We Have Had Enough!

A suspect was arrested in the killing of a California police officer, police said Friday. Newman Police Cpl. Ronil Singh was shot and killed during a traffic stop just hours after Christmas.

Christianson didn’t say when the 33-year-old came to the U.S. but said that the Mexico native has been living here for several years. The sheriff said Perez Arriaga has gang affiliations and multiple Facebook pages with different names.

This tragedy illustrates the REAL tragedy of our open southern border: illegals who have NO legal right to be here in the first place are systematically — though randomly — committing crimes against Americans in every location where they are allowed to live in the United States.

But this tragedy illustrates the absolute highest cost an American pays just for doing the right thing. And what happened to Officer Singh could happen to you, me, or both of us tomorrow!

Ronil Singh was a LEGAL immigrant who came to the U.S. the LEGAL way, went through the LEGAL immigration process, even took classes to learn how to speak better English. Why? BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SERVE ON THE NEWMAN, CALIFORNIA POLICE FORCE AND FELT HE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH THOSE PEOPLE WHO HE WAS TO SERVE.

And he died just for doing all the right things!

I’ve Had Enough!

For the next two days, we will analyze the FACTS about what these illegals are doing to our nation. But we are NOT stopping there: we are going to in detail call-out Democrats AND Republicans who have had multiple opportunities to stop this insanity, fix immigration while continuing our long standing policies of being the country who allows MORE legal immigrants into our country each year that all the other countries on Earth — COMBINED! How dare anyone allege that our nation is heartless for not allowing anyone and everyone in with no reservations at all while NOT guaranteeing Americans that whoever comes in doesn’t want to hurt and/or take advantage of us!

I doubt Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would leave the front gates of their homes and their front doors open and unlocked 24/7 so that just anyone can pay them a visit! Yet they and others expect every American citizen to do just that.

We are NOT just going to spout numbers, polls, and statistics. We will give you FACTS that are verifiable. And we will in unison call out the only ones on Earth that could rectify ALL of the inherent problems in immigration with two days of honest effort.

Whatever else you do, make certain to look in tomorrow and the next day. You will see in writing and hear in our Podcast some of the most important information for you and, more importantly, your children and their children.  TruthNewsNet.org is where you’ll find it tomorrow. And we will put a link to the article on our homepage that you can download for free and share to anyone or everyone.

See you then!

Trump or a Democrat in 2020: Who Will It Be? Part Four

We haven’t forgotten about our continuing analysis of the “likely” 2020 Democrat Party presidential candidates. You must agree we’ve had some significant distractions from Washington D.C.! But let’s get back to working in the narrative about each. We began our analysis of Dem candidates several weeks ago. So far we’ve looked at Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Michael Bloomberg, and Joe Biden. (If you haven’t already, look back at those before reading today’s analysis)

Today we begin analysis of the “Outsiders,” or “Newcomers.” There are quite a few. We will NOT analyze all of them for you — just the candidates our analysts say have the best shot at getting the nod of the Democrat Party. Let’s get started:

“He’s a White Barack Obama”

Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democrat donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans. Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

O’Rourke — who raised a stunning $38 million in the third quarter of his race — is widely considered capable of raising millions of dollars quickly, according to interviews with multiple Democratic money bundlers and strategists, catapulting him into the upper echelons of the 2020 campaign. Mikal Watts, a San Antonio-based lawyer and major Democratic money bundler, said several donors and political operatives in Iowa, after hearing from other potential candidates in recent days, have called to ask if O’Rourke is running, a sign of his impact in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. “They’re not wanting to sign on to other presidential campaigns until they know whether Beto is going,” Watts said. “And if Beto is running, what good progressive Democrat wouldn’t want to work for Beto O’Rourke?” He said, “I can tell you that there has not been this kind of level of electric excitement about a candidate since Barack Obama ran in 2008.”

O’Rourke raised more than $70 million in total in his bid to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, mostly from small donors in a race that captured national attention. Though he fell short — losing 51 percent to 48 percent — his closer-than-expected performance in the largest red state on the map was credited with lifing at least two Democrats to victory over House Republican incumbents. A recent POLITICO/Morning Consult presidential primary poll put O’Rourke in third place among Democratic voters, behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

“He’s game-changing,” said Robert Wolf, an investment banker who helped raise Wall Street money for Obama in 2008 and 2012. “If he decides to run, he will be in the top five. You can’t deny the electricity and excitement around the guy.” While other prominent Democrats, including Biden, Sanders and Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have support networks of their own, Wolf said, “Beto comes out of [the midterm elections] saying, ‘Oh my God, if a guy can do well in Texas, he certainly can do well throughout the country as a Democrat.”
“I get the hype,” Wolf said. “I think there’s an incredible amount of excitement around Beto. A lot of people have comparisons around him and a Robert Kennedy or a Barack Obama. And the [Democratic] Party likes young, ambitious and aspirational.”

The ascent of O’Rourke, a three-term congressman from El Paso, reflects the volatility of a 2020 presidential primary that has bothered Democratic donors and activists for months. Many fundraisers who have exclusively supported a single candidate in previous years are expected to hedge their bets initially, spreading smaller amounts to several candidates. One major Democratic bundler on the West Coast told POLITICO he is advising donors against throwing in with one candidate, saying, “It’s naivete, it’s political suicide to do that.” O’Rourke is a major reason for donors’ uncertainty, the bundler said, having “brought a whole bunch of new people off the sidelines.” “That’s this cycle’s ‘Bernie army’ — it’s ‘Beto’s Army,’” he said, comparing O’Rourke’s Senate fundraising to the staggering number of small donors who propelled Sanders in his unsuccessful 2016 primary campaign. “All the guy would have to do is send out an email to his fundraising base … and he raises $30 million,” the bundler said. “That has totally changed the landscape for the Tier 1 guys, because now Bernie and Warren, now they have competition. It completely changes the game if Beto runs. And he should run … He’s Barack Obama, but white.”

O’Rourke said before the midterm elections that he would not run for president, promising to serve six years in the Senate if elected. When asked at a CNN town hall if he would run for president if he did not win the Senate race, O’Rourke responded, “If I don’t win, we’re back in El Paso.”
But Democrats have not taken O’Rourke’s comments as ruling out a run. “I think that’s a decision that he has to make as to whether or not he’s going to run for president,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said. “Everybody’s waiting to see what Beto’s going to do.”
Asked about a potential presidential run, O’Rourke told the website TMZ, “I haven’t made any decisions about anything.”

For Democratic strategists eager to advance a younger nominee contrasting with President Donald Trump, O’Rourke’s appeal rests on his perceived ability to bridge a gulf within the party — between Democratic contenders who are older but come with pre-existing donor networks, and Democrats who are younger but have not yet developed a substantial fundraising base. O’Rourke, at 46, has both.

“People across the country just fell in love with him,” said Christian Archer, a San Antonio-based Democratic strategist. “He was able to raise national-level money, and that’s just such a distinct advantage.” However, Archer said, “There’s a fuse on that, and the question is how long will that last if he doesn’t make a move within a window of time.” Archer said, “Right now, he’s on fire.”

If O’Rourke is giving donors any doubts, it is largely because his fundraising came in a Senate contest, not a presidential primary stuffed full of marquee Democrats. New York Republican Rick Lazio, who set a single-quarter fundraising record in his losing New York Senate bid against Hillary Clinton in 2000 — a record surpassed by O’Rourke — failed to translate energy from that campaign into a future political success. And in a lengthy presidential race, early stars can fade.

George Tsunis, the hotel magnate and Obama megadonor, said O’Rourke “performed very admirably” in the Senate race. But he was skeptical that O’Rourke could replicate his fundraising in a presidential race, saying many donors were likely motivated by anti-Cruz sentiment. Still, Tsunis acknowledged the donor universe remains wide open. “A lot of people that I’m talking to are in a quandary,” he said. “They may have a half a dozen friends that are looking to do this, and they are so unbelievably torn here.”

There isn’t much modern historical precedent for O’Rourke to draw on.

  • George H.W. Bush was a Texas congressman who won the presidency after an unsuccessful 1970 Senate bid. But his presidential run didn’t come until years later — and it took Bush two tries before winning the White House.
  • Abraham Lincoln ran for president — and won — after two losing campaigns for Senate.
  • But the last person to go from the House to the presidency was James Garfield in 1880.

“One thing that [O’Rourke] is going to have to overcome is that he did lose to Ted Cruz,” said Cappy McGarr, a Dallas-based investor, and Democratic fundraiser. “He is the real deal, though. He’s charismatic, he’s thoughtful, he’s able — he is one of the most exciting politicians I’ve seen since Barack Obama ran for president.” Like many donors, however, McGarr holds a favorable view of several potential contenders, including Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor and Obama Cabinet secretary. “I have a lot of friends who might be running for president, and I think the more the merrier,” McGarr said. “And I certainly wouldn’t preclude giving and raising monies for more than one candidate.”

Steve Westly, a former California state controller and a major bundler of campaign contributions for Obama, said O’Rourke “has a lot of the wow factor now, and one could easily say, ‘He didn’t win.’ But to get [close] in Texas, that suggests to me that if he were the national nominee running against a non-Texan, he might well pull that state … and he is charismatic as heck.” Westly said he does not “have complete conviction yet” about which candidate to support, with a primary field that appears “completely, totally different than anything I’ve seen in the last half-century.”

Still, as he begins to field calls from potential candidates, Westly said he believes Democratic voters are “looking for newer faces outside the traditional Northeast corridor” of typical Democratic politicians, mentioning Bloomberg and Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, among others, as credible potential candidates. Most years, Westly said, “Guys like me can say, ‘Hey, it’s going to be one or two people, it’s person A, B or C, here’s why. It’s a short discussion … it’s five minutes, we can narrow it down.”
In 2020, he said, “Here you have something fundamentally different … In terms of betting odds, it’s really hard to sort out.”

But Westley said O’Rourke could immediately narrow the field. “I don’t’ believe that 50-year-old guys like me and 60-year-old guys in Washington who are in an hourly form of political warfare understand how disillusioned that warfare has made the younger people of this country,” he said. “From that perspective, Beto’s unvarnished approach was both refreshing to me, but intoxicating to the younger generation.”
“If Bernie runs and Warren runs and Kamala runs and [Cory] Booker runs, I think they all wash each other out in a certain way,” he said. “Beto’s got the juice right now. If he goes, he’s going to suck a lot of the oxygen out of the room. A lot … and immediately.”


No doubt, we have a long way to go before the 2020 election. But our wait until candidates begin “active” campaigning is just a few months ahead.

With President Trump as the odds-on favorite to represent the Republican Party, (and he’s already announced his run) Democrats are trying to narrow their choices.

O’Rourke surprised many people in the 2018 Texas Senatorial race. But many feel winning a general election against Donald Trump is probably too much for Beto, who lost in the race against Texas incumbent Ted Cruz. And it’s tough to lose an election and then win a presidential election.

To the gang at TruthNewsNet.org, it seems too early for Beto to make such a run. However, it might be a good spot for Dems to tag the former Texas Congressman for the bottom of their ticket. That spot might do O’Rourke well in 2024.

No matter when, where, or how he may run, it is almost certain Beto is NOT through with national office. However, tackling the 2020 race with just the hopes of the VP spot or to cement his candidacy for 2024 seems unlikely. Candidates in the 2020 General Election will almost be required to raise $1 Billion! That’s a tall order for even the rising star from El Paso, even if he IS a “white Barack Obama.”

But make no mistake: Beto will be back.




David Siders contributed to this story



In just a few days, control of the U.S. House of Representatives will be officially handed to Democrats as the new Congress begins its two-year lifespan. I am certain that Americans who live in those 40 Congressional districts from which enough new members were elected to the House to wrest House control away from the GOP are excited to FINALLY see the logjam of almost zero legislation from the House end and NEW and exciting governance begin, right? WRONG! Here’s what House Democrats who are about to take control are preparing to do: INVESTIGATE! CNN put it best:

(CNN) The House Judiciary Committee is looking for a few good lawyers.

A recent committee job posting reviewed by CNN asked for legislative counsels with a variety of expertise: “criminal law, immigration law, constitutional law, intellectual property law, commercial and administrative law (including antitrust and bankruptcy), or oversight work.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee needs lawyers, too, posting jobs for “executive branch investigative counsel.”
The advertisements give a window into the Democratic recruiting that’s ramped up ahead of the party gaining subpoena power for the first time in eight years when it takes over the House in January.
2016 Presidential Election Investigation Fast FactsWhile Democrats publicly talk up their interest in focusing on legislative priorities like health care and voting rights — not to mention ending the ongoing partial government shutdown — they are quietly preparing for what will likely be the largest congressional investigation of a sitting president in recent memory. Party leaders and committee chairs have spent months ironing out potential targets, from President Donald Trump’s taxes and business dealings to the conduct of current and former Cabinet members.
To handle all this investigative work, House Democrats are expected to double the number of their staffers. Though they can’t officially hire anyone until the new Congress is seated, plans are well underway, with House members saying that candidates — especially those with specific investigative skills, from money laundering to contracting — are coming from all directions.
“They’re finding us,” said Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington state Democrat who will be taking over the House Armed Services Committee, which will have a significant piece of foreign policy oversight. “There are a lot of Democratic refugees out there after the Republicans took over the House, the Senate, and the White House.”

2019: A Very Special Year

If you think that with a new House of Representatives we will finally see legislation passed in Congress to initiate a slew of new and meaningful bills to address the very necessary but forgotten deficiencies in Americans’ lives, you are sadly mistaken. First, a divided Congress is doomed to fail to get anything meaningful passed. Think about it: with a House and Senate with relatively small GOP control over the past two years, very little legislation could get passed. It seems that GOP Congressional leaders could never get enough of their members on the same page to get anything done. Just imagine how much more fragmented Congress will be in 2019.

What do Americans really want Congress to get done?

  1. Immigration. This is probably the most contentious, most ideological, and most necessary issue to tackle and get resolved. Yet Congress after Congress has failed miserably to take any meaningful action since before Reagan. Sure, Reagan cut a deal and gave citizenship status to a host of illegals. But there was a “pro quo” to that deal: southern border security to stop the flow of illegals into the U.S. was to be enacted in exchange for the “quid” of that deal: citizenship for millions. Democrats laughed and did nothing. Clinton did nothing during his eight years in spite of numerous promises. Bush 43 the same as was the case under Obama. Trump hit hard the proverbial immigration continuously in his first two years, even with a United Congress. (ha!)
  2. Healthcare. Nobody doubts over the past couple of decades a problem with the U.S. healthcare system existed. Unfortunately, politicians tagged the problem as being with the entire healthcare system. It was and is not with the entire system — the problem rests in healthcare finance alone. The “new” Left-wingers in the Democratic House ran during the election promising and are still crying about “Medicare for All,” or even Universal Healthcare. Nobody has tackled the REAL healthcare issue of finance. American healthcare itself is the best on Planet Earth! Beginning with Obamacare, sadly we have seen healthcare professionals by the thousands run to different job sectors or retire prematurely. Why? Government messing with Healthcare and ruining its amazingly positive results. This new House is full of those who are hell-bent on totally destroying the entire system when all that should be addressed is healthcare finance. The two buzz terms regarding healthcare finance that has everyone up in arms for years are “pre-existing condition coverage” and “premium costs.” Those can and should be addressed and fixed without blowing up the entire healthcare system! Oh…”Medicare for all” cannot be done in the U.S. — PERIOD. The costs are impossible to sustain in any way.
  3. Government Spending/Nat’l Debt. Do we even need to mention this? Congress after Congress, Administration after Administration: Americans want the same thing and no one in Congress or the White House seemingly pays attention — or CARES. Running any home, business, local, state, or federal government, continuously spending more than that entity makes can end in only one way: Disaster. Americans know that sooner or later, the American debt holders will come calling for repayment of what the country owes. There are only two options if this happens: pay the bill or default. We cannot pay the bill. So what would default look like if the U.S. has no other option? Answer: there’s never been a country like the U.S. default on government debt. We don’t know what the results would be, other than that they wouldn’t be good. But with certainty, we are headed toward that Armageddon.
  4. Fix Congress. There’s nothing wrong with Congress itself — right? That’s incorrect if you ask the average American. Americans want Congress to change in the new House. Here’s what they want to be changed: 1) Members of Congress are paid a base salary of $174,000, and that’s way too much, according to public-opinion polls.  A majority of Americans believe members of Congress – a majority of whom are already millionaires – should earn less than $100,000 a year, somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. 2) The House of Representatives has averaged 138 “legislative days” a year since 2001, according to records kept by the Library of Congress. That’s about one day of work every three days, or fewer than three days a week. Americans know there’s more to work in the House than just what happens on the floor. But it seems to most that when serious issues that need serious results are on the “table” for Congressional action, House members simply do “other things.” 3) It’s not very responsive. How would you feel if you took the time to write a detailed letter to your member of Congress explaining your concerns about the particular issue, and your representative responded with a form letter that began, “Thank you for contacting me regarding ________. I appreciate your views on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.” This kind of thing happens all the time, though. 4) They waffle too much. It’s called political expediency, and elected officials have mastered the art of taking positions that will maximize their chances of getting re-elected. Most politicians will cringe at being labeled a waffler, but the truth of the matter is all elected officials and candidates would agree their positions shift constantly. 5) Bi-partisanship. Let’s be honest: Americans really don’t want it. What Americans want is for members of Congress to forget about party politics and do anything necessary to work with other members to get done what voters elected them to get done. Nothing else they can do really matters.


Robert Mueller and his team have already spent a reported $25 million investigating collusion during the 2016 election cycle between Russians and members of the Trump Campaign. $25 million! So far, not one person has been found guilty. Sure, partisan hacks scream that multiple indictments have been issued, several arrests have been made, and some are going to jail. None of them were charged or convicted of doing anything having to do with President (or “Candidate”) Trump or any members of his campaign. Don’t you find it odd that such a whopping amount of taxpayer dollars would so flippantly be thrown away in this manner? What price is a justifiable price for the wrongdoing that Mueller and his team have unearthed?

Don’t you think that enough is enough? (If you don’t, you’re probably an elected official, Democrat Party hack, or someone that simply hates Donald Trump)

We are about to enter a never-seen-before time in the United States in which a political party is going to take over the “purse” of the American people and direct additional millions of dollars to investigate Donald Trump! Why? Simple: They want him gone.

Their vitriolic hate for this President is far beyond normal distaste and even disgust from one party’s members for another party’s members. It is so intense and so vicious, it makes me wonder what is REALLY going on? Why do they REALLY hold so much hatred for this President?

The answer to that question lingers. But one possibility continues to creep into my consciousness more and more regularly: what are they trying to hide from Americans? What do they not want the populace to know that they feel that on the watch of this leader and his aggressiveness toward Democrats might be exposed? What could it or those be?

While you are wondering too, you might ask these questions:

  • The Clinton Campaign obviously colluded with Russia and Russians during 2016. Why has the Mueller probe left THAT collusion alone?
  • Knowing that Hillary herself violated federal laws regarding the handling of classified information, documents, and communications, why has Mueller not even visited those felonious actions?
  • Did you know Hillary through her unsecure email server communicated with Barack Obama himself, (him using a secret Gmail address) and in doing committed multiple felonies? To our knowledge, so far none of that has been examined by Mueller.
  • Why have Congressional GOP committees been totally unsuccessful at taking the horrendous information unearthed in their investigations into election wrongdoing to federal authorities for prosecution of offenders? Why have their multiple criminal referrals against many who have been found in criminal wrongdoing simply been ignored and for which no criminal action initiated?

In the meantime, the southern border is leaking like a sieve and illegal migrants are pouring into the U.S. While border officials watch in dismay, federal judges apparently in cahoots with Leftists continue to tie the hands of President Trump as he tries to fulfill Americans’ wish for border security and meaningful immigration law enforcement.

Does anyone but me feel aghast that American citizens must scream at Washington D.C. to enforce federal laws, to beg for our government to stop illegals from murdering, raping, and terrorizing legal Americans? When will this nonsense stop?

I can tell you when: not until Americans stop simply saying “Enough is enough” and take actions to either stop it themselves or put people in office who will stop it by forcing everyone to abide by legally passed laws. And the practice of using liberal federal judges to rule against duly passed laws allowing open-borders philosophies propagated by the Left must be stopped for that to happen.

I don’t know for certain when it will happen. But what I DO know for certain is that the 116th Congressional House of Representatives is not planning for ANY OF THE THINGS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THIS STORY TO HAPPEN!

Oops….I’m wrong. They ARE planning on spending more of our money conducting dozens of “new” investigations into Donald Trump. For what?

“I heard that he took two sugar packages and stuck them in his pocket when he and Melania stopped for lunch at Bubba’s Cafe in southern Alabama in October of 2017. The cad! He needs to be forced out of the White House for that! Which is he guilty of by stealing that sugar: High Crimes or Misdemeanors?”



Are “Friendlies” Alone with U.S. Troops Out Of Syria?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, one of the promises Candidate Trump made to Americans was to get the U.S. out of Syria and to not get involved militarily in foreign countries going forward. He famously put it this way:  “I’m not, and I don’t want to be, the president of the world.” So why all the uproar from those on the Left and some on the Right for his recent announcement he was going to pull the last 2000+ members of the American military still in Syria out?

Media Uproar

Who has been surprised to see the constant attacks from the Media with not only the President’s announcement to pull out of Syria but the forced resignation of Secretary of Defense Mattis? They don’t care about Trump’s campaign promises to do so. They don’t care that former President Obama fired Mattis, but didn’t even bother to call the General to fire him. At least Trump met with Mattis multiple times and the Secretary knew of the military strategy disagreement with President Trump. Obama didn’t even do that.

How ridiculous are Mainstream Media members about this? Max Boost of the Washington Post who has been a constant attacker of all-things-Trump illustrated just how ridiculous the MSM is. In April of 2018, he ridiculed the President for the U.S. even having a military presence in Syria. Then in December, he railed against the announcement the President made about pulling ground troops out of Syria.

Can President Trump do anything right?

The answer to that — at least according to the Media is a resounding, “No!”

That strike against Syria prompted the tweet from the Washington Post columnist the next day (shown in the graphic). What’s the point we are reaching to express? Keep reading!

Remember this from April of 2017?

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Mr. Trump said in remarks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

“Years of previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all failed, and failed very dramatically,” the president said, referring to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. “As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” The cruise missiles struck the airfield beginning around 8:40 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, and the strikes continued for three to four minutes.

Mattis Media “Matters”

Defense secretaries come and go.  President Obama had four of them in eight years, who had some unkind things to say about his leadership or lack of it.  There was no talk of chaos or of the only adult in the room leaving. Suddenly, the media are in a meltdown after “Mad Dog” Mattis announced his departure from the Cabinet after President Trump announced our departure from Syria:

Foreign Policy Pentagon reporter Lara Seligman wrote the press corp [sic] is contemplating suicide over Mattis’ resignation, “I think I speak for all national security reporters tonight when I say I’m about ready to jump off a cliff. But at least I already wrote the “who will replace Mattis” story two months (only two months?????) ago[.”]

President Trump is just now completing his first two years as President. Mattis has been Secretary of Defense from the beginning. It is NOT unusual for Presidents to have and make Cabinet changes quite often. The Mattis change is NOT unusual for ANY president to make. And Mattis made it clear in his letter of resignation that he was leaving for “fundamental” differences with President Trump on foreign military actions — specifically on the pending drawdown of troops from Syria.

As this report for you is being prepared, the American media and much of the World were surprised to hear that the President and Mrs. Trump paid a secret visit to U.S. troops in Iraq the day after Christmas. This trip and the media’s response to it are humorous to me. I watched last week as the President’s troop withdrawal plan was released as NBC blasted the President not only for the troop withdrawal from Syria but the fact that President Trump had not visited any troops on foreign soil. NBC reported that this way:

“On Christmas Day, President Donald Trump took part in a long-running practice of presidents who called troops stationed around the country and the world. But he broke from a recent tradition of actually visiting troops and wounded warriors. He did so in 2017 when he visited wounded troops at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Dec. 21 (and invited Coast Guard service members to play golf at his course in West Palm Beach, Florida). By staying home on Tuesday, Trump became the first president since 2002 who didn’t visit military personnel around Christmastime.”

I cannot wait to see who says what in a negative fashion about the President’s trip. You can bet he will get NO media credit for the trip!


The bottom line is this: no matter what this President does or does NOT do regarding the American military, the Mainstream Media will demean him. Oh, how horrible it is to withdraw from Syria. They make it sound like we’ve had tens of thousands of troops there for years and that our ground forces leaving Syria will leave millions of Syrians in harm’s way. “ISIS is there and will slaughter them all!” Or “President Assad will gas his own citizens now that America is gone!” The MSM makes it seem in all their reporting that the U.S. has had thousands of troops on the ground and even have military bases there. What they do NOT talk about is U.S. military capabilities when those tens of thousands of ground troops and the HUGE military infrastructure put in place in Syria are pulled out!

Wait….how many troops do we have on the ground in Syria? Let’s turn to the Washington Post that gave us the dire consequences of the pending massive U.S. troop pullout of Syria:

U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria is ‘a dream come true for the Iranians’

One of the biggest winners of President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria will be Iran, which can now expand its reach across the Middle East with Washington’s already waning influence taking another hit.

The abrupt reversal of U.S. policy regarding its small military presence in a remote but strategically significant corner of northeastern Syria has stunned U.S. allies, many of whom were counting on the Trump administration’s seemingly tough posture on Iran to reverse extensive gains made by Tehran in recent years.

Instead, the withdrawal of troops opens the door to further Iranian expansion, including the establishment of a land corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean that will enhance Iran’s ability to directly challenge Israel. It also throws in doubt Washington’s ability to sustain its commitment to other allies in the region and could drive many of them closer to Russia, an Iranian ally, analysts say.

“This is a dream come true for the Iranians,” said Riad Kahwaji, who heads the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, a defense consultancy in Dubai. “No longer will Iran take the Trump administration seriously. It’s an isolationist administration, it will no longer pose a threat, and Iran will become bolder in its actions because they know this administration is more bark than bite.”

A top Iranian official gloated Friday that the United States has admitted failure in its attempts to “overrun” the Middle East, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.

“The Americans have come to the conclusion that they can exercise power neither in Iraq and Syria nor in the entire region,” said Brig. Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of ground forces of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, at a news conference in Tehran. The most immediate impact will be in Syria, where U.S. troops have been serving as a buffer against Iranian expansion throughout the country as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — backed by Iranian-trained and funded militias consolidates control over areas that rebelled against him in 2011. The area in northeastern Syria where most of an estimated 2,000 U.S. troops are based is now up for grabs, with both Turkey and the Syrian government vying for control.

Here’s the Truth about the U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria:

  • We have just a little over 2000 troops in Syria;
  • It is doubtful that Iran would attempt to overrun Syria with their own troops while U.S. forces are there. But knowing the U.S. commitment to Syria, it is doubtful that the withdrawal will open the door to the Iranians;
  • How long if needed will it take for the U.S. to deploy and activate troops BACK to Syria if needed? According to experts, it would take no more than 24-48 hours to do so;
  • What could the U.S. do in Syria during that 1-2 day period to get ground troops back? The U.S. could duplicate what it did to Syrian and Russian troops in 2017 to stop the gassing by Assad. NBC News reported this about U.S. action against Assad in April of 2017:

    The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people. At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in Homs. All but one of the missiles hit their intended target, one U.S. military official told NBC News. The other missile failed. The missiles were fired from the destroyers Porter and Ross in the eastern Mediterranean.” The U.S. decimated Syria without a single person on the ground when that very effective missile strike took place. That or a similar attack could be initiated in a matter of hours.

The bottom line is this: no matter what the President does or does not do, he will NEVER satisfy his detractors. And the mouthpieces of the Democrat Party — the Mainstream Media — will never give the President credit for ANY accomplishment. So why wouldn’t the President simply do what he promised Americans during his 2016 campaign that he would do?

Wait a minute: U.S. Presidents are not supposed to do what they promise during campaigns. So why would President Trump feel any obligation to keep any of his promises?





Senate Extreme “Xism”

Let me first be honest: there is NO one-word term used to demean specific religions that equally compare to the word “racism” as demeaning the ethnicity of others. Why don’t we develop our own word that we can begin using in conversations like this one today? And when we do, we’ll understand the substance better. After all, most of the current “ism” words are fairly young.

Why don’t we coin this word: “Xism?” And for those who share the thoughts and attitudes we will discuss today, we can term them “Xists.”

What the heck is “Xism?” There are several definitions of the word. But for this conversation, we will use this definition: “the exaggerated embodiment of certain aspects of religious activity.” So what can more fittingly apply than for two (or more) liberal federal politicians to target members of a centuries-old religious organization that has always been accepted by Americans as a viable religion, questioning a person who is a member of that religious organization is unfit to serve? After all, doesn’t the Constitution give Americans the religious freedom to exercise freely their religious beliefs?

What is happening now vividly illustrates the dangerous road on which we find ourselves in American politics today: a road to “Selective Elitist Political RELIGIOUS Correctness!” It’s here…and it’s real. It’s “Xism.”

“Xists” Practice “Xism”

Two Democratic senators are scrutinizing a federal judicial nominee over his membership in the Knights of Columbus  (a religious and social arm of the Catholic Church), drawing a stern rebuke from the Catholic organization. Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), raised concerns about Omaha-based lawyer Brian Buescher’s membership as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of his nomination by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, as first reported by the Catholic News Agency.

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

In a series of questions sent to Buescher, Hirono asked whether his membership in the Knights of Columbus would prevent him from hearing cases “fairly and impartially” and, if confirmed, whether he would end his membership in the Roman Catholic charitable organization. “The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono said in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

In his response, Buescher argued that the Knights of Columbus’ official positions on issues do not represent every one of the group’s members and said he would recuse himself from hearing cases where he saw a conflict of interest. “The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher wrote. “If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification.”

Harris, in her questions to the nominee, called the Knights of Columbus “an all-male society” and asked the Nebraska lawyer if he was aware that the group was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage when he joined. The California senator also referenced Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson’s statement that abortion amounted to “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with the statement. Buescher responded that his involvement in the group consisted mostly of charitable work and community events at his local Catholic parish. He indicated he would abide by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

Kathleen Blomquist, a spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, blasted the questions by Hirono and Harris as a throwback to past anti-Catholic rhetoric. “Our country’s sad history of anti-Catholic bigotry contributed to the founding of the Knights of Columbus, and we are proud of the many Catholics who overcame this hurdle to contribute so greatly to our country,” she told the CNA. Blomquist added: “We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus—a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings—would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age.”

The Knights of Columbus was founded in the U.S. in 1882 as a society for working-class and immigrant Catholics. It has since expanded to include charitable services, including war and disaster relief, and the promotion of Catholic education. The group, however, has come under controversy for some of its official stances on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, as well as its political activity.

Kamala Harris (D-CA)

This is not the first time that one of Trump’s judicial nominees has faced questions tied to faith, either. In 2017, federal judicial nominee Amy Barrett — a professor at Notre Dame Law School and a devout Catholic — was questioned by Democratic senators about how her faith would influence her decisions from the bench. Barrett was eventually confirmed as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

No, this nomination is not for an empty spot on the U.S. Supreme Court. But the attacks by these two Democrats against Buscher brings that conversation around again regarding the religious affiliation of ALL federal judgeships and how that has been handled historically: especially regarding Supreme Court nominees. It would be safe to say that those involved in the Senate confirmation process of federal judges should expect the exact same process for the nominations and confirmations of any person for any federal judgeship, including SCOTUS nominees.

FOX News contributed to the report above. Also, please find the actual questionnaire sent to Buescher by the Senate along with his answer to each by clicking on this link: Buescher Responses to QFRs

Should Religious Affiliations Determine Federal Judge Nominations?

Seldom do Americans see confirmation hearings for federal district or appellate court judges. But we hear much about those nominated by presidents to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Shouldn’t all appointed federal judges be qualified on the same set of standards? Should those standards have any basis on religious affiliation? Or should Xism be invoked as a disqualifier for those judges and justices as Senator Hirono and Harris seem to believe in their attacks on nominee Buescher?

I think that qualifications to serve on all federal courts should be the same. And I’m certain the crafters of the Constitution felt the same way. How do I know that? Xism or its practices was not ever mentioned anywhere in the Consitution. Let’s look briefly at how SCOTUS justices have fared.

The demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States encompass the gender, ethnicity, and religious, geographic, and economic backgrounds of the 114 people who have been appointed and confirmed as justices to the Supreme Court. Some of these characteristics have been raised as an issue since the Court was established in 1789. For its first 180 years, justices were almost always white male Protestants.

Prior to the 20th century, a few Roman Catholics were appointed, but concerns about diversity of the Court were mainly in terms of geographic diversity, to represent all geographic regions of the country, as opposed to ethnic, religious, or gender diversity. The 20th century saw the first appointment of justices who were Jewish (Louis Brandeis, 1916), African-American (Thurgood Marshall, 1967), female (Sandra Day O’Connor, 1981), and Italian-American (Antonin Scalia, 1986). The 21st century saw the first appointment of a Hispanic justice (Sonia Sotomayor, 2009), if justice Benjamin Cardozo, who was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent and appointed in 1932, is excluded.

In spite of the interest in the Court’s demographics and the symbolism accompanying the inevitably political appointment process, and the views of some commentators that no demographic considerations should arise in the selection process, the gender, race, educational background or religious views of the justices have played a little-documented role in their jurisprudence. For example, the opinions of the two African-American justices have reflected radically different judicial philosophies; William Brennan and Antonin Scalia shared Catholic faith and a Harvard Law School education but shared little in the way of jurisprudential philosophies. The court’s first two female justices voted together no more often than with their male colleagues, and historian Thomas R. Marshall writes that no particular “female perspective” can be discerned from their opinions.

Should Xism Determine Judicial Qualification?

Think about the slippery road this practice has put us on. And it’s NOT just in confirmation of federal judges.

  • When a candidate makes any statement outside of the “current” mainstream of Leftist political thinking on matters of race, that person is immediately attacked as being racist;
  • When a candidate states anything that mentions the acts of terrorism that have been perpetrated by a Muslim, that candidate is immediately attacked as being Islamophobic;
  • When a candidate states anything that can even be remotely characterized as a negative toward homosexuality or same-sex marriage, that candidate is immediately attacked as being homophobic;
  • When a candidate makes any comment about the need for border security or a wall at the southern border or that Congress needs to take legislative action regarding any immigration matters, that candidate is immediately attacked as being xenophobic.

Americans seem to be growing weary at all of the phobias and isms floating around Washington D.C. I am often asked this questions: “Who has the authority to determine who is a member of any of these denigrated classes we mentioned above?” Honestly, there is only one group in America that has such “Legal” authority: members of the Judiciary who don the black robes and hear cases of those who violate United States laws, including the U.S. Constitution. And now two U.S. Senators have determined it is their right to question the qualifications of Brian Buescher to serve on a federal court in Omaha.

Let’s just go ahead and say it: Hirono and Harris are Xist for denigrating the nominee for being Catholic!


Those comparisons and examples of such political elitist classifications by those on the Left number in the tens of thousands. Once again that practice begs for the answer to this query: Who has the power and authority to make such determinations? And who gives that person or those people the authority to make them? The answer is simple: the power and authority for doing so are self-initiated and politically-determined. And those on the Left claim the universal authority to do so.

Face it: in today’s electric political climate driven by Identity Politics, someone MUST make the determinations of who wears what political identity. No, there are no books or dictionary that contain any absolute determinations or even illustrations that justify the practice of doing so. But today’s political landscape is riddled with the rules, the definitions, the determination of what every 21st-century moray is, who fits the mold and is qualified or unqualified for any job or position, and who and when someone steps outside the boundaries of those things that are deemed acceptable. And the Left “KNOW” their opinions and positions are the right ones — the ONLY right ones. Everything and everyone else is just plain wrong.

In the South, we call that practice “hypocrisy” and those who practice it “hypocrites.”

Case in point:

The first three that pop in my mind are those involving the two previous presidents and one candidate for President.

Barack Obama

Was he for or against same-sex marriage?

  • When running for the U.S. Senate, he called same-sex marriage “unstrategic, against his religious beliefs,” and something that “should be in the hands of churches rather than the government.”
  • In 2008 running for President, he said:  “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”
  • He later publicly gave his support to same-sex marriage stating “My feelings on the issue have evolved.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Were they for or against same-sex marriage?

  • Bill Clinton signed DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) DOMA was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states). He claimed that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage. He was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996. Clinton tells LGBT magazine The Advocate, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or considered.”
  • Then Bill Clinton urged for the legalization of gay marriage in his adopted home state of New York. In a statement made in 2011, he said: “For more than a century, our Statue of Liberty has welcomed all kinds of people from all over the world yearning to be free. In the 21st century, I believe New York’s welcome must include marriage equality.”
  • Hillary Clinton: “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.” Hillary Clinton 2004.
  • Hillary Clinton, straight from the pages of her presidential election website addressing her position on LGBTQ rights: “Thanks to the hard work of generations of LGBT advocates and activists who fought to make it possible, our country won a landmark victory last June when the Supreme Court recognized that in America, LGBT couples—like everyone else—have the right to marry the person they love.”

These are just a few examples of the Xism that is alive and well in Washington and is being controlled by Leftists. They are getting bolder and bolder about their overall hypocrisy. And the issue of same-sex marriage (and the federal law passed) have emboldened the Left to reach further into personal rights guaranteed to every American in the Constitution, and yank the right to determine which of those are sacred and which are not.

Xism is alive and well.

Islam and Muslims are seeing freedoms in public schools, colleges, universities, and even government offices to practice Muslim theology while the same institutions are preventing those of other religious faiths from exercising the same or similar practices. There are actually municipalities in which choices regarding public policies of religious activities are making determinations that prohibit Christian practices and even in some cases make them illegal while allowing and often encouraging Muslim religious practices to happen.

Don’t forget: prayer in public school is disallowed. But have you heard of any school in America not allowing Muslim prayers during the day? In fact, many schools provide not only the time for Muslims for their prayers, but they also provide facilities for doing so.

Please do not misinterpret my thoughts in pointing these things out. I am a Constitutional Originalist: I feel that the Constitution guaranteed Americans to believe in any way they so choose, practice their religious faith in any way they so choose, and for the government to not inject itself to any religious practices. But what we have seen for decades now and are watching play out today in national politics is the brazen Xism of federal politicians to justify the practice of ignoring Constitutionally guaranteed rights simply because they feel they have the right to ignore the law.

Folks, Xism is alive and growing rapidly in America. Don’t be fooled: this practice has no favorites. Oh, today Islam is the “flavor of the day.” But as soon as politicians determine the Muslim community does not offer Leftists the power and authority to do what they want to do, Leftists will turn on those Muslims.

I remember when it was common in school for every student to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance and bow while the Principal said a prayer for the day — a Christian prayer! That happens no longer. The wind can and will surely blow from another direction.

But that happens only when the purveyors of Identity Politics and Political Elitists are allowed the control to make such ambiguous and arbitrary decisions about our lives — like Senators Harris and Hirono saying federal judge nominee Brian Buescher’s affiliation with the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus disqualify him.



A Soldier Alone…for You

Christmas is a bittersweet time for me. December 22nd of 1969, my father left Mom and me. My older brother had been in the Navy for a few years. Then, December 23rd of 2013, my sister-in-law lost her long battle with cancer. The last 50 Christmases or so have been somewhat of a struggle. But I’ve learned something.

It matters not how devastating single events or to us or even multiple events. What matters is how we respond. Oh, I always wanted a “healthy” family at Christmas that comes with all the trimmings: gift giving, all of us together, laughing, eating, catching up. Every December 23rd I struggle at the loss of one of the most beautiful and giving humans I’ve ever known to a scourge that randomly destroys women among us with seemingly no evidence of it in us — until it’s too late: Cancer.

But what do we DO when those tragic things happen? Do we curl up in a ball and cry ourselves to sleep at night? Do we shun our friends and family members, ignoring the same or similar pains that they feel? Or do we fight through the pain and loss? I chose the latter.

I refused to let circumstances of which I have no control to write the chapters of my life. And I approached each devastation in my life with one commitment and one only: I refuse to let whatever this tragedy is to define who I am. Each is just one stop to where I’m going on my life’s road. So why not make all those circumstances that I can good ones instead of living in that curled up ball of “Poor Me?!”

You know what happened when I made that choice? I have my own family now: wife, three children with two sons-in-law and one daughter-in-law, six grandchildren who I adore. EVERY holiday — not just Christmas — is a joyous occasion full of all the gift-giving, laughing, eating, catching up, and being together that was snatched from me at age 16. Each December 23rd I take time to look at pictures, remember specific moments of joy and wonder that I shared with my sister-in-law — most of which were these holidays. In short: I refuse the “Poor Me’s.”

And it works!

That has freed me up to be more conscious of those around me, especially those who are less fortunate than me. I find ways — sometimes just small ways — to make this season a good one for other people. It most often takes little more than a kind smile, a pat on the back, or a “Merry Christmas” to several in the office or on the elevator. That works! I seldom do not receive a mutual smile, “Merry Christmas,” or “Thank You” in return.

Also this time of year, I am very conscious of all those who cannot be with their families for a multitude of reasons. The ones that stir me the most are members of the U.S. Military that find themselves deployed somewhere overseas. It’s especially tough for them to be alone — without the trappings of holidays that you and I will share with our loved ones the next few days.

In that spirit, here at TruthNewsNet.org today in our Podcast, a brief commercial will play followed immediately by a narration of “A Soldiers’ Christmas.” I warn you, it’s very sad; it certainly makes you think. But what I really want it to do when you listen is think of all of those — not JUST military members — who are alone this year. Say a prayer for them. And all this week, whenever you’re in a store, a restaurant, walking down the street, or just parking your car, watch for someone that comes into your life. Maybe it’s just for one moment. Maybe it’s someone you see every day. But INVEST in their lives: even with just a smile. But whether a smile, a “How are you?” a “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!” or simply “God Bless You,” invest in them.

Feel free to download the narration. It’s recorded over Mannheim Steamroller’s “Silent Night.” The song alone will want you to keep it to repeat in your future holidays!

Our prayer at TruthNewsNet is that this Christmas and this New Year will be the best ever for all of you. And we pray that God will keep our soldiers safe wherever they are and protect and keep their families. My message to all of them is “May God bless and keep you and yours. Thank you for sacrificing your life and the time away from your family for me — to keep us free and safe.”

For them and for all of you, Merry Christmas! We’ll talk before New Years Day.

Please know this: ‘THE BEST IS YET TO COME!”



The Senate 60 Vote Requirement

In this never-ending battle regarding shutting down the government amid the battle over the funding for a southern border wall, Democrats keep harping on the Senate 60-vote requirement. How could the framers of the Constitution be so short-sighted to think that 3/5ths of U.S. Senators would agree on any one issue?

But did the framers make that decision? NO!

Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison indicated in the Federalist Papers a clear belief in majority rule, with Hamilton saying that “the fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” Nonetheless, the Founders left the matter of House and Senate procedure undetermined in the Constitution, choosing instead to let Congress determine its own rules. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the Rules and Proceedings Clause, states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”

That is exactly what the Senate did. In fact, the original Senate rules placed no time limit on debate, but also allowed any Senator to make a motion “for the previous question,” which permitted a simple majority to halt debate on the pending question and bring the matter to an immediate vote. This motion for the previous question was eliminated in 1806 at the suggestion of Vice President Aaron Burr, largely because it was deemed superfluous.

Even with the elimination of the motion to end debate, filibusters were hardly a defining part of the Senate. Across the entire 19th century, there were only 23 filibusters. And from 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules to end a filibuster, until 1969, there were fewer than 50, less than one per year.

Eliminating the filibuster on some nominations will not change the basic nature of the Senate as a legislative body. In fact, it is largely a restorative move, returning the Senate to its historical norms, when Senate giants like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster carried the day through the force of their ideas, rather than by manipulating rarely used Senate rules that allowed a small minority to block the will of the people.

Nor has the “Nuclear Option” turned  the Senate into the House of Representatives, as some have charged. The Senate will continue to differ from the House in significant ways. Senators will continue to be elected very six years, rather than every two years as in the House of Representatives. Senators from the smallest states will continue to have the same power in the Senate as Senators from the largest states. And the Senate will continue to operate in most instances based on unanimous consent, unlike the House. In addition, the reforms enacted by the Senate pertain only to nominations, which are themselves solely the responsibility of the Senate.

That is not to say that I would not support changing the filibuster with respect to legislation as well. If the Senate were to take that step, however, it would be critical that the changes preserve the rights of the minority to offer relevant amendments and to have extended debate. That the minority should be provided certain rights within the Senate is without question. But the minority should not have the ability to block legislation. When this happens it creates a situation, says James Madison in the Federalist Papers, in which, “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.” And many feel the current vein of political elitism and anti-white male is already destroying the majority rule of the people.

The fact is that the filibuster is not, and never has been, the sacrosanct soul of the Senate that some are making it out to be. The framers never envisioned that a supermajority of 60 votes would be required to enact virtually any piece of legislation or to confirm nominees. Indeed, the Constitution was very clear about where a supermajority was needed. There were only five instances in the original Constitution: ratification of a treaty, override of a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of the Constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a member.

Reform of the filibuster stands squarely within a tradition of updating the Senate rules as needed to strengthen an effective government that can respond to the challenges of the day. The Senate has adopted rules to reform the filibuster in numerous circumstances, such as war powers and the budget. And prior to Former Nevada Senator Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option, since 1917, the Senate had passed only four other significant reforms concerning the filibuster.

A frequently repeated Republican talking point when Reid led the Senate back to the simple majority in the case of nominations is that Senate Democrats were “breaking the rules to change the rules.” This may be a catchy talking point, but that doesn’t make it true. The original Senate rules actually included a means to end debate by a simple majority. And the Constitution itself specifies that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” As Senator Robert Byrd, probably the greatest authority on Senate rules in American history, and himself a staunch opponent of filibuster reform said, “At any time that 51 Senators are determined to change the rule . . . that rule can be changed.” That is precisely what the Senate does whenever it invokes the nuclear option.

Some have argued that the rules change first seen in 2014 by the Senate was enacted simply so that Democrats could carry out their agenda. While this may have been true in the short-term, those with a longer view of history knew that, eventually, Republicans would come to power, and that Republicans would have the ability to carry out their own agenda. This is not only obvious, but appropriate. Democratic elections should have consequences. When the American people speak, whether they express a preference for Democrats or Republicans, those who win a majority at the ballot box should have the ability to carry out their agenda, and then be held accountable to the public.

The fact is that reform of the filibuster is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. At the heart of the debate is a single, simple question — do we believe in democracy? Do we believe that issues of public policy should be decided at the ballot box or by the manipulation of ancient Senate rules? Those who oppose any change to the filibuster rule, those who oppose the principle of majority rule, in reality are fearful that the people’s choices and wishes will be translated into action in Washington.

The Senate rules reform was not about a power grab or about the agenda of Senate Democrats. Rather, it was a vote of confidence in democracy and the good sense of the American people. Our union has remained successfully for more than two centuries because the American people have had the good sense to elect to Congress those whom they determine are most capable of carrying out their wishes, and to remove those who don’t. The American people do not fear democracy, and neither should their elected representatives in Congress.


There are some things regarding the Constitution that trouble me:

  1.  Originally Senators were appointed by governors and not elected. Why? Senators were to “represent the states.” My problem with the change is it throws the Senate into the popularity contest of elections rather than flying below the fray of having to campaign. Gubernatorial appointment makes much better sense to me.
  2. This 60-vote majority stuff is a hoax played on Americans. Yes, I understand the original intent when it was set was to force arduous and thorough debate without limits. But that was before America lived with “intstant everything.” US Senators today do not have the temperament or the stamina or sufficient fundamental knowledge of constitutional principles necessary to persuade opponents in debate. The current battle for border security is a case in point. Schumer — who is the supposed brainchild of Senate Democrats — made it quite clear why the 60-vote rule will not work: “President Trump, you will NEVER get your wall.” Decency, negotiation, compromise, nor what the American people want plays any role in this issue.

Some may claim that what we are experiencing now is exactly why we should have the cloture rule. I disagree. We’re in the middle of Bowl season with NFL playoffs about to start! And it’s Christmas!

Let’s just let Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, and Trump play a game of “Go Fish” with a winner-take-all finish. Finishing this circus that way may be the only way to shut-down the illegal migration slush-fund.

No Border Wall Mean The End of Trump?

It’s Dead! No money for the border wall and the government is shut down. Trump promised Americans if he was elected, he’d build the wall. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. And to make matters worse, funding for the federal Government — at least part of it — ended at midnight Friday night.

Trump has been a “promise machine.” He’s made numerous commitments to Americans before and since the 2016 election. The Left shudder everytime one of those promises leaves his lips. Why? Because most of his promises have been fulfilled — something Leftist politicians and media are not familiar with. They honestly do not quite know how to process it.

But they have ammunition, thanks to the Democrats in the Senate who refused once again to do the job of debate, negotiations, and finding common ground through compromise to get the job done.

Very little media will put the responsibility for this shutdown on Democrats. Trump will bear the blame. But with only 50 Senate votes and that rule that requires 60 votes in the Senate for passage, passing any legislation from the conservative side is virtually impossible. Chuck Schumer and his Senate minions know that. They refuse to negotiate and show zero willingness for compromise. Never mind that 80% of Americans want border security — whatever types of security it takes for that. Schumer and Pelosi live to do one thing and one thing only: thwart anything in the Trump agenda, regardless if it is good for the country.

I’ve said it here often, “The difference between Conservatives and Democrats is this: Conservatives hate liberal policies of Democrats. Democrats hate Conservatives.” We saw that play out in this legislative war the last two weeks.

Here’s the “Trump stuff” that frosts Democrat leadership in Congress:

First, it was Obamacare: “If elected President, we will repeal and replace Obamacare.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then it was government spending: “If elected President, we will cut wasteful spending that under Obama has doubled the federal debt in 8 years.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then it was taxes: “If elected President, we will pass a massive income tax cut for the middle class in America.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then, a border wall: “If elected President, we will build a really BIG wall at our southern border and Mexico will pay for it.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Is One out of Four Good Enough? Can Trump survive without providing that southern wall?
  • We all know the history of the Trump Congress pushing to get Obamacare to the floor of the Senate for debate before a Senate vote to repeal Obama’s premier legislative achievement. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) famously cast the deciding vote to kill the motion to even debate the pros and cons of Obamacare. On that one, President Trump has the luxury of being able to blame Establishment Republicans like McCain who voted with Democrats. That was “Strike One” against the President regarding his campaign promises. But it also was “Strike One” against Republican members of Congress who actually campaigned for re-election promising voters the repeal/replacement of the healthcare finance plan called Obamacare.
  • The U.S. government is a spending monster. Everyone knows that. The government waste is in the tens of billions of dollars each fiscal year. All of that money comes directly from U.S. taxpayers. And taxpayers are growing tired of carrying the water for Congressional runaway spending with runaway successful income tax revenues. Trump promised to cut government waste, therefore, cutting needless spending. The 2017 Omnibus Bill being signed into law by the President was “Strike Two.” It was the biggest budget spending bill in U.S. history that Trump said over and over again during his 2016 campaign and the early months of his presidency he would NOT sign into law WITHOUT the inclusion of funding for the border wall. In announcing his acceptance of the bloated spending bill that was passed in both Houses without border security funding, his reason for signing was because, in exchange for massive social spending increases demanded by Democrats, the Omnibus included an agreement for large military budget increases which had been stripped from Obama budgets during his 8 years in office. And Trump had promised to rebuild the American military for which he had to have previous military budget amounts restored.
  • No doubt the American taxpayer — especially the Middle Class — have been carrying a large, disproportionate share of income tax responsibility. Trump promised tax relief to those Americans. He was able to give that relief with significant tax cuts for almost every level of taxpayer. With the passing of these tax cuts, a surprising response was received from the private business community in the U.S. Hundreds of companies passed out significant cash bonuses to their workers. Additionally, many pay increases were given. And as the President promised, with those tax cuts that included cuts for corporations, billions of corporate dollars being held offshore flooded the U.S. as these corporations saw a switch in the view held by this Administration from that of Obama. Companies not only felt like changes were coming that would help them, they saw the President make such changes that immediately impacted corporate bottom lines. Individual and corporate tax cuts together gave the U.S. economy a shot in the arm not seen since Ronald Reagan.
  • Building a border wall with numerous other border security systems was key in Trump’s 2016 campaign. But since his inauguration, he has struggled to get funding from Congress — even with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate. The anticipated cost? $15 billion, initially. But with constant push-back from Democrats and even moderate Republicans, it became apparent that $15 billion was a non-starter. The President began negotiations to include a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, the cleanup of the dysfunctional legal immigration system, and other goodies in exchange for $5 billion to begin his border security projects, which include the wall. Congress stone-walled the President again. Experts will agree that the border wall was certainly the biggest reason Americans voted for him in 2016. Most Americans (as reported in numerous polls) want the government to enforce existing immigration laws, stop illegal migration, and to build a wall to slow or stop the flow of illegals across the southern border. So far, President Trump has failed to get the wall funded.

Will Trump’s Wall Failure Doom his Presidency?

That’s the big one.

Kellyanne Conway — senior advisor to the President — Wednesday morning appeared on “Fox and Friends” to respond to the suggestions that President Trump has caved on his demands for border control security funding to include the wall and was leaning towards walking away from his famous promise on live television from the Oval Office a week. The President warned Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer that he would NOT sign any bill to fund the government past December 22nd unless it included border security funding.

The big question from Americans until Thursday was: Will the President Cave?

That was the million dollar question. Leadership from both parties in the House and the Senate thought he would and presented a Continuing Resolution to the Senate which was unanimously approved. Before the House took it up, Trump notified Leadership he would NOT sign that bill into law WITHOUT $5 billion for the border wall! Everyone was shocked — especially the Media and Congressional leadership.

But consider this:

We have seen the President negotiate in many ways for many agenda items since taking office. But one thing is certain: he’s a negotiator. I found it difficult to believe that he would so abruptly make a 180 degree turn away from the thing that he has been so adamant about since he was pressured into signing that Omnibus bill in 2017: funding for the border wall. Who can forget that contentious televised Oval Office meeting with Schumer and Pelosi and how demonstrative Trump was in making it clear: no border wall funding, no spending bill signed. What caused the change of heart?

Honestly, I was certain he HAD NOT had a change of heart! I asked those questions:

  • Why would he after that very public meeting where he made very public demands suddenly walk away from those demands?
  • Why would he turn against American voters who many of which voted for him for President primarily because he was so adamant about border security and building the southern wall?
  • Why would he in the follow-up of his non-stop tweets with his demands for funding for the wall to prevent a government shutdown walk away and cave?

Answer: He must have not changed his mind!

Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take action on Friday evening to pass that measure passed from the House that included border wall funding. The government shutdown began Friday night at midnight.

We won’t go into the false premise that has been shouted from the Leftist media rooftops that “The Sky is Falling,” because it’s nothing but empty rhetoric. But you can rest assured President Trump has something in mind to “get er’ done!”

So what could be going on?

The U.S. Pledges $10.6 Billion For Central America and Southern Mexico…

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The United States pledged $5.8 billion in aid and investment Tuesday for strengthening government and economic development in Central America, and another $4.8 billion in development aid for southern Mexico. The U.S aid aims to promote better security conditions and job opportunities as part of a regional plan to allow Central Americans and Mexicans to remain in their countries and not have to emigrate. The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital.  “In sum I think this is good news, very good news for Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Newly inaugurated President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador waxed poetic about the plan to provide jobs so people won’t have to emigrate. “I have a dream that I want to see become a reality … that nobody will want to go work in the United States anymore,” Lopez Obrador said at a morning news conference before the announcement. The combination of public and private investment for the stay-at-home effort doesn’t require congressional approval, unlike Trump’s signature project to stem illegal immigration — a border wall.


What I see here is President Trump deploying a root-cause workaround for the current border argument, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo carrying it out.

I strongly suspect there was an agreement of this sort long before the USMCA was finalized and made public.  As part of an agreement with President Lopez-Obrador, these funds will be used to secure Mexico’s border effectively cutting-off the Central American migration flow before it can reach the Southern U.S. This approach is entirely in line with nationalist AMLO’s objectives for a larger and more stable economy within Mexico specifically by partnering with nationalist U.S. President Trump toward that common goal.

If Trump can’t get Congress to agree to defend the U.S. border, he can sure leverage and entice Lopez-Obrador to do it a few miles south.  This approach is President Trump working on optimal solutions while encountering domestic political roadblocks. This is exactly what President Trump does…. find solutions.

President Trump can sit around righteously fighting with the swamp over the security issues — the “historical and politically correct thing to do” — or he can fight the swamp while simultaneously deploying a solution that mitigates the issue at its root cause, thinking outside the box.

What else would a businessman president do?

Trump’s Border Wall: Dead or Alive!

First, it was Obamacare: “If elected President, we will repeal and replace Obamacare.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then it was government spending: “If elected President, we will cut wasteful spending that under Obama has doubled the federal debt in 8 years.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then it was taxes: “If elected President, we will pass a massive income tax cut for the middle class in America.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Then, a border wall: “If elected President, we will build a really BIG wall at our southern border and Mexico will pay for it.” (Candidate Donald Trump)

Is One out of Four Good Enough?


At TruthNewsNet.org we have contributing researchers that join us in gathering documentation for stories we bring. We launched research for this story on Tuesday evening of this week. We were rolling out our story today (Friday), UNTIL President Trump pulled his apparent “verbal” commitment to pull his demand for funding in any capital bill including funding for a border wall or he would not sign it.

Things changed!

Here’s our problem: our stories are published each morning at 01:45 AM Central. As I write this, (Thursday at 10:45 PM) the Senate has not taken up debate on the House Bill passed that includes $5.7 Billion for border security — including a wall. 

We ar suspending the balance of this story until it is determined whether Congress will vote with President Trump and the U.S. House of Representatives to fund the border wall as part of comprehensive immigration or will shut down the government.

That means, make certain you are here with us early Saturday morning when our comprehensive story is published with current data on this.

I must say: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer capsulated the truth that has led us here after the House vote. They each took the microphone with big eyes and knit brows in shock that the President has “put the American government in free-fall.” How did he do that? By taking a stand for what he was elected to do: close the southern border!

They irony here? Pelosi and Schumer have joined the ranks of prominent Democrats demanding border security with a wall in the past: Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, and the list goes on and on.

Do these politicians not know YouTube documents everything!!!!


See You Saturday morning!



Comey: A Sociopathic Danger to America

Fired FBI Director James Comey is once again in the crosshairs of Truth advocates in Congress. Comey appeared again before a joint Congressional committee hearing to answer questions. (We are waiting for the transcript of his testimony to be released and will share it when that happens) After his testimony, Comey visited with the press and explained EVERYTHING going on in D.C. and why it has been and is happening.

It will probably come as no surprise to you that none of what has happened, is happening, and certainly, those things that will result from the dozens of ongoing investigations into DOJ and FBI wrongdoing on multiple levels are his fault, a result of any of his actions, and certainly are not his responsibility.

Check this out:

Fired FBI Director James Comey after his closed-door testimony to Congress, when confronted, weighed in with his thoughts about Republicans, FOX News, President Trump, and (of course) added his personal opinion about everything that has been happening and those things ongoing in the current myriad of investigations in Washington D.C. But obviously, there are numerous things that have happened — primarily with those fired or who have been forced to retire from the FBI and DOJ — that Comey totally ignores in his analysis he shared with the World.

There is a common denominator in this entire debacle, and that common denominator is NOT President Trump: it’s James Comey. HE was the FBI Director who initiated the Hillary Clinton email investigation, stopped it, and started it again. HE was the FBI Director on whose watch the Steele Dossier was brought into focus and given legitimacy. HE was the FBI Director who signed-off on the grossly negligent, fact-missing, illegal FISA warrant applications that initiated the Mueller Investigation and all this noise. HE is the one who has been caught in lie after lie told in public settings and in his contradictory testimony.

Putting it mildly: Comey in the video/audio above rails against President Trump, Trump’s supporters, and FOX News for telling and supporting lies. In fact, COMEY IS THE LIAR!

It is appropriate today that using that position as the basis for this discussion — that Comey lies —  to analyze how such an important man in the Department of Justice could justify his actions in numerous false statements about much of every part of every DOJ and FBI investigation currently underway. To reasonable people, unreasonable actions like those of Comey cannot be explained in a reasonable way.

What type of liar could James Comey be?

A Sociopath

A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.

Compulsive Liar

A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary. For the most part, compulsive liars are not overly manipulative and cunning (unlike sociopaths), rather they simply lie out of habit—an automatic response which is hard to break and one that takes its toll on a relationship.

Normal Lies vs. Pathological Lies

Most people occasionally tell “normal” lies as a defense mechanism to avoid the consequences of the truth (e.g. “It was like that when I found it.”) When a lie is told to cheer up a friend or to spare another person’s feelings (e.g. “Your haircut looks great!”), it may be considered a strategy for facilitating positive contact.

In contrast, pathological lies have no social value and are often outlandish. They can have devastatingly negative impacts on those who tell them. As the size and frequency of their lies progress, pathological liars often lose the trust of their friends and family. Eventually, their friendships and relationships fail. In extreme cases, pathological lying can lead to legal problems, such as libel and fraud.

Pathological Liars vs. Compulsive Liars

Though often used interchangeably, the terms “pathological liar” and “compulsive liar” are different. Pathological and compulsive liars both make a habit of telling lies, but they have different motives for doing so.

Pathological liars are generally motivated by a desire to gain attention or sympathy. On the other hand, compulsive liars have no recognizable motive for lying and will do so no matter the situation at the time. They are not lying in an attempt to avoid trouble or gain some advantage over others. Actually, compulsive liars may feel powerless to stop themselves from telling lies.

In Which Category of Liars do we find James Comey?

We are not today (or any other day) going to try to ascertain what type of liar Comey is, why he lies, and how could an FBI Director do so again and again with impunity. What we DO know is that he has found an adoring Media who deplored Candidate and now President Donald Trump and continually look to Comey to provide more ammunition for their daily assaults on this White House.

What ammunition does Comey provide? “President Trump is a liar!” How often have we heard that from Comey in interviews?

What we DO know is that it apparently is critical to Comey that Americans like him. And to like someone, it is necessary to believe what that person says. It is obviously foremost in the mind of James Comey that Americans really trust him, like him, and believe what he says.

But how can we trust a former FBI Director that so categorically lies to the press and he obviously either believes or assumes the naivete of Americans will command their belief and trust? Here are just a few of his whoppers:

  • FISA Application: In a letter to the Justice Department’s Inspector General, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham say information Comey provided members of the Judiciary Committee in a private interview regarding the FISA application to spy on former Trump campaign official Carter Page was contradicted by the applications themselves. “What is the reason for the difference between what Mr. Comey told the Chairman and Ranking Member in March 2017, and what appears in the FISA application?” they ask. “No explanation for the inconsistencies has ever been provided,” they said, adding, “did Director Comey intentionally mislead the Committee?”
  • Trump Dossier: Comey testified that he briefed Trump about the salacious “dossier” before Trump was inaugurated because he’d learned that the media were about to report on it. But it’s more likely that Comey briefed Trump for the express purpose of getting its embarrassing content out into the public. Since, as soon as that meeting was over, it leaked to the press. As Graham and Grassley note in their IG letter, the press wasn’t covering the dossier before that briefing because they considered it unverified. But the mere fact that Trump had been briefed on it instantly made it newsworthy. “CNN only broke the story on the dossier because Mr. Comey briefed the President-Elect about it,” they note. In other words, it’s far more likely that Comey lied about why he briefed Trump, a briefing that just happened to get the entire Russia scandal story rolling in the press.
  • Trump Memos: Comey repeatedly asserted that none of the memos he wrote about his interactions with Trump contained any classified information. That matters because Comey took these memos with him after he got fired by Trump, in violation of FBI rules. Comey then shared some of the memos with a friend, who leaked them to the press. Despite Comey’s claims, however, the Hill reported that four of the seven memos did, in fact, contain classified information. So it’s highly likely that Comey shared classified information. Comey did admit that he leaked these documents in hopes that a special counsel would be appointed to investigate Trump. We don’t doubt that’s true.
  • Clinton Exoneration: Then there was Comey’s insistence that he hadn’t decided what to do about Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal until after the FBI interviewed her on July 2, 2016. Comey told Congress that “the decision was made after that (interview) because I didn’t know what was going to happen in that interview. She maybe lied in the interview in a way we could prove.” Long after Comey made that claim, however, draft FBI memos exonerating Clinton — written months before several key figures, including Clinton, had been interviewed — came to light, suggesting that the FBI was planning to exonerate her all along.
  • Then a text exchange from two top FBI officials indicated that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch also knew Clinton wouldn’t face charges before Clinton had been interviewed.
  • Finally, there’s the claim Comey made when he issued his statement exonerating Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” That, too, was not entirely true. As was noted by many federal legal experts in 2016, career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged. What’s more, a key term in Comey’s final statement was changed from earlier drafts from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” The difference was critical because gross negligence is specifically listed as a prosecutable offense when it comes to mishandling classified material, even if there was no intent to do wrong. In other words, the only way Comey could convincingly claim that Clinton’s actions were un-prosecutable was by watering down the language.

In a piece on the Lawfare Blog, Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes note that “The FBI takes telling the truth extremely seriously.” So much so that ” ‘lack of candor’ from employees is a fireable offense — and people are fired for it. Moreover, it doesn’t take an outright lie to be dismissed.” The authors were writing this in the context of why McCabe was fired.

Don’t expect Comey to own up to any of this, even though his tell-all book is titled “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.”

Tucker Carlson

Without question, the most detailed and specific commentator at FOX News is talk-show host Tucker Carlson. Much can be said for his style, his “in-your-face” interviews, and confrontational nature. But one thing is certain: Carlson is a researcher and a deep thinker. He often digs out a tidbit or two that no one else seems to have discovered.

I was intrigued during research for this story to find an example of Carlson’s investigative expertise regarding James Comey. Take a look/listen to it here:


Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is crass, self-confident, often arrogant and combative, and never leaves one wondering how he feels about anything. He is jealously loyal to those who he trusts: often to a fault, as he has discovered. Politics in D.C. is far different from the business world. And people who live and work inside the D.C. beltway are far different from average Americans.

Many feel Donald Trump met his match when he took-on James Comey and made Comey his personal foe. But I am fairly certain that Trump went into that confrontational relationship with his eyes wide open. Comey? Not so much. Let explain.

One thing the Queens mogul learned long ago to simply survive in commercial real estate in New York City is that people more often than not act differently from the perception they paint for all to see. In “Trump World,” that is far more prevalent than in everyday Middle America. And for one to survive in that Swamp requires fortitude far beyond that possessed by most, and the ability to “give it out before it gets thrown at you.” Let’s face it: building a professional career in Queens requires the ability to instantly understand those with whom one interacts. And responses to those people require instant action. Most in Washington don’t quite get that. However, most in Middle America do.

Enter Donald Trump.

We can summarize where the Trump v Comey case is by simply stating this: Trump changed the rules — changed the narrative of “conflict” that has lived almost exclusively one-sided in D.C. for generations. Washington government conflict until now has always been controlled by the “current” political party in power, either Democrats or Republicans. He changed the rules.

What if anything will happen to James Comey and his “associates” who are almost gone from the DOJ and FBI now? It’s anyone’s guess. If those decisions are left to the Mainstream Media, Democrats and Establishment Republicans, the answer is simple: Nothing. But if Trump survives, it will mean an end will have been put to the one-sided government operations that control Washington.

Only one will survive: Comey and Company or Donald Trump. No doubt, the D.C. Establishment is throwing their best game to beat the real estate mogul from Queens. Will their best be good enough?

Surviving in Queens is tough enough. But thriving in Queens says a lot. Donald Trump is NOT just a survivor.