’s temporary. (Maybe you wish it was permanent!)

In today’s “Bullet Points,” we are simply going to ask questions that are very applicable to the current state in which we find our nation. After each question, we’ll provide at least one possible/probable answer. Be patient. There are so many appropriate questions about the state of the Union, we cannot touch on each in just one session. We’ll play by ear how to proceed with this Q&A process over the next few days and weeks. We’ll call today’s “Bullet Point” selection: “56 Days.” Of course, that is the number of days remaining before the midterm elections. Let’s get going!

Day 56

  • Are the polls that say Democrats probably going to gain seats in the House of Representatives and maybe win enough to take control of the House?
  • Nobody but the pollsters know that for sure. There are many variables in polling that determine results: the size of the sample taken, the political mix of those respondents, the questions asked by pollsters and even the way they pose their questions, the wording of the asked questions, demographics of respondents, all play into the actual results. Remember this: only one poll of dozens of national reputable polls were accurate in predictions of the outcome of the 2016 elections. There are quite a number of factors that play into polls. But the number one election factor that determines results of every election is voter turnout. And polls can determine turnout. Polling companies that hold one political slant can use political agenda in developing questions but can also manipulate results that when released will often impact voter turnout. To help candidates of one party, polling can be skewed to discourage voters on the other side from even voting — “your vote doesn’t matter. Don’t waste your time. Our candidate is so far in front your vote doesn’t matter.
  • President Obama has proclaimed that today’s economic numbers are the exact same numbers we saw during his administration in 2015. Is that true?
  • In the fall of 2015, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 2.1%; the latest 2018 GDP number from June was 4.2%. Federal Reserve estimates are for this quarter’s GDP to be slightly higher. 2015 Poverty rate: 14.8%; 2018: 12.7%; food stamp recipients: 2015: 46 million (when Obama took office that number was 38 million); 2018: 3rd quarter numbers pending, but 4 million left the food stamp program in 2017 and went to work;  2015 employed Americans: 123.76 million; 2018: 130.64 million. 2015 median household income: $56,515; 2018: $62,175. Federal total revenue in 2015: $3.2 trillion; 2018: $3.4 trillion; And finally, the 2015 unemployment rate. 5.1%; 2018: as of June 30th, 2018: 3.9%
  • Why do we not see national television and hear national radio ads by Republicans putting these numbers out for the public? We see and hear Democrat attacking current economic results all the time?
  • The G.O.P. has always struggled with clear, consistent, and factual messaging on the same level and in a similar manner as Democrats. I really don’t have a single answer for it, but I think it is due primarily to two factors: one is that Establishment Republicans are almost as likely as Democrats to not want “Trump” economic numbers to mark the dramatic success that they are today; the second is that I am certain the G.O.P. is going to ramp up this information nationally in the next 57 days to get this message out to all Americans. (Let’s hope so!)
  • Do those Republicans that are part of the Establishment really want to see President Trump out of office and the Congress returned to Democrat control?
  • Sadly there are quite a few Republicans that feel that exact way. We have here reported several times to our partners that which party controls Congress is immaterial to these Establishment members. Why? They only care to keep the balance of power consistent, knowing that whichever House is in control will certainly at some point cede control to their counterparts. And when that happens, they want THAT party to “play fair” with them in committee appointments, perks of Congress, and go soft on possible retribution for the losing party’s members. In Congress, it is about power and control….period. It’s not about voting constituents’ legislative desires. I had one freshman Republican member of Congress tell me that the expectation was a group of 200+ conservatives pushing the Republican agenda. According to this member of Congress, there are barely 2 dozen “real” conservatives in the House.
  • If Democrats take control of the House, will they attempt to impeach President Trump?
  • No one but Democrat Party leaders — especially Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) know that for sure. When pondering this, ponder this: the Democrat Party as of today has NO real agenda to attract votes in November other than to “Dump Trump” and destroy all policies implemented on his watch. 60 House members have already voted to impeach the President in total disregard of Constitutional provisions that qualify for a president’s removal. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is riding the impeachment horse really hard and has a group of followers that always take her approach. However, “if” the House turns Democrat and “if” Pelosi could marshal enough support to vote articles of impeachment, it is unlikely the Senate would remove him. It would take a 2/3 rds majority to do so.


There are dozens and dozens of other questions that beg for answers. Instead of continuing today, let’s reconvene tomorrow to do “Bullet Points Day 55.” Tomorrow we will take the entire time to discuss the Mueller Investigation with questions and answers about every part of it from its inception. As of this writing, more extremely incriminating information of the almost innumerable fallacies of this “witch hunt” — as President Trump calls it — that boggle the minds of reasoning and intelligent Americans. We have many, many questions and some answers for contributing elements of this investigation that implicate the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even members of the Executive Branch of the Obama Administration.

Irony of All Ironies

Former President Obama took to the midterm campaign trail to do something he showed he’s pretty good at: campaigning. Unfortunately for the former Campaigner in Chief, he continued what he constantly did in speeches around the world during his 8-year occupancy of the White House: he took credit for things he did not do and deflected any responsibility for negative results of presidential actions taken during his administration that he was solely responsible for.

Obama spoke in Chicago at the University of Illinois where he went to receive the Paul H. Douglas Award for Ethics in Government. In the eyes of millions in the U.S., that an award given to him for any type of ethics was not just the irony of all ironies, but was an oxymoron. The veil of deception for the horrors perpetrated by his government is just now being pulled back to the revelations of it all. We will not waste your time to chronicle them, but it is safe to draw a few conclusions from his speech in Chicago Friday for receiving an ethics award beg a response:

  1. Even though he several times while President claimed his administration was free from any scandal, his administration was rife with scandals. His claiming there were none illustrates not only how untruthful he was and is, but shows his disdain for Americans that recognize the evils he authorized as scandals;
  2. Once again Obama took credit for the Trump economy. His doing so is a process not unfamiliar to Americans. For the entire 8 years of his tenure as president, he assigned responsibility for everything negative that happened in the U.S. from 2008 to 2016 as the responsibility of George W. Bush. But Obama always took credit for any of the good that happened, never assigning even partial credit to HIS predecessor. Those who watched closely understood his actions were not unusual: after all, narcissistic people doing such things is commonplace. In his Chicago speech, he referred to himself 102 times;
  3. Obama still rejects any notion that his actions as president and the devastating results they brought to middle-class Americans were the reasons Hillary Clinton lost her bid for the White House — that and the fact that Americans outside of those from the coastal states despised her. He often showed his disdain for Hillary and made very few attempts to help her during her campaign.
  4. Shown below is a segment of Obama’s 1 hour + speech at his first “Anti-Trump” campaign rally. Watch it below (or simply listen on the Podcast). This segment is about 2 minutes long. But before you do, it is very important that as you watch or listen, you notice these: As a candidate and president, Obama mastered the art of “speech deflection.” He reveals what it is exactly in this speech. Listen to the allegations he makes against Republicans and President Trump. “Speech deflection” is the art of blaming others for things that you yourself are guilty of. If a speaker in a matter-of-fact way accuses another of perpetrating some atrocity, most times it is an effort of the speaker to hide the reality — that the speaker is the actual perpetrator! Watch and listen as Obama shows that art he has perfected:

What were his “Speech Deflections?”

  1. He first stated he was about to attack Trump as a citizen and not a former President. He repeats that. Why? To prevent any listener from assuming he is “just another politician.” He tricks listeners into believing what he is saying comes from a regular person.
  2. Trump is a symptom and not the cause. The cause is people who “wrongly” fight against good policies because they want to keep the status quo.
  3. “We” — everyday Americans — stand against bullies and “certainly call bad people what they are. How can we not say Nazis are bad?”

His tactics parrot others on the Left who keep calling Trump a bully. How? By stating lies as facts and calling facts lies. President Trump never endorsed Nazis or White Supremacy or totalitarianism. I could play multiple soundbites hear in which he clearly denigrates any and all people who denigrate others on racial, economic, sexual, or religious basis. Obama used “speech deflections” in attacking Trump.

Obama’s claims about that while president he stood up to bullies is an exact illustration of this. Obama NEVER stood up to Putin — a former KGB (and Russian President) bully. Remember Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary taking that reset button to Russia, opening the door to Russia and the Obama U.S. working closely together? Remember Obama’s open microphone message to Putin given through the former Russian President to give Putin a message? In it, Americans heard Obama promise that after his U.S. re-election he would be in a better spot to work “more closely” with Russia?

Remember Obama’s famous Syria red line? He threatened Bashar Assad  — the Syrian president — that if Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, the U.S. under Obama would take action.  Assad ignored Obama’s threat and moved forward using chemical weapons to kill thousands of Syrian innocents. What did Obama do for that bully crossing that “fake” redline? Nothing.

While Iranian leaders were crafting nuclear weapons, starving their own citizens to death, holding numbers of Americans hostage, funding Middle Eastern terror attacks that killed Israelis and other Middle Eastern innocents, Obama paid Iran $150 Billion and signed a deal that allows Iran to continue nuclear proliferation with no international checks in place.

How ridiculous is Obama callingTrump a bully! Trump no doubt is sometimes rude and abrasive, but he has NO record of bullying. Obama may have not bullied while in office, but he certainly did NOT stand up to bullies.

“Speech Deflections:” Symbolism over Substance.

End of an Era

We should turn a page in history together. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Obama receiving an award for ethics, his speech in which he took at least partial credit for the U.S. dramatic economic improvements under Trump, all illustrate that American politics as were lived by our parents, by their parents, and even in our early adulthood are gone. The millennials are showing Generation X-ers and Baby Boomers that there’s a new group of Americans assuming political might in the nation. And they don’t do things the same way. We live in a new world — economically, politically, and socially. “Things are a-changing!”

Remember how radical it was when you made and/or received your first cell phone call? Who thought such things would ever happen or COULD ever happen outside of the Jetsons cartoon show? Today our adult kids don’t remember a time that to make or receive phone calls, we had to stop at our office, a pay phone, or run home in a hurry — and then we used a rotary-dial phone to make that call! We NEVER considered being able to make a call from our car.

And what about the internet?  The internet has changed almost every aspect of our lives. There would be no “online” purchasing, banking, texting, surfing, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, eBay, or Amazon without it. What would our world be without those?

During one very short period of time, I flew from Louisiana through Dallas and London to Switzerland. From Switzerland, I flew through Muscat, Oman to Malaysia. From Malaysia, I flew back to Louisiana with a stop in Hong Kong and another in Dallas. I circled the globe on that trip — a  trip my parents could never have taken or even envisioned in the 50’s!


We ARE in a new era — or at least we are on the threshold of another. And the transition is  from era-to-era is difficult at best. Extremism in pretty much every part of our lives is becoming more and more normal daily. We seem to push to the limits in every area.

No doubt the U.S. after WWII became a country whose citizens grew together around one common cause: to excel, exploit individual and collective opportunity in the American marketplace of ideas, and make the U.S. the greatest and most respected country on Earth. Then the Generation X children grew up. That drive for excellence relaxed and those young adults started living the “going with the flow” and “fly by the seat of your pants” methodology of living in America. Millennials relaxed it to an even lower level.

In this “new” America, the objective no longer seems to be that of building and working together. It, at least on its surface, appears to be a hodge-podge of ideas, policies, plans, and objectives of individualism — of becoming all that “I” can become, achieving all that “I” can achieve, and getting out of the World all that “I” want. The unifying cry of becoming better, smarter and stronger as a nation have seemingly disappeared.

Obviously, the transition America is experiencing is not all good. Politicians have learned many different ways to impact the political process to achieve objectives that often are not those expected by the people who elect them. Obama saw an opportunity to take advantage of the change in younger Americans’ thinking and initiated a plan that he promised would “fundamentally change our nation.” He knew it would be virtually impossible to fool Americans to change governmental structure without amending the Consititution — which is virtually impossible.  How could they move the lawmaking process toward their side of the scale? Obama figured out that if politicians cannot control Congress and trust for the normal legislative process to give them political results they want, they could turn to the judiciary.

Obama appointed several hundred federal judges in his eight years. Although the norm in nominating judges has long been to ignore political leanings of judicial candidates, Obama implemented a process of choosing judges who possessed a known political bias toward liberalism and away from conservatism. He loaded federal courts to accomplish one thing: thwart the lawmaking process of a conservative Congress even when it has a conservative majority. How? Simply use those and other judges to attack laws that liberals opposed and to uphold laws liberals embraced, thus giving liberal policies green lights while holding conservative policies in check. And it worked: his fundamental change of America got wheels and raced forward toward full-blown Socialism.

Enter Donald Trump. Transition made a sharp turn to the right.


We live in a scary time. We have open violence playing out daily all across the nation. Our national politicians accomplish very little in the way of meaningful legislation while wasting trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Government leaders ignore the tenets of the U.S. Consitution spending huge national resources to find ways to skirt duly passed laws. Our re-shaped judiciary has implemented a process in which Americans sadly watch as judges become lawmakers, choosing to tell lawmakers what laws SHOULD say rather than doing ONLY as the Consitution provided — determining if existing laws are legal or not.

Obama claims to be a uniter. Once again, “speech deflection” becomes front and center. NOTHING about anything he said or did was ever designed or implemented to unite Americans. His purpose — though otherwise stated — has always been to divide the country into economic, racial, religious and social groups. He perfected the art of using political class warfare to do it.

And he’s taken to the campaign trail to once again sow his seeds of division, watering those seeds with political class warfare and elitism.

He along with his compadres on the Left still believe that Middle Americans are too ignorant to understand that methodology. They believe that will fuel a mid-term and 2020 victory. They thought the same thing in 2016. Hillary Clinton revealed just how deep and bitter their disdain for anyone and everyone who do not subscribe to the beliefs of the Left really is. And that remains today.

Middle Americans showed them just how ignorant they are with a real trouncing at the ballot box in 2016. Will those same people remain engaged to repeat that message in November? Or have the Lapdogs of the Left — the Mainstream Media — been successful in carrying out the mandate of their masters and convinced those Americans that conservatism is dead?





The “Latest” NY Times Anonymous Source

Yep. The hits just keep on coming! The New York Times insulted every pensive, reflective, and intelligent American with their “current” bombshell allegedly based on inside information provided by a senior White House Source. Before we dig into all this, here’s the actual Op-Ed:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. President Trump is facing a test of his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall. The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous. But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more. But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective. From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier. The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t. The result is a two-track presidency. Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over. The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.


Let’s put this all in perspective with Bullet Points!

  • “Anonymous” Think about the fact that such a derogatory Op-ed would be printed in a national newspaper that is supposed to be impartial, honest, and transparent. It contains a series of negative attacks against a sitting President, and is supposedly to be penned by a senior member of that president’s staff! “Anonymous” source? Who reading/listening to this really feels there’s something fishy about this entire process AND the opinion piece? It’s no secret that the owner, publisher, editors, columnists, and reporters at the New York Times despise Donald Trump. It’s no secret they have taken every opportunity to print horrendous stories that contain every conceivable type of nasty allegation against Mr. Trump. Over and over again, this paper has printed “factual” stories that have on numerous occasions been exposed to be complete fabrications. Yet with that history, the Times expects Americans to ignore their history of purposely telling lies and to simply believe that an anonymous White House senior staffer not only wrote this Op-ed for publication but is working with an entire segment of the White House staff surreptitiously actually running the policies of the White House behind the President’s back!
  • For a moment let’s assume someone there really did write and submit this to the New York Times. Look at the content and the claims made. According to this source, this group of staffers sees themselves as knowing what’s best for Americans, what presidential policy should look like, are quietly framing legislation and policy on all fronts, and as American heroes are “steering the administration in the right direction until — one way or the other — it’s over.”
  • The “right direction.” I am trying to understand what direction that might be. Obviously, this “group” does not believe in the Constitutional right of every American to vote their conscience in each election and those elected are then legally empowered to fulfill the responsibilities of the office for which they were elected. They obviously don’t trust that Americans had the sense or prudence to elect this president, are too stupid to understand what craziness would result in America if his campaign promises were fulfilled. Those policies were revealed to Americans months and even years before those staffers ever thought they had a chance to work in the White House. Oh….the President HAS implemented dozens of those policies (I guess over their hard work to thwart behind-the-scenes his doing so) that have resulted in the unequaled and never-before-achieved employment numbers, tremendous corporate expansions, hirings, implementation of new technology, billions of corporate dollars kept abroad re-patriated back to the U.S. to fuel expansion, growth, employee raises and bonuses. That doesn’t sound like the work of some back-office pirates contemplating mutiny OR a deranged politician who apparently cannot even complete sentences in a conversation or make a phone call.
  • This person is (with all of this animus, anger, regret, and frustration) still working in the White House. Why? Purportedly to steer the ship — the U.S. — out of the Trump troubled waters back into the waters they have empowered themselves to determine as “safe.”


If you have not yet surmised this: I don’t believe this “anonymous” source even exists. I feel strongly — especially with the ridiculous past exposures of New York Times reporters’ fabrication of stories — this is a non-existent source with outrageous manufactured story elements.

How many times does it take for you to hear lies from a liar before you question the viability of everything the liar says? How many times will the Times lie before you refuse to believe what they publish — especially an Op-ed replete with bombastic allegations that heretofore are unreported and unconfirmed. But wait: using “anonymous” sources allows one to say anything, quote anyone, make numerous allegations, and expecting benign acceptance of a willing public. I am confident that is what we are experiencing with this.

We have reported extensively — as have numerous other reputable news sources  — of the danger of reliance upon anonymous news sources. Those who use those sources claim that without identification protection, details of a presidential administration wrongdoing, illegal and/or inappropirate actions of government agencies and individuals, and even their illegal activities would remain unknown. In a way, I can “kind of” agree with that. (hey: “kind of” agree with sounds a bit like being “kind of” pregnant!) But then I remember this: Congress crafted a federal whistleblower program that not only protects those who step forward with information such as that revealed in this Op-ed, but the whistleblower is rewarded financially for doing so. Why then would the New York Times “anonymous source” want to remain in the shadows? Any reasonable person in the White House would know that with the release of this Op-ed, their identity will certainly be ferreted out and they will be exposed and almost certainly terminated.

But that should never be necessary. This person — if they exist — should immediately resign their position. No American who really believes in the American political system, the structure and operation of the presidency, and the sensitive nature of running a White House, would even consider working under such conditions as are alleged in this story.

The release of this Op-ed has begun another Trump feeding frenzy — especially in the Media. Here’s how it works:

Bubba Gump Newspaper” prints a story that quotes an anonymous source who said Jack and Jill went up the hill. Then “Barney Fife News Network” airs a television breaking news story that says: “According to confirmed sources, we have verified that Jack and Jill went up the hill.” Barney Fife Network did not verify the source or the accuracy of the story. Their “confirmed source” was “Bubba Gump Newspaper!”

This is how today’s Mainstream Media functions. One will release a story. The others may half-heartedly make attempts to confirm independently from a reputable source the truth of the story. But usually, they simply use the news outlet that originated the story as their “confirmed source!” It happens every day.

In fact, regarding the Trump-Russia FISA warrant, the basis was at least in part based on such a process:

The FBI leaked information about Carter Page and his Russian contacts to a news source so that news source would publish it. When published, other news sources immediately picked up that story and ran with it. Then the FBI went to the FISC requesting a FISA warrant, stating in the warrant application that “multiple sources have confirmed that Carter Page actually met with Russians promoting a meeting between Trump and Russian President Putin.” Their “multiple sources” were the news agencies that re-published the original story leaked by the FBI! The original source was not a source, but was the FBI.

Today’s media cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That’s sad but true.

Let’s hope those 45,000 sealed indictments (yep: the number is up to 45,000 now) begin being unsealed and executed soon. “Aren’t you afraid there are indictments in there of President Trump, his campaign members, his family members, and Republican lawmakers?” You know what: I REALLY DON’T CARE! I want the truth on the street. I want the discontinuance of news releases based on information obtained from “anonymous” sources. I want complete transparency without hiding anything.

Mr. or Ms. White House senior staff member anonymous source: either be quiet and trust the decision made by your bosses — the American people — to make Donald Trump the American CEO to operate the business of the country, or resign and sell your story — with supporting and verifiable evidence — to the New York Times.

Maybe you already have sold it to them.

If I was you I would have.


The Unknown Doctor Who Slaughtered Babies

WARNING: This is a descriptive story pretty much avoided by Mainstream Media during the last few years. In this story, we share the horrors of the treatment of women, young girls, and babies pre and post-birth by medical professionals in a Philadelphia clinic that practiced in abortions over a period of years. The descriptions are graphic but are not enhanced in any way. We don’t share this story for any reason other than to illustrate just how commonplace the abortion process has become. This story is important. I cannot understand why it did not make national headlines at all other than that those in the media who knew of it were afraid to report it to Americans, most of who would have shuddered at the many atrocities perpetrated on the most innocent among us. And I think members of the media were afraid that revealing these events to the public may have initiated a new national opinion of the abortion process itself.

If you are squeamish you may want to turn this podcast off or not read the rest of this story.


Roe v. Wade is again front and center in American conversation, largely in part due to the confirmation hearings of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. In the Wednesday hearing answering questions posed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Judge Kavanaugh made it clear that (paraphrased), “Roe v. Wade has been determined legal by the U.S. Supreme Court, has been re-affirmed in multiple additional cases that have come before the Court, and is set by precedence and confirmation of those repeated precedence instances. Roe v. Wade is the law regarding the legality of abortion in the U.S.”

That being said, tens of millions of Americans still view abortion as the taking of the life of a baby. To those, the term “Pro-Choice” literally means “Pro-Abortion.” It is often mentioned by those who are “Pro-Life” that the baby (or “fetus”) does not have any say-so in an abortion procedure.

It is within that context we share today’s story which chronicles the operation of an abortion center in Philadelphia that conducted thousands of abortions over a very long time. The circumstances surrounding the operation of that clinic came under the scrutiny of Philadelphia law enforcement agencies that resulted in subsequent prosecutions of clinic operators.

In the course of that investigation, horrendous details of operating practices in that clinic were brought to light. The following information comes directly from those involved in the investigation: law enforcement officials and others looking in. There is NO opinion in their recollections of what they saw. Please consider that fact objectively as you read on. We will re-convene in summary after the story.

The Story

Kermit Barron Gosnell is an American former abortion-provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were alive during attempted abortion procedures.

Gosnell owned and operated the Women’s Medical Society clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and he was a prolific prescriber of OxyContin. In 2011, Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. The murder charges related to an adult patient, Karnamaya Mongar, who died following an abortion procedure and seven newborns said to have been killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors after being born alive during attempted abortions. In May 2013, Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of three of the infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar. Gosnell was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortion, and 211 counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. After his conviction, Gosnell waived his right to appeal in exchange for an agreement not to seek the death penalty. He was sentenced instead to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Gosnell Background

Kermit Gosnell was born on February 9, 1941, in Philadelphia, the only child of a gas station operator and a government clerk in an African-American family. He was a top student at the city’s Central High School from which he graduated in 1959. Gosnell graduated from Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA with a bachelor’s degree. Gosnell received his medical degree at the Jefferson Medical School in 1966. It has been reported that he spent four decades practicing medicine among the poor, including opening the Mantua Halfway House, a rehab clinic for drug addicts in the impoverished Mantua neighborhood of West Philadelphia near where he grew up, and a teen aid program. He became an early proponent of abortion rights in the 1960s and 1970s and, in 1972, he returned from a stint in New York City to open up an abortion clinic on Lancaster Avenue in Mantua. Gosnell told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in October 1972: “as a physician, I am very concerned about the sanctity of life. But it is for this precise reason that I provide abortions for women who want and need them.”

In the same year, he also performed fifteen televised second-trimester abortions, using an experimental “Super Coil” method invented by Harvey Karman. The coils were inserted into the uterus, where they caused irritation leading to the expulsion of the fetus. However, complications from the procedure were reported by nine of the women, with three of these reporting severe complications. The super coil experiment by Gosnell has been dubbed the “mother’s day massacre” by some.

In 2011, he was reported to be well known in Philadelphia for providing abortions to poor minority and immigrant women. It was also claimed that Gosnell charged $1,600–$3,000 for each late-term abortion. Dr. Gosnell was also associated with clinics in Delaware and Louisiana. Atlantic Women’s Services in Wilmington, Delaware, was Dr. Gosnell’s place of work one day a week. The owner of Atlantic Women’s Services, Leroy Brinkley, also owned Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and facilitated the hiring of staff from there for Gosnell’s operation in Philadelphia.

Details of the Case

Conor Friedersdorf wrote this about Gosnell’s actions after they were first exposed to the public in The Atlantic:

“Until April 11, 2013, I wasn’t aware of this story. It has generated sparse coverage in the national media, and while it’s been mentioned in RSS feeds to which I subscribe, I skip past most news items. I still consume a tremendous amount of journalism. Yet had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would’ve been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet. Then I saw Kirsten Power’s USA Today column. She makes a powerful, persuasive case that the Gosnell trial ought to be getting a lot more attention in the national press than it is getting.

Inducing live births and subsequently severing the heads of the babies is indeed a horrific story that merits significant attention. Strange as it seems to say it, however, that understates the case.

For this isn’t solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth in toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn’t make national headlines?

But it isn’t even solely a story of a rogue clinic that’s awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn’t have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting.

There is, finally, the fact that abortion, one of the most hotly contested, polarizing debates in the country, is at the center of this case. It arguably informs the abortion debate in any number of ways, and has numerous plausible implications for abortion policy, including the oversight and regulation of clinics, the appropriateness of late-term abortions, the penalties for failing to report abuses, the statute of limitations for killings like those with which Gosnell is charged, whether staff should be legally culpable for the bad behavior of doctors under whom they work …

There’s just no end to it.

To sum up, this story has numerous elements any one of which would normally make it a major story. And setting aside conventions, which are flawed, this ought to be a big story on the merits.

The news value is undeniable.”

How Bad Was It?

The Philadelphia District Attorney described it this way:

“This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy — and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels — and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

The clinic reeked of animal urine, courtesy of the cats that were allowed to roam (and defecate) freely. Furniture and blankets were stained with blood. Instruments were not properly sterilized. Disposable medical supplies were not disposed of; they were reused, over and over again. Medical equipment — such as the defibrillator, the EKG, the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure cuff — was generally broken; even when it worked, it wasn’t used. The emergency exit was padlocked shut. And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains. It was a baby charnel house. The people who ran this sham medical practice included no doctors other than Gosnell himself, and not even a single nurse. Two of his employees had been to medical school, but neither of them was a licensed physician. They just pretended to be. Everyone called them “Doctor,” even though they, and Gosnell, knew they weren’t. Among the rest of the staff, there was no one with any medical licensing or relevant certification at all. But that didn’t stop them from making diagnoses, performing procedures, administering drugs.

Gosnell’s approach, whenever possible, was to force full labor and delivery of premature infants on ill-informed women. The women would check in during the day, make payment, and take labor-inducing drugs. The doctor wouldn’t appear until evening, often 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00 p.m., and only then deal with any of the women who were ready to deliver. Many of them gave birth before he even got there. By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, he minimized the work, and cost, for himself and his staff. The policy, in effect, was labor without labor. There remained, however, a final difficulty. When you perform late-term “abortions” by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the [clinic] was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.”

Over the years, there were hundreds of ‘snippings.’ Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the ‘snipping’ was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff.

But all the employees of the Women’s Medical Society knew. Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all. Most of these acts cannot be prosecuted, because Gosnell destroyed the files. Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant — seven and a half months — when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could ‘walk me to the bus stop.’ Another, Baby Boy B, whose body was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times. And these were not even the worst cases.

After reviewing extensive and compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing at the clinic, the Grand Jury issued a presentment recommending the prosecution of Gosnell and members of his staff for criminal offenses including: Murder of Karnamaya Mongar, Murders of babies born alive, Infanticide, Violations of the Controlled Substances Act, Hindering, Obstruction, and Tampering, Perjury, Illegal late-term abortions, Violations of the Abortion Control Act, Violations of the Controlled Substances Act, Abuse of Corpse, Theft by Deception, Conspiracy, Corrupt Organization, Corruption of Minors.”


There has never been a previous atrocity and subsequent discovery of abortion abuse in America like this one. As horrendous and unspeakable as the acts are perpetrated by these people, why hasn’t the American media spent any time and newspaper space in reporting it to America? It can be for one and only one reason: to protect the practice of abortion in the U.S. Mainstream Media as a whole is operated by liberal writers, editors, and publishers who daily allow personal and political prejudices to determine stories, columns, and editorials. Even in very conservative towns and cities across this nation, most newspapers and broadcast outlets are owned and operated by Mainstream Media companies. It is unusual to read or hear a story or editorial anywhere that is not colored by a liberal perspective on all things. That is sad and deplorable. Such practices have tainted American journalism for decades.

This case illustrates the frustration of many with the Media: reporting MUST be just that — reporting. How can we make that happen again?

We don’t need government intervention. Americans who believe in the Rule of Law, administration equally of implementation of all laws and making offenders accountable for lawbreaking, need to simply express their rights to disagree with these print and broadcast practices and stop partaking in their media offerings.

Cancel newspaper and magazine subscriptions. Turn-off radio and television stations that promote these practices. Make sure and let local, regional, and national sponsors of these media sources that you will not support those news outlets or any commercial sponsors they print or air. If contacted by a ratings or polling entity, participate in their polling and be honest when responding to your reading, watching, and listening habits.

The American free market works. Supply and demand work. We have seen as local radio and newspapers have shuttered their doors and windows the last decade because the public in droves has walked away from their media products. That is the consumer’s way to vote.

Finally, how horror-stricken must have been each of those young women who watched the slaughter of their babies? It is unexplainable that law enforcement in Philadelphia did not look-in and stop the butchering years earlier. Think about the millions of families in the U.S. that are fighting the adoption system to find babies that would have gladly adopted those babies, given them good families, and protected the very thing the U.S. guarantees all: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I bet those aborted babies would vote to live if they were given a chance.



“Chain Chain Chain”

This article’s title is in part an acknowledgment of the loss of one of America’s greatest singers of all-time. Aretha Franklin was a champion to all American musicians, songwriters, and singers. In my radio broadcasting career, I fell in love with her songs. She will be sorely missed.

The other part the title’s purpose: Americans today wish the lyrics of the great Aretha Franklin song would be changed from “Chain, chain, chain” to “Change, change, change.” Nope…..NO CHANGE!

What’s Up?

“You got me where you want me; I ain’t nothin’ but your fool. Ya treated me mean; Oh you treated me cruel.”

Aretha could have been singing about today’s U.S. Congress in her hit “Chain Chain Chain.” I now know why the Founders set Congressional terms at 2 years and Senate terms at 6. The problem is Congressional members really don’t care why the Founders did so. Job #1 for everyone on Capitol Hill seems to be to maintain the status quo. Why not just dial back the Nation’s political atmosphere to that of the late 1700’s? The legislation would be dramatically different than today’s, and there would certainly be more accomplishments. Remember this: Washington D.C. was not the site for the first Congress.

During the 1790s, while Philadelphia served as the nation’s temporary capital, the U.S. Congress met problems and threats to the nation that tested the endurance of the Constitution and the republic it framed. Domestic issues of finance, taxation, sectionalism, Indian affairs, and slavery divided the delegates into bitter political camps, and international relations morphed into disagreements as well. Partisan politics aside, Congress during this decade forged a government that remained intact, despite projections of failure from the prevailing monarchies overseas. Imagine if THIS Congress functioned as those first Congresses did. They too faced amazing challenges and roadblocks — some similar to today’s and some different. But what was truly different was that those early U.S. governments found ways to daily put aside partisanship and personal differences and GOT THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS DONE!

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing

There certainly is no change in the attitude of those sitting at the table in Senate confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats on that committee have all already publicly announced they do not and will not support Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Why? They give no substantive explanation other than they “think” he (if confirmed) would not support anti-abortion and/or gun laws if any should come before the court. His history upon which they universally base those feelings is: ____________ and _____________. “Those spaces are blank,” you say. Yes, they are. There are NO opinions, no writings, no speeches given by Brett Kavanaugh upon which they can base their opinion that he is unworthy of their votes.

Here’s their reason: Democrats and others on the Left feel abortion is the right of every woman. Even though they have a SCOTUS confirmed law that provides that legal right to all — Roe v. Wade — they are all horrified that abortion might someday be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. They are petrified that Kavanaugh if confirmed, might cast the deciding vote. Forget about the law in existence and forget about precedence. ABORTION IS LEGAL!

Political historians, current and past federal judges, and federal law scholars pretty much in unison state that if Roe v. Wade is ever challenged at the Supreme Court on its legal structure, it would fail. But on principle, it will stand, unless a future SCOTUS faces a challenge of the law’s legal substance.

Surely they know that even if Roe is ever overturned, the legality determination of abortion will simply go back to the states. Then (as before) determination of abortion will be state-by-state.

So why the uproar? It’s not about abortion at all. Pro-Choice is simply the face of a Socialist movement. Their agenda goes far beyond just abortion rights. It includes the fundamental changes to U.S. law and American rights. And it even includes changing a fundamental principle held dearly by all Americans since the Declaration of Independence: the right to vote.

We’ll get into the substance of those. But first: the Senate confirmation hearing.

The “Agenda” of the Kavanaugh Hearings

In Judge Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing, there were no questions from Senators on Tuesday, but there will be questions, answers, accusations, and assumptions Wednesday about the following:

  • Roe v. Wade
  • Gun Rights
  • Immigration
  • Public Education vs. Private Education
  • First Amendment
  • Roe v. Wade
  • Executive Department Authority
  • Same-Sex Marriage
  • Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade is in the list 3 times because, in the hearing, it was (and will be) mentioned and discussed in questions and answers at least 30% of the hearing time!

Senators (probably by the time you read this) will have already begun Q & A with the nominee: 30 minutes each in the first round and 20 minutes each in round two. What that means is Republican members will use 25 minutes in the first round (as an accommodation to the confirmation process to save time), 15 minutes in the second round for the same reason. Democrats, however, will use 35-40 minutes just because they will demand it!

In case you missed Tuesday’s initial hearing, let me boil it down for you:

  1. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-IA) set the rules for the hearing up front but was instantly when gaveling the hearing open interrupted by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) who demanded immediate hearing adjournment because Senators had not had enough time to read necessary documents to prepare. And she continued to interrupt Grassley about the same subject again and again;
  2. Democrat Senator after Democrat Senator too demanded adjournment for the same reason, over and over again. They needed to “learn more about how Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed, would rule on controversial cases based on his notes and previous cases.” This complaint continued, even though they had been provided more than 400,000 pages of notes, case history, financial records, education records, witness testimony and on and on about Kavanaugh;
  3. All this came in the shadow of one glaring fact that revealed the animus, hatred, and partisanship of the Left: Appellate Judge Kavanaugh had written 307 opinions on cases that came in front of his court — 307! “If” they want to know what his judicial stance is on any one particular issue that might result in Supreme Court consideration, they certainly have documentation to show them. How do you measure what a judge thinks about issues on which he or she has ruled? Read his or her opinions.
  4. The harsh reality of Democrat reasoning here is clear: their only intent is to discredit Brett Kavanaugh in every way possible and disrupt confirmation hearings. It was revealed today they had a conference call over the weekend and set a plan in motion to do exactly what they did in the Tuesday hearing: obstruct the hearing with constant interruptions and attacks on Kavanaugh. Their attacks on Judge Kavanaugh were not for his specific case results — he participated in over 2000 court decisions — but on the process of these hearing led by Grassley. And the process was exactly the same as that used in the Gorsuch hearings for which no one had any issues at all about the process.
  5. The most glaring proof of how vile the Left was in the Tuesday hearing was that Judge Kavanaugh’s two young daughters had to leave the hearing so they would not see and hear how nasty, rude, and bombastic Democrat Senators were to their father.


I recorded and watched the replay of Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement at the hearing. I was amazed at his composure, his positive attitude, and his grasp of the meaning of being a Supreme Court nominee and what it means if he is confirmed. He made it clear that he is proud of the work completed in his 12 years as D.C. Appeals Court judge and has no hesitation in supporting each decision reached by that court — even those with which he disagreed. Not many can say that in looking back on 12 years on their job there is nothing they’d change . Kavanaugh emphasized that his fundament basis for every court ruling was his undying commitment to the “Rule of Law.”

For those of our liberal members, before attacking Judge Kavanaugh during these hearings, please don’t listen to someone else’s summary of Judge Kavanaugh’s written opinions. Yes, 307 is quite a few, they are lengthy (I know because I’ve read several), but it is worth your time to at least Google those, grab at least a few, and read them. Once you do that, I suggest you do what is apparent Democrats are so far unwilling to do: question the Judge for what he actually did in consideration and forming opinions on specific cases.

A real and accurate measure of a nominated judge is not what he or she says. A real and accurate measure of ANY judge is what he or she actually does on cases.

These confirmation hearings illustrate the vast chasm between what Congress in the 1790’s did to operate our government and this Congress — especially the U.S. Senate. I’m certain there were partisan differences and controversial and heated debates. But those members of Congress knew one thing superseded all partisanship and personal opinion: the Rule of Law, and that justices with whom they may have had personal or political differences but had a history of supporting the U.S. Constitution and were qualified that were appointed by the President should be confirmed to the Court.

This Senate better get the job done or the mid-term and 2020 elections will be a blood-bath, regardless what the MSM polls say!