Dems 2020: Radical Extremism

Americans have wondered for a while, “What is and will be the Democrat Party platform today and for the 2020 election cycle?” Wonder no more. The Democrat Party has moved so far to the left, not even Bernie Sanders recognizes it. And NO one should be surprised. Why?

There’s a simple answer: Democrats had nowhere else to go, other than to Extremism. Donald Trump has won the middle — where Democrats have always excelled. Their only “middle” scrap left on which to campaign is “Trump’s tax cuts left middle-class Americans out and has given the wealthiest of Americans billions in income.” That’s simply untrue. Then why are Dems who are scrambling to put their “candidate card” in for the 2020 White House race railing so loudly about something that is untrue? Because the  financial analysis is incomplete for determination of the exact impact of those tax cuts up and down the tax charts. And Dems need something — anything — to go after Trump other than how mean he is. They’re grasping for straws.

Where Is Democrat Extremism?

You don’t have to look very far. It’s everywhere. There are so many examples of Dems’ extremism — many of which we have exhaustively detailed here — that we will list them only in bullet point fashion, just to jog your memory.

  • The Green New Deal Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) takes credit for the 18-page manifesto with basic details of this “deal.” It probably is the MOST extreme of current Democrat proposals. It is such an elaborate scam that is fundamentally impossible for the U.S. to do, it deserves its own bullet point references. A brand new report released in the last few days sets the price tag for this proposal at $94 Trillion.

The resolution in Congress from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., calls for a “10-year national mobilization” that would include:

– “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

– “Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

– “Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”

– “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

– “Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”

– “Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”

– “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

– “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”

– “Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”

– “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

  • Medicare For All Touted nationally by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) in his 2016 run for the presidency, this idea is NOT a new one. Proponents have brought it up again and again from as far back as prior to World War II. But it always dies for lack of its feasibility on many levels. Such a plan in its purest form is financially unsustainable  — at least when compared to current healthcare. Sanders’ plan was not Medicare For All, but a “single-payer” system. The “Bernie-version” would greatly expand Medicare and overhaul it — for example, it would greatly expand the type of coverage offered and also eliminate deductibles, copays, and premiums. Private insurance companies are also currently a part of the Medicare system. That wouldn’t be the case under Sanders’ plan. It would eliminate co-pays and deductibles, would offer comprehensive coverage for a host of treatments heretofore typically not included in health insurance, like dental and vision care. The gargantuan cost of such a program is the primary reason single-payer health insurance has never been implemented. And Democrats of all ilks are all over this concept. Every declared Democrat candidate for president in 2020 has voiced their support for Medicare for All. Its cost according to several non-partisan groups: $32 Trillion over 10 years.
  • Free College Tuition No doubt college is expensive. Total student loan debt has reached an abysmal level, reaching per the latest report $1.56 trillion in total U.S. student loan debt. 44.7 million Americans currently have a student loan debt of which 11.5% is 90 days or more delinquent or are in default. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been a vocal proponent for free college tuition. However, several other declared Democrat presidential candidates are not so sure. But as a whole, Democrat Party members nationwide favor a plan for free college financed through increased taxes on the wealthy.
  • Gov’t takeover of Student Loan Debt This novel idea was the foundation of a secret plan created by former President Obama with Hillary Clinton. Obviously, it was never implemented, but leaks have confirmed that if Clinton had been elected President in 2016, this would have been chief among her policy proposals. Several Democrat presidential candidates are for the forgiveness of student loan debt. But as yet, no one has offered up a specific plan for doing so.
  • Late-term Abortion It began in New York which passed a law allowing abortion — with the consensus of the mother and a “medical professional” which is not necessarily a doctor — at any time up to the actual birth of a baby. That idea quickly showed up in Virginia’s legislature and is being considered in other states across the country. The outcry against this among many Americans reached a fevered pitch when a bill in the U.S. Senate that would require physicians to give medical care necessary to sustain the life of a baby that lived in a botched abortion procedure was shot down by Democrats who voted against the measure. In essence, by doing so, Senate Democrats endorsed the actual killing of a baby who is born alive after a botched abortion procedure.
  • Anti-Semitism Two professed Muslims were elected to the House Democrat majority in 2018. Muslims fundamentally debunk even the right for the existence of the nation of Israel. Newly elected Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) recent antisemitic comments threw the Democrat Party for yet another wild loop. Some Democrats in Congress voiced their disagreement with Omar’s stance against U.S. support of Israel; most were eerily silent. To many Americans, the Dem silence signaled a shift in Democrat Party national support for America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. In case after case, public comment after public comment, the two have made serious anti-semitic comments. Yet other Democrats throw out the allegation against Republicans for being anti-semitic without giving specifics showing such charges are true. Donald Trump has even been accused of anti-semitism, even though Jared Kushner — President Trump’s son-in-law and White House Advisor — is Jewish. Ivanka Trump has become a Jew and their children (who are the President’s grandchildren and who he adores) are Jewish.
  • Reparations Those Democrats declaring for president in 2020 have made it clear they support reparations for African Americans for the slavery of their ancestors. In doing so, those Democrats have revealed a likely objective Americans will probably see in the 2020 general election. But many Dems feel that may be a difficulty in primaries in that rank-and-file Democrat voters are split pretty much down racial lines regarding reparations. While reparations may play well among followers of Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, it will be a divisive topic for others.
  • Southern Border Security The Democrat talking point regarding border security — at least so far — has been that there is NO border security issue at the southern border that requires urgent action by the government like the declaration of a National Security Notification issued by President Trump. This may be the most polarizing party policy of Democrats for the 2020 election. Polls show that most Americans feel there IS a border crisis and they want the southern border enforced. Democrat candidates continue banging that drum while crying that President Trump is “ripping babies from the arms of their mothers.” That line may play well in soundbites, but facts do not bear out those claims. The same policies are in place today as were under President Obama that resulted in the same actions then as now.
  • Investigate, Investigate, Investigate At the writing of this story, the President’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen is appearing in a public hearing before the Democrat-controlled House Oversight Committee. As we reported in our most recent report here, that committee’s chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has notified all that they have and will launch relentless investigations into all things that pertain to the President  from even BEFORE he was inaugurated. Though that hearing is still ongoing, Mr. Cohen has been exposed in multiple lies other than those exposed previously. He testified to the committee he never wanted to be a part of a Trump Administration when in his sentencing summary for his crimes prosecuted by the Southern District of New York federal attorney, his personal texts and emails to his friends and associates detailed his desire and plans regarding what his anticipated role in the Administration would be. In his questionnaire he completed regarding his testimony before this committee, his answer to the question regarding what foreign entities with which he held contracts, his questionnaire answer was “Not Applicable.” But in his testimony when asked that question, he testified that he was contracted with 20 foreign companies. In fact, one GOP committee member made a motion for criminal referral of Mr. Cohen for violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act — the same act that led to federal criminal charges against Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta. Cohen testified that he overheard a telephone conversation via speaker between Mr. Trump and Roger Stone in which Stone told the President that Julian Assange of Wikileaks was about to make a massive public dump of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Cohen testified that happened on either July 18th or 19th. Cohen was shocked to be notified today that those emails and that dump were made public 5 weeks before that alleged phone call on June 10. As a side note regarding how outrageous the actions of Democrats are regarding their platform, the Democrat Chair and Vice-Chair of the House Oversight Committee actually met with Mr. Cohen to coordinate his testimony — a very unusual action which is also unethical and illustrates desperation of Democrats.


Angst among Democrats is front and center every day. And Americans — especially Democrats — are wondering where the party is on policies, who speaks for Democrats, how will the party successfully take-on President Trump in 2020. And they’re not getting good answers.

  1. It is true that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House has more women, persons of color and LGBT members than any House in history — and fewer white males. But many Democrats are wondering if that will be enough to win. And the day Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) was sworn in, her hand on a Quran, our first Palestinian-American congresswoman showed us what Democrats may expect. As a rally of leftists lustily cheered her on, Tlaib roared, “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive deleted)!” How did Pelosi respond to her “rookie’s” attack on Trump? Not only was no apology forthcoming from Pelosi, the host of the New American Leaders event where Tlaib spoke those words warmly endorsed her gutter language. Her remarks said Sayu Bhojwani, “were raw and honest, and came straight from the heart. … a refreshing break from the canned comments our elected leaders usually make. Tlaib spoke … with the fire that so many at our event wanted to hear.”
  2. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, the youngest member of the new House, told CNN there is “no question” President Donald Trump is a “racist,” for he regularly uses “historic dog whistles of white supremacy.” Ocasio-Cortez at no time has offered any support for racist allegations against Mr. Trump. Many Democrat voters are now asking for examples of those often-mentioned “dog whistles.” Are such racial attacks going to be a plank in the new Democrat Party platform?

Who’s running the Democrat Party? Where are they going? Less than two years before the next federal election and there being no answers to those questions is the actual reason for the all-out extremism being demonstrated by Democrats. Many Democrat leaders are very concerned about this as they should be. They and many others are asking this question: “Can we beat Donald Trump by simply beating the drum of emotion against the President or should we circle the wagons around the publicly incendiary policies (many which are mentioned above) trying to galvanize Democrat voters on the issues?” Can the Democrat Party make “The Green New Deal” and “Medicare for All” palatable to Americans, especially when their combined cost projection is just over $110 Trillion over 10 years, which is more than the entire tax revenue of the federal government?

Here’s the thing that Democrats don’t know or understand, or maybe just ignoring: Donald Trump. I have seen not a single Democrat politician act in a manner that shows they understand they are NOT dealing with a politician, that they ARE dealing with a legitimate businessman who is focused on specific issues in American life. He has committed and performed as President what is necessary to tackle and solve those issues. No Democrat so far has shown any initiative to address that capability that most American voters relate better with. Why? Almost all Americans are NOT politicians, do NOT have the fairy tale existence that most federal politicians have, and DO live day-to-day in a world that requires hard work, specific job performance, and accountability. American voters accountability? Achieving expected results for ALL those for whom they perform.

Politicians thumb their noses at that premise. And their doing so may cost them the White House — AGAIN.

This journalist at this point feels certain that without specific tangible, detailed, and Democrat Party supported policies with which American voters identify and embrace, Democrats are doomed to only continue to be who they appear to Americans to be today: Extremists, and nothing more. And their 2020 Platform: “Radical Extremism.”



“Investigator in Chief” Adam Schiff

The California Congressman loves the camera, loves the interview, and hates President Trump. He has now (with the Democrat Party control of the House of Representatives) seen Part 1 of his dream come true: the opportunity to be the “boss” of the House Intelligence Committee with unfettered access to whatever investigations his committee wants to initiate: chiefly that of harassment of this President. And that’s the direction that Congressman Schiff has already pointed his investigators.

Adam Schiff: “The Russians are Coming!” Claims in 2017

In 2017, Schiff was constantly in front of television cameras. This story came out in an interview Schiff had on MSNBC.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that there is “more than circumstantial evidence now” to suggest that President Donald Trump’s campaign may have colluded with Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election, but he would not offer details.

“I can tell you that the case is more than that,” Schiff told Chuck Todd on MSNBC. “And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now.”

Schiff Keeps it Going! Claims in 2018 Before Midterms

Schiff just kept pontificating about the President. He obviously is on a quest to “get” Mr. Trump.

During an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” host Margaret Brennan said she wanted to “drive distinctions as we’ve been saying here that some of the facts can get muddled here in the president’s language. I want to make sure we’re being precise in our conversation. Can you agree that there has been no evidence of collusion coordination or conspiracy that has been presented thus far between the Trump campaign and Russia?” she said.

“No, I don’t agree with that at all. I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. Now, that’s a different statement than saying that there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy. Bob Mueller will have to determine that,” Schiff said in response.

“It’s going to be important for Congress to ensure that U.S. foreign policy is being driven by U.S. national interests and not by Trump family finances,” Schiff said, in reference to the president’s business ties to Saudi Arabia and his pro-Saudi policies, such as backing the kingdom in its confrontation with neighboring Qatar. “The president has not truly divested his family’s interests or been the least bit transparent about it,” the congressman said, and lawmakers need to “make sure we’re protecting the country.”

In that CBS interview Schiff doubled and tripled down on Russian election tampering looming over the U.S. 2018 midterm elections and that President Trump and his administration firmly stand against the truth of such hacking. Schiff quoted statements made by heads of U.S. Intelligence agencies made in a press conference. U.S. intelligence agencies warn that Russia – among other countries posing cybersecurity threats – will continue to meddle in U.S. politics.

“Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will pose the greatest cyber threats to the United States during the next year,” the report states. “These states are using cyber operations as a low-cost tool of statecraft, and we assess that they will work to use cyber operations to achieve strategic objectives unless they face clear repercussions for their cyber operations.”

2018 Midterm Election Hacking or Not?

In spite of Schiff’s claims, a “different story” about Russian 2018 hacking in our elections has surfaced:

A new report from two top Trump administration officials said they have found no evidence that foreign governments had a significant impact on the integrity of the 2018 midterm elections. Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Homeland Security chief Kirstjen M. Nielsen said in a Feb. 4 report to President Donald Trump that both the election and political infrastructure used during the midterm vote were free from meaningful interference. The election marked a key test for Pentagon leaders, who were using the event as a measuring stick for a new cybersecurity strategy.

In the weeks leading up to the midterm elections, senior Trump administration officials worried about the potential for a series of cyber mishaps, from hacked preliminary results to inaccurate voter registration databases. Burke Wilson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber, told reporters Oct. 30 that the midterm elections was one metric that could be used to judge the success of the Trump administration’s plan to become more aggressive in cyberspace.

But the new report does not mean that other nations were quiet or that their efforts were non-existent during the midterm elections, only that they had no significant impact on the vote.“Russia, and other foreign countries, including China and Iran, conducted influence activities and messaging campaigns targeted at the United States to promote their strategic interests,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said in a December 21 report.

Adam Schiff Today

The 2018 Midterm elections are behind us. Congressman Schiff in coordination with Democrat heads of other House committees even before taking control of the new Congress ramped up getting set to take on Donald Trump with non-stop investigations. That meant subpoenas: subpoenas to the Trump Campaign and the White House for documents and records, subpoenas to members of the Trump Campaign and members of the Administration for sworn Congressional testimony, and has even threatened to subpoena Special Counsel Robert Mueller to appear. (Whatever happened to the praise and adoration Democrats had for Mueller and how afraid they were Trump would either fire Mueller or interfere in other ways with Mueller’s investigation?)

And Schiff continued:

“Within our committee, we certainly have a compelling interest in making sure that U.S. policy … is not driven by leverage that the Russians have over the president,” Schiff said. “There have been credible allegations that the Russians may have laundered money through the Trump organization, and if that’s the case, then we need to be able to look into it and be able to tell the country, ‘Yes, this is true,’ or ‘No, this is not.’ But I think it would be negligent not to find out.”

In that same conversation, Schiff identified some of the factual information he holds about wrongdoing of President Trump: “We know the president used a blocked cellphone during the campaign, and so naturally we sought to subpoena the phone records to determine whether the president, despite his protestations to the contrary, was knowing and approving of this meeting with the Russians to get dirt on his opponent,” Schiff said, without elaborating on the source of the claim that Trump frequently used a blocked number.

By the way, Schiff’s claim of the blocked phone purportedly used by President Trump to hide his “secrets” in his phone calls was debunked. The Donald Trump, Jr. calls in question were to other folks, not the President. But Schiff didn’t just now indicate he had “factual” information that verified Trump collusion with Russia.

Michael Cohen

The President’s former personal attorney is headed to Capitol Hill for testimony before Adam Schiff’s committee. In that testimony, the name Felix Sater will certainly come up in questions asked of Cohen by committee members. The political dance between Adam Schiff and Congress, Michael Cohen and Felix Sater are going to be very interesting. Felix Sater is the linchpin for the British Spygate scandal because he was James Comey’s FBI asset used to set up numerous October Surprises that were intended to “take out” candidate Trump. Felix is the “Russian spy” who tried, again and again, to set up Trump through the Trump Towers/Alfa Bank accusations, the Michael Cohen Russian sanctions letter, the meeting with Natalia Veselnetskya, the Russian Trump Towers deal, and many other crooked “frame-ups.”

Last year, Cohen pleaded guilty to a series of felonies, including campaign-finance violations that involved hush-money payments he made to two women who alleged past affairs with Trump to silence them just weeks before the 2016 presidential election.

Cohen also pleaded guilty to making false statements to congressional investigators about the scope and timeline of negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen had originally said that talks were not pursued past the very onset of 2016 only to later admit that they went on into that summer. He said he lied in order to keep in line with Trump’s narrative about the Russian dealings. Cohen was then sentenced to serve a three-year prison sentence for his conviction.

Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 total charges. But in the context of Cohen’s appearances before House and Senate Intelligence Committees, an obvious question even if not asked of Cohen will certainly dominate the atmosphere in those hearing rooms: What if anything should members of Congress or anyone else believe that Cohen says? Think about it: when testifying previously before House and Senate committees, Cohen lied! He was sworn, under oath, and he lied. And he pleaded guilty to lying: for which he is going to prison!

Only Cohen and his attorney have information regarding exactly what he will testify to in these hearings. But that really doesn’t matter. What matters is the truth and the fact that on multiple occasions about multiple issues in multiple answers to the Committee’s questions, Cohen lied. How does anyone know which if any of the things he testifies to is true and which is false? For me, “if the tree is poisoned, then the fruit of the tree is automatically poisoned as well.”

Don’t forget this: as of Tuesday, February 26th, Michael Cohen is no longer a lawyer. He’s joining Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama in that high honor. Bill and Hillary “voluntarily surrendered” their licenses. Michelle Obama declared herself as “inactive.” Barack Obama’s is in “retirement” status. But, “if it quacks and waddles it’s usually a duck.” Cohen was disbarred because of his felony conviction he just pled to.


The bottom line is this: Adam Schiff is willing to do pretty much anything to “get” President Trump. He’s made it a personal quest. Just as has U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Schiff has proven he is NOT above stretching the truth a bit to open the door to investigations, taint the opinions of the American people, and even lie. Their objective? To find some way to kick Donald Trump out of office.

Isn’t it a sad state of affairs that we in which find ourselves? A U.S. President has just endured two years of an approximate $50 million investigation by a person who holds what is literally the most powerful position in the United States — Special Counsel Robert Mueller? During that two-year period, the sitting president has been smeared as have members of his Cabinet, Administration, friends, and even his own family. For what? To find some way in which the President colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election away from Hillary Clinton.

Could it be more obvious to Americans that there is something to hide, something to cover, some mysterious gotcha hanging out there that Schiff, Blumenthal, and a host of other Democrat operatives and career politicrats fear will be uncovered in some way by President Trump or those in his Justice Department? Why else would there be such animus for a president who has done more for more American citizens than any other president in recent history? It can only be to keep hidden some very nasty things that if uncovered under the light of Justice would end many careers and probably send multiple people to prison.

Who are they and what have they done? I cannot answer that. But one thing is certain: THIS president is guilty of NO political wrongdoing or civil or criminal political activities. How do I know that? In the short time that he has even been a politician, every waking moment, every phone call, every email, every meeting, every conversation that he has had have been monitored electronically in at least one way and probably in multiple ways. His wrongdoing would be trumpeted to the World immediately upon discovery because the evildoers who are so desperate to cover up their misdeeds cannot afford for President Trump to continue down his present path. They are certain if he stays in the White House, their sins will be uncovered.

Q-Anon (who we have introduced to you earlier with a video or two) today stated this: “It’s going to be HISTORIC! Planned long ago. Within the next 21 days, BIG BIG BIG HAPPENINGS are going to take place.”

I have no idea who Q-Anon is or if there is any validity in what Q-Anon says. But with 70,000+ federal sealed indictments pending — a fact that we at TruthNewsNetwork have independently confirmed on our own — it seems that time is running out on a bunch of people.

I wonder who that could be?


Top Three Trump Lies

Every day some news outlet or two publishes a story about lies told by President Trump. It’s funny to me that I never saw, read, or heard any such stories about past presidents or even members of Congress for telling lies.

Virtually every member of the U.S. federal political system has been and will be condemned for lying at some point in their careers. Most of the time the lies they are accused of telling are not really lies but paraphrased statements regarding controversial topics, statistics, and policies that raise the rancors of partisanship among those with opposing views. But one thing is certain: whether not it is true, it appears that President Trump has been accused of telling more lies than any other president in my lifetime.

If you’re looking in today to read which are the top three lies Trump has told, you’re probably going to be disappointed. Why? We didn’t take the time to analyze each of the 6,000 or so he has been accused of telling. We’ll leave that to political pundits. But what we ARE doing here today is looking at the top three lies from various sources ABOUT President Trump. And trust me: there are many more than three.

People may argue about the three we have chosen. There are others in abundance that we could have chosen. But to TruthNewsNetwork, the top three are (in no particular order):

  1. Charlottesville statement that unequivocally proves President Trump is a Racist;
  2. Trump unilaterally separated babies from parents at the southern border;
  3. Trump and/or Trump Campaign members colluded with Russians to change the results of the 2016 election.

Let’s Dive In!


There is no doubt the horror in Charlottesville, Virginia that occurred during a demonstration in 2017 was a travesty. In the demonstration-turned-riot, one woman was tragically killed.

Certainly, President Trump had nothing to do with the demonstration or subsequent violence. But if you pay attention to the national media, you probably think someone in the Trump Administration was on the phone orchestrating the violence — maybe even Donald Trump himself!

The uproar began when while speaking to the press about the racial-filled tension turned violence the President spoke about those who took an active role in the demonstration sponsored by a white supremacist group. The branding of the President just months into the first political position of his life as a racist began when he made this statement:

“You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

That statement alone lit the racist cries against President Trump. Who was surprised that the media pounced on that sentence. It has only worsened since. But they all either missed something or have chosen to ignore it.

What was missed?

The President by anyone’s description was and is not a polished politician. He often speaks in soundbites as do most businessmen. It is expected for statements of fact to be put in context by listeners. Not so in politics.

The President later put that sentence in the context from which he spoke it. The protest in Charlottesville — at least the one that was legally permitted — was to protest against the recent rush around the country to remove or destroy monuments and/or statues that for many years have been in memory of leaders from the Civil War. The outcry was loudest about those of those leaders who owned slaves. President Trump shared the context later saying this:

“George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? …Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? Do you like him? OK, good. Are we going to take down his statue, because he was a major slave owner? Now we’re going to take down his statue. So you know what? It’s fine. You’re changing history, you’re changing a culture, and you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2017

Is Trump a Racist?

If you listen to Hollywood elitists, Democrats, civil rights leaders, and leftist media members, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” Based on one sentence? Come on! Only in this divisive political environment would anyone make such an allegation. Why? It’s not based on facts.

Do we really want a single sentence taken out of context to determine our racial status in the minds of the entire world? If that was the determinant, there would be no human being deemed to be OK. No, we take decisions, actions, conversations, interactions with a multitude of people and circumstances over a period of years to determine the character of a person.

In his history of owning dozens of companies, employing hundreds of thousands of Americans from multiple races, religions, ethnicities, and sexes, there have been NO allegations of racism against Donald Trump over the past 50 years. I doubt the same can be said for any of those who scream the loudest that this President is a racist.

Southern Border Baby Separation

“President Trump unilaterally took action to separate children from their parents at the southern border! It’s heartless! It’s racist! It’s un-American! It’s against U.S. law!”

We hear that again and again from pretty much everyone who disagrees fundamentally with the Trump Administration. But those statements are absolute lies.

Wait a minute: children have been separated from their parents at the southern border. How do you explain that?

When an adult crossing the border with a child is detained for criminal prosecution, the child is then considered an “unaccompanied minor” by U.S. immigration law. Thus, while the law itself doesn’t require the separation of children, an increase in prosecution of illegal immigrants has that effect. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained: “If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” Sessions said.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a press briefing at the White House that children are separated from adults attempting to cross the border illegally to protect them from smuggling or trafficking. They’re only separated when there is no documentation of a custodial relationship, Nielsen said.

The real reason for any illegal child being separated from their illegal parent? That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so. If a parent makes a claim seeking asylum, they are going to be in that process far longer than the 20 days that a child can be held. Thus, the children (by that decree) must be handed over to the HHS to find temporary foster care.

Remember that picture that went viral showing the Trump Administration holding young children being held in cages at the southern border? Those pictures were actually taken of children separated from their parents for the exact same reason during the Obama Administration!

Was there a similar uproar from Democrats and the media about those children being held in cages? Nope.

Trump – Russia Collusion During 2016 Election Cycle

More than two years and a reported $50 million later, we have a Special Counsel with a fleet of attorneys investigating around the clock and calendar to find that Russia collusion. None has surfaced.

Robert Mueller accepted the appointed as Special Counsel with specific orders to investigate the Trump Campaign for collusion and any other possible criminal matters that may arise from collusion investigations. Yes, there have been multiple indictments initiated by Mueller’s findings, but none having anything to do with Russian collusion.

Let’s face facts: we all know that there was NO collusion by the Trump Administration with the Russians. “If” there had been any such collusion, WE WOULD ALL KNOW ABOUT IT IN VIVID DETAIL BY NOW! In the “loose lips” and frenzied anti-Trump media turning over every rock to find anything negative about this President, any such wrongdoing would have been trumpeted (pun intended) throughout America, not to mention the world.

No collusion. NO COLLUSION!

But don’t ever think Democrat political elitists are going to do what they instructed the President to do again and again: “Shut up and let Robert Mueller do his job unimpeded. And, Mr. President, don’t you dare think about interfering in any way. The Congressional Boogy Man will get you if you do!”

No Russian collusion has been exposed. But what HAS been exposed is the real intention of the Democrat Party as led by Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) hinted that he would not accept the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller as the end of the investigation into President Donald Trump and Russia. Schiff and other House Democrats have hired new investigative staff and begun to leak to the public their plans to launch their own aggressive investigation in the President even if he is totally exonerated from any wrongdoing. Why is that?


Without even any little tidbit to throw at Donald Trump in the 2020 campaign, they are justifiably horrified that he will serve a second term. And they certainly don’t care about any of the abundant in a number of achievements in the country under this President, many of which are historical achievements expected by very few.


“Same song, second verse.”

While most Americans watch their bank accounts, 401k’s, IRA’s, other retirement accounts rise like never before in history, they watch the unemployment rate for women, African Americans, Latinos, and young Americans fall to lowest in history levels.

Businesses numbered in dozens and dozens are expanding, raising employee wages, and re-patriating billions of dollars being held offshore for decades. DEMS DON’T CARE! In fact they are horrified at these Trump accomplishments.

Why? This doesn’t fit their Leftist political agenda. This wasn’t supposed to happen!

If Trump wins the White House for another term, the Democrat Party faces massive problems. They are frantic and have no other plan around which they can unify other than “Dump Trump.”

How’s That playing with Americans?  This month the Trump approval number in the non-partisan Rasmussen poll climbed above 50%.

In short, there certainly are things about this president that many would love to see changed. That is probably true about every past president, too. But what is certain to this journalist and more than half the nation is that Leftists in Congress, the Democrat Party, and especially in the Mainstream media are piling on Donald Trump with many allegations that are untrue.

Let’s watch as the frenzy called the Democrat Party unfolds with candidates jumping into the race get more and more radical, all the while sending Democrat voters straight into the Trump column.

The “Walkaway” campaign membership is growing everyday!


America’s Socialist Darling: “AOC

Few could believe that a bartender from The Bronx could upset the 3rd most powerful Democrat in Congress. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did just that. She’s now a member of the United States Congress: a loud member, and is an example of the “new breed” taking over Washington. And she’s taken leadership from Senator Bernie Sanders and is not the “Purveyor-in-Chief” of Socialism in America.

“AOC” (as she’s called) began her endorsement of Socialism and her anti-Capitalist campaign in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. Her following is bountiful, comprised mostly of Millennials who love the idea of the government paying for EVERYTHING. She’s picked up that mantle and is racing down a path toward Socialism with NO hesitation.

In doing so, AOC’s shiny exterior is beginning to show some wear — the in-your-face facts of true Socialism are currently playing out on the world stage in a not-so-pretty fashion. 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The reality is, she is — like so many people crying out for socialism today — responding to a form of trendy political “hipsterism.” The need to signal herself as a radical, a leader of counter-culture, ahead of her time, rebelliously new-age icon is powerful, and adopting a once-scorned label and trying to make it cool is a great way to do that.

She doesn’t have to actually understand socialism at all, she can just makeup whatever she wants and call it socialism. She can position herself as mainstream and her opposition as extremist by suggesting that any and all government action, tax collection or spending is an example of socialism. “What, do you hate road, highways and schools, you dinosaur?”

I understand why Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s philosophy can be mistaken for actual socialism. They both have in common their glorification of big, powerful government. They both have a slavish devotion to the state. They both require restrictions on personal freedom. They both worship at the altar of humanitarianism. There’s no doubt, they do share a lot in common, and I don’t think there is any question that Ocasio-Cortez’s actual philosophy paves the road for her stated philosophy.

But it is important to say without question that actual socialism is, in fact, worse than the agenda of the typical American liberal, and I think we need to start making that plainly clear so that we don’t ever open the door to socialism — real socialism — being implemented in this country.

One of the reasons that socialism has been such a miserable failure — worldwide — over the course of the last hundred years, is because it inevitably takes a very strong, centralized government command economy that restricts civil, political and economic freedom to force society to behave in the way that socialism demands. This isn’t FDR or Barack Obama’s big government, we are talking about. This is Venezuela’s big government.

There actually aren’t very many countries left that practice true socialism. Those that do, (like just-mentioned Venezuela) are riddled with political corruption — which unfortunately flows from a powerful central authority —  as well as economic instability, stagnant growth, and virtually non-existent personal freedom.

But to socialists, Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union and every other failed state that practices socialism is not “real” socialism. No, they are fake socialism. They were just doing it wrong.

Fake socialists and real socialists alike will tell you that today there are in fact socialist success stories, like the Scandinavian countries, which are constantly held up as shining “see, I told you so!” examples of socialism in action.

This, predictably, is not true.

Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are not socialistic. As the Foundation for Economic Education pointed out two years ago, in Scandinavia (like virtually all wealthy, economically developed western countries) the means of production is mostly owned by private individuals. It is not owned by the government or the local community.

More importantly, resources are not allocated by central government planning, but rather by various capitalistic markets. Scandinavians operate under a privately owned, market economy.

People think that the Scandinavians — and the rest of Europe, while we’re at it — are socialist because they have a very extensive social safety net, and heavy government spending. Conservatives have historically reinforced this perception, using the term “socialist” to describe them because they associate high taxes,  spending, and big government with socialism.

But once again, government programs and the welfare state — whatever your opinion on their wisdom — are not examples of socialism. The Nordic model so frequently cited as a success is really just the European concept of “social democracy,” which ultimately boils down to public welfare mixed with a capitalistic economy.

The Scandinavians themselves reject the socialist label. Speaking in a lecture at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government during the last presidential election, Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen didn’t mince words.

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said. “The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.

No doubt, comparing the Ocasio-Cortez socialism model with that of Scandinavia and Europe does not fly with reality. But still, AOC and her followers think that, call it that, and will go to the mat screaming THAT socialism model is the one the U.S. must have.

The “Green New Deal”

Who doesn’t think the U.S. and every other country must get their environmental goals and objectives cleaned up? Who doesn’t want clean air, clean water, and less reliance on fossil fuels? Who doesn’t want more green energy?

But who thinks we should find ways to get to those objectives with realistic and attainable steps? Who REALLY thinks we can achieve the Green New Deal plans for NO fossil fuel cars, NO fossil fuel air travel, retro-fitted buildings — ALL buildings — to be totally fuel efficient, solar and air power at full speed in just 10 years?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does. How? We don’t know. Her “deal” that has taken Washington by storm is actually NOT legislation at all — though she claims it is. It is actually an 18-page draft document — “draft” being the operative word. Several draft versions of the Green New Deal have come and gone from the Congresswoman’s website, specifically the one that included the problem in getting cows to stop farting.

Meanwhile, Back in the Big Apple….

Then there were her victory laps for taking leadership in killing the Amazon deal to bring their 2nd headquarters to Long Island — just next to HER district — along with 25,000-40,000 jobs in the tech sector. New York Mayor de Blasio stated the Amazon deal would have given New York $27 billion in new revenue. Those would be NEW jobs. Her reasoning? It would be stupid for New York to cut a $3 billion check to Amazon. New York should instead take that $3 billion and invest it in infrastructure, education, and paying off college student educational debt.

Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to understand that by helping to drive Amazon away, she did not save New York $3 billion; she cost New York $27 billion. There is a difference between having bad ideas and not grasping basic facts. Reasonable people can disagree about whether New York should have offered Amazon $3 billion in tax incentives — or anything at all — to build its headquarters in the city. But that is different from not understanding that New York is not writing a $3 billion check to Amazon.


Millions have watched as Ocasio-Cortez has whipped her followers into a frenzy after frenzy, breathlessly dominating prime time news minutes. Many of those millions have been wondering why leaders in the Democrat Party have not stepped into to muzzle this rookie who is just barely even in Congress. But so far every announced Democrat candidate for the 2020 presidency has loudly proclaimed their support for that Green New Deal. They are doing so not even knowing what is in it — BECAUSE IT HASN’T BEEN WRITTEN YET! But endorsing her deal is the “hip” thing to do right now — forget about the $7 trillion estimated price tag. We all know that in “D.C. Speak,” $7 trillion really means “$20-30 trillion — maybe that…maybe more.”

But while we’re waiting for Pelosi and Schumer to rein in their starlet from the Bronx, consider this: maybe, just maybe, they don’t want to rein her in. Maybe they are confident her blazing exuberance will burn out before they have to step in and shut her up. So far, she’s doing a pretty good job working on that. Chuck and Nancy maybe just “giving her enough rope to hang herself.”

Even if Ocasio-Cortez loses her steam and her bully pulpit, the scary thing remains that talks about socialism and its merits are today, have been for several years, and likely will continue and probably even increase, with AOC and her followers aggressively pushing it to other Millenials as exactly where the U.S. must go to survive.

How will they handle that?

Don’t think for one moment that what she is selling is new to them. An entire generation of American youngsters has for more than a decade worshipped at the altar of socialism being propagated by teachers and professors across the nation. Highschools and universities are full of 1960’s hippy and free love loyalists who were taught Big Brother was evil. That generation has grown up and is now teaching our kids and their kids the glories of Big Brother and government doing for and providing citizens everything necessary to be happy.

Baby Boomers can’t fathom that. But our kids can…and do.

Chuck and Nancy are holding on to the hope that Ocasio-Cortez’s star will burn out and she’ll melt back into the landscape of Washington, quietly taking her rightful place as a rookie lawmaker. But I’m not confident AOC will be comfortable with that.

She’s confrontational, she’s loud, she’s opinionated, and she’s a woman on a quest. She was outspent in her 2018 election campaign 18 times over by her establishment opponent, and she still won. She’s a fighter. She’s not “quietly going into the night.”

But as we all watch exactly what longterm impact she will have on her party and the U.S. Congress, she will certainly give Americans a few laughs. Her tenure in office so far has been replete with the opportunities for giggles and chuckles. Try YouTube and enter her name for a search. You’ll get more than just a few good laughs. Like this:

”Jack walked into a sports bar around 9:58 pm. He sat down next to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) at the bar and stared up at the TV as the 10:00 o’clock news came on. The news crew was covering a story of a man perched on a ledge of a large building preparing to jump.
Alexandria looked at Jack and said, “Do you think he’ll jump?”
Jack says, “You know what, I bet he will.”
Alexandria replied, “Well, I bet he won’t.”
Jack placed a couple of twenties on the bar and said, “You’re on!”
Just as she placed her money on the bar, the guy did a swan dive off of the building, falling to his death.
Alexandria was very upset, but she handed Jack her $40, saying, “Fair’s fair, here’s your money.”
Jack replied, “I can’t take your money, I saw this earlier on the 5 o’clock news and knew he would jump.”
Alexandria replies, “I did too; I just didn’t think he’d do it again.”

No matter how successful the young Congresswoman is in D.C., we’ll all get plenty of laughs at her expense.

Don’t go postal on me: every politician is fair game when it comes to being fuel for jokes! Even Obama chuckled at some of the jokes at his expense.

And so does the “orange-hair” guy in the White House!





Our Constitutional Crisis

Few will argue that the uproar about Trump since his election as President has created a huge divide right down the middle of our country. It seems that everyone has taken sides — Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal, Democrat and Republican. And the divide parallels America’s political persuasion.

But the divide really is a Constitutional crisis. The crisis is this: will Americans embrace our founding document or run away from it, finding a NEW way of governing. 

The crisis is one that is certainly not based on facts, the law, right or wrong, but is a direct product of American emotion: those on the U.S. political left cannot stand this President. Reason, historical precedence, and the fact that this President — ANY President — is voted INTO office and can be voted OUT OF office the same way.

Our forefathers came from a world where elections like ours did not exist. A class of elites determined everything — for everybody. They ran as far and fast as possible from that environment, returning the power those elitists held in Europe to the People. 

The “Mob” summarily rejects that form of government, even though they loudly proclaim their support for our representative democracy. But they want it both ways. That’s where our Constitutional Crisis comes from. 

From wherever, whoever originated it, and its eventual outcome are discussed in this story in a very meaningful way. Conrad Black gives us an objective analysis of our crisis that every American needs to digest. Remember: at TruthNewsNetwork, “we never tell you what to think. We give you truths to think about.”

America’s Constitutional Crisis

The most immense and dangerous public scandal in American history is finally cracking open like a ripe pomegranate. The broad swath of the Trump-hating media that has participated in what has amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to overthrow the government are reduced to reporting the events and revelations of the scandal in which they have been complicit, in a po-faced ho-hum manner to impart to the misinformed public that this is as routine as stock market fluctuations or the burning of an American flag in Tehran.

For more than two years, the United States and the world have had two competing narratives: that an elected president of the United States was a Russian agent whom the Kremlin helped elect; and its rival narrative that senior officials of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and other national intelligence organizations had repeatedly lied under oath, misinformed federal officials, and meddled in partisan political matters illegally and unconstitutionally and had effectively tried to influence the outcome of a presidential election, and then undo its result by falsely propagating the first narrative. It is now obvious and indisputable that the second narrative is the correct one.

The authors, accomplices, and dupes of this attempted overthrow of constitutional government are now well along in reciting their misconduct without embarrassment or remorse because—in fired FBI Director James Comey’s formulation—a “higher duty” than the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution compelled them. Or—in fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s words—“the threat” was too great. Nevermind that the nature of “the threat” was that the people might elect someone he and Comey disapproved of as president and that that person might actually serve his term, as elected.

A Long List of Offenders—and Offenses
The extent of the criminal misconduct of the former law enforcement and intelligence chiefs is now notorious, but to make the right point here, it has to be summarized. The fact that the officially preferred candidate lied to federal officials about her emails and acted in outright contempt of Congress and the legal process in the destruction of evidence, was simply ignored by the FBI director, who announced that she would not be prosecuted, though he had no authority to make that determination.

The dossier of salacious gossip and defamatory falsehoods amassed by a retired British spy from the lowest grade of intelligence sources in Russia, commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was circulated to the media by high public officials and cited in illegal and dishonest applications to authorize surveillance of the campaign of the other presidential candidate. A special counsel was empowered on the false pretext of the necessity to get to the bottom of Trump-Russian collusion in the election, of which there was and remains no evidence because it did not occur and was a complete partisan fabrication.

Large sections of the media colluded with the Democratic campaign and produced the doctrine that anything was justifiable, no matter how dishonest, to destroy the incoming president’s reputation and damage him in public opinion polls to legitimize attempts to remove him from office. Large sections of the media deliberately deluged the public with stories they knew to be false about the new president and referred to him in terms of unprecedented vituperation in what purported to be reportage and not comment.

This unorganized but widespread campaign of defamation was taken up by a great number of ordinarily newsworthy celebrities and was accompanied by false, unresearched stories denigrating President Trump’s supporters, such as the false claims about Catholic school students’ treatment of an elderly native American and the false claim that actor Jussie Smollett had been beaten up and reviled by Trump supporters. The former intelligence chiefs of the nation under President Obama repeatedly have accused this president of treason, the most heinous of all crimes, and have asserted with the authority of their former positions that the Russians determined the result of the 2016 presidential election. They knew this to be entirely false.

The special counsel has failed to find any evidence of the collusion and electoral interference that was the justification for establishing his inquiry, and the Democrats are already expressing disappointment in his failure to produce such evidence when the leading Democratic members of congressional investigative committees still robotically claim to have at least prima facie evidence of such collusion.

The dishonest attempt of much of the opposition and what even left-leaning media-monitoring organizations record as 90 percent of the national media, continued for more than two years to try to condition the country to believe that the president had committed the “high crimes and misdemeanors” required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal from office.

The special counsel, apart from smearing the president, distracted public attention from or tended to justify the ever more evident misconduct of the president’s enemies. And we now know that Comey, despite his “higher duty,” lied to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, illegally leaked to the New York Times the contents of a self-serving memo he purloined from the government, and lied to Congress by claiming 245 times in one sitting to be ignorant of recent matters that no one of sound mind could have forgotten.

And now we have Andrew McCabe’s proud confirmation that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein not only continued the illegal counterintelligence investigation of President Trump, but actively discussed methods of securing his removal from office by deliberate misuse of a variety of laws, including the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment to deal with mental incompetence, and the Logan Act of 1799, which has never been used successfully and has not been tested in 150 years.

Make Those Responsible Pay at the Polls
This entire monstrous travesty is finally coming apart without even waiting for the horrible disappointment of the special counsel’s inability to adduce a scrap of evidence to justify his replication of Torquemada as an inquisitor and of the Gestapo and KGB at rounding up and accusing unarmed individuals who were not flight risks. The collapse of this grotesque putsch, under the irresistible pressure of a functioning attorney general and Senate committees that are not hamstrung by NeverTrumpers, will cause a revulsion against the Democratic Party that will be seismic and prolonged.

The disgrace of their misconduct is profound and shocking. Richard Nixon, against whom there is no conclusive evidence that he broke any laws (although a number of people in his entourage did) never did anything like this. J. Edgar Hoover in 47 years at the head of the FBI and its predecessor organization, never tried to meddle in a presidential election. Those responsible will pay for this, including at the polls.

Without realizing the proportions of the emergency, America has survived the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. All those who legitimately oppose or dislike the president, including traditional high-brow Republicans who find him distasteful, should join in the condemnation of this largely criminal assault on democracy, and then, if they wish, go out and try to beat him fair and square, the good old-fashioned way, in a free election. But they must abide by the election’s result.


”It’s new…it’s exciting…and it’s coming soon to your neighborhood!” I thought this being the most innovative country in world history meant we had either invented or discovered everything there possibly was to invent or discover: until now. Actor Jussie Mollett just proved me wrong. He added one to the record book: “Hate-Hoaxing.” I don’t know if Jussie invented or discovered it. But what I DO know is that he at least put it on the front page of every newspaper, lead story of every newscast, and slug line of every internet news site. He gave it a life of its own.

Mollett’s Hoax

The perplexing story as it has come together regarding the black, gay television star in Chicago illustrates just how dividing the racial and sexual animus is in the U.S. And the finger pointing and blame game have been running amuck.

Why all of a sudden do we have people unable to study while black, unable to mow a lawn while black, unable to have a picnic while black and being attacked?” wondered Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. She answered her own question: “It’s coming from the president of the United States.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said: “When one of the most famous black and gay men in America is not safe, the message is clearer than it has ever been. The dangerous lies spewing from the right wing is (sic) killing & hurting our people.”

The same day that this scenario unfolded, GQ magazine published their writer Joshua Rivera’s rant on “the blind rage of late-stage whiteness” beneath this headline: “The Racist, Homophobic Attack on Jussie Smollett Is Far-Right America’s Endgame.”

Rivera complained that police called this a “possible hate crime.” He moaned: “The cautious wording is one last wound inflicted on Smollett’s battered body, careful hedging of bets that don’t need hedging – a crime scene involving a corpse is not discussed aspossible death.’”

Actress Alyssa Milano took her usual position on such occurrences tweeting: “The red MAGA hat is the new white hood,” she wrote on Twitter. “Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself.” #FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp.

I have news for Alyssa Milano, Maxine Waters, Rashida Tlaib, and Mr. Rivera: this entire debacle WAS AND IS A HATE CRIME! But Oh the irony! Smollett was NOT the victim — he was the “HateHoaxer.” The victims were President Trump and all who consider themselves conservative.

Smollett Thursday morning was in police custody, awaiting charges regarding the reported attack committed by two men against the actor in Chicago.

Smollett’s attorneys Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson stated, “Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked. Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense.”

The first travesty of this event is that with Chicago’s staggering crimes — especially those of assault and even murders — several dozen officers were taken away from their normal jobs of investigating those crimes to around-the-clock investigating the reported hate crime against Smollett. Smollett will certainly be forced to pay those “hard” costs sustained by the police. But will we ever know the REAL cost paid by Chicago residents who were not able to receive police protection because of the Smollett investigation? Few if any media reports will reference those.

The second travesty is the creation of a “new” divisive classification that the obvious charade perpetrated by Smollett birthed: “HateHoaxing.” It’s happened before — just not often enough to get its own name. But the uproar among those who have made themselves (or have been made by others) arbiters of identifying and calling-out sex and/or racial criminal acts have a new class of discriminated-against Americans to which to lend their undying support: those victimized by “HateHoaxers.” The problem, in this case, is that the darling of the Left — Jussie Smollett — is NOT the victim of this incident. Jussie is the “HateHoaxer.”

Shrinks will have a heyday with this. Why? We now have a new class of disadvantaged and discriminated-against Americans who will need psychological assistance in overcoming the trauma they sustain from being targets of “Hate-Hoaxing.” It’s been around for a while. But the desperation on the part of leftists to rid themselves of Donald Trump has taken “Hate-Hoaxing” to new heights. And it’s NOT exclusive to this matter starring Jussie Smollett. I could take a huge chunk of your day by listing dozens of examples of other such attacks on President Trump from people from every walk of life. The videos of some of those hoaxes are mind-boggling.

There are many traps being created not by these hoaxes, but by the mindset that allows them to even happen. Can you imagine what thought process Smollett went through to put this  plan in place? (And he wasn’t very smart with his methodology) Let’s bullet point them:

  1. Police said Smollett was walking home from a Subway restaurant, in the 300 block of E. Lower North Water Street, around 2 a.m. on January 29th when two offenders yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him. According to Smollett, they beat him, put a noose around his neck, poured bleach on him, yelled homophobic slurs at him and cried “This is MAGA country!”
  2. Have you ever been to Chicago on a January 29th? I have. It’s cold! That day at that time, the REAL temperature was 1 degree — windchill was -11 degrees. To make it more unbelievable is that address is 1 block from Lake Michigan! The windchill in that part of Chicago would have been at least -25 degrees at that time.
  3. After attacking him, the men shouted “This is MAGA country!” Hmmm…..Chicago voters gave Trump a scant 12% of their votes in 2016. I doubt there are ANY black guys in Chicago that consider the Windy City “MAGA Country.”
  4. Two black attackers. When I’m in Chicago, I stay at a hotel just 1 block from Lower North Water Street. Seldom have I been outside at 2 a.m. — especially not with below freezing temperatures — but I assure you, two black guys roaming downtown at that time in those conditions is sketchy at best.
  5. Jussie wrote a $3500 check to pay them for the setup attack. WROTE A CHECK! I don’t know Jussie or how intelligent he is. He does well in his series Empire, so I assume he is intelligent. Writing a check — a very traceable check — for a setup hoax was NOT intelligent.

The Sting

I kept waiting as the Smollett story developed over 10 days for Robert Redford to show up to perpetrate “The Sting,” just like he did in the blockbuster movie of the same name. But the Smollett actions and attempted coverup were NOT a sting. The big sting in this all was the extreme outcry about what would have been an amazingly atrocious homophobic, racist attack against a well-known entertainer who lives in two minority groups. But such a story was a blockbuster for the Mainstream Media in America and their fawning California, New York, and Washington leftist minions. And they did not disappoint.

The New York Times story headline January 29th just after the “alleged” attack: Jussie Smollett, Star of ‘Empire,’ Attacked in What Police Call a Possible Hate Crime.

Writer after writer, television commentator after commentator, talk show hosts almost without number, blasted the President of the United States because two of his reported backers did this to a homosexual black man.

The sting is that the Left — not the media, not Democrats, not Hollywood, but ALL of those on the Left — showed their colors in the Trump attacks. And in doing so, we discovered something: America’s “slip is showing.”


America’s “slip” is really its under-belly. It’s something that we most often hide: we’re ashamed of it. Remember when months ago we made this statement? “Most of the time, someone who shouts loudly that someone is doing something horrible, is actually doing that very same horrible thing they are accusing the other person of doing. By shouting, they’re simply trying to cover up what THEY are doing.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean that all those who have been attacking Donald Trump and his followers for instigating this attack on Smollett are racist homophobes. But what it DOES show is that they are all consumed by Identity Politics! We’ve been pointing out for a couple of years now each time the hypocrisy of Identity Politics shows its ugly face to the nation and the World. This latest escapade is literally “The Grand Reveal.” And they don’t like it.

Honestly, it’s a shame that politics even enter stories like this. Why? Because politics has nothing to do with the actual circumstances. Human Nature fueled this story. As it turns out, the two men caught up in this by Smollett told Chicago police that Smollett created this (along with the hate letter he sent to himself but swore it was from a Trump supporter) because he wanted to get Fox Entertainment to pay him more! (The “love of money is the root of all evil.”)

But it doesn’t stop there. Millions of Americans — including the previous president — refuse to accept any of the positives the U.S. has experienced from actions taken by the Trump Administration. They cannot believe that the economic and social values espoused by this President could EVER accomplish any good in the World. Fundamental economic measures like lowering taxes, piling on tariffs to level the trade imbalance in favor of the U.S., attracting companies to expand, hire more people, repatriate billions of dollars being held in foreign companies, drawing a REAL redline in front of America’s foreign foes that they feel is meaningful and not like Obama’s red line in Syria, renegotiating Bill Clinton’s atrocious NAFTA trade deal with Mexico that prompted the abandonment of the U.S.(along with several million jobs in the auto industry) that reappeared in Mexico. All of these changes and more have been the direct result of the “orange-haired, loud, narcissistic billionaire from Queens. AND THE LEFT CANNOT STAND IT! Furthermore, they will NEVER accept it.

But just because they don’t accept it doesn’t mean it’s not real. In rejection of President Trump, they have shown their loss of the grasp of the reality that 60+ million Americans saw even before the 2016 election!

Smollett now faces both state and federal felony charges, probably has lost his starring role in the series Empire, has shown everyone that he is not only a liar but probably has far-reaching psychological damage that means he needs professional mental treatment. All of that when all he wanted was a pay raise!

Do you know what that really is? “Symbolism over Substance.” Identity Politics is covered with it. And those who have picked up the mantle of Identity Politics now proudly show their membership cards, assuming their being in that club means they are something much more than who they really are. So to stay in line and keep their facade in place, they symbolically say exactly what Symbolism demands, simply (and gladly) ignoring the Substance of their fault.

And you know who suffers through all this? The REAL victims out there whose attacks sustained at the hands of REAL racists and homophobes get ignored, covered up, or just forgotten. Their tragedies are lost in the breathless 24/7 news and entertainment world that those in Hollywood, New York, and Washington D.C. call “Reality.” All it is is a sad shadow across the calendar marked “The Trump Era.”

I bet historians will have a much different and more positive summary than that of these elitists. And many members of the “Identity Politics Club” will shake their heads in shame, knowing they were foolish enough to fall for “Jussie’s Attack.”

Here’s the real travesty from the mouth of the Superintendent of Police in Chicago — Ed Robinson:

(click on this hyperlink)

Smollett Presser



If They Said So, It Must be So

We watch it all the time: a news story quotes “unnamed sources” that claim that the President “might” be a Russian agent. Never mind McCabe is a proven liar. Never mind he is personally under investigation awaiting certain prosecution for committing at least one felony, never mind he is alleging major wrong against a sitting president. Never mind that McCabe and his fired mentor James Comey used that “might be a Russian agent” as a basis to begin the FBI probe of Trump that morphed into the Mueller probe. All that matters is they “think” there “might be” evidence that proves that. Those allegations, or “suspicions” — not “evidence” — were used to get the FISA court to authorize electronic surveillance of the Trump Organization. Providing “fake” and unproven evidence in a FISA application is a felony!

Then there’s this: a Supreme Court nominee was accused by a woman of sexual assault at a party 30 years ago that caused her irreparable harm and psychological damage while proving the nominee unfit to serve. None of the witnesses she stated would testify on her behalf to prove those allegations would do so. No evidence….no witnesses….her testimony nearly destroyed the life of a now seated United States Supreme Court Justice.

Both of these are examples of exactly what Americans face daily in the instant 24/7 news environment in which we live. And the questions that arise from such stories seem to be unending: Who do we believe? Were the allegations true? If not all, which ones are true and which are false? And almost every time we face such questions, we must make a decision to believe or disbelieve all or portions of what we hear.

But if we cannot be certain about elements of these and other stories, how can we make good, logical and informed decisions? And such decisions are often monumental! Decisions of this magnitude can determine outcomes of national elections, who the President of the United States is, our Governors, Mayors, U.S. Senators, and Congressmen. We MUST get it right.

Unfortunately for Americans, we have no legal requirements that force absolute and accurate information from these national news sources, or from any one individual or group. The First Amendment “absolutely” protects all individuals, corporations, and groups from liabilities associated with disseminating incorrect information. And it seems that the legal protection mentioned here encompasses EVERYTHING and that there is NO requirement for the truth and NO penalty for untruth.

Wait a minute: there are libel laws, right? There certainly are. But, obviously, they are on the most part ineffective — so much so that most of such laws that have actual “teeth” in them are at the state level. And protection under the First Amendment gives illegitimate individuals and organizations a “free pass” for lying most of the time. One would think defamation could best be handled in a uniform and universal way at the federal level so that truthfulness would be a news and information requirement with stiff penalties for NOT being as portrayed. Alas, legal precedence regarding existing laws does NOT favor the truth.

So let’s get some legislation passed that puts teeth into forcing truthfulness from our media! Oops…the First Amendment. Stories like this one are out there aplenty:

“In the latest in a long line of attacks on freedom of the press, President Trump has once again threatened today to change libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations, publishers, and others after the publication of an unflattering book. “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Trump said.

Fortunately, there are two strong obstacles standing in his way. Chief among them is the First Amendment, which clearly protects freedom of the press. But the other main barrier is the inconvenient fact that there is no federal libel law for President Trump to bully Congress to change. Libel cases are based on state laws, which neither the president nor Congress has control over because of our nation’s federalist system.”

We’ll give you some specific thoughts on all this. But first, let’s take a quick look at the “legal” history of defamation, how we got to where we are, and what defamation regarding truthfulness really is today.

History of Defamation Laws

The origins of the United States’ defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established a precedent that “The Truth” is an absolute defense against charges of libel. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional “Common Law” of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be patently false. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

The First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press provide defendants in the United States significantly more protection than the countries of the Commonwealth and Europe. Some variation exists among the several states to the extent the state’s legislature has passed statutes or its courts have handed down decisions affecting some elements inherited from the common law. Some states connect what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws.

Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being “fair comment and criticism,” though neither of these is absolute on the US constitution. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, meaning true statements cannot be defamatory.
Most states recognize that some categories of false statements are considered to be defamatory. People making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

John Peter Zenger

In one of the most famous cases, New York City publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for 8 months in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case and was acquitted by a jury in 1735 under the counsel of Andrew Hamilton. Governor Morris, a major contributor in the framing of the U.S. Constitution said, “The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America.” Zenger’s case also established that libel cases, though they were civil rather than criminal cases, could be heard by a jury, which would have the authority to rule on the allegations and to set the amount of monetary damages awarded.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press. However, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states.

People v. Croswell

The Zenger case did not, however, establish a precedent. In 1804 Harry Croswell lost a libel suit in People v. Croswell when the Supreme Court of New York refused to accept truth as a defense. The following year the New York State Legislature changed the law to allow truth as a defense against a libel charge, breaking with English precedent under which the truthfulness of the statements alone is not a defense. Other states and the federal government followed suit.

New York Times v. Sullivan

In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate “actual malice” on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, “actual malice” was defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” This decision was later extended to cover “public figures,” although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions stick to a theory that every publication of defamation gives rise to a separate claim so that defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, a thorough discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states. Some states join what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted. Washington State has held its criminal libel statute unconstitutional applying the state and federal constitutions to the question.

Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. In no state can a defamation claim be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally protects from liability parties that create forums on the Internet in which defamation occurs from liability for statements published by third parties. This has the effect of stopping all liability for statements made by persons on the Internet whose identity cannot be determined.

All states except Arizona, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.
Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:

  • Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”
  • Allegations or imputations of “loathsome disease” (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
  • Allegations or imputations of “unchastity” (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
  • Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[12][13]

On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, 23 states and 2 territories have criminal defamation/libel/slander laws on the books, along with 1 state (Iowa) establishing defamation/libel as a criminal offense through case law (without statutorily defined crime)

Those 23 states and territories are: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.


The U.S. is one of the only countries on Earth where harm that results from untruths stated or printed carry no consequences for those who initiate those. Don’t get me wrong: protection under the First Amendment is of the utmost importance to us all. It was crafted because those in the British Commonwealth could not say anything about the government or governmental wrongdoing without paying a horrible price. But the unfettered ability to say or print pretty much anything about others with absolutely no accountability for those thing being truthful is devastating. And it’s pretty unrealistic.

We see the horrors from such every day. What’s that old saying, “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” or “you can’t take back what you said.” Those are both true.

But is it realistic to such things as the circus of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination and confirmation in which multiple people publicly defamed him with apparent lies? He could have missed the opportunity of a lifetime for which he and thousands of other Americans study for, practice for, and aspire to achieve: a seat on the United States Supreme Court. It is unimaginable to think that such action could legally occur simply because someone or some people — for the purposes of stopping another from such an achievement — could lie, fabricate false circumstances and make unsubstantiated claims against someone, and can do so with no recourse whatsoever for what they said and what their saying those things do to the person or persons they are attacking?

I doubt our forefathers had that in mind.

What can we do?

The states listed above have acted on the fact that the federal government has done virtually nothing to protect Americans in this regard. Unfortunately, those protections are not the same from state to state and on the federal level are unenforceable.

Why hasn’t Congress done something about it? Could it be they are afraid that any such federal legislation would be struck down at the Supreme Court? Are all the members of Congress so callous they don’t care? Or is it because they are afraid they (who most of are attorneys) are incapable of crafting legislation that would 1) protect innocent Americans from reprehensible talk, written or electronic allegations from those who don’t have the truth, or have the truth and will not give it, or simply make up defamatory stories to hurt others?

No doubt Freedom of Speech is guaranteed. But there is no prevention in the First Amendment of holding those who unjustly bear “false witness” against another American that is severely damaging in its untruth. Our extremely intelligent legislators could surely craft a law that would pass muster. Why haven’t they?

I think for political purposes, they like it open-ended just like it is. Politics have become so dirty, so nasty, and so divisive that maintaining the unfettered legal permission to go after one’s political opponents in any way felt necessary is something they want to protect. Shame on them for that!

It’s time to have the ability to protect our integrity from lies, misrepresentations, and innuendo. Let’s protect the truth and encourage its use in a public and open environment. While doing that, let’s send a message that we encourage all to tell the truth all the time. But when you don’t, there will be a price to pay.

The warning with this is: Know for certain that if you lie about someone, there WILL be a price to pay. If it’s true, feel free to tell it. If it’s not, know there’s a price to pay if you DO say it.



“In Full Disclosure…” Part 2

President Trump’s most recent public campaign against the US Justice Department and US intelligence community has stunned current and former intelligence officials. “He’s doing the enemy’s job for them,” one FBI agent said. Another agent compared Trump’s unwillingness to accept intelligence assessments that contradict his beliefs to the behavior of a toddler. “It’s like when my son threw temper tantrums when I told him he couldn’t do something or if I said something he didn’t like. Of course, my son was three years old at the time and wasn’t sitting in the Oval Office with the nuclear button,” the second agent stated. As a result of Trump’s actions, intelligence officers are “more vulnerable to approaches by foreign intelligence services — and more vulnerable to accepting those approaches — than any other time in US history,” Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, described. “For decades, the Soviet Union and, more recently, Russia, have denigrated the CIA and our intelligence professionals, attempting to de-legitimize US intelligence in the process,” another intelligence veteran, Ned Price, said. “Now our adversaries have a helper who sits in the Oval Office.”

This is the narrative being spun in the protection of the US intelligence community and the US Department of Justice. Meanwhile, at the top of several of the “alphabet” agencies and the DOJ, stories of wrongdoing, collusion, lying, even possible treason and acts of subversion are surfacing daily.

American Justice as our forefathers established it is long-gone — at the hands of political elitists who today control most of the senior positions, not just in Justice and Intelligence, but in most of ALL  of the leadership in American government.

The Department of Justice — where equal justice under the law, the “rule of law,” “innocent until proven guilty,” honesty and integrity have resided for 250 years — is now nothing more than a shadow of its former self.

Corruption lives and is thriving at the DOJ.

Whose Hands are Dirty?

You probably cannot read the information next to the pictures of those shown here who have been fired at the DOJ, but by now they are well-known. In previous stories, we have listed the names of these and others who have (for various reasons) been fired, forced to retire, or those who have resigned during the Trump presidency. It has become so common that announcements of a “new” firing or resignation from the DOJ are greeted with a simple “Ho-Hum” from most Americans. They’re no big deal — just “another day at Justice.”

That should alarm every American!

Never before in American history has anything even similar to this bloodbath of management happened in one department in the U.S. government! Why now?

The answer to that question is simple: Accountability.

For the last 20 years, senior positions in the Justice Department have become exclusively political appointments for which many in government lust for and fight to get for themselves. Why? They’re cush jobs. They come with amazing perks and special “opportunities” for those who hold them to garner power second only to those in the upper tier in the Executive Branch, but come also with amazing financial opportunities — while in office and promises of financial windfall when leaving. Those who have held these positions during the last 2 decades have crafted mechanisms to amass personal gain while perpetuating an environment of cronyism that protects them all from ALL accountability. By loading the top-tier of management  at the DOJ with those who have “obligations” to those who appointed or hired them, they assure their safety from accountability. The cost for this bureaucratic layer of those who have unilateral control over how federal law is enforced makes them bullet-proof. And the use of that power has obliterated the DOJ of Washington and Jefferson.


There are now at least 2 tiers of American justice: 1 for the politically connected and 1 for everyone else. Impartiality in justice is gone — Lady Liberty is no longer blind.

A former federal prosecutor by the name of Sidney Powell has blown the whistle. January 27, 2019, Ms. Powell dispelled the illusion that our justice system is fair and impartial.

Powell, author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, in a television interview described a system consisting of out-of-control prosecutors who will do anything to get a conviction. She accused the Justice Department of a broad range of offenses. Some of those include:

• False charges brought by overzealous prosecutor Andrew Weissmann (Robert Mueller’s right-hand man) in the case against leading accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Although the conviction was subsequently reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, Andersen was completely destroyed, its 85,000 employees lost their jobs, and the assets of untold investors were wiped out. Weissmann was promoted by the DOJ.

• Destruction of the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives. Before they could appeal their fake convictions, they were sent to prison with the toughest criminals in the country. “They did the worst things they could possibly do to these men,” says Powell. The defendants were eventually exonerated on appeal, but it was only after one of them served eight months in solitary confinement.

• Frequent failure by the DOJ to disclose evidence favorable to defendants as required by law.

• Using the phony Steele dossier, the DOJ and FBI unlawfully obtained FISA warrants for the surveillance of the Trump election campaign. The dossier was then used to justify creation of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion. After two years, that investigation is nothing more than a witch-hunt against Trump supporters.

• Leaking at the top levels of the FBI and DOJ in the midst of criminal investigations.

• Unwillingness of federal judges to discipline the DOJ for its transgressions.

Taking it one step further, these top-level DOJ bureaucrats simply weaponized various departments and agencies to for their own benefit get rid of enemies either by their destruction or through intimidation.

How? Investigate; Harrass; Prosecute

  • An early Trump supporter targeted by the DOJ right before the 2018 midterm elections was Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY). Normally, letters and other contact from the SEC are initiated regarding perceived violations and a deal is worked out, fine paid, etc., just as happened with Tesla’s Elon Musk. Instead, the DOJ initiated an investigation into Collins that has/will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  • In another example of selective justice: If you steal a credit card and charge over $100,000, and the DOJ handles the case, you can be charged with credit card fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and theft through deception. You would be facing 50-80 years in federal prison. Or, you can alternatively be given a penalty of community service and two years’ probation. That’s what you get when you are Joe Biden’s niece. And that’s what Joe’s niece got.
  • On the other hand, look at former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX). The donations at issue in his prosecution case were less than just Hillary’s travel costs – a mere $915,000 in four checks written to two nonprofit organizations. Neither of the donors in Stockman’s case complained. Instead, the DOJ sought out the donors. If there was real guilt there, such a small case should have taken only about six months to investigate. Instead, it took DOJ and Lois Lerner’s former nonprofit division four years, four grand juries, and an estimated $20 million to create a believable story in order to bring charges against Stockman. They really wanted him. Why? In the 1990s, he served on the Whitewater House committee that investigated Clinton wrongdoing. In his most recent term in Congress, Stockman threatened to consider articles of impeachment against President Obama, called out Hillary Clinton for breaking the Iran sanctions, and busted Obama for giving money to the Haqqani terrorist network. And apparently “the straw that broke the camel’s back” was when Stockman filed a House resolution calling for the arrest of Lois Lerner for being in contempt of Congress. He had the audacity to stand up to the same hit team now going after Trump. The government wants life in prison for Stockman.
  • Former Attorney General under Barack Obama, Eric Holder, identified and placed sympathetic ideologues in key departments of the DOJ and FBI. They were also placed in the FEC and the IRS. This all combined to form a “Red Team” that would target, isolate and destroy opponents of Obama or his legacy. Reportedly, both Democrats and Republicans were on the list, but the majority were conservative leaders. They mapped out weak targets, then the IRS, SEC or FEC would research them deeply, looking for any mistakes or missteps. Once information was gathered that would spark interest, it was leaked to friendlies in the press, politicians or sympathetic nonprofits such as the Sunlight Foundation. By doing, so they covered their tracks to avoid the charge of targeting. Multiple sources in Congress stated that the DOJ would then hijack these administrative agencies’ actions, bringing these investigations “in-house” and handling them as felony investigations. The targeted list (enemies list) was developed and fleshed out by the Red Team (or “hit squad”). Once the DOJ took a case, it moved without interference, using broad powers to issue subpoenas and charges in federal criminal indictments.
  • Republicans are treated differently than Democrats. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), an early Trump supporter, received a publicized complaint about a potential FEC problem. When the same thing happened to Obama, Obama simply received FEC warning letters and a notice to correct the problem. He was instructed to pay a $375,000 fine and the matter was over. Notably, the money in question was a larger amount than Hunter was even accused of. But Hunter didn’t receive warning letters or the opportunity to pay a fine. Instead, the complaint went to the DOJ and Obama sympathizers’ Red Team – the “hit squad.” The bomb was dropped in a press release right before the 2018 midterm elections, designed to sink Hunter’s campaign and defeat him. And it worked.

The “Fix” is in

The Feds have made the justice system “good” for them — bad for those charged. Equal justice under the law is now only a “story” that kids talk about in Political Science class about the way the justice system worked “a long time ago.” Innocence until guilt is proven is long gone when federal law enforcement gets involved in a case. If the feds want to come get someone, they always get somebody. The process they now use is NOT to examine a crime that was committed and then put evidence together that shows who committed the crime, their purpose, and how it was committed. They now use broad criminal statutes that make it easier than ever for federal authorities to get their way against everyday people. And the feds have many tools.

Federal prosecutors frequently bring conspiracy charges. Conspiracy is a broad crime that can sweep up many kinds of conduct.

  • Conspiracy charges are challenging to defend. A federal criminal defense attorney who has a client who is charged with conspiracy has to be very diligent in investigating the government’s evidence and what role the government thinks each person had in the conspiracy.
  • A conspiracy to commit a federal crime happens whenever there is an agreement to commit a specific federal crime between two or more people, and at least one of those people makes some overt act to further the conspiracy.
  • The government doesn’t have to prove that there was a written agreement between the co-conspirators; instead, the prosecutor can prove a conspiracy just by proving that the people it says were involved in the conspiracy were working together to do some crime.
  • The general federal conspiracy statute is 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute criminalizes both conspiracies to defraud the United States as well as conspiracies to violate any other provision of federal law. By the text of that provision you can see how the two elements work. The statute says that it is a crime, [i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy.
  • The United States Code contains other specific conspiracy provisions. For example, 21 U.S.C. § 846 makes it illegal to commit a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. Eighteen U.S.C. § 1951 – which prohibits committing a robbery of any article in interstate commerce – contains its own conspiracy provision. So section 1951 makes it a crime both to commit a robbery and to conspire to commit a robbery.
  • Courts have held that a person can be in a conspiracy with another person, even if the two people never meet or interact – as long as they knew the other person was doing something to further the conspiracy. This is most common in a larger sprawling conspiracy where a central person, or a group of people, is coordinating the work of many others.
  • Conspiracy charges have the potential to be abused by the government, and taken to absurd consequences – in theory, a conspiracy offense could be committed, and prosecuted in federal court, merely by having two people agree that they would rob a bank together and then buy a ski mask to wear in the bank robbery.

It boils down to this: pretty much when federal law enforcement authorities want to get someone for something, they can easily find a way to do it.


It would be useless to name more names, list wrongs done or illustrate further travesties experienced by Americans who come face-to-face with the Department of Justice. It simply boils down to this: the DOJ became a weaponized arm of Deep State operatives at the top of the U.S. Government during the Obama Administration. Those operatives created an atmosphere that used an armed FBI, CIA, and Justice Department to conduct each and every “hit job” deemed necessary by the Bosses.

In perfecting this process, they needed a military arm to paint the one-sided narrative to legitimize this method of operations to the American people. That messaging arm? The Mainstream Media. Every day, all day, “agents” at CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the Washington Post, New York Times, all spin the stories that impact all our lives with the political elitists’ version of every story. They’re pretty good sales people too. But in fairness to Americans, when “news people” almost in unison give every story with the same details and perspective as those at other networks and newspapers who give the same story, Americans just accept the story as true. “If everyone of the news outlets give every story the exact same way, the story must be true.”

Thankfully, the truth is somehow getting around the barriers erected by the Media. And Americans have begun to ask the right questions, question what they are reading, seeing, and hearing from the media, and seeking the truth.

There’s hope, folks. And this President began the “Swamp drain” in January of 2017. It IS draining, however slowly. Thankfully the truth rings true to most Americans.

There’s still hope!


“In Full Disclosure…” Part I

Do you have all this stuff figured out in D.C.? On one hand, we have what seems like 80% of Congress pushing-back on everything this President wants to do that requires legislation. They end up passing into law a boondoggle of a bill that is full of pork and gratuitous spending provisions that are hidden from citizens. All the while, they simply refuse to enforce the southern border: period.

But the logjam and misanthropy on the part of leftists for Donald Trump does not just extend into the legislative branch of government. The Judicial Branch is full of it as well. We knew of the corruption in the Department of Justice. We watched as the Obama DOJ initiated some of the most incorrigible and illegal programs and acts the resulted in the deaths of a number of Americans. But what is worse is than we thought. Any accountability by the perpetrators of those acts and programs (which reach as far as the Obama White House) were just summarily dismissed by almost everyone in government!

Until today, we have seen just a scant fraction of those unspeakable acts exposed. And every day, more new atrocities at the hands of Congress and the DOJ show their ugly heads.

They’ve been hidden for too long. The reckoning is here: at least the first part of it –“In Full Disclosure…”

“Full Disclosure” is here!

Today, in Part I of “In Full Disclosure…” we will reveal the Congressional villainy that has plagued America’s lawmaking process for so long and costs American taxpayers trillions of dollars. We will disclose the attitude of entitlement that is nowhere else more obvious than among members of Congress who with impunity year after year literally “steal” billions from us in the name of doing what’s best for Americans.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives now controlled by Democrats feel that the power their majority gives them is a permission slip to intervene at any time in any way they so choose in the government funding process to reward their minions while penalizing their opponents with the power of money. Nowhere else is this illustrated better and in a more timely fashion than the funding bill, “Consolidated Appropriations Bill, 2019 (H.R. 648)” President Trump just signed into law to keep the government open. But that bill does MUCH more than just that. It includes multiple examples of the graft and corruption that literally fuels Washington D.C.

In Part II of this story, we will together peel back the layers of the onion called “Corruption” in the Department of Justice. Part II comes tomorrow.

Folks, this expose’ has been fun to research and put together for you. Even though we knew we have horrible issues in Washington, it has been unnerving to uncover them and to learn just how far-reaching into the dark corners of government they have been.

This ride will certainly be unsettling for you.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 648): America’s “Current” Boondoggle

Nobody could wait for this bill to be passed by each house of Congress, be signed into law by the President, and start the erection of that southern border wall while protecting government employees from another work stoppage when government funding expired. It passed just in the nick of time! Of course, everybody got everything they wanted, right? WRONG! But they got a lot — an 1169 page bill full of $$$$$ — OUR dollars and cents.

You haven’t read it yet? I cannot believe that! Everybody should have read the bill — especially those who passed the bill: members of Congress. But, as usual, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAD READ THE BILL BEFORE VOTING! They each received copies of the bill — all 1169 pages — at midnight the night before the vote. It was impossible for any one of them to read and understand everything it includes. But as usual, Congress followed the Nancy Pelosi instructions that accompanied Obamacare: “We must pass the bill so that we can know what’s in the bill.” They passed it; it’s law.

Certainly, by now, you’ve read the bill, right? You haven’t yet? Here’s your chance: here it is:


It’s lengthy, it’s verbose, it continuously refers one back to the Omnibus bill from 2018, so let’s just summarize its contents for you.

Border Security

Obviously, the linchpin in this bill was funding of “Trump’s” border wall. It is amazing to me that in discussions of a bill that funds the entire federal government with about $1 trillion through September of this year, the only item that receives discussion is a tiny segment of a barrier that constitutes less than $2 billion — the “wall.” But Congress had to address it to prevent another government partial shutdown. It did. And it was a pittance.

What you have NOT heard and will NOT hear anyplace but here is this:

The bill provides a de facto amnesty pipeline for all illegal alien household members of MS-13 gang members who arrive in the United States as “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UACs). As part of a bipartisan “compromise” spending package, lawmakers included provisions that prevent federal immigration officials from deporting anyone who has close contact with UACs who are readily resettled throughout the U.S. with so-called “sponsors” after being trafficked across the southern border. These sponsors are often times illegal alien relatives, in many cases parents, of UACs. Federal officials have repeatedly noted how the UAC program has been widely used by the MS-13 gang to import more gang members into the country.

Last year, New York City Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official Angel Melendez said there are roughly 22,000 UAC “potential recruits” who are resettled across the country every year out of about 40,000 total UACs. These are mostly young men trafficked across the southern border from Central America, especially El Salvador.

But we can put up with that little “oops” in the bill, right? We’re getting a big chunk of border wall/barrier out of this. But wait, there’s more:

The new law mandates that the White House have approval from left-wing Starr County, Texas officials before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can begin building a wall at the region’s U.S.-Mexico border.
Slipped into this funding bill that provides about $1.3 billion for 55 miles of border wall construction is a provision that prevents the Trump administration from constructing the barrier until DHS officials seek input from Starr County, Texas locals and city officials. The spending bill mandates that Trump must “seek to reach a mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers” with Starr County “local elected officials,” including those from:

  • Roma, Texas
  • Rio Grande City, Texas
  • Escobares, Texas
  • La Grulla, Texas
  • Salineno, Texas

The deal demands Trump’s DHS to continue “such consultations” with local elected officials about the border wall until September, or until an agreement is reached. In the meantime, the spending bill stipulates that the administration cannot build any barriers “while consultations are continuing” with local elected officials.

But there’s still more. I know you may find this hard to believe, but there are a bunch of “gimmicks” included in the almost 1200 page monstrosity that, only now, are showing their ugly little heads.

(You need to follow this line of explanation very closely. Congressional members love making it difficult for everyday Americans — most of us — to understand what they are really doing when they craft and pass spending bills.)


Changes in Mandatory Programs are one of the most commonly used gimmicks in the appropriations process. On paper, mandatory spending is delayed, creating new savings that can be put toward unrelated discretionary spending. In reality, the vast majority of the delayed funding would never have been spent in the first place and generated no real savings. Each year, billions of dollars in new spending is enabled through Changes in Mandatory Programs.

The largest change each year is delayed spending from the Department of Justice’s Crime Victims Fund. The bill caps spending from the Crime Victims Fund at $3.35 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2019. However, that fund consistently carries a balance of around $13 billion, meaning that any unobligated balance above $3.35 billion can now be captured as savings and used to circumvent the Budget Control Act caps. And the Crime Victims Fund is not the only Change in Mandatory Programs. In the fiscal year 2018, changes with no real savings increased spending by nearly $18 billion.

The area of the bill with the most potential for harm is in the critical areas of immigration enforcement, particularly detention beds. As the number of caravans, children, families, and asylum seekers has drastically risen, the administration has been handcuffed by loopholes and prevented from quickly removing many illegal immigrants. The result is that many illegal border crossers or asylum seekers are “caught and released,” and many will disappear into the public and never be seen again. The Trump administration has attempted to limit catch and release, both at the border but also in the interior, by expanding the number of detention beds.

In this bill, Democratic efforts to set a hard cap on immigration detention were stopped, but the bill does try to push the administration to reduce the number of detention beds by limiting funding. That said, the administration is allowed to transfer or reprogram funds to expand detention, but does so at the expense of other homeland security programs. In essence, the bill forces the Department of Homeland Security to steal from other important security and preparedness missions in order to fulfill the immigration enforcement mission.

Critically, the bill fails to address the key loopholes in U.S. immigration law that have encouraged the drastic increases in asylum claims and families and children coming to the border. Without fixes to these loopholes and other immigration enforcement tools, border security is only a superficial fix and detention beds will always be too few.

More “Hidden”

  • The omnibus includes a 1.9 percent pay raise for federal employees, costing roughly $3.3 billion in 2019, and more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. This overturns a December 2018 executive order from President Donald Trump freezing federal pay. And, for more than half of federal workers, it serves as their second pay raise in 2019 because federal workers receive both cost-of-living increases as well as step increases based on tenure. On average, federal employees receive $121,000 in total compensation, compared to average private-sector total compensation of $69,000. Part of this differential stems from the fact that federal workers have more education and experience, on average, but studies consistently find that federal employees receive a significant compensation premium.
  • The text of the 1,169-page compromise bill was released just before midnight on Wednesday, February 13, 2019. Both houses of Congress had to debate and vote on it. It was already law two days later.
    Once again, Congress is ignoring its own budget rules. The House requires that text of legislation be available for at least 72 hours before a vote is held. This is not the way the process is supposed to work. It leaves no time for lawmakers to even read the bill, let alone have a chance to debate and offer amendments to improve the legislation. That’s just a symptom of the larger problem. The fiscal year is already more than four months old and Congress still hasn’t finalized funding. If lawmakers were doing their job and passing budget and appropriations bills on time, continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, and government shutdowns could become obsolete, or at least the exception rather than the rule.

State of Emergency

Democrat after Democrat from both sides of the aisle have taken to the airways and declared how unjust, un-American, and illegal is the declaration of a national emergency and the subsequent plan of the President to divert funds to pay for the construction of the border barrier. Even several Republicans are against the wall! It’s purely partisan and in no way reflects any actions contemplated or taken against the previous 61 such declarations made by this and other presidents. Politics at its worse.

We won’t waste a bunch of time, but Nancy always chimes in with a quote of remarkability when it comes to Congressional matters of historical nature. At a news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi railed against Trump declaring a national emergency, saying Republicans “should have some dismay to the door that they opened, the threshold they crossed.” She continued, “The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans and, of course, we will respond accordingly,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said an emergency declaration opens the door for other presidents to do an end run around Congress. “Just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,” Pelosi added. She didn’t say specifically how Democrats will respond but said that they would “review our options.”

Summary: “Full Disclosure”

This action in Congress had NOTHING to do with southern border security. They don’t want better border security:

  • Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and six other House Democrats who chair subcommittees of the judiciary panel signed a letter to the president, writing that “we believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system.”
  • Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, called the reallocation of funds “utterly disrespectful of U.S. national security and the needs of our men and women in uniform, and it further undermines his credibility in requesting the upcoming defense budget.”
  • And it’s not just Democrats. Centrist Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election in 2020, called Trump’s planned move a “mistake” in a statement Thursday. Collins also argued that the National Emergencies Act was only “intended to apply to major natural disasters or catastrophic events, such as the attacks on our country.”
  • Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, whose districts covers about 800 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, said on The View that the declaration was “unnecessary” and expressed concerns about the land seizures that would have to take place in order to build the wall.

The corruption in Congress is unfathomable — until now. Let’s be perfectly clear and honest: on the most part, those who serve in either house of Congress face every bill presented for their consideration, not from the perspective of “how do we need to process this measure to maximize all our resources to best facilitate meeting the needs of American citizens?”  Their almost unilateral perspective — Democrat AND Republican — is “how can I get what I need out of this bill: money, power, and favorability among voters in my district.” Their perspectives blow as the political winds in D.C. blow on the particular day of their considerations.

The bottom line is this: truthful consideration of the resources we give to them, the needs that WE have, and the rule of law are GONE in Congress.

In conclusion, here’s what they have almost entirely missed: the American electorate in sufficient numbers walked away from “business-as-usual” in Washington and voted for the one person who entered the race for the presidency that voters felt could and would fulfill campaign promises to fix legal immigration while stopping illegal immigration at our southern border. And in doing so, those same members of the electorate sent a message to Congress that “We are done with status quo, identity politics perpetrated by the elitists in D.C. that want nothing but control over all of us Americans.”

Have members of Congress gotten that message? With the spending bill passed simply to temporarily pacify the President with the pittance allocated for the border barrier, apparently Congress still has not gotten it.

And here’s the look “down the road” current members of Congress and those who want in better see and understand: Congressional hypocrisy is being exposed in greater measure than ever day after day. And Americans in seeing the corruption is being summarily rejected. Sending those members home is just part of the equation. Prosecution for wrongdoing is pending. There WILL be a price to pay.

They have underestimated this President. He’s not stupid — far from it. His validity resonates far greater with Americans than the abomination being unearthed in the midst of today’s lawmakers.

And it’s not just in Congress: it’s in the Department of Justice. Tomorrow come back for “In Full Disclosure…Part II.” The DOJ is front and center. You think you know all the corruption there is there? Get ready: there’s far more than you know today!


State of Emergency Chaos

The noise is deafening. One Democrat operative declared in a televised interview, “This President didn’t get his way on his border wall, threw a temper-tantrum, and is declaring a national emergency and then heading to the golf course. There IS no national emergency,” she said. 

Nancy Pelosi said this about a proposed Trump National Emergency declaration: “That’s an option and we will review our options. But it’s important to note that when the President declares this emergency, first of all it’s not an emergency what’s happening at the border — It’s a humanitarian challenge to us … putting that aside, just in terms of the President making an end-run around Congress. Here he said, let us respect what the committee will do and then walks away from it. The President is doing an end-run around Congress.”

It is important to note that national security declarations and subsequent actions are NOT unique. In fact, since Congress gave the U.S. President pretty much unilateral power to implement such measures, there have been 58 such declarations made. President Trump has already issued 3. President Obama made his fair share. Let’s take a look at the history of National Security actions.

There are a lot of national emergencies going on. In fact, there are 31 active national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act. Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times. President Trump has only used it three times so far. 11 of Obama-made declarations are still in force.

Sorry Democrats, this “national emergency” business is not quite the work of “dictators.”

Of Obama’s 11 continuing national emergencies, nine of them were focused exclusively on foreign nations, while only one seemed focused on protecting America — a declaration aimed at punishing individuals “engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.” All of the rest of Obama’s national emergencies were focused on blocking property or prohibiting transactions/travel for individuals engaged in various activities in — by order of the date of enactment — Somalia, Libya, transnational criminal organizations, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela, and Burundi.

Burundi? Come on: are the citizens of Burundi storming our borders, shipping millions of pounds of illegal drugs across our border, operating human and sex trafficking here that created the necessity for Obama to declare a national emergency regarding Burundi?

Here’s what the “Burundi Threat” was and is to the U.S.:

“On November 22, 2015, by Executive Order 13712, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in Burundi, which has been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, the incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatens the peace, security, and stability of Burundi and the region.”

The “Burundi” action taken (and most all of the other such actions taken by previous presidents) were initiated not because of any direct, physical threat of any kind to the United States. They in total were preventive actions taken in places and in circumstances to make certain no actual threats against the United States could be initiated.

Even with that knowledge together with the plethora of statistical data and actual specifics of the costs of illegalities at and from our southern border, those on the Left in the U.S. STILL maintain “there is no emergency at the border,” “there is no humanitarian crisis at the border,” and that President Trump is pushing such action to simply fulfill a campaign promise.

What’s Really Their Reasoning?

No doubt about this one thing: the insanity of Leftist cries against the closure of our southern border are for purely political purposes.

It’s hard to say what I’m about to say, but it is necessary for all Americans to understand: American Leftists who rail against stopping illegal immigration into the U.S. do so with NO regard for the price Americans have and will pay if we do NOT close the border.

In the wake of the conservative media listing of names, showing pictures of murdered and tortured Americans at the hands of illegals, states giving details of the human and economic losses they sustain as a direct result of current open border political policies, Leftists maintain that there is no crisis!

CNN’s Jim Acosta — CNN’s lead White House correspondent and the most obnoxious reporter in D.C. — today badgered the President in the Rose Garden, calling out Mr. Trump for his “in-error” reporting of illegal crime statistics. Mr. Acosta referenced an Associated Press report that stated: “multiple studies have concluded that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born U.S. citizens.” That indeed WAS in the AP report. But there was significant error in that report that has been pointed out and clarified with factual information after the fact. Of course, the “truth” clarification of the Associated Press story is rarely discussed, and by Acosta’s reference of the report’s inaccurate and misleading information, few if any of the members of the Mainstream Media even care about accuracy in their reports.

As it turns out, the Associated Press claim is quite misleading, because the “multiple studies” on crimes committed by “immigrants” —  including a 2014 study by a professor from the University of Massachusetts, which is the only one cited in the article —  combine the crime rates of both citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal.

The General Accounting Office released a report that gives far more accurate statistics than quoted by Mr. Acosta and the AP. The GAO report (GAO-05-646R) looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegal in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during the fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien. Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft, and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

Is it my imagination or are Democrats and members of the Mainstream Media and other leftists ignoring the tragedies perpetrated on legal Americans by illegal aliens? Do they not even care that little boys and girls are being kidnapped, tortured, raped, sold into slavery by some of these illegals? Is it not important to them to stop the senseless drug overdose deaths that are direct results of the massive amounts of opioids and other murderous drugs trafficked into the U.S. through the southern border?


I must be honest: I am scared. I in my wildest imagination cannot picture a group of Americans who accept crimes committed against anyone as “acceptable.” And apparently, that is what we are dealing with today.

The only explanation I can muster that even though plausible is horrifying is that those thousands and thousands of leftists who continue the open border mantra consider the felonies committed in the hundreds of thousands by illegals against Americans a justifiable price to pay so that Democrats can stack the population of the U.S. with future voters who will be obligated to vote for Democrats. Why would they want that? To maintain power and control.

Can you think of….is there any other explanation?


Every politician who does not vocally and outwardly fight against illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, the forcing of local, state, and federal entities to support illegals in every way need to be confronted by American citizens with this one question:

“How many American deaths at the hands of illegals are acceptable to you before you will begin to honor your oath of office in which you swore to uphold the laws of the United States?”

Honestly, we all should get in the faces of each of our lawmakers and demand a formal response to that question.

Folks, illegal immigrants, and illegal immigration really ARE desperate problems in the United States. And politicians of any ilk CANNOT explain that fact away. Here are just several more examples:

In closing, simply consider this one final thought:

“Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place.”

How many legal Americans will be killed, raped, robbed or stabbed before YOU will say “Enough is Enough?”