D-Day

Today’s the day: D-Day. Once again the U.S. government faces the dilemma of running out of money to operate itself. That by itself is almost comical. How does somebody or some entity that has the total control of how much money it has, how much it can spend, AND what it spends it on run out of money? But it will — at midnight tonight.

Does anybody but me think that 535 paid politicians in Washington let the government get to this spot, again and again, is insane? It blows my mind to think that these several hundred government “experts” cannot (or “do not”) craft a budget, get it passed in the House and Senate, and signed into law in time to fund government operations the way they are supposed to. But it happens over and over. And it’s happened again.

What seems to be the problem?

The answer to that has been hidden for some time. Maybe that’s wrong — maybe what should be said is that the “accurate” answer to that has been hidden. There have been lots of opinions — explanations — for what’s been happening and why. But the truth is out. Let’s get to “the truth.”

The Reason

Honestly, it should have been easy for Americans to see why these Continuing Resolutions have been put in place by Congress and the President regarding government spending on a short-term basis only. Many have suspected why, but now it’s pretty clear. It’s not about the Democrat or Republican parties. It’s not about dollars and cents. And it’s certainly not because those 535 people cannot figure out the best way to spend American tax dollars — OUR tax dollars. It’s because most of those 535 have had a secret purpose for a long time in controlling government spending and where those dollars go. Their purpose? To remove the borders of the United States.

I hope you didn’t spit coffee when you read/heard that last line. But it’s true. Why else would every month or two we find ourselves at a drop-dead day and hour to put not a federal budget in place, but just a Continuing Resolution for short-term spending? Because that group (let’s call them “Open Borders Incorporated”) sense their power slipping away. It’s been happening for years and it’s a secret no more.

So just for a moment, let’s answer your obvious question: “Why and who would want that?” We’ll answer it by asking and answering some “Why Else?” questions.

Why Else Would….

  • U.S. Mainstream Media (purportedly “in the tank” for the Democrat Party) denigrate everything to do with border security, ICE, and alleged mistreatment of illegals in captivity?
  • That same Media downgrade the real numbers of illegals now in the U.S.?
  • No one in the Media beat the public over the head with videos and pictures of illegals crossing the border?
  • None of those constantly quoted “experts” ever appear on news shows — radio or television — to legitimize their “expert” status regarding the “non-crisis” on the southern border?
  • None of the mainstream media will give the public the names of those quoted experts that say “there’s no need for a wall,” and that “walls don’t work.”
  • Nobody get government officials on the air or in print from any of the other 161 countries who have border walls that work?
  • No media outlet — absolutely NOT ONE — will either on television, radio, or in print give the actual names of people who have been robbed, stabbed or shot, raped, or are victims of break-ins or other violent crimes at the hands of illegals so that Americans can see first-hand the realities of crimes committed by many of those illegals?
  • No media outlet — absolutely NOT ONE — will not persistently present border patrol agents, ICE agents, or other immigration officials who are consistent in their declarations that a border wall/barrier would dramatically lessen crime committed by illegal immigrants who cross into the U.S.?
  • Politicians and their media lapdogs continue to create and perpetuate the perception that there is no reason for a border wall and only agree that “border security” needs to be improved?
  • Politicians refuse to speak out against the influx of illegals?
  • Politicians continue to allow ANY immigrants into the U.S. that are ILLEGAL? Think about that: THEY’RE ILLEGALS WHEN THEY STEP FOOT IN THE U.S.
  • Politicians — ANY politicians — not loudly and consistently demand diligent arrest and prosecution of ALL illegals for their crimes?
  • Members of Congress not vote for any and all necessary funding to add immigration judges and support staff necessary to initiate and complete the legal process for ALL pending immigration cases that now number approximately 900,000?
  • Has NO One in this Administration or previous ones issued a hard and non-negotiable demand that ALL Central American countries AND Mexico stop ALL illegal immigrant attempts to breach the U.S. border coming from those countries?

No Budget, No Immigration Reform, No Wall. The Reason?

Simple answer: Open Borders. And in spite of what most feel, the cry for open borders may come loudest from Democrats, but it is NOT exclusive to those from the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

While Democrats heatedly deny being in favor of open borders, their actions and even their own words say otherwise. Much the same could be said about many Republicans.  Both parties want an unrestricted flood of immigrants to America, but for different reasons.

Democrats want a permanent underclass that reliably votes Democrat. Establishment Republicans want cheap labor to keep their Chamber of Commerce donors happy. Neither party acknowledges any negative consequences of the current open borders policy, allowing far more than voters and workers to enter our country.

Ignored are the contagious diseases, still uncommon in America, being brought across the borders. Or the criminals we read about daily in the news, raping and killing Americans. Not to mention potential terrorists.

How does this play out?

What if there weren’t a President Trump working to build a wall and to insert other measures to seal the southern border? Instead, suppose we had a president named Jeb or Marco, happy to grant amnesty to the 10 to 20 million illegals already in the country, a number which would double as soon as amnesty was proposed.

Gallup tells us that 147 million adults would move to the US if given the chance. That’s almost half the current US population. How many of these adults have children? If you assume one child per adult, you have just doubled this number. Don’t forget grandma and grandpa. Pretty soon we’ve more than doubled the US population. That means more people with no increase in the necessary infrastructure to support such a population increase. As a country, we can’t even maintain our infrastructure with our current population. Look at the subway stations or airports in New York City. Or the bridges over Western Pennsylvania rivers. Or the potholed streets of Chicago.

Who in Washington DC, among our elected leadership, sees a problem with unrestricted immigration? Among the ranks of those who have the power and authority to make a difference on the subject, there are few besides President Trump. I’m not saying he’s flying solo. But his Boeing 757 still has a number of empty seats.

There is certainly no similar sentiment from the leadership across the aisle. According to Nancy Pelosi, “Our view of the law is that it — if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is no reason for deportation.” She’s not alone. Hillary Clinton, fortunately not in power, instead only coughing in half-filled lecture halls, shares Pelosi’s views, “Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported.”

Chuck Schumer joined the chorus declaring that President Trump will not get the U.S.-Mexico border wall “in any form.”

Republicans are hardly any better. Despite control of both houses of Congress for the past two years, with a president firmly in favor of shutting the open border, Republicans could not find a way to fund a wall. Funding Planned Parenthood, despite campaign promises to the contrary, was easy for Paul Ryan to push through. And Republicans wonder why they did so poorly during the midterm elections?

When America can’t support her existing population, why add more to the mix? Too many Americans are homeless, going without adequate food and healthcare. Many attend crumbling schools, drive on third-world roadways, fly through decrepit airports, and look at a federal budget constantly running in the red. The “law of holes” states that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. America is in a big hole in so many ways, yet the smart set in Washington, D.C. wants to keep digging deeper. An open border is just one more way of digging America into a deeper hole.

Summary

Make no mistake about this: “If” the autocrats in Washington — Democrats AND Republicans — wanted to seal the southern border, the southern border would already be sealed: NO one would get in. That statement is identical to the one that answers the question asked by millions of Americans, “If it is against Federal law to possess and use marijuana (other than prescribed medically) in the United States, why do multiple states allow it to happen and the feds refuse to enforce the U.S. laws that make it illegal?

Here’s the “skinny” in this conversation: many in Congress WANT border barriers gone. Numbered among those are Democrats, plenty of Republicans, and a bunch of Independents. They all have reasons; they all have excuses. And they justify those reasons and excuses with a plethora of explanations. But what is common among ALL of them is this: They have each justified to themselves and others their active allowance and even support of immigration fraud and illegalities with total disregard for the laws of the United States and the enforcement of those laws. They ignore the personal, corporate, and national costs of ignoring those and even other federal laws. And somehow, that’s OK with them.

But the most important thing they ignore in their complicity in immigration lawbreaking is this: there is only ONE fundamental difference between the United States of America and the nation of Russia. Oh, there are many differences, but really just one big one: the Rule of Law. Now there are plenty of laws in use in Russia just as there are in the U.S. But in Russia, there is an autocratic group of political elites who have given themselves and a selected few to simply ignore the laws of Russia. Why would they do that? Because what drives their boat are the things that THEY want and that THEY don’t want in total disregard of other Russians, and what Russian laws state.

That being said, know this is an absolute factual certainty as you lay your head on your pillow tonight after tucking your precious children into bed: there is a group of political elites in Washington D.C. that have claimed and have assumed the authority to do the same thing in the United States as those Russian autocrats have been doing for decades in Russia: ignoring laws for the benefits of an entitled few.

Is that the America you want for those babies you just tucked into bed for the night?

Play

Think

I don’t sleep a lot. No, I’m not sick. I don’t have insomnia. There are no “things” going bad in my life that keep me up stuck in worry and stress. It just doesn’t take a lot of sleep to keep me going.

What I do when I don’t sleep much at night is think. I think a lot. I think about family, about grandchildren, and about growing old, It’s easy to think about growing old — I am old.

Thinking has become highly underrated. I find myself so busy today, my life seems fuller than ever with “stuff” that keeps me from thinking. My iPhone seems to never stop dinging with voicemails, emails, texts, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter notifications. Add to that the IOS upgrades, app upgrades, and calendar notifications, and I find myself sometimes too busy to think.

But in the last few years — since having my 60th and now 65th birthdays — I’ve learned to welcome thinking that keeps me from sleeping. It’s been a gift that even though it’s been a part of my life all along, I have simply missed it. Maybe I missed it because of being so busy, so preoccupied, so torn by dealing with “stuff.” But, no matter, I’ve simply really missed it. And missing it has cost me a bunch of years.

At some point during the last decade or so, lightning struck me with the realization that more of my life is behind me than is in front of me. Funny how that realization changes the way we think. No doubt, my past has been really good to me. But obviously, that’s no guarantee of what’s ahead. And if I am caught in projecting what’s left of my life based on my life up until this point, I could just stop thinking and coast along, knowing things are going to be pretty good. Because things HAVE been pretty good.

No matter what the gurus of positive thinking say — like making things happen by being positive, rejecting negative thoughts, always claiming the glass is half-full, rejecting superstition, and reaping what we sow — at some point I’ve simply got to stop planning and worrying and let thinking take over.

And I think I’m just about there.

At 65 it’s kind of late for me to fret and worry about all the mistakes I’ve made. Sure, every mistake has made an impact on the course of my life. That’s part of living and growing and making a life. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. And some of those mistakes have cost me dearly. I’d have loved to be able to brush those all away, but sometimes mistakes just happen. But I’ve learned to deal with them: think them through and learn from them all.

My old friend Andrae Crouch wrote a song titled “Through it All.” It’s one of the best songs ever written. It contains what has been the most impactful line of any song I’ve ever heard: “If I never had a problem I’d never know that God could solve them, I’d never know what faith in God can do.”  I think Andrae was in his early 30’s when he penned that. But he sure nailed what thinking through and making choices in life is really all about.

During my “mid-life crisis,” (I guess that’s why I don’t sleep much) there is no way I could have survived without having the assurance that when I got to the end of that ordinarily traumatic period of my life, things would really be OK. And they are. In fact, things are not just OK, they’re pretty darn good.

Will you indulge me for just a few minutes? I’d like to — while I’m not asleep and thinking at 3:56 AM today — analyze those “pretty darn good” things:

  • I’ve got good health. Yes, there’s a heart attack in the mix, removal of two kidneys (don’t go bonkers — I was born with 3), two heart stints, both thumbs now have artificial thumb joints, and there were a handful of minor surgeries. But I’ve lost over 100 pounds in the last 5 years — the right way: eating right and daily pretty aggressive exercise. In fact, I’m back at my college weight — and maintaining it!
  • I’ve had a good marriage, although in no way a perfect one. Ours has in fact imitated what life is all about: being happy, having problems, working through problems, and being happy again. Thank God there’s been a bunch of “happy again’s!”
  • I’ve started 4 companies in my life, the latest turned out pretty good.
  • We have 3 wonderful children — now all grown. All are married, doing well, and have given us 6 amazing grandchildren. I learned quickly that grandchildren are much more fun than children were, although I loved fathering our amazing 3. We spoil the grandchildren rotten by always saying “Yes.” Then we send them home!
  • On the bad side of a parental divorce — when I just knew my life at 16 was pretty much permanently trashed — God moved me 200 miles north and into a family that through the last 50+ years have proven to me again and again that family and relationships are what life is really all about. And family is the model with which God put in place His perfect plan for us to use to “make it.”

Along the way at very strategic moments, I’ve met very specific people who each made major impacts on my life. The first was Sister Green who taught Children’s Church which I attended in Lafayette, Louisiana. Sister Green had somewhere in her life captured the reality of relationship with God. She masterfully simplified that process so that a 5-year-old little Cajun boy could understand who God is and how to have a relationship with God Himself. She was simply amazing.

Rodger Robinson befriended me as my high school freshman Speech teacher. He walked on crutches because of polio at a young age. But you forgot about any handicap there because of the way he lived his life for and with others. He never saw me as just a 14-year-old kid. He saw something in me that I didn’t know was there. Without telling me what he was doing while he was doing it, he put me on a path toward success that molded my life with readiness for all of the hills and valleys that lay ahead. And when the hills came, I adjusted almost automatically. I did the same when the valleys came. Rodger taught me how to lower the mountaintops a bit and to make the valleys shallower than they really were by just rejecting that old success killer: “Somebody owes me something.” He taught me to simply push through, put the bad stuff behind and keep walking.

Rodney and Francis Duron opened their home and hearts to a 16-year-old boy who had lost a big chunk of confidence in his parent’s nasty divorce. When I moved in, they moved all-in with their love and lives. Though never formally adopted, I was always treated as a true son — and still am. Dad Duron went to Heaven 6 years ago after giving his life away every day he breathed. He was the epitome of giving one’s life to others. He loved people — everybody. He pastored the entire city of Shreveport, Louisiana. And his life showed just that. At his wake, mourners lined up for 4 hours to pay their respects to the most honest, God-fearing, committed-to-others man I’ve ever known. It was fitting he met Jesus on March 16th — “3-16:” “For God so loved the World He gave His only son that whoever believed in Him would not experience eternal death but have life forever.” That’s from John 3:16. Dad Duron shared that with people every day.

Their only son and my brother, Denny Duron, too took me in too. For 50+ years he has loved me, poured his life into mine, shared literally everything in his life with me, including his family, friends, contacts, resources, and his magnanimous giftings. I’ve never known anyone like him and probably never will. He just took what Mom and Dad Duron lived and expanded it to a larger group of people. I am proud to say he’s a world-changer and teaches all those around him what a personal relationship with God and other people does for you. He’s no different than everyone else in this respect: he has been hurt, taken advantage of, disappointed, fought some health issues, while having a glorious life in high school, college, and professional football, and as the founder of one of the most successful high school football programs in the nation. All the while, he has pastored the finest church in America — Shreveport Community Church — fulfilling what his father did HIS entire life: show people in Shreveport and around the World that God really cares. Denny loves everybody! And I get to live in that amazing environment daily.

As I sit and write this, I realized something: I’ve been guilty in that during a large part of my life I have taken the good things that happened to me for granted. I guess that in my “thinking cycle” that dawned on me. I’ve made a bunch of choices: some good, some bad. But in every choice, no matter good or bad, I’ve come through each feeling stronger on the back side for going through them. The good choice results are obvious. Unfortunately the bad choice results are too.

Here’s my conclusion: I don’t know of anyone in history that didn’t face hurt, betrayal, abuse of many kinds, and personal loss. I know of many who let some or all of those wrongs destroy them. But I know of some who took them in stride using the results of THOSE things to seed the ground in their lives to become good.

Farmers have it figured out: when they plant soybeans, soybeans are going to grow. It makes no difference if they didn’t have soybean seed to plant and put pumpkin seeds in the ground, nothing those farmers do will make soybeans grow. They “harvest what they plant.” Realization of that “God” fundamental has really impacted my thinking. I’m not concentrating on those bad seeds I’ve planted that have grown into bad stuff. Sure, I dealt with the bad fruit that grew. There’s no way around that. But I’ve planted far more good seeds — some of which have already been harvested, some still in the ground. But I’m ecstatic that almost ALL the seeds that have been planted in my life by me and others I have already seen their fruit, and the products of the other seeds are on the way.

Oh… and “The Best Is Yet to Come.” (Pastor Rodney Duron)

I Can’t Wait!

Dan

 

Play

Russia Collusion: The Next Chapter

It is becoming clearer and clearer why Deep State operatives have worked so diligently to cover Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation from any public scrutiny about entanglements with Russia. Donald Trump has been the obvious distraction to accomplish that objective. And until now, it has been very effective. But now, details of just how entangled the Clintons were and are with Russia are slipping into the light. And what is showing up is very nasty. The former President and former Secretary of State apparently worked with numerous individuals and entities to surreptitiously line the pockets of the Clintons personally and the Clinton Foundation from Russian sources.

We’re not referring to that one $500,000 speech given by Bill in Russia while the Uranium Deal was in process. There were far more dollars in this charade carried out with apparent assistance from a myriad of well connected American political operatives and probably American politicians. On the other side was Putin himself.

At the end of all this will be greatest ironies that will unfold publicly beginning very slowly but will initiate a cascade of revelations that will leave Americans aghast as one political heavyweight after another will walk the American justice plank. Who will take the perp walk first remains to be seen. But the scales of American justice are precipitously swinging against the Clintons.

Who are the culprits in this? What have they done? What are the details that are about to be exposed to the World? When will it all happen? I don’t know those answers with certainty. But I do know evidence of it all is in the hands of the people who have the power to push this into the justice spotlight. I’m certain it will not be too far off.

I can think of no better way to put the beginning of this out there and simply passing along the details already known as given by one of the greatest investigative reporters in U.S. history: John Solomon. We don’t do this often, but what follows is the article Solomon just published in The Hill. John and his collaborator Sara Carter have meticulously crafted names, dates, and specifics for us all. And it’s like reading a spy novel.

Enjoy!

The Case for Russia Collusion…Against the Democrats

Now that both the House and Senate investigative committees have cleared Donald Trump of Democrat-inspired allegations of Russian collusion, it is worth revisiting one anecdote that escaped significant attention during the hysteria but continues to have U.S. security implications.

As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.

Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia.

A donor to the Clinton Foundation, Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, led the Russian side of the effort, and several American donors to the Clinton charity got involved. Clinton’s State Department facilitated U.S. companies working with the Russian project, and she personally invited Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley.

The collaboration occurred at the exact same time Bill Clinton made his now infamous trip to Russia to pick up a jaw-dropping $500,000 check for a single speech.

The former president’s trip secretly raised eyebrows inside his wife’s State Department, internal emails show.

That’s because he asked permission to meet Vekselberg, the head of Skolkovo, and Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear giant seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company with massive U.S. uranium reserves.

Years later, intelligence documents show, both the Skolkovo and Uranium One projects raised serious security concerns.

In 2013, the U.S. military’s leading intelligence think tank in Europe sounded alarmed that the Skolkovo project might be a front for economic and military espionage.

“Skolkovo is an ambitious enterprise, aiming to promote technology transfer generally, by inbound direct investment, and occasionally, through selected acquisitions. As such, Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage — with the additional distinction that it can achieve such a transfer on a much larger scale and more efficiently,” EUCOM’s intelligence bulletin wrote in 2013.

“Implicit in Russia’s development of Skolkovo is a critical question — a question that Russia may be asking itself — why bother spying on foreign companies and government laboratories if they will voluntarily hand over all the expertise Russia seeks?”

A year later, the FBI went further and sent letters warning several U.S. technology companies that had become entangled with Skolkovo that they risked possible espionage. And an agent in the bureau’s Boston office wrote an extraordinary op-ed to publicize the alarm.

Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with a military and commercial application,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge Lucia Ziobro wrote in the Boston Business Journal.

The FBI had equal concern about Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One. An informer named William Douglas Campbell had gotten inside the Russian nuclear giant in 2009 and gathered evidence that Rosatom’s agents in the United States were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving kickbacks, extortion, and bribery.

Campbell also obtained written evidence that Putin wanted to buy Uranium One as part of a strategy to obtain monopolistic domination of the global uranium markets, including leverage over the U.S.

Campbell also warned that a major in-kind donor to the Clinton Global Initiative was simultaneously working for Rosatom while the decision for U.S. approval was pending before Hillary Clinton’s department. Ultimately, her department and the Obama administration approved the transaction.

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.

The intersections between the Clintons, the Democrats and Russia carried into 2016, when a major political opposition research project designed to portray GOP rival Donald Trump as compromised by Moscow was launched by Clinton’s presidential campaign and brought to the FBI.

Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS research firm was secretly hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party through their law firm, Perkins Coie.

Simpson then hired retired British intelligence operative Christopher Steele — whom the FBI learned was “desperate” to defeat Trump — to write an unverified dossier suggesting that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the election.

Simpson, Steele and Perkins Coie all walked Trump-Russia related allegations into the FBI the summer before the election, prompting agents who openly disliked Trump to launch a counterintelligence probe of the GOP nominee shortly before Election Day.

Simpson and Steele also went to the news media to air the allegations in what senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr would later write was a “Hail Mary” effort to influence the election.

Congressional investigators have painstakingly pieced together evidence that shows the Clinton research project had extensive contact with Russians.

Ohr’s notes show that Steele’s main source of uncorroborated allegations against Trump came from an ex-Russian intelligence officer. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled.

Steele’s dossier also relied on information from a Belarus-born Russian businessman, according to numerous reports and a book on the Russia scandal.

Steele and Simpson had Russian-tied business connections, too, while they formulated the dossier.

Steele worked for the lawyers for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and tried to leverage those connections to help the FBI get evidence from the Russian aluminum magnate against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The effort resulted in FBI agents visiting Deripaska in fall 2016. Deripaska told the agents that no collusion existed.

Likewise, Simpson worked in 2016 for the Russian company Prevezon — which was trying to escape U.S. government penalties — and one of its Russian lawyers, Natalia Veselnitskaya. In sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson admitted he dined with Veselnitskaya both the night before and the night after her infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016.

Simpson insists the two dinners sandwiching one of the seminal events in the Trump collusion narrative had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting, a claim many Republicans distrust.

Whatever the case, there’s little doubt the main instigators of the Clinton-inspired allegations against Trump got information from Russians and were consorting with them during the political opposition project.

This past week, we learned from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) that his committee came to the same conclusion as the House: There is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

But now there is growing evidence — of Democratic connections to Russia. It’s enough that former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) believes a probe should be opened.

There is “obvious collusion the Democrats had through Glenn Simpson and through Fusion GPS, that they were talking directly to Russia,” Nunes told Hill.TV’s “Rising” in an interview to be aired Monday.

Collusion can be criminal if it involves conspiracy to break federal laws, or it can involve perfectly legal, unwitting actions that still jeopardize America’s security against a “frenemy” like Russia.

There is clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefiting Russia that have raised security concerns.

And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians.

It would seem those questions deserve at least some of the scrutiny afforded the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry that is now two-plus years old.

 

The New House: Wonder No More

If any had doubts that the “new” House of Representatives now controlled by the Democrat Party was going to come out guns blazing in a direct frontal attack of Donald Trump, no need to doubt anymore. With Friday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with Acting Attorney General Michael Whitaker, the 2019 Democrat agenda was on complete display. 

Under the direction of Congressman Jerold Nader (D-NY), the Committee promised to oversee the DOJ efforts in the areas of criminal justice, prison reform, the drug opiate problems and plans to eradicate it, immigration issues, and to assure the DOJ that the White House would NOT interfere with DOJ operations. None of that showed up in the hearing with Michael Whitaker.

From opening statements, the plans of the Democrats became clear and were hammered throughout the hearing. There were no conversations about criminal justice, eradication of opioid drugs, gun control, violent crime — all issues one would expect this committee’s members to wholeheartedly support and wish to discuss with the AG. A couple of those were mentioned, but none were discussed.

What Was The Hearing About?

Plain and simple: “How nasty can we Democrats be when on television with 5:00 minutes at a time to prove to our base how much we hate this President?”

Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) showed American exactly what the Democrats  have as their agenda for governance in the People’s House for the next two years. This is 6.33 minutes  long,  but it is important for you to see:

The Rhode Island Congressman was definitely not the only member of the House Judicial Committee who attacked Acting Attorney General Whitaker. And the attacks came chiefly from an obviously choreographed Democrat plan to perpetuate what many felt would be their agenda for the next two years. And that agenda now is certain to NOT be representing Americans that voted for them to govern. I doubt many Americans want their members of Congress to for two years investigate this President for collusion with Russia. But you would not know that from their actions in that hearing.

 

Dems Only Agenda: Get Trump

Don’t let the famous Alexandria Ocasio Cortez “New Green Plan” or “Medicare For All” blind you, the majority of Democrats couldn’t care less about those plans. Nor do they care about immigration reform, further criminal justice reform, infrastructure, further tax relief for the middle class, unemployment, or entitlement reform. They care about one thing and one thing only: Donald Trump. And the House Judiciary Committee hearing makes that totally clear.

Remember all the cries that have been sounded daily during the Mueller probe that all say “We MUST allow Robert Mueller to complete his investigation of President Trump with NO interference of any kind.” Time after time, month after month, for two years they have beat the “leave everything to do with the Mueller probe untouched.” They have threatened every member of the Trump Administration and every GOP member of Congress with serious personal and professional consequences if they dare touch the Mueller probe. And that includes funding of the probe, staffing per Mueller’s desires, or tampering with anyone one or any process used by Mueller.

They have complained continuously about President Trump himself regarding Mueller. Democrat members in the Senate even crafted a bill to block the President from taking any unilateral action to remove Mueller. It’s been comical to watch and hear the President’s responses to these cries from Congress, the badgering by the media, and even from demonstrators threatening the President if he touches Mueller in any way.

How has Trump responded? More than two dozen times on national television shows, in writing, and in response to numerous members of the media, Mr. Trump has responded: “No, I will not fire Robert Mueller.”

Come on! We’re two years into the Mueller probe. If the President was planning to fire Mueller, he certainly would have already pulled the trigger, don’t you think?

So why won’t Congress give it a rest? Surely they’re not going to continue their demands to see to it that President Trump does NOT fire Mueller. They wouldn’t let Mr. Trump interfere in the probe. They would not let anything interfere with Mr. Mueller, would they?

It seems like Congressional Democrats have plans of their own to take over investigating Mr. Trump!

Enter Adam Schiff

The California Congressman has been the designated attack dog sicked on the Trump Organization by fellow Democrats. He is a fan of a television camera and a microphone, loves media attention, and has settled in on the leadership in the Trump attack. Even before the return to power in the House by the Democrats, Schiff was laying out his plans.

The Washington Times described it:

Democrats taking over the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and its Russia-Trump probe have stayed doggedly loyal to the Hillary Clinton-financed dossier that Republicans say is a hoax. At times, incoming Chairman Adam Schiff, California Democrat, and colleagues have hailed dossier writer Christopher Steele for predicting events. A close examination showed his assertions already had appeared in the press. Other Steele allegations embraced by Democrats remain unproven publicly more than two years after he started submitting memos to his Democratic handlers.

Mr. Schiff describes the dimensions for his upcoming probes this way: There are so many Trump scandals, he says, “our caucus will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first.”

The committee’s final report by its Republican majority in April acquitted the Trump campaign of collusion with Moscow in its election interference via computer hacking and fake social media accounts. To date, no Trump person has been charged by special counsel Robert Mueller on such allegations. Mr. Schiff rejected the GOP report, saying he believes a conspiracy existed between Moscow and Mr. Trump.

“Throughout the investigation, committee Republicans chose not to seriously investigate — or even see, when in plain sight — evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, instead adopting the role of defense counsel for key investigation witnesses,” he said. Mr. Schiff has stated that he wants to launch completely new lines of inquiry, such as supposed Russian money-laundering through the Trump Organization — an allegation that hasn’t been broadly discussed publicly. Republicans say they heard no such evidence during their inquiry.

Democrats also have mentioned a number of Trump associates they want to bring back for more questioning. Candidates may include Donald Trump Jr., who orchestrated the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and campaign adviser Michael Caputo.

A big question is whether Mr. Schiff will again try to prove Mr. Steele’s allegations. An FBI witness told the committee in a closed-door hearing that none of the British ex-spy’s core collusion charges had been proven.

Adam Schiff is up to his neck in the Russia probe. He has been from the beginning. From meeting secretly with Fusion GPS’s leader and writer of the infamous dossier Christopher Steele, to a staged and recorded live radio conversation with two Russians who posed as Russian intelligence officials who had “Trump evidence.” They claimed to Schiff that Trump indeed was in cahoots with Putin, had taken advantage of the availability of Russian prostitutes when in Moscow, and other proof that they would share with Schiff and the FBI. (we’ll play the interview for you. It is hilarious!)

Summary

Here’s the takeaway from the foreshadowing of Democrat plans for America for the next two years: they have no agenda — no plan for America!

One would think they as good representatives of the People would use the significant progress made during the first two years of the Trump Administration and build on that progress with their own ideas of making those even better. One would expect they would take the opportunities in the area of real immigration reform to permanently with legislative action fix the significant border issues, rescue the DACA recipients who for lack of Congressional action and through no fault of their own have been relegated to the class of “second-class NON citizens,” waiting for the government to give them some hope for a real future.

Crumbling roads and bridges, ancient municipal water systems, the power grid, declining public mass transportation, and outdated criminal justice issues should be aggressively tackled by this Congress.

Oh, and don’t forget Democrats cries for the last two years: “Don’t let anybody mess with Robert Mueller! He must be allowed to have everything he needs, as long as he needs, as much money as he needs, with no interference from anyone — especially Donald Trump. Mueller must remain unfettered in every way so that he can give to the American people the factual evidence that the Trump Campaign did collude with Russia to change the outcome of the 2016 election.”

Then why have the Democrats themselves already launched nasty, aggressive, and exhaustive investigations of all things Trump WHILE THE MUELLER PROBE IS ONGOING?!?!

Members of the Democrat Party who join us here, I have a question for you: Don’t you agree that Democrats should just be elected representatives who serve their constituents in crafting laws, working with all branches of the federal government in their operations, giving oversight to the departments of those branches of government, to make this government work better? Certainly, you believe that.

Then why not demand just that? Why not force those men and women who work for you who promised those very things to simply do what they promised they would do?

Unless and until the People speak with Constitutional authority and MAKE Congressional leaders understand there is no acceptable alternative to representing us, they will simply perpetuate the partisan political nonsense we saw play out in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday. And it will happen again and again and again.

One more thing: in the upcoming days, we at TruthNewsNetwork are going to give you a complete biographical sketch of who the now most powerful Democrat in D.C. really is: Adam Schiff. I promise you: it will disgust you!

Google: What Are YOU Hiding?

NOTICE TO ALL: Google Analytics reached out to me several months ago to do some independent research work for them. I have contracted to investigate the histories of each of the 535 voting members of Congress. The seriousness of and the depth of these investigations have given me unfettered access to Google’s massive database containing all public and private (and even confidential) details of these politicians’ lives, all the way back to their youth.

Google’s purpose for this is to catalog all those events, circumstances, statements made, claims of various natures of those being investigated, that would someday in any currently unforeseen circumstances need to be accessed for Google’s purposes.

You can imagine the magnitude of this project for me and my staff. We launched it on February 1. And I must say, the capability of Google and their reach into the secret corners of our individual worlds is breathtaking.  I’m shocked and horrified every minute I’m in this process to discover just how much of these people’s lives are purposely hidden, and that even that there are some life details they have made no efforts to cover! It’s uncanny to see and hear the things they say in public while knowing the truths of their lives that are kept hidden away.

Obviously, we here all had to sign massive non-disclosure agreements for this project — agreements which contain penalties that run the gamut from LARGE dollars and cents to possible criminal prosecution for any disclosures. I will NOT be able to share any specific details in our writings for obvious reasons. 

I’m saying all that to say this, anything that we ever say, write, record, email, text, post, tweet, Snapchat, etc. that finds its way to the internet is certainly contained in this database and will exist on the Net in perpetuity. That’s scary. But we all should have known and expected that. And Google has access to it all.

For my friends, I am saying this for information purposes only. For those who do not know me, please know this: I either now or in the very near future will probably know you better than you know yourself.

By the way: you may just want to forward this to your members of Congress: just for a “heads-up” — not that there’s anything they can do about it. Everything we find is within the public domain. Whatever “it” is, if they already did”it”, it’s out there.

The “Story”

Obviously, all this above is NOT true. There is NO contract with Google Analytics. I am NOT under contract to investigate the past of members of Congress. Whatever they have said or done is (as far as I am concerned) between them, their families, and their voting constituents, although, as federal employees, I and any other American have the right to make certain they do not hold themselves above the law.

So what is this all about?

Americans from many walks of life are falling by the wayside at the hands of scandals — scandals that develop from things they have said, from things they have done, attempted to do, or maybe just have been accused of doing in their pasts. The most obvious of those (and probably the most unforgivable) have happened in the area of sexual intimidation, harassment, and in some cases, sexual assault. But these scandals don’t stop there. They tend to devolve in nature.

Example: Just a few hours after Virginia Democrat Governor Ralph Northam opened the door to Pro-Life cries for his resignation as governor for his statements in a radio interview about late-term abortions, a second scandal erupted when the governor was exposed posing in a medical school yearbook picture with a friend. The friend was dressed in a Ku Klux Klan robe while the governor wore blackface. Members of his own party at the state and federal level immediately joined the existing attacks against the governor for his statements on late-term abortion because of his obvious racism revealed by blackface.

But the Virginia political scandal had just begun.

Democratic Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, 39, who is black and would succeed Northam were he to step down, is in hot water himself. Immediately following the calls for Northam’s resignation, a woman accused Fairfax of sexually assaulting her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Fairfax vehemently denies the allegations and in a press release claimed that the sexual assault charges were actually made to the Washington Post several years previously. The release stated that the Post investigated, and refused to run the story because they found it to be untrue. However, the Washington Post immediately published a story denying the claim made by Fairfax, saying they investigated the claim when made but chose not to run the story because they could find no one to corroborate the allegations by the woman, but there was no corroboration of the denial of Fairfax either.

The Virginia scandal gets wilder!

If Governor Northam resigns and Lt. Governor Fairfax is forced to resign his office, who would then assume the spot as Virginia Governor? The line of succession names the state Attorney General to be next up. Attorney General Mark Herring, 57, who has expressed gubernatorial ambitions and called four days ago for Northam to resign, admitted in a statement he donned black face paint at a party in 1980 to impersonate a rapper.

How about all this for political drama!

So What is Happening?

On Fox News today, a panel of experts were discussing the debacle playing out in Virginia three-way scandal detailed above. In that panel discussion, the moderator asked this question, “Is blackface from 30-years ago really racist or is it just racially insensitivity?” Moderator Bill Hemmer asked the question in a discussion to determine what is actually racist.

Jessica Tarlov, Democrat Party operative, immediately replied to Hemmer’s question, saying, “Blackface is clearly racism and not simply racially insensitive.” Her statement opens Pandora’s box of Identity Politics, which Democrats have unilaterally commanded the control of.

How so? Tarlov said, “Blackface is CLEARLY racist.” She (Tarlov) obviously believes that is a fact. And she bases that “fact” on what? HER OPINION. Without really knowing that really is a fact, Tarlov assumed — at least in this conversation — she KNOWS what’s true regarding blackface and that everyone should simply accept her premise as fact, just because SHE said it. After all: she’s a Democrat Party operative. And the Democrat Party has total control over every aspect of Identity Politics.

Let’s discuss THEIR rules regarding racism. Oh, I forgot: there’s only ONE RULE. I researched for months to put together the Racism Rule Book. My staff spent several thousand research hours. And here’s what we came up with: There IS one! And everybody has a copy already. And the one I have is the only REAL one in existence.

Where did it come from? Who developed it? What are the rules? The easy answer to all of these questions: The Political Elites wrote the book, add to it and subtract from it all the racism rules they choose, and they edit at will any of those that remain.

Wait a minute: I’m not a Political Elitist. Do I have access to a copy of the book? Hmmm…. The answer to that question is pretty simple: you must find someone who self-identifies as being Politically Elite. And then you must ask them to authorize your receiving a copy of “The Book.” If they in their unilateral desire to do so, they can start the process of getting the book to you.

But it may take a while for you to receive it. Why is that?

Their editors are rewriting the book….today. And they’re rewriting the book….tomorrow. They NEVER STOP REWRITING THE BOOK! It’s in constant “development.” Why? The rules keep changing! And those Political Elitists are who have total control over the determination of what is and what is not racist.

Let’s look at two examples of Elitists prerogative at allowing some to commit blackface crime. We all know Jimmy Kimmel has become a nighttime darling of the Left. He can do NO wrong in their sight — not even racial wrong. If he slipped up and made a mistake in dealing with racial issues, he would automatically be forgiven simply because he’s an Elite himself. So if Kimmel does blackface, it’s OK. Like here, in blackface on the air making fun of a friend of mine: former NBA star from my university, Karl Malone.

But Kimmel is not the only Political Elite to get the blackface pass. How about the “other” acceptable nighttime comedian, Jimmy Fallon making fun of Chris Rock:

What the Heck Can Be Done to Stop This Insanity?

It’s got to stop. It’s not about blackface. It’s not about race. It’s about Political Superiority and those who use every gimmick possible against others for political advantage. Those Political Elites caught-up in this know without a doubt there was no racial intention on the part of the Virginia governor, the Virginia attorney general, Jimmy Fallon or Jimmy Kimmel. These were for humorous purposes only.

The sexual assault allegation against Lt. Governor Fairfax is of a different nature. However, even in that case, allegations are just that unless and until those are turned into facts, a prosecution in whatever way is appropriate should be withheld.

This practice of doing nothing more than shouting obscenities at each other, making outrageous claims of horrible things about others is quickly and dramatically ripping at the fabric of what America is all about: “Liberty and Justice for All.”  But that promise of justice is now being controlled by Political Elitists. And many of those are ruining the lives of Americans without even a hint of the OTHER promise of our founding fathers to us all: “we are all innocent until proven guilty.”

This story began with another story — one about Google Analytics. Yes, that was a made-up story. But are we not far from the possibility and even probability that story could be a true one? Is it too far-fetched to imagine a world where someone who simply makes an agreement with a company, a government, a political entity, or even a totalitarian tyrant to surreptitiously craft ways to undermine the lives of others using made-up stories to destroy those they hate, simply to destroy a foe without using basic decency and the truth?

Summary

What is the answer? Simple: Someone with credibility, integrity, and honesty to step up to the plate to knock this out of the park. This blackface argument has gone nuts. No matter if one is black or white, it is simply outrageous to allow a group of people to craft a racial rule that when used destroys the lives of others.

Who could that be? Who could step into the fray of all this and resolve it?

Some may laugh, but I think the obvious person to champion the battle regarding this “perceived” racism that really is not racism is Barack Obama. You may not have liked him. You may have disagreed with his politics and his methods. But one thing he did that really struck me as something only a true peacemaker in the U.S. racial devastation could pull-off. Did you know that President Obama gave the eulogy at the funeral of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd? Byrd was a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan — a true racist in every sense of the word.  But Byrd turned and walked away from the KKK and all it stood for. In the last half of his life, he committed to right the wrongs he had committed while not just a member, but when a leader in that racist organization that begat only hatred for minorities.

As a black man and leader, if President Obama would step onto the stage of Racial Reconciliation and use blackface as a tool to bring us together, I think it might work. Why not give it a try? Honestly, you surely agree that it cannot get much worse than it is today. And the way it is today is unsustainable. America is quickly losing its foundation on true equality and acceptance.

We can all take everything to the extreme. And we all do that at times. But in the America in which we live, we all need to instead of finding and highlighting the faults of others, and doing so for our own personal benefits, we should instead offer a hand of acceptance, a nod of understanding, and a willingness to find commonalities in which to work together as Americans for the common good of all Americans. That’s what we all really are. And in this writer’s opinion, that’s the only way we will ever truly again be “One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.”

Play

“Experts Say”…Part II

Experts run roughshod throughout every department of the federal government. Anytime there’s a question about any issue — security, foreign policy, the economy, elections, border walls, you name it — there’s an expert somewhere who factually knows the answer to any question about any of these. Today we will look at a few of those, specifically U.S. Intelligence Agencies.

You may have noticed the heads of the leading U.S. Intelligence Agencies just testified before Congress about the current status of the U.S. regarding all intelligence matters domestically and around the World. Before we look at a few of their findings, let’s look at a few findings of previous intelligence officials — “experts” — and compare those to todays.

Intelligence Expert Findings

There’s no better place to start than with the President of the United States. Remember when then-candidate Trump was griping that Russians were influencing the 2016 election in favor of his opponent? Everyone in D.C. laughed at Trump about those allegations, even President Obama — so much so that he went to the press to denigrate Mr. Trump for claiming U.S. elections could possibly be rigged:

We all “know” that the Russians did everything they could to impact the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton and for her opponent: Donald Trump. After all, Vladimir Putin knew Russia would do better with his good buddy in the White House instead of that brazen bastion of truthfulness and justice as president — Hillary Clinton. After all, Trump promised in his campaign to take the U.S. back to its former prominence as having the strongest and most powerful military on Earth, to force Russia to get out of Ukraine, and to stay out of the Middle East. Hillary, on the other hand, had just supervised the sale of massive amounts of U.S. uranium to a Russian company owned by Russia and did so through a Canadian company to “launder” the transaction.

“Russia preferred Trump to Hillary.” Poppycock!”

In July of 2017, TruthNewsNetwork published a story about this very thing. Here’s just a portion of that story:

“There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections…There is no evidence that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this time…So I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining.”Barack Obama, October 2016

One of two things is apparent: either Barack Obama ignored the “real” news he had received from the Intelligence Community two months before saying the above, or the “real” news was not real at all, but “fake news.” Stating either one of those two to be correct would be pure speculation on my part. But one thing is certain: RussiaGate is alive and kicking. Whether “real” or “fake,” it has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars as multiple investigations by Congress, the FBI, and now Special Counsel Robert Mueller are engaged and all aggressively pursuing any evidence of collusion by anyone affiliated with Donald Trump or even the President himself with the Russians.

I have asked this question before, but its significance bears its repeating: with the most elaborate, most well equipped, most proficient intelligence gathering capabilities on the face of the Earth, is it plausible to believe at this point almost a year into RussiaGate not a single shred of evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump Organization has been leaked to and/or unearthed by the Press? Certainly in this 24/7 news cycle in which we live (that has turned into the 24/7 “Leak” cycle), if there was any evidence of collusion, we would certainly know about it. Further, I hear every day this statement from multiple news sources: “Every Intelligence Agency has confirmed the Russians tried to hack the 2016 Presidential election.” THAT IS NOT TRUE! Even the NY Times corrected that fake story by stating that just 2 of the 16 intelligence agencies had participated in the preparation of a report that was then given to the Department of National Intelligence (DNI) about Russian hacking. Later it was revealed that 13 handpicked intelligence employees prepared that report. No big deal? Normally when such a report is prepared, several HUNDRED intelligence specialists are involved!

Even if their conclusion was legitimate and accurate, where is the evidence? When I ask that question to people in a position of authority, all I am told is that “the evidence of Russian election interference is classified since it’s part of an ongoing investigation.” Really? Are we expected to believe that ANY evidence at all of ANYTHING illegal in the political world of Washington D.C. can possibly remain secret — no matter if classified? Don’t tell the news media that — they’d go out business not having any “fake news” from “anonymous source leaks” to report.

Based on simple logic, I have over this past weekend — in the midst of numerous hours of exhaustive investigation looking for Russian election hacking evidence — made a blockbuster conclusion: there was NO Russian attempts to hack into the 2016 election that had not been attempted in previous American elections over and over again. And the Obama Administration knew about them for years and did nothing about them.

My conclusion about President Obama’s “expert” opinion? Either his experts were incorrect, politically motivated, or HE purposely misstated the truth. You decide.

The U.S. Intelligence: Past

It’s doubtful that few Americans (if any) feel really confident in the reliability and veracity of the intelligence that is given to us from the leadership of U.S. intelligence agencies. Through the last two years, time and time again we hear, see and read reports of leadership in the FBI, CIA, DNI, and NSA give Americans “expert” opinions based on information provided them that is always classified. It seems that when they couch that presentation with the term “classified,” we are intrigued to hear what they say — like it’s a secret that they shouldn’t tell us, but because we’re Americans they’ll push the envelope and go ahead and tell us.

Intelligence agency heads have been falling to the wayside during the Trump Administration.  These experts have been fired or forced to resign just from the FBI:

  1. James Comey, director (fired)
  2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
  3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
  4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
  5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
  6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
  7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
  8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
  9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
  10. Greg Bower, assistant director for the office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

Then there are these from the Department of Justice (non-FBI):

  1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
  2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
  3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
  4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
  5. Trisha Beth Anderson, the office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
  6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
  7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
  9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to the deputy attorney general (resigned)
  10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (fired along with 45 other U.S. Attorneys)
  11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

And there are several others since these. I wonder why that is?

It seems that these experts have been caught up in some very nefarious activities. (In the written story on our website you can see the reason for these experts’ departures explained next to their names in the list)

The U.S. Intelligence: Today

Congress invited the current heads of U.S. intelligence agencies to sit and discuss the state of intelligence in today’s Trump Administration. In that meeting, various members of Congress asked those intelligence officials to respond to specific intelligence and foreign policy positions taken publicly by President Trump. (Remember: these folks are the bulwark of American Intelligence) The topics were Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Isis. (Note: pay close attention to their disagreement with the President almost across the board)

On Afghanistan

What Trump tweeted

“Negotiations are proceeding well in Afghanistan after 18 years of fighting. … Fighting continues but the people of Afghanistan want peace in this never ending war. We will soon see if talks will be successful.”

What Coats said

“We assess neither the Afghan government nor the Taliban will be able to gain a strategic advantage in the Afghan war in the coming war year, even if coalition support remains at current levels. However, current efforts to achieve an agreement with the Taliban and decisions on a possible withdrawal of U.S. troops could play a key role in shaping the direction of the country in the coming years.”

On Iran

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s Ministry of Defence has published a video purportedly showing the launch of a new cruise missile, saying it has a 1,350-kilometre (840-mile) range. In the 37-second video on the ministry website, the launch was shown from different angles with the projectile finally hitting somewhere in the desert. Iran has missile capability of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles), far enough to reach archenemy Israel and U.S. military bases in the region.

What Trump tweeted

“The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but … a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. Their economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

What King and Haspel said

King: “But since our departure from the deal they have abided by the terms.

Haspel: “Yes, they are making some preparations that would increase their ability to take a step back if they make that decision. So at the moment technically they are in compliance.

On North Korea

What Trump tweeted

“North Korea relationship is best it has ever been with the U.S. No testing, getting remains, hostages returned. Decent chance of Denuclearization. … Time will tell what will happen with North Korea, but at the end of the previous administration, the relationship was horrendous and very bad things were about to happen. Now a whole different story. I look forward to seeing Kim Jong Un shortly. Progress being made – a big difference!”

What Coats said

“Regarding North Korea, the regime has halted its provocative behavior related to its (weapons of mass destruction) program. North Korea has not conducted any nuclear-capable missile or nuclear tests in more than a year and it has dismantled some of its nuclear infrastructure. As well, Kim Jong Un continues to demonstrate openness to the denuclearization and of the Korean Peninsula.

“Having said that, we currently assess that North Korea will seek to retain its WMD capabilities and is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival. Our assessment is bolstered by our observations of some activity that is inconsistent with full denuclearization.

“While we assess that sanctions and exports have been effective and largely maintained, North Korea seeks to mitigate the effects of the U.S.-led pressure campaign through diplomatic engagement, counter pressure against the sanction’s regime, and direct sanctions evasion.”

On Isis

What Trump tweeted

“When I became President, ISIS was out of control in Syria & running rampant. Since then tremendous progress made, especially over the last 5 weeks. Caliphate will soon be destroyed, unthinkable two years ago.”

What Coats said

“While ISIS is nearing territorial defeat in Iraq and Syria, the group has returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide. ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria. …

“While we have defeated the caliphate with a couple of little villages left, we should not underestimate the ability of terrorist groups, particularly ISIS and affiliated groups with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, that they are operating not simply on what takes place on the battlefield that gives them strength or weakness, but they are operating on the basis of a theocracy, a theology, an ideology that we will continue to see for perhaps years ahead in various places of the world. …

“ISIS will continue to be a threat to the United States, and we’re going to have to continue, as Director Haspel said, to keep our eyes on that and our interest in the realization that this terrorist threat is going to continue for some time.”

Summary

I would love for American intelligence to be motivated by just one thing: THE TRUTH. Unfortunately, it has become clearer and clearer that former and current intelligence agency heads are not necessarily driven by that one thing. In today’s Washington, it is apparent that much of what we see and hear is driven at least in part by political motivation.

Fired FBI Director James Comey illustrates how intelligence experts are polluted by political and personal agenda. Comey totally botched the email server investigation of Candidate Clinton, violated FBI and DOJ protocol in multiple ways, and then committed multiple felony violations of his OWN mishandling of classified information and documents.

John Brennan was caught lying under oath to Congress. James Clapper took the Steele Dossier to CNN (where he had just signed on as a “contributing expert” even though he knew its sourcing was funded in part by the Clinton Campaign and that most of it was unverified), and in doing so violated multiple regulations and DOJ operating procedures.

We could go on and on and on. But let’s just cap this off by making this position statement: Americans not only “Want” the best intelligence apparatus in the world, Americans “Deserve” the best intelligence apparatus in the world. And Americans no longer believe that we have that!

It’s because of a combination of things. But all of those “things” boil down to this: People. Intelligence operatives are people. And people are each different from other people. But in Washington D.C., we have  made it abundantly clear, the driving force of most there are power and all that power can bring to them personally.

No, everyone in intelligence is not dishonest, self-serving, and politically driven. But many are. And because of that, Congress and the White House are going to have to in unity re-create the way American Intelligence operates, and not from the top down. As this president has said over and over again, the workers in Intelligence are rock solid on the most part. The tragedy that strikes again and again always seems to originate at the top of each of these agencies: the “experts.” Many of those have been exposed and have been eliminated. But what remains in their wakes are all those processes that allowed them to weave their webs of deceit. Those must be eliminated.

So, President Trump, many Americans hope you have 6 years to correct these problems. But you may have just two more years to tackle them. I doubt I need to say this, but you just need to roll your sleeves up and get at it.

And one more thing: you have smartly from afar allowed Special Counsel Robert Mueller the distance and freedom to run his traps trying to trap you. That has been a great decision for you. I encourage you to let it play out. It is fairly obvious that he’s on a dead-end street. Let him crash.

Democrats will NEVER accept that he — an “expert” does not and will not find any collusion between your organization and Russia regarding the 2016 election. In their “looking,” his group is trying to create some process crimes with which they can charge those in your organization and possibly even you. Let them look. They’re only thinning your air and spending millions of OUR dollars in their doing so!

It’s worth it to us just to watch them continue to run in circles. That seems to be what today’s “experts” do!

 

Play

“Experts Say….” Part I

What “Experts?”

We hear it every day: “Experts say……” I have stated again and again that I am going to start counting how many times each day I see or hear media reports that draw conclusions based on what “experts say.” This doesn’t come from just political issues, but every issue that is important to Americans: anything that the media covers.

Remember when news reports in print, television, and radio, “experts” really meant something? When reports quoted a president, a governor, a member of Congress or of the President’s cabinet, and listed that source as an “expert,” it meant something. Americans could put stock in the fact that whoever that expert was really knew something that the reader, listener or viewer was not privy to. Not so today.

What Are Experts? “One with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject”

Here’s what I wonder: why hasn’t someone in the media taken on that challenge that is front-and-center in most Americans’ minds today: WHO IS THE EXPERT? I promise you, there’s a juicy story there. For that reason, it is hard for this journalist to believe no other journalist has found it sufficient to justify a story.

That alone IS sufficient for a story — an investigative story. So you get one today with a follow-up Part II tomorrow!

Experts

They’re everywhere! Seldom do we read or hear a story in which that story itself gives credit to its credibility because of an “expert” who sourced the information in that story. But seldom does the story give the identity of that expert. I wonder why that is?

In no other setting has there been so many experts than in the area of border walls: what they specifically are, their cost, their feasibility on the World stage, their effectiveness in other places, their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness at the U.S. southern border, and the predictions of everything to do with them — all from “experts,” of course!

It’s strange to me that so many Wall experts could have such diverse opinions about the subject, especially since they’re all experts!

The other area in today’s America in which we find so many experts is in government Intelligence. Nearly any story written, seen or heard is sourced from an “expert.” Who are they? What are their credentials? Who tagged them as an “expert.”

We are going to do a two-part study of these “experts.” Today we will look at the experts regarding border walls. Then tomorrow we will introduce you to all those Intelligence experts that have shaped the foreign and domestic intelligence processes for the United States.

Let’s dig in.

Border Wall “Experts”

PENNSYLVANIA U.S. SENATOR BOB CASEY: “The president said he would be ‘proud’ to shut down the government and now he’s doing just that,” Casey’s statement read. “Instead of creating chaos, President Trump should support the bipartisan funding bill that the U.S. Senate passed unanimously. It provides over $1 billion for border security funding, but not a wall that security experts say won’t work.”

Becoming American Initiative “There’s not a crisis at the border,” said Jordan Bruneau, an expert senior policy analyst for the conservative-leaning Becoming American Initiative. “A border wall is a Band-Aid solution to the situation of illegal immigrants wanting to come to the country.”

HUFFINGTON POST “While Trump is characterizing the barrier as a non-negotiable tenet of border security, immigrant experts told HuffPost it’s an ineffective solution that will endanger migrant families. Advocates say the wall could force people to take dangerous journeys to cross the border or threaten parents and children’s health by making them languish in unsanitary shelters near ports of entry. Experts are especially concerned about the well-being of migrant kids after a boy and a girl recently died in Border Patrol custody. “Fortifying the border is just going to lead to more deaths,” said Elissa Steglich, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who teaches a clinic for immigrant families. “[It’s] giving business to sophisticated smugglers who are going to be taking migrants through more perilous and life-threatening circumstances.”

BUSINESS INSIDER.comExperts say there is no crisis and that the problems that do exist at the border can’t be solved with a wall.”

VOX. “Trump’s statistics here are generally correct. But according to experts, he’s wrong that the wall would do much to stop the flow of illegal drugs.”

TIME Magazine: “But if he follows through on a threat to declare a national emergency in order to build a border wall, experts say he’s going to have to rely on facts and legal arguments.”

Polytechnic.org: “Most experts say that physical fencing would not drastically decrease the number of illegal immigrants entering the country.”

Cato Institute: Alex Nowrasteh, a senior expert analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute who has researched the issue, said that Trump was trying to whip up fear among Americans about a problem that has statistical significance. “They absolutely should not be as frightened as he thinks they should be,” he told INSIDER. Trump “beat to death the notion that immigrants are coming here to kill us, to murder us, to rape us, to rob from us,” Nowrasteh said. “And the evidence simply does not support that. It is untrue. It has been repeated ad nauseam. And I don’t think the American public believes it. Out of any large population like that, there’s going to be some bad apples, of course. And some immigrants have done horrible things and committed terrible crimes,” he said. “But that’s no reason to punish the immigrants who haven’t done anything. And when we take a look at the evidence, they are less likely to commit homicides, they are less likely to commit crimes, they are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.”

“Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work”

These Historians — “experts” — point to border wall failures, like Berlin, WW II in Germany, and the U.S. Southern border wall! Those historians did not mention any of the other 160 border walls standing now in countries around the world that are effectively deterring those whose border violations caused their building. Afghanistan is right now building a border wall with Pakistan that runs the entire length of their border — through mountains!

“Real Experts”

In the summary below, we’ll talk about the specifics of how the media use the term “Experts,” and why they do. But first, let’s look at some information delivered by “REAL” experts. Why are these “real experts?” Because they are named and they know what they’re talking about!

Israel and Hungary. As President Trump seeks to fulfill his promise to build a wall on the southern border, he is getting support from leaders in countries that have erected their own border barriers — and who hail those projects as critical to battling illegal immigration. Trump, too, has cited countries like Israel — which has a network of walls and fences on its borders — as proof that barriers work as he seeks to convince Congress to fund a wall or steel barrier to the tune of $5.7 billion.

Democrats in Congress have refused to entertain his proposal, calling a wall both “immoral” and ineffective, and only agreeing to $1.3 billion in more general border security funding. That led to a month-long shutdown, which temporarily ended last week. Funding is set to expire again on Feb. 15, and Trump has warned that he is prepared to declare a national emergency if no wall funding is agreed to. The president said Friday there’s a good chance he’ll take that step while saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “hurting this country so badly” with her stance on the wall.

But despite claims that such barriers are ineffective, in countries such as Israel and Hungary, top officials say they are a key mechanism in keeping a border secure and illegal migration flows down.

“Since we built a fence, and since the police and army have been there, we basically have no illegal migrants on the territory of the country,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told Fox News in an interview last week. “There are constant attempts to break through, but the infrastructure itself, namely the fence, and police and the army, make it impossible to get in. So that’s a success,” he said.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government built a wall in the West Bank as a counter-terrorism measure, as well as a “smart fence” on the southern border with Egypt — Israel’s longest border — to prevent migration from Africa. Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon said that the border once had a “flimsy wire fence” that allowed smugglers and traffickers in the Sinai Peninsula to enter Israel, but that was changed in 2010. “From 2010-2013, we built a system of two layers of fencing, with advanced surveillance equipment,” he said. “And the results speak for themselves: border crossings dropped by over 99 percent, from 9,570 in the first half of 2012 to 34 in the first half of 2013.” Netanyahu has repeatedly hailed the success of the border. In 2017, he said, “President Trump is right.” Netanyahu continued, “I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea,” he tweeted.

Recently, responding to the viral 10-year challenge meme, he posted side-by-side pictures of the fence on the Egyptian border in 2009 and 2019.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said, “Look, we have a much shorter border than what you have with Mexico, of course. But without the fence it would be impossible to protect almost 500 kilometers of land border,” he said. “It would be impossible because otherwise how would you make it? So if you don’t have a physical infrastructure you cannot seal off the green border.”

He also dismissed the difference between a fence and a wall as a “technical question.” “It’s an infrastructure which physically makes it impossible for people to cross,” he said.

THE TEXAS TRIBUNE. But if the wall comes, will it help stop the drug smugglers the president says are pouring into the country virtually unfettered? Manuel Padilla says it will. Padilla, chief of the Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector, which stretches for 320 river miles from the Gulf of Mexico to Falcon Lake, says the Valley has become smugglers’ favorite crossing point in part because it still lacks the barriers erected at one-time hot spots like San Diego and El Paso. “If you look at the technology and infrastructure … this is the only place where you do not have it at those levels,” he added. “Really, this is the last stand.”

NBC NEWS. “When President Trump argues that the United States needs a wall along the southern border, he likes to point to San Diego’s success. There, double and triple barriers fortify the westernmost stretch of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border as U.S. Border Patrol agents drive SUVs along frontage roads and hover overhead in helicopters. The militarized border touching the communities of Imperial Beach, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa contributed to a 75 percent decline in crossings in the years immediately after fencing was installed in the 1990s, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

BORDER PATROL OFFICIALS. “National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd, who served as a Border Patrol agent for 21 years. He stressed how important physical barriers are on the border. “I can personally tell you, from the work that I have done on the southwest border, that physical barriers, that walls actually work,” Judd said. “You hear a lot of talk that there are experts that say that walls don’t work. I promise you that if you interview Border Patrol agents, they will tell you that walls work. I worked in Naco, Arizona, for 10 years. We didn’t have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration and drug smuggling were absolutely out of control. We built those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially. Anywhere that you look, where we have built walls, they have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for Border Patrol agents in securing the border,” he said.

“We need those physical barriers, and we appreciate President Trump and all of his efforts in getting us those physical barriers. There’s also a lot of talk on this shutdown, that federal employees do not agree with the shutdown. I will tell you that’s not true,” Judd said.

Art Del Cueto, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, also a longtime Border Patrol agent out of the Tucson Sector, said he and his colleagues are all affected by the shutdown and they fully support the president and all his efforts to secure the nation’s borders.

“We have skin in the game. However, it comes down to border security, and we are extremely grateful to President Trump, and we fully support what he is doing to take care of our nation’s borders, to take care of the future of this United States. It has nothing to do with political parties,” he said. Cueto said, “You all got to ask yourself this question: If I come to your home, do you want me to knock on the front door, or do you want me to climb through that window?”

NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL. Hector Garza, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, who is also a Border Patrol agent on the Texas border, thanked Trump for advocating for Border Patrol agents and called on Congress to fund border security and the wall. “I just want to talk about some of those criminals that Border Patrol agents apprehend on a daily basis. We’re talking about murderers, rapists, people that commit very serious crimes in this country. ICE has been doing an amazing job in deporting a lot of these people back to their countries,” Garza said. “Unfortunately, once we deport these people, these people will not stay in their country. These criminal aliens that have been released from jail, that have been deported, will come right back into the United States. However, if we had a physical barrier, if we had a wall, we would be able to stop that,” he said.

Summary

Let’s face it: most of the Border Wall “experts” are not experts about anything! They are simply political pundits who have a pre-determined political agenda they wish to give credence to by referencing themselves or others as experts.”

And let’s be totally honest: most of the “experts” quoted in the media are fake! When confronted for the identities of those “experts,” IF the media will identify them, (which is seldom) it is discovered they are not in any way an “expert.” Then to make matters worse, when someone is quoted in one media as being an “expert,” other media sources pick up on that and report in THEIR story, saying “Experts say……..” And the expert they reference is simply the other media outlet quoting their sham expert!

Fellow Americans, it is time for all of us to force a stop to the gross misrepresentation by Democrat controlled media. We need to demand ALL media outlets stop “telling” us their source is an “expert.” GIVE US THE NAME OF THE SOURCE OR SOURCES AND LET US VERIFY TO OUR OWN SATISFACTION THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS FACT OR FICTION! It’s a simple task: just give us the expert’s name. In each story where you reveal the expert, do so with a link to the expert’s biography so those who care about expert verification can do a little research.

“Research and Investigation.” Gee: isn’t that a novel idea!

Tomorrow it gets really dicey here as we tackle another modern-day disinformation debacle: the Intelligence Agencies. You don’t want to miss as TruthNewsNetwork calls them out with FACTS!

Play

The National Emergency Act

It’s time to stop kidding ourselves: rank-and-file Democrats in Congress in large part “individually” feel physical barriers are needed across our southern border. It’s Democrat Congressional leaders who have made the decision to in no way allow through Congressional action the funding of a border wall. Why do you think they call it “Donald Trump’s wall?”

In their doing so, they are showing Americans that they really DON’T support border security in any way. Besides the stories documented and shared previously on TruthNewsNetwork, Democrat leaders stoically cling to their unwillingness to protect Americans from foreign intruders. Without real security and commitment to stop the horrors caused by millions of pounds of illegal drugs flooding across the border, the unknown numbers of unwanted criminals from Mexico and Central American countries that have already committed hundreds of thousands of criminal acts against legal Americans, and the hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to support illegals who are draining U.S. infrastructure, all of these atrocities will simply continue. 

Democrat leaders look at this international disaster myopically: they only see it in one way. Allowing the continued flow of illegals into our country perpetuates the life of the Democrat Party by bringing obligated “potential” Democrat voters into the U.S. Secondly, (and likely just as important as getting “new” voters in) keeping wall/barrier funding away from Donald Trump fulfills a campaign promise Dems made to their hard-left “constituents.” Their excuse? Trump wants it only because HE beat the “border wall drum” continuously during HIS presidential campaign. Many say it was the chief reason for which they voted from Trump.

This bi-partisan committee named to sit down and work out a southern border protection policy suitable to both parties has been revealed to be nothing but a sham. Even knowing the February 15th deadline to reach a negotiated agreement, this “Superstar” committee has met just one time. The bottom line: PELOSI AND SCHUMER HAVE NO INTENTION TO PUT EVEN ONE DOLLAR ON THE TABLE FOR SUCH A WALL OR STEEL BARRIER. They are perfectly comfortable to maintain the status quo on the border while untold thousands of innocents are summarily being brutalized at the hand of the criminal element numbered among the illegals. For Dems, this issue is certainly not about the safety of Americans. It is about one thing only: PREVENT PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING ANY BORDER WALL OR FENCING WITH CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING…PERIOD.

Politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — forget about the ability to recall promises made and promises broken: like Pelosi on negotiating with the President if he reopened the government.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that she would not negotiate on funding for the southern border wall, going back on her promise to negotiate with President Donald Trump if he agreed to end the partial government shutdown.

“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” Pelosi told reporters on Jan. 31, reported The Associated Press.

Democrats for decades have cried loudly for the critical nature of and the People’s mandate to stop illegal immigration and Democrats wholehearted support for stopping illegals from getting in. Yet today, those same Dems cry just as loudly that building the same wall/barrier they previously were all-in for is immoral, wasteful, ineffective, unnecessary, and too costly.

 

Look and listen for yourself:

What Do We Do: Declare a National Emergency?

Some scholars of presidential emergency powers say there is next to nothing, at least procedurally, that Capitol Hill could do to stop Trump from exercising what lawmakers of all stripes agree is his right to declare a national emergency.

“Congress chose not to put any substantial — or really any — barriers on the president’s ability to declare a national emergency,” says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.

“So if he can really just sign his name to a piece of paper, whether it is a real emergency or not,” she adds, “that creates a state of emergency that gives him access to these special powers that are contained in more than 100 different provisions of law that Congress has passed over the years.”

Trump has already invoked national emergency powers on three occasions, adding to the 28 earlier national emergency measures that remain in effect.

Almost all of them, including those signed by Trump, was invoked to freeze foreign nationals’ assets in the U.S. The longest-standing decree dates to November 1979, when President Jimmy Carter froze Iran’s U.S.-held assets.

It requires not only that the president formally declares a national emergency but also that he or she cite the specific statutory authority the president sought to use. An emergency declaration would lapse after one year unless formally renewed by the president.

There is also a means for lawmakers to do away with a national emergency decree.

“The way that Congress set it up,” says Vladeck, “was that Congress could basically terminate any national emergency the president declared through a concurrent resolution — simply through majority votes of both houses, without the president’s approval.”

That veto-free arrangement, though, did not pass constitutional muster when it went before the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress’ response was to revise the National Emergencies Act so that the termination of an emergency decree required a joint resolution signed by the president. If the president vetoes such a measure, a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber would be needed to override.

That fix effectively set the political bar considerably higher for reining in presidential national emergency declarations — that is, should Congress ever try to do that.

“Congress has never voted once in the last 40 years — since the National Emergencies Act has been in effect — to terminate a state of emergency,” says Goitein. “At no point either before the court’s decision or after has Congress ever attempted to exercise this check.”

That may be, at least in part, because lawmakers trusted the National Emergencies Act was being invoked in good faith. “The assumption is that presidents are going to be relatively responsible in using those authorities and resources,” says UT’s Vladeck, “and are not going to just create some kind of pretext to allow them to go through a back door when Congress is denying them the front door.”

Summary

Is it any wonder that the favorability rating by Americans of members of Congress for years has hovered around high single digits? One would think that if our elected representatives really cared about the public’s collective and individual opinions about their job performance, we’d do something about it. We really DO care, and we have only sparingly done something about it at the voting booth. Yet term after term, Americans send those U.S. Senators and House Representatives back to D.C. to keep on doing the same old things. In a way, this mess in D.C. (and their 7-10% favorability rating) is OUR fault: we keep voting them back into office!

They are not stupid: they read voter support and re-election of Congressional representatives and approval for what they do while there. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Here is the truth of the matter: Americans have become too busy, too preoccupied, too caught-up in “instant everything” to even notice. The internet, social media, instant this and instant that have created a generation of “Instant-everything” Americans.

The current generation literally wants NO responsibility, NO accountability, and NO commitments. Those apply to home and auto ownership, job titles and management slots because of personal and employee accountability and pressure required to be successful. And personal and social relationship commitments are long ago out the window.

“I want a great job with great pay, lots of paid-time-off, all-in job retirement benefits paid 100% by the employer, and nothing more than 9-5 work hours Monday through Friday, and certainly NO weekend commitments.”

How about “knowledge?”

They’re not interested in reading, investigating, time obligations and financial commitments are necessary to obtain knowledge. And if it’s not on the front page of their favorite internet news channel, Twitter, Instagram, or Snap Chat, forget about it! It ain’t happening.

All that is scary. But here’s the tragedy: Washington D.C. and its minions KNOW all this. It’s what perpetuates their consuming power for their own personal benefit at American taxpayer expense that comes with NO ACCOUNTABILITY! Voters just keep sending them back to D.C. to do the same selfish acts again and again — WITH NO PRICE TO PAY FOR THEIR SELFISH ACTS.

The irony of this is the “new” leftists in the Democrat Party have beat the Socialist drum louder and louder. “We want to make American government Socialist. Capitalism is evil. Capitalists are tools of Satan. We want to be like European and South American nations!”

And not one can tell you anything about the horrors Socialism wreaked on every one of those nations. Venezuela — once one of the richest countries on Earth because of its oil holdings — cannot even provide toilet paper to their citizens who have on average lost 30 pounds during the last year because of the unavailability to basic food.

The Democrat leftists want open borders, “Just like Europe.” They don’t read and their favorite leftist media site does not carry the true stories of immigrant horrors in those European countries — countries who all are currently desperately trying to find ways to not just stop further immigration, but to RETURN THOSE IMMIGRANTS TO THE COUNTRIES FROM WHICH THEY CAME! Rape, break-ins, murders, theft, armed robberies, assault of every type, are saturating European countries like The Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland.

In the cases of these Leftists in America: “Ignorance is Bliss.” At least that’s what Democrat Party leaders promote so as to maintain their political might and power over these mind-numbed robots that refuse to find and embrace real truths.

I’ll close with this: the current U.S. President is terrifying to Democrat Party leaders and Establishment Republicans alike. Why? Because he refuses to play the political games as planned by those in both parties. He is unpredictable, totally driven by his commitments to Americans, and, most scary, he is undeterred by the constant threats from the left. They are not accustomed to someone in power from the opposite power not caving and not afraid. They have met their match in Donald Trump.

Let me put it simply and cut to the chase: Regardless of how dishonest, uncaring, politically deliberate and mean Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are, they have met their match.

With or without a declaration of a National Emergency, Donald Trump WILL build a southern border wall. It may be steel, it may be concrete, but probably both together. But you know what the REAL victory will be? Not that in doing so he wins a battle with the opposition. The only victory that matters is that for the American people: stopping illegal immigration and all that comes with it.

Isn’t that what we vote for and send people to Washington to do? Why should anyone be surprised when someone in D.C. actually does what they promised to do?

 

Play

When Does Abortion Become Infanticide?

“Infanticide: The killing of an infant.” That’s made plain and simple by Merriam Webster. So is Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in this video interview describing abortion or infanticide?

Pro-Choice pundits for decades have defined for the World exactly when life begins: “Not until a fetus is actually born does it become a human.” 

In the interview seen and heard above, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s description of the bill before the Virginia legislature made one thing very clear: “these third-trimester procedures will be done with the consent of the mother and with the consent of more than one physician, and it’s done in cases where they may be a severe deformity and may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this specific example, if a mother is in labor I can tell you exactly what would happen: the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”

The Governor clearly made a difference between the “unborn” — a fetus — and the “born” — an infant. Infants are babies — AND THEY’RE ALIVE!

So what is the “discussion between the mother and the physician” about? It could only mean one thing: whether or not to kill that infant. Yes, it might be deformed. Yes, it might have “been” non-viable before its birth. But in the scenario painted by Governor Northam, “it would be kept comfortable” for only one reason: IT WAS ALIVE. 

The governor was not going to skate by unscathed with the uproar that followed the above radio interview. So he doubled down on his position:

Irony of Ironies

You may be too young to remember back in the early ’70s when the Roe v. Wade case was all over the news every day. The loudest cries during that era came from the Pro-Choice crowd screaming at Right-to-Lifers demanding abortion rights totally on behalf of mothers. (Interesting isn’t it that they’re not mothers if they abort their children! Who are they the mothers of?) The Right-to-Life supporters felt that abortion way back then was the taking of life — killing a baby. If I heard it once I heard it a thousand times: “It’s not a baby until it is born. So it’s not alive until it is born.”

Since that time, the argument has taken us much farther down that path. Abortion supporters still make that claim, but have edited it to include that abortion is a Women’s Right: Women’s Reproductive Right to be exact — that men have no right to even given an opinion since no man knows personally what it means to be pregnant. While that may be true, there IS a man somewhere in that process! It still takes a man to make a baby, right? (Does the guy have any rights in this conversation? That starts a whole different discussion)

It is ironic what 45 years have done to this conversation and where we find ourselves today. 45 years after the United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal in all 50 states, that discussion has now become a debate of the legalization of killing a baby after its birth.

What is the current irony? “If” the Virginia bill in its present form gets passed by the state legislature and Governor Northam signs it into law, Virginia will be enacting what by the actual 1973 definition of and justification for abortion given by Pro-Choice advocates will mean Virginia has legalized infanticide.

Think about that for a moment: “Infanticide: The killing of an infant.”

By the explanation of Governor Northam in his own words, that “fetus” becomes an “infant” when it is born. The “discussion” the governor mentions can only be about whether the mother and doctor agree or disagree about allowing that infant to live. “If” the conclusion is to NOT allow the infant to live FOR ANY REASON, killing it is committing infanticide according to conventional wisdom.

What is the REAL Late-Term Abortion Discussion About?

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) gives his synopsis to Dana Perino of Fox News of what the Virginia late-term abortion bill is really about:

Summary

Want another irony in this entire Virginia issue? Republicans narrowly control the Virginia House of Delegates, so the bill is unlikely to pass anytime soon. A subcommittee voted to table the bill in a 5-3 vote Monday. So unless and until it would be brought back up at the committee level and then voted to the floor of the Virginia House, it will not move forward. But in tandem with New York’s new Reproductive Rights Act signed into law, this Virginia proposal has put abortion front and center: not just abortion, because the Supreme Court in 1973 plainly determined its legality in all 50 states, but taking the life of an infant AFTER birth is now front and center.

Do you know what has really been going on during the 45 years since Roe v. Wade? Abortion has not really been about women’s reproductive rights or a woman’s body. Abortion has been about simply doing away with an unwanted and/or undesired individual that if allowed to exist create a life full of new and unwanted responsibility by someone or some group of people. Abortion has been the easiest way to avoid dealing with the day-to-day responsibilities of raising a son or daughter.

Don’t scream at your computer. I know there are extreme circumstances in which because of rape or incest the question of abortion or not must be considered. But according to Worldometers, as of the writing of this story, 3.6 million abortions have been conducted worldwide already in 2019. How many of those were for rape or incest? I doubt very many. Most abortions are clearly for other reasons.

The scary thought to me is this: it is looking more and more like science will soon — or may have already — discover that life begins earlier than Pro-Choice advocates have believed it does and has based abortion legality upon. Certainly, it will be sad if that happens to realize that millions of children will have been destroyed by the abortionists’ hand.

But think of the psychological horrors that will invade the minds of tens of millions of women worldwide who will be slapped with the reality that they have been party to the legalized and systemic slaughter of children. I cannot imagine how grief will grip those hearts. My heart breaks to think of the agony those people will bear.

Unless and until science discovers and releases such proof to the World, I suggest that women everywhere — especially in the United States — pause for a moment and re-examine the process of abortion. Pushing the envelope so far has resulted in people actually finding ways to be comfortable taking the lives of infants after their birth.

Infanticide’s definition is a simple one. And it’s not religious or political. Infanticide is “the killing of an infant.” That’s not according to Dan. That’s according to Merriam Webster.

I suggest Americans pause for a while and re-think late-term abortion and abortion as a whole. We all know women who have had abortions. I cannot imagine the horror, grief, and guilt that will attack each in the event of life at conception ever being declared a scientific fact.

You know what: we can stop abortion right now: TODAY!

Would that be so bad?

Play

2020 Democrat Presidential Candidates: Elizabeth Warren

It’s official! Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has thrown her hat into the ring for the 2020 Democrat Party nomination for President. It comes as no surprise to almost everyone that the far-left Warren is in the hunt for the nomination AND that she has already shown in just a few days she has actually moved farther to the left politically. Why would she do that? To keep up with the crowd!

Warren in her 2016 campaign for president made herself a lightning rod for Republicans — especially Candidate Donald Trump. The Warren scandal of sorts came from her application to teach at Harvard University in which she claimed to be of Native American descent. Even though she grew up in Oklahoma and claimed that her mother had Cherokee roots, many felt like she used what little Native American she had for personal benefit to claim minority status favoritism in her Harvard job application. And Trump during the campaign gave her the title of “Pocohantes,” a very obvious jab at her minority status claim.

Even with all of her exposure while campaigning, many do not know much about her. Let’s take a look.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren was born and raised in a middle-class family in Oklahoma. She is a graduate of the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School. Her career as an academic focused on bankruptcy law, where she focused primarily on empiric decision-making of the public following legal changes. Warren taught at several law schools, including the University of Houston, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University.

Warren’s initial foray into public policy began with opposing what eventually became a 2005 act restricting bankruptcy access for individuals. Warren saw her profile rise in the late 2000s for her forceful stances in favor of more stringent regulations following the 2007–2008 financial crisis. She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), for which she served as the first Special Advisor.

Unable to overcome Republican opposition to become the Director the CFPB, Warren instead challenged and defeated Republican incumbent Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts in 2012. She was the keynote speaker of the 2016 Democratic National Convention and became Vice Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus the following year. A noted liberal leader, Warren has focused on consumer protection, economic opportunity, and the social safety net while in the Senate. Following her reelection to the Senate in 2018, Warren announced the formation of an exploratory committee for her campaign in the 2020 presidential election.

You may be interested to discover that Warren was registered as a Republican from 1991 to 1996. Warren voted as a Republican for many years, saying, “I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets.” According to Warren, she began to vote Democratic in 1995 because she no longer believed that to be true, but she states that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate. According to her, the Republican Party was no longer “principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets” and was instead tilting the playing in favor of big financial institutions and against “middle-class American families.”

On September 14, 2011, Warren declared her intention to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2012 election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate. The seat had been won by Republican Scott Brown in a 2010 special election after the death of Ted Kennedy. A week later, a video of Warren speaking in Andover became a viral video on the Internet. In it, Warren replies to the charge that asking the rich to pay more taxes is “class warfare”, pointing out that no one grew rich in the U.S. without depending on infrastructure paid for by the rest of society, stating:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. … You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

President Barack Obama later echoed her sentiments in a 2012 election campaign speech.

Warren’s Political Actions

  • In December 2016, Warren announced plans to introduce a bill to address President-elect Donald Trump’s perceived conflicts of interest related to his business empire. Under her proposed bill, Donald Trump could face impeachment if he fails to declare conflicts of interest between his presidential role and his business interests. Warren states, “The only way for President-elect Trump to truly eliminate conflicts-of-interest is to divest his financial interests and place them in a blind trust.”
  • In November 2018, Warren said she will not vote for Trump’s United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) saying, “It won’t stop outsourcing, it won’t raise wages, and it won’t create jobs. It’s NAFTA 2.0.”
  • In 2018, Warren had called for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  • In January 2019, Warren criticized President Donald Trump’s announcement of his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
  • In January 2019, she announced the details of her proposed “Wealth Tax” to be levied on the wealthiest of Americans. Rather than bullet-point details, let’s look and listen-in to an expert’s analysis of Senator Warren’s proposal as given on “Fox and Friends:”

“The Warren” plan would tax the net worth of people with assets over $50 million at 2 percent a year, plus another 3 percent on fortunes over a billion dollars. And it would apply to all assets — even the wealth hidden outside the US to avoid income tax. There would be some wrinkles to work out, like how the IRS would get an accurate measure of those assets.

The mega-wealthy seldom hold their riches in cash. Most are tied up in corporate stocks and bonds, real estate investments, and other holdings. That would make it pretty difficult to get those accurate measures every year of the real values of their holdings. And in many cases, this would force annual liquidation of enough of these hard assets to pay those taxes.

Just one example of this dilemma would be Jeff Bezos. Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have to pay $4.1 billion in the first year under U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax, based on his current net worth of $137.1 billion. Most all of his wealth is tied up in Amazon stock, and a portion of that stock would probably be sold to pay that $4.1 billion in year one of the tax plan. Other billionaires like Warren Buffet would face the same dilemma.

Most of the wealthiest of Americans keep most of their wealth in corporate investments just like Bezos and Buffet. When interviewed recently on MSNBC, Warren scoffed when asked how difficult it would be to annually ascertain the accurate values of all these assets of the richest Americans on which to base these taxes. The Senator forgets that most of those in Congress — including her — are worth millions meaning that millionaires make most of the federal laws that control these things.

To some, Warren’s tax idea may seem like a good idea. But making good ideas actually BE good is often harder implementing than creating them in the first place.

Warren’s Electability

This is a sketchy one to establish. Many feel her failure to make it through the Democrat primaries had more to do with Hillary Clinton’s name and lengthy 30-year tenure in national politics because of her husband. Democrats definitely wanted a woman in the White House in 2016, but just not Warren.

Warren’s reputation as a smart and wise political manager is a bit sketchy. Though she has spent much time in various political roles — most in appointed positions — she seems really pushy to many voters. Her likability in the very early stages of the 2020 White House run lags behind those of the two other already-announced female candidates Senators Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. But remember: it’s a LONG way to November of 2020!

The greatest problem for Warren in this campaign other than her ability to garner the necessary political support considering her Democrat primary opponents is the requirement for massive fundraising. By most accounts, it will take $1 Billion + to fund the necessary campaign to beat the incumbent President in the race. Warren would probably find that a bit tough, especially with her very obvious and very public recent lurch further left in her political positions. Big campaign spenders are on the most part sitting on their hands to find out who among the plentiful stable of Dem candidates can weather the early-going in this very young campaign cycle. Getting large financial support quickly will be mandatory to develop campaign staying power. Warren is unlikely to be able to get that done.

Summary

Some candidates from both sides of the aisle just have the knack of rubbing a lot of voters the wrong way. It may be because of their voices, messaging, appearance in public, even in the way they speak to political opponents and even supporters. Senator Warren has the ability to slip into that category.

In facing the likes of Harris and Gillibrand in the early going, Warren may dig herselfa hole in which she finds she is too deep to survive comparisons with those two in many ways. She’s not as polished as Harris and Gillibrand even though she is a more experienced politician.

Most often we see the ability to raise a lot of money decides presidential races. It may seem sexist to say this, but when multiple female candidates appear together on-stage in debates, mannerisms, and Q & A impact voters’ opinions more than party politics. And Sometimes appearance IS everything.

I think that impacted Warren’s staying power when she ran against Hillary in 2016. I think she will struggle to beat that stigma in 2020. And I don’t think she’ll successfully make the trip.

Play